〈Research Article〉

The changing profile of Japan inbound tourism
between 1996 and 2016
David Williams

Abstract
Among the significant changes to human society in the last 20 years it is the movement of people
for the purpose of pleasure, i.e. tourism, that is perhaps the most noteworthy. This has been particularly
apparent in Asia where economic wellbeing and personal freedoms have improved markedly. As awealthy Asian country the focus of Japanese tourism has until recently been on its outbound market,
however the dynamic growth in visits to Japan since 2011 has forced this focus to shift to inboundtourism. The current paper investigates this shift in perspective by examining the changing profile ofJapan inbound tourism between the most recent year for which data is available (2016) with that from
20 years earlier. It is suggested that the emerging profile will present new challenges but also set theagenda for the direction of Japan’s inbound tourism in the next twenty years.
keywords: inbound tourism, tourism source country, kankorikkoku (tourism-oriented country)

1. Introduction
It can be argued that the period from the mid-1990s to the current day have seen greater changes toglobal lifestyle than in any other 20-year span in modern history. Between 1996 and 2016, as theworld’s population grew from 5.8 to 7.5 billion not only did life expectancy increase from 64 to 72
years of age, but citizens around the globe became wealthier and better connected to each another.
Testifying to this wealth and connectivity are the additional 500 million citizens added to the global
middle class in the 20 years to 2016 (Kharas, 2017), and the expansion of the Internet which reachedjust 1% of the world’s population in 1996 but 46% in 2016 (World Data Bank, 2017).
As a direct consequence of improvements in wellbeing and technology there has also been amarked increase in international mobility. This is reflected in the growing number of individuals living
outside their country of birth, which in 1995 stood at 160 million, but by 2015 had climbed to 245
million – more than 90% of whom migrated voluntarily rather than having been forced to do so due towar, persecution or catastrophe (United Nations, 2016). These facts notwithstanding, with more than－1－1.24 billion participants in 1996 (UNWTO, 2017), it is the ability of people to engage in voluntary
travel for pleasure (i.e. tourism) that represents perhaps the biggest change in global lifestyle in thelast 50 years (Krippendorf, 1984); it is a phenomenon that has gained considerable momentum in Asia
since the mid-1990s (UNWTO, 2016).
It is widely agreed that tourism is driven by a growth in disposable income (Urry, 1990; Boorstin,
1987; Mathieson and Wall, 1984) and the availability of annual holiday entitlement (Bhatia, 2006;
Holden 2005). This is also true in Asia where tourism’s spread has been preceded by an unprecedented
surge in disposable incomes (UNWTO, 2014) and government-led initiatives to improve labor
conditions including holiday entitlement legislation. In China for example, the European Union SME
Organization reports that as of 2008 Chinese firms have been under legal obligation to offer paid
holidays, or face financial penalties (EUSME, 2011). Combining the expansion of the economy withsuch legislative progression has led China to become the world’s top tourism source country for the
past five consecutive years (UNWTO, 2017).
While tourism has become a more visible part of the lives of its people, Asia has embraced moredemocratic freedoms allowing for greater international mobility and has widely integrated digital
information technology into lifestyle throughout the region. If we add Asia’s penchant for large-scale
infrastructure projects such as airport construction, and a macroeconomic orientation away frommanufacturing towards service industries, it is unsurprising that tourism should have evolved rapidly
in Asia in the last two decades. Thus while global inbound tourism numbers doubled between 1996
and 2016 (561 million to 1.24 billion respectively), intra-Asia international travel over the same
period quintupled in size from 58 million participants in 1996 to 303 million in 2016 (UNWTO, 2017).
Similarly, International Civil Aviation Organization figures indicate the growth rate for air transportpassenger numbers in Asia over the same period was more than twice that for all international air
passengers (ICAO, 2016). In the Asian context however two developments in tourism are of special
note (UNWTO, 2017): the explosive growth in outbound tourism from Asia’s most populous nation,
China; and the contemporary, dramatic increase in inbound tourism to Japan, the Asian country withthe highest GDP. It is this dramatic change in Japan inbound visitor numbers that the current paper
intends to explore by comparing data from the most recent year for which a full statistical record isavailable (2016) with that from 20 years previously.

2. Data, technology and its limitations
During the period 1996-2016 there was exponential growth in the ubiquity of statistical data and theuse of computer technology to process it. Tools such as spreadsheets are now commonplace and areable to present data in ways that were once time-consuming or expensive to produce. In the mid-1990s－2－

tourism data tended to be presented in a simple binary form with few metrics or variables (Japan PMO,
1996), but by 2016 the quantity and complexity of publically available data had developed
considerably. As a consequence of this change when making a direct comparison of statistical datafrom a time before the IT expansion (in this paper, 1996) with that from the present day the common
reference point will by necessity be the earlier date (1996). This argument notwithstanding it is hopedthat the 20-year time series of the current investigation can provide greater longitudinal context andshed new light on historical circumstances. In doing so it can underline key issues facing contemporary
Japanese inbound tourism as the country prepares to welcome a projected 40 million visitors in 2020,
Tokyo’s Olympic year.

