Talk:Tourism

Canada

Hello. I think this webpage should be updated because I've found many links that confirm that Canada gets 35 million annual tourists every year. Thank you http://www.justlanded.com/english/Canada/Canada-Guide/Travel-Leisure/Getting-there http://www.kanetix.ca/insurance-travel-visitors-to-canada http://www.gapyear.com/visas/1166387 http://www.visabureau.com/canada/canadian-visa.aspx Have a great day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.75.103 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are these referring to international tourism or just domestic ones. The UNWTO publishes the official World Tourism rankings regarding tourist statistics.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It refers to International Tourism. I think it would be more accurate for all tourism data to be obtained by national governments rather than the United Nations. It would also be more accurate to just give 2008 or the latest year in which statistics have been obtained rather than the last two years. More professional that way. But that's me. It will also pave way to show tourism numbers from other countries. Thanks! Have a great day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.75.103 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition of UNWTO is standardize and used by all countries, allowing comparisons. National stats includes tourists that are not considered such by UNWTO, as they sometimes included other kind of tourists. For example, Americans crossing the border in Niagara Falls and not staying overnight in Canada are not counted as international tourist by UNWTO. Neither are cruise passenger spending the day in Costa Rica or Bahamas. Mexico has millions of Americans crossing the border to Tijuana and not staying overnight. So, national statistics must be avoided as we are not sure if they are compatible with UNWTO.Mariordo (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry to be annoying, but I read the entirety of the report mentioned in the sources, and nowhere is Lebanon mentioned as the top country for interntaional arrival. I am confused as to where exactly the numbers in that first table come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.8.155 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

About the cities and the attractions rankings

About the cities ranking, Euromonitor doesn’t seem very reliable. A lot of informations are curious. E.g.:

• Hong Kong which had 8,1 M tourists in 2006, received 12M in 2007, ie an augmentation of 33% in one year... In addition, why Euromonitor indicates an augmentation of only 8.8 % ?
• Some cities like Kiev doesn’t appear in the complete list (that is, less than 150,000 visitors). Curious, considering that Ukraine is the eighth country the most visited according to UNWTO (23M).
• Strangely, among the 50 first cities, only Paris shows a huge fall, -10 % in one year! How such a fall could be credible as itself, and how could it be credible knowing that the Paris tourism office announced for that year a record of international frequenting?
• Within a year, some cities make unexplained breakthroughs like Istanbul (3.99M to 6.45M) or Toronto (4.16M to 6.63M: -3.6% according to Euromonitor (!)) or even NYC (+23% !)

Euromonitor is a private institute, doesn’t explain its methodology, doesn’t say who ordered the study, shows spectacular and unexplained differences from a year to another and seems to show figures mathematically wrong in the growing column... I think this list needs clarifications, at least for the methodology. Otherwise I think it doesn’t have its place on this article. (And the sentence referring to the 30M international visitors of Paris seems disproportionate: the city of Paris itself (intra-muros) declares receiving only 17M foreign visitors by year.) About the attraction rankings, Forbes set up a list which is completely biased. How can they consider nodes of circulation ? How can they compare Time Square with the Taj Mahal ? They say that the National Mall is the second most visited place in the world (25M people / year). That seems strange in a city visited by "only" 1.2M foreign visitors each year (according to the precedent ranking). How to explain that Time Square or Trafalgar Square are represented but not Shibuya in Tokyo, Puerta del Sol in Madrid or the Wenceslas Square in Prague ? Forbes can’t pretend that the 35M people "visiting" Time Square each year are tourists. According to Le Figaro, The Champs-Elysées are crossed by 100M people each year, they are certainly not all tourists ! Even as a rough guide, I don’t think this list is reliable in that state. It gives some interpretations like the sentence we can read: « It is noticeable that 4 out of the top 5 are in the North America continent. » I’m not for the total removal of the list, but at least, we can agree on some places that can’t figure on it (and state this removal in the article). What's your opinion about that ? En-bateau (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Euromonitor's list of the most visited cities is kind of speculative. Unfortunately, the UNWTO World Tourism rankings doesn't have most visited cities. I removed the Euromonitor's list before, but an editor informed that it is reliable source, and I agree that it seems to be a reasonably well-published source, and I have updated the 2007 statistics. But I agree that the list doesn't do well in terms of explaining its methodology.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I'd like Mariordo anwers to my argumentation. These lists are very suspicious (Euromonitor) or clearly biased (Forbes ranking). In that case, we can’t pretend they are reliable sources. It would be hypocritical. En-bateau (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

According to a Portuguese Tourism agency , Portugal received 11,8 million tourists in 2005, of which 40% visited Lisbon (approx. 4,3 million) this is by far a lot higher than the figures published by Euromonitor. In another wikipedia article entitled tourism in Portugal there is a claim that Lisbon receives 7 million tourists a year (with reference). This should be checked and standardised.

