Journal of Economic Structures

The Official Journal of the Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS)

Journal of Economic Structures Cover Image
Open Access

Repercussion effects of consumption by Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean tourists in Kyoto: using a regional waste input–output approach

Journal of Economic StructuresThe Official Journal of the Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS)20176:38

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-017-0099-2

Received: 28 February 2017

Accepted: 14 December 2017

Published: 27 December 2017

Abstract

Since the 2003 launch of the Visit Japan Campaign by Tourism Agency, the number of foreign visitors to this nation has climbed significantly, reaching 19.7 million people in 2015, a number 3.8 higher than 2003. The increase in tourists from China, Taiwan, and Korea was especially significant, accounting for 74% of Japan’s total visitors. Although the increased tourism yielded considerable economic benefits, it also stimulated direct and indirect environmental loads. In this study, we evaluated the direct and repercussion effects of visitors from China, Taiwan, and Korea to Kyoto, both economically and environmentally, using a regional waste input–output approach. For this purpose, we first estimated the direct effects which are the visitors’ consumption activities in Kyoto in 2000 and 2014. We found that direct consumption by those tourists increased 10-fold during that period, accounting for ¥134 billion in 2014, while repercussion effects of consumption on production values by those same visitors increased from ¥16 billion in 2000 to ¥176 billion in 2014. As for waste generation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, induced waste requiring treatment increased from 2809 (2000) to 26,856 tonnes (2014), and accompanying GHG emissions increased from 12,000 ton-CO2 (eq.) (2000) to about 144,000 ton-CO2 (eq.) in 2014. To depress the level of waste generation increase and the treatment that accompanies the promotion of tourism, environmental efficiency improvements in the two main industrial sectors related to tourism, “eating and drinking locations” and “lodging,” will be crucial. Additionally, encouraging “food waste,” “waste paper,” and “plastic bag” recycling activities could also prove effective. The results implied that imported goods from other parts of Japan were purchased by Kyoto visitors, which means that visitor consumption in Kyoto stimulated production activities in other parts of Japan, especially in the manufacturing industries.

Keywords

Regional waste input–output approachKyoto tourismChinese touristsKorean touristsTaiwan tourists

1 Background

Although tourism is an important economic sector and was responsible for 10% of gross domestic product (GDP) of the world in 2015 (United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) 2016), the Japanese government’s campaign to revitalize the tourism industry by inviting visitors to Japan started late. Faced with increasing globalization, a dwindling birth rate, an aging population, and an increasing shift from manufacturing to service industries, the Japanese government cast around for a new leading industry and began to focus on encouraging inbound tourism (Japan Tourism Agency (JTA) 2017a, b).

In the years since the launch of the JTA’s Visit Japan Campaign in 2003, the number of overseas tourists arriving has grown significantly, as shown in Fig. 1. This campaign was launched in conjunction with efforts by private companies, regional governments, and diplomatic missions abroad, as part of a combined effort to increase the number of visitors to Japan (JTA 2016b) by promoting Japan to overseas consumers and tourism companies. In conjunction with the campaign, the Japanese government also initiated a visa-exemption program and encouraged the establishment of tax-free shops. The results were mainly positive, and despite the occurrence of the global financial crises and natural disasters such as the Great East Japan Earthquake, the number of foreign visitors in Japan grew to 19.7 million people in 2015, which was about 3.8 times more than the 2003 total (Japan National Tourism Organization (JNTO) 2017). In 2014, consumption by foreign tourists exceeded ¥2 trillion yen.
Fig. 1

Tourist arrivals to Japan from 1995 to 2015

The success of the government’s campaign to revitalize the nation’s tourism-related industries can be seen in Fig. 1. At the start of the Visit Japan Campaign, the Japanese government initially specified 12 priority markets: Korea, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, Australia, United States (USA), Canada, United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Later, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippine, Vietnam, India, Italia, Russia, and Spain were added as eight additional primary markets.

Sumi (2011) applied the dynamic panel data model and showed that visitors from the Visit Japan Campaign priority markets statistically significantly increased in number, while also clarifying that the number of visitors from a priority market was positively related to an increase in the following year. This, in turn, implies an increase in repeat visitors and the effectiveness of word-of-mouth publicity.

However, it is problematic to judge the success of the Visit Japan Campaign solely by the increase in the number of visitors. While the original objectives of the campaign, as defined in the Tourism Nation Promotion Basic Law enacted in 2007 (JTA 2016d), focused on economic development, very few studies have investigated the repercussion effects of tourism-related consumption.

Therefore, it is important to consider both the quantity and quality of visitor consumption activities. For example, if an increase in the number of visitors results in less consumption than before, the economic effects of tourism decline, so it is important to identify the consumption activities which enlarge the economic effects of tourism because such information is useful when supporting tourist promotion policymaking efforts. According to the statistical data, visitor consumption per person differs in countries and regions (JTA 2016a). It would be advisable to enhance promotion efforts in the higher-consumption markets. Another important issue is the environmental point of view. Although increased tourism typically yields considerable economic benefits, it is also associated with a marked increase in waste generation and direct and indirect environmental loads in the sightseeing areas (Lenzen 2008). The present Tourism Nation Promotion Basic Law lacks such a viewpoint.

In consideration of these issues, this study seeks to evaluate the direct and repercussion effects of foreign visitors to Japan, both economically and environmentally. For the first step of this research project, we used a regional waste input–output approach (WIOA) focusing on Kyoto for the years of 2000 and 2014, and then evaluated the repercussion effects of consumption by visitors from China, Taiwan, and Korea.

The breakdown of visitors to Japan in 2015 shown in Fig. 1 indicates that visitors from Taiwan, China, and Korea accounted for 29, 25, and 20% of all visitors, respectively, and that the combined percentage total is about 74%. Huang (2011) pointed out that the Japanese campaign mainly targeted East Asian countries and economies that have been heavily influenced by Japanese popular culture, such as Korea, Taiwan, China, and Hong Kong. Yoshida (2013) investigated visitor arrivals to Japan from 2002 to 2010 and also pointed out that the increase in visitors was primarily caused by the campaign directed at Asia and that visitors from Europe and/or the USA did not contribute much to the increase. However, since the consumption activities of Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean visitors were found to differ from each other, we decided to compare the consumption activities of tourists from these three countries in 2000 and 2014 and see how drastically they vary in terms of quantity and quality.