3. Tourism trends to / from Japan prior to 1996
In the 30 years after Japan’s travel liberalization (kankoujiyuka) legislation in 1964, tourism to andfrom Japan expanded rapidly. During this time both inbound and outbound tourism growth rates
to/from Japan equaled or bettered the respective world averages (UNWTO, 2016). Over the period
1975-1995 for example, inbound tourism to Japan grew four-fold (0.8 million to 3.4 million) while
global inbound visitor figures increased just 2.5 times (222 million to 541 million). Similarly, over thesame period, as Japan’s economy soared outbound tourism surged from 2.5 million to 15.3 million
participants-an increase of over 600%. These impressive growth rates were possible despite negative
external influences on the global tourism system, including the prolonged effect of successive oilcrises in 1974 and 1980, and the first Gulf War (1991).
Given the numerical successes of Japanese tourism before 1995 it is understandable that expectations
were high for the 20 years after that date. These expectations were not built on a simple extrapolationof historical tourism data however: they were built on Japan’s strategic approach towards both
inbound and outbound tourism. Thus in 1995 having successfully seen Japan outbound tourism
recover from the negative effects of the 1991 Gulf War, the government implemented measures topromote further growth by simplifying the purchase of travel products from domestic travel agencies,
while introducing a 10-year validity on Japanese passports (Japan, 1996). Moreover, in an effort toboost inbound figures the 21st Century Welcome Plan and a new “multimedia service” (i.e. web
platform) were inaugurated by the Japan National Tourism Organization (JNTO), the latter a way toensure a modern system was in place for the dissemination of information to international visitors.
The inbound strategy was further strengthened in 1996 with the announcement of Japan as a co-hostfor the 2002 FIFA World Cup and the inscription of the iconic Hiroshima Peace Memorial as the 775th
World Heritage Site.

－3－4. Inbound tourism to Japan since 1996
To contextualize Japan inbound tourism in the years since 1996 it is instructive to briefly describe
the trend in outbound travel from the country since that year. As shown in Figure 1 in the 20 years
between 1996 and 2016 the number of travelers from Japan fluctuated in the range 15-18 million perannum with no clearly discernable pattern of growth or decline. Examining the figures in more detailreveals that Japan experienced 9 year-on-year declines in its outbound visitor numbers over this period,
and although an overall growth figure of +2.4% was achieved for the 20-year period it is mootwhether this growth is real or not. This is in contrast to statistics from other key outbound source
countries – even those with mature outbound tourism profiles – where consistent year-on-year growth
was the norm, the UK outbound market for example grew over 50% between 1996 and 2016. Thissuggests outbound tourism from Japan has, like its wider economy, been in an extended period ofstagnation.

10

5

0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Number of visitors (x million)

Falling confidence

Lehman Crisis / H1N1

15

Earthquake / Fukushima

Iraq war / SARS

2001 Terror Attacks

20

Asian Financial Crisis

25

Inbound

OutboundFigure 1: Inbound and outbound visitors to/from Japan 1996 - 2016

－4－

This period of stagnation in Japan outbound tourism can be contrasted sharply with the growth inJapan inbound tourism over the same period. As illustrated in Figure 1, since 1996 Japan inboundtourism has shown two distinct periods of growth separated by declines caused by the Lehman Crisis(2008), the H1N1 Pandemic (2009) and the Great East Japan Earthquake (2011). In the former growth
period (1996 - 2008), inbound tourism was characterized by relatively steady growth averaging 5%
per annum interrupted by two minor year-on-year declines due to the Asia Financial Crisis (1998) andthe Iraq War/SARS episode (2003). In spite of these downward pressures, between 1996 and 2008
inbound tourism to Japan grew from 3.84 million to 8.4 million visits. In the latter growth period(2011 - 2016), Japan inbound grew much more dramatically with annual growth rates averaging 30%.
This unprecedented growth in the inbound visitor market resulted in more than 24 million visits toJapan in 2016, a total representing an impressive 600% increase on 1996. A more detailed explanation
for this increase is made in section 5 (Discussion).
4. 1 Seasonal distribution of Japan’s inbound visitors
One strategically important element for a successful inbound tourism product is a temporally even
distribution of visits throughout the year. Poor temporal distribution of visits - or a tendency towards‘seasonality’ – can, as Butler (2001) points out, cause “problems” for tourism such as resource stress,
and resource carrying capacity issues. As much as possible seasonality should be mitigated against(Mathieson and Wall, 1982), including those “natural” and “institutional” factors Bar-On (1975)
indicates as being key drivers of the phenomenon. “Natural” factors refer to those changes in climate
or the wider natural world that can cause visitors to prefer one particular time of the year for sojourning
to another, while “institutional” factors refer to embedded societal elements or regulations establishedby official bodies such as governments. This might include a state’s provision of holiday entitlement
for employees (and thus demand for travel) or social conventions and orthodoxies that govern thenormal usage of such entitlement. To consider this Table 1 presents the temporal distribution ofvisitors to Japan according to season (i.e. four 3-calendar month periods) for both 1996 and 2016.