(reference for Tourism Agency : http://www.turismonaweb.com/noticia.php?id_not=268&id_cat=12 )--93.108.27.199 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, what is that Forbes ranking about? Times square? How on earth do you measure the number of visitors to a traffic junction? What about JFK, I'm sure that's quite a lot of "visitors" too. 193.132.242.1 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest the removal of the attraction list or its modification like I done (with only lucrative attractions).En-bateau (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to this revision: [1], the main problem is that it is original research, (see WP:NOR) and the word "lucrative" shouldn't be added either, since it's not used in Forbes' list. I do agree with removing the "It is noticeable..." comment, since it's also OR. (I'll do that now) So I would keep the Forbes list in the article for now, unless there is a better list out there that we're not yet aware of. I would like to see the whole Forbes' list included though, instead of just selected ones after the first ten. Remembering that it's a list of "visitor attractions", there are obviously a lot of theme parks represented on it, and for where or how they got their statistics, wouldn't that be addressed somewhere in their article? So if there is another published list out there of mosted visited places, etc., that is freely accessible, then could someone let us know, so we could decide if we should replace Forbes' list? Otherwise, it may be the only thing out there, right now, and the Tourism article should continue to have a section about the most visited attractions/places. Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Forbes' list is getting old and there are a lot of revisions being made to it that are outside of the article's statistics. I vote for deleting it and replacing with Nat'l. Geographics' new list in the Oct. 2009 issue about best places to visit. I'll be glad to update the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite the reasonable doubts, I agree with Funandtrvl that any modification would be original research, and since Forbes is a reliable source, under Wiki policies the table should stay. Regarding Nat Geog, though a RS, this is a list of "recommended" places, and we must be careful to avoid any Wiki article presenting recommendations. Besides, other recommendations might appear from other RSs, so, are we going to include all recommendations. Considered this is a high traffic site, just imagine the edit wars that might arise. Anyway, either case is not encyclopedic content, so I am strongly against such substitution. -Mariordo (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my opinion (as requested above) on Euromonitor ranking, clearly it is not such RS as Forbes, but let me do some research on the web before stating my opinion.-Mariordo (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you clarify if you think the Forbes' list should stay? After all, it is 2 years old already and there have been several edits recently to the table to randomly update the statistics to more current figures. Obviously, those have been reverted, since they're not from the original Forbes' article. The 2nd problem is that the reference for the Euromonitor table only seems to go to their main page and not to the article where the statistics were located. I have tried searching for a table/article to cite on their site, but there is fee (quite high) to access any information. I don't think the table from Euromonitor should be included in the article either, since we have no working online/free source available for it. In fact, the main article needs a lot of work in fixing all the unsourced information! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)n

We could remove the Euromonitor listing and replace it with official sources (from municipalities for example). It's difficult to find for some cities. With few research on the Internet we can easily find these informations :

Hong Kong : 17.3M (Including mainland China visitors, 2007) ; Paris : 15.6M (intra-muros, 2006) ; London : 15.2M (2006) ; Singapore : 10.3M (2007) ; New York City : 8.76M (2007) ; Dubai : 6.9M (2007) ; Shangaï : 6.66M (2007) ; Seoul : 6.1M (2005) ; Dublin : 6M (2008) ; Amsterdam : 4.9M (2007) ; Vienna : 4.6M (2008) ; Barcelona : 3.5M (2002)...

The failing : the figures are from different periods (Barcelona figures : !) and different sources (the methodology can vary for each municipality). But at least, if the references are clearly indentified, I think it will be better than the Euromonitor list. About the Forbes' list I think it would be removed. Not because it's old but because, despite its RS status, the methodology seems to me completely illogical. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I second removing the Forbes list, and I agree the Euromonitor table should be removed and instead, a table should be made for total # of visitors, relying on official CVB statistics, as long as each entry has citations. It seems like the most fair way to present the info. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

