and transportation routes across the globe. This instability represents yet another challenge faced by tourism managers, who must realise that even the most up-to-date profile of the sector soon becomes obsolete. The only certainty in tourism systems is constant change.
T H E T O U R I S T
As suggested in chapter 1, the definition of tourism is dependent on the definition of the tourist. It is therefore critical to address this issue in a satisfactory way before any further discussion of management-related issues can take place. Every tourist must simultaneously meet certain spatial, temporal and purposive criteria, as dis- cussed below.
BREAKINg THE BILLION BARRIER
In 2012, for the first time, more than one billion international stayovers were recorded from the cumulative reports of the UNWTO member states. There was speculation in the late 1990s that this threshold would be reached much earlier, but the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008 and
onward effectively depressed global visitation growth. The number, in itself, is not especially significant in a practical sense, since the previous year’s total of 980 million is not much smaller.
However, the one billion threshold has great symbolic value in conveying to a largely unaware public the impressive magnitude of the global tourism system and its potential as a tool for development — or the potential for negative environmental and social impacts if not managed effectively. The UNWTO did not fail to capitalise on the attendant marketing opportunities, selecting a British tourist’s arrival in Madrid on 13 December as the symbolic and much-publicised one billionth tourist. The popular online site CNN Travel provided strong coverage of this event and related developments, including a UNWTO infographic that summarised basic patterns of origin, destination and purpose (CNN 2012). The milestone was also leveraged in the UNWTO’s ‘One billion tourists:
One billion opportunities’ media campaign, which made the point that an environmental or social contribution from every tourist, however modest, produces an enormously positive cumulative effect.
Specifically, based on the campaign website’s public poll, ‘buying local’ was voted the most popular suggestion for action, followed by ‘respecting local cultures’, ‘protecting heritage’, ‘saving energy’
and ‘using public transport’. Concurrently, a ‘Faces of the one billion’ campaign was launched in which tourists travelling internationally were invited to submit a photo of themselves in front of a favourite tourist attraction. These were then posted on the UNWTO Facebook page, thereby giving a sense of individuality and dynamism to the ‘one billion’ figure (UNWTO 2012a).
Second, relatively little is known about domestic tourists compared with their inter- national counterparts, despite their numbers and economic importance. One reason is that most national governments do not consider domestic tourists to be as worthy of scrutiny, since they do not bring much-valued foreign exchange into the country but ‘merely’ redistribute wealth from one part of the country to another. It is often only when international tourist numbers are declining, for example in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, that governments are prompted to support local tourism businesses by promoting their domestic tourism sector. Another reason for the relative neglect is that domestic tourists are usually more difficult to count than international tourists, since they are not subject, in democratic countries at least, to the formalities faced by most international tourists, such as having a passport scanned.
However, where countries are moving towards political and economic integration, and hence more open borders, international tourist flows are becoming just as difficult to monitor as domestic flows. This is well illustrated at present by the 28 countries of the ever-enlarging European Union (see chapter 4).
Finally, there are some cases where the distinction between domestic and inter- national tourism is not entirely clear. This occurs when the tourism system incorporates geopolitical entities that are not part of a fully fledged country. For example, should a Palestinian resident of the Israeli-controlled West Bank be considered an international or domestic tourist during travel to Israel? Travel between the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and China is another ambiguous situation, as is travel between Taiwan and mainland China. Australians travelling to Norfolk Island are subject to full immigration controls, even though this destination is a self-governing external terri- tory of Australia.
outbound and inbound tourists
When referring specifically to international tourism, a distinction is made between outbound tourists (those leaving their usual country of residence) and inbound tourists (those arriving in a country different from their usual country of residence).
Any international tourism trip has both outbound and inbound components, with the distinction being based on whether the classification is being made from the perspec- tive of the country of origin or destination. Take, for example, a New Zealander who spends two weeks on holiday in Thailand. This person would be considered outbound from a New Zealand perspective (i.e. an ‘outbound New Zealander’) but inbound from the Thai perspective (i.e. an ‘inbound New Zealander’).
During any year, the cumulative number of inbound trips will always exceed the total number of outbound trips on a global scale, since one outbound trip must trans- late into at least, but possibly more than, one inbound trip. This is demonstrated by the hypothetical example of an Australian tourist who visits five countries during a trip to South-East Asia. From Australia’s perspective, this trip equates to one out- bound Australian tourist experience. However, each of the Asian countries will record that traveller as one inbound Australian tourist, resulting in five separate instances of inbound Australian tourism. Some origin governments require returning outbound tourists to report all visited destination countries, while others do not. Australia, for example, requires returning tourists to designate the one country where they spent most of their time abroad during that particular trip.
Long-haul and short-haul travel
A distinction can be made between long-haul tourists and short-haul tourists. There are no universal definitions for these terms, which are often defined according to the needs and purposes of different organisations, sectors or destinations. The UNWTO regards long-haul travel as trips outside the multi-country region in which the traveller lives (UNWTO 2011). Thus, a United Kingdom resident travelling to Germany (i.e. within Europe, the same region) is a short-haul tourist, while the same resident travelling to South Africa or Australia is a long-haul tourist. Airlines usually base the distinction on distance or time thresholds, 3000 miles (6600 kilometres) or five hours commonly being used as a basis for differentiation (Lo & Lam 2004).
One implication is that long-haul routes require different types of aircraft and passenger management strategies. Diabetics travelling on long-haul flights, for example, are more likely than those on short-haul flights to experience diabetes- related problems while in flight, though the actual number of those having problems is small (Burnett 2006). From a destination perspective, long-haul tourists are often distinguished from short-haul tourists by expenditure patterns, length of stay and other critical parameters. They may as a result also warrant separate marketing and management strategies.