Competitiveness is clearly a result of good management of the strengths and weaknesses of a destination (Crouch 2007; Ritchie & Crouch 2003). Destination competitiveness can be defined as

It is clear from this definition that managing competitiveness of a destination involves managing many attributes to provide memorable experiences.

The management of these attributes can ensure a competitive advantage because competitive advantage relates to effectively consuming resources over the long term (Crouch & Ritchie 1999). Simply, managing destination attributes so that they become a destination’s strength will give the destination a competitive advantage over others. Strengths and weaknesses are positive or negative aspects of the external and internal environments. By definition, a strength can be used by an organisation to do something successfully, whereas a weakness makes successful action less likely (Joyce & Woods 1996). According to this definition, a strength can be a beneficial attribute of a business that contributes to the competitiveness of the business.

This is also true for destinations since they have attributes that can ultimately ensure a competitive advantage. Ritchie and Crouch (2003:23) stated that ‘competitive advantages relate to destinations’ ability to use their resources effectively over the long term’ and companies gain competitive advantage by constantly innovating and upgrading, because of pressure and challenge experienced from their competitors (Porter 1990). Ritchie and Crouch’s framework (2003) adds to this statement by portraying the determination of destination competitiveness by stating that a competitive advantage entails resource deployment. In other words, it involves the audit and inventory, maintenance, growth and development, and efficiency and effectiveness of a destination’s attributes. Therefore, neglect in proper management of destination attributes can create a considerable obstacle in achieving competitive advantage, whereas effective management can produce a competitive advantage (Shirazi & Som 2011). Achieving competitive advantage is inextricably linked to destination management. For this reason, a destination manager requires a management strategy based on knowledge regarding the strengths and weaknesses of a destination to systematically address and improve all the attributes at hand (Dwyer & Edwards 2009; Porter 2009; Shirazi & Som 2011).

Porter states that compiling a competitive strategy requires a destination to develop its unique strengths to maintain parity with peers (Porter 2009). For this reason, Porter (1990) developed the attributes of a national competitive advantage – the diamond of competitive advantage. The diamond has four points, which, if managed interdependently, will ensure the competitiveness of a destination. The diamond as a system affects essential ingredients for achieving international competitive success: the availability of resources, the availability of information, the goals of the managers and individuals in companies and, most importantly, the pressures on companies to invest and innovate. These attributes, if managed correctly, will be a nation’s strengths, but each point of the diamond is often affected by or dependent on the state of others.

Porter (1990) highlights that any business needs a strategy that aims to improve firm strategy, understand structure and rivalry as well as demand and factor conditions and related and supporting factors. As stipulated by the definition of a strength, the correct management of these internal and external attributes will assist in achieving success and ensure a competitive advantage. According to Porter, the internal environment of the company is about the choices the company makes such as marketing or reinventing a product. The external environment of the country relies on the physical location of the country as well as being part of a business cluster such as the accommodation industry. This means that the pressure experienced by a destination from its immediate competition in the immediate surroundings also contributes to competitiveness. Keyser (2009) adds to this by stating that the external environment can include a range of factors including

Although Porter’s research is based on the competitiveness of firms and nations, it can also be applied in the tourism industry even though the tourism product is different in the sense that you sell an experience and not a physical product that can be viewed and tested. Nonetheless, tourism destinations also have internal and external attributes that influence the tourism competitiveness of the destinations (Blanke & Chiesa 2013; Hong 2009; Ritchie & Crouch 2003). Managing these internal and external attributes of a destination is a difficult task for various reasons as indicated in Figure 1 (Crouch 2010).

According to Crouch (2010), the competitiveness of tourism destinations is influenced by a variety of forces, influences and events, many of which are very difficult to manage. Crouch (2010) states that the problem is made more difficult because destinations often do not set clear development goals against which competitive forces can be evaluated.

Because of the complexity of tourism destinations, the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report aims to provide insight and stimulate discussion among stakeholders on the best strategies to overcome the obstacles and to improve the competitiveness of destinations (Blanke & Chiesa 2013). The internal and external obstacles in the tourism industry as identified by the Travel and Tourism Report toughen management practices by constantly challenging them to improve. Therefore, the Travel and Tourism Report provides the most extensive list of internal and external influences on tourism destinations. This report is based on three broad categories of variables that facilitate or drive travel and tourism competitiveness (Blanke & Chiesa 2013). These three categories are: (1) the travel and tourism regulatory framework, (2) the travel and tourism business environment and infrastructure and (3) the travel and tourism human, cultural and natural resources. The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report aims to take all the possible internal and external factors of a destination and use the current state of those factors to determine the competitive position of each destination. The internal and external influences as summarised by the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report (Blanke & Chiesa 2013) are illustrated in Figure 2.