2006 and 2007 datas from Euromonitor are mixed. The statistics for Bangkok, Istanbul, Rome, Barcelona, Seoul, Kuala Lumpur are from the 2008 study (2007 datas) which is not available anymore on the Euromonitor website. Is there any chance to recover 2007 datas for Madrid, Mecca and Prague ? En-bateau (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently working on retrieving 2008 data from official CVB sites. --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the data is for 2006 from Euromonitor, therefore it was not right to reverse the url for all. Please restore to right source until new data is edited. Also the ref fro Euromonitor 2007 data is not a real ref, it goes nowhere. These mistakes should be corrected.-Mariordo (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the 2006 Euromonitor data works, but after Madrid's data has been updated, none of the information in this chart is from Euromonitor's 2006 source, and none of information matches with the Euromonitor 2006 source.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I reformatted the most visited cities chart to "top ten", as the chart shouldn't be too long and the other three charts above have always been a top ten list, thus creating a consistency.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

top international tourism destinations - FOR 2008

Why isnt there an update for world tourist arrivals and receipts for the year 2008?

I need the statistics and rankings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.160.14 (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are a member of WTO or purchase one of their reports, there is no way to access the statistics for free, until they are posted for public viewing, which is usually after they are about a year old. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The publicly available list is usually available until January, so indeed we will have to wait for the update.-Mariordo (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated! The UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2009 Edition presented the data we were waiting for, but please note that for the time being there is not a direct link to the pdf. Please contribute updating the texts accompanying the tables, particularly regarding the effects of the 2008 crisis.-Mariordo (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about travelling? Can you tell your impressions of countries, cities you visited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.52.33 (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

HI, I THINK TOURISM IS MORE THAN TRAVEL AROUND THE WORLD , IS TOO , TO BE INVOLVED INTO THE CULTURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.219.130 (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

World Representation

I added Lalibela and Timbuktu to the images just to show the full range of world destinations. These are by no means second-rate destinations in comparison to any of the sites they are with. (actually, they are probably more impressive than many of them) I also added an image for "dark tourism" and finished off image list. Puchiwonga (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

New pictures in gallery

I have recently added some great pictures into gallery in this article, i wish it can explain and describe some great places in the world, although they are only pictures

the pictures i have added are :

File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife (1).jpg, File:Puncak - Bogor - West Java.jpg, File:Uluru sunset1141.jpg, File:Ha long bay.jpg, File:160 Amazing Patagonia.jpg, File:All Gizah Pyramids.jpg.

......good day, thanks--Sweetmistery (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added links to the photo files above and have removed the gallery from this talk page, since it was duplicating what is already on the main page, and because of the WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

yup, may be it was too much pictures in the gallery in this article, thank you for having fixed it,--Sweetmistery (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm still working on moving some more pics over to their respective "Tourism in ..." articles, which amazingly, some do not have any pictures in their articles! --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Too many photos

I have tagged this article with the cleanup template: {{too many photos}}, because photos keep getting added to the article. Because there are over 200 sovereign countries, this article cannot display photos from every single country, nor even more than a smattering of them. In fact, Category:Tourism by country has over 224 sub-categories and Category:Tourism by city has over 51 sub-categories. It is time to develop the articles on each country and important city, and move the photos from this main article to those articles, because many of those country-specific articles, such as Tourism in Germany, are still rated as stubs and need expansion. Any suggestions to which photos should stay and which should be moved? --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fully supportive of this post - 80% of the photos should be removed - as a minimum. Photos should not be of landmarks. Possibly one or two could show landmarks AND tourism. They should certainly be specifically linked to article prose. --Merbabu (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS – I removed the gallery photos (because that was easy!). The plethora of images down the side of the page should also be largely removed. They have nothing to do with the article text. The article discusses Tourism. Its title is not “List of Tourist Icons around the World”. --Merbabu (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help and support. It's an improvement already! --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job, it was about time to clean up the clutter, the article was looking like a vacation photo album. Let's keep it clean, though eventually we might decide in some objective criteria for pictures to be added (I have already tried unsuccessfully in the past).-Mariordo (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition, what does it mean

What does "for leisure, business and other purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited" exactly mean, can you clarify it. English is not my main language. Kasaalan (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it mean that if you are earning money (working) in the foreign place that you are supposedly visiting, then you're not considered a tourist, but rather an employee or some type of worker? --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is to distinguish workers from others such as visitors to a business conference or travelling salesmen. A travelling salesman is a tourist. He is remunerated/paid by an employer in his/her home country. A grape-picker is not a tourist as he/she is remunerated/paid locally. Kwenchin (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Euromonitor list

