The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Tourism 9781118474488, 1118474481

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Wiley Blackwell Companions to Geography
Title page
Copyright page
Notes on Contributors
Part 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Tourism: Conceptualizations, Disciplinarity, Institutions, and Issues
Conceptualizing Tourism
The Institutionalization of Tourism Studies: Tourism as a Discipline?
Issues
References
Part 2: Perspectives on Tourism
Introduction: Perspectives on Tourism
References
Chapter 2: Tourist Flows and Spatial Behavior
Modeling Interdestination Tourist Movements
Modeling Intradestination Movements
Intervening Factors
Conclusion
References
Chapter 3: Tourism Motivations and Decision Making
Background Issues
A Core History of Tourist Motivation Study
Adding to the Tourist Motivation Literature
Employing Travel Motivation Concepts
Decision Making
Conclusions: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 4: Political Economy of Tourism
Tourism and Regulation Theory
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 5: Cultural Geographies of Tourism
Tourism as Geography Writ Large
Being a Tourist, Doing Tourism
Studying Tourism Cultures
Conclusions
References
Chapter 6: Tourism Mobilities
Global Tourism Mobilities
Heritage Tourism Mobilities
Imaginative and Communicative Tourism Mobilities
Mobile Methods
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 7: Critical Perspectives on Tourism
Early Critical Perspectives
The Development of the Critical Tourism Studies Movement
Critical Engagements in Tourism and Hospitality
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Part 3: Producing Tourism and Tourism Spaces
Introduction: Producing Tourism and Tourism Spaces
References
Chapter 8: Economic Geographies of Tourism Revisited
A Retrospective on the Economic Geography of Tourism
Flows of Capital
A Case Study: The Economic Geography of Air Transportation and Tourism
Discussion and Conclusion
References
Chapter 9: Entrepreneurial Cultures and Small Business Enterprises in Tourism
Entrepreneurship and Tourism: a Changing Research Agenda
Entrepreneurial Processes and the Small Firm
Entrepreneurial Cultures in Tourism: the Small-Scale Enterprise
Models of Small-Firm Growth: Innovation and Knowledge Transfer
Entrepreneurial Networks and Tourism Destinations
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Future Issues
References
Chapter 10: Labor Mobility and Labor Market Structures in Tourism
Tourism Labor Markets and Labor Mobility
Issues in Tourism Labor Mobility
Methodological Developments
Future Developments
References
Chapter 11: Tourism and Development
The Emergence of Development Theory
Tourism through the Lens of Development Theory
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Issues and Challenges
References
Chapter 12: Transport and Tourism
The Transport–Tourism–Mobility Relationship
The Nascent Tourism Transport Literature
The Relationship Between Transport, Recreation, and Tourism
The Car and Recreational Travel
Cycling as a Sustainable Form of Recreational and Tourist Transport
Current Research Issues for Tourism and Transport
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 13: Tourism Innovation
Types of Innovation in Tourism
Entrepreneurs and Networks: Inspiration or Implementation
Employees: Close to the Customer, Close to Innovation
Tourists: Experts in the Tourism Experience and in Incremental Innovations
Conclusions: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 14: Souvenirs, Tourists, and Tourism
Souvenirs Scholarship
Souvenirs Phenomena
Souvenirs Consumption
Souvenirs Perceptions
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Part 4: Globalizing People, Places, and Markets in Tourism
Introduction: Globalizing People, Places, and Markets in Tourism
References
Chapter 15: Transnational Corporations and the Globalization of Tourism
Drivers of Globalization
Effects
Conclusions
References
Chapter 16: Problematizing Place Promotion and Commodification
Place Marketing and Management
Mindful Place Promotion
Epilogue: Theoretical, Methodological, and Practice Reflections
References
Chapter 17: Urban Tourism and the Experience Economy
Experience Economy and Geography: Intimate Connections
Experience Landscapes in Urban Tourism: Issues and Concerns
Experiencing Experiencescapes: Methodological Developments
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Questions for the Future
References
Chapter 18: Tourism and Creative Economies
Historical Antecedents
Synergies Between the “Creative” Industry and Tourism
Cultural Quarters
Individual Creative Industries and Forms of Special-Interest Tourism
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
Note
References
Chapter 19: Mobilities, Ethnicity, and Tourism
The Mobility Paradigm
The Tourism Imaginary
Defining Ethnicity
Ethnicity and Tourism
Chinatown
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 20: GPS, Smartphones, and the Future of Tourism Research
The Introduction of GPS to Social Science Research and to Tourism Studies
The Smartphone Revolution and it Implications for Tourists and Researchers
GPS Data and the Potential for Complex Spatiotemporal Modeling and Data Mining
Ethical Questions and the Tracking of Tourists
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
Key Questions for Future Research
References
Chapter 21: New Territories in Information Technologies and Tourism Research
The Critical Turn and Technology
Embedded Cognition, Situated Action, and Technologies as Actors
The Interface of Tourism
Bridging Reflection and Making
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Part 5: Social Theories of Tourist Practice, Experience, and Landscapes Encounters
Introduction: Social Theories of Tourist Practice, Experience, and Landscapes Encounters
References
Chapter 22: Landscapes of Tourism
The Place of Landscape in Tourism Geography: A Critical Assessment
Key Issues and Research Advances in Tourism Landscapes
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 23: Tourism After the Postmodern Turn
“Tourism, Modernity, and Postmodernity” After a Decade
Where did Postmodernity Go?
Practice: Real Tourism
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Tourism as Analytic
References
Chapter 24: The Tourist Gaze 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Conclusion
References
Chapter 25: Gender and Feminist Perspectives in Tourism Research
Tourism Research and Education
Women, Employment, and Empowerment
Tourism and the Global Sex Trade
Tourism and the Sexualization of Everyday Life
Tourism's “Hot” Environments and Sexual Harassment
Epilogue: Theoretical, Methodological, and Practice Reflections
References
Chapter 26: Tourism and the Visual
The Grand Tour, the Picturesque, the Sublime, and Occularcentrism
The Tourist Gaze
Embodied Visualities in Tourism
Performances, Practice, and the Visual
Mediation and Technology: Repositioning Tourists as Coproducers of the Visual
Changing Visualities and Changing Methods
Conclusions
References
Chapter 27: Speaking Heritage
Social: Historical Linguistic Context
Social: Contemporary Linguistic Usage
Individual Linguistic Experience
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 28: Religion and Spirituality in Tourism
Clearing the Path
Religious Parameters of Traveling
Religious Sites
Pilgrimages
Spirituality and Spiritual Tourism
Conclusion
References
Part 6: Tourist Attractions: Places, Spaces, and Forms
Introduction: Tourist Attractions: Places, Spaces, and Forms
References
Chapter 29: Material Culture and Contested Heritage in Tourism
Conservation Meets Development
The Future of the Past in the World's Emerging Economies
Planning for Conservation
Everyday conflicts in Dubrovnik
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 30: Trends in Tourism, Shopping, and Retailing
Shopping Tourism and Tourist Shopping
Contemporary Trends
Perspectives on Demand
Conclusion: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 31: Progress in Second-Home Tourism Research
A Short History of Second-Home Research
The Expansion of Second-Home Research
Meanings and Motivations
Location
Second-Home Tourism Impacts
The Tourism–Migration Nexus
International Dimensions
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 32: Timing Tourism
Essential Roles of Planned Events
Event Tourism
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 33: Taking Stock of Sport Tourism Research
Essence of Sport Tourism
An Analysis of Five Journals
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 34: Medical Tourism
Generating Contexts
Receiving Contexts
The Space in Between
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 35: Gay and Lesbian Tourism Practices
Why Do We have Gay and Lesbian Tourists?
Historical Notes on the Gay and Lesbian Tourism Segment
Gay and Lesbian Destination Choices
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Part 7: Tourism and the Environment: Change, Impacts, and Response
Introduction: Tourism and the Environment: Change, Impacts, and Response
Constructing Impacts
Constructing Environmental Change
Constructing Responses
References
Chapter 36: The Global Footprint of Tourism
Biodiversity
Water
Land Use and Change
Climate Change
Geographical Scope
Methodological Progress
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 37: Climate-Change Implications for Tourism
The New Realties of Global Climate Change for Tourism
The Geography of Tourism Vulnerability to Climate Change
Adapting to Climate Change
Conclusion: Is Tourism Prepared for Climate Change?
References
Chapter 38: Coastal and Marine Tourism
CMT as an Area of Academic Focus
Research Approaches
Emerging Issues and Future Trends
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 39: Sociocultural Resilience and Tourism
Defining Resilience
Defining Culture
The Value of Social Capital
Resilience in Individualistic and Collectivist Societies
Tourism and its Sociocultural Impacts
Tourism and Resilience Research
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 40: Tourism and Tourists in Nature, National Parks, and Wilderness
The Role of Nature: Tourism in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
Nature-Based Tourism Industry
Conclusions: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections on Multiple Layers of Ambivalence
References
Chapter 41: Exploring the Precautionary Principle in an Environment and Tourism Context
The Precautionary Principle
Tourism and Precaution
Conclusions: Reflections on Theory, Methods, and Practice
References
Chapter 42: The Sustainable Development of Tourism
Alternative and Mass Tourism
Bhutan and Dominica: Incremental Path?
Benidorm and Calviá: Organic Path?
Saemangeum: Induced Path?
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Evolution or Revolution?
References
Part 8: Tourism Policies, Planning, and Governance
Introduction: Tourism Policies, Planning, and Governance
References
Chapter 43: Tourism and Public Policy
Background
Research Approaches
Balancing Grand Theory and the Particular
Academic Policy Analysis
From Government to Governance
The Era of E-Governance?
Digital Citizenship (Citizen 2.0)
Self-Governing Networks: Metagovernance
Third and Fourth Way Politics: Contemplating the Future
Theoretical and Methodological Reflections
References
Chapter 44: Local Participation in Community Tourism
Practical Processes and Outcomes, and Their Difficulties
A Relational and Interscalar Critical Assessment: Theory and Methods
Assessing the Potential Significance of Community Tourism
Conclusion
References
Chapter 45: Partnerships, Tourism, and Community Impacts
The Rise of Tourism Partnerships
Partnerships in Tourism Scholarship: State of the Art
A Critical Assessment of Partnership Performance and Impacts
Future Research Developments in Tourism Partnerships: Reflections on Theory, Methods, and Practice
References
Chapter 46: Tourism in the Development of Regional and Sectoral Innovation Systems
RIS
SIS
Tourism Innovation Systems
Tourism Sectoral and Regional Innovation Systems
Tourism as a Facilitator and Enabler of RIS
Conclusions
References
Chapter 47: Critical Success Factors for Creating Community-Based Tourism
From Local Champion-Led to Broader Community-Based Organization
Alleviating Dependency and Reducing the Gestation Period
Sustaining Commercial Viability and Developing Career Paths
Establishing Partnerships with Specialist Tour Operators in Mature Stages
Conclusions
References
Chapter 48: Strengthening Tourism–Poverty Linkages
Develop Policy for Linkages, Not Leakages
Research on Tourism–Agriculture Linkages
Theoretical Reflections
References
Chapter 49: Tourism Crises and Disasters
Introduction
Planning and Preparedness
Response and Recovery
Research Approaches and Methods
Conclusion and Research Futures
References
Part 9: Conclusions
Chapter 50: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges for Tourism
Reflections on this Volume
Tourism: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges
Challenges for Tourism Research
Looking Outside the Box: Redefining the Tourism Research Agenda
The Trajectory of the Tourism Academy
References
Index
End User License Agreement

Citation preview

Table of Contents Wiley Blackwell Companions to Geography Title page Copyright page Notes on Contributors Part 1: Introduction Chapter 1: Tourism: Conceptualizations, Disciplinarity, Institutions, and Issues Conceptualizing Tourism The Institutionalization of Tourism Studies: Tourism as a Discipline? Issues References Part 2: Perspectives on Tourism Introduction: Perspectives on Tourism References Chapter 2: Tourist Flows and Spatial Behavior Modeling Interdestination Tourist Movements Modeling Intradestination Movements Intervening Factors Conclusion References Chapter 3: Tourism Motivations and Decision Making Background Issues A Core History of Tourist Motivation Study Adding to the Tourist Motivation Literature Employing Travel Motivation Concepts Decision Making Conclusions: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 4: Political Economy of Tourism Tourism and Regulation Theory Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References

Chapter 5: Cultural Geographies of Tourism Tourism as Geography Writ Large Being a Tourist, Doing Tourism Studying Tourism Cultures Conclusions References Chapter 6: Tourism Mobilities Global Tourism Mobilities Heritage Tourism Mobilities Imaginative and Communicative Tourism Mobilities Mobile Methods Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 7: Critical Perspectives on Tourism Early Critical Perspectives The Development of the Critical Tourism Studies Movement Critical Engagements in Tourism and Hospitality Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Part 3: Producing Tourism and Tourism Spaces Introduction: Producing Tourism and Tourism Spaces References Chapter 8: Economic Geographies of Tourism Revisited A Retrospective on the Economic Geography of Tourism Flows of Capital A Case Study: The Economic Geography of Air Transportation and Tourism Discussion and Conclusion References Chapter 9: Entrepreneurial Cultures and Small Business Enterprises in Tourism Entrepreneurship and Tourism: a Changing Research Agenda Entrepreneurial Processes and the Small Firm Entrepreneurial Cultures in Tourism: the Small-Scale Enterprise Models of Small-Firm Growth: Innovation and Knowledge Transfer Entrepreneurial Networks and Tourism Destinations

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Future Issues References Chapter 10: Labor Mobility and Labor Market Structures in Tourism Tourism Labor Markets and Labor Mobility Issues in Tourism Labor Mobility Methodological Developments Future Developments References Chapter 11: Tourism and Development The Emergence of Development Theory Tourism through the Lens of Development Theory Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Issues and Challenges References Chapter 12: Transport and Tourism The Transport–Tourism–Mobility Relationship The Nascent Tourism Transport Literature The Relationship Between Transport, Recreation, and Tourism The Car and Recreational Travel Cycling as a Sustainable Form of Recreational and Tourist Transport Current Research Issues for Tourism and Transport Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 13: Tourism Innovation Types of Innovation in Tourism Entrepreneurs and Networks: Inspiration or Implementation Employees: Close to the Customer, Close to Innovation Tourists: Experts in the Tourism Experience and in Incremental Innovations Conclusions: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 14: Souvenirs, Tourists, and Tourism Souvenirs Scholarship Souvenirs Phenomena Souvenirs Consumption Souvenirs Perceptions

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Part 4: Globalizing People, Places, and Markets in Tourism Introduction: Globalizing People, Places, and Markets in Tourism References Chapter 15: Transnational Corporations and the Globalization of Tourism Drivers of Globalization Effects Conclusions References Chapter 16: Problematizing Place Promotion and Commodification Place Marketing and Management Mindful Place Promotion Epilogue: Theoretical, Methodological, and Practice Reflections References Chapter 17: Urban Tourism and the Experience Economy Experience Economy and Geography: Intimate Connections Experience Landscapes in Urban Tourism: Issues and Concerns Experiencing Experiencescapes: Methodological Developments Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Questions for the Future References Chapter 18: Tourism and Creative Economies Historical Antecedents Synergies Between the “Creative” Industry and Tourism Cultural Quarters Individual Creative Industries and Forms of Special-Interest Tourism Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Note References Chapter 19: Mobilities, Ethnicity, and Tourism The Mobility Paradigm The Tourism Imaginary Defining Ethnicity Ethnicity and Tourism

Chinatown Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 20: GPS, Smartphones, and the Future of Tourism Research The Introduction of GPS to Social Science Research and to Tourism Studies The Smartphone Revolution and it Implications for Tourists and Researchers GPS Data and the Potential for Complex Spatiotemporal Modeling and Data Mining Ethical Questions and the Tracking of Tourists Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Key Questions for Future Research References Chapter 21: New Territories in Information Technologies and Tourism Research The Critical Turn and Technology Embedded Cognition, Situated Action, and Technologies as Actors The Interface of Tourism Bridging Reflection and Making Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Part 5: Social Theories of Tourist Practice, Experience, and Landscapes Encounters Introduction: Social Theories of Tourist Practice, Experience, and Landscapes Encounters References Chapter 22: Landscapes of Tourism The Place of Landscape in Tourism Geography: A Critical Assessment Key Issues and Research Advances in Tourism Landscapes Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 23: Tourism After the Postmodern Turn “Tourism, Modernity, and Postmodernity” After a Decade Where did Postmodernity Go? Practice: Real Tourism Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Tourism as Analytic References

Chapter 24: The Tourist Gaze 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Conclusion References Chapter 25: Gender and Feminist Perspectives in Tourism Research Tourism Research and Education Women, Employment, and Empowerment Tourism and the Global Sex Trade Tourism and the Sexualization of Everyday Life Tourism's “Hot” Environments and Sexual Harassment Epilogue: Theoretical, Methodological, and Practice Reflections References Chapter 26: Tourism and the Visual The Grand Tour, the Picturesque, the Sublime, and Occularcentrism The Tourist Gaze Embodied Visualities in Tourism Performances, Practice, and the Visual Mediation and Technology: Repositioning Tourists as Coproducers of the Visual Changing Visualities and Changing Methods Conclusions References Chapter 27: Speaking Heritage Social: Historical Linguistic Context Social: Contemporary Linguistic Usage Individual Linguistic Experience Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 28: Religion and Spirituality in Tourism Clearing the Path Religious Parameters of Traveling Religious Sites Pilgrimages

Spirituality and Spiritual Tourism Conclusion References Part 6: Tourist Attractions: Places, Spaces, and Forms Introduction: Tourist Attractions: Places, Spaces, and Forms References Chapter 29: Material Culture and Contested Heritage in Tourism Conservation Meets Development The Future of the Past in the World's Emerging Economies Planning for Conservation Everyday conflicts in Dubrovnik Acknowledgments References Chapter 30: Trends in Tourism, Shopping, and Retailing Shopping Tourism and Tourist Shopping Contemporary Trends Perspectives on Demand Conclusion: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 31: Progress in Second-Home Tourism Research A Short History of Second-Home Research The Expansion of Second-Home Research Meanings and Motivations Location Second-Home Tourism Impacts The Tourism–Migration Nexus International Dimensions Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 32: Timing Tourism Essential Roles of Planned Events Event Tourism Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References

Chapter 33: Taking Stock of Sport Tourism Research Essence of Sport Tourism An Analysis of Five Journals Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 34: Medical Tourism Generating Contexts Receiving Contexts The Space in Between Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 35: Gay and Lesbian Tourism Practices Why Do We have Gay and Lesbian Tourists? Historical Notes on the Gay and Lesbian Tourism Segment Gay and Lesbian Destination Choices Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Part 7: Tourism and the Environment: Change, Impacts, and Response Introduction: Tourism and the Environment: Change, Impacts, and Response Constructing Impacts Constructing Environmental Change Constructing Responses References Chapter 36: The Global Footprint of Tourism Biodiversity Water Land Use and Change Climate Change Geographical Scope Methodological Progress Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 37: Climate-Change Implications for Tourism The New Realties of Global Climate Change for Tourism

The Geography of Tourism Vulnerability to Climate Change Adapting to Climate Change Conclusion: Is Tourism Prepared for Climate Change? References Chapter 38: Coastal and Marine Tourism CMT as an Area of Academic Focus Research Approaches Emerging Issues and Future Trends Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Acknowledgments References Chapter 39: Sociocultural Resilience and Tourism Defining Resilience Defining Culture The Value of Social Capital Resilience in Individualistic and Collectivist Societies Tourism and its Sociocultural Impacts Tourism and Resilience Research Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 40: Tourism and Tourists in Nature, National Parks, and Wilderness The Role of Nature: Tourism in National Parks and Wilderness Areas Nature-Based Tourism Industry Conclusions: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections on Multiple Layers of Ambivalence References Chapter 41: Exploring the Precautionary Principle in an Environment and Tourism Context The Precautionary Principle Tourism and Precaution Conclusions: Reflections on Theory, Methods, and Practice References Chapter 42: The Sustainable Development of Tourism Alternative and Mass Tourism

Bhutan and Dominica: Incremental Path? Benidorm and Calviá: Organic Path? Saemangeum: Induced Path? Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Evolution or Revolution? References Part 8: Tourism Policies, Planning, and Governance Introduction: Tourism Policies, Planning, and Governance References Chapter 43: Tourism and Public Policy Background Research Approaches Balancing Grand Theory and the Particular Academic Policy Analysis From Government to Governance The Era of E-Governance? Digital Citizenship (Citizen 2.0) Self-Governing Networks: Metagovernance Third and Fourth Way Politics: Contemplating the Future Theoretical and Methodological Reflections References Chapter 44: Local Participation in Community Tourism Practical Processes and Outcomes, and Their Difficulties A Relational and Interscalar Critical Assessment: Theory and Methods Assessing the Potential Significance of Community Tourism Conclusion References Chapter 45: Partnerships, Tourism, and Community Impacts The Rise of Tourism Partnerships Partnerships in Tourism Scholarship: State of the Art A Critical Assessment of Partnership Performance and Impacts Future Research Developments in Tourism Partnerships: Reflections on Theory, Methods, and Practice References Chapter 46: Tourism in the Development of Regional and Sectoral Innovation Systems

RIS SIS Tourism Innovation Systems Tourism Sectoral and Regional Innovation Systems Tourism as a Facilitator and Enabler of RIS Conclusions References Chapter 47: Critical Success Factors for Creating Community-Based Tourism From Local Champion-Led to Broader Community-Based Organization Alleviating Dependency and Reducing the Gestation Period Sustaining Commercial Viability and Developing Career Paths Establishing Partnerships with Specialist Tour Operators in Mature Stages Conclusions References Chapter 48: Strengthening Tourism–Poverty Linkages Develop Policy for Linkages, Not Leakages Research on Tourism–Agriculture Linkages Theoretical Reflections References Chapter 49: Tourism Crises and Disasters Introduction Planning and Preparedness Response and Recovery Research Approaches and Methods Conclusion and Research Futures References Part 9: Conclusions Chapter 50: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges for Tourism Reflections on this Volume Tourism: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges Challenges for Tourism Research Looking Outside the Box: Redefining the Tourism Research Agenda The Trajectory of the Tourism Academy References

Index End User License Agreement

List of Tables Table 1.1. International tourism arrivals and forecasts 1950–2030 (millions). Table 1.2. Keyword search of Scopus titles, abstracts, and keywords 1973–2013: business and government terms and concepts. Table 1.3. Keyword search of Scopus titles, abstracts, and keywords 1973–2013: geography and environment terms and concepts. Table 1.4. Keyword search of Scopus titles, abstracts, and keywords 1973–2013: key tourism terms and concepts. Table 9.1. Key research agenda on entrepreneurship and small firms. Table 9.2. Key motivational drivers of entrepreneurship in tourism. Table 9.3. Selected SME life-cycle models. Table 9.4. Key research themes on small tourism businesses and levels of measurement. Table 11.1. Development theory from the 1950s. Table 33.1. Sport tourism articles by journal, 2007–2011. Table 36.1. Human and tourism alteration of major Earth systems. Table 36.2. Water-use categories and estimated use per tourist per day. Table 36.3. Tourism-related land alterations. Table 36.4. Distribution of emissions from tourism by subsector. Table 36.5. Important tourism regions facing GEC threats. Table 36.6. Estimated level of tourism impacts on GEC (on a per-trip basis). Table 37.1. Regional climate change vulnerability of the tourism sector. Table 40.1. Development of visitor numbers in 1940–2010 in selected National Parks in the USA. Table 47.1. Ten successful community-based tourism projects in the APEC region. Table 49.1. Research case studies and context.

List of Illustrations Figure 1.1. Relationships between leisure, recreation, and tourism (after Hall, 2005). VFR, visiting friends and relations.

Figure 1.2. Extent of temporary mobility in space and time (after Hall, 2005). Figure 2.1. Itinerary types. Figure 2.2. Different transit and destination touring components of itineraries. Figure 2.3. Territoriality of intradestination movements. Source: Lew and McKercher (2006). Figure 2.4. Linearity of intradestination movements. Source: Lew and McKercher (2006). Figure 2.5. Cumulative volume of arrivals. Source: McKercher et al. (2006). Figure 9.1. Stages of small-business development over time. Source: after Morrison et al. (1999). Figure 11.1. Theoretical perspectives informing approaches to tourism and development. INGOs, international nongovernmental organizations; MT, modernization theory; UDT, underdevelopment theory; UN, United Nations. Source: Harrison (2010), p. 42. Figure 12.1. The tourist–transport relationship. Figure 20.1. Different scales of studies using tracking technologies in the recent decade. Figure 20.2. Circular plots by region and by group and trip type. Figure 22.1. The landscapes of tourism model (Terkenli, 2000). Figure 27.1. Conceptualizing language as a tourism heritage resource. Figure 32.1. Major and secondary roles of events as instruments of policy and strategy. Getz (2007, 2012). Figure 32.2. Forces propelling and constraining event tourism. From Getz (2013). Figure 33.1. Classification of sport tourism research (2007–2011) based on the modified Gibson (1998) typology (n = 102). Figure 33.2. Methods employed in empirical studies of sport tourism (2007–2011) (n = 100). Figure 33.3. Geographical focus of empirical studies of sport tourism (2007–2011) (n = 102). Figure 37.1. The complex interactions between climate change and the tourism sector. Source: Scott et al. (2012b). Figure 37.2. Projected contraction of the New England (USA) ski market under climate change. Adapted from Dawson and Scott (2013). Figure 37.3. Relative ability of tourism stakeholders to adapt to climate change. Adapted from Scott and Jones (2006).

Figure 46.1. The relationships between tourism, regional, and sectoral innovation systems. TSIS, tourism sectoral innovation system.

Wiley Blackwell Companions to Geography Wiley Blackwell Companions to Geography is a blue-chip, comprehensive series covering each major subdiscipline of human geography in detail. Edited and contributed by the disciplines' leading authorities each book provides the most up to date and authoritative syntheses available in its field. The overviews provided in each Companion will be an indispensable introduction to the field for students of all levels, while the cutting-edge, critical direction will engage students, teachers, and practitioners alike.

Published A Companion to Political Geography Edited by John Agnew, Katharyne Mitchell, and Gerard Toal (Gearoid O Tuathail) A Companion to Feminist Geography Edited by Lise Nelson and Joni Seager A Companion to Environmental Geography Edited by Noel Castree, David Demeritt, Diana Liverman, and Bruce Rhoads A Companion to Health and Medical Geography Edited by Tim Brown, Sara McLafferty, and Graham Moon A Companion to Social Geography Edited by Vincent J. Del Casino Jr., Mary Thomas, Ruth Panelli, and Paul Cloke The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Human Geography Edited by John A. Agnew and James S. Duncan The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Economic Geography Edited by Eric Sheppard, Trevor J. Barnes, and Jamie Peck The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Cultural Geography Edited by Nuala C. Johnson, Richard H. Schein, and Jamie Winders The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Tourism Edited by Alan A. Lew, C. Michael Hall, and Allan M. Williams

Also available: The New Blackwell Companion to the City Edited by Gary Bridge and Sophie Watson The Blackwell Companion to Globalization Edited by George Ritzer

The Handbook of Geographic Information Science Edited by John Wilson and Stewart Fotheringham

This edition first published 2014 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Alan A. Lew, C. Michael Hall, and Allan M. Williams to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Wiley Blackwell companion to tourism / edited by Alan A. Lew, C. Michael Hall, and Allan M. Williams. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-118-47448-8 (cloth) 1. Tourism–Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Lew, Alan A. G155.A1W484 2014 338.4'791–dc23 2013049093 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover image: Chinese New Year in Singapore, 2012. Photo Alan A. Lew.

Notes on Contributors Suzanne Becken is a Professor of Sustainable Tourism at Griffith University, Australia, and an Adjunct Professor at Lincoln University, New Zealand. Susanne is on the editorial boards of Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, and Tourism Review. She is actively involved in debates on climate change, resilience, risk management, and tourism. Mads Bødker works as an associate professor at the Copenhagen Business School, Department of IT Management. His primary interests lie in the fields of human–computer interaction (HCI) and interaction design. Focusing on the domain of tourism, his current research challenges dominant assumptions within IT, HCI, and technical work previously applied to tourism by focusing on experiential, affective, and sensory perspectives. Inspired by human geography and phenomenology, his work emphasizes the understanding of tourist places as performances, and aims to inspire and derive implications for design of mobile IT services from place-oriented research methods. Bill Bramwell is Professor of International Tourism Studies at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. He is coeditor of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, and he has edited books on tourism's relationships with partnerships, sustainability in Europe, rural development, governance and policy-making, and coastal areas in Southern Europe. His research interests include tourism policy and planning, tourism and environmental politics, governance in tourism, tourism development and society in China, and political economy and tourism development. T.C. Chang is associate professor at the Department of Geography of the National University of Singapore where he is also Vice-Dean (External Relations and Student Life) of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. He is also the associate editor of the Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography and is on the editorial board of Current Issues in Tourism. His research and publications focus mainly on urbanization and heritage conservation, tourism, and arts and culture (focusing mainly on Asia). Prem Chhetri is Professor of Geologistics in the College of Business at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. His recent research has centered on urban and spatial modeling, tourism cluster and governance, emergency logistics and policy response, and application of GIS and GPS technologies in survey analytics, tourism potential modeling, and transport planning. He is the Deputy Head of School for industry engagement. Joanne Connell is Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management, University of Exeter Business School, UK. She is coauthor of Tourism: A Modern Synthesis and edited the Routledge Handbook of Events (both with Stephen Page). Mike Crang is Professor of Geography at Durham University. He was the founding editor of Tourist Studies, coedited The Mediterranean in the Age of Mass Tourism with (Pau Obdrador and Penny Travlou) and has written on film tourism in Greece and heritage tourism. Keith G. Debbage is Professor of Geography at the University of North Carolina at

Greensboro. He received his PhD in geography from the University of Georgia in 1988. His principal research interests include the economic geography of tourism, air transportation, and urban development. Dr Debbage has published in many leading academic journals including the Annals of Tourism Research and Tourism Management and he has been the recipient of dozens of research grants focused on urban development. Larry Dwyer is President of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism and president of the International Association for Tourism Economics. His research interests include economics of tourism, tourism management, and tourism planning. Eke Eijgelaar has been a researcher at the NHTV Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport (www.cstt.nl) since 2008. His main research interests concern the environmental impacts of tourism, particularly the monitoring and mitigation of its carbon footprint. This includes related topics like carbon management, carbon offsetting, and low-carbon tourism such as cycle tourism. Eke has published on these topics and also lectures on tourism– environment relations at NHTV. David A. Fennell teaches and researches in the Department of Tourism and Environment, Brock University, Canada. He has written widely on ecotourism, tourism ethics, and moral issues tied to the use of animals in tourism. He is editor in chief of the Journal of Ecotourism. Donald Getz received his PhD in social sciences from the University of Edinburgh (1981) and has subsequently held full-time appointments at the University of Waterloo and University of Calgary, followed by a 50% position at the University of Queensland. He is author of a number of books on events including two editions of Festival Management and Event Tourism, two editions of Event Studies, and most recently (2013) Event Tourism. Chris Gibson is Professor of Human Geography at the University of Wollongong and Director of UOW's Global Challenges Research Program. His recent books include Music Festivals and Regional Development in Australia (cowritten with John Connell) and Creativity in Peripheral Places: Redefining the Creative Industries. C. Michael Hall is a Professor in the Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Docent, University of Oulu, Finland; and a Visiting Professor at Linneaus University, Sweden and the University of Eastern Finland. He is coeditor of Current Issues of Tourism, an associate editor for Tourism Geographies, and book review editor for Journal of Sustainable Tourism and has published widely in tourism, environmental history, and gastronomy. Lauren A. Hall-Lew is Lecturer in Sociolinguistics in the Department of Linguistics and English Language at the University of Edinburgh, where she teaches courses in sociolinguistics and empirical methods. Her interests and writings focus on the role of social factors (aspects of community histories and individual identities) in models of phonetic variation and change in varieties of English. Amran Hamzah is a Professor in Tourism Planning and the Director of the Centre for Innovative Planning and Development (CiPD) at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia. His area of specialization is the interface between community-based tourism (CBT)

and ecotourism. Amran has been researching CBT since 1998 and has worked as a tourism consultant in the planning and developing CBT standards and in related projects in the Southeast Asia region. Kevin Hannam is Professor of Tourism Mobilities at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK, and Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. With John Urry and Mimi Sheller he is a founding coeditor of the journal Mobilities. He is the coauthor of the recent books Understanding Tourism and Tourism and India. He is currently collaborating on a research project on walking, art, and landscape. David Harrison is Professor of Tourism at the University of the South Pacific. Author of The Sociology of Modernization and Development (1988), many peer-reviewed papers and book chapters, and editor of several books, including Tourism and the Less Developed World: Issues and Case Studies (2001), he has researched the impacts of tourism in the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Southern Africa, Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific and is especially interested in tourism's impacts in islands and small states. Freya Higgins-Desbiolles is senior lecturer in the Department of Tourism of the University of Otago and the School of Management of the University of South Australia. She came to academia after 10 years working in the development arena with nongovernmental organizations such as the Peace Corps, Community Aid Abroad, and the Global Education Centre of South Australia. She has coedited a volume titled Peace Through Tourism and authored a number of journal articles and book chapters offering critical perspectives on tourism and hospitality. James Higham is a professor in the Department of Tourism, School of Business, University of Otago, and Visiting Professor of Sustainable Tourism, University of Stavanger. His research interests address tourism and global environmental change (focusing on global to local scales of analysis including tourist interactions with wildlife, tourism, and wilderness, and the relationship between tourism, recreation, and climate change) and sport and tourism (sport and spatial travel flows, sport and tourism seasonality, sport and authentic experiences, and globalization, sport, and place). Tom Hinch is a professor and associate dean in the Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation at the University of Alberta. His research interests are focused in the area of sport and tourism particularly in terms of the way sport tourists relate to and experience the places that they visit. Recent publications include two books coauthored with James Higham: Sport Tourism Development, 2nd edn (2011) and Sport and Tourism: Globalization, Mobility and Identity (2009). Debbie Hopkins is a PhD candidate at the University of Otago, New Zealand. Her research broadly addresses the human–environment relationship and applies social and cultural frames to environmental issues. Most recently, Debbie's research has been concerned with the social phenomenon of climate change with a particular focus on social risk perceptions, knowledge construction, and behavioral change. Shirlena Huang is associate professor at the Department of Geography of the National University of Singapore where she is also Vice-Dean (Graduate Studies) of the Faculty of Arts

and Social Sciences and a Research Associate of the Asia Research Institute. She is also Regional Editor (Asia) of Women's Studies International Forum and on the editorial boards of the Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, International Journal of Population Research, and Sojourn. Her research and publications focus mainly on urbanization and heritage conservation (mainly in Singapore) as well as gender and migration (particularly within the Asia-Pacific region). Dimitri Ioannides is Professor of Human Geography at Mid-Sweden University and also Professor of Tourism Planning and Development at Missouri State University. He received his PhD in urban planning and policy development from Rutgers University in 1994. Over the years he has published many pieces relating to the economic geography of tourism as well as tourism planning and sustainability. He is coauthor, with Dallen J. Timothy, of Tourism in the USA: A Social and Spatial Synthesis. Michal Isaacson is a postdoc associate at the MIT Agelab. Her research focuses on the individual's spatial behavior using advanced tracking technologies. As an urban geographer she is interested in how people both consume and create urban space. In recent years Michal's research has focused on older adults, examining aspects of mobility in the lives of this population. Currently she is leading studies that examine mobility of older adults in the USA and India. John M. Jenkins is Professor of Tourism Studies and Chair, Academic Board, Southern Cross University, Australia. John's research interests include tourism and public policy, outdoor recreation management, and men's leisure and fatherhood. Adele Ladkin is a Professor of Tourism Employment in the School of Tourism, Bournemouth University, UK. Her research interests are in employment and labor markets in the tourism and hospitality industries. This includes the role of education in developing human capital for tourism workers, and human resource issues. Her recent work explores the role of migrant workers in various occupations in the hospitality industry in terms of their experiences, career development, and mobile lives. Jonas Larsen is associate lecturer and research leader at the Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change. He has coauthored Performing Tourist Places (2004), Mobilities, Networks, Geographies (2006), and Tourism, Performance and the Everyday: Consuming the Orient (2010), and coedited Digital Snaps: the New Face of Snapshot Photography (2013). Alan A. Lew is a Professor in the Department of Geography, Planning, and Recreation at Northern Arizona University where he teaches courses in geography, urban planning, and tourism. His interests and writings focus on tourism and community planning in Asia, particularly China and Southeast Asia. He is the founding editor-in-chief of the journal Tourism Geographies and is a fellow of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism. Michael Lück is head of the tourism and events department at AUT University in Auckland, New Zealand. His research interests include coastal and marine tourism, wildlife tourism, ecotourism, and transport and tourism.

Judith Mair is a senior lecturer in the Department of Management at Monash University. Her research areas are tourism and events, and she has a particular interest in climate change, postdisaster recovery, and sustainability. Bob McKercher is a Professor in Tourism in the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He received his PhD from the University of Melbourne in Australia, a Master's degree from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, and his undergraduate degree from York University in Toronto, Canada. Professor McKercher has wide-ranging research interests. He has published over 200 scholarly papers and research reports on a variety of subject areas and is the author of The Business of Nature-based Tourism (1998) and coauthor of Cultural Tourism: The Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management (2002). Kevin Meethan is Associate Professor in Sociology at Plymouth University, and has research interests that encompass tourism, sociocultural change and social theory, global–local relations in tourism and visual research methods. He is an active member of the International Sociological Association and is founding editor of the Journal of Tourism Consumption and Practice. Claudio Minca is Professor and Chair of the Cultural Geography Chair Group at Wageningen University, Netherlands. His research focuses on geographies of tourism, travel, and spatial theories of modernity. His current research centers on three major themes: tourism and travel theories of modernity; the spatialization of (bio)politics; and the relationship between modern knowledge, space, and landscape in postcolonial geography. His most recent books are Moroccan Dreams (with L. Wagner, 2013), Real Tourism (with T. Oakes, 2011), Social Capital and Urban Networks of Trust (with J. Hakli, 2009), and Travels in Paradox (with T. Oakes, 2006). Muchazondida Mkono teaches in the School of Tourism, Southern Cross University, Australia. Her research interests include sustainable tourism management, African tourism, tourist experience, tourism policy, and netnographic methodology in tourism studies. She grew up in Zimbabwe, and then relocated to Australia for her PhD, which compared African and Western touristic quests at Victoria Falls. Nigel Morgan is Professor of Tourism and Event Marketing at the University of Surrey, where he teaches, researches, and writes about the connections between tourism, identity, citizenship, and place. He has published widely in these areas, including Destination Branding: Managing Place Reputation (2001, 2004, 2011). A proponent of transformative scholarship, he is an energetic advocate for the sustainable and inclusive development and marketing of cities, regions, and countries. Jan Mosedale is senior researcher in the Institute of Tourism and Leisure at the University of Applied Sciences HTW Chur, Switzerland. He has edited Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective, and is currently working on a book on Neoliberalism and Tourism: Projects, Discourses and Practices. Jan's research interests are based on economic transitions and the spaces between economy, culture, and nature; he fuses political economy, cultural

economic approaches, and political ecology. Dieter K. Müller is a Professor of Social and Economic Geography and Dean of the Faculty of Social Science at Umeå University, Sweden. His research addresses second homes and tourism in peripheral areas. He has coedited Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes (2004), Tourism in Peripheries (2007), Nordic Tourism (2009), and New Issues in Polar Tourism (2013). For the period 2012–2016 he is Chairperson of the IGU Commission on the Geography of Tourism, Leisure and Global Change. Ana María Munar is associate professor at the Department of International Economics and Management, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. She holds an MSc in political science and a PhD in business and economics. Her research interests are tourism and information and communication technologies, globalization processes, destination branding, and policy and trends in tourism education. Her latest work provides insights on the impact that web 2.0 and social media technologies have on tourism. Her articles examine the role of digital mediation on cultural change and social reproduction. She is a board member of Imagine Creative Industries Research Center and a member of the Center for Leisure and Culture Services at Copenhagen Business School. Tim Oakes is Professor of Geography and Director of the Center for Asian Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also has appointments as Visiting Professor at Guizhou Minzu University (China) and Wageningen University (Netherlands). His research focuses on cultural development, tourism and heritage, cultural exhibition and display, and cultural governance in both rural and urban regions of China. Recent publications include Real Tourism: Practice, Care, and Politics in Contemporary Travel Culture (with C. Minca, 2011) and Faiths on Display: Religion, Tourism, and the State in China (with D. Sutton, 2010). Recent articles have appeared in Modern China, Eurasian Geography and Economics, Environment and Planning D: Society & Space, and Harvard Asia Quarterly. Mark B. Orams is based at the New Zealand Tourism Research Institute and the School of Hospitality and Tourism at AUT University in Auckland, New Zealand. His research interests include coastal and marine recreation and tourism, sport management, and sustainable development. Meghann Ormond is Assistant Professor in Cultural Geography at Wageningen University, The Netherlands. She is the author of Neoliberal Governance and International Medical Travel in Malaysia (2013) and several articles and chapters on transnational health care. Her empirical work is focused in Southeast Asia. Stephen Page is professor, School of Tourism, Bournemouth University, UK and associate and reviews editor of the journal Tourism Management. Philip L. Pearce gained his honours degree in psychology and diploma of education from the University of Adelaide and his doctorate in psychology the University of Oxford. He has always been interested in studying tourists and tourist behavior. His well-known first book, The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour (1982), has been followed by over 200 articles and nine more books, the latest being Tourist Behaviour in the Contemporary World in 2011.

Paul Peeters specializes in the impacts of tourism on the environment and specifically on climate change. His publications cover a wide range of topics like global and regional tourism and climate scenarios, system dynamic approaches to tourism, tourism transport-mode choice and modal shift, policy-making, and transport technological developments. He is responsible for the NHTV Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport (www.cstt.nl) and a group of six researchers. Kyle Powys Whyte is an enroled member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation (CPN) in Shawnee, Oklahoma. He is assistant professor of philosophy at Michigan State University and affiliated faculty at the Center for the Study of Standards in Society (CS3), the Peace and Justice Studies Specialization, and the American Indian Studies Program; and writes on issues in environmental justice, the philosophies of science and technology, and American Indian philosophy. Annette Pritchard is Professor of Critical Tourism Studies and Director of the Welsh Centre for Tourism Research at Cardiff Metropolitan University. Annette has a long-standing interest in places, representations, and identities and she has published widely on their connectivities, as well as on tourism's gendered visual rhetoric. Her work is shaped by a commitment to transformative research and she is one of the originators of the hopeful tourism agenda and cochair of the Critical Tourism Studies conferences. Brent W. Ritchie is an associate professor at the School of Tourism at the University of Queensland. His research uses consumer and organizational behavior concepts and theories to understand risk, crisis, and disaster management in a tourism context. Christian M. Rogerson is professor, School of Tourism and Hospitality, Faculty of Management, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. His research interests are local economic development, small-enterprise development, and the tourism–development nexus with particular reference to sub-Saharan Africa. Jarkko Saarinen is Professor of Geography at the University of Oulu, and senior research fellow at the School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg. His research interests include tourism development and sustainability, tourism and climate change, community-based natural resource management, and the construction of the ideas of nature and local culture in tourism. He is currently the Vice-President of the International Geographical Union (IGU) and associate editor of Journal of Ecotourism. Stacy-Lynn Sant is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation at the University of Alberta. Ms Sant's research focuses on the legacy of mega-events, prospective hosts' bid strategies, and the leveraging of events for long-term tourism benefits in the host city and region. Caroline Scarles is a Senior Lecturer in Tourism at the University of Surrey. Her research interests lie in the visuals and visualities in tourism, ethics, and sustainable tourism with particular focus on the visual as actively producing and consuming place through negotiations of agency, power, and ethics. She chairs the Geographies of Leisure and Tourism Research Group for the Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers and is a

founding member of the International Network for Visual Studies in Organisations (inVISIO). Daniel Scott is a Canada Research Chair in Global Change and Tourism at the University of Waterloo (Canada). He has over 100 publications related to climate change and tourism, including special reports for the United Nations World Tourism Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Meteorological Organization and contributions to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assessment Reports. Gareth Shaw is Professor of Retail and Tourism Management and Associate Dean of Research in the University of Exeter Business School. He researches retail management and tourism and has held research grants from ESRC, British Academy, AHRC, Leverhulme, Defra, and ESRC-AIM. He is currently leading a 4-year EU project on tourism and wellbeing. Noam Shoval is an associate professor and the Head of the Department of Geography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His main research interests are tourism and culture as tools for urban regeneration, models of hotel location, tourism management policies in heritage cities, and implementation of advanced tracking technologies in various areas of spatial research such as tourism and medicine. Michael Stausberg is professor of religion at the University of Bergen and a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. His publications include Religion and Tourism: Crossroads, Destinations and Encounters (2011). See michaelstausberg.net for more information including a full list of publications with downloads. Kristen Swanson is a professor in the School of Communication at Northern Arizona University. Her research interests relate to tourism retailing and the American Southwest. She has published articles and chapters on souvenirs phenomena, tourist events, national park entrepreneurs, and themed retailing. Additionally she has written for Fairchild Books (Bloomsbury Publishing) on fashion show production, fashion promotion, and the writing process. Theano S. Terkenli is associate professor, Department of Geography and Interdepartmental Graduate Program in Tourism Planning, Administration and Policy, University of the Aegean. She holds a PhD in geography from the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities, and an MSc in landscape architecture from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Her research, publishing, and teaching covers cultural geography, landscape geography, and critical perspectives in tourism. Dallen J. Timothy is Professor of Community Resources and Development at Arizona State University and Senior Sustainability Scientist at the same institution. He is also director of the Tourism Development and Management Program at ASU. He has wide-ranging interests in tourism research, including heritage, religion, geopolitics, shopping and consumption, and community-based development. He is editor of the Journal of Heritage Tourism and serves on the editorial boards of 11 international journals. Gustav Visser is Professor of Human Geography at the University of the Free State. His key research interests relate to the tourism and development nexus, as well as the role of gay

leisure space consumption in urban morphological change. In the recent past he has coedited two collections of essays focused on tourism development in the south, one with Chris Rogerson and the other with Lochner Marais. His latest book, in collaboration with Sanette Ferreira, is titled Tourism and Crisis. Gordon Waitt is Professor of Human Geography at the University of Wollongong. With Christine Metusela he recently coauthored Tourism and Australian Beach Culture: Revealing Bodies. Gabby Walters is a lecturer at the School of Tourism at the University of Queensland, Australia. Her research interests include disaster recovery, destination marketing, and visitor behavior. David Weaver is Professor of Tourism Research at Griffith University on the Gold Coast of Australia. He specializes in sustainable tourism, ecotourism, and destination development, and has produced over 100 journal articles, books, or book chapters. He is a Fellow in the International Academy for the Study of Tourism. Adi Weidenfeld is a Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management at Middlesex University, UK, and a visiting researcher at Hanken School of Economics, Finland, where he has recently finished a 2-year Marie Curie Intra-European fellowship. He completed a PhD in geography at the University of Exeter. He has also worked as a planning consultant in Roger Tym and Partners and published in several international journals. Adi's current research focuses on tourism innovation, cross-border tourism, tourism development and planning, and visitor attractions management and spatial competition. Allan M. Williams is Professor of Tourism and Mobility Studies in the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management at the University of Surrey, UK. He has previously held academic positions at the London School of Economics, University of Durham, University of Exeter, and London Metropolitan Universities. Founding coeditor of two journals, Tourism Geographies and European Urban and Regional Studies, he has written or edited 25 books including Tourism Innovation (with Hall, 2008), Tourism and Tourism Spaces (with Shaw, 2004), Critical Issues in Tourism (with Shaw 2002), and Tourism and Migration (with Hall, 2002). His current research interests include tourism innovation and productivity, and the relationships between tourism and migration. Tim Winter is an associate professor at the Institute for Culture and Society, University of Western Sydney. Most of his working day is spent trying to figure out how cultural heritage features in issues like nationalism, postconflict recovery, sustainability, postcolonial identities, and urban development. He has published widely on these themes and conducted research projects in a number of countries in Asia, and more recently in Qatar. His recent books include The Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia and Shanghai Expo: an International Forum on the Future of Cities. María José Zapata Campos has a PhD in sociology and is a research fellow in the Managing Big Cities program at the Gothenburg Research Institute, School of Business Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her current research deals with the organizing of

environmental sustainability in cities, sociology of organizations, tourism, and urban and development studies. Judit Zoltan is a PhD candidate in economics at the University of Lugano, Switzerland, and currently a visiting researcher at the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She obtained her MA in international tourism from the University of Lugano, Switzerland, and her BSc in economics of catering and hotel management from the Budapest Business School, Hungary. Her research interests lie in the fields of destination management and marketing and tourist behavior.

Part 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 Tourism Conceptualizations, Disciplinarity, Institutions, and Issues C. Michael Hall, Allan M. Williams, and Alan A. Lew Any contemporary global account of tourism has to acknowledge at its outset the continued growth of international and domestic tourism. Despite temporary setbacks since the turn of the twenty-first century, tourism as an industry has probably achieved a higher profile in the public consciousness of the developed world than ever before. The impacts on international tourism of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, government and traveler responses to the SARS virus in 2003, the Indian Ocean Boxing Day tsunami in 2004, the 2008–2012 international economic and financial crisis, and the “Arab Spring” starting in 2010 in Tunisia have all proven transitory with respect to tourism growth at the global scale, although their destination, community, and firm effects remain significant. Regional and local changes in consumer confidence and travel behavior and corresponding shifts in travel patterns, such as a reported growth in “staycations” and more local travel, have, in the main, been short term as economic conditions improve in generating regions (Hall, 2010a). Indeed, economic problems in destinations, such as Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Thailand, and Tunisia, only served to make tourism more important than ever, not only with respect to business vitality and the economy but also in its sociocultural, environmental, and political contexts. Although the statistics relating to the economic role of tourism are by now familiar, it is worth emphasizing them here as part of the framing of this volume. Ranked the fourth largest economic sector after fuels, chemicals, and food, tourism accounts for an estimated 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) and 6–7% of employment (direct and indirect) (UNWTO, 2012). International tourism's export value, including international passenger transport, was US$1.2 trillion in 2011, accounting for 30% of the world's commercial service exports or 6% of total exports (UNWTO, 2012). Tourism is also one of five top export earners in over 150 countries, while in 60 countries it is the number one export sector (UNCTAD, 2010). It is also the main source of foreign exchange for one-third of developing countries and half of the least-developed countries (UNWTO and UNEP, 2011). The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) predicts the number of international tourist arrivals will increase by an average 3.3% per year between 2010 and 2030 (an average annual increase of 43 million arrivals), reaching an estimated 1.8 billion arrivals by 2030 (UNWTO, 2011, 2012) (see Table 1.1). Upper and lower forecasts for global tourism in 2030 are between approximately 2 billion arrivals (the “real transport costs continue to fall” scenario) and 1.4 billion arrivals (“slower-than-expected economic recovery and future growth” scenario) respectively (UNWTO, 2011). Most growth is forecast to come from the emerging economies and the Asia-Pacific region, and by 2030 it is estimated that 57%

of international arrivals will be in what are currently classified as emerging economies (UNWTO, 2011, 2012). It is also important to note that although international tourism is often the focus of government policy because of its trade and foreign exchange implications, international tourism only accounts for around 16% of all tourist trips. Forecasts and outcomes can, of course, be very different, but these forecast not only frame but, through their influence on confidence and investments, also inform the trajectory of tourism. Table 1.1. International tourism arrivals and forecasts 1950–2030 (millions).

Tourism research does not exist in a vacuum. It is affected not only by changes in tourism consumption and production, but also wider global events and the shifting priorities and policies of higher education institutions and research funders which have placed a stronger emphasis on assessments research output quality, public–private partnerships, and the “entrepreneurial university” (Rhoades and Slaughter, 1997; Deem, 2001; Slaughter and Leslie, 2001; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; Paasi, 2005; Hall, 2011c, 2013a). The constant fluidity and change in their environment has led many researchers to question many of their assumptions about tourism and reassess the relevance of their work, not only in terms of policy and other applications, but also, more fundamentally, to revisit the ways in which the subject is theorized and conceptualized (Gibson, 2008, 2009, 2010; Waitt et al., 2008; Tribe, 2009, 2010; Winter, 2009; Wilson, 2012; Benckendorff and Zehrer, 2013; Hall, 2013a). A history of the sociology of tourism knowledge, unlike a history of tourist activity, has not yet been completed. While this was not explicitly the aim of this volume, the range and depth of the chapters in this book do provide an opportunity to assess many of the key themes and issues in tourism studies, as well as the intellectual context within which they were prepared. This introductory chapter is divided into three main sections. First, a brief account is presented of some of the issues surrounding the definition of tourism and, hence, its study. Second is a discussion of some of the key themes and issues that have emerged in tourism as a field of social scientific endeavor. Third, and finally, some comments are made regarding the

relationships between areas of tourism research and their ebb and flow, and the selection of chapters in this volume. These issues are again taken up in the conclusion (see Chapter 50).

Conceptualizing Tourism Although many students of tourism have long sympathized with the sentiments of Williams and Shaw's observation that “the definition of tourism is a particularly arid pursuit” (1988: 2) it is, as they also acknowledged, “crucially important.” This is in part because of the continuing need to determine tourism's economic impacts and employment effects, and its broader effects and policy ramifications. Based on generally accepted international agreements for collecting and comparing tourism statistics, the term tourism trip has come to refer to a trip of not more than 12 months and for a main purpose other than being employed at the destination (UN and UNWTO 2007). However, despite United Nations and UNWTO recommendations, substantial differences remain between countries with respect to the length of time that they use to define a tourist, as well as how employment is defined (Hall and Lew, 2009). Undoubtedly, a substantial amount of government, industry body, and academic research effort has gone into the determination of “supply-side” or industry approaches to the definition of tourism, such as the development of Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSAs), which have become significant policy tools for organizations such as the World Travel and Tourism Council (Smith 2004, 2007; Hall and Lew, 2009). From a production or supply-side perspective, which TSAs seek to measure, the tourism industry may be defined as “the aggregate of all businesses that directly provide goods or services to facilitate business, pleasure, and leisure activities away from the home environment” (Smith, 1988: 183). However, such production-oriented approaches, while useful for comparative economic research and studies of tourism's economic impact, fail to convey the manner in which the production and consumption of tourism are interwoven, the complexity of tourism labor market structure (see Chapter 9 in this volume), and even business innovation and strategy (Leiper, 2004; Hall and Williams, 2008; Leiper et al., 2008; Hall and Page, 2010; see also Chapter 11). They also do not address the implications that this has for understanding the broader social, environmental, and political dimensions of tourism, as well as fundamental economic issues of commodification, distribution, tourism labor, and the appropriate role of the state in tourism. An adequate conceptualization of tourism therefore clearly requires that we go beyond the narrowly economic. Most obviously, there is a need to appreciate the relationships between leisure, recreation, and tourism and other social practices, and behavior (Figure 1.1). As Parker (1999: 21) observed, “It is through studying leisure as a whole that the most powerful explanations are developed. This is because society is not divided into sports players, television viewers, tourists and so on. It is the same people who do all these things.” Furthermore, Featherstone (1987: 115) argues that the tourism phenomenon we study should be socially situated: “The significance and meaning of a particular set of leisure choices … can only be made intelligible by inscribing them on a map of the class-defined social field of leisure and lifestyle practices in which their meaning and significance is relationally defined with reference to structured oppositions and differences.” There is therefore considerable

value in viewing tourism and recreation as part of a wider conceptualization of leisure (Shaw and Williams, 2002; Hall and Page, 2014). In Figure 1.1 dotted lines are used to illustrate that the boundaries between the concepts are “blurred.” Work is differentiated from leisure, with there being two main realms of overlap: first, business travel, which is seen as a workoriented form of tourism in order to differentiate it from leisure-based travel; and, second, “serious leisure,” which refers to the breakdown between leisure and work pursuits and the development of leisure career paths with respect to hobbies and interests (Stebbins 1979, 1982). Although the blending or even convergence of work and leisure in a travel context has been recognized in the academic literature since the early 1980s it has now become more commonplace and recognized with the growth of working holidays, business travel, telecommuting from second homes, and volunteer tourism and gap years. In fact, government policies have often been set to enable such travel because of its perceived economic benefits to destination areas, including remedying seasonal labor deficiencies (Williams and Hall, 2002).

Figure 1.1. Relationships between leisure, recreation, and tourism (after Hall, 2005). VFR, visiting friends and relations. In addition to being defined in relation to its production and consumption, tourism is also interpreted as but one, albeit highly significant, dimension of temporary mobility and circulation (Bell and Ward, 2000; Urry, 2000; Williams and Hall, 2000, 2002; Coles et al., 2004; Cresswell, 2006; Hannam, 2008; see also Chapter 6) (Figure 1.2). The merging of aspects of leisure, recreation, and tourism research (Crouch, 1999; Hall and Page, 2014), along with the study of migration (Williams and Hall, 2000; Williams et al., 2000; Hall and Williams, 2002; Janoschka and Haas, 2013), circulation, and mobility (Urry, 2000; Cresswell, 2006) has had a substantial influence on how tourism is perceived as an area of interest in the wider academic community in relation not only to the movement of people, including the mundane mobilities of the everyday (Edensor, 2007), but also the movement of ideas (González, 2011; Paraskevopoulou et al., 2012; see also Chapter 11). Indeed, it is only really since the turn of the twenty-first century that temporary movements away from home, such as tourism, but also including activities such as travel for work or education, travel for health

reasons, or even going overseas after finishing university, have begun to substantially catch the awareness of migration researchers (Bell and Ward, 2000). Although the influence of the “mobilities paradigm” has been relatively limited within tourism studies, it nevertheless has substantial implications for areas such as ethnicity (see Chapter 19), identity (Lugosi, 2014), innovation (Paraskevopoulou et al., 2012), and multiple-dwelling (Müller, 2006; Pitkänen, 2008; see also Chapter 31). Yet it is increasingly evident to those seeking wider perspectives on tourism that supposedly “different” forms of mobility are highly interrelated. Thus, the inclusion of same-day travel “excursionists” within technical definitions of tourism makes the division between recreation and tourism even more arbitrary (UN and UNWTO, 2007). Given innovations in transport technology, same-day travel is becoming increasingly important at widening spatial scales, an exemplification of “space–time compression” in tourism (Hall, 2005). This emphasizes the need for those interested in tourism to address the arbitrary boundaries between tourism and leisure, and tourism and migration. Tourism constitutes just one form of leisure-oriented temporary mobility, and it constitutes part of that mobility, being shaped by and shaping it.

Figure 1.2. Extent of temporary mobility in space and time (after Hall, 2005). While stressing the need to conceptualize tourism in terms of mobility, Flavell (2001: 391– 392) reminds us that there is also a need “to assess really the extent or nature of movement, or indeed even see it sometimes, you have in fact to spend a lot of the time studying things that stand still: the borders, institutions and territories of nation states; the sedimented ‘home’ cultures of people that do not move.” This directs our attention to the nonmobile. Although there is a well-established literature on leisure constraints (e.g. Nyaupane and Andereck, 2008) such notions have been relatively little applied to tourism (Shaw and Williams, 2002; Cole and Morgan, 2010; Hall, 2010b), with the possible exception of discussions of seasonality (Hinch and Jackson, 2000; Baum and Lundtrop, 2001) and a resurgence of interest in social and economic access issues in tourism. Indeed, it could be argued that, for much

“mainstream” business research on tourism, issues of equity and rights of access are never considered and there often appears to be an implicit assumption that everyone can travel, has a car, and/or has a cell phone (Hall, 2010b). Nevertheless, geographers have long recognized that a basic precondition for tourism mobility is that absences from the stations of the daily world are for certain periods socially and institutionally sanctioned. The opportunity to travel has always depended on the right to be absent from home and work, with such rights having historically been reserved for very few groups in the (usually male) population (Frändberg, 1998). Indeed, Hägerstrand (1984), describing the breakaway from the space–time prism of everyday life that tourism represents, refers to this as an “escape from the cage of routines.” Similarly, the growing recognition of the role of spatial settings by sociologists has direct implications for understanding tourism as a social practice, with Giddens (1984: xxv) observing, “Time-space ‘fixity’ also means social fixity; the substantially ‘given’ character of the physical milieux of day-to-day life interlaces with routine and is deeply influential in the contours of institutional reproduction.” However, the embeddedness of tourism in modern social and economic practices has created a significant space for social science research which may not only be of relevance for tourism itself but for a deeper understanding of the everyday as well as wider patterns of mobility. Nevertheless, the notion of tourism is open to multiple conceptualizations that rest on the ontological, epistemological, and paradigmatic assumptions of the viewer (Ayikoru, 2009; Tribe, 2009; Hall, 2011d; Lemelin et al., 2011). This means that the conceptualization of tourism remains open to substantial contestation that may almost seem at odds with a lay understanding of what tourism represents. Before we proceed further with the contested notions of how tourism should be conceptualized, it should be noted that some commentators even questioned the utility of tourism as a concept. We will begin by interrogating the very category of “tourism”. Is there such an entity? Does the term serve to demarcate a usefully distinct sphere of social practice? Where does tourism end and leisure or hobbying and strolling begin? This book [Touring Cultures] is based on the view that tourism is a term that is waiting to be deconstructed. Or as Marx might have said it is a chaotic conception, including within it too wide a range of disparate phenomenon. … It embraces so many different notions that it is hardly useful as a term of social science, although this is paradoxical since Tourism Studies is currently being rapidly institutionalised within much of the academy. (Rojek and Urry, 1997: 1) Yet concerns over whether the term “tourism” is useful do not appear to have worried the vast majority of the tourism academy, nor industry and policy-makers, as the next section, which takes up the theme of the institutionalization of tourism, illustrates.

The Institutionalization of Tourism Studies: Tourism as a Discipline?

Despite contestation over key concepts, tourism studies is well institutionalized in academic terms. Arguably, one of the reasons for conceptual confusion is because of the multiplicity of disciplinary and paradigmatic approaches that have been brought to bear on tourism phenomena (Meethan, 2001), as indeed is true of many of the phenomena that are studied in the social sciences. Tribe (1997: 638) described tourism analysis as interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and “conscious of its youthfulness.” Yet while such statements about the state of tourism studies are widespread, they fail to appreciate that the study of tourism in the social sciences has a far longer history than is often imagined, and is less “youthful” than Tribe implies. For example, with respect to the geography of tourism, Hall and Page (2014) chart Anglo-American and European traditions of social scientific scholarship on tourism that date to the 1920s and 1930s. The predominant attitude long held among tourism researchers is perhaps best summed up by Bodewes, who argued that “tourism is usually viewed as an application of established disciplines, because it does not possess sufficient doctrine to be classified as a full-fledged academic discipline” (1981: 37). Tribe (1997) even suggests that the search for tourism as a discipline should be abandoned, and that the diversity of the field should be celebrated. Nevertheless, this has to be set against the increasing recognition that tourism is now recognized as a legitimate area of study in its own right, and that it has many of the characteristics of a discipline (Hall, 2005). For example, Johnston (1991), in his landmark review of Anglo-American geography, identified three key characteristics of a discipline: a well-established presence in universities and colleges, including the appointment of professorial positions; formal institutional structures of academic associations and university departments; and avenues for academic publication, in terms of books and journals. Indeed, “It is the advancement of knowledge – through the conduct of fundamental research and the publication of its original findings – which identifies an academic discipline; the nature of its teaching follows from the nature of its research” (Johnston, 1991: 2). These characteristics clearly apply to the field of tourism studies. There are departments and/or degree programs established throughout the world, although in countries such as Australia and the UK they tend to be located in newer universities and often in formerly more applied technical institutions and polytechnics. Many universities also have professorial positions in tourism. The first undergraduate degree program in tourism in the UK was established at the University of Surrey in 1973. The first programs in Australia were established at Gatton College (now part of the University of Queensland) and Footscray CAE (now part of the Victoria University of Technology) in the late 1970s. In North America tourism and hospitality still retain a very strong base in community colleges although a large number of universities also have well-developed programs, although some of these have longstanding relationships with parks and recreation management or hospitality and gaming as research foci. There are also a number of institutional structures for tourism both in universities and colleges

of higher learning – that is, departments and schools of tourism – and on a national or international basis. For example, at a national level institutions such as the Council for Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) and the Tourism Society in the UK run annual research conferences and provide fora for discussion on tourism education. Specialty tourism research groups also operate within national academic associations, such as the Association of American Geographers, the Canadian Association of Geographers, and the Institute of British Geographers. At the international level social scientific unions in the fields of anthropology and ethnology, economic history, geography, history, and sociology have tourism commissions or working groups. For example, the International Geographical Union Commission on Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, which was established in 2000, has existed in various guises as a commission or study group since 1972. A number of other international tourism research and education organizations also exist which have made substantial contributions to tourism studies. For example, the first refereed academic journal on tourism, Revue de Tourisme/The Tourist Review, was established as early as 1946, as the official organ of l'Association Internationale d'Experts Scientifiques du Tourisme (AIEST) based in Switzerland. The Council of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education (CHRIE), which has a strong tourism component, was also established in 1946 in the USA. The Tourism and Travel Research Association (TTRA) had its beginnings in the merger of the Western Council of Travel Research and the Eastern Travel Research Association in 1970. Although it retains a strong North American base, TTRA is now a substantial international network with European and Asia-Pacific chapters. In Europe, the institutionally based Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS) was established in 1991 to develop transnational educational initiatives in tourism and leisure. Since that time ATLAS has expanded rapidly to include chapters from the Asia-Pacific, Africa, and the Americas. In terms of the advancement of knowledge, there is now a substantial body of tourism literature as evidenced in journals, books, conference proceedings, and electronic publications. Although the exact figures are hard to identify given name changes of publications and the growth of online publishing, there are around 230–260 journals, published in English either in full or in part, that can be identified as having a substantial academic component devoted to tourism research. This compares to the 77 journals identified by Hall et al. (2004). Nevertheless, the market of ideas in tourism geography is clearly affected by gatekeepers (Hall, 2004) and “the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces” (Paasi, 2005: 769) that are shaped by different national and institutional research agendas as well as language. No matter how important local and national knowledge is, unless it is conveyed in English it has little chance of entering the global marketplace of ideas and be reproduced and recirculated. This does not mean that tourism research in other languages does not have significance; rather, it just means that its international reach is not as great. Somewhat ironically, given the express desire in tourism literatures to give voice to local and indigenous perspectives, unless that voice can be spoken in English it is likely not to be heard, at least in the academic literature (Hall, 2013a). Furthermore, it is also important to point out that much tourism-related knowledge is not published in tourism journals. For example, Butler's (1980)

life-cycle model was published in the Canadian Geographer and Britton's (1991) fundamental critique of the geography of tourism was published in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, and these were both substantial contributions to the tourism literature. Two questions follow from the above. First, does tourism studies constitute a discipline? This is a difficult question. It is not one that the editors necessarily agree upon, and reflects their different assumptions and perspectives. Indeed, there is increased interest in tourism in the concept of postdisciplinarity (Coles et al., 2005, 2006, 2009) where there is a focus on learning rather than with disciplines. According to Coles et al. (2009: 81) “there is the danger that we may be attempting to address contemporary subjects (such as tourism) through outdated and ageing frameworks for scholarly activity and academic administration.” Coles et al. (2009) also argue that a postdisciplinary approach is especially well suited to the study of various forms of mobilities as well as being central to progress in understanding and responding to climate and environmental change, noting that human behavior and its impact on the environment is complex, messy, and uncertain and that postdisciplinarity is needed to capture the complexity that may be overlooked by more discipline-focused studies (Gössling and Hall, 2006; see also Chapters 36 and 37). From this perspective it is interesting to note Johnston's (1991: 9) reflections that: there is no fixed set of disciplines, nor any one correct division of academic according to subject matter. Those disciplines currently in existence are contained within boundaries established by earlier communities of scholars. The boundaries are porous so that disciplines interact. Occasionally the boundaries are changed, usually through the establishment of a new discipline that occupies an enclave within the pre-existing division of academic space. The growth of tourism studies of course has helped to reshape such boundaries, as well as being influenced by them. The second, and in most ways more important, question is whether the field of tourism studies is in good health. The answer is of course contingent. It could be argued that the high level of activity implies that it is in excellent health and has become solidly institutionalized in academe. However, despite its continued growth the field remains criticized in terms of its theoretical base. As Meethan (2001: 2) commented, “for all the evident expansion of journals, books and conferences specifically devoted to tourism, at a general analytical level it remains under-theorized, eclectic and disparate.” The comments of Franklin and Crang (2001: 5) were similarly astringent:

The first trouble with tourism studies, and paradoxically also one of its sources of interest, is that its research object, ‘tourism’ has grown very dramatically and quickly and that the tourism research community is relatively new. Indeed at times it has been unclear which was growing more rapidly – tourism or tourism research. Part of this trouble is that tourist studies has simply tried to track and record this staggering expansion, producing an enormous record of instances, case studies and variations. One reason for this is that tourist studies has been dominated by policy led and industry sponsored work so the analysis tends to internalize industry led priorities and perspectives. … Part of this trouble is also that this effort has been made by people whose disciplinary origins do not include the tools necessary to analyse and theorize the complex cultural and social processes that have unfolded. Academic communities argue on empirical, theoretical, and territorial grounds and what constitutes evidence “becomes a way of challenging the very meaningfulness of a particular concept from those affiliated to … some competing concept or theory” (Agnew & Livingstone, 2011: 13). Claiming that tourism is atheoretical or poorly theorized (Franklin and Crang, 2001) becomes a way of challenging or demeaning the value of research not undertaken within a particular theoretical context (Hall, 2013a). Nevertheless, their assessment does point at one of the persistent tensions in tourism research, between the often contradictory requirements of critical social science and the extent to which industry and policy-makers influence the research agenda, particularly through funding and commercialization strategies (Ryan, 2001; Cooper, 2002; Hall, 2011c). There are similar contradictions in several of the social sciences, but they are particularly sharp in tourism, because of the very nature of the subject matter which is often both perceived and presented as “fun,” and the weak early institutionalization of tourism within the academic centers which forged the frontiers of critical social science. Nevertheless, it is possible to be too pessimistic. As already noted, the field of tourism has a considerably longer history than is often realized while there is a substantial and growing volume of research, funded by national research councils and others, which lies beyond the direct influence of the tourism industry. Indeed, we believe that the contents of this volume bear testimony not only to the breadth of tourism studies, but also to the continued growth of more critically engaged tourism research. This is not to say that there is theoretical and methodological convergence in tourism studies. Rather, as the various chapters in this volume illustrate the understanding of a field as complex and multiscalar as tourism is unlikely to be the sole domain of either a single paradigm or approach.

Issues Disciplines and fields of study change over time, and areas of specialization come and go depending on intrinsic and extrinsic factors. For example, issues such as sustainability or safety and security rise or fall on the tourism agenda of academics, as well as government, in response to external factors such as terrorism or environmental concerns, as well as on the availability of specific funding opportunities. There are also shifts in research priorities arising out of debates in tourism studies, and in surrounding areas of study and established

disciplines. Tables 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 illustrate some of the changing concerns within tourism studies as indicated by a keyword search of journals abstracted in the Scopus database. This is necessarily selective, and prone to misinterpretations that are intrinsic to such scanning as well as the inherent characteristics and deficiencies of the database. However, they do provide insights into the changing concerns in tourism research. Table 1.2 highlights the significance of more applied and business concerns in tourism research, with considerable attention being given to management, which is referred to as a term in almost 25% of publications, as well as strategy and the economy. Marketing is a term used in a little under 10% of publications, while the Internet is a rapidly growing area of research output, although as Bødker and Munar (Chapter 21 in this volume) point out, much of this writing is not very critical. Planning and policy are also a focus of more applied tourism research but it is interesting to note Jenkins, Hall and Mkono's (Chapter 43) comments that it remains relatively undertheorized as a topic and often with little connection to the policy studies literature (Dredge and Jenkins, 2011). A further item to note is the extent to which reference to the role of government as well as public–private relationships is increasingly being contextualized within the concept of governance (Dinica, 2009; Bramwell 2010, 2011; Hall, 2011a, 2011b, 2013b; Hultman and Hall, 2012; see also Chapter 4). This perhaps reflects recognition in tourism studies not only of the changing role of the state but also of broader debates as to how the state should intervene to achieve planning and policy goals (Zapata and Hall, 2012), including with respect to longstanding concerns in tourism as to its short- and long-term impacts (Hall and Lew, 2009), the role of destination communities in decisionmaking processes (Zapata et al., 2011; see also Chapters 44 and 45), and the influence of neoliberalism on tourism governance (Duffy, 2006, 2013; Schilcher, 2007; Bianchi, 2009; Fletcher, 2011; Hall, 2013b). The tourism economics field has a specialist journal, Tourism Economics, with economic analyses also being significant in a number of other journals. Studies of economic impact appear to dominate while the significance of the subject of economic evaluation appears to ebb and flow. Nevertheless, in terms of sheer volume the economic analysis of tourism does not appear any greater than studies of the physical environment in the main tourism journals, although there are considerably more economically oriented studies than those concerned with the cultural turn. Table 1.2. Keyword search of Scopus titles, abstracts, and keywords 1973–2013: business and government terms and concepts.

Table 1.3 reflects some of the fundamental concerns of geographers, and illustrates the relative

importance of place and environment as key concepts in tourism research, although this analysis does not distinguish between geographers and nongeographers as authors of these articles. The most obvious feature of this table is the large number of articles that can be classified as concerned with the “environment.” Arguably, this may be a function of the appearance of journals such as Journal of Sustainable Tourism and Journal of Ecotourism rather than necessarily an increase in overall interest in the subject area. Even the terms “sustainability” and “sustainable tourism” occur in fewer than 5% of all publications in the Scopus database. Climate change and biodiversity are areas of growing importance in relation to tourism although much of this is being published outside of tourism journals (see Chapter 37). In contrast, specific concerns with space and spatiality have only received limited attention, perhaps reflecting the relative shift away from positivism (see Chapter 5). But there has been significant growth in geographical research on tourism since 1998, which may possibly be attributed to the establishment of the journal Tourism Geographies. Interestingly, an analytical tool such as geographical information systems (GIS), which is attracting increased attention from a number of social science disciplines other than geography, has had only limited reference in tourism journals although it has considerable potential for tourism research, including quantitative critical approaches (Hall, 2012). Table 1.3. Keyword search of Scopus titles, abstracts, and keywords 1973–2013: geography and environment terms and concepts.

The idea of sustainability has been a major research theme in tourism studies and was eagerly

adopted from the late 1980s onwards as a focal point for tourism publications. Table 1.4 indicates the impact of several other new themes in the tourism studies literature as well as the persistence of more established themes. Perhaps surprisingly, other concepts that have been significant in the broader social sciences, such as postcolonialism, postmodernity, and globalization, appear to have had far less impact on tourism studies (see Chapter 23), at least in terms of being recorded as keywords for publications. This is not to argue that they are not important; indeed, there is a significant and substantial body of literature on globalization (e.g. Cooper and Wahab, 2001; Meethan, 2001; Hall, 2005; see also Chapter 15) and postmodernism is also an explicit theme in the contents of many of the articles on heritage. But they have not become core concepts in tourism research. Similarly, concerns over sexuality, gender, and gay-related issues in tourism, although extremely significant for feminist and poststructural “cultural” approaches to tourism (see Chapters 5, 25, and 35 in this volume), appear as a relatively marginal topic in tourism journals (Aitchison, 2006). It is also interesting to note that while Urry's (1990) work on the tourism gaze is widely cited, it is actually not a focial point of relatively many publications, a situation also similar to Butler's (1980) work on the tourism area life cycle. Ethnic tourism and ethnicity have a higher profile, in part because of interest in cultural tourism and – as with the role of heritage – as an important object of tourism studies. Table 1.4. Keyword search of Scopus titles, abstracts, and keywords 1973–2013: key tourism terms and concepts.

Such studies of key terms in abstracts can only provide a partial picture of the relative

significance of particular issues in tourism research. As already noted, much research is published outside the immediate realm of tourism, hospitality, leisure, and recreation journals, while this analysis also excludes the enormous amount of material published in books, whether they be authored or edited contributions. Nevertheless, such snapshots do help illustrate some of the rich diversity of subject matter that exists in tourism and which is also represented in the contributions to the present volume. As emphasized, this volume does not aim to determine whether tourism studies is a discipline or not. Rather it aims to explore some of the key themes in the substantial field of research and scholarship on tourism. The study of tourism now occupies a significant academic space in the same way that tourism as an industry and as a social practice occupies significant economic and sociocultural spaces. Yet its boundaries are constantly changing and will continue to change in light of internal discourses, engagement with debates across boundaries, and exogenous factors. For good or bad it is also almost inevitable that, given how academic institutions function in capitalist societies, industry and government agencies (including research funding) will continue to shape the agenda of tourism research, alongside the tradition of critical social and theoretical social scientific enquiry (Hall, 2011c, 2013a; see also Chapter 7). These permeable boundaries and the spaces within them lie at the heart of this work. The present volume is therefore a snapshot of some of the dominant discourses in the social science of tourism: where it has come from, where it is now and some thoughts on where it might go in the future. The outcome, inevitably, is that the collection of essays in this book illustrate that tourism is a diverse field, in terms of its concerns, theories, and methodologies. But they also demonstrate that it is characterized by substantive debate and continuing innovation, and that it is also engaged in some of the major debates that characterize social science and, in the case of research on climate and environmental change, are reaching across to natural science. Indeed, the continued growth of tourism, as well as recognition of its role in contemporary society, the environment, and economic development, can only serve to reinforce the importance of tourism as a field of study.

References Agnew, J. and Livingstone, D. 2011. Introduction. In The SAGE Handbook of Geographical Knowledge, J. Agnew and D. Livingstone, eds, pp. 1–18. London: Sage Publications. Aitchison, C. 2006. The critical and the cultural: explaining the divergent paths of leisure studies and tourism studies. Leisure Studies, 25: 417–422. Ayikoru, M. 2009. Epistemology, ontology and tourism. In Philosophical Issues in Tourism, J. Tribe, ed., pp. 62–79. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Baum, T. and Lundtrop, S. (eds) 2001. Seasonality in Tourism. Oxford: Pergamon. Bell, M. and Ward, G. 2000. Comparing temporary mobility with permanent migration.

Tourism Geographies, 2: 87–107. Benckendorff, P. and Zehrer, A. 2013. A network analysis of tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 43: 121–149. Bianchi, R. 2009. The ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies: a radical critique. Tourism Geographies, 11: 484–504. Bodewes, T. 1981. Development of advanced tourism studies in Holland. Annals of Tourism Research, 8: 35–51. Bramwell, B. 2010. Participative planning and governance for sustainable tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 35: 239–249. Bramwell, B. 2011. Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: a political economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 459–477. Britton, S. 1991. Tourism, capital and place: towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9: 451–478. Butler, R. 1980. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution, implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24: 5–12. Cole, S. and Morgan, N. (eds) 2010. Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Coles, T., Duval, D., and Hall, C.M. 2004. Tourism, mobility and global communities: new approaches to theorising tourism and tourist spaces. In Global Tourism, 3rd edn., W. Theobold (ed.), pp. 463–481. Oxford: Heinemann. Coles, T., Hall, C.M., and Duval, D. 2005. Mobilising tourism: a post-disciplinary critique. Tourism Recreation Research, 30: 31–41. Coles, T., Hall, C.M., and Duval, D. 2006. Tourism and post-disciplinary inquiry. Current Issues in Tourism, 9: 293–319. Coles, T., Hall, C.M., and Duval, D. 2009. Post-disciplinary tourism. In Philosophical Issues in Tourism, J. Tribe (ed.), pp. 80–100. Bristol: Channel View. Cooper, C. 2002. Knowledge management and research commercialisation agendas. Current Issues in Tourism, 5: 375–377. Cooper, C. and Wahab, S. (eds) 2001. Tourism in the Age of Globalisation. London: Routledge. Cresswell, T. 2006. On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. New York: Routledge. Crouch, D. (ed.) 1999. Leisure/Tourism Geographies: Practices and Geographical

Knowledge. London: Routledge. Deem, R. 2001. Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37: 7–20. Dinica, V. 2009. Governance for sustainable tourism: a comparison of international and Dutch visions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17: 583–603. Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (eds) 2011. Stories of Practice: Tourism Policy and Planning. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. Duffy, R. 2006. The potential and pitfalls of global environmental governance: the politics of transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa. Political Geography, 25: 89–112. Duffy, R. 2013. The international political economy of tourism and the neoliberalisation of nature: challenges posed by selling close interactions with animals. Review of International Political Economy, 20: 605–626. Edensor, T. 2007. Mundane mobilities, performances and spaces of tourism. Social & Cultural Geography, 8: 199–215. Featherstone, M. 1987. Leisure, symbolic power and the life course. In Sport, Leisure and Social Relations, J. Horne, D. Jary, and A. Tomlinson (eds), pp. 113–138. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Flavell, A. 2001. Migration, mobility and globaloney: metaphors and rhetoric in the sociology of globalization. Global Networks, 1: 389–398. Fletcher, R. 2011. Sustaining tourism, sustaining capitalism? The tourism industry's role in global capitalist expansion. Tourism Geographies, 13: 443–461. Frändberg, L. 1998. Distance Matters: An Inquiry into the Relation Between Transport and Environmental Sustainability in Tourism, Humanekologiska skrifter 15. Göteborg: Department for Interdisciplinary Studies of the Human Condition. Franklin, A. and Crang, M. 2001. The trouble with tourism and travel theory? Tourist Studies, 1: 5–22. Gibson, C. 2008. Locating geographies of tourism. Progress in Human Geography, 32: 407– 422. Gibson, C. 2009. Geographies of tourism: critical research on capitalism and local livelihoods. Progress in Human Geography, 33: 527–534. Gibson, C. 2010. Geographies of tourism: (un)ethical encounters. Progress in Human Geography, 34: 521–527.

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. González, S. 2011. Bilbao and Barcelona ‘in motion’. How urban regeneration ‘models’ travel and mutate in the global flows of policy tourism. Urban Studies, 48: 1397–1418. Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. 2006. Uncertainties in predicting tourist flows under scenarios of climate change. Climatic Change, 79(3–4): 163–73. Hägerstrand, T. 1984. Escapes from the cage of routines: observations of human paths, projects and personal scripts. In Leisure, Tourism and Social Change, J. Long and R. Hecock (eds), pp. 7–19. Dunfermline: Dunfermline College of Physical Education. Hall, C.M. 2004. Reflexivity and tourism research: situating myself and/with others. In Qualitative Research in Tourism, J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (eds), pp. 137–155. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. 2005. Tourism: Rethinking the Social Science of Mobility. Harlow: Prentice-Hall. Hall, C.M. 2010a. Crisis events in tourism: subjects of crisis in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 13: 401–417. Hall, C.M. 2010b. Equal access for all? Regulative mechanisms, inequality and tourism mobility. In Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects, S. Cole and N. Morgan (eds), pp. 34–48. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Hall, C.M. 2011a. Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: from first-and second-order to third-order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 649–671. Hall, C.M. 2011b. A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 437–457. Hall, C.M. 2011c. Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Management, 32: 16–27. Hall, C.M. (ed.) 2011d. Fieldwork in Tourism: Methods, Issues and Reflections. Abingdon: Routledge. Hall, C.M. 2012. Spatial analysis: a critical tool for tourism geographies. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 163–173. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. 2013a. Framing tourism geography: notes from the underground. Annals of Tourism Research, 43: 601–623. Hall, C.M. 2013b. Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable tourism consumption: beyond neoliberalism, ‘nudging’ and ‘green growth’? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21: 1091–1109.

Hall, C.M. and Lew, A. 2009. Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts: An Integrated Approach. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Page, S.J. 2010. The contribution of Neil Leiper to tourism studies. Current Issues in Tourism, 13: 299–309. Hall, C.M. and Page, S.J. 2014. The Geography of Tourism and Recreation: Space, Place and Environment, 4th edn. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Williams, A.M. (eds) 2002. Tourism and Migration: New Relationships Between Consumption and Production. Dortrecht: Kluwer. Hall, C.M. and Williams, A.M. 2008. Tourism and Innovation. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M., Williams, A.M., and Lew, A. 2004. Tourism: conceptualisations, institutions and issues. In A Companion to Tourism, A.A Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 3–21. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Hannam, K. 2008. Tourist geographies, tourist studies and the turn towards mobilities. Geography Compass, 2: 127–139. Hinch, T. and Jackson, E. 2000. Leisure constraints research: its value as a framework for understanding tourism seasonality. Current Issues in Tourism, 3: 87–106. Hultman, J. and Hall, C.M. 2012. Tourism place-making: governance of locality in Sweden. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 547–570. Janoschka, M. and Haas, H. (eds) 2013. The Contested Spatialities of Lifestyle Migration. London: Routledge. Johnston, R. 1991. Geography and Geographers: Anglo-American Human Geography Since 1945, 4th edn. London: Edward Arnold. Leiper, N. 2004. Tourism Management, 3rd edn. Sydney: Pearson. Leiper, N., Stear, L., Hing, N., and Firth, T. 2008. Partial industrialisation in tourism: a new model. Current Issues in Tourism, 11: 207–235. Lemelin, H., Wiersma, E., and Stewart, E. 2011. Integrating researchers and indigenous communities: reflections from Northern Canada. In Fieldwork in Tourism: Methods, Issues and Reflections, C.M. Hall (ed.), pp. 289–307. Abingdon: Routledge. Lugosi, P. 2014. Mobilising identity and culture in experience co-creation and venue operation. Tourism Management, 40: 165–179. Meethan, K. 2001. Tourism in Global Society: Place, Culture and Consumption. London: Palgrave. Müller, D. 2006. The attractiveness of second home areas in Sweden: a quantitative analysis.

Current Issues in Tourism, 9: 335–350. Nyaupane, G. and Andereck, K. 2008. Understanding travel constraints: application and extension of a leisure constraints model. Journal of Travel Research, 46: 433–439. Paasi, A. 2005. Globalisation, academic capitalism, and the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning A, 37: 769–789. Paraskevopoulou, A., Markova, E., Williams, A.M., and Shaw, G. 2012. Migration and innovation at the bottom end: understanding the role of migrant managers in small hotels in the global city. Mobilities, 7: 389–414. Parker, S. 1999. Leisure in Contemporary Society. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Pitkänen, K. 2008. Second-home landscape: the meaning(s) of landscape for second-home tourism in Finnish lakeland. Tourism Geographies, 10: 169–192. Rhoades, G. and Slaughter, S. 1997. Academic capitalism, managed professionals, and supplyside higher education. Social Text, 51: 9–38. Rojek, C. and Urry, J. 1997. Transformations of travel and theory. In Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, C. Rojek and J. Urry (eds), pp. 1–19. London: Routledge. Ryan, C. 2001. Academia-industry tourism research links: states of confusion. Pacific Tourism Review, 5(3/4): 83–96. Schilcher, D. 2007. Growth versus equity: the continuum of pro-poor tourism and neoliberal governance. Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 166–193. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 2002. Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. 2001. Expanding and elaborating the concept of academic capitalism. Organization, 8: 154–161. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Smith, S.L.J. 1988. Defining tourism: a supply–side view. Annals of Tourism Research, 15: 179–190. Smith, S.L.J. 2004. The measurement of global tourism: old debates, new consensus, and continuing challenges. In Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 25–35. Oxford: Blackwell. Smith, S.L.J. 2007. Duelling definitions: challenges and implications of conflicting international concepts of tourism. In Progress in Tourism Research, D. Airey and J. Tribe

(eds), pp. 123–138. Oxford: Elsevier. Stebbins, R.A. 1979. Amateurs: On the Margin Between Work and Leisure. Beverley Hills: Sage Publications. Stebbins, R.A. 1982. Serious leisure: a conceptual statement. Pacific Sociological Review, 25: 251–72. Tribe, J. 1997. The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24: 638–657. Tribe, J. (ed.) 2009. Philosophical Issues in Tourism. Bristol. Channel View. Tribe, J. 2010. Tribes, territories and networks in the tourism academy. Annals of Tourism Research, 37: 7–33. UN and UNWTO (United Nations and United Nations World Tourism Organization). 2007. International Recommendations on Tourism Statistics (IRTS) Provisional Draft. New York and Madrid: UN and UNWTO. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2010. The Contribution of Tourism to Trade and Development, Note by the UNCTAD Secretariat. TD/B/C.I/8. Geneva: UNCTAD. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization). 2006. International Tourist Arrivals, Tourism Market Trends, 2006 Edition – Annex. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO. 2011. Tourism Towards 2030: Global Overview. UNWTO General Assembly, 19th session, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, 10 October 2011. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO. 2012. UNWTO Tourism Highlights. 2012 Edition. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO and UNEP (United Nations World Tourism Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme). 2011. Tourism: investing in the green economy. In Towards a Green Economy, pp. 409–447. Geneva: United Nations Environmental Programme. Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Urry, J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge. Waitt, G., Markwell, K., and Gorman-Murray, A. 2008. Challenging heteronormativity in tourism studies: locating progress. Progress in Human Geography, 32: 781–800. Williams, A.M. and Hall, C.M. 2000. Tourism and migration: new relationships between production and consumption. Tourism Geographies, 2: 5–27. Williams, A.M. and Hall, C.M. 2002. Tourism, migration, circulation and mobility: the contingencies of time and place. In Tourism and Migration: New Relationships Between

Consumption and Production, C.M. Hall and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 1–52. Dortrecht: Kluwer. Williams, A.M., King, R., Warnes, A., and Patterson, G. 2000. Tourism and international retirement migration: new forms of an old relationship in southern Europe. Tourism Geographies, 2: 28–49. Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. 1988. Tourism and development: introduction. In Tourism and Economic Development: Western European Experiences, A.M. Williams and G. Shaw (eds), pp. 1–11. London: Belhaven Press. Wilson, J. ed. 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies. London: Routledge. Winter, T. 2009. Asian tourism and the retreat of Anglo-Western centrism in tourism theory. Current Issues in Tourism, 12: 21–31. World Tourism Organization. 1997. Tourism 2020 Vision. Madrid: WTO. Zapata, M.J. and Hall, C.M. 2012. Public-private collaboration in the tourism sector: balancing legitimacy and effectiveness in Spanish tourism partnerships. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4: 61–83. Zapata, M.J., Hall, C.M., Lindo, P., and Vanderschaeghe, M. 2011. Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Current Issues in Tourism, 14: 725–749.

Part 2 Perspectives on Tourism

Introduction Perspectives on Tourism Allan M. Williams Tourism studies is a meeting ground, if not a melting pot, for competing theoretical and methodological perspectives. This contributes to its diversity, compared to many individual disciplines, but is also a source of discord, which at its best leads to creativity and conversation, and at its worst results in posturing whereby different perspectives talk not with each other, but at each other. This meeting ground of competing, and contested, perspectives constitutes a shifting set of overlapping borders which fluctuate over time in response to broader scientific paradigmatic shifts, exogenous economic, political, and social agenda changes, and the dynamics of academic communities. This part of the book brings together some – but certainly not all – of these perspectives, reflecting on recent theoretical and methodological shifts, which have brought about a degree of convergence among them. Methodologically this is evident in the way that mixed methods have become the new methodological orthodoxy, as well as by the way increasing reflexivity has led several of these approaches to seek interconnecting bridges. For example, in Chapter 3 in this volume Pearce outlines how psychology researchers have started to look beyond rational decision-making models, while Crang (Chapter 5) writes of the need for new methodologies to study movement, that reach out to the mobilities approach. However, this should not be seen as heralding a sustained convergence of perspectives because, as the authors in this part make clear, there are substantial and enduring differences in the ways in which different perspectives understand, conceptualize, and research tourism. Positivism has long roots in tourism, and still holds sway in particular subfields, notably the economics and the psychology of tourism. Grounded in beliefs that the world has an out-there, observable, and measurable character, it is characterized by strongly deductive theoretical approaches and increasingly sophisticated modeling, driven both by developments in statistics and by new technologies offering new means of harvesting and analyzing data. The latter include Global Positioning Systems (GPS) that offer new ways of tracking mobility, as well as cell phones, and digital photography (Chapter 20). The move towards more sophisticated modeling is especially evident in demand-side studies (Song and Li, 2008), but there have also been significant advances in the analysis of spatial flows. This is a long-established field of inquiry, dating back to, for example, the work of Greer and Wall (1979) on distance decay effects, but it has attracted renewed interest in recent years, leastways among a relatively small group of researchers. McKercher and Zoltan's contribution to this part (Chapter 2) outlines the historical trajectory of spatial analyses of tourism, and points to significant advances being made from the 1990s in identifying different spatial patterns in trips to multiple destinations. In some ways a descriptive approach, it does open up the way to modeling the determinants of these patterns, and identifies underlying spatial structures that may not be observable at first sight because of the effects of “noisy data;” that is, of not being able to see the wood for the trees in what is

highly complex reality. Most of the earlier research was at the interdestination scale because of data availability, but the authors discuss how new technologies have enabled researchers to analyze intradestination spatial movements (see also Lew and McKercher, 2006). In a sense, they are building on the work of earlier researchers who relied on diaries to record mobility (for example, Thornton et al., 1997) but the new technologies bring much higher levels of precision, while also posing new challenges in how to manage, analyze, and classify the large data sets that are generated. Behavioralist approaches developed as a reaction to what can be described as “classical postivism,” which tended to focus on relatively simple and deterministic modeling approaches and on aggregate patterns. In essence, these are attempts to more accurately record and analyze individual behavior and, within tourism, it has been widely adopted, particularly in studies of individual decision making, preferences, behavior, and motivations. The focus has mainly been on the tourists but there is also research within this tradition on local residents and entrepreneurs, among others. It is especially influential in areas of management and marketing studies, but is in fact widely represented in tourism research. While the earlier research in this field tended to focus mainly on single sources or motivations, such as authenticity, or simplistic decision-making models, there has seen a shift over time to more complex, multicausal, and multidimensional approaches. One of the most significant shifts has been to understanding the individual tourist trip in context of the travel career ladder, an approach which, although criticized for its oversimplification initially, has subsequently been revised and continues to provide further opportunities for fruitful research (Pearce and Lee, 2005). Pearce's contribution to this part (Chapter 3) maps out how the behavioralist approach has sought to break out of its earlier narrowly positivist approach, to engage more with the complexities of individual values and motivations. Of particular note are his observations that researchers are beginning to consider how invididuals seek to maximize their overall wellbeing, so that their decision making is seen as being informed by wider goals relating to, for example, respect, status, and zest. Interestingly, the latter of these resonates with Crang's (Chapter 5) comment that theories in the cultural perspective approach are poorly equipped to engage with the joy and exuberance of tourism experiences. Essentially, however, a considerable gulf still exists between the cultural and behavioralist approaches, as the latter remain largely wedded to rationalist decision-making models, even if they increasingly examine the actual heuristics that individuals utilize in making decisions. In a similar vein, Pearce sees the future as being about refining existing core research competences, for example through more sophisticated design of how questions are asked, and via qualitative, although still positive, psychology approaches (Filep and Greenacre, 2007). This includes the analysis of visual stimuli (Ye and Tussyadiah, 2011), although again the approach is very different to the deeply cultural approach adopted by Scarles (see Chapter 26). Political economy perspectives represented a very different reaction to the limitations of positivism, and made a significant early impact on tourism studies, understandably in view of tourism's concerns with relationships between more and less developed economies, and with dependency relationships. There were notable early contributions by de Kadt (1979), focusing on dependency, followed by Britton's (1991) influential and strongly theoretical approach

drawing more on the work of urban and social theorists. Harrison was another relatively early contributor to these debates, especially in the context of development issues, and his more recent views are expounded in Chapter 11. This is an approach which, above all, addresses issues of power and capitalist reproduction, examining not only how tourism is influenced by these, but also how it shapes them. In Chapter 4 Mosedale provides an overview of the trajectory of the political economy approach in tourism by focusing on two particular strands. One is the influence of regulation theory, which centers on the nature of, and contradictions between, means of accumulation and modes of regulation, an approach that has been extensively discussed in Shaw and Williams (2004). Regulation theory offers a relatively rounded view of the relationship between the political and the economic, and provides an analytical framework for understanding both how tourism differs across national states and how recent changes such as neoliberalism impact on tourism. He considers that there is probably more research on the accumulation side than the regulation side, and advocates for more research on governance in order to redress this. This links to the value of Jessop's (2004) cultural political economy, a framework which allows materialist analyses to be combined with the understanding of how competing discourses influence development. This is another expression of bridge building between perspectives, specifically to the cultural approach. It is clear that there is still a long way to go in developing a political economy of tourism, and the need for this is underlined by the ways in which neoliberalism, and the 2008 economic crisis, have challenged how tourism services are produced and socially distributed. While political economy approaches have made a significant contribution to tourism studies, the most significant influence in recent years has been postmodernism. There is no single theory of postmodernism. Rather, it is constituted of a set of competing theories, defined above all in terms of their reaction to the limitations of modernism; that is, as a critique of supposed objectivity, the rationality of human decision making, and simple, discrete categorization of phenomena (Harvey, 1989). Hassan (1985) still provides one of the most useful insights into the differences between modernism and postmodernism. In the schematic differences outlined by Hassan, it is possible to see many of the key concepts or ideas which have informed large areas of research in the sociology, anthropology, and cultural geography of tourism, including play as opposed to purpose, chance as opposed to design, performance as opposed to finished work, deconstruction as opposed to totalization, intertext as opposed to boundary, combination as opposed to selection, rhizome as opposed to root, trace as opposed to cause, and indeterminancy as opposed to determinancy. While many of the earlier writers on the sociology/anthropology of tourism, such as Cohen (1979) and Graburn (1976), were influenced by postmodernism, its influence has grown substantially through its various transformations in recent years, ranging from those who have fully engaged with this approach, such as Coleman and Crang (2002), to those who have attempted to introduce a “cultural turn” into areas such as the economic analysis of tourism (see Chapter 8). The underlying influence of postmodernism can be seen in this section in Crang's exploration of some of the challenges and gaps in the cultural geographies of tourism (Chapter 5), arguing that tourism is not only underpinned by cultural values, in the forms of desires and imaginings,

but is also enacted through various cultural practices that act as signifiers. He emphasizes that tourism is a culture that requires unpacking (rather than something that impacts on cultures), especially in how it mobilizes dreams and fantasies (Löfgren, 1999). But he goes further and argues for the need to pay more attention to mass tourism as a cultural system, neglected in part because of the way in which class informs what is considered by researchers to be interesting cultures. Moreover, he argues for the need to shift our research focus from symbolic meanings and discourses, to the study of the everyday performance and embodiment of tourism. Another key argument is the importance of understanding the tourist and the destination as being mutually and dynamically constituted; they change each other, an argument that offers distant but more nuanced echoes of the notion of the travel career ladder, at least in terms of the changing tourist. He also emphasizes the importance of the visual (see Chapter 26) while calling for attention to be given to all aspects of tourists' embodied experiences (see Chapter 24). Finally, reflecting the need for more attention on action as opposed to symbols, Crang argues for research on the experiences of mobility, which reaches across to the mobilities perspective. The mobilities perspective, which is particularly associated with the work of John Urry (2007), developed in response to what was seen as an unduly static approach in sociology that failed to capture the importance of different forms of moblities. For tourism studies, it provided a source of theoretical and methodological enrichment, which included the connection of tourism mobilities with a range of other mobilities, ranging across different forms of the corporeal or human, to the mobilities of knowledge, images, and capital. This opened up ways of relocating many aspects of tourism studies in a broader social literature, and reconnecting them to the analysis of everyday activities. An important element of this is the understanding of tourism as constituting both the banal and the exotic, as captured in Larsen et al.'s (2007) study of the different forms of mobility that young professionals engage in; visiting friends and family, for example, represents an important and underresearched theme in this. This has given rise to some concern that mobilities research represents the “elephant in the room” for tourism studies, in the sense that the latter has failed to recognize the “potential” that this larger, more embracing field of research has to displace tourism as a distinctive field of enquiry. This is not a view that the editors share, for tourism involves more than the study of mobilities and has sufficient critical mass for the two to coexist in a fertile interrelationship, provided that tourism continues to rise to its theoretical and methodological challenges, such as those outlined by the authors in this section on perspectives. Hannam (Chapter 6) provides an overview of many of the connections between tourism and mobilities, and clearly understands that there is a blurring of the borders between these areas of research, but a blurring which is full of fruitful promise rather than threats to tourism. He pays particular attention to the connection between tourism and other forms of mobilities, for example to how the previously cited mobility of ideas and images shape tourism and tourist travel, but also how these tourism experiences in turn influence other forms of mobilities. In a way, this is an extension, albeit a substantial one, in terms of both remit and theoretical perspectives, to some of the ideas explored in Hall and Williams's (2002) volume on the relationships between migration and tourism. Interestingly, in his reflections on methodology,

drawing on Law and Urry (2004), Hannam argues for the need for enhanced social science methods to deal with the fleeting, the in between, the chaotic, and the complex intermixture of mobilities, and this meets half way the bridge building that Crang (Chapter 5) called for in the cultural geographies of tourism. Finally, there has been the emergence in recent years of what has become known as the critical perspectives approach. This is similar to postmodernism in the sense that it is defined in part in terms of what it opposes, which in this case are the conventional approaches both to tourism research and to engaging with tourism stakeholders (Ateljevic et al., 2007). This is a very welcome addition to tourism studies, as a voice that calls for critical reflection and addressing the often half submerged, but always profoundly powerful, social cleavages that characterize all societies. In many senses it is not particularly new, of course, as political economic perspectives originated in Marxian critiques of the conflicts between capital and labor, while the voices of the Global South were themselves influential in shaping much of the literature about dependency theories (Prebisch, 1950). There is also considerable overlap with cultural approaches in the focus on race, gender, education, religion, and discourses and also, for example, with Crang's (Chapter 5) call for cultural geography researchers to question their focus on the exotic, and often elitist, rather than the mass experiences of tourism. Nevertheless, the critical turn adds urgency to critical reflection, and the call for more participatory research (Pritchard et al., 2011) – again not a new methodology – is a welcome call to move from theorizing the world to contributing to changing it. In Chapter 7, Higgins-Desbiolles and Whyte review the emergence of critical perspectives on tourism, which was partly as a response to the excesses of boosterism, in context of the long – but not untroubled – economic boom in the developed world in the third quarter of the twentieth century. Academics were not the only group to respond to these boosterist articulations of tourism development, with individual communities and nongovernmental organizations also offering their own, frequently penetrating critiques. The authors review the development of critical studies in this context, and emphasize the need for researchers not to lose sight of structural injustices when addressing the inequities of tourism (see also Bianchi, 2009), not so much as an academic objective but so as to benefit those living at the sharp end of tourism development. To conclude, it needs to be emphasized that, in the space available for this volume and to the individual authors, we have only been able to capture some of the more important perspectives on tourism and tourism research. These indicate some of the journeys made, and the journeys that still await tourism researchers. They may wish to make that journey as discrete disciplinary communities of researchers, united by shared methodologies and distinctive theories, but there is also evidence of tentative bridge building that can lead to fruitful engagement among these competing perspectives in the tourism arena.

References Ateljevic, I., Pritchard, A., and Morgan, N. (eds) 2007. The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies:

Innovative Research Methodologies. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bianchi, R.V. 2009. The ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies: a radical critique. Tourism Geographies, 11: 484–504. Britton, S. 1991. Tourism, capital, and place: towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9(4): 451–478. Cohen, E. 1979. Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6: 18–35. Coleman, S. and Crang, M. (eds) 2002. Tourism: Between Place and Performance. Oxford: Berghahn Books. de Kadt, E.J. 1979. Tourism: Passport to Development? Perspectives on the Social and Cultural Effects of Tourism in Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press. Filep, S. and Greenacre, L. 2007. Evaluating and extending the travel career patterns model. Tourism Analysis, 55(1): 23–38. Graburn, N. 1976. Ethnic and Tourist Arts: Cultural Expressions From the Fourth World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Greer, T. and Wall, G. 1979. Recreational hinterlands: a theoretical and empirical analysis. In Recreational Land Use in Southern Ontario, Department of Geography Publication series 14, G. Wall (ed.), pp. 227–246. Waterloo: Waterloo University. Hall, C.M. and Williams, A.M. (eds) 2002. Tourism and Migration: New Relationships Between Production and Consumption. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Post Modernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Hassan, I. 1985. The culture of postmodernism. Theory, Culture and Society, 2: 119–132. Jessop, B. 2004. Critical semiotic analysis and cultural political economy. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2): 159–174. Larsen, J., Urry, J., and Axhausen, K.W. 2007. Networks and tourism: mobile social life. Annals of Tourism Research, 34: 244–262. Law, J. and Urry, J. 2004. Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33: 390–410. Lew, A. and McKercher, B. 2006. Modeling tourist movements: a local destination analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2): 403–423. Löfgren, O. 1999. On Holiday: a History of Vacationing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Pearce, P.L. and Lee, U. 2005. Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation.

Journal of Travel Research, 43: 226–237. Prebisch, R. 1950. The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems. New York: United Nations. Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., and Ateljevic, I. 2011. Hopeful tourism: a transformative approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 941–963. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 2004. Tourism and Tourism Spaces. London: Sage Publications. Song, H. and Li, G. 2008. Tourism demand modelling and forecasting—a review of recent research. Tourism Management, 29: 203–220. Thornton, P.R., Shaw, G., and Williams, A.M. 1997. Tourist group holiday decision-making and behaviour: the influence of children. Tourism Management, 18(5): 287–297. Urry, J. 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ye, H.L. and Tussyadiah, I.P. 2011. Destination visual image and expectation of experiences. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 28(2): 129–144.

Chapter 2 Tourist Flows and Spatial Behavior Bob McKercher and Judit Zoltan Tourism involves the movement of people through time and space, either between their home and destinations, or within destination areas. Understanding tourist movements and the factors influencing the time/space relationships that tourists have with destinations has profound implications for policy, infrastructure, transport, and product development, as well as the management of tourism's impacts (Edwards and Griffin, 2013). Early research focused on interdestination travel patterns and relied largely on paper-based data-collection tools such as surveys, trip diaries, and small-scale maps. The emphasis has shifted recently to studies of tourist movements within destination areas, aided by passive, electronic data-collection tools, such as Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking devices, cell phones, and personal digital assistant (or PDA) instruments. Technology now permits more sophisticated analysis including network analysis, time budget allocation, and market segmentation based on different observed behavioral patterns. Noam Shoval discusses the impact of emerging technologies in detail in Chapter 20 in this volume. This chapter examines tourism flows and spatial behavior. It begins with a review of pioneering research conducted in the 1990s that examined interdestination movements. An overview of intradestination movements follows before concluding with a discussion of moderating factors that can affect spatial behavior.

Modeling Interdestination Tourist Movements The study of movements between the tourist's home and destination or between destination areas dominated research conducted in the 1990s. This research established the field of study and identified dominant themes that are still prevalent today. The following section reviews briefly key works that laid the foundation for this study area. Mings and McHugh (1992) identified four types of touring route taken by domestic American tourists who visited Yellowstone National Park. Three involved automobile travel exclusively, while the fourth involved a combination of air and automobile transport. Respondents who displayed a “direct route” itinerary took the most direct path to and from Yellowstone National Park and followed exactly the same route in both directions. The “partial orbit” itinerary consisted of taking the most direct route to a large destination area, such as the Rocky Mountains, then embarking on a touring loop in the area. The return trip followed the original outward-bound transit route. These types of itinerary are typified by a significant transit journey followed by an extensive tour visiting the key attractions and staying in different destinations in an area some distance from home. By contrast, the “full orbit” tour itinerary involves visiting a number of destinations with no overlap in the tour route. The “fly-drive” itinerary is similar to the partial orbit itinerary except that the transit leg is made by air.

Lue et al. (1993) focused their research on multidestination trips, but also recognized the existence of single-destination, direct-route trips. Four itinerary types were described. Tourists make a number of short stops on their way to or from the main destination in the “en-route” model. The “base camp” model represents a further elaboration of the single-destination model. Conceptually, it resembles a hub-and-spoke pattern. Tourists base themselves in one main destination and then venture out from that destination in a series of short, day tours to nearby attractions and destinations. In the “regional tour,” tourists travel to a destination region, but rather than basing themselves in one locale they stop overnight in a number of places in a sequential pattern before returning home. The “trip-changing” pattern involves a multifocus, touring trip visiting a number of destinations without overlapping any leg of the trip. Oppermann (1995), focusing on international travel, identified seven possible itinerary types. In addition to the five previously mentioned by Mings and McHugh (1992) and Lue et al. (1993), he added two other itineraries that are relevant to long-haul air travel. The “open jaw loop” model applies to tourists who enter a country through one gateway and leave through another. In between, they embark on a linear tour connecting the two gateways. For example, a European visiting the USA may arrive in New York, travel overland to San Francisco and then return home from there. The “multiple destination areas loop” itinerary model is the most complex, for it recognizes some tourists will visit many countries and tour extensively through these different destinations. The person may engage in different travel patterns at any given stop. Thus, it may be possible for someone on an extended trip to participate in any or all of the single-destination stopover, base camp tours, full tours, or open jaw itineraries. Finally, Flognfeldt (1999) identified four modes of recreation and vacation travel. The “resort trip” (direct travel, single destination), “base holiday,” and “round trip” are similar to other itinerary models discussed previously. In addition, he identifies “recreational day trips” from the individual's home community as a fourth travel type. While technically not a tourism trip because no overnight stay is involved, day trips must certainly be considered when examining the full of range of touring options. These studies identified 26 different itinerary types, but closer inspection reveals the distinction between them is rather forced and arbitrary. Mode of transport, distance, and domestic versus international travel delineate different models, when the overall patterns described are largely similar. Indeed, as Figure 2.1 illustrates, the 26 models proposed can be classified into four broad themes. The simplest itinerary type involves a single destination, there-and-back trip that may or may not include side trips. A second type involves a transit leg to the destination area, followed by a circle tour, stopping overnight at different places. A third type involves a circle tour with or without multiple access and egress points. Lastly, hub-andspoke itineraries may be evident where tourists base themselves in a destination area and take side trips to other destinations.

Figure 2.1. Itinerary types. This research illustrates that tourist movement patterns involve both a transit and a destination touring component. The different types are shown in Figure 2.2. The various tour combinations identified result from different mixing and matching of transit and touring elements. An outbound and inbound transit leg following the same route is implied in the single-destination, base camp, stopover/en-route, and the regional tour/partial orbit or destination area loop models. Multiple transit legs are needed for the various loop tours identified. In rare instances, tourists may embark on a single transit leg and then have an extended return tour home.

Figure 2.2. Different transit and destination touring components of itineraries.

Modeling Intradestination Movements The examination of intradestination movements is much younger area of study, due to three factors that did not affect interdestination studies. The first issue relates to fineness of data. Unlike interdestination studies where the destination represents the unit of analysis, intradestination studies require a level of precision in the order of meters or tens of meters. This first issue leads directly to the second issue, that of the reliability of the tourist as researcher. Fineness of detail depends on how meticulous tourists are in reporting their movements, which, experience shows, is rarely finer than the level of attraction node (McKercher and Lau, 2008). The emergence of passive electronic tracking devices have resolved both issues as precise movements can be tracked without any need for tourists to record their activities. A lack of theoretical framework represented the third limiting factor. While interdestination movement studies can inform intradestination research, the spatial organization of destinations adds a layer of complexity that limits their utility. Traditional urban transport models are also of limited value for they are predicated on the assumption that the majority of people have perfect knowledge of the road system and will take the shortest or otherwise most-efficient route possible: something that cannot be assumed for tourists who may be unaware of their destination's geography, but who want to explore it widely (Lew and McKercher, 2006). A framework to analyze tourist movements based on the geomorphology of the destination, the spatial location of attractions and accommodation nodes, transport routes, mode and accessibility, tourist time budgets, tourist motivation, and destination knowledge sought to address this issue (Lew and McKercher, 2006). The model suggests movements are influenced by both a territorial (Figure 2.3) and path (Figure 2.4) dimension. Territoriality relates to the distance traveled from the accommodation locus. The path dimension builds on interdestination

studies and suggests tourists could exhibit one of seven types of movement patterns from a simple point-to-point pattern to a complex, rather random pattern. Empirical testing of this framework supported the validity of a territoriality dimension, but questioned the linearity dimension (McKercher and Lau, 2008). Instead, intensity and to a lesser degree specificity appear to influence spatial patterns more than linearity. Intensity relates to the number of stops made during the day and specificity refers to whether tourists tend to confine their movements to a specific node or wander widely throughout the destination.

Figure 2.3. Territoriality of intradestination movements. Source: Lew and McKercher (2006).

Figure 2.4. Linearity of intradestination movements. Source: Lew and McKercher (2006).

Studies using network analysis support this latter finding by showing the strength of the relationship between individual attractions, attraction nodes, and paths followed. These studies reveal that while movements of individual tourists may be stochastic, there is an underlying order to them. Orellana et al. (2012), for example, noted that while many places are visited often they are hardly visited in the same order. Zheng et al. (2011) and Li et al. (2011), analyzing GPS-tagged photos, were able to identify sets of attraction nodes and the broad paths linking them. Leung et al. (2012), using a similar method, identified the cornerstone or icon attractions that formed the foundation for these networks, while Xia et al. (2011) demonstrated that this type of analysis can predict the probability of visiting other attractions within a network. In doing so, Edwards and Griffin (2013) have used network analysis to identify selfguided touring routes of varying durations to help visitors maximize limited time budgets and increase expenditure. Both Edwards and Griffin (2013) and Xia et al. (2011) illustrate how

this knowledge can be used to develop appropriate management strategies to minimize or mitigate congestion. Interestingly, Zillinger (2007) raised the idea of being able to identify a rhythm that is noticeable in tourist mobility over time and space. Rhythmic movements are defined by a combination of mobility and stationariness. She found that mobility and stationariness alternate in a rhythmic and occurring way but within each day of the journey and over the entire holiday. Travel rhythms are highly individual, influenced by the tourist's own interests, past visitation history, and the spatial organization of that destination. Intradestination studies also highlight the hitherto unrecognized impact that the stage of visit and hotel location have on movements. Movements are heavily restricted during arrival and departure days, whereas they are more unfettered during middle days of a visit (McKercher and Lau, 2008; Shoval et al., 2011). The tourist's effective unrestricted timed budget is, in reality, shortened by 2 days, limiting how widely they can explore the destination area. For example, a 3-day, 2-night stay produces only one full day where tourists can be expected to travel widely. This finding also explains why tourists on limited time budgets often preplan their itinerary prior to the visit and are reluctant to change once in the destination (Shoval and Raveh, 2004). In a similar manner, hotel location has been discovered to exert a pronounced effect on movements, influencing when certain places are likely to be visited during the day, sequence of visitation, and probability of visiting lower-order attractions (Shoval et al., 2011).

Intervening Factors A series of intervening factors can affect tourist movements. This last section discusses the impact that distance decay and its cousin market access, and time, trip, and personal characteristics, have on movements.

Distance Decay and Market Access Tobler (1970) identified distance decay as the First Law of Geography, noting that “everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things.” Distance decay states that demand for activities varies inversely with the distance traveled or with increased time, money, or effort required to reach a place. The associated concept of market access builds on this idea, but argues that the number of intervening opportunities offering similar experiences affects the rate of decay (Pearce, 1989). Thus, while in aggregate tourist flows will decline with distance, the pattern will vary depending on the product type. For example, residents of the subtropical city of Brisbane, Australia, have the choice of literally dozens of beaches within a 150 km radius of the city, but must travel more than 2000 km to access Australia's nearest downhill ski resort, Falls Creek. As a result, a beach located 100 km away may be deemed to have poor market access, while a ski resort located 2000 km away might enjoy strong market access. Distance decay has been studied empirically in various tourism settings since the late 1970s (Greer and Wall, 1979) and found to be broadly applicable. Much less research has been conducted on market access (McKercher, 1998b),

representing a significant gap in the literature. Three broad types of decay curves have been identified (McKercher and Lew, 2003). The standard curve shows how demand peaks at some distance close to the tourists' home and then declines exponentially. The shape of the curve recognizes that tourists must travel a certain distance before they feel sufficiently removed from their home environment to make the journey worthwhile (Greer and Wall, 1979). Alternately, demand can plateau for some distance before declining, as a result of a finite number of destination options and accommodation supply along a linear touring route (McKercher, 1998a). Here, market access influences the shape of the curve. The third type has a secondary peak some distance away from the source market, in recognition of the fact that some distant destinations may have such great market appeal that their pulling power supersedes the normal frictional effect of distance. A global study evaluating 41 source markets and 146 destinations confirmed the ubiquity of the impact of distance on demand (McKercher et al., 2006) (Figure 2.5). This study concluded that 80% of all international travel occurs to destinations located within 1000 km of a source market's boarders. Global tourism demand declines sharply thereafter, with mean demand per destination declining by two-thirds with every additional 1000 km traveled. Moreover, decay curve patterns from 39 of the 41 source markets adhered to the one of the three distance decay models.

Figure 2.5. Cumulative volume of arrivals. Source: McKercher et al. (2006).

The origin of the decay curve for island economies was shifted, but otherwise one of the three patterns was observed. Japan and Australia represented the only exceptions, where multiple decay curves were noted. Outbound tourism from Japan displayed two distinct short-haul and long-haul distance decay patterns, while three distinct peaks were noted among Australians, coinciding with travel to the South Pacific (peaking in New Zealand), Southeast Asia (peaking in Singapore), and Europe. Interestingly, a similar decay pattern has also been observed within destinations (Shoval et al., 2011), where tourists are likely to spend up to 40% of their total daily time budget within close proximity of the hotels. Remote attractions are unlikely to be

visited, unless they have attained the status of icon sites that help brand the destination. Market access has been found to influence the type of visitor attracted to different destinations (McKercher, 1998b). Areas with strong market access do not necessarily attract more visitors or more visitor nights, but they do attract short-break vacationers, through travelers, and international tourists seeking a short escape from gateway cities. Destinations with poor market access tend to attract repeat visitors and those who stay for long periods. Families traveling with children seek places with strong market access for short-break vacations. On the other hand, families who have more time to travel seek destinations with poor market access. Couples with no children choose to vacation at destinations with modest market access, bypassing the most proximate destinations. Two other relationships between distance and tourist flows are worthy of discussion. First, an effective tourism exclusion zone (ETEZ) has been observed in much outbound travel (McKercher and Lew, 2003). The ETEZ represents a geographic zone where little or no tourism activity occurs that is relevant to the market under consideration. The size and proximity of the zone to the market can distort the rate of demand decay. An ETEZ close to the source market essentially shifts the demand curve outward. A similar zone a moderate distance from the source market accentuates the demand peak leading up to its inner edge, and can produce a secondary demand peak beyond its outer edge. This pattern exists for both inter- and intradestination travel. More importantly, the zone represents a psychological threshold that distinguishes long- from short-haul travel. Trips taken prior to encountering the ETEZ are typically short-break, short-duration, single-destination trips. Those that occur beyond its outer edge tend to be longer-duration, multiple-destination, touring-oriented trips. Second, distance exerts a significant filtering effect on the type of person willing or able to travel, which in turn affects behavior and consumption patterns within destinations. Essentially, anyone who can travel can travel short distances, but the extra time, cost, effort, and willingness to enter culturally dissimilar environments tends to act as a “filter” that effectively excludes certain segments (McKercher, 2008, 2009). As a result, short-haul visitors tend to be younger, have lower levels of education, lower incomes, and have less travel experience. Families, young couples, and groups of friends are more common. They travel for escape, fun, and relaxation and seek activities that satisfy those needs. Conversely, the long-haul tourist tends to be older, more affluent, and more experienced. They are unlikely to be traveling with children. They are likely to be traveling for aspirational and self-development reasons and will choose activities that reflect those goals.

Time and Financial Budgets Time is one of the few absolutes tourists face when they travel. Vacation times are usually fixed, with little opportunity to extend holidays. However, tourists do have control over how they choose to spend their time budgets, and this depends on whether they value time as a scarce resource to be rationed or as commodity that can be spent in many places. It is for this reason that McKean et al. (1995) argue that time rationing may be the most important factor in the travel-cost equation. Those who adopt a resource valuation see travel time as something

that cannot be saved, stored, or accumulated for future use. They tend to view transit time as a cost, where time spent traveling must be traded-off for a shorter stay at a destination (Truong and Henscher, 1985). They can be considered as outcome-oriented individuals who seek to maximize time spent at the end point by minimizing transit times. An alternative school of thought argues that the transit component has a positive commodity value in itself (Chaves et al., 1989; Walsh et al., 1990). These people can be described as process-oriented tourists, where the journey can be as important as the goal. Touring, sightseeing, and making multiple stops are important to them. People with limited time budgets tend to adopt a more resourceoriented approach to travel and want to get to the destination or attraction as quickly as possible. Those with larger time budgets tend to adopt more of a commodity-oriented approach and will engage in touring, sightseeing, and exploration. Money also plays a role, but it is more subtle. It can effectively “buy” time or distance, enabling people willing to spend more to travel further or do more things within a finite time frame. For example, a self-drive tourist can likely travel 300 km or less in 4 hours, limiting the choice of destinations. Yet, a flying time of 4 hours enables the tourist to travel 3000 km or more. Conversely, someone wishing to drive 3000 km may have to invest 5–6 days for each transit leg, meaning only those people with large time budgets can afford to do so. Money can thus buy time, in the sense that it can shorten transit times or, for the same amount of time, it can buy distance, opening up a much wider array of destination opportunities for the tourist.

Trip and Personal Characteristics Length of stay influences both multidestination travel and the number of activities tourists can pursue within a destination area (Oppermann, 1997). Substantial differences have also been noted in the movements of first-time and repast visitors (Fakeye and Crompton, 1991), with a recent study using Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis revealing differences in the amount of time spent at attractions, the times of day when attractions were likely to be visited, and in overall daily movement patterns, where first-time visitors are more likely to make one long extended trip from the hotel, while repeaters tend to make a number of short forays, returning to the hotel intermittently during the day (McKercher et al., 2012). The role of the place visited as a main or stopover destination also affects behavior (McKercher, 2001), due in part to the length of stay and also in part to the psychological investment made in the destination. Furthermore, trip purpose may also have an effect on the spatial distribution of tourists (Fennel, 1996). Pleasure travelers are far more likely to explore a destination than business travelers. People visiting friends and relatives tend to do less, while spending more time with family. When they travel, they may go to areas not predominantly identified as tourism nodes. Special-interest tourists will tend to confine their actions to activities that relate to the specialized reason for visiting, while the generalist sightseeing tourist will tend to travel more widely with no clearly evident pattern (Zakrisson and Zillinger, 2012). Finally, in terms of travel party composition, Thornton et al. (1997) for example noted significant differences in both participation rates in certain activities and allocations of daily time budgets between families and adult-only groups. Flognfeldt (1999) and others note the role of cultural distance as a factor influencing attraction selection, whereas Smallwood et al.

(2012) have observed substantial differences between domestic and international tourists.

Conclusion An intricate relationship exists between time, space, and tourism movements. Over the years a variety of models have been developed to portray the movement of tourists from their homes to destination areas or between destination areas. These models recognize that tourism movement involves two components: a destination component and a transit component, which may or may not be integrated into the destination component. Movement of tourists is, in turn, moderated by a number of factors, including the frictional effect of distance on demand, the number of intervening opportunities available, tourists' total time budget and how they choose to spend that time, and trip variables. The discipline of geography has played a central role in the evolution of tourism as a field of study. The desire to understand the spatial interactions of tourists with a destination and the movement of tourists between destinations has played a critical role in developing the phenomenon of tourism. The geography of tourism seems to have become relatively less important over the last 20 years, however, as other disciplines have discovered tourism. Yet, an appreciation of spatial relationships forms one of the foundations of tourism by which any study, regardless of discipline, is based. Many exciting research opportunities exist to build on the existing knowledge base or to reexamine other tourism concepts from a temporal/spatial perspective.

References Chaves, J.-P., Stoll, J., and Sellar, C. 1989. On the commodity value of travel time in recreational activities. Applied Economics, 21: 711–722. Edwards, D. and Griffin, T. 2013. Understanding tourists' spatial behaviour: GPS tracking as an aid to sustainable destination management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(4): 580– 595. Fakeye, P.C. and Crompton, J.L. 1991. Image differences between prospective, first-time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2): 10–16. Fennell, D. 1996. A tourist space-time budget in the Shetland Islands. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4): 811–829. Flognfeldt, T. 1999. Traveler geographic origin and market segmentation: the multi trips destination case. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8(1): 111–124. Greer, T. and Wall, G. 1979. Recreational hinterlands: a theoretical and empirical analysis. In Recreational Land Use on Southern Ontario, Department of Geography Publication series 14, Wall, G. (ed.), pp. 227–246. Waterloo: Waterloo University.

Leung, X.Y., Wang, F., Wu, B., Bai, B., Stahura, K.A., and Xie, X. 2012. A social network analysis of overseas tourist movement patterns in Beijing: the impact of the Olympic Games. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14: 469–484. Lew, A.A. and McKercher, B. 2002. Trip Destinations, Gateways and Itineraries: The Example of Hong Kong. Tourism Management 23 (6): 609–621. Lew, A.A. and McKercher, B. 2006. Modeling tourist movements: a local destination analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2): 403–423. Li, C., Zhao, Y., Sun, X., Su, X., Zheng, S., Dong, R., and Shi, L. 2011. Photography-based analysis of tourists' temporal–spatial behaviour in the Old Town of Lijiang. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 18(6): 523–529. Lue, C.-C., Crompton, J.L., and Fessenmaier, D. 1993. Conceptualization of multidestination pleasure trips. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(2): 289–301 McKean, J., Johnson, D., and Walsh, R. 1995. Valuing time in travel cost demand analysis: An empirical investigation. Land Economics, 71(1): 96–105. McKercher, B. 1998a. The effect of market access on destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 37(1), 39–47. McKercher, B. 1998b. The effect of distance decay on visitor mix at coastal destinations. Pacific Tourism Review, 2(3/4): 215–224. McKercher, B. 2001. A comparison of main destination and through travelers at a dual purpose destination. Journal of Travel Research, 39(4): 433–441. McKercher, B. 2008. Segment transformation in urban tourism. Tourism Management. 29(6): 1215–1225. McKercher, B. 2009. The implicit effect of distance on tourist behaviour. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. 25(3/4): 367–381. McKercher, B., Chan, A., and Lam, C. 2008. The impact of distance on international tourist movements. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2): 208–224. McKercher, B. and Lau, G. 2008. Movement patterns of tourists within a destination. Tourism Geographies, 10(3), 355–374. McKercher, B. and Lew, A. 2003. Distance decay and the impact of effective tourism exclusion zones on in international travel flows. Journal of Travel Research, 42(2): 159–165 McKercher, B., Shoval, N., Ng, E., and Birenboim, A. 2012. First and repeat visitor behaviour: GPS tracking and GIS analysis in Hong Kong. Tourism Geographies, 14(1): 147– 161.

Mings, R.C. and McHug, K.E. 1992. The spatial configuration of travel to Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Travel Research, 30: 38–46. Oppermann, M. 1995. A model of travel itineraries. Journal of Travel Research, 33(4): 57– 61. Oppermann, M. 1997. Length of stay and travel patterns. In Tourism Research: Building a Better Industry, R. Bushell (ed.), pp. 471–480. Canberra: CAUTHE, Bureau of Tourism Research. Orellana, D., Bregt, A., Ligtenberg, A., and Wachowicz, M. 2012. Exploring visitor movement patterns in natural recreational areas. Tourism Management, 33(3): 672–682. Pearce, D. 1989. Tourist Development, 2nd edn. Harlow: Longman. Shoval, N., McKercher, B., Ng, E., and Birenboim, A. 2011. Hotel location and tourist activity in cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4): 1594–1612. Shoval, N. and Raveh, A. 2004. Categorization of tourist attractions and the modeling of tourist cities: based on the co-plot method of multivariate analysis, Tourism Management, 25(6): 741–750. Smallwood, C.B., Beckley, L., and Moore, S. 2012. An analysis of visitor movement patterns using travel networks in a large marine park, north-western Australia. Tourism Management, 33(3): 517–528. Thornton, P.R., Shaw, G., and Williams, A.M. 1997. Tourist group holiday decision-making and behaviour: the influence of children, Tourism Management, 18(5): 287–297. Tobler, W.R. 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46: 234–240. Truong, T.P. and Henscher, D. 1985. Measurement of travel time values and opportunity cost model from a discrete-choice model. The Economic Journal, 95: 438–451. Walsh, R., Sanders, L., and McKean, J. 1990. The consumptive value of travel time. Journal of Travel Research, 29(1): 17–24. Xia, J., Zeephongsekul, P., and Packer, D. 2011. Spatial and temporal modelling of tourist movements using Semi-Markov processes. Tourism Management, 32(4): 844–851. Zakrisson, I. and Zillinger, M. 2012. Emotions in motion: tourist experiences in time and space. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(6): 505–523. Zheng, Y., Li, Y., Zha, Z.-J., and Chua, T.-S. 2011. Mining travel patterns from GPS-tagged photos. Advances in Multimedia Modeling: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6523: 262– 272.

Zillinger, M. 2007. Tourist routes: a time-geographical approach on German car-tourists in Sweden. Tourism Geographies, 9(1): 64–83.

Chapter 3 Tourism Motivations and Decision Making Philip L. Pearce The question “What motivates tourists?” is an inexact inquiry. It can only be answered with bland overgeneralizations across hundreds of instances and cases. A much better approach is to ask why certain groups of people choose certain holiday experiences. Even for these more precise questions there is a challenge to provide answers which avoid circularity. For example, reporting that tourists like to engage in adventurous activities because they have a need for adventure is not particularly helpful. Insightful answers are also needed at different scales of analysis. Tourists' motives can vary in specificity, such as why do people choose to holiday in Thailand, or Phuket, or at the Sofitel Beach resort? It can also be noted here that we are not assuming that decisions to choose a holiday experience are motivated by one force. That would be a mistake. Instead, in this chapter the focus is on how to identify for researchers a relatively convenient number of forces that can help understand the travel choices of a defined group of people at a specified scale. The use and usefulness of motivation in studying the important process of tourists' decision making will then be assessed.

Background Issues Tourist motivation can be conceptualized as the sum of biological and sociocultural forces which energize and generate people's behavior (Mansfeld, 1992; Hsu and Huang, 2008). Specifically, we are interested in what motivates tourists and how do these motives intersect with other personal, logistical, and destination features to influence where people prefer to take their holidays? It is necessary to distinguish this strong social psychological perspective focusing on tourists themselves from the broad business and government position pertaining to the motivation for developing tourism. In this approach to tourism motivation there are civic and business perspectives as to why tourism matters and why tourism is worth developing. Advocacy and cautionary platforms of research abound in these debates (Jafari, 2005). What motivates communities to pursue tourism is a worthwhile topic for study, but it is set aside in this chapter for the more precise focus on the drivers of tourists' travel. There is a second side issue which can distract some readers with a generic business and social science background. There can be confusion between the economists' expression of tourism demand and the tourism researchers' interest in motivation. For the economist, the data that matter are not the psychological profiles underpinning holiday travel but the actual and predicted numbers of people whose needs for travel, once meshed with the logistics of the sector, result in actual or potential visits. In this economic sense, demand is a description of an outcome or likely outcome, not an assessment of underlying motivation forces. Reviewing tourist motivation and decision making involves a trek across a sometimes confusing landscape (Hsu and Huang, 2008; Bowen and Clarke, 2009; Goeldner and Ritchie, 2011). Some terms that are marginal to our present journey are benefits, values, and

expectations. Benefits can be understood as the posttravel consequences relevant to classes of motives (Ryan, 1995). Another term employed in a similar way to motives is that of values, which are summary statements integrating people's attitudes on a topic (Witt and Wright, 1992). Groups of travelers might be identified as having strong environmental conservation values which, for example, may shape their on-site behavior in a wilderness tourism setting. Values can be linked to social and cultural motives but may not necessarily drive tourist behavior. Expectations, as used in destination studies, are really anticipatory beliefs about the attributes of destinations (Madrigal, 1995). Expectations can have a role in the assessment and determination of the consequences of motives but they are not in themselves motives. There are consistent lines of research which use expectations as a fundamental component in the assessment of tourist satisfaction (Kozak, 2001) but complex problems when assessing expectations and the clarity of expectations for tourism experiences have attracted criticism (Ryan, 1995; Pearce, 2005). There are some other preliminary perspectives needed when reading about the motivations of tourists. Other tourists may not share the same social, cultural, and biological needs as the reader. In fact, tourists from other cultures and other groups may see the world quite differently, their needs may be different, and their motivated behavior in the destination they visit may even be seen with diastase. As Pike (1971), Cohen (1979b), and others have suggested, individuals interested in tourist motivation should adopt a tolerant, emic perspective. This approach prompts the researcher to try to understand tourist motivation from the insider and participant's point of view.

A Core History of Tourist Motivation Study An early phase of focused writing about tourist motivation occurred in some of the pioneering tourism commentaries. Pimlott (1947) noted the social conformity pressures to travel to specific places. Boorstin (1962) observed the pull of tourists towards what he called pseudoevents and the manufactured pleasures of a consumer society. Dichter (1967) viewed travel in psychoanalytic terms, describing it as an emergence into new spaces from the comfortable womb of the home world. The labels “sunlust” and “wanderlust” were provided by Gray (1970; cited in Young, 1973) to distinguish between those who stayed in specific beach locations and those who were more mobile when on holidays. Lundberg (1972) offered an early classification based on health and education benefits. Frijhoff (1973) viewed travel motivation as realizing an inherent drive to participate in rituals and celebrations. Cohen and Taylor (1976) viewed travel, like other forms of serious leisure, as an escape attempt. Smith (1978) noted the stages of tourist penetration into a region and attached a classification of tourists built loosely on their status motives to explore or follow others. The efforts of the authors listed tended to be separate and isolated contributions. An important landmark in the discussion of tourist motivation occurred when tourism journals were established and flourished in the late 1970s. Views about motivation were no longer simply published and stated but were contested. Plog (1974), Dann (1977, 1981), MacCannell (1976), and Cohen (1979a) offered summaries of motivation which attracted controversy. The

first counter attack on motivation analysis was directed at Dann's sociological account of motives in 1981. He argued that tourist motivation was best described by anomie (a form of alienation) and ego-enhancement. Iso-Ahola (1982) and Pearce (1982) suggested that these concepts were loose, difficult to measure, and ignored much work on motivation conducted by psychologists. The attack was somewhat successful as these concepts faded from the tourist motivation lexicon. Dann's (1977) contribution, where he distinguished between push (internal) motives and pull (destination feature characteristics), has survived and has been a useful organizer (Kim and Lee, 2002). The work of Plog, who was a tourism consultant rather than an academic, also attracted criticism. His proposed motives arrayed tourists along a single continuum allied to the personality variable of anxiety. Those who were less anxious traveled further (labeled allocentrics) and those with high levels of anxiety were the stay-at-home or limited travelers (labeled psychocentrics). The work was influential, partly because it was incorporated in the earliest tourism textbooks and partly because there were no other “competitors” for commercial use in assessing motivation. Smith (1990), and later Andreu et al. (2005) and McKercher (2005), charged Plog with ethnocentrism and methodological flaws, as well as limited conceptualization of the range of motivational drivers. In later work Plog (1987, 2001) added a second dimension but the criticisms persisted and his influence on text books and tourism motivation thinking declined while maintaining some success in the commercial world (Plog, 2011). MacCannell (1976) conceptualized the search for authenticity as the one defining generic motive which influenced tourist activity. Despite a lack of empirical data supporting the approach, the work stimulated considerable commentary among tourist scholars. Cohen (1979b) provided an early and powerful critique pointing out the variability inherent in tourists' quest for authenticity. Authenticity continues to be used in tourism studies, largely as an overview of cultural change and as an assessment of tourism settings (Harris, 2005; Singh, 2012: 249–276). It is limited as a view of motivation due to its singular focus and no sense of the changes which may occur with tourists' cumulative experiences of traveling. Another point of interest in the journey across the tourist motivational landscape lies in the work of Pearce and colleagues (e.g. Pearce, 2011). This approach, now known as the travel career patterns conceptual scheme, is a substantially reworked version of an earlier travel career ladder approach (Pearce and Caltabiano, 1983; Pearce, 1988; Bowen and Clarke, 2009: 33–35). The initial travel career ladder approach highlighted the importance of travelers' changing motivational needs over time and with more travel experience. Commentary on the foundational work by Ryan (1998) and others led to the development of the travel career pattern approach which retained the notion that travelers' motives changed with travel experience (Pearce, 2005, 2011). The new travel career pattern approach attempted to provide better measurement of the motives and a fuller treatment of travel experience. It stressed the notion of a pattern of motives with a new pictorial representation (Pearce and Lee, 2005). Additionally, the new travel career patterns model has been connected to studies of motivation in neuroscience which

were seen as supporting components of the approach (Pearce, 2011). The varied importance of the motives suggested that a pattern could be imposed on the data such that for all travelers there was a core layer of motives which was uniformly important. These motives were to escape and relax, to experience novelty, and to build relationships. These motives were relatively unaffected by how much traveling the participants had experienced. These findings were in close accord with the early studies in the field, especially the work of Crompton (1979). Further motives were structured into a middle and outer layer of importance. For the middle layer of motives, key items included seeking close contact with the host community and the local environment as well as striving to fulfil self-development and selfactualization needs. The outer layer of motives included such directions as seeking romance, looking for isolation, and returning to a simpler time and place as represented in a nostalgic quest. For the most experienced travelers the middle layer of motives was more important than the outer layer. By way of contrast those with limited travel experience tended to see all motives as quite important. The phases or stages of the traveler's life cycle were also linked to the traveler's motivation patterns. In almost reaching the end of this historical tour through tourist motivation territory, it is timely to summarize what is needed as an organizing approach to this topic area. The requirements include a treatment of the multimotive drivers of tourist behavior, an ability to consider the dynamic and changing nature of an individual's motivation across their tourism experiences, and the need for theories and conceptual systems to function as integrative and predictive but also empirically accessible foundations for research (Pearce, 1993, 2005; Hsu and Huang, 2008; Bowen and Clarke, 2009).

Adding to the Tourist Motivation Literature Recent developments in the field of positive psychology offer largely untapped sources of ideas about motivation (Diener and Biswas-Diener, 2008). In particular the notion that human beings seek to build their wellbeing in ways consonant with their character strengths represents a forward-looking approach to social motivation (Seligman, 2002; Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi, 2006). The approach is applicable to wellbeing in tourism (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013). The newer motivation work in psychology suggests that individuals seek to maximize their overall state of wellbeing and that this involves not only immediate sensory pleasures (although these remain important) but also includes attempts to achieve desired goals such as respect, status, enhanced relationships, altruism, self-regulation, zest, and several other eudaimonic achievements (Park et al., 2006). This kind of thinking enriches the motivational frameworks of tourism researchers' earlier attempts to understand why people travel when compared to the older notions built on the more limited deficit models of arousal, personality malfunctioning, anxiety, alienation, or stereotyped applications of Maslow's formulation (Plog, 1974; Crompton, 1979; Iso-Ahola, 1982; Gnoth, 1997; Ateljevic, 2000). The work offers researchers some new ways to ask about motivational aspirations including assessing tourists' desired character strengths and new sets of personal values. It draws

attention to peak experiences which holidays are seen as potentially providing.

Employing Travel Motivation Concepts Researchers working with the concept of motives for specific activities and choices have often overlooked the historical roots of the field and adopted a localized empirical approach. That is, they have chosen a number of items which they interpret as likely to be important in the context in which they are working, factor-analyzed these items into a smaller set of motive labels, and used these variables in regression and structural equation models. A typical example of this kind of work is to be found in the study by Prebensen et al. (2012) examining the influence of motivation and involvement on the perceived value of six predominantly nature-based tourist attractions in Norway. The researchers employed 14 motives from Beard and Ragheb's (1983) leisure motivation scale and then followed the pathway of reducing these items into a smaller subset and exploring the intervariable links as already described. They reported that motivation and involvement were both important influential factors in their model and, additionally, that other value-adding perspectives, such as other tourists and the servicescape, were at work in creating highly valued experiences. This kind of work has value but improvements can be suggested. Preliminary work on ascertaining the full compass of motivational items might enhance the initial selection of possible items rather than using a standard uniform set of questions. Empirical work of this type also offers little in the way of understanding change and the dynamics of future motivational states. Links to approaches such as the travel career pattern work might extend the implications of the study beyond immediate empirical generalizations. A second set of motivational studies can also be noted. This style of work uses tourists' remarks, blogs, and interview content to produce categories of motives. Again there is some collective amnesia among some of these researchers as they approach the assessment of tourists' motives in a specific context. That is, many researchers working in this qualitative style create new labels for human needs which have been better identified in many previous studies. Typical examples here include Hsu et al. (2007) writing about senior tourists′ motivations in China, and the study by Podoshen (2013) on dark tourism motivation. The work in these kinds of studies usually produces a listing of motives deduced from grounded theory approaches or content thematic summaries. It is often locally insightful, but the labels tend to be idiosyncratic, and with little replication of the research effort with the same samples or on the same themes and places, the work provides little cumulative power for other researchers. It contributes to rich, localized description rather than building conceptual contributions. Not all researchers are enthusiastic about the direction and contribution of motivation studies. Some distrust the responses which are obtained. There is a long-standing argument that tourists are unwilling to report certain motives (Dann, 1981). Additionally, some argue that tourists may not know what motivates them. Bowen and Clarke (2009) report further skeptical perspectives in their eclectic review of tourist motivation. The points raised in their review act both as a commentary and a challenge. One major issue to be considered is accounting for a postmodern perspective on tourist behavior and experience. In one of the clearest early

statements of this approach, Urry (1990) suggested that the diversity and complexity of contemporary tourism permits travelers to choose among many alternative experiences. This expansion of the available options, like other widening options in consumer culture, creates travelers who are less consistent customers, effectively dilettantes in the way they approach holiday purchases. The argument is powerful but not totally destructive in terms of reducing the value of tourist motivation theories. The postmodern accounts still suggest that tourists are motivated by needs and both empirical and interpretive studies tend to return to lists of needs very similar to those already discussed. Wickens (2002), for example, decides that the British tourists she studies in Greece are motivated by several feeling states: escape, ontological security (the force of habits and comfort levels), and the pursuit of pleasure. All these forces are seen as core drivers. In addition the postmodern perspective leads Wickens to conclude that tourists also step outside of the mass tourist role that characterizes the type of trip they have purchased. Some visitors show interest and pursue specific activities with local communities rather than being focused on hedonistic pleasures. This is not really a challenge to ideas such as the travel career patterns approach but can be viewed as a specific and detailed contextual assessment of the shifting of patterns.

Decision Making Historically, two broadly similar models, those of Um and Crompton (1990) and Woodside and Lysonski (1989), have underpinned the studies of destination selection. These approaches and their derivatives systematically pursue a highly rational, choice-set-based, sequential process. This process consists of tourists supposedly engaging in an orderly sorting of alternatives, refining and filtering the options according to individual motives and personal circumstances, and ultimately selecting the one final destination. The approach implicitly leans on the structured, orderly choice model of decision making summarized in earlier cognition and social psychology studies by Janis and Mann (1973). In this kind of system, motives are important but so too are the prices, accessibility, and social forces shaping individual holiday choice. Goldstein (2011) reports recent psychology research work in cognition which reveals that the nature of decision making and the processes it involves are powerfully affected by how problems are presented. In some circumstances individuals will be rational and follow logical routes while in others a range of biases and emotion-charged heuristics will be employed. The application of the heuristics approach to decision making can be illustrated by considering, for example, a young Chinese female traveler seeking accommodation choices linked to TripAdvisor. How are the comments read? Does the young traveler follow a carefully structured elimination process built on rational consideration of the available options? Or does she glance at the first two or three comments and search for a heuristic, such as a really negative comment, which overpowers all the others? The potential answers to these questions are being worked out in the consumer behavior and tourism studies literature and are beginning to involve the use of tourist motivation perspectives to illuminate the process (e.g. Yoo and

Gretzel, 2008; Zhang et al., 2008). Motivation patterns provide the value and importance to the weightings of risk tourists make in using this kind of information. The operation of availability heuristics (existing and recent knowledge) and representativeness heuristics (tried routines) seem to figure in some tourists' decisions and play a role in the emotional input into choices (De Martino et al., 2006). As a simple example, if an individual tourist has the heuristic “I will not travel to a destination where English is not spoken” then this rule of thumb overrides detailed motivational pattern analysis. These individual rules or heuristics thus run counter to rational approaches such as expected utility theory, the approach which has underpinned most tourism models of destination decision making (Goldstein, 2011). This specific issue suggests that the concept of eliminating candidates and sets or classes of choices needs to be highlighted more forcibly in understanding motives and destination choice studies.

Conclusions: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Motivation studies have a long history in the study of tourism. They should not, however, be confined to a remote shelf in the offices of tourism researchers. There are some fresh approaches and opportunities for innovation in contemporary motivation thinking, notably in the work centered on the tourists' desires to enhance their lives. These new directions in motivation study, it is argued in this chapter, are characterized by appreciating patterns of motives which are assessed with a rich array of items. The research methods and approaches needed to deliver more effective tourist motivation studies can be highlighted. Much of the existing work applying these motivational ideas can be undertaken with quantitative research approaches. Here the rich and extensive lists of motives used in previous work can be redeployed. It is of particular importance, as outlined in this chapter, that the questions asked of travelers about their motives assess importance and personal relevance. For the assessment of the destination pull features or characteristics, the choice of questions is also critical. Questions to be asked can be framed as follows: how much would you like to do this activity/have this experience in this destination and how important is this activity/experience to you, and do you think this experience will meet your key needs? Again, assessing the personal importance and relevance of the items becomes a key part of the question-asking process. The quantitative style of work will remain a strong trend in motivation studies but the approaches offered by Klenosky (2002), using layered questioning built on the means-end technique, and by Filep and Greenacre (2007), with a qualitative positive psychology framework of describing your best day, both offer alternatives. It can also be suggested that questions using more visual stimuli and images of available experiences might enhance the accessibility of the destination characteristics (Ye and Tussyadiah, 2011). For example, the way to implement such an approach is to take a specific group of travelers, easily identified by a demographic label. It could be young Chinese female travelers with enough money to travel

abroad or older, openly gay residents of San Francisco. The tracking of their experiences through structured questions, biographies, and an exacting search for the fit between their important needs and key destination attributes, possibly expressed through images, can build an array of intensive case analyses culminating in a deeper understanding of travel motivation. In each tourism destination the local industry personnel typically employ a priori categories of traveler types which they seek to attract. These categories can be the basis for the research investigations proposed. A further but not insignificant use of the motivation ideas discussed in this chapter lies in assisting the broader understanding of changes in tourism and leisure. There is considerable speculation and commentary in the academic and wider literature about the changing motives of tourists (Coleman and Crang, 2002; Cohen, 2004; Bowen and Clarke, 2009: 42–73). The forward-looking ideas presented in the pattern components of motivation theories can contribute significantly to discussion in the research and policy community. The patterned approaches offer some predictive possibilities built on the concept of tourists' changing their preferences with experience. The motivation studies when approached in this way can enhance researchers' capacity to comment on likely future directions. It is appreciated in this chapter that not all tourist behavior can be understood by neatly rational accounts of destination selection and the choice of actions. Nevertheless, exploring the balance between rationality and heuristics should motivate researchers to build further motivation and destination-selection studies.

References Andreu, L., Kozak, M., Avci, N., and Cifter, N. 2005. Market segmentation by motivations to travel: British tourists visiting Turkey. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 19(1): 1– 14. Ateljevic, I. 2000. Tourist motivation, values and perceptions. In Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, G.I. Crouch, J.A. Mazanec, M. Oppermann, and M.Y. Sakai (eds), pp. 193–209.Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Beard, J.G. and Ragheb, M.G. 1983. Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(3): 219–228. Boorstin, D.J. 1962. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America. New York: Harper & Row. Bowen, D. and Clarke, J. (eds) 2009. Contemporary Tourist Behaviour. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Cohen, E. 1979a. A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13: 179–201. Cohen, E. 1979b. Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1): 18– 35.

Cohen, E. 2004. Backpacking: diversity and change. In The Global Nomad, G. Richards and J. Wilson (eds), pp. 43–59. Clevedon: Channel View. Cohen, S. and Taylor, L. 1976. Escape Attempts. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Coleman, S. and Crang, M. (eds) 2002. Tourism Between Place and Performance. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Crompton, J.L. 1979. Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1): 408–424. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2013. Forward. In Tourist Experience and Fulfilment: Insights from Positive Psychology, S. Filep and P.L. Pearce (eds), pp. 1–5. London: Routledge. Csikszentmihalyi, M, and Csikszentmihalyi, I.S. (eds) 2006. A Life Worth Living. Contributions to Positive Psychology.New York: Oxford University Press. Dann, G.M.S. 1977. Anomie ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4(44): 184–194. Dann, G.M.S. 1981. Tourist motivation: an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2): 187– 219. De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., and Dolan, R.J. 2006. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787): 684–687. Dichter, E. 1967. What Motivates People to Travel. Address to the Department of Tourism of the Government of India, Kashmir. Diener, E. and Biswas-Diener, R. 2008. Happiness: Unlocking the Mysteries of Psychological Wealth. Oxford: Blackwell. Filep, S. and Greenacre, L. 2007. Evaluating and extending the travel career patterns model. Tourism Analysis, 55(1): 23–38. Frijhoff, W.Th.M. 1973. Fetes inavouables. Apres-Demain, 157: 29–32. Gnoth, J. 1997. Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2): 283–304. Goeldner, C.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. 2011. Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 12th edn. New York: Wiley. Goldstein, E.B. 2011. Cognitive Psychology, 3rd edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Harris, D. 2005. Key Concepts in Leisure Studies. London: Sage Publications. Hsu, C.H.C., Cai, L.A.P., and Wong, K.K.F. 2007. A model of senior tourism motivations – anecdotes from Beijing and Shanghai. Tourism Management, 28(5): 1262–1273.