The external influences that have an influence on competitiveness include: disruptive events, accelerating trends, inflation and exchange rates, digitalisation or mobile devices, ageing population, political instability, terrorism, natural disasters, economic downturn and regional demand shifts.

The internal factors that influence competitiveness include: affinity for travel and tourism, cultural measures, prioritisation of travel and tourism, ICT infrastructure, health and hygiene, air transport infrastructure, ground transport infrastructure, environmental sustainability, safety and security, tourism infrastructure, policy rules and regulations, natural resources and price competitiveness in the travel and tourism industry.

For these attributes to be managed, destination management organisations require competitive strategies that consider the internal and external attributes of the tourism product as well as the changing nature of tourism trends. A strategy determines how a company or destination will compete in the industry, by focusing on improving what is in existence, while managing the functional areas and developing new capabilities as well as gathering resources to strengthen the company to ensure long term success (Gamble, Thompson & Peteraf 2011; Hill & Jones 2008:200; Zairi 1997:68). These strategies need to adapt as the environment changes to take into account the changing trends, threats and opportunities (Dwyer & Edwards 2009; Shirazi & Som 2011). In this regard, Hong (2009) compiled a sustainable competitiveness model for tourism industries wherein he focused on the importance of the internal and external environments of the tourism industry as well as the changing trends in tourism.

Hong (2009) also gave a deeper insight into the reallocation of different tourism attributes to achieve competitive advantages. The study aimed to take into account Ricardo’s competitive advantages, Porter’s competitive advantages, tourism management and environmental conditions that influence the tourism industry. Hong (2009) states that a destination should have a feasible strategy to use its competitive advantages or strengths and then developed the indicators of competitive advantage that can assist in determining the current competitive position of the destination. An indicator can be defined as a measurable variable used as a representation of an associated factor or quantity (Business Dictionary 2014).

All the above studies focused primarily on First World countries, and the results of this research are not always applicable in the African context. Heath (2002), however, developed a model for sustainable competitiveness for Southern Africa. The author stated that factors such as changing consumer preferences, the increasing involvement of host communities, safety and health concerns, globalisation of the airline industry, technological innovation and environmental pressures are changing the tourism industry; therefore, he focused on addressing the key challenges of the African continent. His model aimed to alleviate key African challenges such as poverty alleviation through tourism growth.

The key attributes developed by Heath (2002) and Hong (2009) are different in the sense that the attributes by Heath (2002) are more basic attributes that will attract tourists, whereas the key attributes by Hong (2009) are more associated with a developed country. This highlights the fact that the level of development of countries has an impact on the various attributes that have an impact and that the African situation is unique as indicated by Heath. Heath (2002) proposes that a sustainable tourism strategy can alleviate poverty because tourism is a labour intensive industry that creates job opportunities; tourists spend money that goes into the rural areas; more tourists buy more curios from informal entrepreneurs and tourism diversifies economies (Heath 2002). The challenges in South Africa are similar to the challenges in other African countries. Thus, it continues to be a priority to develop the tourism industry to attract more tourists.

In 2002, Du Plessis did the first study to determine the competitive advantages of South Africa as a global tourism destination since the 1994 democratic election which resulted in sanctions against the country being lifted. It was clear at that time that South Africa’s competitive advantages did not lie in the natural resources of the country, but lie in how those resources were managed (Du Plessis 2002:6). The focus of Du Plessis’ research was to gauge the ranking of importance of the core factors in global competitiveness as identified by Porter (1990) and Ritchie and Crouch (1993). Du Plessis (2002:102) found that the factors that were most important for South Africa as a global tourism destination were safety and security, quality of service, value for money, geographical features and attitude towards tourists. Although these factors were identified and managers and marketers could act upon them, Du Plessis (2002) found that the influence of external factors such as crime, political instability and diseases could have a great influence on these factors and could even change the importance of them. When acknowledging this, the question arises: How have external factors influenced the competitiveness of South Africa from 2002 until now?