I thought that we agreed that Euromonitor is not a reliable source (despite their few words about their "new" methodology). Most of the figures aren’t surprising, but still, in the (only?) case of Paris, they counted only the hostel rooms. We just have to roughly compare this study with the UNTWO study: Bangkok is visited by 70% of Thaïland visitors: that’s understandable. London is visited by 50% of UK visitors: that’s understandable too. But, according to Euromonitor, Paris is visited by only 10% of France visitors... Lyon, Normandy, and French Riviera must be very, very crowded. Well, the source of Euromonitor is none other the Office du Tourisme et des Congrès (what a sought "new" methodology… - page 18, http://en.parisinfo.com/uploads/9e//chiffres-cles-2009.pdf ; Hostel rooms for Foreign visitors : 8.375 ; Total : 15.04). On the same document (!), page 3, we can see that the (real) total number of visitors is estimated at 28 million. If we extrapolate, the (real) number of foreign visitors is around 15.6 M, or, at least, between 14 and 17 M., without mentioning Grand Paris leisure or business attractions like Disneyland, Versailles, La Défense, universities, or simply the numerous cheaper hostels around the city limits. The entire Ile-de-France region counts 45M tourists of which 60% are foreign visitors (around 27M). These figures are more coherent with the 80M France foreign visitors of the UNTWO study. Euromonitor is either not rigorous or not totally impartial. This study is widely spread on the Internet and we still don’t know who is ordering it each year. But, since Euromonitor figures come from (selected) official figures, let simply the (appropriate) official figures on this article, which are maybe imperfect but at least original, verifiable and closer to the reality. En-bateau (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me, it's probably better to quote the individual CVBs anyways. Just a side note, I did contact the French CVB with the specific question of how many "foreign visitors" were there to Paris, and of course, they referred me to their publication that lists 28 million and doesn't break it down. Oh well, I tried, but I still think we need to quote "official" numbers instead of estimations, and I really don't know what to do about the French. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there's simply no precise official number for Paris. Considering that, an estimation extrapolated from partial numbers is the best way to be closer to the reality. Another solution : give an interval (15-17M for Paris). We can keep the Euromonitor figures when there is absolutely no information, but frankly, on closer examination, when you see Kuala Lumpur visitors duplicate from a year to another or Antalya as visited as Paris... I update the list but I wonder if it's not better to remove completely this source. En-bateau (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Euromonitor's statisics are a bit speculative. One observation is that the company is based in London, and for the past rankings, London was always ranked number 1. If we are using the Euromonitor source, shouldn't London be ranked number 1 on this article as well?--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Euromonitor comes up with some odd numbers. I think if we can find a source from a respective CVB that concurs with the Euromonitor numbers, then use it, but for London, Euromonitor comes up with 15,033.2, and the official CVB stats list 14.8, so we erred on the side of caution. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I contacted Euromonitor and had a very precise answer. Indeed, for some cities they consider only hotel arrivals. Actually, there is two main methodologies : CVBs can count all the tourists in the city or they can count only hotel arrivals with partial but very precise data (which allows economic studies monthly and precisely). Euromonitor bases its study on precise statistics. Consequently, the study is faithful to the official data but compares different statistics from different methodologies. For a better clarity, they will mention it on the next edition of the study. En-bateau (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that explains a few things! Thanks for the follow-up! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lists of attractions?

I find it somewhat disconcerting that List of tourist attractions worldwide was removed from the article, especially since it wasn't in Tourist attraction until I just put it there and THAT article is only mentioned or linked to in the fine print in the infobox at the bottom of this article. The article doesn't even have "Visitor attractions" or "Tourist activities" as cats, or a way to find a list of the "Tourism in..." articles. I wouldn't expect the casual reader to be able to get from this article to any of the articles containing attractions. Simesa (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I take part of that back - Tourism in present-day nations and states is in See Also. Simesa (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The section on Attractions in Tourism in the United States was abominable, so I Seealso'd List of tourist attractions in the United States. I've only checked a couple of the other "Tourisms in..." so far. Simesa (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Tourism article is the main article for the parent "Tourism" category, and the Visitor attractions and Tourist activities cats are sub-cats of the parent cat Tourism. That's why the Tourism article is in the top-level cats only. In order to keep this article from getting bloated or repeating things that are already in the sub- or descendent articles, this article is in more of an outline format. It's the sub or descendant articles that need to be developed for those specific topics like Tourist attractions, and this article needs to be developed for the specific types of Tourism, don't you think? --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Tourism as human right