－5－

Table 1: Seasonal distribution of inbound visitors to Japan 1996/2016
1996

2016

Visitor Numbers% of total

Visitor Numbers% of total

Spring836,000

25

5,980,000

25

Summer970,000

27

6,340,000

26

Autumn1,039,000

26

5,940,000

25

Winter

996,000

22

5,779,000

24

Total

3,837,000

100

24,039,000

100

Note: Spring is defined as March/April/May; summer (June/July/August); autumn (September/October/
November), and winter (December/January/February).

This season-based side-by-side comparison (Table 1) clearly shows the large increase in tourist
numbers between the two years with more visitors arriving in Japan in each of 2016’s four seasons
than in the whole of 1996. We can also see that the temporal distribution of visitors is spread evenly
throughout the year in both 1996 and 2016 indicating that Japan inbound tourism lacks seasonal
imbalance and is less likely to suffer from Butler’s seasonality “problems”. For example in 1996, as
the season with the largest proportion of visits, summer welcomed just 5% more visitors than theseason with the lowest proportion, winter. In 2016 this variance was even smaller, just 2% (i.e.
summer = 26%; winter = 24%). This suggests Japan has been successful in continuing to encourage
inbound visits in all seasons. Part of the reason for this comes from the natural range of climatic
regimes in Japan that can guarantee season-specific activities (such as skiing or beach activities).
Japan is also the only country in the world with public holidays in 11 of the 12 calendar months (Juneis the only month without). This uniform distribution of public holidays tends to reduce the perceptionthat travel experiences can only be made in peak season as can be seen in countries such as Greece orSpain where one natural resource (hours of sunshine) tends to dictate tourism orthodoxy. Japan on theother hand takes a proactive approach to reduce the effects of seasonality all year round as shown in
the promotion of winter tourism to Chinese and Vietnamese visitors, spring tourism to Europeans and North
Americans (JNTO, 2017). and the general popularity of visits in summer and autumn.
4. 2 The source of tourists to Japan4. 2. 1 Region of origin
Figure 2 compares the origin (by region) of inbound visitors to Japan for 1996 (fig. 2a) and 2016
(fig. 2b). As shown, in 1996, 61% of all visits to Japan were made by nationals of Asian countries
with smaller, but not insignificant, numbers of visitors from the Americas (20%) and Europe (16%).
Thus 3 distinct source regions for inbound visitors can be recognized.
－6－

3% 0%Asia
16%

the Americas
Europe20%

61%

Oceania
Other/Unknown

Figure 2a: Japanese inbound visitors 1996 (by region)
In 2016 (fig. 2b) however, we can see that the share of Asian visitors to Japan was considerablylarger (85%), with the formerly significant proportion of visitors from the Americas and Europe
having fallen to 7% and 6% respectively. This suggests a contemporary visitor profile that is
imbalanced and dominated by one source region, Asia.

7%

6%

2%

0%

Asia
the Americas
EuropeOceania85%

Other/Unknown

Figure 2b: Japanese Inbound visitors 2016 (by region)

This trend towards greater visitor numbers from Asia has been partly facilitated by the
UNWTO-backed bilateral governmental agreements that have liberalized visa restrictions for
intra-Asian travel (UNWTO, 2016), but can also be seen as the result of the international success of
popular Japanese cultural brands such as ghibli film or anime. In the particular case of China, theChinese government’s designation of Japan as a country with Approved Destination Status (ADS)－7－

in 2000 can be seen as key since it made Japan accessible to the expanding Chinese middle class(Huang, 2017). Since the share of visitors from the Americas and Europe has fallen to just 13% of
all visits to Japan it may now be appropriate to argue that Japan adopt Asia-centric tourist
infrastructure and services to reflect the needs and wishes of the majority of its inbound visitors.
4. 2. 2 Country of origin
The trend towards increased numbers of Asian visitors, and falling numbers from other regions isreinforced in Figures 3(a) and 3(b) which detail the nationality of visitors to Japan in 1996 and 2016
respectively.
(a) (1996)(b) (2016)

