Travel Destinations Competitiveness

How competitive is Ethiopia as an African tourist destination? What a place does Ethiopia
hold in the minds of tourists who have decided to visit Ethiopia? Does this place change after
their visit? These are the main questions that will be dealt in this chapter.
A good example of competitiveness analysis is the model that was developed in a
collaborative effort by researchers in Korea and Australia (Dwyer et al, 2003) and applied by
Omerzel (2006) on the competitiveness of Slovenia.
The model classifies the major tourism
determinants under six main headings: inherited resources, created resources, supporting
factors and resources, destination management, situational conditions, and demand
conditions. Inherited resources are further classified as natural (including physiography,
climate, flora and fauna) and cultural (like the destinations’ history, customs, architectural
features, and traditions). Created resources consist of tourism infrastructure, special events,
entertainment, shopping and any available activities while supporting resources provide the
foundations for a successful tourism industry. They comprise general infrastructure, quality
of services, hospitality, and accessibility of destination.
Destination management takes account of factors that enhance the attractiveness of the
inherited and created resources and strengthen the quality of the supporting factors. The
factors of situational conditions can moderate, modify or even mitigate destination
competitiveness. This can be a positive or unlikely negative influence on the
competitiveness. There would seem to be many types of situational conditions that influence
destination competitiveness. These are destination location, micro and macro environment,
the strategies of destination firms and organizations, security and safety and the political
dimension. If demand is to be effective, tourists must be aware of what a destination has to
offer. The awareness, perception and preferences are three main elements of the tourism
demand.
Omerzel’s (2006) study was quite comprehensive and was mainly based on the ratings by
tourism officials and professionals of Slovenia and the frame of reference is the current
tourism development in the world. So, ‘excellent’ meant ‘excellent in the world’.
As the objective of the study is looking for tourist flow determinants, identifying Ethiopia’s
major strengths and weaknesses in tourists’ minds would tell what factors attract tourists and
what deficiencies repel them or send negative signals to future tourists. Accordingly, in this
study, Omerzel’s (2006) way is slightly modified and tourists are asked to rank Ethiopia as
compared to an average African country image they have in mind in each item of
comparison. The items of comparison have focused mainly on inherited resources, created
resources and situational factors. Other categories are either not applicable to the Ethiopian
case or not to be answered by tourists rather by officials. In addition, as a way of assessing
the image Ethiopia has in the world, they were asked to give all the rankings before and after
their visit.

More than 300 questionnaires were distributed through 16 tour operators that were selected
based on their ability to entertain more tourists. Unfortunately, the response rate was less
than 10% (only 17 questionnaires). This forced us to look for individual tourists who have
finished visiting at least half of their planned sites. The National Museum of Ethiopia was the
final but best resort to get these tourists3. There, it was possible to get additional 124
respondents, raising our total respondents to 141. Obviously, one would not expect the
tourists to answer all the questions they are asked, as that depends on their personal
willingness and understanding of the question. Yet, missing values could still have their own
meanings and hence incomplete responses would not be rejected (in fact, there is virtually
no complete response).