Informed choices for tourism?

Pergamon

PII: S0261-5177~96)00117-3

llmrism Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 159-166, 1997 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0261-5177/97 $17.00+0.0[)

Informed choices for tourism?

Mike Robinson, Jon Pemberton and Kirsten Holmes Centre for Travel and Tourism, University of Northumbria, Longhirst Hall, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3LL, UK

The tourism sector, like all other industries, is increasingly reliant on relevant and accessible information. Sadly, whilst a plethora of sources of information does in fact exist, inconsistencies in terminology, collection, communication and reporting, together with a lack of national policy, conspire to limit the benefits of tourism organizations. Recognising these problems, the 1992 JICTOURS initiative attempted to address these issues within the UK but has, by and large, failed to capitalise on the initial ethusiasm of the venture. While the JICTOURS report's findings are relevant to an international audience, this paper reviews the recommendations made in this report within the context of the UK and discusses the developments in the generation and use of tourism information that have taken place over the last few years. Pragmatic suggestions are made on how organisations, from national to local level, can best exploit the information currently available, together with a template for the way in which this area might develop in the future. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Any sizeable private sector business, or public organization requires an increasingly substantial and sophisticated array of information in order that it may function. Management requires this information for strategic planning, performance measurement, evaluation and legitimation in the international market place. It is therefore surprising that the tourism industry, so large and pervasive as it is, remains somewhat deficient in the 'right' information from both the demand and supply perspective.

Although information relating to tourist flows, expenditure and trends has been produced by the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for some time, problems persist. In 1989, an OECD survey on national and international tourism statistics drew attention to some of the issues needing to be addressed, pointing to the inconsistencies of data collection methods and the definitions used, together with inadequacies in sampling techniques.'

Within the UK, considerable time has past since the Joint Industry Committee for Tourism Statistics (JICTOURS) produced their report on improving the quality and availability of information to the tourism industry.-" The underlying theme of the report was one of optimism and recognition that the management of an efficient and successful tourism sector is dependent upon "good' information.

The report highlighted a number of issues not least the role of larger operators, principally commercial organizations, capable of identifying their needs and with the necessary management, resources and expertise to utilize appropriate information in practice. Moreover, it was suggested that these key players would have the influence to effect the necessary changes through market pressure providing a support network for the smaller organizations who can afford neither the time, nor the money, to carry out their own individual research, let alone access, disaggregate, and interpret published tourism information.

Despite the ideas put forward in the J ICTOURS report and the encouragement the initiative received, plans have not been realized and the momentum for change in this area appears to have been lost as government expenditure on tourism continues to diminish. Ironically, within the context of tourism budget cuts and worries regarding the performance of the domestic tourism sector, the need for quality information is arguably all the greater. Reliable visitor statistics are essential for informed and effective decision making in the compilation of local authority standard spending assessments and the setting of promotional budgets for tourism businesses.

A 1995 report by the supporters of the J ICTOURS initiative regretfully announced that 'in

159

Informed choices for tourism ?: M Robinson et al.

spite of all the effort put in and the support gained in principle, the J ICTOURS process as set out in 1992 has come to naught.' This report bluntly identi- fies a number of reasons for the failure of J ICTOURS many of which pertain to indecision and politicking on the part of the English Tourist Board and Department of National Heritage. However, to say that there has been no progress on the provision of tourism information is less than generous; there have been some breakthroughs, particularly at a local authority level. The J ICTOURS report called for the development of a standardized model for quantifying tourism trends at sub-regional and local level and progress has been made, for instance, by Scarborough Borough Council in the development of the Scarborough Tourism Economic Activity Monitor (STEAM), based on a model devised and applied in Edmonton, Canada by David James and Frank Hart. In addition, Cambridge Economic Consultants (a division of PA Consulting) have produced a model for disaggregating data from national surveys to local level, despite the fact that the J ICTOURS report considered this unfeasible in the near future.

While the J ICTOURS report high-lights the situation in the UK, there have been international movements to improve the collection and comparability of statistics, particularly in the wake of the 1991 Ottawa International Conference on Travel and Tourism Statistics and subsequent endorsement by the WTO. 4 The development of the Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) in Canada, ~ for example, and its dissemination into other countries through its adoption by the WTO ~ have set out new ways to collect and collate tourism statistics that are not only internationally comparable but also compatible with those from other industries.