Hsu, C.H. and Huang, S.S. 2008. Travel motivation: a critical review of the concept's development. In Tourism Management: Analysis, Behaviour and Strategy, A.G. Woodside and D. Martin (eds), pp. 14–27. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Iso-Ahola, S.E. 1982. Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2): 256–262. Janis, A.I. and Mann, L. 1973. Decision Making. Yale: Yale University Press. Kim, S.-S. and Lee, C.-K. 2002. Push and pull relationships. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1): 257–260. Klenosky, D.B. 2002. The “pull” of tourism destinations: a means-end investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 40(4): 396–403. Kozak, M. 2001. A critical review of approaches to measure satisfaction with tourist destinations. In Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, A.G. Woodside, G.I. Crouch, J.A. Mazanec, J.R. Brent, and J.A. Mazanec (eds), pp. 191–196. Herndon: CAB International. Lundberg, D.E. 1972. The Tourist Business. Chicago: Institutions Volume Feeding Management Committee. MacCannell, D. 1976. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken Books. Madrigal, R. 1995. Personal values, traveler personality type, and leisure travel style. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(2): 125–142. Mansfeld, Y. 1992. From motivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(3): 399– 419. McKercher, B. 2005. Are psychographics predictors of destination life cycles? Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(1): 49–55. Park, N., Peterson, C., and Seligman, M.E.P. 2006. Character strengths in fifty-fournations and the fifty US states. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3): 118–129. Pearce, P.L. 1982. The Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. New York: Pergamon Press. Pearce, P.L. 1988. The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pearce, P.L. 1993. Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges, D.G. Pearce and R. Butler (eds), pp. 85–105. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pearce, P.L. 2005. Tourist Behaviour: Themes and Conceptual Schemes. Clevedon: Channel

View. Pearce, P.L. 2011. Tourist Behaviour and the Contemporary World. Bristol: Channel View. Pearce, P.L. and Caltabiano, M.L. 1983. Inferring travel motivation from travellers’ experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 12: 16–20. Pearce, P.L. and Lee, U. 2005. Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 43: 226–237. Pike, K.L. 1971. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour. The Hague: Mouton. Pimlott, J.A.R. 1947. The Englishman's Holiday: A Social History. London: Faber and Faber. Plog, S.C. 1974. Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14(4): 55–58. Plog, S.C. 1987. Understanding psychographics in tourism research. In Travel Tourism and Hospitality Research, J.R.B. Ritchie and C.R. Goeldner (eds), pp. 203–214. New York: Wiley. Plog, S. 2001. Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: an update of a Cornell quarterly classic. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(3): 13–24. Plog, S. 2011. Tourism research: a pragmatist's perspective. In The Study of Tourism Foundations from Psychology, P.L. Pearce (ed.), pp. 45–62. Bingley: Emerald. Podoshen, J.S. 2013. Dark tourism motivations: simulation, emotional contagion and topographic comparison. Tourism Management, 35: 263–271. Prebensen, N.K., Woo, E., Chen, J.S., and Uysal, M. 2013. Motivation and involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2): 253–264. Ryan, C. 1995. Researching Tourist Satisfaction: Issues, Concepts, Problems. London: Routledge. Ryan, C. 1998. The travel career ladder an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4): 936–957. Seligman, M.E.P. 2002. Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize your Potential for Lasting Fulfilment. New York: Free Press. Singh, T. 2012. Critical Debates in Tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Smith, S.L.J. 1990. A test of Plog's Allocentric/Psychocentric model: evidence from seven nations. Journal of Travel Research, 28(4): 40–43.

Smith, V.L. 1978. Hosts and Guests. Oxford: Blackwell. Um, S. and Crompton, J.L. 1990. Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3): 432–448. Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Wickens, E. 2002. The sacred and the profane: a tourist typology. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3): 834–851. Witt, C.A. and Wright, P.L. 1992. Tourist motivation: life after Maslow. In Choice and Demand in Tourism, S.P. Johnston and B. Thomas (eds), pp. 33–55. London: Mansell. Woodside, A. and Lysonski, S. 1989. A general model of traveler destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27(4): 8–14. Ye, H.L. and Tussyadiah, I.P. 2011. Destination visual image and expectation of experiences. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 28(2): 129–144. Yoo, K.H. and Gretzel, U. 2008. What motivates consumers to write online travel reviews?” Information Technology and Tourism, 10(4): 283–295. Young, G. 1973. Tourism Blessing or Blight? Harmondsworth: Penguin. Zhang, L., Pan, B., Smith, W., and Li, X. 2008. An exploratory study of travellers' use of online reviews and recommendations. Information Technology & Tourism, 11(2): 157–167.

Chapter 4 Political Economy of Tourism Regulation Theory, Institutions, and Governance Networks Jan Mosedale The challenge of writing an overview of political economy research as applied to tourism lies in a number of issues. Firstly, political economy means different things to different people; it is far from being a unified concept. It spans various disciplines, ranging from economics to anthropology, each entertaining their own interpretations of political economy (economics focuses on individual behavior and rational choice theory, whereas anthropology is interested in culturally determined inequalities), and each discipline has made distinct theoretical contributions to it, leading to an array of approaches labeled as political economy. Secondly, although the critical academic discussions of tourism in the 1970s (e.g. Young, 1973; de Kadt, 1979) and applications of dependency theory (Bryden, 1973; Turner, 1976; Britton, 1989) were influenced by political economy, there has not been a particularly strong tradition of applying political economy approaches to tourism (see Mosedale, 2011a), leading Williams (2004: 62) to conclude that “… fruitful theoretical developments in political economy have largely bypassed tourism.” Many tourism scholars perform research that could be considered as following a political economy approach yet they may not consider themselves to be “political economists” and do political economy. This makes a truly comprehensive overview of the political economy literature in tourism difficult. At a rudimentary level, political economy is concerned with the commodification of resources (material or symbolic) and the resulting accumulation and distribution of capital (not restricted merely to monetary gains, but including social and natural capital). The economy is embedded in historical, political, sociocultural, and geographical contexts as these influence the structures that organize accumulation and distribution. The emphasis placed on each of these factors differs depending on the disciplinary lens of the researcher and has resulted in different understandings of political economy. Of particular interest to political economy are the roles of structures (social, cultural, political, and economic) that guarantee the reproduction of the organization of production, commodification, distribution, exchange, and consumption and how these structures sustain specific power constellations. The concept of power is thus central to political economy as its location determines who gains from capitalist production and who is disadvantaged (Bramwell and Meyer, 2007; Coles and Church, 2007; Carrier and MacLeod, 2010). Bianchi (2002, 2011), for instance, raises the unequal power relations inherent in tourism production; in particular, tensions between producers and labor. In a similar spirit, Hall (2011) maintains that class (understood in this context as access to holidays and opportunities for mobility) still remains a divisive factor in the political economy of tourism. Regulation theory is one of several approaches of political economy (see Mosedale, 2011a) and examines the relationships between states, governance, and society. A recent increase in

tourism scholarship on governance (see for example Bramwell and Lane, 2011) offers the opportunity to revive regulation theory in tourism. The aims of this chapter are therefore threefold: firstly to provide an overview of the application of regulation theory to the study of tourism, secondly to illustrate that a shift from thinking about government to governance also requires a shift in methods employed in political economy, and thirdly to highlight future areas of inquiry that are currently underresearched in regulationist tourism research.

Tourism and Regulation Theory Regulation theory is concerned with analyzing the combination of regime of accumulation – the organization and process of production and consumption – and the mode of regulation – the structures that stabilize the regime of accumulation and guarantee its reproduction (see Cornelissen, 2005, 2011). Much of the tourism literature on regulation to date has focused on the regime of accumulation and on the discussion whether the production and consumption of tourism has experienced a shift from pre-Fordism (small-scale, artisanal production) to Fordism (mass production of an identical product and mass consumption via package tours; economies of scale), post-Fordist (small-scale firms offering individually tailored packages focusing on niche products; economies of scope), and neo-Fordist (adaptation of Fordist production to become more flexible and appear to be more individual; economies of both scale and scope) regimes of accumulation (Ioannides and Debbage, 1998). An analysis of the mode of production and consumption in the mass tourism resort of Cancun, Mexico, by Torres (2002) demonstrates that the destination comprises features from various modes of production: new individualized tourism products (e.g. ecotourism and heritage tourism) are offered alongside mass tourism products which have themselves been adapted to cater to different consumer tastes and niche markets. A shift in demand has led to greater diversity in tourism products and further niche market segmentation, therefore resulting in more consumer choice and flexible production (in terms of specialized packaging). The mode of regulation consists of a collection of formal and informal norms, rules, codes, social practices, and institutions which sustain the survival of the regime of accumulation by providing ground rules for economic behavior and for the resolution of conflict. The institutional approach to political economy is concerned with the institutional regime of the economy understood as the institutional environment and specific institutional arrangements. The institutional environment refers to informal structures such as social norms, conventions, and customs as well as officially formalized laws and regulations (e.g. competition laws, labor and trade regulations, contract laws, property rights, etc.). Institutional arrangement, in contrast, represents the specific configuration of organizations that are involved in regulation and have been the primary focus of tourism research to date, in particular the role of government institutions and public policy on tourism development (e.g. Hall, 1994, 1997; Hall and Jenkins, 1995; Church, 2004). It is indeed important to analyze the organization of institutions and the allocation of roles and responsibilities as it influences “… the process which the policy agenda for tourism is shaped, the way in which tourism problems are defined and alternatives are considered and how choices are made and decisions and actions taken”

(Hall and Jenkins, 1995: 19). Institutions play a key role in the configuration of social processes and are thus responsible for the resulting structural and spatial characteristics of tourism (Britton, 1991). However, it is important to analyze not just the institutional arrangement but the entire institutional regime or mode of regulation including more implicit norms, values, and discourses. Institutional political economy recognizes that the organization of capitalism is influenced by the relationship between the sociopolitical and cultural structures and institutions to create the economic landscape: “… economic activity is socially and institutionally situated: it cannot be explained by reference to atomistic individual motives alone, but has to be understood as enmeshed in wider structures of social, economic and political rules, procedures and conventions” (Martin, 2003: 79; original emphasis). Most of the institutional contributions that focus on tourism have concentrated on analyses of the institutional arrangement with very few studies incorporating the explicit institutional environment (e.g. Vail and Heldt, 2000) and a dearth of literature on implicit rules and norms. The most obvious contributions to institutional political economy have been place-specific analyses of political and economic contexts of tourism development mostly approached from a political science perspective. Such studies have been undertaken for Africa (Dieke, 2000), Cambodia (Chheang, 2008), Egypt (Richter and Steiner, 2008), the Gambia (Dieke, 1994), the Middle East (Hazbun, 2004, 2008), Morocco (Scherle, 2011), Syria (Gray, 1997), Tunisia (Poirier and Wright, 1993; Hazbun, 2007/2008), and Western Europe (Williams and Shaw, 1998). These studies offer broad political-historical descriptions of tourism in a national – and sometimes regional – context, often with a focus on economies, institutions, infrastructure, policies, and plans. They demonstrate that political economies are path-dependent; they are dependent on prior political and economic decisions, institutional structures, and social relations: “[tourism] attitudes are heavily influenced by ideas, values, perceptions and beliefs developed over time, and which are deeply embedded in the institutions of local government and are manifested through its structures and practices” (Dredge, 2001: 357). Place-specific analyses provide contextual insights into particular local political economies and the importance of tourism to them, explain varieties in both tourism development and national political economies, and provide a basis for more detailed, theoretical reflections, for instance on neoliberalism (Scherle, 2011) or on the changing role of the state (Dredge, 2001; Coles et al., 2012). Comparative political economy takes this a step further and analyzes the differences between national political economies (i.e. in terms of political ideologies, and political and institutional organization) to evaluate the consequences of one particular political economy as opposed to another. Webster et al. (2011), for instance, analyze the roles and organization of national tourism organizations of two (neo)liberal states (the USA and Canada), two social democratic states (Finland and Sweden), and two mercantilist states (Japan and South Korea) to determine whether and how the political ideology of a nation state is reflected in the organization of tourism institutions. The premise is that liberal states follow a free-market approach with little state involvement, social democratic states ensure equal social and economic opportunities for their citizens, and mercantilist states attend to matters affecting the

economy. Their findings demonstrate that despite similar political ideologies the organization of tourism differs slightly among the states, which could be attributed to different historical paths. This corresponds to findings by Vail and Heldt (2000) who provide a comparative analysis of the institutional environment (rather than the institutional arrangement as Webster et al. 2011) of Maine (USA) and Dalarna (Sweden). In particular, they analyze labor legislation and participation in collective bargaining, land ownership and property/access rights, and value-added taxes, and recommend a middle way between the neoliberal institutional environment in Maine and the social democratic tradition in Dalarna.

Adapting Institutions: Transformations and Restructuring Institutional regimes are not static but adapt to internal and external changes. Of particular interest to regulationists are the temporal variations of relationships between the institutional environment and the institutional arrangements and their effects on tourism. By its nature, institutions are designed to provide the structural framework that guarantees the stability of economic exchange and thus enables social economic processes and activity over time and space. Institutions are “carriers of history” (David, 1994) that have evolved to adapt to different environmental conditions. In a historical analysis of values held by local tourism institutions in New South Wales, Australia, Dredge (2001) demonstrates how the past affects relationships with the community and other state and federal government institutions. Although the legitimacy of local tourism institutions has changed in a legal sense, the overall institutional structures created by the colonial government in 1842 as well as by the general paternalistic attitude of the colonial administration towards local communities has resulted in a continued narrow interpretation of their remit in the present time: “… there are values, ideas and perceptions that have been embedded and carried through time in institutional structures and practices” (Dredge, 2001: 376–377). This demonstrates the influence of cultural processes on institutions as institutional knowledge, behaviors, norms, and values are transferred between generations. Thus institutions usually “… evolve incrementally, connecting the past with the present and the future …” (North, 1991: 97). It also highlights the path-dependent evolution of institutional structures as they are influenced by particular histories and their place-specific nature as relationships between actors, institutions, and communities unfold in particular places. How modes of regulation either adapt to environmental changes (internal or external) or how societies create new institutional regimes is of particular interest to regulationists. One such example is the transition from planned economies in state socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe to market economies and democracy in the late 1990s and the role that tourism still plays in the transition period. Despite the limited tourism literature dealing with this phenomenon (Williams and Balàz, 2000, 2002; Coles, 2003; Hall, 2004; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007) it was an opportunity for institutional political economy to analyze a comprehensive change in the regime of accumulation, to study the problems associated with a relatively sudden shift in the regime of accumulation as experienced by the newly capitalist countries, and to examine the creation and evolution of new modes of regulations to deal with these problems. These issues are highlighted by Williams and Balàz (2002) as they examine tourism

in the early transition period of the former Czechoslovakia. Even though the regime of accumulation collapsed, the social relations and conflicts of the past remained and influenced the development of new modes of regulation (Williams and Balàz, 2002). They conclude that the pace of transition has resulted in limited time for the social and political coevolution of institutions and that the institutional arrangement will continue to evolve over time. In contrast to Central and Eastern European states, the governments of Cuba and China are engineering a more gradual and controlled approach toward decentralization (Sharpley and Knight, 2009; Yan and Bramwell, 2009). How the governments of Cuba and China will attempt to reconcile a gradual shift in the regime of accumulation coupled with changes to the mode of regulation will make for fascinating research by regulationist political economists. Changes in the relationship between government, economy, and society have not been restricted to the transition from state socialism/planned economies to democracy/market economies. The role of the state in market economies has also been challenged and debated during the last decades (Dicken, 1994; Goodwin and Painter, 1996; MacLeod, 1999). The shift to post-Fordism production and consumption (although contested as a comprehensive transformation) has resulted in an adaptation of the mode of regulation as the Keynesian welfare state was not deemed fit to stabilize the relations between capital, government, and labor. Due to the failure of Fordism to adequately address the increasing internationalization and interconnectedness of economies, which led to the internationalization of economic crises and the collapse of the welfare state, neoliberalism has widely been adopted as a mode of regulation (Jessop, 2002). This political theory argues for the primacy of the market to take advantage of comparative advantages without social or political interventions. The application of neoliberal theory has resulted first in a “roll-back” of government as the economy was deregulated – freed of government intervention – and then a “roll-out” of new institutional arrangements, so-called reregulation (Peck and Tickell, 2002). Desforges (2000: 184) offers an analysis of the “rolling back” of the state in Peru as the newly elected Fujimori government in 1990 implemented their version of the neoliberal project in response to an economic crisis in the 1980s and the ensuing “… maelstrom of political and economic chaos.” Cuts in state spending resulted in the withdrawal of the state from entrepreneurial activities in tourism, the national hotel chain was privatized, and the roles and responsibilities for tourism planning and development were reorganization within a streamlined institutional landscape. A similar situation is described by Clancy (1999) for Mexico, suggesting the contestation of certain roles and responsibilities of nation states and the increasing decentralization of government (Yüksel et al., 2005). The restructuring of institutional arrangements (“roll-out” neoliberalism) is a dynamic political process that does not necessarily entail a transfer of power away from the national scale. It does lead to the (re)emergence of new or the reinforcing of old forms of governance in a different constellation of state and nonstate regulatory organizations across spatial scales, including a rescaling of governance both vertically and horizontally (see Mosedale and Albrecht, 2011 for a theoretical discussion of tourism regulation across spatial scales). Not just the role of “the state” but its composition has changed as new actors have emerged,

creating new and complex and dynamic relations between capital, institutions, and society. The multitude of actors engaged in the tourism policy process at various scales makes for a complex institutional landscape of national, regional, and local state institutions, quangos, nongovernmental organizations, public–private partnerships, and elites: “Tourism is a diverse and at times chaotic policy arena. … [with] numerous policy strands at a variety of geographical scales but without an overall strategic underpinning” (Church et al., 2000: 330). The role of the nation state may no longer be to actively form policy and thus to take an active part in the development of tourism but may instead retreat further to coordinate efforts among various actors, to “… play a central role in mediating the mechanics, ethos and outcomes of this [collabora¬tive governance] process” (Church et al., 2000: 332). Such a retreat of the state from policy-making raises questions about democratic legitimacy within the collaborative process. Reregulation and decentralization may lead to increased democratization when decisions are made at more local scales and including a large variety of interest groups, but may at the same time lead to decisions being made outside of democratic processes when special interest groups seize the initiative in public–private partnerships (Yüksel et al., 2005).

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Tourism policy and planning now occurs in a new landscape of governance incorporating state and nonstate organizations at different scales, and this has clear implications for tourism research. The complex system of state and nonstate actors requires an analysis that extends beyond the notions of government and institutions and needs to incorporate new forms of governance. Also, this view requires the understanding that institutions are embedded in networks of social relations (Granovetter, 1985). In order to fully understand the tourism policy and planning process it becomes necessary to engage in an analysis of the relational networks in which institutions are embedded and which underpin decision-making processes (Dredge, 2006; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007). This view of the institutional arrangements as relational networks changes the unit of analysis from individuals, firms, institutions, nation states, etc. to the networks of which they are a part. An analysis of relational networks therefore requires a deep understanding of the sociospatial foundation of actors and institutions to portray the multiple forms of relationships that constitute the regulatory landscape (Dicken et al., 2001). Inherent in such a socialized analysis is the consideration of asymmetries within and between social relations that may influence positions in the network: “… the task of a network methodology … must be to identify the actors in these networks, their power and capacities, and the ways through which they exercise their power through association with networks of relationships” (Dicken et al., 2001: 93). This focus on the practices of individual actors needs to be combined with an analysis of structural power relations as prominent in radical political economy approaches. The network methodology needs to provide a structural perspective, but also needs to take social processes and meanings into account, in order to understand the complex relationships between structures and social relations that frame the production and consumption of tourism and regulates the distribution of capital. Quantitative social network

analysis has been used to identify the networks involved in the creation and formulation of tourism master plans (Pforr, 2006) and these have been extended by Bramwell and Meyer (2007) to incorporate a qualitative aspect. Such a mixed-methods approach allows political economists to gather structural relational data via mapping of the network as well as to examine the meanings of relational ties governance and thus give a more comprehensive understanding of the governance network. This chapter has attempted to provide a brief overview of regulation theory in tourism research and will conclude by highlighting two key avenues for further research: a focus on the institutional environment and in particular implicit structures that influence our approach towards tourism development and the inclusion of tourism consumption as part of a regulational analysis of tourism. To date, tourism scholars have mainly concentrated on understanding the changing institutional arrangements of tourism policy and planning and neglected the overarching institutional environment. Formal laws and regulations (property rights, labor laws, etc.) have received some attention (Vail and Heldt, 2000; Williams and Balàz, 2002), but informal and implicit structures such as social norms, conventions, and customs have yet to be brought to the fore and their influence on the production, consumption, and organization of tourism examined. Such an inquiry could draw on contributions in cultural (Jessop, 2004) and poststructuralist political economy (Gibson-Graham, 2006; Mosedale, 2011b), which call for the addition of critical discourse analysis to political economy. Of course there are multiple discourses at any one time and there may be shifts in the acceptance or dominance of one particular discourse over others. Sudden crises are occasions where drastic shifts in discourse occur, as shown in the example of tourism discourse during the 2008 economic crisis in Iceland (Jóhannesson and Huijbens, 2010). Language is an important aspect of representing regimes of accumulation and modes of regulation and thus equally serves to reproduce dominant projects and the inequalities ingrained in these projects. Not only does a discursive analysis identify the discourse of hegemonic policy projects, it provides space for alternative imaginaries (Aitchison, 2001). Critical discourse analysis would greatly contribute to the political economy of tourism by enhancing our understanding of the discursive strategies used to reproduce political projects and would provide opportunities for discussing alternative projects. Similar to the neglect by tourism regulation theory to take into account the implicit institutional structures that affect tourism policy-making, planning, and development, regulationist research to date has mainly focused on production to the detriment of consumption. Changing demand has clear repercussions on production systems and the organization of production, as shown by Torres (2002) in the case of Cancun, but the consequences of consumption practices and choices on the organization of production are underrepresented in contrast to studies of production processes. Market societies provide consumers with certain “freedoms” of consumption: “The simple fact that demand is required before profit can be made, places enormous economic power in consumers' hands” (Hartwick, 2000: 1184). Invoking this agency to choose ethical consumption influences production processes and their organization, as ethical consumption practices such as alternative forms of tourism are increasing (Miller,

2003; Butcher, 2008). Yet consumption in itself is of interest as social differentiations no longer seem to be based on production and social class but on cultural status (Mavroudeas, 2002) with its emphasis on what is consumed, and how it is consumed. Tourism consumption plays a key role in creating social differences (Hall, 2011) and political economists should further engage with the divisive aspect of tourism consumption (in particular in times of crisis). As discussed, a sociocultural understanding of regulation that includes consumption is necessary to appreciate the complexities of tourism regulation. Research on ethnic food and fashion (Cook and Crang, 1996; Jackson, 1999), for instance, have challenged globalization theories of cultural homogenization, global culture theory, or McDonaldization theory (Ritzer, 2000) and demonstrated that consumers actively shape their personal relationship and interaction with goods and thus create their own meanings for commodities (Ateljevic and Doorne, 2003). To integrate consumption and production processes it is therefore necessary to combine a political economy approach (to unravel the complex system of economic actions and regulation) and a cultural approach (to understand the meaning attached to goods and services at different times, places, and phases of consumption and production) in order to connect “… two utterly unequal and contrasting real spaces: the world of consumption and the world of production” (Hartwick, 2000: 1182). The link between tourism production and consumption remains murky. The upcoming challenge for political economy in general and regulation theory in particular is to find ways to include consumption and thus close the gap between the “two worlds.”

References Aitchison, C. 2001. Theorizing other discourses of tourism, gender and culture: can the subaltern speak (in tourism)? Tourist Studies, 1(2): 133–147. Ateljevic, I. and Doorne, S. 2003. Culture, economy and tourism commodities: social relations of production and consumption. Tourist Studies, 3(2): 123–141. Bianchi, R.V. 2002. Towards a new political economy of global tourism. In Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues, R. Sharpley and D.J. Telfer (eds), pp. 265–299. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Bianchi, R.V. 2011. Tourism, capitalism and Marxist political economy. In Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective, J. Mosedale (ed.), pp. 17–37. Abingdon: Routledge. Bramwell, B and Lane, B. (eds). 2011. Tourism governance: Critical perspectives on governance and sustainability. Special issue, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4/5). Bramwell, B. and Meyer, D. 2007. Power and tourism policy relations in transition. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3): 766–788.

Britton, S. 1989. Tourism, dependency and development: a mode of analysis. In Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries, T.V. Singh, H.L. Theuns, and F.M. Go (eds), pp. 93–116. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Britton, S. 1991. Tourism, capital, and place: towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9(4): 451–478. Bryden, J. 1973. Tourism and Development: A Case Study of the Commonwealth Caribbean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butcher, J. 2008. Ecotourism as life politics. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(3): 315– 326. Carrier, J.G. and Macleod, D.V.L. 2010. Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights. Bristol: Channel View. Chheang, V. 2008. The political economy of tourism in Cambodia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13(3): 281–297. Church, A. 2004. Local and regional tourism policy and power. In A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 555–568. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Church, A., Ball, R., Bull, C., and Tyler, D. 2000. Public policy engagement with British tourism: the national, local and the European Union. Tourism Geographies, 2(3): 312–336. Clancy, M.J. 1999. Tourism and development: evidence from Mexico. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(1): 1–20. Coles, T. 2003. Urban tourism, place promotion and economic restructuring: the case of postsocialist Leipzig. Tourism Geographies, 5(2): 190–219. Coles, T. and Church, A. 2007. Tourism, Power and Space. Abingdon: Routledge. Coles, T., Dinan, C., and Hutchison, F. 2012. May we live in less interesting times? Changing public sector support for tourism in England during the sovereign debt crisis. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1–2): 4–7. Cook, I. and Crang, P. 1996. The world on a plate: culinary culture, displacement and geographical knowledges. Journal of Material Culture, 1(2): 131–153. Cornelissen, S. 2005. The Global Tourism System: Governance, Development And Lessons from South Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate. Cornelissen, S. 2011. Regulation theory and its evolution and limitations in tourism studies. In Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective, J. Mosedale (ed.), pp. 39–54. Abingdon: Routledge. David, P.A. 1994. Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history’?: path dependence and the

evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2): 205–220. de Kadt, E.J. 1979. Tourism: Passport to Development? Perspectives on the Social and Cultural Effects of Tourism in Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press. Desforges, L. 2000. State tourism institutions and neo-liberal development: a case study of Peru. Tourism Geographies, 2(2): 177–192. Dicken, P. 1994. Global-local tensions: firms and states in the global space economy. Economic Geography, 70(2): 101–128. Dicken, P., Kelly, P.F., Olds, K., and Yeung, H.W.-C. 2001. Chains and networks, territories and scales: towards a relational framework for analysing the global economy. Global Networks, 1(2): 89–112. Dieke, P.U.C. 1994. The political economy of tourism in the Gambia. Review of African Political Economy, 21(62): 611–626. Dieke, P.U.C. 2000. The Political Economy of Tourism Development in Africa. Elmsford: Cognizant Communication Corp. Dredge, D. 2001. Local government tourism planning and policy-making in New South Wales: institutional development and historical legacies. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2–4): 355– 380. Dredge, D. 2006. Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism. Tourism Management, 27(2): 269–280. Gibson-Graham, J.-K. 2006. The End of Capitalism (as we knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Goodwin, M. and Painter, J. 1996. Local governance, the crises of Fordism and the changing geographies of regulation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21(4): 635– 648. Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481–510. Gray, M. 1997. The political economy of tourism in Syria: State, society, and economic liberalization. Arab Studies Quarterly, 19(2): 57–74. Hall, C.M. 1994. Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. London: John Wiley. Hall, C.M. 1997. The institutional setting: tourism and the state. In The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry: A Supply-Side Analysis, D. Ioannides and K.G. Debbage (eds), pp. 199–219. London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. 2011. Yes, Virginia, there is a tourism class: why class still matters in tourism analysis. In Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective, J. Mosedale (ed.), pp. 111–125. Abingdon: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J.M. 1995. Tourism and Public Policy. London: Routledge. Hall, D.R. 2004. Tourism and Transition: Governance, Transformation and Development. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Hartwick, E.R. 2000. Towards a geographical politics of consumption. Environment and Planning A, 32(7): 1177–1192. Hazbun, W. 2004. Globalisation, reterritorialisation and the political economy of tourism development in the Middle East. Geopolitics, 9(2): 310–341. Hazbun, W. 2007/2008. Images of openness, spaces of control: the politics of tourism development in Tunisia. The Arab Studies Journal, 15/16(2/1): 10–35. Hazbun, W. 2008. Beaches, Ruins, Resorts: The Politics of Tourism in the Arab World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ioannides, D. and Debbage, K.G. 1998. Neo-Fordism and flexible specialization in the travel industry: dissecting the polyglot. In The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry: A Supply-Side Analysis, D. Ioannides and K.G. Debbage (eds), pp. 99–121. London: Routledge. Jackson, P. 1999. Commodity cultures: the traffic in things. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24(1): 95–108. Jessop, B. 2002. Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: a state-theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3): 452–472. Jessop, B. 2004. Critical semiotic analysis and cultural political economy. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2): 159–174. Jóhannesson, G.T. and Huijbens, E.H. 2010. Tourism in times of crisis: exploring the discourse of tourism development in Iceland. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(5): 419–434. MacLeod, G. 1999. Place, politics and ‘scale dependence’: exploring the structuration of euroregionalism. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(3): 231–253. Martin, R. 2003. Institutional approaches in economic geography. In A Companion to Economic Geography, E. Sheppard and T.J. Barnes (eds), pp. 77–94. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Mavroudeas, S. 2002. The French regulation approach and its theory of consumption. Storia del Pensiero Economico, 43: 233–255. Miller, G.A. 2003. Consumerism in sustainable tourism: a survey of UK consumers. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 11(1): 17–39. Mosedale, J. 2011a. Re-introducing tourism to political economy. In Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective, J. Mosedale (ed.), pp. 1–13. Abingdon: Routledge. Mosedale, J. 2011b. Thinking outside the box: alternative political economies in tourism. In Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective, J. Mosedale (ed.), pp. 93–108. Abingdon: Routledge. Mosedale, J. and Albrecht, J.N. 2011. Tourism regulation and relational geography: the global, local and everything in between. In Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective, J. Mosedale (ed.), pp. 243–255. Abingdon: Routledge. North, D.C. 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 97–112. Pforr, C. 2006. Tourism policy in the making: an Australian network study. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1): 87–108. Peck, J. and Tickell, A. 2002. Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3): 380–404. Poirier, R.A., and Wright, S. 1993. The political economy of tourism in Tunisia. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 31(1): 149–162. Richter, T. and Steiner, C. 2008. Politics, economics and tourism development in Egypt: insights into the sectoral transformations of a neo-patrimonial rentier state. Third World Quarterly, 29(5): 939–959. Scherle, N. 2011. Tourism, neoliberal policy and competitiveness in the developing world: the case of the master plan of Marrakech. In Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective, J. Mosedale (ed.), pp. 207–224. Abingdon: Routledge. Sharpley, R. and Knight, M. 2009. Tourism and the state in Cuba: from the past to the future. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(3): 241–254. Torres, R. 2002. Cancun's development from a Fordist spectrum of analysis. Tourist Studies, 2(1): 87–116. Turner, L. 1976. The international division of leisure tourism and the Third World. Annals of Tourism Research, 4(1): 12–24. Vail, D. and Heldt, T. 2000. Institutional factors influencing the size and structure of tourism: comparing Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA). Current Issues in Tourism, 3(4): 283–324. Webster, C., Ivanov, S. and Illum, S.F. 2011. The paradigms of political economy and tourism policy: national tourism organizations and state policy. In Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective, J. Mosedale (ed.), pp. 55–73. Abingdon: Routledge. Williams, A.M. 2004. Toward a political economy of tourism. In A Companion to Tourism,

A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 61–73. Malden: Blackwell. Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. 1998. Tourism and Economic Development: European Experiences. Chichester: John Wiley. Williams, A.M. and Balàz, V. 2002. The Czech and Slovak Republics: conceptual issues in the economic analysis of tourism in transition. Tourism Management, 23(1): 37–45. Williams, A.M. and Balàz, V. 2000. Tourism in Transition: Economic Change in Central Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. Yan, H. and Bramwell, B. 2008. Cultural tourism, ceremony and the state in China. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(4): 969–989. Young, G. 1973. Tourism: Blessing or Blight? Harmondsworth: Penguin. Yüksel, F., Bramwell, B., and Yüksel, A. 2005. Centralized and decentralized tourism governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4): 859–886.

Chapter 5 Cultural Geographies of Tourism Mike Crang Cultural geography with its traditions of studying regional cultures and diverse peoples has tended to position “tourism” as a problem, as something that homogenizes local cultures towards one undifferentiated aggregate: what Ulf Hannerz calls the “erosion thesis.” Cultures have tended to be seen as located and embedded in places to which people travel, people seen to have a far more anemic sense of identity. To adapt an argument, tourists are seen as people without history or culture; indeed, to be agents of anticulture that destroys culture with which it comes into contact. Cultural geography has thus classically been antitourist and for that matter antibusiness, which is read as the commodification of cultures. Tourism is seen as “a logical extension of the general principle of industrial capitalism to the realm of leisure” (Böröcz, cited in Koshar, 1998: 325). It is perhaps salutary to remind ourselves that the terms “culture industry” and “tourism industry” began as oxymoronic critiques: culture could not be industrialized and places of leisure were precisely about escaping industrialization. That both terms are now so obviously descriptive of established economic sectors should give us pause for thought. Tourism is now at the forefront of the cultural economy where both the economy takes cultural processes and practices as resources but also economic activities are worked through cultural practices. This vision does not oppose economy to culture. This chapter first examines tourism not simply as destroying or consuming places but also as a dynamic force creating them, which can still entail conflict, exploitation, and resistance. Second, it looks at the culture of tourists and seeing tourism as lived cultures, which evolve historically and are themselves dynamic, contested categories. Rather than dismissing tourism, we can instead unpack it as a modern culture in and of itself. Thus tourism quite clearly mobilizes ranges of powerful social dreams and desires as the currency in which it trades. It is “an arena in which fantasy becomes an important social practice” (Löfgren, 1999: 7). These are social imaginaries, maps of what people believe and hope for, although rarely examined as such. As Fred Inglis notes, “The dreams are powerful and beautiful. Of course, dedicated dreambusters in their big boots will correctly point out the horrors and boredom of actually existing tightly packaged trips, the mutual exploitation of tourist and native” (Inglis, 2000: 5). Third, we need to ask why have such cultures of tourism not been recognized as such, and to think about how we have often thought of cultures as emplaced, or rooted in environments, and about the class bases of what are treated as authentic or interesting cultures. Too often mass tourism has been seen as bereft of culture. Along the way I want to unpack why the academic language used to describe tourist cultures exemplifies distaste, treating tourists almost as another species – “turistas vulgaris” (Löfgren, 1999: 264) – describing tourists as traveling in “herds” which “stampede” onto beaches, that “flock” to see places, and swarm around “honeypots.” Given both academics and tourists travel around the world and report on where they went, we might think the effort often devoted to policing the boundaries between the two betrays a fear that homo academicus might be uncomfortably closely related to its

embarrassing relative turistas vulgaris (Crang, 2011: 206). Instead, we need different senses of what popular cultures of tourism might entail, and these challenge some habits of cultural geography. Cultural geographies of tourism have tended to examine discourses, meanings, and ideologies at the cost of examining the physicality of tourism cultures. To understand most tourism, we need to turn attention away from symbolic meanings and discourses to include the actual everyday doings and enactments of tourists and their role in the production of social spaces (Obrador, Crang and Travlou, 2009: 4–5). I want to start by thinking through how tourism shapes and changes places. I say this with care, since I want to move from notions of mobile tourists and tourism “impacts” on fixed and local cultures. If not careful, we can become locked into a “coercive conceptual schema” which sees a local culture pitted against a global industry where “cultural changes arising from tourism are produced by the intrusion of a superior sociocultural system in a supposedly weaker receiving milieu” (Picard, 1996: 104, 110). This tends, firstly, to depict good tourists as those interested in the particularities of the place and learning about the host society; suspiciously like the selfimage of geographers one might say. Secondly, this risks positioning the “hosts” as a bounded, static, undivided, and happy culture prior to tourism. This is a dubious characterization of even the most exotic destinations but seems totally askew when we think of places like Las Vegas, Blackpool, or Benidorm, let alone the city tourist centers of, say, London, New York, or Hong Kong. Thus it seems more productive to use a: a more culturally complex rendering of tourism's “consumption” of places, one that sees not merely a globalizing force bearing down upon a once-isolated community, but also the dynamic ways local cultural meanings – which are themselves a product of a dialogue between local and extra-local cultural systems – wrap the tourism experience in an envelope of local meaning. (Oakes, 1999: 124) In short, what can cultural geography say about the shaping of destinations, about tourism as inventing, making, and remaking places?

Tourism as Geography Writ Large Tourism is certainly one of the most active agents currently involved in the creative destruction of places through what can be a violent, contested, unequal, but sometimes welcomed, transformative, and productive process. The dynamism is not all one way, but a process of coconstruction where the destination is fashioned between different actors. This does not necessarily mean an equal or harmonious fashion, but it is important not to start by denying locals or tourists any agency in the process, since that leads not only to a negative view of tourism, but a pessimism about the possibilities for people to shape it. Michel Picard's (1996) account of Balinese tourism describes an island culture that has experienced dramatic and large-scale tourist development, bringing with it economic and cultural changes and, recently, tragic geopolitical significance. At one level Balinese culture is being replaced by touristic culture with local rituals repackaged for tourists. At this level we can see the commodification of a culture turned into a bankable asset and given new value in terms of its earning potential

rather than “intrinsic” value. But looking at this slightly differently we can see a more intricate set of developments. For a start, touristic interest and marketing of Balinese culture has intersected with a Hindu caste system, whose preservation has enabled powerful Hindus to counter possible Islamic growth on the island as “unBalinese.” Indeed there has been a “Balinization” of Bali, and the aesthetic interest of tourists has prompted locals to reinvigorate cultural activities and celebrate their roles as cultural artists. Far from eroding traditional forms, a new vitality and interest has developed in them. Picking up Clifford Geertz's analysis, Picard suggests this might be called “cultural involution;” since it is cultural traditions that draw tourists to Bali, both economic development and conservation prompt the Balinese to cultivate their traditions (Picard, 1996: 111). The implication is that tourism is premised upon and sustained by difference over space, and indeed it may increase that differentiation in some aspects while homogenizing others. Tourism does not just feed off existing differences, but makes them apparent (and thus marketable) and in a phenomenological sense (and sometimes a material sense too) actually creates difference and local particularities. It can also work to “fix” previously fluid identities. For example, Cuba has long celebrated its history of mestizaje (racial mixture) and yet for preRevolutionary American tourists these differences were invisible: “Where Cubans celebrated the mixed race mulata as a symbol of the nation's advancement from rural to urban, black to white, foreigners recognized only her sexual Otherness” (Kaifa Roland, 2010: 4). Such stereotypes linger into expectations of contemporary tourists, resulting in both demands and disappointments between clashing expectations (Skinner, 2011). Tourism could be seen as a semiotic process creating meanings through signs and symbols in a communicative environment. Thus we might use the analogy of texts and language to look at how tourism inscribes meanings on to the landscape: a very literal sort of geography, “writing the earth.” Tourism takes dreams and myths and inscribes them on to places; in other words it spatializes social meanings (Hughes, 1998) so specific places get assigned specific meanings. For instance, the northern wilderness of Canada becomes scripted as an arena for masculine endeavor: an environment for adventure, for men especially to prove themselves (Shields, 1991). As Jane Desmond notes, “tourism is not just an aggregate of merely commercial activities; it is also an ideological framing of history, nature and tradition; a framing that has the power to reshape culture and nature to its own needs” (Desmond, 1999: xii). Displays and language not only represent but are performative of place. A good example might be the attempts to transform the everyday into the exceptional through, for instance, literary references, as in South Tyneside becoming “Catherine Cookson country,” Hampshire becoming “Austen country,” and so on, in the UK (for discussions see Pocock, 1992; Crang, 2003). This process has been likened to “sacralization,” marking out special and “exceptional” sites. Meanwhile other areas become associated with “ludic” activities: spaces where play is not only allowed but in many cases demanded. Löfgren (1999: 269) suggests tourism often becomes a territorialized hedonism. We might think of these as liminal zones with transformed social rituals where normal rules of conduct are suspended, in times and spaces apart from the everyday (Shields, 1991). For instance, to show how spaces become scripted with particular rules of behavior and particular licenses to change them, we might note how on many European

beaches women are quite happy to go topless, but would feel it necessary, in the company of the same people, to put on a top to leave the beach and go for lunch even just across the street. At a grander scale Shields illustrates the long history of beach resorts as places of sexual license and intrigue. Various destinations become coded with a sexualized appeal since “tourism is about desire – desire for change, but also a more sensuous desire to become intimate with the unfamiliar” and so the depicted and marketed “exotic other is most often female. Gender joins race on the manipulated bottom line of tourism” with seduction and adventure both “embodied as male goals in female flesh” (Lippard, 1999: 51). For instance, around Lake Lugu in Yunnan in China, associations with a local ethnic group's flexible marriage arrangements fostered a geographical imagination of “easy sex availability” among tourists, both male and female (Qian et al., 2012). In brochures for beach tourism there is a remarkable preponderance of women deployed to ornament the scene with such visual clichés as the “rear view” of a female, usually wearing a swimsuit, facing the ocean or perhaps just half of one clearly linking sexualization and scenery (Jenkins, 2003: 317). We need to pay attention to the texts of tourism which may be novels about places but are more often guidebooks, postcards, travel books, brochures, adverts, and the like. These help shape notions of the destination and can be seen as “linguistic agents of touristic social control” (Dann, 1999: 163). Guidebooks do not just describe places but set normative agendas of, in the words of Murray's 1858 guide, “what ought to be seen” (Koshar, 1998). Chang has argued that cultural marketers may work to simplify or “tame” the associations of specific places. Thus Singapore's “New Asia” campaign involved zoning the “historic” districts of the central city (into the colonial or civic quarter, Chinatown, Little India, and Kampung Glam). While this has meant the physical preservation of these areas “by prescribing themes to places, planners inadvertently freeze their identities and stultify their potential to evolve organically, effacing their myriad histories” (Chang, 2000: 35). These discourses create sights to be seen. The ironic plaque on a house in Grasmere in the English Lake District stating that “this house has absolutely nothing to do with Wordsworth” suggests a pertinent truth. Looking at any of the houses that do claim connections, it is the markers and signs that lend lustre, not the building's intrinsic qualities. In other words sacralization often depends on texts and stories that circulate elsewhere or around the site so that our sense of having visited somewhere special is premised upon other signs and texts. As Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett put it there is a phantom landscape of associations underlying the one we see, where “the production of hereness in the absence of actualities depends increasingly on virtualities” so that we travel to actual destinations to experience virtual places (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998: 169, 171). Markers, far from being secondary, actually create sites. Perhaps an extreme example is that of Wall Drugstore in South Dakota. In a town of 800 residents, a small drugstore opened in 1931 whose only especial feature was the sale of iced water. It was then a 24 by 60 foot structure. By the 1950s there were some 28 000 signs to Wall Drug, and American servicemen and visitors continued to plant them in Korea, Vietnam, Pakistan, Europe, and elsewhere. What is famous about the store is its celebrity, on the back of which it grew to a 55 000 square foot emporium with chapel, art gallery, memorabilia store, and a vast array of kitsch (Meltzer,

2002). Markers that tell us of particular places may not represent places we see so much as create them as places to be seen: The proliferation of markers frames something as a sight for tourists; the proliferation of reproductions is what makes something an original, the real thing: the original of which the souvenirs, postcards, statues, etc. are reproductions. The existence of reproductions is what makes something original, or authentic, and by surrounding ourselves with markers and reproductions we represent to ourselves … the possibility of authentic experiences in other times and other places. (Culler, 1981: 132) Tourism may form a specific mode of visuality, what John Urry (Urry and Larsen, 2011), drawing rather more from Foucault, called the tourist gaze. So one of the key ideas is that destinations are shaped, but also that they are shaped ready for a particular sort of reception and particular tourist practices.

Being a Tourist, Doing Tourism If tourist destinations are marked out, they also elicit specific practices and behaviors that define visitors as tourists. The destinations and the tourists define each other reflexively. In the example of the beach resort, the norms and expectations of behavior have clearly evolved through history and it has taken centuries for the seashore to be colonized as the pre-eminent site for recreational visiting, and to be transformed into a theater of pleasure (Lencek and Bosker, 1998: 6), while the practices associated with beaches have marked changing notions of social propriety and cultures of the body. So tourism has to be seen as a set of learned competences and skills, and not something natural or innate. Even the apparently obvious sun, sea and, sand tourism comprises specific cultural practices. We might contrast the practices and norms of solitary, undeveloped “edenic” beaches and coves of Menorca or Cornwall with “[t]he carefully curated resorts of the French and Italian Riviera [which] parcel out the beach with the precision of Mondrian painting. [Where] in tiny plots staked out by private clubs and hotels, paying guests recline on color-coded chairs laid out with graph-paper rectilinearity in front of brilliantly painted cabanas. The beach fairly sizzles with the erotic voltage of barebreasted, bare-buttocked beauties and virile stalwarts, but strict decorum keeps the sensual stew at a steady, socially acceptable simmer” (Lencek and Bosker, 1998: xxiii). Other apparently obvious and banal practices of tourism also reward closer attention. Löfgren has looked at how nineteenth-century nationalists promoted rambling in the Swedish countryside as a way of coming into contact with “real folk,” which would in the words of Carl Almquist enable you to “walk yourself Swedish” (Löfgren, 1999: 50). Simple “natural” practices of walking involve training the body and mind into routines. The values and habits of even walking thus vary between groups and over time. For some the adventurous and arduous is the aim, for others this implies a reduction in scenic appreciation, while for others the clothing and accoutrements offer avenues for pleasure and displaying social identities. We also need to inject dynamism into our concepts: the tourist is not just someone who has a particular cultural baggage or who responds to a given culture of a destination. These two

elements are mutually constituting, and from this it follows that both place and person may change, and change the other. Thus we could follow studies which look at the effect of rumours circulating among tourists that shape expectations of visitors (Hutnyk, 1996), circulating not just in a one-way street from marketers to audience, but among tourists, as in Hutnyk's description of “the endless flow of indo-babble” (p. 145) about the stories told about going to India, having been to India, what to expect in India, and so forth. However, this fluidity of meaning and transformative process also cuts the other way in that one of the effects (and sometimes aims) of travel is not to just experience a destination but to change the “self;” at a minimal level by adding experiences, but with various forms of adventurous or cultured tourism quite possibly as part of a more or less explicit project of “self-creation” both individually and collectively. So we could examine how tourism fits into, reinforces, challenges, and changes our stories about ourselves. The flip side of thinking about “liminal spaces” is to think about the role they play in our lives. They may be experienced cyclically – an annual escape or even “pilgrimage” – to somewhere where we can “be ourselves,” or just let our hair down. Alternatively, they might figure as part of an unfolding self-narrative of personal development and change. Instead of focusing on different “types” of tourists defined by personal orientation – those seeking contact with different cultures, those seeking security, and so forth – we might study the transformations produced through tourism and travel. Anthropological perspectives have pointed out that liminal places tend to be associated with rites of passage, where people travel as part of social rituals that mark changing social status and position. “Backpackers” or independent travelers provide examples. In Britain there is a strong class and age association where a “gap year” out is taken between school and going to university, whereas in New Zealand the “big OE” (overseas experience) tends to be longer and associated with a postuniversity stage, but both incorporate classic rites of passage. They often form parts of the reflexive construction of people's biographies; that is, the stories we tell about who we are, by linking interior narratives of personhood with exterior experiences and practices, and as moments when we take time out to “find ourselves,” offering answers to questions we ask about “who we are” at key junctures in our lives (Desforges, 2000). The shaping of identity is a two-way process: we bring our backgrounds and desires but tourism also impacts upon our senses of selves. Thus even for the perhaps the antithesis of the backpacker – the Club Med “party” holiday – the definition of self through hedonistic consumption can feed into general senses of identity. So we need to think of tourism as in part sustaining and being sustained by stories we tell that define ourselves. This may be by differentiating ourselves from others, as in backpackers who deride the collective travel and organized packages of Japanese tourists, about which they know little, but who form “imagined ghosts upon which to build difference narratives” (Elsrud, 2001: 607), thereby defining their own holiday in terms of adventure, solitariness as a particular form of freedom, and indeed a thrill of danger. Elsrud suggests stories of hardship and danger, and the telling of these stories, are as important as actual events so “the journey becomes a spatial and temporal frame to be filled with identity narratives” (Elsrud, 2001: 605). These stories are exchanged in a variety of locales such as at hostels, particular cafés, and so

forth with specific topics and norms of conversation (Hutnyk, 1996; Murphy, 2001). Information about specific places is exchanged as people plan itineraries, and stories of selfachievement are exchanged. However, these conversations also spill out into circulating narratives where “more seasoned” backpackers convey their experienced status and distance themselves from newcomers by calling the latter FNGs, an abbreviation for fucking new guys used by US soldiers in Vietnam, and repopularized in Alex Garland's 1996 novel about backpacking, The Beach (Elsrud, 2001: 610). These narratives spill out beyond the times and spaces of tourism into future times, when stories are recounted years hence, possibly on another holiday, possibly at home, possibly in some other setting. The experiences become a resource to mobilize and recount when called upon to define ourselves. Using Pierre Bourdieu's terms, trips are a means of accumulating “cultural capital” (Bourdieu, 1984, 1991), where cultural “wealth” is stockpiled. The value of particular experiences is going to change according to time and tastes, and also social groups. This highlights a dynamic, competitive field of taste and cultural capital, where as one site becomes popular it loses or gains cachet with different groups of people according to the various canons of taste that apply within and between groups. This process underlies The Beach, which is structured around the quest for the unspoilt beach, as yet untramped upon by other tourists, even backpackers. The main characters' cultural capital comes from avoiding the “hordes,” from local knowledge, and from abilities that allow them to find an untouched beach. This is not a literal example of how tourists think, but in itself it is also one of the objects and discourses circulating with tourists and shaping their practices. Many studies suggest there is something of a continuum of cultural values – for upper- and middle-class Western tourists – that privileges first the explorer, then the traveler, and judges them in distinction to the declassé mass tourist. The academic sympathies that lie with travelers and against tourism tend to suggest commonalities of cultural values and practices (or what we might, after Bourdieu, call a shared “habitus”) between academics and elite tourists (Crang, 2011). Here there may be “serious leisure” with dedicated “collectors” building up complete sets of sites over several vacations. Such cultural tourism may be looser in format where people more subconsciously work through a range of sites comprising their social group's cultural repertoire. More instrumentally this might be linked with notions of sights that “must be seen” or the way people “do” Italy to suggest that a key element of tourism is not going to places, or being at places, but rather attaining the status of “having been” somewhere. We might therefore see many tourist itineraries as ways of picking up sites, ticking off activities that are required, in order to have a “successful” holiday that will have value in terms of specific habitus. There are holidays that market directly to this practice; for instance literary tours, where tourists are guided around key sites in an author's life and writings (Crang, 2003). Taking pictures can be a way of affirming that a trip was successfully completed, with success meaning exhibiting an understanding of key sites and sights, that can be documented and displayed later and back at home (Crang, 1997). One important upshot of seeing tourist practices as ways of constructing and narrating ourselves is that we have to look at tourist itineraries as not just beginning and ending with the trip but also extending into the whole life course. Tourism is not confined to “destinations” or resorts, but bleeds into the rest of our lives. Travel is preceded by fantasies, hopes, anxieties, and expectations. After any travel there is a realm of memories and effects.

Some of tourism is about a time and space apart; but equally what happens in Vegas does not always stay in Vegas, to coin a phrase. The time and space apart is always relationally constructed against other times and spaces (Minca and Oakes, 2006). We bring parts of it back with us; which are often materialized into souvenirs that sometimes represent iconographically the places visited (Hashimoto and Telfer, 2007) and other times that are charged with memories and experiences (Ramsay, 2009). In this movement pieces of kitsch, or indeed the most mundane ephemera or objects, can become freighted with meaning. We need to think then of the things and materials of tourism, its material culture, and how it sustains practices. This fuses the immediate and often unthought experience with the signifying and reflexive practices. Being a tourist is not something that simply labels people, it is a “doing” and an accomplishment. If we take contrasting examples, then, first, tourism is one of the most prominent arenas in which people “do family,” they perform being the family (Obrador, 2012), with all the attendant joys, dangers and mishaps. The family though is ongoing beyond the destination, and the practices of tourism are linked to previous and future events. To take a second example, hedonistic clubbing tourism in the nightlife resorts of the Mediterranean is not actually all lived for the moment. But it also extends through discourses about clubbing, music broadcast from islands all summer, music heard at home, films and conversations that happen far from the resorts (Knox, 2009). All these are “habituses” that feed into and enact different ways of being a tourist and cultures of tourism. But this notion of habitus and investment in the self can also apply to beach tourism, where there is often great investment in the body: in honing it, tanning it, and displaying it. Not only coming back from holiday with a body bearing the physical imprint of a sunny climate, not only deliberately and possibly dangerously exposing it to the sun, but exercising before the holiday and going to tanning salons in advance. It is not just the bodies and cultures of locals that are shaped through tourism. Picard notes that the bare breasts of Bali were used in illustrations as part of campaigns to make Bali a (male) paradise of Western fantasies, but, ironically, “today it is the Balinese, dressed from head to foot, who come to contemplate the generously exposed breasts of the foreign women” (Picard, 1996: 80). For many women the tension of this embodied practice, its normalization, and the practices of sexualized gazing by others in the “crystal ball world” of the beach may shape bodily conduct, leading to attempts to avoid drawing attention to bare breasts, to secure spaces of privacy on the beach (Löw, 2006). On the other hand the exposure of bare skin to the sun is also a matter of sensual pleasure, of feeling the sun's rays caress the skin, the breeze stir warm air, or the refreshing coolness of then plunging into the water (Obrador, 2007). This points to a diversity of corporeal practices and investments bound up in tourism. Beach tourism's sun worship is so obvious it is easy to overlook but as we have seen there are also bodily performances of walking holidays, and we might add a range of sports and adventure tourism. In the latter the mode of perceiving the landscape and our bodily relationship may well change, as where we think of a shift from the physical exertion of slowly climbing a peak to the stomach-churning thrill of hurtling from a bridge on a bungy line – from an appreciation of the individual and sublime nature – we have an accelerated body and an inverted sublime (Bell and Lyall, 2002), or a body combined with ropes and harness climbing

a mountain which is more felt on the fingertips from inches away than seen as a view (Barratt, 2011). Indeed, we might look at the whole constitution of body–nature relationships, where some speak to notions of conquest, or the body transcending nature while others may speak to the sense of loss of self (Fullagar, 2001). These latter point to the materiality and felt nature of tourism. Tourists do not simply go to “see” even when they are sightseers. On the beach we go to also feel the sun, and we feel the discomfort of too-hot sand, sand inside clothes, or pebbles on tender flesh. The smell of sun cream is deeply evocative, as much as foods and beverages that seem so delicious on vacation yet which are strangely lacking in appeal at home.

Studying Tourism Cultures Tracking through the different dimensions of cultures of tourism there are different possible approaches to studying them, not all of which sit comfortably together; indeed, some raise ongoing challenges. Most work is probably based around a mixture of semistructured interviews and/or participant observation. Such is true for Crang (2011), Hutnyk (1996), Obrador (2008), Ramsay (2009), and many more. These studies try and get at tourist culture by letting people describe things in their own words and sitting amidst it as it happens. If we look at the role of imagery and texts in promoting places and shaping desires, numerous studies have shown how content analysis can outline key features. Dann's study of Cyprus package tour marketing showed the hotel is in 68.2% of pictures, pool or beach in 14.1%, and only 17.7% depicted the actual locality (Dann, 1996). Similarly there have been formal discourse analysis studies of guidebooks or websites. Jenkins's (2003) study of backpacker promotions of Australia shows how a semiotic analysis can tell us something of how a place is being shaped by examining what or who is depicted (and what and who are not), by frequently recurring motifs or tropes. We do though need to remember the plural influences and multiple motivations that people have, especially the competing and collective desires of most tourists traveling in (probably, family) groups, rather than seeing deterministic meanings and appeals. Alternately the practice of tourist photography provides a way into how people “do tourism,” for instance examining not an individual or ideal typical tourist gaze, but a family gaze and practices in taking pictures (Crang, 1997; Larsen, 2005) or culturally specific forms of sociability organized through photography (Yeh, 2010). Some work has also looked at whether this challenges or reinforces the promoted locations, for instance mapping geotagged pictures shared online to look at the patterns and labeling. This can probe such fundamental questions as “where” a destination is, and thus what the “destination” is, where for example only specific parts of a monument such as Hadrian's Wall are tagged as such, but parts of the landscape beyond it are also included (Witcher, 2010). Alternatively photography has been used as a way to get people to talk about the emotions of tourism that are often taken for granted or difficult to articulate (Scarles, 2010). Here we move to photo-elicitation interviews and use respondent photography. The first troubling issue is how much research remains based on a case study of a destination

and in a destination. Limited resources tend to mean looking in one site. So there are questions of how a research method might follow the flows of tourists. Some have tried the analysis of coach tours across places (Edensor and Holloway, 2008) whereas others have tracked the material culture of souvenirs into the ongoing lives of respondents after the trip (Ramsay, 2009). The second issue remains that tourism is largely driven by desire, fun, fantasy, and imagination. Tourism research is poorly furnished with concepts to grapple with these or to write about them. One is rarely struck by the exuberance of life from a study of tourism. We need a language that speaks to the emotional life of tourism in terms that do not reduce it to motivational factors. The third issue is an inability to address the materiality and embodiment of experience. We are perhaps too concerned with signification and too little with action. This returns us to issues of having tools that are well suited to address higher-status cultural tourism, and its cognitive pleasures, but poorly suited to speak to embodied experiences as the core of tourism; be they musical, energetic, chemical, or sensual (for attempts, see Saldanha, 2002; Obrador, 2007).

Conclusions I have attempted to show that destination and tourist cultures are both transformed and produced through tourism. We started with notions of tourism “scripting” and shaping the landscape and then addressed how tourists too are scripted by these preshaped destinations. Except, I hope I have suggested that both of these processes are massively overdetermined in a recursive and reflexive system that creates a multitude of opportunities and unplanned outcomes. Throughout I have tried to emphasize a language of scripts (where language shapes action) rather than images and representation (where reality is more or less distorted) and a language of practice. Places are made, done, and performed, and through making, doing, and performing them tourists become, well, tourists. In other words both places and tourists are processual. The implications of all these examples then are that tourists do not have pregiven identities, be they listed in ever-so-refined typologies, but rather identities are formed through processes of identification and self-creation. One of the tendencies is to see this self-definition as operating against a foil of localized and bounded local cultures: destinations which are visited. But we need caution since the meaning of places is constructed through actors and discourses that are both local and distant, while when we think of “locals” and “tourists” we should recall that many of us are both (mostly at different times and places, but we may even switch roles in one place, for instance as we take out guests). This sense of instability is not meant to imply that outcomes are always surprising and certainly not that they are always happy but that there are opportunities here, for change, for contestation, and, even, struggle. The cultural geography of tourism is not about a fixed map of destinations and peoples who are more or less neatly packaged or accurately represented, but rather about a set of practices that relationally constitute notions of what “over there,” and thus “over here,” is like, and constellations of practices and performances that recursively produce destinations and visitors. These two categories are produced as active creations and accomplishments which require work from many parties. Moreover, not only do the cultures of

tourism vary over space, they represent the active spatialization of identities through the scripting of places, most surely, but also as people structure their performances through the division of space into home/destination/transit, through their mobilization of travel stories and experiences in various situations.

References Barratt, P. 2011. Vertical worlds: technology, hybridity and the climbing body. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(4): 397–412. Bell, C. and Lyall, J. 2002. The accelerated sublime: thrill-seeking adventure heroes in the commodified landscape. In Tourism: Between Place and Performance, S. Coleman and M. Crang (eds), pp. 21–37. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, translated by R. Nice. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language & Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chang, T.C. 2000. Theming cities, taming places: insights from Singapore. Geografiska Annaler B, 1: 35–54. Crang, M. 1997. Picturing practices: research through the tourist gaze. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3): 359–374. Crang, M. 2003. Placing Jane Austen, displacing England: touring between book, history and nation. In Jane Austen and Co. Remaking the Past in Contemporary Culture, S. Pucci and J. Thompson (eds), pp. 111–132. New York: SUNY Press. Crang, M. 2011. Tourist: moving places, becoming tourist, becoming ethnographer. In Geographies of Mobilities, T. Cresswell and P. Merriman (eds), pp. 205–224. Andover: Ashgate. Culler, J. 1981. Semiotics of tourism. American Journal of Semiotics, 1: 127–140. Dann, G. 1996. The people of tourist brochures. In The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Modern Tourism, T. Selwyn (ed.), pp. 61–82. Chichester: Wiley. Dann, G. 1999. Writing out the tourist in space and time. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(1): 159–87. Desforges, L. 2000. Traveling the world: identity and travel biography. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4): 926–945. Desmond, J. 1999. Staging tourism: bodies on display from Waikiki to Sea World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Edensor, T. and Holloway, J. 2008. Rhythmanalysing the coach tour: the Ring of Kerry, Ireland. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(4): 483–501. Elsrud, T. 2001. Risk creation in traveling: backpacker adventure narration. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3): 597–617. Fullagar, S. 2001. Encountering otherness: embodied affect in Alphonso Lingis's travel writing. Tourist Studies, 1(2): 171–184. Hashimoto, A. and Telfer, D. 2007. Geographical representations embedded within souvenirs in Niagara: the case of geographically displaced authenticity. Tourism Geographies, 9(2): 191–217. Hughes, G. 1998. Tourism and the semiological realization of space. In Destinations: Cultural Landscapes of Tourism, G. Ringer (ed.), pp. 17–32. London: Routledge. Hutnyk, J. 1996. The Rumour of Calcutta: Tourism, Charity and the Poverty of Representation. London: Zone Books. Inglis, F. 2000. The Delicious History of the Holiday. London: Routledge. Jenkins, O. 2003. Photography and travel brochures: the circle of representation. Tourism Geographies, 5(3): 305–328. Kaifa Roland, L. 2010. Tourism and the commodification of Cubanidad. Tourist Studies, 10(1): 3–18. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Knox, D. 2009. Mobile practice and youth tourism. In Culture of Mass Tourism: Doing the Mediterranean in the Age of Banal Mobilities, P. Obrador, M. Crang, and P. Travlou (eds), pp. 143–156. Farnham: Ashgate. Koshar, R. 1998. ‘What ought to be seen’: tourists' guidebooks and national identities in modern Germany and Europe. Journal of Contemporary History, 33(3): 323–340. Larsen, J. 2005. Families seen sightseeing. Space and Culture, 8(4): 416–434. Lencek, L. and Bosker, G. 1998. The Beach: The History of Paradise on Earth. London: Secker & Warburg. Lippard, L. 1999. On the Beaten Track: Tourism, Art and Place. New York: The New Press. Löfgren, O. 1999. On Holiday: a History of Vacationing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Löw, M. 2006. The social construction of space and gender. European Journal of Women's Studies, 13(2): 119–133.

Meltzer, E. 2002. Performing place: a hyperbolic drugstore in Wall, South Dakota. In Tourism: Between Place and Performance, S. Coleman and M. Crang (eds), pp. 160–175. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Minca, C. and Oakes, T. 2006. Introduction: traveling paradoxes. In Travels in Paradox: Remapping Tourism, C. Minca and T. Oakes (eds), pp. 1–22. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Murphy, L. 2001. Exploring social interactions of backpackers. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1): 50–67. Oakes, T. 1999. Eating the food of the ancestors: place, tradition and tourism in a Chinese frontier river town. Ecumene, 6(2): 123–145. Obrador, P. 2007. A haptic geography of the beach: naked bodies, vision and touch. Social & Cultural Geography, 8: 123–141. Obrador, P. 2012. The place of the family in tourism research: domesticity and thick sociality by the pool. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1): 401–420. Obrador, P., Crang, M., and Travlou, P. 2009 Taking Mediterranean tourists seriously. In Cultures of Mass Tourism: Doing the Mediterranean in the Age of Banal Mobilities, P. Obrador, M. Crang, and P. Travlou (eds), pp. 1–20. Farnham: Ashgate. Picard, M. 1996. Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture. Singapore: Archipelago Press. Pocock, D. 1992. Catherine Cookson country: tourist expectation and experience. Geography, 77: 236–243. Qian, J., Wei, L., and Zhu, H. 2012. Consuming the tourist gaze: imaginative geographies and the reproduction of sexuality in Lugu Lake. Geografiska Annaler B, 94(2): 107–124. Ramsay, N. 2009. Taking-place: refracted enchantment and the habitual spaces of the tourist souvenir. Social & Cultural Geography, 10(2): 197–217. Saldanha, A. 2002. Music tourism and factions of bodies in Goa. Tourist Studies, 2(1): 43–62. Scarles, C. 2010. Where words fail, visuals ignite: opportunities for visual autoethnography in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4): 905–926. Shields, R. 1991. Places on the Margin. London: Routledge. Skinner, J. 2011. Displeasure on ‘pleasure island’: tourist expectation and desire on and off the Cuban dance floor. In Great Expectations: Imagination and Anticipation in Tourism, J. Skinner and D. Theodossopoulos (eds), pp. 116–136. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Urry, J. and Larsen, J. 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0: London: Sage Publications.

Witcher, R. 2010. The fabulous tales of the common people, Part 1: Representing Hadrian's Wall. Public Archaeology, 9(3): 126–152. Yeh, J.H.-Y. 2009. The embodiment of sociability through the tourist camera. In The Framed World: Tourism, Tourists and Photography, M. Robinson and D. Picard (eds), pp. 199–216. Farnham: Ashgate.

Chapter 6 Tourism Mobilities Kevin Hannam In January 2013 it was reported that Greek police had stepped up efforts to arrest illegal immigrants, launching a new operation to check the papers of people who looked foreign. But it was noted that tourists had also been picked up in the operation and it was alleged that at least two tourists had been badly beaten (Hadjimatheou, 2013). While this ostensibly reflects on security concerns over contemporary migration in Europe in the context of the economic crisis, it also highlights issues of mobility: how there is a blurring between who may look like, and in some ways behave like, a tourist and who may look like a migrant, as well as complex issues of politics and racism. In an era of increased mobilities, it seems tourism enters center stage. This chapter thus reviews work from what has been termed the “new mobilities paradigm” (Sheller and Urry, 2004) and what has become known more recently as the study of “tourism mobilities.” The study of tourism has often been seen as being on the periphery of the social sciences, but the mobilities paradigm arguably allows us to place travel and tourism at the core of social and cultural life rather than at the margins (Coles and Hall, 2006; Hannam, 2009). From this perspective, tourism mobilities are viewed as being bound up with both everyday and mundane journeys as well as with the more exotic encounters that have been the mainstay of much analysis in contemporary tourism. Tourism is then analyzed not as an ephemeral aspect of social life that is practiced outside normal, everyday life. Rather it is seen as integral to wider processes of economic and political development processes and even constitutive of everyday life (Franklin and Crang, 2001; Franklin, 2003; Coles and Hall, 2006; Edensor, 2007; Hannam and Knox, 2010). It is not just that tourism is a form of mobility like other forms of mobility, such as commuting or migration, but that different mobilities inform and are informed by tourism. Thus we need to continually examine the multiple mobilities in any situation: mobilities involve the movement of people but also the movement of a whole range of material things as well as the movement of imaginative thoughts and fantasies. In short, proponents of the mobilities paradigm argue that the concept of mobilities is concerned with mapping and understanding both the large-scale movements of people, objects, capital, and information across the world and the more local processes of daily transportation, movement through public space, and the travel of material things within everyday life simultaneously (Hannam et al., 2006). A great deal of mobilities research has analyzed forms and experiences of so-called “corporeal” travel. This involves the travel of people for work, leisure, family life, pleasure, migration, and escape, organized in terms of contrasting time–space modalities (ranging from daily commuting to a once-in-a-lifetime exile). Tourism research, meanwhile, has examined aspects of such corporeal travel conceptualized as embodied experiences (Crouch, 2000) or hybrid ethnic experiences (Meethan, 2003; Coles and Timothy, 2004), or both (Ali and Holden, 2006; Stephenson, 2006; King and Christou, 2011). Using a more explicit mobilities

perspective, recent work has considered how the technologies of travel have led to new cultural forms, including new cultural identities (D'Andrea, 2006) and subjectivities (Conradson and Latham, 2007). Political, technological, financial, and transportational changes have been critical in significantly lowering the mobility barriers for many but not for all, as contemporary work on social tourism has shown (McCabe, 2009; Hannam, 2012). Indeed, immobilities become particularly apparent in the so-called tourism “contact zones” at the borders of different countries where notions of citizenship can become highly contested and where multiple identities can become increasingly fluid. For example, if we take the example of the island of Penang in Malaysia, Western tourists have frequently used the island in order to renew their visas to extend their stay in Thailand, extending their mobility. On the other hand the island is home to many locals and migrant workers who may have multiple affiliations and who do not have the same mobility privileges that the Western tourists demonstrate. Bianchi (2000) has further explored some of these issues in relation to migrant tourist workers in the Mediterranean. Places become important for tourism mobilities in this context. Often a clear distinction is made between places and those traveling to places; pushing or pulling people to visit. The mobilities paradigm argues against the ontology of distinct “places” and “people.” Rather, there is a complex relationality of places and persons. Places are thus not so much fixed but are implicated within complex networks through which “hosts, guests, buildings, objects, and machines” are contingently brought together to produce certain performances. Moreover, places are also “about proximities, about the bodily co-presence of people who happen to be in that place at that time, doing activities together, moments of physical proximity between people that make travel desirable or even obligatory for some” (Hannam et al., 2006: 13). In their discussion of Singapore as the archetypal “mobile city,” Oswin and Yeoh (2010: 170) argue that the: notion of the “mobile city” thus makes us think about flows and movements in and through the global city in specific ways. It of course facilitates the study of migration as more than a movement from one end point to another. Attention is called to the lines that connect points, to journeys and their continuous negotiations. …The interrelationships between mobile experiences also come into view. Further, the study of the mobile city extends our interest to the study of the movement of ideas and material things that may or may not coincide with the movement of people. … A process-orientation enables examination of interrelationships of movements of people, objects, capital and ideas in and through the overlapping scales of the local, the bodily, the national, and the global. Although mobilities research emphasizes the interrelation of different scales as discussed above, in what follows I outline aspects of research into tourism mobilities in terms of, firstly, global tourism mobilities, secondly, heritage tourism mobilities, thirdly, imaginative and communicative tourism mobilities, and, fourthly, mobile methodologies, as these give us a range of issues that exemplify the conceptual tourism mobilities approach in different ways.

Global Tourism Mobilities

In terms of mapping the larger-scale movements of people, objects, capital, and information across the world a mobilities perspective allows us to analyze the connections between tourism and geopolitics critically, rather than from just a managerial perspective. Geopolitics has been defined in terms of the ways in which we view the world; how the global landscape is structured into various nation states and this informs and is informed by various foreign policy agendas of different governments (Dodds, 2007). Such discourses make their way into everyday use in the media and, indeed, tourism. In terms of tourism, foreign policy discourses can have profound effects on when, who, and for what reason people are able to freely cross international borders. Geopolitical discourses or “scripts,” as shown in a variety of institutional and popular media, are thus powerful, and as they divide up the world, can lead to conflicts over space and resources (O'Tuathail, 2002). Moreover, websites have become increasingly powerful actors on the geopolitical scene as destination marketing has become more complex. Waleed Hazburn (2004) has been at the forefront of linking the analysis of tourism with geopolitics in his analysis of the contemporary Middle East. He goes on to demonstrate changes in tourism-development strategies in the context of the wider geopolitical agendas of many Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In some MENA countries, such as Tunisia, tourism that had been wholly dependent on Western tourists initially collapsed to all practical purposes. Egypt and Jordan, with a good share of Arab tourists, were quickly able to redirect their marketing strategies towards Arab countries to compensate for the reduction in Western tourists. The United Arab Emirates, meanwhile, was able to increase the numbers of incoming Arab tourists, especially those Arabs who, due to visa restrictions and xenophobic attitudes, preferred not to spend holidays in North America and Europe but rather to visit an Arab country (Al-Hamarneh and Steiner, 2004). Raoul Bianchi (2007), meanwhile, has analyzed the relationships between tourism, the freedom to travel, and the geopolitics of security. He argues that implicit in much of contemporary geopolitics is a Western liberal idealized discourse of tourism as freedom (for some but not for others). Tourism destinations can become drawn into political conflicts when accumulated local grievances and wider geopolitical issues coincide. Moreover, “[w]here perhaps tourism becomes even more closely intertwined with global geopolitics is in the mapping of global risk and threats to security through the mechanism of state travel advisories” (Bianchi, 2007: 70). Advisories such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK are extremely powerful in portraying a dominant Western worldview. The mobilities of global tourism, then, are intimately entwined with broader geopolitical issues such as migration, inequality and, indeed, climate change. From a global tourism mobilities perspective the relations between migration, return migration, transnationalism, and tourism are being increasingly researched (King and Christou, 2011). And, of course, the ways in which physical movement pertains to upward and downward social mobility are also central here. In such a context we need to examine how tourism becomes part of this social mobility and how it relates to new cultural identities and notions of cultural citizenship, particularly in the contact zones mentioned above. Butler and

Hannam (2013), for example, have examined how expatriates in Malaysia make use of different forms of transport to enhance their social mobilities. Moreover, global tourism mobilities are intimately connected with issues of climate change as more and more people travel both by air and by car (Urry, 2008). The freedoms promised by air and car travel are now recognized as being unsustainable given current technologies but in the short to medium terms such mobilities are still expected to grow. In terms of aeromobilities, Urry (2003) has noted that there are 4 million air passengers each day and at any one point in time there are over 300 000 air passengers in the skies above the USA. Forecasts suggest that as many as 400 million passengers will use the UK's airports by 2030 (Budd, 2008). Nevertheless, the freedom of air travel and its democratization through the expansion of low-cost airlines is still heavily regulated due to the perceived and real risks of travel. Moreover, the sociotechnical system of air travel that has been turned into a form of mass mobility requires an exceptionally extensive and immobile place, the airport-city, with tens of thousands of workers orchestrating the millions of air journeys taking place each day (Hannam et al., 2006). At airports, tourists have their bodies biometrically scanned or “read” and are continually monitored on closed-circuit television. That symbol of national allegiance and identity – the passport – now contains a computer chip and is used by governments as a tool to monitor the population's movements. The objects tourists carry, too, are also subject to processes of control through X-rays and searches. Moreover, the very material and immaterial architecture of the modern airport is calculated to control the corporeal movements of the tourist (Adey, 2008). When this breaks down due to an unexpected environmental event, such as the Icelandic ash cloud eruption, the consequences for tourism are extreme (Adey and Anderson, 2011). In terms of automobilities, Urry (2008: 265) has noted that “[t]here are close to 600 million cars currently roaming the world's highways and they can be conceptualized as a modern day Leviathan.” Automobility has been identified as the simultaneous achievement of autonomy and mobility, which in essence involves “modes of autonomous self-directed movement” (Featherstone, 2004: 1). Through the notion of automobility, personal vehicles may effectively offer the tourist freedom and flexibility other modes of travel do not. Cars enable tourists to tailor their own itineraries and allow them to control the routes they travel between destinations. They also permit the driver (and his or her passengers) to decide when and where to stop, and consequently allow direction and velocity to be controlled. As Urry (2000: 61) noted, the road has the power to “set people free” as drivers are offered a range of choices, inaccessible to those using public transport. Cars are therefore identified as important tools that may permit adventure (Sheller and Urry, 2000, 2003; Featherstone, 2004; Huijbens and Benediktsson, 2007; Collin-Lange and Benediktsson, 2011; Butler and Hannam, 2012) and have consequently fostered a “dynamic culture of individualism” (Jacobsen, 2004: 7) but with significant consequences for the global environment (Vanderheiden, 2006). The freedoms of aeromobilities and automobilities will require new technologies if they are to remain part of the global tourism system in the long term or else they may pass into heritage like older forms of mobility.

Heritage Tourism Mobilities Studies of heritage tourism per se are sometimes highly static, focusing on particular sites of meaning such as museums when, in fact, heritage can often be much more fluid both in tangible and intangible forms. Heritage railways provide a good example of heritage tourism mobilities, of literally heritage on the move (Schivelbusch, 1986; Lofgren, 2008; Bissell, 2009; Aguiar, 2011). Several critiques have explored different aspects of railway mobility, such as the role of the body and the visual nature of being on the move (Bissell, 2010; Johnson, 2010). The visual experience of railway mobility potentially offers a mobile travel glance which is a more of a “cinematic” experience of moving landscape images for the tourist who is corporeally, largely an immobile “armchair” spectator (Larsen, 2001). Moreover, in a study of the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway (DHR), Roy and Hannam (2013: 586) note that: One of the most significant performances that the DHR induces because of its track and its relatively slow speeds is that one can get on and off the train while it is still on the move, and it is in this process that we argue that the DHR negotiates between place and people, not by being simply a stage for performance but by being itself an actor and taking initiative into this process. Studies of tourism mobilities also seek to understand how various things move through time, caught up in a web of temporal movements and how various practices of tourism involve the movement of interrelated tangible objects: what have been termed the “material worlds” of tourism (Basu and Coleman, 2008). There is a growing interest in the ways in which material “stuff” helps to constitute tourism, and such stuff is always in motion, being assembled and reassembled in changing configurations (Sheller and Urry, 2006). Much of heritage tourism also involves more intangible performances of “memory.” This necessitates researching the material and memorial mobilities of photographs, postcards, letters, images, guides, souvenirs, and all sorts of gifts and how they are transformed through movement. More recent work has explicitly examined the kinds of pictures and objects that people carry with them and use to reassemble memories, practices, and even landscapes, thus remaking the materiality of places of heritage tourism and migration (see Tolia-Kelly, 2008; Nesbitt and Tolia-Kelly, 2009). From a mobilities perspective it is the movement of these souvenirs, gifts, and more everyday things that is of particular interest in terms of material cultures. We can see this in the example of the mobility of a seemingly simple object: a spoon or a bracelet made from bomb material into a souvenir from Laos. Unexploded cluster bombs are a rich source of aluminium that can be collected for scrap or turned into products for sale. In 1975, one farmer set up a business making spoons from the unexploded ordnance. When Elizabeth Suda of the sustainable fashion company Article 22 heard of this local entrepreneur, she committed to work with him and his fellow villagers to produce a more globally marketable product – simple bracelets. In an ironic twist of fate, Elizabeth Suda and her sister Wallis sell these bracelets and allow a new generation of Americans to “buy back the bombs”. Their collaboration also helps to ensure that the war is no longer a secret. (Davies, 2011: 976)

On the one hand these material items are a potent symbol for disarmament, but on the other hand they are also the starting point to understanding the complex relationships between conflicts and tourism mobilities.

Imaginative and Communicative Tourism Mobilities Studies of imaginative travel have been a mainstay of recent tourism research, particularly as destinations have sought to explicitly brand themselves as cultural or creative places (Cronin, 2008) or as mobile cities, as in the case of Singapore (Oswin and Yeoh, 2010), using ever more complex destination-management systems (Ek and Hultman, 2008). The connections between movies and tourism mobilities have begun to be explicitly researched in this context (Law et al., 2007; Diekmann and Hannam, 2012). Imaginative travel can though, perhaps, be best seen through the links between tourism and pilgrimage (Coleman and Eade, 2004; Timothy and Olsen, 2006). For example, in his case study of migrant Buddhist monks from Thailand, Pattana (2010: 257) argues that their cross-border religious missions and aspects of their religious practices in Singapore illustrate the role of religion in the broader context of transnational mobility and settlement in a multiracial and multicultural city state: “Under Singapore's racial and religious harmony policy, Thai monks have become mobile agents to spread the Dharma and to serve the Buddhist population under some regulating structure and scrutiny in Singapore.” Furthermore, in her paper “Gifting Mecca,” Erin Kenny (2007: 363) analyses pilgrimage and its gifts, linking heritage and imaginative tourism mobilities. She further argues that in the “extended family households of Kankan [Guinea], participation in pilgrimage creates a new kind of globally implicated person and also may influence the relative status of other members of the household” (Kenny, 2007: 363). Imaginative travel thus involves the movement of spiritual capital for some African societies. The use of mobile communications while traveling has become central to twenty-first-century life and a great deal of recent research has begun to examine the connections between cell phone use and forms of tourism. In this context, Melanie Smith (2006: 220) reminds us that: “[w]ork and leisure are scarcely differentiated as tourists increasingly check e-mails, carry around laptops, and are glued to the ubiquitous cell phone while on holiday!” In the Somali context, Greg Collins (2009) has examined the extraordinary demand for telecoms services that lies behind the emergence of Somalia's telecoms industry in the wake of state collapse. He argues that this demand is not only driven by the size of the Somali diaspora and the astounding amount of money they remit each year, “but is a reflection of an ethno-national logic that has shaped the ways in which Somalis at home and abroad have dealt with unpredictability in the wake of state collapse – by staying mobile and staying connected” (Collins, 2009: 203). He concludes that this has “created an extraordinary demand for telecoms services in postcollapse Somalia for the very reason that telecoms were necessary to adapt and use these culturally and historically informed strategies on a global scale” (Collins, 2009: 203). Dawood et al.'s (2010) research, meanwhile, has explored the business practices of mobile

entrepreneurs, specifically mobile food vendors in Indonesia, and the potential use of location aware and cell-phone-based applications to support their information needs. Mobile food vendors are a ubiquitous phenomenon in the developing world and can be seen selling their wares in carts, bicycles, or motorcycles. They discuss the key characteristics and features of a cell-phone-based application that will enable these vendors to advertise their current location, accept orders from customers, enable customers' recommendation of vendors, and inform fellow vendors of various special events, thus transforming the tourist experience. All sorts of imaginative and communicative tourism mobilities – from movies to food – thus go into our understandings of mobile places.

Mobile Methods Law and Urry (2004: 403) have argued that existing social science methodologies: … deal, for instance, poorly with the fleeting – that which is here today and gone tomorrow, only to re-appear again the day after tomorrow. They deal poorly with the distributed – that is to be found here and there but not in between – or that which slips and slides between one place and another. They deal poorly with the multiple – that which takes different shapes in different places. They deal poorly with the non-causal, the chaotic, the complex. If we are to understand adequately the ontology of contemporary mobilities then we also need to have mobile methodologies not necessarily to “capture” but to keep pace with the fluid (dis)order and (dis)embeddedness of (de)territorialized social life (D'Andrea, 2006). Such research may provide a new critical window on the mobilities, immobilities, and moorings of contemporary tourism by utilizing innovative, experimental, and increasingly sophisticated technologies (Hannam et al., 2006; Fincham et al., 2010; Büscher et al., 2011). However, we also need to make sure that we continue to pay attention to both established and innovative methods beyond the social sciences, which allow us to examine other histories, artistic and scientific practices (Merriman, 2013). It is important to recognize that, “[s]tillness, waiting, slowness and boredom may be just as important…as sensations and experiences of speed, movement, excitement and exhilaration” when doing tourism research (Merriman, 2013: 16). The need to engage with fluidity, the chaotic, and sensations is exemplified by the way in which many investigators complain about “the problem” of doing research outside, in the field, and that recordings with respondents have too much “background noise” which makes it difficult to transcribe interviews. While there are computer programs which seek to minimize “background noise,” this is very much part and parcel of doing mobilities research. This noise can provide valuable insights into the frictions and turbulence created by touristic mobilities. Rather than eliminating or complaining about the noise, we would encourage researchers to actually research the noise (Adey et al., 2013).

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections

This chapter has sought to give some insights into the multiple mobilities that may be involved in the study of tourism mobilities. The new mobilities paradigm arguably allows us to place travel and tourism at the center of social and cultural life rather than at the margins, and this chapter has discussed how this might be applied in the development of a research agenda for global, heritage, and imaginative tourism mobilities. Moreover, the ways in which mobile methods may be used for tourism research has also been highlighted. Nevertheless, there are many other aspects of tourism mobilities, such as everyday practices like walking, cycling or horse riding, that could also have been considered. Tourism mobilities have had significant impacts on the global environment and these impacts will continue to be felt as emerging economies develop and engage with mobile technologies. The transition to a postcarbon future will potentially open up many new configurations for tourism mobilities but at present the demand for further aeromobilities and automobilities will continue to grow. Moreover, as the recent mobilities and immobilities of global capital continue to suggest, places and politics will remain paramount in our discussions of tourism mobilities.

References Adey, P. 2008. Airports, mobility and the calculative architecture of affective control. Geoforum, 39(1): 438–451. Adey, P. and Anderson, B. 2011. Anticipation, materiality, event: the Icelandic ash cloud disruption and the security of mobility. Mobilities, 6(1): 11–20. Adey, P., Bissell, D., Hannam, K., Merriman, P., and Sheller, M. (eds) 2013. The Routledge Handbook of Mobilities. London: Routledge. Aguiar, M. 2011. Tracking Modernity: India's Railway and the Culture of Mobility. London: University of Minnesota Press. Al-Hamarneh, A. and Steiner, C. 2004. “Islamic tourism” – re-thinking the strategies of tourism development in the Arab World after 9/11. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 24(1): 173–182. Ali, N. and Holden, A. 2006. Post-colonial Pakistani mobilities: the embodiment of the ‘myth of return’ in tourism, Mobilities, 1(2): 217–242. Basu, P. and Coleman, S. 2008. Introduction: migrant worlds, material cultures. Mobilities, 3(3): 313–330. Bianchi, R. 2000. Migrant tourist workers: exploring the contact zones of post-industrial tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 3(2): 107–137. Bianchi, R. 2007. Tourism and the globalisation of fear: analysing the politics of risk and (in)security in global travel. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7: 64–74.

Bissell, D. 2009. Conceptualising differently-mobile passengers: geographies of everyday encumbrance in the railway station. Social & Cultural Geography, 10(2): 173–195. Bissell, D. 2010. Passenger mobilities: affective atmospheres and the sociality of public transport. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(2): 270–289. Budd, L. 2008. Air craft: producing UK airspace. In Aeromobilities, S. Cwerner, S. Kesselring, and J. Urry (eds), pp. 115–134. London: Routledge. Büscher, M., Urry, J., and Witchger, K. 2011. Introduction: mobile methods. In Mobile Methods, M. Büscher, J. Urry, and K. Witchger (eds), pp. 1–19. London: Routledge. Butler, G. and Hannam, K. 2012. Independent tourists' automobilities in Norway. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 10(4): 285–300. Butler, G. and Hannam, K. 2013. Performing expatriate automobilities in Kuala Lumpur. Mobilities, DOI:10.1080/17450101.2013.784530. Coleman, S. and Eade, J. (eds) 2004. Reframing Pilgrimage: Cultures in Motion. London: Routledge. Coles, T. and Hall, C.M. 2006. Editorial: the geography of tourism is dead. Long live geographies of tourism and mobility. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(4–5): 289–292. Coles, T. and Timothy, D. (eds) 2004. Tourism, Diasporas and Space: Travels to Promised Lands. London: Routledge. Collin-Lange, V. and Benediktsson, K. 2011. Entering the regime of automobility: car ownership and use by novice drivers in Iceland. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4): 851–858. Collins, G. 2009. Connected: exploring the extraordinary demand for telecoms services in post-collapse Somalia. Mobilities, 4(2): 203–223. Conradson, D. and Latham, A. 2007. The affective possibilities of London: Antipodean transnationals and the overseas experience. Mobilities, 2(2): 231–254. Cronin, A. 2008. Mobility and market research: outdoor advertising and the commercial ontology of the city. Mobilities, 3(1): 95–116. Crouch, D. 2000. Places around us: embodied lay geographies in leisure and tourism. Leisure Studies, 19: 63–76. D'Andrea, A. 2006. Neo-nomadism: a theory of post-identitarian mobility in the global age. Mobilities, 1(1): 95–120. Davies, J. 2011. Bracelets from cluster bombs. The Lancet, 378(9795): 976. Dawood, R., Jackson, S., and Yew, J. 2010. Supporting the Information Needs of Mobile

Microentrepreneurs in the Developing World: The Case of Indonesian Food Cart Vendors. http://misc.si.umich.edu/publications/31. Diekmann, A. and Hannam, K. 2012. Tourism mobilities in India's slum spaces. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3):1316–1336. Dodds, K. 2007. Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edensor, T. 2007. Mundane mobilties, performances and spaces of tourism. Social & Cultural Geography, 8(2): 199–215. Ek, R. and Hultman, J. 2008. Sticky landscapes and smooth experiences: the biopower of tourism mobilities in the Öresund region. Mobilities, 3(2): 223–242. Featherstone, M. 2004. Automobilities: an introduction. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4–5): 1–24. Fincham, B., McGuinness, M., and Murray, L. 2010. Introduction. In Mobile Methodologies, B. Fincham, M. McGuinness, & L. Murray (eds), pp. 1–10. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Franklin, A. 2003. Tourism: An Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Franklin, A. and Crang, M. 2001. The trouble with tourism and travel theory? Tourist Studies, 1(1): 5–22. Hadjimatheou, C. 2013. The tourists held by Greek police as illegal migrants. BBC News Magazine. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20958353. Hannam, K. 2009. The end of tourism? Nomadology and the mobilities paradigm. In Philosophical Issues in Tourism, J. Tribe (ed.), pp. 101–113. Clevedon: Channel View. Hannam, K. 2012. Mobilities and social exclusion. In Social Tourism: Theory and Practice, S. McCabe, L. Minnaert, and A. Diekmann (eds), pp. 92–100. Clevedon: Channel View. Hannam, K. and Knox, D. 2010. Understanding Tourism. London: Sage Publications. Hannam, K., Sheller, M., and Urry, J. 2006. Editorial: mobilities, immobilities and moorings. Mobilities, 1(1): 1–22. Hazburn, W. 2004. Globalisation, reterritorialisation and the political economy of tourism development in the Middle East. Geopolitics, 9(2): 310–341. Huijbens, E. and Benediktsson, K. 2007. Practising highland heterotopias: automobility in the interior of Iceland. Mobilities, 2(1): 143–165. Jacobsen, J. 2004. Roaming romantics: solitude-seeking and self-centredness in scenic sightseeing. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4(1): 5–23. Johnson, J. 2010. Euro-railing: a mobile ethnography of backpacker train travel. In Beyond

Backpacker Tourism: Mobilities and Experiences, K. Hannam and A. Diekmann (eds), pp. 102–113. Clevedon: Channel View. Kenny, E. 2007. Gifting Mecca: importing spiritual capital to West Africa. Mobilities, 2(3): 363–381. King, R. and Christou, A. 2011. Of counter-diaspora and reverse transnationalism: return mobilities to and from the ancestral homeland. Mobilities, 6(4): 451–466. Larsen, J. 2001. Tourism mobilities and the travel glance: experiences of being on the move. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(2): 80–98. Law, L., Bunnell, T., and Ong, C.E. 2007. The Beach, the gaze and film tourism. Tourist Studies, 7(2): 141–164. Law, J. and Urry, J. 2004. Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33(3): 390–410. Lofgren, O. 2008. Motion and emotion: learning to be a railway traveller. Mobilities, 3(3): 331–351. McCabe, S. 2009. Who needs a holiday? Evaluating social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(4): 667–688. Meethan, K. 2003. Mobile cultures? Hybridity, tourism and cultural change. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 1(1): 11–28. Merriman, P. 2013. Rethinking mobile methods. Mobilities, DOI:10.1080/17450101.2013.784540 Nesbitt, C. and Tolia-Kelly, D. 2009. Hadrian's Wall: embodied archaeologies of the linear monument. Journal of Social Archaeology, 9: 368–390. Oswin, N. and Yeoh, B. 2010. Introduction: mobile city Singapore. Mobilities, 5(2): 167–175. O'Tuathail, G. 2002. Post-Cold War geopolitics: contrasting superpowers in a world of global dangers. In Geographies of Global Change, 2nd edn, R.J. Johnson, P. Taylor, and M. Watts (eds), pp. 174–189. Oxford: Blackwell. Pattana, K. 2010. Buddha-izing a global city-state: transnational religious mobilities, spiritual marketplace, and Thai migrant monks in Singapore. Mobilities, 5(2): 257–275. Roy, S. and Hannam, K. 2013. Embodying the mobilities of the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway. Mobilities, 8(4): 580–594. Schivelbusch, W. 1986. The Railway Journey: Trains and Travel in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Blackwell. Sheller, M. and Urry, J. 2000. The city and the car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4): 737–757.

Sheller, M. and Urry, J. 2003. Mobile transformations of ‘public’ and ‘private’ life. Theory Culture & Society, 20(3): 107–125. Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (eds) 2004. Tourism Mobilities: Places to Play, Places in Play. London: Routledge. Sheller, M. and Urry, J. 2006. The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2): 207–226. Smith, M. 2006. Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. London: Routledge. Stephenson, M. 2006. Travel and the ‘freedom of movement’: racialised encounters and experiences amongst ethnic minority tourists in the EU. Mobilities, 1(2): 285–306. Timothy, D. and Olsen, D. (eds) 2006. Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys. London: Routledge. Tolia-Kelly, D. 2008. Motion/emotion: picturing translocal landscapes in the nurturing ecologies research project. Mobilities, 3(1): 117–140. Urry, J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies. London: Routledge. Urry, J. 2003. Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Urry, J. 2008. Climate change, travel and complex futures. British Journal of Sociology, 59(2): 261–279. Vanderheiden, S. 2006. Assessing the case against the SUV. Environmental Politics, 15(1): 23–40.

Chapter 7 Critical Perspectives on Tourism Freya Higgins-Desbiolles and Kyle Powys Whyte The title “Critical Perspectives on Tourism” risks promising much more than can be delivered in a brief book chapter. We begin by identifying what we mean here by “critical.” Like many English words, critical has multiple meanings, including “of vital significance” and “pertaining to critique.” While these definitions are certainly relevant here, the term is used to connote critical theory and its relation to tourism in this analysis. This chapter refers to critical theory as that body of analysis that evolved from the Frankfurt School. While there is no settled agreement on what critical theory entails, we follow Kincheloe and McLaren (2011: 288), who claim: A critical social theory is concerned in particular with issues of power and justice and the ways that the economy, matters of race, class, and gender, ideologies, discourses, education, religion, and other social institutions, and cultural dynamics interact to construct a social system. Critical theory applied to tourism is most visibly evident in the new critical tourism studies movement. The chapter offers a rather focused analysis of critical tourism studies that highlights key developments and debates in the area to date. It then outlines some promising opportunities for innovative future research.

Early Critical Perspectives From the 1950s, tourism was greeted enthusiastically both because of the importance of celebrating holidays themselves and for the developmental potential of tourism. Like other industries, tourism rose out of the economic boom in the aftermath of the world wars. While “boosterism” prevailed in the tourism arena (Hall, 2000: 21), limitations and damages became apparent as early as the 1970s, with the degradation and the overdevelopment of places like the Mediterranean coast, Hawai'i, and Florida. As a result, mass tourism was called into question, which then led to the first sustained critiques of tourism. These critical perspectives on tourism came most notably from grassroots nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), religious groups, and local activists. One example was a book entitled Pacific Tourism as Islanders See It, which opened: Almost everything written about tourism in the Pacific is from a foreign perspective. This book presents the viewpoints of 24 Pacific Islanders from Solomon Islands in the west to the Cook Islands in the East. It is not a research study, but a collection of experiences and viewpoints from the inside looking out rather than the other way around. (Rajotte and Crocombe, 1980: iii) In particular, NGOs developed in this milieu to advocate the rights and concerns of grassroots

communities impacted by tourism around the globe. One example was the Hawai’i Ecumenical Coalition which issued “The Hawai’i Declaration on Tourism” in 1989; “this declaration stressed that a state of emergency existed for Hawaiian people and for the fragile island environment” (Minerbi, 1999). Numerous others were developed locally, regionally, and globally to address concerns for human rights, justice, and equity in tourism, including the Ecumenical Coalition on Tourism most recently based in Bangkok, and Tourism Concern based in the UK. Such NGOs have run campaigns, produced educational materials and magazines, lobbied governments, protested, and created alternative developments as a counterbalance to exploitative and damaging tourism developments. For instance, in 2011 the Indian NGO EQUATIONS and other local NGOs joined with 100 families facing dispossession in the Indian state of Maharashtra due to a development proposal made by Lavasa Corporation to create a “new urban” 25 000 acre (10 100 ha) township offering resorts, five-star hotels, vacation homes, as well as 12 private mini-dams (EQUATIONS, 2013: 123–124). Threatening 18 villages, including the Indigenous Adivasi population, this project has attracted huge controversy. EQUATIONS reports: An independent civil society fact-finding mission has revealed aspects of forced land alienation; undue harassment by the project officials on account of project development; cheating by the company agents; obstruction of community access to fresh water bodies, river water, temples and common roads; as well as destruction of natural habitat and forest; water shortages in Pune; and violation of environmental norms with mandatory environmental clearances not sought. (EQUATIONS, 2013: 124) These families, together with these NGOs and other activists, have pressured the government to enforce regulations and protect the villagers’ rights. While we have yet to see the final outcome from this case, we can nonetheless identify the advocacy roles that NGOs such as EQUATIONS play. Despite this critical engagement from NGOs, academia has paid surprisingly little attention to their roles and voices. Rare exceptions include Scheyvens's (2002) analysis of empowering communities through tourism development and Mowforth and Munt's (2003) critical assessment of tourism for development in the “Third World” and the roles played by various NGOs. More recently Wearing et al. (2005) advocated a “de-commodified tourism research agenda” and called attention to the role NGOs play in more socially and environmentally oriented tourism development; however, their analysis was limited to a conceptual level. Higgins-Desbiolles et al. have provided an environmental justice perspective on tourism and offered case studies of the NGOs EQUATIONS and the Alternative Tourism Group of Palestine to demonstrate that “justice and equity comes from a grassroots, bottom-up approach and not from the top-down imposition of interventions by global players like the UNWTO” (Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2013: 99). The true roots of critical perspectives on tourism spring from people who have been harmed by various forms of tourism and the NGOs that have sought to represent them. These NGO sources seem to have been largely forgotten or overlooked in tourism research. We have wondered why this may be the case when this work has been so important to grassroots

communities and affected important change, including preventing dispossession, stopping inappropriate developments, and forcing governments to protect community interests. We can only surmise that tourism research agendas have been constrained in many cases by the need to be relevant to industry interests or to secure industry funding. In this fashion, researchers tend to align themselves with powerful rather than exploited and oppressed populations. This situation may be challenged by the development of a critical tourism and hospitality research nexus in the last decade.

The Development of the Critical Tourism Studies Movement Until recently, the tourism discipline has been dominated by an “industrial” discourse on tourism (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006) and a predilection for positivist research methodologies (Tribe, 2005). However, as Tribe asserts, tourism studies has recently broken through such shackles and is entering a more “postmodern” stage characterized by greater reflexivity and “innovative and radical lines of enquiry” (Tribe, 2005: 376). In particular, tourism studies have taken “a critical turn” which challenges conventional ways of knowing tourism, doing tourism research, and relating to tourism stakeholders (Ateljevic et al., 2007a). Bianchi (2009: 486) describes it as a “product of the ‘cultural turn’ in the social sciences and the increased influence of poststructuralist [critical] theory in Leisure and Tourism Studies.” A number of tourism analyses have outlined the key features of critical theory and paid tribute to its influence of the emerging critical tourism paradigm, so we will not repeat this endeavor here (e.g. Chambers, 2007; Tribe, 2008; Bianchi, 2009). This emerging critical tourism and hospitality paradigm has been facilitated by a series of conferences since 2005 under the title Critical Tourism Studies drawing together diverse scholars who are disenchanted with conventional tourism research and use poststructural, interpretative, and critical research methodologies. They have transformed critical tourism research from its state when Tribe described “a significant research gap … between the lack of critical research and the many significant issues requiring its insights and guidance” (Tribe, 2008: 253). Initially called the Critical Tourism Studies group, they more recently have adopted the name of the “Academy of Hope,” invoking the image of Bell Hooks' (2003) scholarship of the pedagogy of hope. They have described hopeful tourism as “… a values-led humanist approach based on partnership, reciprocity and ethics, which aims for co-created learning, and which recognizes the power of sacred and indigenous knowledge and passionate scholarship” (Pritchard et al., 2011: 929). Academy of Hope advances the critique of tourism provided in the earlier era by moving beyond critiques of injustices to understanding multifaceted problems and seeking transformations (Pritchard et al., 2012: 7). Taking these words at face value, then the purpose of the Academy of Hope should be to move from critique as a backward-looking or retrospective activity to engendering a forward-looking vision of just relations between researchers and tourism stakeholders. The research flowing from such a vision should involve

participatory research methodologies tailored to local communities' needs. This way of interpreting the critical turn in tourism studies would illuminate a way that the Academy could begin to serve a similar role to the NGOs described earlier. If this were the case, the Academy would align itself with the needs of communities who are susceptible to threats from the mainstream tourism industry or who are in the position to benefit from engaging in different, community-controlled, forms of tourism.

Critical Engagements in Tourism and Hospitality Although a relatively recent development, there are key trends that can be identified in critical tourism and hospitality scholarship. We have undertaken a scoping of the domain by examining key books and journal articles. We have identified key themes addressed and also research gaps.

Focus on the Researcher, Researcher Reflexivity Much critical tourism analysis focuses on researchers, their positioning, and the need for reflexivity. This is, in part, a reaction to the “value-free” ethos of positivism in tourism research. An example is Mair's (2012) exploration of her career trajectory as she “became” or grew into a critical tourism scholar. Another example is McIntosh's exploration of her positioning in religious tourism research (McIntosh, 2010). She reflects on “aspects of the author's journey as an academic researcher and research supervisor to discuss and recognize the realities of situated knowledge creation within the study of religious tourism” (McIntosh, 2010: 213). This segment of critical tourism research has revealed the role the researcher plays in shaping the research and brings their subjectivities to the fore. This leads to transparency and openness in research and can be a conduit for dialogue and understandings across divides, particularly between the researcher and the researched.

Critical Research Methodologies The first conference of the Critical Tourism Studies held in Dubrovnik in 2005 produced an edited volume focused on critical tourism research methodologies (Ateljevic et al., 2007a). In this volume we find overviews of a more philosophical nature as well as chapters analyzing the use of specific methodologies and what they might offer to tourism knowledge. Research approaches include postmodernist, feminist, postcolonial, and Indigenous approaches, and methods include auto-ethnography to grounded theory to participatory action research. What unites all of these explorations of critical tourism methodologies is a release from the constraints of scientific positivism to more engaged, reflexive, and subjective approaches. Critical tourism, then, aligned itself with research approaches and methodologies that had been described and implemented much earlier in other fields.

Critical Tourism Pedagogy and Curriculum

Tourism has been a discipline where critical approaches to teaching seem very out of place, partly because of the tendency to view tourism as an industry which fosters a pedagogy of training “industry-ready” students. Ayikoru et al. drew attention to the impacts of neoliberalism and managerialism on tourism education and argued: the new wave of changes in higher education require broad conceptualization and interpretation, necessitating a move away from narrow but important issues on curriculum, teaching and learning to broader issues related to power, ideology and discourse that have been well articulated in the sociology of knowledge, postructuralism and political science inter alia. (Ayikoru et al., 2009: 214) Analyses employing critical theory are filling this gap effectively. An example is Belhassan and Caton's analysis of critical management studies, which they argued can improve tourism education by: instilling in future managers an awareness of their power to shape the kind of world in which they want to live, engaging them in the project of expanding social justice, and equipping them to deal more productively with the messy realities of the workplace and the limits of their profession. (Belhassan and Caton, 2011: 1395)

Inclusion of Long-Ignored Voices Conventional tourism research has focused narrowly on the motivations and needs of tourists and the tourism business sector. Critical tourism and hospitality studies have succeeded in bringing in the voices of those previously ignored, including the “deviant,” “subaltern,” and marginalized. Inquiries in recent years have included disabilities, gender, sexualities, aging, and workers' rights and interests. For instance, Harris' (2010) life-history narrative of a hotel executive housekeeper reveals the ways she was able to use her cultural values to support her work team and create bonds of kinship and support through her work practices. Higgins-Desbiolles (2012) has presented a case study of the Hotel Bauen of Buenos Aires which demonstrates how a hotel workplace can be transformed under workers' self-management to become a catalyst for social solidarity and alternative economic practice. Figueroa and Waitt (2008) have described how the Anangu people's prohibition against climbing Uluru (Ayer's Rock) is ignored by tourists, and the implications of this for reconciliation between Indigenous and settler populations living in Australia. This vein of research has highlighted the winners and losers from tourism, the deep complexities of the phenomenon, as well as spaces for autonomy, resistance, and usurpation.

Critiques of the Critical Tourism and Hospitality Movement The work of the Academy of Hope has been challenged by a number of scholars to date. Key critiques have emerged from the analysis of Chambers (2007) and Bianchi (2009), who have asked how critical such critical tourism analysis really is.

Bianchi examines how the poststructural emphasis on “the discursive, symbolic and cultural realm of tourism” (Bianchi, 2009: 487) obscures understanding of the structural issues of power and oppression. Bianchi states: In turning away from the interrogation of the economic and political relations of power within the manifold settings of tourism, it has little to say about material inequalities, working conditions, ecological degradation and patterns of social polarization that are manifest in twenty-first century tourism. Thus, contrary to its stated aims, the “critical turn” is in danger of leaving the study of the working of markets, capital and the state in tourism to the very industry-led institutions and analysts it professes to challenge. (Bianchi, 2009: 498) Responding to Ateljevic et al.'s (2007a) tendency to emphasize emotion, spirituality, and poetic engagement, Bianchi states: “moreover, it is difficult to envisage how capital and the realignments of state power are going to crumble through exhortation to tune into our emotional and spiritual sensibilities alone …” (Bianchi, 2009: 492). Chambers noted that the constructivist or interpretative approach to critical theory “bears a family resemblance to critical theory in terms of epistemological and methodological assumptions, [but] are nevertheless distinct in terms of their ontological underpinnings” (Chambers, 2007: 109). In particular the relativism of interpretative approaches is at odds with the critical realism of critical theory. Chambers concluded that while interpretative approaches may speak of emancipation as the ultimate aim, it is in fact anathema to the relativism of interpretative approaches which countenance multiple views of reality. Chambers stated: “if contructivist approaches are to lay claim to being critical, to having an emancipatory intent, they must acknowledge that the belief in a better world necessarily implies the existence of a ‘real’ reality” (Chambers, 2007: 109). Higgins-Desbiolles and Whyte (2013) have also challenged the critical tourism studies movement particularly in the decision to move away from the language of critical theory and the adoption of the moniker Academy of Hope. This critique is derived from the same essential concerns of Bianchi and Chambers but their argument is taken in a different direction. They particularly highlight that the Academy of Hope so far has focused on the needs of tourism researchers and their students and less on the oppressed and marginalized that typically concern critical studies. They argued that the concern of critical tourism scholars should be greater solidarity with those negatively impacted by tourism, the host communities having tourism imposed upon them and those without power and privilege in the tourism domain: We would argue that people of privilege, such as tourism academics and tourism higher degree students, must respond to calls to interrogate positions of privilege and embark on projects where power is handed over. There is no theoretical exercise in this that precedes actual experience of solidarity, resistance and revolution. (Higgins-Desbiolles and Whyte, 2013: 430) Morgan et al. claim “a key prerequisite of transformative social shift is a transformation of self” (Morgan et al., 2012: 221). But this focus on the self can become self-indulgent. This is

apparent in the focus on the researcher and researcher reflexivity in critical tourism scholarship which predominates and jeopardizes the purpose of critical scholarship; it may be only so much “navel-gazing” without care. This excessive focus of the self of the researcher is also facilitated by the methodologies taken up by critical tourism scholars. Methodologies such as auto-ethnography are innovative and offer creative and liberating insights, but they may also become self-indulgent without grounding in the key goals of critical theory, social justice, liberation, and equity. Another issue is the focus on hope. Morgan et al. claim “the essence of hope is that it looks forward and not backward; it seeks to imagine possible potentialities rather than rely on the certitudes of the past; it aims to build a future for the tourism industry guided by principles of mindful not mindless development” (Morgan et al., 2012: 220). This lack of respect for the past indicates the weakness of this network that, in seeking hope and looking forward, they risk a lack of attention to the structures and continuities of the past which must be overcome to create a positive future. Morgan et al. do state “in hope, tourism can be linked to the pursuit of justice and human rights” (Morgan et al., 2012: 220), but they and their colleagues do little on this themselves. It is invoked rhetorically but how will it eventuate without the hard work in solidarity to do it? Morgan et al. state: Hopeful tourism remains an as yet evolving vision which offers an alternative to the dominant way of understanding and being in the tourism world not by dismissing it but by engaging it to demonstrate that it offers but one perspective. It seeks to disturb and shake up tourism's hegemonic ontologies, methodologies and practices and reduce the isolation experienced by interpretative and critical researchers in a field where objectivity, generalisation and distance are the norm. (Morgan et al., 2012: 219) However, these leaders of the critical tourism studies movement turned away from the origins of critical theory early in their work. They stated: We found ourselves struggling with the notion of a “critical” or a “new” school in tourism enquiry and how this could be (mis)construed since labels create boundaries and academic schisms … To be labelled as a critical scholar also tends to exclusively associate one with the Frankfurt School that relied heavily on Marxist theory in its explanations of social processes. Yet, our understanding of critical tourism scholarship is that it is more than simply a way of knowing, an ontology, it is a way of being, a commitment to tourism enquiry which is pro-social justice and equality and anti-oppression: it is an academy of hope. (Ateljevic et al., 2007b: 3) Ironically this is at odds with the position of their invited keynotes at the 2009 Critical Tourism Studies conference. These leaders in critical theory, McLaren and Jaramillo, wrote the foreword to their second book, published in 2012. Here they say “a transformative pedagogy for a critical tourism studies must attempt to create an explicit connection with a philosophy of liberation that projects a path to a totally new society” (McLaren and Jaramillo, 2012: xxxiii). They claim:

we need to embrace … a dialectical and materialist epistemology of oppression that will enable us to see social structure in ourselves and ourselves in social structure. For the working class, critique is not only a debate between abstract theses, an ideological battle against false consciousness but part of a historical battle against oppression and exploitation – a battle against dominant economic, educational, legal and cultural systems. (McLaren and Jaramillo, 2012: xxxii) The emphasis found in McLaren and Jaramillo's foreword is underdeveloped in the works of critical tourism studies, including commitments to “critical consciousness,” “revolution,” “liberation,” “solidarity,” “resistance,” and “activism.” The major aim of this critique is to stress the need to re-align tourism researchers as serving communities and the advancement of human rights as well as special rights such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Instead of being subservient to narrow academic interests, and trying to make the perceived interests of communities harmonize with those interests, researchers should instead begin to determine how their skill sets serve the interests and needs of communities directly. Research skills should also be used to serve human and special rights codes. While it is true that researchers will retain their fundamental employment in the Academy (though perhaps this too will change for many), it is not the case that they must be beholden to maintaining the same incentives that typically exist for academics. Improving the connections between the Academy and communities, in fact, looks to fulfil a long intended purpose, though never actualized, of the university playing a salutary role for communities. But seeking this kind of goal cannot be achieved without a serious structural realignment among academies, researchers, communities, and rights codes. It is not a matter of “hope.” A crucial aspect in the critique of hope is that moving to a forward-looking conception of tourism research does not entail giving up critical frameworks such as those of the feminist, Marxist, Fanonian, or Indigenist nature, among others. In fact, the expansion of global capitalism, and the complexity of problems such as climate change, require that any researcher working in solidarity with a community avoid any naiveté about the structural oppressions faced by the community members.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections The research agendas reviewed have certainly changed and advanced the careers of many researchers. Because of researchers’ privileged positions in the world, this raises the issue of whether researchers benefit from the fact that somebody else is experiencing a problem in the world. Simply bringing out the problem, or some person's or community's response to that problem, can often be an exercise that seeks to reform academia more than it seeks to change the situations of the people being researched. In other fields, such as environmental justice, public health, and conservation biology, some researchers have played more supportive roles with the communities that they work with. Instead of extracting or describing the voices of community members, problematizing the role of researchers or improving academic pedagogy,

these researchers have used their skills, professional connections, and time to engage in work deemed to be needed by the communities themselves to help address the harms they are experiencing. In this sense, the researchers act in solidarity with communities in the latter's actual struggles. Researchers must deprioritize their own goals for acclaim within their own fields and champion the priorities of the communities they work with. This kind of academic work requires important treatments of what it means to transform the goals and priorities of tourism research, how to be humble and challenged, and subject to the critique of communities with which one works. Critical tourism studies has yet to take on this challenge. But it is perhaps the most important challenge not only given that tourism continues to wreak harms on communities, but because the tourism academy at large will be slow to change, given the influence of the tourism industry. Truly critical tourism studies will have to get its hands dirty in the ongoing struggle for agency, self-determination, and freedom from exploitation and oppression. Theoretical contemplations must be accompanied by critical praxis in solidarity with those suffering oppression. As McLaren and Jaramillo argue, we need “direct or participatory democracy to be developed with local communities and workplaces and in larger institutional formations of the state” and we should be moving “from practice to theory, and from theory back to practice” (McLaren and Jaramillo, 2012: xxxiv). We need work that challenges the neoliberalization of education which has significantly narrowed the ability of scholars to engage in critical methodologies and pedagogies. The current higher education system which most of us participate in is increasingly forcing us to deliver educational outcomes which make our students cogs in the wheel of production rather than critically reflective scholars contributing to the development of a more equitable, sustainable, and just society. Tribe asserted that “critical research is uniquely placed to contribute to better management and governance of tourism” because it foregrounds the roles of ideology and power relations (2008: 253). Critical tourism and hospitality studies have much to offer. We note that the Critical Tourism Studies conferences begun in Croatia in 2005 continue, with the 2013 conference held in Sarajevo having a more justice-focused agenda. We also note that critical tourism studies flourishes in regional locations, with Australasia developing a special interest group and another based in Hawai′i associated with the anthropology discipline. While there is much promise in these developments, we have found in our review of the state of critical perspectives in tourism that the critical tourism and hospitality tourism movement is in danger of being diverted with the agendas of the Academy of Hope. The turn to hope without the essence of criticality risks a turn to researcher self-indulgence and the academy remaining in its ivory tower. As the NGO record we have recounted reminds us, the real struggle is at the community interface with tourism and this is where critical tourism and hospitality studies should align itself.

References

Ateljevic, I., Pritchard, A., and Morgan, N. (eds) 2007a. The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Innovative Research Methodologies. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Ateljevic, I., Morgan, N., and Pritchard, A. (eds) 2007b. The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Creating an Academy of Hope. New York: Routledge. Ayikoru, M., Tribe, J., and Airey, D. 2009. Reading tourism education: neoliberalism unveiled. Annals of Tourism Research, 36: 191–221. Belhassan, Y. and Caton, K. 2011. On the need for critical pedagogy in tourism education. Tourism Management, 32: 1389–1396. Bianchi, R.V. 2009. The ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies: a radical critique. Tourism Geographies, 11: 484–504. Chambers, D. 2007. Interrogating the “critical” in critical approaches to tourism research. In The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Innovative Research Methodologies, I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, and N. Morgan (eds), pp. 105–119. Amsterdam: Elsevier. EQUATIONS. 2013. Of people and places: tourism and zones of conflict in India. In Peace Through Tourism: Promoting Human Security Through International Citizenship, L.-A. Blanchard and F. Higgins-Desbiolles (eds), pp. 116–134. London: Routledge. Figueroa, R.M. and Waitt, G. 2008. Cracks in the mirror: (un)covering the moral terrains of environmental justice at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. Ethics, Place and Environment, 11: 327–349. Hall, C.M. 2000. Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Harris, C. 2009. Self and community: the career experiences of a hotel executive housekeeper. Tourism Studies, 9: 144–164. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. 2006. More than an “industry”: the forgotten power of tourism as a social force. Tourism Management, 27: 1192–1208. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. 2012. The Hotel Bauen's challenge to cannibalizing capitalism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 220–240. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. and Powys Whyte, K. 2013. No high hopes for hopeful tourism: a critical comment. Annals of Tourism Research, 40: 428–433. Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Powys Whyte, K., and Tedmanson, D. 2013. Tourism and environmental justice. In Just Leisure: Things That We Believe In, K. Schwab and D.L. Dustin (eds), pp. 91–100. Urbana, IL: Sagamore. Hooks, B. 2003. Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. London: Routedge

Kincheloe, J.L. and McLaren, P. 2011. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Key Works in Critical Pedagogy, K. Hayes, S.R. Steinberg, and K. Tobin (eds), pp. 285–326. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Mair, H. 2012. The challenge of critical approaches to rural tourism studies and practice. In The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Creating an Academy of Hope, I. Ateljevic, N. Morgan, and A. Pritchard (eds), pp. 42–54. New York: Routledge. McIntosh, A.J. 2010. Situating the self in religious tourism research: an author's reflexive perspective. Tourism, 58: 213–227. McLaren, P. and Jaramillo, N.E. 2012. Foreword: dialectical thinking and critical pedagogy – towards a critical tourism studies. In The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Creating an Academy of Hope, I. Ateljevic, N. Morgan, and A. Pritchard (eds), pp. xvii–xxxix. New York: Routledge. Minerbi, L. 1999. Tourism and native Hawaiians. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 23: 28–30. http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/tourism-and-native-hawaiians232. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., and Ateljevic, I. 2012. Epilogue: hopeful tourism: an unfolding perspective. In The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Creating an Academy of Hope, I. Ateljevic, N. Morgan, and A. Pritchard (eds), pp. 219–223. New York: Routledge. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. 2003. Tourism and Sustainability: Development and New Tourism in the Third World, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., and Ateljevic, I. 2011. Hopeful tourism: a transformative approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 941–963. Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., and Ateljevic, I. 2012. Introduction. In The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Creating an Academy of Hope, I. Ateljevic, N. Morgan, and A. Pritchard (eds), pp. 1–10. New York: Routledge. Rajotte, F. and Crocombe, R. (eds) 1980. Pacific Tourism as Islanders See It. Suva: University of the South Pacific. Scheyvens, R. 2002. Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities. Harlow: PrenticeHall. Tribe, J. 2005. The truth about tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33: 360–381. Tribe, J. 2008. Tourism: a critical business. Journal of Travel Research, 46: 245–255. Wearing, S., McDonald, M., and Ponting, J. 2005. Building a de-commodified research paradigm in tourism: the contribution of NGOs. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13: 424–439.

Part 3 Producing Tourism and Tourism Spaces

Introduction Producing Tourism and Tourism Spaces Allan M. Williams The production of tourism services and experiences is a long-established area of research, probably reflecting the initial focus on tourism as a vehicle for economic growth (see Chapter 7 in this volume), contributing to significant research on both the economics and the management of tourism. Much of this research was positivist, and tourism multipliers constituted an important element of earlier research (Archer, 1982), not least because of their potential for producing eye-catching research headlines for policy-makers. This has expanded subsequently into increasingly refined analyses of economic systems (for example, Stabler et al., 2009) and the creation of a substantial community of researchers on tourism management, including marketing, human resources, and operations. Faced with the inevitable constraints of space, even in a volume as substantial as this, the editors have largely excluded the management literature, partly because it is well covered in other publications, and partly because of our desire to extend across the social sciences and engage with more critical literatures. This part presents seven such perspectives representing contrasting areas of research, not only on production but emphasizing the importance of the socially situated nature of production and the production of tourism spaces. One of the more vibrant areas of research on production has been entrepreneurship. There has been a significant growth of interest in entrepreneurship dating from the 1980s, concerned particularly with the specificities of tourism entrepreneurship. Much of this literature focused on what is now termed “lifestyle entrepreneurship,” especially in tourism businesses in attractive destinations, questioning their innovativeness and identifying significant resource constraints that limited growth (Williams et al., 1989). This was followed by studies in a number of countries, mostly in the more developed world, which became increasingly theoretically nuanced and suggested that there were conditions under which such firms could be highly innovative, particularly in niche markets. With hindsight, it is clear that there has been undue influence on lifestyle businesses in these types of areas, at the expense of vast swathes of entrepreneurship under very different regulatory and institutional conditions (see Chapter 4) in, for example, the less-developed economies, areas of mass tourism, and urban areas. Many of these themes are reflected in Shaw's contribution in this part (Chapter 9), including the need to deconstruct the notion of entrepreneurial cultures, the role of networks, and the meanings attached to specific types of entrepreneurship, such as lifestyle entrepreneurs. This is no longer “terra incognita” as Page et al. (1999) once claimed, but there are still significant gaps in our understanding of entrepreneurship. More is known about business start-ups than their subsequent expansion and especially their failures. There is also a need for more international comparative studies, which would contribute to our understanding of how institutional and cultural differences shape small firms and entrepreneurship. Informal economic relations are another neglected area of research that new theoretical insights can

inform (Webb et al., 2009), because many small tourism firms exist in, and perhaps only survive by being located in, the grey or informal economy. Family businesses are another feature of small firms, and especially of small, tourism firms, and there is a need to bring stronger theoretical approaches (Chrisman et al., 2003) to understanding how gender relationships, succession, and innovation are shaped by familial relationships. The classic production function identifies three types of inputs, namely labor, capital, and technology. Among these, capital is discussed elsewhere in this volume, notably in Dwyer's review of transnational capital (Chapter 15), while technology is considered by Williams (Chapter 13) later in this section. The third major input, labor, was in some respects relatively neglected until recently, being seen largely as the preserve of human resource researchers within the management perspective. However, a small community of researchers have paid sustained attention to the specificities of tourism employment, emphasizing especially the flexibility of tourism employment (Buultjens and Howard, 2001). They have also emphasized how tourism employment is shaped by the structural characteristics of the industry, job attributes, including flexibility and their supposed attractiveness over and beyond the levels of economic rewards, and the social psychology of the worker (Riley et al., 2002). Particular attention has been devoted to migrant workers, precisely because all three of the above factors facilitate their employment, subject to national regulatory constraints. This has given rise to a fruitful stream of research on the blurring of tourism and economic motives in the motivations of migrant workers in the tourism industry (Uriely, 2001), although relatively little attention has been given to how this informs production, let alone tourism spaces. Ladkin (Chapter 10) addresses the recent surge in research on migrant labor in tourism, reflecting both the increasing internationalization of the labor force and the particularities of the creation of an expanded single labor market in the European Union. First, she examines the broader nature of mobility in the sector, understood in both social and spatial terms. For economic sociologists, one of the key issues relating to jobs is whether they constitute stepping stones to occupational mobility or culs-de-sac with limited prospects for personal advancement (McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005). Tourism tends too have relatively weak opportunities for internal mobility within firms, but is relatively open to external labor markets, which is one reason why it employs so many migrant workers. In the second part of the chapter, she examines the nature of migrant employment, drawing on the human capital tradition with its focus on the returns to skills, and the tendency for migrant workers to be employed in relatively unskilled posts compared to their generic human capital. This is because of the time required to accumulate the necessary nationally specific human capital, including language capital (Chapter 27), to compete effectively in destination labor markets (Chiswick, 1978). Another important dimension of tourism employment is the potential for self-employment, and this is another avenue that is attractive to migrant workers who find it difficult to access the formal labor market. In this short overview, we have necessarily tended to generalize about tourism production, but it is important to acknowledge that there are considerable inter- and intrasectoral differences. Two fundamentally important sectors are accommodation and transport. Research on the former has largely been the preserve of hospitality researchers, mostly within the management

perspective (Cooper et al., 2008). Considerable attention has been devoted to the operations of different types of establishments, and especially to the interface between backstage and frontstage operations, supply chains, marketing, and human resources. In contrast, although there is a very substantial literature on transport, there is relatively little research specifically on tourism transport, even though this is centrally important to the production of tourism services (Duval, 2012). Yet the cultures and economics of the railway, the automobile, and air travel have profoundly shaped tourism (Lumsdon and Page, 2004) and tourism spaces, and vice versa. Page and Connell (Chapter 12) examine how researchers have embraced the tourism– transport–mobility nexus and underline the close connections between these, but also the difficulties of disentangling them. Research in this area has tended to be fragmented, with studies focusing on particular modes of transport, or on intra- rather than interdestination mobility. In part, this reflects the lack of integrated databases, so that researchers have had to generate primary data, resulting in a high degree of selectivity in data collection, reflecting resource constraints. More recently, however, tourism transport has moved more center stage given its growing importance in climate-change debates (Peeters and Dubois, 2010), with increasing interest in alternative and more sustainable forms of travel. In short, there is a real sense that this sector is emerging from the shadows into the foreground of research, which should be its rightful place: we need to understand both the nature of the production of tourismtransport services, and how this shape tourism spaces. Transport is an area where key changes have shaped the production of tourism, and this can be seen in relation to steam power, the internal combustion engine, and aviation, especially the jet engine (Hall and Williams, 2008). Although these represent some of the more radical changes that have shaped tourism, it is necessarily the case – as with any economic sector – that the story of change over time is the story of innovation. Tourism researchers have been relatively late in joining the growing ranks of researchers in this wider social science field, but there have been marked advances since Hjalager (2002) bemoaned the deficit in tourism innovation research. Tourism policy-making has similarly lagged behind other sectors, or generic territorial policies, in recognizing the importance of innovation, but there is growing interest in this arena as it becomes the latest buzzword to inform tourism policies. There is clearly a need for tourism researchers to run harder, in order to stay ahead of the policy-makers in this arena. Williams (Chapter 13), after providing an overview of the growing field, focuses on some of the reasons for the “hidden nature” of tourism innovation. In part it is due to the ideological dominance of manufacturing being the leading or sole sector of growth, in part it is about the definition of what constitutes innovation with tourism suffering from the relative neglect of the importance of incremental tourism, and in part it is due to poor secondary-data availability. There are also issues relating to how process and product innovations are difficult to disentangle in tourism. Nevertheless, there is increasing interest in many areas of tourism innovation, especially Internet applications, and there is increasing connectivity to other research fields, such as the role of migrants in tourism innovation (Paraskevopoulou et al., 2012). Williams advocates that researchers need to pay more attention to the people behind the organizations and especially to the role of tourists, employees, and entrepreneurs. The last of

these emphasizes the need to strengthen the obvious, but somewhat neglected, bridge between studies of innovation and entrepreneurship. While Williams' chapter focuses on the role of people in innovations, these are also shaped by structures and institutions, which lie at the heart of the literature on tourism development. One of the major threads in this has been the political economy approach (Chapter 4), a critique of positivist modeling and growth-oriented approaches, which were seen as unquestioning of the politically constructed nature of tourism-development processes, and their largely socially uneven outcomes. Development economics, a diverse set of theories, was the inspiration for those who sought to infuse political economic analyses into the study of tourism development, and de Kadt (1979) was especially influential in this respect, challenging the growth assumptions implicit in the notion that tourism constituted a passport to development. The thrust of the argument was that we needed to ask whether growth and development were the same, and who benefitted from the impacts of tourism growth or development. But, as Telfer (2002) argues, it is also a question of which theories we bring to the table, and he differentiated modernization, dependency, neoliberalism, and alternative tourism in terms of, among other things, linkages to the local community. Harrison's contribution in this part (Chapter 11), begins by locating tourism development studies in relation to the broader field of development studies. He notes an intriguing “Sussex” connection in this, for de Kadt, referenced above, was a colleague of Dudley Seers (1977) at the renowned Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, and shared many of the critical and welfare concerns of that community of scholars. He was, unsurprisingly, party to the ideological debates over the nature of tourism development that still resonated in Sharpley and Telfers's (2002) benchmark review, published more than two decades later. However, Harrison also demonstrates the changing scene in development studies. The earlier intense ideological debates have declined and there has been a coming together of disparate perspectives under the broad umbrella of globalization theory. He also emphasizes that development studies should not be seen as a format for studying the “different” economies and economic experiences of developing countries. Instead, there is a need for a more integrated approach, a globalization perspective on the political economy of tourism. In a way this brings studies of tourism development back to the starting points of political economy, which were essentially about economic interrelationships. One small but important part of these interrelationships, and of the field of tourism development studies, is souvenirs. The political economy of tourism is centrally about the processes of commodification of the tourism experience, and souvenirs epitomize, and are almost iconic of, many aspects of this (Hitchcock and Teague, 2000). Souvenirs come in many forms, but are usually understood to have materiality and to have been subject to increasing commodification (previously free goods become marketized) or to an intensification of commodification, as when artisanal production becomes captured by larger capital, transforming the nature and even the location of their production; for example, miniature London red buses made in China. But understanding souvenirs also demands that we understand their cultural meanings and how these meanings are transformed and change during their mobility back to the home country of the tourist, and thereafter (Swanson and Timothy,

2012). The “thereafter” is important as the meanings of souvenirs are negotiated and renegotiated over time: at the extremes, they may become “enshrined” and occupy highly valued places in homes and memories, or they may be recycled, a process that itself is highly commodified. Swanson, in this volume (Chapter 14), reviews souvenirs in the context of the commodification of material culture. Their importance can be understood in terms of sacredness theory and authenticity, and in practice more attention has been given to their cultural meaning than to what could be called the economics, or political economy, of souvenir production. There is, however, an emerging literature which is investigating supply chains, and especially the role of Internet sales of souvenirs (Lacher and Nepal, 2011), which have made it possible to collect souvenirs from places that you have only ever dreamed of visiting, rather than have actually visited these sites. At the same time, significant gaps remain in our understanding of the role of different forms of labor and capital in souvenir production. Souvenir production clearly lies at the nexus of the economic and cultural, and it is therefore symbolic of one of the more significant changes which have occurred in recent years in the form of what has become known as the cultural turn in the economic geography of tourism (Debbage and Ioannides, 2004). This resonates with Mosedale's (Chapter 4) commentary on the potential for the political economy of tourism to embrace ideas of cultural political economy. It is, however, a more wide-ranging call to look at how culture influences production and consumption, and the way that these are interrelated. All products and processes have particular meaning, but the cultural turn has particular appeal for theoretical development in tourism, given the considerable attention that has been directed at the cultural meanings of tourism practices (Chapter 5). Ioannides and Debbage (Chapter 8) take up the theme of the cultural turn in economic geography, seeing it as one expression of the new economic geographies of tourism. Among the other theoretical tendencies they recognize are the institutional, relational, and evolutionary turn, all of which have left some imprint on tourism studies. While hailing the contributions of these different perspectives, they also question the practical contributions of such research and argue that the empirically rigorous, spatial analyses, characteristic of transport studies in recent years, indicate some of the contributions that tourism research can make to a deeper and more robust analysis of tourism. Spatial analyses bring us back to positivism, almost full circle from where we started, but leaves open the question of “practical importance to whom.” The last point raises one of the most difficult of all questions. Can radical questions about the nature and outcomes of power in societies, and about distributional issues (including the welfare outcomes of tourism for different social groups), only be asked from particular perspectives; or is it a matter of assembling the most convincing arguments, which includes rigorous quantitative and qualitative analyses, in support of your advocacy, whether they be managerialist or socially critical? Whatever the answer to that question, it is clear that our understanding of tourism production remains as uneven as its spatial and social outcomes.

References

Archer, B.H. 1982. The value of multipliers and their policy implications. Tourism Management, 3: 236–241. Buultjens, J. and Howard, D. 2001. Labour flexibility in the hospitality industry: questioning the relevance of deregulation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13: 60–70. Chiswick, B.R. 1978. The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign-born men. The Journal of Political Economy, 86: 897–892. Chrisman, J.J. Chua, J.H., and Steier, L.P. 2003. An introduction to theories of family business. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 441–448. Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., and Wanhill, S. 2008. Tourism Principles and Practices, 4th edn. Harlow: Prentice Hall. de Kadt, E. 1979. The issues addressed. In Tourism: Passport to Development?, E. de Kadt (ed.), pp. 3–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Debbage, K.G. and Ioannides, D. 2004. The cultural turn? Toward a more critical economic geography of tourism. In A Companion to Tourism, edited by A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams, pp. 99–109. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Duval, D.T. 2012. Critical issues in air transport and tourism. Tourism Geographies, 15: 494– 510. Hall, C.M. and Williams, A.M. 2008. Tourism Innovation. London: Routledge. Hitchcock, M. and Teague, K. (eds) 2000. Souvenirs: the Material Culture of Tourism. London: Ashgate. Hjalager, A.-M. 2002. Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management, 23: 465–474. Lacher, R.G. and Nepal, S.K. 2011. The economic impact of souvenir sales in peripheral areas: a case study from Northern Thailand. Tourism Recreation Research, 36(1): 27–37. Lumsdon, L. and Page, S.J. (eds) 2004. Tourism and Transport: Issues and Agenda for the New Millennium. Oxford: Elsevier. McQuaid, R.W. and Lindsay, C. 2005. The concept of employability. Urban Studies 42: 197– 219. Page, S.J., Forer, P., and Lawton, G.R. 1999. Small business development and tourism: terra incognita? Tourism Management, 20(4): 435–449. Paraskevopoulou, A., Markova, E., Williams, Allan M., and Shaw, G. 2012. Migration and innovation at the bottom end: understanding the role of migrant managers in small hotels in the

global city. Mobilities, 7: 389–414. Peeters, P. and Dubois, G. 2010. Tourism travel under climate change mitigation constraints. Journal of Transport Geography, 18: 447–457. Riley, M., Ladkin, A. and Szivas, E. 2002. Tourism Employment: Analysis and Planning. Clevedon: Channel View Publications Seers, D. 1977. The new meaning of development. International Development Review 19: 2– 7. Sharpley, R. and Telfer, D. (eds). 2002. Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues. Clevedon: Channel View. Stabler, M.J., Papatheodorou, A., and Sinclair, M.T. 2009. The Economics of Tourism. Abingdon: Routledge. Swanson, K.K., and Timothy, D.J. 2012. Souvenirs: icons of meaning, commercialization and commoditization. Tourism Management, 33: 489–499. Telfer, D. 2002. The evolution of tourism and development theory. In Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues, R. Sharpley and D. Telfer (eds), pp. 35–50. Clevedon: Channel View. Uriely, N. 2001. ‘Travelling workers’ and ‘working tourists’: variations across the interaction between work and tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 3: 1–8. Webb, J., W., Tihanyi, L., and Ireland, R.D. 2009. You say illegal, I say legitimate: entrepreneurship in the informal economy. Academy of Management Review 34: 492–510. Williams, A.M., Shaw, G. and Greenwood, J. 1989. From tourist to tourism entrepreneur, from consumption to production: evidence from Cornwall, England. Environment and Planning 21: 1639–1653.

Chapter 8 Economic Geographies of Tourism Revisited From Theory to Practice Dimitri Ioannides and Keith G. Debbage Back in the mid-1990s, when we first embarked on the project that eventually resulted in the edited collection The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry (Ioannides and Debbage, 1998), we were driven by our frustration that, at the time: (i) mainstream economic geography largely ignored the travel and tourism sector while (ii) the vast majority of tourism researchers were largely oblivious to theoretical discussions in economic geography. To a major extent our call reflected our respective roots in the study of geography, which had centered not on tourism but rather economic and urban geography. We argued that we could not quite comprehend this oversight given that some observers had already highlighted the explicitly capitalistic nature of tourism and the need to adopt a political economy approach in geographic examinations of the sector (Britton, 1991; Shaw and Williams, 1994; Ioannides, 1995). In retrospect we realize that much of our inspiration for this early work stemmed from a burning desire to legitimize ourselves and our chosen subject of study in the eyes of our fellow “mainstream” geographers. In other words, one could say that, at least to begin with, we were defensive, displaying the traits of insecurity and inferiority that Butler (2012) claims to be par for the course when it comes to tourism research. Now, almost two decades later, we can sit back and reflect on what has transpired since those early days. The good news is the phenomenal explosion of literature relating tourism to the overall discipline of geography since the late 1990s. This growth in output reflects geography's broader contribution to the study of various facets of tourism, which reveal “more than one paradigmatic approach towards the geography of tourism” (Hall and Page, 2009: 3); as Hall and Page put it, we can no longer talk about a single tourism geography but, rather, we have the appearance of tourism geographies (see also Gibson, 2008, 2009). The economic geography of tourism features as one of these approaches and, in fact, has become a growing area of preoccupation for many scholars especially since the emergence of the “cultural turn” in economic geography (Thrift and Olds, 1996; Crang, 1997; Barnes, 2001; Debbage and Ioannides, 2004, 2012). To be sure, the intellectual capital relating to the intersection of tourism and economic geography has grown in leaps and bounds in a matter of a decade. Theoretically stimulating discussions and debates have emerged, overall demonstrating that the area of tourism studies is beginning to throw off the shackles of inferiority associated with being a new subject (Butler, 2012). On the one hand, we now have a growing number of scholars fitting the mold of “tourism geography” but who certainly display an economic geography bent in their approach (Mosedale, 2006; Shaw and Williams, 2009; Hjalager, 2010; Brouder and Eriksson, 2012). On the other hand, a small but growing number of academics representing the various subdisciplines of human geography, including economic and urban geography as well as other related fields like urban studies and planning, offer important insights regarding tourism's

supply side (Fainstein and Gladstone, 1999; Hoffman et al., 2003; Gotham, 2005; Fainstein and Powers, 2007; Gladstone and Preau, 2008; Terry, 2009). Nevertheless, it appears that one problem we have identified in the past (Ioannides and Debbage, 1998) – namely the isolationist stance plaguing much of tourism research in geography (see also Butler, 2012) – persists. To a large extent, most members of the so-called tourism geography group write in journals closely associated to tourism studies, including the Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, or Current Issues in Tourism, while not surprisingly the one geography journal entirely dedicated to tourism, Tourism Geographies, has gained enormously in popularity as an outlet for these scholars' work. Surprisingly, even one of the most important contributions concerning the state of the art in tourism geographies in recent years (Hall and Page, 2009) appeared in Tourism Management. Additionally, much of this work becomes “lost” in countless edited books, which in their own right may well be of high quality, but nevertheless address a limited audience. By contrast, with only a handful of exceptions (e.g. Tufts, 2004; Gibson, 2009), the very same authors for the most part avoid publishing in journals such as Economic Geography, Geoforum, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Progress in Human Geography, Antipode, Professional Geographer, or the Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Meantime, the small but growing number of human geographers (especially economic and urban geographers) who examine aspects relating to the tourism industry write for journals like the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (e.g. Gotham, 2005) or Economic Geography (e.g. Terry, 2009), although their work does not yet seem to have been embraced by most tourism researchers. That this remains a problem is very much the fault of many tourism geographers – including ourselves – who consistently preach to the choir rather than attempt to spread the fruits of their research to a broader audience of geographers. In other words, we tourism geographers are to blame for our academic isolation and this issue cannot be resolved until we take the plunge and begin submitting our work – at least our writings that specifically tie to tourism geography in its various guises – to so-called mainstream publications in geography. Yet another issue extends beyond this problem. In an intriguing geography-related article, which ironically also appeared in a nongeographic journal (Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing), Coles et al. (2008) point out that for years some of us have lamented our ongoing failure to embrace economic geographic perspectives when theorizing about tourism and have sought to relay to the rest of our scientific community why the time is right to do so. What we have not done is consider how the crossbreeding of tourism and economic geography should actually play out. As Coles et al. point out there remain several practical “limits to the degree to which we are able to develop new interpretations and understandings in studies of tourism inspired by and rooted in new economic geography” (2008: 322). Chastened on this last point we wholeheartedly agree that after all this time we need to move on from mere theoretical discourse to a more action-oriented agenda. Space constraints restrict us from shifting far in this direction but in what follows we try to weave a more empirical bent to our area of focus on the economic geography of tourism by considering the literal explosion

of research relating to the spatial dimensions of the tourism–air transportation interconnection. Before we do this, however, and given this volume's primary objective, we summarize for our readership some of the major issues that have emerged in recent years regarding the new economic geography of tourism.

A Retrospective on the Economic Geography of Tourism In his contribution to the volume The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, Bianchi (2012) reiterates his earlier argument (Bianchi, 2009) that the widespread embrace of the socalled “critical turn” in tourism studies, which ties to the “cultural turn” in economic geography, is problematic since it evades the political economy approach so vigorously argued for in the 1990s by observers like Britton (1991). Maintaining that “tourism geography has its own geography of production and circulation” Gibson (2008: 418) also emphasizes the point that highlighting social and cultural matters in the study of tourism ends up diluting those issues that have to do with “political economy, industrial structure or relations of production” (Gibson, 2009: 528). The appearance of such critiques is a sign that all is well when it comes to the discourse relating to the economic geography of tourism. For over a decade now we have witnessed intriguing pieces and stimulating debates on themes relating not only to the cultural turn in economic geography (e.g. Ateljevic, 2000; Aitchison, 2001; Milne and Ateljevic, 2001; Ateljevic et al., 2007) but also writings touching upon the broader mobilities paradigm to tourism (Hall and Page, 2009). For instance, recognizing tourism's association with flows of capital, goods, and commodities authors like Mosedale (2006, 2008) and Judd (2006) utilize the concept of commodity chains to describe the structure and organization of the tourism sector and to show how inputs and outputs are interrelated. Meanwhile, d' Hauteserre (2006) questions the commodity chain concept, drawing inspiration from the “relational turn” (Yeung, 2005: 37) in economic geography. Relational geography stresses “the complex nexus of relations among actors and structures that effect dynamic changes in the spatial organization of economic activities” (Yeung, 2005: 37). It incorporates inter alia actor-network theory (ANT) as a means of grasping the workings of industrial districts, clusters, and learning regions. ANT, according to d' Hauteserre, offers an improved way for conceptualizing the tourism-production system compared to commodity chains because it bypasses the latter's excessively productionist bias by seeking to explain how “production and consumption are mediated in creating tourism experiences” (Debbage and Ioannides, 2012: 152). Although a relational economic geography of tourism may be weak in terms of explanatory power, it could be a useful approach for disentangling how tourism is shaped by both consumption and production processes. This links to the argument of Ateljevic and Doorne (2004: 298) that to best comprehend tourism we have to visualize “producers as ‘consumers’ and consumers as ‘producers’.” While debates between advocates of a tourism-production system/political economy outlook

as opposed to those inspired by the cultural and relational turns in geography have become dominant, it is increasingly apparent that yet another, more recent, “turn” in economic geography has influenced certain tourism scholars. We are referring to the “evolutionary turn,” a fresh approach for tackling regional development issues, which have always been a dominant theme in economic geography. Evolutionary economic geography (EEG) applies core concepts and methodologies from evolutionary economics in the context of economic geography. It provides alternative explanations for the main explananda including agglomeration and regional growth differences. The starting point is to open the black box of organizations and to view organizations as competing on the basis of routines that are built up over time. … Routines can be understood as organizational skills, which cannot be reduced to the sum of individual skills. (Boschma and Frenken, 2006: 277) In contrast to neoclassical location theory, which emphasizes the development of spatial agglomerations through rational decisions, EEG maintains that these agglomerations occur due to the “historically grown spatial concentration of knowledge residing in organizational routines. In this respect, there are several evolutionary mechanisms that may produce the spatial concentration of firms” (Boschma and Frenken, 2006: 279). In other words, EEG postulates that firm survival or failure through time relates to the amount of knowledge entrepreneurs accumulate over time. Individuals starting up a company, having gained previous experience in a similar line of work, are likelier to see their firm's survival. This occurs since “the routines of the old firm are successfully transferred to the new firm which increases the staying power of the entrant” (Brouder and Eriksson, 2012: 4). Of course, “evolutionary terminology in economic geography is far from new” given that “evolution was central to humanistic and behavioral understandings of the ‘geography of enterprise’ in the 1960s…and Vernon's product life cycle was widely utilized during the 1970s and 1980s” while “the hugely influential Marxist theorizations of the 1980s were centrally concerned with the long-term development of the capitalist space economy” (Coe, 2010: 82). Nevertheless, over the last two decades the explosion of work relating to concepts like “path dependence,” previous experience, and the geographic origins of entrepreneurs signifies, according to Coe, that it is time to blend economic geography and evolutionary economics to better comprehend the space economy. Evolutionary thinking has caught the attention of some tourism geographers who are specifically concerned with tourism's role in regional development. During the 2013 annual conference of the Association of American Geographers in Los Angeles three sessions specifically relating to the theme of tourism geography and evolutionary research were organized reflecting this new interest. These included presentations on topics such as path dependency and its effect on resort transformation as well as microfirm survival. Although tourism entrepreneurship itself has long been of interest to geographers (Shaw and Williams, 1998; Page et al., 1999; Ioannides and Petersen, 2003; Getz and Nilsson, 2004; Ateljevic and Page, 2009) it is only in the last 2 years that EEG has appeared as a point of departure in studying the success or failure of tourism businesses in economically peripheral

regions. We refer specifically to Brouder and Eriksson (2012) whose empirical study in northern Sweden tested their hypotheses that: (i) entrants in the tourism sector with prior knowledge gained in similar sectors – so-called “spin-off entrepreneurs” – “have a higher chance of staying in business than other types of entrants without related competences and skills” (Brouder and Eriksson, 2012: 2) and (ii) that the entrepreneurs who are from the area and have both local “know-how and know-who” are far likelier to succeed than those who immigrate from elsewhere “because of access to network externalities and because the interregional variety of routines, competences and norms tends to be greater than the intraregional variation” (2012: 2). Arguing that their approach directly responds to calls for superior links between scholarship in tourism and economic literature (Ioannides, 2006), Brouder and Eriksson demonstrate that their hypotheses are confirmed, while also proving that surviving tourism firms contribute positively to employment through time. They maintain this finding has vital policy implications, especially in peripheral regions with limited economic growth options other than tourism. The intersection between economic geography and tourism research remains a fertile area of study while the latest “turn” in the field, namely EEG, appears to be a useful avenue for further study whereby we can learn more about tourism's contribution to regional development. This work offers the possibility of reigniting our previous calls (Debbage and Ioannides, 2012) for broadening the study of the economic geography of tourism by linking to existing work on innovation, knowledge spillovers, and learning regions. Already, Hjalager (2002, 2010) has maintained, among others, that innovation in the tourism sector stems from knowledge transferred through a variety of avenues including technology and regulation while Sorensen (2007) has investigated how social networks (both local as well as nonlocal) influence innovation. Meanwhile, Shaw and Williams (2009) have highlighted the necessity to further investigate innovation and knowledge transfer in tourism in order to comprehend the competitiveness of firms and destinations. Whether such contributions would benefit by adopting the EEG approach remains to be seen. Regardless of where the study of the economic geography of tourism takes us over the next few years we take note of Coles et al. (2008) who point out serious limitations when applying theoretical concepts directly borrowed from economic geography to the study of tourism. To demonstrate this they examined tourism innovation on Cyprus, research which yielded the unexpected finding that academics' understanding vis-à-vis that of practitioners when it comes to tourism innovation is far from identical. This finding alerted Coles et al. that one of the problems with the predominantly qualitative studies, which appear to be the major avenue through which researchers seek to disentangle highly fuzzy concepts in the economic geography of tourism, may be problematic. They state: “However alluring agenda-setting prescriptions may be, the time has come to move from ‘the why’ to more careful consideration of the ‘how’.” The aforementioned work of Brouder and Eriksson (2012), where within the realm of EEG they carried out a quantitative study of tourism entrepreneurs, provides a useful point of departure but it is clear that far more must be done from an empirical point of view to further our understanding of the economic geography of tourism. In the following section we have chosen to demonstrate one very practical aspect relating to

the economic geography of tourism. We are referring to the manner in which airline networks and flows influence resort development and the broader economic geography of tourism. In choosing to do this we are inspired partly by Hall and Page (2009) who maintain that the connection of tourism to transportation studies is not an area that has been explored in any depth. We begin first by situating our discussion within Castells's (2000) conceptualization of changing flows of capital, information, and symbols.

Flows of Capital Castells (2000) visualizes contemporary society based entirely on flows of factors like capital, technologies, information, images, and symbols. This space of flows is made up of three layers, the most important of which, for the purposes of our discussion, is based on a system of nodes and hubs. Within such a network, which Castells perceives as an electronic web, some places function as hubs, which coordinate everything that goes into the network, whereas other places are linked-in nodes. Although Castells's argument is based entirely on what he terms “advanced services” such as finance, insurance, real estate, marketing, advertising, research and development, and so on, his discussion also has relevance in terms of tourist flows. Indeed, despite many arguments regarding the so-called spatial fixity associated with tourism (Urry, 1990; Gotham, 2005), meaning that various visitor-related commodities can only be consumed at the site of production, it is obvious that individual destinations are dependent on flows linking them to markets and control centers. To begin with, whether a certain destination emerges as a popular venue for tourism or not depends not only on what natural or cultural amenities are on offer but its ability to attract capital in the form of investment and also visitors themselves. We have argued elsewhere (Ioannides and Debbage, 1998) that major tourism companies such as mass tour operators often demonstrate limited loyalty to individual places, preferring to concentrate on reproducible product types in numerous places, for reasons of risk minimization. Similarly, the manner in which transnational hotel chains operate in various destinations reflects that they have the power to quickly shut shop if they feel they are not getting a healthy enough return on their investment while choosing new settings, which may be more popular. Where property developers, tour operators, transnational hotel chains, and airline companies choose to do business and where tourists choose to spend their holidays have clear implications for the flows of tourism-related capital. Importantly, such flows have significant consequences in terms of the fate of individual places, rendering some of these more vulnerable than others. Further, we have to factor in that while some places rise in popularity others, because of a combination of both internal and external factors (including the choices of the determinants of the aforementioned flows), wane over time. Importantly, if we also account for the issue of seasonality that affects certain destinations more than others we may end up with highly irregular flows of capital. The rest of this chapter examines capital flows based on airline networks and discusses the implications these have on individual destination developments.

A Case Study: The Economic Geography of Air Transportation and Tourism One key area of research where significant progress has occurred in recent years is at the intersection of the economic geography of air transportation and tourism. This is a highly illustrative example of Castells's flow of capital since both sectors (but especially the airline industry) can fundamentally restructure the relational position of many places (both small and large) through a complex global commercial and social network (Gibson, 2008). According to the US Department of Transportation (2011: 42), “the total output of civil aviation-related goods and services amounted to $1.3 trillion in 2009 and generated more than 10 million jobs, with earnings of almost $394.4 billion.” The crucial role that air transportation plays in shaping the tourist product has been widely acknowledged in the literature (Britton, 1991; Debbage, 2002, 2014; Forsyth, 2006; Debbage and Alkaabi, 2008; Graham et al., 2008; Debbage and Gallaway, 2009; Lohmann et al., 2009; Duval, 2012; Duval and Koo, 2012). Transport is widely viewed as the key element that matches tourist demand (origin) with tourist supply (destination areas). A pivotal moment in the evolution of this sort of research may well have been the 2005 Hamburg Aviation Conference, which largely examined how spatial variation in tourist traffic levels can shape new strategies for destinations, airlines, and airports. More importantly, several of the papers presented at the conference were then featured in a 2006 special issue of the Journal of Air Transport Management, one of the leading journals in the world focused on the air transport industry. The Hamburg Conference opened with the Martin Kunz Memorial Lecture by Forsyth (2006), who suggested that tourism benefits (e.g. visitor expenditure), when accurately measured through computable general equilibrium models, can sometimes be key considerations in aviation policy decisions. In several case studies, Forsyth (2006) stressed the key role that aviation liberalization can play in determining the price and availability of air travel which, in turn, directly influences the spatial distribution of tourist flows and the total level of tourist demand. He argued that liberalization has been a major contributing factor in the rapid expansion of international tourism since it has driven down the real cost of air fares, expanded the availability of seats and routes flown, and provided new opportunities for lower-cost airlines to enter the marketplace. In the same 2006 special issue, Bieger and Wittmer (2006) advocated that a systems model approach be utilized to fully analyze the interrelationships that exist between global air transportation networks and tourism. They argued (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006: 43) “the timing and frequency of flights, together with the nature of the airlines offering services, can effect the quality of the tourists arriving.” They suggested it becomes possible to see how different airline business models generate visitor streams in different ways, where diverse attractionbased destinations relying on a mix of business and leisure traffic tend to rely on full-service network carriers, while resort-based destinations with a heavy mix of leisure travelers may be more dependent on low-cost carriers and charter airlines.