Other
Countries
Thailand
15%

Singapore

Philippines
Canada Germany

USA
15%

UK

Malaysia

S. Korea
26%

Australia
UK
China (incl.
HK)
11%

Other
Countries
11%

Philippines

China(incl. HK)
34%

Australia
ThailandUSA
5%

Taiwan19%

Taiwan
17%

Korea
21%

Figure 3: Japan’s Top 10 Source Countries (a) 1996 and (b) 2016
Note 1: In 1996 UK (= 4%); Australia, Canada, Germany, Philippines, Thailand (all 2%)
Note 2: In 2016 Thailand (= 4%); Australia, Malaysia, Singapore (all 2%); Philippines, UK (1% each)Firstly, we can see that inbound tourism to Japan in both 1996 and 2016 was largely made up ofjust four countries: China, South Korea, Taiwan and, to a lesser extent, the United States. In 1996
these four countries made up 71% of all inbound visits (2.71 million visitors) to Japan a figure that
increased to 76% (18.71 million) in 2016. Within these apparently two similar percentages however
two important changes have occurred: firstly, that Japan inbound is now made up of three countries(China, South Korea, and Taiwan) - the USA only contributing 5% of visitors in 2016; and secondly,that one country - China - dominates.
The shift from Japan inbound tourism being made up of four roughly equal sized source
countries to being based on just three is clearly illustrated in Figures 3(a) and 3(b). In 1996 South
Korea, Taiwan, USA and China respectively made up 26%, 19%, 15% and 11% of Japan’s inboundtotal, but by 2016, in the same order, they contributed 21%, 17%, 5% and 34%. The tripling in theshare of Chinese visitors (from 11% to 34%) means, as a source country, China now dwarfs Japan’s－8－

long-term most significant inbound market, South Korea. This single source market bias towards
China makes other important source markets to Japan such as Thailand, Australia, or the Philippines
appear almost irrelevant (Figure 4). According to the latest inbound figures for 2017 it is likely
China’s leading source country status will be strengthened further since double-digit growth ispredicted (MLIT, 2017b). It is thus possible that China might even attain “dominant market” status(i.e. 40% of the market – see Pass, Lowes and Davies, 2005) in the near future.

9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
1996

3,000,000

2016

2,000,000
1,000,000
0Figure 4: Japan’s Top ranked source countries (by number of visitors)
Source: MLIT, Tourism White Paper 1996, 2016

The changing profile of Japan’s source countries is further emphasized when these countries areranked (Table 2). Here we can see that in 1996 Japan’s top 10 tourism source countries included 5
from Asia (South Korea, Taiwan, China, Philippines, and Thailand) and 5 from Europe (UK,Germany), North America (Canada and United States) and Australia. This broad balance of nations
has since shifted towards Asia such that only 3 non-Asian countries (USA, Australia, the UK)feature in the 2016 list. Notably, Thailand and Malaysia ranked 10th and 12th in terms of numbers in1996 were positioned 5th and 7th respectively in 2016. This situation continues to evolve andpreliminary data for 2017 indicates that UK visitor numbers to Japan have been surpassed by visits
made by travellers from both Indonesia and Vietnam (JNTO, 2017), two countries outside the top
10 in 2016. Consequently in 2017 we can expect no European country to feature in Japan’s top 10
source countries list for the first time since records were kept. This is a powerful benchmark to
support the notion that there is a need for new priorities concerning the provision of tourism
services, tourism facilities, and tourists’ needs at key tourism resources in Japan.
－9－

Table 2: Japan inbound tourism source markets by rank (1996 and 2016)
Country nameRank in 1996

Rank in 2016

South Korea

1

2

Taiwan2

3

United States of America

34Peoples Republic of China

41

United Kingdom

510Australia

66

Canada7

11

Germany

8

14Philippines

99Thailand10

5

Malaysia

127Singapore138

Note: France was ranked 11th in 1996

4.3 Length of stay
Official statistics on the length of stay in Japan (Table 3) show that on average in 1996 international
visitors stayed 8.4 days, a figure which increased to 10.1 days in 2016 (MLIT, 2017b). Country-specificdata is unavailable for 1996, but in 2016 figures show the longest sojourns were made by non-Asians(United States = 14.1 days) while the shortest were made by visitors from the Asia region (South
Korea = 4.5 days).
These observations may lead us to reach the general conclusion that over the 20-year span the
average length of stay in Japan is increasing, and that Asian visitors tend to undertake the shortest
visits. However, this is an over-simplification of the situation. Taking visits from China as an example
we see that the average duration of stay decreased from 18.6 days in 2014 (i.e. considerably longer
than U.S. visitors) to 11.8 days in 2016, while visits by Germans increased in length by 1.9 days
between 2015 and 2016 (i.e. greater than the 20 year average increase). Meanwhile trip length bySouth Korean nationals peaked in both 2007 and 2010, but dropped off considerably in 2008 and 2011
(JTB, 2016). These cases tell us that trip duration is an unpredictable metric with long-term trends
masking short-term fluctuations.
Annual or biennial fluctuations in the duration of stay can be caused by man-made or natural－ 10 －