This method for collecting tourism statistics has been implemented with some success in Europe 7 and the forum for discussion has grown with WTO seminars on Tourism Statistics in Prague in 1992 and Warsaw in 1995 and the Eurostat International Forum on Tourism Statistics in Vienna in 1994. Moreover the WTO have produced recommendations on Tourism Statistics which have been adopted by the United Nation's Statistical Commission, and a regularly updated series of technical manuals on how to establish a national statistical programme for collecting and collating tourism statistics that fulfil the criteria for comparability. ~

Primae facie, such developments appear to address some of the needs of a highly information intensive industry. However, many issues remain relating to the demand and supply of tourism information, its validity and utilziation and, despite positive action taken by the WTO, it is still up to individual governments to implement recommmen- dations. It seems that action will only result from

lobbying by tourism industry advocates within each country.

This article is intended to stimulate debate surrounding these issues by reviewing the UK position (the UK is not a WTO member), and the J ICTOURS initiative in particular, highlighting the developments that have taken place since its publication, and suggesting a way forward for the many tourism organizations dependent on quality information.

J I C T O U R S : a s u m m a r y

The Joint Industry Committee of Tourism Statistics Working Group, sponsored by the Tourism Society and the then Employment Department, was established in 1991 to 'enhance the quality of user relevance of tourism statistics available to the UK tourism industry'. The Committee was a voluntary initiative which concentrated on the needs of four sectors of the industry, namely; Transport, Visitor Attractions, Hospitality and Local Authorities. This initiative resulted in ten recommendations published as part of the J ICTOURS report in March 1992. Whilst far-sighted and ambitous, these recommendations were costed, possible sources of finance identified, and a timetable drawn up for their implementation. Table 1 summarizes the main recommendations of the report.

The group also concluded that a regular or permanent J ICTOURS committee should be established to continually monitor the provision of information for the tourism sector. This industry-led approach would facilitate the identification of their own research needs with the emphasis clearly on partnership funding from the commercial sector. More specifically, the call for harmonization of terms to ensure compatibility and comparison of existing surveys, while at the same time ironing out any overlaps, would help to greatly improve the current provision of tourism information, even without the introduction of any proposed new surveys. There was sound logic behind this bearing in mind that many organizations lack the financial and personnel resources to carry out their own surveys and rely on those conducted by the national tourist boards and/or consultancy firms, which frequently use incompatible ans inconsistent terms and measures. These surveys are usually carried out on a national basis using a nationally representative sample but at regional level the relevance and accuracy of this sample is often questionable.

Recommendation Four which called for the development of a standardized model for measuring the impact of tourism at a local level has been partially dealt with by both Scarborough Borough Council and Cambridge Economic Consultants. Scarborough were developing their STEAM model for measuring volume, expenditure, employment

160

and traffic g e n e r a t e d by tour ism at a local level, at the t ime of the J I C T O U R S repor t . However , since then they have i m p l e m e n t e d this m o d e l in Scarbor - ough and this was subsequen t ly e n d o r s e d by the J I C T O U R S W o r k i n g G r o u p on Local Statist ics in 1994. ~' As consul tants , Sca rbo rough have app l i ed S T E A M th roughou t Nor th Yorksh i re , and in several Dis t r ic t and M e t r o p o l i t a n Counci l s in England , Scot land and Wales . This c o m p u t e r dr iven sp read- shee t model , which deals with ident i fying t r ends r a the r than genera t ing ' ha rd ' factual in format ion , can be u p g r a d e d on a month ly basis provid ing up- to- t he -minu te m o v e m e n t s with a locally r ep resen ta t ive sample .

C a m b r i d g e E c o n o m i c Consu l t an t s ' ' C a m b r i d g e Mode l ' , which d isaggrega tes in fo rmat ion f rom publ i shed sources ( inc luding the U K Tour i sm Survey and the In t e rna t iona l Passenger Survey) and conver ts it into locally v iable in fo rmat ion for assessing the economic impac t of tour ism is be ing used as a t e m p l a t e for the analysis of da t a and is be ing a d o p t e d by the Reg iona l Tour i s t Boards in England .