Before the publication of this special issue in the Journal of Air Transport Management, the transportation literature rarely addressed the movement of tourists or leisure travel explicitly. Of course, most tourism-focused books and articles also tended to understudy air transportation, considering it as just one of several component parts of the international tourist industry. Although it is hard to determine cause and effect, it is certainly the case that since the publication of the 2006 special issue research focused on the symbiotic and reciprocal relationships between tourism and air transportation has increased dramatically in geography, transportation, and tourism journals. An exhaustive list of all the contemporary research focused on tourism–air transport synergies is beyond the scope of this chapter but the work of Lohmann et al. (2009) stands out as an illustrative example of some broader trends. They examined how the growth of air transport networks and deregulation has allowed Singapore and Dubai to become major international tourism destinations. Lohmann et al. (2009) argued that to be successful places need more than just location or an attractive range of amenities. They also need a well-designed and implemented air transportation policy to develop tourism. Wu et al. (2012) examined the impact of charter services on international tourism in Japan with a specific focus on Japan–China tourist flows. They suggested that chartered airlines have contributed to the geographic spread of tourism destinations in China since they reach locations previously not well served by the scheduled airlines. By contrast, Warnock-Smith and Morrell (2008) analyzed the differential geography of air transport liberalization in US–Caribbean markets and its impact on tourism-dependent economies. Based on a regression analysis, they found that a positive statistical relationship existed between air policy reform and traffic/capacity growth with a flexible policy towards new carrier entry leading to greater output and competition levels. Other recent research has focused on the impact of the European Union/US Open Skies Agreement and how it has influenced the geography of origin-destination tourist flows across the North Atlantic (Button, 2009; Humphreys and Morrell, 2009), while Pentelow and Scott (2011) examined how aviation's inclusion in international climate policy regimes might impact the Caribbean tourism industry. All of the aforementioned articles have appeared in the Journal of Air Transport Management since the 2006 special issue, highlighting a broader trend where many transportation journals are increasingly open to publishing research focused on the tourism–airline interface. Both the tourism and geography journals have not been immune to these new trends, and Tourism Management, the Journal of Transport Geography, and Tourism Geographies have all recently published articles focused on the aviation–tourism linkage. Castillo-Manzano et al. (2011) examined the impact low-cost carriers have on niche tourism markets at five Spanish regional airports in a recent issue of Tourism Management. Based on interviews with nearly 500 tourist establishment managers and a discrete-choice model analysis they concluded that most tourist establishments considered low-cost carriers to be perfect substitutes for network carriers although travel agent managers questioned this, particularly with regard to promoting conference tourism. More recently, Graham (2013) examined the relationship between lowcost carriers and their choice of airport, concluding that the choice is very much determined by each carrier's business model although over time a wide variety of models have evolved that

complicates any generalized finding. The Journal of Transport Geography has also published several articles focused on air transportation and tourism. For instance, Warnock-Smith and O'Connell (2011) examined the impact of air policy on incoming tourist traffic in the Caribbean and Middle East. Based on a structural equation model, they concluded that “it was still possible to hypothesize, based on the empirical results, that movements towards deregulation and liberalization of the aviation sector does not always represent the only or most appropriate strategy for facilitating further catalytic spending in local economies” (Warnock-Smith and O'Connell, 2011: 273). They point out that in the Middle East region record tourism growth has been accompanied by liberal air service agreements where local carriers are protected vertically through a comprehensive multisector cooperation policy. In addition, Davison and Ryley (2010) analyzed the tourism destination preferences of low-cost airline users in the East Midlands region of the UK. Based on an air travel household survey and chi-square analysis, they concluded that significant demand existed for cultural tourism-based opportunities and that the demand for an annual holiday appeared relatively inelastic despite the price-sensitive nature of the low-cost airline market. Tourism Geographies has also recently published research on the linkage between air transportation and tourism including Liasidou (2013), who conducted a two-step cluster analysis to determine how airline strategy influenced British tourist decision-making processes when visiting Cyprus. She found that tourists as consumers are very familiar with contemporary airline strategies and utilize this knowledge in preparing their holiday itineraries. Perhaps one of the most useful contributions is provided by Duval (2012) who essentially outlined the critical issues emerging in air transport and tourism based on a stateof-the-art literature review. He argued that three key issues have emerged: better understanding of the evolving economic regulation of international commercial air transport; analyzing the interconnections between destinations, connectivity, and airline business models; and studying aviation-related emissions and climate policies. Duval (2012: 2) argued that these issues will profoundly influence air transportation and “have immense relevance to the structure and intensity of global tourist flows.” Beyond the academic journals, there are very few specialist texts focused on aviation and tourism but a major exception to the rule is Aviation and Tourism: Implications for Leisure Travel, edited by Graham et al. (2008). A key underlying theme in the book is elaborating on the complex two-way, reciprocal nature of the airline–tourism relationship and the importance of recognizing this key dynamic during any decision-making process. Graham et al. (2008) also concur with Duval (2012) that emerging airline business models, innovation, and climate change have the potential to substantively impact the geography of tourism in the future but they also note that any future research should also consider how the emerging giants of India and China will reconfigure global tourist markets. Overall, the emerging field of tourism/air transportation studies seems to be alive and well, which may partly reflect the increasingly substantive ways in which both industries have continued to influence the economic geography of origin–destination tourist flows in recent

years. Referring back to Coles et al.'s (2008) plea to return to the practicalities of applying concepts of economic geography to the study of tourism, we are struck by the absence of the “critical turn” literature in much of the recent research focused on the economic geography of the air transport–tourism interface. Instead, the air transport/tourism research largely sticks to conventional positivistic spatial science in examining how airline policy shapes the economic geography of tourism, based on a very rigorous and accountable methodological foundation, unlike the fuzzy concepts that continue to envelop much of the more critical geography of tourism. The existing disconnect between these two forms of discourse needs to be remedied. Indeed, Goetz et al. (2009) has recently suggested that transport geography represents a fertile subfield in which a more critical geography can be integrated with more conventional spatial analysis. Duval and Koo (2012: 213) have piggybacked this plea by suggesting that “a mix of different approaches (a hybridized approach) will help generate diverse perspectives on the interplay between the politics of international air access and tourist mobilities.” We encourage this sort of thinking as the economic geography of tourism literature continues to grapple with issues of both theory and practice, and a proliferation of methodological proclivities.

Discussion and Conclusion As we mentioned earlier, Hall and Page (2009) coined the phrase geographies of tourism to reflect the pluralistic nature of contemporary research focused on better understanding tourism's spatial attributes. Given the plurality of approaches, we believe an economic geographies of tourism has emerged in recent years largely inspired by the quantity and quality of work focused on the various so-called “turns” in economic geography and related disciplines (Debbage and Ioannides, 2012). Some of this work includes research focused on cultural commodification and the experience economy, mobilities, commodity chains, ANT and the relational turn, tourism industry clusters and learning regions, entrepreneurship and innovation, and, most recently, evolutionary economic geographies of tourism. That said, we are reminded by Coles et al. (2008) that the new economic geographies of tourism needs to move beyond mere advocacy to a more pragmatic and practical adoption of best practice to better understand the spatial dynamics of tourist behavior and the tourism industry. They suggest that while the new economic geographies of tourism “may hold considerable promise for advancing our understanding of tourism production and distribution, some theory and concept may not adequately reflect what happens on the ground” (Coles et al., 2008: 320). To that end, we have suggested that the recent research focused on better understanding how the economic geography of air transportation shapes and influences the geography of origin–destination tourist flows offers some hope in this direction. Much of it appears grounded in empirically rigorous, spatial analysis although curiously little of this literature makes reference to the cultural and critical turn or, indeed, any of the other turns that are so influential in other arenas. Although this tension between theoretical and managementrelated research is likely to continue, it is also clear that the broader economic geographies of tourism literature is increasingly vibrant and likely to contribute significantly to the broader

development of spatiality in tourism research.

References Aitchison, C. 2001. Theorizing other discourses of tourism, gender and culture: can the subaltern speak (in tourism)? Tourist Studies, 1(2): 133–147. Ateljevic, I. 2000. Circuits of tourism: Stepping beyond the ‘production/consumption’ dichotomy. Tourism Geographies, 2(4): 369–388. Ateljevic, I. and Doorne, S. 2004. Cultural circuits of tourism: commodities, place and reconsumption. In A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 291–302. Oxford: Blackwell. Ateljevic, I., Morgan, N., and Pritchard, A. (eds) 2007. The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Innovative Research Methodologies. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Ateljevic, I. and Page, S.J. (eds) 2009. Tourism and Entrepreneurship: International Perspectives. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Barnes, T.J. 2001. Retheorizing economic geography: from the quantitative revolution to the ‘cultural turn.’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(3): 546–565. Bianchi, R.V. 2009. The ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies: a radical critique. Tourism Geographies, 11: 484–504. Bianchi, R.V. 2012. A radical departure: a critique of the critical turn in tourism studies. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 46–54. London: Routledge. Bieger, T. and Wittmer, A. 2006. Air transport and tourism: perspectives and challenges for destinations, airlines and governments. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12: 40–46. Boschma, R.A. and Frenken, K. 2006. Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 6: 273–302. Britton, S.G. 1991. Tourism, capital, and place: towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9(3): 451–478. Brouder, P. and Eriksson, R.H. 2012. Staying power: what influences micro-firm survival in tourism? Tourism Geographies, 15(1): 125–144. Butler, R.W. 2012. Tourism geographies or geographies of tourism: where the bloody hell are we? In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 26–34. London: Routledge.

Button, K. 2009. The impact of US-EU “Open Skies” agreement on airline market structures and airline networks. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15: 59–71. Castells, M. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Castillo-Manzano, J.I., Lopez-Valpuesta, L.L., and Gonzalez-Laxe, F. 2011. The effects of the LCC boom on the urban tourism fabric: the viewpoint of tourism managers. Tourism Management, 32: 1085–1095. Coe, N.M. 2010. Geographies of production I: an evolutionary revolution? Progress in Human Geography, 35(1): 81–91. Coles, T., Liasidou, S., and Shaw, G. 2008. Tourism and new economic geography: issues and challenges in moving from advocacy to adoption. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 25(3–4): 312–324. Crang, M. 1997. Picturing practices: research through the tourist gaze. Progress in Human Geography, 21: 359–374. Davison, L. and Ryley, T. 2010. Tourism destination preferences of low-cost airline users in the East Midlands. Journal of Transport Geography, 18: 458–465. d' Hauteserre, A. 2006. A response to ‘Tracing the commodity chain of global tourism’ by Dennis Judd. Tourism Geographies, 8: 49–53. Debbage, K.G. 2002. Airport runway slots: limits to growth. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4): 933–951. Debbage, K.G. 2014. Geopolitics of air transport. In Geographies of Air Transport, A. Goetz and L. Budd (eds). London: Ashgate (forthcoming). Debbage, K.G. and Ioannides, D. 2004. The cultural turn? Toward a more critical economic geography of tourism. In A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 99–109. Oxford: Blackwell. Debbage, K.G. and Gallaway, S. 2009. Global tourism business operations – theoretical frameworks and key issues. In Handbook of Tourism Studies, T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds), pp. 577–590. London: Sage Publications. Debbage, K.G. and Alkaabi, K. 2008. Market power and vertical (dis)integration? Airline networks and destination development in the United States and Dubai. In Aviation and Tourism: Implications for Leisure Travel, A. Graham, A. Papatheodorou, and P. Forsyth (eds), pp. 147–166. Aldershot: Ashgate. Debbage, K.G. and Ioannides, D. 2012. The economy of tourism spaces: a multiplicity of ‘critical turns’? In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 149–156. London: Routledge.

Duval, D.T. 2012. Critical issues in air transport and tourism. Tourism Geographies, 15: 494– 510. Duval, D.T. and Koo, T.T.R. 2012. The politics and geographies of international air transport. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 207–213. London: Routledge. Fainstein, S.S. and Gladstone, D. 1999. Evaluating urban tourism. In The Tourist City, D. Judd and S.S. Fainstein (eds), pp. 21–34. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fainstein, S.S. and Powers, J.C. 2007. Tourism and New York's ethnic diversity: an underutilized resource. In Tourism, Ethnic Diversity and the City, J. Rath (ed.), pp. 143–163. London: Routledge. Forsyth, P. 2006. Martin Kunz Memorial Lecture: tourism benefits and aviation policy. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12: 3–13. Getz, D. and Nilsson, P.A. 2004. Responses of family businesses to extreme seasonality in demand: the case of Bornholm, Denmark. Tourism Management, 25: 17–30. Gibson, S. 2008. Locating geographies of tourism. Progress in Human Geography, 32(3): 407–422. Gibson, S. 2009. Geographies of tourism: critical research on capitalism and local livelihoods. Progress in Human Geography, 33(4): 527–534. Gladstone, D.L. and Preau, J. 2008. Gentrification in tourist cities: evidence from New Orleans before and after Hurricane Katrina. Housing Policy Debate, 19(3): 137–175. Goetz, A.R., Vowles, T.M., and Tierney, S. 2009. Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide in transport geography. The Professional Geographer, 61(3): 323–335. Gotham, K.F. 2005. Tourism gentrification: the case of New Orleans Vieux Carre (French Quarter). Urban Studies, 42(3): 823–850. Graham, A. 2013. Understanding the low-cost carrier and airport relationship: A critical analysis of the salient issues. Tourism Management, 36: 66–76. Graham, A., Papatheodorou, A., and Forsyth, P. (eds) 2008. Aviation and Tourism: Implications for Leisure Travel. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hall, C.M. and Page, S. 2009. Progress in tourism management: from the geography of tourism to geographies of tourism – a review. Tourism Management, 30: 3–16. Hjalager, A.M. 2002. Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management, 23: 465–474. Hjalager, A.M. 2010. A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31:

1–12. Hoffman, L.M., Fainstein, S.S., and Judd, D.R. (eds) 2003. Cities and Visitors. Oxford: Blackwell. Humphreys, B. and Morrell, P. 2009. The potential impacts of the EU/US open sky agreement: What will happen at Heathrow after spring 2008? Journal of Air Transport Management, 15: 72–77. Ioannides, D. 1995. Strengthening the ties between tourism and economic geography: a theoretical agenda. Professional Geographer, 47(3): 49–60. Ioannides, D. 2006. The economic geography of the tourist industry: ten years of progress in research and an agenda for the future. Tourism Geographies, 8: 76–86. Ioannides, D. and Debbage, K.G. (eds) 1998. The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry: A Supply-Side Analysis. London: Routledge. Ioannides, D. and Petersen, T. 2003. Tourism ‘non-entrepreneurship’ in peripheral destinations: a case study of small and medium tourism enterprises on Bornholm, Denmark. Tourism Geographies, 5(3): 408–435. Judd, D. 2006. Commentary: tracing the commodity chain of global tourism. Tourism Geographies, 8(3): 323–336. Liasidou, S. 2013. Decision-making for tourism destinations: airline strategy influences. Tourism Geographies, 15: 511–528. Lohmann, G., Albers, S., Koch, B., and Pavlovich, K. 2009. From hub to tourist destination – An explorative study of Singapore and Dubai's aviation-based transformation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15: 205–211. Milne, S. and Ateljevic, I. 2001. Tourism, economic development, and the global-local nexus: theory embracing complexity. Tourism Geographies, 3(4): 369–393. Mosedale, J. 2006. Tourism commodity chains: market entry and its effects on St. Lucia. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(4/5): 436–458. Mosedale, J. 2008. The internationalization of tourism commodity chains. In International Business and Tourism: Global Issues, Contemporary Interactions, T.E Coles and C.M. Hall (eds), pp. 149–166. London: Routledge. Page, S.J., Forer, P., and Lawton, G.R. 1999. Small business development and tourism: terra incognita? Tourism Management, 20(4): 435–459. Pentelow, L. and Scott, D.J. 2011. Aviation's inclusion in international climate policy regimes: implications for the Caribbean tourism industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 17: 199–205.

Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 1994. Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, 1st edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 1998. Entrepreneurship, small business culture and tourism development. In The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry: A Supply-Side Analysis, D. Ioannides and K.G. Debbage (eds), pp. 235–255. London: Routledge. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 2009. Knowledge transfer and management in tourism organizations: an emerging research agenda. Tourism Management, 30(3): 325–335. Sorensen, F. 2007. The geographies of social networks and innovation in tourism. Tourism Geographies, 9(1): 22–48. Terry, W.C. 2009. Working on the water: on legal space and seafarer protection in the cruise industry. Economic Geography, 85(4): 463–482. Thrift, N.J. and Olds, K. 1996. Refiguring the economic in economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 20: 31–37, Tufts, S. 2004. Building a ‘competitive city’: labour and Toronto's bid to host the Olympic Games. Geoforum, 35: 47–58. Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Society. London: Sage Publications. US Department of Transportation 2011 The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration Warnock-Smith D. and Morrell, P. 2008. Air transport liberalisation and traffic growth in tourism-dependent economies: a case-history of some US-Caribbean markets. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14: 82–91. Warnock-Smith, D. and O'Connell, J.F. 2011. The impact of air policy on incoming tourist traffic: the contrasting cases of the Caribbean Community and the Middle-East. Journal of Transport Geography, 19: 265–274. Wu, C., Hayashi, Y., and Funck, C. 2012. The role of charter flights in Sino-Japanese tourism. Journal of Air Transport Management, 22: 21–27. Yeung, H.W. 2005. Rethinking relational economic geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30: 37–51.

Chapter 9 Entrepreneurial Cultures and Small Business Enterprises in Tourism Gareth Shaw

Entrepreneurship and Tourism: a Changing Research Agenda There has been a growing recognition of the importance of entrepreneurship within the tourism industry during the last 30 years (Morrison et al., 2006). Early interests focused on rather general ideas about the role of transnational enterprises in developing economies with Rodenburg (1980) examining the dichotomy between locally owned small businesses as opposed to larger externally funded organizations. This served to highlight the relationships between different development pathways, as well as highlighting the polarized nature of the tourism industry. In most tourism economies the growth of large organizations, and their increased market share, stands in marked contrast to the numerical importance of small enterprises (Goffee and Scase, 1983). The latter have become a focus of interest since the 1980s following a few case studies on the role of small businesses in the economy of British coastal resorts (Stallinbrass, 1980; Shaw and Williams, 1987). These few studies were expanded upon from the late 1980s as entrepreneurship in the smallbusiness sector became a focus of research in tourism studies (Williams et al., 1989; Shaw and Williams, 1990, 1998; Wanhill, 1996; Morrison et al., 2010). The debate has increasingly centered around what Ateljevic and Doorne (2000) termed lifestyle entrepreneurship, with its emphasis on serving niche markets created by the demand for specialized tourism products. These and other related studies have widened the research agenda around the small-tourism enterprise, expanding investigations into different tourism environments. As Dahles (1999a) shows, this led to an increased interest in micro-businesses within developing economies focused on economic dualism and the informal economy. More significantly, research has increasingly attempted to engage with more generalized perspectives on small firms in nontourism studies (Shaw and Williams, 2010). This in turn has highlighted a greater awareness of business networks and network theory (Tinsley and Lynch, 2001), along with the potential importance of e-commerce in one of the few comparative studies to include small tourism firms (Tiessen et al., 2001). In spite of growing interest Page et al. (1999) claimed that small businesses and entrepreneurship in tourism were still “terra incognita.” This is an exaggerated view, although in some ways the widening research agenda is still fragmented and partial, with substantive gaps. Such shortcomings have been raised by a number of authors, some of whom have attempted a partial synthesis (Morrison et al., 1999; Thomas et al., 2011). Nevertheless, problems still exist and the failure to establish a dialogue with researchers working in the mainstream of research on small firms and entrepreneurship remains a key issue. In part this is

due to the tourism “blind spot” of many economists and economic geographers, who research small firms in manufacturing, information technology, and financial services to the detriment of the tourism industry. Leaving aside such problems, Thomas et al. (2011) have identified some of the key elements of the widening research agenda (Table 9.1). The aim of this chapter is to examine tourism entrepreneurship in small tourism firms and to set this within a broader context by highlighting some of the key issues in both established and emergent themes. These include; entrepreneurial cultures and the growth of small firms, along with the role of small-firm networks in tourism destinations. Table 9.1. Key research agenda on entrepreneurship and small firms. Source: adapted from Thomas et al. (2011).

Established themes Entrepreneurial characteristics and motivations Public policy impacts Sustainability Small business networks Contributions to local destination economies Pro-poor tourism

Emerging themes Innovation and knowledge management Small-business growth and failure International comparative studies Gender issues Informal economic relations

Entrepreneurial Processes and the Small Firm There are important definitional issues with both what constitutes an entrepreneur and the boundaries of the small firm. Many of the early studies in tourism tended to ignore such problems, but as the research agenda has widened, the definitions have become more debated. However, in both instances there are problems in locating precise definitions that are widely acceptable. Notions of entrepreneurship within tourism have been discussed by Morrison et al. (1999) who settled on identifying types of entrepreneurship within specific contexts. In this they made a broad distinction between entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, and team entrepreneurship. The first of these links to small firms, intrapreneurship concerns processes within corporations, and team entrepreneurship is found mainly in larger organizations. Entrepreneurs have traditionally been seen as “innovators” in terms of Schumpeterian perspectives (Schumpeter, 1934) or exploiters of profitable opportunities by Kirzner (1973). These views stress the “heroic” nature of entrepreneurs as business pioneers driven by strong profit-making motives; subsequently more socially led perspectives have modified these views and stressed that it is possible to recognize a range of entrepreneurial types. These include “classical entrepreneurs,” the “artisan entrepreneur,” interested in employment satisfaction and independence, and the “managerial type,” who emphasizes the recognition of management

skills. There is no agreed definition of entrepreneurship but one common feature does emerge; namely, creating and developing business opportunities. In tourism studies increasing attention has been given to the artisan type, which can be deconstructed into a range of entrepreneurial cultures, including those of lifestyle and family embeddedness (Heck et al., 2008). In this perspective, business goals are reoriented to fit those of a more personal lifestyle type and the motivation towards growth may not exist. Entrepreneurial processes are impacted upon by these contexts, and dictated by the motivations of the entrepreneur (Morrison, 2006). The key variable in many of the small-business enterprises in tourism has been the role the family (Getz and Carlsen, 2000). In much of the research on small firms, entrepreneurial processes have been often neglected in a contextual perspective and, as a consequence, led Roberts and Hall (2001) to argue that such entrepreneurial activity was not well understood. This in part may be responsible for what Morrison et al. (2010: 743) identify as “mythology versus reality.”

Entrepreneurial Cultures in Tourism: the Small-Scale Enterprise Entrepreneurial cultures are strongly related to motivations of the business owners, along with the cultural and organizational contexts. Studies of small tourism businesses have tended to focus on those defined as microenterprises and as such there has been a range of studies focusing on motivations. Research on entrepreneurial cultures has been strongly divided between developed and developing economies, with relatively few points of comparison. Nevertheless, there are some common features, including relatively low barriers of entry along with elements of economic marginality in both environments, although even in this context it is possible to highlight differences in marginality. For example, within an African context Dieke (2000: 310) claims that for many small businesses “life is a daily struggle, with many of them operating at the margin of survival.” Moreover, as Sindiga (1999) has shown in Kenya, many local people were unable to raise start-up capital for microbusinesses selling souvenirs to tourists. The growing interest in tourism aiding economic growth via pro-poor tourism has added another perspective to the importance of microbusinesses. Ideas of pro-poor tourism have also highlighted the shortage of capital and skills (Bak and Goodwin, 2003), while Rogerson (2008: 400) has researched the problems of start-up funding, denoting those businesses having difficulties in accessing finance as the “second tourism economy.” As Table 9.2 shows there are key motivational drivers that are common across developed and developing economies. The desire for self-employment, and in many cases to provide family employment, in developing economies assumes a more significant role, often acting through cultural vectors. For instance, Sindiga's (1999) research showed that while many African entrepreneurs were forced into temporary, unlicensed kiosks to sell their souvenirs, mainstream shops were dominated by Asians. Such low levels of capitalization in other developing areas such as Indonesia are mediated by patronage and brokerage (Dahles, 1999b).

Table 9.2. Key motivational drivers of entrepreneurship in tourism. Source: adapted from Morrison (2006).

Economic drivers Create employment for themselves and family members Harper (1984) Avoid unemployment and respond to economic necessity Cameron and Massey (1999) Solution to adversity and poverty (pro-poor tourism) Dahelse (1998); Dieke (2003) Social and aspirational drivers Independence (be own boss) lifestyle goals Shaw and Williams (1987) Appeal of holiday destinations: migrant entrepreneurship Williams et al. (1989); Snepenger et al. (1995) Fulfilling obligations, e.g. sustainable lifestyles and the Ateljavic and Doorne (2000) natural environment Table 9.2 also shows a range of motivational drivers associated with key reasons for becoming small-business owners. In economies such as the UK, the main reason is to have a degree of independence: usually expressed in surveys as “to be my own boss.” Alongside these motives, which cut across all economic sectors, are so-called lifestyle motives. Morrison et al. (2008) have attempted to deconstruct the ideas of lifestyle with regard to entrepreneurship within tourism, thereby “seeking to identify how lifestyle is represented” (2008: 2). Early studies in the UK showed that an important route into small-firm ownership in tourism was taken by ex-employees without any direct management experience. These entrepreneurs relied heavily on informal sources of capital, with more than 50% mainly dependent on personal and family savings (Shaw and Williams, 1998). A major defining characteristic of these small tourism enterprises is that entrepreneurial culture is dictated by a complex combination of motives and aspirations (Morrison et al., 2008). Many of these people have strong lifestyle aspirations concerned with wanting to live and work in an attractive environment. Williams et al. (1989) saw, in their early research in Cornwall, England, a blurring of the boundaries between production and consumption, as many of the entrepreneurs were former tourists who had repeatedly taken holidays to the destination before deciding to run a small business there. Similarly, in North America, Snepenger et al. (1995) identified the process as a “travel-stimulated entrepreneurial migration,” only in this case they examined the role of tourism in attracting entrepreneurs from all types of economic sectors. Such entrepreneurs were attracted to the Yellowstone National Park area because of quality-of-life variables. The work of Getz and Carlsson (2000) in Australia also highlighted these motivational types, namely “family first,” which accounted for 66% of the enterprises – many of which were termed “copreneurs” (to describe married couples operating a business) – and so-called “business first,” although even within this group 50% of the owners had no formalized business goals. The role of the family in such businesses is clearly an important factor, but one requiring further analysis in terms of negotiations within the family over how resources are

utilized. Within this context research on tourism family businesses can learn from the mainstream literature on the small family firm. As Danes et al. (2008: 399) point out, “resources and interpersonal transactions from the business or family may facilitate or inhibit family business sustainability.” The interweaving of family and business demands has been neglected in tourism research. There are exceptions such as Morrison and Teixeria (2004), who examine agent and structure in small family businesses. Other exceptions come from developing economies, with Gartner (1999) showing that in Ghana small tourism businesses are very much run around the extended family. This suggests that, for most small-scale entrepreneurs, a major factor was to develop the business in order to employ more family members. There is nothing unique about the role of lifestyle in tourism small-to-medium businesses (SMEs), as many surveys across a range of sectors have emphasized certain elements of lifestyle factors. Indeed Morrison et al. (1999: 13) argue that the “majority of small firms in the UK can be termed life-style business,” since they are largely motivated by maintaining a particular way of life. Nevertheless, Ateljevic and Doorne (2000) have argued for a refocusing of tourism entrepreneurship around noneconomic strands. This follows the ideas of Dewhurst and Horobin (1998) which stressed noneconomic motives in tourism entrepreneurship and the difficulty in applying economic models to many small businesses in the hospitality industry. It is important to recognize that there is a series of entrepreneurial cultures within tourism that ranges from a strong preoccupation with economic motives to noneconomic ones. The economic perspectives of the entrepreneur stress the notions of creating innovation, risk-taking, and – above all – the pursuit of economic growth. However, as Dewhurst and Horobin (1998: 30) argue, for some entrepreneurs “success might best be measured in terms of a continuing ability to perpetuate their chosen lifestyle.” Such a refocusing of tourism entrepreneurship is significant and, as Ateljevic and Doorne (2000) state, the “rejection of an overly profit-driven orientation does not necessarily result in financial suicide or developmental stagnation, but rather provides opportunities to engage with ‘niche’ market consumers.” They go further and claim that such lifestyle-oriented business owners can be important in the creation of new tourism products. Such views are based on their research into adventure tourism enterprises and other businesses in New Zealand. Many of the entrepreneurs in their survey saw lifestyle values as being important, not only in themselves for the individual but also because they represented the rejection of a mass, homogenized tourism product. These people operated within an ideological fence that enclosed their value systems and which conditioned their management practices. To encapsulate the various motives of “lifestyle-oriented small tourism” firms, or LOST firms as Morrison et al. (2008) termed them, studies have explored their characteristics including the relationship between lifestyle motives and migration (Shaw and Williams, 2004). According to Lardies (1999) there are four main reasons for entrepreneurial migration to Cataluña and Languedoc, namely “good climate,” “previous holidays to the destination,” “landscape/environment,” and to “experience a lifestyle change.” Research in Austria also distinguished between “lifestyle enterprises,” established to provide their owners with an

acceptable standard of living, within a preferred level of activity, and “entrepreneurial small businesses” driven primarily by growth motives (Buhalis and Paraskevas, 2002). The growth of such entrepreneurs is a relatively recent phenomenon and appears to be a direct response to the niche markets provided by changes in tourism consumption associated with postmodernism and the growth of the experience economy. Such trends have seen the development of ecotourism, home stay, adventure tourism, and the backpacker market, which provide new business opportunities. However, it would be wrong to think that all such enterprises are motivated by lifestyle/ethical motives, as many tourism dot.com businesses embrace features of classical entrepreneurship, including risk-taking and innovation, behaving more like Schumpeterian-type entrepreneurs (Rayman-Bacchusm and Molina, 2001). Current knowledge suggests that there are a number of types of small-scale tourism entrepreneurs, including the following. So-called LOST entrepreneurs who are motivated less by profit and more by noneconomic factors. Early work by Shaw and Williams (1998) identified two subgroups. First, nonentrepreneurs who had taken early retirement to establish a business in a tourism destination but who had limited skills or desire to develop their enterprises. They were motivated by a lifestyle that fitted their semi-retirement status. Second were people with more ethically bounded lifestyles of the type identified by Ateljevic and Doorne (2000), who usually had strong interests in environmental issues. These tended to be younger people and may also have shared some of the characteristics of the “constrained” entrepreneurs identified by Shaw and Williams. Such constraints may be based on a lack of capital, or an unwillingness to develop and compromise lifestyle goals (i.e. people who want to stay within ethical, usually environmental, boundaries). Business-oriented entrepreneurs whose motives are mainly economic. Here it is possible to recognize entrepreneurs in the Schumpeterian sense, who are capable of growing their businesses but whose expansion may be constrained by financial barriers.

Models of Small-Firm Growth: Innovation and Knowledge Transfer The majority of studies have paid only scant attention to firm growth and the dynamics of such businesses are usually only considered in terms of classic births and deaths (Hjalager, 1999; Thomas et al., 2011). This contrasts with the mainstream literature on small businesses, with its increasing emphasis on development pathways, innovation, and knowledge management (Shaw and Williams, 2010). Morrison et al. (1999) provide a overview of some models of small-business growth, along with Hill et al. (2002), but do not significantly add to our detailed knowledge of the tourism sector. A number of life-cycle models exist (Table 9.3), but few have been utilized in tourism. Yet these can provide possible frameworks for understanding the critical stages in smallbusiness growth and how entrepreneurs react to changing situations. Churchill and Lewis

(1983) postulate five main stages through which firms may pass in their move from existence to resource maturity (Figure 9.1). Each of the five stages is characterized by specific managerial styles, organizational structures, and key problems. For example, the existence stage is represented by firms with informal management systems and a strong reliance on start-up capital. In the case of small tourism businesses, such capital is often informally sourced using family or personal savings. The second stage is characterized by viable businesses with minimal management systems in that the owner/entrepreneur is still synonymous with the business. Large numbers of tourism businesses never progress beyond this stage, be it for lifestyle reasons or because they are constrained in some other way (e.g. shortage of investment capital). Table 9.3. Selected SME life-cycle models. Source: Shaw and Williams (2010).

Model characteristics Five-stage model based on evolutionary and revolutionary stages, with an organizational and management perspective Five-stage growth mode linked to small-business development, with a branding-based perspective Four-stage growth model based on IT manufacturers, uses a marketing perspective Five-stage model for small businesses based on Greiner; managementbased perspective Six clusters of growth types based on a range of variables (including size and age); uses cluster analysis Two-stage model based on levels and types of competition in SMEs

Figure 9.1. Stages of small-business development over time.

References Greiner (1972) Churchill and Lewis (1983) Tyebjee et al. (1983) Scott and Bruce (1987) Hanks et al. (1993) Dodge et al. (1994)

Source: after Morrison et al. (1999).

For many entrepreneurs operating small businesses, success is critical. At this stage the entrepreneur is faced with two options:

stability, in which the owner adapts to survive; this may be a forced option because of various constraints or, as studies have shown, a lifestyle choice; growth, which requires developing new management structures, along with the ability to expand resources, requiring external capital. Studies show that many tourism entrepreneurs are “constrained” by a lack of formal, external capital. If growth is an option and proves feasible, the model suggests businesses enter a take-off stage reaching resource maturity. The model has been questioned by critics who claim to have found no conclusive evidence of such stages (Birley and Westhead, 1990), whereas O'Farrell and Hitchens (1988) argue that the stages are symptoms of growth rather than underlying processes. In contrast, Burns (1989) has suggested alternative models, while Eggers et al. (1994) have attempted to update the model, suggesting that there may be very different pathways of growth or “management phases.” Two key interrelated ideas appear important from these perspectives. The first concerns the timing of change, while the second is associated with the main distinguishing features between “survival” and “growth” firms. In terms of the former, Churchill and Lewis (1983) suggest that several major factors change as small businesses develop. Key factors affecting growth include management skills along with entrepreneurial learning and experience (MacRae, 1990). Hannon (1998) argues that growth is largely contingent on the entrepreneur's ability to adapt to new situations and learn from past experiences. These “learning opportunity environments” are characterized by strong transactional relationships between the entrepreneur and others, creating what Hannon terms experiential learning. Learning processes and the ability to absorb new knowledge especially relevant to innovation are critical to businesses competitiveness (Deakins and Freel, 1998). The recognition of both knowledge management and knowledge transfer have now been recognized as part of the research agenda on small tourism firms (Shaw and Williams, 2010). Progress has been made on the hotel sector through Hallin and Marnburg's (2008) review of empirical research on knowledge sharing and knowledge capture along with aspects of organizational learning. In larger hotel organizations, for example, Yang (2007) has also researched the flow of knowledge among hotel employees. In addition, in a qualitative study of SMEs Kyriakidou and Gore (2005) have argued that benchmarking the management culture of organizations can help understand aspects of knowledge transfer. Their approach emphasizes the importance of SMEs identifying knowledge gaps along with assessing which new knowledge to obtain. However, given the low level of management skills within many small tourism businesses, it is difficult for such firms to undertake such a benchmarking process without external help (Hallin and Marnburg, 2008). The importance of SMEs in innovation and their inability to acquire tacit knowledge concerning new ideas have been recognized by Decelle (2004) who identifies two problems: a lack of propensity to innovate, often linked with unstable economic environments, and a state of limited rationality associated with a lack of training.

Entrepreneurial Networks and Tourism Destinations

Small-scale enterprises dominate tourist destinations numerically, and are key components in conditioning the development of such areas. This was recognized early in the tourism literature via Butler's life-cycle model which Din (1982) and Shaw and Williams (1998) have expanded to include the potential associations between entrepreneurs and destination development. Dahles (1999a: 4) also argues that “the activities of small-scale tourism businesses do not unfold in a vacuum.” However, these perspectives remain rather sketchy, with Tinsley and Lynch (2001) arguing that the tourism-production system within destinations remains underresearched. Recent research does provide increasing insights into this theme, first via the recognition that tourism producers, especially small businesses, need to be viewed as being socially constructed (Huang and Stewart, 1996). In this context the potential of “lifestyle” entrepreneurs to change the nature of destinations “should not be under-estimated” (Morrison et al., 2008: 3). Evidence is mixed on the nature of the economic impacts of “amenity migrants” and their businesses (Moss, 2006). A second theme is the growing interest in entrepreneurial networks (Tinsley and Lynch, 2001), in particular the substantial research on interfirm networks and partnerships in the area of food and wine tourism (Hall et al., 2000, 2003). A range of studies have demonstrated the significance of business networks, not only in terms of small firms but also for specific destinations (Telfer, 2000). In such environments, competition and cooperation sit side by side. For example, while accommodation establishments compete for tourists, they often cooperate to help market the destination and may even form business networks to aid this process. Such networks can take a variety of forms, but the main features include the daily operations of firms, interfirm networks, and localized or regional public– private interfaces. All are important in tourism destinations, but for many small businesses the third feature is becoming increasingly significant. The degrees of “institutional thickness,” representing the quality and quantity of support organizations, has become a key factor in many destination areas through local community groups and government agencies charged with supporting small firms. Within these business networks important informal and formal flows of information and support can be identified. These interdependencies are both a cause and effect of increased collaboration. Research on such contracts has drawn attention to so-called “entrepreneurial networks,” created from the personal contacts of entrepreneurs (Johannisson, 2000). Such personal contacts are especially important in the start-up stage of small businesses, as many, certainly within tourism, tend to rely on informal flows of information. The networks may be with friends or family members who provide some form of collective experience or social capital. In terms of firm growth, these informal networks can be constraining, in that experience may be limited, and increase the tendency for a survivor rather than a growth strategy. In tourism research we know little about how such entrepreneurial networks evolve, or indeed how they vary across subsectors of the industry. It seems likely, however, that such networks are characterized by diversity relating to locational and structural characteristics. This is important in understanding how small firms communicate within destination areas. The increasing complexity of the tourism sector and high levels of competition between

destinations places greater importance on the role of networks and the need to understand them. The strength of individual destinations is based on the tourism product and its marketability. In both cases, business networks and collaboration become significant.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Future Issues The widening research agenda has not only provided more research opportunities but also exposed areas of neglect. Two are of critical importance, namely the need to provide more longitudinal information on the dynamic of small firms and the related methodological approaches. While conceptual ideas have progressed and been debated (Morrison et al., 2010) little attention has been directed at capturing data to support underlying models of entrepreneurial development. We have a series of case studies that have adopted differing approaches but scant comparative analysis. Table 9.4 shows some of the key parameters highlighted in differing studies alongside remaining methodological issues. As can be seen, a variety of data that have been collected, although in many key areas details are lacking. Methods have varied; on the whole, earlier studies tended to be quantitative in nature while more recent studies have utilized in-depth interviews. In both cases there has largely been an absence of more research-intensive longitudinal studies. Such areas present future challenges as well as significant opportunities for pushing forward our understanding of entrepreneurship. Table 9.4. Key research themes on small tourism businesses and levels of measurement. Source: developed from Morrison et al. (2010).

Themes Firm formation and dynamics of business growth Capital investment levels Number of employees/family involvement Past experiences of entrepreneur Motivation and business orientation Management structure Levels of innovation Importance of network functions in local area

Levels of indicative measurement Low levels of information on growth patterns No financial data; indirect measures of formal/informal capital Good levels of data Good levels of data Good levels of data Variable across studies Very limited Very limited

This chapter has positioned studies of tourism entrepreneurship within the context of more general research on small-scale businesses. By doing so it has highlighted the significance of understanding the complexity of the motives of the entrepreneur, the nature of small-firm

growth, and in particular the need to give increasing attention to the business networks.

References Ateljevic, I. and Doorne, S. 2000. Staying within the fence: lifestyle entrepreneurship in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(5): 378–392. Bah, A. and Goodwin, H. 2003. Improving Access for the Informal Sector to Tourism in Gambia. Pro-Poor Tourism Paper No 5. London: Overseas Development. Birley, S. and Westhead, P. 1990. Growth and performance contrasts between “types” of small firms. Management Journal, 11(3): 378–392. Buhalis, D. and Paraskevas, A. 2002. Conference Report: entrepreneurship in tourism and the contexts of the experience economy, University of Lapland, Rouaniemi, Finland. Tourism Management, 23: 427–428. Burns, P. 1989. Strategies for success and routes to failure. In Small Business and Entrepreneurship, P. Burns and J. Dewhirst (eds), pp. 32–67, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Churchill, N.C. and Lewis, V.L. 1983. The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review, 6(3): 30–50. Dahles, H. 1999a. Tourism and small entrepreneurs in developing countries: a theoretical perspective. In Tourism and Small Entrepreneurs: Development, National Policy and Entrepreneurial Culture: Indonesian Cases, H. Dahles and K. Bras (eds), pp. 1–19. New York: Cognizant Communications. Dahles, D. 1999b. Small businesses in the Indonesian tourism industry: entrepreneurship or employment? In Tourism and Small Entrepreneurs: Development, National Policy and Entrepreneurial Culture: Indonesian Cases, H. Dahles and K. Bras (eds), pp. 20–34. New York: Cognizant Communications. Danes, S.M., Loy, J.J., and Stafford, K. 2008. Business planning practices of family-owned firms within a quality framework. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3): 395–421. Deakins, D. and Freel, M. 1998. Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs. The Learning Organisation, 5(3): 144–155. Decelle, X. 2004. A Conceptual and Dynamic Approach to Innovation in Tourism. Paris: OECD. Dewhurst, P. and Horobin, H. 1998. Small business owners. In The Management of Small Tourism and Hospitality Firms, R. Thomas (ed.), pp. 19–39. London: Cassell. Dieke, P.U.C. 2000. Tourism and Africa's long term development dynamics. In The Political Economy of Tourism Development in Africa, P.U.C. Dieke (ed.). New York: Cognizant

Communications. Din, K.M. 1992. The “Involvement Stage” in the evolution of a tourist destination. Tourism Recreational Research, 17(1): 10–20. Eggers, J.H., Leahy, K.T., and Churchill, N.C. 1994. Stages of small business growth revisited: insights into growth path and leadership/management skills in low- and high-growth companies. Wellesley: Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, pp. 131–144. Gartner, W.C. 1999 Small-scale enterprises in the tourism industry in Ghana's central region. In Contemporary Issues in Tourism Development, D.W.G. Pearce and R. Butler (eds), pp. 78– 89. London: Routledge. Getz, D. and Calson, J. 2000. Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated businesses in rural tourism and hospitality sectors. Tourism Management, 21(6): 547–560. Goffee, R. and Scase, R. 1983. Class entrepreneurship and the service sector: towards a conceptual clarification. Services Industries Journal, 3(2): 146–160. Greiner, L.E. 1972. Evolution and revolution as organisations grow. Harvard Business Review, July/August: 37–46. Hall, C.M., Sharples, E., Cambourne, B., and Macionis, N. 2000. Wine Tourism Around the World: Development, Management and Markets. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Mitchell, R., Cambourne, B., and Macionis, N. 2003. Food Tourism Around the World: Development, Management and Markets. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Hallin, R.A. and Marnburg, E. 2008. Knowledge management in the hospitality industry: a review of empirical research. Tourism Management, 29(2): 366–381. Hanks, S.M., Watson, C.J., Jansen, E., and Chandler, G.N. 1993. Tightening the life-cycle construction: a taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high technology organizations. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 46(3): 317–330. Hannon, P. 1998. Who are the Real Educators and Learners? Exploring Learning Needs Within Small Firms: Stakeholder Transactional Relationships. London: Routledge. Harper, M. 1984. Small Business in the Third World: Guidelines for Practical Assistance. Chichester: John Wiley. Heck, R., Hoy, F., Poutziouris, P.Z., and Steier, L. 2008. Emerging paths or family entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3): 317–330. Hill, J., Nancarrow, C., and Wright, L.T. 2002. Lifecycles and crisis points is SMEs – a case study approach. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 20(6): 361–369. Hjalager, A.-M. 1999. The ecology of organisations in Danish tourism: a regional labour

perspective. Tourism Geographies, 1(2): 164–182. Huang, Y. and Stewart, W. 1996. Rural tourism development: shifting, basis of community solidarity. Journal of Tourism Research, 34(4): 26–29. Johannisson, B. 2000. Networking and entrepreneurial growth. In The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, D.L. Sexton and H. Landström (eds), pp. 368–386. Oxford: Blackwell. Kirzner, I. 1973. Perception, Opportunity and Profit: Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Kyriakidou, O. and Gore, J. 2005. Learning by example: benchmarking organisational culture in hospitality, tourism and leisure SMEs. Benchmarking, 12(13): 192–206. Lardies, R. 1999. Migration and tourism entrepreneurship: North-European immigrants in Cateluna and Languedoc. International Journal of Population Geography, 5(6): 477–491. MacRae, D. 1990. The Scottish Development Survey, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Morrison, A. 2006. A contextualisation of entrepreneurship, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 12(4): 192–209. Morrison, A., Rimmington, M., and Williams, C. 1999. Entrepreneurship in Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Industries. London: Butterworth-Heineman. Morrison, A. and Teixeria, R. 2004. Small business performance: a tourism sector focus. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(2): 166–173. Morrison, A., Carlsen, J., and Weber, P. 2008. Lifestyle orientated small tourism (LOST) firms and tourism destination development. Proceedings of the 18th Annual CAUTHE Conference. Morrison, A., Carlsen, J., and Weber, P. 2010. Small tourism business research: change and evolution. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12: 739–749. Moss, L.A.G. (ed.) 2006. The Amenity Migrants: Seeking and Sustaining Mountains and their Cultures. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. O'Farrell, P.N. and Hitchens, D. 1988. Alternative theories of small-firm growth: a critical review. Environment and Planning A, 20(9): 1365–1383. Page, S.J., Forer, P., and Lawton, G.R. 1999. Small business development and tourism: terra incognita? Tourism Management, 20(4): 435–449. Rayman-Bacchus, L. and Molina, A. 2001. Internet-based tourism services: business issues and trends. Futures, 33(7): 589–605. Roberts, L. and Hall, D. 2001. Rural Tourism and Recreation: Principles to Practice. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Rodenburg, E. 1980. The effects of scale on economic development in tourism in Bali. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(1): 177–196. Rogerson, C. M. 2008. Shared growth in urban tourism: evidence from Soweto, South Africa. Urban Forum, 19(4): 395–411. Schumpeter, J.A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 1987. Firm formation and operating characteristics in the Cornish tourism industry. Tourism Management, 8(3): 344–348. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 1990. Tourism, economic development and the role of entrepreneurial activity. Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management 2: 67– 81. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 1997. The private sector: tourism entrepreneurship – a constraint or resource? In The Rise and Fall of British Coastal Resorts, G. Shaw and A. M. Williams (eds), pp. 117–137. London: Castell. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 1998. Entrepreneurship, small business culture and tourism development. In The Economic Geography of the Tourism Industry, D. Ioannides and K.D. Debbage (eds), pp. 235–255. London: Routledge. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 2004. From lifestyle consumption to lifestyle production: changing patterns of tourism entrepreneurship. In Small Firms in Tourism, R. Thomas (ed.), pp 99–114. Oxford: Elsevier. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 2010. Tourism SMEs. Changing research agendas and missed opportunities. In Tourism Research: A 20:20 Vision, D.G. Pearce and R.G. Butler (eds), pp. 80–93. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishing. Sindiga, I. 1999. Tourism and African Development: Change and Challenge of Tourism in Kenya. Aldershot: Ashgate. Snepenger, D. J., Johnson, J. D., and Rasker, R. 1995. Travel-stimulated entrepreneurial migration. Journal of Travel Research, 34: 40–44. Stallinbrass, C. 1980. Seaside resorts and the hotel accommodation industry. Progress in Planning, 13(2): 103–174. Telfer, D.J. 2000. Tastes of Niagara: building strategic alliances between tourism and agriculture. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 1: 71–88. Thomas, R., Shaw, G., and Page, S.J. 2011. Understanding small firms in tourism: a perspective a research trends and challenges. Tourism Management, 32(5): 963–976. Tiessen, J.H., Wright, R.W., and Turner, I. 2001. A model of e-commerce use by

internationalising SMEs. Journal of International Management, 7(3): 211–233. Tinsley, R. and Lynch, P. 2001. Small tourism business networks and destination development. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(4): 367–378. Tyebjee, T.T., Bruno, A.V., and McIntyre, S.M. 1983. Growing ventures can anticipate marketing stages. Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb: 62–66. Wanhill, S. 1996. Local enterprise and development in tourism. Tourism Management, 17(1): 35–42. Williams, A.M., Shaw, G., and Greenwood, J. 1989. From tourist to tourism entrepreneur, from consumption to production: evidence from Cornwall, England. Environment and Planning, 21(6): 1639–1653. Yang, J.-T. 2007. Knowledge sharing; investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative culture. Tourism Management, 28(2): 530–543.

Chapter 10 Labor Mobility and Labor Market Structures in Tourism Adele Ladkin Tourist activity generates economic growth, which in turn leads to the creation of employment opportunities. Although the accuracy of tourism employment figures is problematic, it was estimated that in 2011 nearly 260 million jobs worldwide were supported by travel and tourism, either directly in the industry or in related sectors (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2011). By 2020, it is anticipated this figure, including direct and indirect jobs, will rise to 328 million, or one in every 10 jobs worldwide (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2012). Despite the economic value of tourism employment and the number of people whose jobs depend on tourist activity, labor markets and employment issues remain underresearched. Although there is no single reason for this, it is likely that a lack of reliable employment data, problems of definition, and the cost of empirical data collection offer some explanation (Ladkin, 2011).

Tourism Labor Markets and Labor Mobility Tourism Labor Markets From an economic perspective, labor markets represent the supply and demand for labor. They are the market in which workers compete for jobs and employers compete for workers. At any given time, people will be seeking employment or trying to change their jobs, and employers will be seeking new employees (Riley, 1991). At one level, the labor market supply and demand is driven by the price of labor. However, only focusing on the economic characteristics of a labor market masks the independent decisions of individuals, who may not necessarily be driven by nominal or real wage rates. While economic factors clearly influence labor market behavior, individual choice, opportunity, freedom, barriers and constraints, and decision-making processes are also important. Furthermore, a focus on purely economic aspects masks the fact that labor markets are socially and politically constructed and depend on wider beliefs, values, and policies such as the age at which people retire or the ending of childhood, and gender, family, and work roles. However, typically, characteristics of a labor market are discussed in terms of size, geographical boundaries, primary and secondary structure, skills, and pay (Riley, 1991). The characteristics or structure of a labor market affect labor mobility. In relation to tourism, the size of particular labor markets is diverse. Importantly for mobility, different tourism jobs give rise to different sizes of labor markets, based on skill requirements and pay determinants. For example, the labor market for a pilot will be much smaller than the labor market for a coach tour driver due to the training and qualifications required. Political decisions and policy can also have a direct effect on the size of a labor market. The geographical boundaries of tourism labor markets are in a constant state of flux. At one level

the geographical range of a labor market is affected by skill requirements. For occupations that have a specific skill requirement, the market may be international, whereas it may be possible to recruit from the local area for a low-skilled occupation. Both are related to the cost of labor. However, labor market boundaries shift over time, largely as a result of transport costs and time factors. Changes in transport infrastructure and commuting can distort the geographical boundary of a labor market (Green et al., 1999; Van der Klis and Karsten, 2009), as does the changing nature of work (Adkins and Jokinen, 2008) and new technologies and working practices (Aguiléra et al., 2012). Skill shortages and increased demand for tourist services facilitate mobility into tourism. The dual labor market (Doeringer and Piore, 1971) identifies the way in which labor markets become separated into primary and secondary sectors. Jobs in the primary sector generally have high status, recognized career paths, job security, and higher education or skill requirements. Secondary sector jobs are poorly paid, have little or no job security, poor working conditions, and few training opportunities. Substantial mobility into the tourism sector takes place in the secondary sector, especially in the context of economic migration (Duncan et al., 2013). Typically, foreign workers only have limited access to labor markets (Shimada, 2005) and the gendered nature of service labor typical of the tourism sector also affects mobility into the secondary sector. In terms of skills, this can refer to both specific competencies required for a particular jobs, and the skill base of the workforce. Where rapid tourism development is taking place, the skill base in the local workforce may be lacking, resulting in either inward migration or training. For many tourism occupations, rather than formal qualifications or regularity requirements, the “softer” skills are required (Warhurst and Nickson, 2007). This both facilitates ease of entry in these occupations and makes the skill requirements difficult to quantity. Mobility into tourism occupations is also affected by pay. The level of skill, labor supply and demand, and other economic factors, largely determines pay. Although many tourism occupations are paid at the minimum wage level, other factors that may substitute wages include tips (Ross and Boles, 1994), accommodation, and meals (Worland and Wilson, 1988). In general terms, job opportunities in tourism are diverse, ranging from professional skilled positions to unskilled and semi-skilled work. Jobs take place in a variety of firms from large organizations or small-to-medium businesses, have different contractual arrangements, are full or part time, and often casual and seasonal (Ruhanen, 2009). Associated poor labor conditions conform to stereotypes and are well documented, consisting of issues such as low pay, shift work, long hours, and poor career-advancement opportunities (Baum, 2007). It is these characteristics, rather than the positive aspects, that have often received attention in academic research and the wider public arena; they are often cited as the reason behind difficulties in recruitment and employee retention. Frequently assessments of jobs are stereotyped around negative aspects, and more recently there has been increasing recognition of the gendered nature of tourism work (Veijola, and Jokinen, 2008). Many sectors such as housekeeping are considered “women's work” (Dyer et al., 2010) and have undertones of emotional labor.

Labor Mobility Labor mobility refers to the occupational and geographical movement of workers. The

structural and economic conditions of labor markets influence labor mobility, as does individual choice and decision making (Ladkin, 2011). Framed within structural and economic changes, an individual's education, skill development, and experience – along with choice, opportunity, and a willingness and ability to work in a particular occupation – drives movement in the labor market. Central to an understanding of labor mobility in tourism are the low barriers of entry into many tourism jobs. Previous research in China, Hungry, and Canada has considered labor mobility into tourism due to economic transition (Szivas and Riley, 1999; Liu and Wall, 2005; Vaugeois and Rollins, 2007). In essence, these studies illustrate how tourism and hospitality work provided employment opportunities as older traditional industries declined. In the UK, recent studies of labor mobility in tourism show how it has become the sector of choice for migrants due to the relative ease of obtaining employment in a new country (Matthews and Ruhs, 2007; Janta et al., 2011a). Low skill specificity, few educational requirements, and short-term contracts make many tourism jobs available to a wide range of individuals. High turnover also ensures a constant supply of available employment opportunities.

Issues in Tourism Labor Mobility A range of perspectives and topics have been examined in the wider area of tourism labor research. For example, management perspectives on tourism labor, human capital accumulation, the economic value of tourism employment, gender issues, and labor mobility have all been investigated. Specifically, labor mobility in relation to tourism work has attracted the attention of researchers in recent years. This is partly explained by the increasing number of employ​ment opportunities associated with the growth in tourism and the subsequent need for tourism workers to fill those vacancies. In the European context, the relationship between tour​ism employment and economic migration has taken center stage, as increasing numbers of tourism services rely on migrant workers to fill vacancies, particularly for unskilled or low-skilled occupations. Three mobility issues are explored here: tourism and labor migration, migrant experience and mobility, and labor mobility and human capital.

Tourism and Labor Migration Tourism is considered a factor in human mobility (Ladkin, 2011). Although recognizing that migrants undertaking work in tourism is not a universal feature, there is little doubt that tourism employment is an important driver of human mobility (Janta et al., 2011a). This spatial movement of individuals for tourism work is a significant area of research, particularly in the European context in terms of international migration, and rural to urban migration in China, for example. Migration into tourism employment has predictable patterns, as it is a function of demand, the speed of tourism development, and skill and educational needs (Hall and Williams, 2002). The relationship between tourism and labor migration is complex, with

migration flows being shaped by a variety of issues including self-selection, skills shortages, and wage rates (Beine et al., 2009). As previously indicated, early studies highlighted the ease of entry into tourism occupations from declining industries, as in economies in transition (Szivas and Riley, 1999; Vaugeois and Rollins, 2007). Labor mobility as a means of career advancement and human capital accumulation has also been explored in the context of hotel work (for example, in the UK by Ladkin and Riley, 1996 and in Mauritius by Ladkin and Juwaheer, 2000). In these studies, mobility was shown to be a significant driver of career development in terms of gaining diversity of experience and also for opportunities in the external labor market.

Understanding Migrant Experiences Historically, migrant workers have formed a significant part of the hospitality and tourism workforce (Williams and Hall, 2000; Duncan et al., 2013). In China it is estimated that, in 2004, around 7 million domestic migrant workers were employed in the hotel and restaurant sector (Li, 2008). Furthermore, ethnic diversity in the sector is prevalent, with current estimates being that 21% of the UK sector's workforce was born outside of the UK (People 1st, 2011). This includes both temporary migrants and permanent UK residents. Diversity is mirrored elsewhere, with high numbers of expatriates being employed in tourism. In the Maldives, only 15% of Maldivian employed men and 4% of Maldivian employed women work in tourism (Shakeela et al., 2010). In the United Arab Emirates, the hotel and restaurant sector is staffed almost exclusively by migrant workers predominantly from Asia, Africa, and Europe (Baum, 2012). While ethnic diversity has always been a feature of tourism and hospitality, in recent years the sector's ability to absorb migrant labor has become more widely recognized, specifically in the European context due to European Union enlargement and the consequent opening up of new labor markets. In tourism research, migrants from Poland are recognized as the largest group of international workers (Baum et al., 2007). Mainly as a result of European Union enlargement in May 2004, the UK experienced a rapid influx of migrant workers with Poland as the dominant country of origin (Janta and Ladkin, 2009). Although accurate figures are difficult to obtain, there were an estimated 610 000 Polish workers registered as employed in the UK in the late 2000s (Home Office, 2009). Similar experiences are evident in Norway (Friberg, 2012) and Canada through a planned approach to migration into the hotel and restaurant sector (Fudge and MacPhail, 2009). Hospitality employers have reported positive stereotypical assumptions of Polish workers, which include having a good work ethic, commitment, and acceptance of low wages (Matthews and Ruhs, 2007). Furthermore, workers may also conform to these stereotypes or adapt to fit them (Dyer et al., 2010). Certainly, businesses historically had come to rely on migrant workers in the hospitality sector (Taylor, 1983) and there is a general view that, due to a strong work ethic, migrant workers have had a positive outcome for the industry. Higher educational levels and competences have also been reported as features of Polish migrants, which has brought benefits to employers who find these educated young migrants easy to train, intelligent, and willing to learn (Mackenzie and Forde, 2009). While the geographical patterns of tourism-dependent labor migration are relatively easy to

predict, the individual choices and decision-making processes of these migrants are less widely understood. The mobility of migrant workers is based on a mix of economic factors, regulatory frameworks, and individual freedom and choice. In the UK, due to the reliance on migrant labor in hospitality, and the UK being one of the countries where in the hotel, catering, and restaurant sectors the share of migrant workers in employment is higher than their weight in the overall labor force (OECD, 2008), there has been recent interest in understanding the profiles and experiences of these migrants (Janta et al., 2011a). The migration referred to in the UK hospitality context is relatively short term, and characterized by young, educated individuals. Reasons for entering the sector, job roles, discrimination, skill development, and career progression are just some of the experiences that have been captured (Eade et al., 2006; Anderson et al., 2006). More recently, migrants' interactions and social relationships have been explored (Janta et al., 2011b, 2012). The focus of this work is on how tourism employment facilitates the development of relationships between migrants and the host community, the relationships between migrants from different countries, and those from the same country of origin. These social relationships and interactions influence the migrant experience of life in a new country and culture (Janta et al., 2011b). Elsewhere, research from China explores the job-related stress and life satisfaction of domestic migrant workers in the hotel industry (Li, 2008; Shen and Huang, 2012). These and other studies are beginning to build a picture of what life is like for migrants working in tourism on the one hand, and the benefits and challenges to employers on the other.

Labor Mobility and Human Capital Human capital has its origins in the Chicago School of Economics, with the widely attributed understanding of the term provided by Becker (1964). In this work, human capital is a means of production into which additional investment (training, medical care, schooling, etc.) yields additional output (increased wages, improved wellbeing, etc.). Investing in human capital refers to engaging in activities that embed resources in people to influence future real incomes (Becker, 1962). Investing in human capital is one of the drivers for migration (Sjaastad, 1962). For the most part, many service occupations in tourism are low-skilled, but there is evidence that many people working in the industry are highly educated (Riley and Szivas, 2003; Baum et al., 2007). In these cases, it is hard to see how this develops human capital. However, evidence suggests that individuals are moving into tourism to learn new “soft” competences; for example, language development and communication (Janta et al., 2012). As previously outlined, in the context of human capital development, labor mobility has an important role to play in terms of skill accumulation (Ladkin and Riley, 1996; Ladkin and Juwaheer, 2000). At the skilled end, research by Zagkotsi (2012) explores the role that family plays in driving professional mobility in tourism.

Methodological Developments Tourism labor has yet to receive much attention in the academic arena. In a review of tourism research undertaken by Xiao and Smith (2006), tourism labor and employment were absent

from the major subject area listings (Ladkin, 2011). While it could be argued that the broad field of tourism shows signs of maturation (Ryan et al., 2007), tourism labor and mobility as a distinct subject is still relatively underdeveloped, with a narrow range of case studies and much research undertaken in the context of human resources management. There is considerable scope for theoretical and methodological developments in our understanding of tourism labor mobility within the mobilities framework, with its focus on the contemporary importance of movement on individuals and society (Urry, 2000). Although exploring tourism within the mobilities context is not new, exploring the mobilities of tourism workers is one of the ways in which tourism studies connects to mobilities theories (Coles et al., 2004). In a recent article exploring the mobilities of hospitality work, Duncan et al. (2013) question the conventional management approaches of hospitality processes, and advocate the value of adopting a mobilities framework for understanding experiences. They illustrate that focusing on social and geographical origins, experience backgrounds, and motivational factors allows for a fuller and more nuanced understanding of the tourism workplace. This approach allows for “a broader, more critical, yet more inclusive way of understanding the contemporary tourism and hospitality workplace” (Duncan et al., 2013: 15). Tourism labor mobility research also has a role to play in methodological debates. Echtner and Jamal (1997) and Tribe (1997) identify the traditionally scientific methods used in tourism studies. In labor markets and employment research, positivist approaches and quantitative methods have dominated much of the research (Ladkin, 2011). More recently, prompted by Phillimore and Goodson's (2004) coverage of epistemological and ontological issues, support for qualitative research approaches is evident (Hollinshead and Jamal, 2007). In the context of tourism studies, they argue that tourism as a creative field of lived experiences requires it to be more deeply explored interpretively. The same applies to research into tourism labor mobility. Work by McDowell et al. (2007) and Dyer et al. (2010, 2011) demonstrates the value of qualitative research on migrants working in tourism. Tourism labor researchers are acknowledging the value of using mixed methods, the merits of which have been outlined in social science (Green, 2007). Evidence to support the use of mixed methods in labor mobility research is provided by recent research into migration into hospitality (Baum et al., 2007; Devine et al., 2007a, 2007b). In addition to illustrating the possible advantages of taking a mixed-methods approach, the use of narrative accounts could be beneficial, particularly in relation to understanding migrant workers' experiences. Although narratives are not new in tourism (Ghodsee, 2005; Veijola and Jokinen, 2008), innovative qualitative approaches such as story telling and life histories can make an important contribution to the understanding of tourism labor mobility and workers' experiences. Within the mobilities approach, life histories enable us to view themes such as movements of people for work and family life reasons, and the shaping of identities.

Future Developments Labor mobility is a key feature of tourism labor markets. As a sector, tourism drives labor

mobility in a variety of ways. The ease of labor market access due to low barriers to entry, the range of skill requirements, and the labor-intensive nature of many service jobs are key features of the industry. Despite the well-documented problems of many jobs in the sector, working in tourism as a means to accumulate human capital and learn new skills make it an attractive option for some. Research in this area could also offer insights into the changing nature of working practices where mobility is increasingly a feature of working lives. As such, research into tourism labor mobility has the potential to further understand practical labor market issues in tourism employment, while contributing to wider societal debates, particularly in the context of mobilities. The questions that researchers may be exploring in the next decade to a certain extent depend on external influences, perhaps relating to wider economic and societal trends such as the rising cost of transport and wider access to information and communication technologies. Three questions that potentially have future relevance are identified here. The first question relates to how we might be able to improve our definitions and monitoring of tourism labor markets. The enormous scale of the industry causes problems for analysis (Riley et al., 2002). The increasing blurring of boundaries between work and life opens the door for an alternative way of how we might define and conceptualize tourism labor markets (Ladkin, 2011). Early attempts to define tourism occupations used occupational classifications for tourism, based on sector of employment (tourist destination organizations, suppliers of tourist attractions, facilities and services, travel organizations and intermediaries, and other sectors), function (general and specialist), and role and grade (Airey and Nightingale, 1981). The International Labour Organization in conjunction with the United Nations World Tourism Organization (ILO and UNWTO, 2008) are working to improve national methods of data collection for employment in the tourism industry, in order to more accurately measure employment, through recommendations and technical guides. It is known that the problems of defining tourism labor, and their associated labor markets, are detrimental to understating the value to tourism employment, which is a constant concern for governments and policy-makers. Furthermore, taking a management and employer's perspective, how jobs are structured within the industry and organizations is essential for human resource practices, and for those developing careers in the industry. For example, knowing the time, skills, and competences required to train a head chef is important for human resource planning and individual career development. The problems of defining and measuring tourism labor markets and trying to analyze the supply and demand for labor presents challenges. Research into how to improve measurement and definition would be beneficial. Second, researchers may be seeking to understand what the study of tourism labor mobility can contribute to wider debates on the changing nature of work. As identified by Adkins and Jokinen (2008), the relationship between work and life, ways of working, mobile labor, and the theorization of work are undergoing significant and radical revision. Working practices are changing, and career development no longer follows a linear model with people remaining with employers for many years at a time. Recent changes in working lives have given rise to new forms of working practices, with labor mobility at the heart of these changes. “New work” represents an ideology of a mobile and flexible labor market, from the perspective of the

workers (Adkins and Jokinen, 2008; Veijola and Jokinen, 2008). Evidence of mobility has always been a feature of tourism employment, and it may become a feature of other labor markets, as careers move away from traditional bureaucratic linear trajectories to ones characterized by multiple job changes, mobility, periods of unemployment, and transferable skills. Third, there are social and cultural implications of mobile workforces, including issues such as integration, cohesion, and national identity. The movement of large numbers of people with different backgrounds and motivations has a profound influence on the social and cultural aspects of host societies (Kinnaird and Hall, 1994). For example, in the case of Polish hospitality workers in the UK, culturally the workers bring with them their own specific style of working to the workplace and develop new social relationships in the host destination with both the hosts and other migrant workers (Janta and Ladkin, 2009; Janta et al., 2011b). In some counties, such as Austria, Iceland, and Slovenia, programs offered by the industry and/or trade associations have been put in place to assist migrants in acquiring language skills (Joppe, 2012). In other areas, the influx of migrant workers has resulted in such workplace diversity that the traditional imagery often used in destination marketing is no longer an accurate reflection, as in the case of Ireland (Baum et al., 2007). Therefore, the spatial element of labor market structure has far-reaching implications. The effects of mobile tourism labor on both the workers and the host destinations could be better understood by further research, possibly within the mobilities context.

References Adkins, L. and Jokinen, E. 2008. Introduction: gender, living and labour in the fourth shift. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 16(3): 138–149. Aguiléra, A., Guillot, C., and Rallet, A. 2012. Mobile ICTs and physical mobility: review and research agenda. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(4): 664–672. Airey, D. and Nightingale, M. 1981. Tourism occupations, career profiles and knowledge. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(1): 52–68. Anderson, B., Ruhs, M., Rogaly, B., and Spencer, S. 2006. Fair Enough? Central and East European Migrants in Low-Wage Employment in the UK. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1617-migrants-low-wage-employment.pdf. Baum, T. 2007. Human resources in tourism: still waiting for change? Tourism Management, 28(6): 1383–1399. Baum, T. 2012. Migrant Workers in the International Hotel Industry. International Migration Paper no. 112. Geneva: International Migration Branch, Sectorial Activities Department, ILO. Baum, T., Hearns, N., and Devine, F. 2007. Place, people and interpretation: issues of migrant labor and tourism imagery in Ireland. Tourism and Recreation Research, 32(3): 39–48.

Becker, G.S. 1962. Investment in human capital: a theoretical analysis. The Journal of Political Economy, 70(5): Part 2, 9–49. Becker, G.S. 1964. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beine, M., Docquier, F., and Ozden, C. 2009. Diasporas. Policy research working paper 4984. Washington, DC: The World Bank. DOI: 10.1596/1813-9450-4984 Coles, T., Duval, D.T., and Hall, C.M. 2004. Tourism, mobility and global communities. New approaches to theorising tourism and tourist spaces. In Global Tourism, W. Theobald (ed.), pp. 463–481. Oxford: Heinemann. Devine, F., Baum, T., Hearns, N., and Devine, A. 2007a. Cultural diversity in hospitality work: the Northern Ireland experience. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(2): 333–349. Devine, F., Baum, T., Hearns, N., and Devine, A. 2007b. Managing cultural diversity: opportunities and challenges for Northern Ireland hoteliers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(2): 120–132. Doeringer, P. and Piore, M.J. 1971. Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, MA: Heath. Duncan, T., Scott, D.G., and Baum, T. (2013). The mobilities of hospitality work: an exploration of issues and debates. Annals of Tourism Research, 41(1): 1–19. Dyer, S., McDowell. L., and Batnitzky, A. (2010). The impact of migration on the gendering of service work: the case of a West London hotel. Gender, Work and Organization, 17(6): 635– 657. Dyer, S., McDowell. L., and Batnitzky, A. (2011). Migrant work, precarious work-life balance: what the experiences of migrant workers in the service sector in Greater London tell us about the adult worker model. Gender, Place and Culture, 18(5): 685–700. Eade, J., Drinkwater, S., and Garapich, M. 2006. Class and Ethnicity: Polish migrants in London. Research report for the RES-000-22-1294 ESRC Project. Guildford: University of Surrey. Echtner, C.M. and Jamal, T.B. 1997. The disciplinary dilemma of tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4): 868–883. Friberg, J.H. 2012. The stages of migration: from going abroad to settling down. The experiences of post-accession Polish migrant workers in Norway. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(10): 1589–1605. Fudge, J. and MacPhail, F. 2009. The temporary foreign worker programe in Canada: Low skilled workers as an extreme form of flexible labour. Comparative Labor Law and Policy

Journal, 31: 101–139. Ghodsee, K. 2005. The Red Riviera: Gender, Tourism and Postsocialism in the Black Sea. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Green, A.E., Hogarth, T., and Shackleton, R.E. 1999. Longer distance commuting as a substitute for migration in Britain: a review of trends, issues and implications. International Journal of Population Geography, 5(1): 49–67. Green, J.C. 2007. Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Hall, C.M. and Williams, A.M. 2002. Tourism and Migration: New Relationships between Production and Consumption. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Hollinshead, K. and Jamal, T.B. 2007. Tourism and “The Third Ear”: further prospects for qualitative inquiry. Tourism Analysis, 12(1/2): 85–129.

Home Office 2009. Accession Monitoring Report May 2004 – December 2008. www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/reports/accession_monitoring_report/rep dec08?view=Binary. ILO and UNWTO (International Labour Organization and United Nations World Tourism Organization) 2008. Sources and Methods: Labour Statistics and Employment in the Tourism Industries (Special Edition). Madrid: UNWTO. Janta, H. and Ladkin, A. (2009). Polish migrant labour in the hospitality workforce: implications for recruitment and retention. Tourism, Culture and Communication, 9(1/2): 5– 15. Janta, H., Ladkin, A., Brown, L., and Lugosi, P. 2011a. Employment experiences of Polish migrant workers in the UK hospitality industry. Tourism Management, 32(5): 1006–1019. Janta, H., Brown, L., Lugosi, P., and Ladkin, A. 2011b. Migrant relationships and tourism employment. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4): 1322–1343. Janta, H., Lugosi, P., Brown, L., and Ladkin, A. 2012. Migrant networks, language learning and tourism employment. Tourism Management, 33(2): 431–439. Joppe, M. (2012). Migrant workers: challenges and opportunities in addressing tourism labour shortages. Tourism Management, 33: 662–671. Kinnaird, V. and Hall, D. (eds) 1994. Tourism: A Gender Analysis. Chichester: Wiley. Ladkin, A. 2011. Exploring tourism labor. Annals of Tourism Research. 38(3): 1135–1155. Ladkin, A. and Riley, M. 1996. Mobility and structure in the career patterns of UK hotel managers: a labour market hybrid of the bureaucratic model. Tourism Management. 17(6): 443–452.

Ladkin, A. and Juwaheer, R. 2000. The careers of hotel managers in Mauritius. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(2): 119–125. Li, S. 2008. Rural Migrant Workers in China: Scenario, Challenges and Public Policy. Working paper no. 89. Geneva: Policy Integration and Statistics Department, ILO. Liu, A. and Wall, G. 2005. Human resources development in China. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3): 689–710. Mackenzie, R. and Forde, C. 2009. The rhetoric of the ‘good worker’ versus the realities of employers use and the experiences of migrant workers. Work, Employment and Society, 23(1): 142–159. Matthews, G. and Ruhs, M. 2007. Are You Being Served? An Exploration of the Demand for Migrant Labor in the UK's Hospitality Sector. University of Oxford, Working paper no. 51. www.compas.ox.ac.uk/research/Labour_market_and_Migration.shtml. McDowell, L., Batnitzky, A., and Dyer, S. 2007. Division, segmentation and interpellation: the embodied labours of migrant workers in a Greater London hotel. Economic Geography, 81(1): 1–26. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2008. International Migration Outlook. SOPEMI 2008. Paris: OECD. People 1st 2011. State of the Nation Report 2011. An Analysis of Labour Market Trends, Skills Education and Training within the UK Hospitality, Leisure, Travel and Tourism Industries. London: People 1st. Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. 2004. Qualitative Research in Tourism: Anthologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies. London: Routledge. Riley, M. 1991. Human Resource Management. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Riley, M., Ladkin, A., and Szivas, E. 2002. Tourism Employment: Analysis and Planning. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Riley, M. and Szivas, E. 2003. Pay determination: a socioeconomic framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(2): 446–464. Ross, L.E. and Boles, J.S. 1994. Exploring the influence of workplace relationships on work related attitudes and behaviours in the hospitality work environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 13(2): 155–171. Ruhanen, L. 2009. The Tourism Labour Market in the Asia Pacific Region. Conference paper, Fifth UNWTO International Conference on Tourism Statistics. Bali, Indonesia March 30–April 2, 2009. Ryan, C., Page, S., and Roche, T. 2007. New developments for the journal. Tourism

Management, 28(5): 1167. Shakeela, A., Ruhanen, L., and Breakey, N. 2010. Womens participation in tourism. A case study from the Maldives. In Tourism in the Muslim World, N. Scott and J. Jafari (eds), pp. 67– 71. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Shen, H. and Huang, C. 2012. Domestic migrant workers in China's hotel industry. An exploratory study of their life satisfaction and job burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4): 1283–1291. Shimada, A. 2005. Foreign workers participation in labour markets and the economy's welfare. Journal of Policy Modelling, 27 355–362. Sjaastad, L. 1962. The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5): Part 2, 80–93. Szivas, E. and Riley, M. 1999. Tourism employment during economic transition. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4): 747–771. Taylor, D. 1983. The migrant contribution to the British hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2(2): 61–68. Tribe, J. 1997. The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3): 638–657. Urry, J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge. Van der Klis, M. and Karsten, L. 2009. Commuting partners, dual residences and the meaning of home. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2): 235–245. Vaugeois, N. and Rollins, R. 2007. Mobility into tourism refuge employer? Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3): 630–648. Veijola, S. and Jokinen, E. 2008. Towards a hostessing society? Mobile arrangements of gender and labour. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 16(3): 166–181. Warhurst, C. and Nickson, D. 2007. Employee experience of aesthetic labour in retail and hospitality. Work, Employment and Society, 21(1), 103–120. Williams, A. and Hall, C.M. 2000. Tourism and migration: new relationships between production and consumption. Tourism Geographies, 2(1): 5–27. Worland, D. and Wilson, K. 1988. Employment and labour costs in the hospitality industry. Evidence from Victoria Australia. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 7(4): 363–377. World Travel and Tourism Council. 2011. Travel and Tourism 2011. www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/traveltourism2011.pdf.

World Travel and Tourism Council. 2012. Travel and Tourism: Economic Impact 2012: World. www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/world2012.pdf. Xiao, H. and Smith, S.J.L. 2006. The making of tourism research. Insights from a social science journal. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2): 490–507. Zagkotsi, S. 2012. Family and the rate of tourism development as factors generating mobility in the Greek tourism sector. International Journal of Tourism Research, DOI: 10.1002.ijtr.1918.

Chapter 11 Tourism and Development From Development Theory to Globalization David Harrison

The Emergence of Development Theory Neither tourism nor the study of development is especially new. Mass tourism goes back at least to the mid-nineteenth century and the introduction of cheap railway travel, although much earlier if one considers pilgrimage a variant of tourism (Aramberri, 2010: 2–3). Concern over the trajectory of “modern” societies can be traced back to such classical political economists as Adam Smith, Marx, Ricardo, Mill, and Weber, who were greatly exercised by the causes and directions of social “evolution” (Harrison, 1988: 1–8; Payne and Phillips, 2010: 10–32). That said, it was not really until after the Second World War, with the emergence of numerous “new nations,” that the specific concept of “development” came to be seen as intensely important by social theorists and politicians, especially those involved in the continuous confrontations of the Cold War. From then on, at least until the end of the 1990s, social scientific theory became intertwined, sometimes murkily, with national and inter​national development policies, and theoretical and ideological debates were often indistinguishable. In 1977, after some reflection, Seers concluded that development basically involved economic growth, accompanied by reduced inequality, unemployment, and poverty, achievable only through a radical distribution of power and increased economic and cultural self-reliance, possibly led by nationalistic elites (Seers, 1977). None of this was nation-specific; instead, it would involve “working on common worldwide problems, by one and all” and would make it “almost meaningless” to restrict the concept of development only to the “third world” (Seers, 1977: 6). The development project was for everyone. Arguably, nearly four decades later, this definition of development, or at least its aims, has not been bettered, despite numerous theoretical perspectives applied to what are variously known as developing or less-developed countries or even (still) the Third World. Details may vary, but the broad outline of how perspectives have changed is clear and many have summarized them (Harrison, 1988, 1992a: 10–11; Isbister, 2001; Telfer, 2002; Willis, 2005; Mowforth and Munt, 2009: 31–46; Payne and Phillips, 2010). According to Sharpley (2009), whose outline can be considered representative (Table 11.1), since the 1950s modernization and dependency theory, neoliberalism, and alternative/sustainable development have offered various routes to development but over the last decade there has been something of an “impasse,” characterized by considerable disillusion with all major theories of development (Sharpley, 2009: 39). Table 11.1. Development theory from the 1950s. Source: Sharpley (2009), p. 39.

Timeline Development process

Key concepts and strategies

1950s– 1960s

Modernization theory

Dominance of Western economic growth based models: Stages of growth Structural theories Diffusion; growth poles and trickle down

1960s– 1970s

Modernization theory/ dependency theory

State intervention: regulation/protectionism Underdevelopment the result of domination/exploitation by developed countries Economic restructuring: import substitution, protectionism; development of domestic markets

1970s– 1980s

Neo-liberalism

Limits to growth: neo-Malthusian theories in response to environmental concerns Promotion of the free market Limits on government intervention in economic activity Deregulation/privatization Structural adjustment programs

1980s

Neoliberalism/alternative development

New economic order; one world Awareness of effects of development on different cultures/societies Grassroots/people-centred development Basic needs: food, housing, education, health Local context/indigenous knowledge

1990s

Environmental sustainability Alternative/sustainable Dominance of sustainable development paradigm, but development emergence of postdevelopment school Grassroots/people-centred development Environmental management Engagement with globalization

2000s

Beyond the impasse: a new paradigm?

The development ‘impasse’ Postdevelopment: rejection of overarching development concepts Global environmental policies/protocols Transnational movements

Micro-level strategies Poverty reduction State security and development This depiction is largely valid but some caveats should be noted. First, not everyone was impressed with existing paradigms. Writing as early as the mid-1970s, and comparing Brazil and China – “[then] the biggest capitalist and socialist experiments in the Third World” – Berger was to note that the “theories are delusional and the sacrifices are indefensible. Rejection of both the Brazilian and the Chinese models is the starting point for any morally acceptable development policy” (Berger, 1976: 13–14). Secondly, perspectives vary on when the “impasse” in development thinking occurred. During the 1960s there was growing disillusionment with Grand Theory and this, along with virulent neo-Marxist critiques, led to reduced support for modernization theory (although development practitioners continue to follow many of its tenets). However, neo-Marxists were also in disarray, although their denouement has been dated as early as the 1970s (Payne and Phillips, 2010: 85) and as late as the mid-1980s (Booth, 1985; Kitching, 1985: 144–145). More generally, throughout the 1980s there was a sense of development issues not being addressed. Even the Brandt Report (Independent Commission on International Development Issues, 1980), with its proposal of a major transfer of resources to developing countries, and the Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), which placed environmental sustainability at the heart of the international development agenda, were unable to dispel the sense of development failure. Thirdly, as Sharpley (2009) recognizes, the paradigms he describes have long coexisted. Dependency theory actually emerged in the 1950s, at the same time as modernization theory, and when popularized by Frank (1969) it was based on “a current already old in Latin American thought” (Cardoso, 1977: 9). And neoliberalism, with its insistence on the role of the market, limited government, and democracy, had strong links with modernization theory even before the 1970s and remained a powerful force in the 1990s, when it continued to oppose neostatism (Payne and Phillips, 2010: 98–115). By the late 1980s it was realized that none of the competing perspectives were entirely satisfactory. The almost exclusive focus by modernization theory and dependency theory on internal structures and external linkages, respectively, was clearly inadequate to describe, let alone explain, global inequalities. Furthermore, the sustainability perspective – despite international conferences in 1992 (Rio de Janeiro), 2002 (Johannesburg), and 2012 (again in Rio de Janeiro), and increasing evidence of global warming – came to be criticized as vague, idealistic, contradictory, too general, and directed more at the symptoms of the problem rather than addressing the “real” causes of the mismatch of nonrenewable resources and consumption patterns (Adams, 1990: 10; Sharpley, 2009: 64–67). Indeed, “alternative development” in general (Payne and Phillips, 2010: 118–144), with its focus on bottom-up, local initiatives, and its many worthy aims (such as basic needs and the

Millennium Development Goals) is neither a theory nor a paradigm. However ideologically attractive, it remains a catch-all category that includes everything but conventional development, an issue that reappears when the focus is on alternative tourism. In development theory, then, “paradigms” or (better) perspectives continue but none is dominant and there is a general mistrust of grand narratives. Instead, there has been renewed emphasis on empirical research and a decreased tendency to make grandiose statements about the state of the world. We have not (yet) experienced the death of theory, but its advocates are now more modest and their claims reduced. In fact, many of the features found in the competing perspectives have been incorporated into what can broadly be described as globalization theory (Robertson, 1992; Waters, 1995; Hirst and Thompson, 1999; Hay and Marsh, 2000), which can encompass the global and the local: hence glocalization (Robertson, 2012). Along with the social, economic, cultural, and environmental, globalization enables theorists of various persuasions to operate in a more sober, ideology-free, and certainly less exciting environment than that of the heady 1970s and 1980s. And development studies? According to Payne and Phillips, “contemporary development studies, although still a sizeable academic enterprise in many Western countries, is at the same time an uncertain and under-confident discipline” (Payne and Phillips, 2010: 3). Their response to this impasse is to “relocate the study of development squarely within the intellectual project of political economy and the diverse theoretical traditions associated with it” (2010: 181). We have come full circle with a return to the classical political economists and Dudley Seers (1977): development is the concern of everyone.

Tourism through the Lens of Development Theory The rapid growth of tourism during the post-Second World War period coincided with the emergence of development theory (Telfer, 2002: 50–51). Not surprisingly, tourism soon came to be considered by many countries and development agencies (including the World Bank) as a valuable tool for development. Economists, especially, welcomed this new phenomenon as an industry “without chimneys.” The unquestioned welcome did not last, however, and over the years perspectives vacillated from the initial “advocacy” of tourism to caution, adaptation, and then a more objective “knowledge-based” approach (Jafari, 1989: 19–25). Even then, such platforms coexisted, much as they do now, and many academics and nonacademics remain highly critical of international tourism's role in development. Two publications, in particular, were instrumental in setting the pattern for future studies of tourism and development. The first was Valene Smith's (1977) first edited collection of case studies of tourism in both developed and developing societies, which was of lasting influence for anthropologists and others with an interest in tourism's impacts in less-developed regions (Scott and Selwyn, 2010). The second, especially germane to this chapter, was a similar collection examining the role of tourism in developing societies. Edited by Emanuel de Kadt (1979), a colleague of Seers at the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex in the UK, it

focused on the problematic role of tourism as a possible “passport to development,” an issue as valid now as it was then. His emphases on national policies and planning, types of tourism, the social, economic, and cultural impacts of tourism, and the nature of the tourism encounter (de Kadt, 1979: 3–33) have been continued by a generation of scholars who have looked at the global, national, and local implications of international tourism (Harrison, 1992b: 19–34, 2007: 70). Much has changed since these early contributions. Development economists and sociologists have been joined by a range of academics from other disciplines, including marketing and management, all of whom might consider themselves scholars “of tourism development” (Harrison, 2010: 41). This diversity is reflected in the range and volume of publications. The third edition of Mowforth and Munt's (2009) popular text on tourism and sustainability, for instance, listed nearly 700 references, while a recent text on tourism's role in poverty reduction listed more than 200, most of which were from nonacademic sources (Mitchell and Ashley, 2010)! Despite the volume of publications on tourism and development, however, some generalizations can be made. First, while development theory is undoubtedly relevant to tourism (Harrison, 2001a: 7–8; Mowforth and Munt, 2009: 52–60), their relationship is often implicit. In this respect, Telfer's work (2002) is exceptional. After reviewing the literature, he suggests that the four “paradigms” of modernization, dependency, neoliberalism, and alternative tourism can be related to tourism under two broad categories: first, the scale and control of development and, secondly, linkages to the local community and the environment (Telfer, 2002: 52–78). However, as he recognizes, this involves considerable generalization; for instance, “it is not correct to assume automatically that small-scale alternative tourism is sustainable and large-scale tourism is not” (2002: 62). In fact, many advocates of tourism, especially those who emphasize its economic benefits, are unaware of the modernization perspective that underpins their work and the countless development plans that remain the standard approach to tourism as a development tool. Among academics, too, a modernization approach is often implicit. MacCannell's (1976) depiction of the tourist as “modern man,” debates over tourism's impacts on indigenous arts and crafts, authenticity, tradition, and social structures in tourist destinations, tourism entrepreneurship, and tourism as an agent of commoditization and social change generally, can all be subsumed under the modernization umbrella (Harrison, 2001a: 6–7). One need not believe that “the modern” is good to recognize that modernization is occurring. Among the few more explicit applications of modernization theory to tourism, MacNaught's (1982) early defence of tourism (and Pacific cultures) in Pacific islands is noteworthy, while studies of tourism in China have focused on processes of modernization (Oakes, 1998; Sofield and Li, 1998). More recently, Andriotis (2003) and Sharpley (2003) have analyzed tourism as a mode of modernization in the islands of Crete and Cyprus, respectively, while Aramberri (2010) has taken the bold step of defending modern mass tourism as a welcome feature of modernity. Studies of tourism from the perspective of underdevelopment, or dependency, have been more numerous and emphasize the alleged downsides of tourism, especially leakages from income

received from tourism (Wood, 1993; Telfer, 2002: 53–56). A much quoted example is that of Britton (1982) who, like MacNaught, focused on Pacific islands, especially Fiji, and argued that their peripheral economic status vis-à-vis the metropolitan countries from which tourists originated led to a situation of dependency, where metropolitan countries both defined the tourist experience and dominated the island economy through transnational hotels. Most other examples of tourism development utilizing an underdevelopment perspective were also published some time ago, for example, Oglethorpe (1984) on Malta and Palmer (1994) on the Bahamas. A more recent contribution examines leakages in tourism expenditure from Thai villages, but recognizes the need also to examine regional and intravillage structures (Lacher and Nepal, 2010: 965–966). As Bianchi (2002) has noted, a cluster of global institutions, such as the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), World Trade Organization (WTO), European Union, and North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), “have provided a powerful institutional impetus to the expansion of neoliberal modes of tourism development in different regional contexts” (Bianchi, 2002: 297). His concerns have been echoed by others (Telfer, 2002: 56–58; Mowforth and Munt, 2009: 308–310). A particularly good example is from Southeast Asia, where between 2003 and 2011 alone the Asian Development Bank “provided US$58.7 million in loan and grant assistance to the GMS [Greater Mekong Subregion] tourism industry” (Asian Development Bank, 2012: 11), much of which went to improved road and river facilities. Indeed, the key priorities of the bank's regional cooperation strategy and program for the GMS have a strong flavor of neoliberalism, and include making crossborder travel easier, integrating national markets, and developing the private sector (Asian Development Bank, 2012: 14). Finally, it is necessary to address the tourism equivalent of alternative development (Sharpley, 2009: 39). Like its parent concept, the notion of “alternative tourism” is vague. It can refer to almost anything other than mass tourism, including “nature-based,” “special interest,” “niche,” “small-scale,” backpacking,” “new,” and “pro-poor” tourism, none of which is necessarily sustainable. In fact, the only two features they have in common is that they are not mass tourism and will never replace it (Aramberri, 2010: 311–352). Ecotourism? Definitions vary, but few businesses could meet the purist criteria listed by Honey (1999: 22–26) that include minimal impact, conservation, and support for human rights and democratic movements. In fact, evidence suggests ecotourism and community-based projects do little for conservation (Goodwin, 2006: 7) and that their environmental and social benefits are frequently overestimated (Butler, 1999: 12–13). For Telfer (2002: 68–78), the preferred version is “appropriate” or “sustainable” tourism, which is characterized by a mix of large- and smallscale enterprises. However, it is unclear for whom or what it is appropriate and this version of alternative tourism seems to be an uneasy compromise between mass and small-scale tourism. “Sustainable tourism” is often put forward as another variant of alternative tourism and – even more than sustainable development – is a problematic concept (Butler, 1999). Sustaining the physical environment is difficult enough, as “nature” is always subject to trade-offs for human comfort and it is even harder to apply to social structures and cultures. Sociocultural phenomena are changeable and adaptive, and identifying when they cease to be sustainable is

virtually impossible (Harrison, 1996). As defined by Butler (1999: 12), sustainable tourism development that is viable without degrading the human or physical environment or prohibiting successful development elsewhere, is indeed a worthy aim. However, even its advocates are pessimistic. As Mowforth and Munt (2009) note, large and small tour operators “will increasingly deploy links with conservation, ecology and matters ethical, to their own ends” (Mowforth and Munt, 2009: 376). For them, at least, the future of international tourism, in general, is likely to be “more of the same” (2009: 377).

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Issues and Challenges There is every indication that tourism will continue to be promoted as a “passport” to development in both developed and developing countries for the foreseeable future, and that domestic and international tourism will continue to grow. Current forecasts are that international arrivals alone will reach 1.8 billion by 2030 (UNWTO, 2013: 14) and, if current proportions remain the same, domestic tourist arrivals, currently 4 billion, are likely to reach more than 8.5 billion over the same period (Pierret, 2011). As with development generally, the focus is moving east. China's impact, as a destination and a source of tourists, is only beginning, the potential of India is similarly enormous (Aramberri, 2010: 313–314), and trends all point to continued growth in other regions, especially Southeast Asia. Even more than now, vacationing will be the norm and few regions will be unaffected: niche markets and “alternative” tourism (including space tourism) will multiply, but mass tourism to “natural” areas and to urban “heritage” sites will undoubtedly continue to constitute the bulk of international arrivals. At the same time, uncertainties will remain. There will be more global and regional financial crises, along with religious fundamentalism, political unrest and related terrorism and violence, all of which will have local impacts on the global movement of tourists. Under such circumstances, simply charting the movement of tourists is a key role for anyone with a stake in studies of travel and tourism. Beyond this, though, several major issues emerge from this brief analysis of the relationship of tourism to development. First, there is a continued need for theoretically informed perspectives on tourism's relationship to development. In some respects, this goes against the trend, inherited from development debates, to mistrust theory and marginalize theorists, a trend reinforced by the incorporation of such disciplines as marketing and management into academic units focusing on tourism (even to the extent of having “management” in their titles or, perhaps, operating within business schools, rather than traditional academic disciplines). The theories should not be as ideologically driven as the development perspectives of the last four decades, which are no longer adequate, but they do need to recognize global realities. For example, with the implosion of the “second world” in 1989, the “third world” and “emerging economies” became part of one world. In like fashion, international tourism should be seen in a global context. Questions raised in the established “paradigms” remain but now need to be more globally situated and to be

supplemented by approaches from disciplines other than development economics. Studies of tourism's impacts in small states and islands, for example, remain relevant, but so too are those relating to tourism in other developing and in developed societies. What goes on in Greece, Cyprus, or Italy, Egypt and Tunisia, or the UK and France is often interrelated and the processes are comparable. This is where globalization theory is appropriate. It is already being applied to tourism (Cartier and Lew, 2005; Hjalager, 2007; Cooper, 2008; Telfer and Sharpley, 2008: 58–79; Theuns, 2008; Wood, 2008; Aramberri, 2010: 56–76) and, it is argued here, is an appropriate (and suitably broad) basis for future studies of tourism and development. Secondly, when tourism is conceived as a comprehensive system, with globalization as its major feature (Figure 11.1), it is not the province of any one academic discipline or subject to any one methodology (defined here as the underlying logic or philosophy behind the perspective). Rather, the crossfertilization of tourism and development is reflected in the systemic linkages of societies that supply and receive tourists, among the various industries that make up global tourism, in the economic, sociocultural, and environmental characteristics and impacts of different types of tourism, and at the level of social interaction. These various levels have been discussed at length elsewhere (Harrison, 2007) but Butler's well-known tourism area life-cycle approach (TALC) (Butler, 2006a, 2006b), Sharpley's (2009: 175–198) focus on destination capitals, where sustainability is a local concern, and the application by Hamzah and Hampton (2013) of resilience theory are a few examples of more specific, lowerlevel concepts than can be easily accommodated in a globalization perspective. At the same time, wider issues relating to tourism's intricate relationship with the environment will remain of central concern, including the sustainability of mass tourism, which should surely become a central preoccupation of future theorists and practitioners (Weaver, 2000).

Figure 11.1. Theoretical perspectives informing approaches to tourism and development. INGOs, international nongovernmental organizations; MT, modernization theory; UDT, underdevelopment theory; UN, United Nations. Source: Harrison (2010), p. 42. Thirdly, a globalization orientation also accommodates the kind of political economy advocated by Bianchi (2002), itself a version of earlier Marxist approaches, where attention is

directed to the power of transnational tourism corporations in both developing and developed countries. Like political economy approaches generally, globalization perspectives focus both on crossboundary processes (thus linking with dependency theory) and on what goes on within destinations (for long the implicit or explicit province of modernization theory). Fourthly, whether the emphasis is on developed or developing societies, globalization perspectives facilitate analysis of the role of the state (Harrison, 2001b: 33–39). In this respect, neoliberalism and neostatism are not exclusive “paradigms,” whose advocates are unable to engage in debate; they are more akin to policy orientations, the validity of which can be determined by empirical research, by evidence arrived at by comparing the state's role in tourism in different societies. And as Lockwood (2005) bluntly notes, if a state – irrespective of its ideological colors – is not committed to furthering the welfare of its citizens, development will not occur. Finally, and astonishingly, with notable exceptions (Andriotis, 2003; Sharpley, 2003; Aramberri, 2010), conventional mass tourism has been largely neglected by tourism scholars, except to berate it for its failings, in favor of (minority) forms of “alternative tourism.” And yet, it is the major form of domestic and international tourism and is capable of transforming communities, for better or worse, over very short periods. In particular, the role of transnational tourism corporations has often been criticized, but the extent to which they occur, the actual reach of the global corporations, their interrelations, and their different characteristics have all been little researched (Williams, 1995; Bianchi, 2002; Meyer, 2003). For many, these global corporations are the epitome of mass tourism and are thus highly problematic. Indeed, as Aramberri (2010) remarks, mass tourism in general “has thus become a usual suspect for every crime and misdemeanour with the sole exception of patricide and good taste” (Aramberri, 2010: 55). In querying further if tourism is indeed responsible for so many ills, he suggests “most of those flights of imagination vanish into thin air” (2010: 55). This may seem an overstatement but the truth is that we simply do not know. The research has yet to be done.

References Adams, T. 1990. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World. London: Routledge. Andriotis, K. 2003. Tourism and modernisation in Crete: a form of modernisation. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(1): 23–53. Aramberri, J. 2010. Modern Mass Tourism. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Asian Development Bank 2012. Greater Mekong Sub Region: Tourism Sector Assessment, Strategy nd Road Map. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Berger, P. 1976. Pyramids of Sacrifice: Political Ethics and Social Change. London: Allen Lane.

Bianchi, R. 2002. Towards a new political economy of global tourism. In Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues, R. Sharpley and D. Telfer (eds), pp. 265–299. Clevedon: Channel View. Booth, D. 1985. Marxism and development sociology: interpreting the impasse. World Development, 13(7): 761–787. Britton, S. 1982. The political economy of tourism in the Third World. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(1): 331–358. Butler, R. 1999. Sustainable tourism: a state of the art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1): 7– 25. Butler, R. (ed.) 2006a. The Tourism Area Life Cycle, Vol. 1: Applications and Modifications. Clevedon: Channel View. Butler, R. (ed.) 2006b. The Tourism Area Life Cycle, Vol. 2: Conceptual and Theoretical Issues. Clevedon: Channel View. Cardoso, F. 1977. The consumption of dependency theory in the United States. Latin American Research Review, 12(3): 7–24. Cartier, C. and Lew, A. (eds) 2005. Seductions of Place: Geographical Perspectives on Globalization and Touristed Landscapes. Oxon: Routledge Cooper, C. 2008. Globalisation is more than an economic phenomenon. Tourism Recreation Research, 33(1): 109–111. de Kadt, E. 1979. The issues addressed. In Tourism: Passport to Development?, E. de Kadt (ed.), pp. 3–76. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Frank, A.G. 1969. Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution? New York: Monthly Review Press. Goodwin, H. 2006. Community-Based Tourism: Failing to Deliver? id21 Insights 62. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Hamzah, A. and Hampton, M. 2013. Resilience and non-linear change in island tourism. Tourism Geographies, 15(1): 43–67. Harrison, D. 1988 The Sociology of Modernization and Development. London: Unwin and Hyman. Harrison, D. 1992a. International tourism and the less developed countries: the background. In Tourism and the Less Developed Countries, D. Harrison (ed.), pp. 1–18. London: Belhaven. Harrison, D. 1992b. Tourism in less developed countries: the social consequences. In Tourism and the Less Developed Countries, D. Harrison (ed.), pp. 19–34. London: Belhaven.

Harrison, D. 1996. Sustainability and tourism: reflections from a muddy pool. In Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies, L. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari, and G. Wall (eds), pp. 69–89. Kindin: Pinter. Harrison, D. 2001a. Less developed countries and tourism: the overall pattern. In Tourism and the Less Developed World: Issues and Case Studies, D. Harrison (ed.), pp. 1–22. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Harrison, D. 2001b. Tourism and less developed countries: key issues. In Tourism and the Less Developed World: Issues and Case Studies, D. Harrison (ed.), pp. 23–46. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Harrison, D. 2007. Towards developing a framework for analysing tourism phenomena: a discussion. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(1): 61–86. Harrison, D. 2010. Tourism and development: looking back and looking ahead – more of the same? In Tourism Research: a 20–20 Vision, D. Pearce and R. Butler (eds), pp. 40–52. Oxford, Goodfellow Publishing. Hay, C. and Marsh, D. 2000. Introduction demystifying globalization. In Demystifying Globalization, C. Hay and D. Marsh (eds), pp. 1–17. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. 1999. Globalization in Question, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hjalager, A.-M. 2007. Stages in the economic globalization of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 34(2): 437–457. Honey, M. 1999. Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: who owns Paradise? Washington DC: Island Press. Independent Commission on International Development Issues 1980. North-South: A Programme for Survival. Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues. London: Pan Books. Isbister, J. 2001. Promises not Kept: The Betrayal of Change in the Third World, 5th edn. Connecticut: Kumarian. Jafari, J. 1989. Sociocultural dimensions of tourism. In Tourism as a Factor of Change: A Sociocultural Study, J. Bystrzanowski (ed.), pp. 7–16. Vienna: European Coordination Centre for Research and Documentation in Social Sciences. Kitching, G. 1985. Politics, method and evidence in the ‘Kenya debate’. In Contradictions of Accumulation in Africa: Studies in Economy and State, H. Bernstein and B. Campbell (eds), pp. 115–151. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lacher, R.G. and Nepal, S.K. 2010. Dependency and development in northern Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4): 947–968.

Lockwood, M. 2005. The State They're in. New York: Barnes and Noble. MacCannell, D. 1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. London: Macmillan Press. MacNaught, T. 1982. Mass tourism and the dilemmas of modernization in Pacific Island communities. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(3): 359–381. Meyer, D. 2003. The U.K. Outbound Tour Operating Industry and implications for Pro-poor Tourism. PPT Working Paper 17. London: Overseas Development Institute. Mitchell, J. and Ashley, C. 2010. Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity. London: Earthscan. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. 2009. Tourism and Sustainability: Development, globalisation and new tourism in the Third World, 3rd edn. London: Routledge. Oakes, T. 1998. Tourism and Modernity in China. London: Routledge. Oglethorpe, M. 1984. Tourism in Malta: a crisis of dependence. Leisure Studies, 3(2): 141– 161. Palmer, C. 1994. Tourism and colonialism: the experience of the Bahamas. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4): 792–811. Payne, A. and Phillips, N. 2010. Development. Cambridge: Polity Press Pierret, F. 2011. Some Points on Domestic Tourism. www2.unwto.org/ar/node/29001. Robertson, R. 1992. Globalisation: Social Theory and Culture. Sage Publications: London. Robertson, R. 2012. Globalisation or glocalisation? Journal of International Communication, 18(2): 191–208. Scott, J. and Selwyn, T. (eds) 2010. Thinking Through Tourism. Oxford: Berg. Seers, D. 1977 The new meaning of development. International Development Review, 19(3): 2–7. Sharpley, R. 2003. Tourism, modernisation and development on the island of Cyprus: challenges and policy responses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(2/3): 246–265. Sharpley, R. 2009. Tourism Development and the Environment: Beyond Sustainability. London: Earthscan. Smith, V. (ed.) 1977. Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sofield, T. and Li, S. 1998. China: tourism development and cultural policies. Annals of

Tourism Research, 25(2): 362–392. Telfer, D. 2002. The evolution of tourism and development theory. Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues, R. Sharpley and D. Telfer (eds), pp. 35–50. Clevedon, Channel View. Telfer, D. and Sharpley, R. 2008. Tourism and Development in the Developing World. London: Routledge. Theuns, H.L. 2008. Globalization and tourism: pros and cons. Tourism Recreation Research, 33(1): 99–105. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization) 2013. UNWTO Tourism Highlights: 2012 Edition. Madrid: UNWTO. Waters, M. 1995. Globalization. London: Routledge. Weaver, D. 2000. A broad context model of different destination scenarios. Tourism Management, 21(3): 217–224. Williams, A. 1995. Capital and the transnationalisation of tourism. In European Regions, Spaces and Restructuring, A. Montanari and A. Williams (eds), pp. 163–176. Chichester: Wiley. Willis, K. 2005 Theories and Practices of Development. London: Routledge. Wood, R. 1993. Tourism, culture and the sociology of development. In Tourism in South-East Asia, M. Hitchcock, V. King, and M. Parnwell (eds), pp. 48–70. London: Routledge. Wood, R. 2008. Globalization and tourism: mapping the terrain. Tourism Recreation Research, 33(1): 106–108. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 12 Transport and Tourism Stephen Page and Joanne Connell Transport is a fundamental requirement for tourism to occur. It is the pivotal element that connects the tourist with the destination, unifying the origin–destination elements and contributing to the visitor experience. It is the dynamic element in the tourism system. The tourism transport field has developed slowly to embrace a diversity of perspectives, from the basic development and management of infrastructure and services, and movement of people, through to socially constructed aspects of mobility and behavior, encompassing a broad spectrum of interest for the geographer. This chapter explores the difficult and increasingly controversial association between transport, tourism, and mobility, commencing with a discussion of the nature of this relationship, followed by an exploration of the nascent tourism transport literature to provide a context for its evolution and development as a field of study. The review then engages with a broader debate on a number of contemporary issues in the tourism and transport literature. What follows is not intended as a review of modes of transport but rather an overview of some of the pertinent issues that have influenced the understanding of transport in a tourism context. While reviews of transport and tourism (e.g. Page, 2009a) have consistently shown that its study has remained largely neglected, global events and shifts in thinking are rapidly changing this position, placing transport-related concerns at the forefront of many research agendas in tourism and related disciplines. Two key interconnected themes have induced this prominence in academic, policy, and industry contexts: first, the growing concern about climate change, and the contribution of tourism to this problem, has highlighted the impact of transport as a discretionary activity associated with the pursuit of tourism consumption; second, the issues facing policy-makers in addressing transport impacts without compromising destinations highly dependent upon tourism-related revenue has become a major contemporary dilemma. As a consequence, a significant increase in multidisciplinary research tackling technical, economic, policy, and behavioral aspects of tourist travel has emerged. In the context of the sustainable development paradigm, transport and environmental concerns feature heavily in this growing research area. Accordingly, a consistent theme at both academic and policy levels is managing the seemingly insatiable demand for travel: that is, how to deal with conflicting demand for reducing carbon emissions, encouraging less environmentally damaging forms of transport and tourist behavior, while managing and promoting economic growth for destinations. Such deliberations are situated in the context of an industry that is largely based on fossil fuels. Superficially, many tourism and travel corporations alongside destination-management and marketing organizations have shifted policy and operations towards the sustainability agenda by adopting strategies to make the transport–tourism relationship appear less destructive. Inherent in this are two problems. First is the ever-increasing volume of international tourism. Peeters et al. (2007) found that in the European Union 875 million tourist trips were made annually. Their modeling

of tourism flows highlighted the challenge where the growth in the number of trips by 2020 would be in the region of 1371 million journeys. In Europe alone this represents almost a doubling of the volume of travel in a 10-year time frame. Second, as Dubois et al. (2011) argue, a major shift in transport modes in parallel with reduced traveling distances and rapid development and uptake of low-carbon technologies is required to address a rapid slide towards dangerous climate change. Even, as Scott et al. (2012) argue, with the introduction of new cleaner fuels and technological improvements to aircraft and land-based vehicles, the increasing volume of tourism will cancel out any gains. Society values freedom to explore the world through tourism that transport provides and there is no evidence to suggest any diminution of this relationship.

The Transport–Tourism–Mobility Relationship Fundamentally, human mobility is structured around distinct methods of transport: selfpropelled modes (e.g. walking), augmented modes (using technology or tools to amplify our bodily effort such as skiing), and fuelled modes (especially motorized transport) (Stradling and Anable, 2008). These modes also require the infrastructure (Khadaroo and Seetanah, 2008) to accommodate each form of transport, and tourism has benefitted globally from the ability to harness these modes at both a global and national scale. The two principal drivers from a supply perspective have been the aircraft for international travel (Li, 2008) and the car for domestic travel (Prideaux and Carson, 2009). As Stradling and Anable (2008) argue, the three notions of propulsion, combustion, and consumption characterize modern-day travel, and identify tourism as a form of conspicuous consumption. Broadly, the transport–tourism relationship can be observed from two dimensions, where both aspects incorporate an understanding of the spatial dimension of tourism and tourist travel. First is travel to and from a destination, which may incorporate one or more modes such as air, land-based transport, or water-borne transport. Second is recreational travel within a destination, including use of trails, scenic routes, cycleways, and heritage transport. The importance of efficient and affordable transportation in destinations contributes significantly to the appeal of a destination (Khadaroo and Seetanah, 2008). As such, while significant inputs might be levied towards facilitating travel to a destination, such efforts may not be sufficient alone to create an attractive destination, emphasizing the role of transport in the visitor experience. Moreover, as debated by Masson and Petiot (2009) in an exploration of high-speed rail links in France, the development of rapid routes to emerging destinations does not assure successful tourism development, and benefits derived depend on existing tourism resources. Such findings highlight the dynamic nature of the relationship between transport, tourism, and policy in destinations. The relationship between transport and tourism has largely been researched by geographers who have used the concepts developed by spatial scientists to understand the interactions and locational aspects of transport systems as they impact and depend upon recreation and tourism activities. As Page (2009a) verified, geographers have made very distinctive contributions to not only the development of research on transport and tourism (e.g. Patmore, 1983) but also to

new and emerging research agendas that are associated with the consumptive effects of tourism. In this respect, geographers have been at the forefront of much of the research climate change and carbon management (Peeters and Dubois, 2010). As Peeters et al. (2007) observed, the environmental impacts emanating from tourist transport include climate change, adverse effects on air quality, noise, and land take, and visual intrusion upon landscapes, a feature exemplified by the reviews of major transport infrastructure projects associated with tourism such as the Channel Tunnel between England and France (Page and Sinclair, 1992) and associated projects such as interconnected high-speed rail links (Goodenough and Page, 1994; Masson and Petiot, 2009). Hence, research on transport and tourism has moved from a position in the 1980s where it was seen as one of symbiosis (i.e. without transport, tourism could not occur) to a more diverse, multifaceted locus of interest (Figure 12.1). This shift illustrates that as transport impacts, both directly and indirectly, upon the global environment and specific destinations, the notion of sustainability has been utilized by policy-makers as a tool to try to balance the facilitating versus damaging effects of transport as a lever for tourism.

Figure 12.1. The tourist–transport relationship.

The Nascent Tourism Transport Literature While useful syntheses such as Halsall (1992) provide bibliographies of early studies, few early studies explicitly developed an understanding of how transport facilitates and conditions the form and type of recreational and tourism activity. Much of the early tourism-related research was preoccupied with air travel (e.g. Chou, 1993; O'Connor, 1995). Studies by Hall (1999) and Lumsdon and Page (2004) have stimulated the wider debate on tourism–transport relationships, while Page (2009a) comprehensively focuses on the tourism/transport interface including the historic evolution of transport studies research in tourism (Baranowski, 2007) and interdisciplinary approaches in the analysis of tourist–transport relationships. Transport geographers, including Knowles et al. (2008) and Keeling (2007), have highlighted the need for research on recreation and tourism, but it is in the tourism literature that the most diverse range of studies has emerged. An important starting point for any analysis of the tourism/transport interface is what Hall (1999: 181) describes as four spatially expressed roles: “linking the source market with the

host destination; providing mobility and access within a destination area/region/country; providing mobility and access within an actual tourism attraction and facilitating travel along a recreational route which is itself the tourism experience.” Yet what is also notable is the apparent disregard for the situation in less developed countries where transport may be an instrument or symbol of inequality; for example, where the local population is excluded from international tourist transport (e.g. air-conditioned transport) and a two-tier system of transportation exists (Hall, 1999). The majority of research by geographers in the period prior to this review was predominantly written from a positivist mode (Hoyle and Knowles, 1998). There is evidence that tourism researchers with a spatial interest in tourism phenomena are developing more qualitative modes of analysis and engaging with wider interdisciplinary debates on technology (e.g. social media) and its ability to change tourist travel behavior and itineraries. In parallel, a developing research focus on behavioral aspects of transport use and the potential impacts for service and operational management (Davison and Ryley, 2013) and environmental policy (Dickinson and Robbins, 2008) has become a feature of the extant literature.

The Relationship Between Transport, Recreation, and Tourism Within the established debates that focus on definition, tourism and recreation are recognized as a subset of the more encompassing concept of leisure (Page and Connell, 2010). This is important in a transport context because much of the activity concerning domestic and destination travel is not confined to international tourists, but incorporates day visits from home. Day visits must be considered as part of this discussion because the implications of leisure travel create significant issues for policy and management, and in many destinations it is day visitors that become core management issues (for example, car-borne visitors in UK National Parks). Discretionary leisure time has become a firmly ingrained element in the routine of many people, but daily, weekly, and annual leisure time is distributed unevenly in social and spatial terms. For example, Williams (1995) highlights the relationship in urban recreational patterns in British cities where residents in the most affluent neighborhoods have relatively easy access to recreational and leisure resources. This is not only reflected in the spatial distribution of such resources but also through the increased levels of car ownership in such neighborhoods compared to residents in poorer districts. While the social and spatial distribution of leisure activities focus substantially on services and facilities that are available, desirable, and affordable to segments of the population given access to specific forms of transport, the dual nature of transport in providing services to tourists, day visitors, and local residents in a recreational and commuting/everyday service to resident populations in tourist destinations raises several issues. It is often difficult to distinguish between the use of transport for leisure and for recreation. For example, on a rail journey through a National Park, the train may be carrying local passengers who are enjoying a passive use of their leisure time by sightseeing and it may also be carrying fell walkers who are using the train as a mode of transport into the

National Park to participate in outdoor recreation. The train may also be carrying nonresidents journeying between points A and B. These may be domestic tourists who are staying away from home for more than 24 hours or international tourists who are on holiday. Herein lays the complexity of disentangling the complex relationship between leisure, recreation, and tourism and the fact that tourists also undertake recreational activities at their destination area. Further, individual journeys create a complex array of spatial patterns. Only a limited number of geographers have modeled and analyzed these patterns at the domestic, intraregional, and international scales (see Pearce, 1995), although a number of recent studies have started to address this subject (Hall and Page, 2014), while some econometric studies have adopted methods to assess spatial dynamics, for example Deng and Athanasopoulos's (2011) study of Australian domestic and inbound travel flows. More socially constructed definitions of tourism are useful in understanding the separate and regulated spheres of work and leisure time and in showing how individuals do not necessarily distinguish between leisure, recreation, and tourism as has been observed by various researchers (e.g. Shaw and Williams, 1994). In spatial and social terms, such a distinction remains a semantic and somewhat tautological issue since no clear boundary exists between each, and there are significant interactions between each form of activity since recreational environments overlap with tourist destinations. Nevertheless, Halsall (1982) identified the fundamental relationship between transport and leisure time that geographers neglected to develop further in the late 1980s and early 1990s: Transport is an integral part of much recreational behavior, both as an aid to access to recreational opportunities, and as a recreational activity in its own right … Progressive reductions in the relative costs of travel, and in the frictional effects of distance have dramatically increased the demand for recreational trips. In particular, the growth of car ownership has extended both the distances traveled and the range of recreational foci. (Halsall, 1982: ii) However, Halsall (1982) failed to acknowledge the implications for international tourism, even though, as Pearce (1995) recognizes, the volume of domestic tourism is up to 10 times greater than international tourism on a global scale. Nevertheless, tourism has also been a major beneficiary of these changes in accessibility by encouraging people to travel further afield as package holidays and charter flights (and subsequently the rise of the low-cost carrier; see Graham, 2013) have widened access for international travel. But recreational trips and domestic tourism remain the dominant forms of activity in terms of the volume of traffic, although the globalization debate associated with tourism is bound up in international tourist activity (as well as the role of such global companies in tourist-transport provision; see Chapter 19 in this volume). Aside from the generic growth forecast in international tourism by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) of 1.8 billion arrivals by 2030 (UNWTO, 2011; see Chapter 1 in this volume), and the associated forecasts of the implications for transport supply (i.e. aircraft and airport capacity required to service this growth geographically), there is also evidence that specific innovations in the delivery of transportation (e.g. low-cost carriers) can spatially stimulate specific forms of tourism growth and development. As UNWTO (2012)

identified, some secondary airports in coastal areas of Spain, such as Asturia and Murcia, have outperformed established destinations, an outcome attributable to the development of low-cost carriers compared to relatively slower rates of growth in other areas of Spain. An additional result of this growth has been a rise in the number of second homes in these expanding locations as a direct result of new air access. The low-cost carriers have stimulated the growth of regional tourism thereby illustrating how new forms of supply can affect the geographical patterns of demand, away from conventional mass resort tourism in Spain. These carriers, as a new form of competition in the transport supply chain, have also changed the modal competition for tourist travel. For example, the construction of the Channel Tunnel and the emergence of the low-cost airline sector split the market between sea, air, and the Tunnel operator, with the ferry operators relocating ships to other routes to reduce supply. One of the important ways the geographer has attempted to explain the relationship between transport, recreation, and tourism is in terms of the development of models (Pearce, 1995). Although such models do not adequately accommodate the role of the individual traveler and their behavioral traits, they do provide insights into the transport/recreation/tourism interface (e.g. Giuliano and Dargay, 2006).

The Car and Recreational Travel Despite massive focus on air travel in much tourism research, the car is the dominant mode of transport for tourism, recreational, and leisure activity. In the post-Second World War period, the growth of car ownership has not only made travel more flexible, it has induced over-use at accessible sites. Ease of access, fuelled by a growth in road building and the upgrading of minor roads, has been a self-reinforcing process leading to a car-dependency culture and, with it, a greater dominance in passive recreational activities. Probably the earliest and most influential study of car usage among recreationalists was Wall's (1972) study of Kingston-upon Hull in 1969. Wall (1972) identified the two principal types of study used to analyze recreational activity as site studies (of particular facilities or areas) and national studies. Wall (1972) supplemented data from the national survey with a regional sample of 500 Hull carowners in 1969. While the study is now historic in nature, it still retains relevance in highlighting seasonality and timing of pleasure trips by car, and the dominance of the car as a mode of transport for urban dwellers. In addition, this study highlighted the role of the journey by car as a form of recreation in itself, as well as the destination. Such findings emphasized the importance of the car as more than just a means of transport. Wall (1971) also found that the majority of pleasure trips were day trips less than 100 km away from Hull, being spatially concentrated in a limited number of resorts along the Yorkshire coast and in the southerly part of the region. Other research (Burton, 1966) explained the attraction of the car to recreationalists, allowing them to enjoy the countryside and observe its visual characteristics rather have than physical contact. Some 30 years on, Eaton and Holding (1996) identified the growing scale of visits to the countryside by recreationalists in cars. In 1991, 103 million visits were made to National Parks in the UK (Countryside Commission, 1992), with car traffic estimated to grow 267% by

the year 2025. In fact, the greatest pressures of rising car usage have been the decline in public transport usage for recreational trips and yet many National Parks seem unlikely to be able to cope with the levels of usage predicted to the year 2025 given their urban catchments and relative accessibility. While recreational public-transport-based schemes are frequently marketed, such schemes are often less successful than anticipated and are not incorporated into any wider policy objectives for transport. As Lumsdon (2006: 760) argues, such initiatives need to be made more attractive to car users to promote modal shift: “The common practice of designing networks primarily for utility purposes and then marketing them to the tourist is not likely to be attractive unless adapted to meet their needs.” In situations where new policy solutions are required, road pricing has been explored (Eckton, 2003) and the use of park shuttles to remove cars from the park environment (Shiftan et al., 2006). However, this underlines a wider failure to design public transport to suit the needs and perception of users to achieve reductions and solutions to congestion in National Parks, as accommodating the car and the itineraries of visitors is still a key priority (e.g. Connell and Page, 2008). Thus it is clear that the car poses a major problem not only for urban areas and their use by commuters and recreationalists but also in terms of the sheer growth in volume in areas not designed for large numbers of car users. In fact the challenge of recognizing the contribution which tourism makes to public transport provision has led to several studies as a new research area in recent years. For example, Blancheton and Marchi (2013) have examined the role of rail in this relationship, while Liu et al. (2013) have examined the role of making improvements in the interconnections between metro provision and airports, a theme Page (1994) highlighted but which has only recently been reviewed through primary research. Albalate and Bel (2010) argued that researchers need to focus more closely on the demand for tourist transport in cities and their use of public transport systems to understand the relationship with city planning more fully. While the demand impacts of tourism on transport infrastructure are evident, city planners appear reluctant to make major improvements based on these assumptions and models (notable exceptions being the hosting of mega events such as the Olympic Games, for which dedicated services are temporarily provided). In fact, the factors associated with successful public transport provision for tourists lie in the intersection of the following: communicating with the market (on the provision available), quality of the offer, the role of motorized transport in the transport system, the recognition of different markets (Gronau and Kagermeier, 2007), and the ability to convert nonpublic-transport users to new modal provision (e.g. park and ride) as a partial solution to congestion. Much of the thinking underpinning the problem of managing the car was epitomized in the UK Tourism Society's response to the Government Task Force on tourism and the environment (English Tourist Board, 1991), which highlighted the impact of the car by commenting that: no analysis of the relationship between tourism and the environment can ignore transportation. Tourism is inconceivable without it. Throughout Europe some 40 per cent of leisure time away from home is spent traveling, and the vast majority of this is by car. … Approaching 30 per cent of the UK's energy requirements go on transportation … [and] … the impact of traffic congestion, noise and air pollution … [will] … diminish the quality of the experience for visitors. (English Tourist Board, 1991)

What policy-makers often fail to understand is that modal switching to public transport has proved difficult as the car has become ingrained in the culture of tourist consumption in Western (and increasingly in non-Western) societies, where flexibility and the ease of use makes public modes of transport less attractive (Page, 2002). Such an acceptance should not reduce the need to understand the effects of car use and the implications for sustainable development, considering that road transport accounts for large proportion of a destination's ecological footprint (Martín-Cejas and Sánchez, 2010). However, one area where some progress has been made towards sustainable transport development is the use of the bicycle as a mode of tourist transport.

Cycling as a Sustainable Form of Recreational and Tourist Transport Sustainability became a fashionable term during the 1990s and the early years of the twentyfirst century. However, in the context of tourist transport, such a concern has not led to any dramatic changes in the operation and management of transport systems, but merely some readjustment to accommodate green issues in many cases, with cynics pointing to the concept of greenwash. In the UK context, Aldred (2012) has suggested that cycling policy has shifted from a transport to a health-and-environment focus although many countries (e.g. the Czech Republic; see Bíl et al., 2012) now have infrastructure to support cycling activity. The problem is that in many countries the strategic development of cycling has not been integrated into tourism, being more directed towards day trips and leisure activity near to home which means the volume of trips by tourists is far lower, and so is still waiting to reach its potential. In fact some researchers might argue that it is impossible to talk about sustainability in the context of recreation and tourism without a fundamental re-evaluation of the concept of pleasure travel and its necessity: do we really need to make that trip? Wood and House (1991) argued over 20 years ago that while transport operators need to pursue good environmental practices, the onus should be placed on tourists to audit their trip. This idea has been translated subsequently into the notion of assessing one's footprint, which has proved to have limited success in carbon offsetting and has not led to a fundamental reassessment of the travel ethic in society. Wood and House argued that this audit should be based on a number of propositions: why go on holiday?: consider your motivations and whether you need to travel; choose the right type of holiday to meet your needs; consider traveling out of season to less well-known destinations; choose the right tour operator by asking environmentally related questions to ascertain what the company is doing to minimize environmental impacts; is public transport, cycling, or walking an option as opposed to hiring a car? It is the latter point which raises the issue of using sustainable and low-impact forms of transport at the destination, which has most recently been translated into what Dickinson et al.

(2011) describe as “slow travel” and has particular salience in the case of cycling. The market for recreational cycling activities can range from day or part-day casual usage through to long-distance touring holidays. In fact cycling can present tourists and recreationalists with unique views of rural areas and it is particularly appealing to free, independent travelers. There are a growing number of studies of cycle tourism (Tolley, 1990; Sustrans, 1997; Lumsdon et al., 2004; Cox, 2012). One of the key facilitators to expanding urban tourism and cycling remains, as Tolley and Turton (1995) outline in the case of Delft, where cycles are segregated from motorized traffic to reduce the risk of conflict and accidents.

Current Research Issues for Tourism and Transport Travelers' Health Issues While this chapter has not reviewed the full modal range of tourist-transport options, it is apparent that air travel is one of the principal modes of transport used by international travelers. For that reason, it is useful to focus on one of the current themes emerging in the research literature which affect the tourist's experience and willingness to travel by air. Within the specialized area of research known as travel medicine, there is a growing concern about the role of situational anxiety and physical health problems associated with air travel (McIntosh et al., 1998; Page, 2009b) on short-haul and long-haul flights. This problem has been accentuated following the September 11 terrorist events in 2001 in the USA as well as in the case of other forms of transport such as cruise ships (Bowen et al., 2013). Among the stresses facing travelers are the growing delays at airports (preflight and in transit) that may exacerbate cardiac problems and account for significant proportion of in-flight emergencies (McIntosh et al., 1998). In-flight problems commonly reported included ear problems, headache, swollen ankles, and stuffy nose. Anxiety levels increase at the most hazardous part of the journey (take off and landing) although flight and baggage delays are also proven to be stressful. There has also been a major growth in awareness of a medical condition associated with being cramped on long-haul flights: deep-vein thrombosis (Dimberg et al., 2001). In-flight injuries associated with turbulence have also attracted interest in the US air sector. Kauffmann (2002) noted that in the USA turbulence accounted for 62% of all US air carrier accidents, which cost the aviation industry US$100 million a year. There are estimated to be up to 790 turbulence events in the USA airline industry per annum, where 568 injuries occur in the absence of technology to detect and avoid turbulence episodes. Many of these injuries affect cabin crew who are not seated although passenger injuries are also recorded in the statistics. There was also an upward trend in such accidents making the case for forward turbulence systems, given that it is a significant safety issue in the aviation industry. At the same time, airlines are being expected to make additional safety investment for staff and flight crew so that terrorist hijacking on the scale of September 11 is minimized in future to reassure the tourist of their own safety in-flight. This renewed interest in tourist safety is certainly a major issue for transport operators on both land- and air-based systems (Page, 2002). It will remain an important research agenda and focus for the traveling public for a number of years to come.

Sustainable Transport and Tourism Issues As this chapter discussed at the outset, it is widely accepted that the reliance of tourism on fossil fuels makes it unsustainable. As the element that inevitably contributes a large proportion of the ecological footprint of tourism activity, transport has fallen under the spotlight as an area where actions are required. Accordingly, the continued growth of tourism has become the central element of a new industry-focused discourse which, in relation to transport, actively promotes the development of sustainable behaviors (i.e. consumers) and technologies (industry-led) within an overarching public policy context. Gössling et al. (2005) address the dilemma concerning environmental damage and economic gain through an assessment of carbon dioxide and equivalent emissions in relation to revenues generated by tourism, allowing the calculation of eco-efficiency ratios. These ratios indicate that the most eco-efficient forms of tourism involve travel over short distances, extended length of stay in destinations, and high expenditure per day. While this framework might be advisable for tourism policy developments in the short to medium term, for those who advocate an immediate reduction in carbon emissions these principles do not go far enough. Addressing consumer behavior in relation to environmental actions is a continually problematic area of public policy, but, in terms of tourism behavior, encouraging behavioral change on an individual basis is perhaps more challenging, because, as Becken (2007) and Barr and Prillwitz (2012) highlight, tourists are more concerned about personal freedoms than avoiding the worst-polluting modes of transport (Gössling et al., 2012). However, Banister (2008) argues that, in a public policy context, sustainable mobility needs to be more effectively promoted in an attempt to move towards greater public acceptance.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Revisiting Halsall's (1992: 175) comment that “transport provision is a permissive factor in much tourist/recreation development, itself a product of increasing mobility, leisure time and affluence” remains a valid assessment of the relationship between transport and tourism. While this connection has been challenged in recent years by scientific evidence advocating the effects of climate change, awareness of the role of tourist travel in advancing the humaninduced environmental change and policy developments within a sustainable development context, demand for travel is increasing. Tourism continues to grow at a significant rate in most developed countries and finding new and diverse opportunities for such activities may mean a greater concern for the economic use of existing forms of transport for tourism. It may also require the development of innovative schemes to manage the volume and spatial distribution of visitors in sensitive natural environments. It is also clear that innovative research methodologies will enhance understanding of the links between transport and politics, society and environments. Hall (2010) argues for a more meaningful engagement with social and cultural dimensions of transport within a mobilities paradigm. Such a turn would undoubtedly assist in understanding transport use from the perspective of individuals and specific segments of travelers. One of the most interesting developments in the field of transport and tourism is the growing use of

scenario planning as a tool to try and understand what the long-term implications of tourism growth will be for transport supply and the manner in which it will be delivered, including the types of infrastructure that will be required (e.g. Page et al., 2010) alongside the availability of oil in the near future. Likewise, the use of GIS to explore transport patterns in the context of policy and problem solving has not been fully exploited in tourism (Keeling, 2007; Hall, 2012; Hall and Page, 2014). Finally, the paucity of research of a longitudinal nature, able to follow up on earlier studies such as that by Wall (1972) to assess the degree of change in urban dwellers use of transport for tourism, is evident. Such longitudinal studies might better establish how cultural and environmental factors are shaping the use of transport for recreation and tourism.

References Albalate, D. and Bel, G. 2010. Tourism and urban public transport: holding demand pressure under supply constraints. Tourism Management, 31: 425–433. Aldred, R. 2012. Governing transport from welfare state to hollow state: the case of cycling in the UK. Transport Policy, 23: 95–102. Banister, D. 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15: 73–80. Baranowski, S. 2007. Common ground: linking transport and tourism history. Journal of Transport History, 28: 120–124. Barr, S. and Prillwitz, J. 2012. Green travellers? Exploring the spatial context of sustainable mobility styles. Applied Geography, 32: 798–809. Becken, S. 2007. Tourists' perception of international air travel's impact on the global climate and potential climate change policies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15: 351–368. Bíl, M., Bílová, M., and Kubeček, J. 2012. Unified GIS database on cycle tourism infrastructure. Tourism Management, 33: 1554–1561. Blancheton, B., and Marchi, J.-J. 2013. The three systems of rail tourism: French case. Tourism Management Perspectives, 5: 31–40. Bowen, C., Fidgeon, P., and Page, S.J. 2013. Maritime tourism and terrorism: customer perceptions of the potential terrorist threat to cruise shipping. Current Issues in Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2012.743973. Burton, T. 1966. A day in the country: a survey of leisure activity at Box Hill in Surrey. Journal of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, 98: 378–380. Chou, Y.-H. 1993. Airline deregulation and nodal accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography, 1: 36–46. Connell, J. and Page, S.J. 2008. Exploring the spatial patterns of car-based tourism in Loch

Lomond and Trossachs National Park. Tourism Management, 29: 561–80. Countryside Commission 1992. Trends in Transport and the Countryside. Cheltenham: Countryside Commission. Cox, P. 2012. Strategies promoting cycle tourism in Belgium: practices and implications. Tourism Planning and Development, 9: 25–39. Davison, L. and Ryley, T. 2013. The relationship between air travel behaviour and the key life stages of having children and entering retirement. Journal of Transport Geography, 26: 78– 86. Deng, M. and Athanasopoulos, G. 2011. Modelling Australian domestic and international inbound travel: a spatial–temporal approach. Tourism Management, 32: 1075–1084. Dickinson, J. and Robbins, D. 2008. Representations of tourism transport problems in a rural destination. Tourism Management, 29: 1110–1121. Dickinson, J., Lumsdon, L., and Robbins, D. 2011. Slow travel: issues for tourism and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 281–300. Dimberg, L.A., Mundt, K.A., Sulsky, S.I., and Liese, B.H. 2001. Deep venous thrombosis associated with corporate air travel. Journal of Travel Medicine, 8: 127–132. Dubois, G., Peeters, P., Ceron, J.-P., and Gössling, S. 2011. The future tourism mobility of the world population: emission growth versus climate policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45: 1031–1042. Eaton, B., and Holding, D. 1996. The evaluation of public transport alternatives to the car in British national parks. Journal of Transport Geography, 4: 55–65. Eckton, G. 2003. Road-user charging and the Lake District National Park. Journal of Transport Geography, 11: 307–317. English Tourist Board. 1991. Tourism and the Environment: Maintaining the Balance. London: English Tourist Board. Giuliano, G. and Dargay, J. 2006. Car ownership, travel and land use: a comparison of the US and Great Britain. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40: 106–124. Goodenough, R. and Page, S.J. 1994. Evaluating the environmental impact of a major transport infrastructure project: the Channel Tunnel rail link. Applied Geography, 14: 26–50. Gossling, S., Peeters, P., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Patterson, T., and Richardson, R. 2005. The eco-efficiency of tourism. Ecological Economics, 54: 417–434. Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M., Ceron, J.-P., and Dubois, G. 2012. Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 36–58.

Graham, A. 2013. Understanding the low cost carrier and airport relationship: a critical analysis of the salient issues. Tourism Management, 36: 66–76. Gronau, W. and Kagermeier, A. 2007. Key factors for successful leisure and tourism public transport provision. Journal of Transport Geography, 15: 127–135. Hall, C.M. 2012. Spatial analysis: A critical tool for tourism geographies. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 163–173. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Page, S.J. 2014. The Geography of Recreation and Tourism: Place and Space, 4th edn. London: Routledge. Hall, D. 1999. Conceptualising tourism transport: inequality and externality issues. Journal of Transport Geography, 7(3): 181–188. Hall, D. 2010. Transport geography and new European realities: a critique. Journal of Transport Geography, 18: 1–13. Halsall, D. (ed.) 1982. Transport for Recreation. Lancaster: IBG Transport Geography Study Group. Halsall, D. 1992. Transport for tourism and recreation. In Modern Transport Geography, B. Hoyle and R. Knowles (eds), pp. 155–177. London: Belhaven. Hoyle, B. and Knowles, R. 1998. Modern Transport Geography, 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Kauffman, P. 2002. The business case for turbulence sensing systems in the US air transport sector. Journal of Air Transport Management, 8: 99–107. Keeling, D. 2007. Transportation geography: new directions on well-worn trails. Progress in Human Geography, 31: 217–225. Khadaroo, J., and Seetanah, B. 2008. The role of transport infrastructure in international tourism development: a gravity model approach. Tourism Management, 29: 831–840. Knowles, R., Shaw, J., and Docherty, I. (eds) 2008. Transport Geographies: Mobilities, Flows and Spaces. Oxford: Blackwell. Li, G. 2008. The nature of leisure travel demand. In Aviation and Tourism: Implications for Leisure Travel, A. Graham, A. Papatheodorou, and P. Forsyth (eds), pp. 7–20. Aldershot: Ashgate. Liu, C.-H., Tzen, G.-H., Lee, M.-H., and Lee, P.-Y. (2013) Improving metro–airport connection service for tourism development: using hybrid MCDM models. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6: 95–107. Lumsdon, L. 2006. Factors affecting the design of tourism bus services. Annals of Tourism

Research, 33: 748–766. Lumsdon, L. and Page, S.J. (eds) 2004. Tourism and Transport: Issues and Agenda for the New Millennium. Oxford: Elsevier. Lumsdon, L., Downward, P., and Cope, A. 2004. Monitoring of cycle tourism on long distance trails: the North Sea Cycle Route. Journal of Transport Geography, 12: 13–22. Martín-Cejas, R. and Sánchez, P. 2010 Ecological footprint analysis of road transport related to tourism activity: the case for Lanzarote Island. Tourism Management, 31: 98–103. Masson, S. and Petiot, R. 2009. Can the high speed rail reinforce tourism attractiveness? The case of the high speed rail between Perpignan (France) and Barcelona (Spain). Technovation, 29: 611–617. McIntosh, I., Swanson, V., Power, K., Raeside, F., and Dempster, C. 1998. Anxiety and health problems related to air travel. Journal of Travel Medicine, 5(4): 198–204. O'Connor, K. 1995. Airport development in South East Asia. Journal of Transport Geography, 3: 269–279. Page, S.J. 1994. Transport for Tourism. London: Routledge. Page, S.J. 2002. Tourist health and safety. Travel and Tourism Analyst, 5: 1–31. Page, S.J. 2009a. Transport and tourism: Global perspectives, 3rd edn. Harlow: Pearson. Page, S.J. 2009b. Current issue in tourism: the evolution of travel medicine research: a new research agenda for tourism? Tourism Management, 30: 149–157. Page, S.J. and Sinclair, T. 1992 The Channel Tunnel and tourism markets. Travel and Tourism Analyst 1: 8–32. Page, S.J. and Connell, J. 2010. Leisure: An Introduction. Harlow: Pearson. Page, S.J., Yeoman, I., Greenwood, C., and Connell, J. 2010. Scenario planning as a tool to understand uncertainty in tourism: the example of transport and tourism in Scotland to 2025. Current Issues in Tourism, 13: 99–137. Patmore, J.A. 1983. Recreation and Resources. Oxford: Blackwell. Pearce, D. 1995. Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis. London: Longman. Peeters, P., Szimba, E., and Duijnisveld, M. 2007. Major environmental impacts of European tourist transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 15: 83–93. Peeters, P. and Dubois, G. 2010. Tourism travel under climate change mitigation constraints. Journal of Transport Geography, 18: 447–457.

Prideaux, B. and Carsen, D. 2011. Drive Tourism: Trends and Emerging Markets. London: Routledge. Scott, D., Gössling, S., and Hall, C.M. 2012. Tourism and Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. London: Routledge. Shaw, G. and Williams, A. 1994. Critical Issues in Tourism: Geographical Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell. Shiftan, Y., Vary, D., and Geyer, D. 2006. Demand for park shuttle services––a statedpreference approach. Journal of Transport Geography, 14: 52–59. Stradling, S. and Anable, J. 2008. Individual transport patterns. In Transport Geographies: Mobilities, Flows and Spaces, R. Knowles, J. Shaw, and I. Docherty (eds), pp. 179–195. Blackwell: Oxford. Sustrans 1997. The Tourism Potential of National Cycle Routes. London: Tourism Society. Tolley, R. 1990. The Greening of Urban Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in Western Cities. London: Belhaven. Tolley, R. and Turton, B. 1995. Transport Systems, Policy and Planning: A Geographical Approach. London: Longman. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization) 2011. Tourism Towards 2030: Global Overview. UNWTO General Assembly, 19th session, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, October 10, 2011. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO 2012. Global Report on Aviation. Madrid: UNWTO. Wall, G. 1971. Car-owners and holiday activities. In Recreational Geography, P. Lavery (ed.), pp. 97–111. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. Wall, G. 1972. Socioeconomic variations in pleasure trip patterns: the case of Hull car owners. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 57: 45–58. Williams, S. 1995. Urban Recreation. London: Routledge. Wood, K. and House, S. 1991. The Good Tourist. London: Mandarin.

Chapter 13 Tourism Innovation Products, Processes, and People Allan M. Williams Tourism has always been characterized by innovation, but this was understood in terms of different conceptualizations, whether product development, the resort life cycle, destination restructuring, or the roles of tourism entrepreneurship. Only recently has the terminology of innovation started to trickle into the tourism literature (Hajalager, 1997; Cooper, 2006; Hall and Williams, 2008). This is important because it is not only a matter of terminology, but of bringing different concepts to understanding tourism innovation, whether it be incremental versus radical innovation, or coproduction of innovation. This is not to say that these generic concepts can be mechanically applied to tourism, for the sector has distinctive characteristics that shape the nature of innovation, and vice versa (Hall and Williams, 2008: Chapter 1). The importance of innovation is difficult to underestimate. Firms are, to varying degrees, locked into intense, and increasingly internationalized, competition: this is particularly true of tourism, where the increasingly global scan of tourists, and the reach of tourism capital, mean that even the most localized of tourism destinations are to some extent subject to international competition, if not directly, then at least in terms of the overall allocation of disposable household income. Innovation is one of the means, probably the central means, by which firms respond to these challenges. It is the driver of changes in productivity and competitiveness, and accounts for a significant proportion of overall growth in many economies; for example, Sternberg and Arndt (2001) estimate that innovation accounts for 80% of productivity gains in Europe, which in turn account for 80% of gross domestic product (GDP) growth. Innovation is not, however, a magic wand that delivers enhanced performance as inspirational ideas are effortlessly implemented, transforming the firm's competitiveness. Instead, innovation can be the source of both (dramatic) growth and (dramatic) decline in a firm's performance. Innovation always encounters barriers, and resources are always needed to overcome these (Sigala et al., 2004). The firm that overcomes these effectively has found a recipe for at least temporary survival or, better still, increasing its market share, turnover, or profit. The firm that devotes significant resources to ineffective innovation may be investing in its own failure. This chapter provides a review of some of the recent developments in the literature on tourism innovation, particularly at the firm level, focusing on the product–process innovation nexus. It then turns to the people that populate the relative abstract concept of the firm: entrepreneurs, tourists, and employees all contribute in different ways to innovation. Finally, the chapter closes with reflections on theoretical and methodological issues.

Types of Innovation in Tourism The neglect of tourism innovation is partly due to early dominance of the innovation literature

by research on the manufacturing system, long advocated as the driver of national growth strategies. This meant a focus on product innovations, on radical innovation, and on research and development (Hall and Williams, 2008: Chapter 1). These are not the dominant features of tourism innovation, although all three are evident. More recent research, including an increased focus on service-sector innovation (Gallouj and Weinstein, 1997), has demonstrated the highly variable forms of innovation, with Adams et al. (2006) arguing that there are three main approaches to differentiating innovation: in terms of newness, focus, and attributes. The first two are considered here. Newness has been a particular concern of academic research. The classic distinction between radical and incremental innovation dates back to the work of Schumpeter (1934), but has subsequently been elaborated on by, among others, Abernathy and Clark (1988). They suggested a four-fold classification of newness defined by disruptive versus conserving innovations along two axes: technological/knowledge and markets. Radical innovations are those which change the rules of the game in terms of the competitiveness of firms, and – at least temporarily – offer significant market leadership for firms. However, radical innovations – reaching out beyond current expressed customer preferences – are also more likely to be high risk, and the relationship between newness and the success of particular innovations remains highly contested. Some commentators contend that success is more likely with incremental innovations – targeting existing markets – or radical innovation, creating new markets where there are no competitors (Kleinschmidt and Cooper, 1991). However, other commentators argue that ”moderately radical” innovations are likely to succeed (Avlonitis et al., 2001) because they are not too far ahead of existing customer preferences, but far enough ahead to differentiate the firms from its competitors. Tourism is generally considered to be characterized more by incremental than by radical innovations. Of course, there are examples of the latter, such as the introduction of the low-cost airline model, the Disney theme park, Internet marketing, or boutique hotels (Hall and Williams, 2008), but most firms engage in small-scale, incremental innovations, often imitating the products and processes observed in neighboring businesses: limited resources (Barney, 1991) and the difficulties of protecting innovation in the sector, are significant reasons for this. The preponderance of small-scale changes has contributed to the misleading view that tourism is a low-innovation sector. If innovation is simply understood as changes in the practices of the firm – whether in product, process, or marketing – then of course the tourism sector is innovative. The multitude of small-scale changes – in the way rooms are cleaned, the quality of catering at a theme park, or the allocation of seats on flights – collectively amount to significant developments in the trajectory of the tourism sector. Moreover, they are often critical to the survival of individual firms. The second approach to classifying innovations identified by Adams et al. (2006) is “focus,” which takes us to the relatively familiar territory of type of innovation. The standard approach is probably the Oslo definition (OECD, 2005), which distinguishes between product, process, marketing, and organizational innovations. Although generally useful, this typology is also problematic for tourism. Product innovation involves introducing changed or new services or products, and firms can either choose to focus on enhancing their core products or they can

diversify. In contrast, process innovations enhance how goods and services are produced, for example through computerized management systems, or self-service check-in at hotels or airports. This differentiation between what you produce and how you produce it is the source of difficulties when analyzing tourism innovation. Owing to the interaction between producers and consumers in tourism, the quality of how the service or product is delivered is inextricably linked to the product itself, and these are difficult to disentangle. Moreover, the often subtle quality shifts in the services provided are difficult to measure, and are poorly represented in most secondary data on innovation, such as the European Union's Community Innovation Survey. This contributes to their lack of visibility in cross-sectional analyses of innovation, and to being characterized as part of the submerged mass of ”hidden innovation” in the service sector (NESTA 2007). Despite these conceptual limitations, an emerging literature does seek to evaluate the importance of different types of tourism innovation. In the Balearic Islands in Spain, Jacob et al. (2003) found that firms innovated on a regular basis, recording an average of more than seven innovations in the last 5 years, with process, delivery, and organizational changes being particularly important. Not surprisingly, information and computing technology was the source of most technological innovations. The major impacts of these innovations were observed in improvements to the company's image, enhanced profitability, and increased customer satisfaction, which underlines the fact that the various outcomes of innovation are as entangled as the different types of innovations. In the UK, Blake et al. (2006) also observed relatively high levels of innovation in terms of most types of innovation, but especially marketing and promotion, in both the attractions and accommodation sectors. In short, innovations are multiple, concurrent, and complementary (Tether and Howells, 2007). The rate of innovation varies by type of firm, and one of the most consistent findings is that this increases with the size of the company (Jacob and Groizard, 2007; Sundbo et al., 2007). There are also variations within transnational companies, with Jacob and Groizard (2007) demonstrating that the foreign establishments of Balearic companies are more innovative than their domestic hotels. There is a range of other aspects of innovation at the firm level that cannot be discussed here due to space constraints but which include the role of knowledge transfers (Shaw and Williams, 2009), absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), and the barriers and facilitators of innovation (Hall and Williams, 2008). The emerging literatures in these areas are starting to tease out some of the distinctive features of the tourism sector, in terms of the scale of firms, the consumer–producer relationship, temporality of demand, and the interaction between tourism, local communities, and the natural environment. However, the focus on the firm, and especially the traditionally bounded firm, does tend to obscure the key roles played by individuals in tourism innovation, whether as entrepreneurs, employees, or tourists.

Entrepreneurs and Networks: Inspiration or Implementation Baumol (2002) considered the entrepreneur to be one of the most intriguing actors to figure in

economic analysis, and this is particularly evident in innovation. It was Schumpeter (1934) who posed the key question of whether the entrepreneur's key role is to be the source of innovation, or to implement changes that originate in wider structural shifts in the economy, perhaps from demand. It is an issue that he changed his mind about on several occasions over the years. One of the more positive views of the entrepreneur as innovator is provided by Kanter (1983), who considers they are “change masters,” a term that reflects the gendered nature of entrepreneurship and of entrepreneurship research. According to Kanter, one of the key skills required is kaleidoscopic thinking, by which he means looking at situations from different angles, and challenging accepted knowledge. This is the ability to recognize a market gap and to identify knowledge that can fill this, although the entrepreneur also requires other skills to bring the innovation to completion, including an ability to communicate a vision, persistence in overcoming obstacles, and an ability to construct coalitions, to work through teams, and to build trust. Tourism does have iconic entrepreneurs who demonstrate these key qualities in implementing radical innovations which have changed the sector. Richard Branson, Stelios Haji-Ioannou, and Michael Ryan have all been contemporary game-changing innovators who have radically transformed the nature of commercial airlines, and Walt Disney transformed the nature of tourist attractions. Some of the most significant figures have been in the travel agency and tour operator sector. Thomas Cook is a legendary figure whose name became almost synonymous with the tour operator business (Brendon, 1991). Although he only organized his first, domestic, and relatively modest tourist excursion in the early 1840s, within 30 years he was offering global tours. Almost a hundred years later, the charismatic Vladimir Raitz effectively created the all-inclusive air holiday when he organized a charter flight from the UK to Corsica, France (Bray and Raitz, 2001). Were they heroic innovators, or effective mechanisms of change in the context of structural changes? In the case of Cook, these were an expanding middle class, and technological revolutions in transport, especially the railway, but also steam-powered shipping. Vladimir Raitz saw opportunities created by regulatory constraints on travel in the UK, the recovery of incomes and fuller employment in the 1950s, and the availability of surplus postwar aircraft stock. Inevitably, both structures and individual entrepreneurial characteristics are important, but this cautions against reifying the role of the entrepreneur, because ultimately, as Bunnell and Coe (2001) emphasize, innovation is relational. All entrepreneurs, however brilliant or original or resourceful, also depend on networks, and that is one reason why entrepreneurship is relational. Networks serve as sources of knowledge, provide links to investors and suppliers, and facilitate the pooling of resources. They exist within firms, but also transcend them, leading Lowe et al. (2012) to argue that the real dynamics of the change around the iconic Hotel du Vin boutique hotel chain in the UK reside in a number of individuals who constituted a self-organizing, dynamic network. At the firm level, there is a relatively simple story to tell: the first Hotel du Vin opened in 1994, and the chain (of six completed hotels, with more in development) was sold to the MWB group a decade later. However, the dynamics of the self-organizing network tell a more complex and wide-ranging story. The self-organizing network had its origins, at an earlier date, in a well-

known UK hotel, Chewton Glen, where the two founders of Hotel du Vin were employees. The idea of the new boutique chain – to be a nonmetropolitan version of the boutique hotels that they had seen at first hand in London – emerged over lunch one day, and the venture was funded by capital provided by either customers or contacts of customers at Chewton Glen. They also took with them a number of middle managers to staff the new chain. The key to their success was the dynamic nature and degree of openness of the network: it was sufficiently open to bring in new ideas, and new partners, but also sufficiently closed to allow a high level of mutual trust. Furthermore, not only did the network predate the opening of the Hotel du Vin, but it also survived the 2004 take over. The members of the network collaborated in establishing a plethora of new hospitality ventures after this date, which the authors term the “Hotel du Vin diaspora,” usually drawing on the network's knowledge and capital resources, and involving both formal and informal partnerships.

