|
on Tourism Economics |
| By: | Fabio Cerina; Sauveur Giannoni |
| Abstract: | We build a growth model in which tourism development generates pollution while tourists are pollution adverse. We establish that long run positive growth exists only for a particular value of tourists pollution adversion. Furthermore, we show that an intensive use of facilities is associated with a lower growth rate for destinations specialized in green tourism. We also see that if the destination can choose the degree of use of facilities, tourism will generate positive growth only if tourists are not too much pollution adverse. In this case the growth rate of the economy will be a negative function of tourists' adversion to pollution so that the "greener" the kind of tourism the destination address to, the slower its growth. |
| Keywords: | Pollution, Growth, Tourism Specialization, Use of Facilities |
| JEL: | O41 Q56 L83 |
| Date: | 2008 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cns:cnscwp:200822&r=tur |
| By: | Hanagriff, Roger; Lau, Michael H. |
| Abstract: | In this paper, we review the tourism impact from supported tourism events and measure their economic value to the local economy. The economic values are the result of visitor spending and extrapolated to total event attendance creates economic values from the state-supported event. Communities receiving funding were responsible for collecting visitor surveys to measure consumer spending as well as the community completing a survey to record the investment cost of the event. The results were that state support represented 14 percent of the total event investment and total event value from visitor spending was $7.8 million for 31 events. The state percent share in value represents $1.1 million and considering the program-expended funds of $147,276 there is a $7.50 return for every $1 of state funding. Economic impacts from the funds add additional value and measure total economic value to Texas. We conclude that state supported programs focusing in the area of partial marketing support can create positive return on investment value of state funding. |
| Keywords: | tourism, economic development, Texas tourism, state sponsored tourism, Agribusiness, Agricultural and Food Policy, Community/Rural/Urban Development, Marketing, |
| Date: | 2009–02–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:saeana:46827&r=tur |
| By: | Myles, Albert E.; Carter, Rachael |
| Abstract: | With the use of this dynamic spreadsheet model, tourism managers can gain valuable insight into tourism and special events. This insight can help them plan future events or evaluate whether the costs of producing these events are justified by the benefits. Visitor spending from outside the county creates direct sales in the local economy. Each dollar of direct sales adds indirect and induced spending in the county. Besides these impacts, visitor spending produces labor income and jobs for residents in the county. |
| Keywords: | economic impact, activity, event, employment, income, sales, and tax revenues direct, indirect, and total impact, Community/Rural/Urban Development, Consumer/Household Economics, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies, Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession, |
| Date: | 2009 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:saeana:46857&r=tur |
| By: | Levy, Daniel; Müller, Georg; Chen, Allan (Haipeng); Bergen, Mark; Dutta, Shantanu |
| Abstract: | The Thanksgiving-Christmas holiday period is a major sales period for US retailers. Due to higher store traffic, tasks such as restocking shelves, handling customers’ questions and inquiries, running cash registers, cleaning, and bagging, become more urgent during holidays. As a result, the holiday-period opportunity cost of price adjustment may increase dramatically for retail stores, which should lead to greater price rigidity during holidays. We test this prediction using weekly retail scanner price data from a major Midwestern supermarket chain. We find that indeed, prices are more rigid during holiday periods than non-holiday periods. For example, the econometric model we estimate suggests that the probability of a price change is lower during holiday periods, even after accounting for cost changes. Moreover, we find that the probability of a price change increases with the size of the cost change, during both, the holiday as well as non-holiday periods. We argue that these findings are best explained by higher price adjustment costs (menu cost) the retailers face during the holiday periods. Our data provides a natural experiment for studying variation in price rigidity because most aspects of market environment such as market structure, industry concentration, the nature of long-term relationships, contractual arrangements, etc., do not vary between holiday and nonholiday periods. We, therefore, are able to rule out these commonly used alternative explanations for the price rigidity, and conclude that the menu cost theory offers the best explanation for the holiday period price rigidity. |
| Keywords: | Price Rigidity; Sticky Price; Rigid Price; Cost of Price Adjustment; Menu Cost; Holiday Period; Asymmetric Price Adjustment; Monetary Policy |
| JEL: | L16 M31 E12 L11 E31 E52 E50 M21 |
| Date: | 2008–05–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:13095&r=tur |