Whi l e bo th mode l s are to be c o m m e n d e d for address ing the in fo rmat ion gaps which exist, the fact that bo th have deve loped i ndependen t l y means that

Informed choices for tourism?: M Robinson et al.

the l ike l ihood of a s t anda rd ized na t iona l mode l is d iminished , in much the same way that existing sources of tour i sm in format ion has deve loped on a f r a g m e n t e d and p i ecemea l basis. A co l labora t ive body a long the lines sugges ted by the J I C T O U R S group would seem a sensible way of tackl ing some of the confus ion which current ly exists amongs t po ten t i a l users.

O n e of the J I C T O U R S repor t ' s most radical r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s conce rned the suggest ion that compe t i to r s should work toge the r to improve access and avai labi l i ty of stat ist ics for all users. The benefi ts of poo l ing da ta f rom a var ie ty of sources would seem des i rab le for all p layers in the domes t i c tour i sm industry. However , there is li t t le doub t that in such a f r agmented , and essent ia l ly in t ra -compet i - tive industry, suspicion has deve loped over the years r egard ing issues of da ta ownership , use, and confidential i ty . F o r any progress to be m a d e in this area, a ' neu t r a l ' body, such as a na t iona l tour is t board , would be one means of provid ing reassurance to po ten t i a l users. However , it is acknowledged that the poo l ing of da ta can only real is t ical ly work with the c o o p e r a t i o n of the la rger tour ism organiza t ions .

The J I C T O U R S Work ing G r o u p also c o m m e n t e d on the genera l lack of awareness amongs t the

Table 1 The JICTOURS recommendations

1. National Tourism Surveys--the most important and potentially far-reaching survey recommendation proposed possible changes and developments to the measurement of UK tourism currently covered by the UK Tourism Survey (UKTS) and British National Travel Survey (BNTS).

(i) UK Tourism Survey--to develop a nationally valid survey of the voh~me/value/purpose of tourism visits o f one or more nights, for all purposes, to be carried out on at least a monthly basis with similar objectives to UKTS but with larger sample sizes and minimum information only.

(ii) British National Travel Survey--to develop into a nationally valid detailed survey o f leisure~holiday visits (all purpose) o f four or more nights, carried out on an annual basis in October~November. To cover UK domestic vists and visits to destinations abroad in similar detail.

(iii) A new nationally valid survey--to cover short visits (all purposes) o f 1-6 nights, carried out on a two-monthly or quarterly basis. The aim will be to measure shorter visits with a level o f detail approaching that used by BNTS.

2. National Holiday Intentions Survey--to be developed from the annual survey already carried out by the English Tourist Board using a monthly or bi-monthly sample of respondents throughout the booking season and towards the end of the year.

3. National Survey of Business Confidence--to be carried out on a quarterly or twice-yearly basis along similar lines to the surveys of manufacturing industry carried out by the Confederation of British Industry.

4. Standardized Model Formula for Tourism at District Council Level~measur ing volume and value based on annual audits of known local commercial accommodation; monthly measures of local occupancy carried out locally to a standard methodology; and a model agreed nationally for estimating total local volume and value.

5. International Passenger Survey (1PS), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and British Airports" Authority (BAA) surveys--reduction of the overlap between these surveys and the speeding up of provision of data from IPS with extension of coverage to the Irish Republic.

6. Long Distance Travel Services (LDTS)--l iaison with the Department of Transport and commercial transport companies for reconsideration of the need for and wasy to achieve the information previously provided by annual LDTS, last run during the 1970s.

7. Data Pooling--especially in the visitor attractions sector, where the organizational framework already exists.

8. UK Day Visits Survey--Liaison with Countryside Recreation Research Advisory Group so that the key terms and definitions can be coordinated with the staying visitor surveys proposed by JICTOURS.

9. Target Group Index Survey--liaison with the British Market Research Bureau to achieve comparability of definitions with the key questions used in the national surveys noted above.