Employees: Close to the Customer, Close to Innovation As noted earlier, one of the key skills of entrepreneurs is their ability to organize teams, but this tends to cast employees in largely passive roles – carrying out instructions emanating from the entrepreneurs. In practice, employees can be important sources of innovation in their own right, and innovative organizations need to actively engage their workforces. There is an established literature on employee empowerment, and Bowen and Lawler (2002) identify one of the key benefits to firms as being that empowered employees can be an important source of service ideas, drawing on their knowledge – much of it tacit – of customers. Empowerment requires not just having a rewards system in place for employees, but also giving them voice within the firm (Salis and Williams, 2010), and this is significant in knowledge transfer. Employees' empowerment would be expected to be particularly important in the tourism industry where the service encounter is the key to the quality of the tourism experience. In some respects, the main experts on the customer within the tourist firm are the employees. However, as Stamper and van Dyne (2003) demonstrate in their study of organizational citizenship in USA restaurants, tourism employees often have low expectations of giving voice, and therefore of being sources of innovation. There are several reasons for this, reflecting the distinctive employment practices of the tourism and hospitality sectors. These include the prevalence of employees with little formal training or even previous experience, due to high rates of labor turnover and the seasonality of many jobs (Hjalager, 2002). Another possible reason for the limited empowerment of employees as a source of innovation lies in the relatively low human capital of many tourism employees (Hjalager, 2002). This emerges in the study by Paraskevopoulou et al. (2012) of the relative innovativeness of migrant versus nonmigrant managers in London's small and medium-sized hotels. Migrant managers had relatively higher levels of human capital and this contributed to their greater innovativeness across a range of hotel operations, in terms of both product and process. However, migrant managers are more innovative even if human capital differences are controlled for, and this is related in part to their access to different types of knowledge, and to being more likely to be recently recruited and therefore to be able to see operations with a fresh, and less self-

interested, eye. Ultimately, the differences between the migrant and nonmigrant managers were relatively limited, but the authors emphasize the importance of migrant managers' roles in the transfer of knowledge, and in playing an important substitution role in the global city, as replacements for indigenous mangers who shun the sector and location: “Even the most mundane of innovations need to be managed when introduced into a hotel, and this role increasingly has fallen to those who are migrants and or who have experience of working abroad” (Paraskevopoulou et al., 2012).

Tourists: Experts in the Tourism Experience and in Incremental Innovations Customers ultimately define the nature of any business, its products, and its performance. They are at the heart of the competitiveness struggle, whether via diversification or developing core products; that is, they are at the center of innovation, or should be. Tourists are at the sharp end of the producer–consumer interaction that is central to the tourism experience, and hence they constitute a vast reservoir of tacit knowledge about how this can be improved. The relationship between producers and consumers has also been changing as a result of technological changes, notably those based on the Internet, because the growth of the digital economy leads to ”an unprecedented number of touch-points between the firm and endconsumer” (Etgar, 2008: 99). These technological changes, which include the intensification and extensification of information and knowledge exchanges between both producers and consumers, and – especially via the social media – consumers and consumers, have two important implications. First, they potentially make consumers better informed and more demanding, increasing the pressure on firms to respond to changes in their preferences. Secondly, new technologies have vastly increased the potential for firms to harvest information about their customers. Firms that embrace their customers as sources of valuable knowledge can draw on new knowledge to drive innovation, and they can also reduce the risks of innovation, that is of launching changes that customers reject (Ragatz, Handfield and Scannell, 1997). Traditionally firms have tended to view consumers as passive recipients of marketing information, as targets to be persuaded to buy their products and services. Even the development of vast new digital databases such as Data Base Marketing or Guest History Systems were essentially designed to support marketing, by using increasingly sophisticated and individualized methods. However, there has been growing recognition that consumers have a more active role to play as coproducers of innovation, a concept that was captured in the notion of the service-dominant logic (SDL) (Lusch et al., 2007). In contrast to traditional marketing, which views the customer as an operand, to be analyzed and marketed to, the SDL views the customer as an operant resource “… capable of acting on other resources, a collaborative partner who co-creates value with the firm” (Lusch et al., 2007: 6). One of the central premises of this approach is that competitive advantage is determined by how the firm, in comparison to its rivals, applies its operant resources to cater for consumers. Another is that collaborative competence with customers (but also with employees) is the main determinant of

the effectiveness of the firm in acquiring knowledge that provides potential competitive advantage. The importance of the coproduction of innovation in tourism is particularly marked because of the nature of the tourism experience. As part of the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore, 1999), tourists and tourism firms jointly produce memorable experiences, so that it is essential that tourism firms learn from these and from the tourists. The use of the Internet facilitates this, as well as making it essential for tourism firms who want to work with online communities. Shaw et al. (2011), drawing on interviews with larger UK hotel chains, examined the extent to which they had embraced the notion of coproduction with customers and concluded that there were two distinctive groups. The first, and the majority, group, which ranged from budget to five-star hotels, had not actively embraced coproduction. They did harvest information about their guests, mostly by routine analysis of guest comment cards, checking online websites such as Trip Advisor, and sending periodic e-mails to their guests, as part of relational marketing strategies. The second group, which is also drawn from across the spectrum of hotels, are the innovation enthusiasts who equate innovation with competitiveness, and actively involve customers in coproduction, using a diverse range of methods. One of their anonymous case study firms, which cooperated with Apple to produce an in-room entertainment system, used guests as operands in three ways: initially obtaining feedback from customers as a starting point, then experimentally working more closely with 60 guests who experienced prototype versions of the new high-tech rooms, and finally testing out the more developed version on “less experienced customers” in a London hotel over a 2-month period. Our understanding of the role of tourists in innovation can be extended by conceptualizing this as taking three forms. First, there is the “individual tourist innovator,” who combines general life skills and travel-specific skills to acquire tourism expertise; that is, how to travel wisely, maximizing opportunities, while also having the competence to manage risks (Williams and Baláž 2013). These competences may be perceived rather than actual, but such tourists have acquired learning skills that allow them to respond flexibly to changing circumstances, and in effect to become innovative in their day-to-day tourism practices. They are typified by individual tourists such as backpackers, and it is notable that Pearce and Foster (2007) identified the following as being key competences for backpacking: problem-solving and thinking skills, interpersonal skills, information management, learning ability, adaptability and flexibility, management of resources, and social/cultural awareness. These competences closely resemble those of the entrepreneurs (Chell, 1991), who are seen as playing key roles in innovation. These innovations are largely confined to tourists' individual practices, but collectively they can contribute to more substantive and eventually firm-led innovations, as for example when they constitute the vanguard of explorer tourists in the resort life cycle (Butler, 1980). Secondly, there is the “innovative tourist entrepreneur” (as opposed to the tourism entrepreneur in the firm), who takes the lead in organizing new tourism experiences, whether in terms of activities or destinations, not only for themselves but also for groups of family and friends. In effect, they are mini and informal travel agents, who have been increasingly empowered by the growth of online information and reservation systems (Wang and Fesenmaier, 2004). They have

all the competences of the individual tourist innovator but apply these to the tourism activites of others, becoming the originator and implementer of new ideas for their tourism experiences. Not only does this require management skills, but also the ability to collaborate effectively, to establish trust in their leadership, and to project a convincing vision of their proposed innovations. These are also the essential skills that “formal” entrepreneurs must possess (Kanter, 1983), and the only difference between the two lies in the system of rewards and risks: whereas for the entrepreneur the primary motivations are financial reward, independence, and esteem, for these tourist entrepreneurs the primary motivations are selfesteem and peer recognition. In common with the individual tourist innovators, innovative tourist entrepreneurs' impacts on innovation are largely limited to individual tourism practices, but collectively they exercise a greater degree of influence on more substantive and firm-led innovation. Thirdly, there is the ”active co-producer of innovation,” the lead consumer who actively informs the process of coproduction at firm level, and equates to Lusch et al.'s (2007) operant resource. These are the tourists who have consumption knowledge (Metcalfe, 2001), are interested in new ideas and products, and are quick to adopt new forms of consumption. As such they share many of the characteristics of the first two types, although not all of these will be interested or willing to participate in more formal coproduction; indeed, their individualism may militate against it. Drawing on Etgar (2008) and Lusch et al. (2007), Shaw et al. (2011) identified six determinants of which tourists are more likely to be effective coproducers of innovation: they have expertise (coordination skills, efficiency and evolving experience, with information technology skills being especially important); a desire to exercise control in the consumption process; the required cultural and physical capital; they value gaining experiential benefits; they perceive there are economic gains from coproduction; and they have the necessary discretionary time to participate. These are the tourists who are sought out, and to some degree put themselves forward to be sought out, by tourist firms committed to coproduction of innovation. These three types of tourist innovator overlap to some degree, and they are necessarily ideal types; for example, the innovative informal tourist entrepreneur's role may be subdivided between the individuals who have the vision and the power to motivate the group, the information harvesters who collect the necessary details about how to implement the new idea, and the organizer who manages the resources to bring this to completion. However, a word of caution is required. Tourists are of course experts in their own tourism experiences, and they are invaluable as sources of knowledge about how to improve these. However, they may not have the vision, or ability to look beyond their immediate experiences, that is required for originating significantly new tourism experiences. In other words, they are better sources of incremental than of radical innovation. It is the difference between listening to consumers in order to secure short-term competitive gains as opposed to being able to source game-changing innovations that offer long-term growth prospects (Christensen, 1997).

Conclusions: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections As emphasized in the introduction, innovation is not new, for the processes of adaptation, change, diversification, and the introduction of new products and ways of delivering these are integral to survival and growth in market economies. However, the language and concepts of innovation does open up new theoretical frames of reference for studying the process of change in tourism. The relevance of the innovation literature was initially muted because of the ideological overhang of manufacturing being considered the lead sector of growth, but from the mid-1990s, initially inspired by the work of Hjalager in particular (e.g., Hjalager, 1997), there has been a perceptible quickening of the engagement of tourism researchers with innovation (see Hall and Williams, 2008: Chapter 1). This has resulted in significant advances in terms of understanding the specificities of tourism innovation (Hjalager, 2002, 2010), the need for a multiscalar approach to understanding tourism innovation (Hall and Williams, 2008), the roles of entrepreneurs (Mattsson et al., 2005), the innovation performance of transnational hotel groups (Jacob and Groizard, 2007) and small firms (Sundbo et al., 2007), and – outside the scope of this chapter – in innovation policies (OECD, 2006). An important theme emerging from some of the recent writings in this field is the need for more research on innovation as a relational process. While not denying the immense influence of innovative individual entrepreneurs in defining the trajectory of the tourism industry (Butler and Russell, 2010), there has been a tendency to reify the role of individuals. Entrepreneurs always act through networks, whether they involve coentrepreneurs (Lowe et al., 2012), or – as the SDL concept (Lusch et al., 2007) emphasizes – their employees and consumers (Shaw et al., 2011). There is still relatively little research in this area in tourism studies, yet there is a need to deepen our understanding of how the specificities of tourism employment – especially its temporality, lifestyle elements, and reliance on migrant labor – can shape the coproduction of innovation. Similarly, there is also a need for more empirical research into the different ways in which tourists are involved in innovation or co-innovation of the tourism experience. All these processes are mediated by globalization tendencies, and there is a need to understand not only how the internationalization of capital influences innovation, but also the ways in which the internationalization of labor, consumption, and knowledge contribute to this (Williams and Shaw, 2011). To this must be added the now familiar qualification that globalization is not an all-embracing tendency but is mutually coconstituted with the local, and there is a need to understand how innovation processes are socially situated. Weidenfeld (2013), for example, illustrates the importance of different forms of proximity and distance between entrepreneurs and customers in mediating innovation in cross-border regions. Tourism innovation is still an emerging field of research, and it is somewhat premature to identify its dominant methodological approaches. However, it is evident that, as in mainstream or generic innovation research, there has been considerable emphasis on quantitative methods, using a range of measures of association or difference to test models of the determinants of innovation. These have drawn on secondary sources where available, or on questionnaire surveys targeted at particular regions/countries, sectors, and or clusters of companies (Sigala

et al., 2004; Orfila-Sintesa et al., 2005). There are also some studies based on qualitative methods, with interviews with managers/entrepreneurs or policy-makers being the main, almost the only, approach (Jacob et al., 2003). Three limitations can be identified in this nascent field of research, which also point to future methodological directions. First, there is still relatively little comparative research across regions, countries (but see Sundbo et al., 2007), or continents that provides insights into the institutional and culturally specific nature of innovation; markets are socially and politically constructed, and different cultures value entrepreneurial behavior, risk, and innovation differently. Secondly, almost all existing research is cross-sectional, for obvious reasons of resource limitation, but this fails to capture the dynamics of innovation, which is increasingly recognized as a complex and nonlinear process of negotiation between different members of innovation networks (Lowe et al., 2012): there is need for both quantitative and qualitative longitudinal research. Thirdly, innovation does not occur in an economic vacuum, but is deeply informed by power structures. Who innovates, the overcoming of barriers, and the distribution of the benefits of innovation are ultimately profoundly political and social issues, as well as economic ones.

References Abernathy, W.J. and Clark, K.B. 1988. Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction. In Readings in the Management of Innovation, 2nd edn, M.L. Tushman and W.L. Moore (eds), pp. 55–78. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Adams, R., Tranfield, D., and Denyer, D. 2006. Innovation Types: Configurations of Attributes as a basis for Innovation Classification, Working paper 46. London: Advanced Institute of Management Research. Avlonitis, G.J., Papastathopoulou, P.G., and Gounaris, S.P. 2001. An empirically-based typology of product innovativeness for new financial services: success and failure scenarios. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18: 324–342. Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120. Baumol, W. 2002. The Free Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Blake, A., Sinclair, M.T., and Soria, J.A.C. 2006. Tourism productivity: evidence from the UK. Annals of Tourism Research, 33: 1099–1120. Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. 2002. The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how and when. In Managing Innovation and Change, J. Henry and D. Mayle (eds), pp. 243–257. London: Sage Publications. Bray, R. and Raitz, V. 2001. Flight to the Sun: the Story of the Holiday Revolution. London: Continuum.

Brendon, P. 1991. Thomas Cook: 150 Years of Popular Tourism. London: Seeker & Warburg. Bunnell, T.G. and Coe, N.M. 2001. Spaces and scales of innovation. Progress in Human Geography, 25: 569–589. Butler, R.W. 1980. The concept of the tourism area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24: 5–12. Butler, R. and Russell, R. (eds.) 2010. Giants of Tourism. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Chell, E. 1991. The Entrepreneurial Personality: Concepts, Cases and Categories. London: Routledge. Christensen, C.M. 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. Special Issue: Technology, Organizations, and Innovation, 35: 128–152. Cooper, C. 2006. Knowledge management and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33: 47– 64. Etgar, M. 2008. A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36: 97–108. Gallouj, F. and Weinstein, O. 1997. Innovation in services. Research Policy, 26: 537–556. Hall, C.M. and Williams, A.M. 2008. Tourism Innovation. London: Routledge. Hjalager, A.-M. 1997. Innovation patterns in sustainable tourism: an analytical typology. Tourism Management, 18: 35–41.. Hjalager, A.-M. 2002. Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management, 23: 465–474. Hjalager, A.-M. 2010. A review of the innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31: 1–12. Jacob, M. and Groizard, J.L. 2007. Technology transfer and multinationals: the case of Balearic hotel chains' investments in two developing economies. Tourism Management 28: 976–992. Jacob, M., Tintore, J., Guilo, E., Bravo, A. and Mulet, J. 2003. Innovation in the tourism sector: results from a pilot study in the Balearic Islands. Tourism Economics, 9: 279–297. Kanter, R.M. 1983. The Change Masters. London: Unwin. Kleinschmidt, E.J. and Cooper, R.G. 1991. The impact of product innovativeness on

performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8: 240–251. Lowe, M., Williams, A.M., Shaw, G., and Cudworth, K. 2012. Self-organizing innovation networks, mobile knowledge carriers and diasporas: insights from a pioneering boutique hotel chain. Journal of Economic Geography, 12: 113–1138. Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., and O'Brien, M. 2007. Competing through service: insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83: 5–18. Mattsson, J., Sundbo, J., and Fussing-Jensen, C. 2005. Innovation systems in tourism: the roles of attractors and scene-takers. Industry and Innovation, 12: 357–381. Metcalfe, J.S. 2001. Consumption, preferences, and the evolutionary agenda. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 11: 37–58. NESTA. 2007. Hidden Innovation: How Innovation Happens in Six ‘Low Innovation’ Sectors. London: NESTA. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edn. Paris: OECD. OECD 2006. Innovation and Growth in Tourism. Paris: OECD. Orfila-Sintes, F., Crespí-Cladera, R., and Martínez-Ros, E. 2005. Innovation activity in the hotel industry: evidence from Balearic Islands. Tourism Management, 26: 851–865. Paraskevopoulou, A., Markova, E., Williams, A.M., and Shaw, G. 2012. Migration and innovation at the bottom end: understanding the role of migrant managers in small hotels in the global city. Mobilities, 7: 389–414. Pearce, P.L. and Foster, F. 2007. A ‘university of travel’: backpacker learning. Tourism Management, 28: 1285–1298. Pine, J. B. and Gilmore, J. H. 1999. The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B., and Scannell, T.V. 1997. Success factors for integrating suppliers into new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14: 190–202. Salis, S. and Williams, A.M. 2010. Knowledge sharing through face-to-face communication and labour productivity: evidence from british workplaces. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(2): 436–459. Schumpeter, J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shaw, G., Bailey, A., and Williams, A.M. 2011. Aspects of service-dominant logic and its

implications for tourism management: examples from the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 32: 207–214. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 2009. Knowledge transfer and management in tourism organisations: an emerging research agenda. Tourism Management, 30: 325–335. Sigala, M., Airey, D., Jones, P., and Lockwood, A. 2004. ICT paradox lost? A stepwise DEA methodology to evaluate technology investments in tourism setting. Journal of Travel Research, 43: 180–192. Stamper, C.L. and Van Dyne, L. 2003. Organizational citizenship: a comparison between part time and full time service employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Feburary: 33–42. Sternberg, R. and Arndt, O. 2001. The firm or the region: what determines the innovation behaviour of European firms. Economic Geography, 77: 364–382. Sundbo, J., Orfila-Sintes, F., and Sørensen, F. 2007. The innovative behaviour of tourism firms – comparative studies of Denmark and Spain. Research Policy, 36; 88–106. Tether, B. and Howells, J. 2007. Changing understanding of innovation in services from technological adoption to complex complementary changes to technologies, skills and organisation. In Innovation in Services, DTI occasional paper no. 9. London: Department of Trade and Industry. Wang, Y. and Fesenmaier, D.R. 2004. Towards understanding members' general participation in and active contribution to an online travel community. Tourism Management, 25: 709–722. Weidenfield, A. 2013. Tourism and cross border regional innovation systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 42: 191–213. Williams, A.M. and Baláž, V. 2013. Tourism, risk tolerance and competences: travel organization and tourism hazards. Tourism Management, 35: 209–221. Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. 2011. Internationalization and innovation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 27–51.

Chapter 14 Souvenirs, Tourists, and Tourism Kristen Swanson The links between souvenirs, tourists, and tourism have received attention from scholars for several decades. Souvenirs are universal artifacts of tourism. For tourists, they mark in time and place memories of travel experiences (Gordon, 1986). As memories, souvenirs are individualistic by nature. The same souvenir will have altered meanings for different tourists. Conversely, tourists assign the same meanings, remembrance of a place for example, to dissimilar souvenirs (Hashimoto and Telfer, 2007). Souvenirs function as commodities for trade between tourists and tourism providers (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). Souvenirs are linked with tourism through shopping, considered an essential part of the tourism experience. Shopping for souvenirs is widely recognized as a tourist activity that provides pleasure and excitement and drives souvenir consumption (Timothy, 2005). A third link between souvenirs, tourists, and tourism exists in the literature; souvenirs used as objects in the commodification of material culture (Hitchcock and Teague, 2000; Hume, 2009; Swanson and Timothy, 2012). Indigenous cultures have historically transposed traditional arts and crafts of their native societies into souvenirs. The items, while originally conceived for functional or ceremonial purposes, have moved into the realm of souvenirs as replicas: signifying place and people; helping cultures maintain identity, traditions, and self-preservation; and functioning as tradable commodities with which to generate employment and income for survival and livelihood (Revilla and Dodd, 2003; Timothy, 2005; Schouten, 2006; Xie et al., 2012; Swanson, 2013). This chapter will focus on major themes, recent developments, and key issues facing researchers involved in souvenirs scholarship. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of key questions which researchers should address in the next decade.

Souvenirs Scholarship In combination with tourism, souvenirs scholarship spans multiple disciplines: anthropology, arts and cultural management, business, communication, consumer behavior, geography, and sociology, among other fields. In the academic literature, souvenirs serve both as a subject for study and as a variable for studying other tourism-related phenomena. Reoccurring themes have included authenticity, commodification, consumer behavior, craft production and economic development, cultural property rights, gift-giving, shopping and retail, and meanings and messages (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). Souvenirs have repeatedly been studied within the context of tourism serving as physical representations of tourism (Thompson et al., 2012). Souvenir objects serve two primary nonmutually exclusive functions – symbolic reminder and/or tourist commodity – as well as two secondary overlapping functions – other commodities bought for travel and/or other reminders of experiences (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). Peters (2011) has investigated the importance of souvenir placement in the home, specifically comparing the placement of generic (banal) souvenirs and authentic, hand-crafted souvenir goods. Her research has brought to light how souvenirs are socially placed in the

home as important or unimportant, significant or insignificant regardless of the banal element of the item. Exploring souvenirs is an innovative topic which promises to contribute to discussions in a range of geographic fields including material culture, place, and tourism studies. Much of the academic literature has focused on items predisposed to be souvenirs, intentionally purchased to serve as a reminder of a travel event. Gordon (1986) developed a souvenir typology that has served as the foundation for much of this research. Additional recent research has moved the discussion forward to consider the transformation of everyday objects into souvenirs after the travel event, as meaningful memories are evoked over time, regardless of circumstances of purchase (Collins-Kreiner and Zins, 2011). These authors have suggested that many different aspects of the concept ”souvenir” play a role in consumer tourism and future research should be aimed at mapping the many different meanings of the term. This research may provide theoretical significance as well as have implications for consumption, such as encouraging the manufacture of different souvenirs to fulfill tourist's needs as understood based on new definitions of the term. Souvenirs research continues to employ both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Quantitative methods include traditional surveys (Setiyati and Indrayanto, 2011; Kong and Chang, 2012; Lin and Wang, 2012), inventories (Hashimoto and Telfer, 2007), and experimental design (Abendroth, 2011). Qualitative methods include ethnographic research (Kaell, 2012), fieldwork and case studies (Swanson and DeVereaux, 2012; Thompson et al., 2012), and in-depth interviews, partial biographies, and photography (Peters, 2011). Recent studies have also adopted a mixed-method approach, collecting both qualitative and quantitative data within one study (Collins-Kreiner and Zins, 2011; Lacher and Nepal, 2011; Wilkins, 2011; Chang et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2012). Future souvenirs research should take advantage of mixed-methods approaches when possible. Qualitative methods allow researchers to construct meanings while quantitative methods allow for measurement of constructs and reliability and validity testing. Tourism is a universal activity. Tourists consume souvenirs as memory triggers from a myriad of destinations. Small remote villages as well as large urban centers use souvenir production and sales as tools for economic livelihood and wellbeing. Souvenirs research continues to be studied globally. Recent case study work has been conducted in Thailand (Lacher and Nepal, 2011), Taiwan (Chang et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2012), and the USA (Swanson and DeVereaux, 2012; Thompson et al., 2012). Using souvenirs as a strategy in destination development has been applied in Macau (Kong and Chang, 2012). Souvenir authenticity has been explored in Australia (Setiyati and Indrayanto, 2011), Canada (Hashimoto and Telfer, 2007), and Taiwan (Lin and Wang, 2012). Countless destinations worldwide can benefit from focused studies on local souvenir production and marketing efforts and tourist behavior with regard to souvenir consumption.

Souvenirs Phenomena

Nearly all tourists bring home souvenirs to remember the experience of travel. The souvenir may be collected (i.e., pinecone or shell), acquired (i.e., beard or suntan), retained (i.e., playbill or transportation ticket), or purchased (i.e., postcard, curio, toy, clothing item, forgotten travel item). Regardless of form, these items serve similar purposes to help tourists remember their tourism experiences. Gordon (1986) in formative work on souvenirs used sacredness to explain souvenir phenomena. Sacredness theory suggests that a temporary shift exists between a normal/profane/ordinary existence and an abnormal/sacred/nonordinary existence. Staying at home indicates a normal/ordinary experience while travel implies a sacred/nonordinary experience (MacCannell, 1976; Graburn, 1989). The contrasts between the ordinary/work and nonordinary/leisure were described as reasons for possessing souvenirs. The presence of a souvenir helps the tourist to “locate, define, and freeze in time a fleeting, transitory experience, and bring back to an ordinary experience something of the quality of an extraordinary experience” (Gordon, 1986: 135). Souvenirs resemble ”ordinary” everyday items but are from the place of the ”extraordinary” (Peters, 2011: 235). Tourists bring home with them to the ordinary state, items from the sacred extraordinary period. Tourists cannot stay in the sacred state indefinitely; they can, however, hold on to a tangible piece of the extraordinary time to remind them of the tourism experience. Tourists need to capture a sacred experience and this need is best served by a tangible souvenir (Setiyati and Indrayanto, 2011). Gift-giving links souvenirs, tourists, and tourism by providing validation, contrition, and affirmation of the travel experience. Sending postcards during travel offers proof the tourist is experiencing a nonordinary event. The tourist hopes that, with receipt of the postcard, some of the sacredness of the experience will rub off on the receiver (Graburn, 1989). Purchasing souvenirs as gifts is used as recognition of the period spent away from the normal experience (Wilkins, 2011). Presenting gifts upon return also allows the tourist to offer contrition for their sacred experience to those who had to remain at home. Affirmation is also linked to souvenir gift-giving. For example, Japanese cultures place a high value on gift-giving. The value of the souvenir gift is often considered to be a reflection of the value the giver places on the relationship with the receiver (Hashimoto and Telfer, 1999; Nambu and Vogt, 2009). In a study of souvenirs and gift-giving practices among American Holy Land tourists (pilgrims), distinct differences were evident between religious objects and commodities. Religious objects were considered commercial souvenirs imbued with divine presence, giving the souvenir and the gift-giver special powers, as opposed to commodities which did not have spiritual value (Kaell, 2012). Gift-giving practices vary greatly among different cultures. Gifts purchased for others are seen as more important by Western and Asian cultures than Hispanic cultures (Park and Reisinger, 2009). These authors have suggested that sharper cultural segmentation of tourists may enable individual goods to be modified or developed to meet the needs of culturally different shoppers. Key questions persist surrounding cultural gift-giving practices and the role souvenirs play for dissimilar tourists. Continued research on understanding the differences in gift-giving practices among cultures is encouraged to move forward souvenirs inquiry.

Souvenirs Consumption

Tourists purchase souvenirs during travel to remember a tourism experience after returning home. Consumption is an important aspect of travel and leisure and cannot be separated from the tourist experience. Souvenirs serve as the material commodities within a marketplace that have exchange value between tourists and tourism entrepreneurs and destination governments. As products of tourism, souvenirs serve as commodities generating direct tourist expenditures and contributing to economic prosperity of tourist destinations. For destinations that already have established souvenir distribution channels, souvenirs complement the overall tourist product portfolio. Tourists want to purchase souvenirs that have a regional connection (Wilkins, 2011). At these destinations souvenirs serve to reinforce image through geographic scale representing the country, region, city, specific attraction, or combination of several geographic scales (Hashimoto and Telfer, 2007). In less-developed tourist destinations, souvenirs can be used to help formulate the image of an emerging tourism destination (Kong and Chang, 2012). Souvenir shopping can be used as a gauge to measure the favorability of a destination contributing to the positive perception tourists have of the destination. Additionally, souvenir consumption can add to the diversity of the tourism offerings for the emerging destination. Interestingly, Hashimoto and Telfer (2007) purposefully stated that they were not interested in where the souvenir was made, only the geographical representation on the souvenir. Negligible research has been conducted on wholesale souvenir and gift distributors. This component of the souvenir distribution channel is an emerging area for investigation to better understand how wholesale souvenir and gift distributors supplement the overall tourist product portfolio at tourist destinations. Additionally, minimal research has been conducted on the structure of corporate retail businesses (chain retailers owning two or more souvenir outlets) and the effect these businesses have on souvenir consumption. These retail structures are popular at cruise boat destinations, for example. Researching opportunities and threats of corporate souvenirs retail compared to small, independent retail may assist tourism entrepreneurs and destination governments is assessing the economic viability of souvenirs within the tourist product portfolio. Tourism as a source of economic development is a strategy used by many rural and indigenous communities worldwide. For many of these communities selling souvenirs is seen as a way for economically depressed communities to benefit from tourism. An emerging issue within the souvenir literature with regard to selling souvenirs is the supply source: locally made or outsourced imports (Notar, 2006; Lacher and Nepal, 2011; Setiyati and Indrayanto, 2011; Swanson and DeVereaux, 2012). In case-study research conducted by this author, Native American artisans (tourism entrepreneurs) in the American Southwest considered imported goods to be a major threat to their locally made arts and crafts. Equally threatened were tourists in Dali, Yunnan, China, who developed authenticity anxiety when considering purchase of intentionally outsourced souvenirs (Notar, 2006). Locally made souvenirs are made by local artisans or crafts persons who live in the area where the souvenirs are sold. When a locally made souvenir is sold the income earned remains within the host community. Lack of capital and education to start a business, trouble in keeping up with demand, and economic leakage from imported souvenirs are problems associated with locally made souvenirs (Lacher and

Nepal, 2011). Imported (outsourced) souvenirs are often mass-produced in factories away from the tourist destination with middlemen controlling the supply chain until the souvenirs reach local vendors at the destination who sell to tourists (Lacher and Nepal, 2011). Outsourced souvenirs are commonly manufactured in Asia, which exports the souvenir products to mostly developed countries to sell to tourists at relatively lower prices compared with host-countrymanufactured souvenirs (Notar, 2006; Setiyati and Indrayanto, 2011). When an outsourced souvenir is sold, part of the income earned exits the host community as revenue to the outsourced vendor located in another community, region, or country. In case-study research conducted in Huay Pu Keng, a remote tourist destination in Northern Thailand, Lacher and Nepal (2011) found that while revenues made on imported souvenirs far exceeded the revenues from local-made souvenirs, the economic impact of the imported souvenirs was less than the locally made souvenirs due to high expenses of the imported goods. The authors made two recommendations for reducing the economic leakage that imported souvenirs create: clearly identify locally made souvenirs to encourage tourists to purchase authentic and unique goods, and, ban certain imported souvenirs that could be converted into local sales for similar objects. Locally made versus outsourced souvenirs is a continuing controversy among tourism entrepreneurs. A key area for future research by both academics and tourism practitioners should focus on developing strategies to assist tourism entrepreneurs in determining the right balance between locally made products and outsourced merchandise. Yet another thread with regard to tourism, tourists, and souvenirs is where the souvenirconsumption process takes place. Souvenir shopping has always been considered an activity fulfilled at the destination. Tourists are put into a you-must-buy-it-now purchase situation and must decide whether to make the purchase or fear nonpurchase regret at a later time. With the advent of online retailing, tourists' opportunities to buy souvenirs after returning home have changed the purchase situation. In innovative research, Abendroth (2011) conducted experimental studies to determine how adding a retail website affects tourists' decision making for souvenir purchases. Findings indicated that purchase limitation (souvenir only available at location) increased the ability for the souvenir to serve as a representation of the place and increased souvenir authenticity. However, an online presence was necessary when tourists were unable to bring the souvenir home with them. As routine retailing practice, destinations are increasingly offering transactional and nontransactional websites. How an online presence affects a destination's ability to make souvenirs sales is a key research issue for the next decade.

Souvenirs Perceptions Perception is an underlying issue with regard to souvenir research. Scholars, as well as tourists, negotiate between the significance and meaninglessness of souvenirs. Tourists who like to shop, and/or want to capture the travel experience through material objects, consider souvenirs a significant part of the tourism experience. Those who dread shopping and believe that consumerism has overtaken the charm of travel, or who refute material objects, find

souvenirs to be meaningless (Timothy, 2005; Lasusa, 2007; Swanson and Timothy, 2012). A recent case study was designed to measure the perception of the distinction made between art and souvenirs: works of art were items considered unique, hand-made, and expensive, while souvenirs were mass-produced, cheap, commonly found items. Researchers found that production of artist works could be directly derived from the conceptual aspects of souvenirs; in essence, creating art from souvenirs and in turn using the artwork to serve as a souvenir (Thompson et al., 2012). The complexities of perception of souvenir authenticity continue to be researched as a major theme within souvenir literature, with diverse perspectives being given consideration (Xie and Wall, 2002; Revilla and Dodd, 2003; Schouten, 2006; Chang et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2012). What is an authentic souvenir? An item that is genuine (probably museum-quality and very expensive), a replicated item made from real materials, and/or traditional design motifs? A contemporary item made by an artisan from an indigenous culture replicating the “old ways” of making the object? An object perceived by the tourist to be real or genuine based on the experience surrounding the acquisition of the object? Revilla and Dodd (2003) summarized five factors of perception of authenticity concerning Talavera pottery as: appearance/utility (has traditional colors and designs), traditional characteristics and certification (made with traditional methods and materials), difficult to obtain, locally produced (both nonindustrialized and modern methods acceptable), and low cost (production of nontraditional objects acceptable). Authenticity is commonly described as an experience or object that is genuine or real (Sharpley, 2008). Tourists perceive the act of seeking souvenirs as a search for authentic experiences (Hitchcock and Teague, 2000). Controversies exist in the literature as to the definition of authenticity. Tourists associate a souvenir as being authentic when it represents a traditional culture of the visited place and is locally made (Setiyati and Indrayanto, 2011). Sometimes authenticity is real; other times authenticity is contrived so that the tourist feels the souvenir is authentic, but in reality it was made solely for the tourist (Lacher and Nepal, 2011). Souvenirs are conceived as being authentic when they reflect the perceived values of the destination (Schouten, 2006). Additionally, there is controversy as to who determines the authentication of the souvenirs. Authentication is the process by which an object is confirmed as “original” or “real” (Cohen and Cohen, 2012: 1296). Most tourism destinations have multiple stakeholders including tourists, residents, government officials, and tourism entrepreneurs. Each of these constituencies may perceive authenticity through a different lens. Exploratory research has been conducted to examine stakeholder differences. A better understanding of the perceived authenticity among stakeholders will enrich the interpretation of authenticity (Chang et al., 2012). While developing scholarship has been conducted on souvenirs and authenticity, differing viewpoints continue to exist and more scholarly attention should be given to the concept of souvenir authenticity as a key research element in future tourism research. Perceptions of souvenir authenticity also align in the literature with cultural, heritage, and indigenous tourism studies. The knowledge that a souvenir is authentic is an important characteristic in purchasing a souvenir (Revilla and Dodd, 2003; Swanson and Horridge, 2006), yet many tourists, unfamiliar with indigenous cultures, lack adequate knowledge to

judge authenticity against stereotyped images of the culture (Xie and Wall, 2002). These souvenirs are purchased because of the strong emotional tie the tourist has with the object, artisan, or perceived authenticity of the purchase experience rather than the honest representation of the indigenous culture. Similar to the Thompson et al. (2012) study noted above, Xie et al. (2012) manufactured contemporary souvenirs using design motifs identified from Taiwan's indigenous Paiwan culture to serve as objects to measure perceptions of authenticity. Tourists perceived modern designs imbedded with indigenous markers to be more authentic than the traditional designs, suggesting that mass-produced souvenirs can still retain meaningful cultural value that is perceived as authentic by consumers. Further, they suggested that contemporary design in indigenous souvenirs did not affect tourist's perceptions of souvenirs but rather increased the value of the product. “Commodification can be positive and useful if tourists perceive the product as authentic” (Revilla and Dodd, 2003: 99). Academics and tourists have diverse perspectives about perceptions of authenticity. “Authenticity as a concept has come to be used simultaneously as measurement, representation, experience and feeling” (Rickly-Boyd, 2012: 284). The intricacies of perceptions of souvenir authenticity should continue to be researched in all manners to assist practitioners in developing souvenir products and retailing and marketing strategies that will attract tourists and allow souvenir consumption to contribute to a destination's tourism product portfolio. Associated with authenticity is the protection of intellectual property rights of indigenous art works produced for the souvenir industry (Brennan and Savage, 2012; Swanson, 2013; Swanson and DeVereaux, 2012). Examples of exploitation (unintended or not) are evident in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and Japan among other countries. Fewer equitable examples exist (Xie et al., 2012). Cultural tourists look for authentic, quality souvenirs; therefore, many souvenir products present iconic, indigenous images of the host region (Brennan and Savage, 2012). Problems exist, however, in ownership of the imagery, perpetuation of damaging stereotypes, lack of empowerment of indigenous groups in decision making, and equitable disbursement of profits to the indigenous societies. Local governments and artisan associations have attempted to introduce laws to protect indigenous designs (Revilla and Dodd, 2003). Brennan and Savage (2012) have proposed a voluntary code of best practice for business communities designing, producing, and selling cultural souvenirs. Future research to investigate the implementation of the ethical framework has the potential to benefit indigenous communities worldwide. Additionally, research should focus on methods to promote inclusive consultation with indigenous people, above all respecting the dignity and cultural uniqueness of ethic cultures (Swanson and DeVereaux, 2012).

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections The links between souvenirs, tourists, and tourism as a studied phenomenon within tourism literature have developed beyond infancy. Discussions have moved forward from asking the importance of souvenirs to tourists and tourist entrepreneurs to realizing the benefits souvenir consumption can provide within a larger tourism destination portfolio. The following research

themes have been considered in this chapter: mapping different meanings of the term “souvenir;” investigating differences in gift-giving practices among cultures; exploring wholesale souvenir and gift distributor networks; investigating differences between corporate retail and small, independent retail; exploring challenges between locally made products and outsourced merchandise; exploring online souvenirs retailing; continuing scholarship on authenticity; and investigating ethical strategies to benefit indigenous communities. Additional research themes are also suggested. Peters (2011) used the word “banal” to describe souvenirs of an ordinary nature; in other words, curios or kitsch. Select studies have focused on specific items that function at times as souvenirs: branded items (Nambu and Vogt, 2009), craft items (Hu and Yu, 2007), and luxury goods (Park and Reisinger, 2009). Future research should concentrate on the effect of items other than the banal, as memory-triggering items to determine how they too can function in the marketplace to contribute to the tourism destination portfolio. Souvenirs have a direct impact on the tourism experience before, during, and after travel. Future research should include the examination of the effect that (i) electronic devices such as smartphones and tablets and (ii) social media applications will have on souvenir phenomena and consumption. By whom and when are these devices/applications used? How do tourists evoke souvenir meanings through use of these devices/applications? How do the devices/applications assist tourist entrepreneurs and tourists in consumption of souvenir commodities? An additional line of research that might have value in the future is the effect of the concept of consumerism on tourism entrepreneurs and destinations. This author has worked with emerging tourism destinations that are hesitant to adopt principles of consumerism as consumerismbased principles do not align with the existing value system of the tourism destination. The creative problem to be solved is convincing the tourism destination of the value of souvenirs consumption as a means of income generation to allow the potential tourism site, and its value system, to exist into the future. More broadly, future studies should focus on both theoretical and practical marketing implications for tourists, tourism entrepreneurs, governmental agencies, and residents of tourism destinations. The disconnect between academics and practitioners, while not unique to souvenirs literature and research, continues. Future research should identify strategies to encourage academics and practitioners to work more closely together to enhance the tourism experience for both hosts and guests.

References Abendroth, L.J. 2011. The souvenir purchase decision: effects on online availability. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(2): 173–183. Brennan, L. and Savage, T. 2012. Cultural consumption and souvenirs: an ethical framework. Arts Marketing: An International Journal, 2(2): 144–160. Chang, J., Wall, G., and Hung, J-C.R. 2012. Tourists' perceptions of aboriginal heritage souvenirs. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(6): 684–700. Cohen, E. and Cohen, S. 2012. Authentication: hot and cool. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3): 1295–1314. Collins-Kreiner, N. and Zins, Y. 2011. Tourists and souvenirs: changes through time, space and meaning. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 6(1): 17–27. Gordon, B. 1986. The souvenir: messenger of the extraordinary. Journal of Popular Culture, 20(3): 135–146. Graburn, N.H.H. 1989. Tourism: the sacred journey. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, V. Smith (ed.), pp. 21–36. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Hashimoto, A. and Telfer, D. 1999. Marketing Icewine to Japanese tourists in Niagara: the case of Inniskillin Winery. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 11(2): 29–41. Hashimoto, A. and Telfer, D. 2007. Geographical representations embedded within souvenirs in Niagara: the case of geographically displaced authenticity. Tourism Geographies, 9(2): 191–217. Hitchcock, M. and Teague, K. (eds) 2000. Souvenirs: The Material Culture of Tourism. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hu, B. and Yu, H. 2007. Segmentation by craft selection criteria and shopping involvement. Tourism Management, 28(4): 1079–1092. Hume, D.L. 2009. The development of tourist art and souvenirs—the arc of the boomerang: from hunting, fighting and ceremony to tourist souvenir. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(1): 55–70. Kaell, H. 2012. Of gifts and grandchildren: American Holy Land souvenirs. Journal of Material Culture, 17(2): 133–151. Kong, W.H. and Chang, T.-Z.D. 2012. The role of souvenir shopping in a diversified Macau destination portfolio. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21: 357–373. Lacher, R.G. and Nepal, S.K. 2011. The economic impact of souvenir sales in peripheral areas: a case study from Northern Thailand. Tourism Recreation Research, 36(1): 27–37.

Lasusa, D.M. 2007. Eiffel Tower key chains and other pieces of reality: the philosophy of souvenirs. Philosophical Forum, 38(3): 271–287. Lin, C.-H. and Wang, W.-C. 2012. Effects of authenticity perception, hedonics, and perceived value on ceramic souvenir-repurchasing intention. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29: 779–795. MacCannell, D. 1999. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Nambu, T. and Vogt, C.A. 2009. Investigating Japanese travelers' motives and gift buying on leisure travel to the United States. Tourism Review International, 9: 247–259. Notar, B.E. 2006. Authenticity anxiety and counterfeit confidence: outsourcing souvenirs, changing money, and narrating value on reform-era China. Modern China, 32(1): 64–98. Park, K.-S. and Reisinger, Y. 2009. Cultural differences in shopping for luxury goods: Western, Asian, and Hispanic tourists. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26: 762–777. Peters, K. 2011. Negotiating the ‘place’ and ‘placement’ of banal tourist souvenirs in the home. Tourism Geographies, 13(2): 234–256. Revilla, G. and Dodd, T.H. 2003. Authenticity perceptions of Talavera pottery. Journal of Travel Research, 42: 94–99. Rickly-Boyd, J.M. 2012. Authenticity & aura: a Benjaminian approach to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1): 269–289. Schouten, F. 2006. The process of authenticating souvenirs. In Cultural Tourism in a Changing World: Politics, Participation and (Re)presentation, M. Smith and M. Robinson (eds), pp. 191–202. Clevedon: Channel View. Setiyati, E.A. and Indrayanto, A. 2011. Outsourced souvenirs: an investigation towards authenticity anxiety and tourist's purchase behaviour. In Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science, Economics and Art, pp. 196–201. Malaysia, January 14–15, 2011. Sharpley, R. 2008. Tourism, Tourists, and Society, 4th ed. Huntingdon: Elm Publishing. Swanson, K.K. 2013. Souvenirs of the American Southwest: objective or constructive authenticity. In Tourism and Souvenirs: Glocal Perspectives from the Margins, J. Cave, L. Jolliffe, and T. Baum (eds), pp. 63–81. Clevedon: Channel View. Swanson, K.K. and DeVereaux, C. 2012. Culturally sustainable entrepreneurship: a case study for Hopi tourism. In Field Guide to Case Study Research in Tourism, Hospitality, and Leisure, K. Hyde, C. Ryan, and A.G. Woodside (eds), pp. 479–494. Bingley: Emerald Group. Swanson, K.K. and Horridge, P.E. 2006. Travel motivations as souvenir purchase indicators.

Tourism Management, 27: 671–683. Swanson, K.K. and Timothy, D.J. 2012. Souvenirs: icons of meaning, commercialization and commoditization. Tourism Management, 33: 489–499. Thompson, F., Hannam, K., and Petrie, K. 2012. Producing ceramic art works through tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1): 336–360. Timothy, D.J. 2005. Shopping Tourism, Retailing and Leisure. Clevedon: Channel View. Wilkins, H. 2011. Souvenirs: what and why we buy. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3): 239– 247. Xie, P.F. and Wall, G. 2002. Visitors' perceptions of authenticity at cultural attractions in Hainan, China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4: 353–366. Xie, P.F., Wu, T.-C.E., and Hsieh, H.-W. 2012. Tourists' perceptions of authenticity in indigenous souvenirs in Taiwan. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29: 485–500.

Part 4 Globalizing People, Places, and Markets in Tourism

Introduction Globalizing People, Places, and Markets in Tourism Alan A. Lew We live on a planet that is both getting smaller, in terms of technology driven space–time compression (Harvey, 1989), and getting more crowded. As a result, people, their cultures, and their social institutions are bumping up against each other and competing for spatially limited resources to an unprecedented extent (see Chapter 39 in this volume). With the current trajectories of technological innovation and population expansion, the globalization of human knowledge, presence, and influence will only expand into the foreseeable future. Of course, tourism is an integral part of the globalization phenomenon, both being shaped by it and as a contributor to it (Hall and Lew, 2009). Tourism benefits from the relatively free flow of people, capital, and talent across international borders, allowing transnational investments that drive tourism development as part of a global neoliberal agenda, which is also criticized as culturally homogenizing and economically neocolonial. However, it is important to keep in mind that globalization also empowers local populations, building local capacity to respond to external influences through knowledge, networks, and the effective use of information technologies (Lew, 2008). In addition to benefitting from globalization, tourism is also an important force in creating a more global economy and shared cosmopolitan culture (Swain, 2009). Destination host communities, or so the argument is made, become trained global cosmopolitans through employment in, and exposure to, transnational tourism investments, investors, and their tourist clients (Chapter 11). Assuming such a transformation is possible, where cultural and economic distance is great, so too would be the degree of change. For others, who are already embedded in the international socioeconomic structure, this is more a matter of fine tuning and perfecting their global competitiveness. That tweaking usually means creating an attractive investment climate through appropriate tax and infrastructure policies, supportive educational investments, and opportunities for a high quality of life. A tourism development agenda, however, can also be an integral part of the competitive face that a city or region displays to the world. Tourism contributes to both the image and form of a destination (Avrahan and Ketter, 2013), with the tourism landscape contributing equally to the leisure and identity experiences of both guests and hosts. These globalization issues are revealed and expanded upon through the seven chapters in this part of the book. Larry Dwyer's chapter on transnational corporations and the globalization of tourism (Chapter 15) presents an introductory overview of globalization, emphasizing that it is both an economic and a social phenomenon, before focusing on the role of transnational corporations in tourism development. He succinctly identifies the principal drivers of globalization as (i) money (economic drivers) seeking new opportunities to grow, (ii) information and telecommunications (technological drivers) overcoming the constraints of space, (iii) new human mobilities (social drivers) allowing the flexible flow of labor, and (iv) the liberalization of trade and monetary policies (political drivers) making tourism an

attractive development option for many places. The potential benefits of these processes include increased employment and higher incomes, and greater resource protection and technology development and transfer, among others. Among the potential challenges of globalization that Dwyer identifies are income inequality, dependency, and the loss of local businesses that cannot compete with international capital. While the impacts of globalization are certainly mixed, there is no doubt that they are significant and affecting almost every corner of the planet. The global marketplace of today, for example, is more accessible and more competitive than at any time in prior human history (Friedman, 2005). To be successful in this market requires that places compete with one another to present (or sell) themselves, which is inherently a form of commodification (Carvalho and Rodrigues, 2008). Tourism is a significant, if not the most dominant, part of the place-selling (and commodification) process. Nigel Morgan (Chapter 16) addresses this issue in his chapter on problematizing place promotion and commodification by focusing on the tension between conserving local identity and the pressures of global dedifferentiation and the accompanying homogenization that is the normal trajectory of tourism promotion. He first identifies the major issue of tourism marketing as being the dismembering of places into zones of theirs (for tourists) and ours (for hosts). He notes, however, that the true image of a place is not a marketing slogan, but is created through the multiplicity of stories that are attached to it and which evolve and are contested over time. Place marketing, despite its detached Madison Avenue persona, is an embedded actor in the historical and future discourses of place identity. Other influences that shape the evolving promotional image of a destination include efforts by various institutional stakeholders, such as destination marketing organizations and public policy-makers, as well as media, guidebooks, events, and – importantly – direct experiences communicated through word of mouth (Anholt, 2009). Related to this last point is the concept of the “experience economy,” in which tangible products are secondary to the experiences they engender (Chapter 17). This creates a paradox wherein places build iconic structures to shape their international image, but make their experiences more like that of every other major destination (banal and homogenized). As a solution to these issues, Morgan suggests a “mindful place promotion” that supports that which is unique and local to the place, and more aligned with sustainability and quality of life approaches than standard business growth models (Chapter 42). Tourism is a diverse and complex economic activity, involving disparate activities from transportation to food, accommodation, entertainment, shopping, and more (Ioannides and Debbage, 1998). However, one could argue that the core that draws together all of these into a conceptual commonality is the tourist experience (Chapter 22). The tourist desire to buy experiences, to collect experiences over time, and to share experiences with friends is what drives and supports the various economic activities (and jobs) in tourism. This has come to be known as the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore, 1999), which Morgan (Chapter 16) introduces and which T.C. Chang and Shirlena Huang (Chapter 17) expand upon in their chapter on urban tourism and the experience economy. After defining what the experience economy is, which centers on staged experiences and is embedded in the global marketing of tourism, they discuss the very distinct spatial forms that it takes in the form of clustered

entertainment districts and experience places, and events that are often closely associated with particular places. They point out how cities are particularly cogent places for the creation of “experiencescapes” (O'Dell, 2005). They then discuss methodological issues and approaches to conceptualizing research on the experience economy, drawing on several examples, including Terkenli's (2002) “enworldment” and Duncan's (2012) “mobile ethnographies,” among others. Even though the experience economy of any one place is often frequented as much by local residents as tourists, its emphasis on the staging of the experience makes it almost entirely an outward, other-directed phenomenon (Jackson, 1956). This is what places the experience economy firmly in the globalization agenda. It is also, however, often related to a destination's creative economy, which Gordon Waitt and Chris Gibson review in their chapter on tourism and creative economies (Chapter 18). They point out that tourism has had a long association with the creative economy, defined as the arts (including performing arts), museums, writings, and other culture and humanity endeavors. Unlike the experience economy, the creative economy tends to be more internally focused and locally sensitive, and perhaps even more vital to the destination image and economic vitality because of that (Florida, 2002). One way that tourism intersects with the creative economy is through renowned cultural icons, such as a famous author or novel, or musician or musical form. Another is through cultural quarters (such as artist or performance districts), which may also be part of the experience economy, although artistic predilection for exclusion or seclusion problematizes their globalization (and tourism success). The creative economy, through these diverse sensitivities, gives further insight into the sometimes tenuous relationships in the global–local nexus of tourism in place (Milne and Ateljevic, 2001). Similar to how cultural quarters, through their alterity, become a local nexus of the global tourist gaze (i.e. they become tourism attractions) (Chapter 24), minority ethnic communities and neighborhoods, often created through immigration, can become significant elements in the image of a place (Hall, 2005). Kevin Meethan (Chapter 19) discusses this in his chapter on mobilities, ethnicity, and tourism. He draws on the framework of mobility because it more effectively engages the global movement of people and their subsequent relations with a variety of divergent geographies. Mobility has long been part of the human story and, as such, of place-making (Cresswell and Merriman, 2011). He then focuses on ethnicity, its definition(s), the role of the exotic other in tourism, and its subsequent commodification. All of this comes together in the example of San Francisco's iconic Chinatown, which continues to be a lived place with significant overlays of immigration and touristic imaginations. Meethan identifies the lessons of Chinatown in a discussion of how ethnic mobilities can be a mixed blessing, welcomed and rejected, uneven in its effects, but essential in its significance to the modern world. He concludes with a review of research agendas and methodologies for ethnicity and tourism, including the relations between the imaginary and the visual, and the potential of online data sources for both historical and contemporary understandings of the meanings in human mobilities. Those final comments from Meethan point to what some consider the single most significant factor in the transformation of contemporary tourism and mobility: information and

communication technologies. The new global “diasporas,” represented through a continuum from short-term tourists to permanent immigrants, are shaped in very different ways from those of the past through their use of telecommunications technologies. The two remaining chapters in this part of the book address the influence and power that these new tools provide tourists, destinations, and the tourism system overall. In the first of these, Noam Shoval, Michal Isaacson, and Prem Chhetri's chapter (Chapter 20) on GPS, smartphones, and the future of tourism research examines the rapidly approaching ubiquity of GPS and smartphone technology use by tourists. These tools give visitors unprecedented information about destinations, before, during, and after visiting them (Kah et al., 2011), potentially shaping the way they interact with the people and places they encounter on tour (covered in more detail in Chapter 21). Shoval and his colleagues focus on the use of these technologies in tracking tourists and mapping their spatial behavior. Data mining, data visualization, and behavioral modeling are some of the big data methodological issues associated with the tracking of tourists. Research based in these new technologies also raises questions of privacy and research ethics, although it seems that contemporary post-tourists relish more in sharing than in privacy. This sharing aspect of the tourist's experience, enabled by rapid advances in portable personal technologies, is covered in the final chapter of this part of the book, Mads Bødker and Ana Munar's chapter on new territories in information technologies and tourism research (Chapter 21). They note that despite a growing proliferation of personal information technology (IT), most of the tourism studies and discussions of their applications and use have been from marketing and management perspectives (e.g. Xie and Lew, 2008). Bødker and Munar seek to address this by shifting the focus to the social use of IT in tourism. They suggest that such an approach would include the political economy of portable technologies and the power structures that they engender (e.g. digital inequities, misinformation, and information as power), their influence on personal and place encounters and identities (e.g. increased reflexivity, anxiety, and engagement at a distance), and their impact on cultural practices of the tourist and the host (e.g. commodification and the blurring of home/away and other differences). Bødker and Munar suggest ethnomethodology, situated action, and actor-network theory as potential methodologies suited to the study of the growth of IT and its social consequences for tourism and tourists. The seven chapters in this section on globalizing people, places, and markets in tourism cover a significant range of contemporary topics on the impact of the global on tourists and tourism places. Dwyer's (Chapter 15) suggestion that globalization can be understood from the perspectives of economic drivers, social drivers, and technology drivers can be seen throughout these chapters. The tension in place promotion and development between global economic interests and local sense of place come through in most of the chapters, with global interests perhaps best represented by transnational corporations and the experience economy (Chapter 17), and localization seen in the creative economy (Chapter 18) and lived ethnic enclaves (Chapter 19). Ethnic (and non-ethnic) migrations are also an example of a social driver of globalization. But possibly the most important drivers of societal change under globalization are advances in personal technologies and telecommunications (Chapter 21). GPS and cell-phone technologies have created a new, thick layer of global interconnectedness

that is increasingly providing big-data tourist-tracking options for informing the spatial management, as well as marketing, of tourist attractions and destinations (Chapter 20). Big data is deeply embedded in the global agenda, through ubiquitous cloud technologies and the drive to provide universal user services (Cerra et al., 2013). At the same time, this global social media agenda, combined with real-time travel information, is shaping the experience and behavior of tourists as agents in place. Many of the globalization issues raised in these chapters have been part of the tourism discourse for decades. However, because the world is becoming a smaller place across the spectrum of human and economic geographies, their cogency is increasing in pace and intensity as they evolve and impinge on tourism development today, and well into the foreseeable future.

References Anholt, S. 2009. Places: Identity, Image and Reputation. Palgrave: London. Avraham, E. and Ketter, E. 2013. Marketing destinations with prolonged negative images: towards a theoretical model. Tourism Geographies, 15(1): 145–164. Carvalho, L.F. and Rodrigues, J. 2008. Are markets everywhere? Understanding contemporary processes of commodification. In The Elgar Companion to Social Economics, J.B. Davies and W. Dolfsma (eds), pp. 267–286. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Cerra, A., Easterwood, K., and Power, J. 2013. Transforming Business: Big Data, Mobility, and Globalization. Indianapolis: Wiley. Cresswell, T. and Merriman, P. (eds) 2011. Geographies of Mobilities: Practices, Spaces, Subjects. Farnham: Ashgate. Duncan, T. 2012. The ‘mobilities turn’ and the geography of tourism. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 113–119. London: Routledge. Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class, New York: Basic Books. Friedman, T.L. 2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Hall, C.M. 2005. Tourism: Rethinking the Social Science of Mobility, Harlow: Prentice Hall. Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A. 2009. Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts: An Integrated Approach. Oxford: Routledge Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Ioannides, D. and Debbage, K. 1998. The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry: A Supply-side Analysis. London: Routledge.

Jackson, J.B. 1956. Other-directed houses. Landscape, 6(2): 29–35. Kah, J.A., Vogt, C., and MacKay, K. 2014. Placed-based information technology use on vacations. Tourism Geographies, 13(2): 209–233. Lew, A.A. 2008. Long tail tourism: new geographies for marketing niche tourism products. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 25(3/4): 409–419. Milne, S. and Ateljevic, I. 2001. Tourism, economic development and the global-local nexus: theory embracing complexity. Tourism Geographies, 3(4): 369–393. O'Dell, T. 2005. Experiencescapes: blurring borders and testing connections. In Experiencescapes. Tourism, Culture and Economy, edited by T. O'Dell and P. Billing, pp. 11– 33. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. 1998. Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review July/August: 97–105. Swain, M.B. 2009. The cosmopolitan hope of tourism: critical action and worldmaking vistas. Tourism Geographies, 11(4): 505–525. Terkenli, T. 2002. Landscapes of tourism: towards a global cultural economy of space? Tourism Geographies, 4(3): 227–254. Xie, P.F. and Lew, A.A. 2008. Podcasting and tourism: an exploratory study of types, approaches and content. Journal of Information Technology and Tourism, 10(2): 173–180.

Chapter 15 Transnational Corporations and the Globalization of Tourism Larry Dwyer Globalization involves the growing interconnectedness of the world, as reflected in the expanded flows of information, technology, capital, goods, services, and people. The growing interdependence between national economies has resulted in a trend towards global markets, global production, global competition, and global communication. Economic globalization, the standard concept, has been defined as “the increase in economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of goods and services transactions across borders, international capital flows more freely and faster, but also a wider diffusion technology” (IMF, 1997: 2). However, globalization includes, and goes beyond, simple internationalization of markets. It is a multidimensional process, taking place simultaneously within the spheres of the economy and of politics, technological developments (particularly media and communications technologies), environmental change, and culture. The proponents of globalization claim that it promotes global economic growth, creates jobs, makes companies more competitive, and lowers prices for consumers. An important driver of globalization has been the transnational corporation (TNC), with headquarters in one country and operating wholly or partially owned subsidiaries in one or more other countries. TNCs are claimed to be, inter alia, the basis for disseminating technical knowledge and education, improving global communication and transport, creating new markets for firms and countries, generating innovation and product quality, fostering democratic ideals and cultural exchange and understanding (Mowforth and Munt, 2009). The critics of globalization, on the other hand, claim that it generates income inequalities, destroys local industries, creates greater dependency of developing economies on developed ones, and results in environmental and cultural deterioration (Mowforth and Munt, 2009). Some critics advance stronger claims that the effects of globalization are the displacement of indigenous peoples from lands, human rights abuses, unfair labor and wages, commodification of cultures, and environmental degradation (de Chavez, 1999). Like most topics for debate, both sides contain truths and generalizations are hazardous. The effects of globalization differ case by case and by context. This is particularly true for the twoway link between the tourism industry and globalization.

Drivers of Globalization Four main types of forces that drive globalization can be identified.

Economic Drivers

Globalization of national economies is not just restricted to trade relations between countries, but also encompasses foreign direct investment by companies from developed nations to developing nations. Increasing capital mobility acts as a stimulus to globalization. When capital can move freely from country to country, it is relatively straightforward for firms to locate and invest abroad, and repatriate profits. Globalization of international financial markets has created wider access to external funding sources. Easier access to foreign capital and increased foreign direct investment lays down the foundation for import substitution and export promotion to generate competitive markets. The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2002) projects tourism to grow at 4.1% annually at least to 2020, fueled primarily by economic growth internationally. As rising income is the most powerful generator of tourism flows (Crouch, 1994), to the extent that globalization generates a dynamic world economy, it also creates the economic basis for continued growth in domestic and international tourism worldwide. The growth of TNCs, and the rise in the significance of global brands, has been central to the emergence of globalization in the tourism industry. It has been said of tourism that “hardly any other economic sector illustrates so clearly the global reach of transnational corporations” (Pleumarom, 1999: 5). One reason for this is that, by their very nature, tourism services have to be delivered locally to consumers in different destinations. The standard means by which TNCs in tourism have expanded their operations is by way of foreign direct investment (FDI). The various motives for FDI in tourism can be explained in large part using a widely accepted ”eclectic” paradigm of international production (Dunning, 1988; Dwyer and Forsyth, 1994).The eclectic paradigm asserts that the extent, pattern, and growth of value-adding activities undertaken by TNCs outside their home countries are dependent on the value of and interaction between three main variables: ownership, location, and market internalization. The interrelations of these variables, and the response to them by firms, vary according to industry, countries of origin and destination of investment, and firm-specific characteristics. They also vary over time as changes in technology and the entrepreneurial and economic environment affect the competitive position of firms and the location of their value-adding activities (United Nations, 1989). Consolidation processes are changing the nature of the global tourism industry. For many tourism firms survival in the global marketplace requires merging with or taking over companies that deliver different components of the whole product (Cavlek, 2002). The winners in this process are the powerful vertically integrated tourism businesses that are creating travel value chains that provide customers with distribution, tour operation, flights, accommodation, insurance, and entertainment from a single source. The losers are the many small and mediumsized independent companies that have been crowded out or taken over by these large organizations, which have consequently become larger and more powerful.

Technology Drivers Developments in information and communications technology (ICT) and transportation have accelerated the pace of globalization, lowering operating costs to the extent that it is often

economically feasible for a firm to locate different phases of production in different countries. International research and development flows extend globally while the purchase and sale of knowhow crosses all international boundaries. The growing two-way flow of skilled workers between the developing world and the West, the increasing size of the computer-literate, information-oriented workforce in some developing countries, and efforts by global corporations to diversify their high-tech operations fuel the spread of new technologies. The Internet has been a vital development within the tourism industry itself as consumers use it to gather information on destinations, products, and services and of course make bookings online. The dramatic growth of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube in recent years is increasingly being felt in the travel and tourism sector. Younger travelers take their technology skills with them as they age so online activity will become ever more important for travel and tourism as these people progress through the life cycle. Travel and tourism companies and organizations increasingly determine the windows of opportunity offered by ICT to integrate it into their sales and marketing activities. The Internet makes it possible for marketing activity to be undertaken on a more level playing field whereby small businesses can connect directly to consumers and compete for market share on an even footing with larger firms (Buhalis, 2003; Buhalis and Law, 2008). Tourism has helped to create the modern global transportation system through which remote destinations have become more accessible and has also contributed to the establishment of the “moorings” that support travel mobility, such as airports, hotels, and resorts (Hannam et al., 2006; Cohen, 2012).

Social Drivers The pace of social change and transformation worldwide has risen dramatically, with implications for social life and human culture. This social change is related to increasing connectivity among peoples and countries worldwide, an objective dimension, together with an increased awareness worldwide of these interconnections, a subjective dimension. The globalization of social networks, whether through multinational companies, higher education, or international civil society, can be expected to drive further growth of tourism and travel. The migration and movement of people, either from rural to urban environments within countries or migration related between countries, is a prominent feature of the globalization process. Immigration between countries also increases with globalization, providing better opportunities for people all round the world to gain access to jobs. The globalizing economy and technological change inevitably require a more highly skilled labor force. Social infrastructure maximizes opportunities for individuals and businesses to be innovative, to learn, to develop knowledge and skills, and to access knowledge services. Unprecedented demographic shifts are having profound effects on most social institutions. These include population growth and changes in age structure, driven by differential fertility rates and improved health care. Broadly speaking, the trends point to two developments in future tourism related to population and age structure. The first is the rise in tourism from the

ends of the age spectrum. In particular, tourism will increasingly have to take account of the needs and preferences of older travelers. The second is the rise of Asian and developingworld tourism more generally. Mass tourism is widely regarded as one of the visible manifestations of globalization. Important changes in values, attitudes, and lifestyles are occurring which are directly affected by some of these demographic changes with implications for tourism management, marketing, and new product development (Dwyer et al., 2009). Characteristics of the evolving tourist, conditioned by globalization, include being money-rich, time-poor; having greater flexibility in the taking of leisure time; and being hedonistic, discerning, quality-conscious, and individualistic with higher expectations (Cetron, 2001; Nordin, 2005; European Travel Commission, 2010). Tourists typically are becoming more critical, less loyal, seeking value for money, not necessarily low prices. All of these developments, in combination, suggest an increasing fragmentation of tastes in both developed and emerging markets. The growing urban congestion in both the industrialized and developing economies leads to the increasingly felt need to engage in discretionary tourism to escape and/or to indulge (UNWTO, 2002). Increasing international connectivity continues to shape modern life, further diminishing the constraints of physical boundaries and extending the geographical scope of social networks. Globalization brings about a change in the attitude and thoughts of people. It makes people tolerant of varied worldviews and practices and thereby promotes progressive thinking, and social reforms in society (e.g. quality of education, role of women). The trend towards increased globalization will boost tourism in and between both developed and developing countries, as people become increasingly ”international” and ”cosmopolitan” in their outlook.

Political Drivers Political drivers of globalization include the increasing liberalization of trade and capital markets. Globalization results in easier access across borders, which for the tourism industry may mean more foreign tourists as well as increased global competition from international tourist destinations. Political realignments in the European Union and North American freetrade zone are encouraging greater travel within each region. There is ongoing political pressure for higher living standards in developing societies with a growing global middle class creating a cycle of rising aspirations. Democracy has spread to countries previously under the control of state communist, military-led, or otherwise authoritarian regimes, giving political power to formerly disenfranchized citizens. A rapid expansion of the private sector in many emerging-market economies, along with deregulation and privatization, spurs economic growth by generating competitive pressures to use resources more efficiently (Dwyer et al., 2009). The continued deregulation and liberalization of air transport and “open skies” policy supports the growth of trade and tourism. Tourism is now being pursued as a serious development strategy for the developing world. Under International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank prescriptions, tourism is classified as

an export strategy. The IMF has included tourism as part of its Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs). The SAPs, which are preconditions for the approval of financial assistance (Kapur, 1998), require the indebted country to be integrated into the global economy, deregulate and liberalize its economy, shift from an agriculture-based to a manufacturing and service industry-based economy, and liberalize its financial sector. The above discussion has highlighted only some of the relevant drivers of globalization. Because of its complex and multifaceted structure, globalization shapes many contemporary factors determining the development of tourism. Each of the drivers has tourism relevance and no single driver or trend will dominate. Each to a greater and lesser degree influences the other and will have varying impacts on tourism destinations, different regions, countries, and industry sectors, and tourist behavior. The drivers are not necessarily mutually reinforcing; in some cases they will work at cross-purposes. Taken together they set the context in which the global tourism industry may be expected to develop in a context of continued globalization.

Effects Economic Development Globalization and long-term economic trends will influence tourism in a number of ways. On the positive side, many claim that globalization increases the economic prosperity of developing nations, as rising trade and investment flows generate increases in world gross domestic product (GDP). Rising income has long been recognized as the most powerful generator of tourism flows (Crouch, 1994). Through FDI, TNCs can provide developing countries to improve their balance of payments with critical financial infrastructure for economic and social development. Globalization-induced economic growth is a source of tax revenue for development financing. On the negative side there are several reasons to be sceptical of globalization's alleged economic benefits, particularly in the tourism context. Arguments have been advanced that globalization leads to income inequality, destruction of local industry, economic dependency, and tourism expenditure leakages that greatly reduce the economic impacts of tourism growth. These are discussed in turn. Income Inequality The question of whether global inequality is rising or declining has been hotly debated. Firebaugh and Goesling (2004) argue that the spread of industrialization leads to the modernization of poorer regions of the world and the resulting economic gains there lead, in turn, to an overall reduction in global income inequality. A contrary view is advanced by Korzeniewicz and Moran (2006) who argue that the increased trade between North and South has reduced income inequality among skilled and semiskilled workers in the South, while increasing the inequality among such workers in the North. The claim is that globalization causes unemployment in industrialized countries as businesses outsource work to developing countries where the cost of labor is low. To the extent that jobs are lost because of the

structural changes arising from globalization this phenomenon increases inequalities in the international distribution of income. Some tourism studies support the pessimistic view. Proponents of the tourism-led growth (TLG) hypothesis emphasize that international tourism can bring foreign exchange, generate employment, spur local investments, exploit economies of scale, and diffuse technical knowledge (Schubert and Brida, 2011). However, a causal relationship between inbound tourism and economic growth may not necessarily lead to higher living standards in developing countries, as these are also dependent on the distribution of income and the quality of services such as health care and education. Some studies (Blake et al., 2008; Wattanakuljarus and Coxhead, 2008) suggest caution when generalizing the effects of tourism growth on poverty within a country. Does embracing globalization allow a country's tourism industry to better contribute to its real per-capita economic growth? An investigation of 167 countries and territories for the years 2000–2010 to determine whether globalization has been linked with increases in tourism's percapita contribution to economic growth found no correlation between globalization and the average per-capita economic growth contribution of tourism over that period (Ivanov and Webster, 2013). A destination's openness to the world and the degree of its openness in economic, social, and political respects appears to influence how much per-capita economic growth its tourism industry will generate. Further analysis of this issue would be helpful. Dependency Most developing economies are highly dependent on limited overseas markets and export products, making their economies vulnerable to any economic disruptions that occur in the developed countries that purchase their products. A significant criticism of globalization highlights the increased risk to smaller economies associated with the interdependence of economies and financial markets. Two types of risks from overspecialization relate to tourism. One type relates to a dependency on tourism in general as an export market. The global financial crisis has demonstrated the risks involved in tourism dependency arising from sudden unfavorable changes in demand from world markets (Sheldon and Dwyer, 2010). Another type of risk involves too much reliance on tourism from particular origin markets or too much reliance on a particular tourism product (e.g. conventions, health tourism, pilgrimage). Given the discretionary nature of tourism expenditure, the industry is extremely sensitive to crises of every type (economic, environmental, political) (Hall, 2010). Changes adversely affecting these markets, making them less competitive and adaptable, can result in substantial costs to tourism destinations that overspecialize in them. Thus some diversification of production and exports can be prudent even if it entails a temporary decrease in trade. Both of the above types of risk are compounded by the reality that TNCs firms are increasingly “footloose,” with the ability to move and change at very short notice, creating uncertainty for the host destination. The increased power and influence of TNCs is also seen by many as a considerable disadvantage of globalization. TNCs can switch their investments between territories in search of the most favorable regulatory regimes.

In many developing countries, local economic activities and resources are used less for the benefit and development of communities and increasingly for export and the enjoyment of others (i.e. tourists, consumers in other areas of the world). This occurs in tourism when the domestic market is neglected. To avoid overdependence on the international tourism market and related problems, countries can consider tapping the potential of domestic tourism. In geographically large countries domestic tourism in particular can effectively absorb the excessive supply resulting from the slump and seasonality of inbound tourism. In addition, it helps redistribute the national income, thus reducing interregional gaps in the level of economic development and contributing to social equality. Typically, the domestic tourism segment has much lower entry barriers and broader and deeper linkages with local economy as well, thus greatly facilitating local participation. These special features have qualified domestic tourism as a promising countermeasure to the negative impacts of globalization and associated political economy problems (Zhou and Li, 2006)

Destruction of Local Industries Globalization can also increase the pace of deindustrialization, which is the slow erosion of an economy's manufacturing base. Local businesses, particularly in developing countries, face much greater competition due to globalization. This can put local small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), many of which are family owned in tourism, at a disadvantage as they do not have resources to compete at global scale. Local people may also be pushed out or sell out, and local prices for commodities and services rise, as do taxes. The crowding-out effects of tourism growth are well recognized (Dwyer et al., 2000). Given their market power, TNCs have the ability to disrupt traditional economies, impose monopolistic practices, minimize their tax liability through “transfer pricing,” and assert a political and economic agenda on a country. The high concentration in some tourism sectors creates market power and the potential for abuse by large international firms as evidenced by exclusionary agreements, price fixing, market sharing among dominant operators, or boycotting and refusal to deal with operators in developing countries. These anticompetitive agreements and conduct can impose substantial costs, particularly on developing economies, eliminating many of the benefits of globalization (de Chavez, 1999). This of course does not imply that TNCs and SMEs cannot successfully work together on the same tourism market. SMEs can be highly flexible to respond to changes of demand and to increased innovation. Instead of competing with multinational enterprises they should affiliate with themselves in a variety of ways or engage in niche marketing (Cavlek, 2002; Meethan, 2004). Leakages As noted above, tourist consumer habits are being forged by globalization. Tourists from developed countries usually have a higher demand for products with higher import content affecting the outflow of foreign exchange. Such leakages imply a loss of economic benefits from the community back to the companies and countries that control most of the travel

infrastructure. The weaker industrial bases of small island states imply that most commercially produced products demanded by tourists cannot be manufactured domestically, making such states heavily dependent on imports. Weak links between tourism and other sectors in a destination implies a weak “multiplier effect” from tourism expansion (Dwyer, et al., 2003). Leakages include export of profits by TNCs to foreign locations. TNCs may repatriate profits back to their “home country,” leaving little financial benefit for the host country. Requirements to reinvest rather than repatriate earnings, to create local employment and purchase local supplies, are ways in which policy regimes can ensure FDI plays a more positive role in a host economy (Reiter and Steensma, 2010).

Employment Opportunities A particular advantage claimed for globalization is that it fosters the generation of employment, due to the emergence of new companies and new markets, where both skilled and unskilled labor is required. By providing employment, globalization helps to increase the standard of living of the people, and also to alleviate poverty. While TNCs can increase the productivity of labor by supplying foreign technology and employing better training methods, the jobs created may be low-skilled with the TNC employing expatriate workers for the more senior and skilled roles. At the same time, TNCs can operate as local monopsonies of labor, and push wages lower than the free-market equilibrium. Globalization is causing people in developed countries to lose their livelihood because of outsourcing, and people in developing countries often face poor working conditions and poor compensation. Studies show that the tourism-related informal sector contracts as the tourism-related formal sector expands and, in addition, displaced informal-sector individuals are less likely to be absorbed into the formal economy, which is dominated by multinationals (Kermath and Thomas, 1992). Labor mobility will increase as the Internet provides greater opportunities to gain jobs internationally. The implications of this for tourism employment will include an increased demand for people with language skills, for language training, and for training that provides people with the skills to work in different cultural environments (UNWTO, 2002). It is imperative that the developing economies establish their own tourism-related education and training schools and programs to prepare domestic human resources, including training in entrepreneurship.

Spread of Technical Knowledge As newer cultures and technologies are opened to a particular country, their knowledge base also grows and expands simultaneously. An actively trading country benefits from the new technologies that “spill over” to it from its trading partners, such as through the knowledge embedded in imported production equipment. These technological spillovers are particularly important for developing countries, providing opportunities for them to narrow the productivity gap with developed economies. Developments in scientific and medical fields can be shared among countries and used for the good of all nations. A major benefit of FDI is the sharing of

knowledge and technology between countries. Unfortunately, in many manufacturing industries TNCs may transfer technology which has become outdated in the home country. This problem does not seem to apply to tourism. The greatest benefits of globalization accrue to those countries and groups that can access and adopt new technologies. The diffusion of ICT drives globalization and can enhance the competitive advantage of destinations and tourism businesses (Buhalis and Law, 2008). New technology is improving the speed and reducing the real cost of travel. By easing the process of booking flights, accommodation, and other products (e.g. car rental), economies of scale can be achieved through outsourcing the booking function to a wider spread of intermediaries and other service providers while also cutting costs by removing the more labor-intensive elements from the process. The new technologies with sophisticated database-management systems provide businesses with the tools to respond to individual preferences and stimulate tourism purchases. New technology enables an increasing proportion of tourism organizations to achieve the dual goals of reducing operating costs and increasing their ability to add value for their customers. The tourism industry globally is now using social media much more intensively, both on the demand and supply side. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are getting more and more important to help consumers plan and enjoy travel as they switch to online and mobile technology. At the same time, interactive access to products offered via the Internet gives tourists unprecedented control over how they spend their time and money (Buhalis, 2003). New technologies also compete globally with tourism by delivering new forms of entertainment in or near the consumer's home. A barrier to the ability of developing countries to gain the full benefits from technology transfer is that they do not have a proper infrastructure in place to leverage technological benefits. This can be disadvantageous to the developing countries and can lead to economic disparity, as indicated by the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness rankings (World Economic Forum, 2013).

New Markets Globalization substantially increases the opportunities for new markets and is largely responsible for the wide range of choices in most products that are available in the market today. Access to larger markets means that firms may experience economies of scale, which leads to a reduction in average production costs, increased sales, and higher profit margins. If the TNC serves domestic markets as well as those for export, as is often the case in tourism, the local population gains from a wider choice of goods and services at competitive prices. Globalization makes it important for the companies to focus on quality goods and services, in order to have a strong foothold in the market. Standards in hospitality management and hotel sector are now judged by global comparisons, even at the more localized level of TNCs. Quality is probably the most important variable determining competitiveness in the international tourism industry. TNCs that have been able to establish and sustain a consistent brand image and control quality typically outperform competitors unable to do so. As domestic

businesses have to combat foreign competition they are compelled to raise their standards and customer satisfaction levels to survive in the market.

Spread of Education The impact of communication technology can be seen also in the education sector. Individuals throughout the world are now able to access information and additional educational opportunities through the Internet. Globalization can be a catalyst to the creation of jobs that require higher skill sets. Globalization implies that, increasingly, education will be a determinant of success for destinations and businesses. Innovative tourism businesses that are well attuned to their customers' needs and staffed with highly educated workers valued as “human capital,” and organizations with external knowledge with a culture that enshrines lifelong learning, are the most successful (Airey and Tribe, 2005). Also relevant are social infrastructures that maximize opportunities for individuals and businesses to be innovative, to learn, to develop knowledge and skills, and to access knowledge and creative services.

Environmental Protection The natural environment and climate conditions are very important in determining the viability and attractiveness of a region as a tourist destination. On one view, globalization has brought about an understanding for the protection of the environment from which regions benefit so much. Many global environmental problems – involving, for example, cross-boundary pollution, overfishing in the oceans, and climate change – are being solved by discussions and conventions (Santoro, 2002). Globalization enhances the ability of numerous countries to work together to overcome natural disasters and global challenges, such as global warming and emissions. Another phenomenon that the globalization of ideas brings about is improving environmental awareness and the popularization of the concept of sustainable development (Hall and Lew, 1998). Data from the World Values Survey show a rising degree of environmental conscientiousness, as evinced, for example, through the engagement of respondents in organizations concerned with environmental issues. This rising environmental awareness leads to new patterns of tourist behavior, as exemplified by the development of alternative tourism in opposition to mass tourism (European Travel Commission, 2010). As a counterargument, all countries face intensified environmental problems as a result of population growth, economic development, and rapid urbanization (de Chavez, 1999). Trade growth has also accelerated the depletion of nonrenewable resources, such as oil. Increased consumption leads to an increase in the production of goods, which in turn puts stress on the environment via its carbon footprint. Tourism transport, especially aviation, is a high emitter of greenhouse gases. Human, animal, and plant diseases can spread more quickly through globalization. In terms of urban health risks, the steady increase in international travel is a driving force in the global emergence and spread of infectious diseases. The main environmental trends, such as climate change, depletion of natural resources, and loss of biodiversity (Dwyer, 2003), are all associated with globalization.

The expansion of TNCs and the expanded transport infrastructures they require has generated more urbanization, in both North and South, placing greater pressures on wilderness areas and destroying family farms and rural communities around the world. A company may set up operations in other countries because environmental laws are not as strict as they are elsewhere. However, just because TNCs are footloose does not mean they are environmental vandals. In their study of 118 business ventures in China, Christmann and Taylor (2001) found that TNCs and their suppliers were more likely than local firms to comply with local regulations and to adopt internationally recognized environmental management standards such as ISO 14 000.

Social Effects Globalization forges cross-cultural contacts, which helps to promote cultural understanding and tolerance, as well as the spread of democratic ideals. Globalization has helped to create international criminal courts and international justice movements providing justice to people at a global level. Disputes are solved through global standards such as patents, copyright laws, and world trade agreements. Internationally sanctioned agreements attempt to ensure that people do not get discriminated with regard to country, caste, creed, or sex. Since the cultures of those countries that have more economic power are likely to be more dominant than others, it is no surprise that global tourism threatens indigenous knowledge, social structures, and relationships. In many developing countries tourism's effects on indigenous peoples have been profound: widescale eviction from their lands, economic dislocation, breakdown of traditional values, and environmental degradation. Many critics point out that tourists' quest for “authenticity” often leads to a “commodification” of the local culture for the demand and enjoyment of the tourists and that ghettoism and alienation are often the product of large “tourist enclaves,” isolated from local lifestyles. Commercial sex tourism has truly become a global phenomenon. While Youngelson-Neal et al. (2001) argue on this basis that TNCs have a negative impact on the development of local cultures, Santoro (2002) counters that most TNCs have developed clear ethical standards and guidelines for operations in developing nations. Clearly the reality differs case by case. On a brighter note, populations are responding to the globalization of economies, markets, systems, and cultures by exploring their own identities (Croucher, 2004). This tension between “modernity” and “identity” is leading to increasing questioning by local communities of the form and scale of tourism development and type of destination marketing in those societies. Increased community involvement in tourism planning and development can result in a growing dispersion of tourism away from mass tourism, dominated by TNCs, into diverse niche markets. From this perspective, globalization appears to pull in two ways, both towards the creation of TNCs by the extension of operations through take-overs, the formation of strategic alliances or franchising agreements, and, in terms of consumption, towards more localized or regional “branding” and niche marketing. As TNCs do not operate within the national autonomy, they may pose a threat to the economic and political sovereignty of host countries. It has long been argued that international institutions

aid and abet some negative effects of globalization (Britton, 1982). The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) removes restrictions on foreign corporations' abilities to transfer staff from one country to another, and enables them to use trademarks, create and operate branch offices abroad, and – more importantly – to repatriate their earnings to their parent companies abroad. Under GATS, protection of the local tourism industry would be construed as unfair practice and would thus have to be eliminated. TNCs now enjoy the same benefits as local travel and tourism agencies. This opens the local industry to competition from giant TNCs, meaning effective transfer of its control to them (Zhao and Li, 2006). Other agreements that have come under the power of the UNWTO, such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) and GATS, have been criticized for their alleged damage to responsible tourism initiatives (Hall and Coles, 2008). Regulations, such as those found in the TRIMS agreement that restrict a country's rights to require companies to purchase local materials, the “most favoured nations” provisions that make it illegal for countries to reward companies who hire locals or have good environmental practices, and the liberalization of trade in services of GATS that would allow foreign companies to merge or take over local companies, all present threats to indigenous-owned and operated sustainable tourism initiatives.

Conclusions The discussion indicates the hazards of generalizing too broadly on globalization's impacts on tourism and the subsequent effects on economies, communities, and natural environments. More case studies are required to identify the effects in particular locations. Globalization has positive and negative effects. The latter may be reduced by developing sustainable forms of tourism through initiatives such as employment commitments from tourism companies to employ local people at fair wages and provide job training; enhancement of local economic linkages, establishment of environmental charters and industry codes of conduct, educating both visitors and businesses on traditional cultures and behavior; and community participation in planning and decision-making processes. It is likely, however, that developing countries may need a minimum level of economic development to capture the growth-enhancing effects of FDI. The items in this action agenda present key challenges for researchers to study the detailed implications of each for informed policy-making to maximize the benefits of tourism development in an increasingly globalized world. The tourism market is consistently heading towards further consolidation. Some critics (Cohen, 2012) argue that the growing incidence of crises – environmental, political, and economic – encourages a counter trend to the globalization process, with possible significant implications for the future of the global travel system. Large travel and tourism operators will continue to cater for a larger volume of tourist movements, accommodation, mainstream, or mass tourism. At the other end of the scale niche operators will further offer special products, services, and experiences to individuals and tourists demanding customization. TNCs may be expected to increase their market share by using more and more newly specialized products which they will be able to deliver in close

connection with SMEs specialized in niche marketing. I agree with Cohen (2012) who argues that the most significant emergent counter trend to globalization with far-reaching consequences for tourism is the threat of a profound structural crisis in the global economic system. However, it is impossible to determine the likelihood of a transformation of the dominant global political economic system or the direction in which such a transformation might take place. Neither can I predict the future strength of the anticonsumerist movement and of a consequent “deconsumerization” of Western societies. In the meantime a host of opportunities await tourism researchers to identify the effects of globalization in different tourism contexts and to inform policy-making to minimize adverse effects.

References Airey, D. and Tribe, T. (eds) 2005. An International Handbook of Tourism Education. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Blake, A., Arbache, J.S., Sinclair, M.T., and Teles, V. 2008. Tourism and poverty relief. Annals of Tourism Research, 35: 107–126. Britton, S.G. 1982. The political economy of tourism in the third world. Annals of Tourism Research, 9: 331–358. Buhalis, D. 2003. eTourism: Information Technology for Strategic Tourism Management. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Buhalis, D. and Law, R. 2008. Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet—the state of etourism research. Tourism Management, 29: 609–623. Cavlek, N. 2002. Business in tourism: SMEs versus MNCs. Zagreb International Review of Economics and Business, 5: 39–48. Cetron, M. 2001. The world of today and tomorrow: the global view. In Tourism and Hospitality in the 21st Century, A. Lockwood and S. Medlik (eds), pp. 18–28. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Christmann, P. and Taylor, G. 2001. Globalization and the environment: determinants of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32: 439–458. Cohen, E. 2012. Globalisation, global crises and tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 37: 103–111. Crouch, G.I. 1994. The study of international tourism demand: a review of findings. Journal of Travel Research, 33: 12–23. Croucher, S.L. 2004. Globalization and Belonging: The Politics of Identity in a Changing

World. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. de Chavez, R. 1999. Globalisation and tourism: deadly mix for indigenous peoples. Third World Resurgence, 103: 8–12. Dunning, J.H. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of international production: a restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19: 1–31. Dwyer, L. 2003. Trends underpinning tourism to 2015: an analysis of key drivers for change. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 3: 61–77. Dwyer L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Scott, N., and Roman, C. 2009. Destination and enterprise management for a tourism future. Tourism Management, 30: 63–74. Dwyer, L. and Forsyth, P. 1994. Motivation and impacts of foreign tourism investment. Annals of Tourism Research, 21: 512–537. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Madden, J., and Spurr, R. 2000. Economic impacts of inbound tourism under different assumptions regarding the macroeconomy. Current Issues in Tourism, 3: 325– 363. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., and Spurr, R. 2003. Inter-industry effects of tourism growth: some implications for destination managers. Tourism Economics, 9: 117–132. European Travel Commission 2010. Demographic Change and Tourism. Madrid: World Tourism Organization and European Travel Commission. Firebaugh, G. and Goesling, B. 2004. Accounting for the recent decline in global income inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 110: 283–312. Hall, C.M. 2010. Crisis events in tourism: subjects of crisis in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 13: 401–417. Hall, C.M. 2008. Regulating the international trade in tourism services. In International Business and Tourism: Global Issues, Contemporary Interactions, T. Coles and C.M. Hall (eds), pp. 33–54. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Lew, A. (eds) 1998. Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. London: Addison Wesley Longman. Hannam, K., Scheller, M., and Urry, J. 2006. Editorial: mobilities, immobilities, moorings. Mobilities, 1: 1–22. IMF (International Monetary Fund) 1997. World Economic Outlook: A survey by the staff of the International Monetary Fund. www.imf.org/external/pubs/weomay/weocon.HTM. Ivanov, S. and Webster, C. 2013. Tourism's impact on growth: the role of globalisation. Annals of Tourism Research, 41: 231–236.

Kapur, D. 1998. The IMF: a cure or curse? Foreign Policy, 111: 114–129. Kermath, B.M. and Thomas, R.N. 1992. Spatial dynamics of resorts: Sosúa, Dominican Republic. Annals of Tourism Research, 19: 173–190. Korzeniewicz, R.P. and Moran, T.P. 2006. World inequality in the twenty-first century: patterns and tendencies. In The Blackwell Companion to Globalization, G. Ritzer (ed.), pp. 13–36. Oxford: Blackwell. Meethan, K. 2004. Transnational corporations, globalization, and tourism. In A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 110–121. Oxford: Blackwell. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (eds) 2009. Tourism and Sustainability: Development, Globalisation and New Tourism, 3rd edn. Abingdon: Routledge. Nordin, S. 2005. Tourism of Tomorrow: Travel Trends and Forces of Change. Ostersund: ETOUR. Pleumarom, A. 1999. Tourism, globalisation and sustainable development. Third World Resurgence, 103: 4–7. Reiter, S.L. and Steensma, H.K. 2010. Human development and foreign direct investment in developing countries: the influence of FDI policy and corruption. World Development, 38: 1678–1691. Santoro, M. 2002. Should LDCs love MNCs? Foreign Policy, 128: 94–96. Schubert, S.F. and Brida, J.G. 2009. Macroeconomic effects of changes in tourism demand: a simple dynamic model. Tourism Economics, 15: 591–613. Sheldon, P. and Dwyer, L. 2010. The global financial crisis and tourism: perspectives of the Academy. Journal of Travel Research, 49: 3–4. United Nations. 1989. Foreign Direct Investment and Transnational Corporations in Services. New York: United Nations Center on Transnational Corporations. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization) 2002. Tourism 2020 Vision. Volume. 7: Global Forecasts and Profiles of Market Segments. Madrid: UNWTO. Wattanakuljarus, A. and Coxhead, I. 2008. Is tourism-based development good for the poor? A general equilibrium analysis for Thailand. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30: 929–955. World Economic Forum 2013. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Youngelson-Neal, H., Neal, A.G., and Fried, J. 2001. Global and local culture in the 21st century. Journal of American & Comparative Cultures, 24: 31–36. Zhao, W. and Li, X. 2006. Globalization of tourism and third world tourism development —a

political economy perspective. Chinese Geographical Science, 16: 203–210.

Chapter 16 Problematizing Place Promotion and Commodification Nigel Morgan In the twenty-first century, scores of places – from New York's Times Square to Rio's Porto Maravilha – have become subject to some type of place-making or place branding strategy, some type of theming, redesigning, regeneration, gentrification, envisioning, or reimaging approach. From Dubai to Las Vegas, many such places have become disconnected from their localities and become “commodified,” with market prices displacing social values. Commodification also takes place at the level of discourse when an object is labeled with a metaphorical price tag (Carvalho and Rodrigues, 2008). This is increasingly the case with the emergence of place brands. For example, the 100% Pure New Zealand brand is estimated to be worth around US$13.6 billion (Tourism New Zealand, 2009). We could also say that by severing their identity relationships from the complexity of the social fabric, some commodified places have become homogenous, a celebration of the culture of the copy (Klingman, 2007). And yet, paradoxically, when we think of places we think of them as being “ours” or “theirs,” of places “belonging” to people, of somewhere unique, with authentic human attachments and memories. We talk of some places as having character, of being “cool” or “laid back” and of others as being “soulless” or “dismal” (Vitellio and Willcocks, 2011). These are human characteristics; so places have personalities. Moreover, a sense of place is a social phenomenon that depends on human engagement for its existence, so there are no places without people to ascribe those meanings (Tuan, 1997; Hubbard et al., 2004). Human beings have been representing places and landscapes for at least 9000 years and today places are represented in a myriad of visual and written texts, as well as in spoken language. Indeed, landscapes, like the places of which they are composed, are so bound up with representation that “to be a landscape at all, to be an integral part of a sensuously qualified place-world, is already to have entered the encompassing embrace of the representational enterprise” (Casey, 2002: xv). This is not a chapter about place representation; it is concerned with issues of place marketing; specifically, with reputation and stewardship. However, it is also concerned with place representation since, by definition, tourists tour, consume, and represent landscapes, places, peoples, and cultures that have been produced, presented, and represented and commodified through tourism marketing (Cartier and Lew, 2005; Meethan et al., 2006). In other words, a place becomes a destination through the narratives, stories, and messages attached to it through tourism discourses; destinations are only marked as such through the acts of marketing and visiting. There has been much discussion in tourism around the interplay between tourism, landscape, representation, and social structures, experiences, and identities (e.g. Ringer, 2000; Walton, 2005; Knudsen and Wade, 2010). Yet despite such debates, many commentators continue to treat the conceptual power of destinations “in cavalier fashion” (Saarinen, 1998: 155) and fail to relate its theoretical constructs adequately to place, history, or identity.

In this chapter, I problematize the marketing of tourism places and argue for a more critical and mindful approach to its study and its management. As an essential element of the process of contemporary destination management, place marketing could be regarded as a shallow (if multifaceted and hugely challenging) tourism management activity. However, tourism marketing is also a complex, culturally contested and ideologically laden series of acts (Cohen, 1995; Morgan and Pritchard, 1998; Desmond, 1999). Tourism places are cities, neighborhoods, communities, boulevards, beaches, and parks which we not only inhabit and visit, but that all of us, differentially empowered and socially positioned, actively construct and invest with meaning (Mitchell, 2000). Arguably tourism is the world's prime contemporary determinant of space and thereby has a culturally commanding role as a promoter and endorser of potent place myths and identities. As such, it has the power to immobilize our dynamic world, changing it to spectacle and straitjacketing it in cliché and stereotype; as Osborne (2000: 115) writes, its “representations suck the historical matter out of things, the better to embalm them in myth.” Place promotion is not and never has been pure marketing as places have pasts and futures, and those who market them have responsibilities to both (Morgan, 2012). This chapter will briefly scope the broad field of destination and place marketing before focusing on issues of stewardship, ethics, and expectations.

Place Marketing and Management Place marketing and management has a hugely significant but complex relationship with tourism destination development, while the various connectivities between place images, place brands, place reputations, and competitive place identities lack sufficiently critical exploration (Morgan and Huertas, 2011). Even the very concept of “destination” is slippery and unsettled. It is well established that tourist destinations are composites of services and natural, sociocultural landscapes, and that they exist on multiple geopolitical levels (Buhalis, 2000; Morgan, 2004; Saarinen, 2004; Pike, 2004). The term destination is variously used by marketers and tourism professionals as a geopolitical system with its own Destination Management Organization (DMO), and by sociologists and cultural geographers as a sociocultural construction. In other words, some stakeholders see a destination as a set of functional attributes, and others regard it as a set of cultural and symbolic meanings and contested “realities.” While Buhalis (2000: 98) defines a tourism destination as a “geographical region which is understood by its visitors as a unique entity, with a political and legislative framework for tourism marketing and planning,” Saarinen (2004) understands a tourist destination as a socioculturally produced space, the result of constantly evolving discursive practices. The development of the practice and study of place marketing has been rapid over the last decade or so, and recent publications have transformed its knowledge landscape (see Ashworth and Karavatis, 2011 and Morgan and Huertas, 2011 for reviews of this literature). This is not to say that many of the components of place marketing, such as identities and reputations, image, place promotion and tourism marketing, urban design, and sense of place are new – they have long histories – but their concerted application to meet strategic and

operational objectives in countries, regions, and cities has assumed a higher profile in recent years. Moreover, its academic study has evolved separately from mainstream marketing and has been heavily influenced by researchers in tourism management, urban studies, geography, sociology, anthropology, and regional economics (see Hankinson, 2010). The place marketing literature can be synthesized into three approaches: the “marketing approach,” the “public policy approach,” and the “critical approach” (Ward, 1998). The first approach is concerned with the business of place marketing and there is now a sizeable literature covering issues from destination marketing management (e.g. Kotler et al., 1994; Ritchie and Crouch, 2000; Wang and Pizam, 2011) and destination brands (Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2010; Morgan et al., 2011) to stakeholders and partnerships (e.g. Pike, 2004; Fyall and Garrod, 2005; Dredge, 2006; Wang and Fesenmaier, 2007; Fyall, 2011; Wang, 2011) and leadership (e.g. Allan, 2011). The public policy approach is concerned with the use of place marketing to stimulate economic development (e.g. Ashworth and Goodall, 1990; Williams and Shaw, 1998), especially in relation to urban tourism (Ashworth and Page, 2011; Hall, 2011) and the hosting of events (Getz, 1997, 2008). Finally the critical approach, which has been spearheaded largely by tourism researchers with their roots in cultural geography, sociology, anthropology, and media studies, owes much to the so-called “cultural turn” in the social sciences. This approach to place marketing gathered pace in the 1990s as scholars conceptualized tourism places and sites as political and contested sociocultural constructions, where dominant discourses and hegemonic relations are contested or affirmed (see Morgan and Pritchard, 1998; Pritchard and Morgan, 2000; Morgan, 2004). Much of the marketing- and public policy-focused research in destination marketing discusses the management and formation of place images. This area of scholarship expanded rapidly during the 1990s, much of it relying on behavioral geography and its psychological premises, for both conceptual ideas and methodological approaches (e.g. Gunn, 1988; Chon, 1990; Gold and Ward, 1994). A substantial amount of the work attempted to conceptualize the components of the destination image (see Um and Crompton, 1990; Echtner and Ritchie, 1991; Gartner, 1993). In addition, many authors have investigated the image-formation process, beginning with Gunn's (1988) work on induced and organic images. In particular, they have examined the three main influences on destination image formation: promotional material, secondary experiences (e.g. the opinions of others), and the media, including film and the leveraging of events (Chalip et al., 2003; Beeton, 2005; Roesch, 2009). The assumption of much of this destination image-formation literature is that these three key influences combine with personal or individual factors to produce a destination image (Font, 1996; Baloglu and McClearly, 1999; Stachow and Hart, 2010). The single most significant shift in how tourists engage with destination images has been the rise of the worldwide web, so that many DMOs now spend more of their budgets online than offline (Cinch Marketing, 2013). Digital channels have created an irrevocable change in consumer-destination brand relationships, evident in the proactive role customers take in shaping the dialogue with the brand and ultimately its image. This is also transforming how destinations perform online, with participation, openness, conversations, community, and connectedness being the key words characterizing this digitally inspired revolution (Munro and

Richards, 2011). As this conversation culture replaces our information culture, much of the social networking sites' content provides a wealth of “independent” peer-produced dynamic content. DMOs are finally moving away from traditional campaign-led branding and becoming content platforms that support the destination brand and facilitate the distribution of destination content across those networks (Munro and Richards, 2011). In the experience economy we are no longer consuming places but experiences, sensations, and even lifestyles (Pine and Gilmore, 2011). We know that destinations compete in attracting visitors, global, national, and local events, investors, and businesses, and we know that their reputations or brands play a hugely significant role in determining just how successful they are in this competition (Anholt, 2009). Today the majority of DMOs (82%) have an official brand strategy and a toolkit explaining how to apply the brand (80%) (WTO/ETC, 2009). Such strategies, and wider place marketing, are implemented in a variety of online and offline activities, most obviously through websites and advertising, but also through DMOs' cooperations with travel journalists, bloggers, and film commissioning agencies. Increasingly, destination marketing strategies involve not only advertising and publicity but also encompass bidding for and hosting peripatetic hallmark events or developing indigenous ones in the arts, media, leisure, heritage, retailing, or sports sectors (Chalip and Costa, 2006; Richards and Palmer, 2010). Destinations have also used architecture to express, symbolize, and project their identities and images. This is especially true of cities; New York, Bilbao, Shanghai, and Dubai are just some of the most prominent examples of world cities that have used architecture to transform and enhance their images, generate economic growth (albeit often narrowly concentrated), and improve their global reputations (Klingman, 2007; Ashworth and Karavatis, 2011). Such developments can involve whole districts (such as Dublin's Temple Bar, London's Canary Wharf, or Paris' La Défense) or individual buildings such as parliaments (e.g. Berlin's Reichstag), opera houses (Sydney), cultural centers or museums (e.g. Paris' Centre Pompidou or Bilbao's Guggenheim), skyscrapers (e.g. London's Shard), or sports arenas (e.g. Beijing's Bird's Nest). The hosting of major sports events, such as the Summer Olympic Games, is perhaps the most outstanding example of place brand leverage, and modern sports arenas have become not simply functional buildings but urban events stages. Modern facilities create an urban living memorial that preserves symbols that are visible memories of the festival for citizens and tourists for decades (Solberg and Preuss, 2007). Thus, Barcelona's strategy was to use the 1992 Summer Olympic Games to build its brand image as a cultural city, and new facilities such as museums and pedestrian zones were developed which are now major assets for the city. While signature buildings can propel destinations into the global consciousness, by favoring such developments over more comprehensive and inclusive urban interventions, many of today's destinations have become mere sterile facsimiles of each other (Klingman, 2007). We could say this is commodification in action and Ooi (2011) describes it as “the accreditation approach” to destination marketing or branding, whereby destinations leverage globally recognized events, branded tourist attractions, and landmark projects to boost their reputations. He raises the interesting paradox that, in seeking to gain the hallmarks of a global city, places

become more like each other, each with their Formula One circuits, Guggenheim museums, Disney Worlds, mega-malls, and branded casino resorts. As experiences become more commodified and global cities more homogenized, civic and community stakeholders and leaders should think about how to brand places from the inside out, and not from the outside in. When destination branding can bring together ecology, economics, and social wellbeing to help people and places regain rather than relinquish their identity, it can be a catalyst for genuine cultural and economic transformation (Klingman, 2007; Morgan, 2012). We know that in today's globalized marketplace it is imperative that competitive destinations have distinctive features which differentiate them from rivals and yet they are all in pursuit of the same goals – and at what cost? The detrimental outcomes of tourism development and marketing, such as wasteful investment, uneven development, unethical tourism marketing representations, social inequality, and environmental degradation rarely receive the attention that they deserve (Insch, 2011). And yet the long-term future of every destination ultimately depends on embracing more sustainable and inclusive development. Destination management and marketing professionals and their political paymasters need to recognize the urgency of the global social responsibility, stewardship, and sustainability agendas (Pritchard et al., 2011). It is to this issue that the chapter now turns and focuses on destination marketing accountability and expectations.

Mindful Place Promotion In the contemporary world, place marketing is rapidly assuming the status of a universal solution for the challenges presented by place competition. This is flawed thinking as a result of many misconceptions of its practice and its limitations (Anholt, 2009). In the middle of the twenty-first century's second decade, it seems even more difficult than usual for politicians to focus on the long view. Consumer confidence is fragile, energy costs volatile, and many European economies are enduring recession and even bankruptcy. This economic collapse has created youth unemployment rates of over 50% in some countries and laid bare an impending European and US pension crisis which potentially will create a new poor, which in turn poses a threat to tourism growth. All this is not to mention the many threats to peace, of which global inequalities, food, water, and energy shortages, and transnational terrorism are just three (Hall, 2010). This period may well prove to be one of sharply transitional economic and social change during which people, communities, and places will need to find alternative ways of living and working to remain competitive. While “destination” is a problematic term in tourism, “competitiveness” is equally hard to pin down for scholars and practitioners in economics, urban studies, and development and policy studies. It is an elusive, slippery term that is often overly associated with urban areas, so that rural areas are neglected (Clifton and Huggins, 2010). A place's competitiveness is typically measured by the ability of its economy to attract and maintain profitable firms and provide stable or rising standards of living for its population (Storper, 1997; Kitson et al., 2004). But while the competitiveness of places is primarily coupled to their economic performance, there is a growing consensus that competitiveness is best discussed in relation to creativity,

knowledge, and environmental conditions rather than an accumulated wealth index (Huggins, 2003). It seems, therefore, that researchers in economics (Scott-Cato, 2009; Scott-Cato and Hillier, 2010) and urban studies and economic geography (Huggins, 2003) are re-evaluating orthodox definitions of competitiveness based on growth and accumulated wealth and are advocating measures of a place's success based on its relevance to global agendas, community cohesion, quality of life, capacity for creativity and stewardship of culture, traditions, and environment. Just as definitions of competitiveness are being broadened in economic geography and urban studies, it is time to reconsider how we judge competitive tourism destinations and evaluate destination marketing effectiveness. Tourism development strategies, whether emanating from the United Nations World Tourism Organization or regional and national governments, consistently characterize success in terms of an accumulated growth index. Marketing strategies are effectively wedded to short-term key performance indicators such as volume, value, foreign currency earnings, and profit, job creation, and employment figures. Such models value growth achievements, growth potential, and expansion above all else and regard low or no growth as evidence of failure. However, we must question the value and mediumterm sustainability of such measures of destination marketing success and competitiveness. Should such crude growth indicators continue to dominate our thinking, or should we look at measures of success focused on “mindful” development, linked to low-carbon, sustainable growth, quality-of-life indicators, social wellbeing, community involvement and cohesion, and cultural and aesthetic values? Mindful development is not a turning away from progress; it is crucial to progress (Pangilinan, 2010). We need alternative ways of measuring the competitiveness and success of destinations, such as their relevance to global agendas, their capacity to contribute to sustainable, cohesive, and equitable communities, a high quality of life, attractive and universally designed public places, their ability to embrace innovation and creativity, and their stewardship of a place's culture, traditions, and environment.

Epilogue: Theoretical, Methodological, and Practice Reflections If handled appropriately to the benefit of local people (and that is an important caveat), tourism can enable communities, cities, regions, and countries to build their economic competitiveness, improve their residents' quality of life, and steward their cultural and linguistic traditions and their natural environment. In many countries, however, the tourism industry itself is politically weak and undervalued, lacks visibility, and is extremely fragmented. The real sources of power in such a vacuum are often a handful of globalized multinational companies, particularly the airlines, major tour operators, and major hotel chains. This returns us to the problematic role of place promotion. Although place marketing has often been viewed as a pragmatic act, a response to the shift from industrial to postindustrial, largely city-based economies, it is inherently a political act, whether conducted at community, city, regional, or national level (Pritchard, 2009; Eisenschitz, 2010). Places are never inert and immutable; stakeholders (differentially engaged and differentially empowered) appropriate and contest them and such

acts are integral to how place identities are created and disputed. I have sought to problematize the promotion of tourism and places in two ways in this chapter. Firstly, I have argued for more explorations that treat place promotion as a complex, culturally contested, and ideologically laden act. Secondly, I have suggested that place marketing practitioners must embrace their responsibilities as destination-reputation stewards. Tourism as an academic field remains peripheral to most disciplines and yet there are many opportunities in a theorization of place that engages with a range of epistemologies, approaches, and methodologies, especially semiotic, discourse, visual, and linguistic approaches (Morgan, 2004). Tourism places, like all landscapes, exist at the convergence of history and politics, social relations, and cultural perceptions. The components of destination marketing are identities and reputations, image, place promotion, urban design, and sense of place, all of which are deeply connected with the cultural. Yet, despite place marketing's multidisciplinary heritage, there is much scope for greater dialogue between those who study it using cultural/ethnographic approaches and those who take economic, marketing and management approaches. The “cultural turn” in the social sciences has much more to offer inquiry into place marketing, which is intimately entwined with controversial questions of place authenticity, heritage, cultural memory, brand narratives, leadership and authorship, performativity, storytelling, and aesthetics. To date, too few researchers have considered destinations and the commodification of territory and culture, while perhaps too many have focused on individual (often industry-focused) case studies, which offer little wider insight. This lack of critical engagement is a threat to the development of a progressive, balanced, and well-considered research agenda. Now is the time to develop robust theoretical frameworks if the subfield of place marketing is to advance. In particular, we need greater dialogues between those schooled in cultural/ethnographic approaches and those steeped in economic/marketing/management traditions if the field is to address the relationships between the effectiveness of destination marketing and issues such as authenticity, authorship, performativity, cultural memory, contested heritages, and sense of place. There are tremendous challenges in talking across such wide chasms given the enormous differences in theoretical frameworks and, while these gulfs may not ultimately be satisfactorily bridged, lessons can be learned. A central aim of academic research should be theoretical development – academics have the time and freedom to ask difficult questions and develop concepts. Destination stakeholders can then take that theory and apply it, and students are better able to conceptualize the links between theory and practice. There has always been tension between pure academic researchers and applied, industryfocused researchers and this is especially the case in fields such as tourism and marketing, which are often taught in business and management schools. However, without theoretical development, near-market research will always be inadequate on its own. A strong relationship between theory development and practical application is therefore crucial, and it is the former that will provide areas such as destination marketing and place branding with “the paradigmatic status needed to escape from the risk of remaining a fragmented and shallow body of knowledge” (Go and Govers, 2010: xxv).

References Allan, M. 2012. The leadership challenge. In Destination Brands: Managing Place Reputation, N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride (eds), pp. 81–90. Oxford: Elsevier. Anholt, S. 2009. Places: Identity, Image and Reputation. Palgrave: London. Ashworth, G.J. and Goodall, B. (eds) 1990. Marketing Tourism Places. London: Routledge. Ashworth, G.J. and Karavatis, M. 2011. Why brand the future with the past? The roles of heritage in the construction of place brand reputations. In International Place Branding Yearbook 2011: Managing Reputational Risk, F.M. Go and R. Govers (eds), pp. 25–38. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Ashworth, G.J. and Page, S. 2011. Urban tourism research: recent progress and current paradoxes. Tourism Management, 32(1): 1–15. Baloglu, S. and McClearly, K.W. 1999. A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4): 868–897. Beeton, S. 2005. Film-induced Tourism. Clevedon: Channel View. Buhalis, D. 2000. Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1): 97–116. Cartier, C. and Lew, A.A. (eds) 2005. Seductions of Place: Geographical Perspectives on Globalization and Touristed Landscapes. London: Routledge. Carvalho, L.F. and Rodrigues, J. 2008. Are markets everywhere? Understanding contemporary processes of commodification. In The Elgar Companion to Social Economics, J.B. Davies and W. Dolfsma (eds), pp. 267–286. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Casey, E.S. 2002. Representing Place. Landscape Painting and Maps. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Chalip, L. and Costa, C. 2006. Building sport event tourism into the destination brand: foundations for a general theory. In Sport Tourism: Concepts and Theories, H. Gibson (ed.), pp. 86–105. London: Routledge. Chalip, L., Green, B.C., and Hill, B. 2003. Effects of sport event media on destination image and intention to visit. Journal of Sport Management, 17: 214–234. Chon, K.S. 1990. The role of destination image in tourism: a review and discussion. Tourist Review, 45(2): 2–9. Cinch Marketing 2013. Five Things to Watch This Year. www.cinchmarketing.co.uk/tag/digital-marketing.

Clifton, N. and Huggins, R. 2010. Competitiveness and Creativity: A Place-Based Perspective. Martin Prosperity Research Working Paper Series, 2010-MPIWP-007. Cardiff: University of Wales. Cohen, C. 1995. Marketing paradise, making nation. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2): 404– 421. Desmond, J.C. 1999. Staging Tourism: Bodies on Display from Waikiki to Sea World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dredge, D. 2006. Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism, Tourism Management, 27: 269–280. Echtner, C.M. and Ritchie, J.R.B. 1991. The meaning and measurement of tourism destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2): 2–12. Eisenschitz, A. 2010. Neo-liberalism and the future of place marketing. Journal of Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(2): 79–86. Font, X. 1996. Managing the tourist destination image. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 3(2): 123–131. Fyall, A. 2011. The partnership challenge. In Destination Brands: Managing Place Reputation, N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride (eds), pp. 91–104. Oxford: Elsevier. Fyall, A. and Garrod, B. 2005. Tourism Marketing: A Collaborative Approach. Clevedon: Channel View. Gartner, W. 1993. Image formation process. Journal of Travel Research, 28(2): 16–20. Getz, D. 1997. Event Management and Event Tourism. New York, Cognizant Communications Corporation. Getz, D. 2008. Event tourism: definition, evolution and research. Tourism Management, 29(3): 403–428. Go, F. and Govers, R. 2010. 2010 International Place Branding: Managing Reputational Risk. London: Palgrave. Gold, R. and Ward, S.V. (eds) 1994. Place Promotion. The Use of Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions. Chichester: Wiley. Gunn, C. 1988. Tourism Planning. New York: Taylor and Francis. Hall, C.M. 2010. Crisis events in tourism: subjects of crisis in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(5): 401–417. Hall, C.M. 2011. Sustaining urban place-making. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(3): 403– 406.

Hankinson, G. 2010. Place branding theory: a cross-domain literature review from a marketing perspective. In Towards Effective Place Brand Management, M. Kavaratzis and G. Ashworth (eds), pp. 15–35. Oxford: Edward Elgar. Hubbard, P., Kitchin, R., and Valentine, G. (eds) 2004. Key Thinkers on Space and Place. London: Sage Publications. Huggins, R. 2003. Creating a UK competitiveness index: regional and local benchmarking. Regional Studies, 37(1): 89–96. Insch, A. 2011. Guest editorial: ethics of place making. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 7: 151–154. Kavaratzis, M. and Ashworth, G. (eds) 2010. Towards Effective Place Brand Management. Oxford: Edward Elgar. Kitson, M., Martin, R., and Tyler, P. 2004. Regional competitiveness: an elusive yet key concept? Regional Studies, 38: 991–999. Klingman, A. 2007. Brandscapes: Architecture in the Experience Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Knudsen, B.T. and Wade, A.M. 2010. (eds) Re-Investing Authenticity: Tourism Place and Emotions. Clevedon: Channel View. Kotler, P., Haider, D.M., and Rein, I. 1994. Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations. New York: The Free Press. Meethan, K., Anderson, A., and Miles, S. (eds) 2006. Tourism, Consumption and Representation. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Mitchell, D. 2000. Cultural Geography. A Critical Introduction. Oxford. Blackwell. Morgan, N. 2004. Problematising place promotion. In A Companion to Tourism, A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A. Williams (eds), pp. 173–183. Oxford: Blackwell. Morgan, N. 2012. Time for mindful destination marketing and management? Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1/2): 8–9. Morgan, N. and Huertas, A. 2011 Advancing the study of place brands, tourism and reputation management. Catalan Journal of Culture & Communication, 3(2): 149–158. Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. 1998. Tourism Promotion and Power: Creating Images, Creating Identities. Chichester: John Wiley. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., and Pride, R. (eds) 2011. Destination Brands: Managing Place Reputation. Oxford: Elsevier. Munro, J. and Richards, B. 2011. The digital challenge. In Destination Brands: Managing

Place Reputation, N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride (eds), pp. 141–154. Oxford: Elsevier. Ooi, C. 2011. Branding and the accreditation approach: Singapore. In Destination Brands: Managing Place Reputation, N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride (eds), pp. 185–196. Oxford: Elsevier. Osborne, P.D. 2000. Travelling Light: Photography, Travel and Visual Culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Pangilinan, R.D. 2010. Redefining the Good Life in a Sustainable Society. Philosophy for Business. www.isfp.co.uk/businesspathways/issue60.html. Pike, S. 2004. Destination Marketing Organisations. Oxford: Elsevier. Pine, J.B. and Gilmore, J.H. 2011. The Experience Economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Pritchard, A. 2009. Keynote: Destination Branding. The Key Challenges. Third International Conference on Destination Branding and Marketing, Institute for Tourism Studies, Macao SAR, China. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N.J. 2000. Privileging the male gaze: gendered tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3): 884–905. Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., and Pride, R. 2011. Epilogue: tourism and place reputation in an uncertain world. In Destination Brands: Managing Place Reputation, N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride (eds), pp. 347–356. Oxford: Elsevier. Richards, G. and Palmer, R. 2010. Eventful Cities: Cultural Management and Urban Revitalisation. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Ringer, G. (ed.) 2000. Destinations: Cultural Landscapes of Tourism. London: Routledge. Ritchie, B.J.R. and Crouch, G.I. 2000. The competitive destination: a sustainable perspective. Tourism Management, 21(1): 1–7. Roesch, S. 2009. The Experiences of Film Location Tourists. Clevedon: Channel View. Saarinen, J. 1998. The social constructions of tourist destinations: the process of transformation of the Saariselka tourism region in Finnish Lapland. In Destinations. Cultural Landscapes of Tourism, G. Ringer (ed.), pp. 154–173. London: Routledge. Saarinen, J. 2004. Tourism and touristic representations of nature. In A Companion to Tourism, A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A. Williams (eds), pp. 438–449. Oxford: Blackwell. Scott-Cato, M. 2009. Green Economics: An Introduction to Theory, Policy and Practice. London: Earthscan.

Scott-Cato, M. and Hillier, J. 2010. How could we study climate-related social innovation? Applying Deleuzean philosophy to transition towns. Environmental Politics, 19(6): 869–887. Solberg, H. and Preuss, H. 2007. Major sports events and long term impacts. Journal of Sport Management, 21: 213–234. Stachow, G. and Hart, C. 2010. Exploring place image: formation and measurement. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6: 145–155. Storper, M. 1997. The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York: Guilford. Tourism New Zealand 2009. 10yearsyoung.tourismnewzealand.com. Tuan, Y. 1997. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Um, S. and Crompton, J.L. 1990. Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(2): 432–448. Vitellio, R. and Willcocks, M. 2012. Destination branding and the urban lexicon: London, New York and Barcelona. In Destination Brands: Managing Place Reputation, N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride (eds), pp. 303–320. Oxford: Elsevier. Walton, J. 2005. (Ed.) Histories of Tourism: Representation, Identity and Conflict. Clevedon: Channel View. Wang, Y. 2011. Tourism Destination Marketing: Collaborative Strategies. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Wang, Y. and Fesenmaier, D. 2007. Collaborative destination marketing: a case study of Elkhart County Indiana. Tourism Management, 28(3): 863–875. Wang, Y. and Pizam, A. 2011. Destination Marketing and Management: Theories and Applications. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Ward, S.V. 1998. Selling Places: the Marketing and Promotion of Towns and Cities, 1850– 2000. London: E. and F.N. Spon. Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. 1998. Tourism and Economic Development: European Experience. Oxford: Wiley. WTO/ETC (World Tourism Organization/European Travel Commission) 2009. Handbook on Tourism Destination Branding. Brussels: World Tourism Organization/European Travel Commission.

Chapter 17 Urban Tourism and the Experience Economy T.C. Chang and Shirlena Huang The term “experience economy” was introduced by Pine and Gilmore (1999) to refer to a collection of industries specializing in experiences. These include retail, food/beverage, entertainment, creative/cultural, and accommodation industries, where consumers pay for experience-laden services. Pine and Gilmore theorize four realms of experience (the “four Es”) that consumers want: entertainment (enjoyable consumption of services), education (learning something new through active participation), escapism (doing something outside the ordinary), and aesthetic (or esthetic; being immersed in the environment). The aesthetic realm is particularly relevant to geographers as it refers to the enjoyment of a physical setting where ambience, environment, and place quality constitute the very experience. Discourses on the experience economy resonate with tourism study and tourism geography. According to Pine and Gilmore (1999: 31), most tourists seek entertaining and educational dimensions in places that they visit, and revel in aesthetic and escapist moments while on holiday. This is not unprecedented because tourism has always been at the forefront of commodifying staged experiences (Sternberg, 1997). As “utilitarian” consumption gives way to “hedonistic” demands among today's consumers, there has been a corresponding demand “to experience different kinds of bodily and/or spiritual pleasure” in touristic encounters and even daily activities (Jansson, 2002: 436). These changes have implications for tourism geographies and the development of experience products in destination sites. Tourism landscapes are necessarily environments where experiences are produced, managed, and consumed. The city in particular is an experiential environment nonpareil with its dense concentration of experience-centered economies (Hannigan, 1998; Lorentzen and Hansen, 2009; Selby, 2012). This chapter establishes the intimate connections between experience economy and urban tourism geography. The range of landscapes is wide and this review is not intended to be exhaustive; instead it focuses on key issues in and emerging concerns surrounding experience sites. The main goal is to demonstrate the centrality of experience in geography and tourism, and to contemplate the big issues of the future when experience consumption and production, we believe, will be at the heart of urban and tourism planning.

Experience Economy and Geography: Intimate Connections In marketing and management literature, the idea of an experience economy first emerged in the late 1990s to describe a highly evolved state of production and consumption where experiences (as opposed to commodities, goods, or services) are at the center of the economic system. In theorizing changing values and economic practices over time, Pine and Gilmore (1998, 1999) postulate that the world has evolved from a state of commodity extraction

(typified by the agrarian economy) to one that manufactures goods (industrial economy), delivers services (service economy), and stages experiences (experience economy). Above and beyond high-quality services and products, consumers today look for something extra or life-enhancing which producers try to cater through novel, memorable, and personal experiences (Oh et al., 2007). Simply put, experience is a higher-order means to differentiate and enhance service, elevating users to a more sophisticated level of consumption. While Pine and Gilmore coined and applied the concept of the experience economy in management studies, it was futurologist Alvin Tofler (1970) who first hypothesized that a collection of experience industries would emerge in a post-service economy catering to “psychic gratification” and “quality of life” demands. In his forward-looking book Future Shock, Tofler (1970) spoke of “experiential production” and “experience makers” as legitimate service providers catering to consumer demands for “beauty, prestige, individualization and sensory delight” (as noted in Lorentzen and Hansen, 2009: 819). Pine and Gilmore expanded on the concept as a strategic tool in business development with implications for corporate management, product branding, and customer relations. Although enshrined as a management concept today, the experience economy bears striking geographical implications. In a special issue of European Planning Studies on experience economies in cities, Lorentzen and Hansen (2009: 820) argued that experiential planning is at the heart of contemporary urban marketing and the “aesthetication of places.” Urban managers often develop creative marketing narratives around their cities, stage experiential projects such as food, music, and heritage festivals, and redevelop downtown sites for multisensory experiences. Experience economy concepts have also influenced urban governance as public sectors and civil communities coalesce around place-based interests to chart avenues for collaborative socioeconomic growth (Therkildsen et al., 2009). Creative experiences and aesthetic environments also enjoy a natural fit with tourism geography. As tourism is an experience-oriented phenomenon, the material outcome is necessarily an experiential landscape; a concrete, geographic base upon which tourism experiences are commodified, managed, marketed, and consumed. These experiential landscapes may be transient, staged as footloose productions (for example, fashion shows or rock concerts that travel the world). Alternatively, they may be place-bound phenomena that cannot be replicated elsewhere (for example, the Grand Canyon, the Great Barrier Reef, or the Great Wall of China); here, place is constitutive of the experience itself. A third form of experiential landscape comprises experiential tourism products that include events (such as the Edinburgh Arts Festival), activities (hotel-hopping in Las Vegas), and services (dining in a restaurant overlooking Bali's Tanah Lot). While the event, activity, or service (for example, an arts festival, hotel-hopping, or dining in a restaurant) is not necessarily unique, its association with a particular location becomes significant over time and the source of direct experiences, including socialization or people-watching (Lorentzen, 2009: 834). Thus place is not just a neutral container or stage for the production and consumption of experience. Geography matters in experience consumption and production. Some have gone further to argue for the “power of place” in the experience economy. Critical

management and urban studies, for example, contend that experience sites are often environments of affective cues and ideological intent (Boswijk et al., 2006; Hayes and MacLeod, 2007). Here, landscapes are strategically themed and customer expectations managed by “customer experience management consultants” who draw insights from behavioral, psychological, and sociological research to understand customers, deliver experiences, and direct particular thought, behavior, and outcome (Boswijk et al., 2006: 3–4). In many cultural and tourism sites, experiential strategies are also stage-managed to convey intended ideologies and brand messaging; such strategies are aimed at differentiating rival sites to engender specialized avenues of economic growth (see Lorentzen and Hansen, 2009; Marling et al., 2009 for specific cases). Along the same vein, critical geographers have explored various ways in which leisure spaces and travel-related environments – be they shopping malls, theme parks, airports, or resorts – affect human action and consumption behaviors (see Hopkins, 1990; Goss, 1996; Cass, 2004; Adey, 2008). In a recent stocktaking attempt in urban tourism geography, Selby (2012) asserted that advances in nonrepresentational geography have focused attention on the performative or experiential nature of tourism. Moving beyond traditional representational approaches which see the city and its representations (such as guidebooks, maps, and marketing campaigns) as declarative texts, nonrepresentational approaches view the city as an open and contingent landscape shaped by policy-makers/authorities as well as visitors/users who bring diverse memories and expectations to the site. Different stakeholders have different expectations and experiences of places, often contesting the official experience agenda intended by planners and marketers. Indeed, geographers increasingly acknowledge the multisensuality of urban experiences (Edensor and Falconer, 2012; Larsen, 2012) and the variable ways in which differently aged, gendered, racialized, and sexualized bodies encounter the tourism product (Waitt, 2012). While it is beyond our scope to examine the experiences of individual tourists in detail, what we draw from this body of work is that the urban product does not, and cannot, yield a singular experience. Even the same tourist can experience a place differently over two or more visits. There are as many, if not more, experiences than there are tourists in the city.

Experience Landscapes in Urban Tourism: Issues and Concerns In this section we explore various issues at the interface of experience economy and urban tourism. The review of empirical cases is not intended to be exhaustive but is suggestive of the productive ways to apprehend the role of tourism experiences in contemporary urban life. O'Dell (2005) introduced the term “experiencescape” to encapsulate the manifold environments of the experience economy. He defines experiencescapes as “stylized landscapes that are strategically planned, laid out and designed” by producers, including urban planners, architects, place marketers, and private enterprise, aimed at experience-seeking consumers (O'Dell, 2005: 16). The suffix “-scape” is noteworthy. Inspired by Appadurai's (1990) coinage of “ideoscapes,” “mediascapes,” “ethnoscapes,” and so on – to refer to the interconnections of

places as ideas, images, and people move across borders – experiencescapes are similarly the outcomes of transnational flows and globalization processes as well as local ones. Cities in particular play critical roles as hubs and nodes in globalization, serving as the source of new lifestyle trends and also as transmitters and translators of key information and concepts. In the competitive field of tourism, urban concepts are continually being created, prototyped, and “simultaneously and instantaneously replicated, communicated and disseminated around the world electronically or through travel literature” (Terkenli, 2002: 246). The experience economy is rich with innovations in city planning and landmark projects ranging from festival marketplaces and gentrified waterfronts in the 1980 and 1990s (Goss, 1996; Chang and Huang, 2009) to “hybrid cultural projects” in the new millennium (Marling et al., 2009). Over time successful concepts are translated and spread, becoming part of the “transnational symbolic grammar” of cities (O'Dell, 2005: 17). The presence of such familiar concepts in cities bestows a mark of internationalism and brand recognition among investors and the travel elite. Researching experiencescapes (with an emphasis on “scapes”) presents opportunities to better conceptualize tourism flows in the context of globalizing cities. Investigations into which concepts travel and which do not, and the means and politics by which they move within circuits of investment and information flows, have not been entirely plumbed. We will turn to these concerns in our conclusion as we chart avenues for future research. Where tourism geographers have fared better is the study of the sociospatial impacts of globalizing experiencescapes. Terkenli (2002) proposes a useful framework to capture the effects of tourism flows on the tourist experience. She argues that tourism landscapes (particularly in cities) undergo the four processes of enworldment, unworldment, deworldment, and transworldment as a result of the globalization of tourism investments and information. Enworldment is a process of “encompassing of all worlds in one” such that geographically distinct visions of the world are condensed into a single site (Terkenli, 2002: 231). Symbols of enworldment include architectural styles, retail brands, and worldly cuisines telescoped into a single experiential site. Deworldment takes place when landscapes and activities are aestheticized for exchange value. Staged experience events involving the commodification of place, culture, and people is an example. The combined outcome of enworldment and deworldment is unworldment, or the loss of place particularity as “old landscape geographies” are unraveled to cater to commercialized interests (Terkenli, 2002: 240). Finally, the process of transworldment involves the transfer of tourism trends across borders, predicated on the belief that the best ideas for change come from without rather than from within. While mainly conceptual, Terkenli's ideas provide a way to interpret what happens when experiencescapes are globalized through replication and transmission. Studies have looked at what happens when experiencescapes are themselves influenced by globalization pressures. Our study of the Singapore River over the years reveals how a historic site once filled with local businesses and residents has been transformed by urban entrepreneurial interests dedicated to creating a “world class waterfront” (Chang and Huang, 2009). Successful experiential concepts from elsewhere have been strategically incorporated, such as allweather roofing, development of a nighttime economy, and place management, along with brand-name events, activities, and businesses selected to impart a cosmopolitan image.

Interviews conducted with planners, tourism authorities, and a private-sector organization in charge of Clarke Quay (one of three quays along the river) revealed a conscientious intent to “bring the world to Singapore.” Along with study trips, planners from Singapore's Urban Redevelopment Authority consulted waterfront business organizations involved with Barcelona's Port Vell, Melbourne's Docklands, Miami's Coco Walk, and the Gatehead Millennium Bridge in the UK, among others. Local planners and politicians also reference London's Canary Wharf, Manhattan's Battery Park, Sydney's Darling Harbourplace, and San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf as aspirant projects, with specific concepts from each incorporated as “learning points” into development plans (e.g. night lighting, scenic lookouts, access routes, and street art). The resulting Singapore River is self-consciously styled to produce the experience of the best waterfronts in cosmopolitan cities of the world. O'Dell and Billing's (2005) book offers a collection of further examples ranging from Danish “design” hotels and interactive museums to factories reconverted into art houses in Britain (Christersdotter, 2005; Gyimothy, 2005; Ooi, 2005; Willim, 2005). Whereas experiencescapes usually start with novel concepts promising place-specific experiences, they are not always immune from the influences of global commerce; that is, forces of “deworldment.” As experience projects globalize, what were originally emblems of local identity may transmute into icons of international “wannabism.” Gyimorthy's (2005) study of the Danish kros (country inns) offers a case in point. For many Danes, kros have traditionally served as “nostalgiascapes” by virtue of their rural locations, pastoral décor, and homey local fare. Popular with domestic tourists and communities, kros are often regarded as the unofficial signifier of Danish hospitality and identity. Changing times and increasing international competition for tourists have, however, led many kros to upgrade their image and clientele. From a “festive, folksy, fun” image catering to “lower class taste[s],” kros have evolved in line with international hotel standards and tourist expectations. Popular international cuisines (from sangria and olive oil to dishes from Italy, France, and Spain) and new décor reminiscent of “rural France or Italy” have appeared over time as part of a self-conscious “snobbing up” process (Gyimorthy 2005: 120). Despite their rural provenance, these country inns have taken on new urban/cosmopolitan identities. As one innkeeper admitted, kros are becoming “too fine and too French … too high … too pretentious” (2005: 121). Using Terkenli's terminology, enworldment and deworldment have resulted in the diminution of local identity; a case of unworldment. As we talk about experience landscapes and effects of globalization, the issue of tourist experiences in the city should be noted. The key questions are how tourists behave in an experience economy and the most effective ways to market the city to them. We had earlier noted the multisensory experiences of travelers and the impossibility of a singular urban experience. The experiential economy literature similarly conceives of the consumer as an active agent who rejects any experience prescribed from on high, but who instead cocreates experiences according to their personal interests. Cocreation entails a dynamic relationship between experience providers “who delineate their offerings” and consumers who “utilize their cultural capital to mediate their imaginings and recollections as a means of producing a personal and unique tourism product” (Hayes and MacLeod, 2007: 48). Customers are not

dictated to but are “invited to ‘explore’ and ‘discover’ for themselves: to find surprises or ‘hidden’ worlds …” (Prentice, 2001 cited in Hayes and MacLeod, 2007: 48). The balance of control shifts from provider to a more equitable state between provider and consumer. Marketers believe that cocreation is one way to connect an urban destination with its consumers. However, many organizations, businesses, and urban planners are still stuck in a service (rather than experiential) mode, obsessing on “the physical attributes of the destination” and on developing “places and things” (Morgan et al., 2009: 206). What experiential tourists want instead are opportunities and environments that allow them to create their own experiences through self-discovery. Cultural events and festivals, and “small innovations” such as novel restaurants, shops selling artisanal goods, and innovative hotels, are best suited to such experiential self-discovery (Morgan et al., 2009). Tourism campaigns like “VisitEngland” and “YourSingapore” have also been highlighted as instances of “do-ityourself experiences” and market segmentation (Hayes and MacLeod, 2007; Chang and Choi, 2010). Web technology is essential as a platform that encourages customization and proactive planning. The uses of web technology and the focus on cocreation are dimensions of urban experiential marketing that deserve further research attention.

Experiencing Experiencescapes: Methodological Developments In much the same way that “experience” has been approached differently by different academics – as a lifestyle option by consumers, as cultural capital of tourism workers, or as spatial expression of experiencescapes – similarly, methodological advances in the study of experience have been diverse. These range from highly quantitative methods that seek to understand visitors' experience to qualitative approaches offering phenomenological insights. While it is beyond our scope to review specific works on tourists, there have been many attempts to capture the nebulous nature of experience. Some have sought to unpack experience into its component parts, such as the emotive states of joy, love, and positive surprise (Hosany and Gilbert, 2010; Brunner-Sperdin et al., 2012), whereas others have looked at feelings of arousal and sensorial quality of memories (Somdahl-Sands, 2011). The hallmarks of the experience economy – the “four Es” – have also been deployed as variables to account for experiential satisfaction. In their study of the bed-and-breakfast industry in the USA, Oh et al. (2007) configured entertainment, education, escapism, and aesthetics into parameters to quantify tourists' and business owners' experiential realization. Such quantitative measures have been justified as having a high level of explanatory and predictive powers, offering important lessons for business and management strategies (Andersson, 2007). As the positivistic paradigm often “writes out” the body in tourism and experiential research (Franklin and Crang, 2001), qualitative methods redress this gap by offering more interpretative and reflexive approaches that re-center the body and human emotion. Studying experience landscapes requires empathy and participation; the capacity “to identify totally with your subjects, to experience the milieu as they experience it” (Lodge, 1991 cited in Larsen and

Mossberg, 2007: 5). Spending time talking to people (experience producers and consumers), being on-site as much as possible, and attending to the “everyday, ‘banal’, and material practices” demand observant, participative ethnographies (Kraftl and Adey, 2008: 214). The study of boutique hotels as experiencescapes, for example, requires more than just research interviews and site inspections, but immersive aesthetic experiences by the researcher as hotel guest and paying patron (McIntosh and Siggs, 2005; Chang, 2010). Researchers perform the very experiences articulated by hosts and guests, and in the process blur the division between researcher and the researched. Photograph-supported interviews aimed at eliciting textured responses from tourists (Willson and McIntosh, 2007) and observant participation at multisensory experience events (Dewsbury, 2003), as well as intensive “goalongs” where the researcher embodies the experience of tourists by “walking” in their shoes, are other qualitative methods that examine the affective and emotive resonances of the experience economy.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Questions for the Future By way of conclusion, we propose three interrelated questions that researchers contemplating the future of the urban experience economy should ask (and attempt to answer). The first is conceptual, the second pertains to methodology, while the last is policy-related. Conceptually, we have seen how ideas and concepts in urban tourism travel across scales. Whereas we discuss this phenomenon under the familiar banner of globalization, we recognize that new insights might be afforded through alternative conceptual lenses. A likely contender is the mobility discourse, and the question here is how tourism geographers might utilize this concept while advancing theoretical and methodological refinements. An appreciation for mobility has always existed in geography, as evident in migration theory, gravity models, and the study of the origin and dispersion of cultures. What is novel in the current “mobility turn” is the recognition of the diversity of forms of movement (and the politics behind the flows), the disparate scales under inquiry (ranging from the body to the globe), and the deliberate suspension of disciplinary and subdisciplinary boundaries in its discourse (Creswell, 2010: 18). Within tourism studies, mobility has emerged as a valuable concept on at least two fronts. The first is in the study of moving “objects and infrastructures” (including people, architectural structures, commodities, images, and data systems) as well as best practices and ideas that “travel in, and through, various ways – from the embodied knowledge of traveling design professionals, to representations … circulating through both online and off-line media,” such as the way observation wheels (such as the iconic London Eye) have traveled globally (Yap, 2012: 2850). Second is in terms of mobilizing “identities” – “memories and performances, gendered and racialized bodies, emotions and atmospheres” (Sheller and Urry, 2004: 1) – as Lorentzen (2009: 836) has observed: “The power of experiencescapes in producing feelings of identity is sometimes very strong,” as evidenced by the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao. The latter in particular presents new research possibilities,

moving us beyond the individual traveler, tourist, or destination into realms of mobile values, practices, and design (Duncan, 2012). The study of experiencescapes fits well with the tourism mobility agenda. Going beyond the “whats” of mobility, we explore the politics of what moves and what does not, the methodologies needed to study them, and their policy implications for people and places. On experiencescapes, the questions to pose include how does experience change as landscapes and spaces (both natural and those purposefully designed) get modified and evolve over time? What forms of experience projects travel and why? Who are the mobilizing agents and actors behind the process, and what are the motivations behind their mobility? As we have seen, experience projects may be tied into larger state and national ideologies of “world cities” or they can be implicated into more localized goals of “business improvement” or “economic progress.” A hierarchy of flows and coordinating agents, and their own experience in mobility, are worthy of further consideration. In grappling with new concepts, methodological refinements must be considered. Buscher and Urry (2009) and Duncan (2012) have proposed “mobile methods” as ways to apprehend the complexity of mobilities. Such methods include multisite ethnography, tracking mobile agents by following them, and keeping time–space diaries and audiovisual records of research subjects (Buscher and Urry, 2009). While many of these methods suit the study of migrants and tourists, they may not be as suitable for nonhuman mobilities. How then can we track the flows of intangibles (ideas, concepts, and trends) across cities and experiential sites while making sense of their politics? What existing methods best allow us to capture the global “flux and flows” of experiencescapes, and what new methods should evolve to apprehend new research subjects? These questions are being asked and also answered in the intersection of tourism and mobility discourse. Finally we turn to questions on policy implications. As experiencescapes dominate urban tourism, the serialization of spaces and the loss of local particularity become very real concerns. Chang and Huang (2009) caution that the circulation and adoption of tourism best practices have led to “urban geographies of everywhere and nowhere,” a simultaneous process of replication and homogenization. Tourism is often a quest for uniqueness, yet the opposite is being achieved in destinations around the world. Planners, policy-makers, and marketers are thus faced with serious questions: What can be done to set cities apart? How can urban concepts be adapted sensitively in different places, for different people? How can destinations sites be international and yet distinctive? The solution of devising more innovative and ambitious experience projects may not be feasible in an age of fiscal austerity. Neither are inward-looking policies possible or wise in the context of globalization. A delicate balance must be struck between offering experiences that are novel and place-specific while leveraging on modern technologies and fulfilling cosmopolitan expectations. While we can offer no ready solutions and answers, we can be certain that experiences (in the fullest sense of the term) are here to stay, as a resource for tourism, a theme for place marketing, and a vision for urban development.

References Adey, P. 2008. Airports, mobility and the calculative architecture of affective control. Geoforum, 39: 438–451. Andersson, T. 2007. The tourist in the experience economy. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7: 46–58. Appadurai, A. 1990. Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, Culture & Society, 7: 295–310. Boswijk, A., Thijssen, T., and Peelan, Ed. 2006. A New Perspective on the Experience Economy. Meaningful Experiences. The Netherlands: The European Centre for the Experience Economy. Brunner-Sperdin, A., Peters, M., and Strobl, A. 2012. It is all about the emotional state: managing tourists' experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31: 23–30. Buscher, M. and Urry, J. 2009. Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Thought, 12: 99–161. Cass, J. 2004. Egypt on steroids: Luxor Las Vegas and postmodern orientalism. In Architecture and Tourism. Perception, Performance and Place, D.M. Ladansky and B. McLaren (eds), pp. 241–263. Oxford: Berg. Chang, T.C. 2010. Bungalows, mansions and shophouses: encounters in architourism. Geoforum, 41: 963–971. Chang, T.C. and Choi, K.-E. 2010. Experiential Marketing of ‘YourSingapore’: Mediating Personal Experiences and Place Expectations. Paper presented at 11th International Joint World Cultural Tourism Conference, Hangzhou, China, November 12–14, 2010. Chang, T.C. and Huang, S. 2009. Geographies of everywhere and nowhere: place (un)making in Singapore's waterfront. International Development Planning Review, 30: 227–247. Christersdotter, M. 2005. Mobile dreams. In Experiencescapes. Tourism, Culture, and Economy, T. O'Dell and P. Billing (eds), pp. 91–109. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Creswell, T. 2010. Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28: 17–31. Dewsbury, J.D. 2003. Witnessing space: knowledge without contemplation. Environment and Planning A, 35: 1907–1932. Duncan, T. 2012. The ‘mobilities turn’ and the geography of tourism. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 113–119. London: Routledge.

Edensor, T. and Falconer, E. 2012. Sensuous geographies of tourism. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 74–81. London: Routledge. Franklin, A., and Crang, M. 2001. The trouble with tourism and travel theory. Tourist Studies, 1: 5–22. Goss, J. 1996. Disquiet on the waterfront: reflections on nostalgia and utopia in the urban archetypes of festival marketplaces. Urban Geography, 17: 221–247. Gyimothy, S. 2005. Nostalgiascapes: the renaissance of Danish countryside inns. In Experiencescapes. Tourism, Culture and Economy, T. O'Dell and P. Billing (eds), pp. 111– 126. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Hannigan, J. 1998. Fantasy City. London: Routledge. Hayes, D., and MacLeod, N. 2007. Packaging places: designing heritage trails using an experience economy perspective to maximize visitor engagement. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13: 45–58. Hopkins, J. 1990. West Edmonton Mall as a centre for social interaction. The Canadian Geographer, 35: 268–279. Hosany, S. and Gilbert, D. 2010. Measuring tourists' emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49: 513–526. Jansson, A. 2002. Spatial phantasmagoria: the mediatization of tourism experience. European Journal of Communication, 17: 429–443. Kraftl, P. and Adey, P. 2008. Architecture/affect/inhabitation: geographies of being-in buildings. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98: 213–231. Larsen, J. 2012. Performance, space and tourism. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 67–73. London: Routledge. Larsen, S. and Mossberg, L. 2007. Editorial: the diversity of tourist experiences. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7: 1–6. Lorentzen, A. 2009. Cities in the experience economy. European Planning Studies, 17: 829– 845. Lorentzen, A. and Hansen, C.J. 2009. The role and transformation of the city in the experience economy: identifying and exploring research challenges. European Planning Studies, 17: 817– 827. Marling, G., Jensen, O.B., and Kiib, H. 2009. The experience city: planning of hybrid cultural projects. European Planning Studies, 17: 817–827. Marling, G. and Zerlang, M. 2007. Fun City. Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press.

McIntosh, A. and Siggs, A. 2005. An exploration of the experiential nature of boutique accommodation. Journal of Travel Research, 44: 74–81. Morgan, M., Elbe, J., and de Esteban Curiel, J. 2009. Has the experience economy arrived? The views of destination managers in three visitor-dependent areas. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11: 201–216. O'Dell, T. 2005. Experiencescapes: blurring borders and testing connections. In Experiencescapes. Tourism, Culture and Economy, T. O'Dell, and P. Billing (eds), pp. 11–33. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. O'Dell, T. and Billing, P. (eds) 2005. Experiencescapes. Tourism, Culture and Economy. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Oh, H., Fiore, A.M., and Jeoung, M. 2007. Measuring experience economy concepts: tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46: 119–132. Ooi, C.-S. 2005. A theory of tourism experiences: the management of attention. In Experiencescapes. Tourism, Culture and Economy, T. O'Dell and P. Billing (eds), pp. 51–68. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. 1998. Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, July/August: 97–105. Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. 1999. The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Selby, M. 2012. Geographies of tourism and the city. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 232–239. London: Routledge. Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (eds) 2004. Tourism Mobilities. Places to Play, Places in Play. London: Routledge. Somdahl-Sands, K. 2011. Witnessing Dance in the Streets: Go! Taste the City. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 10: 508–533. Sternberg, E. 1997. The iconography of the tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 24: 951–969. Terkenli, T. 2002. Landscapes of tourism. towards a global economy of space? Tourism Geographies, 4: 227–254. Therkildsen, H.P., Hansen, C.J., and Lorentzen, A. 2009. The experience economy and the transformation of urban governance and planning. European Planning Studies, 17: 925–941. Tofler, A. 1970. Future Shock. New York: Random House. Waitt, G. 2012. Queer perspectives on tourism geographies. In The Routledge Handbook of

Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 82–89. London: Routledge. Willim, R. 2005. Looking with new eyes at the old factory. In Experiencescapes. Tourism, Culture and Economy, T. O'Dell and P. Billing (eds), pp. 35–50. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Willson, G. and McInosh, A. 2007. Heritage buildings and tourism: an experiential view. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2: 75–93. Yap, E.X.Y. 2012. Wheels of fame and fortune: the travels of the Singapore Flyer. Urban Studies, 49: 2839–2852.

Chapter 18 Tourism and Creative Economies Gordon Waitt and Chris Gibson This chapter explores intersections between tourism and creative economies. Our discussion begins with historical antecedents and synergies between tourism and creativity. We then explore critiques, structured around three conceptual and political issues. The first concerns debate about a policy “script” that configures the relationship between the creative industries and economic revitalization. That script emphasizes place-based qualities, and frequently results in the development of cultural quarters and precincts. Problems with cultural precinct strategies are outlined. The second examines economic, social, and cultural implications arising from individual creative industries and forms of special-interest tourism. The third considers challenges to the formulaic creative industry script, with specific reference to diversity and forms of rural creativity, and community-based festivals hosted in “unlikely” places. Our overall argument is that although synergies are possible between tourism and creative industries, problems with each have the potential to be magnified. A geographical perspective attuned to place identities and questions of social justice helps uncover these problems.

Historical Antecedents Tourism has long been aligned with creative practices. The emergence of a tourism industry in Britain and North America in the early nineteenth century dovetailed with increasing affordability of tours and an appreciation of theater, painting, and architecture. Before then the Grand Tour – travel circuits of Western Europe undertaken primarily by British aristocracy from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century – was “a key phase in the history of tourism” (Towner, 1985: 297) with education, scientific, and artistic exploration as primary justifications. In the seventeenth century, the circuit reflected a route that prioritized an appreciation of classical Roman and Greek antiquities and Renaissance art and architecture. By the early nineteenth century, while the pattern of the Tour remained unchanged, destinations were now to be appreciated primarily through the ideology of Romanticism, an explicitly artistic and creative endeavor consumed by emotions and norms of the picturesque and sublime. Meanwhile, the emergence of tourism in North America was closely aligned with an appreciation of theaters and museums (Gassan, 2008). Following the lead of European aristocracy, America's “Fashionable Tour” departed from New York City and, framed by the aesthetics of the Romantic ideology, invoked an appreciation of the Niagara Falls and the Hudson River. Alongside an appreciation of the outdoors, by the early 1800s visiting museums and theaters in New York City had become integral to travel itineraries. Links between the aesthetic appeal of creative works and tourism also have a lengthy heritage. Aesthetic dimensions of creative artworks may be central to sustaining flows of particular tourist groups to a specific destination by fashioning and circulating a particular geographical

imagination. In the nineteenth century the work of eminent artists and writers – August von Platen, Hans Christian Anderson, Andre Gide, and Wilhelm von Gloeden – were central to circulating ideas that configured southern Italy (Capri, Taormina, Palermo, and Naples), Greece, Spain, and northern Africa as “homosexual paradises” (Waitt and Markwell, 2006). Imagined as “Utopias,” these destinations attracted international visitors seeking sexual and social intimacy with other men, and “freedoms” from persecution and interference. Works of art catalyzed geographical imaginations that became tourist aspirations.

Synergies Between the “Creative” Industry and Tourism In more contemporary times the relationship between creativity and tourism has been reconfigured through the idea of creative industries.1 Transcending Romantic conceptions of “the arts,” cultural and creative industries are said to be a discrete segment of the capitalist economy dedicated to the production of advertising, architecture, fashion design, crafts, paintings, jewellery, music, film, television, furniture, computer software, interactive leisure software, and design. They include more traditional “arts” activities (art museums, theaters, dance companies, etc.), but extend the working conception of creativity into a range of increasingly diverse sectors of the contemporary economy where innovation, aesthetics, and “culture” are paramount. The argument is that these activities, when understood as a combined creative economy, have become increasingly influential in capitalist growth (Scott, 1999; United Nations, 2013). In various ways these newer ideas intersect with tourism. Prominent is a geographical question of where and how creative industries emerge, concentrate, and develop in specific places, and whether synergistic possibilities exist in relation to tourism destination development. Prominent thinkers on the creative industries including Allen Scott (1999), Charles Landry (2000), and Richard Florida (2002) emphasized urban regions as “engines” of the creative industries. Creative industries are sustained through face-to-face contact, social networks, diverse labor markets, trust, cooperation, and key formal and informal infrastructures (museums, galleries, studios, restaurants, and cafés). Creative industries often tend to cluster so as to benefit from agglomeration – such as in New York's Lower East Side or Paris's Left Bank. Place-based attributes are, it is said, vital to sustaining creativity, particularly social diversity, tolerance, and openness. According to Florida (2002) fostering creativity requires a “buzzy” vibrant context, social policies that embrace equity and difference, a lively arts/music scene, and places for social interaction and recreation. The capacity for this geography of creative industries to mesh with tourism destination development varies, but can be potentially significant, not just for offering new kinds of tourist attraction (such as “flagship” museums and arts facilities; see Grodach, 2010), but via contributions to place association and branding. In addition, creative industries contain high levels of micro-enterprise, creative individualism, and small-to-medium-sized businesses. For such enterprises tourist flows can be important to ongoing viability, such as the commercial possibilities for musicians, theaters, and museums generated in places with significant tourist visitation.

The promise of sustained economic accumulation derived from the creative industries and the presence of creative workers has not been lost on investment-starved urban and regional policy-makers in Australia, Britain, and North America, particularly those seeking to revitalize flagging manufacturing and resource-led economies. Creative industries resonated with policymakers at the same time that neoliberal urban and regional governance had shifted the emphasis from economic (re)distribution to economic generation. Policy-makers who embraced the concepts of the “creative industries” and “creative workers” rolled out strategies that focused on encouraging “vibrancy,” fueling agglomerations and clusters, creating spaces for social interaction through place-based branding, and fostering tolerance. In the wake of such policies, scholars have begun to quantify the outcomes of creative industry-led economic regeneration for destination image, competitiveness, and tourist flows (e.g. Simeon and Buonincontri, 2011; van Niekerk and Coetzee, 2011). Facets of the tourism industry have thus been strategically aligned with creative city aspirations. Tourism and creative industries do share certain features. First, like tourism, in creative industries, product valorization is tied primarily to their symbolic content, and the way in which the material object may be used in different ways that confirm understandings of the self by triggering bodily experiences, emotions, and/or memories (Lash and Urry, 1994). Second, tourism and creative industries are both reliant upon higher disposable incomes and the shift towards a “leisure and lifestyle society” (Walmsley, 2003). Third, in a neoliberal context, creative industries are increasingly understood by policy-makers as an economic driver of similar ilk to tourism, offering opportunities to create new jobs, reinvent city profiles, facilitate urban regeneration agendas, promote inward investment, and attract and retain a skilled and talented people. Image and branding parts of the city, alongside events celebrating arts and cultural activities, are understood as a means to attract and retain “creative workers.” And creativity in turn becomes a means to market cities to tourists. Branded nodes, hubs, quarters, and districts of cities are part of an ever-expanding tourism itinerary intersecting with cultural industries. Likewise, festivals celebrating the goods and services produced by creative industries of a particular city or region symbiotically promote tourism and creativity. Such ideas – notably promoted by celebrity planners/thinkers such as Landry (2000) and Florida (2002) – are omnipresent, influencing prevailing urban and regional tourism policies. Nevertheless, a range of critiques has emerged offering a range of different perspectives. Geographical critiques of strategies to develop cultural quarters are a prominent example.

