INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW respondents showed a predisposition to pay for the arbitration process, with 68% admitting this payment. Regarding the willingness to pay the cost of the arbitration process, the behaviour of hotels and travel agencies is somewhat similar. Indeed, 58% of the hotels and agencies showed willingness to pay for arbitration, with the differences only appearing in the amounts they are willing to pay. In this chapter, agencies have shown a greater willingness to pay higher values, since 33% of the agencies are willing to pay 1.0% of the total value of the trip, while 42% of the hotels stick to 0.5% of the trip price. Also, regarding the perception held by hotels and agencies on the willingness of the customer/tourist to pay for the existence of an arbitration process, the results are not very divergent: most hotels and agencies considered that tourists would not pay for it, although agencies were slightly more sceptical than hotels (59% and 51%, respectively). From these data we can draw the obvious and undeniable conclusion that both hotels and agencies are unaware of their clients’ behaviour regarding the matter under study, as the tourists’ answers clearly showed an unequivocal willingness to pay for an arbitration procedure, assuming its benefits, while the majority of the hotels and agencies believe that the said tourists would not pay for it. 5. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, it can be said that the incorporation of the attribute “submission of the dispute to arbitration” in the product placed on the market is something that the demand appreciates and values and is even willing to pay for it about 1% of the total price of the trip purchased. This fact, associated with the representation that the same demand makes of a possible situation that requires the use of a court to be solved, where 97% of respondents answered they do not think it is possible to have such a problem, allows us to say that the results obtained identify a gap hitherto unknown and that can be exploited by the offer to maximize its results. Thus, and by way of a final conclusion, we would say that not only do tourism organisations benefit, in terms of performance and competitiveness, from voluntary adherence to institutional systems of international arbitration, constituting a competitive advantage, but also because both tourism demand and supply are willing to pay for arbitration proceedings, without the supply side being aware of it, and even if tourism organisations have
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==