10. Users Group (JICTOURS) for UK tourism statistics--a representative group to be formed, with commercial users in a clear majority. To communicate user needs, advise on survey developments and secure funding for identified improvements in industry data.

161

hlJbrmed choices ~r tourism?." M Robinson et al.

domestic tourism sector in relation to what information is currently available, recommending that any permanently established working group should also include in their brief the need to improve communication of existing data sources to potential users. In principle, this is fairly easy to resolve and yet there is no central government or industry based organization providing this service at low or no cost.

I n f o r m a t i o n a s a n a s s e t

Information is a key element of dccision making within all organizations. '° For businesses, irrespec- tive of sector, the management and communication of information has been made easier by the adoption of information technology which together with enhanced global communication links, allows relevant information to be accessed swiftly. As new developments such as the information 'super- highway' establish themselves, businesses are drawn further into competitive situations where the ability to access key information provides a valuable edge. It is not surprising therefore, that organizations in all sectors of the economy are spending very large proportions of their budgets on collecting, storing and insuring their data. In his study examining the role of information in business, Waddington," for instance, comments that nearly two thirds of the companies surveyed spent over £1(//J00 each year on their information requirements. Moreover, 46% of those questioned agreed with the statement that 'companies have not woken up to the true value of information'.

Research commissioned by Reuters'-" has looked at the issue of information in more depth. Their study revealed a paradox whereby 88% of Britain's business managers believed that the free-flow of information was vital to the success of their business and yet over 60% of Britain's business had no formal information policy. Although the establishment of the J ICTOURS Working Group as an industry led watchdog was some recognition of contemporary developments in the information field, by and large, the UK tourism industry remains well behind other sectors of the economy in its approach, and arguably, in its attitude, towards the large scale utilization of information.

The need for information in the domestic tourism industry focuses on three key inter-related areas: market planning, development, and legitimation.

Market planning

In times of recession, social luxuries arc the first to be axed in the name of economic prudence. Where holidays are concerned however, market research suggest that many of todays' consumers are unwilling to completely forgo their leisure break. '~ However, changes in the economy, together with the vagaries of the British climate, do influence

consumer behaviour and consequently, the size and performance of the domestic tourism market. Whilst accurate economic forecasters are perhaps as rare as accurate weather forecasters, an understanding of visitor patterns, together with a profile of their characteristics and behaviour, does enable tourism providers to plan and promote their products more effectively and, if necessary, adapt them to cater for market changes.

Development

A greater degree of caution now surrounds the private and public sector tourism developments of the 1990s compared to those of the 1980s. In today's business environment, a more stringent approach to accountability and cost reduction, necessitates the use of an accurate and up to data information base on which to make investment and planning decisions. Yet tourism developers and their agents are frequently forced with the choice of either commissioning new and expensive primary research, using old available data or making a considered guess. Ideally, the regional tourist board and local authorities should be able to offer a potential investor, or a leisure establishment seeking to expand, off-the-shelf data relating to the volume and value of tourism in a locality, together with a visitor profile. However, the reality is rather different, with developments being planned on the basis of old data, or in many cases, data that relate to another region. As competitive bids for National Lottery monies and European Union (EU) funding continue to snowball, pertinent information is particularly sought after to devise and present successful proposals.

Legitimation

The use of quality data and information in demon- strating the importance of tourism in the UK economy is also of relevance. These data not only help to show the tourism industry in a favourable light but can also help to encourage investment and sponsorship both from dwindling public resources and from private sectors. As public sector spending on non-statutory functions, such as tourism, continues to suffer, statistical information is required to support arguments for future plans and the maintenance of existing budgets. In addition, EU funded projects are increasingly monitored with regard to outcomes such as numbers of additional visitors and numbers of jobs created.

A study of tourism organizations in north-cast England has identified the need for information in all of the above areas. H However, of a wide selection of organizations interviewed, less than 25% have instigated ally mechanism to secure information of use to their organization. While others have done so, albiet on an ad hoc basis, the majority have indicated they have neither the time, nor resources,

162

to tackle the problem. Awareness of available published information was generally poor and where research was carried out by any individual company or body, it was rarely promoted in the public domain, despite its potential uses by the other tourism related organizations.