Some factors that could have played a role in South Africa’s competitive performance since 1994 are post-apartheid influences, hosting of mega events and marketing. In the 1990s, South Africa was promoted as a ‘World in One Country’ because of the varied cultures and natural resources. This combined with the climate and undervalued currency made South Africa a value for money destination and created great economic opportunities for South Africa (Briedenhann & Wickens 2004:73). In terms of major events, various events put South Africa on the international tourism map. After the successful hosting of the 1995 rugby World Cup, South Africa also recognised the economic value of sport-mega events such as international cricket and athletics, and used this as a signal to communicate ‘international recognition in terms of economic, social and political stability’ (Cornelisen & Swart 2006:109). Driven by socio-economic and political objectives, South Africa won the rights to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup (Briedenhann & Wickens 2004:74). The FIFA World Cup not only established that South Africa was capable of hosting successful mega events and hosting millions of tourists, but it also demolished the perceived inadequate safety and security measures regarding tourists that had been present since the political instability in the early 1990s (George & Swart 2012:219).

Blanke and Chiesa (2013) adds that strengths that make South Africa a desirable destination according to the Travel and Tourism Report are natural resources, cultural resources, world heritage sites, fauna and flora, creative industries, international fairs and exhibitions, infrastructure, air transport, rail quality, policy and regulations, property rights and few visa requirements. The factors that are seen as undesirable in South Africa include safety and security, level of hygiene, low physician density, access to improved sanitation, human resources, low life expectancy, high rates of communicable diseases, increased fuel prices and ticket taxes and airport charges that diminished price competitiveness.

In the study by Du Plessis (2002), the author gave respondents a list of attributes that was compiled from studies by Porter (1990) and Crouch and Ritchie (1999) and the respondents were asked to rate the attributes as strengths or weaknesses of South Africa. Du Plessis (2002) compiled a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis based on the answers to the strength and weakness questions.

Du Plessis (2002) also found that there were five aspects that were important for South Africa’s attractiveness as a global destination. These were attractions, accessibility, scenery, safety and accommodation. Additionally, the author found that South Africa’s five biggest draw cards at that time were the attractions, accessibility, scenery, nature and wildlife and climate.

This research was carried out by means of a structured questionnaire that was emailed to international tourism operators who were familiar with South Africa as a tourism destination. The delegates who attended the Tourism Indaba 2013, held in Durban during the month of May, were targeted as well as tour operators from the Australian Tour Operators Association, the European Tour Operators Association, the German Tour Operators Association and the American Tour Operators Association as well as United Kingdom tour operators.

The questionnaire was divided into three sections. Section A was a combination of open-ended and closed-ended questions that captured demographic and economic details. These included country of origin, main type of business and effect of price on business. Section B captured 36 attributes that influence destination competitiveness on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = no opinion, 2 = no importance, 3 = some importance, 4 = important and 5 = very important. Section B was based on studies by Du Plessis (2002), Porter (1990), as well as Ritchie and Crouch (2003), Heath (2002) and Hong (2009). This section included internal and external attributes such as the location of the destination, quality of food, the friendliness of locals, marketing and communications systems. In Section C of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate the same 36 attributes as strengths and weaknesses of South Africa as a tourism destination.

The research was quantitative in nature. Complete sampling was used for this research because a list of the sampling population is available and all members of the population were selected for the survey (Jennings 2001). The survey was constructed using a web-based programme, namely Adobe Form Central, and the link to the questionnaire was included in the email. The email stated who the researchers are, what the research is about and what the research is for. Over a period of 3 months, a total of 2727 questionnaires were emailed to delegates of the Tourism Indaba in Durban as well as tour operators from the Australian Tour Operators Association, the European Tour Operators Association, the German Tour Operators Association, and the American Tour Operators Association as well as United Kingdom tour operators. An amount of 271 usable questionnaires were completed and returned. According to Cooper and Emroy (1995), this is a representative sample because 10% of the sample population is an acceptable sample for research.

Microsoft Excel was used to capture data and SPSS (SPSS Inc. 2012) to analyse the data. Firstly, frequencies were compiled to determine the strengths and weaknesses of South Africa as a destination, and secondly, a factor analysis was performed to identify the factors, and lastly, t-test analyses were performed to determine significant relationships between the strengths and weaknesses of South Africa and the factors that contribute to the competitiveness of the destination.

For the t-tests, p-values were used to further identify any significant differences between the strengths and weaknesses of South Africa and the factors that contribute to the competitiveness of South Africa. The purpose of effect size is to establish whether any differences exist between the strengths, weaknesses and the factors. Cohen (1988), Ellis and Steyn (2003) and Steyn (2009) offer the following guidelines for the interpretation of the effect sizes: small effect (d = 0.2), medium effect (d = 0.5) and large effect (d = 0.8). Statistically, significant differences are indicated as follows: p ≤ 0.05; effect sizes: **small effect (d = 0.2), ***medium effect (d = 0.5) and ****large effect (d = 0.8).

The ethical process was followed within the University’s policy and an ethical number was provided to the master study.