Cultural Quarters Designating “cultural quarters” is an urban regeneration strategy embraced by both tourism and creative industries policy-makers in many Australian, European, and North American cities. Examples include San Francisco's Downtown Berkeley Arts District, Sheffield's Cultural Industries Quarter, Manchester's Northern Quarter, Dublin's Temple Bar, Belfast's Cathedral Quarter, and Birmingham's Eastside (Porter and Barber, 2007). Museums often play a pivotal role in designating the focus and boundaries of a “cultural quarter.” For example, New York

has a Museum Mile; Vienna and Utrecht have a Museum Quarter; Amsterdam has a Museum Square; Rotterdam a Museum Park; Berlin a Museum Island; and Frankfurt a Museum Bank. Architecturally striking museums help designate cultural quarters, exemplified by the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, the Tate Modern in London, and the Getty Centre in Los Angeles (Plaza, 2006). Museums are often referred to as “flagships” by policy-makers, confirming their pivotal role in the creative industry script (van Aalst and Boogaarts, 2002). Building museums within designated precincts is thus increasingly a branding exercise, aimed at enhancing place marketing and accruing cultural capital (Kong, 2007). As cities further compete for increasingly mobile investment and visitors, designating an innovation hub or cultural quarter becomes a way of generating visibility, securing government funding and attracting external investment and visitors. City quarters are used as instruments to nurture existing firms by creating a focal point for the assumed synergies derived from the agglomeration economies of high-technology and creative sectors. They are also prominently marked in tourist guidebooks, visitor maps, and brochures; they are a means to generate extra “foot traffic” for cafés, shops, galleries, and street performers. Yet, as Bell and Jayne (2004) argue, the branding exercise of “the city of quarters” was one way that municipal authorities and urban planners sought to impose an order upon the city. Rather than working with the disorder and contradictions found in most city spaces (the unpredictable and spontaneous “frisson” that contributes “buzz” to urban life), the very idea of the quarter relies upon ordered categories, classifications, and cartographies. Designating city quarters is about simplification and fashioning a particular place-based narrative that trades on the aspirational marketing spin of “innovation,” “creativity,” “cosmopolitanism,” or “coolness,” but that contradictorily eschews more uncomfortable elements of diversity and makes urban space more predictable. The “city of quarters” agenda dovetails with the prevailing market-lead focus of urban and regional tourism policies on pitching or packaging places to a global market of affluent visitors. As Zukin (1995) warns, the concentration of creative industries is not solely about generating “striking” aesthetics, but is also about increasing property values and attracting investment and tourists. There is a politics at work in this branding that configures creative clusters, and museums as tourist sites. Bourgeois tastes and preferences are prioritized, and the working class, elderly, and homeless are rendered “out of place” (or even evicted), as are young drinkers, sex workers, and the mentally ill. Zukin (1995) reminds us to remain alive to the voices that the politics of creativity deny. Cultural quarters therefore illustrate what Edensor (2000: 63) describes as “enclavic tourist space;” that is the “staging” of parts of the cities to appeal to particular social groups, often carefully monitored through surveillance to “enforce” what is considered “appropriate” to wear, gaze, and behave according to dominant narratives. The branding of parts of the city as themed or quartered relies upon identification of a particular place with a narrative that may accentuate social exclusions. As illustrated by Temple Bar in Dublin, such projects run the risk of territorializing impulses that produce new exclusions. Market-led tourism policies such as these raise the spectre of the unwanted

(Montgomery, 2004). In the case of Temple Bar, the unwanted were not only the unemployed or poor, but also large groups of disorderly drunk men as Temple Bar developed a reputation as the stag night (bachelor party) capital of Europe. The city of cultural quarters also challenges the distinctiveness of places. As Bell and Jayne (2004) argue, one of the ironies of the quartering creative industry script is the lack of diversification and the ubiquity of types across cities. Many cities now have identical districts: a cultural quarter, Chinatown, museum precinct, and gay village. Creativity-led tourism placebranding policies appeal to cosmopolitanism, but in turn lead to increased similarities and standardization. Moreover, the middle-bourgeois cultural capital desired by state and city agencies “may have little meaning for segments of the city population” (Kong, 2007: 385), and district strategies in cities aimed at accumulating credibility (and tourists) can disenfranchise local populations, trigger protest, or remain oblivious to the aspirations of local people and arts communities. Places are pitched as cosmopolitan spectacles by staking claims to social difference along the lines of ethnic and sexual diversity. As argued by Rushbrook (2002: 188) “[T]o be cosmopolitan is to display an openness and curiosity about other cultures, to seek out the different.” But in cultural districts lived diversity is frequently commodified, risking stereotypes and aggrandizements. A social geographical critique reminds us that axes of oppression along class, gender, age, sexuality, and ethnicity lines can be amplified through attempts to quarter cities for tourism and creative industry gain.

Individual Creative Industries and Forms of SpecialInterest Tourism Individual creative industries are the basis for specialist tours and trails. Creative industries put places “on the tourist map” as “birthplaces” of an idea, or as a “mecca” for fans. Unlike the creative quarter script that is premised on designated city spaces, this form of place marketing relies upon a connection with a unique, yet instantly recognized and highly valued cultural product. Individual creative industries that have become popular in a process of selling places include film (The Sound of Music to Salzburg; Braveheart to Scotland; The Lord of the Rings trilogy to New Zealand); soap operas (All Creatures Great and Small, Coronation Street, and Heartbeat in Yorkshire, England), and visual and literary arts, frequently framed around individual artists and writers (J. K Rowling's Harry Potter in Scotland; Thomas Hardy in Dorset; Charlotte Bronte's Jayne Eyre in Derbyshire; L.M. Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables in Prince Edward Island) (see Couldry, 1998; Mordue, 1999; Tzanelli, 2004; Gibson and Connell, 2005; Carl et al., 2007; Connell, 2012). Music is also a remarkable catalyst for tourism, from Dolly Parton's Dollywood theme park in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, Elvis Presley's Graceland in Memphis (Gibson and Connell, 2005), The Beatles in Liverpool, England (Kruse, 2005), and country music in both Liverpool, England (Cohen, 2005) and Tamworth, Australia (Gibson and Davidson, 2004). Even individual songs can inspire dedicated tours and forms of tourism, from the Mull of Kintyre to Route 66. Numerous guide books, maps, and audio tours are now available to explore film, literary, art, and music tourism in the UK, USA, Europe, and Australia.

Undoubtedly, there are large revenues to be generated from tapping into past, present, and future generations of movie, literary, and music fans around the world. For example, Gnuschke and Wallace (2004) emphasize the economic importance of the music industry to Memphis. The tourism industry capitalizes upon how Memphis is widely understood as the “home of the blues,” the “birthplace of rock‘n’roll music,” and home of Elvis Presley at Graceland. Gnuschke and Wallace (2004: 27) estimate that in 2002, “the music industry without musicrelated tourism was responsible for US$366 million in goods and services produced while supporting 4,500 jobs with earnings of more than $108 million.” Music-related tourism was estimated to contribute US$86.6 million in state taxes and $12.4 million in local taxes. Musicrelated tourism was the primary generator of state and local tax revenues in Memphis. Similar measurements have been made of the economic impact of film tourism (see Busby and Klug, 2001; Beeton, 2005). Yet, aggregate figures mask inequalities in earnings within creative industries. Not everyone benefits equally. Overlooked in overall economic figures are how that wealth is distributed, the precariousness of creative work, and the impacts on property values. Gibson and Connell (2003) provide one example drawing on their fieldwork in Byron Bay, Australia, a destination popular among backpackers featuring festivals, didgeridoo classes, and “world” music. Economic benefits were estimated at over AUS$60 million annually. Tourism – particularly the influx of visitors attracted by festivals, nightclubs, and dance parties – has opened up opportunities for musicians to exchange knowledge, helped to constitute a market for their music, and made live music venues financially viable. Yet tensions and inequalities persist. Touring bands may be paid three times as much as local bands in the same venues. Meanwhile, rates of pay for musicians have declined in real terms due to intense competition and oversupply as the region becomes increasingly well known for both tourism and creativity, and in turn attracts musicians as new migrants. Chapple et al. (2010) similarly warned of the impacts on cultural producers of the lasseiz-faire promotion of creative districts. The artist-led Art Murmur district, in Oakland, CA, USA, was embraced by public officials and reconfigured as a “must-see” tourism destination. While resulting in increasing sales of artwork, rents also increased. As the district became a consumption space for higher-income tastes, only the more “successful” artists – that is, the more commercial or mainstream – could afford to continue to live in Oakland. The displacement of artists was naturalized within a Social Darwinian discourse of “natural selection,” with those least able to compete forced to move elsewhere. Overlooked was the importance of the cooperation between informal networks, the creative synergies between artists and art organizations in catalyzing the initial creative “hub,” the importance of low rents to enable emergent creativity (without which arts districts become too formulaic), and the material qualities of space as an integral part of the creative process itself. This resonates strongly with the work of Zukin and Braslow (2011) on creative districts and the arts in New York. They point out that while creative industry promotion praises the ability of the arts to draw tourist revenues, policies lack explicit support of artists, who are mostly low-income earners. Maintaining creative livelihoods was not the focus of public officials, but “preparing the ground for private-sector real estate developers;” a precursor to profitable

gentrification. Similar conclusions were drawn by Gallan (2012). In a context where municipal policy-makers were lobbying for creative industries to form the basis of a new tourist cultural precinct, the one venue in that zone in which the “edgy,” “messy,” and confrontational musical creativity of local metal, rock, punk, and grunge bands had flourished was closed to make way for an boutique retail outlets and apartments. Overlooked were the important roles played by people within the local music scene whose social activities, advocacy, and loyalty kept creativity going. The lure of the development dollar was seemingly too much for civic authorities to ignore. Surrounding such forms of special-interest tourism are questions of cultural identities and lived experience. While much has been known for some time of the promotional value of film in relation to tourism (Tooke and Baker, 1996; Hudson and Ritchie, 2006), very little is known about why people actually participate in film-induced tourism. Buchmann et al. (2010) argued that dedicated film tourists were similar to pilgrims, following scripted guidelines, following a prescribed path to visit places understood as “special.” Still less is understood about the outcomes of film-induced tourism for residents or tour attendees, particularly in a context where the film location and film setting may not be the same. Tzanelli (2004: 38) warns from her work on tourism and The Lord of the Rings that “there is a danger that tourist consumption of stimulatory landscapes and cultures overwrite specific histories of actual place and cultures.” Subsequent place marketing is often contested. In Parkes, Australia, the development of a wildly popular Elvis Presley impersonator festival, the Elvis Revival Festival, met initial resistance, in part because it was seen too frivolous for a town that otherwise preferred to be marketed through more staid images (Brennan-Horley et al., 2007). Only in time did the festival, and this musical association, come to be taken more seriously as part of regional development strategies (Gibson and Connell, 2012). A similar thing happened in Tamworth, Australia, which became “Australia's country music capital” through a successful festival and canny place marketing. In that case, local residents initially worried that their town would become known as “hick” or “backwards” through an association with “country” ruralities. Residents left town for the duration of the festival, and “I hate country music” t-shirts could be bought in local shops. Yet in time the festival's economic success fueled acceptance, and concerns with “country” marketing were diffused by the “down-to-earth” and unpretentious nature of country music itself. Nevertheless, the resulting marketing promoted a very specific version of “country” – white, heterosexual, masculine, nationalistic – that ignored the significant participation of Aboriginal people in the country music industry (Gibson and Davidson, 2004). Such examples raise important questions about whose geographical imaginations should be woven into the social, material, and embodied fabric that comprise the histories and geographies of places. Music or film tourism promotion involves narrative production and reconstitutes place identities. A resultant geographical critique remains alert to broader questions of the cultural politics of place making. Attention is required on how individuals position themselves within the multiplicity of social and spatial relations that configure place. On the one hand, this requires remaining alive to the idea that places – such as rural or urban,

central or regional – are not preconfigured or stable. Instead, understandings of place are multiple, and are constantly being made and remade. Commonsense categories and borders are either confirmed or disrupted through everyday experiences and practices. Music and film evoke particular understandings and can form the basis of new kinds of commodification and simplification. Yet those same understandings can also help residents and tourists make sense of themselves within the context of their everyday lives. Finally, unusual synergies in unlikely places can challenge commonly held assumptions about places and people. Examples include the Elvis Revival Festival in Parkes (Brennan-Horley et al., 2007), the ABBA Festival in Trundle, Australia, the biannual Four Winds Festival, Bermagui, Australia (Waitt and Duffy, 2010), and a contemporary international music festival in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England (see Voase, 2009). These festivals are often positioned in the media as “surprising,” because they either contradict the idea that “homelands” and “birthplaces” are the most “authentic” pilgrimage sites for fans, or invert ideas that align avantgarde creativity with urban subcultures or established cosmopolitan centers (see also Curtis, 2010). How these festivals stray beyond the boundaries of the familiar discourses of the creative industries can itself be thought of as innovative. There are, nevertheless, ambivalences around whether rural tourism and creative industries amplify or transcend existing inequalities and social relations. Events that bring urban people to rural places for arts and creativity may not translate into year-round endogenous creative industry growth (Gibson, 2007). Marketing places is complex, can often fail, and runs the risk of upsetting local people who hold different views of how to represent their community. If synergistic promotion of tourism and creative industries is the goal, then part of that needs to be finding ways to put together enterprises that suit the aspirations and capacities of local people.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections The role of artistic creativity in tourism has long been recognized. Since the 1980s creativity has become increasingly aligned with the pursuit of profit, and been incorporated strategically into tourism campaigns. Our aim here has been to draw out a sequence of examples and to highlight geographical critiques. One strand has highlighted how intersections between tourism and creative industry strategies can reproduce exclusions and inequalities rather than question prevailing social norms. And there is a crucial spatial element to this; hence, cultural quarters for instance rely upon forging orderly, hierarchical spaces to enables places to successfully compete in a global tourism economy. A second strand has focused on the social and cultural implications for residents and visitors of creative industry-led tourism. This strand challenges universalizing categories to understand why people may attend a creative industry-induced event or pursue a specific itinerary. A critical geographical perspective resists working with fixed lists of motivation to oppose or support creativity-led tourism. Instead, a critical tourism geography approach understands that motivation to support or oppose a creative industryinduced event is complex, and it is understood relationally; that is, how an individual is embedded within the constellations of material, discursive, and social relationships that

comprise place. Opposition or support for creativity-induced tourism requires investigation of individuals who negotiate their sense of themselves through the experiences, practices, and sets of ideas that configure tourism, creative industries, and place. Constructive and progressive possibilities can be forged through the intersection of tourism and creative industries – promotion of social and cultural diversity, inversions of urban/rural hierarchies, opportunities for working artists and musicians, resources for the negotiation, and affirmation of self-identities – yet these need to be understood as entangled in a broader landscape of transformation and uncertainty.

Note 1. There is considerable ambiguity surrounding the use of the terms creative industries, cultural industries, and cultural economy. Here we use creative industries pragmatically, acknowledging that the term is limited and somewhat contested (for additional clarity on the debate, see United Nations, 2013).

References Beeton, S. 2005. Film-Induced Tourism. Clevedon: Channel View. Bell, D. and Jayne, M. 2004. Afterwords: thinking in quarter. In City of Quarters, D. Bell and M. Jayne (eds), pp. 249–256. Aldershot: Ashgate. Brennan-Horley, C., Connell, J., and Gibson, C. 2007. The Parkes Elvis Revival Festival: economic development and contested place identities in rural Australia. Geographical Research, 45: 71–84. Buchmann, A., Moore, K., and Fisher, D. 2010. Experiencing film tourism. Authenticity and fellowship. Annals of Tourism Research, 37: 229–248. Busby, G. and Klug, J. 2001. Movie-induced tourism: the challenge of measurement and other issues. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7: 316–332. Carl, D., Kindon, S., and Smith, K. 2007. Tourists' experiences of film locations: New Zealand as ‘Middle-Earth’. Tourism Geographies, 9: 49–63. Chapple, K., Jackson, S., and Martin, A. 2010. Concentrating creativity: the planning of formal and informal arts districts. City, Culture and Society, 1: 225–234. Cohen, S. 2005. Country at the heart of the city: music, heritage and regeneration in Liverpool. Ethnomusicology, 49: 25–48. Connell, J. 2012. Film tourism – evolution, progress and prospects. Tourism Management, 33: 1007–1029.

Couldry, N. 1998. The view from inside the ‘simulacrum’: visitors' tales from the set of Coronation Street. Leisure Studies, 17: 94–107. Curtis, R. 2010. Australia's capital of jazz? The (re)creation of place, music and community at the Wangaratta Jazz Festival. Australian Geographer, 41: 101–116. Edensor, T. 2000. Staging tourism: tourists as performers. Annals of Tourism Research, 27: 322–344. Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books. Gallan, B. 2012. Gatekeeping night spaces: the role of booking agents in creating ‘local’ live music venues and scenes. Australian Geographer, 43: 35–50. Gassan, R. 2008. The Birth of American Tourism: New York, the Hudson Valley, and American Culture, 1790–1830. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Gibson, C. and Connell, J. 2003. ‘Bongo Fury’: tourism, music and cultural economy at Byron Bay, Australia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 94: 164–187. Gibson, C. and Connell, J. 2005. Music and Tourism. Channel View: Clevedon. Gibson, C. and Connell, J. 2012. Music Festivals and Regional Development in Australia. Ashgate: Farnham. Gibson, C. and Davidson, D. 2004. Tamworth, Australia's country music capital: place marketing, rurality, and residents reactions. Journal of Rural Studies, 20: 387–404. Gnuschke, J. and Wallace, J. 2004. Economic impact of the music industry in Memphis and Shelby County. Business Perspectives, 16: 18–27. Grodach, C. 2010. Beyond Bilbao: rethinking flagship cultural development and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29: 353–366. Hudson, S. and Ritchie, J.R.B. 2006. Promoting destinations via film tourism: an empirical identification of supporting marketing initiatives. Journal of Travel Research, 44: 387–396. Kong, L. 2007. Cultural icons and urban development in Asia: economic imperative, national identity and global city status. Political Geography, 26: 383–404. Kruse, R.J. 2005. The Beatles as place makers: narrated landscapes in Liverpool, England. Journal of Cultural Geography, 22: 87–114. Landry, C. 2000. The Creative City. London: Earthscan. Lash, S. and Urry, J. 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage Publications. Montgomery, J. 2004. Cultural quarters as mechanisms for urban regeneration. Part 2: a review of four cultural quarters in the UK, Ireland and Australia. Planning Practice & Research, 19:

3–31. Mordue, T. 1999. Heartbeat country: conflicting values, coinciding visions. Environment and Planning A, 31: 629–646. Plaza, B. 2006. The return on investment of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30: 452–467. Porter, L. and Barber, A. 2007. Planning the cultural quarter in Birmingham's Eastside. European Planning Studies, 15: 1327–1348. Rushbrook, D. 2002. Cities, queer space, and the cosmopolitan tourist. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 8: 183–206. Scott, A. 1999. The cultural economy: geography and the creative field. Media Culture & Society, 21: 807–817. Simeon, M. and Buonincontri, P. 2011. Cultural event as a territorial marketing tool. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20: 385–406. Tooke, N. and Baker, M. 1996. Seeing is believing: the effect of film on visitor numbers to screened locations. Tourism Management, 17: 87–96. Towner, J. 1985. The Grand Tour: a key phase in the history of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 12: 297–333. Tzanelli, R. 2004. Constructing the ‘cinematic tourist’: the ‘sign industry’ of The Lord of the Rings. Tourist Studies, 4: 21–42. United Nations 2013. Creative Economy Report 2013. Paris: UNESCO. van Aalst, I. and Boogaarts, I. 2002. From museum to mass entertainment: the evolution of the role of museum in cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 9: 195–209. van Niekerk, M. and Coetzee, W.J.L. 2011. Utilizing the VICE model for the sustainable development of the Innibos Arts Festival. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20: 347–365. Voase, R. 2009. Why Huddersfield? Media representations of a festival of contemporary music in the ‘unlikeliest of places’. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 7: 146–156. Waitt, G. and Duffy, M. 2010. Listening and tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 37: 457–477. Waitt, G. and Markwell, K. 2006. Gay Tourism: Culture and Context. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press. Walmsley, D.J. 2003. Rural tourism: a case of lifestyle-led opportunities. Australian Geographer, 34: 61–72.

Zukin, S. 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell. Zukin, S. and Braslow, L. 2011 The life cycle of New York's creative district: reflections on the unanticipated consequences of unplanned cultural zones. City, Culture and Society, 2: 131– 140.

Chapter 19 Mobilities, Ethnicity, and Tourism Kevin Meethan

The Mobility Paradigm The basis of the mobility paradigm as outlined by Urry (2007; see also Sheller and Urry, 2007) starts with the assumption that social relations can no longer be conceived as being composed of societies or cultures as distinct autonomous units containing sedentary populations. Rather, they are best conceptualized as a complex system of dynamic flows that cut across spatial boundaries involving diverse and multiple connections. In many respects this is a familiar description of the contemporary condition of globalization which has had a profound effect on societies and cultures over recent decades. However, we need to be wary of assuming that this brave new world has suddenly sprung into existence without precedent, and that the world of mobilities exists as an ahistorical, timeless present that sweeps all in its path. Movement is not of course a new phenomenon, as a long view of history clearly shows: significant movements of people have occurred in the past, and, as McKeown (2004) makes clear, in terms of actual numbers the global movement of population rose in the latter half of the nineteenth century and peaked in the mid-twentieth century, since when it has been in decline. Of course, we are not dealing simply with quantity here, and while the nineteenth century could be seen as exemplifying an early phase of globalization, what is significant about its contemporary form is that there has been a significant shift in both the breadth and depth of global connectivity over the past three to four decades. This has been both rapid and encompassing to the extent that, within the current phase of globalization, boundaries of all kinds, both spatial and conceptual, can no longer be taken as given. The nation state is challenged by the growth of supranational organizations such as the European Union as much as by multinational corporations which, despite the current economic turmoil, exert considerable power. The system of production and consumption and labor relations upon which modern capitalism relies is increasingly organized on a global level (Glenn, 2007; Lechner and Boli, 2012). Technology enables wider communication and increasing flows of information that also allow individuals to connect with others in real time. Such changes pose many challenges, among which is the need to develop theoretical models to describe this shifting world. One approach is to move away from models of sociality which arguably privilege, or perhaps more accurately assume, that national boundaries and national states provide social science with the units of analysis. Such assumptions are (with some exceptions) untenable; the analysis of our shifting world requires a focus on the movements, flows, and mobilities of people, goods, and information as central to social enquiry (Creswell, 2006; Urry, 2007). However, as with all new paradigms there is a need for caution. It may be tempting to view the contemporary condition of globalization as a new, deracinated force that sweeps all before it and that tradition and ethnicity are the surviving remnants of this onslaught, but even a cursory acquaintance with history calls this into question. Another aspect we have

to consider is that mobilities, of whatever sort, are never uniform in their manifestations or effects, and can be resisted, controlled, diverted, or stopped. After all, the movement of tourists, workers, migrants, and refugees are all forms of mobility that are very different in terms of both their causes and effects, and as recent political events continue to remind us the movements of people across boundaries are often perceived as an existential threat and met with hostility, especially when they are perceived as different and other (Said, 1993; Pieterse, 2007). Mobility then may reinforce differences as much as it may blend them, so to speak, as in the development of a global cosmopolitanism that we see in many world cities. The full implications of such a shift, indeed a full description of the mobilities paradigm itself, are beyond the scope of this short chapter; however, some aspects of how this applies to tourism in general and the question of ethnic tourism in particular can be addressed. I have long argued that while tourism is symptomatic of contemporary forms of globalization and hence mobility in general, it also has some unique characteristics, especially its transitory nature. At a structural level tourism is linked to the distinction that emerged within modernity between leisure and work, between leisure spaces and work spaces (Meethan, 2001). A fundamental difference between tourism and other forms of movement is that, by definition, tourism mobility is specifically time-limited, transitory, and undertaken for purposes of leisure consumption and as such involves a number of processes through which the mobility of people is both created and controlled (see also Sheller and Urry, 2007). It is this transitory and leisured nature that distinguishes it from other forms of mobility that may be motivated by other reasons, as mentioned above. Yet there is more to tourism that the physical relocation of people. What is also of great significance is the way that tourism relies on the commodification of people and place or, to be more precise, the commodification of a people in a place that is fed in part by expectations derived from the perhaps less tangible, but not less important, ideas and expectations that frame the tourist experience. This is what Urry has termed “imagined presence” and its corollary, “imagined travel” (Urry, 2007: 47), and which has also been called the tourism imaginary.

The Tourism Imaginary This refers to the sum total of practices, images, texts, films, videos, books, websites, and forms of knowledge that, either directly or indirectly, contribute towards the creation and maintenance of spaces as tourist destinations. No tourist travels blind, except the unwary, as all travel is hedged with ideas and expectations of what we will find, or perhaps more accurately, to have our expectations met or challenged. While there is always an individual element at work here, the tourist imaginary also both reflects and creates the more common forms of representation by which people and places are characterized in terms of (often presumed) essential characteristics: we know both people and place because we recognize them as such. The tourism imaginary includes elements of both public and private knowledge, it is, as Salazar notes, “… a mental, individual and social process that produces the reality that

simultaneously produces it” (Salazar, 2010: 6). It also involves, to quote Salazar again, “… schemes of interpretation” (Salazar, 2012: 864), which are themselves based on the existence of a wider collective schema of tropes, metaphors, and other forms of cultural representation and production, which in turn define and create the differences between one society and culture and another. In terms of tourism we can easily recognize such representations in the form of guidebooks and advertising, the stock in trade of tourism marketing, and for better or worse the lives of others have exerted a powerful hold on people's imaginations. Advertising copy and marketing though rely on the recognition of wider forms of cultural expression that range from TV shows and films – both fictional and documentary – to the use of photography to blogs, novels, performances, and other forms of art and commodity production that in some cases will also be implicated, both directly and indirectly, with political considerations (Bishop, 1989; Said, 1993; Picard and Wood, 1997; Phillips and Steiner, 1999; Hillman, 2003; Strain, 2003; Gorsuch and Koenker, 2006; Meethan et al., 2006; Morton and Edwards, 2009; Salazar, 2010, 2012; Reijnders, 2011; Gao et al., 2012; Tivers and Rakić, 2012). The tourism imaginary then is a form of collective and public knowledge that is created through praxis and also informs praxis, something that we, as tourists and tourism analysts, contribute to through our own actions as well as our personal and private networks of friends and family. There is, however, one final element that we need to consider, for as Wearing et al. (2010) remind us, knowledge is practical, rather than simply discursive. The tourism imaginary is not a fixed and inert entity but involves active engagement in the process of place making. In short, the tourism imaginary can be summarized as comprising the sum total of both real and imagined presences, and the ways in which these can be combined in various tropes which is evident with the relationship between ethnicity and tourism.

Defining Ethnicity Ethnicity is a multifaceted label, and defining it is no easy matter. Anyone attempting to do so is immediately confronted with a large and multidisciplinary literature (for a comprehensive account and overview see Pieterse, 2007; Brubaker, 2009) as well as numerous popular and commonsensical definitions. Despite this diversity, there are seven salient features that can be identified as being of both general and of particular relevance to the topic under discussion here. First, ethnicity is a voluntary form of self-identification that involves the assertion of difference by culture (Brubaker, 2009: 25). The idea of voluntarism is important as ethnicity is not a given or an essential characteristic that people simply possess by virtue of birth. People claiming ethnicity are exercising agency (even if in constraining circumstances) and involving themselves in the conscious manipulation of social and cultural forms. There may be political ends to be served or, as is often the case with tourism, the commodification of culture, bearing in mind that these are not mutually exclusive categories (Phillips and Steiner, 1999). To claim ethnicity then is to define and maintain the existence of boundaries that both include (those who

are like us) as much as exclude (those who are other). Second, ethnicity is a form of group identification which, at a number of levels, is not easily distinguished from, or rather can be enmeshed in, cognate definitions of both race and nation. This most commonly equates a people with a place, often typified as a point of origin or a homeland (Timothy and Guelke, 2008). The third point relates to the ways in which ethnicity is often associated with minority status within a larger polity, even if we regard that as an ethnic majority (Wimmer, 2004). In this sense, a migrant community can be viewed as ethnic, in the same way that minority nationalisms can also be seen as ethnic. In turn this leads on to the fourth point which is that ethnicity is often defined in relation to a metropolitan center, particularly in terms of a colonized other (Harrell, 1995; Hall, 1997; Gutiérrez, 1999). The fifth point is that ethnicity is often perceived as forms of identity that are, to a greater or lesser extent, nonmodern (Phillips and Steiner, 1999: 18). Ethnicity in this sense is elided with tradition, what has been left behind in the relentless march of modernity, the primitive “… ancient and unchanged” as Harrell (1995: 15) puts it, that which is perceived as natural (Hall, 1997) and, I would add, inalienable (Meethan, 2008). The sixth point is that despite this equation of ethnicity with the nonmodern and even primordial, we have to acknowledge that forms of ethnicity are “… increasingly understood to have been generated by structural and cultural transformations that have been global in scope” (Brubaker, 2009: 23). It is here that we see the importance of mobility as a factor in defining ethnicity. Globalization may challenge the established order of national hierarchies and, rather than eliminate ethnic differences, give rise to situations where ethnicity actually becomes more salient as a form of identification, and therefore also as a factor to be commodified. Here we can clearly see one of the apparent paradoxes of globalization: while on some levels we see a trend towards uniformity and standardization across the globe, on others we see a countervailing trend that asserts locality and ethnicity and difference. It is also important to stress, as mentioned in the introduction, that such processes have a long history and cannot simply be regarded as a reflection of the contemporary condition of globalization and mobility (Pieterse, 2007: 75–78), which is an issue I will return to below. The seventh and final point is that while ethnicity fixes boundaries, both physically and conceptually, we have to recognize that these are emergent and mutable (Brubaker, 2009: 28); even claiming a primordial and autochthonous attachment to a place is a part of boundary maintenance, of creating and asserting differences. Despite claims that may assert ethnicities as timeless, they are never fixed, and as such they need to be analyzed as a dynamic process, as a means of creating boundaries and claims to shared identities which are constantly being reinforced and renegotiated within particular conditions, and in many cases we can also see that they are rooted in the tourism imaginary.

Ethnicity and Tourism Yang and Wall (2009: 599) date the emergence of the term ethnic tourism to 1977 (see also Picard and Wood, 1997). However, while it may not have been specifically labeled as such,

forms of ethnic tourism and commodification can be dated back much earlier to what we would recognize as the beginnings of modern tourism in the mid-nineteenth century when, as Strain comments “… the world's distant locales were seen as places from which to extract pleasure” (Strain, 2003: 42). Once subjugated and no longer a threat, colonial people, their ways of life, and their customs became objects to be looked at and wondered over (Phillips and Steiner, 1999; Meethan, 2010). Arguably this went hand in hand with the wider forces and processes of colonialism, mass mobility, and modernity, a consequence of the early phase of globalization. That one caveat aside, Yang and Wall (2009) provide a very useful overview of the ways in which ethnicity and tourism interact, and also the point at which more contemporary forms of ethnic tourism began to be specifically labeled as such. As they note, exoticism and primitiveness and a cultivated sense of nonmodernity are the key elements, which in turn can create a number of tensions, such as that between the need to maintain the exoticism that is the attraction, and the desire by those people to experience the benefits that modernity and globalization can bring. Like most forms of tourism, ethnic tourism is also fixed to specific places and locales, as much as involving the attributes of people themselves. Of course, these may well be intercut with political issues at a number of levels that can involve, for example, national forms of identity as much as more localized ones (Picard, 1996; Yang and Wall, 2006). As a form of commodification, ethnic tourism can also contribute to cultural survival, practices, artifacts, and even ways of life that may otherwise be swept away by globalizing forces; as much as ethnicity is mutable and negotiable, so too are the forms created to meet the demands of the tourist market. Whether or not this is perceived as some form of loss depends, I would argue, on the broad analytical approach that may be taken towards the subject and the ways that people define their ethnicity. A paradigm based on the assumptions of mobility – that stasis is assumed rather than given, that national boundaries do not determine cultural forms – will necessarily favor explanations of cultural change as pragmatic adaptations to current circumstances rather than, say, a loss of tradition in the face of overwhelming and dystopian global processes. The point that I wish to stress here is that when we are dealing with the apparent immediacy and newness that is often implied by the mobilities paradigm, we need to recognize that despite the major changes that have occurred as a consequence of globalization, the world of mobilities has not suddenly sprung into being as an ahistorical present. I suggest that we need to have a broader and historically informed perspective that accounts for the fact that first, mobility has always been a feature of human life, and that second, some changes have a deeper structural basis than might first be imagined, This is not to say that the mobilities paradigm is inherently wrong, rather it needs to be seen as working at a deeper level and over a longer period of time that might first be apparent, and that what we need to consider is the longue durée (Lee, 2012). To sum up so far, commodifying ethnicity, and doing so on a world stage, is not a new phenomenon. While the actual forms this takes may change, there is no doubt that the lives of others have exerted a strong fascination for many people, and continue to do so, and that ethnic tourism is one way in which this is realized is through the tourism imaginary. A short example will help illustrate the points I have been making with reference to recognizable elements of

exoticism, at least in Western eyes, in the example of San Francisco's Chinatown during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Chinatown One of the clearest examples of the ways in which a specific space has been constructed as a site of ethnic tourism is San Francisco's Chinatown (Keeler, 1902; Asbury, 1933/2002; Chen, 2000; Rast, 2007; Santos et al., 2008; Santos and Yan, 2008). Like other ethnic enclaves in nineteenth-century USA, Chinatown (as it became known, see Chen, 2000: 98) had developed as a result of both labor mobility that had brought immigrants to the USA as well as a distinct sense of racial otherness that both physically and socially delimited and confined Chinese migrants to a small area of the city. In many ways such developments were the typical experience of other migrant groups within urban USA, but it was arguably the obvious and visible differences that marked the Chinese as the most other of all minority migrant groups. Everything about them, from dress to beliefs to food and language, was unique to Western eyes, but, in line with nineteenth-century ideology, presumed moral values were also associated with racial characteristics (Bonner, 1997; Chen, 2000). This was most obviously manifest in the physical nature of Chinatown itself: crowded, insanitary, a site of opium dens, prostitution, and gambling: a danger to the established order. The equation of people and place resulted in what Asbury described as “… white San Franciscans regarded the living quarters in Chinatown as pest-holes of filth and squalor” (Asbury, 1933/2002: 14). Space does not permit a fuller exploration of the history of this development nor the widespread casual and institutional racism that helped shape it (see Bonner, 1997; Chen, 2000). For the purposes of this chapter it is sufficient to note that as Chinatown and its inhabitants became a “permanent” fixture in San Francisco, and also as more Chinatowns emerged in other cities (Santos et al., 2008), it also began to attract tourists who, initially at least, came to have their worst prejudices confirmed. In 1887, under the strapline “Looking the Chinese Evil in the Face,” the Daily Alta reported that: Chinatown was alive last night with mixed parties of Eastern tourists intent on seeing everything. … Chinese restaurants, lodging houses, opium dens and underground basements were inspected. … The general verdict of the visitors is that Chinatown contains more depravity per square foot that any other town in America. (Daily Alta, California, vol. 42, no. 13728, April 2, 1887) Chinatown was constructed in the imaginations of the majority white population as a place of danger as much as otherness, a liminal zone, positioned both materially and symbolically between two cultures (Andrews and Roberts, 2012). The depictions above are far from unique and, for example, Rast's study (2007) notes how tourism in Chinatown in the late nineteenth century often involved the performance of staged authenticity purely for tourist consumption that, for example, included the creation of supposed opium dens. Performances of this kind conformed to the dominant values and expectations of their era; these tourists were indulging in a form of slumming that helped create the place and its inhabitants by confirming and

reinforcing their prejudices (Toweil, 2010). Such prejudices were in turn created by forms of discourse that drew on existing tropes of exoticism and orientalism. It was these elements of the tourism imaginary which framed the expectations of the tourists and, in turn, the act of witnessing confirmed and reinforced them: what better way to assert superiority than to witness the depravity of others first hand. Like all representations, though, this was open to challenge, with some local people seeking to replace this image of depravity by redefining their ethnicity in terms of architecture and cuisine (Rast, 2007), precisely the kind of description we find in a book published in 1902 by the California Promotion Committee, clearly intended as an early form of civic boosterism: The restuarants and joss houses are particularly striking on account of their steep balconies ornamented with carved woodwork, brightly colored or gilded … [on visiting a restaurant] I retired to a corner listening the while to the high pitched sing-song voices of the revellers, the rapping of drums, clanging of cymbals and squeaking of fiddles, and imagining myself a disciple of Confucius in the heart of the Flowery Kingdom. (Keeler, 1902: 60–62) Such transformations were evident elsewhere too, as other cities in the USA with Chinese populations began to see them not so much as a threat, but as a resource, leavened no doubt by an element of civic competition. For example, in 1905 in nearby Los Angeles, a local paper reported that: Beginning with today, the Seeing California Traffic Bureau puts into service two new electric service [tram] trips. … The “Seeing Chinatown Trip” will be made in a private observation car starting at 8 o'clock in the evening. … Los Angeles has the second largest Chinatown in the country [and] … offers everything that can be seen in San Francisco. (Los Angeles Herald, vol. 32, no. 105, January 14, 1905) Whether or not this involved opium dens is not recorded, but the shift from a moral danger to a tourist destination was further reinforced with the introduction of tour guides, people who acted as cultural brokers that could negotiate the differences between the culture of Chinatown and the dominant culture of the time. The following newspaper excerpt from 1913 demonstrates not only this, but also a difference between those who venture in to Chinatown and those who merely look, an early version of the familiar “traveler” and “tourist” distinction: H.J. Lewis, the official licensed Chinatown tours guide … speaks the Chinese dialect [and] … personally conducts his parties in and out of Chinatown's quaint streets. … Lewis has nothing to do with the automobile “rubberneck” cars that carry crowds of tourists on a lightning ride through Chinatown, for Chinatown is only three squares from Market Street, and the “rubbernecks” are merely a decoy to attract the stranger, who pays for the ride but does not receive the service he expects to receive. (San Francisco Call, vol. 113, no. 85, February 23, 1913) This brief example outlined above can only be indicative of some of the early developments and emergence of ethnic tourism, but nonetheless it also acts as a means to address some of the

issues that arise from the mobilities paradigm as well as the issue of history that, I think, has tended to be downplayed in many accounts of tourism. As an ethnic enclave, Chinatown developed as a consequence of labor market mobility which was global in scale and scope during the mid- to late nineteenth century. The inhabitants were typified as “other” through a mixture of stereotyping based on perceived racial differences. Over time, we can also see a shift from being objects of scorn, whose presence reinforces the moral superiority of the majority, into a form of exoticism that can be commodified and toured. This also indicates the ways in which the tourism imaginary: the way that such things are framed, the expectations of people and place that we can find in popular culture, in the media and so on, are themselves subject to forms of change and mobility.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections There is no doubt that the current situation of globalization, and the mobility that comes with that, challenges many of the accepted social and conceptual boundaries from which we construct our social worlds. We can look to the ways in which commodities, practices, and ideas now circulate in systems of (at times) baffling complexity. As outlined above, ethnic tourism commodifies people, places as much as artifacts, and other aspects of social life such as dance and ceremonies and other forms of performance. These are marked as other counterposed to globalization which is often typified as a deracinated, footloose, and mobile force, and that ethnicity and tradition are survivors, the remains of a more primitive way of life. Forms of ethnicity are forms of identity that involve an element of conscious choice and, to a greater of lesser degree, the boundaries that define one people from another have always been fluid. We also need to consider that mobility itself is not new, and such a realization does not mean abandoning the mobilities paradigm; rather, it means extending and recasting it in terms that recognize the historical nature of social change and of course the history of tourism itself. This means in turn we have to acknowledge that the flows of mobility are not necessarily welcome events. Despite that fact that as analysts and academics (or even as educated cosmopolitans) we recognize the precarious and transitory nature of social organization, for those on the ground as it were, the maintenance of social and political boundaries can be a matter of the utmost importance, and perhaps even of survival. Mobility can, and is, resisted in a variety of forms and places. Its effects are uneven, some undoubtedly benefit and others less so. While the social sciences (broadly defined) have long discarded static paradigms of society, those whose lives we study may still claim that the rootedness of a people in a place, a language, a prescribed set of behaviors and so on, and the essentialism that it entails, is precisely what maintains the divisions and boundaries between them and us. We can also argue that the processes and flows of tourism commodification are themselves, in some instances at least, reinforcing attachments to place, people, and nation. There is also the need to bear in mind some methodological issues. As ethnicity is by and large a voluntary form of self-identification, it cannot easily be apprehended through what we might

regard as the standard techniques of survey research. For every person who was willing to tick a box that described their ethnicity, there would no doubt be someone else who would tick a box marked “other.” Like all forms of identity, ethnicity needs to be apprehended through types of data collection and inquiry that can acknowledge the often blurred social boundaries and particular socioeconomic circumstances which contribute to the formation of ethnicity. It is perhaps no surprise then that most studies of ethnicity have been carried out using ethnographic field methods that are sensitive to the nuances of social interaction and identity formation. Constructing ethnicity is one thing, but consuming it another, so rather that talking about ethnicity in general, it is perhaps more instructive to think about which aspects of ethnicity can be apprehended in relation to the wider issues of tourism and mobility; for example, the relation between commodification and ethnicity and why some types are more favored over others, and how different forms of ethnicities themselves construct the “other.” While peoples' perceptions of their own ethnicity may be hard to quantify, that is perhaps not the case when we are dealing with tourists' perceptions and expectations of ethnicity which may be more amenable to more standard forms of measurement. Nonetheless, what we also have to consider is that any matching of perceptions to an ideal – the tourism imaginary – is just that; it does not tell us where the ideal comes from, and that in turn requires a different, more interpretivist methodology. As a starting point I would suggest a focus on the tourism imaginary and ethnicity, by analyzing the common tropes, narratives, and imagery that are taken to exemplify ethnicity. We also need to consider that the visual is important here, as the brief example above shows: what defines the people and the place is the way it appears, the way it looks, the way it conforms to and informs the tourism imaginary. While forms of visual analysis have always been an element of tourism studies, they tend (with some exceptions) to have been subsumed under more logocentric approaches. I would suggest that a study of ethnicity within the tourism imaginary offers the possibility of developing a more visually informed analysis. In themselves these points are perhaps nothing new, but our mobile world offers some interesting methodological opportunities. To describe them all would be a different chapter, but it is worth outlining some of these as a starting point. The increasing spread of social media should not be underestimated as a means to elicit information: online surveys are now common, but other forms of social interaction such as blogs offer a means to get in touch with potential informants, as well as being a ready source of information in their own right. Travel blogs in particular are the latest manifestation and democratization of travel writing, itself a key component of the tourism imaginary; analyzing such blogs would reveal many of the dynamics by which the tourism imaginary is created and sustained. One final point on methodology is the increasing use of online archive sources (such as those I used as source material above) that have enormous potential, as yet mostly unrealized, to help create an historically informed analysis, one that can trace the development of the tourism imaginary through time. As I have been careful to point out, the current situation of global mobility may be new but it is by no means unprecedented, and perhaps it is time for tourism analysis, a fully established discipline its own right, to engage not only the present but also the

past. I would suggest that the processes of commodification that inhere to tourist space are a consequence of structural mobility that has deep historical roots. It is the real lives of people we need to consider, whether of the past or of the present: the ways in which they negotiate and deal with the existential uncertainties of mobility and possible loss of identity on the one hand, and the existential anchors and certainties that tradition and ethnicity may offer on the other. We have to account not just for the tangible material elements of mobility, but also the knowledge and representational forms of the social worlds we inhabit and which contribute to the tourism imaginary. Here we can trace the development of ideas, and how that knowledge informs and creates the actual practices of tourism.

References Andrews, H. and Roberts, L. (eds) 2012. Liminal Landscapes: Travel, Experience and Spaces In-Between. London: Routledge. Asbury, H. 1933/2002. The Barbary Coast: An informal history of the San Francisco underworld. Thunder's Mouth Press: New York. Bishop, P. 1989. The Myth of Shangri-La: Tibet, Travel Writing and the Creation of Sacred Landscape. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Bonner, A. 1997. Alas! What Brought Thee Hither? The Chinese in New York 1800–1950. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. Brubaker, R. 2009. Ethnicity, race, and nationalism. Annual Review of Sociology, 35: 21–42. Chen. Y. 2000. Chinese San Francisco 1850–1943: A Trans-Pacific Community. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cresswell, T. 2006. On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. London: Routledge. Gao, B.W., Zhang, H., and L'Espoir Decosta, P. 2012. Phantasmal destinations: a postmodernist perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 197–220. Glenn, J. 2007. Globalisation: North–South Perspectives. London: Routledge. Gorsuch, A. and Koenker, D. (eds) 2006. Turizm: Russian and East European Tourism Under Capitalism and Socialism. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press. Gutiérrez, D. 1999. Migration, emergent ethnicity and the “third space”. The shifting poliics of nationalism in Greater Mexico. Journal of American History, 86: 481–517. Hall, S. 1997. The local and the global: globalization and ethnicity. In Dangerous Liaisons: Gender, Nature and Post – Colonial Perspectives, A. MacClintock, A. Mufti, and A. Shohat

(eds), pp. 173–187. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. Harrell, S. (ed) 1995. Cultural Encounters on China's Ethnic Frontiers. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Hillman, B. 2003. Paradise under construction: minorities, myths and modernity in northwest Yunnan. Asian Ethnicity, 4(2): 175–188. Keeler, C. 1902. San Francisco and Thereabout. San Francisco: The California Promotion Committee. Lechner, F.J. and Boli, J. (eds) 2012. The Globalization Reader, 4th edn. Wiley Blackwell: Chichester Lee, R.E. (ed) 2012. The Longue Durée and World Systems Analysis. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. McKeown, A. 2004. Global migration 1846–1940. Journal of World History, 15(2): 155–189. Meethan, K. 2001. Tourism in Global Society. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Meethan, K. 2008. Remaking time and space: the internet, digital archives and genealogy. In Geography and Genealogy: Locating Personal Pasts, D. Timothy and J.K. Guelke (eds), pp. 99–114. Aldershot: Ashgate. Meethan, K. 2010. Touring the other: Buffalo Bill's Wild West in Europe. Journal of Tourism History, 2(2): 117–132. Meethan, K., Anderson, A., and Miles, S. (eds) 2006. Tourism Consumption and Representation. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Morton, C. and Edwards, E. (eds) 2009. Photography, Anthropology and History: Expanding the Frame. Farnham: Ashgate. Phillips, R.B. and Steiner, C.B. (eds) 1999. Unpacking Culture: Art and Commodity in Colonial and Post-Colonial Worlds. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Picard, M. 1996. Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture. Singapore: Archipelago Press. Picard, M. and Wood, R. (eds) 1997. Tourism, Ethnicity and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Pieterse, J.N. 2007. Ethnicities and Global Multiculture: Pants for an Octopus. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield. Rast, R. 2007. The cultural politics of tourism in San Francisco's Chinatown, 1882–1917. Pacific Historical Review, 76(1): 29–60.

Reijnders, S. 2011. Places of the Imagination: Media, Tourism, Culture. Farnham: Ashgate. Said, E. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. London: Chatto and Windus. Salazar, N. 2010. Envisioning Eden: Mobilizing Imaginaries in Tourism and Beyond. New York: Berghahn Books. Salazar, N. 2012. Tourism imaginaries: a conceptual approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2): 863–882. Santos, C.A., Belhassen, Y., and Caton, K. 2008. Reimagining Chinatown: an analysis of tourism discourse. Tourism Management, 29(5): 1002–1012. Santos, C.A. and Yan, G. 2008. Representational politics in Chinatown: the ethnic other. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(4): 879–899. Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (eds) 2007. Tourism Mobilities: Places To Play, Places to Stay. London: Sage Publications. Strain, E. 2003. Public Places, Private Journeys: Ethnography, Entertainment and the Tourist Gaze. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Timothy, D. and Guelke, J.K. (eds) 2008. Geography and Genealogy: Locating Personal Pasts. Aldershot: Ashgate. Tivers, J. and Rakić, T. (eds) 2012. Narratives of Travel and Tourism. Farnham: Ashgate. Toweil, J.M. 2010. Slumming and the 19thC Geographical Imagination. Unpublished MA thesis, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. http://acumen.lib.ua.edu/content/u0015/0000001/0000275/u0015_0000001_0000275.pdf. Urry, J. 2007. Mobilities. Polity Press: Cambridge. Wearing, S., Stevenson, D. and Young, T. 2010. Tourist Cultures: Identity, Place and the Traveller. London: Sage Publications. Wimmer, A. 2004. Dominant ethnicity and dominant nationhood. In Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority Groups and Dominant Minorities, E.P. Kaufmann (ed), pp. 40–58. London: Routledge. Yang, L. and Wall, G. 2006. Ethnic tourism development: Chinese Government perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3): 751–771. Yang, L. and Wall, G. 2009. Ethnic tourism: a framework and an application. Tourism Management, 30: 559–570.

Chapter 20 GPS, Smartphones, and the Future of Tourism Research Noam Shoval, Michal Isaacson, and Prem Chhetri The development of Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, cell phones, and recently smartphones is a very dynamic domain, with the potential to capture ubiquitous and real-time spatial human movement and behavior. The rapid adoption of these devices shows that our social interactions, economic engagement, and individual existence including personalized life activities are now being shaped by the use of these devices, which have recently become easily accessible and more affordable. Although research employing these technologies in tourism is not yet mature, in our view enough has been accomplished at this stage to be documented. Furthermore, the possibilities for implementation of these technologies for the purposes of research are increasing and have the power to change tourism mobility research as it stands today. Until recently, the most common method for gathering information on human time–space patterns was the time–space diary. This method provides a systematic record of the way in which individuals occupy their time in space over a limited period, be it a few hours, a day, or a week (Anderson, 1971). While time–space diaries have been used to great effect (see, for example, Janelle et al., 1988) they do have several disadvantages as research tools. In particular, time–space diaries require that the subjects are actively involved in the process of data collection by recording, in detail and at length, their activities throughout the entire experiment (Thornton et al., 1997). Since participants often fail to record their actions faithfully, the data obtained are often of questionable credibility. Nonetheless, the temporal dimension is what makes geography different from geometry (Parks and Thrift, 1980). The expansion of navigation technology, the increased ease of gathering digital spatial data, and the growth in computing capacity to manage great volumes of data have led to a situation where it is time to consider both the spatial and temporal behavior of tourist movement.

The Introduction of GPS to Social Science Research and to Tourism Studies GPS devices offer researchers the opportunity of continuous and intensive high-resolution data collection in time (seconds) and space (meters) for long periods of time; this was never possible before in spatial science research. GPS allows the spatial and temporal positioning of tourists to be captured through a network of satellites orbiting in space around the Earth. Each tourist visit involves some form of movement and a series of social interactions with other visitors. The movement of a tourist across space and over time can be ascertained from recorded x and y coordinate pairs as well as a recorded time collected through a GPS receiver. Acquiring tourist movements in time and space has the potential in providing arrival

and departure times, attractions visited, the sequence of attractions visited, as well as walking speed and orientation. Spatiotemporal characteristics of tourist movements are recorded in GPS devices to capture parameters such as sites visited, time of day (when), duration (how long), and sequence (what order). Changes in these characteristics indicate changes in tourist positioning that in turn reflect exhibited tourist behavior. Scheduling of recreational activities that a tourist plans to undertake at a destination is therefore inextricably embedded within the constraints of space and time. Understanding of mobility of tourist within the limits imposed by space and time will help answering queries such as What are the typical patterns exhibited by day visitors compared to those visitors on a longer stay? and Where and when are peak capacities occurring? GPS and other tracking technologies are now used in a wide variety of fields aside from tourism, such as environmental health (Phillips et al., 2001; Elgethun et al., 2003); the medical field, in such subjects as Alzheimer's disease (Miskelly, 2004, 2005; Shoval et al., 2008), physiology (Terrier and Schutz, 2005), and cardiology (Le Faucheur et al., 2008); and as a tool to assist in navigation for visually impaired and blind pedestrians (Golledge et al., 1991, 1998; Maeda et al., 2002). However, to date, most of the research conducted based on material gathered by advanced technologies has been in the field of transportation studies, usually in regard to tracking the spatial paths of motor vehicles (see, for example, Zito et al., 1995; Quiroga and Bullock, 1998; Wolf et al., 2001; Bohte and Maat, 2009). Emerging technologies have resolved both data-collection and analysis problems, and in doing so have potentially revolutionized research into tourist behavior in urban destinations and in open areas. GPS loggers with an accuracy of at least 10 m can track a tourist's location as frequently as every second at every point on Earth. These instruments have resolved the datacollection challenge by providing a level of fineness of detail that was previously unavailable. Geographic Information System (GIS) software can analyze these high-resolution data quickly and efficiently, and importantly provide a range of analytical options including tracking tourist movements, time analysis, space analysis, and length of stay (Shoval and Isaacson, 2007a). One concern in GIS is the storage, representation, and querying of mobile objects such as humans, animals, or vehicles that move within geographical space. Mobile objects are entities that are able to perform actions and have properties. Time geography is one such framework developed in geography, during the 1950s and 1960s, through which data logged in GPS devices can be data mined to analyze mobile objects in space and time (Hägerstrand, 1970; Raper, 2000; Peuquet, 2002). In recent years a growing body of work has demonstrated the efficacy and the limitations of using tracking technologies to explore leisure and tourist activities (for a review see Shoval and Isaacson, 2010). As with any emerging technology, tourism researchers are still experimenting to determine the limits of its application. To date, much of the research implementing tracking technologies has tended to be rather descriptive and small scale. Some more sophisticated studies have been conducted, but they have mostly been tightly spatially bound, for example, focusing on small historic cities (Modsching et al., 2008; Shoval, 2008; van der Spek, 2008; Tchetchik et al., 2009), confined attractions like theme parks and zoos (Russo et al., 2010; Pettersson and

Zillinger, 2011), natural parks (Arrowsmith and Chhetri, 2003; Harder et al., 2008; Hallo et al., 2012), and small islands (Xia et al., 2009; Nielsen et al., 2010). Each of these locales has a clearly defined entry and exit point, making both the selection of potential participants and the modeling of their movements easier tasks. Only few large, complex, and multifunctional urban settings like Rome (Calabrese and Ratti, 2006) and Hong Kong have also been investigated successfully using GPS (McKercher et al., 2012; Shoval et al., 2012). Recently, we are aware of wide scale GPS-based surveys on a national scale (Figure 20.1).

Figure 20.1. Different scales of studies using tracking technologies in the recent decade. An Estonian group of researchers (Ahas et al., 2007, 2008) used cellular-network information on a national scale to gain insight into the activity of tourists in Estonia. In the first paper, published in 2007, cellular phone data were used to establish spatial patterns of tourists in different seasons. The second paper focused on the flows of tourist movement as can be observed by the records describing the roaming phones in the cell-phone network's database.

The Smartphone Revolution and it Implications for Tourists and Researchers The implication of the fast and wide introduction of smartphones since about 2005 has created immense availability of information for their users at any time and any place; this also has implications for the ability of tourists to receive information while touring destinations and changes the whole paradigm about tourists′ knowledge of destinations (Tussyadiah and Zach, 2012). However, until recently, due to the high roaming prices for phones crossing international borders, the use of such data by tourists was relatively limited. However, recently use of local SIM cards and attractive international roaming programs, making smartphones relevant for tourists. The other implication is for tourism research, as will be discussed below. Smartphones are highly programmable cell-phone devices which integrate powerful computing abilities, advanced communication, and geolocation technologies, as well as several other

useful functionalities that may be practical for researchers. The “always on always worn” (unlike GPS loggers used in research so far) status of smartphones turns them into accessible mediums through which surveys can be delivered and self-completed by respondents in their immediate, natural environment. Other than self-report questionnaires, smartphones can supply researchers with physiological, behavioral, and locomotion information which can be generated automatically based on built-in and external sensors. Several researchers outside the tourism research realm have already taken advantage of smartphone capabilities and employed them in their studies. The majority of these studies come from the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and medicine, but several examples from social science can be found as well. Raento et al. (2009) were one of the first groups to discern the potential of smartphones as a research tool in general and for social science in particular. While their initial motivation comes from the field of human–computer interaction, which explores how people use and interact with computers, they do note that smartphones could be useful tools for social science researchers. Gaggioli et al. (2011) developed Psychlog, an open source cell-phone platform that allows recording and analysis of individuals′ psychological, physiological, and activity information based on self-report questionnaires and sensor information. They conducted a small pilot study with six students for a period of 1 week, during which they recorded heart rate samples (via electrocardiography) and collected self-assessment digital forms for the purpose of monitoring participants′ concurrent stress and psychological arousal during their daily lives. Their results “suggest the feasibility and accuracy of using [their] system to monitor the dynamic psychophysiological profile of mental health constructs such as stress in ecological situations” (Gaggioli et al., 2011: 9). However, their system has two prominent disadvantages. First, it works offline and therefore requires manual downloading of the information collected. Second, the system runs on the Windows Mobile operating system, which today is not among the more popular mobile operating systems. The use of smartphones in general is fraught with a number of disadvantages. The relatively short battery life of the phones, at the time of writing this chapter, may limit the use of the devices for surveying purposes; however, new batteries types introduced recently may be able to tackle this shortcoming. Another drawback has to do with the validity of the samples: to date, fewer than 50% of people in developed countries own a smartphone, which might lead to sample biases. However, this situation is expected to change in the near future, with the increase of smartphone penetration rates. A third disadvantage that might hinder the smooth implementation of smartphones as a research tool is that most of the systems and software, such as those reviewed above, require some knowledge of programming or at least familiarity with the structure of XML files and how to write them. Finally, smartphones run on several different operating systems; this requires researchers to develop several different applications to meet the specifications of each operating system.

GPS Data and the Potential for Complex Spatiotemporal Modeling and Data Mining Due to the availability of high-resolution spatial and temporal data there are new horizons for complex spatiotemporal modeling and data mining. For example, Arrowsmith and Chhetri (2003) adopted GPS technology to identify typical spatial behavior sequences within a park site including where visitors were going and how long they spent at each location. Using a range of network matrices, visiting sequences were quantified to reveal the complexity of movement patterns of tourists. The information obtained through GPS devices, which captured the behavior sequence patterns, were then integrated in the Recreational-Behaviour Simulator (RBSim2), a computer program that simulates the behavior of human visitors to a recreational park (Itami, 2003). The probabilistic matrix generated to map tourists' movement patterns was used to set behavioral rules for autonomous agents. The simulated data generated for different growth scenarios were then utilized to evaluate the carrying capacity of various viewpoints and allowed infrastructure planning such as upgrading of car-parking facilities. GPS-logged data open up further opportunities for conducting complex spatiotemporal modeling and data mining. For example, Xia et al. (2008, 2009) and Chhetri et al. (2010) have explored the richness of GPS-logged data using methods such as Markov chains and circular statistics to ascertain predictability of tourist visits. Chhetri et al. (2010) calculated measures of circular mean and circular dispersion to capture the mobility patterns of tourists in Port Campbell national park in Melbourne, Australia. Their study also visualized temporal data collected by handheld GPS receivers that tourists carried while visiting the park using kernel density estimation plots over a 24-hour period (see Figure 20.2). Statistically significant differences in the overall trip duration – that is, the total time that tourists spent at the site – were found between different groups and trip types.

Figure 20.2. Circular plots by region and by group and trip type. One form of analysis that has tremendous potential for creating typologies of tourists based on their spatial behavior while taking into account the sequence of locations can be seen in sequence-alignment methods (SAMs). These methods, which have been used since the 1980s, were introduced to the social sciences by Abbot (1995) and Wilson (1998) and to the spatial sciences by Shoval and Isaacson (2007b) and Wilson (2008). The methods have been developed and refined to improve the accuracy with which they compare sequences.

Ethical Questions and the Tracking of Tourists The question of privacy in relation to the increasing use in daily life of such devices as cell phones, which are actually, inherently, and among other things, tracking devices, has become more pronounced during the recent decade (Curry, 2000; Fisher and Dobson, 2003). This concern has been widely debated by the popular media, academia, courts, and lawmakers. However, in most countries, legal systems have failed to tackle the question fully and, as such, the question is of considerable and global importance (Renenger, 2002). Advanced tracking technologies have the ability and potential for implementation in tourism research. These methods can provide a richer understanding of the mobility patterns of tourists in time and space and their impact on destinations. However, the use of such technologies, which are able to obtain the exact locations of research participants at any given moment, can infringe the privacy of the participants and adds a geographical dimension to the surveillance society (Lyon, 2001) and the ability to better track the digital individual (Curry, 1997). This

raises different ethical and moral issues arising when conducting research that involves such technologies. One of the most prominent among these issues is whether, and to what extent, such research projects impinge on their participants' right to privacy. The need to undertake research in a manner that will protect the privacy, dignity, and wellbeing of its subjects is obviously a concern to anyone engaging in any kind of study. The need to receive the approval of an ethics committee for research that involves humans is clear, accepted, and part of any research design in the social sciences. In the specific case of studies of the spatiotemporal activities of tourists, however, we believe that the potential abuse of privacy from the point of view of the participant is less of a problem due to the fact that people being tracked are monitored for a limited and well-defined time period and are not in their regular habitat. In our experience with various tracking projects in tourism and other areas, tourists are less reluctant to participate in such surveys than other types of subjects. Due to the novelty of using tracking technologies in tourism research, it has not yet received any attention in academic literature. For example, Fennell's seminal book, Tourism Ethics (2006), did not tackle this issue. Unsurprisingly, then, little within the current law pertains directly to the use of land-based or satellite tracking systems. Nonetheless, one particular US statute (and its implementing regulations) merits discussion for its applicability to tracking technologies: the 1999 Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act (the WCPSA). Although the WCPSA is not overtly concerned with privacy issues, it has nonetheless shaped the way the US government limits the sharing of GPS data. The WCPSA provided the Federal Communications Commission (2006) with congressional encouragement to continue to develop and implement the then nascent “enhanced 911” (or E911) infrastructure. The enhanced 911 scheme mandated that wireless providers develop their network capabilities to pinpoint the location of 911 calls (calls made to the US emergency services) made from cell phones so that they may be relayed to the emergency services. The Federal Communications Commission has set a timetable, now established, for wireless carriers to implement the capabilities and establish accuracy requirements depending on the type of technology used (device-based or network-based; Federal Communications Commission, 2006). Even more pertinently, the WCPSA expanded the definition of “customer proprietary network information” under the 1996 Telecommunications Act to include information pertaining to the location of mobile network use. The Telecommunications Act places restrictions on how customers' proprietary network information can be shared. Telecommunication carriers are only permitted to disclose such information either with the consent of the customer or as related to its provision of services. Therefore in most cases mobile providers may not distribute locational information about their consumers. This protective scheme does contain a few notable loopholes. Firstly, the restriction on disclosure is limited to “individually identifiable” information, so it does not apply to information that has been anonymized or where the personal identity of the customer is not discernable. Secondly, mobile carriers have been afforded leeway to obtain customer consent

through fingerprint service agreements. In our view conducting tourism research with tracking technologies is less problematic in terms of potential privacy abuse for participants, because they are monitored for a limited and well-defined time in a destination away from where they live. However, the privacy issue is not the only ethical issue in research and, in any case, the obligation of the researcher is to conform to certain moral and ethical principles. Privacy and ethical issues differ between two types of research using tracking technologies in terms of the participants. The first is direct participation, in which participants are asked individually to take part in the study and give their consent. As will be explained, there is an additional subdivision within this category between cases in which designated tracking devices are given to participants and cases in which subjects are tracked using their own tracking devices (i.e. their cell phones). The second is indirect participation, when participants are tracked through the operator of a cellular-network provider. Privacy issues, as we have seen, have evolved over time, leading to a state in which the protection of the privacy of the individual is an uppermost value in most Western countries. This must be taken into account when designing studies which examine human behavior. In the field of tourism research, the issue of maintaining the privacy of the participants is important and an essential part of any study. However, we are confident that, by following strict guidelines and avoiding the pitfalls outlined in this chapter, researchers can and should use tracking technologies of all kinds to learn more about the time–space activities of tourists.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Providing extremely accurate data in time and space, these technologies are opening up new, previously unfeasible, lines of inquiry. In practical terms, the high-resolution data thus obtained could be used, among other things, to monitor and regulate the carrying capacity of tourist sites more rationally, improve the allocation of accommodation services, reduce friction between tourists and local populations, and assist in planning tourism/transport infrastructures. All in all, an important point to be clarified is that these technologies do not replace questionnaires, diaries, or interviews, which will remain an important source of information on the activity – and especially the motives underlying the activity – of tourists. Instead, the new technologies will complement, add to, and enrich the findings of these more traditional research tools. The examples presented in this chapter were mostly carried out on a limited scale both in terms of the numbers of participants and the duration of sampling. In the future, we will no doubt see research projects that are executed on larger scales covering wider geographic regions, including bigger samples over longer periods of time. Cities and countries that flourish on tourism will be able to gain knowledge about the flow of tourists throughout their locales by carrying out ongoing surveys of the locations of tourists within their boundaries. Visitor satisfaction surveys and questionnaires about tourist spending patterns will be considered incomplete without information on where the visitor has spent his or her day and

spatial patterns of satisfied visitors will become an industry standard. Tourism planners will be able to consider the impacts of different development scenarios more accurately and objectively. This will enable a much higher degree of efficiency in the management of tourism destinations of different scales.

Key Questions for Future Research One open question that still must be investigated is whether visitors, once they know they are being followed, change their activity. And, if so, how? This question should be further explored in empirical studies. However, even the more traditional methods for gathering information about the time–space activities of tourists raise concerns as to whether reports are inaccurate (in questionnaires and time budgets) and whether tourists change their patterns of activity due to participation in a study, feeling that they must behave in a certain way. An additional direction of inquiry that has yet to be explored is the combination of tracking data with additional digital sources of data. Items that can be added to a tracking kit and carried by the participant can include, for example, sensors that measure excitement and physical effort. Sensors can also be placed throughout a destination to measure, for instance, noise levels, pollution, and other qualities of the environment. Another remaining question relates to the large amounts of data that are accumulated when using these methods, which will require the development of more algorithms to enable automatic scripts to analyze the data in a fast and practical way. It would be beneficial if at some point the software being developed today on an ad-hoc basis by research teams around the globe could be standardized so that common measures are developed. More importantly, this could lead to an increase in the number of researchers in the field, because the current challenge of data analysis no doubt limits the number of prospective users of these methods. The large amounts of accurate data collected using these methods will make possible the development of new theories regarding the spatial activity of tourists, new understandings of tourists and their influence on destinations, and more accurate ways to calculate both physical and social carrying capacity in order to ensure the sustainability of tourism within a destination. These developments were not possible using the data sources that were available up until the introduction of these technologies. Further research is necessary to develop an understanding of what patterns of spatial activity are beneficial, to both the destination and the tourists visiting the destination. Recognizing patterns of spatial activity throughout a destination that are not beneficial, that may lead to damage of delicate attractions (such as historical locations) or infrastructure, and that may cause frustration and displeasure to the tourists can be of great assistance in the smooth and efficient management of tourist destinations. Being able to read into the spatial activity, to understand the different meanings that these patterns of behavior have for tourist destinations, and to project the possible results of various interventions are essential skills and can be developed through research. We have the ability to recognize areas of high and low activity and even to classify destinations into different types of space according to spatial activity, but

we do not yet have the knowledge to identify over-usage, when activity levels have reached a point that is no longer beneficial for the destination. The potential improvements in the implementation of tracking technologies for tourism research and practice mentioned above could enhance the benefits of using those methods for researchers and practitioners alike. The rapid advances in tracking technologies and the growing possibilities in implementing them for use in different areas in general, and in the realm of tourism research in particular, as elaborated in this chapter, leave no doubt that the future of tracking technologies in tourism will be exciting and dynamic, providing researchers with invaluable insight and information.

References Abbott, A. 1995. Sequence analysis: new methods for old ideas. Annual Review of Sociology, 21: 93–113. Ahas, R., Aasa, A., Mark, U., Pae, T., and Kull, T. 2007. Seasonal tourism spaces in Estonia: case study with mobile positioning data. Tourism Management, 28: 898–910. Ahas, R., Aasa, A., Roose, A., Mark, U., and Silm, S. 2008. Evaluating passive mobile positioning data for tourism surveys: an Estonian case study. Tourism Management, 29: 469– 486. Anderson, J. 1971. Space-time budgets and activity studies in urban geography and planning. Environment and Planning, 3: 353–368. Arrowsmith, C. and Chhetri, P. 2003. Port Campbell National Park: Patterns of Use: A Report for the Development of Visitor Typology as Input to a Generic Model of Visitor Movements and Patterns of Use. Melbourne: Parks Victoria. Birenboim, A., Clave, S., Russo, A., and Shoval, N. 2013. Temporal activity patterns of theme park visitors. Tourism Geographies, 15: 601–614. Boohte, W. and Maat, K. 2009. Deriving and validating trip purposes and travel modes for multi-day GPS-based travel surveys: a large-scale application in The Netherlands. Transportation Research Part C, 17(3): 285–297. Calabrese, F. and Ratti, C. 2006. Real time Rome. Networks and Communication Studies – NETCOM, 20: 247–258. Chhetri, P., Corcoran, J.C., and Arrowsmith, C. 2010. Investigating the temporal dynamics of tourist movements: an application of circular statistics. Tourism Analysis, 15: 71–88. Curry, M.R. 1997. The digital individual and the private realm. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87: 681–699. Curry, M.R. 2000. The power to be silent: testimony, identity, and the place of place.

Historical Geography, 28: 13–24. Elgethun, K., Fenske, R.A., Yost, M.G., and Palcisko, G.J. 2003. Time-location analysis for exposure assessment studies of children using a novel global positioning system instrument. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111: 115–122. Federal Communications Commission 2006. Enhanced 911. www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced. Fennell, D.A. 2006. Tourism Ethics. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Fisher, P. and Dobson, J. 2003. Who knows where you are, and who should, in the era of mobile geography. Geography, 88: 331–337. Gaggioli, A., Pioggia, G., Tartarisco, G., Baldus, G., Corda, D., Cipresso, P., and Riva, G. 2011. A mobile data collection platform for mental health research. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15: 1–11. Golledge, R.G., Klatzky, R.L., Loomis, J.M., Speigle, J., and Tietz, J. 1998 A geographical information system for a GPS based personal guidance system. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12: 727–749. Golledge, R.G., Loomis, J.M., Klatzky, R.L., Flury, A., and Yang, X.L. 1991. Designing a personal guidance system to aid navigation without sight: progress on the GIS component. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5: 373–395. Hägerstrand, T. 1970. What about people in regional science? Papers of the Regional Science Association, 24: 7–21. Hallo, J.C., Beeco, A., Goetcheus, C., McGee, J., McGehee, N.G., and Norman, W.C. 2012. GPS as a method for assessing spatial and temporal use distributions of nature-based tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 20: 1–16. Harder, H., Bro, P., Tradisauskas, N., Alexander, T., and Nielsen, S. 2008. Tracking visitors in public parks – experiences with GPS in Denmark. In Urbanism on Track: Application of Tracking Technologies in Urbanism, J. van Schaick and S.C. van der Spek (eds), pp. 65–77. Amsterdam: IOS Press BV. Itami, R.M. 2003. RBSim3: Agent-Based Simulations of Human Behaviour in GIS Environments using Hierarchical Spatial Reasoning. Paper presented at ModSim 2003 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Townsille, Australia, July 14–17. Janelle, D.G., Goodchild, M.F., and Klinkenberg, B. 1988. Space-time diaries and travel characteristics for different levels of respondent aggregation. Environment and Planning A, 20: 891–906. Le Faucheur, A., Abraham, P., Jaquinandi, V., Bouyé, P., Saumet, J.L., and Noury-Desvaux, B. 2008. Measurement of walking distance and speed in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Circulation, 19: 897–904.

Lyon, D. 2001. Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckingham: Open University Press. Maeda, Y., Eiichi, T., Hideo, M., Takashi, K., and Ikuo. 2002. Evaluation of a GPS-Based Guidance System for Visually Impaired Pedestrians. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, Los Angeles, CA, March 18–23. McKercher, B., Shoval, N., Ng, E., and Birenboim, A. 2012. Using GPS data to compare firsttime and repeat visitors to Hong Kong. Tourism Geographies, 14: 147–161. Miskelly, F. 2004. A novel system of electronic tagging in patients with dementia and wandering. Age and Ageing, 33: 304–306. Miskelly, F. 2005. Electronic tracking of patients with dementia and wandering using mobile phone technology. Age and Ageing, 34: 497–499. Modsching, M. Kramer, R., Ten Hagen, K., and Gretzel, Y. 2008. Using location-based tracking data to analyze the movements of city tourists. Information Technology & Tourism, 10: 31–42. Nielsen, N., Harder, H., Tradisauskas, N., and Blichfeldt, B.S. 2010. Approaches to GPSsurvey of Tourist Movements within a North Sea Island Destination. Paper presented at the ENTER 2010 Conference, Lugano, Switzerland, February 10–12. Parks, D.N. and Thrift, N. 1980. Times, Spaces and Places: A Chronogeographic Perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Pettersson, R. and Zillinger, M. 2011. Time and space in event behaviour: tracking visitors by GPS. Tourism Geographies, 13: 1–20. Peuquet, D. 2002. Representations of Space and Time. New York: The Guilford Press. Phillips, M.L., Hall, T.A., Esmen, N.A., Lynch, R., and Johnson, D.L. 2001. Use of global positioning system technology to track subject's location during environmental exposure sampling. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 11: 207–215. Quiroga, C.A. and Bullock, D. 1998. Travel time studies with global positioning and geographic information systems: an integrated methodology. Transportation Research C, 6: 101–127. Raento, M., Oulasvirta, A., and Eagle, N. 2009. Smartphones: an emerging tool for social scientists. Sociological Methods & Research, 37: 426–454. Raper, J. 2000. Multidimensional Geographic Information Science. London: Taylor and Francis. Renenger, A. 2002. Satellite tracking and the right to privacy. Hastings Law Journal, 53: 549–

565. Russo, A.P., Clave, S.A., and Shoval, N. 2010. Advanced visitor tracking analysis in practice: explorations in the PortAventura theme park and insights for a future research agenda. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, U. Gretzel, R. Law, and M. Fuchs (eds), pp. 159–170. Vienna: Springer. Shoval, N. 2008. Tracking technologies and urban analysis. Cities, 25: 21–28. Shoval, N., Auslander, G.K., Freytag, T., Landau, R., Oswald, F., Seidl, U., Wahl, H.-W., Werner, S., and Heinik, J. 2008. The use of advanced tracking technologies for the analysis of mobility in Alzheimer's disease and related cognitive diseases. BMC Geriatrics, 8: 7. Shoval, N. and Isaacson, M. 2007a. Tracking tourist in the digital age. Annals of Tourism Research, 34: 141–159. Shoval, N. and Isaacson, M. 2007b. Sequence alignment as a method for human activity analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97: 282–297. Shoval, N. and Isaacson, M. 2010. Tourist Mobility and Advanced Tracking Technologies. London: Routledge. Shoval, N., McKercher, B., Ng, E., and Birenboim, A. 2012. Hotel location and tourist activity in cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 1594–1612. Tchetchik, A., Fleischer, A., and Shoval, N. 2009. Segmentation of visitors to a heritage site using high resolution time-space data. Journal of Travel Research, 48: 216–229. Terrier, P. and Schutz, Y. 2005. How useful is a satellite positioning system (GPS) to track gait parameters? A review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 2: 1–11. Thornton, P.R., Williams, A.M., and Shaw, G. 1997. Revisiting time-space diaries: An exploratory case study of tourist behaviour in Cornwall, England. Environment and Planning A, 29: 1847–1867. Tussyadiah, L.P. and Zach, F.J. 2012. The role of geo-based technology in place experiences. Annals of Tourism Research. 39: 780–800. van der Spek, S.C. 2008. Spatial metro: tracking pedestrians in historic city centres. In Urbanism on Track: Application if Tracking Technologies in Urbanism, J. van Schaick and S.C. van der Spek (eds), pp. 79–102. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Wilson, C. 1998. Activity pattern analysis by means of sequence-alignment methods. Environment and Planning A, 30: 1017–1038. Wilson, C. 2008. Activity patterns in space and time: calculating representative Hagerstrand trajectories. Transportation, 35: 485–499.

Wolf, J., Guensler, R., and Bachman, W. 2001. Elimination of the Travel Diary: Experiment to Derive Trip Purpose from GPS Travel Data. Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January 7–11. Xia, J., Arrowsmith, C., Jackson, M., and Cartwright, W. 2008. The wayfinding process relationships between decision-making and landmark utility. Tourism Management, 29: 445– 457. Xia, J., Zeephongsekul, P., and Arrowsmith, C. 2009. Modelling spatio-temporal movement using Markov chains. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 79: 1544–1553. Zito, R., D’este, G.M., and Taylor, M.A.P.. 1995. Global positioning in the time domain: how useful a tool for intelligent vehicle-highway systems? Transportation Research C, 3: 193–209.

Chapter 21 New Territories in Information Technologies and Tourism Research Mads Bødker and Ana María Munar The field of information technology (IT) and tourism research is well established, with its own journals, conferences, and courses. This is not surprising considering that IT has brought unprecedented opportunities and challenges to tourism as an information-intensive industry. Additionally, tourism has often been used as a domain for prototypes of mobile and pervasive technologies (Bødker and Browning, 2012). There is an increased research production and interest in this field, but research is dominated by empirical studies on marketing and management-related topics and typically driven by an applied business research agenda (e.g. Buhalis and Law, 2008; Gretzel, 2011). Tourism IT research has evolved under the supremacy of (post)positivistic methodological approaches while conceptual articles and critical approaches are peripheral to the field (Munar et al., 2013). The lack of critical voices in the current territory of IT research in tourism has implications for the making of and the acceptability of knowledge production. The IT research territory is a limited space characterized by a strong focus on “the business of tourism” (Tribe, 2010). Methodological and theoretical schools of thought from social sciences or disciplines such as geography, anthropology, and sociology, which have been crucial to the development of tourism knowledge, are largely peripheral to the field. While reflexive and critical academic enquiry is increasingly applied to tourism research, such research is still largely absent in tourism and technology studies. The problems examined in the space of tourism technologies often carry a heavy emphasis on consumer behavior or managerial implications for tourism firms (e.g. Buhalis and Law, 2008; Gretzel, 2011), leaving important qualities of tourism unexplored. The ontology of the tourist is often narrowed down to that of the utility-maximizing consumer and “most discussions of decision making in tourism conceptualize decision-makers as rational and utilitarian” (Gretzel, 2011: 763). Important research networks such as the International Federation for Information Technologies in Travel and Tourism, the ENTER conference, or journals such as Information Technology and Tourism reveal the hegemony of applied business research agendas. These communities have pioneered technology research in tourism and succeeded to produce significant advances. At the same time they are perpetuating a particular set of ontological and methodological views by acting as gatekeepers of research production and distribution, for example through members holding key editorial and advisory positions. While tourism in general appears as a “permeable field comprised of different traditions which … can coexist and are susceptible to new schools of thought” (Tribe, 2010: 14), contemporary IT studies are still dominated by managerialism and (post)positivism (Alford and Clarke, 2009). The main task of this chapter is therefore to present a research agenda that expands the themes, the theoretical narratives, the methodological approaches, and ultimately the practical

implications of this field of inquiry. It does so by adopting a series of theoretical frameworks external to tourism and grounded in the fields of philosophy, digital humanities, communication, and design.

The Critical Turn and Technology Social scientists often identify language and action as the means by which humans make sense of their world and are able to adapt and perform in modern societies (Giddens, 1987; Habermas, 1989). For theorists focusing on language, communicative action is the medium by which societies reach understanding, coordinate action, and socialize individuals (Habermas, 1989). The capacity of individuals for communicative action allows social and cultural reproduction through different functions: ”the propagation of cultural traditions, the integration of groups by norms and values, and the socialization of succeeding generations” (Habermas, 1989: 299). Discursive practices and actions are expanded, enabled, and mediated through digital technologies. Late-modern forms of tourism include the intensive use of IT. These technologies transform and get transformed by communicative action practices. There is a close relationship between IT development and the evolution of the social act of tourism (Poon, 1993). This is not surprising, considering that technology-enabled transformations are integral to the evolution of humanity (Hayles, 2012). The social use of technologies in tourism is shaped as a result of a complex interrelation between technologies and their affordances – the social capabilities enabled by technological tools – and the way in which people and institutions make use of those affordances (Baym, 2010). The use of critical schools of thought, such as the one represented by Habermas, opens an avenue of research inquiry that moves beyond managerial agendas. It questions the role that IT plays in the establishment of new norms, practices, and values which define what is to be a tourist and how tourism should be. It radically challenges popular truisms such as the democratic and self-directed nature of new media or the “goodness” and “neutrality” of technology (Kling, 2000; Keen, 2007; Munar, 2010). It does so by adopting a series of theoretical frameworks external to tourism and grounded in the fields of philosophy, digital humanities, communication, and design. Technology may enhance the communicative and emancipatory potential of tourists and hosts or help to increase noncommunicative practices based on instrumental rationality, for example through the commercialization and the bureaucratization of social relationships and cultural practices in tourism (Munar, 2013). In tourism, power structures and institutionalized practices act as barriers of digital communicative practices. Critical studies are also concerned about the ”darker side” of technology; for example, analyzing ideological positions (Agre, 1997; Kozinets, 2008), misinformation and lack of reliability (Keen, 2007), digital inequities, and the steering properties embedded in new media (Andrejevic, 2011). Thanks to the possibilities of selfdirected connectivity (Castells, 1996), digital technologies radically transform the possibilities of individual action in tourism, increasing processes of individualization (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002). Increased immersion in virtual spaces and interrelations transform place, space, time and identity. These become increasingly ”mutable, represented,

relative and constructed” (Pritchard et al., 2004: 317), demanding a higher level of individual reflexivity but also potentially resulting in anxiety, displacement, and a search for meaning and belonging (Giddens, 1987; Bauman, 2000). Virtual technologies help in the construction of fluid touristic identities characterized by the fear of being tied to place and the longing after “boundedness” (Bauman, 1996: 31). These technologies' paradoxical nature encourage a touristic state of ”illusive state of flotation, detachment, disengagement, or disconnectedness” (Jafari, 1987: 135) and at the same time put forward the promise of engagement, participation, and action at distance (Papacharissi, 2011). A critical inquiry on digital technologies examines how IT creates, shapes, or eradicates cultural traditions and how it contributes to diversifying socialization processes, for example introducing new patterns of exclusion and inclusion through digital and generational divides or levels of e-literacy (Castells, 1996; Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 2010). Such a research agenda is concerned not only with how the tourism market evolves but also with how technology reshapes human relations. Examples are studies that examine how IT blurs the division between home and away (White and White, 2007); how it reshapes the experiences of ordinary and nonordinary life (Larsen et al., 2007); how it creates new spaces for decommercialization (e.g. free or open accommodation practices in online communities); and how it establishes new capital assets and reification of personal relationships (Petersen, 2008; Hall, 2011); for example, traditional word of mouth becomes commercialized as in the case of the review site TripAdvisor. A critical approach comprehends technology not as an autonomous phenomenon separated from society (“a tool” or an “autonomous system of tools”) but as deeply embedded in sociocultural structures. New media can be conceptualized as technosocial spaces allowing the emergence of fluid tourist tribes like in the cases of festival fans (Gyimóthy, 2013) and the Twilight saga's pop culture tourists (Lexhagen et al., 2013). The web becomes a space within which to problematize host–guest encounters. Tourists use blogs to disapprove of different cultural views and criticize cultural encounters (Enoch and Grossman, 2010). Tourists' digital reviews focus on embodiment, personal comfort, and sensory impressions, challenging general views on heritage management traditionally concerned with the uniqueness and the cultural value of the sites (Munar and Ooi, 2012). The study of technology-mediated communicative actions explores how new media transforms the way tourism can be dreamed of, shared, and experienced.

Embedded Cognition, Situated Action, and Technologies as Actors In the past 20 years, science and technology scholars (e.g. Latour, 1999; Suchman, 2007) have suggested that knowledge should be conceptualized not only as discursive, but as embodied. Tourists' perception, evaluation, and relation to their social and material worlds are transformed thanks to the possibilities embedded in new technological tools. This section presents three theoretical frameworks that examine how human cognition is altered and

expanded thanks to its relationship to technology: embedded cognition, situated action and ethnomethodology, and actor-network theory. Challenging a conceptual division between mind and body as separate entities, the idea of embedded cognition claims that human language and actions are bodily embedded and enacted, and that the affordances and attributes of objects in the environment support and extend memory, idea production, and complex thinking (Hayles, 2012). Additionally, embedded cognition acknowledges that a large part of the process of thinking does not take place at the level of the conscious mind (or self-awareness) but at the level of the nonconscious and unconscious (Hayles, 2012). Similarly in tourism there is a need for studies and narratives “which locate the situated particularity of ‘body’ and ‘emotion’ ” (Jamal and Hollinshead, 2001: 67). The theory of embedded cognition is closely related to contemporary technogenesis. The idea of technogenesis posits a strong link in the adaptation of technics and humans. Hayles (2012) argues that, thanks to this dynamic interplay, late-modern societies are experiencing changes in cognitive modes. Technogenesis relates to the “dynamic interplay between the kinds of environmental stimuli created in information-intensive environments and the adaptative potential of cognitive faculties in concert with them” (Hayles, 2012: 97). At the heart of this interplay lies the transformation of selective attention from traditional “deep attention” to an increased relevance of “hyper attention.” The increased importance of hyper attention has consequences for how tourists search, create, and obtain meaning from tourist information. It also has radical consequences for tourism education and scholarship. Deep attention is needed when coping with complex cultural or scientific works. Hyper attention is characteristic of someone scanning web pages and associated with hyper reading; on the other hand, deep attention is a human capacity cultivated through centuries and correlated to deep reading. Hyper attention is fast, flexible, and useful in switching between textual and visual data materials, to quickly provide an overview of digital spaces, as in the case of tourists surfing review sites and looking for hotels. The theoretical approaches of ethnomethodology and situated action underscore the view that human action depends in essential ways on its material as well as social circumstances. As explained by Suchman, “the significance of actions and their intelligibility resides neither in what is strictly observable about behaviour, nor in a prior mental state of the actor, but in a contingently constructed relationship among observable behaviour, embedded circumstances and intent” (Suchman, 2007: 125). Human action cannot be reduced to bodily movements or to the workings of the mind; the significance of action is fundamentally embedded in the social and physical worlds and mutual intelligibility is achieved with reference to the particulars of every situation. Therefore, the study of humans and technologies needs to consider that cognitive processes occur in a relationship between individuals and the world of artifacts, and that any meaning derived from this relationship is situated. The task of research inquiry is not to quantify or enumerate what people believe about the world, but to examine how the mutual intelligibility of the world is achieved (Suchman, 2007). Actor-network theory (ANT) also provides a complementary research avenue to study the relevance of nonhuman as well as human influences in the analysis of social change. ANT aims

to bypass a traditional methodological division between subjects (people) and objects (artifacts). Technology is not “a distinct set of materiality, machines, and artifacts that can be isolated methodologically as an object of research;” instead, technological materialities and objects are actors in constantly evolving constellations of networks (Ek, 2013). ANT is increasingly being applied in tourism social science studies (e.g. van der Duim and Caalders, 2008; Tribe, 2010; Ren, 2011) but it is still seldom in technology research inquiry (Ek, 2013). Gretzel (2011) also advocates a turn in technology research and proposes that future agendas should focus on the sociotechnical system as a unit of analysis, a “co-evolution triangle of users, knowledge and technology” (Gretzel, 2011: 762). An example of the interdependency between technical materialities and affordances, and sociocultural change is the increase of the power of databases and the diminishing of narrative discourses (Hayles, 2012). Databases are structured through logical categories that order and list data elements, tend towards standardization, and have become ubiquitous in the web thanks to search engines. Databases are entrenched with the evolution of IT and computer operations. Narratives, on the other side, have evolved with the human capacity for communication. They reach towards multiple interpretations and meanings, are at the heart of storytelling, and have been central for the development of human cognition (Hayles, 2012). Social communicative practices increasingly relying on database information will imply profound transformations in the sphere of communicative action. This change may have profound consequences in the way tourism information is produced, shared, and passed on to further generations.

The Interface of Tourism The theoretical landscape introduced above presents a number of challenges to the understanding of technologies as simple transformative forces in society with individuals having little control or power over them. It is problematic to assume that new digital tools and services, such as those associated with the surge of mobile technologies or the miniaturization and pervasive embedding of processors and digital devices, will simply “impact” (somehow) upon the production and distribution of tourism experiences. To overcome a technological deterministic view is to further examine the foundations of human–machine relationships to understand how current and future developments might require us to understand the relationships between tourism, tourists, and increasingly mobile and ubiquitous IT differently. This section presents ways to understand the nature of hybridity or multiplicity performed in the interstices between tourism and IT. In doing so, we present the term interface as an important yet overlooked concept in IT and tourism. The term interface is strongly associated with the field of human–computer interaction (or HCI), where it is understood as the point where a human operator and a machine engage in some form of interaction or communication (Grudin, 1990). In the following, we extend the notion of interface to arrive at a more profound understanding of the significance of pervasive IT and the ways in which such technologies create new relationships between humans, their social worlds, and their environment (Johnson, 1997; de Souza e Silva and Frith, 2012; Farman, 2012). So, rather than understanding the interface simply as a site of human–machine

dialogue, it is possible to understand interfaces “as spatial forms that are tied to broader sets of social and cultural dynamics” (de Souza e Silva and Frith, 2012: 3). Pervasive and mobile technologies are becoming intimate, personal, social, and increasingly connected to ubiquitous data networks. This entails a move from thinking about how IT products might, for instance, enhance the ways tourists interact with information about sites of interest, to thinking about the wider transformation of tourism. Pervasive and ubiquitous computing (“ubicomp”) (Weiser, 1991) technologies are widely proposed as promising technological paradigms in the domain of tourism. They are expressions of a dream of “immediacy” and the transparency of media interfaces, of seamlessly bridging the social bodies of users with the technological systems that increasingly permeate all kinds of activities (Bolter and Grusin, 1996). The dream of computer technologies becoming practically “invisible” is expressed emblematically by Weiser, who argued that “The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it” (Weiser, 1991: 94). Indeed, mobile technologies and smartphones today can be seen as plausible instantiations of ubiquitous computing, even if they are a messier affair than envisioned by Weiser and other early proponents (Dourish and Bell, 2007). In earlier work on ubicomp and mobile IT, tourism was frequently used as a domain upon which technical prototypes could be conveniently evaluated. For example, Cheverst and Schmidt-Belz (2005) present cases of tourism scenarios in ubicomp and mobile computing. In these and similar projects, immediacy comes across as the need for tourists carrying mobile devices to have unobtrusive and ready access to a variety of information about the environment. While a great deal of technical advances are proposed in such technological prototypes, the issue of the interface as more than a point where individuals interact with technology is typically downplayed. It is rarely asked how we might understand the human–computer interface, extending its meaning from the action-taking affordances in for example screen-based representations to consider mobile and social technologies as means for fundamentally reordering how tourists perceive, interact with, and use spaces. Farman (2012) suggests that mobile technologies should not be understood as merely screens connected to pervasive data infrastructures unto which particular types of information are projected. Rather, they are devices through which embodied, social, cultural, and spatiotemporal relationships are continuously (re)configured. The increasing mobility of information systems requires that we consider how technologies “emplace” us in the world and how they might shape the experience of being in the world as a tourist. Farman writes that “by having a device (one which we carry with us wherever we go) that is able to interface with the world in a way that transforms our everyday experience of space into an experience of multiplicity, the production of virtual space is with us on seemingly unprecedented levels” (Farman, 2012: 39). The fact that tourists are increasingly carrying devices that connect them intimately to both proximate and distant social networks requires a different way of thinking about the experiential ground of tourism. Tourism and IT can be articulated as a hybrid, performative practice where technology is not only “used” by the tourist, but is part of fundamental changes in his/her embodied, experiential space. By and large, the questions asked to new types of

technologies in tourism, such as digital guides or wayfinding devices, have typically been directed towards whether or not technologies were (or were likely to be) adopted by tourists or whether or not they were understood as useful, appropriate, and satisfying of the consumer's needs (Buhalis and Law, 2008). While the subject of utility or appropriateness of technologies in tourism is relevant, it might be argued that a profound understanding of the relationship between IT and tourism is not primarily a question of the adoption (or the willingness to adopt) or of the usability of the devices, services, or IT products themselves, but a question of how such technologies invoke particular worlds for tourists, how they act as interfaces into the experience of being a tourist. This broader epistemological shift raises a multitude of questions about the power of mobile social media to transform the places of “here and now” into distributed and hybrid landscapes interwoven with social-technological infrastructures such as mobile social media. The here and now is increasingly re-emphasized by technologies that permit tourists to better record, annotate, tag, connect with, recollect, and share objects, social encounters, and knowledge. Drawing on this repositioning of interface the following sections we briefly discuss three questions that we see as useful in expanding the territories of tourism and IT research production. 1. What are the consequences of tourists having access to locally and dynamically produced narratives/images of places available through social and mobile networks, for instance through being able to trace local movement and content production? Whether intentional or unintentional, users of smartphones leave what Girardin et al. (2008) call digital footprints or traces of movement and location as well as status updates, comments, and other kinds of production in the digital domain that can be used to generate representations of activities. Sharing location and content is often associated with stories of “dark” or dystopian consequences such as stalking or pervasive surveillance (Baym, 2010), but “checking in” to a place on a social platform is an increasingly common practice and it may also entail more positive and calm aspirations; what Albrechtlund and Dubbeld (2005) describe as “playful” and enjoyable forms of surveillance. 2. How do tourists memorize and recollect experiences when social media enable the maintenance of engagement with sites and other touristic activities, for example festivals and events? How might sensor technologies connected to objects and sites enable the presence of these sites or objects in tourists' social media information streams? Continuous sharing of content in digital social networks potentially creates new kinds of interactions with experiences as they are not merely transmitted through the interface of the screen, but become interfaces to group and individual identities by being interactive and negotiable objects. One touristic practice that exemplifies this evolving relationship is the case of the Fish Van on the Scottish island of Tiree. This tourist attraction was “hacked” by tech enthusiasts to communicate its status on Twitter, thus allowing potential visitors and enduring (peripheral) awareness of the important landmark (Dostal and Dix, 2011). Similar transformations have been suggested in the study of festivals and events. Gyimóthy (2013: 60) proposes the adoption of symbolic convergence theory to examine how through social media communication “common fantasies may

transform a collection of individuals into a cohesive group. … Voiced fantasies are instruments to share common experiences, meaning, and emotions. Telling and sharing fantasies enable sharing of a common symbolic reality and thus hold the key for building group consciousness.” 3. How is the value of places and attractions negotiated when tourists have access to types of information that transcend branded or generic information provided in guides and pamphlets? The “mastery” of place is still a relevant trope to consider. However, as places become “interfaced” with digital information, hierarchies and power relations between visitors and locals get transformed. This is also the case in virtual spaces where tourists talk to other tourists and constitute the new centrality (Munar and Ooi, 2012). We need to question how the host may re-appear as an agential and productive node in the digital networks that cut across tourist, place, and local cultural practices. There is a need to address the way in which mobile and pervasively connected technologies reverse, maintain, or even bolster one type of agency over another in sites where tourism is performed. And to examine how interactive or “mutual” are the new technological practices of performing places. Additionally, research inquiry needs to map the ways in which locative systems and services, roughly understood as IT systems built for specific sites, become expressive of place identities, and contribute to place-specific social performances (Messeter, 2009; Coyne, 2010; Farman, 2012). Finally we need to address how these systems are part of a larger change in the fabric of practice- and experiencescapes of tourism and of the construction of tourism as pure “escape” or leisure, and how they blur the dichotomies between home and away, between being local and being a visitor. Technologies are changing the aspirations, the places and the experiences of tourism. In the previous sections we have traced tourism and mobile and social IT as “experiential computing,” as technologies serve to change the “digitally mediated embodied experiences in mundane activities through everyday artifacts with embedded computing capabilities” (Yoo, 2010: 213). This shifts the understanding from tourist and IT as two distinct entities to hybrid actors engaged in mutual performances. A range of authors have taken up this theme in exploring the interfaces performed between and through bodies and technology (Haraway, 1991; Ihde, 2002), yet tourism and IT research has, with few exceptions (Larsen et al., 2007; White and White, 2008; Bødker and Browning, 2013), paid scant attention to the embodiment of technologies in the practices of tourism and how new performances and new experiences are afforded by technology. Understanding tourism technologies as interfaces in the ways outlined above is a means of transcending the ontology of tourists as simple “users” of technology. It allows us to acknowledge and conceptualize the varieties of interfaces that new forms of mobile computing have produced. In the next section we explore the consequences of this reorientation for the “making” of tourism technologies.

Bridging Reflection and Making IT multiplies and continuously enters into new areas of our lives. It constitutes an increasingly

important ground upon which human experiences must be understood (Yoo, 2010). Thus, making IT is only partially a practical affair (Agre, 1997). Ihde (1990) has argued that there is no human existence outside of technology, no Eden from where the use of technology is a fall. Dourish (2001) argues that technologies, both as analytical objects and as a practical concern, are fundamentally philosophical. Technology is: philosophical in the way it represents the world, in the way it creates and manipulates models of reality, of people, and of action. Every piece of software reflects an uncountable number of philosophical commitments and perspectives without which it could never be created. Software depends inevitably on our ideas about representation and reality. (Dourish, 2001: viii) By considering first what a reflective or critical technical practice (Agre, 1997) in the interspace between tourism studies as a social science and technology design (e.g. human– computer interaction and interaction design) might entail, we propose that a critical theoretical discourse, such as the one put forward in the opening sections of this chapter, is not only relevant for the academic discourse within tourism research and IT, but might equally encourage a revision of the fundamental models and generative metaphors and discourses that are currently (tacitly or explicitly) employed in innovation and design efforts within the field. Secondly, we provide the example of place-specific computing as one of many plausible conceptual reorientations for tourist technology. In general terms, design understood as a particular way of knowing entails constructing it as an epistemological practice that differs fundamentally from traditional scientific ways of knowing. Where social and natural sciences are typically concerned with understanding “what is,” a necessary drive in design is the desire to ask “what may be” (Ehn, 1988). Argyris and Schoen (1996: 36) argue that “practitioners' models must also serve the purposes of designing. However appealing models may be as tools of exploration or explanation, they are judged by how well they ‘work’, in the sense of enabling practitioners to do something they wish to do.” In other words, models, theories, metaphors, concepts, and ways of thinking and speaking about the problem at hand matters for design. It is not unusual to understand designer practices primarily as intuitive and unwittingly ambiguous due to the subjective nature of, for example, “taste” or the congenital nature of design skills. This understanding consigns design as a practice to a rather fuzzy set of opaque practices. In contrast, design and designing can be understood as a disciplined form of rational behavior (e.g. Stolterman, 2008; Kolko, 2010). From this perspective, theoretical insight and reflection is not detrimental to design as a practice but may increase the vocabulary and support a rigour of design thinking by enabling nuanced understandings of the domain under scrutiny. Somewhat similarly, Agre (1997) argues that a critical technical practice entails a deeper scrutiny of the foundations and truisms in technical work. Acknowledging and making explicit the dominant metaphors and ways of thinking in a field enable practitioners to recognize what has been systematically marginalized, which in turn aids innovation.

Centers and Peripheries: Place-Centric Design

Tribes' (2010) metaphor of disciplinary territories aptly describes the epistemological frames that underpin and guide what is acceptable (or publishable) research in the field of tourism. A critical view on tourism and IT research reveals that the ready frame of “tourism as a form of sightseeing” has been a privileged metaphor (Bødker and Browning, 2012). This view is dominated by the ontology of tourists as predominantly passive consumers of planned information about sights or directions. The prevalence of the “tourism gaze” metaphor has resulted in the marginalization of the understanding of tourists as agents with a wider set of agendas and of tourism as a practice that involves more than the user experience of the tourist. Bødker and Browning (2013) have suggested a number of changes in the approach to the design of IT to revert this marginalization. Among other things, they suggest grounding the design of mobile and pervasive technologies for tourism in the interaction design “genre” of place-centric computing. Messeter suggests that a place-centric perspective on design leads to “digital systems and services, in which functionality, as well as information content, emanate from the place of use” (Messeter, 2009: 29). Tourism and IT research has generally upheld sharp conceptual distinctions between users, technologies, and the environment. A place-centric or locative perspective challenges this distinction and emphasizes the ways in which ubiquitous media technologies such as smartphones can be understood not only as interfaces to information, but to the places within which tourists play, experience, communicate, congregate, and so on. A place-centric approach reverses the predisposition to understand mobile technologies as generic “always connected” or “always on” technologies that essentially transcend time and place by making information available everywhere, to see them as dynamic components of the physical landscape, integral to the “here and now” of places. In the place-specific view we see the outlines of (computer) interfaces as sites of performance rather than as procedural sites of flow where the user is seamlessly integrated into the logic of a program (Bardzell et al., 2010). Physical places as well as the informational and networked infrastructures in place become stages upon which identities and aspirations are expressed and performed. Messeter (2009) suggests that places should be understood as practiced spaces, spaces (or locations) that become meaningful and attain their identity through the interplay of practices and the material and technological affordances that places offer. Where spaces are stable and fixed, places are dynamic and open-ended. They are “unpredictable” in the sense that accounting for the material properties of a place is not sufficient if we want to understand place identities and place-making. A place-centric computing approach allow us to engage critically with the understanding of destinations as branded and “fixed” spaces, which is a typical predisposition for the design of IT for tourism, to understand how IT can be actively enrolled by people, hosts as well as visitors, in continuous and tactical forms of place-making that cannot be planned. Instead, mobile devices can be seen as tools to destabilize places by making new kinds of connections possible, affording new kinds of authorships and narratives of place. A place-centric perspective celebrates the fact that technologies can, at best, only “suggest” particular forms of practice (de Certeau, 1984). From a methods perspective, a place-centric practice in IT design implies that the knowledge needed to initiate or inspire design is to be found in the active engagement of being-in-place or,

as Messeter (2009) puts it, “designing in place,” where a phenomenological sensitivity to the felt qualities (McCarthy and Wright, 2005) of visiting a place are teased out by engaging in the social and cultural interactions that occurs. It requires acknowledging that the object of design is not the informational interface or the technological artifact in itself, but the kinds of practices, identities, or expressions it gives rise to as an interface to social, cultural, and material landscapes of place. Critiquing the framing performed by the territorial outlook of tourism and technology design, the place-centric approach is a step towards deterritorializing the concerns that tourism and technology work might engage in. For instance, by taking places and place-making as an outset, the “user experience” of tourists using a particular tool may play a certain role. However, working meaningfully with place as a design material in tourism and technology entails a much wider acknowledgement of tensions, agencies, and placespecific identities performed in the interface of touristic places and new IT products and services.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections This chapter has presented a series of interrelated theoretical avenues to expand the territory of IT and tourism research. Critical theory approaches and the theories of embedded cognition, situated action, and ANT present a whole new arena for technology research in tourism. These theoretical frameworks question the dominant individualist ontologies that portray technology users as either a “rational utility maximizing tourist” or as an individual “experience seeker.” We believe that research inquiries should increasingly focus on the complex and hybrid relationships between the individual, society, the environment, and the technologies that mediate and change these relationships: how technologies enable particular kinds of touristic performances and how tourism performs technologies in practice. Such changes appears as a radical response to the methodological limitations of what has been described as “the mechanisms of dualism: human/non-human, knowing subjects/objects of knowledge, social/natural, active/passive entities” (Law, 2004: 132 cited in Ek, 2013). Technology studies should aim at expanding the ontological fundament of this field with simultaneous inquiries on the nature of the hybridity between humans and technical tools and systems. Furthermore, we advocate the need to adopt of a broader understanding of the interface of tourism that transcends a narrow conceptualization centered on the user-screen dichotomy. We envision technological interface as places of embodied and socially transformative practices that allows individuals to interrelate with the sociocultural fabric of places and to transform their experiences in a multiple ways. Such an understanding opens new domains of research inquiry, such as (i) utopian and dystopian visions of information use, control, and surveillance, (ii) the reshaping of experiences and collective narratives about tourism, and (iii) the renegotiation of hierarchies and power relations in touristic practices. There is a need to complement the study of what exists in tourism with a critical exploration of what is to be pursued or what is desired. This entails that equally critical design perspectives complement the critical turn in tourism technology studies and we suggest that there is a need to bridge theory making and the kind making that designers are engaged in. Acknowledging that

there are many ways to do this we have in this chapter suggested that critical technical practice and place-centric design are styles of thinking and doing that enable links between critical tourism studies and technology design.

References Agre, P. 1997. Toward a critical technical practice: lessons learned in trying to reform AI. In Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide, G. Bowker, S. Leigh Star, and W. Turner (eds), pp. 131–155. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Albrechtslund, A. and Dubbeld, L. 2005. The plays and arts of surveillance: studying surveillance as entertainment. Surveillance and Society, 3: 216–221. Alford, P. and Clarke, S. 2009. Information technology and tourism a theoretical critique. Technovation, 29: 580–587. Andrejevic, M. 2011. Social network exploitation. In A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, Z. Papacharisi (ed.), pp. 82–101. New York: Routledge. Argyris, C. and Schoen, D.A. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Model, and Practice. New York: Addison-Wesley. Bardzell, J., Bolter, J., and Löwgren, J. 2010. Interaction criticism: three readings of an interaction design, and what they get us. Interactions, 17(2): 32–37. Bauman, Z. 1996. From pilgrim to tourist, or a short history of identity. In Questions of Cultural Identity, S. Hall and P. Du Gay (eds), pp. 18–36. London: Sage Publications. Bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Baym, N.K. 2010. Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. 2002. Individualization: Theory, Culture and Society. London: Sage Publications. Bødker, M. and Browning, D. 2012. Beyond destinations: exploring tourist technology design spaces through local-tourist interactions. Digital Creativity, 23: 204–224. Bødker, M. and Browning, D. 2013. Inspiring design: social media from the beach. In Tourism Social Media: Transformations in Identity, Community and Culture, A.M. Munar, S. Gyimóthy, and L. Cai (eds), pp. 107–131. Bingley: Emerald. Bolter, J.D. and Grusin, R. 1996. Remediation. Configurations, 4: 311–358. Buhalis, D. and Law, R. 2008. Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet—the state of eTourism research. Tourism Management,

29: 609–623. Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Information Age, vol. 1. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Cheverst, K. and Schmidt-Belz, B. 2005. Mobile guides – an HCI perspective. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(1): 1. Coyne, R. 2010. The Tuning of Place: Sociable Spaces and Pervasive Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. de Certeau, M. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. de Souza e Silva, A. and Frith, J. 2012. Mobile Interfaces in Public Spaces: Locational Privacy, Control and Urban Sociability. New York: Routledge. Dostal, J. and Dix, A. 2011. Tiree tech wave. BCS Interfaces, 87, Summer: 16–17. Dourish, P. 2001. Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dourish, P. and Bell, G. 2007. Yesterday's tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous computing's dominant vision. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11: 133–143. Ehn, P. 1988. Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artefacts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ek, R. 2013. Tourism social media as a fire object. In Tourism Social Media: Transformations in Identity, Community and Culture, A.M. Munar, S. Gyimóthy, and L. Cai (eds), pp. 19–34. Bingley: Emerald. Enoch, Y. and Grossman, R. 2010. Blogs of Israeli and Danish backpackers to India. Annals of Tourism Research, 37: 520–536. Farman, J. 2012. Mobile Interface Theory: Embodied Space and Locative Media. New York: Routledge. Giddens, A. 1987. Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press. Girardin, F., Calabrese, F., Dal Fiore, F., Ratti, C., and Blat, J. 2008. Digital footprinting: uncovering tourists with user-generated content. Pervasive Computing, IEEE, 7(4): 36–43. Gretzel, U. 2011. Intelligent systems in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 757–779. Grudin, R. 1990. The Grace of Great Things: Creativity and Innovation. New York: Ticknor & Fields. Gyimóthy, S. 2013. Symbolic convergence and tourism social media. In Tourism Social

Media: Transformations in Identity, Community and Culture, A.M. Munar, S. Gyimóthy, and L. Cai (eds), pp. 55–71. Bingley: Emerald. Hall, C.M. 2011. In cyberspace can anybody hear you scream? Issues in the conduct of online fieldwork. In Fieldwork in Tourism: Methods, issues and reflections, ed. C.M. Hall (ed.), pp. 265–288. London: Routledge. Haraway, D. 1991. A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, D.J. Haraway (ed.), pp. 149–181. New York: Routledge. Hayles, N.K. 2012. How we Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ihde, D. 1990. Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Ihde, D. 2002. Bodies in Technology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Jafari, J. 1987. Tourism models: the sociocultural aspects. Tourism Management, 8: 151–159. Jamal, T. and Hollinshead, K. 2001. Tourism and the forbidden zone: the underserved power of qualitative inquiry. Tourism Management, 22: 63–82. Johnson, S. 1997. Interface Culture: How New Technology Transforms the Way we Think and Communicate. New York: Basic Books. Keen, A. 2007. The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing our Culture and Assaulting our Economy. London: Nicholas Brealey. Kling, R. 2000. Learning about information technologies and social change: the contribution of social informatics. The Information Society, 16: 217–232. Kolko, J. 2010. Abductive thinking and sensemaking: the drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1): 15–28. Kozinets, R. 2008. Technology/ideology: how ideological fields influence consumers' technology narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 34: 865–881. Larsen, J., Urry, J., and Axhausen, K. 2007. Networks and tourism: mobile social life. Annals of Tourism Research, 34: 244–262. Latour, B. 1999. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lexhagen, M., Larson, N., and Lundberg, C. 2013. The viral fan(g) community: social media and pop culture tourism. In Tourism Social Media: Transformations in Identity, Community and Culture, A.M. Munar, S. Gyimóthy, and L. Cai (eds), pp. 133–158. Bingley: Emerald.

McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. 2005. Putting ‘felt-life’ at the center of human–computer interaction (HCI). Cognition, Technology and Work, 7: 262–271. Messeter, J. 2009. Place-specific computing: a place-centric perspective for digital designs. International Journal of Design, 3(1): 29–41. Munar, A.M. and Ooi, C.-S. 2012. The truth of the crowds: social media and the heritage experience. In Cultural Moment in Tourism, L. Smith, E. Waterton, and S. Watson (eds), pp. 255–273. Abingdon: Routledge. Munar, A.M., Gyimóthy, S., and Cai, L. (eds) 2013. Tourism Social Media: Transformations in Identity, Community and Culture. Bingley: Emerald. Papacharissi, Z. (ed.) 2011. A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge. Petersen, S.M. 2008. Loser generated content: from participation to exploitation. First Monday, 13(3): 3. Poon, A. 1993. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5): 1–6. Pritchard, A. 2004. Gender and sexuality in tourism research. In A Companion to Tourism, A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A. Williams (eds), pp. 316–326. Oxford: Blackwell. Ren, C. 2011. Non-human agency, radical ontology and tourism realities. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 858–881. Stolterman, E. 2008. The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2: 55–65. Suchman, L. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tapscott, D. 2010. Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World. New York: McGraw-Hill Tribe, J. 2010. Tribes, territories and networks in the tourism academy. Annals of Tourism Research, 37: 7–33. van der Duim, V. and Caalders, J. 2008. Tourism chains and pro-poor tourism development: an actor-network analysis of a pilot project in Costa Rica. Current Issues in Tourism, 11: 109– 125. Weiser, M. 1991. The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265: 94–104. White, N. and White, P. 2007. Home and away: tourists in a connected world. Annals of

Tourism Research, 34: 88–104. White, N. and White, P. 2008. Travel as interaction: encountering place and others. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 15: 42–48. Yoo, Y. 2010. Computing in everyday life: a call for research on experiential computing. MISQuarterly, 34: 213–231.

Part 5 Social Theories of Tourist Practice, Experience, and Landscapes Encounters

Introduction Social Theories of Tourist Practice, Experience, and Landscapes Encounters Alan A. Lew Tourism is a complex and diverse phenomenon, the study of which generally divides along social science and business management lines. Although the economic significance of tourism is clearly recognized through many of the chapters herein, this volume's fundamental approach is much more social science- than business-driven. That said, social science perspectives on tourism are, in themselves, enormously divergent, as demonstrated through the 50 chapters in this book. The seven chapters presented here encompass some of the major themes in critical and reflexive understandings on tourist experiences and tourism places. These start with the theoretical (relational geographies, postmodernity, feminist studies, and the tourist gaze) and transitions to the experiential (gender, the visual, the spoken, and the spiritual). In many ways, this chapter builds directly on the theoretical overviews presented in Part 2, Perspectives on Tourism, especially Crang's cultural geographies (Chapter 5), Hannam's tourism mobilities (Chapter 6), and Higgins-Desboilles and Whyte's critical perspectives (Chapter 7), all of which, like the chapters here, have their basis in the broad definition of social theory. Theano Terkenli's chapter on landscapes of tourism (Chapter 22) builds upon her contribution to the first edition of this companion (Terkenli, 2004) and starts this part of the book with a review of the traditional concept of geographic landscapes and how conceptual developments in the field of landscape studies can inform the much smaller work that has been undertaken on tourism landscapes. Among these are considerations of sensescapes and emotional geographies (Lorimer, 2005). As the most enduring point of contact between tourists and place, culturally constructed landscapes form the stage for tourism, upon which cultural identities are negotiated and formed. It is in this relational geography (between people and place) that issues of positionality, the visual, and performity arise (Tucker, 2007). She also reviews landscape study epistemologies and methodologies, which are grouped into the quantitative/positivist tradition and structuralist/poststructuralist/postmodern approaches. She concludes with a discussion on the growing ubiquity of tourism landscapes that are merged with what were previously considered nontourism landscapes (Crouch, 1999), and which we are only beginning to understand. The transformation of everyday landscapes into landscapes of leisure and tourism that Terkenli raises in Chapter 22 is often associated with the postmodern condition of contemporary human society (Harvey, 1989). This is the focus of Claudio Minca and Tim Oakes' chapter on tourism after the postmodern turn (Chapter 23), which, as with Terkenli's contribution, revisits and updates their contribution to the 2004 edition of this companion (Oakes and Minca, 2004). They note that although postmodernity per se has declined from formal reference within contemporary research, its shadow of influence remains strong through a variety of approaches that are broadly defined as poststructuralists, including actor-network theory (ANT), postcolonial approaches, and the mobilities paradigm, among others. They cogently trace the

emergence of these new, more current, conceptual frameworks from issues that were popularized during the postmodern turn in social theory. ANT, for example, emerged from the focus on tourist practice (see Crang, 2004 and Chapter 5 in this volume) and the postmodern deconstruction of (tourism) representations, in its intent to uncover the processes, networks, and agents of travel and its impacts. Ultimately, however, they argue that the incredible range and diversity of tourism practice is, of necessity, pushing the boundaries of social theory into equally broad and deeply multidisciplinary reconceptualizations (Minca and Oakes, 2011). The richness of the tourism phenomenon, therefore, is driving innovation in social theory. Somewhat similar to postmodernism, Jonas Larson's chapter on the tourist gaze (Chapter 24), presents another major conceptual framework that has been significant in tourism, and which has evolved since it was first introduced a couple of decades ago. Few concepts in tourism have been as influential in capturing social science imagination on the tourist encounter as the tourist gaze, as it was introduced by John Urry in 1990. Larson reviews its evolution, which he defines as having three stages of development, starting with a learned way of seeing the world and knowing, thereby, what and how to frame it through the practice of being a tourist (Waitt and Head, 2002). Responding to criticisms of an exclusive focus on the visual, embodied mobilities and globalization become important new perspectives that expand the tourist gaze into virtual and newly diverse mass experiences in the second stage of the evolution of the tourist gaze (Urry, 2002). Subsequently, the emergence of the idea of the tourism experience as performance (Edensor, 1998) and of relational approaches (between the gazer and gazed upon) formed much of the foundation for the more complicated third iteration of the tourist gaze (Urry and Larson, 2011). As Larson notes, the tourist gaze of today is, therefore, far more nuanced than its original incarnation. There is at least one fundamental difference in the evolution of postmodernism and the tourist gaze: postmodernism became a platform on which several new theoretical constructs have emerged, whereas the tourist gaze is a narrower conceptual frame that itself has evolved in response to more the emergence of more robust social theories. For example, Minca and Oakes (Chapter 23) suggest that postmodernism has been influential in the increasing ascendency of critical theory in the social sciences, including the rise of postcolonial theory and feminist theory, the latter of which is a significant part of the issues addressed by Annette Pritchard (Chapter 25) in her chapter on gender and feminist perspectives in tourism research. She begins by pointing out the all-too-often-overlooked gendered nature of tourism, which is evidenced in gender inequalities and exploitations among tourism workers, consumers, management, and academics (UNWTO, 2011). The feminist response to this societywide challenge has generated both a set of tourism research topics, as well as conceptual frameworks that emphasize power relationships (Swain, 2004) and critical theory from empiricist to poststructural thought. Topically, Pritchard organizes these issues around employment and empowerment, human trafficking and sex tourism, the sexualization of society, and sexual harassment in tourism services. Although feminist thought is evolving into more nuanced understandings of power and embodiment, the fundamental issues raised in this chapter must be recognized as continuing to bias most contemporary tourism practice and research.

In Chapter 25 Pritchard demonstrates the application of social theory, with a bent toward critical perspectives, to the multifaceted issues of gender and tourism. The three remaining chapters in this part of the book also build upon social theory, in various manners, to explore experiential themes in tourism. Caroline Scarles (Chapter 26) returns to the topic that Urry first raised in 1990, the role of the visual experience in tourism. She focuses on the “ocularcentrism” of modern tourism from its earliest beginnings, starting with the European Grand Tour in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and impacts resulting from the invention of photography in the late nineteenth century. Conceptually, of course, the tourism visual became highlighted by Urry (1990), although many other authors have also contributed to the semiotics of myth and reality in the landscapes and images that tourists gaze upon (Shields, 1989; Metro-Roland, 2009). Scarles focus, however, is on the visual as one element in the fully embodied, multisensual, and multidimensional experience of touristic performance and practice in place (Crouch and Lübbren, 2003). Like others chapters in this part of the book, she points to the increasing diversity and divergence of tourist opportunities to construct and create experiences, and therefore a need to reconceptualize the visual in this new era of tourism scale, form, and practice. In consuming the visual, the tourist takes a tangible image and assigns to it intangible values and identities. In their review of speaking heritage: language, identity, and tourism, Lauren Hall-Lew and Alan A. Lew (Chapter 27) show how the intangible spoken word can also be conceptualized as a core element in both the tourist's and the host's experience and understanding of, and performance in, place. Language is core intangible heritage resource (UNESCO, 2003) and bears some similarity to tangible heritage (Chapter 29) in the potential roles it can play in a tourism context. At the same time, it is a mostly hidden and taken-forgranted resource, which makes it open to both political and power manipulations and neglect (Chapter 4). Drawing on work in tourism studies, but even more so in social linguistics (Thurlow and Jaworski, 2010), they suggest that language and tourism interface on three scales: (i) the societal historical scale, in the form of heritage linguistic landscapes and conservation (and museumization) efforts, among others; (ii) the societal contemporary scale, including language as a political economy tool in place marketing and consumption, and in place identity; and (iii) the individual, where nuanced language skills in a tourism context can be a functionally valuable form of cultural capital. Language is a core element in the divisions between social groups, the us and the them, which can be a barrier to overcome or a cultural commodity that furthers the exoticism of the other in the promotion and experience of a destination (Chapters 16 and 19). In addition, drawing from linguistics, the study of language also offers both qualitative interpretive methodologies and some quantitative analyses that are quite new to tourism studies. In the final chapter in the part of the book, on religion and spirituality in tourism, Michael Stausberg (Chapter 28) explores another important and obvious, though much overlooked, intersection of tourism with everyday life. The similarities between tourism and religion have been pointed out by many, including the pilgrimage as a form of tour, religious institutions as a form of travel service, and the spiritual experience of nature (Narayanan and Macbeth, 2009). Stausberg goes on to describe these similarities in form, function, motivation, and meaning,

suggesting that the practice of pilgrimage was the prototypical form of modern religious tourism, as well as modern secular pilgrimage tourism (to iconic cultural sites, for example) (Olsen and Timothy, 2006). He then turns to the broader topic of spiritual tourism, which can be religious, but usually implies a deeper existential experience and meaning for the tourist that includes wilderness encounters (Frederickson and Anderson, 1999; Chapter 40) and recreation through recreation (Norman, 2011), for example. The seven chapters presented here provide an insightful range of perspectives on the depth of potential theoretical and real-world social theories of tourist practice, experience, and landscapes encounters. Despite the limitations that page space necessarily imposes, this collection provides a highly useful overview of key concepts and, more importantly, the spirit of interpretive, reflexive, and critical approaches to tourism studies. The key concepts of social theory as seen by these authors highlight the recent historical evolution of social science thought on the meaning of tourist experiences and relations to the toured. Social theory is necessarily an incomplete project, continuously seeking new conceptualizations to reveal insights into our rapidly changing world. The spirit of social theory, on the other hand, is seen in empirical form in revelations of gender inequities in tourism, in our emerging understanding of the nuances in language use in tourism, and in the still much neglected exploration of spirituality and the tourist experience. Through all of the chapters in this part of the book, the fundamental goal of social theory and postructuralist approaches is exposed to uncover and reveal the hidden contradictions and silent voices, to deconstruct that which we take for granted, and to reveal transcendent ideologies that better inform the human experience (Baert and da Silva, 2010).

References Baert, P. and da Silva, F.C. 2010. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity Press. Crang, M. 2004. Cultural geographies of tourism. In A Companion of Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 74–84. Oxford: Blackwell. Crouch, D. (ed.) 1999. Leisure/Tourism Geographies: Practices and Geographical Knowledge. London: Routledge. Crouch, D. and Lübbren, N. 2003. Visual Culture and Tourism. Oxford: Berg. Edensor, T. 1998. Tourists at the Taj. London: Routledge. Fredrickson, L. and Anderson, D. 1999. A qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19: 21–39. Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Lorimer, H. 2005. Cultural geography: the busyness of being more-than-representational. Progress in Human Geography, 29: 83–94.

Metro-Roland, M. 2009. Interpreting meaning: an application of Peircean semiotics to tourism. Tourism Geographies, 11(2): 270–279. Minca, C. and Oakes, T. (eds) 2011. Real Tourism: Practice, Care, and the Politics of Contemporary Travel Culture. London: Routledge. Narayanan, Y. and Macbeth, J. 2009. Deep in the desert: merging the desert and the spiritual through 4WD tourism. Tourism Geographies, 11(3): 369–389. Norman, A. 2011. Spiritual Tourism: Travel and Religious Practice in Western Society. London: Continuum. Oakes, T. and Minca, C. 2004. Tourism, modernity and postmodernity. In Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 280–290. Oxford: Blackwell. Shields, R. 1989. Places on The Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. London: Routledge. Swain, M.B. 2004. (Dis)embodied experience and power dynamics in tourism research. In Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies, J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (Eds.), pp. 102–118. London: Routledge. Terkenli, T.S. 2004. Tourism and landscape. In A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 339–348. Oxford: Blackwell. Thurlow, C. and Jaworski, A. 2010. Tourism Discourse: The Language of Global Mobility. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tucker, H. 2007. Performing a young people's package tour of New Zealand: negotiating appropriate performances of place. Tourism Geographies, 9(2): 139–159. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) 2003. Linguistic Diversity in Selected UNESCO's Normative Texts. www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/linguistic-diversity-in-unesconormative-texts/. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization) 2011. Global Report on Women in Tourism 2010. UNWTO and UN Women. http://ethics.unwto.org/en/content/global-reportwomen-tourism-2010. Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Urry, J. 2002. The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications. Urry, J. and Larson, J. 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0, 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications. Waitt, G. and Head, L. 2002. Postcards and frontier mythologies: sustaining views of the

Kimberley as timeless. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20: 319–344.

Chapter 22 Landscapes of Tourism Theano S. Terkenli During the past decade, with the explosion of tourism studies in all directions (scale and scope, subject matter, methods of analysis, theoretical and methodological advances), the landscape has not only assumed a more central role in social scientific perspectives to tourism, it has also increasingly crept into various types of tourism analysis. This chapter provides an overview of such trends and advances, with an eye to the past, in terms of incorporating previous inroads, a critical stance towards present debates and discourses, and a future outlook, as to where recent and ongoing developments seem to be leading this field of theory and research. A highly complex, synthetic, and controversial concept, landscape is still an evasive term. At the same time, the multidisciplinary field of landscape studies is ever evolving, consolidating gains and breaking ground in slow but steady steps. It has been previously argued (Terkenli, 2004) that the relationship between tourism and landscape is irrevocable, uncontested, and even essential to tourism. Inevitably, then, the presence of landscape has inadvertently suffused most tourism research, insofar as social scientific perspectives are concerned. Reference to landscape in connection to tourism has come in various forms and guises: either explicitly or implicitly; as a background to other analyses or as a key issue. It has been assigned varying degrees of weight and centrality, in various related subfields: all areas with remarkable growth and potential for future research expansion. Thus, as regards progress in the study of the relationship between tourism and landscape(s), the inroads have been two-fold: (i) first, a proliferation of studies touching, revolving around, or resting on the ongoing romance of tourism with the landscape, through various ontological and epistemological approaches, in various scientific fields and areas; while, (ii) at the same time, acknowledgment of the presence and role of landscape in tourism still continues to be overall scant and tentative, visà-vis other fields of tourism-related scientific inquiry. Despite the dynamic trends of the past couple of decades in tourism geography, few studies clearly address this relationship and even fewer dissect it in depth. Drawing increasingly upon cultural perspectives, contemporary approaches to tourism turn to the examination of themes such as corporeality and materiality, place identity, heritage, and consumption, all in close connection to landscape. Landscape studies in the context of the new cultural geography have taken account of different and contested identity dimensions in landscape formation, as well as their representational qualities, including perspectives on race, ethnicity, class, gender, sex, and sexuality. Contemporary approaches consciously seek to complicate established positions by signaling multiple and shifting points of view, in the context of leisure economy production and consumption (Cartier and Lew, 2005: 3). A fairly new paradigm in geography, more-than-representational geographies, brings out and delves into the relationship of the tourist with the visited landscape, through lived, interactive experience (Lorimer, 2005), with an emphasis on sensescapes and emotions/affect, tied to

place and landscape. The proliferation of critical, posthumanist, poststructuralist, and postmodern perspectives and insights into landscapes of tourism has opened up their study beyond traditional scientific boundaries, and rendered the broader field under study here distinctly more interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. However, as this chapter continues to argue, intersubjective, embodied, and multisensual tourism performance in the landscape needs to be played out in more complexity and the tourist's encounter with space, generally speaking, developed further.

The Place of Landscape in Tourism Geography: A Critical Assessment On the Relationship of Tourism and Landscape On the basis of its both tangible and intangible character, landscape constitutes a most significant geographical medium in the analysis of relationships that develop between tourist and visited location. The readiness and amenability of landscape to variable human intervention transform it into a veritable stage for play and recreation (Carmichael, 1998). As a geographical medium conceived and appropriated through the senses and the power of cognition and symbolism, landscape represents the first and most enduring medium of contact between tourist and prospective or consumed place of travel; through acquired photographs, it becomes a traveler's lasting memoir. Tourist landscapes, moreover, through promotion, sustenance, and transformation of their specific functions, are among the most significant and conflictual cultural grounds in the formation of identity and the negotiation of development (Terkenli, 2000). The importance of the role of tourism for identity formation in the landscape comes through the multiplicity of contextualized tourist knowledges and imaginaries, in dialectical relationship with place and the landscape (Figure 22.1). Likewise, due to its relational character, landscape becomes a medium of cultural and personal identity construction for the side that engages in the gazing and the consuming. “It is in its immediacy, intertextuality and experiential character that the … landscape becomes a social interface where local and global perspectives and other dimensions of tourism studies come together in the ready construction and consumption of place identity” (Terkenli, 2000: 185–186).

Figure 22.1. The landscapes of tourism model

(Terkenli, 2000).

As a focus of research, landscape requires contextual interpretation and cannot be detached from questions of positionality and from its historical and sociocultural context. Objectivity and subjectivity also intertwine in the creation of meaning, through landscape, necessitating variable readings of the contact between the subject and the object (here the observer and the landscape, respectively). This exercise finds direct application in the construction and study of landscapes of tourism, where such issues become especially relevant, through the current rise in (post)tourist awareness and the proliferation of critical scientific perspectives into historical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological dimensions of the tourist experience. It also finds application in the establishment of common grounds and understandings in cultural readings and representations of landscape, while elucidating the articulation of new identities and power relations, emerging out of contemporary tourism landscape processes and practices. Knudsen et al. (2008: 5) concede that “the locus of study for tourism is and should be the landscape. Tourism by definition takes place in a ‘tourism landscape’.”

The Visual Aspect of Landscape in Tourism Characteristics of modern European cultural landscapes were already established by the seventeenth century, imbuing the definition of the landscape with notions of vistas, prospects, or views of scenery of the land (Daniels and Cosgrove, 1998). These notions have accompanied landscape development and appropriation, up to our times, in panoramic views, in landscapes of characteristic forms, in the ephemeral, in the picturesque, in the perspective, and in other landscape principles and models, ubiquitous to the tourism industry: photographic mementos, postcards, advertisements, and, generally speaking, tourism marketing iconography. In all of these cases, the landscape has been staged by tourism planning and development initiatives for purposes of tourist consumption. The visual aspect of the tourism landscape has been widely emphasized and propagated, especially on the basis of the notion of the “tourist gaze” (Urry, 1990). Gazing is indispensable to the context of landscape; it is emotionally laden, in contrast to seeing, and thus central to the

tourist nexus of activities; “Imagery is one of the most researched aspects of tourism marketing” (Pritchard and Morgan, 2001: 167). Tourism marketing reproduces images and discourses about landscapes, through representations of cultural signs, on the basis of which the tourist, through processes of experiential reinterpretation of the sign, may assess the sight and validate the meanings of the visited landscape within the predominant discourse. Iconographical methods of construction, signification, decodification, and deconstruction are central to the making of tourist landscapes (Norton, 1996; Stefanou, 2000). Such processes, supported and supplemented by other visual means of contemporary information and computing technologies and mass media – such as TV and video – blur geographical differentiation and the distinction between “authentic” and staged, and familiar and “exotic,” in the landscape images conveyed.

The Relational and Affective Aspects of Landscape in Tourism The viewer–landscape relationship, as staged and played out in tourist landscapes, has been increasingly explored in the context of tourism studies during the past couple of decades, for example in the analysis of aspects of tourism destinations as cultural landscapes (Norton, 1996; Ringer, 1998, cited in Pritchard and Morgan, 2001: 169; Daugstad, 2007). Through its relationship with a viewer or tourist, the landscape essentially becomes a stage where historical, socioeconomic, and cultural processes articulating and articulated in space are mirrored on the land. Decidedly, it is neither desirable to generalize the multiplicity of shifting positions of viewing or gazing, nor, however, to dismiss or diminish the importance of historically predominant landscape interpretations (Terkenli, 2004). In other words, what is upheld here is not an essentialist notion of the tourist landscape, but rather a culturally ambivalent, socially constructed, and historically specific notion of the landscape that invites multiple and fluid interpretations, among which certain particular interpretations have historically prevailed. Finally, the connection between landscape and tourism is not restricted either to the representational/performative, or to the essentially geographical/physical nature of the travel experience. It extends to the pleasure sought in the experience, increasingly acknowledged through theories of emotion and affect, as well as more-than-representational geographies of human–landscape interaction (Lorimer, 2005). The enduring intensity of pleasure sought and found in the landscape since the Renaissance, in the context of an emerging European bourgeoisie, expresses something profound and constant about the human condition (Rose, 1996: 345), something that links landscape and pleasure or attraction inextricably together, thus highlighting the great significance of the emotional/affective dimension to the relationship of the visitor with the tourism landscape.

Contemporary Trends of Landscape Globalization In the context of a fast-changing world, processes of geographical transformation functioning at various geographical scales and subject to complex political, economic, and ideological factors and impacts create new schemata of geographical movement, differentiation, connectivity, consumption, and pleasure, among others. Their imprint and reflection on the

landscape is invariably substantiated and articulated through changing landscape forms, practices, functions, and meanings indicative of a new cultural economy of space (Terkenli and d'Hauteserre, 2006). They result in a growing disassociation of these new schemata from geographical location and distinct place characteristics. These transformative processes take on increasingly global dimensions, although their manifestations vary over space, time, and social context (Pritchard and Morgan, 2001: 169). For instance, postnational forms of government usher into tourism development notions of the magic and of tropicalization and exoticized gardening and landscaping, whereby “entire inhabited spaces – islands, regions, deserts, city centers, mountains – are gardened as living artworks within a global modernity, invoking and thus bringing to life the grand modernist paradigms of beauty, nature and time … cultivated as ‘human gardens’ within a tourism specific form of modern world system; a fair ground in which a global middle class meets, parties, resources itself and recreates the symbolic order of their worlds” (Picard, 2011: 5). This omnipresence and flexibilization of contemporary forms of recreation, leisure, and tourism, as fairly new occurrences, have far-reaching implications for the diversity and rich variety of European landscapes, while the historical heritage of European landscapes is coming under increasing pressure (Hazendonk et al., 2008: 18). Such developments, central and conducive to the transformation of landscape for purposes of tourism, clearly pose problems for hegemonic and totalizing discourses, so far accommodated by tourism studies, and call for new theoretical frameworks in tourism landscape research.

Key Issues and Research Advances in Tourism Landscapes Setting the General Context The cultural turn of the social sciences, in the 1990s, opened the ground for geographers to extend their more traditional areas of academic interest, such as the study of landscape, to issues of leisure/tourism spaces and places. Simultaneously, the opening up to matters of space and geographical analysis of other tourism-related disciplines has encouraged the latter to turn their attention to the landscape in the context of leisure and tourism (Terkenli, 2004). In the postmodern context of the more recent breakdown and blurring of disciplinary boundaries in academia, a more flexible approach to engagement with space has allowed geographical insights from a range of disciplines and subject fields addressing leisure-related issues into the relationship between tourism and the landscape to be installed and infused into the geography of tourism (Aitchison et al., 2000: 2). Moreover, since this shift has clearly begun to bear fruit, it may no longer be placed into “a geography of tourism,” but into a series of new “geographies of tourism.” The growth of scientific interest in the relationship of tourism with the landscape rests on the convergence of certain distinct and ongoing larger tendencies. Firstly, there is an overarching realization of the growing degree of modification that tourism development has been imparting on many landscapes around the world, highlighting the shift from landscapes of production to

landscapes of consumption. “Sometimes the changes are so profound that it is possible to talk of tourism landscapes in which tourism dominates the uses of the land and the appearance of the area” (see Wall, 2000, in Jafari, 2000: 347). However, leisure and tourism are still too often superficially seen by policy-makers and related design and planning factors as a fleeting phenomenon, while the impact of tourism on the landscape begs for concerted planning and management strategies. Secondly, international, and especially European, interest in the landscape, landscape policy, planning, assessment, values, and analytical methods and tools has skyrocketed in recent decades, calling for organized action to evaluate, protect, and enhance the quality and multifunctionality of landscapes at the local, regional, national, and international levels (Klijn et al., 1999: 12; Tress and Tress, 2001). Thirdly, the dominance of structuralist (and more recently postmodern, posthumanist, and poststructuralist) critical perspectives on landscape in social and cultural geography (or geographies) of tourism has increasingly highlighted the complex interrelationships between the phenomenon of tourism and the construction, reconstruction, and consumption of landscape in and out of the context of everyday life. The following overview of the scientific area(s) where landscape science(s) have developed a dialogue and interaction with the field of tourism will trace this relationship through an epistemological overview of the infusion of tourism-related issues into landscape geography and vice versa. Two larger periods in the recent history of geographical inquiry, corresponding to two distinct areas of geographical ontology and epistemology, may be identified here with regard to the description and interpretation of space/landscape in relation to leisure and tourism. The first overarching period – and epistemological approach – to landscape study gathers momentum through the quantitative revolution of the 1950s and the 1960s. It finds application in a large body of work on tourism landscape analysis that is mainly apolitical, informed more by economic concerns for landscape development. This body of work on the interrelationships of landscape and tourism constitutes the most extensive domain of landscape research in the field of tourism to date and continues to predominate in much of contemporary tourism research. The second period and corresponding epistemological approaches are formulated around more critical perspectives revolving around the historical and material processes of space and landscape production, reproduction, and consumption. At the outset of this chronological period, humanistic methodologies, also prevalent in geographical inquiry at the time, were not much explicitly employed in the study of the relationship tourism–landscape (Relph, 1976; Meinig, 1979; Jackson, 1984), and thus will receive no further discussion in the following overview. More recently, the dialectical relationships of society–individual and structure–culture, built into the landscape, as illustrated by structuralist interpretations of tourism landscapes in the 1970s and 1980s, have been in a process of renegotiation through postmodern, poststructuralist, posthumanist, and other epistemological approaches. They have substantially been gaining ground over the previously dominant ontology and epistemology of tourism landscape scientific inquiry of the first period, as described above. Thus, to the extent that theoretical underpinnings already exist to the relationship of tourism with landscape in geographical discourse, these shift from mainly quantitative perspectives stressing the physical, material, and absolute nature of space to more qualitative recent

perspectives that emphasize the sociocultural, symbolic, and relative nature of space. In the remainder of this section, a series of themes that has been dealt with by landscape geographies of tourism or tourism landscape analysis will be displayed and indicative examples of each of these themes will be provided. Without, obviously, intending to cover the entire field of tourism–landscape interrelationships, each of these themes represents a significant position in geographical discourses of leisure/tourism and culture, and as such will be displayed below. An exhaustive presentation of even the most significant work in these fields would be ineffable, much more in the context of this brief overview.

The First Overarching Period Admittedly, the earliest geographical research on leisure and tourism landscapes, gaining momentum in the first half of the twentieth century, was purely concerned with the classification of scenic quality and land use (Aitchison et al., 2000: 12). This preoccupation with landscape classification, assessment, and evaluation with the aid of land-use mapping and other quantitative methodologies adhering to positivist epistemologies, continues to inform a large portion of research in the area, as conducted by various related academic disciplines. Such approaches to the landscape predominate in the environmental sciences, but are equally employed in the field of tourism geography by spatial analysts (Hall and Page, 1999: 12–13; Garcia Perez, 2002; Roovers et al., 2002). From the evaluation of recreation landscapes (aesthetic studies measuring human preferences and responses to landscape alterations) in the late 1960s and early 1970s, landscape assessment in the 1980s became used as a tool to separate classification and description of landscape character. It is now superseded by more holistic approaches to landscape, based on the concept of landscape character assessment, with a clearer link to sustainable development and environmental protection (Coccossis, 2004; Hall and Page, 2006: 98; Cassar, 2010) and, more recently, to the effects of European economic recession on tourism and place/landscape. Löfgren (1999) places the popularity of such landscape evaluation and measurement techniques in environmental studies and planning, during the span of several decades, and especially during the 1970s: “Scores of studies appeared, with titles like ‘Eye Pupillary Measurement of Aesthetic Response to Forest Scenes’ or ‘Modeling and Predicting Human Response to the Visual Recreation Environment’. Hoping to create tools for natural resource management and planning, from wilderness aesthetics to scenic roads design, many of these studies put enormous amounts of energy and some pretty spectacular number crunching into what are good examples of social science trivia. They reflect a period in tourist and leisure management when hard facts, models, and clear taxonomies were in demand” (Löfgren, 1999: 83; see also Brown, 2006; Mikulec, 2011). They also incorporate ongoing attempts aimed towards landscape impact analysis and landscape architecture, as well as physical resource assessment for tourism and recreation. They continue to illustrate the importance of human perception and recognition of what is attractive and valued by different people in relation to recreational time (Hall and Page, 2006: 99). Application of such techniques in a wider recreational context, in the 1990s and 2000s, moved away from land-use zoning methods to ones where the impacts of specific activities are evaluated (Hall and Page, 2006: 99).

Meanwhile, by the late 1930s and 1940s, another related quantitative approach to tourism landscape analysis had already gained ground, namely interest in the geography of seaside resorts, resort development, and coastal landscapes. This general interest aimed at tourism development and planning and focused on systematic geographical approaches to tourism landscape morphology, through the employment of spatial analytical techniques. Resort morphology was recognized by tourism geographers and others as early as the 1930s, but not until the 1970s did detailed urban and economic analyses generate a considerable body of academic literature, today “a small but important research thread among planners and tourism geographers” (see Meyer-Arendt, 2000, in Jafari, 2000: 504–505). Concomitant to this development was the widespread employment of descriptive and predictive models in early recreation and tourism research within geography, a prevalent and ongoing trend in the geography of tourism to date (Pearce, 1995). Aitchison et al. point out that “while leisure studies was embracing sociological concepts from Marxist, structuralist and humanist theory in the 1960s and 1970s, tourism studies and recreation research appeared to hold on to their more positivist paradigm” (2000: 12). They add that analyses of recreation and tourism continued to rely on quantitative methods to devise theories which mapped, modeled, coded, and classified recreation and tourism development, provision participation, and impacts. Altogether, a number of models dealing with various aspects of the spatial structures of tourism emerged in the late 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s, most of which were developed independently of one another, with little or no recognition of or attempt to build on previous (Pearce, 1995: 3, 14) or contemporary efforts. Themes under this umbrella of positivist modeling approaches to tourism and the landscape vary enormously, including: land-use change, planning and management; landscape as a resource for urban, rural, regional, and national development; travel motives and tourist types; natural and cultural resource assessment for recreation and tourism; landscape impact analyses; and tourism carrying capacity. Within this positivist paradigm, perhaps the most significant theme in tourism analysis, during the late 1990s to early 2000s, has been a series of perspectives revolving around sustainable development issues with applications in sustainable tourism development per se, extending to forms, functions, and symbolisms of landscapes of tourism. A third strand of tourism landscape research that spans both chronological periods in the development of ontological and epistemological research perspectives to landscapes of tourism, during the second half of the twentieth century, has been the historical perspective/overview of landscape change through tourism. Although the historical perspective has always been present in tourism studies as an introductory overview of current issues, complete historical geographical perspectives to tourism emerged only in the 1990s (Towner, 1996). These have tended to examine the relationships between tourism and the landscape historiographically, stressing the impact of changing motives and socioeconomic constraints of travel on the landscape (Towner, 1996). By the turn of the century, their tendency towards an analysis of the social history and cultural underpinnings of this relationship assumed more critical perspectives (Löfgren, 1999). Although the spatial patterns that arise from locational attributes of supply and demand predominated as an organizational concept in this type of tourism landscape approach, the particular role of place has also been explored (Towner, 1996: 5–6). In the past couple of decades, it was supplemented by anthropological

and sociological inputs and, lately, also by concerns about public participation in landscape governance (Jones and Stenseke, 2011). In this third strand of tourism landscape research, landscape experience and relevance have been negotiated increasingly more critically than in the previous ones displayed above.

The Second Overarching Period Critical historical negotiations of the relationship tourism–landscape lead this discussion to the second overarching chronological period, which traces the development of tourism landscape perspectives from stucturalist and humanistic to poststructuralist and posthumanistic approaches. Although a more critical shift to geographical research was already apparent in the 1960s, a Marxist and structuralist reorientation of landscape geography gained momentum only in the 1970s and 1980s. In this chronological context, cultural meanings pertaining to landscapes of tourism were built into landscapes of the built environment and rural surroundings (Aitchison et al., 2000: 15), illustrating dialectical relationships between structures and cultures or society on the one hand, and the individual on the other. Research in the relationship between tourism and the landscape was initially scant but substantial, in the structuralist paradigm (Britton, 1982, 1991; Shaw and Williams, 1994; Porter and Sheppard, 1998: 541). Following contemporary trends in geography and the social sciences more generally, it was soon superseded by postmodern, postcolonial, and poststructuralist approaches, where this type of research has since been booming. Postmodern/poststructural theoretical perspectives and the growing impact of the field of cultural economy have significantly contributed to the study of “the social-cultural nexus of the material and the symbolic in the production, representation and consumption of leisure and tourism landscapes … as regimes of signification … mediated by sites and processes of leisure and tourism” (Aitchison et al., 2000: 4, 6). Contemporary social and cultural geographies of landscapes of tourism demonstrate how the latter serve as sites and sights of social and cultural inclusion/exclusion and are not fixed, but are in a constant state of transition (Urry, 1995). Such approaches to tourism landscapes acknowledge specific landscape contexts of transformation, rather than placing landscape in the context of an overall system of global change and reorganization, which comes a bit later on. They include a wide variety of themes, such as landscape and place experiences and practices (Crang, 1999; Daugstad, 2007), gender and identity formation (Kinnaird and Hall, 1994; Pritchard and Morgan, 2000), spectacle and performance (Hollinshead, 1999), the gaze and the surveillance (Crang, 1999; Hollinshead, 1999; Urry, 1990), attraction and desire (Cartier and Lew, 2005), and mobility and materiality (della Dora, 2009). They call for the development of sociocultural geographies of leisure and tourism, rather than of a more systematic science of a geography of tourism. Four monographs provide excellent illustrations of work within this paradigm. In Leisure and Tourism Landscapes: Social and Cultural Geographies, Aitchison et al. (2000) identify a series of poststructuralist discourses of the spatiality of leisure and tourism landscapes, such as the role of gender in constructing and contesting leisure and tourism spaces, places, and landscapes; the place of ethnicity in the production and reproduction of urban landscape; and the interrelation between sexuality and spatiality in city landscapes. Leisure/Tourism

Geographies: Practices and Geographical Knowledge is a collection of essays edited by David Crouch on the “fractured, multiple geographical knowledge … [that is] closer to our lived practice” (Crouch, 1999: 13); it considers leisure/tourism as an encounter that exists in place and landscape between people, people and space, people as socialized and embodied subjects, expectations, experience, and desire. Cartier and Lew's (2005) edited volume, Seductions of Place: Geographical Perspectives on Globalization and Touristed Landscapes, examines experiences and meanings of the touristed landscape, dependent on “understanding subject positions and subject formations of the tourism, the toured, and those who would work at being both or neither, and from one moment or place to the next” (Cartier and Lew, 2005: 4). More generally speaking, in the spirit of this past period under consideration, aspects of desire, as well as multiple positions of sensory engagement, attraction, and legibility – ways in which landscapes can be read, imagined, and experienced, from diverse points of view and positions of orientation – are explored. Finally, Landscape, Tourism, and Meaning, edited by Knudsen et al., offers different views of the intersection between landscape, tourism and identity, and the ways in which these intersect with meaning, in an attempt to “move tourism theory forward from the conception of Urry's gaze, by bringing landscape theory into consideration” (Knudsen et al., 2008: 132). However, the latter developments have not been substantially endowed with sufficiently in-depth and incisive probes into the subject matter.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections The twenty-first century witnessed a shift towards more critical, posthumanist, and poststructuralist research in the field. Each of these prevailing discourses and other forms of interdisciplinary contribution is accordingly reflective and indicative of wider contemporaneous perspectives on landscape, not only within the social sciences but also within all other disciplinary fields related to the study of landscapes of tourism. They indicate the need to study the ways in which space and landscape literally and metaphorically shape the experience of leisure and tourism, not only through the gaze, but also through multisensual sensitivity, materiality, embodiment, and expressive practice (della Dora, 2009). Furthermore, they elicit future research in the ways in which contextualized, as well as overarching, leisure and tourism experiences inform and substantiate landscapes of tourism. In conclusion, much has been written and debated with regard to spatial forces and products of transformation through tourism as it relates to landscape. So far, however, this body of interdisciplinary theory and epistemology for the study of landscapes of/and tourism lacks an adequate organizational framework of analysis, much more one that sufficiently addresses the spatial and social imprint of a rapidly changing world geography of tourism. The challenge, then, for the study of interrelationships of tourism and landscape, as this emerges from such a brief overview of the contribution of landscape geographies to the study of tourism, is twofold. First, it lies in the rearticulation and the renewal of an awareness of the place of landscape in the geography (or geographies) of tourism. This interdisciplinary dialogue and merging inevitably leads to the need to develop a theoretical framework for the study of

landscapes and/of tourism out of disparate efforts and perspectives. While many such attempts from various sides have contributed to shedding light upon the interrelations between tourism and the landscape, these attempts have not tended to be framed explicitly as tourism studies, much less as studies of landscapes of tourism. Second, this endeavor towards theory building must be carried out while embracing the complexity of interrelationships between tourism and the landscape, in the context of a newly emerging cultural economy of space informing new geographies of tourism. The development of new types of landscapes, with the advent of new forms of tourism catering to new social needs, cultural preferences, and economic contingencies has certainly been ongoing practice since the appearance of the tourism phenomenon. The novelty of such landscapes in the present age, however, lies instead in their nature, scale, and geographical characteristics, cutting across many of the more traditional typologies of tourist environments (Shaw and Williams, 1994: 172–3; Terkenli and d'Hauteserre, 2006). The segregation, for instance, of leisure from home life that modernization instilled becomes more and more tentative and irrelevant in the postmodern Western world (Terkenli, 2000: 191), signaling tourism “as continual practice” (Rojek and Urry, 1997). Practices that we understand by leisure/tourism today merge with other areas of life (Harvey, 1989; Crouch, 1999: 2) in the society of spectacle where specific pleasures are not place-bound and objects of delight proliferate (Debord, 1994). What ensues is a growing dedifferentiation in space of leisure and tourism, shopping, work, culture, satisfaction of basic needs, comfort, play, and familiarity, among others. Thus, in the context of this new cultural economy of space, a final major difficulty with our future task as outlined above becomes the increasing tendency for all landscapes to assume characteristics of landscapes of leisure and tourism, while the distinction between leisure and tourism is also becoming increasingly blurred.

References Aitchison, C., MacLeod, N.E., and Shaw, S.J. 2000. Leisure and Tourism Landscapes: Social and Cultural Geographies. London: Routledge. Brown, G. 2006. Mapping landscape values and development preferences: a method for tourism and residential development planning. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8: 101–113. Britton, S.G. 1982. The political economy of tourism in the third world. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(3): 331–358. Britton, S.G. 1991. Tourism, capital and place: towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9: 451–478. Carmichael, B. 1998. Destinations: Cultural Landscapes of Tourism. London: Routledge. Cartier, C. and Lew, A.A. (eds) 2005. Seductions of Place: Geographical Perspectives on Globalization and Touristed Landscapes. London: Routledge.