A range of issues accompanies any study of information needs in the tourism industry. Firstly, the ability to organizations to access relevant data is crucial. Access in this context may refer to being able to physically get hold of data or it may refer to the process of understanding the data. Tourism data are often available but not in a particularly user- friendly format. This applies to both hard copy and electronic media. Problems may also arise in the context of its interpretation, with the research methodology and the underlying assumptions that lie behind its generation clouding the issue. Equally, access relates to the ability of organizations to pay for information. Regrettably, the high costs that the collection, assimilation and presentation of accurate information entail, conspire to limit access for some organizations.

Secondly, and related to access, is the issue of ownership. Clearly, there is a large amount of information in the public domain with open access. The issue in this case is one of awareness. However, some sources of information are carefully controlled and access can be withheld for political reasons or to maintain a competitive advantage. The Reuters' study shows that many business managers, in particular finance and marketing personnel, feel that they are often hindered in their job roles by vital information being withheld from them.'-"

Thirdly, there is the issue of relevance. An organization may be unaware of the types of information it actually requires and may not be in a position to see the relevance of accessible information. Alternatively, it may opt, inadvertently, for irrelevant information, often at a high price. Moreover, by the time that data are collected, disag- gregated and published they may already be out of date and many organizations are still using surveys that are well over five, and sometimes more, years old. Conversely, it is questionable whether information needs to be updated on an annual basis. Indeed, the UK Tourism Survey, which has provided data on an annual basis for the last 6 years, is still too recent to illustrate any major tourism trends, '~ as its predecessors were a hybrid of national surveys using different methodologies.

The above issues are not new and certainly not tourism specific. However, whatever problems exist, the majority of organizations, small and large, acknowledge that information that is both accessible, accurate and relevant, holds the key to developing more cost effective and efficient procedures in their strategic planning. Indeed, this was endorsed by the UK's Department of National

Informed choices fi)r tourism ?: M Robinson et aL

Heritage's report 'Competing with the Best', ~' which emphasizes the need to adopt a partnership approach throughout the industry as regards the generation of usable and accurate information.

I n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s

Despite a number of gaps in current tourism information provision, there is a wide range of tourism surveys available providing relevant information and without great cost. There are over forty surveys monitoring both domestic and overseas tourism and although not all are conducted on an annual basis, the majority are up-dated regularly. These range from the UK Tourism Survey (UKTS) to the Overseas Visitors to London Survey and cover a variety of sectors such as accommodation, the conference market and visitor attractions. Indeed, most sectors of the tourism industry are covered, including surveys dealing with the employment structure and levels of investment of the industry itself. Table 2 shows a sample of those currently accessible at a relatively low cost.

In 1989, the UKTS succeeded the British Home Tourism Survey as the UK's main source of data for domestic tourism. The UKTS is an omnibus survey with data collected via personal interviews in the respondents' homes based on a nationally valid sample. While the interviews are carried out each month, by the time the information reaches the operators it is already out-of-date. The time delay was considered by J ICTOURS to be critical, although it is unclear what 'real' month to month changes take place. The J ICTOURS committee called for the reform of the UKTS with the aim of meeting users' needs more effectively but as Middleton and Hoseason were to point out later) there was disappointment at the apparent lack of willingness to change its methods and market focus. Indeed, independent consultants were commissioned to review the role of the UKTS in 1994 but at the time of writing this their findings have yet to emerge.

Such a survey across the UK clearly enables the effective measurement of national tourism trends and plans to further develop the survey are ongoing. These data are then broken down, in published format, to district level. However, at local level, disaggregation is not feasible, as the samples used are too small to be meaningful. The data collected are published twice yearly in the form of a newsletter and annually as 'The UK Tourist'. Both are widely available at low cost via the English Tourist Board. Most other general tourism surveys such as the British National Travel Survey, British Holiday Intentions Survey, and Scottish Leisure Day Trips, provide information adopting research methodology broadly in line with that of the UKTS.