Seventy-one per cent of respondents have been promoting South Africa as a tourism destination for more than 7 years, and 78% of respondents felt that South Africa is a competitive destination. The respondents could select from three main types of business regarding South Africa, and it was clear that most of the operators promote leisure tourism, nature-based tourism as well as culture and history tourism.

Section C of the questionnaire captured the strengths and weaknesses of South Africa as a tourist destination (see Figure 3).

The most significant strengths and weaknesses were identified and compared to the results of Du Plessis’s (2002) study and captured in Figures 4 and 5. It is, however, clear from Figure 3 that respondents consider South Africa to have more strengths than weaknesses as a tourism destination.

The opinions of respondents have changed slightly over the last decade. It is clear from the comparison that climate (100% – 2002/98% – 2013) and scenery (100% – 2002/97% – 2013) are still considered as the strongest draw cards or strengths for the country’s competitive advantage. In Figure 4, it is also clear that respondents perceive value for money (down by 18%), ability to communicate (down by 16%), foreign exchange (down by 9%), historical and cultural features (down by 8%) and geographical features (down by 6%) not as strong as respondents has indicated in 2002, with the largest discrepancies between geographical features (97%/79%) and the ability to communicate (89%/73%). It was interesting to find that the availability and the quality of accommodation (up by 8%) play a more important role than in 2002. South Africa’s quality food has become a greater strength as well as the country’s sport and recreational opportunities and accommodation.

The moderate climate has always been one of the country’s best assets, which confirm findings by Saayman and Saayman (2008) and the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report (Blanke & Chiesa 2013) concerning climate, natural resources and cultural resources as South Africa’s best attractions.

Perceptions towards the weaknesses as indicated in Figure 5 show greater discrepancies as in the case of the perceptions towards strengths of the country. The greatest discrepancies were support service (up by 44%). Although public transport could be considered as part of these support services, it was indicated that public transport (down by 24.67%) was perceived better in 2013. The introduction of the Gautrain and the upgrading of public roads could have an impact on this perception. It is, however, clear the respondents felt that safety (82%) was still one of the biggest weaknesses of South Africa.

A factor analysis was conducted to identify factors of competitiveness of South Africa as a tourist destination and to determine the relation of these factors with the various strengths and weaknesses using t-tests. As described in Table 1, the following factors were indicated as the most important according to respondents: stability (mean value 4.36), economic benefits (mean value 4.33) and brand and image (mean value 4.21), and these results correlate with the studies conducted by Heath (2002) and Blanke and Chiesa (2013).

A t-test was applied for comparisons of competitiveness variables, using the eight factors from the factor analysis and the strengths and weakness attributes from the questionnaire. The results, in general, showed that many constructs were significant (see Table 2). p-values were used to identify any significant differences.

Respondents that rated South Africa’s long haul status as a strength rated tourism services as more important, implying that respondents travelling a greater extent are more aware of service provided and expect more in terms of services related to their visit. As could be expected, the respondents who felt that value for money is one of South Africa’s weaknesses also deemed the economic benefits that South Africa holds as an important factor that contributes to the competitiveness of the destination (p = 0.002). According to the effect sizes as well as the p-values in Table 2, respondents who felt that South Africa’s geographical features were a weakness also feel that the tourism services and entertainment and activities are important for the competitiveness for the country. This supports studies by Bendixen and Cronson (1996:4), Naudé and Saayman (2005), Gomezelj and Mihalič (2008) and Lee and King (2009) who found that geographical features are important to destination competitiveness. This is, however, the first time that the link has been made between geographical features and entertainment and activities.

Respondents who indicated that historical and cultural resources are one of South Africa’s strengths are also of the opinion that the African experience contributes to the competitiveness of the destination. Crouch (2007) also found that historical and cultural resources are one of the top 10 attributes that are the most important in contributing to the competitiveness of a destination. This also supports the research of Gouws and Roberts (2010), Yeoman (2010) and Fiorello and Bo (2012) who stated that new tourists are more sensitive and curious about culture and history than they were in the past.

Based on the effect sizes, it is clear from Table 2 that respondents who indicated that South Africa’s climate is a strength rated attributes and entertainment and activities of a lesser importance than those who indicated it as a weakness. The same applies for variety of accommodation where attributes are seen as a lesser important aspect. Respondents who indicated that scenery is one of South Africa’s strengths had a significant relationship to the factor entertainment and activities (p = 0.018) with a large effect although it is seen as less important compared to those who identified it as a weakness. The same principle applied for quality and variety of food, local attitude towards tourists and quality of the experience on offer.