Tourism promotion and development in the world

In general, it can be affirmed that governments have two central instruments for tourism development: The Support and The Government Tourism Promotion (GTS and GTP, respectively). About the first, Ward & ^{Gold (1994}), define the promotion as the conscious use of advertising and marketing that allows to communicate selective images about specific locations or geographical areas in order to develop an advertising campaign that to attract as many visitors as possible. On other hand, ^{Middleton & Clarke (2001}) refer to it as the activity carried out by the Government to support those companies or organizations that attract foreign exchange to the country, whereas ^{De Chernatory & McDonald (1992}) conceive it as the set of actions that lead a buyer or user to perceive added values unique within what they seek to be promoted, and that they are more closely aligned to the needs sought or created. On the other hand, GTP refers to planning and development of tourist projects, this is: the location of areas that have the potential to become tourist sites, the investment for the construction of infrastructure, the development of management plans for tourist destinations and their natural resources, and collaboration with the private sector for the orderly and sustainable development of tourism investments.

About the latter, the GTP is the protection, relief or boost activity that the Government provides for the development of tourism activity in a specific locality, region or country, in order to generate an increase, improvement or diversification of the facilities that facilitate or allow tourists to complete the cycle of a tourist trip⁷, In addition, the following aspects are also considered: transport or roads so that a person or a family can reach their destination, meet their needs for lodging and food, use or enjoyment of the landscapes or services that motivated the trip, resolve eventualities (medical, legal, among others) and return to their place of departure. In this sense, both the GTS and the GTP are activities that allow the growth of tourist activity in a particular social space from the dissemination of tourist destinations and the generation of material and structural conditions in a country or specific region.

GTS and GTP in Mexico

In the Mexican case, the Ministry of Tourism (SECTUR) is the body responsible for the promotion and promotion of tourist destinations. The secretariat has two agencies: The Tourism Promotion Council of Mexico (CPTM) and the National Tourism Promotion Fund (FONATUR). Whereas the first is responsible for coordinating, designing and operating the tourism promotion strategies of the destinations and activities that Mexico offers at national and international level (advertising and country brand, among others), the second is composed of a committee study, it approves and finances, through a trust, those projects related to investment in infrastructure, maintenance and conservation of the spaces, Among the programs, the following can be mentioned: "Infrastructure Development Program for the Support and Promotion of Investment in the Tourism Sector", "Program for the Promotion and Development of Tourism Programs and Projects of The Federal Entities", "Tourism Infrastructure Projects", "Infrastructure Maintenance" and the "Conservation and Maintenance of Basic Infrastructure with other Public, Private and Social Authorities"⁸.

Regarding the way they operate, the financing of those projects linked to promoting tourism development and protecting and maintaining the landscape and environmental image of the destinations is common to them through the generation of infrastructure in five areas: a) services, b) tourist equipment, c) creation or strengthening of routes, circuits or tourist corridors and promotion to regional development, d) creation of sites of tourist interest, e) technical assistance and services related to Projects. Although what is intended with these programs is to detonate economic growth in tourist areas, in large part the design, process and consistency assessments and results that have been carried out on these programs can be observed. These include recommendations in feasibility terms; the possible duplication and overlap of program functions, as well as attention to the same potential and target populations ^{(ITAM and Centro de Estudios de Competitividad, 2017}; ^{Secretaría de Gobernación, 2017} and ^{Servicios Profesionales para el Desarrollo Económico, 2017}).

Both positive and negative aspects are noted with regard to the achievements and results achieved in tourism. On the first, it should be noted that, at present, Mexico has managed to climb eight positions ranking 22nd in the world tourism ranking in 2017. Among the negative aspects is that our country has lost important positions in the global competitiveness index in infrastructure quality by descending five positions, from the 57th place achieved in the 2016-2017 edition to 62nd position in the 2017-2018, as well as a decrease in posts in transport infrastructure, prices, and port infrastructure, items in which seats 82, 83 and 124 respectively are held (^{World Economic Forum, 2017}).

