Comparison Between Canada’s And USA Tourism Competitiveness

Discuss the comparison between canada’s and usa tourism competitiveness.

Tourism and the travel sectors in the USA and Canada have been encountering tremendous threats based on its operational conditions. Therefore, in order this industry to be improved there is need for the institutions of various tools which will enable managers evaluate the situation. These tools are essential during the process of finding out and evaluating the current problems and formulating vivid data on how to improvise the current situation. Consequently, this facilitates the harmonization of some essential shareholders within the tourist destinations in Canada and the USA. Therefore, the most effective tools in assessing the present situation are used in determining the competitiveness of the tourist sector (Akhoondnejad, 2015). According to the world economic forum, identifying the significance of the current international economies of Canada and the US will be pointed out in this paper based on various competitive data of years in the travel and tourism competitiveness index.

Thus with the stated objectives of the Tourism and travel there is need to evaluate the national levels through a comparative evaluation of current stakeholders in order to acquire prospective strategic forwardness. Additionally, there exist a greater tourism and travel literature concerning the sectors competitiveness although there should be precise enactment of certain competitive structures of the micro tourism destinations within the Canadian and the US tourism industry. Therefore, the main objective of the paper is by evaluating the competitiveness of two countries which are the US and Canada tourism destinations (Lew, 2018). Consequently, the main aim of the paper is creating a better competitive nature of the two countries, and evaluating the tourism sectors of the countries. Thus the technique and the methods employed for the implementation of the topic is centered on the various competitive models which will be outlined in the paper below. Additionally, the paper will assess the competitive nature of Canada and USA through evaluating a thorough evaluation of the countries competitive nature (Xiao, 2010). Canada and USA were specifically selected due to the close linkage of history about the infrastructure and the tourist sector of the two countries.

Research Question: What are the main difference between Canada’s and USA competitiveness of the tourism sector?

Relating to the chosen destinations of the tourism sectors, competitive nature models presented by Katircioglu (2009), which evaluated the two countries survey analysis specifically carried out the competitiveness of Canada and USA. Therefore the exact tourism destinations chosen were similar relating to the set indicators which apply. Thus as recommended a list of indicators will be chosen of Canada’s and USA destinations will be selected. Thus the commonest research approach instituted in this paper’s competitiveness structure is based on the tourism visitor’s recommendations. Based on this scenario, a survey will be conducted based on various observations from young tourism students and other senior members of the tourism department. Consequently, about 130 questionnaires were used with 73 from America and about 57 from the Canadian tourism sector.

Comparison between USA and Canada tourism

 Thus in orders to acquire a more vivid evaluation of the respondents of certain indicators, the final findings were categorized in ten segments. Thus in the ten divisions the findings were recorded in tables and the mean and the standard deviations were thus recorded together. Additionally, in evaluating the hypotheses, an independent sample T-test was applied in this scenario (Plunkett & Park, 2018). Although the paper will have various types of T tests which will be availed using the SPSS T test. An independent sample test will be employed in order to acquire direct comparison of the groups mean scores of the people’s conditions. In this set piece there will be dissimilar conditions used in Canada’s and USA tourism destinations (LEDWINA & WY?UPEK, 2012). Focused on the research question, 4 hypotheses were suggested in order to create a clear comparison of the competitive nature of both Canada and USA as the stated tourist destinations. Thus the hypotheses include:

• H1: USA tourism is more competitive compared to Canada in field transport
• H2: USA as a tourist destination is more competitive more than Canada in hospitality
• H3: USA as a tourist destination is more competitive more than Canada in the primary offer
• H4: USA as a tourist destination is more competitive more than Canada in the secondary field.