We selected Kyoto as the target region for this study because many of Japan’s most famous tourist sites are located within the city and because tourism is one of the most important industries in this region. Additionally, Kyoto compiles and provides an abundance of tourism-related statistics, including data on visitor consumption activities. For example, since 2010 (after the start of the Visit Japan Campaign), the JTA has been conducting yearly detailed surveys of foreign visitors to Japan named the “Consumption Trend Survey for Foreigners Visiting Japan,” which investigates consumption activities based on their departure places. Additionally, Kyoto has been conducting its own survey of tourism from 1991, which is before the Visit Japan Campaign was launched. By utilizing these statistics, we could estimate and compare the consumption activities of visitors from China, Taiwan, and Korea in 2000 and 2014.

In this Kyoto-based study, we used a regional WIO table for the year 2000 (hereafter KWIOT2000) which was compiled by Ichikawa et al. (Ichikawa et al. 2011; Kagatsume et al. 2011; Tsukui et al. 2011). Note that while most early tourism input–output studies focused primarily on economic benefits (Fletcher 1989; Johnson and Moore 1993; Adams and Parmenter 1995; Archer and Fletcher 1996; Zhou et al. 1997; Dwyer et al. 2000; Tyrrell and Johnston 2001; Dwyer et al. 2004; Blake and Sinclair 2003; Cai et al. 2006), more recent studies have begun examining the environmental loads that accompany tourism. For example, Cline and Seidl (2010) examined the economic impact of these environmental changes on open space and water quality values in Colorado, USA, using a combination of non-market valuation and input–output approaches. However, the environmental factors considered in their studies were also the tourist attractions, and it was only later that Lenzen (2008) pointed out that an increase in tourism itself is always accompanied by an increase in waste generation, which must inevitably be treated within the target tourist site.

For its part, the Kyoto urban area entices visitors with its historical and cultural attractiveness. According to a 2015 questionnaire conducted by the Kyoto City government (Kyoto City Industry and Tourism Bureau 2015), most tourists come to see the city’s temples, shrines, and historical sites. Because Kyoto was the capital of Japan from 794 to 1868, more than 1000 years, there are numerous historical places to enjoy, including 17 temples, shrines, and castles, all of which are historically important and which have resulted in Kyoto being designated a World Cultural Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Most of those Kyoto City tourist attractions are located within a 3–4-km radius.

Kyoto is also well known as the birthplace of many forms of Japanese cuisine, which is another enticement that draws visitors to the city. In such an urban tourist environment, the primary industrial sectors that are stimulated by tourist consumption are restaurants and hotels, which primarily generate food, paper, and plastic wastes. In this study, since we sought an appropriate method for estimating the repercussion effects of visitor consumption in an urban tourist setting, we were drawn to the study by Tsukui et al. (2017), which investigated the repercussion effects of consumption by domestic tourists in Tokyo and Kyoto using an interregional WIOA. We then adopted the same basic analysis method in order to investigate the repercussion effects of consumption by visitors from China, Taiwan, and Korea.

The remainder of the present paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the regional WIO models used in our analysis. Section 3 presents the expenditure results for Kyoto visitors from China, Taiwan, and Korea in 2000 and 2014 estimated using a non-survey method. Section 4 presents the repercussion effects for the production values, waste generation amounts, waste treatment amounts, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Finally, our conclusions and issues for future consideration are presented in Sect. 5.

2 Model and data

2.1 Regional WIOA model

In this study, we investigate the repercussion effects resulting from expenditures by foreign tourists using a regional WIOA, which is considered to be well suited for simultaneously analyzing the effects of final demand on economics and the environment.

Table 1 shows the basic structure of the regional WIO table used in this study, which is the expansion of the conventional regional IO model of Isard (1951) and the WIO model of Nakamura and Kondo (2002). \({\mathbf{Z}}_{{\mathbf{I}}}\) and \({\mathbf{Z}}_{{{\mathbf{II}}}}\) denote the intermediate inputs of goods and services in the industrial and waste treatment sectors, respectively, in a specific region (i.e., Kyoto in this study). Subscripts I and II denote the industrial sectors and waste treatment sectors, respectively. \({\mathbf{W}}\) denotes waste generation, and \({\mathbf{V}}\) is a matrix denoting the value added. \({\mathbf{F}}\) I is a final demand vector, and \({\mathbf{F}}_{{\mathbf{W}}}\) is a vector denoting the amount of waste generated. \({\mathbf{E}}_{{\mathbf{I}}}\) is a vector denoting the international exports of goods and services, and \(\text{ - }{\mathbf{E}}_{{\mathbf{W}}}\) indicates the transport of waste resources from Kyoto to foreign countries. \({\mathbf{E}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}\) is a vector denoting the final demands of the Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean tourists visiting in Kyoto that were examined in this study. \({\mathbf{E}}_{{{\mathbf{Wf}}}}\) is a vector denoting the amount of waste which is disposed by tourists from these countries and areas. Because of the data issue, we assumed \({\mathbf{E}}_{{{\mathbf{Wf}}}}\) as zero in this study and tourists were assumed to dispose of their waste through industrial sectors such as hotels, restaurants, temples, and museums. \({\mathbf{M}}_{{\mathbf{I}}}\) is a vector denoting the international imports of goods and services, and \({ - }{\mathbf{M}}_{{\mathbf{W}}}\) indicates the transportation of waste resources from foreign countries to Kyoto. \({\mathbf{N}}_{{\mathbf{I}}}\) is a vector denoting the imports of goods and services from other regions of Japan, and \({ - }{\mathbf{N}}_{{\mathbf{W}}}\) indicates the transportation of waste resources from other regions of Japan to Kyoto. \({\mathbf{X}}_{{\mathbf{I}}}\) and \({\mathbf{X}}_{{{\mathbf{II}}}}\) denote the production value of the industrial and waste treatment sectors, respectively. The terms \(n_{x}\), \(n_{z}\), and \(n_{W}\) indicate the numbers of industrial sectors, waste treatment sectors, and waste categories, respectively.
$$\bar{A} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {A_{\text{I}} } & {A_{\text{II}} } \\ {SG_{\text{I}} } & {SG_{\text{II}} } \\ \end{array} } \right],\,\bar{X} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {X_{\text{I}} } \\ {SW} \\ \end{array} } \right]$$
(1)
$$\bar{F} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {F_{\text{I}} } \\ {SF_{\text{W}} } \\ \end{array} } \right],\,\bar{E}_{\text{f}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {E_{\text{F}} } \\ O \\ \end{array} } \right],\,\bar{E} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {E_{\text{I}} } \\ { - SE_{\text{W}} } \\ \end{array} } \right],\,\bar{M}_{\text{I}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - M_{\text{I}} } \\ O \\ \end{array} } \right],\,\bar{M}_{\text{II}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} O \\ {SM_{\text{W}} } \\ \end{array} } \right]\bar{N}_{\text{I}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - N_{\text{I}} } \\ O \\ \end{array} } \right],\,\bar{N}_{\text{II}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} O \\ {SN_{\text{W}} } \\ \end{array} } \right].$$
(2)
Table 1