Finally, and in accordance with the Sectoral Tourism Program 2013-2018, the performance of this country in the main international indicators has been moderate in nature compared to that of other countries. Examples include that, while in destinations such as Turkey, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Japan and Russia, growth rates of 8.6, 7.8, 4.8, 2.5 and 11.6%, respectively, were recorded during the period 2000-2012, Mexico grew 1.1% in the same period. With regard to international tourism revenues, although our country reached a record figure in 2012 with a growth rate of 7.3% with a market share of 1.25 and an average annual growth rate (TCMA) of 3.6% in the period 2000-2012, this positive trend was also recorded by other countries during the same period but with higher levels (Hong Kong, 15.5, Turkey 10.7, Japan 12.9, Malaysia 12.3 and Russia with 10.1%). In short, Mexico has grown in less proportion compared to other nations both in terms of tourist arrival and international tourism revenue.

Determinants of tourism

Tourist demand

Model specification

For the dependent variable, 30 tourist destinations were considered as priority in accordance with the document issued by the Institute of Tourism Competitiveness (ICTur) of the SECTUR published in the call of the Sectoral Fund for the Research, Development and Technological Innovation in Tourism 2014. This document, established as destinations of interest for the following cities: Puebla, León, Mérida, Querétaro, Oaxaca, San Juan de los Lagos, Morelia, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, San Luis Potosí, Cuernavaca, Villahermosa, Hermosillo, Xalapa, Guanajuato, Aguascalientes y Zacatecas. In the case of beach destinations, the following destinations were taken into account: Acapulco, Cancún, Riviera Maya, Veracruz-Boca del Río, Mazatlán, Puerto Vallarta, Los Cabos, Nuevo Vallarta, Ensenada, Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo, Manzanillo and Cozumel. On the other hand, in the case of border destinations, the cities of Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez were included.

To know the differentiated effect of the attributes of the destinations on tourist demand, the dependent variable was modeled with three possible values: 1) the tourist chooses to visit an internal destination, 2) chooses a beach place or 3) chooses to visit a border area.

With regard to explanatory variables and which for this study are considered as part of the GTP, it was chosen to include only those that had complete information of all the destinations analyzed. After a process of analysis and debugging of these, it was decided to incorporate climate and infrastructure variables into the model in terms of promotion with 2016 data obtained from INEGI. The structure of the variables incorporated into the model is described below:

Descriptive statistics of the study destinations

Empirical results

As shown in Table 3, the results obtained show, except for the variable rainfall and lodging in the beach category, statistically significant values with coefficients of considerable magnitude, Thus, it is concluded that these they have an important weight in the arrival of tourists to each type of destination. On the other hand, since the results corroborate the findings in previous studies for the case of temperature and rainfall variables (^{Bujosa-Bestard & Rosselló-Nadal, 2011}; ^{Olcina-Cantos & Vera-Rebollo, 2016}), the availability of infrastructure in lodging, food, leisure and recreation and cultural sites (museums and cultural centers) show that they are also factors that influence the choice in a differentiated way in the categories of destinations. Thus, the findings of other studies that have used case methods is complemented and corroborated (^{Gómez et al., 2017}; ^{Kozak and Rimmington, 1999}; ^{Milio, 2004}; ^{Shaadi-Rodríguez et al., 2017}).

Table 3: Probability of visiting a tourist destination by type of climate and available infrastructure (inland destinations as reference category) 

* Not significant

Probability estimate

In order to facilitate the interpretation of the results, the coefficients were transformed into probabilities of the variables with the greatest impact on the model by varying the number of lodging establishments, the number of establishments for the consumption of food; availability of places for leisure and recreation activities, number of cultural establishments and increase in temperature, keeping the other variables constant.