The paper’s objective is providing a clear analysis of the US and Canadian travel and tourism industry over a number of years. Thus this tourism and travel segment incorporated about 44% of the tourists, although there was a greater share based on the state visits and close to all visitor’s spending rates. The past years tendency rates in the tourism sector in both countries have hugely increased which are upheld for enhancement (Babushko, 2014). According a survey conducted in the data analysis section sample results were drawn with about 18,637 responses from the trip records, which in the end summed up to about 25,200 which were the unduplicated stated person visits (Tavares & Tran, 2018). Consequently, this section will also provide a thorough analysis of Canada’s and US tourism competitiveness using different metrics such as the competitiveness index of the countries alongside the comparative advantages of the two countries.

According to the results presented in table 1 it shows the performance of Canada and the USA based on the TTC pillars. Furthermore it shows clear comparison of the two countries based on the overall index and the TT regulatory frameworks.  According to the table it shows that the two countries are among the topmost performers and are included in the pillars of the TT industry (Smith, 2014). These two countries are the best performers in the two pillars as shown in the table below.

Table 1: Canada and USA performance in each pillar of the TTC

	Overall Index			TT Regulatory Framework
Country/Economy	Regional rank	Overall Rank	Score	Rank	Score
United States of America	1	6	5.30	44	5.01
Canada	2	9	5.29	25	5.28

According to the table shown above it exhibits the regional rankings of America’s tourism sector. Evidenced in the table below, America is ranked top in position of which shows that is ranked as number 6 in the tourism sector. The country is positioned as 3^rd based on the industry’s environmental and infrastructural with leading human, cultural, and presence of natural resources (Shipside, 2011). Precisely the US comprises of vast and high quality air transport (2^nd) and a high tourism infrastructure (Yates, 2009). Based on the country’s cultural perspective, US is ranked 6^th position while its natural resources are thus ranked to be 3^rd compared to Canada. This is due to the fact that the country has vast number of restricted and protected areas which huge number of natural sites and sufficient environment which is also highly protected (thus ranked 105^th).

On the other hand, Canada is ranked as position nine and second according to the regional perspective. Canada has natural resources which are the key stronghold of the country’s tourism sector. Due to this its ranked as position 4 in the global market. Consequently the country comprises of vast number of international exhibitions and trade fairs which highly improve the cultural nature of the country (Miller, 2010). Also the air transport system in Canada are improvised which makes Canada be ranked as position one in both the air transport and the IT sectors with a conducive online T&T surroundings. Also the environmental policies enacted in the country are much developed which results to the improvement of the sector.

Comparative advantage for emerging economies: Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Index pillars

Based on the comparative advantages acquired in evaluating Canada’s and the US travel and tourism economies, various satisfying observations are made in this analysis. All this factors summed up in one pillar the competitiveness of the T&T industry of both Canada and USA will be evaluated by the price competitive pillars which will enable both countries outfit each other. The highly ranked resource is the ICT infrastructure which incorporates unique improved economies as shown in table 2 (Yates, 2009). Additionally, the tourism infrastructure, health and hygiene, culture, transport, safety and security, and human resources are included in the tourism sector of both Canada and the USA. This shows clear medium ranking of the countries exhibiting even similarity although with a minimal gap in average rank. Thus according to the table below the much developed country is the USA which progress 86.0.

Comparative advantage for emerging economies

Table 2: Comparative advantage for emerging economies: Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Index pillars of both Canada and US

			Canada			USA
			Average rank	Highest	Lowest	Average rank	Highest	Lowest
Sub-index	Pillar number	Pillar Title	18.6	1	54	86.0	25	139
B	9	ICT infrastructure	18.9	1	41	85.9	13	139
C	11	Human resources	21.7	1	59	85.0	12	139
A	3	Safety and security	23.5	1	73	84.5	17	139
B	7	Ground transport infrastructure	23.6	1	63	84.4	10	139
B	6	Air transport infrastructure	25.0	1	122	84.0	4	139
C	14	Cultural resources	25.0	1	67	84.0	16	139
C	13	Natural resources	61.5	3	137	72.6	1	139
B	10	Price competitiveness in T&T industry	107.5	17	139	58.3	1	133

The main present strategic priorities for the increasing tourism sector in both Canada and the US can thus be concluded as shown below:

