ri

, Tao

omman

of ptou

Hanshas a tourist-enhancing effectulturaomment they

presenfcienestimagnica

within variation. Thus, the effect of the presence of spots on theWHL in terms of attracting tourists is not robust. Finally, Cellini(2011) provides an Italian case which shows that the presence ofUNESCO WHL sites does not affect the growth rate of touristovernights per resident in Italian regions during 1996e2007. Based

effect of the WHL on tourism attraction is far from being clear-cut

However, what has changed is the label given by the UNESCO andthis recognition is treated as a panacea for promoting tourism inmany countries, especially China (Ryan & Gu, 2009). Having beenincluded on a WHL as a Historic Centre in 2005, Macau provides anexcellent case to examine this issue, because Macau is a smallregion and has only one WHL site.

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: chyang@mgt.ncu.edu.tw (C.-H. Yang), huilin@ntu.edu.tw

1 Italy has 44 sites on the WHL and ranks top in the world.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management

ls

Tourism Management 32 (2011) 455e456(H.-L. Lin).in the xed effects models (columns (2), (4), and (6)). As the poolingOLS estimators are probably biased in the presence of signicantindividual effects, Cellini (2011) considers that the correct conclu-sion would be that being included on the WHL has no effect interms of fostering tourism. Second, Arezki, Cherif, and Piotrowski(2009) adopt a wide cross-section of countries to examine howthe number of WHL sites affects tourism specialization and how itcontributes to economic growth. While the number of WHS spotshas a signicantly positive inuence on tourism specialization incross-sectional regressions, it appears to be weak in exploiting the

sectional dimension, the question we would like to investigateeconometrically is whether regions with more WHL sites attractmore international tourists than regions with fewerWHL sites aftercontrolling for a variety of variables. For example, given the sameyear, does Italy attract more foreign tourists than its Europeancounterparts due to more UNESCO WHLs?1 On the other hand, theissue of the time dimension is useful in comparing the number oftourist arrivals before and after sites were included on the WHLwithin a region. The number of historical, natural and cultural sitesis xed over time by nature, since theywere established in the past.UNESCO World Heritage List (WHL)in China, especially in relation to c(2011) has quickly put forward cinsightful observations. We feel thadeserve a further discussion.

Cellinis observations are brieyTable 4 of Yang et al. (2010), the coesignicantly positive in pooling OLSand (5)), while they are always not si0261-5177/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.03.011l heritage sites, Cellinits that include threeare very valuable and

ted as follows. First, ints of WHL variables aretions (columns (1), (3),ntly different from zero

and robust.Each of these observations is of value. We agree with Cellini that

the main purpose of the UNESCO WHLs is to protect and preservetheworlds cultural and natural heritages with outstanding value tohumanity rather than to promote tourist ows. However, beingincluded among the sites on the WHLs may also have the addedeffect of promoting tourism and can be examined from both cross-sectional and time-series dimensions. In terms of the cross-In response to Yang, Lin, and (2010) claim that the on the above observations, Cellini (2011) concludes that the realIs UNESCO recognition effective in fosteand Han: Reply

Chih-Hai Yang a,*, Hui-Lin Lin b

aDepartment of Economics, National Central University, 300 Jhongda Road, Jhongli 320bDepartment of Economics, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 22 February 2010Accepted 22 March 2010

Keywords:TourismWorld Heritage ListEconometrics

a b s t r a c t

This note replies Cellinis cand Han (2010, Tourism Mshort-run, the xed effecton attracting internationalattract more tourists.

journal homepage: www.eAll rights reserved.ng tourism? A comment on Yang, Lin

yuan, Taiwan, ROC

ent on the real effect of WHL in inducing more tourist arrivals in Yang, Linagement). Due to the time-invariant feature of the WHL number in theanel data model seems to be inadequate on evaluating the impact of WHLrists. However, pooling estimates show that a region with more WHLs can