The quote contributed to Antonio Tajani is highly contested, and thus requires both sides to be given equal weight for NPOV to be upheld. --BP OMowe 23rd of June, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.23.66 (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC) --70.115.172.33 (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is much more than contested. It is an internet meme generated by a misleading headline, see this post, "Governments and Wikipedia" on a public relations blog. I have substantially revised the sections on tourism as a right on this article and on Antonio Tajani to emphasize the misleading headline. It seems to me the problem is that the article in the Sunday Times was not treated as the unreliable source it was revealed to be when the text of the Commissioner's speech was made available to us. Fred Talk 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bangkok statistics

The new figures visibly refer to the airport arrivals (9.67) but the same source give specifically the Bangkok figures (which seems include the different types of accomodation). Thanks to Thepowermancity1022 for this source, we looked for it for a long time. En-bateau (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ensuring STD through CSR: Idealism versus Realism

Md. Abdul Hamid

As climate change gains global attention from events like the summit in Copenhagen held during December of 2009, the need for sustainable tourism is more important than ever (Deale and Barber, 2010). But the query simply arises who will proceed as the role player to make sure sustainable tourism development (STD)? The thinking is till now in infant level so an inclination of ‘pillow-passing’ among its stakeholders is noticed. Corporate bodies have come forward as ‘self-declared’ accountable faction in this endeavor. Now the concern arises, is it myth or really possible to ensure STD through performing corporate social responsibility (CSR)?

In other industries, more or less, CSR has been recognized as a part of business policy. For an unknown reason, in tourism industry, this is not so apparent yet. Fragmented ventures of societal responsibility is observed, the reason might be…tourism is neither a phenomenon nor a simple set of industries. It is a human activity, which encompasses human behavior, use of resources, and interaction with other people, economics, and environments (Eraqi, 2010). The good thing is that the awareness in this issue is increasing among its stakeholders.

It is universal that the motive of business venture is to earn profit. Besides, it’s true that the actions of business impact the local, national, and global community, so businesses have a responsibility to ensure that the impact is positive (Becken, 2007). For this, this is highly desired that the companies will act in such way so that the natural resources can be used generation after generations. In other words, value cration represents for a firm a basilar survivor factor on the long run, contributing to social needs and benefits (Formisano, 2002).

Though most of the business organizations confess about their responsibility toward society, the basic question is: do the managers perceive CSR in the same way? A study on 1000 managers in eight large international firms concluded that the managerial perceptions of societal responsibilities differ in some respects from the mainstream models found in the CSR and business ethics literature (Pedersen, 2010). If they ‘point their guns’ in different targets, how will it be possible to achieve unique goal from this venture?

On the other hand, while the notion of CSR is increasingly evident in the corporate world, among many civil-society advocates and in public policies it is ambiguous and contested on various grounds (Carroll, 1999), just like the concept of ‘sustainable development’ is contested and disputed. Many different approaches have been identified (Redclift, 1997; Hopwood et al., 2005; Redclift, 2005) and the contribution of CSR to sustainable development can be questioned (Moon, 2007).

Conflict between shareholders and management, on CSR issue, is not new at all. From the very beginning, it is being tough to make the shareholders understand that through CSR practices they will earn benefit in the long run. As most investors expect revenue in the short term, it creates problem in the board meetings! Some educators and researchers also ‘add fuel in this flame’. For example, Friedman argues (1970) that the only responsibility of the managers is to increase shareholder value. As only businessmen have given them money to do business so the executives should ensure desired return for them.

The craze (or appeal) of CSR is being deemed gradually also. Many studies have shown that the corporate decision makers calculate their ‘interest’ at first before launching any social welfare program. And so, aware publics are considering so called CSR as nothing but a ‘strategic weapon’ of gaining marketing goals. On the other side, in a report The Economist strongly criticized “acting ‘good’ and advertising it may elicit charges of hypocrisy, leading other companies to decide that CSR might be more trouble than it’s worth”. The logic behind this dispute is once this social responsibility might be a matter of ‘showcase’ and unfair means can be adopted to gain name and fame by the companies.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (1993) mention that the sustainable tourism is an economic development model conceived to improve the quality of life for the local community, and to facilitate for the visitor a high-quality experience of the environment, which both the host community as the visitors depends. Moreover the pursuit of sustainability is never-ending. Environmental conditions and patterns of resource use are dynamic and interact in complex ways (Lebel, 2010).