Framework of regional waste input–output table

A I denotes the coefficient matrix of intermediate inputs per unit production value from the industrial sectors; A II is the coefficient matrix of intermediate inputs per unit amount of waste generated by the industrial sectors; G I is the coefficient matrix of waste generation per unit production value from industrial sectors; and G II is the coefficient matrix of the waste generated by the waste treatment sectors. These coefficient matrices are defined following Nakamura and Kondo (2002) and Kagawa and Kondo (2007). S is the allocation matrix, which is the ratio of the amount of waste that is treated by each waste treatment activity. \(\bar{A}\) is the extended coefficient matrix, \(\bar{F}_{{}}\) is the vector of the row sum of the domestic final demand, \(\bar{E}_{\text{f}}\) is the vector of consumption by foreign tourists, \(\bar{E}\) is the vector of the row sum of international exports, and \(\bar{X}\) is the vector of the row sum of the production value and waste treatment value:By applying Eqs. (1) and (2), the vector of the effect of consumption by foreign tourists \(\bar{X}_{\text{f}}\) can be represented as follows:
$$\bar{X}_{\text{f}} = (I - (I - \hat{M} - \hat{N})\bar{A})^{ - 1} \bar{E}_{\text{f}}$$
(3)
where \(\hat{M}\) is an international import coefficient matrix, and \(\hat{N}\) is a coefficient matrix denoting the transaction of goods and services between Kyoto and other regions. In this study, we estimated \(\bar{X}_{\text{f}}\) for Kyoto and evaluated the effects of consumption by tourists from China, Taiwan, and Korea on industrial sectors, waste generation sectors, waste treatment sectors, and the environmental loads of each sector. Environmental loads were estimated by multiplying the coefficient matrices by \(\bar{X}_{\text{f}}\).

2.2 Data

As previously mentioned, we adopted the regional KWIOT2000 table for this study. KWIOT2000 has 104 industrial sectors, eight value-added sectors, 11 final demand sectors, 92 waste categories, and 11 waste treatment sectors. Although the detailed compilation method is shown in Ichikawa et al. (2011), Kagatsume et al. (2011) and Tsukui et al. (2017), we used the “Year 2000 Kyoto Prefecture Input–Output Table,” published by Kyoto Prefecture (2004), Ministry of the Environment Secretariat, Waste/Recycling Measures Department (2002), New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) (2005) and Matsuto (2005) for estimations of waste generation and waste treatment, and the Embodied Energy and Emission Intensity Data for Japan Using Input–Output Tables (3EID) database (Nansai et al. 2008) for the estimation of GHG emissions. The advantage of the KWIOT2000 is that the industrial sector classification is sufficiently detailed to make it possible to allow correspondences with the item categories for goods in the Kyoto City survey.

Since the Visit Japan Campaign was initiated in 2003, this study attempted to compare visitor consumption for the years 2000 (which is the base year for the WIO table) and 2014 consumption levels (for which we have up-to-date statistical data). We estimated consumption levels by visitors from China, Taiwan, and Korea for both years using this statistical data, which were provided by the Japanese government, Kyoto City, and Kyoto Prefecture. The detailed estimations of visitor consumption activities, which are the direct effects of tourism, will be shown in Sect. 3.

3 Direct effects of visitor consumption in Kyoto

According to the statistical data provided by the Kyoto City (Kyoto City Industry and Tourism Bureau 2002, 2008, 2015) and the Kyoto Prefectural Government (2015), the number of Chinese visitors to Kyoto increased tenfold from 2000 to 2014, while visitors from Taiwan and Korea increased five- and twofold, respectively. As the number of visitors surged, visitor consumption levels also increased drastically. Tables 2 and 3 show the estimated consumption levels for Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean tourists in Kyoto.
Table 2

Estimated results for the number of visitors and consumption per person in Kyoto

 

2000

2014

China

Taiwan

Korea

China

Taiwan

Korea

The number of visitors

31,494

164,263

45,697

364,431

746,775

106,575

Consumption per person (yen)

48,771

52,165

52,686

58,375

169,598

44,422

Table 3

Direct effects of visitors’ consumption in Kyoto 2000 and 2014 (Unit: 105 yen)

No.

Sector classification

Item of goods in Kyoto City survey

2000

2014

China

Taiwan

Korea

China

Taiwan

Korea

10)

Foods

Sweets, and other foods

142

2180

564

7141

52,850

2984

11)

Refined sake

Japanese sake

19

237

66

1135

6697

407

12)

Japanese tea

Japanese tea

36

262

139

2421

8420

973

16)

Silk textile

Kimono

22

217

33

1281

6164

205

17)

Wearing apparel and other textile products

Wearing apparel and other textile products

146

1341

401

8339

36,944

2410

22)

Printing and publishing

Comic, DVD, cartoon film related product

4

29

3

230

716

17

29)

Medicaments

Medicaments

38

322

18

2342

9536

117

30)

Final chemical products

Cosmetics and supplement

181

1529

86

10,885

44,322

544

35)

Leather, fur skins and miscellaneous leather products

Bags and shoes

29

269

80

1631

7228

471

38)

Pottery, china and earthenware

Pottery, china and earthenware

81

605

127

4338

15,610

713

52)

Household electric appliances

Household electric appliances

116

149

4

15,902

9848

52

64)

Miscellaneous manufacturing products

Other souvenirs

19

108

30

1112

2976

182

78)

Railway transport

Railway transport

830

5005

1395

9233

114,795

2170

79)

Road transport

Road transport

1002

4463

1991

11,152

102,378

3097

89)

Education

Entrance fee, participation fees, etc.