• The present Canadian and the US tourism sector is dependent on the local pleasure travel destinations. Through the inbound travel which has substantially increased over time, both countries should have rigid focus on the local travel models in order to improve the tourist sectors of the two countries.
• Presently there is high support of the economic characteristics of both countries domestic travel – Due to the decrease of the Canadian and the US dollar, there has been a downtrend in the gas prices. This leads to postponing of various trips in international countries thus aiming at improving the domestic tourism sector (Buhalis, Darcy & Ambrose, 2012). Short-term the US and Canada’s landscape are more inviting thus being in a position of favoring the tourism sector. Additionally, people should not rely much on the value of oil prices and present currency rate because of the short term effect imposed on the sector.
• Due to the present domestic factors which are favorable in the present situation, it makes it difficult for any individual not t be attached from the long term objective through the creation of the likeness of travel in both US and Canada travels which will improve the prosperity of the country’s tourism and travel industries. Presently, us is the greatest competitors of Canada in the tourism sector, therefore this provides a common point where there should be marketing efforts to be instituted in the tourist sector. Additionally, the currency exchange rates provided clear merits which will upheld the tourism sector in Both Canada and the US in the domestic sector.

In thus section the main discussion will be focused on around 112 items between the US and Canada. Thus it is assumed that the current hypothesis based on Canada’s competitive nature and the USA competitiveness has been evaluated based on a set of respondents. Projecting on the overall hypothesis it is thus recorded that the USA is more competitive compared to the Canada as stated by the results from respondents. On a personal perspective of the results, for 6 groups selected from USA there was a greater mean, and for the whole results there was clear evidence that the statistical results was statistically validated evidenced based (Arch G. Woodside., 2011). The 112 items were assessed fewer than four which exhibits the critic of the respondent’s perception of the stated destinations. Through the selection of the comparable countries and direct evaluation of the two countries, the study evaded the critic of the search results, which was difficult in comparing other nations.

Thus conducting a deep scan on the tourism students it was deduced that it was hard in assessing the indicators which made it difficult for acquiring data from the two countries. Additionally the respondents commented that the process of assessing the macro environment was rather much difficult compared to the other segments due to limited information. Therefore, this provides clear proof of the major weakness exhibited in the present models used in the research methodology (Hottola, 2009). Additionally, according to search results it is reflected that there is much use of the various generic instruments which both apply in the tourism destinations competitiveness stated in the paper. Certainly, evaluating the competitiveness of these indicators, this shows specific incorporation of the two destinations mentioned.

According to Arch G. Woodside (2011) expressing TTCI positioning just enlightens us regarding the travel industry intensity or the capability of every nation dependent on its basic monetary, infrastructural and natural elements, ignoring how much every nation takes advantage of its superstructure, or the particular cordiality and the travel industry highlights it has made to render the goal more appealing. Hottola, (2009) are affirming that TTCI is the most essential instrument to gauge goal aggressiveness. This reality does not help smaller scale goals when they wish to evaluate their intensity. They likewise require legitimate instruments to quantify intensity. The hypothetical and down to earth ramifications of this examination are going toward the path that we gain tried instrument for estimating the aggressiveness of small scale beach front goals.

It is hard to get such an extensive number of genuine partners in the littler goals in the district, which is the reason such genuine research is considerably more untrustworthy. As a result of that it is much more basic that the instrument is legitimate and consistent to the most noteworthy degree conceivable. It was our aim to make such research conditions so respondents would have better comprehension of the considerable number of elements of goal aggressiveness with the end goal to pass confinement proposed by Shipside, (2011). There are a few constraints of this examination. To begin with, respondents were understudies. Given the feedback that voyagers don't have adequate learning of the goals (Smith, 2014), senior understudies of the personnel were picked as respondents, who really speak to youthful the travel industry experts. Second, respondents are for the most part residents of Croatia, which could establish subjectivity in noting questions, as one goal is in Croatia.