In this process the main parties are companies and customers. The corporations are speaking for ‘social responsibility’ but what about customers? The findings do not show very positive somewhat. Evidence in the UK shows that less than 1% of all outgoing holidays booked in the UK give any real priority to the environment (Mintel, 2005). Boon, Flucker, and Wilson (2008) test the effect of a 10 year program of awareness reising to promote ecological sustainable tourism in south east Australia and conclude that the program had almost no effect over the period. In response, different education programs are proposed.

Finally it can be said, only orporate bodies will not be able to take the charge. Even if they try, it will not bring so mentionable output. And very simply, they will not attempt to make annoyed their king (Consumer is the king: Paul Mazur). So, the hope of achieving STD through CSR is very far from the reality. We have to change ourselves to ensure sustainability of nature as well as tourism industry. At last it can be quoted - The behavior change literature underlines the necessity of examining tourism and people’s willingness to adapt to more sustainable lifestyles (Miller, 2010).

References: Barnea, A. and Rubin, A., (2010) ‘Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders’ Journal of Business Ethics, Springer 2010. Becken, S. (2007) ‘Tourists’ perception of international air travel’s impact on global climate and potential climate change policies’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15 (4), 358-368) Boon, P., Fluker, M., and Wilson, N. (2008). A ten-year study of the effectiveness of an educative programme in ensuring the ecological sustainability of recreational activities in the Brisbane Ranges National Park, South-Eastern Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol 16 (6), 681-697. Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2005) ‘Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 29-44. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (1993) ‘Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1, 1-5 Carroll, A.B. (1999) ‘Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct’, Business and Society, 38 (3), 268-295. Cheung, D.K.K., Welford, R.J. and Hills, P.R., (2009) ‘CSR and the environment: Business supply chain partnerships in Hong Kong and PRDR, China, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 250-263. Deale, C.S. and Barber, N. (2010), ‘Sustainability: What matters to students, educators, and hospitality and tourism professionals’; BEST EN Think Tank X paper. Dobers, P. and Halme, M. (2009) ‘Corporate social responsibility and developing countries (editorial)’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 237-249. Dorbes, P. (2009) ‘Corporate social responsibility: management and methods’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 185-191. Eraqi, M., I. (2010), Social responsibility as an innovative approach for enhancing competitiveness of tourism business sector in Egypt. Tourism Analysis, 15 (1), 45-55 Fougere, M. and Solitander, N. (2009) ‘Against corporate responsibility: Critical reflections on thinking, practice, content and consequences, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 217-227. Friedman, M. (1970) ‘The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’, New York Times Magazine, 13 September, New York. Hopwood, B., Moller, M. and O’Brien G. (2005) “International codes of conduct and corporate social responsibility: Can transnational corporations regulate themselves?’, Transnational Corporations, 8 (1), 143-180. Lebel. L., et al. (eds), ‘Sustainable production consumption systems: Knowledge, Engagement and Practice’, Springer Science + Business Media B. V. 2010, 1-12. Miller, G., et al, (2010) ‘Public understanding of sustainable tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37 (3), 627-645 Mintel (2005). Ethical holidays. London: Mintel-Leisure Intelligence. Pedersen, E.R. (2010) ’Modeling CSR: How managers understand the responsibilities of business towards society’, Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 155-166. Redclift, M. (2005), ‘Sustainable development (1987-2005): An oxymoron comes of age’, Sustainable Development, 13, 212-227. Redclift, M., (1997), ‘Postscript: Sustainable development in the twenty-first century: The beginning of history’, Policies of Sustainable Development: Theory, policy and practice within the European Union, Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson D. and Young S. (eds), Routledge: London; 259-268. Schwartz, B. and Tilling, K. (2009) ‘ISO-lating’ corporate social responsibility in the organizational context: A dissenting interpretation of ISO 26000’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 289-299. Md. Abdul Hamid: Assistant Professor, Dept. of Business Administration, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.36.109 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tanzania Winter tourism???

Who the hell put Tanzania on the list of ski holiday destinations??? Funny, but there might be readers who believe it! There are nice ski resorts in Iran and even one Ski slope in Dubai (of all the places!) but surely NONE in Tanzania or Kenya; 91.98.113.164 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just do a google search, I found over 6 ski resorts on Mt. Kili. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is 2010's tourism datas?

There is not enough 2010 datas. Please add this tourism datas. Thank you. From Turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.14.129 (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Top visited cities in the world....