1528

7185

1965

15,057

120,249

4346

100)

Eating and drinking places

Eating and drinking places

2124

10,921

3899

42,657

260,753

10,272

101)

Lodging

Lodging

8635

46,029

12,628

48,480

320,441

11,140

Total

 

14,953

80,853

23,429

183,336

1119,928

40,098

2014 prices adjusted to 2000 values

According to the “Consumption Trend Survey for Foreigners Visiting Japan for Year 2014” (JTA 2016a), foreign visitor expenditures in Japan by tourist destination prefectures are quite different, and consumption activity by tourists in their departure places is quite different as well. Furthermore, while consumption activity of tourists from different homelands is quite different depending on their destinations (Tsukui and Kagatsume 2016), there are no statistical data in Japan which surveyed consumption activity of tourists both by different homelands and by tourists destination simultaneously.

We estimated the visitor consumption due to tourism using the Kyoto City Annual Tourism Study Report for years 2001 and 2014 (Kyoto City Industry and Tourism Bureau 2002, 2015) and the Kyoto City Foreign Tourists Behavior Survey Report (Kyoto City Industry and Tourism Bureau 2008). These reports provided survey data for tourist expenditures by homelands for lodging, souvenirs, transportation, eating and drinking establishments, and other purposes such as entrance fees. They also provided detailed purchase data by tourist homeland for souvenirs based on goods category and means of transportation. Although we could not obtain unit price data for expenditures by goods and services from the Kyoto City survey, we could apply the unit price for goods and services expenditures provided by JTA (2016a) to fill the remaining gaps.

Table 3 shows that consumption by tourists from China, Taiwan, and Korea increased dramatically over the period from 2000 to 2014. For example, consumption by Chinese tourists increased from about ¥1 billion to ¥18 billion, consumption by Taiwanese tourists increased from ¥8 billion to ¥112 billion, and consumption by Korean tourists increased from ¥2 billion to ¥4 billion. However, the estimated results for consumption per person in Table 2 show that the total consumption increase by visitors from China and Korea was due to the increased number of visitors and that Taiwanese tourist consumption per person in 2014 was more than three times larger than in 2000. Consumption per visitor from China increased only 20% and that from Korea decreased 15% in 2014 from 2000 levels. One reason for the higher consumption by Taiwanese visitors than those of the other two nations is the duration of stay. According to the Kyoto City survey data (2015), about 40% of tourists from China and Korea visited Kyoto without staying overnight, while more than 75% of the Taiwanese tourists stayed two or more nights. One of the reasons for the decrease for consumption per visitor among Korean tourists is that Japan is the most accessible destination for foreign travel for Koreans (JTA 2017b): the flight time from Korea to Japan is only approximately 2 h. JTA (2017b) reported based on its analysis that most Korean tourists stay in Japan less than 3 days and that 67% of their visits to Japan in 2016 were revisits. Thus, the increase in the number of Korean tourists actually reflects an increase in the frequency of visits by individual tourists (Korea Culture and Tourism Institute 2017).

A breakdown of the consumption data showed another significant shift. Tourists from China, Taiwan, and Korea spent 58, 57, and 54%, respectively, of their total expenditures on “lodging” in 2000, but only 26, 29, and 28%, respectively, in 2014. In addition, tourists seem to be consuming more in order to enjoy Kyoto. For example, consumption of Japanese cuisine, which is categorized as “eating and drinking” and Japanese sweets, which is categorized as “foods,” showed increases among all visitors. Tourists from China spent more on home electronics and cosmetics than those from Korea and Taiwan, while Korean tourists spent more money on western-style fashions (not kimonos), which were categorized as “textiles.”

4 Repercussion effects of visitor consumption in Kyoto

Table 4 shows a breakdown of the indirect and repercussion effects on production values resulting from consumption by Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korea visitors for the years 2000 and 2014. In this study, the term “indirect effects” indicates the value of production induced by direct effects, and the term “repercussion effects” indicates the summation of direct effects and indirect effects. As the number of visitors from those three nations and economies to Kyoto increased, the repercussion effects of consumption by Chinese and Taiwanese tourists on 2014 production values soared more than 10 times higher than 2000 levels in tandem with consumption. Korean visitor levels were also increase two times larger in 2014 than in 2000. Consumption in Kyoto by visitors from China, Taiwan, and Korea resulted in production values of ¥16 billion in 2000 and ¥176 billion in 2014. The repercussion effects of Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean visitor consumption on Kyoto production values were only ¥2 billion, ¥11 billion, and ¥3 billion, respectively in 2000, but increased to ¥24 billion, ¥147 billion, and ¥5 billion, respectively, in 2014.
Table 4

Indirect effects and repercussion effects of visitor’s consumption on production value (Unit: 105 yen)

Sector classification

2000

2014

Indirect effects

Repercussion effects

Indirect effects

Repercussion effects

China

Taiwan

Korea

China

Taiwan

Korea

China

Taiwan

Korea

China

Taiwan

Korea

10) Foods

233 (5%)

1296 (5%)

385 (5%)

375

3476

949

2720 (5%)

17,421 (5%)

702 (6%)

9862

70,271

3686

12) Japanese tea

7 (0%)

40 (0%)

12 (0%)

44

302

151

99 (0%)

576 (0%)

27 (0%)

2520

8996

1001

15) Textile products

30 (1%)

247 (1%)

70 (1%)

30

247

70

1335 (2%)

6040 (2%)

362 (3%)

1335

6040

362

17) Wearing apparel and other textile products

28 (1%)

153 (1%)

43 (1%)

174

1495

444

246 (0%)