external influences such as prevailing economic conditions, disasters, or the maturity of the tourism
market. The fluctuations may also be explained by the day (or days) of the week on which nationaldays or other institutionalized holidays fall in either source or recipient nations facilitating easier
travel in some years but not in others. Thus the conclusions drawn above may not be indicative of apattern of either longer, or shorter sojourns by visitors in general, nor may they be informative about any
individual nation as a tourism source country. This makes it difficult to make meaningful conclusions
regarding length of stay; it is an area of Japan inbound travel research that merits closer examination.
Table 3: Length of Visitor stay in Japan in top 5 source countries (1996 / 2016)
Country

2016

P. R. China

11.8*

South Korea

4.5

Taiwan

7.4

USA

14.1

Thailand9.9

All countries average

10.1

1996

8.4

*2016 data does include Hong Kong

Length of stay is also an important metric when we consider the income a country can earn fromtourism, or the effects tourism has on a country’s balance of payments (BOP). As a country with ahistorically greater outflow than inflow of visitors Japan’s annual tourism BOP has, since tourism
liberalization in 1964, been negative - in 1996 this deficit was 3.6 trillion yen. Since that year thisdeficit has fallen gradually and in 2015 was - for the first time in 53 years - a net surplus totaling ¥1.1
trillion (MLIT, 2017a). In 2016 this surplus grew further to stand at ¥1.3 trillion.
This remarkable turnaround in the BOP figures is not simply about the volume of inbound visitors
to Japan but also concerns source country visitor spending habits. With no available country-specificdata on spending in 1996 it is beyond the scope of the current research to make a valid comparison,
however when we combine the fact that the number of Chinese visitors has grown rapidly in recent
years with the knowledge that in 2016 spending by this demographic was ¥231,000 per visit (and thus
40% of all visitor spending in Japan - see MLIT, 2017b), we can understand that Chinese visitors are asignificant reason for Japan’s new positive tourism BOP profile.

－ 11 －

4. 4 Entry and exit ports to/from JapanOne criticism leveled against inbound tourism to Japan is the lack of regional tourist infrastructure,
which in turn skews the distribution of inbound visits in favour of Tokyo and its immediate environs(Andonian, Kuwabara, Yamakawa and Ishida, 2016). With the majority (98%) of visitors arriving by
air, in an attempt to address this problem, successive waves of regional airport construction have been
carried out. This began in the late 1980s when new airports were opened in Shonai, Okayama andHiroshima and continued in the first decade of the 2000s with facilities established in Kobe (2006)
and the Shizuoka Mt. Fuji-branded Airport (2009). These regional facilities were complemented bylarge-scale ‘hub’ type airport developments in Osaka (Kansai) and Nagoya (Chubu), opened in 1994
and 2005 respectively.
Table 4: Share (%) of all entry/departures to/from Japan (by port) 1996 & 2016
Facility

Visitor entry /departure in 1996

Visitor entry /departure in 2016

Change (%)

Tokyo Narita

53.3

33.5

-19.8

Tokyo Haneda

2

18.6

+16.6

Kansai (Osaka)

24

23

-1

Chubu (Nagoya)

8.5*

6.4

-2.1

Fukuoka

5.9

6.2

+0.3

Naha (Okinawa)

0.8

3.6

+2.8

All other airports

4.5

6.8

+2.3

All sea ports

1.0

1.9

+0.9

Total (%)

100

100

n/a

*1996 figures relate to Nagoya Komaki airport
Source: Japan Ministry of Justice (http://www.moj.go.jp)

However as Table 4 shows this new airport infrastructure has derived poor dividends as visitors stilltend to be funneled through Tokyo. Although the absolute number of visitors arriving at each facility
has increased, the imbalance in the national share of arrival/departure points remains much as it was in1996. Thus in 2016, 52.1% of visitors arrived at one of Tokyo’s two airports, a figure little changed
from 1996 (55.3%). Although Narita Airport’s share of the national total has fallen considerably overthis time (-19.8%) most of this has been taken up by Haneda Airport as airlines take advantage of thelatter’s 2012 internationalization re-make. The result is that the majority of visitors to Japan still begin
and end their journeys in Tokyo rather than in one of the country’s regions. Neither Kansai (-1%), nor－ 12 －

Chubu (-2%) have succeeded in attracting or sustaining new international air-routes (with the odd
exception of those to China) and thus the nationwide redistribution of inbound visitors has not been
facilitated. The only evidence of some regional redistribution of visitors has been provided by Naha
Airport where, thanks to the popularity of Okinawa with Taiwanese and Hong Kongers, the share ofinternational air traffic passengers grew to 3.6% of the national total in 2016 from just 0.8% in 1996.
The increase in the share of arrivals at Chitose Airport (not shown), and passenger arrivals by ship(+2.3% and +0.9% respectively) also suggest that nascent examples of how regional redistribution ofvisitors might be enabled can be found in different parts of the Japanese archipelago.