I had found a reliable source, that is "Euromonitor" which releases the figures of top cities with most number of international visitors all around the world every year. Here is the link of the figures for the year 2009: Euromonitor International’s top city destinations ranking 2009.

We should add the figures according to this source, so that we will be able to get the latest figures from ONE precise and reliable source for all the cities and we will overcome the dispute, whether which city hosted the top number of visitors. Because at present the raking is not according to one source even not for one year, like some figures are of 2010 and other are for 2009. It might be the case that some figures are not accurate and some are accurate. What do you say ???

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see #About the cities and the attractions rankings above. Euromonitor is not a reliable source, because we have found that their numbers don't always match what the Official Tourism Boards & Ministries put out. Unless you can find the figure on an official gov't website, then it needs to be reverted. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but have any body find the figures of Dubai for the year 2010 ??? and of London for the same year.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

London is always a little late, so is Dubai. I'll see if the info's out yet. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nabil rais2008. The only reliables sources are the official sources, and we quote only these in that ranking. For Dubaï, I don't know why, but the 2009 statistics have been deleted from the Tourism Office site, but I checked them by myself few weeks ago. If it is a problem for someone to keep the actual figure, we could quote the 2008 statistics and wait for an update. In addition I will soon update the Singapore stats which include sameday visitors. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that tourist boards can be reliable sources for tourists to their own countries, they will tend to inflate their own numbers. Also this article does not agree with London which according to that page London is the most visited city in the world. Whatever the decision here these articles should at least agree. QuentinUK (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This link [2] says Dubai hosted 8.3 million guests in 2010. What about this link ? should we update the figures, these figures are released by "Dubai Tourism and Commerce Marketing"

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---

About the Singapore stats modification, even if the number of tourists counted for lenght of stay is not exactly the same (11.1/11.6), we have to count only overnight visitors : 11.124 – 2.480 = 8.64. But to compensate for difference (11.1/11.6) we could extrapolate : 9.03. / I think your notes are usefull. En-bateau (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My estimation seems right : the UNWTO study for 2010 gives 9.16M visitors. Let's take this source. En-bateau (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Should Turkey be considered a part of Asia rather than of Europe?

The amount of turkish territory in Europe is ridiculously small as to be considered part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.224.206 (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We follow the source (WTO) which categorises Turkey in Europe. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

International tourism expenditures

To give expenditures per capita, that's not a "detail" but the main purpose of this table, just like GDPs in economy. The principle of "per capita" is exactly to divide the total expenditure by the total population, I don't why it is a problem. The total expenditures have no sense if you don't foreground the fact that, it absolutly not reflects the reality of tourism economy in each country. For example, Americans, who are on the top of the table, spend four time less than Australians, who are far behind. That's the main purpose of these statistics. The numbers are proposed on dollars (not in local currencies), even with the parity problem, I think it's quite useful.En-bateau (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

misinformation

In 'International tourism receipts' some one put on the graph that Hong Kong was in Europe,it's corrected now. Just a post to let you be aware of people with a very,very small understanding of geography might be editing this so keep an eye out for misinformation. (77.102.214.131 (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

ranking data seems wrong

For Turkey: Antalya is not on the top visited list, but istanbul is there. And there are several sources state that Antalya attracts much more tourists than Istanbul. i.e in this source Antalya ranked 4th while istanbul 9th. Yakamoz51 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cities statistics