163

Informed choices for tourism ?: M Robinson et aL

Table 2 A selection of non tourism-specific and tourism-specific surveys currently available

Sector Surveys Organizations responsible

Arts Arts Festival 1994: Audiences, Attitudes and Sponsorship Association for British Sponsorship of the Arts Business Support for the Arts

General

Heritage Recreation

Tourism-specific

Transport

General Household Survey Target Index Group Cultural Trends Family Expenditure Survey English Heritage Monitor UK Day Visits Survey National Survey of Countryside Recreation Leisure Intelligence Pennine Way Survey 1993 British National Travel Survey British Holiday Intentions Survey Sightseeing in the UK Survey UK Tourism Survey Howarth English Hotel Occupancy Survey Basic Road Statistics National Travel Survey

Association for British Sponsorship of the Arts

Policy Studies Institute Central Statistical Office

English Heritage Countryside Recreation Network Countryside Commission Mintel Publications Countryside Commission National Tourist Boards

British Road Federation Department of Transport

Within individual sectors of the tourism industry, different methodologies are used. Postal surveys are popular in the collection of data within the hospitality sector and are used in 'Hotel Occupancy - - Wales' and the Scottish Hotel Occupancy Survey. The visitor attractions sector favours self-completion questionnaires as employed in 'Visits to Tourist Attractions' and 'Sightseeing in the UK'. Surveys of performance of the tourism industry use a variety of methodologies ranging from research based on journals and local knowledge, such as ' Investment in Tourism', to a panel of travel agents providing statistics for the 'Holiday Booking Audit' . Each of the methodologies used has weaknesses, not least the obvious reliance on the integrity of the suppliers of information. However, as suppliers, they are in a position to know exactly what information is being collected and whether it actually meets their needs.

The diverse nature of the tourism industry has created the situation whereby there are many large scale general surveys providing quantitative information but often with very little specific or pertinent detail. While most surveys strive to use a nationally valid sample base, the relevance of this information to individual organizations in their decision making is highly questionable. Arguably, this is one of the most fundamental problems of current tourism information provision. Moreover, most surveys concentrate on figures and statistics which give little or no indication of the actual customer experience. This is particularly true where visits, as opposed to visitors are recorded, resulting in a distorted vision of the repeat-visitor patterns. ,7

Leaving the problems of existing surveys aside, we argue that there is an extensive range of relevant tourism information which is currently under-

exploited. In part, this is perhaps due to an over- reliance on national based surveys but it also relates to basic communication problems. With the current survey provision for UK domestic tourism market far from perfect and little possibility of a radical overhaul in the collection and dissemination of this information in the short term, it is time to face realities and devise pragmatic ways of addressing the issues surrounding tourism information provision.

Improving awareness of tourism information resources currently available is a crucial first step. There is a wealth of relevant information collected by, and available from, other industrial sectors, which are not always perceived as directly relevant to tourism. Identifying such groups and forging links could be highly beneficial, particularly at local level. For example, whilst the responsibility for tourism broadly lies with the Depar tment of National Heritage, other government departments at regional and national levels also hold potentially useful information for tourism organizations. The Highways Agency, a division of the Depar tment of Transport, carries out surveys on various routes to monitor their use. Such information might be used as the basis for justification of the building of a new by-pass, for example. Motorists are asked questions on the origin, destination and the purpose of their journey. Clearly this information could be useful to a local hotelier or a visitor attraction.

Bodies such as the National Trust, the Country- side Commission, Water Authorities, and Economic Development Agencies are amongst those who hold potentially useful data for tourism purposes. Even local authorities are almost certainly sitting on information across a number of departments which could be useful to the local tourism industry. Clearly,

164

awareness and access are the central vehicles for adopting a pragmatic approach.

Optimizing information resources: the way forward

It is widely acknowledged that quality information is generated at a cost and relies on a reasonable time horizon and experienced researchers. Ideally, every organization would like to carry out their own research tailored specifically to their own planning requirements. However, budgetary restrictions, staffing limitations and the timescales involved have created the present situation whereby information relating to specialist sectors is both scarce and frequently out-of-date. Small tourism organizations and district authorities, particularly in areas where tourism has potential to grow, need meaningful, accessible and low cost information if, individually and en masse, they are to 'compete with the best'. And yet reliance is either placed on national surveys to indicate local trends, or old and often irrelevant information is employed or, in some cases, nothing more than a good guess backed up with political intuition forms the basis of decision making.