5. Discussion
According to the number of visits undertaken, the ranking of the world’s leading inbound countries(Table 5) appears to show that there has been little change in global inbound tourism in the years
between 1996 and 2016. Indeed in both 1996 and 2016 the same three countries France, the UnitedStates, and Spain occupied the first, second and third places respectively. In 1996 these three countries
accounted for almost 150 million visits, or more than 25% of all international travel while twenty
years later the same three countries welcomed more than 230 million inbound visitors (around 20% of
the global total). Thus a 5% fall in the total global share can be observed suggesting the hegemony inglobal inbound tourism by France, Spain and U.S.A. is being eroded. The biggest challenge to thishegemony is coming from Asian countries. As this paper has shown this is particularly true for Japan
where average inbound tourism growth rates have averaged 33% per year since 2011 - the fastest
amongst all industrialized countries (France, by comparison grew 34% in 20 years). The result has
seen Japan rise from being ranked the 44th most visited country in the world in 1996 to being its 15thin 2016 (UNWTO, 2017; UNWTO, 1996).
Table 5: World’s Top 3 Inbound Markets 1996 and 2016
Rank

COUNTRY

INTERNATIONAL TOURISTARRIVALS (million)

1996 2016

1996

2016

% CHANGE(1996/2016)

1

1

France

61.5

82.6

34%

2

2

United States

44.8

75.6

69%

3

3

Spain

41.3

75.6

83%

44

15

Japan

3.8

24.0

625%

WORLD TOTAL

591.9

1,235

109%

Source: UNWTO 1996; UNWTO, 2017.
－ 13 －

Becoming a country increasingly recognized as a destination for global tourism has brought Japantangible benefits such as a positive tourism balance of payments (BOP) but it has also presented thecountry with new challenges. Not only do the vast majority (85%) of Japan’s inbound tourists comefrom one region but 90% of this number are from just three source countries (China, Taiwan, South
Korea). Moreover, most visitors still tend to enter Japan through just two international gateways
spatially limiting their spread across Japan.
This imbalance in both visitor source countries and regions visited leaves Japanese inbound tourism
vulnerable to negative changes in the economy, political circumstances, or social change in source
countries which in turn could have a direct negative impact on inbound numbers. The imbalance alsooffers Japan little in terms of sustainable economic trickle down of tourism’s benefits to its regions.
Although offset somewhat by the even seasonal distribution of visits, these possible harbingers ofchange still lead us to ask how a country like Japan, with a stated aim of establishing a kankorikkoku,
might better promote, manage, and understand its tourism resources and infrastructure (Andonian et al,2016). Should it focus on its established source markets? Or should it make greater efforts to diversify
them, and thus reduce its vulnerability to external negative forces?
The reasons for Japan’s new status as the world’s 15th most visited country are multi-faceted, but wecan point to a number of key “pull” stimuli (Crompton, 1979). These include macroeconomic factors
external to the tourism system itself such as the relatively weak yen, and in the case of visits by
Chinese nationals, the strength of the Chinese economy. However economic arguments alone areinsufficient to explain the extended rise in inbound tourism to Japan since 2011. In addition toeconomic factors, policy directives in Japan, its source countries, and internationally have been vitalto encourage growth. Thus the Chinese government’s awarding of ADS status to Japan for visits from
China was essential in allowing Chinese nationals to leave as tourists. Meanwhile under the general
directive of the United Nations tourism body the UNWTO, relaxed visa regulations introduced in2012 have allowed a greater cross-section of the Asian public to visit Japan, and to do so more
frequently and simply (UNWTO, 2014).
Domestic macro-scale tourism policy has also pulled inbound tourism in a positive direction. Thus
the 1996 Welcome Plan 21 and Visit Japan Campaign (2003), although not directly responsible for thelarge contemporary gains in tourism numbers, firmly set an agenda for Japan tourism to follow.
Similarly by ratifying the so-called “Open Skies” airline deregulation agreement in 2013, Japanfurther improved access in a way that complemented the new visa regulations environment. This has
been assisted by the widespread adoption of government policies aimed at establishing a society andan economy geared towards tourism (i.e. kankorikkoku). These policies range from the opening up andpromotion of lesser known tourism attractions in Japan’s hinterlands, to the widespread adoption oftax-free shopping to international visitors, the latter an important policy given the large numbers of－ 14 －