Cassar, L.F. 2010. A Landscape Approach to Conservation: Integrating Ecological Sciences & Participatory Methods. Msida: UNESCO and International Environment Institute. Coccossis, H. 2004. Sustainable development, landscape conservation and tourism in the small islands of Greece: the nature conservation-society interface. In Cultural Landscapes and Land Use, D. Martin and J. van der Straaten, pp. 111–124. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Crang, M. 1999. Knowing, tourism and practices of vision. In Leisure/Tourism Geographies: Practices and Geographical Knowledge, D. Crouch (ed.), pp. 238–256. London: Routledge. Crouch, D. (ed.) 1999. Leisure/Tourism Geographies: Practices and Geographical Knowledge. London: Routledge. Daniels, S. and Cosgrove, D. 1988. Introduction: iconography and landscape. In The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments, D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels (eds), pp. 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daugstad, K. 2007. Negotiating landscape in rural tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2): 402–426. Debord, G. 1994. The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books. della Dora, V. 2009. Travelling landscape-objects. Progress in Human Geography, 33(3): 334–354. Garcia Perez, J.D. 2002. Ascertaining landscape perceptions and preferences with pair-wise photographs: planning rural tourism in Extremadura, Spain. Landscape Research, 27(3): 297– 308. Hall, C.M. and Page, S.J. 1999. The Geography of Tourism and Recreation: Environment, Place and Space. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Page, S.J. 2006. The Geography of Tourism and Recreation. Environment, Place and Space, 3rd edn. London: Routledge. Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Hazendonk, N., Hendriks, M., and Venema, M. (eds). 2008. Greetings from Europe: Landscape and Leisure. Rotterdam: OIO Publishers. Hollinshead, K. 1999. Surveillance of the worlds of tourism: Foucault and the eye-of-power. Tourism Management, 20: 7–23. Jackson, J.B. 1984. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jafari, J. (ed.) 2000. Encyclopedia of Tourism. London: Routledge.

Jones, M. and Stenseke, M. (eds) 2011. The European Landscape Convention: Challenges of Participation. Dordrecht: Springer. Kinnaird, V. and Hall, D. (eds) 1994. Tourism: a Gender Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley. Klijn, J.A., Bethe, F., Wijermans, M., and Ypma, K.W. 1999. Landscape Assessment Method at a European Level: a Case Study of Polder Landscapes. Report 173, Winand Staring Centre. Wageningen: WSC. Knudsen, D., Metro-Roland, M.M., Soper, A.K., and Greer, C.E. (ed.) 2008. Landscape, Tourism, and Meaning. Bodmin: Ashgate. Löfgren, O. 1999. On Holiday: a History of Vacationing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lorimer, H. 2005. Cultural geography: the busyness of being more-than-representational. Progress in Human Geography, 29: 83–94. Meinig, D. 1979. The beholding eye: ten versions of the same scene. In The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, D. Meinig (ed.), pp. 33–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mikulec, J. 2011. Landscape and tourism potential in the protected landscape areas. Agricultural Economics—Czech, 57(6): 272–278. Norton, A. 1996. Experiencing nature: the reproduction of environmental discourse through safari tourism in East Africa. Geoforum, 27(3): 355–373. Pearce, D. 1995. Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis, 2nd edn. London: Longman. Picard, D. 2011. Tourism, Magic and Modernity: Cultivating the Human Garden. New York: Berghahn Books. Porter, P.W. and Sheppard, E.S. 1998. A World of Difference: Society, Nature, Development. New York: The Guilford Press. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N.J. 2000. Privileging the male gaze: gendered tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4): 884–905. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N.J. 2001. Culture, identity and tourism representation: marketing Cymru or Wales? Tourism Management, 22: 167–179. Relph, E. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion. Rojek, C. and Urry, J. (eds) 1997. Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory. London: Routledge. Roovers, P., Hermy, M., and Gulinck, H. 2002. Visitor profile, perceptions and espectations in forests from a gradient of increasing unbanisation in central Belgium. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 59(3): 129–145. Rose, G. 1996. Geography and the science of observation: the landscape, the gaze and masculinity. In Human Geography: an Essential Anthology, J. Agnew, D.N. Livingstone, and A. Rogers (eds), pp. 341–350. Oxford: Blackwell. Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 1994. Critical Issues in Tourism: a Geographical Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Stefanou, J. 2000. The contribution of the analysis of the image of a place to the formulation of tourism policy. In Tourism and the Environment: Regional, Economic, Cultural and Policy Issues, revised 2nd edn, H. Briassoulis and J. van der Straaten (eds), pp. 229–237. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Terkenli, T.S. 2000. Landscapes of tourism: a cultural geographical perspective. In Tourism and the Environment: Regional, Economic, Cultural and Policy Issues, revised 2nd edn, H. Briassoulis and J. van der Straaten (eds), pp. 179–202. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Terkenli, T.S. 2004. Tourism and landscape. In Tourism Geographies: A Companion to Tourism, A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A. Williams (eds), pp. 339–348. Oxford: Blackwell. Terkenli, T.S. and d'Hauteserre, A.-M. (eds) 2006. Landscapes of a New Cultural Economy of Space. Dordrecht: Springer. Towner, J. 1996. An Historical Geography of Recreation and Tourism in the Western World, 1540–1940. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Tress, B. and Tress, G. 2001. Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57(3–4): 143–157. Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Urry, J. 1995. Consuming Places. London: Routledge.

Chapter 23 Tourism After the Postmodern Turn Claudio Minca and Tim Oakes

“Tourism, Modernity, and Postmodernity” After a Decade Ten years ago, in the first edition of this Companion, we wrote a brief account of how tourism served as an important lens through which scholars viewed and made sense of modernity and postmodernity. Since that essay was published, there has been tremendous growth in the ways tourism studies scholars continue to develop and push poststructural thought in order to interrogate social theory. And while the concept of “postmodernity” has largely evaporated from this literature, it is still possible to trace the great variety of theoretical and conceptual work being done in tourism studies back to what we would call the “postmodern turn.” In this updated account, we wish to argue, therefore, that the postmodern turn, which seemed to offer important new insights into how we think about tourism, has indeed produced a raft of diverse conceptual and theoretical approaches, and that these have enriched tourism studies significantly. At the same time, though, we find that the diverse practices of tourism itself – practices revealed by the poststructuralist approaches emergent in the postmodern turn – have in turn shaped the ways we think about and theorize, more broadly, the social. The tourism experience remains an important field through which to interrogate theory. Whereas 10 years before we found in tourism an important lens for viewing some of the theoretical conundrums of modernity and postmodernity, today we find in tourism an analytical tool for rethinking social theory after the postmodern turn. We ultimately argue here for viewing tourism as an analytic, rather than a particular kind of behavior, experience, or practice. Three key insights can be recovered from our earlier essay that might serve as a basis from which to explore further the ways tourism continues to intervene in theory after the postmodern turn. First, in our earlier essay we were unwilling to separate the postmodern from the modern in any fundamental sense. The actual practices of tourism, we found, offered a particularly revealing lens through which to understand why such a separation could not be sustained. The tourism experience seemed to reveal the postmodern as merely an “other,” more “reflexive,” account of the modern itself. Tourism – and the practices of tourists specifically – embodied all the contradictions and paradoxes produced by modernity itself, with postmodernity emerging as, more than anything, a convenient catch-all term for these contradictions and paradoxes. Attention to the actual practices of tourism, and in particular the great diversity and ongoing dynamism of these practices, remains an important message of the present essay. Second, we noted the growing lack of distinction between tourism and practices of everyday life in so-called postmodern (that is, postindustrial, late-capitalist) societies. Everyday life was increasingly experienced in touristic terms and, because of this, thinking about tourism would seemingly offer an increasingly central mode for thinking about broader social issues, dynamics, processes, and experiences. This indistinction between tourism and everyday life

has only grown in importance over the past decade. Third, the tourism lens allowed us to think about postmodern subjectivity in productive ways, as formed through an ongoing tension (or, as we put it at the time, paradox), between the powers of control and freedom, cognitive rationality and aesthetic reflexivity, and so on. As will be noted in what follows, we continue to find in tourism productive new ways to push understandings of human subjectivity in relation to social processes. Taken together, these three insights offer a basis from which to continue building an understanding of tourism as an analytical tool with which to interrogate dynamic social processes. Although the “postmodern moment” in social theory has clearly evaporated over the past decade or so, we find a host of diverse theoretical approaches that continue to enrich tourism studies in its wake. These diverse developments include, for example, the so-called “critical turn” in tourism studies, the growing utility of actor-network theory (ANT), postcolonial approaches to tourism, the rise of “mobility studies,” the turn toward new material geographies of everyday practice, and newly conceived geographies of care and responsibility. The best work in each of these areas, we feel, has not been content to apply broader theoretical insights to cases in which tourism practice is merely an empirical focus, but rather has drawn on tourism practice to intervene, analytically, in those broader theoretical arguments. In what follows, we briefly trace a few of these approaches in an effort to suggest their derivation and departure from “the postmodern.” We then explore in greater detail the theoretical implications for a practice-oriented approach to tourism – something we refer to as “real tourism” (see Minca and Oakes, 2011) – particularly with regard to thinking through the ways tourism relates to the broader ideas associated with modernity and postmodernity. In this section we argue that paying attention to the actual practices of tourism necessitates an embrace of the theoretical and conceptual pluralism that has emerged out of the postmodern turn. We conclude by referring to the possibility of a “tourism turn” in the social sciences, a possibility that may have significant implications for whether and how we view tourism studies as a distinct field. For we find that understanding the actual practices of tourism necessitates not an orderly set of concepts through which we make sense and categorize certain behaviors and practices as distinct from other behaviors and practices, but rather a new analytic that goes far beyond the remit of tourism studies itself.

Where did Postmodernity Go? As mentioned above, the term postmodern has been largely dismissed in the past decade or so, with a few exceptions. While poststructural thought itself continues to evolve and gain traction in ever broader circles of scholarship, postmodernity – as a broader expression of a particular cultural “moment” in artistic and intellectual work – has seemingly fizzled. The reasons for this are far beyond the scope of this very brief account, though we would argue that it has much to do with the broad geopolitical, economic, and cultural shifts associated with the world order following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the consequences of these shifts on scholarly priorities and the need to rethink the role of postfoundational theory at a time of

global geopolitical crisis (Sparke, 2005; Marchart, 2007). Be that as it may, the “effects” of the postmodern turn on the social sciences more broadly and on the field of tourism studies more specifically have been remarkable. Many of the by-products of the postmodern turn have made their way into, and had important ramifications for, the mainstream of contemporary tourism studies. With no claim of being exhaustive, it is perhaps worthwhile mentioning a few of these very ramifications, as well as showing how they relate to the sea change under the postmodern umbrella. John Urry, for example, in the third edition of his tremendously influential The Tourist Gaze (Urry, 1999; now co-authored with Jonas Larsen as The Tourist Gaze 3.0; Urry and Larsen, 2011), argues that the field of tourism is and should be considered part of a broader mobility paradigm; that is, as a manifestation of a flexible late modernity where increasingly different kinds of mobile subjects travel and intersect with each other during those travels producing novel forms of the social (see also Urry, 2000). The impossibility of isolating a tourist subject, something to which we will return later in the chapter, is part of this new understanding of tourist travel and also a legacy of a by now established poststructuralist way of approaching the messiness of modernity. The “practice” turn in tourism (Crang, 1997, 2004; Edensor, 2001; Lorimer and Lund, 2003; Crouch, 2004, 2005) can also be seen in this light, at least as far as the deconstruction of representations – including tourist representations – operated by the postmodern mind is concerned. This deconstruction has forced the social sciences to return to the question of practice and to engage with “nonrepresentational” aspects of the social, including the ways in which this is expressed in tourism. The past decade has also placed strong emphasis on new methodologies, and on different ways of engaging with the partial truths of our experience, including our travel experience as tourists (Minca and Oakes, 2006). ANT, which shares with the postmodern a skepticism towards the supposed reality of representations and an appreciation for partial forms of knowledge normally overlooked in structuralist approaches, has made its appearance in tourism studies as well (see, among others, van der Duim, 2007; van der Duim et al., 2012). ANT's focus on processes and networks and on human and nonhuman agency is indeed an important and innovative way of studying contemporary global travels and their material implications. This approach, in particular, complements the practice turn in tourism studies and integrates practice-based approaches into more general societal dynamics affecting people's everyday lives. This preoccupation with people's lives and wellbeing in relation to leisure and tourism is also at the core of an increased recognition of the importance of questions of care and responsibility in tourism (Sin, 2010; Ormond, 2011; Pearce et al., 2012). The growing literature on these two related topics is the result of the need for novel ways of understanding and practicing the positionality of all subjects, and of the power relationships activated by our travels to places, and among peoples, as “cultural beings.” The politics of care that is taking central stage in the social sciences today is strongly linked to this literature, with care intended here as both a strategy of control and as a way of activating emotional labor (Minca, 2009; Veijola, 2009a, 2009b). The inclusion of “the emotional” and the “affective” in the work of tourism scholars is indeed an important move that can be derived, in part, from the postmodern call to abandon grand narratives and recover individual subjectivities and their experiences of the world. The

debate on responsibility as an offspring of the poststructuralist emphasis on the position of the subject – in research and in travel to name two key issues for our main argument – is particularly important for tourism studies in an age strongly determined by the ways in which travel and mobility are conceived, represented, and put into practice, with enormous implications for the environment, for local communities, and for the realms of culture and politics in their most diverse interpretations. The penetration of the postcolonial in tourism, and in tourism studies, is also a tendency that speaks to some of the key tenets of the postmodern debate as it has developed during the previous decades (Kaplan, 1996; Hall and Tucker, 2004; Winter et al., 2009; Silverman, 2012). Often as the result of revisionist histories – themselves sometimes inspired by the postmodern turn – tourism is very often involved in the reinterpretation of colonial tropes. Of course, this often implicates tourism in the cleansing of colonialism's political and historical meanings and memories. Postcolonial tourism, then, has become a central way in which societies are revisiting and repackaging their relationships with the colonial. The ways in which labor in tourism is often managed and represented, for example, might be viewed in distinctly postcolonial terms (see, among others, Harris, 2009; McMorran, 2012). And a sort of postmodern pastiche flavor emanates from many contemporary reconstructions of the “colonial chic” in trendy hotels, in cultural itineraries, and in folkloric performances in and about many former colonies. These are all special effects anticipated and somehow discredited by the postmodern wave some time ago. Finally, an increasing tendency to study tourism in terms of critical theory is the result of a number of streams of thought, including the impact of feminist theory and of postcolonial theory, but also, in combination with these, of the postmodern turn (Ateljevic et al., 2007). Critical interventions are dominating key journals and academic fora in contemporary tourism studies in a way that would have probably been impossible without the revolution operated by the so-called postmodern turn. After this brief review of the main articulations in which the legacy of the postmodern turn can be found, it is perhaps useful to spend some time to reflect on how all these trends have affected the ways in which tourism and tourism studies may be conceived today, and on how the question of modernity and subjectivity, so central to past analyses of these two realms, may be reconsidered and reformulated.

Practice: Real Tourism Tourism studies has not only been influenced by the postmodern turn in the ways described above, but its growing relevance and sophistication has showed how tourism is increasingly central to ongoing debates in social theory concerning such diverse topics as postcolonialism, mobility, culture, wellbeing and care, the everyday, and many others of social and political relevance. The field of tourism studies thus appears to have encountered, over the past decade, a critical turning point. As evidenced by published monographs, edited volumes, new academic journals, dissertations, and theses, as well as curriculum developments in geography,

anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, and other related fields, tourism studies has over the past decade taken its legitimate place as a transdisciplinary field of cutting-edge scholarship (see, among others, Meethan, 2001; Gibson, 2008; Tribe, 2009; Urry and Larsen, 2011; Caton, 2012). Yet while this increasingly robust body of theoretical work interpreting tourism has offered new perspectives on key questions of social theory, the empirical ground upon which tourism studies is purportedly based has also been undergoing profound transformation, suggesting that new practices of tourism – that is, what tourists actually do when they travel – can be described in compelling and innovative ways. In our most recent book Real Tourism (Minca and Oakes, 2011) we tried to suggest ways in which the actual practices of tourism required us to reconsider the role of theory in tourism studies and, more importantly, the role of tourism in social theory. That is, we sought to clarify and demonstrate how the diverse “effects” of the postmodern turn, reviewed in the previous section, complicated and ultimately undermined any attempt to approach tourism as a single category of behavior, a particular type of experience, or a readily identifiable form of practice. The dispersion of postmodern thought into a wide variety of approaches, in other words, compels us to see in tourism a similar theoretical and methodological pluralism. The actual practices of tourism, in short, are “all over the map” in both literal geographic and conceptualmetaphorical terms. Our title for this volume was deliberately provocative. There was clearly no claim to some hidden truth waiting to be revealed about tourism in that title. Quite the contrary; by making reference to the “real” in tourism we hoped to invite the reader to think of it as something that cannot be studied in isolation from the rest of the messy social forces that shape the late-modern spatialities of our everyday lives. Tourism is indeed “real,” we argued, as both a constitutive force in the social world, and a set of actual practices that challenge conventional modern categorizations or disembodied abstractions. This reading of tourism is thus focused on the actual practices of contemporary travel and requires a theoretical pluralism capable of going beyond orderly ideas of authenticity or modernity, and engaging in full with their transgressions, but also with the processes that give them the forms that we experience as tourists (on this see, for example, Crang, 1999, 2004, 2006; Edensor, 2001, 2006, 2007; Bærenholdt et al. 2004; Crouch, 2004, 2005; Minca and Oakes, 2006; Minca, 2007, 2009, 2011; Obrador-Pons, 2007). This approach to tourism is important not so much for what it reveals about changes in tourism itself, but for what it says about a rapidly changing social world more generally. Instead of simply learning about tourism via the “application” of social theory, then, we believe that the years since the postmodern turn have taught us to relearn social theory from tourism. This goes well beyond the idea of including tourism and tourism studies in the mainstream of academic debates on the social. What we would like to argue is that by engaging in full with the contemporary practices of tourism and their broader geographies, we can learn a great deal not only about the workings of modernity, but also about the new sites in which social theory is produced. This rather ambitious claim is also the result of our work over the previous decade on the relationship between tourism, tourism studies, and Asia. Real Tourism, again, was an attempt to rethink in novel ways this complicated relationship, a relationship that has much to do with the ways in which the spatialities of modernity and modern social theory

are being conceived and represented. The book, and the research project associated to it, were an attempt to engage in an original way with scholars who work in Asia and who are, themselves, of Asian origin. It was an attempt to incorporate Asian spaces and practices into questions of general interest for the field of tourism studies, and not only because of the growing importance of tourism in that part of the world. Here, and in the book, we do not claim in fact that there is anything particular about “Asia” as an alternative, non-Western standpoint from which to critique the Eurocentric scholarly edifice of social theory. We find it impossible to isolate a typology of “Asian tourism” as a sort of regional expression of a global phenomenon (Minca and Oakes, 2011: 3). But we do find that tourism scholarship in Asia reveals in important ways why the diverse and messy practices of tourism require that we pluralize our theoretical toolkits. What we find – learning from Asia and from tourism in Asia – is that while a “colonial travel tradition” continues to inform the desires, experiences, and practices of contemporary global touring, this very tradition is increasingly challenged by modernities that are borne out of very specific Asian contexts (see Oakes, 1998). Many of the most conventional tourist practices, linked as they are to the long European travel tradition, are now intertwined with a set of different bodies engaged in entirely new practices. These bodies and practices threaten to displace, in many ways, the very idea of tourism as we knew it; that is, as a mere expression of Western modernity gone global. This challenge to the traditional geographies of tourism studies – that is, to the sites through which tourism is normally studied, theorized, and represented in its dynamics – is one of the first aspects that we would like to highlight in order to explain what has happened to the legacy of the postmodern in tourism studies 10 years later. If tourism and modernity are understood in this way – and here is the second point that we would like to make from an “after-the-postmodern” perspective – it is untenable today to conceive of the tourist as a self-standing subject characterized by a set of distinct behaviors, languages, representations, identities, even geographies. In our earlier Companion article, we reflected on the paradoxical nature of what we described as a tourist subjectivity, a truly modern subjectivity as it were. We now find it necessary to further problematize this very possibility of a modern subjectivity (even one rendered in all the nuanced and paradoxical terms that we insisted on a decade ago). This is because a great deal of rich empirical work in recent years compels us to acknowledge a significant field of largely unexplored spaces of banal and mundane tourist practices (Edensor, 2007; Obrador-Pons et al., 2009). What tourists actually do “out there,” tourism scholars are increasingly finding, interferes and intersects in novel and complicated ways with the conventional realms of representations and behavioral models that still linger in the world of tourism and its crafted experiences. What this “practice turn” in tourism inspires is thus a substantial reconceptualization of tourism from a specific or unique modern experience of subject formation to one void of any attempt to work on a fictional figure called “the tourist subject.” Such a reconceptualization would require tourism to be studied as one form (out of many others) of contemporary mobility, notwithstanding its capacities of colonizing and exploiting places, cultural productions, consumption patterns. While suggesting that tourism studies investigate in detail the different forms of

experimentation and innovation that tourists develop in places, we also hope to suggest that tourism should no longer be explained simply as the local manifestation of a general project and process of modernity. The new emphasis placed on practice and on the materialities of contemporary tourist spaces and places makes impossible any recapitulation of modern grand theories as explanations for tourism and what it produces “on the ground” (Bærenholdt et al., 2004). This is another, perhaps unintended, but in our view crucial, consequence or legacy of the postmodern turn in tourism studies. And while most readers will not find this argument particularly novel, given all that has happened in social and cultural geography over the past decade, it remains an important statement since the field has in many ways not yet fully engaged with the broader debates on practice and the material that have been transforming in the social sciences and the humanities. A third and final point that we would like to discuss in this short review of the postmodern 10 years on is the growing importance of questions of care and wellbeing that are becoming central to the work of many tourism scholars. This is an interest matched only by the parallel growth of interventions on questions of ethics and responsibility. Both of these streams of work can be viewed as interrelated by-products of the postmodern turn. While research on medical tourism and care (Hall, 2012; Ormond, 2013) are clearly in line with similar interests emerging in the social sciences at large, something specific could be said about this growing field of interest in tourism studies. First, the politicization of the body and the ways in which the bios has become the object of growing attention on the part of late-capitalist organizations and their regimes of governance makes this new focus on wellbeing and health central to ways in which tourism and mobility are and will be studied in the coming decades. These new trends are definitely recognized by the cognitive mapping of the discipline proposed by this very Companion. However, since mobile individuals, tourists, or migrants or refugees, as they may be, are increasingly managed and controlled as bodies via the networks that make their travels indeed possible, the question of biopolitics in tourism is becoming an important one for understanding future trends and their overall political and cultural implications (Minca, 2009, 2011). Individual racial and gender profiling, and different forms of biometrics, are present in many crucial nodes of present-day transportation systems and border management (see Urry, 2007; Adey, 2009; Fluri, 2012). This biopolitical dimension has been grossly overlooked by the relevant literature; however, the biopolitical is a very important dimension on all forms of care, including those linked to tourism and leisure. The question of care is central as well to issues of gender and hostessing in late-modern Western societies, and this is something that affects the ways in which we think of and understand work in tourism, especially when emotional labor and affect are involved (Veijola, 2009a, 2009b). The postmodern, together with the impact of feminist theory and gender studies, and their much needed focus on the body – including the body in movement – has been key to this new emphasis on the actual management of bodies in their diverse forms and aspects (that is, border controls, security devices in tourist sites, displays of smiling bodies, bodily interactions in tourism destinations, abstracted and sexualized bodies in tourist promotions, and so on). Finally, we conclude our review of what is learned from actual tourism practices with the

question of responsibility. As noted above, the postmodern turn was particularly important in highlighting the subjective role of the researcher, but also of the power relations involved in the tourist business, and the encounters between subjects in different positions that it mobilizes. In many instances, tourism is precisely about providing the opportunity of traveling in order to encounter places and peoples different from home (Urry, 1990). These travels and their encounters then entail the need to become aware of their implications and consequences, for both the local people – whichever definition is used to describe what is “local” – but also for the environment and the tourist herself. The messiness of the tourist encounter on site, together with the complicated forms of agency that it produces, including non-human agency, are now studied in novel ways that comprise a strong interest in the forms of knowledge and impacts that past structuralist approaches, normally based on grand theoretical frameworks, would simply miss or misunderstand. Responsible tourism, and the question of responsibility in tourism, are thus becoming mainstream in tourism studies, in part due to the growing concern on the part of the industry, public institutions, and all forms of organizations linked to tourism for these issues. Many tourist products and experiences are now presented as “responsible” or more responsible compared to others, something that has been thoroughly investigated by some recent work in the field. Even further, the impossibility of being fully responsible when traveling is emerging as a result of postcolonial understandings of the ways in which experience, culture, and people's interactions are necessarily place-based and contingent. What, in other words, exactly constitutes “responsible practice” in tourism is – far from being resolved by recent research – becoming increasingly problematic and resistant to orderly critique (see Sin, 2010, 2011).

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Tourism as Analytic Tourism has been described as a fundamental social force that assembles a broad array of social, political, economic, cultural, and material processes (Franklin, 2003). To conclude this brief review, we would like to suggest that tourism be understood as a comprehensive analytic capable of reassembling our understandings of contemporary life, an analytic through which new insights into the “social,” “cultural,” and “political,” along with their related conceptualizations, are gained. In light of the above discussion, in other words, does it still make sense (if it ever did) to describe all this as some kind of coherent field called “tourism studies”? Perhaps it would be better to acknowledge that the growing theoretical richness with which contemporary tourist practices are being analyzed may in fact be decentering the category of “tourism” itself, as some kind of distinct social phenomenon. Another way of putting this may be to suggest that as tourism became an increasingly useful practice through which to think about theory after the postmodern turn, the center of gravity around which something called tourism studies swirls has grown diffuse and unstable. This may be a controversial statement, but one aligned with tenets of the postmodern and its tendency to dismantle previous categories and the most consolidated binaries of modernist thought, including those imagining a radical separation between home and abroad, or even between

different forms of contemporary mobility (tourism, commuting, migration, etc.). The presumed boundaries between everyday life and the tourist experience can no longer be sustained. What is normally defined as the “tourist experience” has become a fundamental part of how people learn about and travel through the world on a daily basis. As the practices of tourism increasingly condition our subjectivities, the world presents itself to us as a displayed and visitable place. By claiming that everything is indeed “real” in tourism, and that tourism is by now fully embedded in the drama of the everyday of millions of people, we would like to suggest that not only are some of the central preoccupations in philosophy and the social sciences relevant for the understanding of contemporary tourism practice, but also that the study of tourism can be of help in reflecting on broader issues of care and politics of life in productive new ways. These are issues which have for long been and remain today at the core of the epistemology and the experience of modernity. For us, then, tourism is not so much a category of behavior, or a certain kind of space, but a remarkably versatile analytic. In some ways, to be even more provocative, the implications of our approach point to a radical undermining of the remit for tourism studies as a distinct and coherent field. While our objective in this essay is not aimed at any kind of institutional dismantling of tourism studies, we nevertheless believe that the deghettoization of tourism might productively lead to the integration of a tourist analytic across the social sciences and humanities. It might, in other words, lead to a “tourist turn” of sorts (Minca and Oakes, 2011: 11).

References Adey, P. 2009. Mobility. London: Routledge. Ateljevic, I., Pritchard, A., and Morgan, N. (eds) 2007. The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies. Oxford: Elsevier. Bærenholdt, J.O., Haldrup, M., Larsen, J., and Urry, J. 2004. Performing Tourist Places. Aldershot: Ashgate. Caton, K. 2012. Taking the moral turn in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4): 1906–1928. Crang, M. 1997. Picturing practices: research through the tourist gaze. Progress in Human Geography, 21: 359–373. Crang, M. 1999. Knowing, tourism and practices of vision. In Leisure/Tourism Geographies, D. Crouch (ed.), pp. 238–256. London: Routledge. Crang, M. 2004. Cultural geographies of tourism. In Companion of Tourism Geography, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 74–84. Oxford: Blackwell. Crang, M. 2006. Circulation and emplacement: the hollowed out performance of tourism. In Travels in Paradox: Remapping Tourism, C. Minca and T. Oakes (eds), pp. 47–64. Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Crouch, D. 2004. Tourist practices and performances. In Companion of Tourism Geography, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 85–95. Oxford: Blackwell. Crouch, D. 2005. Flirting with space: tourism geographies as sensous/expressive practice. In Seductions of Place, C. Cartier and A.A. Lew (eds), pp. 23–35. London: Routledge. Edensor, T. 2001. Performing tourism, staging tourism: (re)producing tourist space and practice. Tourist Studies, 1(1): 59–81. Edensor, T. 2006. Sensing tourism spaces. In Travels in Paradox: Remapping Tourism, C. Minca and T. Oakes (eds), pp. 23–46. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Edensor, T. 2007. Mundane mobilities, performances and spaces of tourism. Social and Cultural Geography, 8(2): 199–215. Fluri, J. 2012. Capitalizing on bare life: sovereignty, exception and gender politics. Antipode, 44(1): 31–50. Franklin, A. 2003. Tourism: an Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Gibson, C. 2008. Locating geographies of tourism. Progress in Human Geography, 32(3): 407–422. Hall, C.M. 2012. Medical Tourism: the Ethics, Regulation, and Marketing of Health Mobility. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Tucker, H. 2004. Tourism and Postcolonialism. London: Routledge. Harris, C. 2009. Building self and community: the career experiences of a hotel executive housekeeper. Tourist Studies, 9(2): 144–163. Kaplan, C. 1996. Questions of Travel: Postmodern Discourses of Displacement. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Lorimer, H. and Lund, K. 2003. Performing facts: finding a way over Scotland's mountains. In Nature Performed: Environment, Culture, and Performance, B. Szerszynski, W. Heim and C. Waterton (eds), pp. 130–144. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Marchart, O. 2007. Post-Foundational Political Thought: Political Difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou, and Laclau. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. McMorran, C. 2012. Practicing workplace geographies: embodied labour as method in human geography. Area, 44(4): 489–495. Meethan, K. 2001. Tourism in Global Society: Place, Culture, and Consumption. Houndmills: Palgrave.

Minca, C. 2007. The tourist landscape paradox. Social and Cultural Geography, 8(3): 433– 453. Minca, C. 2009. The island: work, tourism, and the biopolitical. Tourist Studies, 9(2): 88– 108. Minca, C. 2011. No country for old men. In Real Tourism: Practice, Care, and the Politics of Contemporary Travel Culture, C. Minca and T. Oakes (eds), pp. 12–37. London: Routledge. Minca, C. and Oakes, T. (eds) 2006. Travels in Paradox: Remapping Tourism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Minca, C. and Oakes, T. (eds) 2011. Real Tourism: Practice, Care, and the Politics of Contemporary Travel Culture. London: Routledge. Oakes, T. 1998. Tourism and Modernity in China. London: Routledge. Obrador-Pons, P. 2007. The haptic geography of the beach: naked bodies, vision and touch. Social and Cultural Geography, 8(1): 123–141. Obrador-Pons, P., Crang, M., and Travlou, P. 2009. Cultures of Mass Tourism: Doing the Mediterranean in the Age of Banal Mobilities. Farnham: Ashgate. Ormond, M. 2011. Medical tourism, medical exile: responding to the cross-border pursuit of healthcare in Malaysia. In Real Tourism: Practice, Care, and the Politics of Contemporary Travel Culture, C. Minca and T. Oakes (eds), pp. 143–161. London: Routledge. Ormond, M. 2013. Neoliberal Governance and International Medical Tourism in Malaysia. London: Routledge. Pearce, P., Filep, S., and Ross, G. 2012. Tourists, Tourism and the Good Life. London: Routledge. Silverman, E.K. 2012. From Cannibal Tours to cargo cult: on the aftermath of tourism in the Sepik River, Papua New Guinea. Tourist Studies, 12(2): 109–130. Sin, H.L. 2010. Who are we responsible to? Locals' tales of volunteer tourism. Geoforum, 41(6): 983–992. Sin, Harng L. 2011. Post-ethical tours: corporate social responsibility in tourism. In Real Tourism: Practice, Care, and the Politics of Contemporary Travel Culture, C. Minca and T. Oakes (eds), pp. 162–182. London: Routledge. Sparke, M. 2005. The Space of Theory: Postfoundational Geographies of the Nation-State. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tribe, J. 2009. Book review of The Study of Tourism: Anthropological and Sociological Beginnings, by Dennison Nash. Tourism Management, 30(1): 142–43.

Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze; Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Urry, J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century and Beyond. London: Routledge. Urry, J. 2007. Mobilities. London: Polity Press. Urry, J. and Larsen, J. 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0. London: Sage Publications. van der Duim, R. 2007. Tourismscapes: an actor network perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4): 961–976. van der Duim, R., Ren, C., and Jóhannesson, G.T. (eds) 2012. Actor-Network Theory and Tourism: Ordering, Materiality, and Multiplicity. London: Routledge. Veijola, S. 2009a. Introduction: tourism as work. Tourist Studies, 9(2): 83–87. Veijola, S. 2009b. Gender as work in the tourism industry. Tourist Studies, 9(2): 109–126. Winter, T., Teo, P., and Chang, T.C. (eds) 2009. Asia on Tour: Exploring the Rise of Asian Tourism. London: Routledge.

Chapter 24 The Tourist Gaze 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 Jonas Larsen Few concepts stemming from tourism research are more cited and employed than “the tourist gaze” both within tourist studies and beyond. Its ”success” is down to several partly interlinked factors. Firstly, it illustrates the importance of a good book title. John Urry's book The Tourist Gaze (1990, 2002; and 2011, with Jonas Larsen) is famous for the idea of the tourist gaze (despite the fact that it covers much ground). The concept and title nicely support each other and when we think of the tourist gaze we automatically think of John Urry! No other tourist scholar has had quite such a monopoly over a concept and a powerful ”brand.” Secondly, Urry writes in a clear and fluid prose and since photographing, sightseeing, and sights are everywhere in the spaces of tourism, the notion makes sense intuitively. Thirdly, John Urry is much more than just a tourism scholar. Nor is he like the tourist who returns to the same place year after year. He is one of Europe's leading social scientists with an incredible eye for discovering new societal problems. Urry's sociological gaze seems to be forever on the move; he is like the adventurous traveler that goes to a new place before the hordes go there. But once he has reported from it, many will follow in his footsteps. The publication of The Tourist Gaze in 1990 is an example of this. At that time tourism was not seen as a serious sociological matter and it was largely neglected despite its increasing social, cultural, and economic significance. There were some great tourism books at the time – most notably Dean MacCannell's The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (1976) – but The Tourist Gaze must be read as an attempt to establish a “the sociology of tourism” (in fact this was book's title until the editor suggested otherwise). Since then Urry has coauthored/edited a number of tourism books (Rojek and Urry, 1997; Bærenholdt et al. 2004; Sheller and Urry, 2004) and articles but he has mainly “traveled” elsewhere, writing about nature, mobilities, globalization, complexity theory, cars, aeromobilities, mobile methods, places, climate change, and – lately – oil. Yet many of these debates have been incorporated into later versions of The Tourist Gaze. A new chapter was added in 2002 while the 2011 or the 3.0 version – where John Urry invited me on board as coauthor – restructured and updated the previous versions and added three new chapters. This chapter discusses the three moments or versions – which I call 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 – of the tourist gaze. The tourist gaze and its author we may say are on the move. This chapter gives an account of this “double-sided movement.” I pay particular attention to how these different moments of tourist gazes have been applied, or have influenced, tourism research but also how Urry (and Larsen) have incorporated new tourism ideas – such as embodiment and performance – in conceptualization of the tourist gaze. I also discuss much of the critique raised against it. This chapter draws upon Urry and Larsen, (2011).

1.0

One of the most influential thinkers helped the tourist gaze into being. Urry begins with writing that the tourist gaze is inspired the French philosopher Michel Foucault's concept of the medic gaze. He cites Foucault (1976), who in the Birth of the Clinic argued that “the clinic was probably the first attempt to order a science on the exercise and decisions of the gaze” (cited in Urry, 1990: 1). So The Tourist Gaze is essentially about how tourism as a leisure activity and an industry is formed according to “the exercise and decisions of the gaze.” For Urry, this means that tourism is predominately a visual practice. Tourism is a “way of seeing” where business stages visual experiences and tourists consume them visually. Focusing on the gaze brings out how the organizing sense in tourism is visual. And this mirrors the general privileging of the eye within the long history of Western societies, as discussed by Foucault and others. Taking his inspiration from Foucalt, Urry argues that gazes are organized and systematized. So the tourist gaze is a matter of socially and technologically patterned and learned “ways of seeing.” Different kinds of gazes are authorized by various discourses. These different discourses include, according to Urry, health, group solidarity, pleasure and play, heritage and memory, education, and nation (Urry and Larsen, 2011: 19). While not authorized by a single knowledge-generating institution (like the gaze of the medic) the varied gazes of tourists are discursively organized by many professionals over time: romantic poets and painters, photographers, writers, bloggers, guides, local councils, experts in the “heritage industry,” travel agents, hotel owners, designers, tour operators, TV travel programs, Hollywood, the photography industry, tourism development, architects, planners, tourism academics, and so on. Urry speaks of a “vicious hermeneutic circle” (Urry, 2002: 129) to capture this discursive framing or choreographed nature of gazing (Osborne, 2000). Thus, effectively, tourists gaze upon places that they have already consumed in image form. Gazing is about consuming and photographing signs or markers and tourists are framed and fixed rather than framing and exploring. This explains the many studies of how commercial images frame tourist gazes (see, for instance, Dann, 1996; Marckwick, 2001; Waitt and Head, 2002). Part of the tourist gaze is the idea that gazing is mediated by specific representations and technologies. The guidebookreading and photograph-taking tourist is the personalization of the tourist gaze. The coupling between photography and gazing is explored further by Taylor (1994) and Osborne (2000). If Foucault plays the disciplining part in The Tourist Gaze, then “postmodernism,” this “intellectual hipster” of the 1980–1990s, plays the playful one. Postmodernism involves “dedifferentiation.” It dissolves boundaries between high and low cultures, between scholarly or auratic art and popular pleasures, and between elite and mass forms of consumption. Postmodernism also undermines the distinction between “representations” and “reality.” We are said to live in an oversaturated image culture where representations are everywhere and often more exciting than reality. What we increasingly consume are signs or representations. Urry argues that the tourist gaze, even in the past, prefigures postmodernism “because of its particular fusion of the visual, the aesthetic, the themed, the commercial and the popular” (Urry, 1990: 86). The gaze is not least postmodern because it implies that tourists are folded into a world of texts, images, and representational technologies when gazing upon landscapes. Urry writes: “Much of what is appreciated is not directly experienced reality but

representations, particularly through the medium of photography. What people ‘gaze upon’ are ideal representations of the view in question they internalise from various media” (Urry, 1990: 86). More broadly, following Foucault we can see this making of seductive images and destinations as institutional mediation by “expert gazes” within which spectacle and surveillance intersect and power–knowledge relations are played out (this aspect has been further developed by Dann, 1996; Hollingshead, 1999; Cheong and Miller, 2000; McGregor, 2000). And finally Urry writes that postmodernism, due to the many circulating images of distant places, undermines clear-cut distinctions between tourism and everyday life, and home and away. Postmodernism means people become “everyday tourists,” daily gazing upon the extraordinary places on TV screens: “People are tourists most of the time, whether they are literally mobile or only experience simulated mobility through the incredible fluidity of multiple signs and electronic images” (Lash and Urry, 1994: 259). The notion of the tourist gaze captures both the consumption of places through mobile images and the actual travel to and embodied appreciation of specific places. The tourist gaze may be virtual and it may be corporeal, but it is always bound up with the pleasure of gazing upon places that are out of the ordinary. Indeed, tourists often travel to places that are made “special” through the media. Much subsequent work on “movie-induced” (e.g. Law et al., 2007) and “postmodern” tourism (e.g. Pretes, 1995; Nuryanti, 1996) draws on Urry's understanding of mediatized gazing. Tourists, we may say, travel in mediascapes as much as physical worlds and they largely appreciate them through the visual sense. This is the controversial and generalizing part of the book that caused so much latter debate (discussed below). In the article “The tourist gaze ‘revisited’ ” published in 1992, Urry clarifies that it would be absurd to argue that tourists only gaze and that the visual sense is the only sense employed by tourists. But he insists the visual sense is the master sense and that gazing is the emblematic and most widespread tourism practice. The popularity of the tourist gaze as a concept is in part down to the fact that Urry was bold enough and successful in arguing that tourism is largely about gazing. The tourist gaze belongs not just to the visual culture of tourism but its center. Tourism is about organizing places as sights and gazing is about “consuming places” visually (Urry, 1995) as others have explored in relation to spectacular ecotourism (Ryan et al., 2000), polar bears (Ryan et al., 2000; Lemelin, 2006), Ground Zero (Lisle, 2004), and the “hip-hop hood” (Xie et al., 2007).

2.0 The newness of the second version of The Tourist Gaze published in 2002 was the new chapter “Globalizing the gaze.” It must be seen in relation to Urry's edited book Touring Cultures (with Chris Rojek; Rojek and Urry, 1997) and especially his new interest in “mobilities” and globalization [see Sociology Beyond Societies (Urry, 2000) and Global Complexity (Urry, 2003)]. In the latter Urry formulates a sociological manifesto for our globalized age of mobile people, objects, image, information, and much more. In that new chapter Urry writes that the world has become much more mobile and globalized, and this to an extent that he speaks of “global tourism.” He argues: “there are … countless ways in which

huge numbers of people and places get caught up within the swirling vortex of global tourism. There are not two separate entities, the ‘global’ and ‘tourism’ bearing some external connections with each other” (Urry, 2002: 144). Since the first edition, the Internet and cell phones have become widespread and afforded what Urry terms “virtual travel” and “communicative travel.” There are many more screens now allowing virtual gazing. And there is more corporeal travel due to cheap flights, more airports, and more destinations. So Urry sums up the situation by saying that “the amount of ‘traffic’ … has magnified over this last decade, there is no evidence that virtual and imaginative travel is replacing corporeal travel, but there are complex intersections between these different modes of travel that are increasingly de-differentiated from one another” (Urry, 2002: 141). The “roaring nineties,” we may say, was the decade of unprecedented levels of global mobility. The tourist gaze traveled abroad when especially package tours and budget airlines made air travel cheap and easy. In Europe, Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and London became weekend playgrounds to what we might call the Easyjet generation. Overall, travel time and cost have reduced within the past decade, so frictions of distance and the cost of travel only partly matter in relation to physical travel; so many places are within reach quickly and cheaply (see Larsen et al., 2006). And, as a consequence, many people have become habituated to mobile leisure lifestyles and a touristic cosmopolitan outlook that presupposes travel by cars and planes. Far more places are now part of global tourism. This includes very distant places and places thought to have little tourist appeal, such as places of war, disasters, and famine. This is a part of reflexive process whereby places and nations enter a new neoliberal global order where places compete with each other to attract business people and tourists (and cheap labor). Urry further notes that “gazers” increasingly emanate from many very different countries. In particular, the new Asian middle classes visit places of the West. The tourist gaze is no longer exclusively a Western one. The tourist gaze is everywhere and socially much more widespread. Then Urry responds to criticisms raised against the tourist gaze. This includes Veijola and Jokinen's (1994) assertion that the tourist gaze neglects the multisensuous tourist body and that there is a male basis to it (see also Pritchard and Morgan, 2000). Urry acknowledges this by highlighting that the gazing involves corporeal movement and mobile bodies that encounter places multisensuously, often through movement (see Urry, 1999, on the multiple senses involved in tourism; Larsen, 2001, on the mobile travel glance). He discusses gazing in relation to embodiment, and movement: “the body senses as it moves. It is endowed with kinaesthetics, the sixth sense that informs one what the body is doing in space through the sensations of movement registered in its joints, muscles, tendons and so on” (Urry, 2002: 152). The sense of touch is crucial here. The walker's feet on the mountain path and the climber's hands on a rock face are explored in Bodies of Nature (Macnaghten and Urry, 2000). Urry (2007) also introduces the notions of “corporeal proximity” and “compulsion to proximity” to highlight that tourists travel long distances and pay much money to experience places corporeally. Virtual travel is a poor substitute for the sensuous richness of corporeal travel:

“To be there oneself is what is crucial in most tourism. … Co-presence then involves seeing or touching or hearing or smelling or tasting a particular place” (Urry, 2002: 154). For Urry, “much travel results from a powerful ‘compulsion to proximity’ that makes it ‘obligatory, appropriate or desirable’ ” (Urry, 2003: 164–165).

3.0 Much happened between 2002 and 2011 when the third edition was published. In the field of tourism studies there was a great deal of talk about replacing the tourist gaze with a new paradigm of performing (Perkins and Thorns, 2001). This paradigm suggests that the doings of tourism are physical or corporeal and not merely visual (see Edensor, 1998; Coleman and Crang, 2002; Pons et al., 2008; Haldrup and Larsen, 2010 among others). The “tourist gaze” was critiqued for reducing tourism to sightseeing. Where are other senses, bodily experiences, and adventure, the critics asked? Urry continued his work on developing the new mobilities paradigm but now in a more critical and pessimistic tone that spelled out the many social, economic, and environmental problems that multiple mobilities generate, such as surveillance, “overconsumption,” and climate change. So a new tourism paradigm challenged the tourist gaze as Urry became increasingly concerned about “bads” to which the global tourist gaze contributes. These issues frame the 3.0 version that illuminates some of the embodied and darker sides of the tourist gaze (with inspiration from Hollingshead, 1999; Morgan and Pritchard, 2005; Elliot and Urry, 2010). Urry and I argue that there are many similarities between the paradigms of gaze and performance (see Urry and Larsen, 2011: chapter 8). The 3.0 version rethinks the tourist gaze in the light of this performance paradigm by developing a relational approach that acknowledges the intersections of the senses and people in people's visual encounters with places (something Urry touched upon in the 2.0 version but did not develop much) (Urry and Larsen, 2011: 195–199). We show, drawing on various research, that gazing is embodied, multimodal, and involves other sensescapes. Tourists touch, stroke, walk, or climb upon and even collect the building and objects that they lay their eyes upon. Gazing often comprises seeing and touching and walking upon or moving along. Sights often require appropriate soundscapes and smellscapes. And gazers are never disembodied traveling eyes. If gazers are not bodily well they may fail to be impressed by the sight. The 3.0 version also examines the social relations of gazing (Urry and Larsen, 2011: 201– 205). Urry and Larsen write that tourists never just gaze upon places and things. Tourists gaze upon places in the presence of others, other tourists, and locals, as most tourist places are busy public places. They show that most gazing is performed with significant others and one's “team” affords ways of seeing more than others. Gazing is relational and communal. It involves negotiations about what to see, how to see it, and for how long a time. Gazing within a given place depend as much upon the quality of the social relations that travel along with them as upon the place itself (as Haldrup and Larsen, 2003 show regard to family tourist photography). Who we happen to gaze with can be as important to the quality of the experience as the object

of the gaze. The 3.0 version explores the relational gazes of gazers and gazees. The eyes of gazers and gazees are likely to meet, however briefly, each time the tourist gaze is performed. Earlier moments of the tourist gaze stressed that tourists exercised much power over the places and locals become the “mad one” behind bars, relentlessly gazed upon and photographed (Urry, 1992). Indeed, scholars show that a pervasive tourist gaze can create feelings of being constantly watched and objectified (Maoz, 2006; Chhabra, 2010). Yet the 3.0 version also discusses how gazees are not necessarily passive and powerless. They can exercise some power and objectify visitors through their gaze (this is inspired by Maoz, 2006; see Hollingshead, 1999; Cheong and Miller, 2000). Urry and Larsen discuss the concept of the “local gaze” and “mutual gaze” that brings out the resistance and power of hosts when interacting face to face with tourists (Maoz, 2006). There is always a “mutual gaze” with many intersecting, responsive gazes, between guests and other guests, tourists, and “brokers,” and between tourists themselves. Maoz says that: “the local gaze is based on a more complex, twosided picture, where both the tourist and local gazes exist, affecting and feeding each other, resulting in what is termed ‘the mutual gaze’ ” (Maoz, 2006: 222). Everyone gazes at each other in the spaces of tourism; locals return the gaze of tourists and consequently tourists too can turn into the mad ones behind the bars (although most tourists are blind to this gaze, according to Maoz (2006)). Jordan and Aitchison (2008) show how many female tourists (especially on their own) are aware that they are subject to the sexualized and controlling gaze of local men. This uneasy awareness of being caught gazing is seen in a different way in a study of photography. Gillespie's (2006) notion of the reverse gaze inspired by Maoz's notions of the mutual gaze highlights the shame and discomfort when the photographee takes notice and gazes back at the photographer. The local gaze strikes back and positions the self-proclaimed traveler as voyeuristic gazer. And lastly there is the “intratourist gaze” (Holloyway et al., 2011). that highlights that tourists gaze at fellow tourists. Other tourists also influence and discipline the tourist gaze. And tourists separate themselves from copresent others by denouncing the superficial, snobbish, or boring behavior of those others. The 3.0 version ends dramatically. The final chapter, entitled “Risk and futures,” questions whether tourist travel under the regime of the tourist gaze may actually turn out to be a somewhat limited period in human history. Urry and Larsen consider the risks and damages of the tourist gaze to the environments being visited, of long-term climates, and of the supplies of oil that “fueled” the tourist gaze over the mobile twentieth century. As the tourist gaze has gone global so it causes some powerful new risks and institutional gazes that these risks and fears generate in the built environment. Terrorism is one such risk. Destinations for Western tourists and especially airports are the front line of the war on terror where both terrorists and tourists are “on the move.” Airports in particular have developed a new sophisticated “panoptic sort” “surveillance gaze,” of cameras, face-recognition biometric cameras, iris recognition, and much more. So “in order that one can enter paradise for a week, systems of personal security are morphing into a new Big Brother where gazing tourists are subject to omnipresent surveillance” (Urry and Larsen, 2011: 222). The surveillance gaze is increasingly also at place in cities. In London one is likely to be

recorded over 300 times a day by CCTV cameras (Morgan and Pritchard, 2005). The flaneur was the forerunner of the “gazing tourist.” The flaneur's anonymity and liminality is now largely impossible: almost all movements are recorded, tracked, and “databased.” Tourists are now routinely captured by and subject to a powerful digital panoptic machine justified by the perceived risks of crime, violence, and terrorism. The first versions of the tourist gaze highlighted that significance of tourism companies (like Thomas Cook) in affording safe journeys. Now so-called independent travelers always face the new surveillance gaze to secure a safe journey without terrorists! This is the new “securitization ordering” of the tourist gaze. At the end of the book Urry and Larsen (2011: 228–231) turn to oil. What has oil to do with tourist gaze? For Urry and Larsen, it is cheap and plentiful oil that has been the foundation, the very resource that has allowed the tourist gaze to “conquer” the world. It has shipped tourist goods and tourists across nations and even continents. There would be no corporeal tourist gaze without abundant cheap oil. Whereas the previous editions have explored the social and discursive ordering of the tourist gaze, oil represents the resource ordering of it. In his latest books on climate change and oil (Urry, 2011, 2013), Urry argues that most industrial, agricultural, commercial, domestic, and consumer systems are built around the plentiful supply of oil. Cheap and plentiful oil has afforded cheap journeys and many people have become used to frequent journeys and mobile lifestyles. Whereas the 2.0 version speaks of the necessity of travel, in the 3.0 version it is stressed how tourist mobility has become “excessive,” a “consumer addiction” (like much else in neoliberal consumer society), and how this “binge mobility” is incredibly destructive for the environment. Travel figures have soared and soared. There has been a move from low-carbon tourism to high-carbon tourism as trips to “neighboring” destinations are supplemented with far-away destinations. The tourist gaze 1.0 is largely about the rise and fall of British resorts and local tourists. The 3.0 version is about Dubai and international tourists, this neoliberal place of consumption excess and mega projects. Dubai's ambition was to be the number one luxury-consumer paradise in the most inhospitable of environments. Huge amounts of oil have been used to build the biggest and most spectacular islands, beaches, hotels, and attractions, to transport in and out very large numbers of visitors and workers, and to provide cooled environments (including outdoor air conditioners and indoor skiing) in the desert. All that luxury was built for borrowed money and by thousands on thousands of poorly paid migrant laborers lured into a life of squalor and exploitation, hidden away from the tourist gaze (Urry and Larsen, 2011: 237–240). If “business were as normal” then we would expect that Dubai and other tourist places would be physically traveled to for a long while yet. Yet, as Urry argues in his latest books (2011, 2013), this is not the case. Oil is running out and tourism travel is causing severe climate change (as also discussed by Scott et al., 2012). On top of that there was the financial crisis that resulted in huge debts and financial collapses. So in the future it seems probable that travel is likely to become increasingly expensive, which makes the long-term growth in travel and tourism less likely. Urry and Larsen argue that the future has already arrived in Dubai where expatriates are fleeing and the population is shrinking, many construction projects are on hold

or canceled, and construction workers are laid off, properties slump in value, and Dubai needed to be bailed out by a US$10 billion loan from Abu Dhabi (Urry and Larsen, 2011: 239). They end the book by asking: Is this history of the rise and fall of Dubai a forerunner of the history of the global present as in the next few decades the spreading of the tourist gaze comes to a shuddering halt or even a reversal beginning in an Arabian desert? Was the tourist gaze on a mass scale a feature of the twentieth century hubris that will gradually disappear once the oil begins to run down and sea levels rise further? The decline and fall of Dubai may thus be the start of a much more general decline in the significance of the tourist gaze. Will there still be a relatively widespread and common “tourist gaze” operating away in 2050? (Urry and Larsen, 2011: 240) Urry and Larsen discuss some possible future scenarios of the gaze. One is “local sustainability” and a localized gaze. It involves a dramatic global shift towards lifestyles and travel patterns more local and smaller in scale: long-distance travel will be source of low status, not unlike tobacco. People will realize that air travel damages the planet's health (Cohen et al., 2011). This scenario requires that people contest travel and the environmental ills that it generates, as well as articulating discourses that promote the positive outcomes of low-carbon holidays, not imagining that the exotic and distant is necessarily better. This ties into Dickinson and Lunsdon's (2010) idea of slow travel in tourism and many articles in the journal Sustainable Tourism. The “exotic gaze” needs to be dispensed with and flying needs to be heavily taxed. A marked deglobalization of the tourist gaze must take place so that many international tourism systems, of places and transport, disappear. And when people do travel longer distances this need to be undertaken collectively and where possible by sustainable higher-speed trains. Another – but related – scenario is that of digital gazing. One aspect of this scenario is that “much travel would be replaced by virtual travel” (Urry, 2011: 151). So far various types of screens have poorly substituted corporeal gazing. This scenario requires the innovation of communications that affectively stimulate the sensuous, emotional, and social richness of corporeal gazing and discourses that promote the joys of virtual sightseeing. Somehow the Internet needs to be focused upon and software and experiences developed that can substitute corporeal travel with virtual travel. The Internet and web 2.0 need to reveal the pleasures of the nearby, strengthen localness and no longer global choice and corporeal travel other than low-carbon travel.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Conclusion The tourist gaze is “on the move.”. I have argued that it is not telling the same tale today as it did in 1990. The 1.0 version explored the social and cultural – the discursive – ordering of the tourist gaze. The 2.0 version turned to its global ordering. The 3.0 version is concerned with respectively the embodied and resource ordering of the tourist gaze. So Urry's take on and

interest in tourist gaze has shifted over the years. It has been gazed upon through changing theoretical lenses (e.g. visual theory, postmodernism, and the “mobilities paradigm”) and new “empirical realities” (e.g. media saturation, globalization, peak of oil, and climate change). We have seen how Urry questions the sustainability and very existence of a widespread and globalized tourist gaze. He suggests that future research with regard to the tourist gaze must explore ways in which it can be localized and de-exoticized as well as more virtual. There is a need to tame the global tourist gaze. In the meantime I would also stress the need for researching how the rising number of non-Western tourists gaze as there has been almost total focus on Western tourists. There have already been some studies on how Asian tourists gaze and they all suggest that the tourist gaze as described in this article is somewhat ethnocentric and does not capture the specificity of Asian ways of seeing (Lee, 2001; Shono et al., 2006).

References Bærenholdt, J.O., Haldrup, M., Larsen, J., and Urry, J. 2004. Performing Tourist Places. Aldershot: Ashgate. Cheong, S.-M. and Miller, M. 2000. Power and tourism: a Foucauldian observation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27: 371–390. Chhabra, D. 2010. How they see us: perceived effects of tourist gaze on the Old Order Amish. Journal of Travel Research, 49: 93–105. Cohen, S., Higham, J., and Cavaliere, C. 2011. Binge flying: behavioural addiction and climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3): 1070–1089. Coleman, S. and Crang, M. (eds) 2002. Tourism: Between Place and Performance. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Dann, G. 1996. The Language of Tourism, Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Dickinson, J. and Lumsdon, L. 2010. Slow Travel and Tourism. London: Routledge. Edensor, T. 1998. Tourists at the Taj. London: Routledge. Elliott, A. and Urry, J. 2010. Mobile Lives. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. 1976. The Birth of the Clinic. London: Tavistock. Gillespie, A. 2006. Tourist photography and the reverse gaze. Ethos, 34(3): 343–366. Haldrup, M. and Larsen, J. 2003. The family gaze. Tourist Studies, 3(1): 23–46. Haldrup, M. and Larsen, J. 2010. Tourism, Performance and the Everyday: Consuming the Orient. London: Routledge. Hollingshead, K. 1999. Surveillance of the worlds of tourism: Foucault and the eye-of-power.

Tourism Management, 20: 7–23. Holloway, D., Green, L., and Holloway, D. 2011. The intratourist gaze: grey nomads and ‘other tourists. Tourist Studies, 11(3): 235–252. Jordan, F. and Aitchison, C. 2008. Tourism and the sexualisation of the gaze: solo female tourists experiences of gendered power, surveillance and embodiment. Leisure Studies, 27: 329–349. Larsen, J. 2001. Tourism mobilities and the travel glance: experiences of being on the move. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1: 80–98. Larsen, J., Urry, J., and Axhausen, K. 2006. Mobilities, Networks, Geographies. Aldershot: Ashgate. Lash, S. and Urry, J. 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage. Law, L., Bunnell, T., and Ong, C.-E. 2007. The Beach, the gaze and film tourism. Tourist Studies, 7(2): 141–164. Lee, Y.-S. 2001. Tourist gaze: universal concept. Tourism Culture & Communication, 3(2): 93–99. Lemelin, R.H. 2006. The gawk, the glance, and the gaze: ocular consumption and polar bear tourism in Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(6): 516–534. Lisle, D. 2004. Gazing at Ground Zero: tourism, voyeurism and spectacle. Journal for Cultural Research, 8(1): 3–21. MacCannell, D. 1976. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. California: University of California Press. Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J. (eds) 2000. Bodies of nature. Body and Society, 6: 1–202. Maoz, D. 2006. The mutual gaze. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1): 221–239. Marckwick, M. 2001. Postcards from Malta: image, consumption, context. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2): 417–438. McGregor, A. 2000. Dynamic texts and tourist gaze – death, bones and buffalo. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1): 27–50. Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. 2005. Security and social “sorting”: traversing the surveillance– tourism. Tourist Studies, 5(2): 115–132. Nuryanti, W. 1996. Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2): 249–260. Osborne, P. 2000. Travelling Light. Photography, Travel and Visual Culture. Manchester:

Manchester University Press. Perkins, H.C. and Thorns, D.C. 2001. Gazing or performing? Reflections on Urry's Tourist Gaze in the context of contemporary experience in the Antipodes. International Sociology, 16(2): 185–204. Pons, P.O., Crang, M., and Travlou, P. (eds) 2008. Doing Tourism: Cultures of Mediterranean Mass Tourism. Aldershot: Ashgate. Pretes, M. 1995. Postmodern tourism: the Santa Claus industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1): 1–15. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. 2000. Privileging the male gaze: gendered tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4): 884–905. Rojek, C. and Urry, J. (eds) 1997. Touring Cultures. London: Routledge. Ryan, C., Hughes, K., and Chirgwin, S. 2000. The gaze, spectacle and ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1): 148–163. Scott, D., Hall, M., and Gössling, S. 2012. Tourism and Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation & Mitigation. Routledge, London. Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (eds) 2004. Tourism Mobilities. London: Routledge. Shono, S., Fisher, D., and McIntosh, A. 2006. The changing gaze of Japanese tourists. Tourism Review International, 9(3): 237–246. Taylor, J. 1994. A Dream of England: Landscape, Photography and the Tourist's Imagination. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Urry, J. 1992. The tourist gaze “revisited”. American Behavioral Scientist, 36(2): 172–186. Urry, J. 1995. Consuming Places. London: Routledge. Urry, J. 1999. Sensing leisure spaces. In Leisure/Tourism Geographies, D. Crouch (ed.), pp. 34–45. London: Routledge. Urry, J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies. London: Routledge. Urry, J. 2002. The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications. Urry. J. 2003. Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Urry, J. 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity. Urry, J. 2011 Climate Change and Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Urry, J. 2013 Societies Beyond Oil. London: Zed Books. Urry, J. and Larsen, J. 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0, 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications. Veijola, S. and Jokinen, E. 1994. The body in tourism. Theory, Culture and Society, 6: 125– 151. Waitt, G. and Head, L. 2002. Postcards and frontier mythologies: sustaining views of the Kimberley as timeless. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20: 319–344. Xie, P., Osumare, H., and Ibrahim, A. 2007. Gazing the hood: hip-hop as tourism attraction. Tourism Management, 28(2): 452–460.

Chapter 25 Gender and Feminist Perspectives in Tourism Research Annette Pritchard Tourism processes are gendered in their construction, presentation, and consumption in multifaceted ways; gendered societies shape gendered tourism practices, which in turn shore up those gendered societies. Whether we describe ourselves as feminists or not, if we are reflexive students of tourism practices and experiences then it is incumbent to ask “is tourism gender just?” Many people engaged in equal rights activism do not consider themselves feminists, while advocates of gender equality of both sexes argue that men cannot be feminists but can be profeminists (Lingard and Douglas, 1999). Feminism's call to arms is not grounded in a gender, but in a commitment to rejecting androcentric bias and challenging sexist oppression. Feminist tourism scholarship is espousal of a commitment to addressing gender inequality in tourism and to improving women's experiences and conditions as tourism workers and consumers. Feminists seek to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, and social rights for women; as such feminism is largely focused on women's issues, but as it seeks gender equality, Bell Hooks (2000: viii), among others, argues that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism and that both women and men are diminished by sexism; as she comments, feminism is “a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.” One of feminism's characteristics is its resistance to definition. As a heterogeneous set of epistemologies and critiques of masculinist knowledge traditions, feminism (more accurately feminisms) has been mapped as three waves of thinking: feminist empiricism, standpoint feminism, and poststructural feminism (Wearing, 1998). The first wave – feminist empiricism or liberal feminism – focused on women's legal rights and suffrage and sprang from the urban industrialism and liberal politics of the late nineteenth century. Tourism researchers engaging in feminist empiricism have developed scrutiny of tourism participation and employment which highlights and addresses gender inequality; often termed an “add women and stir” approach, it has been critiqued for failing to challenge the underlying structures permeating masculinist domination (Harding, 1993). Second-wave or standpoint feminism developed during the 1960s civil rights and antiwar movements, which saw the growing self-consciousness of minority groups (Ramazonğlu and Holland, 2002). For these feminists, confrontation of gendered power relations requires different social “standpoints” such as class (Marxist feminism), class and sexuality (socialist feminism), sexuality (radical feminism), or race (black feminism). Standpoint tourism researchers attempt to critique society by giving voice to disempowered people and marginalized discourses (Harding, 1993). Third-wave or poststructuralist feminism unfolded in the mid-1990s and, shaped by postcolonialism and postmodernism, is associated with difference, with speaking from the margins, and positioning self and other within multiple oppressions (Butler, 1993); poststructuralist feminists have deconstructed the masculinized language and practice of tourism and identified the cultural workings of gender power relations (e.g. Veijola and Jokinen, 1994; Johnston, 2001). It is not my intention to rehearse feminism's

contributions to tourism inquiry, as this has been done previously (e.g. Aitchison, 2006). Rather I review five topics to illustrate the breadth of feminist tourism research: research and education, employment and empowerment, sex tourism, sexualized tourism environments, and sexual harassment. Each wave of feminist thinking has enhanced our understandings of these topics, and each topic reveals gendered power relations and the precariousness of many women's lives worldwide.

Tourism Research and Education Positivist industry-focused “malestream” knowledge traditions have long dominated tourism scholarship (Pritchard and Morgan, 2007a) and while feminism's commitment to social critique and recognition of multiple truths has much to offer tourism inquiry, its influence remains peripheral. This contrasts with other fields and disciplines (such as history and sociology), where feminists have pioneered significant reinterpretation and advanced new lines of inquiry. Feminist research does not exist as a subfield of tourism as it does elsewhere; it is a minority interest, “… clearly detrimental to one's career … while the biases in … knowledge due to the politics of masculinism go largely unnoticed” (Oakley, 2006, p. 19). Gender is perceived as a disruptive and marginal discourse; as one academic comments: “When I talk to my department … about issues of gender I'm automatically labelled as a feminist. … When he talks about any general topic, he … talks … from a very masculine point of view … his discourse is normalised, mine is not” (Tribe, 2010: 15). There has been reflexive critique of tourism knowledge (Ren et al., 2010), some prompted by feminist inquiry, but few tourism researchers acknowledge their own identities. For many (especially senior figures) this remains unarticulated because as white, middle-class men they are the self, the same, the norm against which others are measured (Kimmel, 1996). Tourism's influential organizations such as the International Academy for the Study of Tourism have a membership which is almost 90% male, its dominant “Anglo-Saxon” institutions have few female professors and men dominate its journal editorial boards (Pritchard and Morgan, 2007a). Tourism reflects global higher education's structural gender inequalities, where women are underrepresented in tenured and senior positions and suffer a serious pay gap (Marcus, 2006) but these inequalities are particularly skewed in tourism, perhaps because it is predominantly taught in the masculine worlds of business schools (Pritchard and Morgan, 2007a). This has implications for what and how we study, and how we value research. Studies suggest that UK and US doctoral programs eschew topics of gender and social critique and that sponsoring bodies worldwide dismiss its “seriousness” (Botterill et al., 2003). It is vital that we question “who controls what, how hierarchies are built, maintained and changed and how equity occurs” (Swain, 2004, p. 102) as a field's gatekeepers are responsible for establishing the parameters in which its academics are encouraged to work. “Tourism research carries with it a subtle power to define; to skew; to objectify; to foreground some issues leaving others untouched” (Tribe, 2006: 375), normalizing how we know tourism as a research field and an industry. There are serious implications for our field when some senior male academics believe that tourism knowledge has been fully mapped and there remains no

unexplored terrain (Tribe, 2010). Such a situation does not make for inclusive scholarship, especially at a time of a feminization of higher education. The numbers of female students now outnumber men globally and the proportion of female academics is rising worldwide; in the UK there is almost gender balance in academia (Fazackerley and Hughes, 2006). Tourism must recognize feminine and masculine voices equally among its senior academicians if it is to be representative of its wider academy. Moreover, it must welcome gender-oriented and feminist tourism scholarship if it is to play a role in advocating for gender just tourism.

Women, Employment, and Empowerment Women everywhere remain severely disadvantaged compared to men across all social criteria and classifications. Women constitute half of the world's population, yet do two-thirds of the work for a tenth of the paid income and own less than 1% of the land. Three out of every four war fatalities are women and children while women make up 66% of the world's illiterate adults and 75% of its refugees. Three-quarters of the world's poor are women. Most shockingly, one in three women worldwide suffer from gender-based violence (infanticide, neglect, abuse, domestic violence, “honour killings,” sex trafficking, forced labor, etc.), which is the biggest global cause of female injury and death (US Aid, 2013; Women's Learning Partnership, 2013). Tourism's growth, size, and flexibility give it enormous potential to advance women economically, socially, and politically (Ghodsee, 2005). It is a disproportionately important employer for women, particularly in less economically developed countries, and women's employment in tourism can significantly improve not only their own lives but also those of their families and communities (UNWTO, 2011). Insufficient attention has been paid to how tourism can empower women, although it is vital to the Millennium Development Goals of employment and poverty reduction and women's empowerment (UNWTO, 2011). Women's tourism labor remains underexplored and it is difficult to estimate the numbers of women employed in tourism (Swain and Momsen, 2002). The UNWTO (2011) Global Report on Women in Tourism, 2010 provides a fuller picture of women's global tourism employment (although lacks data from Europe and North America). The report confirms that one in 12 of the world's workforce is employed in tourism and twothirds are women, attracted in part by the industry's low entry barriers and flexible working hours. Tourism also provides significant entrepreneurial opportunities for women who are twice as likely to be employers in the tourism industry as in other industrial sectors. They in turn often employ more women than men, thus generating further female employment opportunities. Tourism offers considerable potential for women's activism and leadership in community and political life. Women hold more ministerial positions in tourism than in any other field, although they still only account for a fifth of all tourism ministers and tourist board chairs. Thus, “even in areas where women in tourism perform better than women in other sectors of the economy, women still lag far behind men” (UNWTO 2011: 43). Such reports reveal that tourism employment is far from gender just and promotes women's economic and sexual exploitation through employment practices that abuse precarious workers (Women First, 2010). Tourism and hospitality have long been vertically and horizontally

gender segregated, so that women are overrepresented in low-paid occupations and underrepresented in decision-making roles (Women First, 2010). Tourism has long been characterized as “dirty work” and little has changed despite its professionalization. Tourism work is often demeaning, stressful, physically exhausting, and low paid; it often involves unsocial and exploitative working conditions and has limited training and career opportunities (Hoel and Einarsen, 2003). Women are largely denied access to mentoring opportunities (as employers do not regard them as career-oriented) and suffer sexual harassment, stereotyping, sexual exploitation, and promotion and salary discrimination (Rydsik et al., 2012). The gender pay gap is very evident in tourism, with men paid more across virtually all its occupations; in the UK, male hotel managers and travel agents earn 17% more than their female equivalents, and male leisure and theme park attendants 30% more (Women First, 2010). Just as in tourism academia, senior management in the tourism industry does not reflect the profiles of either its rank and file employees or its customers. The industry is failing to draw on women's experiences and talents, with consequences for its business performance as companies with greater female representation at board level generally outperform their rivals (Catalyst, 2007). Across all sectors women constitute fewer than 7% of executive directors but while progress has been made in traditionally masculine sectors such as resource extraction, construction, and aerospace (Sealy and Vinnicombe, 2013), women worldwide (with some exceptions, such as in Scandinavia) have made little impact in the boardrooms of the femaledependent tourism industry. Women First (2010) identifies five key barriers to women's advancement to management in tourism: problems of combining senior roles with caring responsibilities, dominant masculine organizational cultures, preconceptions and gender bias, exclusion from networks, and lack of senior women role models. A mixed picture for women emerges in tourism employment, reflecting the global position of women. Tourism provides vital employment and entrepreneurial opportunities for women; it also offers an avenue for women's activism and leadership. However, it assists women's economic and sexual exploitation, particularly young, ethnic minority, and migrant workers. The gender pay gap is evident across the sector and management levels remain maledominated. In addition, tourism generates considerable unpaid work for women in family tourism businesses so that women subsidize the industry and for little reward (Enloe, 1989). This is a “… troubling [picture] for a gender analysis of the tourism industry … [which] makes little contribution to women's socio-economic empowerment” (UNWTO 2011: 41). Tourism can empower women but it can be seriously exploitative and some of its most precarious working environments also reveal a dark underbelly of prostitution, human trafficking, and sexual harassment.

Tourism and the Global Sex Trade Tourism has long been deeply complicit in the global sex trade. The outcome of a gendered tourism industry and international system, sex tourism has a sizable literature (e.g. Carter and Clift, 2000). Its development “as a legitimate leisure industry … in which women and children are literally ‘men's leisure’ ” (Jeffreys, 1999: 179) is founded on three factors: acute poverty,

tourists socialized into seeing women in less economically developed countries as sexually available, and an international system that promotes sex tourism (Enloe, 1989). It is a flourishing multibillion dollar industry contributing significantly to some South Asian countries' gross domestic products (Shelley, 2010). Lubricated and promoted by the Internet, it revolves around “comparatively rich men buying poor women” (MacKinnon, 2009) and is highly racialized as global sex tourists disproportionally victimize women of colour “because of the lure of racialized gender stereotypes” (Hernandez, 2001: 185). Sex tourism is a global industry which attracts men from all over the world. Habitual sex tourists have been identified as largely white, Western heterosexual men aged 35–55 (Kempadoo, 1999) but sex tourists come from all racial and ethnic groups. For instance there is a growing trade in so-called young Indian Muslim “one month wives” purchased for a short period by Middle Eastern and African Muslim men (Nelson, 2013) and an emergent “female sex tourism,” although without large-scale studies scoping this phenomenon remains difficult (Sanders, 2011). The vast majority of sex tourism demonstrates the silencing of women's power and agency as many of the women are trafficked in the world's second most profitable illegal industry. An estimated 27 million people are trafficked for $30 billion profit every year; 70% of those in the European Union being women forced into sexual exploitation, while over 2 million children are forced into commercial sex, largely in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe (Shelley, 2010; Bales, 2012). While the tourism industry has been concerned about child sex tourism, the same cannot be said about adult sex tourism; yet the two are inextricably intertwined (Jeffreys, 1999). Many abused children are teenage girls forced into working bars and brothels in less economically developed countries where they are abused by men “who neither know nor care how young the girls are” (Jeffreys, 1999: 179). Yet tourism industry bodies fail to act against the sexual exploitation and trafficking of women. Instead “migration and trafficking of women … to service the tourist trade is commonplace … global tourism … [has] given the sex industry new means of exploiting, marketing and supplying women and children as commodities to buyers” (EQUATIONS, 2007: 70).

Tourism and the Sexualization of Everyday Life The expanding global sex trade can be seen within the context of a sexualization of the public domain that entails the emergence of new taste formations and a “pornographication” of sex and intimacy (Attwood, 2006). This sexualization of culture increasingly objectifies women across every media form including television, film, magazines, video games, the Internet, and advertising (Pritchard and Morgan, 2010a). For example, Trantner and Hatton's (2011) fivedecade longitudinal study demonstrates a dramatic increase in hypersexualized images so that by the 2000s 83% of women were depicted as sexualized or hypersexualized. Sexualization is four-fold: someone's value comes only from his or her sexual appeal, someone is held to a standard that equates narrowly defined attractiveness with being sexy, someone is sexually objectified or made into a thing for others' sexual use, and/or sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon someone. Any one condition indicates sexualization and anyone can be sexualized, although it is usually women and girls (American Psychology Association, 2007).

Our models of femininity are increasingly hypersexualized and those who frequently consume such images offer stronger endorsement of sexual stereotypes that objectify women. They also place appearance at the center of women's value, and girls tend to engage in selfobjectification whereby they think of their own bodies as objects of others' desires (Zurbriggen and Morgan, 2006). Tourism is intimately connected with desire (Mackie, 2000) and its gendered visual rhetoric perpetuates sexual ideological constructs, while its experiences are framed by discourses of embodied desire, sensuality, and hedonism (Pritchard and Morgan, 2007b, 2010b). Tourism sites such as resorts and nightclubs and rituals such as Spring Break and Carnival are liminal zones closely identified with pleasure, desire, and sexuality (Pritchard and Morgan, 2010b). They are dominated by highly circumscribed forms of masculinity and femininity and in many cases women “… are explicitly positioned as the site of spectacle, display and consumption” (Van Eeden, 2007: 201). Tourism environments are “hot” climates, highly aestheticized environments which emphasize style and sensuousness, ingredients which create “a sexual simmer” (Mano and Gabriel, 2006). The way tourism environments are represented and marketed actively creates a discourse of sexuality and it comes as no surprise that female tourism employees face very high rates of sexual harassment and exploitation.

Tourism's “Hot” Environments and Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment is a manifestation of gendered power relations and the commoditization of women; it is also the product of the sexualization of tourism's spaces and its workers (Pritchard and Morgan, 2006; Rydsik et al., 2012). Female employees are often precarious workers, especially if they are young, junior, or migrants. Dress codes and uniforms are often designed to enhance their attractiveness and they are encouraged to flirt and “sell” their sexuality in service encounters; such women are reliant upon “referent power to be socially attractive and friendly with the customer … [and become a] ‘sexual being’ ” (Gilbert et al., 1998: 49–50). Female hotel receptionists are objects of sexual gratification, “superficial projection[s] of an image created by men for other men” (Mason, 1988: 245). This sexualization of work practices and environments is not restricted to hotels but extends across many tourism environments, which thus pose considerable risks for female employees (Guerrier and Adib, 2000). It seems that sexual harassment is particularly prevalent in the tourism and hospitality industries, but it is difficult to establish its extent (Nickerson, 2012). Sexual harassment respects no geographic or cultural boundaries and is “disguised by the conspiracy of silence which surrounds the issue” (Gilbert et al., 1998: 49), including in academia, which has failed to investigate sexual harassment beyond a handful of studies in the hospitality sector (e.g. Guerrier and Adib, 2000). As a result, its frequency remains unknown but available research suggests that at least one in four hospitality employees are harassed at work (Euro Agency for Health and Safety at Work, 2000). This may well be an underestimation as a New Orleans study recorded harassment rates of 75% (Agrusa et al., 2002) and research with student placements suggests that almost 60% in the UK (Worsfold and McCann, 2001) and over 90%

in Taiwan (Lin, 2006) experience unwanted sexual attention at work. Sexual harassment is regarded as a human resource issue but its impacts extend much further. The line between harmless “horseplay” or “jokes” and harassment is blurred (Poulson, 2007) but sexual harassment is an act of violence. It involves the misuse of power and reflects the ability of one person (a colleague, superior, or customer) to abuse, humiliate, and degrade another. Most victims of sexual harassment in the sector are women in junior positions and sexual harassment also has a strong racial element (Hernandez, 2001). Its consequences vary from person to person and depend on the severity of the harassment but it is a form of sexual assault and can have substantial psychological and physical effects that also impact on a business' performance through high levels of staff turnover and absenteeism. Sexual harassment is not restricted to tourism employees and, following high-profile attacks, governments and pressure groups have highlighted the extent of sexual assaults and harassment perpetrated against female travelers (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2013). Harassment of tourists in general is a neglected area of study, but is pervasive and global and in the case of sexual harassment overwhelmingly experienced by women. “In developing countries in particular, various forms of sexual harassment proliferate … [and have] long been a permanent feature across the tourism landscape” (McElroy et al., 2008: 97). Empirical data on the nature and level of sexual harassment experienced by women while on holiday is even harder to establish than while in the workplace. Much of it can be defined as street harassment, “a highly symbolic form of violence” in which women are assaulted and humiliated by men (Peoples, 2008: 4). One study of sexual harassment undertaken by the Egyptian Center for Women's Rights (2008) found that high numbers of Egyptian (46%) and foreign (52%) women reported daily harassment (including touching, ogling, verbal harassment, stalking, and indecent exposure), particularly of working women and tourists. Foreign women also reported additional forms of sexual harassment including sexual “jokes” and aggressive unwelcome dinner or drinks invitations; this also happened regardless of what they were wearing, countering suggestions that foreign female tourists who dress immodestly are more at risk. In all, 83% of Egyptian and 98% of foreign women reported sexual harassment, while 62% of Egyptian men admitted engaging in it. The street, public transport, and tourist destinations were the most common locations for these unwanted advances and, as with workplace harassment, a conspiracy of silence exists as only 2% of women reported their experiences. Women who suffer sexual harassment and sexual assault in tourism environments are not just victims of local offenders, but also of other tourists. In a survey of 6500 British and German Mediterranean holidaymakers aged 16–35, women were the most likely to have experienced sexual harassment during their holiday although gay and bisexual men reported similar sexual harassment levels (Calafat et al., 2013). The study authors suggest that the tourism industry and resort authorities should work to create tourism environments where sexual aggression is not tolerated. Given tourism's inherent discourses of hedonism and pleasure, its reliance on sexualized marketing and employees and its underbelly's connectivities to the illegal sex trade, this seems unachievable.

Epilogue: Theoretical, Methodological, and Practice Reflections This chapter has reviewed how feminism's rejection of androcentric prejudice and sexist oppression has enhanced understandings of the relationships between gender and tourism. In briefly assessing the most traversed topics in the area there is a danger that I have confirmed the stereotypical view of gender and tourism as a narrow field of inquiry of “women's issues”, principally sex tourism, gender discrimination, and sexist advertising. Yet a review such as this must consider the extant literature and it remains dominated by these topics. However, the subfield of gender and tourism should ideally encompass every type of tourism interaction as gender and sexuality plays out and shapes all aspects of tourism, and not just concerning women, as examination of masculinities is seriously deficient in tourism inquiry. There is a pressing need to expand the field of gender and tourism as we must know more about the existing terrain (tourism labor, sex tourism, sexual harassment, etc.) and open up new lines of tourism inquiry around women's sexual behavior, their embodiments, their experiences as carers and partners, their exclusion from tourism participation through lack of opportunities, their experiences as entrepreneurs and community leaders, and so forth. Above all, we need more scholarship which deconstructs how gender intersects with other vectors of oppression such as race, ethnicity, dis/ability, class, age, etc. In addition to adding to the scope and scale of our knowledge – what we know – feminist scholarship can also transform how we know tourism through an epistemological and methodological contribution. Feminism has much to offer tourism studies as a set of epistemologies and movements committed to confronting oppression and empowering marginalized people: a set of ideologies that combine activism and scholarship and which seek transformation (Heintum and Morgan, 2012). Being able to answer why a piece of tourism research is feminist is important, as scrutinizing how we engage feminisms in research opens up debate with nonfeminists of what feminisms offer tourism researchers that nonfeminist research cannot and vice versa. Tourism studies has much to offer feminist debates and wider discussions of gender inequalities as nowhere is gender inequity more evident than in the tourism industry. Feminist empiricism, standpoint feminism, and poststructural feminism have each contributed to understandings of the relationships between gender and tourism and have more to offer; so too do queer theory, ecofeminism, postcolonial feminism, transgender politics, womanism (with its focus on racial inequalities), and cyberfeminism, to name a few (Kolmar and Bartkowski, 2013). As we move through the early decades of the twenty-first century, feminism is being reconstituted into feminisms, ones that go beyond gender as the central construct in defining any feminism, beyond dichotomous views of power and beyond conceptions of the body as the conduit of being and experience. If we are to achieve gender justice and break the silences which oppress women worldwide, the challenge in tourism, as elsewhere, is to advance a genuine gender-based transformation of education, research, and practice.

References

Agrusa, J., Coats, W., Tanner, J., and Leong, J. 2002. Hong Kong and New Orleans: a comparative study of perceptions of restaurant employees on sexual harassment. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 3(3): 19–31. Aitchison, C.C. 2006. The critical and the cultural: explaining the divergent paths of leisure studies and tourism studies. Leisure Studies, 25(4): 417–422. American Psychology Association 2007. Task Force on the Sexualisation of Girls. www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html. Attwood, F. 2006. Sexed up: theorizing the sexualisation of culture. Sexualities, 9(1): 77–94. Bales, K. 2012. Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Botterill, D., Gale, T., and Haven, C. 2003. A survey of doctoral theses accepted by universities in the UK and Ireland for studies related to tourism 1990–1999. Tourist Studies, 2: 283–311. Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that Matter. New York: Routledge. Calafat, A., A., Hughes, K., Blay, N., Bellis, M.A., Mendes, F., Montse, J., Lazarov, P., Cibin, B., and Duch, M.A. 2013. Sexual harassment among young tourists visiting mediterranean resorts. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(4): 603–613. Catalyst 2007. The Bottom Line: Corporate Performance and Women's Representation on Boards. New York: Catalyst. Clift, S. and Carter, S. (eds) 2000. Tourism and Sex: Culture, Commerce and Coercion. London: Pinter. Egyptian Center for Women's Rights 2008. Sociological Study of Sexual Harassment in Egypt: Clouds in Egypt's Sky. Cairo: Egyptian Center for Women's Rights. Enloe, C. 1989. Bananas, Beaches and Bases. Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. London: Pandora. Euro Agency for Health and Safety at Work 2000. Monitoring the State of Occupational Safety and Health in the EU. Pilot study summary. Bilbao: Euro Agency for Health and Safety at Work. EQUATIONS 2007. Women and Tourism. www.equitabletourism.org/tourism_details.php? AID=59. Fazackerley, A. and Hughes, L. 2006. Lecturing now women's work as men seek cash. The Times Higher Education Supplement, July 14: 4. Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2013. Foreign Travel Advice. www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-

advice. Ghodsee, K. 2005. The Red Riviera: Gender, Tourism, and Postsocialism on the Black Sea. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Gilbert, D., Guerrier, Y., and Guy, J. 1998. Sexual harassment issues in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(2): 48–53. Guerrier, Y. and Adib, A. 2000. No we don't provide that service: the harassment of hotel employees by customers. Work, Employment & Society, 14(4): 689–705. Harding, S. 1993. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: “what is strong objectivity”? In Feminist Epistemologies, L. Alcoff and E. Potter (eds), pp. 49–82. New York: Routledge. Heimtun, B. and Morgan, N. 2012. Proposing paradigm peace: mixed methods in feminist tourism research. Tourist Studies, 12(3): 287–304. Hernandez, T.K. 2001. Sexual harassment and racial disparity: the mutual construction of gender and race. The Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/abramsk/Hernandez_Rutgers/4_J_Gender_Race_Just_183_paper.pdf Hoel, H. and Einarsen, S. 2003. Violence at Work in Catering, Hotels and Tourism. Geneva: International Labour Office. Hooks, B. 2000. Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. London: Pluto. Jeffreys, S. 1999. Globalizing sexual exploitation: sex tourism and the traffic in women. Leisure Studies, 18(3): 179–186. Johnston, L. 2001. (Other) bodies and tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1): 180–201. Kempadoo, K. (ed.) 1999. Sun, Sex and Gold: Tourism and Sex Work in the Caribbean. Lanham, MD: Maryland, Rowman and Littlefield. Kimmel, M. 1996. Manhood in America: a Cultural History, New York: The Free Press. Kolmar, W. and Bartkowski, F. 2013. Feminist Theory: A Reader, New York: McGraw-Hill. Lin, Y.H. 2006. The incidence of sexual harassment of students while undergoing practicum training experience in the Taiwanese hospitality industry: individuals' reactions and relationship to perpetrators. Tourism Management, 27(1): 51–68. Lingard, B. and Douglas, P. 1999. Men Engaging Feminisms: Pro-feminism, Backlashes and Schooling. Oxford: Open University Press. Mackie, V. 2000. The Metropolitan Gaze: Travellers, Bodies and Spaces. http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue4/vera.

MacKinnon, C. 2009. quoted in The Economics of Sexual Exploitation. www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/08/25/the-economics-of-commerci_ws_268599.html. Mano R. and Gabriel Y. 2006. Workplace romances in cold and hot organizational climates: the experience of Israel and Taiwan. Human Relations, 59(1): 7–37. Marcus, J. 2006. Is US tenure track fertile for change? The Times Higher Education Supplement, November, 2: 11. Mason, S.D. 1988. Technology and Change in the Hotel Industry: the Case of the Hotel Receptionist. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Durham. McElroy, J.L., Tarlow, P., and Carlisle, K. 2008. Tourist harassment and responses. In A. Woodside and D. Martin (eds) Tourism Management Analysis, Behaviour and Strategy, pp. 94–106. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Nelson, D. 2013. Teenager exposes India's ‘one month wives’ sex tourism. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9993453/Teenager-exposes-Indias-onemonth-wives-sex-tourism.html. Nickerson, D. 2012. Human Resource Management for the Hospitality and Tourism Industries. Oxford: Elsevier. Oakley, A. 2006. Feminism isn't ready to be swept under the carpet. The Times Higher Education Supplement, March 3: 18–19. Peoples, F.M. 2008. Street harassment in Cairo: a symptom of disintegrating social structures. The African Anthropologist, 15(1–2): 1–20. Poulson, J. 2007. Metamorphosis in hospitality: a tradition of sexual harassment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27: 232–240. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. 2006. Hotel Babylon? Exploring hotels as liminal sites of transgression and transition. Tourism Management, 27(5): 762–772. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. 2007a. De-centring tourism's intellectual universe or the dialectic between change and tradition. In The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies, I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, and N. Morgan (eds), pp. 12–28. Oxford: Elsevier. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. 2007b. Encountering scopophilia, sensuality and desire: engendering Tahiti. In Tourism and Gender: Embodiment, Sensuality and Experience, A. Pritchard, N. Morgan, I. Ateljevic, and C. Harris (eds), pp. 158–181. Oxford: CABI Publishing. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. 2010a. Tourist bodies, transformation and sensuality. In The New Politics of Pleasure and Leisure, S. Wagg and P. Brabam (eds), pp. 153–168. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. 2010b. Wild on the beach: discourses of desire, sexuality and liminality. In Culture, Heritage and Representation: Perspectives on Visuality and the Past, E. Waterton and S. Watson (eds), pp. 127–144. Farnham: Ashgate. Ramazonğlu, C. and Holland, J. 2002. Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices. London: Sage Publications. Ren, C., Pritchard, A., and Morgan, N. 2010. Constructing tourism research: a critical enquiry. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4): 885–904. Rydsik, A., Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., and Sedgley, D. 2012. Mobility, migration and hospitality employment: Voices of Central and Eastern European women. Hospitality & Society, 2(2): 137–157. Sanders, E. 2011. One Night in Bangkok: Western Women's Interactions with Sexualised Spaces in Thailand. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham. Sealy, R. and Vinnicombe, S. 2013. The Female FTSE Board Report 2012. Milestone or Millstone? Cranfield: Cranfield School of Management. Shelley, L. 2010. Human Trafficking: A Global Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M.B. 2004. (Dis)embodied experience and power dynamics in tourism research. In Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies, J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (eds), pp. 102–118. London: Routledge. Swain, M.B. and Momsen, J.H. (eds) 2002. Gender/Tourism/Fun(?). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Trantner, M.N. and Hatton, E. 2011. Gender, sexualisation and the Rolling Stone, sociological images inspiring sociological imaginations everywhere. The Society Pages, December 30. Tribe, J. 2006. The truth about tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2): 360–381. Tribe, J. 2010. Tribes, territories and networks in the Tourism Academy. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1): 7–33. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization) 2011. Global Report on Women in Tourism 2010. UNWTO and UN Women. http://ethics.unwto.org/en/content/global-reportwomen-tourism-2010. US Aid 2013. United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally. www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2155/GBV_Factsheet.pdf. Van Eeden, J. 2007. Gendered tourism space: a South African perspective. In Tourism and Gender: Embodiment, Sensuality and Experience, A. Pritchard, N. Morgan, I. Ateljevic, and C. Harris (eds), pp. 182–206. Oxford: CABI Publishing.

Veijola, S. and Jokinen, E. 1994. The body in tourism. Theory, Culture and Society, 11(3): 125–151. Wearing, B. 1998. Leisure and Feminist Theory. London: Sage Publications.

Women First 2010. The Case for Change: Women Working in Hospitality, Leisure, Travel and Tourism. www.people1st.co.uk/webfiles/Business%20and%20Training%20Support/Women%201st/Women_1s Women's Learning Partnership 2013. Facts and Figures. www.learningpartnership.org/factsand-figures. Worsfold, P. and McCann, C. 2001. Supervised work experience and sexual harassment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(4): 249–255. Zurbriggen, E.L. and Morgan, E.M. 2006. Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54: 1–17.

Chapter 26 Tourism and the Visual Caroline Scarles Tourism, by its very nature, is inherently visual and the two are inextricably linked (Sontag, 1979; Teymour, 1998). As Löfgren (1999: 7) suggests, tourism and the acts of being a tourist are analogous to “a cultural laboratory where people have been able to experiment with new aspects of their identities, their social relations, or their interaction with nature.” Within such laboratories, the visual, as manifest as practice and artifact (as holiday snapshots, postcards, photo albums uploaded to social media sites or hidden away in cupboards, video, art, and sculpture, among many others), becomes fundamental in making sense of and experiencing, producing, and consuming places. Nevertheless, until recent decades, there has been a tendency to focus around destination marketing and the exoticization of the other for touristic consumption (Smith, 1978; Crouch and Lübbren, 2003). Indeed, as Crouch and Lubbren (2003: 5) suggest, “the great majority of touristic images tend not to be paintings or other objects of ‘high art’ but ephemeral relics of advertising, commercial exchange or personal souvenir making.” This chapter therefore critiques the role of the visual in tourism with particular focus on the primacy of the visual and conceptualizations that construct touristic anticipations of place upon highly politicized symbolic representations of the other (MacCannell, 1976; Urry, 1990, 2000) and subsequently travel to collect images and accumulate visual evidence (Sontag, 1979; Albers and James, 1988) of travel experiences. Such understandings will then be critiqued in the context of reconceptualizations of the visual as inherently embedded within embodied performances and practices of tourist experiences, before reflecting upon the effects of technology and user-generated media in changing the mediascapes (Jansson, 2002) through which visuals are used to produce and consume destinations. The chapter will conclude with some reflections upon the emergence of visuals as research method within tourism research.

The Grand Tour, the Picturesque, the Sublime, and Occularcentrism Tourism and the visual have been fundamental to research on tourism since early studies into the ocularcentric practices of the Grand Tour (Löfgren, 1999). Such travel was characterized with prestige and knowledge accumulated through first-hand experience as travelers measured, controlled, and took ownership of the landscapes and cultures through which they traveled. As mobilities increased through the opening of the railways in the mid-nineteenth century, such scientific experimentation gave way to emergent forms of “mass” tourism and the genesis of tourist practice as hedonistic intention fueled by conceptualizations of the picturesque and sublime. Measuring was increasingly replaced with aesthetic value of place: to see rather than study as the picturesque provided “a certain way of selecting, framing and representing views” as “the task of the tourist was to track down … paintable landscapes and lift them out of the duller surroundings, fixing them as pictures, then represent them in sketches, watercolours and

words” (Löfgren, 1999: 21). The desire to imitate nature through art mobilized the transformation of tourism through the language of aesthetics and daydreaming as attention was bestowed upon the tourist as an all-knowing authority, visually consuming landscapes as they traveled. Such practices positioned tourists as disengaged, detached beings who experienced places and cultures through overarching gazes and practices of observation; the visualization of the travel experience (Urry, 2000). The invention of photography in the nineteenth century compounded such intense ocularcentrism as tourists were elevated as all-seeing authorities as they gazed upon the subjected other and colonized the other through visual practice (Palmer and Lester, 2007). Neither engaged, nor embodied, tourist practice talked of vistas, views, sites, and sightseeing as a means of absorbing the surrounding tourist landscape.

The Tourist Gaze Such primacy of vision continued to permeate understandings of tourist practice into the twentieth century as Urry, in what became his classic text, The Tourist Gaze (Urry, 1990) exemplified the “gaze” as the desire to view and experience new, extraordinary places. Vision retained its central role as tourist spaces became understood as intangible and tourism was reinforced as the practice of “gazing;” absorbing and realizing place through visual engagement. Drawing upon conceptualizations by authors such as Boorstin (1964) and Turner and Ash (1975), and further developing the concept of the hermeneutic circle by Albers and James (1988), Urry proposed tourists as semioticians engaged in closed, self-perpetuating systems of illusions that exist in a specifically circumscribed world. Such conceptualizations echoed work by Shields (1989) on “place myths” that pertained touristic incarnations of place through media and directed activities, such as destination marketing, which do not provide mimetic accounts of destinations, but rather “derive their durability, spread and impact from repetition and widespread dissemination” (Crouch and Lübbren, 2003: 5). Gazes, as imagined and practiced, are never left to chance, but are guided through productive mechanisms as objectives of the gaze are clearly marked out for tourists to see and engage with (Gold and Gold, 1995). Objects are rendered extraordinary and worthy of attention through signposting, signification and meaning interpretation that are fixed both temporally and spatially. Through visuals, whether brochures, postcards, signposts identifying photo viewing points, or through physically photographing or filming experiences as they unfold, tourists are able to intimately engage with objects and places. They gaze upon choreographed, often idealized, representations of place as a reality presented to them to experience. Such is the illusion of contemporary tourism: depthlessness and spectacle enable tourists and producers of tourist experiences to play with timeframes and create alternative realities that are, at times, far removed from the original “reality” of the object or landscape enmeshed in a complex web of social organization through preferences of production and consumption. Visual representations of place are constructed to purposively determine the gaze through which places become recognizable, familiar, appealing, and achievable. Our theoretical conceptualizations of tourism and the visuals through which destinations are constructed builds upon work by MacCannell (1976) who positioned tourists' engagement with place through

manifestations of “staged authenticity,” Graburn (1983) who conceptualized tourists as pilgrims embarking upon “sacred journeys” in their search for the authentic “other,” and Cohen (1988) who proposed tourists seek the authentic to alienate and become removed from the shackles of everyday life. As such, a series of dichotomies of self and the other, home and abroad, and work and play, emerge as tourists embark upon a search for an elusive authentic experience that mobilizes an escape from the containment and dissatisfaction of the seemingly monotonous, mundane practices of everyday life. For some, such drive for authenticity fueled a contrived inauthenticity of commodified “stages” (Boorstin, 1964; Greenwood, 1989) as tourism and associated visualities became a metaphor of colonialism, the exoticizing of the other (Said, 1993), and the destruction of indigenous cultures through aestheticization and use of stereotypes and place myths (Cohen, 1993; Edwards, 1996; Selwyn, 1996; Morgan and Pritchard, 1998; Markwick, 2001; Scarles, 2004; Palmer and Lester, 2007). However, as Urry realizes in later editions of The Tourist Gaze (Urry, 2000; Urry and Larsen, 2013) and as Löfgren (1999: 9) suggests: Tourist research sometimes bundles together the highly varied experiences made by tourists into “the Tourist Experience.” Far too often it gives vacationers the role of easy prey, unwitting objects of manipulation: herded into charter buses and transported from sight to sight. Or, the research gives a rather one-dimensional version of tourist life: focusing on the making of “the tourist gaze.” Tourists become all eyes and no bodies (and sometimes no brains) Such reflections are compounded by Franklin and Crang (2001: 6) who propose that “researchers have become dependent upon a relatively small core of ‘theorists’ whose work has tended to become petrified in standardized explanations, accepted analyses and foundational ideas.” The intention is not, of course, to abandon the theoretical foundations of our understanding. Indeed, to do so would be nonsensical. Rather, moving beyond such limitations, and to attend to contemporary conceptualizations of the visual in tourism, it is important to reflect upon the paradigmatic shift proposed by Franklin and Crang (2001) that suggests tourists no longer exist in spatially and temporarily fixed locations bound by the notions of seeking the authentic “other” and entering “tourist bubbles” as they seek to fulfil a predetermined authentic way of gazing upon the other. Rather, tourism and the visuals that imbue encounter and experience are embedded in a web of complex processes and practices that result in a series of spaces through which tourists are able to encounter and become enmeshed within places, cultures, and people (Crang, 1997; Crawshaw and Urry, 1997; Edensor, 1998, 2000, 2001; Crouch, 2000; Coleman and Crang, 2002; Scarles, 2009).

Embodied Visualities in Tourism Despite Urry's moves beyond the singular tourist experience to embrace tourism as a game with no singular authentic experience, but rather multiple texts as tourists revel in one of numerous possible outcomes (Dann, 1996; Selwyn, 1996), his early elevation of vision as the

hegemonic sense that overwhelms the body echoes ocularcentrism that has long dominated the way in which tourists' experiences are understood. Tourism, and the multi​plicity of touristic experiences through which self and the other are encountered, is not, and has never been, an entirely isolated visual experience. Vision cannot stand alone as a separate, isolated sensory engagement, but embraces the entire sensual, subjective, and reflexive positioning of those involved in both constructing and consuming that which is seen (whether a person viewing a landscape while on holiday, or when perusing a website when purchasing a holiday). Encountering places and destinations is implicit in the materiality and corporeality of our bodies (Crouch, 2000; Franklin and Crang, 2001; Scarles, 2009; Urry and Larsen, 2013). Our bodies are infused in their entirety in the act of seeing and being seen as subjectivity moves beyond the social and cultural positioning of the tourist and embraces the body as fundamental in generating knowledge, perception, and performance of place. Veijola and Jokinen (1994) and Game (1991) go so far as to emphasize the tourist body over the gaze as experiencing place becomes based in the premise of jumping in with both feet rather than just two eyes. Likewise, Cloke and Perkins (2002), in their analysis of adventure tourism in New Zealand, prioritize the affective, embodied performances of tourism. However, to deny the visual within such performances is as damaging as artificial elevation. As Scarles (2009: 474) suggests, the visual and visual practice “can launch moments that express corporeal uniqueness as emotions exceed expression in language and erupt into gesture” (see also Elkins, 1998). Vision should no longer be attended to as a single sense, devoid of intersensory relations, but embraced as a series of embodied practices and performances as tourists encounter the world multisensually and multidimensionally (Crouch and Lübbren, 2003). However, for some the visual remains the predominant sense. As Bell and Lyall (2002: 27) suggest: “nature tourism as kinaesthetic experience … is still dependent on the glorious vista.” Likewise, Urry and Larsen (2013: 195) position the visual as the “organizing sense.” Nevertheless, vision is essentially embodied (Veijola and Jokinen, 1994; Crouch and Lübbren, 2003; Scarles, 2009) and we need to engage in a poesis of the visual as a means through which touristic practices and processes, experiences, and encounters are creatively enlivened through a series of subjective transformations and the opening of new possibilities (Crouch, 2000).

Performances, Practice, and the Visual The second key paradigmatic shift in our understanding of the visual is reflected through conceptualizations of tourism as practice and performance. Knowledge emerges through “doing” (Crang, 1997) as a tourist “comes to know the world in part at least as embodied subject” (Crouch, 2000: 3). Such understanding moves beyond understandings of tourism as a series of unidirectional, politicized interpretations of destinations constructed by those selling destinations that are accepted and unequivocally consumed by tourists. Rather, as Cheong and Miller (2000), Caton and Santos (2007), and Scarles (2004, 2012) suggest, tourism and the construction of visuals exist as politicized processes that emerge through interplays between key brokers (e.g. government agencies, destination marketers, tour operators, tour leaders/guides, visitor attraction managers, and, of course, tourists themselves). The construction of the visual becomes infiltrated by complex power relations as destinations and

experiences are constructed through practices of inclusion and exclusion (Mordue, 2001; Scarles, 2004, 2009) that organize, materialize, and aestheticize place and experience. Such performances echo MacCannell's concept of staged authenticity and Urry's (1990) tourist gaze, as destinations become stage-managed through a series of directed performances (Edensor, 1998, 2000; Bæderholdt et al., 2004). Visuals within tourism become stages of performance, scripted and choreographed to mediate tourist behavior as to how destinations should be best practiced. Such performances create place as active and lived, constructed through practice rather than representation; taking part in rather than reflecting upon the world (Crang, 1997; Bæderholdt et al., 2004). Gazing becomes imaginative and experiential performance as visuals, in a range of formats, frame place and allow experiences to be created, encountered, preserved, and re-enlivened as they are continually (re)produced and (re)consumed in the tourist experience (Crouch et al., 2005). Through visualities, tourists become imaginative voyagers and experiential practitioners, accumulating sights (and sites) and repositioning themselves alongside and within places using visual devices that merge immaterial and material practices (Crang, 1997). Objects become agents in their own right and display characteristics of agency as they catalyze memories or anticipation (Urry, 2000). Tourists become active agents in the imagination of spaces (Scarles, 2009) as they come to know place through visuals; facilitating the production of space and destinations as they “create their own play”; gaining familiarity and proximity, comfort, and understanding through the transformation of the self-as-removed to the self-as-connected (Crouch, 2000). Tourism becomes an arena for negotiation and play as previously hidden behaviors, senses, thoughts, and actions are brought into being as image and experience are powerfully entwined. The blend of anticipatory imaginings of destinations and the construction of personal recordings through photographs, videos, or souvenirs, among other behaviors, facilitates the personalization and “rewriting” of place (Scarles, 2009), reflects the social relationships of family, friends, and groups as they tour around places (Haldrup and Larsen, 2003; Crouch et al., 2005; Larsen, 2005) and interact with locals (Cohen et al., 1992; Maoz, 2006; Scarles, 2012). The construction and consumption of place and experience through the visual becomes inherently fluid through a series of interactive and reactive performances that create spaces of difference, copresence, and plurality of meaning and enactment; a plethora of possible performances according to subjective demands. Tourists therefore act upon stages as they imaginatively prepare and subsequently perform destinations through choreographed spaces even when the object itself is not seen (Crawshaw and Urry, 1997; Urry, 2000; Scarles, 2009).

Mediation and Technology: Repositioning Tourists as Coproducers of the Visual The complexities of the relationship between producers and consumers of touristic images have been further compounded with the rapid rise of user-generated technology and the opportunities available for sharing digital visuals on the Internet. Urry and Larsen (2013: 180) refer to this as the “digitisation and internetisation” of tourist experience as “over the last

century analogue photography more or less dies out as digital photography becomes commonplace” (2013: 180–181). Therefore, while traditional tourism media has been constrained to the pages of hard-copy brochures (Urbain, 1989; Dann, 1996; Scarles, 2004), guidebooks (Travlou, 2002), and postcards (Edwards, 1996; Markwick, 2001), there has been a significant shift towards alternative, technology-driven “mediascapes” (Jansson, 2002) in recent years that has revolutionized both the production and consumption of visuals within the tourist experience. As Scarles and Lester (2013: 19) suggest: the possibilities of production and subsequent consumption are unequivocally changing the ways in which tourists imagine, understand and engage with destinations … such advancements in both printed and virtual spaces of mediation, contribute to the continued development and power of such media in post-modern societies. Indeed, the time/space compression realized through technology has facilitated the emergence of tourism as “virtual reality,” “cybertourism,” “web 2.0,” and “second life” (Guttentag, 2010) as tourism and tourist experiences exist in an increasingly fast-paced environment and hypermobile world (Urry and Larsen, 2013). Such time/space convergence forces a shift from traditional mediation of destination marketing as tourists become coproducers of their experience, as they too mediate that with which they engage imaginatively or experientially (Robinson and Picard, 2009; Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier, 2009; Scarles and Lester, 2013). As such, tourists not only negotiate the other, but also their own self and those with whom they travel, as they construct and share preferred images of self-as-tourist and influence the projected social identities that are expressed and shared throughout their experiences. In the moment of digitally photographing or videoing, tourists can choose which images to keep and discard in accordance with ideological preferences of both the destination and self. Indeed, such sharing is no longer confined to traditional photograph albums, photographs, or postcards. Rather, digital photography is typified by “instantaneous time,” the “power of now,” and “screen-ness” (Urry and Larsen, 2013: 181). Therefore, unless prohibited by lack of Internet connection or, of course, inclination, tourists can now upload visuals to sites such as Facebook, YouTube, or Flickr and potentially, within seconds of their creation, such postings are “shared,” “liked,” and commented upon as they are viewed and rated by “friends” as “the spaces of picturing, positing and consuming converged” (Urry and Larsen, 2013: 181). The ease with which tourists are now able to create and share experiences directly positions them as the “author” and producer of a destination.

Changing Visualities and Changing Methods Despite the predominance of the visual in tourism, somewhat ironically, the use of the visual as method in tourism has been relatively ad hoc compared with disciplines such as anthropology and sociology (Pink, 2007). Despite early work on visuals in tourism by Collier (1967), Botterill (1989), and Albers and James (1988), until recently there has been a relative lack of attention given to the opportunities such methods afford. However, as images lie at the heart of

tourism, it follows that visual methods can “play a central role in allowing researchers to access and create knowledge about phenomena which cannot be as readily accessed with the sole use of the more traditional non-visual methods” (Rakic and Chambers, 2012: 4). Naturally, visual methods do not lend themselves to all areas of study where traditional techniques of interviewing, observation, or statistical analyses are required and it is not unusual that visual methods are used in triangulation with such techniques (AnderssenCederholm, 2004, 2012; Rakic and Chambers, 2012; Scarles, 2012). Visuals as method emerge in two distinctive ways. First, secondary sources such as archive material, promotional and advertising literature, postcards, visitor books, photographs, and videos uploaded to Internet sites and social media sites, artworks, sculptures, films, television programmes, and documentaries, among others, provide opportunities for harnessing data. Early examples of this approach include Dilley (1986) and Thurot and Thurot (1983), who used content analysis to analyze tourist brochures, with more recent examples from authors such as Choi et al. (2007). As Rose (2001: 54) suggests, content analysis is “counting what you think you see,” as “it is based on a number of rules and procedures that must be rigorously followed for the analysis of images or texts to be reliable.” Using matrices and codes, researchers identify key patterns and understand meanings and significance of cultural texts in accordance through quantification and positivistic philosophy. Where research demands explorations of the meanings underlying visuals, secondary data can also be analyzed using symbolism and semiotic analysis. Semiotics “is not simply descriptive … nor does it rely on quantitative estimations of significance … [but] offers a very full box of analytical tools for taking an image apart and tracing how it works in relation to broader systems of meaning” (Rose, 2001: 69). Researchers analyze signs, symbols, and myths by identifying codes and referent systems that are understood through reference to social, cultural, political, and economic contexts of image content. Scott (2010) adopted such methods to study the underlying messages of tourist art in Yucatan, while Siripis et al. (2013) analyzed the role of film in influencing tourist behavior at destinations. Secondly, respondents and researchers can construct their own visuals, such as photography, video, drawings, and mind maps, as data. Perhaps the most well rehearsed of such methods is photo- and drawing-elicitation triangulated with interviews (Andersson-Cederholm, 2004; Garrod, 2007; Cannon-Hunter, 2012) or focus groups (Miller et al., 2010). Whether introducing visuals from secondary resources or introducing visuals created and/or identified by either respondents or researchers, such elicitation through visuals harnesses many benefits, including facilitating rapport, and providing security and comfort to respondents as visuals provide an anchor around which conversations develop. They trigger and sharpen respondents' memories (Harper, 2002), facilitate articulation and provide spaces for respondent selectivity and reflection as visuals offer “more powerful tool for eliciting [respondents'] experiences than would an interview alone” (Radley and Taylor, 2003: 79; see also Harper, 2002; Scarles, 2012). Likewise, methods such as visual ethnography (Pink, 2007) and visual autoethnography (Scarles, 2010) use photography and video to ensure images of practices and behaviors are captured for analysis. Subsequently, through respondent–researcher collaboration such exchanges empower the subjectivity of respondents and create spaces for intersubjective

exchange between researcher and respondent through mutuality and sharing of experiences as recalled through the visuals presented. However, despite the increased adoption of visual methods within tourism research, there remains a relative lack of adoption of such techniques. Such hesitation is not simply due to lack of willingness or knowledge and understanding of the available methods but, as Rakic and Chambers (2012) recognize, “there are many tourism researchers who are already doing visual research without realizing it … taking photographs while on fieldwork or drawing maps of visitor movements” that are subsequently used to disseminate findings. Indeed, with increasing attention to the opportunities afforded by media such as film (Hudson and Ritchie, 2006), online visual blogging, and artifacts such as visitor books (Noy, 2008), the challenge is to recognize and harness the potential of the visual as method and realize the creativity and innovative opportunities it affords.

Conclusions The visual has been a central component to tourism since its inception. Visuals, as both artifact and practice, facilitate a deeper understanding, engagement, and experience of place, cultures, and people. From subliminal engagements and initial forays and curious inquiries into potential destinations, through to the construction of personal holiday snapshots and souvenirs, places are produced and consumed through the politics, practices, and processes of the visual. The chapter began initially by reflecting upon the primacy of the visual within the tourist experience. Journeying from the Grand Tour through to the tourist gaze (Urry, 1990), it reinforced the visual as a powerful tool in the construction of place; an aestheticizing tool through which discursive interpretations of place are mobilized through productive mechanisms. Reflecting upon a range of visual artifacts and practices, attention then moved to research that repositions the visual as multisensual and emergent through practice and performance in an increasingly technologically driven world. Indeed, when reflecting upon the future directions of research on the visual in tourism, the importance of the hypermobility of visuals through technological advancements cannot be underestimated. The scope for usergenerated media, or social media, to inform and influence tourist behavior, destination marketing, and development, cannot be underestimated. Where destination marketing was once confined to the realm of hard-copy materials, the fusion of virtual spaces of the Internet – websites, blogs, social networking sites, image-sharing sites, RSS feeds, and such like – are currently revolutionizing the role of tourists to be repositioned as coproducers of tourist experiences. While, as this chapter acknowledges, initial insights into such impacts have been conducted, the scope of this has yet to be realized. Likewise, such developments will also demand a reconceptualization of the role and practices of traditional producers of tourism media (tour operators, etc.) as they also strive to find their position and competitive advantage within this arena. Indeed, with significant increases in the range of opportunities and tools for constructing and consuming visuals, it is important to further explore the interplays and relationships that are emerging between different visual practices and their subsequent artifacts as

representations of experience (Lester and Scarles, 2013). However, despite the need to understand the effects of such technological change on tourist practice, it would be unwise to turn our backs on the tangibility of the visual and the performances through which the visual as artifact comes into being. As Lester and Scarles (2013) suggest: “space exists for research that acknowledges the tangible, physical, object and material world and their mediating significance.”

References Albers, P.C. and James, W.R. 1988. Travel photography: a methodological approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(1): 134–158. Andersson-Cederholm, E. 2004. The use of photo-elicitation in tourism research: framing the backpacker experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3): 225–241. Bæderholt, J., Haldrup, M., Larsen, J., and Urry, J. (2004). Performing Tourist Places. Aldershot: Ashgate. Bell, C. and Lyall, J. 2002. The accelerate sublime: thrill-seeking adventure heroes in the commodified landscape. In Tourism: Between Place and Performance, S. Coleman and M. Crang (eds), pp. 21–37. Oxford: Berghahn. Boorstin, D. 1964. The Image. New York: Atheneum. Botterill, T.D. (1989). Humanistic tourism? Personal constructions of a tourist: Sam revisits Japan. Leisure Studies, 8: 281–293. Cannon-Hunter, W. 2012. The drawing methodology in tourism. In An Introduction to Visual Research Methods in Tourism, T. Rakic and D. Chambers (eds), pp. 126–150. London: Routledge. Caton, K. and Santos, C.A. 2007. Closing the hermeneutic circle? Photographic encounters with the other. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1): 7–26. Cheong, S.-M. and Miller, M.L. 2000. Power and tourism: a Foucauldian perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2): 371–390. Choi, S., Letho, Z.Y., and Morrison, A.M. 2007. Destination image representations on the web: content analysis of Macau Travel related websites. Tourism Management, 28: 118–129. Cloke, P. and Perkins, H.C. 2002. Commodification and adventure in New Zealand tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(6): 521–549. Cohen, E. 1988. Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15: 371–386. Cohen, E. 1993. The study of touristic images of native people: mitigating the stereotype of a

stereotype. In Tourism: Critiques and Challenges, D.G. Pearce and R.W. Butler (eds), pp. 36– 69, London: Routledge. Cohen, E., Yeshayahu, N., and Uri, A. 1992. Stranger-local interaction in photography. Annals of Tourism Research, 19: 213–233. Coleman, S. and Crang, M. 2002. Tourism: Between Place and Performance. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Collier, Jr, J. 1967. Visual Anthropology: Photography as Research Method. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Crang, M. 1997. Picturing practices: research through the tourist gaze. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3): 359–373. Crawshaw, C. and Urry, J. 1997. Tourism and the photographic eye. In Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, C. Rojek and J. Urry (eds), pp. 176–195. London: Routledge. Crouch, D. 2000. Places around us: embodied lay geographies in leisure and tourism. Leisure Studies, 19, 63–76. Crouch, D., Jackson, R., and Thompson, F. 2005. The Media and The Tourist Imagination: Convergent Cultures. London: Routledge. Crouch, D. and Lübbren, N. 2003. Visual Culture and Tourism. Oxford: Berg. Dann, G.M.S. 1996. The people of tourist brochures. In The Tourist Image, Myths and Myth Making in Tourism, T. Selwyn (ed.), pp. 61–82. Chichester: Wiley. Dilley, R.S. 1986. Tourist brochures and tourist images. Canadian Geographer, 31(1): 59–65. Edensor, T. 1998. Tourists at the Taj: Performance and Meaning at a Symbolic Site. London: Routledge Publishing. Edensor, T. 2000. Staging tourism: tourists as performers. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(2): 322–344. Edensor, T. 2001. Performing tourism, staging tourism: (re)producing tourist spaces and practice. Tourist Studies, 1(1): 59–81. Edwards, E. 1996. Postcards-greetings from another world. In The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism, T. Selwyn (ed.), pp. 197–221. Chichester: Wiley. Elkins, J. 1998. On Pictures and Words That Fail Them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Franklin, A. and Crang, M. 2001. The trouble with travel and tourism theory. Tourist Studies, 1(1): 5–22.

Game, E. 1991. Undoing the Social: Towards a Deconstructive Sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Garrod, B. 2007. A snapshot into the past: the utility of volunteer-employed photography in planning and managing heritage tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(1): 14–35. Gold, J.R. and Gold, M.M. 1995. Imagining Scotland: Tradition, Representation and Promotion in Scottish Tourism Since 1750. Aldershot: Scolar Press. Graburn, N. 1983. The anthropology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 10: 9–33. Greenwood, D. 1989. Culture by the pound: an anthropological perspective on tourism as cultural commodification. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, V.S. Smith (ed.), pp. 129–138. Oxford: Blackwell. Guttentag, D.A. 2010. Virtual reality: applications and implications for tourism. Tourism Management, 31: 637–651. Haldrup, M. and Larsen, J. 2003. The family gaze. Tourist Studies, 3: 23–46. Harper, D. 2002. Talking about pictures: a case for photo-elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1): 13–26. Hudson, S. and Ritchie, B.J.R. 2006. Film tourism and destination marketing: the case of Captain Corelli's Mandolin. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(3): 256–268. Jansson, A. 2002. Spatial phantasmagoria: the mediatization of tourism experience. European Journal of Communication, 17(4): 429–443. Larsen, J. 2005. Families seen sightseeing: performativity of tourist photography. Space and Culture, 8: 416–434. Lester, J.-A. and Scarles, C. (eds) 2013. Mediating the Tourist Experience: From Travel Brochures to Virtual Encounters. Farnham: Ashgate. Löfgren, O. 1999. On Holiday: A History of Vacationing. Berkeley: University of California Press. MacCannell, D. 1979. Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3): 589–603. Maoz, D. 2006. The mutual gaze. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1): 221–239. Markwick, M. 2001. Postcards from Malta: image, consumption, context. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2): 417–438. Miller, G., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K., and Tribe, J. 2010. Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3): 627–645.

Mordue, T. 2001. Performing and directing resident/tourist cultures in Heartbeat Country. Tourist Studies, 1: 233–252. Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. 1998. Tourism, Promotion and Power: Creating Images, Creating Identities. Chichester: Wiley. Noy, C. 2008. Pages as stages: A performance approach to visitor books. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2): 509–528. Palmer, C. and Lester, J.-A. 2007. Stalking the cannibals: photographic behaviour on the Sepik River. Tourist Studies, 7(1): 83–106. Pink, S. 2007. The Future of Visual Anthropology: Engaging the Senses. London: Routledge. Radley, A. and Taylor, D. 2003. Images of recovery: photo-elicitation study on the hospital ward. Qualitative Health Research, 13(1): 77–99. Rakic, T. and Chambers, D. 2012. An Introduction to Visual Research Methods in Tourism. London: Routledge. Robinson, M. and Picard, D. 2009. The Framed World, Tourism, Tourist and Photography, Farnham: Ashgate. Rose, G. 2001. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. London: Sage Publications. Said, E. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. London: Vintage. Scarles, C. 2004. Mediating Landscapes: the processes and practices of image construction in tourist brochures of Scotland. Tourist Studies, 4: 43–67. Scarles, C. 2009. Becoming tourist: renegotiating the visual in the tourist experience. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27: 465–488. Scarles, C. 2010. Where words fail, visuals ignite: the role of autoethnography in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4): 905–926. Scarles, C. 2012. The photographed other: interplays of agency in tourist photography in Cusco, Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2): 928–950. Scarles, C. and Lester, J. 2013. Mediating the tourist experience: from brochures to virtual encounters. In Mediating the Tourist Experience: From Travel Brochures to Virtual Encounters, J.-A. Lester and C. Scarles (eds), pp. 1–12. Farnham: Ashgate. Scott, M.K. 2010. Examining the messages of contemporary ‘tourist art’ in Yucatán, Mexico: comparing Chichén Itzá and the Puuc Region. In Tourism and Visual Culture: Volume 2 Methods and Cases, P. Burns, J.-A. Lester, and L. Bibbings (eds), pp. 1–12. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Selwyn, T. 1996. The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism. Chichester, Wiley. Shields, R. 1989. Places on The Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. London: Routledge. Siripis, M., Scarles, C., and Airey, D. 2013. Being a tourist of a performer? Tourists' negotiation with mediated destination image in popular film. In Mediating the Tourist Experience: From Travel Brochures to Virtual Encounters, J.-A. Lester and C. Scarles (eds), pp. 321–339. Farnham: Ashgate. Smith, V.L. 1978. Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Oxford: Blackwell. Sontag, S. 1979. On Photography. London: Penguin. Teymour, N. 1993. ‘Photourism’ or the epistemology of photography in tourism. Tourism in Focus, 6: 6–16. Thurot, J.M. and Thurot, G. 1983. The ideology of class and tourism: confronting the discourse of advertising. Annals of Tourism Research, 10: 173–189. Travlou, P. 2002. Go Athens: a journey to the centre of the city. In Tourism: Between Place and Performance, S. Coleman and M. Crang (eds), pp. 108–127. Oxford: Blackwell. Turner, L. and Ash, J. 1975. The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery. London: Constable. Tussyadiah, I.P. and Fesenmaier, D. 2009. Mediating tourist experiences: access to places via shared videos. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1): 24–40. Urbain, J. 1989. The tourist adventure and his image. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(1): 106–118. Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Urry, J. 2000. The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications. Urry, J. and Larsen, J. 2013. The Tourist Gaze 3.0, 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications. Veijola, S. and Jokinen, E. 1994. The body in tourism. Theory, Culture and Society, 11: 125– 151.

Chapter 27 Speaking Heritage Language, Identity, and Tourism Lauren A. Hall-Lew and Alan A. Lew Research on language and tourism is in its infancy in both linguistics and tourism studies. Much of the recent research comes from within sociolinguistics, where scholars have considered how the particular social context of the tourism encounter reflects or challenges existing theories of language use (Cohen and Cooper, 1986; Heller, 2003; Boudreau and White, 2004; Manca, 2008; Jaworski, 2009). The most comprehensive text on language and tourism to date is probably Thurlow and Jaworski (2010; see also Jaworski and Pritchard, 2005), who conduct a discursive analysis of six different tourism contexts: three about language use (inflight magazines, trade signs and business cards, and holiday postcards) and three about language representation (newspaper travelogues, television holiday shows, and guidebook glossaries). Their aim is to set out a new field of “the sociolinguistics of tourism” (Thurlow and Jaworski, 2010: 1) and to “start mapping the globalizing processes and discursive strategies that underpin the symbolic economy and language ideologies of tourism more generally” (2010: 12), connecting work on language and tourism to broader discussions in linguistics about cultural change and global mobility. Other related work in sociolinguistics considers the role of language in the broader representation of cultural and other identities in tourism destinations (Pietikäinen and Kelly-Holmes, 2001; Coupland et al., 2005; Cos, 2006; Drozdzewski, 2011; Thurlow and Jaworski, 2011; Strand, 2012, 2013; Ploner, 2013). Perspectives such as these are somewhat more numerous than discussions about language in the tourism literature, where language has often been treated as a functional tool in (creating and then) overcoming cross-cultural barriers to communication (Cohen and Cooper, 1986; Yuan et al., 2006; Geoffroy, 2007; Gao, 2012). This more applied perspective is of fundamental importance in the tourism sector as service staff in tourism establishments must be able to effectively communicate with customers. The ease with which a host can communicate with tourists can have direct financial consequences. Host–guest encounters in cross-cultural and international settings have expanded enormously under the influence of globalization, and the resulting sociolinguistic contexts vary widely. While much tourism research focuses on the visual elements of a landscape, a focus on language use highlights the importance of auditory factors, such as speech. One key aspect to analyzing the role of language in a tourist encounter is to model the level(s) of mutual intelligibility between possible hosts and possible visitors. In cases where mutual intelligibility is limited, there may be a distinct set of pronunciation patterns, vocabulary, and grammatical features associated with the way that locals speak with tourists (tourist talk; Cohen and Cooper, 1986). These features together comprise speech styles that are part of the set of styles locals use with foreigners in general (foreigner talk or foreigner-directed speech; Ferguson, 1971, 1975). All of these are stylizations of the local language (or host language). In other cases of mutual intelligibility it might be more appropriate to describe speech towards

tourists in terms of the lingua franca shared by hosts and tourists, but not necessarily used natively by either group (tourist language; Cohen and Cooper, 1986); this might also be analyzed as a form of (mutual) foreigner-directed speech. In contexts where the host and the tourist share a common native language, the distinctiveness of these other-directed speech styles may be less pronounced, or even absent; however, in cases where the local accent is itself commodified, then the linguistic distinctiveness of the tourist talk might be more pronounced, at least in performative contexts (Schilling-Estes, 1998; Dubois and Horvath, 2000). We predict that tourists coming to a host community from the most typologically distinct linguistic backgrounds will generally receive the most extreme versions of a tourist language, unless translators are an additional part of the interactional context. One of the most noticeable linguistic impacts on the global tourism industry is the increasing the demand for translation skills and services. Translators, tour guides (Lew, 1992; Coupland et al., 2005), and other “professional natives” (Cohen and Cooper, 1986: 556) and interlocutors (Lawson and Jaworski, 2007) play an important role in the tourist encounter as cultural brokers between hosts and guests (Smith, 2001). This becomes especially significant in destinations where the level of linguistic distance between hosts and tourists is multimodal, such as when the local signage is in a different orthographic script from the one the tourist is familiar with. In such cases, not only is the host community's speech unintelligible to the visitor, but reliance on written signs for disambiguation is severely impaired. Typological distinctiveness, or “linguistic distance,” may be conceived in terms of the number and type of formal differences in pronunciation patterns, vocabulary, and grammatical features between two languages. While a greater linguistic distance between a host and a tourist can lead to increases in host irritations, in some cases increased exposure through tourism can actually increase positive host attitudes, up to a point (Svanes, 1988; Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005). Of course, these generalizations hold more or less well depending on the historical relationship between the cultures involved, and the existing stereotypes and perceptions held toward the different language varieties outside of the impact from tourism. Within tourism, tour guides can act as “language brokers” (Cohen and Cooper, 1986) in contexts of great linguistic distance or unfamiliarity, thereby embodying solutions to these obstacles. Translation dictionaries and tours that explicitly include language learning (e.g. Jaworski, 2009; Thurlow and Jaworski, 2011) are other forms of language brokering. While language learning can be a practical skill for improving communication in the host–tourist encounter, it can also be a way for an outsider to gain a degree of entry into the back regions of a destination (Goffman, 1959; MacCannell, 1973, 1976). Language learning turns language into a commodity resource that can be developed, packaged, and sold. Some of the major markets for language learning include business people in international firms, exchange students working on a degree, and displaced members of a host community diaspora traveling to explore their roots (Lew and Wong, 2005; Drozdzewski, 2011). In part because of the effort involved, language learning can become part of the identity construction of the visitor, leading to repeat visits to the same destination. For diaspora tourists, language learning reinforces an identity that may not have been fully informed or

realized (Jo, 2001; Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005). Language learners are also able to explore new hybrid identities that cross cultural and political boundaries (Smith and Leavy, 2008), although the specific language learning materials often exaggerate the accessibility and simplicity of language acquisition and cultural competency (Thurlow and Jaworski, 2011). To the extent that local languages can gain cultural capital through this process, tourism can lead to a direct enhancement of employment opportunities for members of the host community (Heller, 2003; Coupland et al., 2005; Jaworski and Pritchard, 2005). The distinct cultural capital of English, however, may be a special case. Gao (2012) describes the situation in Yangshuo, China, where tourists are recruited to teach English to Chinese students, in what she calls English education tourism. Through this process, she argues, English has become “a social stratifier wherein English has attained new hegemonic power in China as a middle-class stylistic resource being actively pursued, at economic and cultural cost” (Gao, 2012: 39). Thurlow and Jaworski (2010) show how airlines construct a “global,” cosmopolitan image through the use of English in inflight magazines. The hegemony of English in tourism can be seen in the translation sector as well, given that texts are quite often translated from non-English host languages into English. The symbolic value of English, therefore, has significant consequences for both corporate and individual entities involved in the tourism industry (Heller, 2003; Bielsa, 2005; Jaworski, 2009; Pietikäinen and Kelly-Holmes, 2011). Despite the powerful status of English, host languages can also be conceptualized as heritage resources for tourism purposes. These include the role of language in the political economy of tourism and use of language in destination placemaking and marketing (Moeran, 1983; Coupland et al., 2005; Strand, 2012, 2013). A linguistic variety (i.e. a language or dialect), for example, can acquire these forms of commodity value in part through the learner's perception of authenticity and legitimacy: the learner's recognition of a contemporary link to local identities that is the chronological result of a historical process of language use in the given place. Linguistic forms (words, phrases, accents) that are associated with cultural traits that instill nationalism or other political orientations are often seen as particularly authentic. Figure 27.1 suggests a framework for understanding the role of language as a heritage tourism resource. The framework starts with an examination of (i) the broader context of linguistic variation in a place, including how the linguistic variety has developed over time, issues of authenticity, and relationships between majority and minority varieties. That larger linguistic context influences (ii) the social uses of language, including the ways that institutions use language to achieve strategic goals. This often involves social engineering and marketing efforts by political and business leaders, including destination marketing organizations (DMOs). The language context and contemporary social language together comprise the space within which (iii) individual language speakers use their linguistic knowledge and skills as a form of cultural capital to create more meaningful tourist experiences. These three domains are analogous to Lefebvre's (1974) conceptualization of geographic space as (i) spatial practice, (ii) representations of space, and (iii) representational spaces. They are nested and interrelated, with global and national policy affecting destination images and marketing strategies, which subsequently impinge on local practices. Conversely, local practices, including language use and variation, are fundamental to the production of tourist spaces that

confirm, or deny, the image and symbolism of policy, marketing, and historical imaginaries (Meethan, 2001). The linguistic strategies that individuals employ in a tourism encounter are framed by the political and economic imperatives of society, and are part of the raw materials for those imperatives.

Figure 27.1. Conceptualizing language as a tourism heritage resource.

Social: Historical Linguistic Context Every linguistic context derives from the complex evolution of culture and cross-cultural exchange over time. The language variety itself typically includes elements of the historical relationships between people and their environment, cultural and technological innovations, and acculturation and hybridization through the mixing of people from different places. These aspects of a linguistic context have specific influences in tourism settings, particularly with respect to how a destination represents its authenticity. As with many areas of cultural representation, language authenticity is highly contested (Bucholtz, 2003; Coupland, 2003). One perspective is to try to locate language authenticity by describing the degree to which its features resemble the features of an earlier form considered somehow “original,” as in a historical text or other (usually written) record. This is similar to the idea of object authenticity and has similar foundations in historical and archeological research, as well as art and museum studies (Trilling, 1972; Lau, 2010). Object authenticity implies that both tangible resources (e.g. a work of art or a cultural artifact) and intangible resources (e.g. a performance or a ritual) can be verified in some way by experts as genuine and unadulterated (MacCannell, 1976; Relph, 1976; Wang, 1999). The ability to define the authenticity of an object is the assumption behind historic preservation efforts and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO's) World Heritage designations (Jerome, 2008), although the validity of the concept itself has also been contested (Lowenthal, 1985; Reisinger and Steiner, 2005). Examples of linguistic authentification in tourism include sites that commemorate major authors and poets and the scenes of famous books. Literary tours, for example, are a popular

commodity in some destinations, and performances that recreate the dress and speech of a historical period are common attractions (Squire, 1994; Herbert, 2001; Earl, 2008). Such forms of tourism often involve the performance of historical language varieties that have lost their linguistic vitality due to contact with other languages as well as language-internal changes. These varieties or archaic forms then remain in use mainly because they carry meanings of nostalgia, quaintness, or exoticism for tourists (and sometimes locals). Foreign languages, from a tourist perspective, play a similar authentification role by virtue of their association with distinct ethnic groups. Globalization entails that tourists are increasingly likely to gain exposure to a diverse range of associations between linguistic varieties and cultural identities. While this may lead to a reinforcement of negative stereotyping, a more positive outcome has been that greater awareness about endangered languages, for example, has led to increased efforts to save these varieties from extinction. This new source of cultural value may then be adopted by museums or festivals where efforts are made to bolster the language's vitality through presentation and performance (Grenoble and Whaley, 1998; Dicks, 2004). Place names are another major way that tourists encounter local languages and their historical context. In some destinations, signage aimed at both locals and tourists is multilingual, with parallel translations in two to three codes. This linguistic landscape becomes part of the authentification experience in various ways. For example, place names or their translations may retain relic linguistic features that indicate the historicity of a place, even if the origins of the specific term are no longer part of public awareness (Reaney, 1960; Clark, 2008). In China, place names are often further embellished by language-based representations in the form of calligraphic art, expressing cultural and sometimes political identities (Zhou et al., 2013). Similarly, the iconic “Hollywood” letters spread across a Los Angeles hillside have come to evoke a similar cultural imprint for both locals and tourists. Skilled tour guides will use the stories behind these linguistic landscape elements to construct a sense of the local place for visitors. In summary, the linguistic context of tourism involves an understanding of the historical evolution of language variation in a destination, as well as its relationship to other places, especially those that are major tourist sources. The linguistic history of a tourism destination forms the basis for the contemporary sociolinguistic context, and that context then defines the role of language in the local tourism industry.

Social: Contemporary Linguistic Usage Sociolinguistic usage refers to the ways in which the elements of a language context (the set of available linguistic varieties) are used, both intentionally and unintentionally, to achieve social goals. While sociolinguistic action can be studied at the level of a single individual, this section focuses on usage at the group level, with specific focus on businesses and institutions in tourism sectors. One form of explicit sociolinguistic usage is the museumizing of languages, discussed above.

By formally defining the place, costume, and language of an ethnic group, the museum attempts to capture, summarize, and preserve a culture in a fairly simplistic manner that may not reflect the complex dynamics that the contemporary ethnic group may actually be experiencing (Relph, 1976). In some cases the language of interpretation completely ignores the indigenous language(s) linked to the cultural artifacts on display, thereby reinforcing the hegemony of the dominant language (Wang, 2012). In other cases the minority languages are highlighted through active conservation and revitalization programs. For both minority and majority languages, place representation through tourism is also achieved through various linguistic and multimodal forms: music (Dubois and Horvath, 2000; Schroeder and Borgerson, 2009), postcards (Pritchard and Morgan, 2005; Thurlow and Jaworski, 2010; Francesconi, 2011), souvenirs (Pietikäinen and Kelly-Holmes, 2011), and in various forms of destination promotional literature (Moeran, 1983; Coupland et al., 2005; Thurlow and Jaworski, 2010). Linguistic varieties may gain value in a contemporary political economy through distribution in new linguistic markets (Heller, 2003). From a sociolinguistic perspective, language in tourism is but one example of the ever-changing social capital of linguistic forms. Linguistic variation provides a reliable set of resources for marking and perpetuating social affiliation and differentiation (Cohen, 2012). We are all members of groups that are characterized by a shared linguistic code, including those associated with our social class (e.g. Labov, 1966), ethnic identity (e.g. Dubois and Melançon, 1997), political orientation (e.g. Hall-Lew et al., 2010), or myriad other aspects of self-identity. While not all variation is socially meaningful, differences in language use often become resources for policing the boundaries between in-groups and out-groups (Boudreau and White, 2004; Cohen, 2012). In a tourism context, out-groups are further distributed along the lines of front-stage versus backstage settings (Goffman, 1959; Cronin and O'Connor, 2003; Greathouse-Amador, 2005). Tourists are usually outsiders who are mostly limited to experiences and encounters within front regions (Dörnyei and Csizér, 2005). These other-directed structures, environments, and performances are those aspects of the cultural landscape that are on public display (Lew, 1989). Deeper, existential tourist experiences typically involve penetrating into back regions, an experience which has been identified as a major motivation for tourism itself (MacCannell, 1976), at least in cases where entry to the back stage is considered desirable within one's social group. These processes are also apparent in the selling of places as tourist destinations and product branding (Morgan, 2004), with language differentiation serving a functional role as a tourism marketing tool. Language is one of the most readily identifiable markers of ethnic difference, particularly in cross-cultural interaction. The ability to “index” ethnicity is gaining new significance in late modernity, resulting in the commodification of language as a way to commodify ethnicity. Linguistic variation becomes a resource for defining in-group versus outgroup and front-stage versus back-stage realms. There is a challenge, however, for DMOs to balance differences that intrigue tourist curiosity with more familiar elements, in an effort to ensure accessibility and help maintain a “corporate, ‘professional’ image” (Heller, 2003: 289). This balance will vary with the degree to which a desired tourist market is more neophyllic (embracing the new) or more neophobic (afraid of differences).

While DMOs can be highly influential, place identities are ultimately created through a mix of cultural and landscape attributes, including traditional beliefs (religion, family roles), social practices (clothing, arts, foods, festivals), and a shared history. With the rise of social media and the increasing penetration of personal telecommunication technologies to every corner of the planet, place and attraction identities, and their reputations and popularity, are increasingly being influenced by crowd-sourced dialogues. These include word of mouth, online discussions, rating websites, and various other forms of mass sharing (Lew, 2008). Digital media has a direct impact on the economic success of a tourism economy by influencing the type, number, and expectations of arriving tourists. In this way, the language surrounding the description of places, whether through intentionally targeted marketing efforts or more suffuse influences via social media, influences the tourist experience. These tourism discourses draw on both historical and contemporary elements of a linguistic context to script a particular narrative. This, in combination with elements of the physical and cultural landscape, creates a distinct touristic sense of place.

Individual Linguistic Experience Historical elements of the linguistic landscape construct a place by reflecting how language use in a place has changed over time. Contemporary language use further contributes to the experiences of places. Both forces shape the relationship between language, tourism, and place. The third major influence, individual language use, refers to how individual tourists and locals use language variability in tourism settings to achieve their personal and professional goals. The individual encounters and creates the relationship between language and tourism through their exposure to and use of linguistic variation. This includes everything from the choice (intentional or unintentional) of a single variant in an individual utterance (e.g. “Welcome!” versus “Hiya!”) to the use of packages of variants, or styles, for different contexts (e.g. tourist talk). From a tourism perspective, this is most obvious in the context of explicit language learning, where the acquisition of proficiency with a new linguistic form (or an entire new language) can bring cultural or social capital to the individual language learner (Jaworski, 2009; Drozdzewski, 2011). In tourism contexts, overcoming the language barrier can transform guest and host roles by changing the visitor from a “tourist other” to a “personal guest” (Lew and Kennedy, 2002). In this way, language learning is directly related to deeper, existential experiences. Engagement with local linguistic variation can be much more subtle than “language” learning and yet still offer meaningful (and commodifiable) experiences in a tourism context. This is especially true for forms of speech that are perceived or believed to be more authentic, legitimate, or historical (Greathouse-Amador, 2005; King and Wicks, 2009). In such cases, linguistic variants may form the basis of living history and historical re-enactment experiences (Kim and Jamal, 2007), or may simply occur in passing performances of local identity in faceto-face interaction between visitors and locals (Schilling-Estes, 1998; Dubois and Horvath, 2000). At the most subtle level, local speakers' resistance to a growing tourism economy may

account, in part, for the spread and maintenance of local linguistic features (Labov, 1963). In contrast, in highly conscious contexts of tourist linguistic performance (such as Renaissance festivals), the use of socially meaningful linguistic forms may be founded on historical research on the part of the speakers themselves, whose performances then undergo further artistic interpretation in the construction of authenticity. The result is a linguistic style that conveys information about what forms of speech carry authenticity. These styles are particularly good examples of how local place identity is constructed with an awareness of a contemporary “tourist gaze” (Urry, 1990). Because of this dynamism, it is more appropriate to think of language authenticity in terms of the degree to which it is perceived as genuine based on usage and context (e.g. Coupland, 2003). This contextual perspective is evident in the very different interpretive and performative linguistic aspects of, for example, historical reenactments versus language learner experiences. Given the right conditions, those native speakers of the language variety the tourist perceives as the most “authentic” may have an advantageous position in the tourism economy. Such local language speakers can use their skills as a form of cultural capital; a cultural trait that can have direct economic utility. Greathouse-Amador (2005) found this in the case of Nahua Indians in Mexico, where the touristic search for authenticity brought value to a previously threatened language. Recent work in Edinburgh, Scotland, shows that a majority of tourists who are specifically interested in experiencing Scottish culture prefer interacting with speakers of Scottish English, even over speakers of their own native linguistic variety, and even at the risk of misunderstanding (Hall-Lew et al., 2013). This “authentic speaker” advantage is similar to other social and professional skills that give some individuals an advantage in the hospitality industry over others, such as interpersonal and cross-cultural communication skills, destination knowledge, and awareness of industry standards (Alonso and O'Neil, 2011). Most tourist settings are highly structured with clear roles (e.g. tourist, guide, vendor, docent, flight attendant, driver) designed for different market segments (e.g. luxury, family, backpacker). Although language use in each sector will typically orient to some kind of business-specific standard code, the differences in the nature of their roles call for differences in speech style, not only between roles but also within them (Coupland, 1980). There are, therefore, a plethora of different forms of so-called tourist talk in any tourism destination. The most highly qualified hosts (from a guest perspective) have mastered the particular register of tourist talk with the greatest linguistic capital for their setting, role, and market segment. Differences in linguistic style therefore gain purpose and value as resources for meeting the expectations and needs of the tourist. These may range from enabling access to basic information to providing comfort by easing culture shock. Conversely, the best tourists (from a host perspective) conform to the expected behavior and speech of the tourist setting they are in. Those who do not conform may be considered annoying, troublesome, or just confusing. Significant differences often exist between the language experiences of domestic and international tourists to a destination. Although exceptions exist, the linguistic distance between domestic tourists from other parts of a country are often not as great as they are for

international tourists. Generally speaking, when tourists and their hosts show minimal linguistic distance, the general social meanings conveyed by the hosts' accent or dialect features remain interpretable by those tourists. For example, a Canadian visiting the National Museum of Scotland, in Edinburgh, might be surprised or even disappointed to be paired with a tour guide who speaks Southern Standard British English, rather than a variety of Scottish English. In contrast, international tourists whose linguistic repertoires are distant from their hosts' are, by definition, less familiar with the nuances of local linguistic variation (Cohen and Cooper, 1986); a Chinese tourist on the same tour might not perceive any incongruence between the guide's regional variety and the subject matter of the museum. The linguistic forms that carry value in the tourism context therefore vary crucially with respect to the linguistic distance between tourist and host. Aside from the common practice whereby tour guides lead tourists in parroting local greetings in a local language (Jaworski, 2009), most tourists, regardless of linguistic distance, will not attempt to speak local linguistic varieties. The social pressures against this level of linguistic accommodation are often too great and the potential for the loss of face is relatively high. Furthermore, language shock can greatly exacerbate experiences of culture shock that visitors may have, and can be major barriers that keep some people from traveling to a foreign or simply different place (Smalley, 1963; Svanes, 1988). International tourism forces people to encounter the unfamiliar, which is an experience that neophobics avoid. However, like diaspora tourists, neophyllic language learners may use these experiences to experiment, create, and perform new identities in exotic places, far removed from their more mundane home existence (Heller, 2003; Coupland et al., 2005; Jaworski and Pritchard, 2005). Accommodation to local linguistic norms may also be a key feature in the travel experiences of those tourists interested in constructing a transnational, cosmopolitan identity (i.e. as demonstrating an awareness of global diversity; Swain, 2009).

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections The examination of linguistic variation in tourism contexts offers rich opportunities for scholars of both tourism and linguistics. Like other heritage resources, linguistic varieties are basic components of cultural identity and place image, iconic of a shared identity, and grounded in history, the facts of which and are often negotiated and contested (cf. Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2004; Smith and Akagaw, 2009). Indeed, language is essential to culture in all its various forms, which UNESCO has stated powerfully in its publication on endangered languages: [UNESCO] recognizes the vital role of language in the expression and transmission of living heritage. All intangible cultural heritage domains … depend on language for their day-to-day practice and inter-generational transmission. In the domain of oral traditions and expressions, language is not only a vehicle of intangible heritage, it is their very essence. (UNESCO, 2003: 1) In addition to this heritage role, which also has substantial marketing overtones, variation in

language necessitates the involvement of language brokers. International tourism settings turn multilingualism and cosmopolitanism into economic assets. Locals who are highly proficient in the languages of key markets can turn their cultural capital into financial capital. A major part of tourism is, arguably, driven by the desire to cross cultural boundaries. Understanding the role of language variation and use in cross cultural tourism settings is essential to uncovering how destinations market themselves and how hosts and guests create tourism places and experiences. As Thurlow and Jaworski observe, “language and languages sit at the very heart of the tourist experience, its representation and its realization, its enculturation and its enactment” (Thurlow and Jaworski, 2011: 289). Language use provides a rich and accessible source of data for analyzing the role of tourism in the transformation and evolution of tourism places. Methodologically, while traditional qualitative (interpretive) approaches are used in both linguistics and tourism research, the quantitative study of linguistic corpora may offer a new approach for tourism scholars, while tourism service management research may offer new perspectives for linguists. A greater understanding of language as a fundamental component of the tourism industry, as well as the construction of place more generally, creates the potential for new interdisciplinary insights into human mobilities and experiences.

References Alonso, A.D. and O'Neill, M.A. 2011. What defines the ‘ideal’ hospitality employee? A college town case. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 12(1): 73–93. Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. 2004. Whose tourist-historic city? Localizing the global and globalizing the local. In Companion to Tourism, Alan A. Lew, C. Michael Hall, and Allan M. Williams (eds), pp. 210–222. London: Blackwell. Bielsa, E. 2005. Globalisation and translation: a theoretical approach. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5(2): 131–144. Boudreau, A. and White, C. 2004. Turning the tide in Acadian Nova Scotia: how heritage tourism is changing language practices and representations of language. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 49(3/4): 327–351. Bucholtz, M. 2003. Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7: 398–416. Clark, C. 2008. Onomastics. In Cambridge History of the English Language I, R.M. Hog (ed.), pp. 452–489. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, E. 2012. The evolution of tag-based cooperation in humans: the case for accent. Current Anthropology, 53(5): 588–616. Cohen, E. and Cooper, R.L. 1986. Language and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 13:

533–563. Cos, J.P. 2006. Language, Culture and Tourism: Perspectives in Barcelona and Catalonia. Barcelona: Turisme de Barcelona. Coupland, N. 1980. Style-shifting in a Cardiff work-setting. Language in Society, 9(1): 1–12. Coupland, N. 2003. Sociolinguistic authenticities. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4): 417–431. Coupland, N., Garrett, P., and Bishop, H. 2005. Wales underground: discursive frames and authenticities in Welsh mining heritage tourism events. In Discourse, Communication and Tourism, A. Jaworski and A. Pritchard (eds), pp. 199–222. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Cronin, M. and O'Connor, B. (eds) 2003. Irish Tourism: Image Culture and Identity. Clevedon: Channel View. Dicks, B. 2004. Culture on Display: The Production of Contemporary Visitability. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill. Dörnyei, Z. and Csizér, K. 2005. The effects of intercultural contact and tourism on language attitudes and language learning motivation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24: 327–357. Drozdzewski, D. 2011. Language tourism in Poland. Tourism Geographies, 13(2): 165–186. Dubois, S. and Horvath, B. 2000. When the music changes, you change too: gender and language change in Cajun English. Language Variation and Change, 11: 287–313. Dubois, S. and Melançon, M. 1997. Cajun is dead – long live Cajun: shifting from a linguistic to a cultural community. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1(1): 63–93. Earl, B. 2008. Literary tourism: Constructions of value, celebrity and distinction. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 11(4): 401–417. Ferguson, C.A. 1971. Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: a study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk, and pidgins. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, D. Hymes (ed.), pp. 141–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, C.A. 1975. Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17(1): 1–14. Francesconi, S. 2011. Multimodally expressed humour shaping Scottishness in tourist postcards. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 9(1): 1–17. Gao, S. 2012. The biggest English corner in China. English Today, 28(3): 34–39. Geoffroy, C. 2007. ‘Mobile’ contexts/‘immobile’ cultures. Language and Intercultural Communication, 7(4): 279–290.

Goffman, I. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books. Greathouse-Amador, L.M. 2005. Tourism and policy in preserving minority languages and culture: the Cuetzalan experience. Review of Policy Research, 22(1): 49–58. Grenoble, L.A. and Whaley, L.J. 1998. Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall-Lew, L., Coppock, E., and Starr, R.L. 2010. Indexing political persuasion: variation in the Iraq vowels. American Speech, 85(1): 91–102. Hall-Lew, L., Fairs, A., and Lew, A.A. 2013. Tourists' Attitudes towards Linguistic Variation in Scotland. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE), Tronheim, Norway, June 26–28. Heller, M. 2003. Globalization, the new economy and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7: 473–498. Herbert, D. 2001. Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2): 312–333. Jaworski, A. 2009. Greetings in tourist-host encounters. In The New Sociolinguistics Reader, N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds), pp. 662–679. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Jaworski, A. and Pritchard, A. eds. 2005. Discourse, Communication and Tourism. Clevedon: Channel View. Jerome, P. 2008. An introduction to authenticity in preservation. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, 39(2–3): 3–7. Jo, H.-Y. 2001. ‘Heritage’ language learning and ethnic identity: Korean Americans' struggle with language authorities. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 14(1): 26–41. Kim, H. and Jamal, T. 2007. Tourist quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1): 181–201. King, R. and Wicks, J. 2009. ‘Aren't we proud of our language?’: authenticity, commodification, and the Nissan Bonavista television commercial. Journal of English Linguistics, 37(3): 262–283. Labov, W. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19: 273–309. Labov, W. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Lau, R.W.K. 2010. Revisiting authenticity: a social realist approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2): 478–798.