Figure 1: Probability of visiting inland, beach and border destinations against changes in the availability of lodging establishments (percentage). Source: Own 

As shown in Figure 1, the effect of increasing lodging establishments has a positive relationship in beach destinations and, to a lesser extent, border, whereas the impact is negative for inland destinations. The results obtained suggest in the case of inland destinations that, in the face of a greater number of places of lodging, the chances of going tend to decrease due to two reasons. First, a large number of tourists who come to these destinations do so for rest and tranquility. Therefore, an increase in the number of accommodations could be perceived as a greater arrival of tourists, which could affect rest than those who come for such purposes. Secondly, considering that inland destinations are mainly aimed at promoting cultural, historical and gastronomic tourism, an increase in the lodging infrastructure could jeopardize the architectural landscape of the place, which would reduce the incentive to visit such destinations. On the other hand, beach destinations have been characterized in our country by a strong influx of tourists aimed at leisure, leisure and recreation activities, in which the availability of accommodation plays a strong incentive.

Figure 2: Probabilities of visiting inland, beach and border destinations due to changes in the availability of food establishments (percentage). Source: own 

With regard to the availability of food establishments, Figure 2 shows an increase in the likelihood of going to inland and border destinations, whereas, in the case of beach destinations, they have a negative relationship. This corroborates the findings obtained in previous studies around the role and weight of the architectural, cultural and gastronomic aspects in the inland destinations where these are attractive of great value to tourists who come (^{Hernandez-Mogollón & Di-Clemente, 2015}; ^{Prada et al., 2016}).

In the case of beach destinations the effect is negative, indicating that these attributes are a disincentive, either as a result of a large part of tourists coming to beach destinations, contracting all-inclusive services, or, because in this type of the foods that are predominantly offered are sea, Then, a greater variety of dishes of another type is not an important element. Finally, and in the case of border sites, the availability of places to eat is vitally important because it is in these destinations that attractions are not associated with leisure or recreation activities, or the realization of cultural activities, but to spend a pleasant stay (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Probabilities of visiting inland, beach and border destinations due to changes in the availability of leisure and recreation establishments (percentage). Source: own 

In the case of the availability of rest, leisure and recreation establishments, it is noted that, since beach destinations play a leading role in the border places, no changes are observed; and in inland destinations, the impact is negative. These results suggest that, since beach tourists seek leisure and recreation activities, those of internal tourism seek more peaceful and quiet spaces; for border destinations, such establishments have virtually no weight.

Figure 4: Probabilities of visiting inland, beach and border destinations due to changes in the availability of cultural spaces (percentage). Source: own. 

In issues of availability of cultural spaces, the results show the importance they have in beach destinations. On the other hand, the effect is reversed in inland destinations. The reasons that could explain the negative relationship in inland destinations may be associated with the fact that in these types of destinations, the incorporation of more cultural spaces is not necessarily accompanied by an added value of the place. Moreover. This could lead to an over-saturation of spaces that could be a disincentive to offering unattractive products without great cultural content (museums with few works of art to name an example). For its part, the existence of cultural spaces shows no significant impact on border destinations.

Figura Nº 5. Probabilities of visiting inland, beach and border destinations due to changes in the destination temperature (percentage). 

Finally, with respect to the temperature variable, it can be observed that changes in the temperature significantly affect the different types of destination. As seen in Figure 5, low temperatures stimulate the visit of tourists to border destinations, inhibiting as counterparts the inland and beach places. Temperatures considered moderate increase the likelihood of going to inland destinations and reduce the interest of going to beach and border destinations. Finally, high temperatures stimulate the arrival of tourists to beach destinations and reduce the intention to visit inland and border destinations. The results obtained in this variable, corroborate the findings in other studies that observe the weight of climatic conditions in tourist demand (^{Olcina-Cantos & Vera-Rebollo, 2016}; ^{Bujosa-Bestard & Rosselló-Nadal, 2011}).