A third constraint identified with the quantity of respondents is moderately little. It is likewise evident that in the event that we would have the genuine partners in these goals as respondents, the number would not surpass twenty for every goal. The truth of the matter is that the discussion on the goal aggressiveness keeps going quite a while. It is likewise a reality that we got a decent model at the full scale phase, yet we are falling behind in making practical models for smaller scale goals (Hottola, 2009). On account of these realities we see numerous open doors for further research, particularly in course of further testing the instrument for its unwavering quality and legitimacy. We firmly trust that goal intensity models are basic devices for any sort of vital advancement action of the travel industry goals.

Conclusion

Therefore it can be conclusively be stated that the USA is much greater compared to the Canadian economy based on the competitive nature of the two countries and the allotting of resources. The US beauty and availability of natural resources is sufficient reason as to why the country has rigid competitive models in order to draw more tourist in the country compared to Canada. Thus the main aim of paper was designed to dig deep down on the tourism field of both Canada and the US economy. Therefore it is high time that Canada should increase its marketing strategies in the tourism sector which will enable the sector improve too levels at which that USA is currently in.

Consequently, through the improvement of Canada’s cost and awareness levels it will significantly help Canada in moving higher steps in the tourism sector. Thus the main target and scope the both the countries are experiencing is that the travel and tourism sector is in need of enormous reformation rules and policies which should be implemented with immediate effect. Various incremental reforms will not do any change in order to improve the current state of Canada and the US global tourism rankings in the marketplace. Thus it is high time that the governments should view the tourist industry as a major source of revenue in order much improvement can be projected the Canada and America’s tourism sectors.

References

Akhoondnejad, A. (2015). Analyzing the Pre-Travel, On-Travel, and Post-Travel Behaviors of Iran’s First-Time Visitors. Journal Of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(8), 1023-1033. doi: 10.1080/10548408.2014.957796

Arch G. Woodside. (2011). Tourism Sensemaking (3rd ed., p. 728). New York: Emerald Group Publishing.

Babushko, S. (2014). Comparative Analysis of Legislative Provision of Adult Education in the USA and Canada (Case Study: Professional Development of Tourism Employees). Comparative Professional Pedagogy, 4(2), 52-57. doi: 10.2478/rpp-2014-0019

Buhalis, D., Darcy, S., & Ambrose, I. (2012). Best practice in accessible tourism (4th ed., p. 60). Tonawanda, NY: Channel View Publications.

Hottola, P. (2009). Tourism strategies and local responses in Southern Africa (4th ed., p. 782). Wallingford: CABI.

Katircioglu, S. (2009). Revisiting the tourism-led-growth hypothesis for Turkey using the bounds test and Johansen approach for cointegration. Tourism Management, 30(1), 17-20. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.004

LEDWINA, T., & WY?UPEK, G. (2012). Two-Sample Test Against One-Sided Alternatives. Scandinavian Journal Of Statistics, 39(2), 358-381. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9469.2011.00787.x

Lew, A. (2018). Why travel? – travel, tourism, and global consciousness. Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 742-749. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2018.1490343

Miller, R. (2010). Travel (1st ed., p. 10). Princeton, N.J.: Peterson's.

Plunkett, A., & Park, J. (2018). Two-sample test for sparse high-dimensional multinomial distributions. TEST, 6(2), 234. doi: 10.1007/s11749-018-0600-8

Shipside, S. (2011). Travel (4th ed., p. 78). Oxford, U.K.: Capstone Pub.

Smith, W. (2014). Travel (4th ed., p. 6). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Administration.

Tavares, J., & Tran, X. (2018). Is there a Strategic Interdependence between the USA and Canada in the Tourism Sector? An Analysis using Game Theory. Tourism Planning & Development, 5(2), 1-14. doi: 10.1080/21568316.2018.1481453

Xiao, H. (2010). Research Associations as Network Facilitators: A Snapshot of the Travel and Tourism Research Association. Journal Of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(3), 269-286. doi: 10.1080/10548401003744693

Yates, V. (2009). Travel (6th ed., p. 45). Oxford: Heinemann Library.