This article is basing only on official sources, otherwise this kind of statistics are destinated to be always altered by users. We avoid subjectivity and partial datas. In that case, the MasterCard study is based on very partial datas : aerial flows. To compare island cities (mainly accessible by plane) to continental cities (largely served by roads and railroads) is shaky. Moreover this methodology gives some distortions like Yakamoz51 said : Antalya tourists (chiefly Germans) land mainly at Istanbul airport to go then in Antalya, but counted as Istanbul tourists. Official datas based on hotels statistics are much more reliable. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I just corrected Paris, because, as detailed in pp 18 of the provided source, the total of 15,183,859 is made of 8,119,317 international visitors and 7,064,542 French visitors. By the way, for 2009 the total of foreign visitors was 7,879,868, pretty close to what Euromonitor reported (it is not such a unreliable source afterall). And, I would like to add that statistics are tricky, so it is better to have all data from the same source. Pasting together data, as the city table is now, not only is very close to original research, but there is no guarantee the different sources are measuring/counting tourist as defined by the UNWTO. I believe a single source for the entire city table is more reliable.--Mariordo (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this subject has been already treated above. The main goal of numerous tourist offices is not to count annually a precise number of foreign tourists but to consider each month and very precisely percentage of increase or decrease of the tourist economy : that's why the page 18 provides ONLY hotels rooms. Like you said, it represents in all 15,2 million tourists. Now, if you look on page 3, "FOR ALL ACCOMMODATION TYPES, the total number of visitors to Paris intra-muros is estimated at 28.2 million". The figure in the table is an extrapolation : foreign tourists represent 53.47% of the arrivals in hotels → foreign visitors represent about 15.1 million of the 28.2 million total. Of course, the calculation is a bit speculative, and in fact, it is a little bit underestimate : few years ago, for 27 million tourists, there was approximately 17 million foreign tourists (http://www.paris.fr/viewmultimediadocument?multimediadocument-id=33133). Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I really believe here we are at the borderline of original research, the count in page 18 is consistent with WTO definition of an international tourist (see the glossary at the beginning of the French document). Furthermore, as I already said good statistics practice is too have all info from the same source as to guarantee data for all cities is measured in the same (same definition of international visitor). So far, Euromonitor is the only source with such characteristics, and there is no objective reason for not considering it a reliable source. Otherwise, I rather would remove the table that having cherry picked data from several editors from different sources.--01:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course the count in page 18 is consistent with WTO definition, that's just a partial figure. The 28.2 million tourists (they translate in English into "visitors") is also consistent with WTO definition and is the full real figure. I agree that the extrapolation may be not perfect but is at least close to the reality, though a little bit underestimated. If you compare with London, it's quite coherent : Paris has 15.1 million foreign tourists on 28.2 in all. London has 14.6 million foreign visitors on a total of 26.2 million.

Euromonitor visibly took, like you, only hotels stats to make their calculations. I wrote to the author of the study who answered me that they are considering the problem, we should have a full response shortly. In any case, if you see the methodology, the main statistics of the study are directly sourced from official CVBs, i.e. our own sources. The CVBs use generally the same methodology (an estimation from accommodation data). We just have to be vigilant and check if they include same-day visitors (which are not tourists) : that's generally the case of American cities or Singapour for example. We never will find an absolutely perfect list, cause all the statistics are captive of the CVBs, which could - why not ? - push their figures up. But they are nonetheless the base of work of all potential external lists including Euromonitor (if we except other very approximative lists from other specific data, like air trafic). That's why it's better to source these : directly verifiable and no unexplained adjustments.

Now, if in the future, Euromonitor gives more precised details about the methodological adjustments (the slight differences (or big in the case of Paris) between their and official statistics), we could use it as a reliable source, it would be even easier for us. But that may would raise another problem : Euromonitor study has almost a year late compared with official statistics.

Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

International stats

En-bateu, I would like to know why you trimmed the international stat tables, which for a long time had at least data for the latest three years (check the article history since 2008). Is it OK with you if I restore at least 2009 and 2010.--Mariordo (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact I thought it was more relevant and cleaner to conserve only a column with the percentage of increase or decrease from the precedent year, but unfortunately, a user prefered to remove it (this is the subject of another topic above about International tourism expenditures). I prefer this system of growing column, I think that's more clear and relevant for users, but if you want to preserve the complete data for the latest three years, it's also OK for me. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I can restore the previous years and format it in such a way to keep the percentage change. Once I am finished with the update in the Spanish and Portuguese articles, I will indeed restore the stats. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Very important definition of tourism on the world

Very important definition:

In 2001 Mr. David Martin Rendón of the Private University of Tacna - Peru, tourism is defined to science "The turismología" as: "Social Science of fact, given by an orderly process that includes different actions motivation, movement and use of space tourism, the plant that supports it, its structure and super structure of the homos turísticus ".

Yours comments pls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turismologotcq (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling it a "very important definition" will necessitate a reliable source. After it is shown to be a notable definition, someone will have to write it in English of an encyclopedic style. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Just plain Bill, I didn't find any reference of this definition except from a blog. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree also, I only found the statement in a personal blog, which is not a RS. Because the paragraph is poorly translated, I'm removing it. The UNWTO definition would be the standard. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mecca

Saudi Arabia has been visited by 10.85 million international tourists in 2010 (http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights11enhr.pdf) : Mecca can't receive 13 million international tourists per year. Your source certainly added domestic tourists. Moreover, we quote only official sources here, not magazines. If you read arab, you may find some information on the official site of the city : http://www.holymakkah.gov.sa/. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Got qualifications in travel and tourism

can I edit this and improve it thanks Aylish (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)