please consider the DRR approach too. for more details you may see the following article

Article Tourism and earthquake disaster management to enhance disast...

I think it is a useful report - primarily because it is regularly published. We have to consider it with some scepticism, because it is produced in line with a very one-dimensional view of 'success' in tourism, but used in conjunction with other sources it can be useful.

The competition report can be useful, but I do not think that people read this report and take it into account. Also I strongly agree with Prof. Kennell about being skeptical. In an unstable tourism sector (at least for some countries) it is important to remember that there are many factors that interact in this matter while measuring competition.

I too agree with professors Kennell and Saribas on the need for some skepticism in reading and interpreting the TTR Competitiveness report given its big--business advocacy perspective of providing information for the purpose of influencing governments. Particularly so, given its reliance on secondary sources with limited metadata documentation of underlying sources and methods (especially so, for those based on highly aggregated comparative indexes).

More than ten years have passed since I examined it closely in comparison with Canadian national published and unpublished sources (with which I was deeply familar) and found it wanting in many respects. Nevertheless, despite the implicit bias in its purpose and perspective as well as the limitations in its methodology, it is still regularly published and relatively consistent in its presentation, so it fills a gapa and meets and need for a global perspective in the absence of other equivalent published global information from more authoriative sources.

Thank you Scott, I agree with your opinion. Your and observation of others is very useful. My question is what are the main limitations in methodology. The main issue, in my opinion, is Executive opinion Survey and its methodology. Also , there are issues on compering all destinations in the world since we can guess it is not possible due to many different factors influencing the possibility to compare all destinations in the world: different tourism product, different target market etc.. I personally think that destinations can be compared within defined competitive set. The question is can TTCI provide detailed factors and indicators influencing competitive position among destinations in defined competitiveness set (there are many papers dealing with this kind of analysis)? Do we need more precise model that can be used worldwide and is there possibility do develop or improve this kind of a model. If we keep our intention on TTCI as only relevant model there is a question of the relevance of its indicators - are they enough detailed to be considered as ones that ere examining competitiveness deep enough to drive to conclusions - how to improve destination competitiveness indeed?

Thank you too Danijel. I agree with the appropriateness and importance of your further qestions and your proposal for overcoming the limitations.

Coincidentally, in the mid-2000s Canada's NTO, the Canadian Tourism Commission (now branded Destination Canada) a developed a series of internal proprietary complementary competitive market analysis and decision models to inform marketing decisions regarding our international marketing strategies and plan: 1) (MPA: Market Portfolio Analysis Model that rates & ranks markets against their potential (Comparative analysis model, 18 Measures/3 frames, 1 year of data, Subjective weights, Outputs: Market potential teirs); 2) MIM: Market Investment Model Model that allocates optimal esource investments by market against market conditions(Comparative market model, 36 Measures/8 drivers, 10 years of data, Objective weights, Investment allocation outputs by market); 3)ROI-MF model thatmodel with a structured & measurable methodology that optimizes objectively CTC’s marketing resource allocations for all its specified priority target markets based on expected ROI.

We also develped a 4th generation international market monitoring market research instrument, entitled the "Global Tourism Watch" that focuses on identified key priority target markets as well is customized competitive market set.:

- Surveys in 10 key markets: Canada, US, France, Germany, the UK, Mexico, Australia, China, Japan, and

South Korea.

- Conducted annually

Survey topic obfectives covered includes:

• Tracking awareness of Canada – in particular, top of mind awareness as a travel destination.

• Tracking awareness of the brand identity and how it is unfolding in each of the key markets.

• Monitoring the brand values and personality and its association with Canada (regions).

• Identifying and quantifying the perceptions (image) that tourists in these key markets have of Canada (regions) as a travel and vacation destination.

• Monitoring and understanding changes in the perceptions of Canada (regions).

. Tracking awareness of Canada – in particular, top of mind awareness as a travel destination.

• Identifying subjective competitiveness and market performance acompared with Canada's competive market set (i.e. markets with comparable product clusters)

Because of its proprietary and competive intelligence character, most of the details, results and outcomes of this work do not exist in open sources or academic publications.

Scott

I see the TTCI useful but I am also a little bit skeptical. It is probably too much in favour of big countries. We have just recently compared some of the indices with other sources (mainly Eurobarometer) and found that it correlates reasonably well.

Danijel,

Thinking further about our exchange, I think the more important question is ``Relevance for what use?``. For what purposes might the information, such as it is, be considered appropriate?

Viktor, I agree with that. In favor of a big countries. Personally I do not think that many destinations are that bad as it seems in the Report. I tried to develop a model for Serbia and included 3 different evaluation approach: 1. destination stakeholders (internal stakeholders); 2. Foreign tour operators 3. Tourists. I came to a conclusion that destination stakeholders evaluated Serbia competitiveness as not that good compering to Foreign tour operators and tourists. Must point that this is mainly based on Integrated model of destination competitiveness developed by Dwyer et al. and used for several countries. I come to the next step - one model and 3 different grades of competitiveness. The indicators in the model are mostly used in IMoDC - its proven it select most of the indicators relevant for measurement. For this 3 group of stakeholders (internal and external) we tried to select as many same indicator as can be selected (it is not possible that every group can evaluated every indicator). I presented this idea on SITCON 2015 conference: Conference Paper ADAPTED INTEGRATED MODEL OF DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS

I totally agree with you Scott. This is a good way of thinking - what and for what it can be used and in what way. However, I am thinking that such generic models have significant impact on a particular destination (the ranking). We may be certain that, based on the rankings many other factors, necessary for the development of the destination and the improvement of the competitiveness, e.g. investment, depends on. It is not good for a destination to be ranked for many years on the bottom of the list in one region and that the model itself can not detail point out which are the key factors that make this position as "bad" one. What matters is that the final assessment of competitiveness should include, my opinion, tourists who rank the destination on the basis of an indicator's assessment - compared to other destinations (notably, it is not the only assessment needed)

I agree fully Danijel. And this is why we took the approach we did in Canada's NTO as I mentioned earlier to develop our own customized metrics and associated decision information tools linked with specific internal and external stakeholders decision needs.

Yes Scott, I have read it. I like that approach. So we must agree that every destination or destinations in a competitive set must develop or adapt particular model in order to measure competitiveness and use the results to take actions to improve its position on the market.

We both agree on that conclusion from our conversation.

Over time the role of such reports will be to anchor expectations. Whether such a phenomenon is beneficial or counter-productive would depend on the autonomy between the raters and the rated. In these case the institutions coming up with the reports and to what extent the destinations themselves have a say or control on the process. Sadly the views and action of the two have tended to converge. To the extent it is hard to differentiate whether such reports are actually dealing with actual phenomenon or the metaphenomenon (reports/views about the destinations) Having an eerie parallel with the phenomenon in quantum mechanics, where the very act of measuring or observing something actually changes its qualities- like a self-fulfilling prophecy

Article Anchoring effects on performance judgments

Article Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integr...