2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

evier .com/locate/ tourman

Themain advantage of panel data is its ability to provide data forexamining distinct questions from both cross-sectional and time-series dimensions. Based on the pooling estimates of our study, it isevident that the number of WHL sites represents a powerful enginefor tourism attraction. The cross-country analysis conducted byArezki et al. (2009) also lends support to the importance of WHL inthe cross-sectional dimension. These econometric evaluationsseem to support the rooted belief that WHL sites can have a criticaleffect on tourism. From the point of view of econometric tech-niques, Naude and Saayman (2005) argue that by estimating thedeterminants of tourist arrivals using panel data with a short timespan, the pooling estimation can serve as an appropriate technique,even if it does not take unobserved regional heterogeneity intoaccount. In our opinion, our empirical estimates show the impor-tance of the WHL in terms of attracting tourism, at least for Chinabased on cross-sectional evidence.

On the other hand, Cellini (2011) emphasizes that the positivecoefcient of the WHL variable obtained by the xed effects modelis statistically insignicant, implying that the WHL has no effect.Here we would like to point out that the xed effects model isestimated by removing the overall region means, (yit yi). There-fore, the results can be interpreted as the time dimensional effect ofthe WHL. We may examine this point case by case. In the case ofArezki et al. (2009), the within estimates are consistent with thending that the WHL is insignicant. In the Italy case, Cellini (2011)also nds that theWHL is ineffective in inducing a higher growth oftourist arrivals as time passes. Since our xed effects model isneither signicant, we have drawn a conservative conclusion in ourpaper. Nevertheless, the evidence obtained may not be convincing.

from 29 in 2000 to 30 in 2001e2002, to 33 in 2003, and to 35 in2004e2005. The results imply that the number of WHL sites isalmost time-invariant in many regions, preventing the xed effectsmodel from obtaining a consistent estimator (Hsiao, 2004).Therefore, a more adequate technique to deal with this problem,such as a two-stage double xed effects model, is probablyneeded.2

Although the original purpose of listing theWorld Heritage siteswas to protect and maintain these tangible and intangible assetsbelonging to humankind, they are often adopted in tourismpropaganda by travel agents, newspapers, and even the ofcialtourism departments of many countries. Since the effectiveness ofthe WHL in terms of attracting tourists remains unclear so far, thisquestion can specically be examined in terms of various differentdimensions, such as numbers of observed units, and comparisonsacross regions and within regions, and so on. More empiricalstudies using appropriate and precise econometric techniques areneeded. The evidence obtained from these studies will enable us tohave a better understanding of this issue and will provide insightfulimplications for heritage policy.

References

Arezki, R., Cherif, R., & Piotrowski, J. (2009). Tourism specialization and economicdevelopment: Evidence from the UNESCO World Heritage List. IMF Working Paper,09/176.

Bartel, A. P., & Sicherman, N. (1999). Technological change and wages: an interin-dustry analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 107(2), 285e325.

Cellini, R. (2011). Is UNESCO recognition effective in fostering tourism? A commenton Yang, Lin and Han. Tourism Management, 32(2), 458e460.

Hsiao, C. (2004). Analysis of panel data. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

C.-H. Yang, H.-L. Lin / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 455e456456Technologically we would like to emphasize that the estimatedcoefcients for theWHL variables are not reliable and robust due tothe time-invariant feature of theWHL variables in the short-run. Asshown in Table 2 of Yang et al. (2011), the accumulated sites inChina included on the WHL have changed only slightly, increasing2Naude, W. A., & Saayman, A. (2005). The determinants of tourist arrivals in Africa:a panel data regression analysis. Tourism Economics, 11(3), 365e391.

Ryan, C., & Gu, H. (2009). Tourism in China: Destination, cultures and communities.London: Routledge.

Yang, C. H., Lin, H. L., & Han, C. C. (2010). Analysis of international tourist arrivals inChina: the role of World Heritage Sites. Tourism Management, 31(6), 827e837.For the details of the two-stage double xed effects model, please refer to Barteland Sicherman (1999).

Is UNESCO recognition effective in fostering tourism? A comment on Yang, Lin and Han: ReplyReferences