Realistically, it is not possible to satisfy all the information needs of all parties. Indeed, this was recognized by the Commission of European Communities in their report for developing tourism statistics in the European Union. '~ The report identified and categorized information users as having high priority needs in the case of accommodation suppliers and tour operators, for example, and medium priority needs such as restaurants and bars.

Building on the points raised in this report, the Council of the European Union issued a Directive on the 'Collection of Statistical Information in the Field of Tourism' in November 1995. l" The Direc- tive requires the EU Member States to provide specific statistical information on tourism to Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities. However, the information in question relates to national and regional level and the Department of National Heritage is responsible for the collection of these data chiefly using the UKTS, occupancy surveys and the International Passenger Survey.

While potentially useful in terms of European Union tourism policy (which essentially does not exist), the Directive does not directly address the information needs of the UK local authorities and the 220 000 tourism businesses which constitute the UK domestic tourism industry? Indeed, it is the local authorities, and the public sector in general, which are very much at the heart of the industry, being the focus of development and marketing for a great many small to medium sized tourism enterprises.

Informed choices for tourism ?: M Robinson et al.

Building on the J ICTOURS recommendations, but in the absence of action at national level, we suggest that there are ways of addressing the information gaps and so better serve the needs of the tourism industry.

An obvious starting point is to provide better education for potential users regarding the identification of their own information needs. It may well be that in some cases, information is not needed at all, or at least, it need not be contemporary. Looking for broad trends and longer term patterns from existing data sources maybe more productive than undertaking an annual visitor survey. Moreover, in some cases, users may not need their own specific data and could rely on data produced by comparable types of organizations or a similar sized district, with a similar economy, for instance.

Furthermore, personnel can be trained to analyse information and interpret statistics, understanding the assumptions and limitations of different methodologies, as part of a specific educational programme. In a local government context, it is not uncommon for a committee to be significantly swayed, one way or the other, by tourism statistics whose limitations are not fully understood or even identified. Clearly, this is not unique to those involved with the tourism industry. Arguably, society as a whole, is very much at the early stages of a learning curve in today's ever increasing information driven society.

The sharing of information is also clearly part of the solution. However, as highlighted earlier, the competitive nature of local authorities competing for developments, employment and economic benefits, or hotels eager to push up their occupancy rates, makes this option difficult. Appreciating the issue of confidentiality in certain cases, there is a great deal that can be shared for the common good and with appropriate safeguards, anonymity can be maintained without a loss of relevance. Surveys such as 'Sightseeing in the UK' and 'Visits to Tourist Attractions' rely on the good faith of the 'service' providers to supply relevant information. Other surveys like the 'English Hotel Occupancy Survey' and the 'How's Business Survey' for example, depend upon respondents providing detail via self- completion questionnaires. Guarantees of confidentiality in these situations are essential and organizations must adhere to such protocols if they are to provide others (and themselves) with useful information.

Conclusion

It is unlikely that the UK tourism industry is operating to its full potential. Whilst there are many other factors which need to be considered, the lack of relevant information and its poor management is certainly part of the problem. If the Government is

165

In]ormed choices for tourism?: M Robinson et aL

committed to developing a truly competitive tourism industry, it should, de facto, be committed to supporting ways of collecting and disseminating information at meaningful levels.

Clearly, one approach is to develop a central data base providing tourism (and related) information to interested parties, administered by an independent and neutral operator, similar to a Tourism Satcllite Account. At present, all national data are currently recorded by computer at the British Tourist Authority Central Information Unit prior to being disseminated for publication. However, the database like so much tourism information, is only accessible internally (English Tourist Board). In order to pool data and remove barriers to access, radical changes are needed to encourage a community to data issues, while at the same time maintaining confidentiality in a competitive market driven industry. As the J ICTOURS report noted, it is possible for competitors to cooperate effectively thereby providing a detailed picture of the market within which they all operate. Outbound tour operators and retail travel groups already do this with all parties benefiting from this approach. With an independent concern developing and controlling a tourism database and the subsequent access to it, sensitive information could be included for the purposes of forecasting trends and providing market overviews, even for smaller sector groups, without specific confidential data being given out. Moreover, this 'top-down' model of a central database as a source of tourism information would encourage consistency of terminology, thereby eliminating the present ambiguities of definition. Such an approach would in turn lead to standardization and compatibility with tourism statistics collected by comparable European and World bodies.