Lawson, S. and Jaworski, A. 2007. Shopping and chatting: reports of tourist-host interaction in The Gambia. Multilingua, 26: 67–93. Lefebvre, H. 1974. The Production of Space. Translated (1991) by D. Nicholson-Smith. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lew, A.A. 1989. Authenticity and sense of place in the tourism development experience of older retail districts. Journal of Travel Research, 27(4): 15–22. Lew, A.A. 1992. Perceptions of tourists and tour guides in Singapore. Journal of Cultural Geography, 12(2): 45–52. Lew, A.A. 2008. Long tail tourism: new geographies for marketing niche tourism products. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 25(3/4): 409–419. Lew, A.A. and Kennedy, C.L. 2002. Tourism and culture clash in American Indian country. In S. Krakover and Y. Gradus, eds., Tourism in Frontier Areas, pp. 259–283. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Lew, A.A. and Wong, A. 2005. Existential tourism and the homeland seduction: the overseas Chinese experience. In The Seduction of Place: Geographical Perspectives on Globalization and Touristed Landscapes, C.L. Cartier and A.A. Lew (eds), pp. 286–300. London: Routledge. Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacCannell, D. 1973. Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3): 589–603. MacCannell, D. 1976. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Manca, E. 2008. From phraseology to culture: qualifying adjectives in the language of tourism. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(3): 368–385. Meethan, K. 2001. Tourism in Global Society: Place, Culture, Consumption. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Moeran, B. 1983. The language of Japanese tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(1): 93– 108. Morgan, N. 2004. Problematizing place promotion. In Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 173–183. London: Blackwell. Pietikäinen, S. and Kelly-Holmes, H. 2011. The local political economy of languages in a Sámi tourism destination: authenticity and mobility in the labelling of souvenirs. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(3): 323–346.

Ploner, J. 2013. Narrating regional identity in tourism – sketches from the Austrian Danube valley. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(1): 2–14. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. 2005. Representations of ‘ethnographic knowledge’: early comic postcards of Wales. In Discourse, Communication and Tourism, A. Jaworski and A. Pritchard (eds), pp. 53–75. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Reaney, P.H. 1960. The Origin of English Place-Names. London: Routledge. Reisinger, Y. and Steiner, C.J. 2005. Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1): 65–86. Relph, E. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion. Schilling-Estes, N. 1998. Investigating ‘self-conscious’ speech: the performance register in Ocracoke English. Language in Society, 27(1): 53–83. Schroeder, J.E. and Borgerson, J.L. 2008. Packaging paradise: organizing representations of Hawaii. In Against the Grain: Advances in Postcolonial Organization Studies, A. Prasad (eds), pp. 32–53. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Smalley, W.A. 1963. Culture shock, language shock, and the shock of self-discovery. Practical Anthropology, 10: 49–56. Smith, K.E. and Leavy, P. (eds) 2008. Hybrid Identities: Theoretical and Empirical Examinations. Leiden: Brill. Smith, L. and Akagawa, N. 2009. Introduction. In Intangible Heritage, L. Smith and N. Akagawa (eds), pp. 1–9. Milton Park: Routledge. Smith, V.L. 2001. The culture brokers. In V.L. Smith and M. Brent, eds., Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century, pp. 275–282. Elmsford: Cognizant. Squire, S.J. 1994. The cultural values of literary tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21: 103–120. Strand, T. 2012. Winning the dialect popularity contest: mass-mediated language ideologies and local responses in rural Valdres, Norway. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 22(1): 23– 43. Strand, T. 2013. Dialect Meta-Register and Popular Linguistic Awareness in Heritage Marketing and Tourism. Paper presented at the Locating Language: A Symposium on the Linguistics of Place, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, April 22. Svanes, B. 1988. Attitudes and ‘cultural distance’ in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 9(4): 357–317. Swain, M.B. 2009. The cosmopolitan hope of tourism: critical action and worldmaking vistas.

Tourism Geographies, 11(4): 505–525. Thurlow, C. and Jaworski, A. 2010. Tourism Discourse: The Language of Global Mobility. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Thurlow, C. and Jaworski, A. 2011. Tourism discourse: languages and banal globalization. Applied Linguistics Review, 2: 285–312. Trilling, L. 1972. Sincerity and Authenticity. London: Oxford University Press. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) 2003. Linguistic Diversity in Selected UNESCO's Normative Texts. www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/linguistic-diversity-in-unesconormative-texts/ Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Wang, N. 1999. Rethinking authenticity in the tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26: 349–370. Wang, M. 2012. The social life of scripts: staging authenticity in China's ethno-tourism industry. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 41(2–4): 419–455. Yuan, J.J., Houston, K., and Cai, L. 2006. Foreign language ability: a core attribute of hospitality graduates' competency? Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 5(1): 77–90. Zhou, Q., Zhang, J., and Edelheim, J.R. 2013. Rethinking traditional Chinese culture: a consumer-based model regarding the authenticity of Chinese calligraphy landscape. Tourism Management, 36: 99–112.

Chapter 28 Religion and Spirituality in Tourism Michael Stausberg

Clearing the Path Systematic and comparative contributions to the mutual importance of religion/spirituality and tourism have been scarce (Vukonić, 1996; Bremer, 2005; Sharpley, 2009; Collins-Kreiner, 2010a; Norman, 2011; Stausberg, 2011). Efforts tended to be isolated, separated, based on single case studies and divided along regional lines and academic disciplines. The emergence of a more coherent field of research was delayed by the persistence of some mental patterns. For many people, including scholars, tourism and faith/religion/spirituality are placed on opposite positions on their mental maps. For example, while faith/religion is thought to deal with ultimate concerns, tourism is often perceived as driven by matters of immediate interest; while religion relates to the other world and salvation, tourism is geared towards thisworldly pleasure; whereas religion belongs to the realm of the sacred, tourism incarnates the profane. In this scheme of things, travels motivated by religion can, by definition, not be classified as touristic. In order to speak about such travels one therefore reverts to terms like pilgrimage. Since tourism as such in this scheme cannot be religious, a tourist driven by religious motives is then styled as “pilgrim,” even when undertaking trips beyond traditional pilgrimages. This bifurcated mental map, which a priori divides faith/religion/spirituality and tourism into two incompatible realms, is often judgmentally linked to antitourist perspectives, where tourism has an overwhelmingly negative connotation. It appears as if religion would risk losing its presumed purity when it encounters tourism. The tropes of authenticity and commercialization/commodification are routinely invoked in conceptualizing the tourism– religion encounters (MacCannell, 1976/1999; Xie, 2003; Bremer, 2004; Wall and Xie, 2005; Zhu, 2012), so that narratives of defilement of religion by tourism come easily in a hermeneutics of suspicion. To clear the ground for a renewed study of the religion/tourism interface one needs to liberate the agenda from such preconceptions in the light of more critical and nuanced understandings of both religion and tourism (Stausberg, 2011). In more recent scholarship, religion has been brought down to earth. For example, on this view religion is not per se averse to commercialism or entertainment, that it is not per se “authentic,” and is not operative in nonspatial, nonmaterial, noneconomic terms. Tourism, on the other hand, cannot a priori be reduced to meaningless, superficial consumption, but has much to do with meaningmaking and identity, social status, and relationships. Religion is sometimes evoked as a causal factor for tourism. In one of the formative books of the field MacCannell (1976/1999) conceptualized tourism, which for him centers on sightseeing, as a ritual amounting to “a collective striving for a transcendence” (MacCannell, 1976/1999: 13). He also drew connections to religion when calling to the sight a “sacred object” (1976/1999: 45) or when referring to the process of creation of attractions as “Sight Sacralization” (1976/1999: 43). On the one hand, this was intended as an analogy (sight/sacred

object); on the other hand, the theory implied the narrative of a replacement of religion by tourism in modernity that amounted to an explanation of the importance of tourism for modern society. Another functionalist/religionist explanation of tourism was suggested by Graburn (1989) who argued that the sacred was the ultimate source of renewal, and that tourism as a “sacred journey” is a recurrent, extraordinary period of renewal necessary for the upkeep of ordinary society. These macrotheories are questionable in their basic assumptions and their empirical basis. Even Franklin's (2003) sociological textbook uses a religious vocabulary (“redemption,” “devotion,” “cult,” “sacred”) but does make his theoretical basis explicit. Accordingly, these studies did not contribute to the empirical study of the actual connections between religion and tourism. Similarly, interpretations of souvenirs in terms of sacredness (Gordon, 1986) are also speculative, whereas studies of the production, circulation, and use of religious objects as souvenirs are rare (Stausberg, 2011).

Religious Parameters of Traveling Travel is a universal behavior, and most religious traditions have produced documents containing pronouncements on traveling, including pilgrimage, or they transmit values and have articulated prescriptions on travels that are also relevant for tourism (Timothy and Olsen, 2006). Religious or spiritual values can inform decision-making such as destination choice. Conservative Christians, for example, may wish to avoid places associated with what they consider immoral behavior. Conversely, tourism attuned to specific groups of Christians is an emerging force, often referred to as faith tourism or Christian travel (Stausberg, 2011). Different branches of religious traditions have produced different travel cultures and preferential patterns, sometimes in implicit or explicit distinction from each other. These formations of tourist sensibilities are not only informed by religious factors, but also by wider cultural forces such as Orientalism, Romanticism, or, more recently, postmodernism. Informed by Orientalism, Romanticism, and Protestant theological, aesthetical, and material normative traditions, Protestant tourists/pilgrims traveling to Israel, for example, show different behavioral patterns from Catholic or Orthodox tourists: often repulsed by the sensuality of Catholic and Orthodox places, emerging Protestant tourism developed a preference for sites that emphasized open spaces and panoramic views on the biblical landscape with traces of the natural past (such as olive gardens or ruins) rather than the presence of the Oriental other, be it Islam or Christian and Orthodox Christianity (Ron and Feldman, 2009). In recent years, “biblical food” has become an ingredient to authenticate the Holy Land experience of religious tourists (Ron and Timothy, 2013). In religions like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Jainism dietary prescriptions are relevant parameters for certain types of believers and for the travel and hospitality sector, insofar as it wishes to accommodate religious travelers. Muslim travelers are now increasingly catered for by offering halal meals and gender-separated swimming pool areas; similarly, hotels and spas offer Passover specials. By the 1880s Jewish resorts were established in the Catskill and Adirondack Mountains in the USA. Sometimes, society imposes discriminatory practices. Until the mid-twentieth century, for example, widespread anti-Semitism in countries such as

Germany and the USA forced Jewish tourists into separate holiday-ghettos (Ioannides and Cohen Ioannides, 2004), known as “resort anti-Semitism.” Still in the mid-1950s, according to the Anti-Defamation League, some 30% of hotels in the USA did not take in Jewish patrons; in the states of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire 56% of hotels would refuse to accommodate Jewish guests (Bajohr, 2003). Not only does the hospitality sector positively or sometimes negatively deal with religious people, but some religious organizations, in particular Christian churches, pay attention to tourists and the phenomenon of tourism. Special churches are built for tourists, for example at seaside destinations, or ministers are sent for pastoral care among tourists (Stausberg, 2011). In contemporary Judaism, the Chabad Movement offers shelter and services to trekkers in South Asia and seeks to draw them into a religious lifestyle (Maoz and Bekerman, 2009). Moreover, religious organizational units such as parishes are actively involved in tourism; arranging for trips, seminars, study and exchange visits, pilgrimages, or participation in mass events such as papal visits is one of their activities. Last but not least, ministries are set up at travel hot spots such as airports; starting off along strictly confessional lines, they are turning increasingly multidenominational or interfaith (Stausberg, 2011). In terms of motivations, intentions, purposes, or reasons – that is, intentional factors that explain why people tour and which routes they take or what places they visit – religion and spirituality constitute both push and pull factors. Besides pilgrimage-type tourism, there are other religious purposes that push people into traveling, such as professional and amateur missions (Wuthnow and Offutt, 2008), retreats, seeking counseling, education, healing, insight (revelation, mysticism), or other forms of experience including that of volunteering and social service in the name of religion or for a religious event. Religious sites such as cathedrals or performances such as dances, rituals (even funerals), and services or public events such as feasts and festivals, fairs and exhibitions, conferences, conventions, holiday camps, or mass spectacles such as the Catholic World Youth Days are pull factors for tourists (Stausberg, 2011).

Religious Sites Religious sites range among the most important attractions throughout the world. Based on geographical position and complexity (single nodal feature versus whole towns, mountains, and islands), function (burial and pilgrimage), and other aspects Shackley (2001) has proposed a classification of sacred sites into 10 different categories. In fact, there is a great variety of religious sites that are visited by tourists and visitation not only occurs at the major churches, but also on more inconspicuous, secondary, or tertiary nuclei such as parish churches in the countryside (Stausberg, 2011). One important distinction is that between sites belonging to living religious communities and those originating from by now extinct religions. In the latter category, however, one also finds monuments that have been (re)appropriated by new groups of users such as new agers or pagans. Typically administered by state agencies such as national trusts (and tourism bodies often also have an interest), the management of these sites faces a potential for conflict, for which Stonehenge in England is a well-known example (Blain and

Wallis, 2007). Sometimes indigenous or ethnic groups are major stakeholders; their rights and claims can also conflict with those of other users such as climbers or park authorities in the case of mountains; for example, at Uluru, Australia, tensions have also emerged between new agers and indigenous people (Stausberg, 2011). Public administration and the state are also major stakeholders in religious sites once they have attained a status as tourism attractions or once they are identified as having the potential to become attractions. In China the state has invested heavily in the restoration of Buddhist, Confucian, and Taoist religious sites to make them attractive for tourists and thereby to yield economic benefits for the region and towns where they are located; in this way, tourism has been a factor in the recent revival of religion in China (Oakes and Sutton, 2010), but the state faces the dilemma that the potential economic gain comes at the cost of endorsing practices officially condemned as superstitious or unscientific. Accordingly, there are persistent attempts to “manage faith” rather than banning it (Shepherd, 2013: 20). Religious leaders and communities have in general endorsed exposure to tourism and most tensions resulting from aggressive take-overs of religion are eventually overcome (see Sutton and Kang, 2010), even though this requires continuous effort. Governments and public administrations typically invest in religion-related tourism in the hope of deriving economic gains from this strategy, but this remains an assumption and expectation rather than a tested fact (Shinde, 2010; Fernandes et al., 2012). Religious stakeholders are not always in agreement about the proper interpretation and use of their sites. While Christian congregations can feel disturbed by the presence of tourists, for example by being observed (Griffith, 2011), they are often welcoming or even regard this as part of their mission (della Dora, 2012). Chinese Buddhist monks are welcoming tourism as a potential venue to spread the Buddhist message and they manage to ignore the disturbances or intrusions caused by tourists because of their Buddhist mindset (Wong et al., 2013). Religious leaders and believers can also play the role of entrepreneurs who actively develop tourism to religious sites (Shinde, 2010). In other countries, like in Morocco, tourists are requested not to visit religious sites. In the case of popular religious sites owned and used (and typically also managed) by religious organizations, a major management challenge is the finding of a balance between the needs and expectations of local participants and tourists so that the sites can function simultaneously as a religious and as a tourism space, where different groups of users find their interests respected. Issues include site conservation in the face of physical and social, exterior and interior visitor impacts, the control of visitor flows and behavior, marketing, planning special events, financing (including the notoriously contentious issue of entrance fees), and the education of visitors (Shackley, 2001; Olsen, 2006). Many visitors ascribe a specific aura to religious sites (Afferni et al., 2011; Shepherd, 2013), which is constitutive for their attractiveness and needs to be curated by managers for the site to remain sustainable. Many religious sites are officially branded as heritage sites (Stausberg, 2011); on the one hand this gives additional stature to these sites, on the other hand it frames their modus operandi (Shepherd, 2013). Psychological typologies of visitors to religious sites are rare and specific to few sites

(Francis et al., 2010). Typically, visits to religious sites are embedded in tours that also comprise visits to other attractions. Religious sites are visited by tourists belonging to a diversity of motivational categories for a variety of purposes ranging from time filling and relaxation to convenient or scenic location, cultural and aesthetic interests, nostalgia, and search for identity, to religious motivations, for example a desire to meditate or pray or to attend a service. Often, the boundaries between these different interests are fluid. Religious people, for example, will most likely also appreciate the artworks in a church, or its scenic location, in addition to saying prayers, lighting a candle, or attending services. Enjoying the scenery or the landscape may be a nonreligious aesthetic experience, looked down upon as superficial by religious people, or it is embedded in a religious worldview, for example as an instance of the holiness of creation (della Dora, 2012). Religious activities at the sites can be perceived as a disturbance as they prevent visitors from moving around freely and appreciating the artworks, but they may also contribute to the attractiveness and authenticity of the visit experience (Griffith, 2011 for Australian cathedral visitors). In some cases they can trigger religious experiences among visitors (Kasim, 2011). The fact that religious sites are visited during a trip does not turn it into an example of religious tourism. The latter term, which has been used in slightly different manners in the literature (Rinschede, 1992; Vukonić, 1996; Santos, 2003; Sena da Silveira, 2004; Mazza, 2007; Mu et al., 2007) should be reserved to such forms of tourism that are predominantly motived by explicit religious purposes. Religious tourism is an ideal-type for scholars but in practice most forms of religious tourism also have other purposes, such as socialization, education, or leisure. Moreover, the meanings of the term religious are contextual and data are semantics-laden. For example, very few visitors to the Chinese Buddhist temple complex of Wutai Shan, a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site, count as religious tourists in official statistics, but in fact most visitors intend to worship the Buddha in some way; while this would qualify as a religious activity in Western language and while only people who self-identify as religious would probably engage in acts of worship, in the Chinese context the situational performance of such acts is a traditional activity which does not have implications for the self-identification of people in terms of a religious identity (Shepherd, 2013).

Pilgrimages Pilgrimages are the prototypical form of religious tourism. Given the conceptual dichotomies outlined above, pilgrimages are often not acknowledged as a form of tourism. In some cultural contexts, religious actors clearly reject this identification, and in the field one can observe how these categories are negotiated in the management of expectations and experiences, sometimes in combination with the rhetoric of authenticity: in some Christian discourses, authentic pilgrimages are tours on acknowledged religious routes to religious destinations and for religious purposes that deny the apparent touristic element in them. Pilgrimage routes are not only traveled for religious reasons; while we are lacking information for earlier periods, some recent studies indicate that religious purposes may not be the dominant motive among people

using pilgrimage routes (Hoshino, 2007; Fernandes et al., 2012). On the pilgrimage route (camino) to Santiago de Compostela, the word turingo, a fusion of the words for tourist (turista) and pilgrim (peregrine), is used as a rather offensive term for those who are accused of misusing pilgrimage infrastructure such as hostels for cheap holidaymaking (Sepp, 2012). The presence of nonpilgrims helps pilgrims to assert their own role and identity; for tourists, the presence of pilgrims adds to the perceived authenticity and attractiveness of a destination. Rather than a dichotomy, in actual practice people sometimes travel by framing their trip as a pilgrimage, while this is not the case on other trips to the same destination. Travelers can alternate and play with these roles during their trips. It is easily forgotten that there are diverse types of pilgrimage and tourism, and that pilgrims and tourists are aggregated categories that can turn out to be much less homogenous at closer look. Last but not least, tourism and pilgrimages are historical and thereby changing phenomena. While there are some cases of conflict, where religious destinations have had to come to terms with the impact of increased tourism (Stausberg, 2011), research has consistently emphasized the blurred boundaries between pilgrimages and other forms of tourism (Reader, 1991; Campo, 1998; Swatos and Tomasi, 2002; Gladstone, 2005; Olsen and Timothy, 2006; Rodrígez del Alisal, 2007; Maoz and Bekerman, 2010; Stausberg, 2011). Collins-Kreiner (2010a: 161) speaks of a dedifferentiation and claims “it is practically impossible to draw clear boundaries around the category of travel or to differentiate pilgrims from tourists.” Yet, as noted above, travelers make such distinctions, albeit strategically. Moreover, Collins-Kreiner's research also demonstrates that the blurring of boundaries does not obliterate the possibility of making distinctions between different groups of people and their respective travel behaviors, which correlate with their religious profiles (Collins-Kreiner, 2010a, 2010b). There are people who exclusively visit for religious reasons and only engage in ritual activities, while others do not engage in these activities at all, or only minimally, but instead engage in other activities such as touring the area, resting, eating, enjoying the views, or attending folklore performances; whereas the former are classified as pilgrims, the latter are referred to as heritage or cultural tourists; others travel out of curiosity. In the case of Jewish visitors to holy graves in Israel one finds several groups: those who called themselves pilgrims often also identified as ultraorthodox apparently belonged to a lower social stratum compared to the cultural/heritage visitors, who referred to themselves as secular and tourists (Collins-Kreiner, 2010b). While this particular correlation should not be generalized prematurely, there clearly are relevant differences among people, which should not be blurred. Differences with regard to travel and on-site behavior comprise the selection of sites, the formation of itineraries, the timing of visits, length of stay, the range of activities engaged with both on the route and at the destination, the selection and activities of guides, the choice and characteristics of accommodation and food, the kind of information that is being sought, and the way this is done (Bar and Cohen-Hattab, 2003). Moreover, strongly religious or spirituality-based travelers are less affected by security concerns than other types of tourist (Collins-Kreiner et al., 2006). In general, since the modern age, which is also the age of mass tourism, pilgrimages have seen a worldwide boom, and even though this is difficult or impossible to prove, there are reasons to suspect that the emergence of tourism and its facilities have contributed to this development

(Stausberg, 2011). On the microlevel of single pilgrimage places, one can observe shifting behaviors and changes in transportation and infrastructure. Facilitation of access, for example, increases the number of visitors, sometimes dramatically; typically this makes the site more attractive to people who travel not, or not predominantly, for religious purposes, and the presence of many such people stimulates the opening of services to such tourists, for example restaurants and souvenir shops (which, of course, may also be patronized by people mainly traveling for religious reasons). Easier access also encourages shorter stays at the pilgrimage site (Shepherd, 2013). The tourism model of the package tour is used for the organization of pilgrimages, partly also by religious entrepreneurs (Shinde, 2010). The opening up of pilgrimage places to a greater spectrum of tourists during longer periods of the year results in social and ecological changes at these places (Shinde, 2003). High numbers of visitors to pilgrimage places in less wealthy nations typically result in environmental problems such as water pollution and deforestation and stress on services such as water supply, transportation, the sewerage system, and waste disposal. As illustrated at a Hindu pilgrimage center, religious belief systems can result in effective denial of or indifference towards such problems; for example, believers appeal to the miraculous power of the deity as the way to resolve ecological problems or they respond by emphasizing the particular qualities of the sacred space. Moreover, pollution can also be interpreted in religious terms. Hindu religious authorities and priests emphasize the bodily, moral, and cosmic rather than the environmental dimensions of purity and pollution (Shinde, 2011). Another study from India confirms that the perception and evaluation of a religious site, here the environment of the annual Magh Mela festival in Northern India, which celebrates the confluence of the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers that holds a significant position in the Hindu religious geography, are influenced by religious activities, interests, orientations, and participation. While pilgrims evaluated the environment much more positively than other groups of stakeholders (businesspeople, boatmen, sweepers, police officers, student volunteers), the overall evaluation of the pilgrims and of local religious leaders was significantly influenced by their views of the quality of facilities such as water, toilets, electricity, roads, traffic control, and garbage pickup and their sense of support by their religious community (Ruback et al., 2008). Similar studies are called for that would compare the place perception among religious/spiritual and other tourists. While pilgrimage is the prototypical form of religious tourism, in Western languages the term pilgrimage is also used outside of religious contexts. Metaphorical usages of the term in English are attested to from the sixteenth century (according to the Oxford English Dictionary online, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/143868?result=1&rskey=6vqlnD&). Such uses of the term are now quite widespread; there are also all sorts of “meccas.” These terms point to the extraordinary importance of such places for specific groups characterized by shared interests (Stausberg, 2011). In scholarship, there is now a tradition of secular pilgrimage studies (Olsen and Timothy, 2006). Examples include dark tourism to disaster sites and war memorials and cemeteries, historical and nationalistic sites, literature tourism (sites connected to the lives and works of authors), celebrity and science fiction, but also sporting events, shopping malls, amusement parks, and Walt Disney World (Olsen and Timothy, 2006; Simone-Charteris and Boyd, 2010). The exact meaning and analytical purchase of the term pilgrimage in these studies remain unclear and ambiguous.

Spirituality and Spiritual Tourism There is now increasingly talk about spiritual pilgrimages or spiritual tourism in general (Norman, 2011). This reflects the growing use of the adjective spiritual and the noun spirituality in contemporary language. Like religious/religion, the pair spiritual/spirituality is originally nonacademic vocabulary that has been adopted by scholarly use. Both pairs of terms are notoriously difficult to define, but in the case of spiritual/spirituality this difficulty is augmented since this pair explicitly or implicitly builds on religious/religion. In its dominant uses, as I observe them, spiritual/spirituality is semantically situated within and beyond the social realm of religion. The two varieties are not mutually exclusive. On the one hand, spirituality signifies a form of inward quality of religious ideas and orientation, similar to faith and piety, but more collective, deep, intense, or sincere, sometimes apparently marginal (“the Cistercian spirituality,” “Quaker spirituality,” “Aboriginal spirituality”). Experiencing this spirituality can be a motivating factor. On the other hand, the term is mainly used to refer to a set of phenomena that are related to modes of religiosity but which take a distance from religion. This distance can either be explicit or implicit. In the former variety, spiritual is by definition non- or postreligious (“spiritual but not religious,” or SBNR) in the sense that it criticizes, dissociates from, or even rejects organized religion; this has emerged as a form of self-identification among Westerners (Keller et al., 2013) and Westernized elites. In postcolonial situations, where religion is part of the colonial heritage, the term spirituality appears less compromised. In the second variety, spirituality refers to a set of ideas that one also can find in religious traditions but which also exist independently of them, including an emphasis and culture of the self, wholeness, holism and (inter)connectedness, meaning-, search/quest-, and experience-orientation, nontheistic cosmology, peacefulness/tolerance, and similar positive value commitments. In the context of tourism, spirituality may accordingly mean different things. To begin with, it can point to values underlying tourism. Spiritual tourism can be used as a synonym for religious tourism, but alternatively it can be used as a specific form of religious tourism, one that is more individual, more prone to connectedness, personal meaning, and quest, or it can refer to a travel process of identity-work, voyages in search of meaningful experiences, not articulated in religious language (see the phenomenological portrait in Willson et al., 2013). Engaging in pilgrimages can be “part of a larger cultural focus on the accumulation of experiences combined with ‘spiritual growth’ ” (Swatos, 2011: 37). Also wilderness and other forms of nature tourism can be prone to trigger experiences framed as spiritual (Frederickson and Anderson, 1999). Given that spirituality is often perceived as an open-ended exploration of journey, one can speculate about an elective affinity between spirituality and tourism (Sharpley, 2009), especially since self-development appears to be a core motive for many tourists (Pearce and Lee, 2005). Recreation can be meaningful re-creation (Norman, 2011). The term spiritual tourism is also used for trips of active self-discovery to Asian religious sites or authorities such as ashrams, gurus, or pilgrimage destinations (Norman, 2011), for “recentering” the self by way of immersion in presumably spiritually rich cultures (Willson, 2011), for the educational immersion in Buddhism through long-term stays in Dharamsala

(Collins-Kreiner and Sagi, 2011), for the participation at traditional pilgrimages that are being adapted to SBNR agendas (Reader, 2007; Norman, 2011), or that are being subverted to feminist spirituality and thereby restored to their presumed original significance (Fedele, 2009), or for participation in ayahuasca sessions in the Amazonas (Holman, 2011). A study of an ashram in South India has shown that only a small proportion of visitors originally came for spiritual reasons, but this does not preclude the occurrence of serendipitous spiritual experiences among the nonseekers (Sharpley and Sundaram, 2005). Yoga tourism, which is often characterized by a search for spirituality, is an expanding niche within wellness tourism (Letho et al., 2006), which is a growing branch of tourism. An Australian study distinguishes between three varieties of wellness tourism: beauty spa, lifestyle resort, and spiritual retreat visitation, which differ in their sociodemographic profile and travel characteristics (Voigt et al., 2011). Australian wellness tourists are overwhelmingly female and travel alone. For them, transformation is a central theme and transcendence has emerged as a key factor. The spiritual retreat visitors typically engage in yoga, T'ai Chi, Reiki, or meditation techniques; demographically they are significantly higher educated than other groups of wellness tourists.

Conclusion Just like nature and other spheres of reality, religion is a resource and a source of extraction for tourism. Religion and spirituality are driving forces in tourism, and the new mobility regime provided by tourism has in turn made religion more mobile. While sometimes perceived as antagonists, as this chapter has demonstrated religion, spirituality, and tourism have in their shared history developed symbiotic relationships. Yet, to further develop research in this area, the mental barriers described at the outset need to be overcome. This would also open the way to a conversation and eventually also collaboration between scholars of religion and people from tourism studies. There are still many aspects of the religion/spirituality– tourism interface that have not been studied systematically and comparatively. The roles of guides as (inter)religious brokers, for example, remain virtually unstudied. So far, the overwhelming amount of work has focused on Western cultures, but religious tourism is widespread in economically less developed countries. This geographical limitation needs to be overcome. Moreover, most case studies are place-based rather than people-based. Important new directions in scholarship would be to develop multisited design or to follow people on their travels. It is often claimed that religious tourism would yield economic benefit and that tourism could contribute to greater religious tolerance; both assumptions remain to be tested empirically.

References Afferni, R., Ferrario, C., and Mangano, S. 2011. A place of emotions: the Sacred Mount of Varallo. Tourism, 59: 369–386. Bajohr, F. 2003. Unser Hotel Ist Judenfrei. Bäder-Antisemitismus im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: Fischer.

Bar, D. and Cohen-Hattab, K. 2003. A new kind of pilgrimage: the modern tourist pilgrim of nineteenth-century and early twentieth century Palestine. Middle Eastern Studies, 39: 131– 148. Blain, J. and Wallis, R. 2007. Sacred Sites, Contested Rites/Rights: Pagan Engagements with Archaeological Monuments. Eastbourne: Sussex University Press. Bremer, T. 2004. Blessed with Tourists: The Borderlands of Religion and Tourism in San Antonio. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Bremer, T. 2005. Tourism and religion. In Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 13, L. Jones (ed.), pp. 9260–9264. Detroit: Macmillian Reference USA, Thomas Gale. Campo, J.E. 1998. American pilgrimage landscapes. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 558(1): 40–56. Collins-Kreiner, N. 2010a. The geography of pilgrimage and tourism: transformations and implications for applied geography. Applied Geography, 30: 153–164. Collins-Kreiner, N. 2010b. Current Jewish pilgrimage tourism: modes and models of development. Tourism, 58: 259–270. Collins-Kreiner, N., Kliot, N., Mansfeld, Y., and Sagi, K. 2006. Christian Tourism to the Holy Land: Pilgrimage During Security Crisis. Aldershot: Ashgate. Collins-Kreiner, N. and Sagi, K.T. 2011. Tourism to India as popular culture: a cultural, educational and religious experience at Dharamsala. South Asian Popular Culture, 9: 131– 145. della Dora, V. 2012. Setting and blurring boundaries: pilgrims, tourists, and landscape in Mount Athos and Meteora. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 951–974. Fedele, A. 2009. From Christian religion to feminist spirituality: Mary Magdalene pilgrimages to La Sainte-Baume, France. Culture and Religion, 10: 243–261. Fernandes, C., Pimenta, E., Gonçalves, F., and Rachão, S. 2012. A new research approach for religious tourism: the case study of the Portuguese route to Santiago. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 4: 83–94. Francis, L.J., Mansfield, S., Williams, E., and Village, A. 2010. Applying psychological type theory to cathedral visitors: a case study of two cathedrals in England and Wales. Visitor Studies, 13: 175–186. Franklin, A. 2003. Tourism: an Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Fredrickson, L. and Anderson, D. 1999. A qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19: 21–39.

Gladstone, D. 2005. From Pilgrimage to Package Tour: Travel and Tourism in the Third World. New York: Routledge. Gordon, B. 1986. The souvenir: messenger of the extraordinary. Journal of Popular Culture, 20: 135–146. Graburn, N. 1989. Tourism: the sacred journey. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, 2nd edn, V. Smith (ed.), pp. 21–36. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Griffiths, M. 2011. Those who come to pray and those who come to look: interactions between visitors and congregations. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 6: 63–72. Holman, C. 2011. Surfing for a shaman: analyzing an Ayahuasca website. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 90–109. Hoshino, E. 2007. Current increase in walking pilgrims. In Pilgrimages and Spiritual Quests in Japan, M. Rodríguez del Alisal, P. Ackermann, and D. Martinez (eds), pp. 65–73. London: Routledge. Ioannides, D. and Cohen Ioannides, M. 2004. Jewish past as a ‘foreign country’: the travel experiences of American Jews. In Tourism, Diasporas and Space, T. Coles and D. Timothy (eds), pp. 95–110. London: Routledge. Kasim, A. 2011. Balancing tourism and religious experience: understanding devotees' perspectives on Thaipusam in Batu Caves, Selangor, Malaysia. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20: 441–456. Keller, B., Klein, C., Swhajor, A., Silver, C., Hood, R., and Streib, H. 2013. The semantics of “spirituality” and related self-identifications: a comparative study in Germany and the USA. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 35: 71–100. Lehto, X.Y., Brown, S., Chen, Y., and Morrison, A.M. 2006. Yoga tourism as a niche within the wellness tourism market. Tourism Recreation Research, 31: 25–35. MacCannell, D. 1976/1999. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class, with a New Foreword by Lucy R. Lippard and a New Epilogue by the Author. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Maoz, D. and Bekerman, Z. 2009. Chabad tracks the trekkers: Jewish education in India. Journal of Jewish Education, 75: 173–193. Maoz, D. and Bekerman, Z. 2010. Searching for Jewish answers in Indian resorts: the postmodern traveler. Annals of Tourism Research, 37: 423–439. Mazza, C. 2007. Turismo Religioso: Un approccio storico-culturale. Bologna: EDB. Mu, Z., Li, H., Jian-Hong, W., Ji, L., Yan-Geng, J., and Xiting, L. 2007. Religious tourism and cultural pilgrimage: a Chinese perspective. In Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage Festivals

Management: An International Perspective, R. Raj and N. Morpeth (eds), pp. 98–112. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Norman, A. 2011. Spiritual Tourism: Travel and Religious Practice in Western Society. London: Continuum. Oakes, T. and Sutton, D. (eds) 2010. Faiths on Display: Religion, Tourism, and the Chinese State. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Olsen, D. 2006. Management issues for religious heritage attractions. In Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys, D. Timothy and D. Olsen (eds), pp. 104–118. London: Routledge. Olsen, D. and Timothy, D. 2006. Tourism and religious journeys. In Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys, D. Timothy and D. Olsen (eds), pp. 1–21. London: Routledge. Pearce, P. and Lee, U.-I. 2005. Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 43: 226–237. Reader, I. 1991. Religion in Contemporary Japan. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Reader, I. 2007. Pilgrimage growth in the modern world: meanings and implications. Religion, 37: 210–229. Rinschede, G. 1992. Forms of religious tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 19: 51–67. Rodríguez del Alisal, M. 2007. New forms of pilgrimage in Japanese society. In Pilgrimages and Spiritual Quests in Japan, M. Rodríguez del Alisal, P. Ackermann, and D. Martinez (eds), pp. 74–83. London: Routledge. Ron, A. and Feldman, J. 2009. From spots to themed sites – the evolution of the Protestant Holy Land. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 4: 201–216. Ron, A. and Timothy, D. 2013. The Land of Milk and Honey: biblical foods, heritage and Holy Land tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 8: 234–247. Ruback, R.B., Pandey, J., and Kohli, N. 2008. Evaluations of a sacred place: role and religious belief at the Magh Mela. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28: 174–184. Santos, M.d.G.M.P. 2003. Religious tourism: contributions towards a clarification of concepts. In Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage: Atlas – Special Interest Group 1st Expert Meeting, C. Fernandes, J. Edwards, and F. McGettigan (eds), pp. 27–42. Fátima: Tourism Board of Leiria/Fátima. Sena da Silveira, E.J. 2004. Turismo religioso popular? Entre a ambigüidada conceitual e as oportunidades de mercado. Revista de Antropología Experimental, 4: 1–16. Sepp, T. 2012. Stories of Santiago pilgrims: tradition through creativity. In Vernacular Religion in Everyday Life: Expressions of Belief, M. Bowman and Ü. Valk (eds), pp. 301–

327. Sheffield: Equinox. Shackley, M. 2001. Managing Sacred Sites: Service Provision and Visitor Experience. London: Continuum. Sharpley, R. 2009. Tourism, religion, and spirituality. In The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies, T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds), pp. 237–253. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Sharpley, R. and Sundaram, P. 2005. Tourism: a sacred journey? The case of Ashram tourism, India. International Journal of Tourism Research, 7: 161–171. Shepherd, R.J. 2012. Faith in Heritage: Displacement, Development, and Religious Tourism in Contemporary China. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Shinde, K. 2003. Environmental crisis in God's abode: managing religious tourism. In Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage: Atlas – Special Interest Group 1st Expert Meeting, C. Fernandes, J. Edwards, and F. McGettigan (eds), pp. 87–101. Fátima: Tourism Board of Leiria/Fátima. Shinde, K. 2010. Entrepreneurship and indigenous entrepreneurs in religious tourism in India. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12: 523–535. Shinde, K. 2011. This is religious environment. Space and Culture, 14: 448–463. Simone-Charteris, M.T. and Boyd, S. 2010. The development of religious heritage tourism in Northern Ireland: opportunities, benefits and obstacles. Tourism, 58: 229–257. Stausberg, M. 2011. Religion and Tourism: Crossroads, Destinations and Encounters. London, New York: Routledge. Sutton, D.S. and Kang, X. 2010. Making tourists and remaking locals: religion, ethnicity, and patriotism on display in northern Sichuan. In Faiths on Display: Religion, Tourism, and the Chinese State, T. Oakes and D.S. Sutton (eds), pp. 103–126. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Swatos, W. 2011. Religious pilgrimage, pilgrimage spirituality and everyday life. In Religion, Spirituality and Everyday Practice, G. Giordan and W. Swatos (eds), pp. 33–43. New York: Springer. Swatos, W. and Tomasi, L. (eds) 2002. From Medieval Pilgrimage to Religious Tourism: The Social and Cultural Economies of Piety. Westport: Praeger. Timothy, D. and Olsen, D. ed. 2006. Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys. London: Routledge. Voigt, C., Brown, G., and Howat, G. 2011. Wellness tourists: in search of transformation. Tourism Review, 66: 16–30.

Vukonić, B. 1996. Tourism and Religion. Oxford: Pergamon. Wall, G. and Xie, P.F. 2005. Authenticating ethnic tourism: Li Dancers' perspectives. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 10: 1–21. Willson, G.B. 2011. The search for inner peace: considering the spiritual movement in tourism. Journal of Tourism and Peace Research, 3: 16–26. Willson, G., McIntosh, A., and Zahra, A. 2013. Tourism and spirituality: phenomenological analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 42: 150–168. Wong, C.U.I., McIntosh, A., and Ryan, C. 2013. Buddhism and tourism: perceptions of the monastic community at Pu-Tuo-Shan, China. Annals of Tourism Research, 40: 213–234. Wuthnow, R. and Offutt, S. 2008. Transnational religious connections. Sociology of Religion, 69: 209–232. Xie, P.F. 2003. The bamboo-beating dance in Hainan, China: authenticity and commodification. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11: 5–17. Zhu, Y. 2012. Performing heritage: rethinking authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 1495–1513.

Part 6 Tourist Attractions: Places, Spaces, and Forms

Introduction Tourist Attractions: Places, Spaces, and Forms Alan A. Lew In the mind of the tourist, tourism is all about tourist attractions. Although it is true that tourist attractions as physical entities do not have a special ability to physically draw tourists to them (Leiper, 1990), it is also true that without tourist attractions there would be no tourists (Lew, 1987). Aside from tourists themselves, attractions are the most visible, the most iconic, and the most central component of the tourism system. And although most tourist attractions have a tangible existence, what makes them attractive to tourists exists more in the mind and imagination of the tourist than in their physical manifestation. For want of a simpler conceptualization, the chapters that comprise this part of the book focus on the attractions that influence the tourist decision to seek specific destinations and experiences. In addition to the seven chapters herein, there are several other chapters in this book that fall within the purview of a distinct type of tourist attraction. These include Saarinen's review(see Chapter 40 in this volume) of tourism to national parks and wilderness areas, Orams and Lück's (Chapter 38) writing on coastal and marine tourism, Stausberg's chapter on religious tourism (Chapter 28), Meethan's (Chapter 19) example of Chinatown as an ethnic tourist destination, Chang and Huang's (Chapter 17) look at urban experience districts, and Waitt and Gibson's (Chapter 18) description of the attraction of arts districts. These total of 13 chapters (including the seven in this part of the book, discussed below) cover the more prominent and emerging forms of contemporary attractions and comprise the vast majority of what people look for in their holiday and leisure experiences. That said, they do not make up a complete and comprehensive typology, as the potential range of tourist attraction types is probably only limited by the human imagination (see, for example, Lew, 2013). The objective of this book is not to be fully comprehensive. Instead, the goal is to provide a snapshot of many (not all) of the major themes in contemporary social science research on tourism and tourists (see Part 5 of this volume). The chapters selected for this part of the book are intended to expand the scope of our understanding tourism by bringing in theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches to the specific types of attractions covered. Tim Winter's chapter on material culture and contested heritage in tourism (Chapter 29) provides a prime example of this through his situating built heritage in the context of the contestation between conservation and development. Built heritage is a key component of urban identity and is often symbolic of local resistance against globalization (Ashworth, 2011), of which tourism is often viewed as a primary culprit, especially from the perspective of historic preservationists (Lew, 1988) and sustainability proponents. While these discourses have long been prevalent in European and North American contexts, which are covered extensively in the chapter, Winter also turns his lens to the emerging economies of Asia, where rapid urban transformations place heritage conservation under the purview of competing master planning and economic agendas. In reviewing methodologies, he notes a transition from the formal design studies of the past, to ethnographic studies and historical approaches that present more

diverse voices and stories today. He concludes with a case study of Dubrovnik's recovery from the widespread war damage it experienced in the early 1990s and the many microlevel debates surrounding that rebuilding process. Dallen Timothy's chapter on trends in tourism, shopping, and retailing (Chapter 30) provides a comprehensive review of research into shopping tourism (where shopping is the primary goal) and tourists shopping (where shopping is something that people do on tour). As a business activity, research on shopping and tourism include both critical social theory explanations of the meaning of shopping (Goss, 2004), which are not covered extensively in this chapter, and functional applied studies of tourist spending behavior and the design attributes of stores (Tosun et al., 2007). Timothy points out that tourist shopping venues have become increasingly differentiated, reflecting the incursion of tourism and commodification into deeper corners of the local, and the subsequent response of the host to address and benefit from that economic opportunity. Shopping has also increasingly become a marketing and place-branding tool (McIntyre, 2012), perhaps exemplified best by Dubai, while the post-Fordist differentiation of tourists is also resulting in a multitude of post-tourist shoppers who are increasingly embedded in global systems of online shopping information and opportunities that are shaping retailing in new and unpredictable ways. These trends are also shifting methodologies, with a growing use of qualitative approaches (discourse analysis and semiotics), although traditional quantitative methods remain common. One of the bigger purchases that a tourist can make in a destination is that of a second home. Dieter Müller's chapter on progress in second-home tourism research (Chapter 31) also provides a comprehensive review of academic scholarship on this phenomenon. Although second homes have been studied since the 1950s, it has only been in recent years that the topic has received an explosion of interest, perhaps reflecting the growing affordability of destination homes for the mobile global middle classes around the world (e.g. Hoogendoorn and Visser, 2011; Wu et al., 2013). Interestingly, unlike shopping, which has been covered extensively from applied and business perspectives, recent second-home research has focused more on social meaning epistemologies (e.g. Benson and O'Reilly, 2009; Casado-Diaz, 2012), and comparatively less on its applied aspects. Major themes in this research include meaning and motivations, second-home locations, their socioeconomic and environmental impacts, and their relationship to permanent migration. While second homes symbolize the tourist in place for an extended, though sometimes ambiguous, period of time, the ephemeral existence of tourism-related events probably represents the other temporal extreme of tourists and tourism. This issue is discussed by Donald Getz in his chapter on timing tourism: MICE, events, and mega-events (Chapter 32). Getz reviews the scholarly literature on planned tourism events (as opposed to unplanned events), by focusing, in part, on their instrumentality: they have increasingly become tools to further social, cultural, and urban policy initiatives by various institutional stakeholders, often with overt or covert political overtones (Waitt, 2001; Ma and Lew, 2012). In addition to this instrumentalism, he identifies recent trends in event tourism that include increasing international competition for bragging rights, the growing size of events (gigantism), more professionalism and agencies focusing exclusively on event management, and the combining of

events of mixed scales and markets. From a social science perspective, a fundamental question is how participants assign meaning to their event experiences, which leads to questions of the types, purposes, planning, and contents of events and event policies. Events and the timing of tourism continues as a theme in the chapter on taking stock of sport tourism research by Tom Hinch, James Higham, and Stacyt-Lynn Sant (Chapter 33), through their discussion of spectator sporting events. While major sport events (e.g. the Olympics) can be mega-events of the type discussed by Getz (Chapter 32), other types of sport tourism are less so, including active participatory sports (e.g. golf and marathons) and tourism to sport heritage sites (Gibson, 1998). The authors' review of the content of five major sport tourism journals finds that well over half of the recently published research on sport tourism has focused on global competitions and professional spectator sports in developed economies. Heritage sport tourism, on the other hand, barely appeared as a researched topic. Conceptually, sport tourism research has incorporated leisure constraint theory, role theory, and serious leisure, among other frameworks, as well as the role of sport in destination branding and marketing (Harrison-Hill and Chalip, 2005) and the economic and social impacts of sporting events and activities (Weed and Bull, 2009). Traditional social science surveys and data modeling dominate methodologies in the field, as they generally do for most tourism research from more of a business management perspective. As a maturing field of study, greater diversity and stronger theoretical foundations are likely to emerge in sport tourism in the coming years. In a somewhat confusing manner, tourism has been subject to both increased differentiation, with a plethora of new post-Fordist niche tourisms emerging every year, and increasing dedifferentiation as the march of globalization obliterates local distinctiveness in each new destination that tourists uncover. One reason as to how and why these two seemingly contradictory patterns are occurring at the same time is due to the rapid expansion of who can travel and what they can travel to. Annual increases in international tourism arrivals seem unstoppable, despite regional challenges that temporarily suppress travel (Hall and Lew, 2009). As a result, mass tourism is stronger today than ever, while creative new niche, specialty travel experiences are also expanding at healthy rates (Lew, 2013). The remaining two chapters in this part of the book reflect these trends through two important, but otherwise mostly unrelated, areas of tourism. Meghann Ormond's chapter on medical tourism (Chapter 34) reviews a niche area that, in itself, is further being differentiated into subareas of tourist interest, focusing on a growing range of health-related issues, from physical surgery and rehabilitation, to psychological treatment and spiritual wellbeing. The diversity of motivations and forms of people crossing borders to seek health care is considerable, from immigrants returning to their home countries to obtain more familiar forms of care, to the global north seeking less expensive heath-care options in the global south. Tourists of the latter type are particularly sought after, mostly by middle-income developing economies, because their spending is higher and in a greater diversity of areas, and they stay longer in destinations that do many other types of tourists. Development models (e.g. medical enclaves or facilities integrated into local communities) vary among destinations, while insurance policies in tourist source countries shape the potential markets that medical tourism facilities orient themselves to

(Cohen and Neal, 2012). Researchers in this area face ethical challenges in collecting both qualitative and quantitative data due to health-care confidentiality laws in many countries (Musa et al., 2012). While Ormond reviews academic research on the niche attraction of medical tourism, Gustav Visser's (Chapter 35) discussion of gay and lesbian tourism practices presents a perspective on a market segment that had previously been largely hidden or assigned to confined enclaves, and which is now rapidly expanding into new terrains. Visser suggests that some destinations have adopted gay-friendly tourism policies and marketing campaigns to better situate themselves in the competitive global marketplace toward this mostly desirable, high-spending market segment (e.g. Visser, 2003). Like sport tourism and medical tourism, gay and lesbian tourism is still an emerging topic with the majority of research coming out of Europe and North America and focusing on market segmentation (Coon, 2012). Theoretical frameworks and some topics, like gay landscapes, have been poorly developed. Research opportunities are considerable, however, as the diversity of gay destinations has proliferated where gay lifestyles have become socially acceptable, although the opposite is also true in some selected regions where prejudices distort tourist practice in significant ways (Luongo, 2007). This divide (between acceptance and rejection) forms a fundamental conceptual frame, whether explicit or not, for much of the research on gay and lesbian tourism and how it differs from conventional mass or niche tourisms. The chapters in this part of the book provide a slice of the great diversity of tourist markets and attraction forms that have grown exponentially since the 1980s, and especially with recent advancements in mobile technologies in an increasingly connected world (Lew, 2008; Chapter 21). One theme that ran through all of the chapters is the economic basis of almost all forms of tourism. For Winter (Chapter 29), economic imperatives are one side of the contestation over heritage sites and identities, whereas most of the other chapters were more clearly focused on the economic imperative. The where, how, and why of tourist spending, and its impacts and social meanings, are of course a concern to every tourism business and destination marketing organization (DMO). These questions are addressed by Timothy (Chapter 30), Müller (Chapter 31), and Getz (Chapter 32), though each is focused on a very distinct form of spending, ownership, and experience through tourism. Whereas the last three chapters also present the selling of somewhat distinct types of products, they are really centered on the spenders (or market segments), including Hinch et al.'s (2014) sport tourists, Ormond's (Chapter 34) health seekers, and Visser's (Chapter 35) gay and lesbian tourists. To understand this requires a deeper epistemology, which these review chapters touch upon to varying degrees but which is largely beyond their specific scope. Questions that arise include what is the role of money as an actor in the tourist exchange, which is an actor-network theory-type of question (Chapter 23); and how does the acceptance of neoliberal economic development impact the quality of life, world views, and opportunities and limitations of experience, knowing, and behaviors of those in tourism, which is a worldmaking-type of question (Hollinshead et al., 2009).

References

Ashworth, G. 2011. Preservation, conservation and heritage: Approaches to the past in the present through the built environment. Asian Anthropology, 10: 1–18. Benson, M. and O'Reilly, K. 2009. Lifestyle Migration: Expectations, Aspirations and Experiences. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Casado-Diaz, M. 2012. Exploring the geographies of lifestyle mobility: current and future fields of enquiry. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 120–125. London: Routledge. Cohen, E. and Neal, M. 2012. A Middle Eastern Muslim tourist enclave in Bangkok. Tourism Geographies, 14(4): 570–598. Coon, D. 2012. Sun, sand and citizenship: the marketing of gay tourism. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(4): 511–534. Gibson, H.J. 1998. Sport tourism: a critical analysis of research. Sport Management Review, 1: 45–76. Goss, J. 2004. The souvenir: conceptualizing the object(s) of tourist consumption. In A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 327–336. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley. Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A. 2009. Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts: An Integrated Approach. Oxford: Routledge Harrison-Hill, T. and Chalip, L. 2005. Marketing sport tourism: creating synergy between sport and destination. Sport in Society, 8: 302–320. Hollinshead, K., Ateljevic, I., and Ali, N. 2009. Worldmaking agency-worldmaking authority: the sovereign constitutive role of tourism. Tourism Geographies, 11(4): 427–443. Hoogendoorn, G. and Visser, G. 2011. Tourism, second homes and an emerging South African post-productivist countryside. Tourism Review International, 14: 183–197. Leiper, N. 1990. Tourist attraction systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3): 367–384. Lew, A.A. 1987. A framework of tourist attraction research. Annals of Tourism Research, 14 (4): 553–575. Lew, A.A. 1988. Tourism and place studies: an example of Oregon's older retail districts. Journal of Geography, 87(4): 122–6. Lew, A.A. 2008. Long tail tourism: new geographies for marketing niche tourism products. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 25(3/4): 409–419. Lew, A.A. 2013. Adjectival, Specialty & Niche Tourisms. Hubpages. http://alew.hubpages.com/hub/Adjectival-Tourism.

Luongo, M. 2007. Gay Travels in the Muslim World. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. Ma, L. and Lew, A.A. 2012. Historical and geographical context in festival tourism development. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 7(1): 13–23. McIntyre, C. 2012. Retail tourists as co-creators of tourist retail place and space. In Tourism and Retail: The Psychogeography of Liminal Consumption, C. McIntyre (ed.), pp. 63–89. London: Routledge Musa, G., Doshi, D.R., Wong, K.M., and Thirumoorthy, T. 2012. How satisfied are inbound medical tourists in Malaysia? A study on private hospitals in Kuala Lumpur. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 29: 629–646. Tosun, C., Pinar Temizkan, S., Timothy, D.J., and Fyall, A. 2007. Tourist shopping experiences and satisfaction. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9: 87–102. Visser, G. 2003. Gay men, tourism and urban space: reflections on Africa's ‘gay capital’. Tourism Geographies, 5(2): 168–189. Weed, M. and Bull, C. 2009. Sports Tourism: Participants, Policy and Providers, 2nd edn. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Wu, Y.-F., Xu, H.-G., and Lew, A.A. 2014. Consumption-led mobilized urbanism: sociospatial separation in the snowbird city of Sanya. Mobilities, 9: doi 10.1080/17450101.2013.853952.

Chapter 29 Material Culture and Contested Heritage in Tourism Tim Winter As we have seen elsewhere in this volume, contestation lies at the heart of tourism. This chapter examines these themes further in relation to material culture. Attention is given to the built environment, the archeological, and architectural sites of heritage. The chapter highlights many of the ways in which, despite the widespread use of ideas like sustainability and sustainable development, the relationship between material heritage is invariably a tense one, characterized by contestation over values, over space, over materials, over meanings, and over ownership. To better understand this, the chapter offers an overview of the different approaches that have been taken to address such issues, highlighting the various disciplines within which they sit.

Conservation Meets Development Although academic attention to the politics of heritage has only really gathered momentum in the last few decades, debates over how the material legacies of past generations should be cared for, preserved, used, and modified to meet the needs of present-day life stretch back centuries. One of the classic, and most enduring, forms of contestation is the battle over conservation versus development. Such questions emerged as an international concern in the aftermath of two highly destructive world wars in the first half of the twentieth century (Stubbs and Makaš, 2011). In the wake of the Second World War many European countries looked to implement national economic recovery programs. At the same time, however, cities looked to reclaim their identities and sense of historical continuity by reconstructing and safeguarding those buildings that had been damaged or destroyed by the hundreds of thousands of bombs dropped from aircraft during the war (Bevan, 2006). Out of these challenges grew an internationally recognized professional sector and field of academic expertise that focused on the preservation of the built environment. Much of the focus since then has centered on the scientific, technical nature of actual conservation, advancing knowledge about the properties and behavior of building materials, and how they can best be preserved (Muñoz Viñas, 2005). In recent decades however, a literature has formed that seeks to address the wider sociopolitical contexts within which buildings are situated, and how they can be protected against the forces of modernization. Ashworth (2011) describes this as a shift from preservation to conservation, citing Peter Larkham's 1996 book Conservation and the City as an influential text in helping shift attention to policy objectives, governance issues, and the economics of historic building conservation. It is a shift that has led to a proliferation of studies from within the fields of archeology, architecture, and the social sciences that have sought to address the challenges of socioeconomic development and the contestations therein. One of the recurring themes here has been the concern for safeguarding the past from the “impact” of present forces (Cohen, 1999; Robinson and Boniface, 1999). Tracing the

genealogy of these studies reveals a commonly held position in earlier studies, and one which continues to linger today, that sees tourism in largely negative terms, and as a modern agent of destruction. Indeed, tourism has long been seen in the conservation world as one of the key manifestations of contemporary globalization, a series of processes that threaten the loss of tradition and cultural “authenticity” (Tung, 2001). This way of thinking has been particularly prevalent in the professional conservation sector (Shepherd, 2006). To cite just one example, one of the leading global organizations in this area, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), produces a number of publications called IMPACT: “a series of studies examining the impact of tourism on culture and the environment in selected sites in the Asia-Pacific region” (UNESCO, 2012). While such publications now attempt to address the complexities of sustainability, as we shall see shortly, approaches that tend to frame the issues as a dichotomy between conservation versus development have been increasingly criticized not only for failing to deal with existing sources of contestation, but for creating new ones. Many studies that critically interrogate the policies of governments and international organizations like UNESCO, sometimes fairly, sometimes not, might be cited here. To offer just one, Denis Byrne's (2007) account of conservation in Southeast Asia is one that resonates with the situations found elsewhere. In looking at the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras, Byrne highlights the tensions that emerged around the transformations associated with heritage tourism. For many local families, income from tourism enabled the upgrading of their houses, but government policies restricted the use of iron sheets for roofing, considering thatch more in keeping with a “traditional” landscape. Tensions also arose as local residents abandoned their rice fields in favor of more profitable tourism-related activities like guiding and craft production. Overly zealous conservationists attempted to restrict such activities to ensure visiting tourists could see a well-preserved form of agriculture, one that is perhaps uniquely spectacular in its aesthetic. In response to such analyses and a general growing awareness of the need for more nuanced approaches to conservation and tourism, the language of sustainability has attempted to offer more productive solutions based around shared goals, compromise, negotiation, and the recognition of mutual interests (Scoones, 2007). Indeed, with its origins in the early 1990s a major paradigm shift has occurred in built environment conservation, primarily through the widespread adoption of ideas associated with “sustainable development.” For the cultural sector the greater attention given to viewing “human capital,” as a resource for economic development and wealth generation within programs of sustainable development, has been an important change. But as programs proclaiming a mantra of sustainability have been implemented from Sydney to Stockholm, the concept has becoming increasingly complex, unwieldy, and ambiguous. This is in part because such shifts have occurred in parallel with the global transition towards postindustrial economies, and a reduced reliance on industrial, manufacturing sectors. In the heritage conservation sector this has been most clearly felt through the rapid, and in many cases vast, increases in tourism that have occurred within and between countries. A conservation area like The Rocks in Sydney offers a tangible example of how landscapes and communities have been radically transformed by these macro, globally roaming processes. Today The Rocks is one of

Australia's most iconic historical landscapes; a space where renewal and revival have been utterly dependent upon sectors like tourism and the cultural logics of postindustrial urban place-making (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, 2006). Of course, Sydney is far from unique. A renewed concern for conserving urban heritage has become a familiar story across countless cities around the world. And yet despite such changes, the conservation and heritage sector often continues to approach the concept of development, and those involved in it, with suspicion and unease. In many cases such a position is well justified. Far too often schemes couched in a language of “modernization,” “regeneration,” “real economic benefit,” or “sustainable development” have paid scant attention to the cultural and environmental destruction they cause (Orbasli, 2000). Proposals for tall buildings in and around historic districts – Seville, London, Macau, and Vientiane being recent notable cases – exemplify this enduring problem (Imon, 2008). However, examples like Sanaa or Singapore also suggest that the adoption of a defensive position towards development is counterproductive. In certain instances, industries like tourism provide the only realistic economic lifeline for the preservation of fragile and endangered heritage resources.

The Future of the Past in the World's Emerging Economies These questions and challenges have become particularly intense in regions and countries that are frequently labeled as the developing world or emerging economies. With more than half the world's population now living in cities, long-term urbanization is set to continue, albeit with dramatic geographical differences. Many of Europe's and North America's cities will continue to experience a slow but distinct decline in population. In contrast, the “developing world” will produce 95% of urban population growth over the coming four decades (United Nations, 2008). According to UN-Habitat, 5 million people re currently relocating to cities each month in low-income countries. With Asia witnessing a level of region-wide social and physical change that has few parallels elsewhere in the world today, it will continue to be one of the fastest urbanizing regions in the world. In the next 15 years Asia's population will grow by more than 1.25 billion people, more than half of whom will live in cities. Much of the media discussion in the West about the “great recession” of 2006 onwards ignored significant regional variations. Outside Europe and North America governments are embarking upon programs of economic development and reform that are transforming the lives of tens or hundreds of millions of people and creating enormous societal upheaval on the back of (near) double-digit economic growth. While the “rise” of the largest new economic powerhouses like India and China has been the subject of much debate, a host of other, smaller countries continue to show similar patterns of economic expansion, with Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Zambia, and Qatar among those that have experienced accelerated growth (7– 11%) since 2010 (Lopez, 2011). Modernization, the lure of modernity, and rapidly growing economies are liquifying existing social structures and detaching people from place, whether it be through their own mobility or the radical transformation of their physical environment, in ways that destabilize and redefine relationships between past and present (Campanella, 2008;

Samers, 2010). Many of the urban environments in these rapidly developing countries face significant challenges around energy, water, waste, population, health, housing, and transport infrastructure as their populations rapidly increase (United Nations, 2008). Such trajectories and forces will undoubtedly mean historic built environments across the region will face immense pressures over the coming decades. In these contexts the language of sustainability has emerged as a progressive addition to the vocabulary of modernization and development. It has changed the sociopolitical framework within which cultural heritage finds itself, and the near-ubiquitous discourse of “sustainable development” has moved those involved in conservation much closer to modernity and the political economies of capitalist wealth creation. Sustainability rests son the combined ideas of extracting from a finite source without incurring its depletion for future generations, and a nurturing of the self-sustaining, whether it be traditional cultural or natural environments, national economies, or bureaucratic institutions. As the language of sustainability appears in different contexts, the balance in emphasis between these two principles shifts. For example, for architects and archeologists looking to protecting a set of ancient monuments, the overarching concern is the preservation and safeguarding of the fragile heritage, and the promotion of management strategies that help avoid the depletion of its integrity and values. In contrast, however, for those organizations operating in the development sector, such as the World Bank, the cultural past has become a valuable resource within programs of poverty reduction, health, or infrastructure construction designed to be self-sustaining (World Bank, 2001). With considerable potential for conflicting aims and agendas, initiatives like the Millennium Development Goals have attempted to integrate and reconcile previously divergent or incompatible approaches to sustainability (Rogers et al., 2008). As Saarinen et al. (2012) note, in the last few decades countless eco- or cultural tourism initiatives have been founded on the premise of mutually compatible goals, where socioeconomic development both sustains and is sustained by a program targeting cultural (and environmental) conservation. As we have seen through this volume though, tourism is an industry that straddles multiple sectors and creates complex, and often fraught, exchanges between the public and private sectors. It is now commonplace for tour operators and hospitality companies to assist with community-based conservation projects through the promotion of “cultural,” “eco,” or “adventure” tourism products. In Gansu, China, for example, the World Bank has conceived a 5-year project spanning 2008–2013 that directs substantial funds into that part of the Silk Road's cultural heritage. Their program of “sustainable heritage tourism” seeks to both enhance capacities for conservation and realize a number of sociodevelopmental aims targeted to improving sanitation, health, social services, and regional infrastructures (World Bank, 2012). While such programs undoubtedly offer a more holistic approach to the conservation– development dyad noted above, complications and contradictions often arise as understandings of sustainability move between vastly different spatial and temporal scales. With multiple agencies involved and varying agendas in play the measures of sustainability move back and forth between the local, national, and planetary, and stretch between short-term and archeological notions of time. The complex challenges around sustainability are global, but there are a number of regional characteristics that give the situations in rapidly developing

countries in Africa, Asia, and South America a particular vibrancy. First, a number of countries in these regions are witnessing a level of social and physical change that, in its speed and scale, has few parallels in the Western world today. Second, and as Khanna (2008) notes, highly uneven levels of development both within and across countries is invariably coupled with rapid transitions towards new economies and new forms of wealth accumulation. Transitions from pre- to postindustrial societies, which spanned several decades in Europe and North America, have only required a few short years in China, Brazil, and Vietnam. A third factor shaping the historic built environment in these regions relates to the accelerated escalation in land values. In the most dynamic economies, speculation in land, fueled by corruption and the widespread selling off of state property, has meant countless buildings, archeological sites, and whole villages have been given over to property developers. Critical here is the enduring popularity in many emerging economy countries of master plans and megaprojects. This is particularly so in single-party polities and/or where civil-society organizations are weak or nonexistent and where centralized planning dominates. In countries like China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Laos, and Myanmar – all of which inherit a political culture of planned economies – master plans remain very much in vogue today.

Planning for Conservation The theme of master plans brings us to one of the key ways in which the challenges of managing and governing heritage spaces has been tackled, the methodology of planning. Among the many studies conducted in this area Ross's (1996) study Planning and the Heritage provides a good overview of the evolution in approaches towards heritage conservation planning in the UK. His account traces the historical battles that were fought to create a conservation consciousness among the architectural profession, public planning offices, and general public. What becomes particularly clear is the centrality of legislation and government acts. For example, in describing the impact of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act of 1953 he explains: The Act did two main things. First it made specific provision for Government grants for the repair and upkeep of historic buildings – the first time that buildings, as opposed to monuments, had been treated this way. Secondly, the Act established the Historic Buildings Councils for England, Wales and Scotland. These … advised the Minister not only on grants but on listing policy as well. The Government thus gained access for itself to the leading scholars of the day – a source of architectural advice that permitted them to keep in touch with public taste and private scholarship. (Ross, 1996: 23) Since then a number of books have been published on conservation and planning in the UK, which together update and expand upon the themes identified by Ross. In their titles, the two volumes Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities and Conservation in the Age of Consensus, by Dennis Rodwell (2007) and John Pendlebury (2009) respectively, point towards the greater degree of attention now given to issues like community, consultation, and complexity. In considering conservation in the new century Pendlebury (2009: 210–23) argues the democratization of spatial governance in a culturally and politically pluralist society like

the UK presents major analytical and practical challenges. Accordingly, he considers that it is difficult to see how the realization of the need for recognizing plurality and multiple values at a theoretical level “will impact on the pragmatics of the conservation protection system [as] this is in turn embedded within the planning system, which is currently still premised on particular cultural constructions of architectural quality and historic importance” (Pendlebury, 2009: 13). The volume by Gibson and Pendlebury (2009) further explores the theme of pluralism vis-àvis planning. Citing a study on a social housing program in the northwest of England, the chapter by Pendlebury et al. (2009) argues planning for conservation has shifted away from approaches that merely impose elite readings of a built space towards ones based on dialogue and a genuine engagement with local voices and perspectives. Others, however, remain more skeptical. Emma Waterton, for example, offers a much more critical perspective, arguing that UK heritage governance frameworks continue to reproduce a narrow elitist reading of history and national culture, and the language of consent and consensus merely attempts to “subdue the crises of exclusion, intolerance and cultural difference” (Waterton, 2010: 16). In further clarifying this point, she explains: What at first may appear to be a struggle over language and the choice of words masks a reality within which there is a lot more at stake. Indeed, it reflects a more insidious conflict of interest that carries implications for wider debates concerned with socio-economic, ethic and racial inequalities. (Waterton, 2010: 16) One of the other issues at stake here in Waterton's critique, and a topic she has explored in greater detail elsewhere, relates to the telling of history, and how the past is narrated to public audiences. Among the various studies that have considered this theme as part of the planning process is Anita Waters' (2006) account of Port Royal in Jamaica. Waters draws on ideas of social memory to consider how narratives of Jamaican culture have shifted in the aftermath of independence and the emergence of planning discourses oriented towards development. To this end she addresses the differences and tensions between the memories of the town held by residents and the official versions of history promoted by planning offices. In these accounts then what we see are examples of what Ashworth and Tunbridge (1996) refer to as “dissonant heritage.” The concept of dissonance in heritage points towards the common problem of disagreement and discordance in how the past is represented. Heritage selectively interprets history, and planning processes that draw on certain narratives about a place inevitably end up excluding the stories and values of certain social groups. One of the most common forms of conflict today relates to the presentation and management of spaces that are at once both sacred spaces and tourist sites (Edensor, 1998; Urry, 2000). A critical theme authors like Waters and Waterton bring up is the question of methodology. In this regard there has been gradual realization of the need to employ methods more familiar to anthropology to understand questions of planning. Waters (2006), for example, in her study of Port Royal, is among those that adopts an ethnographic approach to her site in an effort to get at the voices and values that lie outside official discourses of heritage tourism planning (see also Low et al., 2005). Hancock (2008) pursues a similar line, but combines it with the analytical lens of an historian, to understand the politics of heritage making in Chennai, India. As part of

her account she considers differences in the way tours of the city are planned for domestic and international tourists. Routes around Chennai are constituted by the physical distribution of museums, temples, souvenir shops, gardens, monuments, and so forth, and differences in itineraries stem from divergent imaginings of the city as a space of heritage. While this is a familiar pattern, Hancock's analysis intriguingly addresses how the various narratives of the city produced have developed through a contentious and embattled transformation of the urban environment: Stalls, markets, sidewalk vendors, and shrines disappear as streets are widened and overpasses built to accommodate automobile traffic. Colonial-era public buildings fall into disrepair and are abandoned. Temple tanks are emptied as new water storage and distribution systems drain some sections of the city to enrich new industrial and residential areas elsewhere. Bungalows and street houses are demolished to make way for flat complexes, hotels, and malls. The poor are removed forcibly from settlements that they have called home for generations and are relocated at the city's outskirts. These absences are marked in discourses, such as narratives that describe the way a neighborhood once looked, and in images that contrast the presence of “then” with the absence of “now.” These ghostly reminders of the past invite mourning and, at times, desires to conserve, refurbish, or violently remake some spaces or objects. “Heritage,” however, is not only that which is lost; it is produced and marketed in the context of economic development, as tourist product and as gentrifying status symbol… . Tourism produces heritage by strategically crafting discourses of both modernity and tradition, framing the city as a destination for investment. (Hancock, 2008: 145) Together, these various accounts reveal the multiple ways in which the arena of heritage tourism fosters contestations over the ways space, place, history, culture, and memory are represented and narrated. The final section pursues such themes further by considering how disputes over the everyday use and treatment of an historic built environment arise because of tourism, using the World Heritage Site of Dubrovnik in Croatia as an example.

Everyday conflicts in Dubrovnik In 1991 the historic city of Dubrovnik became one of the battlegrounds in the Croatian War of Independence. Located on the southern coast of Croatia, the city was besieged and attacked in October, with fighting continuing through to the following year. For 2 months the city was without electricity and drinking water, and thousands fled under sustained shelling. In the closing weeks of the year, the city's architecture suffered extensive damage. More than 800 buildings in the old town were damaged, with nine destroyed completely by fire (Zaknic, 1992). The city's public areas also suffered heavily, with public fountains, ramparts, gates, and bridges all needing extensive repair (Šulc, 2001). As the country moved towards an era of postconflict reconstruction tourism began to recover. By the mid-2000s, international tourist arrivals had grown significantly and the vast majority of the damage had been repaired. Today, tourism is in full flow and tens of thousands of visitors arrive in the town every year, the vast majority of whom are squeezed into the summer months. The city has become a popular stop

off point for cruise ships offering tours around the Mediterranean region. It could be said that life has returned to normal, with the city's residents once again enjoying the peace of day to day life, much like they did in the years before the war. However, closer inspection reveals a host of everyday contestations, negotiations, and battles that essentially stem from the site being designated as a site of historic importance whose preservation is deemed of utmost importance by the international conservation profession. To consider this and complement the themes explored above I want to focus here on the forms of contestation that arise on an everyday basis, those that informally emerge from formal heritage regulations and that, on the whole, largely go undocumented. Far from trivial though, we shall see how these profoundly shape the lives of those living inside the walled city today. Throughout each summer, cruise ships disgorge thousands of camera-carrying tourists into the walled city on a daily basis. As data from the port authorities illustrates, on those days when multiple boats dock, the number of arrivals can exceed 7000 (see www.portdubrovnik.hr). Thousands more tourists – those that are either holidaying in the Dubrovnik region or traveling along the coast – also pass under the old city's gates each day. With estimates placing the number of families living inside the ramparts at around 600–800, the ratio of tourists to residents becomes a distinct source of tension. Much of the old city is made up of narrow alleys, and residents find their daily routes blocked by large groups of visitors. In a car-less environment, congestion is a daily frustration, this time in the form of static human bodies listening to tour guides explaining the architectural and historic details of buildings or sculptures. With the majority of the houses facing directly on to these narrow “streets,” privacy becomes a luxury of winter for many, once the prying tourists have left. A city that is infinitely photogenic, the prized shot invariably involves escaping the crowds and wandering down private spaces to find those shots uncontaminated by other “alien” bodies. Indeed, the most curious frequently transgress the boundaries between public and private space, entering domestic enclosures and gardens. True to a classic MacCannell (1989) reading of tourism as the desire to reach “back stage,” tourists often seek out photographs of residents going about the chores of home: hanging washing, preparing food, and so forth. To be a resident then is also to be an actor in a scene of living history. Interviews conducted with residents in June 2012 also revealed a disillusionment with the ways in which the city's public spaces have been transformed in recent years. Many expressed frustration over the types of restaurants that were now prevalent, described by one resident as “just food for tourists, it's not really Croatian, and certainly not places where we want to eat now.” The retail environment represented a similar problem, with the majority of the shops now oriented towards the tourist dollar, selling souvenirs and small items like books, ice creams, and drinks. While these are familiar tourism-related problems, a number of residents expressed an issue perhaps more particular to discrete, enclosed historic environments, a lament over the loss of precious public space. Many felt uncomfortable inhabiting the city's public squares and thoroughfares, considering them to be “chaotic,” “an inferno,” and “full of bumping bodies.” While no regulations stipulate which spaces are for tourists and which are reserved for residents, the latter largely spend their time in smaller, more secluded spaces, informally retreating for months on end from those spaces that have historically been pivotal to

the city's sociality and sense of communal identity. In this regard, bars and coffee houses have also become a source of negotiation, and, for some, resignation. In the spatial configuration of the city, it is clear residents now restrict themselves to a small number of establishments, where friends can be found and prices are more in keeping “with what they used to be.” The return of mass tourism has also brought tensions over how the night economy is governed. Despite restrictions placed on nightclubs, special agreements allowing a select number of clubs to operate create zones of early-morning noise and sleep disruption. In addition to the changing social dynamics of the old city, tensions arise over the preservation of the material fabric of the built environment. Listening to residents, it becomes readily apparent how abstract policies, most notably those associated with World Heritage listing, conceived on paper and in offices and meeting rooms in other countries, come to affect the everyday lives of residents. While many understand the broad principles of heritage conservation, regular frustrations arise from a paradigm of spatial governance that imposes, restricts, prevents, and insists. Residents are expected to conform to very particular guidelines concerning the treatment of the architectural environment. Not surprisingly, planning permissions are tightly regulated and special attention is given to the use of permitted construction materials and finishes. Doors and roof tiles are among those items that need to uphold the traditional feel of the city, even though the specified materials and forms of craftsmanship incur considerably more expense than their modern counterparts. To cite just two recent sources of dispute: much discussion surrounded the introduction of regulations stipulating that window frames should be painted “Dubrovnik green,” and the removal from public view of external air-conditioning units, considered to degrade the “heritage values” of the city. Seen together, these examples from Dubrovnik illustrate some of the ways in which contestation emerges on an everyday, micro basis. When viewed alongside the themes above, it is evident that the relationship between heritage and tourism can become fraught in many ways and at multiple scales. What this points to then is the need to pursue these issues through a number of analytical lenses; ones that both draw upon different conceptual understandings of heritage (and) tourism and pursue a range of methodological strategies capable of unearthing the complexities of their relationship.

Acknowledgments Research for this chapter was supported under the Australian Research Council's Discovery scheme (The Role of Cultural Heritage In Conflict Transformation Societies, DP1094533).

References Ashworth, G. 2011. Preservation, conservation and heritage: approaches to the past in the present through the built environment. Asian Anthropology, 10: 1–18. Ashworth, G. and Tunbridge, J. 1996. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a

Resource in Conflict. Chichester: Wiley. Bevan, R. 2006. The Destruction of Memory, Architecture at War. London: Reaktion Books. Byrne, D. 2007. Surface Collection: Archaeological Travels in Southeast Asia. Lanham: AltaMira Press. Campanella, T. 2008. The Concrete Dragon: China's Urban Revolution and What it Means for the World. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Cohen, N. 1999. Urban Conservation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Edensor, T. 1998. Tourists at the Taj: Performance and Meaning at a Symbolic Site. London: Routledge. Gibson, L. and Pendlebury, J. (eds) 2009. Valuing Historic Environments. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. Hancock, M. 2008. The Politics of Heritage from Madras to Chennai. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Imon, S. 2008. Managing change in the historic city of Macao. Historic Environment, 21(3): 16–21. Khanna, P. 2008. The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order. London: Allen Lane. Larkham, P. 1996. Conservation and the City. London: Routledge. Lopez, L. 2011. The fastest-growing economies in the world. Business Insider (Australia). www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-the-fastest-growing-gdp-in-the-world-2011.10. Low, S., Taplin, D., and Scheld, S. 2005. Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space & Cultural Diversity. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. MacCannell, D. 1989. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken Books. Muñoz Viñas, S. 2005. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. Orbasli, A. 2000. Tourists in Historic Towns: Urban Conservation and Heritage Management. London: E & FN Spon. Pendlebury, J. 2009. Conservation in the Age of Consensus. London: Routledge. Pendlebury, J., Townshend, T., and Gilroy, R. 2009. Social housing as heritage: the case of Byker, Newcastle Upon Tyne. In Valuing Historic Environments, L. Gibson and J. Pendlebury (eds), pp. 179–200. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Robinson, M. and Boniface, P. (eds) 1999. Tourism and Cultural Conflicts. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Rodwell, D. 2007. Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rogers, P., Jalal, K., and Boyd, J. 2008. An Introduction to Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan. Ross, M. 1996. Planning and the Heritage: Policy and Procedures. London: Spon Press. Saarinen, J., Rogerson, C., and Manwa, H. (eds) 2012. Tourism and Millennium Development Goals: Tourism, Local Communities and Development. London: Routledge. Samers, M. 2010. Migration. London: Routledge. Scoones, I. 2007. Sustainability. Development in Practice, 17: 589–596. Shepherd, R. 2006. UNESCO and the politics of cultural heritage in Tibet. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 36: 243–257. Stubbs, J. and Makaš, E. 2011. Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas: National Experiences and Practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Šulc, B. 2001. The protection of Croatia's cultural heritage during war 1991–95. In Destructions and Conservation of Cultural Property, R. Layton, P. Stone, and J. Thomas (eds), pp. 157–167. London: Routledge. Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. 2006. The Rocks Heritage Policy. Sydney: Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. Tung, A. 2001. Preserving the World's Great Cities: The Destruction and Renewal of the Historic Metropolis. New York: Clarkson Potter. UNESCO (United Nations Environment, Science and Cultural Organization). 2012. IMPACT Publication: Luang Parabang. http://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/583. United Nations 2008. The State of the World's Cities 2008/9: Harmonious Cities. London: Earthscan. Urry, J. 2000. The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage Publications. Waters, A. 2006. Planning the Past: Heritage Tourism and Post-Colonial Politics at Port Royal. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Waterton, E. 2010. Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. World Bank 2001. Cultural Heritage and Development: A Framework for Action in the

Middle East and North Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank 2012. Gansu Cultural and Natural Heritage Protection and Development Project. www.worldbank.org/projects/P091949/gansu-cultural-natural-heritage-protectiondevelopment-project?lang=en. Zaknic, I. 1992. The pain of ruins: Croatian architecture under siege. Journal of Architectural Education, 46: 115–124.

Chapter 30 Trends in Tourism, Shopping, and Retailing Dallen J. Timothy From a systems perspective, retailing is a crucial part of the tourism supply and closely follows the growth of tourism. One of the most common tourist activities is shopping, which contributes billions of dollars each year to the global tourism economy and takes many different forms. Together with dining and sightseeing, most tourists shop, regardless of their retail behavior at home. Despite the ubiquity of shopping as part of the travel experience and retailing being an important component of the tourism system, scholars have devoted relatively little attention to substantive issues and questions surrounding shopping and tourism. This chapter briefly describes past research trends in tourism studies associated with shopping and identifies a number of current and future trends that merit additional research attention: alternative venues, place-making and branding, demand, and globalization.

Shopping Tourism and Tourist Shopping The relationships between shopping and tourism can be seen in two primary forms: shopping tourism and tourist shopping (Timothy, 2005). Shopping tourism entails people traveling specifically to shopping, or where shopping is one of the most significant draws of the destination. Numerous studies have examined the characteristics of the venues or destinations associated with tourism and shopping, including borderlands (Timothy and Butler, 1995; Michalkó and Timothy, 2001; Tömöri, 2010), mega-malls and outlet centers (Butler, 1991), and famous shopping cities such as Hong Kong, Singapore, London, Paris, and New York (Heung and Qu, 1998; Pearce, 1998; Henderson et al., 2011). People travel specifically to shop for two primary reasons: shopping itself (available products and price competitiveness) and appealing destinations (Timothy, 2005). These are all affected by differential taxes, product variety, prestige, entertainment, and destination attractiveness. Household products, clothing, shoes, cosmetics, perfumes, electronics, and similar items are popular shopping tourism products, although being seen, browsing, and having fun are also part of the experience. The second relationship is tourist shopping, which refers more to retail as an ancillary or secondary attraction, or activity to fill time or acquire souvenirs for the shoppers or people at home. Often, tourists stumble upon retail opportunities or they seek out stores once in the destination, much the same way heritage tourists may stumble serendipitously upon interesting cultural sites or seek them intentionally (McKercher, 2002; Timothy, 2011). Souvenirs, clothing, items forgotten at home, or food products are more common with this form of shopping. The distinction between these perspectives on tourism and shopping is important. Each one has its own set of motives and experiences. For the first category, retail is the main motive or pull factor associated with a specific destination or shopping venue. A satisfying trip depends

largely on the act of shopping itself, product availability, and service quality. As shopping is the primary travel purpose, these tourists are less likely to be satisfied with the trip if retail conditions do not meet their expectations. For tourists of the second type, shopping is a secondary activity and less likely to affect the holiday experience negatively. For some individuals these experiences might be insignificant. There has been a long tradition of research into tourists' motives for shopping and the influences of different variables on shopping behaviors, choices, and experiences. Most research derives from leisure studies or consumer behavior foundations. Significant relationships have been shown between shopping intentions, expenditures, satisfaction, and expectations, and an array of intrinsic (e.g. tourists' age, gender, education, expendi​tures, and trip purpose) and extrinsic (e.g. retail environment, customer service, product attributes and variety, destination characteristics, prices) variables (Oh et al., 2004; Tosun et al., 2007; Park et al., 2010; Bojanic, 2011; Alegre and Cladera, 2012). For example, Bojanic (2011) found that age and family lifecycle stage have important bearings on daily expenditures and the types of shops visited. In Oh et al. (2004), age, gender, and trip type significantly affected tourists' shopping preference and behaviors. Differences in culture and nationality were also salient factors in shopping satisfaction in Hong Kong (Wong and Law, 2003). Tosun and his colleagues (2007) found that the physical attributes of shops and destination characteristics strongly determined tourists' satisfaction with their retail souvenir experiences in Turkey. Similarly, Yüksel (2009) discovered that the physical traits of shops, including color and crowdedness, affect tourists' perceived shopping quality. Service and product quality strongly influenced Taiwanese travelers' retail preferences in one study (Mak et al., 1999). Looking at both intrinsic and extrinsic variables, Jones (1999) found that ample time and money for shopping, attentive salespeople, and browsing with loved ones enhanced enjoyable retail experiences. Kim et al. (2011) found that tourists who spend most on shopping tend to have a higher propensity to return to the destination to shop.

Contemporary Trends Several developments are of interest to tourism scholars. Some go beyond traditional market segmentation and demographic variables to examine more sociospatial, temporal, and political issues that influence technological innovations, globalization, and alternative venues to the traditional patterns of mass tourism and consumption.

Alternative Settings Most research has focused on tourist retailing in souvenir stores, malls, and duty-free shops. While these are an important part of the destination environment, many other venues and related activities appeal to tourists but remain under-researched. Some are often not regarded as mainstream tourism retailers, although they should be, owing to their position in the tourism shopping system. Most shopping research has focused on urban situations with little regard to rural ones

(Jansen-Verbeke, 1991; Timothy, 2005; Harris, 2012; Hurst and Niegm, 2012). This is changing, however, as observers begin to appreciate the added value of rural settings for tourist consumption. One such setting is farmers' markets, which are important attractions, not only for the types of produce they offer, including handicrafts, fresh foods, and wines, but also because of their role as purveyors of local culture and gastronomical heritage (Hall et al., 2008; Silkes, 2012). Farmers' markets have long been part of the rural tourism appeal of Europe. In the UK, though, farmers' markets are being reinvented in cities, where they symbolize the goodness of the rural in an urban context, with farmers extending the rural idyll into the city (Youngs, 2003). Such markets in the UK and elsewhere also have potential to cater to the desires of tourists. In many countries, farmers' markets are part of an authentic visitor experience in rural areas and may help people identify better with the host community and its agrarian heritage. They might also represent a type of resistance against large-scale, commercial grocers that sell inorganic produce in massive and standardized quantities (Beer et al., 2012). In addition, tourism-associated activities at farmers' markets can contribute to the economic sustainability of local markets, while also strengthening broader socioeconomic linkages to small-scale agriculture in tourist destinations (Silkes, 2012). Another exurban phenomenon highlighted 20 years ago by Getz (1993) is tourist shopping villages (TSVs), which he defined as small communities that appeal to visitors owing to their cultural or natural surroundings and which provide recreational retail opportunities. Recently Murphy et al. (2011a, 2011b) extended consumer psychology concepts to the effects of shop environments on consumers' decision-making and experiential satisfaction. Murphy and her colleagues examined TSVs, rather than shops, and concluded that the physical layout of TSVs, including their streetscapes, townscapes, and servicescapes, are highly influential in how visitors experience rural shopping. These and other characteristics, such as village and shop design, determine “village performance” and help provide unique and satisfying local experiences. Another nontraditional tourist space is transit points, neglected largely because tourists' encounters with them are typically ephemeral and unmemorable. Airports, train stations, bus depots, and highway rest areas are interstitial spaces that divagate from the normative locations where most retail and other leisure activities occur. Airports and other transportation stations are neither tourist origins nor destinations, so they have long been regarded as inbetween spaces with very little touristic appeal. Nonetheless, scholars are taking notice of these “liminal” spaces as retail venues (Rowley and Slack, 1999; Cresswell, 2006; Marciniak, 2012). Recently, transportation hubs have become veritable shopping centers that appeal to travelers and nontravelers. The international airports in Singapore, Dubai, Seoul, and Amsterdam offer sprawling airside shopping and recreation opportunities for travelers in transit, as well as landside retail opportunities for travelers, airport employees, and the general public (Hobson, 2000; Geuens et al., 2004). The landside sections of airports and growing numbers of train stations (e.g. Grand Central Station in New York City) increasingly resemble the “shoppertaining” environments of mega-malls that aim to capture a resident retail market beyond just tourists and commuters. Boutique shops are emerging in other nontraditional shopping settings, including wineries,

distilleries, and museums. Museums have recently expanded their merchandising activities beyond traditional history- or science-related items (McIntyre, 2010). With decreasing public funds, museums and archeological sites must raise operational revenue to fund their protection and educational activities. To remain viable, museum shops sometimes extend into the realm of cheap merchandise that has little relevance to the site being visited (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). Boutique shops likewise have become an economic pillar of wineries and distilleries, where wines, kitchen accoutrements, cheeses, preserves, and other epicurean-inspired products are sold to capitalize on, and commodify, the wineries' brand image (Miller and Chadee, 2008). Nearly all shopping and tourism research undertaken so far focuses on developed countries. Many questions remain to be answered about how shopping tourism functions might manifest in developing countries. Rogerson (2011) and Saayman and Saayman (2012) focused on South Africa as a significant retail destination for tourists from Africa, and suggested that South Africa is now the “wholesaler for Africa” in tourist shopping. Most research on cross-border shopping has focused on North America and Europe, with little regard for the borders in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. In most of these cases, shopping has a very different form from that in the developed world (Timothy and Teye, 2005).

Shopping as Place-Making and Branding Shopping plays an important role in place-making (McIntyre, 2012) and branding exercises as it feeds the “dynamic processes of constructing, deconstructing and reconstructing differences between places” (Spierings and van der Velde, 2013: 5). As suggested, some places have become global retail destinations. This distinction is critical to the image of such places, including Hong Kong and Dubai. Sometimes entire countries, such as Andorra, are renowned and well-branded shopping destinations. Some of this brand creation has been organic, while other destinations have actively sought to develop shopping as a salient part of their tourism economy. Shopping is an official marketing strategy in Singapore and identified as a mechanism in official plans for future growth. Shopping provides a competitive advantage for Singapore over other destinations in Asia (Henderson et al., 2011). Rogerson (2011) notes how Johannesburg's tourism authorities promote retail as a critical element of local economic development. In fact, shopping is seen as one of the most influential forms of urban tourism in South Africa, which has been emphasized in recent marketing strategies. Las Vegas, Honolulu, and Dubai have developed a tourism place identity founded largely on high-end retailing (Park et al., 2010). Luxury malls and shopping centers dominate the tourism images of several cities, as do more traditional markets such as the bazaar in Istanbul or the spice market in Mumbai. Dubai is home to several very large and luxurious shopping centers; the Dubai Mall is the largest mall in the world in terms of area.

Perspectives on Demand

As noted at the outset, most shopping-demand studies focus on individuals' experiences while on holiday in a destination, but there are other nontraditional tourists whose consumption patterns are also important to understand. For instance, we know relatively little about the retail behavior and experiences of international day trippers to particular destinations, which include cruise passengers, cross-border shoppers, or other consumers who travel from their immediate home environments to shop. Each type of consumer desires somewhat different products. According to nearly every crossborder shopping study, consumers buy household goods, medical supplies, clothing, food items, and fuel (Timothy and Butler, 1995; Timothy, 1999; Sullivan et al., 2012; Yeung and Yee, 2012). Cruise passengers usually buy duty-free items (e.g. jewelry and perfumes) and traditional souvenirs as mementos of their brief visits. It could be that people visiting a destination for only a few hours might be less inclined to buy souvenirs, given the lack of place attachment and experiential meanings that are often attributed to souvenirs (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). However, even cruise tourists who do not venture beyond the port regularly purchase souvenirs they feel are authentic and representative of the destination (Cave et al., 2012; Brida et al., 2013). Arguably retail is a more important element of day trips than for longer visits; portside shopping is heavily marketed on cruise ships, and many international day visitors cross borders for the primary purpose of shopping (Sullivan et al., 2012). However, the cruise destination can mitigate the role of shopping in the travel experience. In the Caribbean, shopping plays a much larger role in cruise tourism than in the Mediterranean (Teye and Paris, 2011), where retail opportunities appear to be a less important cruise motivation (Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis, 2010). For most longer-stay tourists, shopping may be only one of many activities undertaken on holiday. Nascent studies show that different tourism/tourist types have different consumption patterns. For example, heritage tourists are more inclined to shop during their travels than many other tourists, owing to their sense of connection to the destination, their higher income levels, and their longer lengths of stay (Timothy, 2011). Shopping and festivals are closely associated, and attendees appear to be heavily engaged in retail pursuits (Way and Robertson, 2013). However, little is known about the relationships between different primary travel types (e.g. sport, business, visiting relatives, pilgrimage) and retail behavior. There is a growing literature on the relationships between nationality or ethnicity and the types of goods purchased on shopping trips or the experiences encountered in the retail setting. Keown (1989) examined Japanese tourists' high propensity to shop and their favorite merchandise. Others have observed the unique shopping desires and expectations of Asian tourists, noting differences between Asian nationalities and highlighting the cultural reasons various nationalities spend so much time and money shopping abroad (Mok and Lam, 1997; Park, 2000; Hobson and Christensen, 2001; Xu and McGehee, 2012).

Globalized Shopping Globalization processes mean that locations are increasingly politically, socially, and economically connected, while relatively few places remain inaccessible or unexplored by

tourists. This has crucial implications for shopping and tourism. One of the most impactful globalizing forces is Internet technology. Search engines, social media, and volunteered geographic information (e.g. online reviews, blogs, web-based photo albums, and travel information) have created a more interconnected world. From a shopping viewpoint, this has led to what Swanson and Timothy (2012) call “indirect tourism,” a manifestation of virtual tourism where people do not travel physically to a destination but instead purchase souvenirs and other tourism artifacts from an online intermediary. Web-based souvenir buying is becoming commonplace (Rowland Gerber, 2008; Stanec et al., 2010). People can now order replica artifacts from famous museums across the globe. West African artworks, pieces of famous volcanoes, batik paintings from Indonesia, and clogs from Holland – all of which represent the specialness of the place where they originated – are readily available for sale on the Internet from their original sources. Perhaps these serve as pretravel information sources, or perhaps as proxy trips to places one dreams of visiting but is unable to visit. It could also be that people purchase mementos online after they return from a holiday trip because they missed the opportunity in person (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). At some point these activities could potentially blur into standard online shopping. Another global force for change is geopolitics and the emergence of new markets. For the most part, international relations are improving as individual countries realize the importance of cross-border cooperation in economic development. This and other political forces (e.g. supranationalism, visa waivers, and trade alliances) have reduced the barrier effects of international boundaries. As a result, several countries that have previously been relatively isolated have opened up, enlarging the global tourism marketplace. Since 1989, when South Korea began allowing its citizens greater access to the outside world, Koreans have become one of the most avid traveling cohorts in the world. Two years earlier, Taiwan relaxed restrictions on travel to Mainland China, which resulted in large influxes of cross-straits travel between the two Chinas (Guo et al., 2007). Likewise, Chinese citizens are allowed to travel outside of China to more than 125 countries on the coveted “approved destination” list. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s opened up huge new markets, and the 1995 implementation of the Schengen Agreement in Europe effectively completed the dismantling of many national borders inside the European Union. These geopolitical occurrences created new shopping destinations and new demand for them. However, if border-related barriers are removed too comprehensively there is potential for retail advantages to disappear. For instance, in some areas of central Europe, EU membership significantly reduced cross-border economic differences, minimizing the advantages of shopping in neighboring countries. Shopping destinations and individual retailers must understand their place in an internationalizing tourism economy, if they are to be able to realize the advantages. This includes the need to cater to new foreign markets, such as the Chinese, who are passionate shoppers. According to an Australian investigation (Bureau of Tourism Research, 1990, cited in Timothy, 2005), some 11% of tourists to Australia felt that language difficulties prevented retail purchases during their travels. Similarly, Xu and McGehee (2012) found that Chinese tourists in the USA desired more Mandarin-speaking sales clerks and shopping guides. They

were also dismayed by their inability to use credit cards from their homeland. Providing foreign-language-trained retail staff, the ability to satisfy the cultural expectations of incoming shopper tourists (e.g. gift wrapping and special prices), and flexibility in working with foreign currencies are all trademarks of a well-prepared global destination. These require significant training and investments in education, some degree of cosmopolitanism, and possibly more open migration policies and relaxed visa regimes.

Conclusion: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Shopping has been studied from many disciplinary perspectives. Retail specialists and economists have long focused on the utilitarian experience of consumers. However, in the early 1980s, consumer management scholars began investigating the hedonic motives for shopping with the idea that not all consumer practices are economistic (Timothy, 2005). Geographers and sociologists have also been avid shopping commentators, focusing primarily on spatial patterns, the structural role of shopping in society, and retail centers as socialized spaces (Falk and Campbell, 1997; Miller et al., 1998; Pearce, 1998). More recently, leisure and tourism researchers have devoted considerable attention both to supply and demand aspects of recreational and tourist shopping. In the tourism context, most retailing research has heretofore focused on market segmentation, motivations, satisfaction, and purchase behavior using shoppers' demographic characteristics, shop environment, socialization, and expenditures as independent variables. The majority of research has utilized quantitative data and statistical analyses to understand tourists' experiences with retail environments in their destinations, including their shopping patterns and behaviors. Structural equation modeling has been a favored tool for many researchers (e.g. Reisinger and Turner, 2002; Swanson and Horridge, 2004). Based mostly on primary data collected through tourist or retailer questionnaires, other quantitative tools, approaches, and analyses, including analysis of variance, regression analyses, importance-performance tests, econometrics, and cluster analyses, have been utilized to test the relationships between dependent and independent variables. Scholars have more recently started moving beyond these rather descriptive and quantitative approaches to examine the phenomenon in more conceptual depth (Murphy et al., 2011a). There is growing interest in semiotic and discourse analyses, which focus on the meanings of signs and symbols, as well as messages within written texts. The meanings of signs and symbols, including souvenirs and shop environments, and how these are transmitted, are important for understanding retail experiences and the role of consumer products in the lives of travelers (Mellinger, 1994; Timothy, 2012). With relatively few exceptions (e.g. Law and Au, 2000), missing from the discussion, however, is a systematic qualitative element in shopping tourism research. Ethnographic studies, content analyses, and interviews-based research would certainly broaden the appeal of shopping and retailing as a research subject and provide valuable data for understanding individual experiences in the retail environment and in the

destination. Increased qualitative research would add depth and dimension to the dynamics of both supply and demand in the shopping experience. Increasingly diverse places and venues are the settings for tourist shopping. This chapter has described several of these, but more work is needed to understand alternative retail spaces, including individual retailers and destinations. Tourism and shopping are both dynamically different in the developed and less-developed worlds, so why would tourist shopping not also be different? TSVs, as described by Getz (1993), appear all over the world, yet we know nearly nothing about their dynamics in developing countries. Throughout Asia, Latin America, and Africa, craft villages dominate the exurban and rural shopping landscapes. Perhaps these are the developing world's version of TSVs. Shopping can be adopted as a marketing and management mechanism for place-making and branding. It might also play a crucial conservation role in urban gentrification in historic and industrial cities where historic buildings and derelict structures are renovated into commercial businesses. In common with TSVs, urban redevelopment projects almost always target retailing as one of their most viable socioeconomic development tools, as can be seen in Sydney, Toronto, Baltimore, and London. There are also significant changes unfolding in shopping demand, especially the impact of technology on the shopping experience. Individuals can now shop online for souvenirs but little is known about how this might affect travel patterns, satisfying some consumers and substituting for travel, while for others such purchases might increase their desire to travel. The potential for increasing craft-based employment in destinations, as the market for local handicrafts and other souvenirs becomes enlarged through the Internet, could be enormous. Likewise, while research to date deals with the social experience of shopping with others, few studies have examined the culturally contingent nature of retailing and how shopping, including beyond the point of purchase, can affect individual satisfaction, happiness, spirituality, or intent to return. This could be determined by the type of tourism in which people are participating. It is difficult for individuals or particular places to escape the growing effects of globalization. Production, distribution, and consumption patterns have changed (Coles, 2004), driven by technological and geopolitical shifts. There is limited knowledge about how these distribution channels, including the forward and backward linkages of souvenirs and other tourist merchandise, have evolved. Additionally, most studies about how shopping is culturally constituted have focused on Asian travelers, identifying differences in gift giving in particular, compared to Europe and North America. Little is known about other macro regions, such as Africa or Latin America, with very different cultural expressions and traditions. Shopping tourism and tourist shopping are complex phenomena. The relationships between tourism and retail are shaped by globalizing forces, changing consumer tastes, emerging destinations, technology, and the increased desire for more authentic travel experiences. There is little doubt that as tourism continues to grow and globalize, so will demand for tourist consumer products and more diverse shopping experiences.

References Alegre, J. and Cladera, M. 2012. Tourist characteristics that influence shopping participation and expenditures. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(3): 223–237. Andriotis, K. and Agiomirgianakis, G. 2010. Cruise visitors' experience in a Mediterranean port of call. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(4): 390–404. Beer, S., Murphy, A., and Shepherd, R. 2012. Food and farmers' markets. In Tourism and Retail: The Psychogeography of Liminal Consumption, C. McIntyre (ed.), pp. 111–141. London: Routledge. Bojanic, D.C. 2011. The impact of age and family life experience on mexican visitor shopping expenditures. Tourism Management, 32(2): 406–414. Brida, J.G., Pulina, M., Riaño, E., and Aguirre, S.Z. 2013. Cruise passengers in a homeport: a market analysis. Tourism Geographies, 15(1): 68–87. Bureau of Tourism Research 1990. Tourism Shopping Survey. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research. Butler, R.W. 1991. West Edmonton Mall as a tourist attraction. Canadian Geographer, 35(3): 287–295. Cave, J., Jolliffe, L., and de Coteau, D. 2012. Mementos of place: souvenir purchases at the Bridgetown Cruise Terminal in Barbados. Tourism Culture & Communication, 12(1): 39–50. Coles, T. 2004. Tourism, shopping, and retailing: an axiomatic relationship? In A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 360–373. Oxford: Blackwell. Cresswell, T. 2006. On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. New York: Routledge. Falk, P. and Campbell, C. 1997. The Shopping Experience. London: Sage Publictions. Getz, D. 1993. Tourist shopping villages: development and planning strategies. Tourism Management, 14(1): 15–26. Geuens, M., Vantomme, D., and Brengman, M. 2004. Developing a typology of airport shoppers. Tourism Management, 25(5): 615–622. Guo, Y., Kim, S., and Timothy, D.J. 2007. Development characteristics and implications of mainland Chinese outbound tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 12(4): 313– 332. Hall, C.M., Mitchell, R., Scott, D., and Sharples, L. 2008. The authentic market experience of farmers' markets. In Food and Wine Festivals and Events around the World, C.M. Hall and L.

Sharples (eds), pp. 197–231. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Harris, C. 2012. Retailing within towns and city centres as a tourist retail attraction. In Tourism and Retail: The Psychogeography of Liminal Consumption, C. McIntyre (ed.), pp. 29–50. London: Routledge Henderson, J.C., Chee, L., Mun, C.N., and Lee, C. 2011. Shopping, tourism and retailing in Singapore. Managing Leisure, 16(1): 36–48. Heung, V. and Qu, H. 1998. Tourism shopping and its contributions to Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 19(4): 383–386. Hobson, J.S.P. 2000. Tourist shopping in transit: the case of BAA plc. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 6(2): 170–183. Hobson, J.S.P. and Christensen, M. 2001. Cultural and structural issues affecting Japanese tourist shopping behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 6(1): 37–45. Hurst, J.L. and Niehm, L.S. 2012. Tourism shopping in rural markets: a case study in rural Iowa. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(3): 194–208. Jansen-Verbeke, M. 1991. Leisure shopping: a magic concept for the tourism industry? Tourism Management, 12(1): 9–14. Jones, M.A. 1999. Entertaining shopping experiences: an exploratory investigation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 6: 129–139. Keown, C.F. 1989. A model of tourists' propensity to buy: the case of Japanese visitors to Hawaii. Journal of Travel Research, 27(3): 31–34. Kim, S., Timothy, D.J., and Hwang, J. 2011. Understanding Japanese tourists' shopping preferences using the decision tree analysis method. Tourism Management, 32(3); 544–554. Law, R. and Au, N. 2000. Relationship modeling in tourism shopping: a decision rules induction approach. Tourism Management, 21(3): 241–249. Mak, B.L.M., Tsang, N.K.F., and Cheung, I.C.Y. 1999. Taiwanese tourists' shopping preferences. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(2): 190–198. Marciniak, R. 2012. Tourist and retail relationship in departure points and travel hubs consumption: the start of the tourist retail relationship. In Tourism and Retail: The Psychogeography of Liminal Consumption, C. McIntyre (ed.), pp. 93–110. London: Routledge. McIntyre, C. 2010. Designing museum and gallery shops as integral, co-creative retail spaces within the overall visitor experience. Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(2): 181– 198.

McIntyre, C. 2012. Retail tourists as co-creators of tourist retail place and space. In Tourism and Retail: The Psychogeography of Liminal Consumption, C. McIntyre (ed.), pp. 63–89. London: Routledge McKercher, B. 2002. Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(1): 29–38. Mellinger, W.M. 1994. Toward a critical analysis of tourism representations. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4): 756–779. Michalkó, G. and Timothy, D.J. 2001. Cross-border shopping in Hungary: causes and effects. Visions in Leisure and Business, 20(1): 4–22. Miller, D., Jackson, P., Thrift, N., Holbrook, B., and Rowlands, M. 1998. Shopping, Place and Identity. London: Routledge. Miller, K. and Chadee, D. 2008. The relevance and irrelevance of the brand for small and medium wine enterprises. Small Enterprise Research, 16(2): 32–44. Mok, C. and Lam, T. 1997. A model of tourists' shopping propensity: a case of Taiwanese visitors to Hong Kong. Pacific Tourism Review, 1(2): 137–145. Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G., and Pearce, P.L. 2011a. Tourist Shopping Villages: Forms and Functions. London: Routledge. Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., Benckendorff, P., and Pearce, P.L. 2011b. evaluating tourist satisfaction with the retail experience in a typical tourist shopping village. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(4): 302–310. Oh, J.Y.J., Cheng, C.-K., Lehto, X.-Y., and O'Leary, J.T. 2004. Predictors of tourists' shopping behaviour: examination of socio-demographic characteristics and trip typologies. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(4): 308–319. Park, M.K. 2000. Social and cultural factors influencing tourists' souvenir-purchasing behavior: a comparative study on Japanese ‘omiyage’ and Korean ‘sunmul’. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 9(1): 81–91. Park, K.-S., Reisinger, Y., and Noh, E.-H. 2010. Luxury shopping in tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(2): 164–178. Pearce, D. 1998. Tourist districts in Paris: structure and functions. Tourism Management, 19(1): 49–65. Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L.W. 2002. The determination of shopping satisfaction of Japanese tourists visiting Hawaii and the Gold Coast compared. Journal of Travel Research, 41(2): 167–176. Rogerson, C.M. 2011. Urban tourism and regional tourists: shopping in Johannesburg, South

Africa. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 102(3): 316–330. Rowland, G.D. 2008. Souvenirs: many dimensions and one definition. International Journal of Management Cases, 10(3): 24–29. Rowley, J. and Slack, F. 1999. The retail experience in airport departure lounges: reaching for timelessness and placelessness. International Marketing Review, 16(4/5): 363–376. Saayman, M. and Saayman, A. 2012. Shopping tourism or tourists shopping? A case study of South Africa's African tourism market. Tourism Economics, 18(6): 1313–1329. Silkes, C.A. 2012. Farmers' markets: a case for culinary tourism. Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, 10(4): 326–336. Spierings, B. and van der Velde, M. 2013. Cross-border differences and unfamiliarity: shopping mobility in the Dutch-German Rhine-Waal Eurorgion. European Planning Studies, 21(1): 5–23. Stanec, D.Z., Zaninovi, J., and Maji, H. 2010. Marketing in museums via the web: reality or distant future? Some aspects of virtual marketing in Croatia. International Journal of Management Cases, 12(2): 275–279. Sullivan, P., Bonn, M.A., Bhardwaj, V., and DuPont, A. 2012. Mexican national cross-border shopping: exploration of retail tourism. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(6): 596–604. Swanson, K.K. and Horridge, P.E. 2004. A structural model for souvenir consumption, travel activities, and tourist demographics. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4): 372–380. Swanson, K.K. and Timothy, D.J. 2012. Souvenirs: icons of meaning, commercialization, and commoditization. Tourism Management, 33(3): 489–499. Teye, V.B. and Paris, C.M. 2011. Cruise line industry and Caribbean tourism: guests' motivations, activities and destination preference. Tourism Review International, 14(1): 17– 28. Timothy, D.J. 1999. Cross-border shopping: tourism in the Canada-United States borderlands. Visions in Leisure and Business, 17(4): 4–18. Timothy, D.J. 2005. Shopping Tourism, Retailing and Leisure. Bristol: Channel View. Timothy, D.J. 2011. Cultural Heritage and Tourism: An Introduction. Bristol: Channel View. Timothy, D.J. 2012. Archival research. In Handbook of Research Methods in Tourism: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, L. Dwyer, A. Gill, and N. Seetaram (eds), pp. 403– 416. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Timothy, D.J. and Butler, R.W. 1995. Cross-border shopping: a North American perspective.

Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1): 16–34. Timothy, D.J. and Teye, V.B. 2005. Informal sector business travelers in the developing world: a borderlands perspective. Journal of Tourism Studies, 16(1): 82–92. Tömöri, M. 2010. Investigating shopping tourism along the borders of Hungary – a theoretical perspective. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 6(2): 202–210. Tosun, C., Temizkan, S.P., Timothy, D.J., and Fyall, A. 2007. Tourist shopping experiences and satisfaction. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9: 87–102. Way, K.A. and Robertson, L.J. 2013. Shopping and tourism patterns of attendees of the Bikes, Blues & BBQ Festival. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 22(1): 116–133. Wong, J. and Law, R. 2003. Differences in shopping satisfaction levels: a study of tourists in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 24(4): 401–410. Xu, Y. and McGehee, N.G. 2012. Shopping behavior of Chinese tourists visiting the United States: letting the shoppers do the talking. Tourism Management, 33(2): 427–430. Yeung, R.M.W. and Yee, Y.M.S. 2012. A profile of the mainland Chinese cross-border shoppers: cluster and discriminant analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4: 106–112. Youngs, J. 2003. Consumer direct initiatives in North West England farmers' markets. British Food Journal, 105(8): 498–530. Yüksel, A. 2009. Exterior color and perceived retail crowding: effects on tourists' shopping quality inferences and approach behaviors. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(4): 233–254.

Chapter 31 Progress in Second-Home Tourism Research Dieter K. Müller

A Short History of Second-Home Research Second-home tourism was among the first forms of tourism to have been investigated scientifically. Wolfe's (1951, 1952, 1962, 1965, 1970) work on second homes in Canada established an early understanding of various aspects of second-home tourism. At the same time, he laid the groundwork for empirical tourism geographies. During the 1970s a rising academic interest in second homes can be noted, as increasing personal mobility owing to car ownership entailed a growth in second homes in the Western world. Coppock's Second Homes: Curse or Blessing? (1977) marked a peak in the growing concern regarding the impact of second homes on rural communities and the environment. A recent review by Müller and Hoogendoorn (2013) indicates the importance of Coppock's contribution to research on second-home tourism. However, it also identifies the Anglocentric perspectives featured in the volume and concludes that time as well as place are essential limits to generalization. The growing internationalization of second-home tourism during the 1990s entailed a new wave and increasing volume of research activity (Buller and Hoggart, 1994; Müller, 1999). A number of reviews have addressed the issues highlighted during these periods (Müller, 2004a). It turned out that Hall and Müller's Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground (2004b), summarizing the state of the art and providing a set of chapters creating national benchmarks, would become a new major work of reference more than 25 years after Coppock's publication. Other volumes describing various aspects of second-home tourism were also published (Gallent et al., 2005; McIntyre et al., 2006a; Mazón et al., 2009; Paris, 2011; Roca, 2013). Against this background, it is timely to revisit and review progress within second-home tourism research. This review covers mainly the time since the publication of Hall and Müller's volume in 2004. For older literature, that volume or a previous review in the first edition of A Companion to Tourism is recommended (Müller, 2004a). Before the content of the research contributions is addressed, some comments are made on the institutional and geographical development of scientific inquiry into second-home tourism.

The Expansion of Second-Home Research The development of second-home research has undergone significant changes since it was first addressed. While perspectives from rural geography and regional science dominated the scientific debate during the 1970s, tourism geographers and other tourism researchers have gained influence in more recent years (Müller, 2011). It has been argued that this development implies fairly separate discourses with little interaction. However, today the situation is even

more complex, with relevant literature originating not only from tourism studies but also from housing studies (Paris, 2011), rural research (Rye and Gunnerud Berg, 2011), aging research (Casado-Diaz, 2012), and population geography (Halfacree, 2012). Moreover, a variety of terminology is used to refer to the phenomenon of second-home tourism: lifestyle mobility (Benson and O'Reilly, 2009; Casado-Diaz, 2012), heterolocal lifestyles (Halfacree, 2012), multilocal living (Hilti, 2009), multiple dwelling (McIntyre et al., 2006a), and residential tourism (Mazón, 2006; McWatters, 2009) refer to roughly the same phenomenon. The latter seems to be related to the seasonal “snowbird” mobility, bringing not least aged north Europeans and North Americans to destinations with more pleasant climatic conditions. Moreover, it also refers to second-home living in apartment buildings rather than in detached houses. At any rate, it is obvious that second homes are at the nexus of tourism and migration (Bell and Ward, 2000); however, their role in rural development, housing markets, and aging is being increasingly acknowledged as well. Though referring to similar phenomena, studies on second homes often apply diverging definitions (Hall and Müller, 2004a; Müller, 2004a). This is partly because of national differences in available data – sometimes including apartments and sometimes not – and partly because of the diverging characteristics of the phenomenon in different countries and locations. While early studies often referred to cottage-type accommodation and rural second homes, recent studies, not least from the Mediterranean area but also from South Africa, address urbanized forms of second-home tourism (Visser, 2004a, 2004b; Mazón, 2006). This mirrors the complex situation in various countries, which sometimes comprises both forms of secondhome tourism. To further complicate the picture, it can be noted that second-home tourism has often been seen in the context of recreation. An increasing confluence of leisure and work now challenges previous dichotomies; particularly within the white-collar sector, work can be conducted in a recreational setting as well. Hence, distinctions between primary and secondary home are increasingly challenged not only referring to use, but also with regard to the phenomenological meaning of home (Kaltenborn et al., 2009; Gallent, 2007; Hui, 2008). In accordance, a main argument is that second homes are alternate homes rather than secondary homes when it comes to aspects like identity and belonging. With this notion in mind, the administrative treatment of second-home owners as nonlocals has to be seen as a failure (Müller and Hall, 2003; McKenzie et al., 2008). Increasingly mobile societies with second homes as important nodes within mobility networks collide with administrative routines rooted in times before individual car ownership and other motorized transportation became common. A third change that should be noted is related to the remarkable geographical expansion of second-home research. While previously dominated by research from the Nordic realm and North America, today case studies from all continents are available. Second-home tourism is obviously not a phenomenon of the Western world alone, and perhaps it never has been. For example, Huang and Yi (2011) and Hui and Yu (2009) deliver pioneering work from China, which has recently been expanded from a critical consumption perspective of by Wu et al. (2014). Barrantes-Reynolds (2011) reports on the limited spillover of residential tourism on coastal communities in Central America. Similarly, Visser and Hoogendoorn have produced a substantial body of knowledge regarding second-home tourism in South Africa (Visser, 2003,

2004a, 2004b, 2006; Hoogendoorn and Visser, 2004, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b; Pienaar and Visser, 2009), among other aspects highlighting the challenges of research on second homes in a context where accessible data are lacking. Finally, the number of research publications on the issue of second-home tourism has grown significantly since 2004. Hence, a comprehensive review is hardly achievable. In the following section predominant issues in the scientific discourse are reviewed.

Meanings and Motivations An important topic in the second-home literature is the question of why people own second homes. However, limited new insights have been offered since Jaakson's (1986) groundbreaking account of motives for second-home ownership. Still, an important research contribution to this field has been made by McIntyre et al. (2006a), who collect a number of chapters addressing and reviewing the meaning of second-home ownership in the context of multiple dwelling. The volume deals not least with Urry's (2000) new mobility paradigm, suggesting “a need to reset the pendulum swing initiated by Urry (2000) and others which privileges ‘movement over ‘pause’ or ‘dwelling’ ” (McIntyre et al., 2006b: 322). Instead it is argued that people still relate to places, though multiple places are common. Another angle is used by Pitkänen (2008), who scrutinizes physical, experiential, and cultural dimensions of often idealized second-home landscapes. She argues that these dimensions are intertwined, and that the second-home landscape is produced as such through the everyday performances of the second-home owners. In this context the Finnish second-home landscape is seen as wilderness, life at second homes is inspired by stereotypical images of rural life, and its surroundings are used for traditional leisure activities (Vepsäläinen and Pitkänen, 2010). Even Rye and Gunnerud Berg 2011 report similar results from Norway. Here, rural change has opened up for a new appraisal of the countryside and available land; urbanization and representations of the rural as idyllic provide important preconditions for a recreational consumption of the countryside. A Spanish case study indicates that second homes may compensate for dense living conditions in urban areas (Módenes and López-Colás, 2007). Paris (2011), on the other hand, argues that second homes are mainly a marker of affluence. Even Norris and Winston (2010) state, regarding Ireland, that second-home ownership is mainly explained by increased affluence. A desire to compensate for dense living conditions and future retirement plans do not influence the decision to acquire a second home. Second homes have often been seen as retreat for the wealthy. However, Hoogendoorn (2011) argues in the case of South Africa that poor urban workers often remain a link to their rural place of origin, often manifested in the ownership of a second home. Duval (2004) argues similarly in the case of Caribbean immigrants to Canada who visit their second homes back in the Caribbean on a regular basis. The future of second homes is seldom discussed. However, Pitkänen and Vepsäläinen (2008) show that media depict a future in which multiple dwelling is frequent. And for the Finnish

case, even an internationalization of the second-home landscape and regional differentiations in development can be expected. It is also argued that second homes can become a burden to their owners, not least when inherited from previous generations (Jansson and Müller, 2004). Hence, voices on the meaning of second homes do not always point in the same direction. Müller et al. (2004) therefore offer a typology of different second-home landscapes, based on the type of second home (converted former permanent home/purpose-built home) and its use and location relative to the urban centers representing demand (weekend homes/vacation homes). Accordingly, four types can be identified: (i) amenity-rich metropolitan hinterlands, dominated by high numbers of purpose-built homes allowing for daily commuting to the urban center; (ii) ordinary rural landscapes in urban hinterlands, where former agricultural properties dominate the second-home market; (iii) major vacation areas and amenity-rich peripheries, comprising mountain resorts and seaside destinations; and (iv) extensively used peripheral landscapes, where second homes are usually abundant former permanent properties that are in fact partly unoccupied dwellings. The authors argue that different motives, practices, problems, and impacts are in place, depending on category.

Location While the earlier years of second-home research were dominated by national overviews creating benchmark data, researchers are now more concerned with explaining geographical variations of second-home patterns. Müller (2005, 2006) demonstrates the impact of amenities on the distribution of second homes, arguing that second-home location is governed by the distance from the primary residence and the geographical distribution of amenities. Even taxation information proves the impact of nearness and seaside locations (Marjavaara and Müller, 2007). Kauppila (2010) also notes that distance is a major explanation for secondhome location. In his study, the location of winter resorts produces a distinct geography of mobility based not least on the spatial relationship between demand markets and resorts. Still, besides distance, planning and regulations further affect the distribution of second homes and channel development toward specific zones (Overvåg, 2009). Barke (2007) maps the recent development of second-home tourism in Spain, noting that several parallel processes are at work. Besides growth in coastal resorts, second-home numbers are also on the increase in rural areas. This is partly because of rural depopulation, and partly because of the increasing popularity of rural tourism in inland Spain. Nouza et al. (2013) use a historical perspective. They argue that the evolvement of second-home patterns has to be seen in the context of historical population patterns and population redistribution, as well as the occurrence of new transportation links. Tjørve et al. (2013) assess the importance of a sense of belonging to the destination area in relation to distance, and show that belonging overcomes distance. In contrast, households without previous links to the destination area are more likely to choose modern, high-standard second homes at a convenient distance from their permanent place of residence. It has also been shown that belonging implies increased visitation and use of the recreational properties

(Kelly and Hosking, 2008).

Second-Home Tourism Impacts It should be noted that second-home tourism is a multifaceted phenomenon. Certainly, second homes all over the world share similarities, not least with regard to motivations and meanings. However, forms of second-home tourism vary; differences occur not least between rural and urban second homes, including those at mountain and coastal resorts. Moreover, institutional preconditions regulating second-home development obviously impact how development happens. Paris (2011) and Gallent et al. (2005) offer comparisons and show that planning regimes significantly influence the development of second-home tourism. In this context, Paris (2011) points to the British situation as deviant from what can be observed elsewhere in the world. Vágner et al. (2011) apply a comparative historical perspective on second-home development in Czechia and Sweden, finding similar roots of development and in fact a rather limited impact of the postwar political systems. Differences exist today, however, owing to different laws regarding foreign property ownership. Gallent et al. (2005) divide second-home tourism impacts into social, economic, and environmental. Regarding social impacts, not least community tensions resulting in the displacement and alienation of rural dwellers are highlighted. Economic impacts occur on different levels; greater competition for housing and speculation are sometimes accompanied by house price inflation. However, housing acquisition, maintenance, and improvements have positive impacts on the local economy as do general expenditures by second-home owners. Depending on the tax system, local councils can sometimes benefit from property tax. Regarding environmental impacts, Gallent et al. (2005) distinguish between those caused by new development and by building conversion. Community perspectives and social impacts have been addressed in various studies. One topic is related to the new construction of second homes. Here, for example Kaltenborn et al. (2008, 2009) show that environmental concern is a major driver of opposition to second-home construction, whereas considerations regarding the social fabric of communities do not play any major role. However, Norwegian municipalities lack sufficient resources to assess changes caused by second-home construction and hence necessary environmental assessments are neglected (Kaltenborn et al., 2007). Thus, second-home tourism changes power structures within municipalities (Overvåg, 2010). The recent boom in second-home development can be seen as a re-resourcing of marginal rural land, also entailing investments in other rural infrastructure and service supplies, thereby usually yielding support among local authorities. However, a change towards private interests, often focusing on sustaining the rural idyll, has put other goals related to social and ecological dimensions at risk (Kondo et al., 2012). Another topic is the relationship between second-home owners and permanent residents. Müller (2002, 2005) shows that some second-home areas are highly segregated. This also applies in the Canadian case, where recent second-home development occurs not least at mountain resorts (Nepal and Jamal, 2011). Here, gentrified communities with loose relations

to rural towns are the result of a resort-led development strategy targeting the recruitment of second-home owners. However, second-home owners cannot be depicted everywhere as consumers of rural areas only. Instead, it has been shown that they indeed engage in rural affairs as well as social associations and clubs (Kelly and Hosking, 2008; Nordin and Marjavaara, 2012). In a similar context in Iceland, Huijbens (2012) distinguishes between different groups of second-home owners. He argues that those with previous ties to the secondhome destination may be less engaged in the development of the area than those who are there to pursue an active lifestyle. Hence, they contribute to sustaining rural cultural life as well. Moreover, second-home owners sometimes hardly differ from permanent residents in how they identify with the region (Vágner and Fialová, 2012). Even Farstad and Rye (2013) reject the polarization of permanent dwellers and second-home owners, instead arguing that secondhome owners share a “not-in-my-backyard” approach to development with the majority of permanent residents. They suggest that second-home owners may cause a crowding of the countryside and thus create more “backyards” that have to be defended against interests promoting undesired development. Rural residents' attitudes regarding second-home tourism vary a great deal, however. In cases when second-home owners are perceived as contributors to a positive development, permanent residents seem to be more likely to grant access to social life and recreational assets (Farstad, 2011). In this context, it becomes a major problem that administrative structures hinder second-home owners from fully contributing to rural municipalities (Müller and Hall, 2003; Farstad, 2011). For residential tourism in Spain, Huete et al. (2008) show that community stakeholders have a mostly positive outlook on second-home development, not least since a general increase in wealth is associated with recent change. However, they also note that this legitimization is related to a simple acceptance of reality. Hence, speculation in property entails competition with other interests and other forms of tourism, as shown for the international second-home tourism in Costa Rica (Barrantes-Reynolds, 2011). Another topic debated in the literature is the displacement of permanent population caused by second-home ownership. Several earlier studies state that rural populations are displaced by second-home owners (Gallent et al., 2005). In Swedish studies, however, no support for this claim can be found (Müller, 2004b; Marjavaara, 2007a, 2007b, 2009). Instead, second homes are consequences of rural decline rather than drivers of change. In the case of Spain, Barke (2008) notes that potential conflicts over property are related to competition with incoming foreign demand rather than being between owners of primary and secondary residences, and Paris (2011) claims that displacement conflicts in the UK are related to poor access to rural housing and are thus rather a consequence of national policy and planning. Economic impacts are seldom addressed in the international literature. Obviously, the collection of data makes economic studies a major, costly challenge. However, a number of studies confirm earlier insights indicating significant economic impacts on the economy and labor market, not least because of home construction and maintenance as well as other secondhome services (Mottiar, 2006). However, Norris and Winston (2009) warn of a rural policyled development strategy resulting in an overdevelopment of rural housing with long-term consequences for the rural economy and environment. Second homes also alter the rural

economy and increasingly contribute to a restructuring towards leisure, tourism and services, replacing or complementing traditional sectors like agriculture (Hoogendoorn and Visser, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b). Studies on environmental impacts of second homes remain rare. As Gallent et al. (2005) point out, impacts are dependent on whether the second-home stock is newly developed or converted. However, second-home tourism almost always entails increased individual mobility, and hence impacts on the environment cannot be disregarded. Despite these negative sides, second-home tourism is promoted without a rethinking of its environmental dimensions (Hiltunen, 2007). Alternative spending is still often not considered and, hence, although they entail recreational mobility second homes may be the relative environmental option.

The Tourism–Migration Nexus The issue of home has been addressed in a number of studies. Ellingsen and Hidle (2013) assert that home can be constituted of several places, but also argue that second-home tourism strengthens the ties between core and periphery as it combines them into one lifestyle. These results are in line with Gallent's (2007) rejection of a hierarchy of dwelling and Halfacree's (2012) notion of heterolocal identities, but also Kaltenborn and Clout's (1998) ideas of alternate homes. Hidle et al. (2010) also focus on political conceptions of second-home mobility, stressing that policy in Norway insists on maintaining a division of the urban and the rural, linking primary home to the former territorial category and second homes to the latter. Approaches that connect urban and rural places are largely absent. Hence, administrative solutions to acknowledge these multilocal lifestyles are usually not in place, meaning that even impacts – both positive and negative – are unevenly distributed (Müller and Hall, 2003). The frequent use of second homes has implied that they are sometimes considered in the context of migration. Overvåg (2011) rejects this idea, however, instead proposing the idea of circulation. Second homes are also potential domiciles for permanent use. Müller and Marjavaara (2012) show a clear relationship regarding migration to second homes. The age group under 40 years tends to move to their second homes located on the outskirts of metropolitan regions, whereas the older group leaves metropolitan areas for amenity-rich rural locations.

International Dimensions The topic of international second-home ownership does not only address the situation in Mediterranean countries. Even in the Nordic context, cross-border ownership is growing. Although cultural distance here is small, differences in the relation to the destination can be noted. International tourists show a more consumptive approach to the destination area in Sweden, and form a powerful and strong force on an already stressed property market (Müller, 2011b). This causes some antagonism, but is thus far mainly seen as an opportunity for economic development. A more complicated situation is the recent Russian interest in second homes in neighboring Finland. Here, wartime memories and political antagonism affect the

reception of the Russian second-home owners. The Finnish Lakeland is obviously perceived as an iconic national landscape, and foreign purchases of second homes are thus seen as a threat to the Finns' way of life and identity (Pitkänen, 2011). In the Spanish context, Janoschka (2011) reports that many European second-home owners and lifestyle migrants claim European citizenship and hence distance themselves from being immigrants. This procedure is obviously strategic, and contests ideas of national identity and citizenship rights. However, international second-home ownership does not always target rural areas; for instance, cities and Mediterranean resorts also attract international second-home owners (Mazón, 2006; Illés and Michalkó, 2008).

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections This review has demonstrated a great increase in and variety of research on second-home tourism since 2004. However, much of it follows in the footprints of previous research, and only a few new directions are detectable. In some cases, for example regarding the meaning of second home, there is little new information actually delivered though nuances being developed and analysed. Interestingly, economic dimensions of second-home tourism and planning implications are relatively neglected during the covered time period. This is surprising, not least regarding the political importance of tourism as a tool for regional development. In contrast, questions regarding the social implications of second-home tourism have somewhat dominated the research agenda. In this context it becomes obvious that second-home tourism is not only one phenomenon but instead a set of rather distinct forms of tourism. Differences occur not least between a resort/urban type of second home and the traditionally addressed cottage/rural type. Moreover time and space are important constraints for generalization. This means that socioeconomic, institutional, and political preconditions influence the shape of the second-home phenomenon regarding its scope, form, and geographical patterns. These factors influence demand as well as supply, and lead to different impacts in the destination areas. Little research has been done on these issues, however. Instead, the macrogeographical context is often treated rather superficially. Methodologically two relatively distinct traits can be discerned. While studies on the motivation of second-home owners and on the tourism–migration nexus usually apply qualitative approaches most often based on interview studies, a majority of research employs descriptive statistics in order to illuminate the situation within a certain area. Increasingly, it seems, data from questionnaires on second-home use are presented, which appears to be a logical consequence emanating from the mapping tradition focusing second-home patterns known from research not least during the 1990s. Since more advanced statistical methods as well as Geographic Information System (GIS) applications remain the exceptions, there is a great potential for further research. Even with regards to the qualitative studies a greater variety of methods beyond straight forward interview studies could improve the

understandings of the second-home experience. In summary, it can be noted that research on second-home tourism has progressed considerably. However, there is reason to further investigate the use and impacts of second homes, acknowledging not least place-based characteristics. Moreover, integrating approaches seeing second homes as part of a wider development of rural change or urban transformation, respectively, should certainly provide plentiful research questions for the future. This would also contribute to a greater appraisal of tourism research among other researchers, and not least within public administration.

References Barke, M. 2007. Second homes in Spain: an analysis of change at the provincial level, 1981– 2001. Geography, 92(3): 195–207. Barke, M. 2008. Second homes in the Spanish housing market: one market or two? Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 23(4): 277–295. Barrantes-Reynolds, M.P. 2011. The expansion of “real estate tourism” in coastal areas: its behaviour and implications. Recreation and Society in Africa, Asia and Latin America, 2(1): 51–70. Bell, M. and Ward, G. 2000. Comparing temporary mobility with permanent migration. Tourism Geographies, 2: 87–107. Benson, M. and O'Reilly, K. 2009. Lifestyle Migration: Expectations, Aspirations and Experiences. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Buller, H. and Hoggart, K. 1994. International Counterurbanization: British Migrants in Rural France. Aldershot: Avebury. Casado-Diaz, M. 2012. Exploring the geographies of lifestyle mobility: current and future fields of enquiry. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 120–125. London: Routledge. Coppock, J.T. 1977. Second Homes: Curse or Blessing? Oxford: Pergamon. Duval, D.T. 2004. Mobile migrants: travel to second homes. In Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground, C.M. Hall and D.K. Müller (eds), pp. 87–96. Clevedon: Channel View Books. Ellingsen, W.G. and Hidle, K. 2013. Performing home in mobility: second homes in Norway. Tourism Geographies, 15(2): 250–267. Farstad, M. 2011. Rural residents' opinions about second home owners' pursuit of own interests in the host community. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 65(3): 165–174.

Farstad, M. and Rye, J.F. 2013. Second home owners, locals and their perspectives on rural development. Journal of Rural Studies, 30(1): 41–51. Gallent, N. 2007. Second homes, community and a hierarchy of dwelling. Area, 39(1): 97–106. Gallent, N., Mace, A., and Tewdwr-Jones, M. 2005. Second Homes: European Perspectives and UK Policies. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Halfacree, K. 2012. Heterolocal identities? Counter-urbanisation, second homes, and rural consumption in the era of mobilities. Population, Space and Place, 18(2): 209–224. Hall, C.M. and Müller, D.K. 2004a. Introduction: second homes: curse or blessing? Revisited. In Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground, C.M. Hall and D.K. Müller (eds), pp. 3–14. Clevedon: Channel View. Hall, C.M. and Müller, D.K. (eds) 2004b. Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground. Clevedon: Channel View Books. Hidle, K., Ellingsen, W., and Cruickshank, J. 2010. Political conceptions of second home mobility. Sociologia Ruralis, 50(2): 139–155. Hilti, N. 2009. Here, there, and in-between: on the interplay of multi-local living, space and inequality. In Mobilities and Inequality, T. Ohnmacht, H. Maksim, and M.M. Bergman (eds), pp. 145–165. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Hiltunen, M.J. 2007. Environmental impacts of rural second home tourism–case Lake District in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(3): 243–265. Hoogendoorn, G. 2011. Low-income earners as second home tourists in South Africa? Tourism Review International, 14(1): 37–50. Hoogendoorn, G. and Visser, G. 2004. Second homes and small-town (re) development: the case of Clarens. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 32: 105–115. Hoogendoorn, G. and Visser, G. 2010a. The economic impact of second home development in small-town South Africa. Tourism Recreation Research, 35: 55–66. Hoogendoorn, G. and Visser, G. 2010b. The role of second homes in local economic development in five small South African towns. Development Southern Africa, 27: 547–562. Hoogendoorn, G. and Visser, G. 2011a. Economic development through second home development: evidence from South Africa. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 102(3): 275–289. Hoogendoorn, G. and Visser, G. 2011b. Tourism, second homes and an emerging South African post-productivist countryside. Tourism Review International, 14: 183–197. Huang, Y. and Yi, C. 2011. Second home ownership in transitional urban China. Housing

Studies, 26(3): 423–447. Huete, R.N., Terán, A.M., and Martínez, T.M. 2008. Analysing the social perception of residential tourism development. In Advances in Tourism Research, C. Costa and P. Cravo (eds), pp. 153–161. Aveiro: IASK. Hui, A. 2008. Many homes for tourism: re-considering spatializations of home and away in tourism mobilities. Tourist Studies, 8: 291–311. Hui, E.C.M. and Yu, K.H. 2009. Second homes in the Chinese Mainland under “one country, two systems”: a cross-border perspective. Habitat International, 33(1): 106–113. Huijbens, E.H. 2012. Sustaining a village's social fabric? Sociologia Ruralis, 52: 332–352. Illés, S. and Michalkó, G. 2008. Relationships between international tourism and migration in Hungary: tourism flows and foreign property ownership. Tourism Geographies, 10: 98–118. Jaakson, R. 1986. Second-home domestic tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 13: 367–391. Janoschka, M. 2011. Between mobility and mobilization–lifestyle migration and the practice of European identity in political struggles. The Sociological Review, 58: 270–290. Jansson, B. and Müller, D.K. 2004. Second home plans among second home owners in northern Europe's periphery. In Mobility, Tourism and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground, C.M. Hall and D.K. Müller (eds), pp. 261–272. Clevedon: Channel View. Kaltenborn, B.P., Andersen, O., and Nellemann, C. 2007. Second home development in the Norwegian mountains: is it outgrowing the planning capability? The International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 3(1): 1–11. Kaltenborn, B.P., Andersen, O., Nellemann, C., Bjerke, T., and Thrane Christer .2008. Resident attitudes towards mountain second-home tourism development in Norway: the effects of environmental attitudes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16: 664–680. Kaltenborn, B.P., Andersen, O., and Nellemann, C. 2009. Amenity development in the Norwegian mountains: effects of second home owner environmental attitudes on preferences for alternative development options. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4): 195–201. Kaltenborn, B.P. and Clout, H.D. 1998. The alternate home–motives of recreation home use. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography, 52: 121–134. Kauppila, P. 2010. Resorts, second home owners and distance: a case study in northern Finland. Fennia-International Journal of Geography, 188(2): 163–178. Kelly, G. and Hosking, K. 2008. Nonpermanent residents, place attachment, and “sea change” communities. Environment and Behavior, 40: 575–594.

Kondo, M.C., Rivera, R., and Rullman, S. 2012. Protecting the idyll but not the environment: Second homes, amenity migration and rural exclusion in Washington State. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106: 174–182. Marjavaara, R. 2007a. The displacement myth: second home tourism in the Stockholm Archipelago. Tourism Geographies, 9: 296–317. Marjavaara, R. 2007b. Route to destruction? Second home tourism in small island communities. Island Studies Journal, 2: 27–46. Marjavaara, R. 2009. An inquiry into second-home-induced displacement. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, 6(3): 207–219. Marjavaara, R. and Müller, D.K. 2007. The development of second homes' assessed property values in Sweden 1991–2001. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7: 202–222. Mazón, T. 2006. Inquiring into residential tourism: the Costa Blanca case. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, 3(2): 89–97. Mazón, T., Huete, R., and Mantecón, A.T. (eds) 2009. Turismo, Urbanización y Estilos de Vida: Las Nuecas Formas de Movilidad Residencial. Barcelona: Icaria. McIntyre, N., Williams, Daniel R., and McHugh, Kevin E. (eds) 2006a. Multiple Dwelling and Tourism: Negotiating Place, Home and Identity. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. McIntyre, N., Williams, Daniel R., and McHugh, Kevin E. 2006b. Multiple dwelling: prospect and retrospect. In Multiple Dwelling and Tourism: Negotiating Place, Home and Identity N. McIntyre, D.R. Williams, and K.E. McHugh (eds), pp. 313–322. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. McKenzie, F., Martin, J., and Paris, C. 2008. Fiscal policy and mobility: the impact of multiple residences on the provision of place-based service funding. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 14(1): 53–71. McWatters, M.R. 2009. Residential Tourism: (De)constructing Paradise, vol. 16. Bristol: Channel View Books. Módenes, J.-A. and López-Colás, J. 2007. Second homes and compact cities in Spain: two elements of the same system? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 98(3): 325–335. Mottiar, Z. 2006. Holiday home owners, a route to sustainable tourism development? An economic analysis of tourist expenditure data. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14: 582–599. Müller, D.K. 1999. German Second Home Owners in the Swedish Countryside: On the Internationalisation of the Leisure Space. Umeå: Department of Social and Economic Geography.

Müller, D.K. 2002. Second home ownership and sustainable development in Northern Sweden. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3: 345–355. Müller, D.K. 2004a. Mobility, tourism and second homes. In A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 387–398. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Müller, D.K. 2004b. Second homes in Sweden: patterns and issues. In Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground, C.M. Hall and D.K. Müller (eds), pp. 244–258. Clevedon: Channel View. Müller, D.K. 2005. Second home tourism in the Swedish mountain range. In Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Development or Disaster?, C.M. Hall and S.W. Boyd (eds), pp. 133–148. Clevedon: Channel View. Müller, D.K. 2006. The attractiveness of second home areas in Sweden: a quantitative analysis. Current Issues in Tourism, 9: 335–350. Müller, D.K. 2011a. Second homes in rural areas: reflections on a troubled history. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 65(3): 137–143. Müller, D.K. 2011b. The internationalization of rural municipalities: Norwegian second home owners in Northern Bohuslän, Sweden. Tourism Planning and Development, 8(4): 433–445. Müller, D.K. and Hall, C.M. 2003. Second homes and regional population distribution: on administrative practices and failures in Sweden. Espace, Populations, Sociétés, 21(2): 251– 261. Müller, D.K., Hall, C.M., and Keen, D. 2004. Second home tourism impact, planning and management. In Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground, C.M. Hall and D.K. Müller (eds), pp. 15–32. Clevedon: Channel View. Müller, D.K. and Hoogendoorn, G. 2013. Second homes: curse or blessing? A review 36 years later. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 13: 353–369. Müller, D.K. and Marjavaara, R. 2012. From second home to primary residence: migration toward recreational properties in Sweden, 1991–2005. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 103(1): 53–68. Nepal, S.K. and Jamal, Tazim B. 2011. Resort-induced changes in small mountain communities in British Columbia, Canada. Mountain Research and Development, 31(2): 89–101. Nordin, U. and Marjavaara, R. 2012. The local non-locals: second home owners associational engagement in Sweden. Tourism, 60: 293–305. Norris, M. and Winston, N. 2009. Rising second home numbers in rural Ireland: distribution, drivers and implications. European Planning Studies, 17: 1303–1322. Norris, M. and Winston, N. 2010. Second-home owners: escaping, investing or retiring?

Tourism Geographies, 12: 546–567. Nouza, M., Ólafsdóttir, R., and Müller, D.K. 2013. A new approach to spatial–temporal development of second homes: case study from Iceland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 13: 20–37. Overvåg, K. 2009. Second homes and urban growth in the Oslo area, Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography, 63(3): 154–165. Overvåg, K. 2010. Second homes and maximum yield in marginal land: the re-resourcing of rural land in Norway. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(1): 3–16. Overvåg, K. 2011. Second homes: migration or circulation? Norsk Geografisk TidsskriftNorwegian Journal of Geography, 65(3): 154–164. Paris, C. 2011. Affluence, Mobility and Second Home Ownership. London: Routledge. Pienaar, J.J. and Visser, G. 2009. The thorny issue of identifying second homes in South Africa. Urban Forum, 20: 455–469. Pitkänen, K. 2008. Second-home landscape: The meaning (s) of landscape for second-home tourism in Finnish Lakeland. Tourism Geographies, 10: 169–192. Pitkänen, K. 2011. Contested cottage landscapes: host perspective to the increase of foreign second home ownership in Finland 1990–2008. Fennia-International Journal of Geography, 189(1): 43–59. Pitkänen, K. and Vepsäläinen, M. 2008. Foreseeing the future of second home tourism. The case of Finnish media and policy discourse. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8: 1–24. Roca, Z. (ed.) 2013. Second Home Tourism in Europe: Lifestyle Issues and Policy Responses. Farnham: Ashgate. Rye, J.F. and Gunnerud Berg, N. 2011. The second home phenomenon and Norwegian rurality. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 65(3): 126–136. Tjørve, E., Flognfeldt, T., and Calf Tjørve, K.M. 2013. The effects of distance and belonging on second home markets. Tourism Geographies, 15: 268–291. Urry, J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge. Vágner, J. and Fialová, D. 2012. Impacts of second home tourism on shaping regional identity in the regions with significant recreational function. Tourism and Management Studies, 1: 285–294. Vágner, J., Müller, D.K., and Fialová, D. 2011. Second home tourism in the light of the

historical-political and socio-geographical development of Czechia and Sweden. Geografie, 116(2): 191–210. Vepsäläinen, M. and Pitkänen, K. 2010. Second home countryside: representations of the rural in Finnish popular discourses. Journal of Rural Studies, 26: 194–204. Visser, G. 2003. Visible, yet unknown: reflections on second home development in South Africa. Urban Forum, 14: 379–407. Visser, G. 2004a. Second homes and local development: issues arising from Cape Town's De Waterkant. GeoJournal, 60: 259–271. Visser, G. 2004b. Second homes: reflections on an unexplored phenomenon in South Africa. In Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground, C.M. Hall and D.K. Müller (eds), pp. 196–214. Clevedon: Channel View. Visser, G. 2006. South Africa has second homes too! An exploration of the unexplored. Current Issues in Tourism, 9: 351–383. Wolfe, R.I. 1951. Summer cottagers in Ontario. Economic Geography, 27(1): 10–32. Wolfe, R.I. 1952. Wasaga Beach: The divorce from the geographic environment. Canadian Geographer, 1(2): 57–66. Wolfe, R.I. 1962. The summer resorts of Ontario in the nineteenth century. Ontario History, 54: 149–161. Wolfe. R.I. 1965. About cottages and cottagers. Landscape, 15(1): 6–8. Wolfe, R.I. 1970. Discussion of vacation homes, environmental preferences and spatial behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 2(1): 85–87. Wu, Y.-F., Xu, H.-G., and Lew, A.A. 2014. Consumption-led mobilized urbanism: sociospatial separation in the snowbird city of Sanya. Mobilities, 9, doi: 10.1080/17450101.2013.853952.

Chapter 32 Timing Tourism MICE, Events, and Mega-Events Donald Getz Within travel and tourism there is much that is time-sensitive, from hotel beds and airline seats that have little value when unsold, to planned events of all kinds that constitute powerful tourist attractions. It is the very nature of planned events, and a large part of their appeal, that they are never the same; each event is a unique blend of setting, environmental forces, people, program, and management. There are three major discourses concerning planned events, as well as numerous subthemes and topics. Event tourism, as discussed in this chapter, concentrates on the roles that events can play within tourism and other development initiatives. Event management, which in recent years has soared to popularity among students and institutions through new degree programs, is an applied management field. There is also a disciplinebased discourse, particularly within anthropology and sociology, which contain a long tradition of theoretical development related to rituals, festivity, and other planned events. Numerous research papers and pertinent theoretical advances that explicitly pertain to planned events are found in discipline-specific and field-of-study journals ranging in orientation from arts and culture to economics and sport management. What I have called event studies binds all three discourses together. I do not think a professional acting to produce or market events can be without knowledge that comes to us directly from other disciplines or indirectly through the filter of closely related, applied fields such as leisure studies. There is definitely a geography of planned events, and this has been elaborated upon in the first edition of this book (Getz, 2004). It covers both the spatial and temporal dimensions of events and event tourism, as well as various other environmentally connected themes such as sustainability and place attachment. Little attention has been given to the history of planned events, and we ought to be more sensitive to some of the cross-cultural issues.

Essential Roles of Planned Events Planned events are fundamental to all societies, and have been throughout history. They were not invented as tourist attractions, but they have always generated travel. Their forms change, but not their basic functions. These functions include social and economic exchange, symbolic value, and personal development. It can readily be observed in the modern world that planned events have become instruments of many policy goals, ranging from place marketing to urban renewal, from fostering social integration to encouraging healthy lifestyles (see, for example, Richards and Palmer in their book Eventful Cities, 2010). The value placed on planned events has never been greater, and it can be said that events have been legitimized from both a policy and a consumer perspective. No matter what technological developments occur, and regardless of how much socializing and

business can occur virtually though various media, planned events will always retain their attractiveness as social occasions. First and foremost, they are opportunities for people to meet and interact, for group identities to be formed and reinforced, and for culture to be expressed. Accordingly, all societies have rituals, festivals, and other celebrations that encompass small family groups or entire countries (Turner, 1969). Events must also exist to facilitate various forms of information and economic exchange, from simple markets where things are bought and sold, to world fairs that help brand countries. Within this business-event dimension are located consumer shows and trade fairs, and all kinds of meetings and conventions. The term MICE (i.e. meetings, incentives, conventions, and exhibitions; see Schlentrich, 2008) is sometimes employed to describe this cluster of event types, but it must be emphasized that in all such events we are talking about facilitating business and economic exchange. There is a term in the social anthropological literature that pertains to the above discussion, but introduces other event functions. “Symbolic exchange” (Marshall, 1998) refers to the ways in which people and groups assign meaning to things, be it cultural, personal, or economic meanings. Every event holds meanings important to the hosts and all those participating or viewing. Corporations have realized the value of planned events as places for live communication and branding, not to mention as instruments of fostering brand communities of loyal customers. Cities and destinations help foster a positive image and engage in place marketing through cobranding with planned events. In these contexts, the type of event is often irrelevant, whereas its media reach and symbolic value are of great importance. Nations use events to help position themselves as being major players in the world economy, to increase the perceived legitimacy of regimes, or to encourage pride and nationalism. This dimension of symbolic meaning and value has grown substantially in recent decades and is often of greater importance than direct event-tourism benefits measured by visitor spending. In addition we must consider the personal dimension: why people are attracted to planned events and the meanings they assign to the event experience. Event-goers seek many leisure and business-related benefits, depending on the type of event, various personal and social antecedents to their decision, and their perceptions of what the experience will entail, including the travel portion. In the personal dimension we must consider personal and group identity, self-development and actualization through mastery (e.g. in participation sports) learning, aesthetic appreciation, or the joys of volunteering. Figure 32.1 illustrates the main roles events play in tourism (catalyst, image-making, attraction and animator), which are closely connected to place marketing. All of these roles are typically viewed primarily in terms of economic benefits, and these extend beyond direct tourist spending to include contributions to urban development, renewal, and positioning, or repositioning, strategies. Increasingly, events are being required to contribute socially, culturally, and environmentally, but not solely through the link to tourism. Furthermore, cities and destinations, having realized the potential of events across all these roles, have increasingly marketed, bid on, and created events within a managed portfolio. As portfolios increase in size and scope, encompassing all the roles shown in Figure 32.1, the complexity of

the task for strategists and evaluators is being magnified greatly.

Figure 32.1. Major and secondary roles of events as instruments of policy and strategy. Getz (2007, 2012).

More Key Terminology Many of the terms used in conjunction with events pertain to their real or implicit roles and functions. Mega-event could refer to size alone, as explained by Vanhove and Witt (1987), but in common parlance it usually means the biggest of planned events. It also conveys meanings related to international scope, huge new infrastructure requirements and costs, global media coverage, and numerous visitors. Indeed, “gigantism” (Preuss, 2007) is associated with megaevents and there are numerous critics of this trend. I believe it is best to use the term megaevent in a relative sense, referring to events that – in context – are the biggest that a place can accommodate, have the largest impacts, and attract the most attention. Accordingly, any place or venue can host mega-events. Hallmark event, a term originally used by Ritchie and Beliveau (1974) in their seminal article within the context of seasonality, can have multiple meanings. Often it has been used as a synonym for community event, even mega-event. My preference is to reserve this term (including synonyms like signature event) for permanent events that are clearly cobranded with their destination. They embody valued traditions and have become permanent institutions because they meet so many community and tourism goals. Most events in this category are festivals, or sport events that have become larger community celebrations, such as the Kentucky Derby Festival and the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede. Destinations need one or more hallmark events, and their long-term benefits, combined with minimum start-up and maintenance costs, can easily out-perform one-time events that have to be bid upon and often require new infrastructure. Hallmark events are also iconic in that they hold symbolic value, but many smaller and onetime events are also iconic in that they hold special meaning for interest groups and subcultures. Private companies and destinations are increasingly seeking to create or market

existing events with appeal to interest groups, and this can be based on being the largest or most unique, or some intangible quality like reputation or association with a sponsor's brand. And these can also be destination events that exist for the sole or main purpose of attracting tourists, namely the dedicated event tourists that generate the most positive economic impacts.

Event Tourism Event tourism is both an instrumentalist discourse in the academic literature, and an applied field within management and marketing. Events are instruments of policy and strategy, specifically based on five main roles or functions of events. These can also be seen as ontological positions; that is, the assumed knowledge that events can fulfill the following roles (again see Figure 32.1). Indeed, as indicated by selected citations for each, there is a substantial body of research-based fact plus theoretical constructs to support these positions. The main roles or functions of events are to: attract tourists, especially during off-peak seasons and to remoter areas (e.g. Ritchie and Beliveau, 1974; Yoon et al., 2000; Spiller, 2002; Shipway and Fyall, 2012); act as image-makers: media coverage of events yields positive messages (Ritchie and Smith, 1991), and this also applies to the positioning and repositioning of cities and countries (Reid, 2006); the process can also be viewed as cobranding (Heeley, 2011); be catalysts for development such as new infrastructure (Mihalik, 1994), to improve marketing, boost an area's capacity to host future events, or enhance culture (Bergsgard and Vassenden, 2011); animate attractions, venues, and spaces that need events to attract visitors and especially repeat visitors, such as museums (Axelsen, 2006); if you are in the venue business, you are automatically in the event business; assist in place marketing: this role embodies image-making, plus creating an attractive place in which to live, invest, shop, and tour (Richards and Palmer, 2010; Smith, 2012). The first research and literature on the subject of events and tourism featured their role as offpeak attractions, and while the body of literature published since then has emphasized marketing, economic impact assessment, and various management/production issues related to events, there has been a definite shift by cities and destinations towards emphasizing the image and place-marketing roles of events. In addition, events have found favor (in other words have been legitimized) as instruments of many other policy fields, from social integration or social-capital formation to urban renewal to and fostering healthy lifestyles. Because volunteering is an essential part of the event business, the engagement of people with events in various capacities is now viewed as a very important goal with many positive outcomes. Indeed, planned events and their impacts are now firmly entrenched in the popular consciousness, if only because of the attention given to numerous mega-events. People expect many types of planned events in their communities, and the choice has never been greater.

A consequence of the instrumentalization of events is that tourism cannot claim sports, festivals, fairs, or conventions for its own; they belong in the public domain as tools of multiple policy initiatives. For this reason, event tourism is increasingly becoming intertwined with social, cultural, and urban policies, implying more and more stakeholders and complex interrelationships. Indeed, we now have to speak of overlapping, managed portfolios of events (Ziakis, 2010).