1489 (0%)

59 (0%)

8585

38,433

2468

30) Final chemical products

15 (0%)

93 (0%)

19 (0%)

195

1622

105

384 (1%)

1742 (0%)

42 (0%)

11,269

46,065

586

38) Pottery, china and earthenware

5 (0%)

27 (0%)

8 (0%)

86

632

134

53 (0%)

302 (0%)

11 (0%)

4391

15,912

724

52) Household electric appliances

1 (0%)

2 (0%)

0 (0%)

117

151

4

88 (0%)

69 (0%)

1 (0%)

15,990

9917

53

67) Repair of construction

166 (3%)

899 (3%)

253 (3%)

166

899

253

1807 (3%)

13,380 (4%)

413 (3%)

1807

13,380

413

70) Electricity

217 (5%)

1197 (5%)

335 (4%)

217

1197

335

2362 (4%)

16,043 (5%)

520 (4%)

2362

16,043

520

73) Water supply

156 (3%)

827 (3%)

238 (3%)

156

827

238

1450 (3%)

9543 (3%)

341 (3%)

1450

9543

341

74) Commerce

472 (10%)

2589 (10%)

762 (10%)

472

2589

762

6394 (11%)

35,848 (10%)

1413 (11%)

6394

35,848

1413

75) Finance and insurance

919 (19%)

5061 (19%)

1429 (19%)

919

5061

1429

8610 (15%)

64,396 (18%)

1934 (16%)

8610

64,396

1934

76) Real estate agencies and rental services

259 (5%)

1391 (5%)

400 (5%)

259

1391

400

2506 (4%)

15,560 (4%)

560 (5%)

2506

15,560

560

78) Railway transport

29 (1%)

156 (1%)

45 (1%)

858

5160

1440

387 (1%)

2289 (1%)

83 (1%)

9620

117,084

2254

79) Road transport

91 (2%)

516 (2%)

148 (2%)

1093

4979

2139

1359 (2%)

7648 (2%)

300 (2%)

12,511

110,026

3396

80) Self-transport by private cars

183 (4%)

994 (4%)

278 (4%)

183

994

278

1649 (3%)

10,279 (3%)

383 (3%)

1649

10,279

383

85) Services relating to transport

143 (3%)

747 (3%)

225 (3%)

143

747

225

1097 (2%)

8238 (2%)

260 (2%)

1097

8238

260

86) Communication

245 (5%)

1315 (5%)

384 (5%)

245

1315

384

2770 (5%)

17,348 (5%)

605 (5%)

2770

17,348

605

89) Education

8 (0%)

48 (0%)

13 (0%)

1536

7232

1979

113 (0%)

822 (0%)

21 (0%)

15,170

121,071

4367

90) Research

54 (1%)

348 (1%)

62 (1%)

54

348

62

2475 (4%)

8370 (2%)

206 (2%)

2475

8370

206

95) Advertising, surveillance and information services

124 (3%)

693 (3%)

190 (3%)

124

693

190

1858 (3%)

9939 (3%)

337 (3%)

1858

9939

337

97) Repair of motor vehicles and machine

157 (3%)

816 (3%)

264 (4%)

157

816

264

1944 (3%)

13,007 (4%)

448 (4%)

1944

13,007

448

98) Other business services

204 (4%)

1113 (4%)

318 (4%)

204

1113

318

2405 (4%)

15,516 (4%)

533 (4%)

2405

15,516

533

100) Eating and drinking places

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2124

10,921

3899

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

42,657

260,753

10,272

101) Accommodations

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

8635

46,029

12,628

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

48,480

320,441

11,140

102) Other personal services

135 (3%)

719 (3%)

201 (3%)

135

719

201

931 (2%)

6088 (2%)

214 (2%)

931

6088

214

Other

873 (18%)

4833 (19%)

1382 (19%)

1005

6015

1612

12,930 (22%)

68,786 (20%)

2611 (21%)

20,661

102,104

4009

Total

4755 (100%)

26,116 (100%)

7464 (100%)

19,708

106,970

30,893

57,975 (100%)

350,741 (100%)

12,387 (100%)

241,310

1470,668

52,485

As shown in Table 4 and Fig. 2, “100) Eating and drinking places,” “101) Lodging,” and “89) Education” are industrial sectors which showed relatively large repercussion effects. In both 2000 and 2014, production activities in “75) Finance and insurance,” “74) Commerce,” “76) Real estate agencies and rental services,“ “86) Communication,” and “70) Electricity” were indirectly stimulated by consumption by visitors from China, Taiwan, and Korea. In 2014, consumption by visitors from China also indirectly stimulated a large production value in “90) Research,” which accounted for 4% of the total, relative to those from Taiwan (2%) and Korea (2%); this was because tourists from China spent more on home electronics and cosmetics than did those from Korea and Taiwan, as shown in Sect. 3. Although Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean tourists enjoyed shopping in Kyoto, that activity does not stimulate the production activities of Kyoto’s manufacturing industries. In fact, more than 70% of the total indirect effects induced by visitor consumption were observed in the tertiary industries in both 2000 and 2014 for all three countries and economies. Note that “74) Commerce” and “75) Finance and insurance” accounted for more than 30%. The predominant industries in Kyoto are “74) Commerce,” “75) Finance and insurance,” and “76) Real estate agencies and rental services” and the total production values of those industries are 9, 4, and 7%, respectively. Kyoto Prefecture imports goods and services of “30) Final chemical products” and “52) Household electric appliances” from other Japanese regions in amounts 2.4 times and 1.4 times the total production value, respectively. This implies that visitor consumption in Kyoto for these sectors brings about positive indirect and repercussion effects in other parts of Japan.
Fig. 2

Repercussion effects of visitor’s consumption on production value

Table 5 shows the repercussion effects of visitor consumption on value added. Both in 2000 and 2014, the value added in “101) Lodging,” “100) Eating and drinking,” and “79) Road transport” are induced by consumption by visitors from China, Korea, and Taiwan. Although “89) Education” also has a large induced value added, that is an over-estimation. As we show in Table 3, the direct effects related to “89) Education” are “Entrance fees, participation fees, etc.” in the Kyoto City survey data used, which are entrance fees of museums and other cultural facilities. However, wages accounted for the most of the value added in “89) Education” and most employees for “89) Education” are educators such as teachers and lecturers. For a more accurate estimation of the repercussion effects on “89) Education,” we need to find additional statistics to estimate employees by a more detailed industrial category.
Table 5