Chinese visitors and their reputation for high spending while abroad (UNWTO, 2017b). The awardingof the 2020 Olympic Games to Tokyo in 2013 provided much of the impetus for this new focus on
inbound tourism. It is now a question of ensuring such an opportunity can derive benefits.
Awareness and perception are also vital elements in encouraging visitors to a destination (Plog,
1974; Pearce, 1993). To increase awareness of Japan’s tourism potential, over the last 20 years
successive promotional campaigns such as Welcome Plan 21 (1997), JNTO Inbound Campaign (2001),
China-Japan Mutual Visit Year (2002) and Yokoso Japan (2003) have been launched but it has notbeen until much more recently that promotional efforts have translated into clearly recognizable
inbound tourism increases. Rather than a sudden change in the perception of Japan’s tourism assets,
we can thus point to an erosion of stereotypical perceptions about Japan such as the expense ofvisiting and knowledge of its attractions. Concerning such perceptions however Andonian et al (2016)
suggest more work is required. According to their research even the best-informed foreign tourists toJapan have very limited knowledge of even the most well-known tourism resources prior to arrival,
and are unaware of sites Japanese nationals would regard as must-see places. Many of these places areoutside the Tokyo area and thus changing the level of awareness of these internationally lesswell-known, must-see places is vital if Japan is to reduce the skewed spatial distribution of foreign
visits. Success in changing such perceptions will be an effective way to reduce the acute stress placedon the carrying capacity at many of Japan’s busiest tourist sites particularly those in and around Tokyo.
The perception of Japan as a country with more to offer than Mt. Fuji and the Shinkansen has also
been helped by international recognition of cultural elements such as Anime and the designation of
Washoku as a UNESCO Intangible World Heritage Asset (2013). More however needs to done toensure the cultural value of such assets is better communicated to the rest of the world. Better andmore innovative use of social media, and improved foreign language web-based materials are also
vital to ensure visitors from Asia and beyond feel Japan is a place they can visit repeatedly (Andonian
et al, 2016). In this respect Japan should follow the lead set by Thailand where more than 30% of
annual visits are by non-Asian citizens, many of them repeat visitors.
Despite a slowing Chinese economy Japan’s inbound market is buoyant and does not seem to be as
vulnerable to the same external influences that have dogged Japanese outbound tourism for 20 years.
Although the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster did severely depress inbound tourism in 2011,
positive global media coverage of the disaster and Japan’s rapid recovery have had the effect ofprojecting positive images of the country and acted as a de facto means to raise awareness of thepotential Japan offers as a travel destination. Emerging source markets such as Indonesia, Malaysia
and Vietnam are developing rapidly (all three countries are expected to listed as a Japan top 10 source
country in 2017) and are responding very favorably to this positivity.
If Japan is to achieve the status of being a tourism-oriented country it will need to harness such
－ 15 －

positivism with innovative ideas that can better integrate the country’s regional hinterlands to theTokyo core and satisfy the stated goals of kankorikkoku. At the same time, mechanisms to deal with
deficiencies in Japan’s accommodation sector, service provision and related tourism infrastructure(Williams, 2017) are vital (a) to ensure the geographical decentralization of international tourism
visits, and (b) to answer the needs of the new visitor profile including those with needs - such as
Muslim visitors - Japan has not yet had much need to cater for. In this way repeat visitation, a central
requirement for an economically sustainable tourism, can be realized.
One possible strategy to encourage such repeat visits is to harness both business tourism and theburgeoning number of VFR tourists. The former generated 1.6 million visits in 2016 and the lattersome 536,000 (Japan MoJ, 2017). In the case of Chinese visitors, the VFR segment represents 8% of
all Chinese trips to Japan and can thus be considered an inbound segment worthy of its own marketing
campaign. By its nature VFR tends to lend itself to relatively high repeat visitor rates, and isdestination rather than experience driven. As the number of foreign residents living outside Tokyo is
in excess of 1.7 million people (i.e. four times greater than those in Tokyo) this approach has excellent
potential in opening up regions outside the capital to overseas visitors. It is a phenomenon thatwarrants further investigation.

6. Final words
In recent years Japan has been riding a wave of rising inbound tourism optimism. From annual
record breaking visitor numbers to a positive balance of payments, and the increased awareness ofJapan as a global destination, we can say that Japan inbound tourism has started to come of age. To
sustain this momentum, as this limited study has shown, Japan will need to take a new development
path and adopt new strategies that diversify the origin of its inbound tourists and that better balances
the spatial distribution of those visits. Tourism is a business vulnerable to tangible and intangible
factors and as seen in European tourist centers in 2017 if sustainable practices are not adopted,
discontent among local populations can create considerable friction (Coldwell, 2017). Moreover,places can lose their allure, or become unfashionable, and tourism goods and services can become
price sensitive if economic conditions so dictate. These are the challenges Japan will need tounderstand and overcome if it is to realize its goal of becoming a tourism-oriented country and attain astatus similar to today’s inbound tourism leaders, France, Spain and the United States.