Arguably, a more refined approach would be a 'bottom-up' model whereby local authorities are charged (and supported) with the task of gathering their own tourism information at set time periods (say, over 3 years) and employing valid and repli- cable statistical techniques, which can then be communicated to the Regional Tourist Board (RTB) for analysis and verification. This symbiotic approach, which does happen already, albeit in an ad hoc fashion, would benefit all parties and would overcome the issue of disaggregating data which is a problem of the TSA. It would clearly feed into regional strategy (increasingly important in a funding context) and enable RTBs to target support and dwindling resources. The information would also be accessible to local authorities and tourism business for their own planning and marketing

purposes, in the knowledge that the information was valid and reliable.

Echoing the J ICTOURS report, partnership is at the cornerstone of either or both approaches. However, for the same reasons the J ICTOURS initiative floundered in the UK, these outline suggestions are unlikely to be implemented in the short term. Indeed, unlike other nations, which are at least ahead in the debate surrounding tourism information and statistics, and in some cases are now engaged in practical initiatives, there seems little in the way of comfort for the UK domestic tourism industry which could benefit and prosper so readily with accessible and relevant information at the heart of its decision making.

References 1. OECD National and International Tourism Statistics

1974-1985. OECD, Paris, 1989. 2. Joint Industry Committee for Tourism Statistics, Ttw Report

of the JICTOURS Working Group. The Tourism Society & Employment Department, March 1992.

3. Middleton, V. T, C. and Hoseason, J., The JICTOURS Initia- tive: An endeavour m Improve the Quafi~ of Measurement. Report to the JICTOURS Committee, 1995.

4. WTO, Resolutions of the 1991 Ottawa Conference on Inter- national Travel and Tourism Statistics. World Tourism Organization, Madrid, 1991.

5. Smith, S., The tourism satellite account: perspectives of Canadian tourism associations and organizations. Tourism Economics, 1995, 1(3), 235-244.

6. WTO, A Satellite Account ]'or Tourism. World Tourism Organization, Madrid, 1995.

7. Nordstrom, J., Tourism satellite account for Sweden 1992-93. Tourism Economics, 1996, 2(1), 13-42.

8. WTO, Collection and Compilation of Tourism Statistics. World Tourism Organization's Technical Manual Series, Madrid, Various years.

9. Scarborough Borough Council, Scarborough Tourism Economic Activity Monitor, Brochure, 1995.

10. Hawsley, R., Information as an asset: the boardroom agenda. Business In]'ormation Review, 1995, 28(6), 237-239.

11. Waddington, P.. Information as an asset: the invisible goldmine. Business Information Review, 1995, 12(1), 26-36.

12. Reuters Business Information, Information in organizations: new research. Business Information Review, 1994, 11(2), 2-18.

13. Richardson, M., The state of the market. Insights, 1992-3, Market commentary, pp. 1-3.

14. Centre for Travel and Tourism, Tourism Information Needs in the North East of England. Regional Report, 1996.

15. Tucker, D., Travel and tourism data in the UK. Business Information Review, 1995, 11 (4), 2-18.

16. UK Department of National Heritage, Tourism: Competing with the Best. HMSO, London, 1995.

17. Jefferson, A. and Lickorish, L., Marketing Tourism: A Practical Guide, 2nd Edition. Longman Group UK Ltd., London, 1991.

18. Commission of the European Communities, Final report from the Commission of the Council, The European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committe on the implementation of 90/665/EEC. EC, 1993.

19. EC Council, Directive on tlie Collection of Tourism Statistics. 95/57EC, 1995.

166

Documents

Informed choices for tourism?