Repercussion effects of visitor’s consumption on value added (Unit: 105 yen)

 

2000

2014

China

Taiwan

Korea

China

Taiwan

Korea

10) Foods

134

1246

340

3536

25,194

1322

17) Textiles

68

586

174

3368

15,077

968

30) Other final chemical

64

532

34

3696

15,108

192

52) Home electronics

30

39

1

4103

2545

14

74) Commerce

333

1826

537

4510

25,283

997

75) Financial and insurance

648

3570

1008

6073

45,422

1364

78) Railway transport

458

2756

769

5137

62,530

1204

79) Road transport

775

3528

1515

8866

77,966

2407

89) Education

1322

6225

1703

13,056

104,202

3759

100) Eating and drinking

968

4978

1777

19,443

118,850

4682

101) Lodging

4416

23,537

6457

24,790

163,856

5696

Others

1716

9676

2716

26,243

142,508

5445

Total

10,933

58,499

17,032

122,821

798,540

28,048

As for negative repercussion effects, such as waste generation and GHG emissions, Table 6 shows the induced amounts of waste treatment by year and by tourist homeland. Here, it can be seen that the repercussion effects on waste treatment are nearly proportional to the direct effects. The total amount of waste to be treated due to consumption by visitors from China, Taiwan, and Korea increased from 2809 tonnes in 2000 to 26,856 tonnes in 2014, of which 34–37% was disposed of landfills.
Table 6

Repercussion effects of visitor consumption on waste to be treated

Tonnes

2000

2014

China

Taiwan

Korea

China

Taiwan

Korea

Incineration

229

1257

360

2255

14,112

551

Landfill

120

658

186

1349

8291

298

Total

349

1915

545

3604

22,403

848

Figure 3 shows a breakdown of induced waste generation by industry. Here, “101) Lodging,” “100) Eating and drinking,” “2) Livestock” and “70) Electricity” consumption induced the most waste generation. Although the repercussion effects on production values in “75) Finance and insurance” and “74) Commerce” are the largest, the waste generation coefficients of these sectors are small, 2 and 7 tonnes/yen. Specifically, these are small relative to those of “101) Lodging” (20 tonnes/yen) and “100) Eating and drinking” (13 tonnes/yen). In Kyoto, the industries which were stimulated by visitor consumption were tertiary industries, which restrained the induced waste generation.
Fig. 3

Repercussion effects of visitor’s consumption on waste generation by industry

Figure 4 shows the breakdown by waste category. In this figure, the “food waste” shown in the blue bars, “waste paper” shown in the green bars, and “livestock excreta” shown in the pink bars are primarily due to consumption by visitors to Kyoto. “Food waste” and “waste cardboard” were mainly generated from “101) Lodging” and “100) Eating and drinking.” “Dust” and “cinders” were mainly generated from “70) Electricity,” which was stimulated by visitor consumption in “101) Lodging” and “100) Eating and drinking,” and “78 Railway transport.” “Livestock excreta” was generated from “2) Livestock,” which was stimulated by visitor consumption in “10) Foods.”
Fig. 4

Repercussion effects of visitor’s consumption on waste generation by waste category

Figure 5 shows the estimated results of induced GHG emissions. As can be seen in the figure, induced GHG emission increased about 12,000 ton-CO2 (eq.) in 2000 to about 144,000 ton-CO2 (eq.) in 2014. These GHG emissions are mainly induced by “70) Electricity” in purple bars, “79) Road transportation,” and “80) Private transportation” shown in light blue and orange bars, “101) Lodging” shown in light green bars, “100) Eating and drinking,” shown in pink bars, and “38) Pottery” in green bars. Thus, it can be seen that the industries that are most affected by tourist consumption activities all have relatively low GHG emission coefficients.
Fig. 5

Repercussion effects of visitor’s consumption on GHG emission by industry

In this study, we have compared the repercussion effects of visitor consumption in 2000 and 2014 using KWIOT2000. However, there is reason to be concerned that the economic structure in Kyoto might have changed between 2000 and 2014. Figure 6 shows the total backward linkage index and the total forward linkage index in the year 2000 and the year 2011 (Miller and Blair 2009). As the latest version of the regional input–output tables of Japanese local governments is for 2011, we used the 2011 table to represent the 2014 table. In the figure, the white round dots indicate the total backward linkage index and the total forward linkage index of 2000, and the black square dots indicate those of 2011. The numbers show the industries as listed in Table 4. The figure shows the top 10 industries in terms of relative change in either index between 2000 and 2011. “70) Electricity” changed most drastically because of the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. Kyoto previously imported electric power from Fukui Prefecture, which had nuclear power plants. However, due to the shutdown of nuclear power plants after the earthquake, the import rate of electric power decreased drastically from 0.38 to almost zero, and Kyoto began to depend on the Maizuru power plant in Kyoto Prefecture, which used coal for electricity generation (Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. 2017). This fact implies that the results in Fig. 5 might be underestimated. The change in “75) Finance and insurance” seems to be a temporary effect due to the earthquake. In 2011, many major insurance companies made large insurance payouts to the Tohoku region, but local insurance companies in Kyoto did not need to make such payouts. Although Fig. 6 shows the possibility of a structural change between 2000 and 2011, as 2011 was an extraordinary year, it would be better to utilize the next regional input–output table for Kyoto, which will be for the year 2015 and be published around 2019, and then compile KWIOT2015 to conduct a structural decomposition analysis for clarifying simultaneously the contributions of changes in technology and those in final demand over the period.
Fig. 6

Total Linkage Index in 2000 and 2011

5 Conclusion

Roughly 14 years have passed since the Japanese government launched the massive Visit Japan Campaign to entice foreign visitors to Japan. In that period, the number of foreign visitors to this nation has increased drastically despite two significant damaging events, the global financial crisis in 2007 and the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. Although the Visit Japan Campaign was aimed at increasing visitor consumption as well as the number of foreign visitors, stakeholders, especially local governments, are still focusing primarily on increasing the number of foreign visitors. However, considering the results in this study, we believe the time has come to contemplate not only the objectives of tourism promotion but also the total effects of tourism itself.