－ 16 －

7. Limitations / Future researchTourism is a continually changing field of study and in using publically available primary source
data the current study could only scratch the surface in revealing the new inbound tourism profile
produced in the last 20 years. Any similar, future investigations would thus be advised to employ amore comprehensive data set and, as a means to explore the potential of VFR emphasize the metric of‘purpose of visit’. Greater clarity in the economic changes can also be understood by adding moreweight to the ‘length of stay’ parameter. In this way a clearer picture of how Japanese inbound tourism
continues to evolve might result.

References
Andonian, A., Kuwabara, T., Yamakawa, N. & Ishida, R. (2016). The future of Japan’s tourism: path for sustainablegrowth towards 2020. McKinsey Japan and Travel, Transport and Logistics Practice.
Bar-On. R. (1975). Seasonality in tourism. London: Economist Intelligence Unit.
Bhatia, A.K. (2006). The business of tourism: concepts and strategies. Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
Boorstin, D. J. (1987). Hidden history: exploring our secret past. From Traveler to Tourist (Chapter 23). New
York: Harper and Row, pp.297-304.
Butler, R.W. (2001). Seasonality in tourism: issues and implication. In: Seasonality in tourism. T. Baum Eds.,
London: Routeledge.
Coldwell, W. (2017). First Venice and Barcelona: now anti-tourism marches spread across Europe. The Guardian,August 10, 2017. Retrieved from <www.theguardian.com>
Crompton, J.L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, pp.408-24.
European Union EUSME (2011). Labour laws in China. EUSME Centre. Retrieved from <https:www.ccilc.pt>
Holden, A. (2005). Tourism studies and the social sciences. London: Routeledge.
Huang, A. (2017). Chinese inbound visitors to Japan and their consumption trends. Shizuoka University Asia
Research Center, Asia Research, 12, 25-40.
International Civil Aviation Organisation. (2016). ICAO Annual Report - the World of air transport, 2015. Retrieved
from <www.icao.int>
Japan, Ministry of Justice. (2017). Entry and departure statistics on Japanese and foreign nationals. Department
of Immigration (in Japanese). Retrieved from<http://www.moj.go.jp/nyuukokukanri/kouhou/nyuukokukanri04_00064.html>
Japan, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2017a). White Paper on tourism in Japan – thetourism situation in FY2016 (in Japanese). Retrieved from <www.mlit.go.jp>
Japan, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2017b). Spending trends of foreign visitors to－ 17 －

Japan in 2016. Retrieved from <http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001158884.pdf>
Japan, Prime Minister’s Office, (1996 and 1997). White Paper on tourism in Japan (in Japanese). Tokyo: Ministry of
Finance.
Japan National Travel Organization (JNTO). (2017). Statistics on foreign visitors (September 2017). Press release,
October 18, 2017. Retrieved from<https://www.jnto.go.jp/jpn/statistics/data_info_listing/pdf/171018_monthly.pdf>
Japan Travel Bureau. (2016). Travel information 2016 (in Japanese). The circumstances of overseas visitors toJapan. <https://www.jtb.or.jp/wp-content>
Kharas, H. (2017). The unprecedented expansion of the global middle class – an update. Global economy anddevelopment working paper. Brookings Institute. Retrieved from <www.brookings.edu/global>
Krippendorf, J. (1984). The holiday makers – understanding the impact of leisure and travel. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Mathieson, A. & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: economic, physical and social impacts. London: Longman.
Pass, C., Lowes, B. & Davies, L. (2005). Collins dictionary of economics 4th edition. London: Collins.
Pearce, P. (1993). Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In: D.G. Pearce and R.W. Butler ed., 1993. Tourism
research: critiques and challenges. London: Routledge, pp.113-34.
Plog, S. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel, Restaurant and Administration
Quarterly, (14), pp.55-8.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2016). International migration 2015. New York:
United Nations.
United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2017a). UNWTO tourism highlights 2017. UNWTO.
Retrieved from <https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419029>
UNWTO. (2017b). World Tourism Barometer. Vol.15, January 2017. UNWTO.
UNWTO. (2016). UNWTO/GTERC Annual Report on Asia tourism trends – 2016 Edition, Executive Summary.
Madrid: UNWTO.
UNWTO. (2014). UNWTO/GTERC Annual Report on Asia tourism trends. Madrid: UNWTO.
UNWTO. (1996). UNWTO Tourism highlights 1996 Edition. Retrieved from,https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284401727
Williams, D.A. (2017). Tokyo 2020: a legacy or lethargy for tourism. Josai International University, Faculty ofTourism Bulletin, 25(6), 51-66.
World Bank Group. (2017). World Bank Open Data. Retrieved from <https://data.worldbank.org>－ 18 －