In this paper, which focused on Kyoto City, we showed differences in consumption by comparing Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean tourism activities. The number of tourists visiting Kyoto from those countries and economies all increased dramatically from 2000 to 2014, which caused increases in the direct and repercussion effects of consumption. However, the results of our analysis show that the increase in visitor consumption was not proportional to the number of visitors. For example, tourists from Taiwan spent three to four times more money than those from China and Korea, primarily because Taiwanese tourists seem to enjoy staying in Kyoto longer than those of the other two countries.

Recently, the face of tourism in Japan has been changing, and the Chinese tourists that had previously enjoyed shopping and were once known for their “explosive” buying habits are now spending less money (Nikkei Asian Review 2016), which means that the consumption levels of Chinese tourists have begun decreasing. To maintain or increase the level of Chinese tourist consumption, tourism promotion efforts will need to be modified to reflect a more Taiwanese style of Japan visitation. This form of tourism promotion has already been launched (JTA 2016b, c, d), but the results of this study imply that the following issues will need to be addressed concurrently.

As stay durations become longer, waste generation and associated GHG emissions will increase as well. To depress the level of waste generation increase and the treatment that accompanies the promotion of tourism, environmental efficiency improvements in the two main industrial sectors related to tourism, “eating and drinking places” and “lodging,” will be crucial.

Additionally, encouraging “food waste,” “waste paper,” and “plastic bag” recycling activities could also prove effective. To depress increases in the GHG emissions that accompany tourism promotion, enhanced efficiency in the “electricity” and “road transport” sectors, including “private transport,” “eating and drinking locations,” and “lodging,” will also be important. Unfortunately, ecological awareness is not high in Japan’s “lodging” industry, and while there have been some attempts aimed at reducing “lodging” waste (Tachibana et al. 2009), few studies have seriously taken up the issue. We hope that the Visit Japan Campaign will be upgraded in the future to more seriously consider ecological aspects.

Another important aspect is the effect of tourism on other parts of Japan. In the previous section, we reported that visitor consumption in Kyoto primarily stimulated the tertiary industries in that city. However, the direct effect results showed that numerous visitors from Taiwan, Korea, and especially China enjoyed shopping in Kyoto. This implies that imported goods from other parts of Japan were purchased by Kyoto visitors, which means that visitor consumption in Kyoto stimulated production activities in other parts of Japan, especially in the manufacturing industries.

Furthermore, as is well known, the waste generation and GHG emission coefficients of the manufacturing industries are higher than those of the tertiary industries. So, it is possible that policies aimed at encouraging inbound tourists can cause increased environmental loads on other parts of Japan. Therefore, since it is important to clarify the interregional relationship between the 47 prefectures in Japan in order to estimate the repercussion effects of tourism, we would like to conduct an analysis using the WIO table for the entire nation to clarify those relationships, economically and environmentally, in the near future.

Abbreviations

GHG: 

greenhouse gas

JTA: 

Japan Tourism Agency

JNTO: 

Japan National Tourism Organization

KWIOT2000: 

regional WIO table for the year 2000 for Kyoto

NEDO: 

New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization

UNESCO: 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNWTO: 

United Nations World Tourism Organization

WIO: 

waste input–output

WIOA: 

WIO analysis

3EID: 

Embodied Energy and Emission Intensity Data for Japan Using Input–Output Tables

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

MT was responsible for data collection, performing calculations, and generating the quantitative results. MT and MK interpreted the results and drew the conclusions. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mr. Takumi Ichikawa, who assisted us in compiling the regional WIOT for Kyoto in 2000 for use in our previous work, and Ms. Yumi Hatano, who assisted with the compilation of KWIOT2000.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets during and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by Tokyo International University Grant for Special Research Projects 2015 and JSPS KAKENHI Grant (No. 16K03648).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Business and Commerce, Tokyo International University, Kawagoe-shi, Japan
(2)
Division of Natural Resource Economics, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

References

  1. Adams PD, Parmenter BR (1995) An applied general equilibrium analysis of the economic effects of tourism in a quite small, quite open economy. Appl Econ 27:985–994View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer B, Fletcher J (1996) The economic impact of tourism in the Seychelles. Ann Tour Res 23:32–47View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Blake A, Sinclair MT (2003) Tourism crisis management: the US response to september 11. Ann Tour Res 30:813–832View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai J, Leung P, James M (2006) Tourism’s forward and backward linkages. J Travel Res 45:36–52View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Cline S, Seidl A (2010) Combining non-market valuation and input–output analysis for community tourism planning: open space and water quality values in Colorado, USA. Econ Syst Res 22(4):385–405View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Dwyer L, Forsyth P, Madden J, Spurr R (2000) Economic impacts of inbound tourism under different assumptions regarding the macroeconomy. Curr Issues Tour 3:324–363View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Dwyer L, Forsyth P, Spurr R (2004) Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: new and old approaches. Tour Manag 25:307–317View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Fletcher J (1989) Input–output analysis and tourism impact studies. Ann Tour Res 16:514–529View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Huang S (2011) Nation-branding and transnational consumption: Japan-mania and the Korean wave in Taiwan. Media Cult Soc 33(1):3–18View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ichikawa T, Kagatsume M, Tsukui M, Hatano Y (2011) The environmental effect of photovoltaic power generator for dwellings: analysis by Kyoto Prefectural waste input–output table. In: Proceeding of the 6th meeting of the institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan (Sendai Tohoku University Kawana Campus, 2 Mar 2011, pp 97–98Google Scholar
  11. Isard W (1951) Interregional and regional input–output analysis: a model of a space economy. Rev Econ Stat 33:318–328View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Japan National Tourism Organization (JNTO), (2017a) Visitor arrivals to Japan from 1964 to 2015. http://www.jnto.go.jp/jpn/statistics/marketingdata_outbound.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2017
  13. Japan Tourism Agency (JTA), (2017b) About JTA. http://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/kankorikkoku/index.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2017
  14. Japan Tourism Agency (JTA) (2016a) Consumption trend survey for Foreigners visiting Japan for year 2014. http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001126542.xls. Accessed 1 Jan 2016
  15. Japan Tourism Agency (JTA) (2016b) Visit Japan Campaign. http://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/shisaku/kokusai/vjc.html. (in Japanese). https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/en/inbound/vjc.html (in English). Accessed 11 Nov 2016
  16. Japan Tourism Agency (2016c) Visitor arrivals, Japanese Overseas Travelers. http://www.jnto.go.jp/jpn/statistics/marketingdata_outbound.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2016
  17. Japan Tourism Agency (JTA), (2016d) Tourism Nation Promotion Basic Law. http://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/en/kankorikkoku/kihonhou.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2016
  18. Japan Tourism Agency (JTA) (2017) Consumption trend survey for Foreigners visiting Japan for year 2016. http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001179487.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  19. Johnson RL, Moore E (1993) Tourism impact estimation. Ann Tour Res 20:279–288View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Kagatsume M, Tsukui M, Ichikawa T, Hatano Y (2011) Estimation of Kyoto Prefectural waste input–output table and economic and environmental evaluation of food recycling activities. Input–Output Anal 19(2):24–42. https://doi.org/10.11107/papaios.19.24 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  21. Kagawa S, Kondo Y (2007) Regional waste input–output analysis (in Japanese). Input–Output Life Cycle Anal 105–140Google Scholar
  22. Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. (2017) Kansai Electric Power Group Report 2017 CSR & Financial Report. http://www.kepco.co.jp/english/corporate/list/report/pdf/e2017.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2017
  23. Korea Culture and Tourism Institute (2017) Korean Outbound Travelers by Month, 1975–2016, Tourism Knowledge and Information System. https://know.tour.go.kr/main/main.do. Accessed 24 Oct 2017
  24. Kyoto City Industry and Tourism Bureau, Tourism Department, Tourism planning Office (2002) 2001 Kyoto City Annual Tourism Study Report for year 2001. https://kanko.city.kyoto.lg.jp/chosa/image/kanko_chosa13.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2011
  25. Kyoto City Industry and Tourism Bureau, Tourism Department, Tourism Planning Office (2008), Kyoto City Foreign Tourists Behavior Survey Report. https://kanko.city.kyoto.lg.jp/chosa/image/houkokusho.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2016
  26. Kyoto City Industry and Tourism Bureau, Tourism Department, Tourism planning Office (2015) 2014 Kyoto City Annual Tourism Study Report for year 2014. https://kanko.city.kyoto.lg.jp/chosa/image/kanko_chosa26.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015
  27. Kyoto Prefecture (2004) Year 2000 Kyoto Prefecture Input–output TableGoogle Scholar
  28. Kyoto Prefecture (2015) Kyoto Prefecture number of inbound and outbound travelers study report for year 2014. http://www.pref.kyoto.jp/kanko/documents/h26kankoirikomi.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2016
  29. Lenzen M (2008) Sustainable island businesses: a case study of Norfolk Island. J Clean Prod 16(18):2018–2035View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Matsuto T (2005) Toshi-Gomi Syori system no Bunseki, Keikaku, Hyouka (Analysis, planning and assessment of municipal solid waste). Gihodo Shuppan Co., Ltd, Tokyo (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  31. Miller E, Blair D (2009) Input–output analysis foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Ministry of the Environment Secretariat, Waste/Recycling Measures Department (2002) 2004 Project Industrial Waste Generation/Treatment Conditions Survey Report, 2002 resultsGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakamura S, Kondo Y (2002) Input–output analysis of waste management. J Ind Ecol 6:39–64View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Nansai K, Moriguchi Y, Touno S (2008) Embodied energy and emission intensity data for Japan using input–output tables. http://www.cger.nies.go.jp/publications/report/d031. Accessed 27 Dec 2010
  35. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) (2005) Report on research and development on the LCA for products and LCA for end-of-life stage (in Japanese), pp 408–426Google Scholar
  36. Nikkei Asian Review (2016) Chinese shopping spree shifts from Japan tours to e-commerce”. http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/Chinese-shopping-spree-shifts-from-Japan-tours-to-e-commerce. Accessed 29 Sept 2016
  37. Sumi M (2011) Approach of tourism policy in Japan—policy evaluation of visit Japan Campaign. Business Administration Research 6:19–28 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  38. Tachibana J, Nakamura R, Shiraki T, Ubaura M, Goto N, Fujie K (2009) Reduction of environmental load by “produce locally, consume locally”, “Produce seasonally, consume seasonally” and low environmental load tourist. J Jpn Agric Syst 25(1):9–16Google Scholar
  39. Tsukui M and Kagatsume M (2016) Repercussion effects of consumption by Chinese and Korean tourist estimated using a regional waste input–output approach in Kyoto. In: Korean Association of Economic System Research (KESRA) Conference, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 18 Feb 2016Google Scholar
  40. Tsukui M, Ichikawa T, Kagawa S, Kondo Y, Kagatsume M (2011) A regional WIO analysis of the effect of non-residents’ consumption: a comparison between Tokyo and Kyoto. In: 19th International input–output conference, Crowne Plaza Old Town Alexandria, Virginia, USA, 14 Jun 2011Google Scholar
  41. Tsukui M, Kagatsume M, Ichikawa T (2017) Repercussion effects of consumption by domestic tourists in Tokyo and Kyoto estimated using a regional waste input–output approach. J Econ Struct 6:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-017-0061-3 View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Tyrrell TJ, Johnston RJ (2001) A framework for assessing direct economic impacts of tourist events: distinguishing Origins, destinations, and causes of expenditures. J Travel Res 40:94–100View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. UNWTO (2016) UNWTO tourism highlights, 2016 edition. http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145. Accessed 15 Feb 2017
  44. Yoshida T (2013) Analysis of visitor arrivals to Japan from 2002 to 2010. J Jpn Found Int Tour 20:123–127 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
  45. Zhou D, Yanagida JF, Chakravorty U, Leung P (1997) Estimating economic impacts from tourism. Ann Tour Res 24:76–89View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017