Major Trends and Forces Pertaining to Event Tourism A number of major, global trends are evident regarding tourism and planned events (from Getz, 2013), but explaining them is more of a challenge, and forecasting future directions is risky business. These trends are a consequence of multiple forces that are examined below: global and fierce competition; new entries by destinations are arising all the time; gigantism, of costs, infrastructure, media coverage, and the impacts of events; professionalism: there are more and more careers for event management and tourism graduates; new agencies and restructured destination marketing organizations (DMOs) are evident, with the aim of professionalizing bidding on, creating, and servicing events for tourism purposes; instrumentalism across many policy fields means that tourism must increasingly interact with other policy-makers; convergence of forms and functions of events is evident in community festivals and megaand hallmark events; new combinations will emerge to take advantage of the power of events that combine economic and social exchange, possess high symbolic value, and satisfy many personal and social needs. Figure 32.2 illustrates the constraining and propelling forces underlying these major trends. Propelling forces have been in the ascendency for some time, and growth is likely to continue. This can be viewed as an aspect of globalization, particularly in terms of tourism and the free movement of people, but also in terms of global branding and media coverage. Movement of peoples (diaspora) also acts to propel growth in event numbers and diversity. Instrumentalism is on the rise, linking planned events to more and more policy fields. Planned events of all kinds are now viewed as legitimate tools, and this legitimation process will result in more events becoming permanent institutions.

Figure 32.2. Forces propelling and constraining event tourism.

From Getz (2013).

Constraining forces are gathering momentum, especially the negative effects of climate change and energy costs, but have not yet become paramount. However, in some regions or cities constraints might at any time act to slow or halt growth. Furthermore, failure to act aggressively in this competitive event-tourism marketplace will undoubtedly result in lost opportunities and potential decline.

Challenges and Opportunities These trends present a number of serious challenges, each of which is also an opportunity to gain competitive advantages. Five are examined below, and they constitute major themes in my book Event Tourism (Getz, 2013). Challenge 1 There is need for an integrated, sustainable approach to event tourism, especially considering the goal of managing portfolios of events (permanent and one-time) for cumulative, long-term benefits. DMOs and event-development agencies are largely marketing bodies, and therefore not well equipped to act more comprehensively and to develop long-term, integrated strategies. They will have to evolve, taking on new mandates and people with different areas of expertise. Principles of sustainability can best be applied when portfolios of events and related facilities are managed together, and when the emphasis is broadened to include all types of events. This incorporates festivals and celebrations more fully, and also encompasses the basic ideas behind the demand-side, bottom-up approach. One new way of thinking is to avoid the traps presented by gigantism (venues and events getting bigger and bigger) and constant bidding on mega-events. While sustainable events is a hot topic, sustainable event tourism presents us with a fundamental quandary. How can any activity or industry be sustainable when it depends so heavily on energy consumption, built facilities, and the luxury of spending great sums of money on discretionary trips to faraway places? Is that sustainable? Academics and activists press for green events and sustainable tourism, yet the industry and government continuously collaborate to develop tourism and propel the event-tourism agenda. Much contemporary controversy is generic to tourism, including the idea that leisure travel is unnecessary and contributes to

pollution, social, and environmental issues in the destination, consumes too much energy, and has a high carbon footprint. Tourism, from this perspective, not only contributes to global climate change but is largely indefensible. Two approaches to sustainability are relevant: sustainable competitive advantage and sustainable development within a triple-bottom-line context. While competitive advantages come from a variety of sources, one of them has to be the idea of green and responsible events. If events and tourism are not accepted by the host community, sustainability is in doubt. Event tourism, alongside other forms of special-interest, niche marketing, is more sustainable than mass tourism ever can be. The focus should be on yield, not numbers, and on attracting visitors who want to experience a destination, not merely those who can afford to get there. Events have the advantage of being controllable, with limits imposed, and manageable for maximum “greening.” Event tourism has many advantages, unless the emphasis is placed on short-term, maximum economic impact. Destinations should stress long-term portfolio management within a sustainable development paradigm. Mega-events, and the trend towards event gigantism, have to be singled out for special consideration within the sustainability debate. Numerous scholars and political pundits rightly condemn mega-events for their enormous costs, leading to national debt, disruption of communities, environmental negatives (including a heavy carbon footprint), and the building of white-elephant facilities rather than maximizing the efficiency of existing venues that are largely for residents. As well, such mega-events clearly serve the interests of elite groups in society, and not the needs of residents who have to be “sold” on supporting mega-events with exaggerated if not downright false promises of an enduring, positive legacy, and a great party. All this is accepted as conventional wisdom so the trend continues, reflecting power politics rather than rational planning. C. Michael Hall (2012) claims little attention is given to equity issues and decisions to hold mega-events are still largely based on purported economic gains. He concluded (Hall, 2012: 128) that “Mega-events are symbolic of an unsophisticated approach towards sustainable development. They provide substantial corporate benefits with the costs accommodated by the wider public.” “Instead, sustainable events are more likely to be found in the smaller localized community-based events that run over the longer term or at least help maximize the use of existing infrastructure” (2012: 129). While I recommend the occasional “mega-event” in a portfolio approach, I do not mean the Olympics or other gigantic events requiring massive infrastructure developments and the accumulation of public debt. Mega-events should be viewed as those that achieve extraordinary levels of tourism demand, impact, or effort given the current capacity of the destination. If new infrastructure is required, the event cannot be used as an excuse: it has to be justifiable with other “public-good” arguments. Challenxge 2 A shift is underway from the usual supply-side approach, in which the marketing of events and sale of venues predominates, to demand-side thinking based on research and market

intelligence. The leisure and sport markets offer virtually unlimited potential for competitive advantages, if only more is known about the motivations and social worlds of people with special interests. This represents a paradigm shift that will necessitate adjustments on the part of many practitioners. Cities will still need venues and they do have to be sold and marketed; there will always be events wanting to attract tourists, and bidding for one-time events will undoubtedly remain important. But the demand-side approach opens up numerous avenues of development and marketing that have little to do with the prevailing emphasis on sports and business events. This is where theory-based research comes to the fore. Marketers must understand the evolution and composition of special-interest groups, subcultures, and social worlds. How do people get involved, and what does increasing involvement mean for development of eventtravel careers? Detailed understanding of the desired benefits and the design of facilitating event experiences goes with this demand-side approach. Challenge 3 In terms of both research and strategy, cities and destinations need to move from a focus on single events to managed portfolios of events. The focus has always been in single events: selling venues, bidding, developing, and marketing them. The future lies in portfolios of events, all managed together as assets achieving multiple goals for the host cities and destinations. Within this new portfolio approach it becomes quite evident that the highest-value assets are events anchored in the destination or city, particularly hallmark events with long-term, institutional status, and iconic events that attract niche markets. One-time events, usually won through sales and bidding, come with higher costs and sometimes dubious value. This especially applies to one-time mega-events that can incur enormous costs. Challenge 4 Moving from a top-down approach to a bottom-up, community-based, model of event tourism will liberate innovation, foster entrepreneurship, and steer development to where demand lies. DMOs and government agencies that are used to making all the decisions need to rethink their ways. A single approach or uniform strategy cannot keep up with rapid changes in the marketplace. Challenge 5 A new dictum, “create your own events,” stems from the portfolio approach and demand-side thinking. Where gaps exist, they can be filled with new and potentially permanent events. The greatest opportunities, carrying maximum potential, sustainable value, and minimal costs and risks are permanent hallmark events and iconic events that are precisely targeted.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Research on event tourism commenced in the 1970s (see Getz, 2008 for a review) and remains

an important theme in all tourism and hospitality journals, not to mention leisure, sport, the arts and culture, and many other fields. The establishment of event-specific journals, beginning with Festival Management and Event Tourism in 1993 (now Event Management) and subsequent additions has greatly facilitated discourse, research, and theory development for event management and event tourism. In this section I employ the framework for understanding and creating knowledge about planned events, as discussed in Event Studies (Getz, 2007, 2012) and again in Event Tourism (Getz, 2013). This systematic approach places the event-tourism experience (that is, events plus travel) as the core phenomenon under study, together with meanings attached at all levels: personal, societal, economic, or environmental.

Event-Tourism Experiences and Meanings The fundamental question is: how do people describe, explain, and assign meaning to various event-tourism experiences within each of these dimensions: conative (behavioral), affective (emotional), and cognitive? Little attention has been given to event-tourist experiences as an integrated whole, including pretrip planning and anticipation, event experiences, and postevent travel and recollection. The event-tourist career trajectory tries to deal with this in terms of evolutionary changes that occur through increasing involvement in sports, arts, lifestyle, or hobbyist pursuits (Getz and Andersson, 2010; Getz and McConnell, 2011). More research is also needed at the group level, such as has been conducted on sport fans, and on what makes event-tourism experiences memorable and transforming. There is a big distinction between generic event-tourism benefits and those sought by specialinterest groups. A demand-side approach requires greater attention to the particular experiences or benefits sought by those engaging in serious leisure, whether sports, the arts, hobbies, or lifestyle pursuits. We will need to learn much more about the creating and marketing of iconic events that appeal symbolically to special interests and subcultures, and how hallmark events achieve and sustain their status within host communities. This connects to image and reputation. Almost all research and theory pertains to single events, yet event tourism is all about multiple events and portfolios. How are experiences and meanings in a community shaped by aggressive development and marketing of many events, including both the one-time and permanent? Do tourists have different experiences when there are multiple events to enjoy, or do they ascribe different meanings to experiences when they know they are attending a tourismoriented event?

Antecedents to Event Tourism When it comes to influences on event tourism, we are only beginning to examine how social worlds shape demand and supply, and in particular how participation in social worlds mediates choices and experiences. Since there are potentially an enormous number of special interests and social worlds, many more must be studied and compared systematically. One key question is: what are the differences between competitive versus non-competitive, and

individual versus inherently social pursuits when it comes to iconic events and event-tourism patterns and preferences? As events and event tourism expand in terms of development and impacts, how does this change the way people view events? Legitimation has been discussed above in terms of the growing acceptance of events as instruments of policy and corporate/industry strategy, but there are similar legitimation effects at work in society. Could a city suddenly stop funding events without repercussions? What happens to residents’ expectations when a destination develops a full portfolio of events? One hypothesis is that people will get bored and constantly want more, newer, different events, or perhaps the delivery of a full spectrum of event opportunities becomes institutionalized and permanent. Also consider the future scenario that if tourism is taken out of the equation, events become even more important to communities.

Planning and Managing Event Tourism Two major challenges loom, for which evaluation and theoretical research are needed. The first is the trend (actually a necessity) to move towards portfolio management, by multiple and overlapping policy domains. Many specific questions are raised about the cumulative effects, sustainability, and how to evaluate portfolios. What, for example, constitutes a healthy population or portfolio of events? Agencies creating and managing portfolios must evaluate and develop appropriate indicators of performance and health. Theorists must look at the potential applications of organizational ecology and institutionalization. The second big challenge concerns organizational development and the scope of event tourism. Currently it is mainly the purview of DMOs (the typical convention and visitor bureau) or agencies that stress bidding (and on sport events, mainly), plus the often separate efforts of convention centers and bureaus to market, sell and bid on events. Many other stakeholders are involved, including sport and entertainment venues, festivals, and local organizations. There really are few if any examples to draw upon where the full, integrated potential of event tourism is practiced. Organizations will have to be created specifically for this purpose, or the existing ones must evolve with broader mandates and the addition of new areas of expertise. Some of the specific questions to be addressed by DMOs and event-specific organizations include: what leadership, planning, and decision-making styles and processes are most effective for event-tourism development? What strategies are most effective in achieving event-tourism competitiveness and sustainability? How can bidding on events be made more effective? Which stakeholder-management strategies work best for event tourism? Case studies and cross-case analysis of events and destinations will be desirable, as will benchmarking among destinations.

Policy Events are now well established as instruments of various policy domains, and event tourism must interact with them, from urban renewal to social and cultural development (Ma and Lew, 2012). How can these various policy fields work effectively together, and especially when it comes to overlapping portfolios of events? This is largely a matter for stakeholder theory and

power politics; specifically, what are the ways in which stakeholders exercise power, and negotiate, to develop event tourism and related policy? Who gets excluded or marginalized? How do we know when event tourism policies are effective and efficiently administered? What are the ideological foundations of event tourism policy? Justifying public-sector involvement, from mere assistance to active investment in venues, bidding and production of events, requires a lot of thought and supportive research. Which justifications for public involvement in event tourism are supported by the public, and why? How do citizens, taxpayers, and other stakeholders form opinions about events and event tourism? Will people support events even if they do not attend or see a direct benefit?

Outcomes Evaluation and impact assessment theory and methods are sufficiently advanced for there to be no excuse in not implementing a triple-bottom-line approach, encompassing cost–benefit evaluation, at least for single events. But when it comes to populations and portfolios of events, techniques have not been established. Nor has sufficient attention been given to longterm sustainability and how evolving goals and cumulative, synergistic effects can be taken into account. What performance measures exist, and are needed for the social, cultural, and environmental policy domains? One question of particular importance will always arise: How are the benefits and costs of events and event tourism distributed throughout the population? This goes well beyond the matter of adopting strategies to maximize local economic benefits, it requires consideration of how various elite and private-sector groups in society can exploit events for their purposes, while the ordinary, nonattending taxpayers end up paying. Within the public-good justifications this is the fundamental equity issue. Personally, I believe far too many mega-events benefit the few, while the many end up paying. A city's or destination's entire approach to event tourism should focus on this equity issue, which is related to the question of what is an event (and portfolio) worth? To whom?

Final Words Event-generated tourism has sufficient magnitude and importance around the world to deserve separate treatment in the literature, and within tourism and event-management curricula. Propelling forces are dominant, leading to continued growth in the numbers, diversity, size, and impacts of events. Competitive forces are leading to higher degrees of professionalism, and enormous investments in bidding, infrastructure development (including venues) and hosting or creating events. Planned events of all kinds have been legitimized as instruments of diverse government policies and corporate strategies, as well as being expected by consumers and valued by numerous interest groups. Major trends and challenges have been identified, not the least of which is the growing complexity of managing and evaluating diverse portfolios of events that are expected to generate numerous benefits. Most attention from researchers and theorists has concentrated on single events, yet the evidence is clear that portfolios, and indeed whole populations of events,

must be studied. Event tourism will therefore continue to expand as a field of study and professional practice, with researchers struggling to keep up with the many implications.

References Axelsen, M. 2006. Using special events to motivate visitors to attend art galleries. Museum Management and Curatorship, 21(3): 205–221. Bergsgard, N. and Vassenden, A. 2011. The legacy of Stavanger as Capital of Culture in Europe 2008: watershed or puff of wind? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 17(3): 301–320. Getz, D. 2004. Geographic perspectives on event tourism. In A Companion to Tourism, A. Lew, M. Hall, and A. Williams (eds), pp. 410–422. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Getz, D. 2007. Event Studies: Theory, Research and Policy for Planned Events. Oxford: Elsevier. Getz, D. 2008. Event tourism: definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29(3): 403–428. Getz, D. 2012 Event Studies: Theory, Research and Policy for Planned Events (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Getz, D. 2013. Event Tourism. New York: Cognizant. Getz, D. and Andersson, T. 2010. The event-tourist career trajectory: a study of highinvolvement amateur distance runners. Scandinavian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, 19(4): 468–491. Getz, D. and McConnell, A. 2011. Serious sport tourism and event travel careers. Journal of Sport Management, 25(4): 326–338. Hall, C.M. (2012). Sustainable mega-events: beyond the myth of balanced approaches to mega-event sustainability. Event Management, 16(2): 119–131. Heeley, J. 2011. Inside City Tourism: A European Perspective. Bristol: Channel View. Ma, L. and Lew, A.A. 2012. Historical and geographical context in festival tourism development. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 7(1): 13–23. Marshall, G. 1998. Exchange theory. In A Dictionary of Sociology. www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-exchangetheory.html. Mihalik, B. 1994. Mega-event legacies of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. In Quality Management in Urban Tourism: Balancing Business and Environment, P. Murphy (ed.), pp. 151–162. Victoria: University of Victoria.

Preuss, H. 2007. The conceptualisation and measurement of mega sport event legacies. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(4): 207–228. Reid, G. 2006. The politics of city imaging: a case study of the MTV Europe Music Awards in Edinburgh ′03. Event Management, 10(1): 35–46. Richards, G. and Palmer, R. 2010. Eventful Cities: Cultural Management and Urban Revitalisation. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Ritchie, J.R.B. and Beliveau, D. 1974. Hallmark events: an evaluation of a strategic response to seasonality in the travel market. Journal of Travel Research, 13(2): 14–20. Ritchie, J.R.B. and Smith, B. 1991. The impact of a mega-event on host region awareness: a longitudinal study. Journal of Travel Research, 30(1): 3–10. Schlentrich, U. 2008. The MICE industry: meetings, incentives, conventions and exhibitions. In The Sage Handbook of Hospitality Management, B. Brotherton and R. Wood (eds), pp. 400– 420. London: Sage Publications. Shipway, R. and Fyall, A. (eds) 2012. International Sports Events: Impacts, Experiences and Identities. London: Routledge. Smith, A. 2012. Events and Urban Regeneration: The Strategic Use of Events to Revitalise Cities. London: Routlege. Spiller, J. 2002. History of convention tourism. In Convention Tourism: International Research and Industry Perspectives, K. Weber and K. Chon (eds), pp. 3–20. Philadelphia: Haworth. Turner, V. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Vanhove, D. and Witt, S. 1987. Report of the English-speaking group on the conference theme. Revue de Tourisme, 42(4): 10–12. Yoon, S., Spencer, D., Holecek, D., and Kim, D. 2000. A profile of Michigan's festival and special event tourism market. Event Management, 6(1): 33–44. Ziakas, V. 2010. Understanding an event portfolio: the uncovering of interrelationships, synergies, and leveraging opportunities. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 2(2): 144–164.

Chapter 33 Taking Stock of Sport Tourism Research Tom Hinch, James Higham, and Stacy-Lynn Sant People have traveled for sport for thousands of years, at least since the inception of the ancient Olympic Games in 776 BC. However, the systematic study of sport tourism has occurred only in very recent years. While the research interest in high-profile sporting events and activities is not surprising, with the maturing academic study of sport tourism the scope and nature of inquiry appears to be expanding and diversifying. This chapter considers evidence of this course of scholarly development, and seeks to provide observations and commentary on the current state of research serving this field. It opens with a description of the essence of sport tourism followed by a summary of the major trends identified in existing reviews of the field. The latter part of the chapter presents a review analysis of articles that have been published in the Journal of Sport & Tourism along with relevant sport tourism articles published in four other sport and tourism journals over a 5-year period (2007–2011 inclusive). Emerging research questions and the prospects for this area of study close the chapter.

Essence of Sport Tourism Gibson's (1998) frequently cited typology of sports tourism is divided into (i) event sport tourism (spectating), (ii) active sport tourism (participation), and (iii) nostalgia sport tourism. Under this typology, events tend to be characterized in terms of a limited amount of elite competitors relative to a multitude of spectators. Active sport tourism involves people traveling to participate in sport pursuits such as golf and snowboarding. While a small fraction of these individuals may be elite athletes focused on performance, the vast majority are recreational athletes pursuing their leisure interests. Despite the lower profile of active sport tourism activities in the popular press and in the academic literature, Weighill (2009) found that in terms of domestic travel in Canada, active sport tourists tend to outnumber spectators traveling to sport events by a ratio of about 6 to 1. Gibson's (1998) category of nostalgia which can more broadly be thought of in terms of sport heritage tourism (Fairley and Gammon, 2005; Ramshaw and Gammon, 2005) as exemplified by travel to visit sports museums, stadiums, and arenas where famous competitions have been played and fantasy events where recreational athletes can rub shoulders with professionals and/or other elite athletes. A recent trend has been the merging of active events and nostalgia forms of sport engagement to create unique visitor experiences (Higham and Hinch, 2009). For example, city marathons such as London, Boston, and New York have broadened their participant markets to accommodate elite athletes, alongside the wide range of competitive/noncompetitive active and novice participants, simultaneously drawing on elements of nostalgia (e.g. course design, involvement of previous winners from bygone eras) to embellish the aura and experience of the event. In keeping with the variety of sport tourism typologies, many different definitions of sport tourism have been articulated. As sport tourism has emerged as a field of academic inquiry,

there has been much debate over these definitions. For example, one spirited debate was whether the term “sports tourism” (Weed and Bull, 2004) was more appropriate than “sport tourism” (Gibson, 2002). While it is tempting to dismiss this debate as a matter of semantics, it highlights a fundamental difference of perspectives with Gibson arguing that the singular form of sport implies that sport is a social institution and can thereby be distinguished from other types of tourism. Weed and Bull's use of the plural form of sport (i.e. sports) recognizes the differences that exist at an individual sport level and, more fundamentally, it was an attempt to move away from dependence on existing definitions of sport or tourism. No definitive resolution to this debate emerged nor has a single definition of sport tourism been adopted. This lack of resolution is consistent with the view that such definitions are social constructions that vary across time and space (Andrews, 2006). The concept of sport tourism should therefore be considered within the context in which it is being used in a particular study and in ways that facilitate measurement and positioning within the literature. For the purpose of this review, a broad-based perspective is taken that is intended to be inclusive. Drawing on earlier work by the authors, sport tourism is conceptualized as “sport-based travel away from the home environment for a limited time where sport is characterized by unique rule sets, competition related to physical prowess and play” (Hinch and Higham, 2011: 21–22). Each of these dimensions of sport covers a range of manifestations that encompass different sports and situations. Unique rule sets range from the stringent codes of elite sport to implicit codes of conduct at an informal level (e.g. sand-lot baseball). Competition ranges from high performance through to recreational sport and may take a variety of forms, such as athlete versus athlete, athlete versus the environment, and athlete versus self at all levels of intensity. Play suggests some element of fun and/or joy that is inclusive of participation in recreational through to professional sport.

A Growing Body of Literature In a review conducted by Higham and Hinch (2009: 4), the sport tourism literature was summarized as being “largely concentrated on high profile, mainstream and often professional or semi-professional sports, and global or international events that typically take place in the developed world.” Other highlights included notable advances into the understanding of sport tourism events such as research into bundling (Chalip and McGuirty, 2004) and leveraging (Chalip, 2006) that is characterized by a shift from a description of impacts to a more strategic and analytical approach. Another example of emerging trends includes Cornelissen and Solberg's (2007) examination of the migration of athletic talent in anticipation of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. There was also increased research activity related to smaller-scale events hosted in smaller cities and towns (Ryan and Lockyer, 2002; Gratton et al., 2005). Although these contributions are indicative of more nuanced and critical approaches to sport tourism event research, there are few examples found of recreational sport-based events that follow up on the pioneering study of Nogawa et al. (1996). As early as 2004, Weed and Bull (2004) called for a shift from descriptive definitions and classifications to a more rigorous investigation of the dynamics of the relationship between sport and tourism. Similarly Gibson (2005) argued that sport tourism research needed to

develop deeper theoretical insight. Examples of advances in this realm include research related to: leisure constraints theory (Hudson et al., 2010), destination branding theory (Chalip and Costa, 2005), role theory (Gibson, 2005), and serious leisure (Jones and Green, 2005). In addition to their previously mentioned contributions related to leveraging and branding, Chalip and colleagues have made significant empirical contributions to the understanding of destination image (Chalip et al., 2003) and destination marketing (Harrison-Hill and Chalip, 2005). Research focusing on active sport tourism continues to be published less frequently than research in the events field. Hudson's contributions represent a notable exception with his research on golf (Hudson and Hudson, 2010), and downhill skiing and snowboarding (Hudson et al., 2010). His work in the latter area is particularly noteworthy given its theoretical grounding in constraints and cultural difference. More generally, impact studies – particularly in the context of economic benefits – dominate, although there is some indication that environmental impacts (Gössling and Hall, 2006) and social impacts (Hinch and de la Barre, 2007) are beginning to receive more consideration. Jago's (2005) work in terms of the “triple bottom line” usefully considers all three of these realms in the assessment of impact. In his meta-review of sports tourism research, Weed (2009) identifies six substantive areas of focus in terms of sport tourism research: (i) an emphasis on economic impact, (ii) increased activity in terms of research on leveraging, (iii) a more holistic approach to impacts, (iv) a growing number of behavioral studies, (v) investigations of sport tourism destination marketing and image, and (vi) an increased interest in the host or resident perceptions of sport tourism events. Weed qualifies these observations by noting that they reflect the personal insights and interests of the researchers active in this area. Notwithstanding this caveat, Weed (2008) argues that progress has been made in the study of sport tourism. He notes four characteristics that suggest that the study of sport tourism is maturing: (i) a strong conceptualization of the field, (ii) the increasing support of empirical work by theory, (iii) advances in methods and methodology, and (iv) a growing community of scholars focusing on this area. At the conclusion of his meta-review Weed (2009) adds two more important thoughts and reflections. The first recognizes debate and contestation as a healthy sign of a dynamic field of inquiry. The second indicator is that sport tourism researchers are becoming more “reflexive, self critical and responsive to external challenges” (Weed, 2009: 626). This characteristic helps to ensure that the field will stay relevant in the broader realm of the social sciences.

An Analysis of Five Journals The preceding section identified several of the key themes and characteristics of the sport tourism literature from the perspective of the authors. A more objective assessment of the literature is provided in this section by way of a content analysis of the sport tourism articles published in five international journals from 2007 to 2011. This assessment included all articles published in the Journal of Sport & Tourism (JS&T) and sport tourism articles published in two journals from the field of sport management [Journal of Sport Management (JSM) and European Sport Management Quarterly] and two from tourism [Tourism

Management and Journal of Travel Research (JTR)]. The rationale for selecting these latter four journals was that they are recognized to be first-tier journals in their respective fields and they have a focus on management. First, a keyword search of titles and abstracts for the research articles in each of these journals was performed, inclusive of terms sport(s), tourism, tourist(s), Olympics, and FIFA. Second, the same key words were used to search through each article. Articles that only mentioned these concepts superficially or in the reference section were excluded from our analysis. Finally, each article was then manually examined to verify that there was substantial attention given to the confluence of sport and tourism. The articles were then classified by (i) year of publication, (ii) type of sport tourism focus using a modified version of Gibson's (1998) typology as explained below, (iii) style of article (empirical, conceptual, review), (iv) methodological approach (quantitative, qualitative, mixed), (v) research method, and (vi) geographic focus. Out of this 5-year sample of five journals, 102 sport tourism articles were published, with two-thirds of them being published in JS&T (Table 33.1). Twenty three were published in the sport management journals with slightly more than half that number (12) published in the tourism-focused journals. The number of articles published each year varied from a low of 16 in 2007 to 25 in 2008 and 2011. Table 33.1. Sport tourism articles by journal, 2007–2011.

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that only two sport tourism-related articles were published in JTR over this period while 16 were published in the JSM. The editorial mandate of these two journals sheds some light on possible reasons for this difference, with the JTR focusing on the behavior, management, and development of travel and tourism (Sage Journals, 2013). A word search and preliminary assessment of “sport” in the 5-year span of the JTR identified three additional articles, one of which was related to security at events such as the Olympic Games. However, these articles were eventually excluded from our analysis because sport was incidental. In contrast, the JSM has a mandate that focuses on sport in the context of management, governance, and consumption. One of the specific dimensions is articulated as sport tourism (North American Society for Sport Management, 2013). The interpretation of these mandates is also a function of the preference of the editors and editorial boards of each journal.

Sport Tourism Type Two modifications have been made to Gibson's (1998) typology of sport tourism. The first modification was to split the event category into (i) events that were dominated by travelers whose primary involvement was as spectators and (ii) events that were characterized by a high proportion of travelers whose primary involvement was as active participants; that is, recreational athletes. The second modification was expanding the nostalgia category to include the broader concept of heritage as argued by Ramshaw and Gammon (2005). Findings confirm existing reviews that suggest that the majority of sport tourism articles focus on events (67%) but a closer examination of these articles revealed that 55% were spectator-based events while 12% were participant-based events. The emergence of participant-based events suggests a broader scope of inquiry than previously assumed (Figure 33.1). Research focused on participant-based events tended to examine medium to small-scale regional events. Examples include event-leveraging articles such as O'Brien's (2007) study on a regional surf festival and Snelgrove and Wood's (2010) study on a charity cycling event. Ziakas and Costa's (2010) study of event portfolios in smaller communities provides insight into the aggregate importance of participant-based small-scale events in communities of fewer than 10 000 people.

Figure 33.1. Classification of sport tourism research (2007–2011) based on the modified Gibson (1998) typology (n = 102). While one-fifth of all sport tourism articles (20%) in this sample were classified as being focused on active sport tourism, this falls substantially short of the attention given to spectatorbased sport events (55%). The relative dearth of active sport articles is especially disconcerting if Weighill's (2009) finding that active sport tourism trips in Canada exceed spectator-based trips by approximately 6 to 1 is indicative of other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, there are some interesting developments in this area including Alexandris et al.'s (2008) study of constraints, involvement and attitudinal loyalty in terms of recreational skiers, Pomfret's (2011) study of the motivations of package mountaineer tourists, and Allman et al.'s (2009) study of the motivations of extreme sport enthusiasts.

Studies focused on sport tourism heritage only represented 2% of those published in this sample. Examples include Ramshaw's (2010) study of living heritage and the sports museum and Fyfe's (2008) article on the challenges of packaging baseball heritage. Notwithstanding the fact that sport tourism heritage studies may be being published in heritage-based journals not included in this sample, it appears that either heritage sport tourism is an under-researched area or that it is overemphasized in Gibson's (1998) typology; we suspect the former given the high profile of sports heritage in North America and Europe. Finally 11% of the articles reviewed in this sample did not readily fit into any of the aforementioned categories. This group of articles was dominated by review articles that straddled individual categories (e.g. Weed, 2009).

Empirical, Conceptual, and Review Articles Articles under this classification were sorted based on explicit statements by the authors as to the conceptual or review nature of the paper and whether or not it reported on primary or secondary data (empirical studies). The vast majority of the articles (86%) were empirical in nature with 12% being conceptual and 2% being reviews of the literature. This predominance of empirical work is a healthy sign and contrasts to the higher proportion of review and conceptual types of papers that characterized the field in 1990s. Lost in the frequency counts is the role of theory in these articles. For example, Smith's (2009) article is explicitly positioned as a theorization of the relationship between major sport events and social sustainability. Other papers explore conceptual foundations such as feminism (Mansfield, 2007), impact management frameworks (Collins et al., 2009), and adventure as culture (Kane, 2010). Similarly, empirical papers are increasingly being explicitly linked to theory both in terms of their initial positioning and in terms of the findings and interpretations (Hudson et al., 2010).

Methodological Approaches Fifty nine percent of the empirical studies were quantitative in nature. Qualitative studies accounted for 36% with only 5% being classified as mixed-method approaches. The two tourism journals tended to favor quantitative approaches (e.g. Shani et al., 2010) while the sport-based journals reflected a more balanced mix of methodological paradigms (e.g. Misener and Mason, 2009). Out of the 55 empirically based articles in JS&T, 32 were quantitative, 20 were qualitative, and three were mixed methods. The mixed-method approaches are particularly interesting with the Reis and Higham (2009) study providing a good example. In their exploration of the relationship between consumptive (hunters) and nonconsumptive (trekkers) recreationists on Rakiura/Stewart Island (Aotearoa/New Zealand), the findings from the quantitative survey highlighted common elements of motivation and environmental values between these groups. Qualitative methods provided further insight into three areas of potential conflict. The two approaches complemented each other and enabled a broader and deeper understanding of the relationship between each group. This paper provides valuable methodological direction in terms of informing further critical approaches to the study of sport tourism phenomena.

Empirical Methods A more nuanced analysis of methods shows that while almost half of all the methods identified in empirical studies (85 studies including some which used multiple methods) were characterized by traditional surveys featuring self-completed questions (46%), a broad range of other methods are also being used (Figure 33.2). The second most popular method was interviews (14%) followed by case studies (14%). Other methods included secondary analysis (6%), modeling and scaling (6%), content analysis (4%), and ethnography (4%). The Other category included focus groups (3%), participant observation (3%), narrative analysis (2%), and one study that featured a phenomenology-based approach. The broadest breadth of methods was found in the JS&T while the JSM featured the most evenly balanced range of methods.

Figure 33.2. Methods employed in empirical studies of sport tourism (2007–2011) (n = 100). Examples of innovative methods in this field include Berger and Greenspan's (2008) study of the way technology affects tourist identities. These insights were gained by conducting a narrative analysis of a blog of an expedition to Mount Everest. Similarly, Shipway and Jones' (2008) ethnography of the experience of serious participants in the 2007 Flora London Marathon provided unique insights that would not have been obtained through the more traditional types of methods. These approaches bode well for the study of sport tourism but at this point the field remains characterized by relatively conservative research methods.

Geographic Focus The geographic focus of the empirically based articles was dominated by studies related to sport tourism in Europe (30%) and North America (25%). There were, however, a substantial portion that had a focus in Australia/Oceania (13%), Asia (11%), and Africa (6%) (Figure 33.3). Articles with a focus in South America (one) and the Caribbean (one) were rare. The JS&T featured the most balanced geographic distribution with the only omission being articles focused on South America and the Caribbean.

Figure 33.3. Geographical focus of empirical studies of sport tourism (2007–2011) (n = 102). Much of the focus on Europe, North America, and Australia may be a function of the fact that these journals are all published in English and dominated by Western-based editors and editorial boards. It does, however, substantiate Cornelissen's (2004) observation that sport tourism studies have focused on the developed world. The fact that this observation, made 10 years ago, is still applicable today signals a cautionary note. Successful sport mega-events such as the FIFA World Cup in South Africa (2010) and the pending FIFA World Cup (2014) and Summer Olympics (2016) in Brazil continue to draw the attention of researchers. For example, all five articles published in the JS&T with a geographic focus on Africa were studies related to the 2010 FIFA World Cup hosted in South Africa with three of these related to impacts (Otto and Heath, 2009; Briedenhann, 2011; Fourie and Spronk, 2011) and two related to national identity (Cubizolles, 2011; Lepp and Gibson, 2011). The only other article with an African focus was published in Tourism Management and examined the niche market for golf tourists (Tassiopoulos and Haydam, 2008). While these articles represent a promising trend in terms of African-based studies, Cornelissen's (2004) observation remains valid in that all six studies focused on the relatively developed nation of South Africa. Even in the case of South Africa, it remains to be seen whether this interest will be sustained. An examination of the Asia-based studies shows a similar pattern with half of JS&T articles and all of the articles published in the other journals having a close tie to the 2008 Beijing Olympics (e.g. Zhou and Ap, 2009; Preuss and Alfs, 2011). The JS&T published a broader range of Asia-based articles, including Berger and Greenspan's (2008) innovative study of the impact of technology on adventure tourists' identity and McCartney and Osti's (2007) study of the dynamic between culture and sport in the context of dragon boat racing. This broadening range suggests that the scope of sport tourism research in Asia has increased and may be breaking out of the megaevent pattern that has characterized the field. Trailing the world's geographic regions in terms of research is South America and the Caribbean. With the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympics being hosted in Brazil in 2014 and 2016 respectively, it is a safe bet that a flurry of

mega-event articles focused on this region will appear in the literature over the next 5 years.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Some general observations of research serving the field of sport tourism emerge from this analysis. For example, the call for broader insights into sport tourism phenomena than those that focus on spectator-driven sport events (Hinch and Higham, 2011) still applies. While there have been some advances in terms of broadening the focus beyond urban mega-events in the developed world (e.g. Cornelissen, 2004), additional attention to these regions is merited. The dearth of published work in these journals addressing sport and tourism in the South American context is bound to be remedied in the coming years with the hosting of both the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil and the 2016 Olympic Games in the city of Rio de Janeiro. These events will, we hope, be the focus of critical research that advances insight into sport tourism phenomena in this part of the world. Beyond the field of events, the need for empiricism to address recreational engagement in participation sports as it relates to the experiences of tourists remains a priority. The lower profile of recreational engagement in sports in the popular press, and the lower visibility of those engaged in sport for subelite or less competitive sports, should not obscure the importance of these forms of sport and tourism engagement. We are, however, encouraged to see the broadening of research in the field of sports events to address participation events as well as primarily spectator-driven (elite) events. Little research has addressed the roles of sport as it relates to tourism in small communities and peripheral areas where proximity to natural sports resources suggests the need for greater academic attention. Heritage sports resources and nostalgic experiences, in both central (urban) and peripheral areas also clearly justify further attention. Such a shift in attention would help to relieve the continuing relative neglect of active engagement in sports, which remains under-represented in the literature given the importance of active participation in sport-based travel (Weighill, 2009). The need for greater attention to be paid to the diverse roles of sport in terms of individual participation, identity construction, experiences of place, and connections to the past (both personal and collective heritage) highlights the importance of defining sport and tourism in interpretive rather than technical terms, and understanding the changing roles of sport in the lives of individuals and within the broader context of societies (Higham and Hinch, 2009). These broad reflections aside, we share Weed's (2008) observations of a maturing field in which conceptualization, refined methodologies, and empirical work contributing to theory building are becoming increasingly apparent. The role of the JS&T under Weed's editorship (2006–present) in advancing the field should not be ignored. While it comes as no surprise that the majority of papers reviewed in our analysis appear in the journal that specifically serves the field, it is encouraging that contributions are also being published in journals serving the cognate disciplines of sport management and, to a lesser extent, tourism studies. The JS&T has championed the cause for theoretically informed and critical empirical insights, which is increasingly being supported by contributions across a range of disciplinary and

multidisciplinary journals. McKay's (2013) studies of ANZAC battlefield tourism, which extend to the role of sport (i.e. surf lifesaving) in commemoration and reconciliation, illustrate this observation. The developments, for instance, of reflexive, self-critical, ethnographic, and embodied research approaches serving the field of study has become evident in recent years. This we see as evidence of a maturing and broadening of the field, which augurs well for the future. Growing evidence of qualitative empirical insights, particularly in the sports management journals, signals a broadening of empirical methodologies from quantitative to qualitative and mixed-methods approaches. The application of indigenous research methodologies in the field of sports management perhaps signals new and timely lines of inquiry that would well serve the sport tourism literature. These emerging methodologies and the looming global focus on sports events in South America provide reason for anticipation. It is the critical and broad scope of the body of research over this time period that will be of particular importance to the field.

References Alexandris, K., Kouthouris, C., Funk, D., and Chatzigianni, E. 2008. Examining the relationships between leisure constraints, involvement and attitudinal loyalty among greek recreational skiers. European Sport Management Quarterly, 8: 247–264. Allman, T.L., Mittelstaedt, R.D., Martin, B., and Goldenberg, A. 2009. Exploring the motivations of BASE jumpers: extreme sport enthusiasts. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14: 229–247. Andrews, D. 2006. Sports-Commerce-Culture: Essays on Sport in Late Capitalist America. New York: Peter Lang. Berger, I.E. and Greenspan, I. 2008. High (on) technology: producing tourist identities through technologized adventure. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 13: 89–114. Briedenhann, J. 2011. Economic and tourism expectations of the 2010 FIFA World Cup – a resident perspective. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 16: 5–32. Chalip, L. 2006. Towards social leverage of sport events. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11: 109–127. Chalip, L. and Costa, C.A. 2005. Sport event tourism and the destination brand: towards a general theory. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 8: 218–237. Chalip, L., Green, C., and Hill, B. 2003. Effects of sport media on destination image and intentions to visit. Journal of Sport Management, 17: 214–234. Chalip, L. and McGuirty, J. 2004. Bundling sport events with the host destination. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 9: 267–282. Collins, A., Jones, C., and Munday, M. 2009. Assessing the environmental impacts of mega

sporting events: two options? Tourism Management, 30: 828–837. Cornelissen, S. 2004. Sport mega-events in South Africa: processes, impacts and prospects. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Management, 1: 39–55. Cornelissen, S. and Solberg, E. 2007. Sport mobility and circuits of power: the dynamics of football migration in Africa and the 2010 World Cup. Politikon, 34: 295–314. Cubizolles, S. 2011. Marketing identity and place: the case of the Stellenbosch Kayamandi Economic Corridor Before the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 16: 33–53. Fairley, S. and Gammon, S. 2005. Something lived, something learned: nostalgia's expanding role in sport tourism. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 8: 182–197. Fourie, J. and Spronk, K. 2011. South African mega-sport events and their impact on tourism. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 16: 75–97. Fyfe, D.A. 2008. Birthplace of baseball or village of museums? The packaging of heritage tourism in Cooperstown, New York. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 13: 135–153. Gibson, H. 1998. Sport tourism: a critical analysis of research. Sport Management Review, 1: 45–76. Gibson, H.J. 2002. Sport tourism at a crossroad? Considerations for the future. In Sport Tourism: Principles and Practice, S. Gammon and J. Kurtsman (eds), pp. 111–122. Eastbourne: LSA. Gibson, H.J. 2005. Towards an understanding of why sport tourists do what they do. In Sport Tourism: Theory and Concepts, H.J. Gibson (ed.), pp. 66–85. London: Routledge. Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M.. 2006. An introduction to tourism and global environmental change. In Tourism and Global Environmental Change: Ecological, Social, Economic and Political Interrelationships, S. Gössling and C.M. Hall (eds), pp. 1–34. London: Routledge. Gratton, C., Shibli, S., and Coleman, R. 2005. The economics of sport tourism at major sports events. In Sport Tourism Destinations: Issues, Opportunities and Analysis, J.E.S. Higham (ed.), pp. 223–247. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. Harrison-Hill, T. and Chalip, L. 2005. Marketing sport tourism: creating synergy between sport and destination. Sport in Society, 8: 302–320. Higham, J.E.S. and Hinch, T. 2009. Sport and Tourism: Globalization, Mobility and Identity. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heineman. Hinch, T. and de la Barre, S. 2007. Sport events as tourist attractions in Canada's northern periphery. In Tourism in High Latitude Peripheries: Space, Place, and Environment, B. Jansson and D.K. Müller (eds), pp. 190–202. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Hinch, T. and Higham, J.E.S. 2011. Sport Tourism Development, 2nd edn. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Hudson, S., Hinch, T., Walker, G., and Simpson, B. 2010. Constraints to sport tourism: a crosscultural analysis. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15: 71–88. Hudson, S. and Hudson, L. 2009. Golf Tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishing. Jago, L.K. 2005. The Impacts of Events: Triple Bottom Line Event Evaluation. Paper to the 3rd International Event Management Conference of the Australian Centre for Event Management, Sydney. Jones, I. and Green, C.B. 2005. Serious leisure, social identity and sport tourism in sport. Sport in Society, 8: 164–181. Kane, M.J. 2010. Adventure as a cultural foundation: sport and tourism in New Zealand. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15: 27–44. Lepp, A. and Gibson, H. 2011. Reimaging a nation: South Africa and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 16: 211–230. Mansfield, L. 2007. Involved-detachment: a balance of passion and reason in feminisms and gender-related research in sport, tourism and sports tourism. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12: 115–141. McCartney, G. and Osti, L. 2007. From cultural events to sport events: a case study of cultural authenticity in the dragon boat races. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12: 25–40. McKay, J. 2013. A critique of the militarization of Australian history and culture thesis: the case of Anzac battlefield tourism. Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 10(1): 2–25. Misener, L. and Mason, D.S. 2009. Fostering community development through sporting events strategies: an examination of urban regime perceptions. Journal of Sport Management, 23: 770–794. Nogawa, H., Yamaguchi, Y., and Hagi, Y. 1996. An empirical research study on Japanese sport tourism in sport-for-all events: case studies of a single-night event and a multiple-night event. Journal of Travel Research, 35(2): 46–54. North American Society for Sport Management 2013. Journal of Sport Management, www.nassm.com/InfoAbout/JSM. O'Brien, D. 2007. Points of leverage: maximizing host community benefit from a regional surfing festival. European Sport Management Quarterly, 7: 141–165. Otto, I. and Heath, E.T. 2009. The potential contribution of the 2010 Soccer World Cup to climate change: an exploratory study among tourism industry stakeholders in the Tshwane

Metropole of South Africa. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14: 169–191. Pomfret, G. 2011. Package mountaineer tourists holidaying in The French Alps: an evaluation of key influences encouraging their participation. Tourism Management, 32: 501–510. Preuss, H. and Alfs, C. 2011. Signaling through the 2008 Beijing Olympics-using mega sport events to change the perception and image of the host. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11: 55–71. Ramshaw, G. 2010. Living heritage and the sports museum: athletes, legacy and the Olympic Hall of Fame and Museum, Canada Olympic Park. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15: 135–153. Ramshaw, G. and Gammon, S. 2005. More than just nostalgia? Exploring the heritage/sport tourism nexus. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 10: 229–241. Reis, A.C. and Higham, J.E.S. 2009. Recreation conflict and sport hunting: moving beyond goal interference towards social sustainability. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14: 83–107. Ryan, C. and Lockyer, T. 2002. Masters' games: the nature of competitors' involvement and requirements. Event Management, 7: 259–270. Sage Journals 2013. Journal of Travel Research, http://jtr.sagepub.com/. Shani, A., Wang, Y., Hutchinson, J., and Lai, F. 2010. Applying expenditure-based segmentation on special interest tourists: the case of golf travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 49: 337–350. Shipway, R. and Jones, I. 2008. The great suburban Everest: an ‘insiders’ perspective on experiences at the 2007 Flora London Marathon. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 13: 61–77. Smith, A. 2009. Theorising the relationship between major sport events and social sustainability. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14: 109–120. Snelgrove, R. and Wood, L. 2010. Attracting and leveraging visitors at a charity cycling event. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15: 269–285. Tassiopoulos, D. and Haydam, N. 2008. Golf tourists in South Africa: a demand-side study of a niche market in sports tourism. Tourism Management, 29: 870–882. Weed, M. (ed.) 2008. Sport and Tourism: A Reader. London: Routledge. Weed, M. 2009. Progress in sports tourism research? A meta-review and exploration of futures. Tourism Management, 30: 615–628. Weed, M. and Bull, C. 2004. Sports Tourism: Participants, Policy and Providers. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Weighill, A.J. 2009. Women Who Play While They Are Away: Exploring the Assumptions of Sport Tourism. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Zhou, Y. and Ap, J. 2009. Residents' perceptions towards the impacts of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. Journal of Travel Research, 48: 78–91. Ziakas, V. and Costa, C.A. 2010. Between theatre and sport' in a rural event: evolving unity and community development from the inside-out. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15: 7–26.

Chapter 34 Medical Tourism Meghann Ormond Concerns for physical, mental, and spiritual wellbeing have long tied travel and tourism practices (e.g. pilgrimage, escape from urban life and alienation, and discovery of “the self”) to therapeutic landscapes (e.g. temples, colonial hill stations, spas, coastal and mountain resorts, and specialized clinics). Contemporary health and medical tourism build upon this history (Connell, 2011). Greater physical, cultural, and economic connectivity enables consumers encountering domestic barriers to their demands and needs to pursue overseas alternatives, whether biomedical treatments (medical tourism; e.g. surgeries, drug and radiation therapies; Lunt and Carrera, 2011) or holistic therapies when biomedicine has been perceived to fail or be inappropriate (health tourism; e.g. spa treatments, yoga, Eastern medicines like Ayurveda, and traditional Chinese medicine; Smith and Puckzó, 2008). This chapter focuses specifically on medical tourism and its production through the combination of, on the one hand, shifts in concentrations of accessible medical expertise and technologies around the world and, on the other, increased medicalization, care commodification, and perception of our bodies as property to be controlled, invested in, and improved (Bell et al., 2011; Mazzaschi, 2011). In so doing, it considers some of the impacts of medical tourism on the diverse places and people involved. The volume of people receiving medical care abroad and of public- and private-sector responses to them is quickly growing. However, quantifying the phenomenon has proven challenging. Even the most reliable sources to date produce disparate figures. The Deloitte Center for Health Solutions (2008: 7), for example, defining “medical tourism” broadly as “the act of traveling to another country to seek specialized or economical medical care, wellbeing and recuperation of acceptable quality with the help of a support system,” found that roughly 750 000 Americans alone traveled abroad for medical care in 2007. Meanwhile, McKinsey & Company, defining “medical travelers” as nonresident foreigners who enter a country specifically for treatment, generated highly conservative estimates of only 60 000–85 000 patient-consumers globally (Ehrbeck et al., 2008: 2). At the same time, countries promoted as medical tourism destinations make claims to several hundreds of thousands of foreign patientconsumers each year (e.g. 450 000 in India and 1.4 million in Thailand in 2007; Whittaker, 2008), frequently combining people traveling abroad temporarily expressly for medical care with tourists that fall ill or hurt themselves while traveling and a spectrum of resident nonnationals such that it is “unclear whether their numbers are accurate or just another marketing device to generate ‘buzz’ ” (Turner, 2007: 307). While definitional clarity may be valuable for quantifying medical travel, these blurry recording practices point to the complexity of this phenomenon and the necessity to unpack it. How medical travel is conceptualized and acted upon by different stakeholders depends on the socioeconomic, cultural, political, and legal categories into which people traveling abroad for medical care (do not) fit within the contexts both generating [e.g. as the un(der)insured, (non)citizens, people with (un)recognized

conditions, etc.] and receiving them (e.g. as tourists, cross-border shoppers, retirement migrants, economic migrants, refugees). Traveling abroad for medical care is hardly novel. Migration scholars and medical anthropologists have highlighted the diverse experiences of immigrants returning to their countries of origin for medical care, at times combined with visiting friends and relatives or entailing a quick cross-border trip (Lee et al., 2010; Horton and Cole, 2011), as well as the experiences of people from lower-income countries pursuing care inaccessible back home that is available in higher-income countries (Kangas, 2007; Lautier, 2008). The term “medical tourism,” however, has come to denote not the broad pursuit of private care across borders by any person but rather more specifically the care pursuits by those from the Global North in the Global South (e.g. Americans going to India for heart surgery or Britons going to Thailand for cosmetic surgery). This is indicative of a perceived significant reversal of global care flows and expertise. As a consequence of the significant North/South disparities, studies of medical tourism have tended to focus on a “home”/“abroad” dualism: the push and pull factors that influence patient-consumers' motivations and decision making; the risks associated with patient-consumers staying at home, going abroad, and returning home for follow-up care; and the advantages and disadvantages that both the generating and receiving contexts may experience as a result of this type of travel practice (Crooks et al., 2010; Hopkins et al., 2010). Below I outline issues facing both contexts as well as the lesser-explored space of what lies in between and the methodological challenges that face researchers studying this transnational phenomenon. The picture that these pieces, together, reveal is that of an “on-going redistribution of care across places and spaces” (Raghuram et al., 2009: 6) that has accompanied economic globalization and attendant neoliberal reform to domestic healthcare and social welfare provision in both generating and receiving contexts where health seekers and medical professionals alike are beginning to see themselves increasingly as participants not only within national health systems but also in a global market (Ormond and Sothern, 2012).

Generating Contexts Depending on patient-consumers' origins, if prohibitive health-care costs and inadequate insurance coverage keep essential and elective care and treatments financially out of reach and long waiting lists delay access to procedures, then traveling abroad may avail them with comparatively more affordable medical care. Medical travel pursued while protected by a broader social safety net contrasts significantly with less-protected pursuits. Due to European Union (EU) directives working to secure greater regional solidarity, for example, EU citizens faced with untenable waiting times for procedures are increasingly covered by their public or private insurers when pursuing them in another EU country (Legido-Quigley et al., 2012). By contrast, in countries like the USA, where health care and coverage are expensive and insurance is noncompulsory, people may opt to pay out of pocket for more economical treatment and pharmaceuticals abroad (Horton and Cole, 2011). Medical travel furthermore grants people access to treatments and procedures not accessible in

their home health-care systems for reasons such as the following: a lack of expertise and equipment (Kangas, 2007); limited supply and/or restrictions on qualification for treatments and procedures [e.g. organ transplantations (Yea, 2010) and fertility treatments (Whittaker, 2010)]; a procedure's experimental status [e.g. cutting-edge surgeries, stem cell therapies (Song, 2010)]; and the moral polemics certain procedures may provoke [e.g. gender reassignment, in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures for single women, pre-implantation sex selection of embryos for IVF, commercial surrogacy, abortion, euthanasia, etc. (Pennings, 2002; Connell, 2011)]. Whether dissatisfied with the limitations of biomedical interventions and prognoses or denied access to them due to cost, availability, or restrictive regulation, a growing number of people travel abroad as hopeful “pilgrims” desperate for improvement and solutions. Inhorn and Patrizio (2009), among many others, therefore argue that such pursuits should not be referred to as “tourism,” given the term's associations with freedom, leisure, and frivolity, but rather with “exile” to reflect the serious challenges and failures encountered in home health-care systems that “force” people to look abroad for alternatives. Traveling patient-consumers themselves have been found to strongly reject the “tourist” label (Song, 2010). Rather, traveling abroad for medical care can be seen as a form of “buycotting” (Ormond and Sothern, 2012). With the growing marketization of health and care, however, not only individual patientconsumers are looking abroad for alternatives and solutions: many governments, employers, and insurers are also beginning to explore how to more effectively use medical travel as a means with which to reduce financial health-care burdens back at home. Singapore, for example, has recently permitted its residents to use their health coverage to pursue inpatient medical treatment in select Malaysian hospitals (Ormond, 2013). In the USA, various public and private bodies are considering the possibilities of sending lower-income and un(der)insured Americans to India for routine surgical procedures. This push has provoked significant concern among both those defending citizens' and workers' diminishing health-care entitlements and the domestic medical establishment concerned with challenges to ensuring high-quality continuity of care. Home health-care providers, concerned with medical liability, are particularly wary of encouraging people to travel abroad for medical care and then undertaking follow-up care once patient-consumers return home because of the often significant variation in medical standards, regulations, and practices (Crooks et al., 2010; Miyagi et al., 2012). Following the outbreak of the fatal health-care-acquired infection meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in UK hospitals after a British medical tourist returned from India, medical tourists are also increasingly seen as potential biosecurity threats to their home countries and medical facilities (Hall and James, 2011).

Receiving Contexts Because they tend to stay longer for “restoration,” pay into sectors beyond those associated

with conventional tourism (e.g. health care), travel with companions who use tourism infrastructure, are thought to make use of higher-quality accommodation and more comfortable transport, and also have a tendency to be repeat visitors, medical tourists are valued for having higher spending potential and greater economic reach than conventional tourists. Medical tourism, therefore, has been hailed as an engine for economic growth and development (Bookman and Bookman, 2007). Correspondingly, a host of lower- and middle-income countries has been aggressively promoted as – and in several cases become significant – international medical tourism destinations over the last two decades (e.g. Costa Rica, Cuba, India, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, and Thailand). These destinations boast attractive treatment costs and accessibility made possible as a result of destinations' national regulations fostering lower labor costs, ceilings on doctors' fees, reduced medical liability, direct access to specialists, and government-subsidized pharmaceuticals; alongside more personalized, highquality medical, and convalescent care not accessible to patients in their home country. Privileges increasingly extended to this desirable mobile population include long-stay “medical tourism” visas, streamlined treatment during immigration and customs border procedures, and facilitated payment/credit facilities so as to generate smoother cross-border movement and greater profit (Chinai and Goswami, 2007). Countries seeking to attract medical tourists engage in both resource extraction and development. Resource extraction includes not only the physical usage of local peoples' bodies for low-cost clinical and pharmaceutical trials, surrogacy, and organ harvesting for transplantation (Whittaker, 2010; Yea, 2010; Yeoh et al., 2012). It applies to the reconcentration of skilled human resources through the rural to urban and public- to privatesector brain drain of medical professionals, although medical tourism is often praised as a way in which to stem international brain drain by retaining health workers who would otherwise migrate (Connell, 2011). It also may entail the deviation of states' waning financial resources for their citizens' health care to support the development of medical tourism via; for example, subsidies and tax breaks for private hospital construction and renovation, equipment acquisition, and international accreditation. Medical tourism, therefore, despite industry- and government-based rhetoric about “trickle-down” benefits to local people, instead has the potential to aggravate already ongoing privatization processes that challenge health-care access and affordability for local people and make contrasts within already multiply tiered systems more pronounced (Chee, 2008; Ormond, 2011; Smith, 2012). Buzinde and Yarnal (2012: 785) see in this a form of neocolonial exploitation of peripheral places and peoples “to better the human security of the dominant core.” Resource development, on the other hand, involves making hospital, clinic, hotel, and resort facilities and staff in medical tourism destinations more like those in high-income countries via a range of “internationalizing” standardization methods focused on quality and safety. With medical tourists making less use of conventional tourism offerings and, instead, fuller use of destinations' hospitals and clinics, they come into contact with a broader range of local people and facilities than they would otherwise, as conventional tourists are frequently more limited to engagement with “frontline” hospitality in sites catering to tourists (Ye et al., 2012). This interaction with local medical and hospital service staff has inspired the redevelopment of

biomedical spaces as sites of consumer-centered hospitality (Azadi et al., 2012). Hospitals are working with hotels and resorts to create environments suited for high-quality postoperative convalescence. Hume and Demicco (2007), for example, describe the ambitions of a large unnamed Jamaican luxury resort to partner with the MoBay Hope Medical Centre. Hospitals are also being transformed into “hospitels,” developing special centers and departments devoted to international patient concerns (Mainil et al., 2012), inpatient suites that allow family members and accompanying caregivers to stay with patient-consumers, and special menus attuned to international palates. At the same time, however, the tendency among industry and government actors to focus on and cater to medical tourists from high-income countries with higher per-capita spending often has overshadowed the more everyday cross-border and intra-regional health-motivated movements between low- and middle-income countries within the Global South that constitute the bulk of medical travel and have different needs to accommodate (Ormond, 2011). This focus on the higher per-capita spenders has led to concern with ensuring the “international” quality of medical and customer care provided through the standardization, regulation, and accreditation of both medical staff and facilities (e.g. Joint Commission International accreditation) and their promotion in the marketplace. With facilities promoted as medical tourism destinations being concentrated in lower- and middle-income countries, much energy has been dedicated to demonstrating these sites' “world-class” medical legitimacy and distancing themselves from “prescientific” practices. Correspondingly, and although many destinations are jumping on board with current wellness trends in the tourism and hospitality industries (Chambers and McIntosh, 2008), the commonplaceness of complementary and traditional medicines both in patient-consumers' places of origin and in these destinations has been relatively eclipsed in favor of the biomedical. Holliday et al. (2013) and others argue that these standardizing practices turn medical tourism destinations into what Marc Augé calls “non-places,” where doctors' skills and specialty knowledge and top-of-the-line medical technology become the “core attractions” (Michalkó et al., 2012: 34) and the actual location, as long as it is physically and financially accessible and comfortable, is less relevant. Yet, while working hard to conform to “world-class” biomedical standards, medical tourism destinations also make an effort to distance themselves from the dysfunctional qualities of health-care systems in both medical tourists' home countries and the facilities' own backyards (Ormond and Sothern, 2012). This is often achieved through the promise of more attentive and personalized care than what is currently deemed to be available “back at home,” a promise imbued with self-Orientalizing representations of destinations' culturally determined competence in caregiving (e.g. “naturally nurturing Filipinos;” Ormond, 2013: 45) that Buzinde and Yarnal (2012: 786), drawing from the work of postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak, describe as “strategic essentialism.” Medical tourism destinations around the world are far from uniform, however. As the number of destinations grows, so too does the emergence of different development models. While, in places like Malaysia, the growth of private hospitals is geared to harnessing foreign and local middle-class patient-consumers alike, elsewhere policy-makers and investors – seeing medical tourism as a spectacular opportunity for outsourcing and offshoring – are intent on

developing low-cost, high-volume medical enclaves meant solely for foreign patientconsumers. In the Caribbean, a region already well-acquainted with enclave tourism, dotted with numerous exclusive gated resorts and thickly crisscrossed by cruise ship routes, for example, Indian surgeon and founder of Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospitals of India, Dr Devi Shetty, plans to open a high-volume 2000-bed “health-care city” in the Cayman Islands with the support of American health provider Ascension Health Alliance, targeting American patientconsumers and employing staff expressly brought over from India as part of his plan to “Walmartize” health care (Doyle, 2012). While some benefits may reach local people in the first type of medical tourism development model exemplified by Malaysia, benefits for locals (e.g. improved access to health care, employment, etc.) are nearly – if not entirely – absent in the second example. Sustainable destination management strategies for medical tourism are sorely lacking. However, the EU may provide instructive examples of how competition, coordination, and cooperation can work together. Dentistry, for instance, which commonly receives less coverage in national and private insurance schemes, is a growing cross-border pursuit and practice within parts of the EU. Flexible Austrian insurance reimbursement clauses embrace the notion of a single EU market, and Austrian dentists are establishing practices alongside their Hungarian counterparts on the Hungarian side of the shared border to offer Austrian “cross-border shoppers” high-quality, low-cost dental care (Michalkó et al., 2012). At the moment, however, we have a weak grasp of the lived realities of these varied development models since the perspectives of health-care and hospitality workers and local residents involved in and affected by them are severely underexplored.

The Space in Between As noted above, research has tended to focus on the contexts both generating medical travelers and receiving them. Little work has so far explored the space between them and the numerous peoples and places involved in facilitating patient-consumers' cross-border movements. For instance, large international airlines are increasingly establishing partnerships with hospitals and clinics by offering medical tourism packages for preventive screenings and smaller lowcost airlines, willing to accommodate patient-consumers on stretchers, are opening new routes due to high medical travel demand in Southeast Asia. Yet scholars have so far been silent regarding the experiences of patient-consumers with pre-existing ill-health and/or impairments in transit, the sorts of materials that travel with them (e.g. medical records, equipment, pharmaceuticals, etc.) and the formal and informal care provided by those involved in transporting them. Furthermore, with people turning increasingly to the Internet for health and health-care information, for instance, the web has been pivotal in the development of the medical tourism industry (Lunt and Carrera, 2011). Johnston et al. (2012: 5) note that “the possibility of accessing care abroad usually emerge[s] as an extension of researching treatments or trying to find alternative means of accessing” treatments not easily available domestically. Numerous web-based platforms run by public- and private-sector intermediaries (e.g. SingaporeMedicine and MedRetreat) and hospitals/clinics (e.g. Bumrungrad International

Hospital) link up prospective patient-consumers directly with providers in medical tourism destinations. These platforms are complemented by for-profit medical tourism facilitators in both generating and receiving contexts whose work combines patient advocacy, linguistic interpretation, and travel agency and concierge services (Snyder et al., 2011; Ormond, 2013). While still little is known about how patient-consumers use facilitators and promotional materials like brochures, guidebooks, and websites in their decision making, several studies suggest that word-of-mouth promotion by friends and family of specific doctors, hospitals, and destinations is particularly salient (Kangas, 2007; Yeoh et al., 2012). The broader role of family and friends in patient-consumers' decision making and informal caregiving before, during, and after the procedure, however, remains largely unexamined.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Researchers studying medical tourism encounter ethical and logistical challenges to identifying and accessing patient-consumers who travel abroad for care due to their status in institutional research ethics processes as vulnerable subjects (patients) and the privacy that (“gatekeeper” providers assume their) patient-consumers may wish to protect [e.g. see Musa et al. (2012) on challenges to measuring patient-consumers' medical travel motivations and satisfaction with care during convalescence abroad]. Likewise, public- and private-sector stakeholders, concerned with market competition and the delicate nature of promoting private health care in the predominantly lower- and middle-income countries in which medical tourism destinations are located, are themselves also frequently guarded and unwilling to participate in research (Ormond, 2013). These ethical and logistical obstacles have contributed to diverting researchers' attention to more accessible sites and materials [e.g. policy documents, newspaper coverage (Mainil et al., 2011), promotional virtual platforms and print media (Crooks et al., 2011; Lunt and Carrera, 2011), and medical travel narratives and guidebooks (Kingsbury et al., 2012; Ormond and Sothern, 2012]. However, medical travelers' experiences and motivations and care providers' and intermediaries' perspectives are being documented by a growing number of ethnographic and interview-based studies and survey-based work. Indeed, scholarly insight into medical tourism is populated with studies representing a wide range of perspectives and concerns (e.g. health policy, health economics, law, biomedical ethics, development studies, hospital and tourism management, medical anthropology and sociology, and health geography). These, in turn, speak to diverse audiences (e.g. health-care and travel industries, policy-makers in generating and receiving contexts, civil society, academia). Western scholars' critical qualitative framings of the diverse voices and experiences of medical travelers featured throughout this entry, for example, contrast with a number of industry-oriented quantitative studies measuring and modeling patient-consumer flows and motivations in order to improve destinations' offerings (e.g. Helmy and Travers, 2009; Lee et al., 2012). Still largely absent are critical contributions by scholars hailing from places being promoted as medical tourism destinations (but see, e.g., Chee, 2008; Sengupta, 2011). So, why should tourism scholars be interested in medical tourism? The practices,

development, and study of this phenomenon brings novel insight to important ongoing debates in contemporary tourism studies on embodiment, tourism's relationship to other kinds of mobilities, and the exploitation of structural inequalities in North/South tourism relationship. First, the use of medical tourism to cultivate an improved body, inside and/or out, speaks to the well-established work on bodily experience and representations relative to space and identity in tourism (Veijola and Jokinen, 1994; Jordan, 2007). Medical tourism encourages us to pay attention to the ways in which tourism and travel services and infrastructure are (not) responding adequately to growing diversity of travelers with bodily impairments and ill-health (Darcy, 2012). Second, due to the seriousness of the issues that drive people to pursue medical care abroad, this phenomenon contributes to furthering debates on the blurry relationship between tourism and other more politicized categories of transnational mobility (e.g. economic migration, lifestyle migration) (Williams and Hall, 2000; Germann Molz and Gibson, 2007). Finally, because it encompasses “a range of new relations between capital and labor, bodies and the state, belonging and extraterritoriality, transformations in political governance, and realignments of medical citizenship and the meanings of public health” (Whittaker, 2008: 273), medical tourism offers up rich empirical and conceptual material for critical tourism scholars concerned with how power and privilege are being worked out in evolving guest/host relations.

References Azadi, F., Maleki, M.R., Tabibi, S.J., and Azmal, M. 2012. A medical tourist perception of Iranian hospital quality: limited employee foreign language skills negatively impact communication. International Journal of Hospital Research, 1(2): 85–90. Bell, D., Holliday, R., Jones, M., Probyn, E., and Sanchez-Taylor, J. 2011. Bikinis and bandages: an itinerary for cosmetic surgery tourism. Tourist Studies, 11: 139–155. Bookman, M.Z. and Bookman, K.R. 2007. Medical Tourism in Developing Countries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Buzinde, C.N. and Yarnal, C. 2012. Therapeutic landscapes and postcolonial theory: a theoretical approach to medical tourism. Social Science and Medicine, 74: 783–787. Chambers, D. and McIntosh, B. 2008. Using authenticity to achieve competitive advantage in medical tourism in the English-speaking Caribbean. Third World Quarterly, 29: 919–937. Chee, H.L. 2008. Ownership, control and contention: challenges for the future of healthcare in Malaysia. Social Science and Medicine, 66: 2145–2156. Chinai, R. and Goswami, R. 2007. Medical visas mark growth of Indian medical tourism. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(3): 164–165. Connell, J. 2011. Medical Tourism. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Crooks, Valorie A., Kingsbury, P., Snyder, J., and Johnston, R. 2010. What is known about the patient's experience of medical tourism? A scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 10: 266. Crooks, Valorie A., Turner, L., Snyder, J., Johnston, R., and Kingsbury, P. 2011. Promoting medical tourism to India: messages, images, and the marketing of international patient travel. Social Science and Medicine, 72: 726–732. Darcy, S. 2012. (Dis)embodied air travel experiences: disability, discrimination and the affect of a discontinuous air travel chain. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19: 1– 11. Deloitte Center for Health Solutions 2008. Medical Tourism: Consumers in Search of Value. www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomunitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_chs_MedicalTourismStudy(3).pdf. Doyle, J. 2012. Ascension Health plans $2 billion Cayman “health city” project. St Louis Today, April 24. www.stltoday.com/business/local/ascension-health-plans-billion-caymanhealth-city-project/article_cbe07d56-8d91-11e1-85c9-001a4bcf6878.html.

Ehrbeck, T., Guevara, C., and Mango, P.D. 2008. Mapping the market for medical travel. The McKinsey Quarterly, May. www.medretreat.com/templates/UserFiles/Documents/McKinsey%20Report%20Medical%20Travel. Germann Molz, J. and Gibson, S. (eds) 2007. Mobilizing Hospitality: The Ethics of Social Relations in a Mobile World. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hall, C.M. and James, M. 2011. Medical tourism: emerging biosecurity and nosocomial issues. Tourism Review, 66(1/2): 118–126. Helmy, E.M. and Travers, R. 2009. Towards the development of Egyptian medical tourism sector. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(2): 419– 439. Holliday, R., Hardy, K., Bell, D., Hunter, E., Jones, M., Probyn, E., and Sanchez-Taylor, J. 2013. Beauty and the beach. In Medical Tourism and Transnational Health Care, D. Botterill, G. Pennings, and T. Mainil (eds), pp. 83–97. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hopkins, L., Labonté, R., Runnels, V., and Packer, C. 2010. Medical tourism today: what is the state of existing knowledge? Journal of Public Health Policy, 31: 185–198. Horton, S. and Cole, S. 2011. Medical returns: seeking health care in Mexico. Social Science and Medicine, 72: 1846–1852. Hume, L.F. and Demicco, F.J. 2007. Bringing hotels to healthcare. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 8: 75–84. Inhorn, M.C. and Patrizio, P. 2009. Rethinking reproductive ‘tourism’ as reproductive ‘exile’.

Fertility and Sterility, 92: 904–906. Johnston, R., Crooks, V.A., and Snyder, J. 2012. ‘I didn't even know what I was looking for’: a qualitative study of the decision-making processes of Canadian medical tourists. Globalization and Health, 8(23): 1–12. Jordan, F. 2007. Life's a beach and then we diet: discourses of tourism and the ‘beach body’ in UK women's lifestyle magazines. In Tourism and Gender: Embodiment, Sensuality and Experience, A. Pritchard, N. Morgan, I. Ateljevic, and C. Harris (eds), pp. 92–106. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Kangas, B. 2007. Hope from abroad in the international medical travel of Yemeni patients. Anthropology and Medicine, 14: 293–305. Kingsbury, P., Crooks, V.A., Snyder, J., Johnston, R., and Adams, K. 2012. Narratives of emotion and anxiety in medical tourism: on State of the Heart and Larry's Kidney. Social and Cultural Geography, 13: 361–378. Lautier, M. 2008. Export of health services from developing countries: the case of Tunisia. Social Science and Medicine, 67: 101–110. Lee, J.Y.J., Kearns, R.A., and Friesen, W. 2010. Seeking affective health care: Korean immigrants' use of homeland medical services. Health and Place, 16: 108–115. Lee, M., Han, H., and Lockyer, T. 2012. Medical tourism – attracting Japanese tourists for medical tourism experience. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 29: 69–86. Legido-Quigley, H., Glinos, I.A., Baeten, R., McKee, M., and Busse, R. 2012. Analysing arrangements for cross-border mobility of patients in the European Union: a proposal for a framework. Health Policy, 108(1): 27–36. Lunt, N. and Carrera, P. 2011. Systematic review of websites for prospective medical tourists. Tourist Review, 66: 57–67. Mainil, T., Platenkamp, V., and Meulemans, H. 2011. The discourse of medical tourism in the media. Tourism Review, 66: 31–44. Mainil, T., Platenkamp, V., Dinnie, K., Botterill, D., Van Loon, F., and Meulemans, H. 2012. Framing and measuring international patient management. Advanced Health Care Management, 13: 145–159. Mazzaschi, A. 2011. Surgeon and safari: producing valuable bodies in Johannesburg. Signs, 36(2): 303–312. Michalkó, G., Rátz, T., and Hinek, M. 2012. Spatial differences in Hungarian medical tourism supply based on service providers' online presence. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 61(1): 31–47.

Miyagi, K., Auberson, D., Patel, A.J., and Malata, C.M. 2012. The unwritten price of cosmetic tourism: an observational study and cost analysis. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 65(1): 22–28. Musa, G., Doshi, D.R., Wong, K.M., and Thirumoorthy, T. 2012. How satisfied are inbound medical tourists in Malaysia? A study on private hospitals in Kuala Lumpur. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 29: 629–646. Ormond, M. 2011. Medical tourism, medical exile: responding to the cross-border pursuit of healthcare in Malaysia. In Real Tourism: Practice, Care and Politics in Contemporary Travel, C. Minca and T. Oakes (eds), pp. 143–161. London: Routledge. Ormond, M. 2013. Neoliberal Governance and International Medical Travel in Malaysia. London: Routledge. Ormond, M. and Sothern, M. 2012. You, too, can be an international medical traveler: Reading medical travel guidebooks. Health and Place, 18: 935–941. Pennings, G. 2002. Reproductive tourism as moral pluralism in motion. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(6): 337–341. Raghuram, P., Madge, C., and Noxolo, P. 2009. Rethinking responsibility and care for a postcolonial world. Geoforum, 40: 5–13. Sengupta, A. 2011. Medical tourism: reverse subsidy for the elite. Signs, 36(2): 312–319. Smith, K. 2012. The problemization of medical tourism: a critique of neoliberalism. Developing World Bioethics, 12(1): 1–8. Smith, M. and Laszlo Puckzó (eds) 2008. Health and Wellness Tourism. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Snyder, J., Crooks, V.A., Adams, K., Kingsbury, P., and Johnston, R. 2011. The ‘patient's physician one-step removed’: the evolving roles of medical tourism facilitators. Journal of Medical Ethics, 1(37): 530–534. Song, P. 2010. Biotech pilgrims and the transnational quest for stem cell cures. Medical Anthropology, 29(4): 384–402. Turner, L. 2007. ‘First world health care at third world prices’: globalization, bioethics and medical tourism. BioSocieties, 2: 303–325. Veijola, S. and Jokinen, E. 1994. The body in tourism. Theory, Culture and Society, 11: 125– 151. Whittaker, A. 2008. Pleasure and pain: medical travel in Asia. Global Public Health, 3(3): 271–290.

Whittaker, A. 2010. Challenges of medical travel to global regulation: a case study of reproductive travel in Asia. Global Social Policy, 10: 396–415. Williams, A. and Hall, C.M. 2000. Tourism and migration: new relationships between production and consumption. Tourism Geographies, 2: 5–27. Ye, B., Qiu, H.Z., and Yuen, P. 2012. Perceived discrimination in the context of high and low interactions – evidence from medical and general tourists. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17: 635–655. Yea, S. 2010. Trafficking in part(s): the commercial kidney market in a Manila slum, Philippines. Global Social Policy, 10: 358–376. Yeoh, E., Othman, K., and Ahmad, H. 2012. Understanding medical tourists: word-of-mouth and viral marketing as potent marketing tools. Tourism Management, 34: 196–201.

Chapter 35 Gay and Lesbian Tourism Practices Gustav Visser In many contexts, tourism forms part of an individual's construction of themselves (Hughes, 2006). With elevated levels of income, leisure time, and mobility since the mid-twentieth century, there has been explosive growth in the international tourism system (Telfer and Sharpley, 2008). Owing to the sheer size of the economic impact tourism holds, destination regions across the globe are in fierce competition for market share. Increasingly, destinations have development strategies aimed at specific tourist market segments in the hope of attracting more or higher spending tourists. One such market segment is gay and lesbian tourism (Hughes, 2006; Waitt and Markwell, 2006; Guaracino, 2007). There has been a proliferation of media publications and reports on the economic opportunities of targeting the so-called pink dollar/pound or blue pound (which is used specifically with reference to lesbians) in a myriad of businesses for at least the past two decades. Some reports estimate the size of the gay and lesbian tourism and leisure market at $760 billion in the USA alone (Wisconsin Gazette, 2012), and £6 billion in the UK. A range of tourism and leisure providers such as American Airlines and Delta and hotel groups such Hilton have subsequently run targeted campaigns to access this market. However, many of these claims are not really verifiable as it is extremely difficult to differentiate between straight and gay or lesbian tourists, and leisure seekers. The aim of this chapter is to examine key themes in gay and lesbian tourism practices. It is a form of tourism that has moved from being invisible and almost unthinkable in mainstream tourism studies to currently receiving considerable industry attention, although the academic record remains rather limited. The initial lack of interest in gay and lesbian tourism practices can be seen as two-fold. Waitt and Markwell (2006: xiii) argue that these omissions reflect the historical institutionalization of homophobia. Prejudice maintained a silence among potential authors and publishers for fear of legal and social ostracism. They go on to suggest that prejudice also maintained “closeted destinations,” publicly known yet hidden places that assured to those same-sex-attracted people who could afford to travel a level of invisibility, secrecy, and anonymity. Subsequently, the past three decades have seen a “coming out” of both gay and lesbian travelers, as well as destinations, resulting in a multibillion dollar tourism system (Guaracino, 2007). Moreover, questions regarding the relationship between sexuality, space, and tourism are no longer considered taboo in academia (Waitt and Markwell, 2006). This chapter provides some insights into gay and lesbian tourism. It explores why there would be a need for a gay and lesbian tourism market, then who gay and lesbian tourists are. Thereafter, gay and lesbian destination choices are examined. The final section provides some critical responses to the current body of gay and lesbian tourism knowledge and new directions for future research.

Why Do We have Gay and Lesbian Tourists? Homosexuality, like gender and sexuality, is a social construct. In simplistic terms, homosexuality refers to individuals who have sexual desire for, or sexual activity with, persons of the same biological sex (Hughes, 2006: 15). However, such individuals may not necessarily think of themselves or identify as homosexual (Luongo, 2007; Tamale, 2011). Sexuality is also an aspect of a homosexual person's identity, and such an identity will be different between different persons, over different spaces, and throughout time. The point is that one must not think of sexuality descriptors such as gay/lesbian/straight in monolithic terms, as ultimately sexual identities are fluid in what they mean and how they are performed. In the developed world, the role of gay and lesbian leisure and its linkages to tourism has increasingly drawn attention (Waitt and Markwell, 2006). Until recently, however, little academic discussion or research has focused on gay and lesbian tourism. Pioneering contributions came from work concerning travel and sexual behavior among gay men (Clift & Wilkins, 1995; Clift and Forrest, 1999), as well as investigations into the geographical distribution of gay tourist destinations in the USA (Holcomb and Luongo, 1996). In addition, studies by Hughes (1997, 1998) on holidays and homosexual identity and the organization of gay tourist space in Amsterdam, as well as Pritchard et al. (1998a, 1998b) on the tourism industry's relationship with the “gay market,” have contributed towards the development of a gay (but less so lesbian) tourism discourse. More recently a number of book-length investigations have augmented gay and lesbian tourism scholarship. Contributions by Guaracino (2007), Hughes (2006), as well as Waitt and Markwell (2006) have synthesized and expanded our knowledge of the gay and lesbian tourism markets and, in part, this chapter aims to highlight some of the key points these authors have made. Despite growing interest in gay and lesbian tourism and leisure, the existing body of research is primarily focused on North America and parts of Europe, while basic questions of what the “gay landscapes” of developing countries are remain largely unexplored. It is argued that gay men and women use space to adopt separate identities, identities often adopted away from the home and workplace, encouraging the consumption of leisure space (Hughes, 1998). Hughes (1997, 1998) suggests that urban areas in particular facilitate the assumption of a gay self in many ways, not least through the number and concentration of gay leisure places available. Binnie (1997) has argued that such leisure-related freedom is widely embraced as a validation of gay and lesbian identities, if only as a reaction to a more general powerlessness. Nevertheless, the use of space may have the effect of transforming that space so that it becomes coded as gay (Knopp, 1995). Tourism by gay men and lesbian travelers may be the ultimate manifestation of the use of space in order to separate identities (Hughes, 1998). Studies of gay and lesbian leisure spaces read the clustering of such activity as part of a homosexual challenge to the heterosexual coding of public space, empowering those who are currently excluded and disenfranchized (Binnie and Valentine, 1999; Hughes, 2006; Waitt and Markwell, 2006). Following Myslik, Pritchard et al. (1998a: 274) suggests:

these are places which enable not only the display of behaviour and affection but also access to a variety of gay services and facilities including shops, bars, housing, and legal and medical services …. Gay spaces, in essence, provide community and territory as well as a sense of order and power. They are sites of cultural resistance with enormous symbolic meaning, providing cultural and emotional support for a political movement comprised of an increasingly diverse and geographically scattered community. Jansen-Verbeke (1994) has argued that not only do gay leisure spaces tend to cluster but so too does tourism activity. Tourism in a city is related to a combination of its primary and secondary tourism elements. It was suggested that the activity place is composed of attractions that characterize most cities, such as museums and historic sites, whereas the leisure setting is the physical and sociocultural context within which the attractions are set: the overall spatial structure of the city and its ambience. The secondary elements in Jansen-Verbeke's view include shops, cafés, restaurants and bars, hotels and entertainment. Primary elements that are proximate to each other, as clusters, may have a greater appeal to the tourist than nonproximate elements. Several tourist clusters, spatially separate and with distinct features, may exist in a city to give it polycentricity (Hughes, 1998). The identification of clusters ultimately depends on tourist use. These elements are, however, usually consumed by both tourists and local residents. The overlapping use of gay/lesbian leisure clusters and primary, as well as secondary tourism elements, may also cause a city – in whole or in part – to be transformed both materially and symbolically for gays and lesbians (Hughes, 1998). However, this observation is not only of relevance to large urban centers, but some towns and rural areas.

Historical Notes on the Gay and Lesbian Tourism Segment The recognition of a gay tourist segment is relatively recent. However, investigators such as Aldrich (1993) and Morgan and Pritchard (2000) have demonstrated that there is evidence of homosexual men, living in northern Europe and Britain during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, traveling to Southern European countries for holidays. In terms of lesbian travel, it has to be acknowledged that the historical record on homosexual travel research is strongly biased towards gay men. For the wealthy, there were opportunities to escape the hostility towards male homosexuality that was endemic to conservative eighteenth century societies such the Netherlands, Germany, and Great Britain and explore Italy and Greece, for example, on extended visits. During the 1800s, Italy was the Mediterranean country that attracted the most European visitors, regardless of sexuality (Waitt and Markwell, 2006). Italy's cultural life was seen as emblematic of Western civilization, characterized by a wealth of art galleries, museums, and Greek and Roman ruins. It is reported that southern Italy in particular appealed to homosexual travelers (Waitt and Markwell, 2006). Moreover, homosexuality was not illegal in Italy, although still not something to be flaunted in public. Although homosexuality was decriminalized in 1791 in France, it did not have quite the same impact on homosexual travelers from northern Europe visiting France. On the other hand, perhaps France was just seen to be part of northern Europe. By the late 1800s, a number of places in southern Italy

developed reputations as incipient homosexual “resort” towns, including Capri in the Bay of Naples, Taormina and Palermo in Sicily, and Naples (Waitt and Markwell, 2006). Capri in particular had acquired an image as a “homosexual Eden” in part because of its climate, landscape, and apparently attractive youths (Aldrich, 1993). For homosexual tourists in the Mediterranean region, much of their socializing with each other centered on lunch and dinner parties at the homes of individual expatriates, in the villas that were rented by the tourists themselves, as well as in some cafés and restaurants. Informal friendship networks were the primary means of obtaining access to such events. Yet, at least in terms of the wealthier guests who holidayed at destinations such as Capri, they did not necessarily conduct their social lives entirely apart from the gaze of others. Waitt and Markwell (2006) note that while the homosexual group was only a small proportion of the tourists who visited Capri each year, by the early twentieth century they were among the most visible and most devoted of visitors and residents. Southern Italy was certainly not the only region gay men traveled to. There were also other places such as the North African countries of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and parts of the Arabic peninsula (Waitt and Markwell, 2006). Although it is difficult to imagine in the current context, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries North Africa and the Middle East were popular destinations for gay European male writers and artists seeking to visit “Oriental civilization” for sexual pleasure and erotic satisfaction. During the mid-nineteenth century the then French colony of Algeria became a popular cruising ground for affluent European homosexuals, joined by Morocco in the early twentieth century. Both Hughes (2006) and Waitt and Markwell (2006) show that its capital, Tangier, emerged as a site of sexual opportunities, enhanced because of its designated International Zone in the 1920s–1950s, which enabled a range of illicit activities to flourish, including sex work involving young men, drug trafficking, and money laundering. By the early 1950s it was claimed that Tangier was the world's foremost gay tourism destination with many affluent and celebrity American and European homosexuals making Tangier their home or visiting Tangier as tourists between the 1950s and 1980s. Since then, however, a growing conservatism, stemming partly from Islamic fundamentalist attitudes towards Western tourists generally and homosexuality and sex work in particular, has reconfigured Morocco from being a place of easily attained sexual adventure to a place of considerable risk and danger. Other places that also enjoyed popularity among gay travelers during this time were Bali and Rio de Janeiro (Hughes, 2006). Aldrich (1993) and Hughes (1997) note that at the time gay tourism provided gay men prospects to explore gay culture in a way that was not always possible in their usual places of residence and domestic lives. Some, it is said, awoke to their “deviant” desires only when they went abroad; others allowed themselves sexual license solely when they were overseas – still others settled in the South altogether. Going abroad was where many homosexuals “came out” and the desire to go abroad was linked with a homosexual self-realization (Hughes, 2006). The places that gay tourists have visited have not been stable: places can become favorites and then lose their appeal. Following World War I, for example, the locus of gay tourism changed. Ironically, cities that were once the places that gay tourists escaped from, such as Amsterdam

and Berlin, began to develop reputations as places where homosexual men could find an emerging gay subculture. During the 1930s other “new” spaces opened up to the gay tourist imagination, such San Francisco and New York (Boyd, 2011). The development of gay tourism as a deliberate market segment traces its origins to the 1960s (Boyd, 2011). During that time, a range of informal booklets were published listing different gay bars and clubs across the USA. These publications were compiled by gay men for gay men. In and of themselves, these were not intended as vehicles for gay or lesbian tourism per se, but rather a resource for gay men, informing them of gay venues in different places, initially in the USA, but later the globe. The nature of these publications grew in scope and sophistication, with the Spartacus International Gay Guide being the best-known and most comprehensive example. Coon (2012) notes that despite hesitation about reaching out to a socially marginalized group and questions surrounding the group's viability as a market segment, many companies eventually chose to target gays and lesbians as desirable consumers. However, the initial rush to appeal to this segment was based in large part on the perception that gays and lesbians are an especially affluent segment of the population. Hughes (2005: 57–58) notes that there has been a commonly held view that gay men, in particular, are frequent and intensive vacationers. He suggests that this is explained with reference to distinctive characteristics relating to income and leisure time and to distinctive values and attitudes. The travel patterns of gay men (very little is written on lesbian travel) are suggested to be unique and as such offer good prospects to those, such as tour operators and hoteliers, willing to target this market. However, subsequent research has indicated, this is a misconception based on faulty market research. It is noted that by relying on gay-publication readership surveys and other nonrepresentative market research, marketers have extrapolated to the larger population gay respondents' higher-than-average incomes, travel behavior, and destination choices. As Hughes argues (2006), the very positive views of the economic status and distinct purchasing patterns of gay men are exaggerated. In fact, some scholars have offered evidence to suggest that gays and lesbians actually earn less than similarly qualified heterosexuals. Despite the questionable nature of the data, marketers have embraced gay men (and to a lesser extent lesbians) as a market worth pursuing. There are also other issues to consider in terms of gay and lesbian tourism. The packaging and selling of queer space is, in part, what destinations are doing in their effort to attract gay tourists. In addition, a distinction is to be made between gay and queer tourism. According to Graham (2002: 18), gay tourism “involves places and events which provide contexts for the celebration of gay culture, but which at the same time contribute to forms of marginalization in which a clear homosexual-heterosexual dichotomy is maintained.” While gay tourism leaves the hetero/homo divide intact, “queer tourism reveals that the marginal, the peripheral and the excluded are in centers where they do not at first appear to be present” (Graham, 2002: 27).

Gay and Lesbian Destination Choices

Tourism destinations are usually bounded geographical areas and can manifest in myriad forms, including coastal towns dominated by tourism, cities which are multifunctional, countrysides, mountain villages, and the sea itself. Their ability to attract tourists lies in “attractions,” whichever form those might take; the core becomes a tourist attraction or destination by the influence of markers such as guidebooks, films, books, television programs, recommendations, and also promotional material generating images of the nucleus (Leiper, 1990 in Hughes, 2006: 89). Within the discourse of gay and lesbian tourism, it is widely accepted that high-quality information on where these cohorts travel to is lacking in scope and depth of understanding. There are, plainly put, so many issues that are not only geographically contextual but also temporal. As a researcher, what you have uncovered or discovered one year in a gay or lesbian tourism-generating region or destination region might be quite different the next. There is, however, some consensus that during the early 2000s there was a proliferation of new destinations that aim to appeal to the gay and lesbian tourist market. In many ways gay and lesbian destinations are the same destinations that have always drawn people to particular places. Although most gay and lesbian travelers are likely to want to see Paris or New York, it has been well established that discrimination and victimization on the grounds of their sexuality will not attract them, irrespective of how popular a particular destination might be more generally (Guaracino, 2007). It also needs to be acknowledged that particular destinations may never be considered because of reputation for, or experience of, unfriendliness to gays. Different methodologies have been deployed to ascertain which parts of cities, cities themselves, or towns, as well as regions are popular destinations for gay and lesbian tourists. Typically, this type of information is obtained through surveys, indirect sources through proxy variables like high-concentration specialist gay facilities, bars, and clubs, analysing marketing, advertising material, travel guides and tour operators, and travel programs, as well as gay magazines and websites. Each methodology provides a somewhat different view of where gay and lesbian tourists travel to. Here follows a broad synopsis of some of their findings drawing on different methodologies provided. A scan of the available data indicates a vast array of popular gay and lesbian destinations. It is quite noticeable that regions, countries, and even particular cities are often compared to one another, even though they constitute different units of analysis. In this investigation, rather than rank destinations according to position in surveys, destinations that are generally popular among the gay and lesbian market are highlighted. In the UK a number of surveys indicated that travel to continental Europe, Spain in particular, is popular among gay men and that Paris and Amsterdam are the most visited cities. Other popular destinations are coastal locations such as Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Stiges, and Mykonos, as well as the cities of Berlin and Prague. In the USA, a different travel pattern is observed, as the vast majority of gay tourists indicate that they mainly traveled domestically, with New York, San Francisco, Key West, Miami, and Palm Springs being popular destinations. These were not all necessarily that popular among lesbians, while San Francisco is also highlighted

as a popular choice, Provincetown was a very popular destination choice and Palm Springs not at all. In terms of those gay and lesbian tourists traveling abroad, France, Britain, Italy, Australia, Mexico, and Puerto Rico are highlighted as favored destinations. However, lesbians as a whole were far less likely to travel abroad. In terms of international travel choices for Canadian gay and lesbian tourists, the USA, the Caribbean, and Mexico stand out, with European countries also popular destinations among the minority. Within the European context, the UK, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Spain were considered highly desirable places to visit. Among European countries, a range of destination regions on the continent such as Spain and specific places such as Gran Canaria, Mykonos, and Ibiza are noted for gay men and Lesbos for lesbians. Although the travel media focus heavily on the coastal tourist destinations with comprehensive gay nightlife, it should also be underlined that large cities such as Amsterdam, Berlin, Manchester, London, and Paris are highly popular weekend destinations. On the whole, it has to be acknowledged that there is far less known about lesbian tourists than their gay counterparts. From the above, it might appear that gay and lesbian tourism is mainly focused on the developed north. This is certainly not the case and large tourist generating regions such as northern Europe and North America also travel to countries and cities in the developing South. The perceived popularity of these destinations depends very much on which surveys, websites or publications, both gay and straight, one turns to. In the Latin American context, Argentina, and Buenos Aires in particular, is seen as the gay mecca of South America, rivalling Rio de Janeiro in neighboring Brazil. Rio, in turn, has extensive beach facilities along with a vibrant gay nightlife and the annual Rio Carnival. Further north, Costa Rica is also popular for its beaches and islands and, increasingly, adventure activities, as well as ecotourism. In Africa, Asia, and the Middle East gay and lesbian tourism is yet to develop. As homosexuality is illegal in many parts of these regions, gay and lesbian tourism has not, and is highly unlikely to become, a viable tourism development strategy in the near future. Two important exceptions are Thailand and South Africa (Visser, 2003). Thailand is said to be a particularly attractive destination for gay men, with stunning beaches and a large gay scene in all the major tourism centers like Bangkok and Phuket. Cape Town in South Africa is a more recent addition to the gay and lesbian destination portfolio, offering a range of natural and cultural attractions, along with well-established gay and lesbian infrastructure.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections The general discourse of gay and lesbian tourism as a market segment and the meaning of the need of having such a tourism segment have increasingly been critiqued. For example, in a recent review of gay and lesbian tourism since the 1960s, Coon (2012) has argued that the notion of gay and lesbian tourism should not necessarily be seen in positive terms. In fact, the very “need” for such a form of tourism only points towards the fact that gays and lesbians are still repressed and in need of “escaping” the realities of oppression and exclusion in their home context. It also points toward the commercialization of citizenship. What it means is that

it is only owing to the ability to purchase products that acceptance to a place or location is granted. In the end, it is not about the acceptance of gay and lesbian individuals but rather their ability to purchase a tourism product that is at stake. A key question then could be, is the celebration of gay and lesbian tourism an act of empowerment or oppression? Conceptually related to this point is the notion of travel as a necessary means of escape from homophobia and repression on the home front. On the whole, gay and lesbian tourists visit places for the same reasons their heterosexual counterparts do. For example, Spain is a popular destination with gay and lesbian tourists from the Netherlands. Spain is known to be intolerant of homophobia, but gay tourists visit it not because it has a good gay infrastructure, or more freedom, sexual or otherwise, but because of the range of nature-based activities, ample sun, and good food. The gay and lesbian tourists only require that the visited location is not overtly homophobic. Much of the gay and lesbian tourism discourse is still framed by the need to be gay elsewhere: their home communities restricting their homosexual performativity. However, in a range of European countries this is empirically not the case. In many northern European countries, gays and lesbians are safer (and in a less homophobic environment) at home than abroad. For example, in what way does a gay or lesbian individual gain freedom to be his gay or her lesbian self by traveling from Denmark to other places in Europe? Does that “sense of freedom” only relate to sexuality, or rather the fact that travel often unleashes such a feeling regardless of being homo- or heterosexual? There is also a need to be far more specific in determining what is different in gay and lesbian tourists from the supposed heterosexual mainstream. There is a lot of assumption about the apparently exclusive and oppressive relationships between homo- and heterosexual cohorts. Current debates do not seem to appreciate that the understanding of gay and lesbian tourists, vis-à-vis a “straight world,” has changed markedly over the past decade or so. To many heterosexual people, homosexuality is simply not an issue of central significance. That said, in other parts of the world, homophobia is rife and life-threatening. In those cases, gay and lesbian persons would indeed aim to use travel as an opportunity to escape, if only momentarily, from oppression and exclusion; that is, a moment to “come out” is presented, away from a range of dangers. A further point that should be stressed is that tourism is something in which only a small proportion of gay and lesbian tourists actually engage. Often there is an overlap between deepseated homophobia and poverty, for example in Africa and the Middle East. The question is in what way those gay or lesbian men and women are trapped in deep poverty with no recourse to “escape.” Related to insisting on greater inclusion in the academic record is the lack of reflecting on gay and lesbian tourism in Asia, Africa, and South America, and also drawing the investigatory gaze away from the notion of international travel to domestic travel. The gay tourism system of American cities is not maintained by international tourists, but in the main by domestic gay and lesbian tourists. Yet, when we study gay and lesbian tourism in Thailand, or South Africa, the focus is on international tourists. Drawing on the work of investigators such as Michael Luongo (2007) and Sylvia Tamale (2011), it is clear that there are certainly gay and lesbian Africans and Arabs who engage leisure spaces. The question is then, in what ways are there similar places which they travel to as tourists, if not internationally, then domestically?

Finally, it also has to be acknowledged that most research and marketing endeavors have been focused on gay men with a still limited literature on lesbian tourists and their travel behavior, the places they visit, and the motivations behind their travel choices. There should also be a resistance to conflate gay and lesbian tourism needs and desires in academic and marketing discourses.

References Aldrich, R. 1993. The Seduction of the Mediterranean: Writing, Art and Homosexual Fantasy. London: Routledge. Binnie, J. 1997. Coming out of geography: towards a queer epistemology? Environment and Planning D: Space and Society, 15(2): 223–237. Binnie, J. and Valentine, G. 1999. Geographies of sexuality – a review of progress. Progress in Human Geography, 23(2): 175–187. Boyd, N. 2011. San Francisco's Castro district: from gay liberation to tourist destination. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 9(3): 242. Clift, S. and Forrest, S. 1999. Gay men and tourism destinations and holiday motivations. Tourism Management, 20(5): 615–625. Clift, S. and Wilkins, J. 1995. Travel, sexual behaviour and gay men. In AIDS: Sexuality, Safety and Risk, P. Aggleton, P. Davies, and G. Hart (eds), pp. 35–54. London: Taylor and Francis. Coon, D. 2012. Sun, sand and citizenship: the marketing of gay tourism. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(4): 511–534. Graham, M. 2002. Challenges from the margins: gay tourism as cultural critique. In Gay Tourism: Culture, Identity and Sex. Edited by Clift, S., Luongo, M. and Callister, C. London: Continuum, 17–41. Guaracino, J. 2007. Gay and Lesbian Tourism: The Essential Guide for Marketing. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Holcomb, B. and Luongo, M. 1996. Gay tourism in the United States. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3): 711–713. Hughes, H. 1997. Holidays and homosexual identity. Tourism Management, 18: 3–7. Hughes, H. 1998. Sexuality, tourism and space: the case of gay visitors to Amsterdam. In Managing Tourism in Cities: Policy, Process and Practice, D. Tyler, Y. Guerrier, and M. Robertson (eds), pp. 163–178. Chichester: Wiley. Hughes, H. 2005. A gay tourism market. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and

Tourism, 5(2&3): 57–74. Hughes, H. 2006. Pink Tourism: Holidays of Gay Men and Lesbians. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Jansen-Verbeke, M. 1994. The synergy between shopping and tourism: the Japanese experience. In Global Tourism: the Next Decade, W. Theobald (ed.), pp. 347–362. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Knopp, L. 1995. Sexuality and urban space: a framework for analysis. In Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities, D. Bell and G. Valentine (eds), pp. 149–161. London: Routledge. Luongo, M. 2007. Gay Travels in the Muslim World. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press. Morgan, N.J. and Pritchard, A. 2000. Advertising in Tourism and Leisure. Routledge, London. Pritchard, A., Morgan, N.J., Sedgely, D., and Jenkins, A. 1998a. Reaching out to the gay tourist: opportunities and threat in an emerging market segment. Tourism Management, 19(3): 273–282. Pritchard, A., Morgan, N.J., Sedley, D., Khan, E., and Jenkins, A., 1998b. Reaching out to the gay tourist: opportunities and threat in an emerging market segment. Tourism Management, 19(3): 273–282. Tamale, S. (ed.) 2011. African Sexualities: A Reader. Cape Town: Pambazuka Press. Telfer, D.J. and Sharpley, R. 2008. Tourism and Development in the Developing World. Abingdon: Routledge. Visser, G. 2003. Gay men, tourism and urban space: reflections on Africa's ‘gay capital’. Tourism Geographies, 5(2): 168–189. Waitt, G. and Markwell, K. 2006. Gay Tourism: Culture and Context. Binghamton: Haworth. Wisconsin Gazette 2012. LGBT buying power equals $790 billion. Wisconsin Gazette, March 31. www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/lgbt-buying-power-equals-790-billion.html.

Part 7 Tourism and the Environment: Change, Impacts, and Response

Introduction Tourism and the Environment: Change, Impacts, and Response C. Michael Hall Tourism's interaction with the environment and issues of environmental change have long been a focus of research in tourism studies (see Chapters 40 and 42 in this volume). Historically, such research has tended to be focused at the destination level (Chapters 38 and 39), but over time there has been a shift in focus to examine all stages of the tourist trip and, especially in the case of emissions, the greatest impacts are usually in traveling to and from the destination (Chapters 36 and 37). However, interest in the relationships between tourism and the environment has also broadened out to include greater awareness of the way in which the concepts of nature and environment are socially constructed (Chapter 40), the role of institutional structures in delimiting development pathways, and the consequent effects on the drawdown of natural capital as well as the very construct of an impact, a term which has long been a focal point of tourism research (Chapters 38 and 42). In seeking to understand tourism-related impacts and environmental change there has been surprisingly little attention given to the underlying ontologies that preface research. Ontologies condition the ways of seeing, creating, and understanding not only different forms of knowledge but also their acceptability. Despite their role as philosophical constructs, ontologies are not just academic concerns but fundamentally determine not only how problems are defined but also how they should be understood. Bhaskar (2008) argued that there are three main ontological traditions within science: classical empiricism, transcendental idealism, and transcendental realism. Classical empiricism recognizes “the ultimate objects of knowledge” as “atomistic events” in which “knowledge and the world may be viewed as surfaces whose points are in isomorphic correspondence or, in the case of phenomenalism, actually fused” (Bhaskar, 2008: 14, 15). The positivist account, which is usually associated with the scientific method of the natural and physical sciences, and which much of the environmental science of tourism impacts is based on, presupposes an ontology of empirical realism, whereby the world consists of “experience and atomistic events constantly conjoined” (Bhaskar, 2008: 221–222) in which there is a dichotomous division between the individual (or society) and the environment. This approach underlies much of the reductionism and mechanism as distinguishing features of Western natural science. Ontological reduction is the thesis “that the properties of any entity may be understood by knowing the properties of its parts, because nothing can be explained about the entity without reference to its parts” (Keller and Golley, 2000: 172).

Constructing Impacts

As in other areas of the study of environmental impacts, the classical empiricist approach has been extremely significant in teaching and research on tourism with respect to the notion of the impacts of tourism (Hall, 2013a). Yet, as Castree (2002) observed, the framework it provides is often taken for granted without consideration of the “assumptions that organize and, importantly, circumscribe the field of analysis” (Castree, 2002: 116–117). In such a situation “the metaphor of human impacts has come to frame our thinking and circumscribe debate about what constitutes explanation” (Head, 2008: 374). Derived from the material realist ontology of classical empiricism, the metaphor has several features which can be identified in most accounts of tourism impacts (see Hall and Lew, 2009 for reviews). First, and most apparent in the discourse of impacts, is the emphasis on the moment(s) of “collision” between two separate entities, i.e. the “impact” between tourism and the environment. This has favored explanations and methods that depend on correlation in time and space (Weyl, 2009), and typically in relatively narrow temporal periods and constrained spaces, to the detriment of the search for mechanisms of connection and causation rather than simple correlation (Head, 2008). Second, the emphasis on the moment(s) of impact assumes a stable natural, social, or economic baseline (Hall and Lew, 2009), and an experimental method in which only one variable is changed (Head, 2008). However, this approach is inappropriate for understanding complex and dynamic socioenvironmental systems in which there are multiple sources of change and a host of different feedback mechanisms (Head, 2008; Hall and Lew, 2009). While feedbacks occur in the absence of human influences, they are also altered by human activity. Such feedbacks are a key element in understanding human-influenced environments in ways that extend the traditional approach of considering humans as unidirectional drivers of change (Chin et al., 2014), especially with respect to the issue of resilience (Chapter 39). Nevertheless, enormous gaps and uncertainties in knowledge remain with respect to understanding impact feedback loops within environmental systems with significant human alterations as well as sociotechnical systems (Gössling et al., 2012), where the impacted systems in turn affect people, including the tourist market. Third, and perhaps most influentially, is the way the terms “tourism impact(s)” or “tourist impact(s)” ontologically position tourism and tourists as “outside” the system under analysis, as outside of nature, protected areas, wilderness (or whatever it is that is being impacted) (Hall and Lew, 2009; Chapter 40). Hall (2013a) suggests that this position is rather ironic given that research on global climate and environmental change demonstrates just how deeply entangled tourism is in environmental systems (Gössling and Hall, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c; Gössling et al., 2010; Hall, 2010; Hall and Saarinen, 2010; Scott et al., 2012; Chapter 40). Furthermore, it also fails to appreciate the extent to which tourism and environment relations are socially constructed (Chapters 39 and 42), especially in relation to the world views of indigenous peoples whose traditional lands are often most at threat from environmental change (Chapter 40). Yet despite such criticisms the metaphor remains in widespread use as it is arguably integral to the dominant discourse on tourism and environment (Chapter 42). Finally, as Head (2008) suggests, one of the implications of dichotomous explanations that place a significant explanatory divide between humans and nature is that it requires the

conflation of bundles of variable processes under headings such as “human,” “climate,” “environment,” and “nature”. Furthermore, although such dichotomous explanations are characterized by their veneer of simplicity and elegance, ”the view that causality is simple” actually takes “many more assumptions than the view that it is complex” (Head, 2008: 374). The classical realist empiricism (Bhaskar, 2008) that dominates much research and certainly the policy discourse on the effects and response of tourism to change is strongly driven by materialist and mechanistic orientations that artificially divide facts and values. Ontologically and epistemologically there is relatively little critique of the assumptions that underlie many studies of tourism impacts as well as research on the effects of environmental change on tourism, although recent research on the impacts of climate change has started to question such assumptions (Chapter 37). For example, Gössling et al. (2012) suggest that tourist response to climate change, especially changes in temperatures, is likely much more complex than suggested by econometric modeling given the role of numerous feedback mechanisms as well as shifting motivations and the condition of competing attractions and destinations (see also Chapter 37). Yet ontological differences between competing understandings of tourismenvironment relationships raise fundamental questions about future trends and also as to the extent to which desired futures can actually be understood, the ethical relationships between humans and the environment given the influence of ontology on values toward nature, and criticisms of natural science (Hall, 2013a).

Constructing Environmental Change One of the best examples of the institutionalization of instrumentalist science approaches to environmental issues is global climate and environmental change. The need to integrate social and biophysical perspectives in understanding environmental change research is widely recognized (Füssel and Klein, 2006; Conrad, 2009; Demeritt, 2009; Yearly, 2009; O'Brien, 2011; Head and Gibson, 2012; Scott et al., 2012; Chapter 37), including with respect to the need for ontological shifts (Turnpenny et al., 2011) and the production of local knowledge (Davidson-Hunt, 2006; Laidler, 2006; Klinsky et al., 2010). However, given the institutional nature of universities, research and forecasting bodies some types of environmental change assessments will be acceptable than others (Hall, 2013b). For example, in the expert review of the first draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group II Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Karen O'Brien of the University of Oslo commented, “Methodologies that incorporate social science perspectives such as institutions and social networks, or that include human behavior, such as agent based modeling and actor-network theory, are excluded from this assessment of assessment methodologies” (IPCC, 2005: 15). In response the writing team noted, “we can understand the reviewer's perspective, and have tried to address those concerns, though they seem to reflect a very structured view of what different methods are and are not, which is not very amenable to the treatment that we have developed here” (IPCC, 2005: 15). Such a response, as well as a reading of IPCC documents, highlights the issues associated with the way in which environmental change is framed and how problems can be “solved” (Hall,

2013a, 2013b). Demeritt's (2001a, 2001b) and Schneider's (2001) exchange over the construction of climate change and the politics of science is particularly informative. Demerrit (2001a) retraces the history of climate modeling and associated climate science to identify tacit social and epistemic communities that are characterized by the technocratic and reductionist inclinations of climate-change science. It is important to emphasize that Demeritt was not denying the existence of climate change but rather the way in which research on climate change and the problem of climate change is constructed. According to Demeritt (2001a: 312), “For the most part, climate-change model projections have been driven by highly simplistic business-asusual scenarios of human population growth, resource consumption, and [greenhouse gas] emissions at highly aggregated geographic scales,” rather than framing the problem in terms of alternative, and no less relevant forms, such as the sociotechnical imperatives of the capitalist economy (Wainwright, 2010; Hall, 2013b). As Demeritt (2001a: 316) suggests, “treating the objective physical properties of [greenhouse gases] in isolation from the surrounding social relations serves to conceal, normalize, and thereby reproduce … unequal social relations.” Demeritt (2001a, 2006) argues that climate change, as well as other aspects of human-induced environmental change, has been constructed by institutions within narrow technical and reductionist scientific terms and that this promotes a certain kind of knowledge as well as political interests at the expense of others. For example, within the IPCC process the physical reductionism of simulation modeling has become the most authoritative method for studying the climate system (Demeritt, 2001a, 2001b), and has also been utilized to configure tourism within climate-change research.

Constructing Responses Even though there have been calls for greater social science information to be brought into the climate-change assessment process, this has primarily been assessed in terms of neoclassical economic contributions (e.g. Stern, 2007), which have themselves been greatly influenced by the ontology of natural science (Hall, 2013a), and which frame human behavior as well as interventions within the context of individuals as rational utility maximizers (Hall, 2013b). Neoclassical economic accounts of climate change and the justification for action to minimize the effects of climate change are also dominated by formal modeling (Dietz and Stern, 2008). For example, Hamilton et al. (2005), which was the only tourism-related paper cited in the 2007 Stern Report (Hall, 2008), was based on simulation modeling. Moreover, the neoclassical economic belief that the social and economic value of things can be expressed in terms of aggregate individual willingness to pay or in monetary terms at all is open to substantial criticism (Hall, 2013b). As Demeritt and Rothman (1999: 404) noted with respect to the IPCC process, such a utilitarian view of value has been subjected to a number of different philosophical and moral critiques, including with respect to: anthropocentric assumptions and failure to recognize intrinsic value; reductionist and decisionist approaches and failure to recognize holism;

confusion of values and preferences; and the equality of exchange relations Indeed, it is interesting to note that while the weakness of the approach was recognized at the time in Fankhauser and Tol's (1999) response to Demeritt and Rothman's (1999) critique, it remains the dominant institutional approach of assessing the effects of climate change to the present day. Such issues are therefore fundamental to thinking about the relationship between tourism and the environment as well as associated issues of sustainable tourism development and adaptation and mitigation of change (Chapters 37 and 39). As several of the chapters in this section suggest (Chapters 41 and 42), the choice of valuation procedure of tourism and the environment, including the cultural aspects of the environment, like the definition of value itself as used by governments and organizations such as the United Nations World Tourism Organization, World Travel & Tourism Council, and the World Economic Forum, is part of a mediated and embodied social construction of knowledge and is ultimately personal and political rather than objective and rational (Demeritt and Rothman, 1999; Head and Gibson, 2012; Hall, 2013a). However, Demeritt (2006) suggests that to acknowledge otherwise would potentially be to cast doubt on the objectivity and strength of their forecasts. Nevertheless, such issues are extremely important as they influence individual and organizational behavior, including with respect to the application of the precautionary principle in policy and decision making (Chapter 41). The various chapter contributions to this section highlight the way in which tourism researchers are increasingly seeking to integrate social and natural science approaches in understanding the tourism and environment relationships (Hall, 2013a). The contributions to this section highlight that a destination is more than just a geographic or promotional space and is instead a holistic system in which nature and culture coevolve (see also Wu, 2011, for such an approach in landscape studies and Head and Gibson, 2012, in geography). Therefore, as an interdisciplinary or even postdisciplinary field of study tourism studies is seeking to understand and improve the sustainability of destinations as well as contribute to sustainability at broader geographic scales (Chapter 38), including the global (Chapters 36 and 37). To move forward, tourism studies need to develop a more complete understanding of the social construction of nature from the perspectives of different audiences and reconnect culture with nature and environment more effectively in assessments, strategies, and policy-making (Chapters 39, 40, and 42). To achieve this goal, tourism studies has much to learn from engagement with a range of social, natural, and humanistic sciences. More pluralistic and integrated approaches to tourism are needed if destinations and the entire tourism system are not merely to be “studied” but also become more resilient and sustainable.

References Bhaskar, R. 2008. A Realist Theory of Science, 2nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge. Castree, N. 2002. False antitheses? Marxism, nature and actor networks. Antipode, 34: 111–

146. Chin, A., Florsheim, J.L., Wohl, E., and Collins, B.D. 2014. Feedbacks in human–landscape systems. Environmental Management, 53: 28–41. Conrad, J. 2009. Climate research and climate change: reconsidering social science perspectives. Nature and Culture, 4: 113–122. Davidson-Hunt, I. 2006. Adaptive learning networks: developing resource management knowledge through social learning forums. Human Ecology, 34: 593–614. Demerritt, D. 2001a. The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91: 307–337. Demerritt, D. 2001b. Science and the understanding of science: a reply to Schneider. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91: 345–348. Demerritt, D. 2006. Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique. Economy and Society, 35: 453–479. Demerritt, D. 2009. Geography and the promise of integrative environmental research. Geoforum, 40: 127–129. Demeritt, D. and Rothman, D. 1999. Figuring the costs of climate change: an assessment and critique. Environment and Planning A, 31: 389–408. Dietz, S. and Stern, N. 2008. Why economic analysis supports strong action on climate change: a response to the Stern Review's critics. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2: 94–113. Fankhauser, S. and Tol, R.S.J. 1999. Figuring the costs of climate change: a reply. Environment and Planning A, 31: 409–411. Füssel, H.-M. and Klein, R. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change, 75: 301–329. Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. (eds) 2006a. Tourism and Global Environmental Change. London: Routledge. Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. 2006b. Uncertainties in predicting tourist flows under scenarios of climate change. Climatic Change, 79: 163–173. Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. 2006c. Uncertainties in predicting travel flows: common ground and research needs. A reply to Tol et al. Climatic Change, 79: 181–183. Gössling, S., Hall, C.M., Peeters, P., and Scott, D. 2010. The future of tourism: a climate change mitigation perspective. Tourism Recreation Research, 35: 119–130. Gössling, S., Hall, C.M., Ekström, F., Brudvik Engeset, A., and Aall, C. 2012, Transition

management: a tool for implementing sustainable tourism scenarios? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20: 899–916. Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M., Ceron, J.P., and Dubois, G. 2012. Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 36–58. Hall, C.M. 2008. Tourism and climate change: knowledge gaps and issues. Tourism Recreation Research, 33: 339–350. Hall, C.M. 2010. Tourism and biodiversity: more significant than climate change? Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5: 253–266. Hall, C.M. 2013a. The natural science ontology of environment. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and the Environment, A. Holden and D. Fennell (eds), pp. 6–18. Abingdon: Routledge. Hall, C.M. 2013b. Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable tourism consumption: beyond neoliberalism, ‘nudging’ and ‘green growth’? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21: 1091–1109. Hall, C.M. and Lew, A. 2009. Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts: An Integrated Approach. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Saarinen, J. (eds) 2010. Polar Tourism and Change: Climate, Environments and Experiences, London: Routledge. Hamilton, J., Maddison, D., and Tol, R. 2005. Climate change and international tourism: a simulation study. Global Environmental Change, 15: 253–266. Head, L. 2008. Is the concept of human impacts past its use-by date? The Holocene, 18: 373– 377. Head, L. and Gibson, C. 2012. Becoming differently modern geographic contributions to a generative climate politics. Progress in Human Geography, 36: 699–714. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2005. IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Expert Review of First Order Draft, Specific Comments, Chapter 2, December 5. www.ipccwg2.gov/AR4/FOD_COMMS/Ch02_FOD_comments.pdf. Keller, D.R. and Golley, F.B. (eds) 2000. The Philosophy of Ecology. From Science to Synthesis. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Klinsky, S., Sieber, R., and Meredith, T. 2010. Connecting local to global: geographic information systems and ecological footprints as tools for sustainability. The Professional Geographer, 62: 84–102. Laidler, G.J. 2006. Inuit and scientific perspectives on the relationship between sea ice and

climate change: the ideal complement? Climatic Change, 78: 407–444. O'Brien, K. 2011. Responding to environmental change: a new age for human geography? Progress in Human Geography, 35: 542–549. Schneider, S.H. 2001. A constructive deconstruction of deconstructionists: a response to Demeritt. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91: 338–344. Scott, D., Hall, C.M., and Gössling, S. 2012. Tourism and Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. London: Routledge. Stern, N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turnpenny, J., Jones, M., and Lorenzoni, I. 2011. Where now for post-normal science? A critical review of its development, definitions, and uses. Science Technology Human Values, 36: 287–206. Wainwright, J. 2010. Climate change, capitalism, and the challenge of transdisciplinarity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100: 983–991. Weyl, H. 2009. Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, revised and augmented English edition based on a translation of Olaf Helmer. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wu, J. 2011. Integrating nature and culture in landscape ecology. In Landscape Ecology in Asian Cultures, S.-K. Hong, J.-E. Kim, J. Wu, and N. Nakagoshi (eds), pp. 301–321. Tokyo: Springer Japan. Yearley, S. 2009. Sociology and climate change after Kyoto: what roles for social science in understanding climate change? Current Sociology, 57: 389–405.

Chapter 36 The Global Footprint of Tourism Eke Eijgelaar and Paul Peeters With the Industrial Revolution and, more profoundly, the globalization process of the last decades both tourism and environmental issues have become increasingly global in occurrence. Globalization processes amplify or replace many regional or national forces of change (e.g. Lambin et al., 2001). Human activities have become the main cause of global environmental change (GEC), hence our era has been designated the “Anthropocene” (Crutzen, 2002). One way to explain globalization is to refer to the “worldwide interconnectedness of places and people” (Lambin et al., 2001: 266), a description that also applies to present-day tourism. In view of tourism's global importance, worldwide growth, and its tendency to create interdependencies between countries (Mowforth and Munt, 2009), it is appropriate to devote a chapter to the global environmental impacts of tourism. As participation in tourism increases in and between countries all over the globe, many of its environmental impacts are becoming scaled up to a global level. Rockström et al. (2009) have identified nine key biophysical Earth-system processes that could lead to unacceptable GEC if “safe” thresholds are crossed. The system processes to which tourism can be linked are climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, global freshwater use, and change in land use (Gössling, 2002). All four (climate, biodiversity, water, and land) are vital resources for tourism. Climate change and biodiversity loss are two of three key system processes where the “safe” thresholds, or planetary boundaries, have already been crossed. Boundaries for global freshwater use and change in land use are likely to be crossed soon (Rockström et al., 2009). Hence, these four systems will be further discussed. It is important to note that many impacts and changes, specifically concerning biodiversity, freshwater, and land use, occur at the local to regional level, but can have “pervasive effects on how the Earthsystem functions, and it interacts with several other planetary boundaries” (Rockström et al., 2009: 474). Tourism's contribution to climate change is addressed a little more extensively, as it dominates tourism's environmental costs (Peeters et al., 2007), and because climate change itself is seen as one of the major future drivers of change in tourism (Becken, 2013). Table 36.1 shows that the contribution of tourism to global climate change, particularly when expressed in terms of radiative forcing – that is, when including all impacts on global warming – is considerable, and a further strong increase is expected (Scott et al., 2010). Furthermore, climate change is an important driver of biodiversity loss (Leemans and Eickhout, 2004), water problems (Bates et al., 2008), and changes in land cover (e.g. Parry et al., 2008). The impacts from land use on water, biodiversity, and climate change are similarly important (Vitousek et al., 1997; Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; Vörösmarty et al., 2010), but tourism's role in these interdependencies is arguably smaller and often more regional (see Table 36.1).

Table 36.1. Human and tourism alteration of major Earth systems.

Biodiversity Biodiversity, “the diversity of genes, populations, species, communities, and ecosystems” (Mace et al., 2005: 79), provides a wide range of ecosystem services, such as food crops, freshwater, and clean air, but also for instance the stability of natural systems. The tourism element, for instance an aesthetic landscape or charismatic species, is just one of these services (a “cultural” one), albeit an essential one “for the continued development of the tourism industry” (Christ et al., 2003: 41). Naturally, tourism needs all the other biodiversitydependent natural resources like food and freshwater too. Thus, the alarming rate of species extinction and biodiversity loss during the Anthropocene, 100 to 1000 times more than natural (Mace et al., 2005; Rockström et al., 2009), is of concern for the tourism industry. Biodiversity has faced a steady decline over the last four decades, as demonstrated by a range of state indicators such as the Living Planet Index (mean population trends of vertebrates) or the Red List Index (extinction risk for mammals, birds, amphibians, and corals). Pressure indicators, like the ecological footprint, have all increased (Butchart et al., 2010). Changes in land use have been the most important driver in biodiversity loss, but climate change will play a stronger if not dominant role this century (Mace et al., 2005). Tourism contributes to all five principal pressures of biodiversity loss: habitat change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive alien species, and climate change (Hall, 2010). Human mobility, including tourism transport, is a considerable factor, as it leads to species exchange on a large and global scale, disrupting and homogenizing biota (Gössling, 2002), and produces large quantities of greenhouse gases and air pollutants, whereas the supporting infrastructure destroys or fragments habitats. Habitat loss is also where tourism urbanization comes in, with coastal and mountain areas as specific areas of concern (UNWTO, 2010). Closely related to the mobility impacts is the exchange and dispersion of diseases. Tourism can also benefit biodiversity (conservation) through its “help” in creating protected areas and conserving charismatic species, but this is more on an isolated, local level. On a global scale, tourism is

not likely to be a net contributor to biodiversity conservation (Hall, 2010). Furthermore, the value of tourism per hectare is low compared to other – generally more damaging – economic activities (Verweij et al., 2009). Proposed mitigation strategies mostly aim at the destination level to prevent further habitat loss, for example by applying land-use planning and development controls (UNWTO, 2010). However, restrictions to tourism development because of biodiversity are not always accepted by the industry, as a case of tourism development in southern Italy shows (Petrosillo et al., 2006). Mitigation of mobility related impacts on biodiversity is hardly addressed.

Water Various consumption needs and pollution, as well as population growth and climate change, have increased pressures on freshwater (WWAP, 2012), to the extent that water issues are no longer only discussed on a local or national level, but also on a global one (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). Vörösmarty et al. (2010) find that almost 80% of the world's population is now exposed to threats to water security. Agriculture is and will likely remain the key factor in freshwater consumption, accounting for nearly 85% of consumptive use of water worldwide (Gleick, 2003; Bates et al., 2008). Water is an essential ingredient for tourism. Tourists not only use it for daily hygiene, but also when engaging in a wide range of activities. Besides these, water is an important element of tourism landscapes and is used in building and maintaining tourism infrastructure, and for producing fuel and food (Gössling et al., 2012). As such, water (security) has become a factor in the location of economic services, including tourism (WWAP, 2012). Direct water use for tourism varies greatly, between 80 and 2000 liters per tourist per day, but generally exceeds water use at home. Use tends to increase with the size and luxury of the accommodation. Taking all water-use categories into account (direct and indirect), 2000–10 000 liters per tourist per day is more realistic, with the bulk being used through food (Gössling et al., 2012) (see Table 36.2). On average, water use by tourism stays below 5% of domestic water use, but there are several countries where tourism is the main factor in water consumption and water security (see also Table 36.5, below). Furthermore, tourist consumption of water is often concentrated in the dry season, when water availability is limited in many tourist regions. In these regions, further growth of tourism will possibly lead to competition with other users, which can be exacerbated by a decrease in freshwater availability through depletion, pollution, and climatic changes (IPCC 2007). On a global level, however, direct water use by tourism is very limited, with much less than 1% of global consumption (Gössling et al., 2012). Biofuels are an issue that will increasingly contribute to tourism's water footprint in future.

Table 36.2. Water-use categories and estimated use per tourist per day. Source: Gössling et al. (2012: 8) and own calculations based on Gössling et al. (2012) and

Water use category Liters per tourist per day Direct Accommodation 84–2000 Activities 10–31 Indirect Fossil fuels Biofuels

90* 7500†

Food Total

2000–5000 Estimated range: 2000–10 000

*an average of 120 km/day (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008), and †fuel use of 40 km/l and 120 km/day.

To adapt to future water situations and mitigate its use, the tourism industry needs to engage itself more in water (conservation) management, ranging from measuring and charging water consumption, to management measures to reduce use of, reuse, and recycle water, investment in new technologies, and educating tourists and staff, among others. Most of these measures will even be economically sound, but, as with other environmental resource-related measures, strong policies will be needed for their full implementation (Gössling et al., 2012).

Land Use and Change Changes to the Earth's surface are made to support a population with goods and services. This “represents the most substantial human alteration of the Earth system,” as it has a profound impact on the structure and functioning of ecosystems and “interacts strongly with most other components of global environmental change” (Vitousek et al., 1997: 494). Up to a third of human-induced carbon dixoide equivalents are related to changes in land use and land cover, which can even alter regional climates and have strong links to water use. Not only has some 50% of the Earth's surface been transformed; nearly all land is in some way affected by humaninduced processes. Again, agriculture is the main “user,” accounting as it does for 40% of land surface (Turner et al., 2007). Gössling (2002) estimated that leisure-related land use amounted to around 515 000 km2 in 1999, which would represent 0.34% of the Earth's terrestrial surface or 0.5% of its biologically productive area. However, this only concerns the directly built area, for accommodation, infrastructure, and facilities, the so-called tourism urbanization (Table 36.3). The ecological footprint of tourism land use may be much higher, especially in coastal areas (like the Mediterranean), due to pressures on water resources, biodiversity, waste issues, and

so on (Hall, 2006). Despite pledges to apply land-use planning and development controls for limiting or reducing biodiversity loss at destinations (UNWTO, 2010), tourism is a considerable factor in high-value land acquisition, particularly at coastal areas. Since 2000, around 27 000 km2 or 4% of the global total of land deals have been for tourism purposes, mainly in Africa (Anseeuw et al., 2012). Indirectly, demand for aviation biofuels may become a huge land-use factor (see next section of this chapter). On the other hand, the area covered by protected recreational areas has also increased, a development that is illustrative for more intensive land transitions, stemming from changes in demography and economy (Foley et al., 2005). The surface area on the United Nations List of Protected Areas increased from 2.4 million km2 in 1962 to 18.8 million km2 in 2003, and (eco)tourism has likely been an (economic) factor in this development. Protected areas with recreation as one of the main management functions, national parks and protected land-/seascapes, make up around 29% of the total protected area (Chape et al., 2003). However, these protected areas are often of low biological diversity and their conversion will not have interfered with the acquisition of those (frequently high-biodiversity) coastal areas for tourism development (see discussion in Hall, 2010). Table 36.3. Tourism-related land alterations. Source: Gössling (2002: 287) and own addition.

Land alteration Accommodation Traffic infrastructure Golf courses Biofuels Other and indirect land uses Total

Area (km2) 1450 500 000 13 500 Low but increasing ? >514 950

Level of certainty Fair Very poor Good Fair —

Apart from some spatial planning to decrease impacts on landscape, the response of the tourism industry on land-use issues will most likely be indirect, coming from the angles of freshwater, biodiversity, waste (water), pollution, and climate change. Particularly the development of biofuels will be a crucial one in respect to tourism land use.

Climate Change The strong growth of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has led to significant changes in the global atmospheric composition, causing changes in our climate that occur much faster than when induced by natural processes (Karl and Trenberth, 2003). These climatic changes drive other Earth-system processes, which are already affecting biodiversity and water security, among others. Climate-driven temperature rise, sea-level rise, more extreme weather events, and changes in precipitation have serious impacts on humanity, and without strong mitigation efforts these impacts will become more severe in the coming decades (Parry et al., 2008), or

might cross tipping points and lead to “dangerous” climate change (World Bank, 2012). As a sector, tourism is at risk, not only through direct impacts on tourism destinations, infrastructure, and resources, and changes in health and safety, but also through impacts of climate policy and changing consumer perceptions (Becken, 2013). Tourism, with its dependency on transport, is also a driver of climate change. The carbon dixoide emissions of global tourism contributed to around 5% of anthropogenic carbon dixoide emissions in 2005. Three-quarters of these emissions are caused by tourism transport (see Table 36.4). Growth in tourism emissions has been driven by the rapid increase in tourist numbers, the continuous increase in travel distance, and the rising share of air transport (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008). The latter development is particularly critical when measuring the overall impact of tourism on climate change; that is, in terms of radiative forcing. Several air-transport-related processes occurring in high altitude, some of the exact impacts of which are still scientifically uncertain, could raise tourism's contribution to radiative forcing to 12.5% (Scott et al., 2010). Table 36.4. Distribution of emissions from tourism by subsector.

Tourism emissions are certain to increase further. In 2012, international arrivals reached the 1 billion landmark, more than tripling since 1980 (UNWTO, 2013). In 2030, international arrivals are estimated to amount to 1.8 billion, while domestic numbers are and will remain a factor of four larger (UNWTO, 2011). This will lead to an increase of tourism carbon dixoide emissions of at least 130% in 2035 compared to 2005 (see Table 36.4). Tourism will need to drastically reduce its energy use. This is easier for accommodation than for transport, all the more because energy-saving measures are often very economical. But avoiding more than 2°C global temperature rise is associated with a total emission reduction of 60–90% with respect to 2000 (Parry et al., 2008). It is highly unlikely that tourism will fit into such a scenario without there being a reduction in the growth of air transport (Scott et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2013). Mitigation efforts will need to go beyond the current approach of trusting technological and operational changes to provide sufficient reduction (Peeters and Dubois, 2010). Biofuels are suggested as a solution for aviation (ATAG, 2010), but there is much uncertainty about their sustainability, economics, and availability (Timilsina and

Shrestha, 2011). Opting for biofuels may have implications for other ecosystem processes. The production of biofuels has already become the largest purpose of land acquisitions in the developing world, with some 37 million hectares (Mha) of 71 Mha in total having been purchased or leased as part of biofuel projects since 2000 (Anseeuw et al., 2012). To put this figure into perspective: various scenarios estimate that cropland demand for producing all of aviation's fuel need in 2050 to be 150–500 Mha, or up to 1 billion ha when using marginal lands with lower yields (Rosillo-Calle et al., 2012). It is quite obvious that sacrifices, in terms of changes in travel behavior (shorter distances, low-carbon transport modes, and henceforth reduced growth or less air travel), need to be made, with negative impacts for some countries and benefits for others as a result (Scott et al., 2010; Peeters and Eijgelaar, 2014). For adversely affected (developing) countries some compensation, through the pricing of aviation emissions, seems to be a realistic option (Keen et al., 2012). Doing nothing will very likely cause worse climate impacts to some countries, which in turn will negatively affect tourism flows and economies in an even stronger and less predictable way. Meanwhile, it seems quite certain that several related developments, such as increasing cost of fossil fuels, increasing government control over emissions, and increasing public awareness of climate change and of the impacts of tourism on climate change, are going to have an impact on this discussion and tourism in the near future (Draper et al., 2009).

Geographical Scope Tourism is a large player in several regions that have high biodiversity levels and which are facing severe environmental threats (see Table 36.5). Frequently these are coastal areas, where both tourism and the human population concentrates: population density and population growth are above average in most biodiversity hotspots (Cincotta et al., 2000). The Mediterranean is a classic example, facing cumulative environmental threats and large pressures from tourism (see also Gössling and Hall, 2006: 308). Brazil, China, and the Indian subcontinent have been added in the face of severe environmental threats combined with forecasts of strong tourism growth (UNWTO, 2011).

Table 36.5. Important tourism regions facing GEC threats.

Methodological Progress Calculating the footprints of tourism is essentially a straightforward process of multiplying emission or resource-use factors with volumes. A useful method for emissions calculation in tourism is given by Peeters et al. (2007). The most difficult impact to assess is tourism's impact on biodiversity. There are direct impacts because of habitat destruction and distribution of exotic species by tourism transport and by trade in souvenirs of biological origin. Indirect impacts come from water use, climate change, noise, disturbing wildlife, and local air-quality issues. Over the last decade, the focus of decision-makers, also in tourism, has been on climate change and calculating carbon footprints, whereas indicators for biodiversity, land, and water, such as the ecological footprint and water footprint, have received less attention. As these three indicators, the ecological, carbon, and water footprints, are complementary in the sustainability debate, it has been suggested to combine the three in one “footprint family” as a tool for monitoring human pressures on various Earth-system processes (i.e. the biosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere) (Galli et al., 2012). Another difficult issue is to assess whether a certain impact is within the limits of sustainability. Scale is a problem, because it is possible to tell the sustainable level of greenhouse gas emissions at a global level but this is impossible for local emissions or emissions from a specific sector. To avoid dangerous climate change it is not important where emissions come from, as only the total counts. For water and land use, the sustainability is more locally determined and easier to determine at scales of tourism where decision-makers have full responsibility. But the “safe” levels of water and land use are much less objectively determined than for climate change. Biodiversity is again more complex as it has elements at all scales. For instance, a local extinction of a species can be evaluated as still being sustainable when the species is still thriving globally, but a global extinction risk can generally only be avoided by local action in several places. So here responsibilities become spread between different stakeholders, who are not necessarily economically or socially connected.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections Over the last decades, many environmental issues have gained enormous importance and are now discussed on a global scale. Biodiversity loss and climate change are the most critical ones, but many others, including freshwater availability and land-use changes, are almost as urgent (Rockström et al., 2009). Above all, the four processes are strongly related. Despite the global focus, local or regional issues still remain very important (see e.g. Turner et al., 2007). Tourism's role in environmental change should also be seen in this light. Apart from the direct global impact of tourism mobility on climate change and biodiversity, tourism impacts are predominantly of local or regional nature, thereby contributing to GEC (see Table 36.6). The scope of tourism impacts from different components varies per system process. Air, car, and maritime transport are the main factors in relation to climate change and biodiversity loss, while accommodations and the infrastructure to support tourism mobility are the largest factors in land-use change. The impacts of air and maritime transport on biodiversity are rated more

severe than from car transport due to their global “reach.” Freshwater is mainly affected by accommodations, and indirectly also through the food that is consumed in them. Fuel and food production are issues on their own, with high impacts on all processes (not shown in table). Table 36.6. Estimated level of tourism impacts on GEC (on a per-trip basis).

Mitigation of impacts will be crucial, not only to reduce the risk of overstepping planetary boundaries of vital system processes, but also because it is essential for the sustainable development if not the survival of tourism. The mitigation challenge seems largest in relation to tourism energy use and emissions. Seriously reducing these in the face of the forecasted increases in tourism numbers and mobility will require radical changes in the way we travel. Careful strategies need to be implemented to align mitigation efforts with other industry goals, such as supporting poverty alleviation. In some cases this will require letting go of one goal in order to make a more significant contribution to the other. In regard to climate-change mitigation and poverty alleviation there are several realistic constructions available that could benefit both goals (Peeters and Eijgelaar, 2014). In terms of adaptation, the challenge for tourism will be the greatest in many coastal areas, where biodiversity loss, freshwater shortages, and several impacts from climate change may interfere with the very existence of tourism. In many cases, mitigation in tourism is a relatively straightforward process of reducing distances, energy use, water use, and so on. This does not need be preceded by knowledge of exact impacts; it simply requires common sense. However, knowledge about exact impacts of tourism on GEC is necessary to establish policy and compare sectors, for example. In some areas, particularly biodiversity, accurate establishment of tourism impacts is largely absent. Methodological issues that hamper this establishment range from lacking data on waste/emission streams and uncertainties about possible effects of such streams on the environment, to a lack of sufficient and reliable data of tourism flows, among others. The chapter has shown that the level of detail about tourism impacts varies considerably per environmental system and tourism component. Many of the GECs caused by tourism can be linked to growth, both in numbers and in luxury, speed, and distance/scale. Vitousek et al. concluded that we “live on a human-dominated planet – and the momentum of human population growth, together with the imperative for further economic development in most of the world, ensures that our dominance will increase” (Vitousek et al., 1997: 498). Tourism's growth imperative, if held on to, will ensure it will remain a considerable factor in human-induced GEC. But the tourism industry aspires taking leadership in the challenge on (climate) change (WTTC, 2009), and has started getting more

concerned about GEC issues, a point that was still highly criticized just a few years ago (Gössling and Hall, 2006; Hall, 2010). However, it is far too early to see any effects of the intended action and evaluate the possible success.

References Anseeuw, W., Alden Wily, L., Cotula, L., and Taylor, M. 2012. Land Rights and the Rush for Land: Findings of the Global Commercial Pressures on Land Research Project. Rome: The International Land Coalition. ATAG (Air Transport Action Group) 2010. The Right Flightpath to Reduce Aviation Emissions. Geneva: ATAG. Bates, B.C., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Wu, S., and Palutikof, J.P. (eds) 2008. Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC Secretariat. Becken, S. 2013. Shapers and shifters for the future of travel and tourism. In Future Tourism: Political, Social and Economic Changes, J. Leigh, C. Webster, and S. Ivanov (eds), pp. 80– 91. Abingdon: Routledge. Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E. et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science, 328(5982): 1164–1168. Chape, S., Blyth, S., Fish, L., Fox, P., and Spalding, M. 2003. 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN & UNEP-WCMC. Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S., and Sweeting, J. 2003. Tourism and Biodiversity: Mapping Tourism's Global Footprint. Washington, DC: Conservation International, UNEP. Cincotta, R.P., Wisnewski, J., and Engelman, R. 2000. Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature, 404(6781): 990–992. Crutzen, P.J. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(6867): 23. Draper, S., Goodman, J., Hardyment, R., and Murray, V. 2009. Tourism 2023: Four Scenarios, a Vision and a Strategy for UK Outbound Travel and Tourism. London: Forum for the Future. Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., and Gibbs, H.K. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734): 570–574. Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., and Giljum, S. 2012. Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators, 16: 100–112.

Gleick, P.H. 2003. Water use. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1): 275–314. Gössling, S. 2002. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change 12(4): 283–302. Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. 2006. Wake up … this is serious. In Tourism and Global Environmental Change: Ecological, Social, Economic and Political Interrelationships, S. Gössling and C.M. Hall (eds), pp. 305–320. Abingdon: Routledge. Gössling, S., Peeters, P., Hall, C.M., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Lehmann, L.V., and Scott, D. 2012. Tourism and water use: supply, demand, and security. An international review. Tourism Management, 33(1): 1–15. Hall, C.M. 2006. Tourism urbanisation and global environmental change. In Tourism and Global Environmental Change: Ecological, Social, Economic and Political Interrelationships, S. Gössling and C.M. Hall (eds), pp. 142–155. Abingdon: Routledge. Hall, C.M. 2010. Tourism and biodiversity: more significant than climate change? Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5: 253–266. Hoekstra, A.Y. and Mekonnen, M.M. 2012. The water footprint of humanity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109(9): 3232–3237. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds), pp. 7–22. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Karl, T.R. and Trenberth, K.E. 2003. Modern global climate change. Science, 302(5651): 1719–1723. Keen, M., Perry, I., and Strand, J. 2012. Market-based instruments for international aviation and shipping as a source of climate finance. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Lambin, E.F., Turner, B.L., Geist, H.J., Agbola, S.B., Angelsen, A., Bruce, J.W., Coomes, O.T., Dirzo, R., Fischer, G., Folke, C. et al. 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change, 11(4): 261–269. Lee, D.S., Lim, L.L., and Owen, B. 2013. Bridging the Aviation CO2 Emissions Gap: Why Emissions Trading is Needed. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University. Leemans, R. and Eickhout, B. 2004. Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 14(3): 219–228.

Mace, G., Masundire, H., and Baillie, J. 2005. Biodiversity. In Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: Current State and Trends, Volume 1, R. Hassan, R. Scholes, and N. Ash (eds), pp. 77– 122. Washington, DC: Island Press. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. 2009. Tourism and Sustainability: Development, Globalisation and New Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge. Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421(6918): 37–42. Parry, M., Palutikof, J., Hanson, C., and Lowe, J. 2008. Squaring up to reality. Nature Reports Climate Change, 2 (June): 68–70. Peeters, P. and Dubois, G. 2010. Tourism travel under climate change mitigation constraints. Journal of Transport Geography, 18: 447–457. Peeters, P. and Eijgelaar, E. 2014. Tourism's climate mitigation dilemma: flying between rich and poor countries. Tourism Management, 40: 15–26. Peeters, P., Szimba, E., and Duijnisveld, M. 2007. Major environmental impacts of European tourist transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 15(2): 83–93. Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Grato, E., and Zaccarelli, N. 2006. Indicating fragility of socioecological tourism-based systems. Ecological Indicators, 6: 104–113. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.C., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B. et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263): 472–475. Rosillo-Calle, F., Teelucksingh, S., Thrän, D., and Seiffert, M. 2012. The Potential Role of Biofuels in Commercial Air Transport – Biojetfuel. London: IEA Bioenergy. Scott, D., Peeters, P., and Gössling, S. 2010. Can tourism deliver its “aspirational” greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18: 393–408. Timilsina, G.R. and Shrestha, A. 2011. How much hope should we have for biofuels? Energy, 36: 2055–2069. Turner, B.L., Lambin, E.F., and Reenberg, A. 2007. The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104(52): 20666–20671. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization) 2010. Tourism and Biodiversity – Achieving Common Goals Towards Sustainability. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO 2011. Tourism Towards 2030/Global Overview. Advance edition presented at UNWTO 19th General Assembly. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

UNWTO 2013. International tourism to see robust growth in 2013. UNWTO World Tourism Barometer, 11(1): 1. UNWTO-UNEP-WMO (United Nations World Tourism Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Meteorological Organization) 2008. Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges. Madrid: UNWTO-UNEP. Verweij, P., Schouten, M., van Beukering, P., Triana, J., van der Leeuw, K., and Hess, S. 2009. Keeping the Amazon Forests Standing: a Matter of Values. Zeist: WWF-Netherlands. Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J., and Melillo, J.M. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science, 277(5325): 494–499. Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S.E., Sullivan, C.A., Reidy Liermann, C., and Davies, P.M. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467(7315): 555–561. World Bank 2012. Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World must be Avoided. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council) 2009. Leading the Challenge on Climate Change. London: World Travel & Tourism Council. WWAP (World Water Assessment Programme) 2012. The United Nations World Water Development Report 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk. Paris: UNESCO. WWF (World Wildlife Fund) 2012. Living Planet Report 2012: Biodiversity, Biocapacity and Better Choices. Gland: WWF International. Yohe, G.W., Malone, E., Brenkert, A., Schlesinger, M., Meij, H., and Xing, X. 2006. Global distributions of vulnerability to climate change. Integrated Assessment, 6(3): 35–44.

Chapter 37 Climate-Change Implications for Tourism Daniel Scott The inextricable links between global climate change and sustainable development have been increasingly recognized since 2000, and it is now considered one of the most prominent challenges of the twenty-first century, with far-reaching consequences for all nations and economic sectors (Yohe et al., 2007). The World Economic Forum (2012) ranked climate change among the top five likely and impactful risks to the global economy and society in the next 10 years. In its Fourth Assessment Report to the United Nations (UN), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared the warming of the global climate system to be unequivocal and mostly attributable to human activities that are increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere (Solomon et al., 2007). The IPCC and Allison et al. (2009) also summarize the accumulating evidence from every continent on how observed changes in the climate system are now affecting a wide range of environmental systems. Critically, the IPCC emphasized that human-induced climate change has only just begun and that the pace of climate change is expected to accelerate with GHG emissions at or above current rates (Solomon et al., 2007). The World Bank (2012: xiii) warned that while the global community has “committed itself to holding global warming below 2°C to prevent dangerous climate change … present emission trends put the world plausibly on a path toward 4°C warming within the century. … A 4°C world is likely to be one in which communities, cities and countries would experience severe disruptions, damage, and dislocation, with many of these risks spread unequally.” No nation or economic sector will be immune to the impacts of climate change. The cumulative effects of +4°C global warming are not well understood and the full scope of losses and damages for biodiversity, ecosystem services, economic and trade systems, and human security has not been assessed (New et al., 2011). The World Bank (2012, 2013) warns that climate change imperils much of the development gains made in the developing world over the last several decades. Considering that climate, the natural environment, personal security, and travel costs are all primary factors in travel decisions, and each is projected to be significantly impacted by global climate change and climate policy, the integrated effects on sustainability and competitiveness of tourism destinations are anticipated to be far reaching (Scott et al., 2012a). Scholarship to understand the complex interactions between tourism and climate change began in the mid-1980s, with this field of tourism research growing tremendously throughout the 2000s (Zeppel, 2011; Becken, 2013). The tourism sector has also engaged in climate-change research and policy discussions. The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) organized the First International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism in Djerba, Tunisia, in 2003. This was a watershed

event in terms of developing awareness among government agencies and the tourism industry about the two-way relationship between tourism and climate change: that climate change would have profound impacts on tourism, but also that tourism was a meaningful and growing contributor to GHG emissions and climate change (Scott and Becken, 2010). The significance of climate change for the future development of global tourism was further recognized in the 2007 UN-led Davos Declaration on Climate Change and Tourism, which concluded that climate change “must be considered one of the greatest challenges to the sustainability of tourism in the 21st century” (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008: 38). The tourism industry collectively expressed its commitment to reduce GHG emissions at rates similar to other major economic sectors, when the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC, 2009) announced “aspirational” targets to cut tourism sector carbon dioxode emissions 50% by 2035 (from 2005 levels). This represents a major shift away from current emissions growth trends and will require significant investment and innovation if these goals are to be realized (Scott et al., 2010). To date, no credible plan has been presented by which the declared emissions reductions could be achieved, which has left the sector vulnerable to accusations of greenwash from civil society organizations and represents a significant future regulatory risk for the sector (Gössling et al., 2013). A comprehensive examination of the two-way relationship between climate change and tourism is beyond the scope of a single chapter. The contributions of tourism to global climate and environmental change are examined in Chapter 36 in this volume. This chapter focuses on the impacts of climate change and climate policy on tourism. It provides a conceptual overview of the four main pathways by which climate-change impacts will impact the tourism system and then explores the comparative vulnerability of major tourism regions. The chapter concludes with consideration of how well prepared the tourism sector is for the risks and opportunities posed by climate change.

The New Realties of Global Climate Change for Tourism The interface between climate change and tourism is multifaceted and highly complex, and will interact in as yet unknown ways with other major macroscale drivers of tourism development (Figure 37.1) (Scott et al., 2012b). All major components of the global tourism system will be differentially impacted by the regional manifestations of climate change and the capacity of the tourism sector to adapt. The integrated effects of climate change will simultaneously generate negative and positive impacts that will vary by market segment and geographic region, altering sustainability and competiveness at the business, destination, and country scale. As a result, impacts in one part of the tourism system will have repercussions for competitors, so that a negative impact in one part of the tourism system may have a knock-on negative effect or constitute an opportunity elsewhere.

Figure 37.1. The complex interactions between climate change and the tourism sector. Source: Scott et al. (2012b).

Figure 37.1 sets out the four broad pathways (arrows 1 to 4) by which climate change will affect the future prospects of tourism around the world (Scott et al., 2008). A comprehensive discussion of these four impact pathways is beyond the scope of this chapter and readers are referred to recent works that provide discussion of these wide-ranging impacts (Scott et al., 2012a). Instead this section will illustrate some of the major risks and opportunities associated with each of the impact pathways.

Direct Impacts of a Changed Climate For the tourism industry and tourists alike, climate represents both a resource to be exploited and an important constraint. As a consequence, the implications of climatic change (both changes in mean conditions and extremes) are anticipated to be far reaching for some tourism segments and destinations, altering the length and quality of climate-dependent tourism seasons, operating costs (e.g. snowmaking, insurance), location decisions and infrastructure design, destination attractiveness, and real-estate value, causing infrastructure damage and business/supply-chain interruptions, and affecting tourist demand and destination choice. It is anticipated that the distribution of climate resources for tourism will be altered over the twenty-first century (Amelung et al., 2007), with conditions ideal for most tourism activity expanding at higher latitudes. Climatic conditions for tourism were simultaneously expected to degrade in subtropical and tropical destinations, particularly in the peak summer tourism season. As a result, tourists from temperate regions that currently dominate international travel (e.g. northern Europe, Japan, USA, China) would adapt their travel patterns to take advantage

of new climatic opportunities closer to home, resulting in a gradual shift in international tourism demand to higher-latitude countries (Bigano et al., 2006). Demand for travel to subtropical, tropical, and Middle Eastern countries is projected to decline, with fewer arrivals from temperate nations and increased outbound travel from these nations. Changes in the length and quality of climate-dependent tourism seasons could have considerable implications for competitive relationships between destinations. For example, the risks posed by climate change to the ski tourism industry have received considerable attention (Scott et al., 2012b). In contrast, the season lengths for summer tourism opportunities are projected to increase substantially in higher-latitude regions (Scott et al., 2012a). The economic impact of this change in tourism seasonality is likely to differ at the destination level, depending on local circumstances and adaptation strategies. Projected changes in the number and/or intensity of extreme weather events under climate change (IPCC, 2012) also have important implications for tourism infrastructure damage, emergency preparedness requirements, higher operating expenses (e.g. insurance, backup water and power systems, and evacuations), and business interruptions. However, the effects of altered patterns of extreme events on tourism remain largely unknown.

Indirect Climate-Induced Environmental Change Many environmental resources that define destination image and are critical attractions for tourists are sensitive to climate variability and extreme events. Climate also influences environmental conditions that can deter tourists, including infectious disease and wildfires, as well as alter operating costs, real-estate values, supply chains, and the capacity of tourism firms to do business sustainably (e.g. energy use). The wide range of projected climateinduced environmental changes will have profound effects on tourism at the local and regional scale. For example, changes in water availability, biodiversity loss, reduced landscape aesthetic (e.g. glacial retreat, fire- or disease-impacted forest landscape, and algal blooms), altered agricultural production (e.g. wine tourism), increased natural hazards, coastal erosion and inundation, damage to infrastructure from flooding and wildfires, and the increasing incidence of vector-borne diseases will diminish the quality of the tourism product with implications for visitation and local economies. In contrast to the varied impacts of a changed climate on tourism (both risks and opportunities), the indirect effects of climate-induced environmental change are anticipated to be predominantly negative and substantially greater under the warmest scenarios (Gössling and Hall, 2006; Scott et al., 2008, 2012a; Becken and Hay, 2012).

Indirect Climate-Induced Socioeconomic Change Climate change is anticipated to influence a number of socioeconomic changes that have implications for the long-term growth of global tourism, such as decreased economic growth and available discretionary expenditure, increased political instability and security risks, and changing public attitudes toward travel (e.g. concerns over GHG emissions related to longdistance holidays).

Economic development is a central determinant of tourism. The Stern Review (Stern, 2007) emphasized that unabated climate change would begin to adversely impact economic growth by the mid-twenty-first century, which would have a long-term adverse impact on global tourism growth. UNWTO (2011, 2012) forecasts that international arrivals are expected to reach nearly 1.8 billion by the year 2030, with tremendous growth in China, India, Brazil, and other developing countries. How climate change affects economic growth in these countries that are expected to become key tourism markets in the decades ahead will have critical implications for the future of global tourism. Climate change is considered a national and international security risk that will steadily intensify, particularly under greater warming scenarios (Barnett and Adger, 2007; Yohe et al., 2007; World Bank, 2013). Climate change can increasingly undermine human security by reducing access to, and the quality of, natural resources that are important to sustain livelihoods, which under certain circumstances may increase the risk of civil unrest and violent conflict (Barnett and Adger, 2007). Contemporary experience demonstrates very clearly that political insecurity can lead to a decline in international tourism (Hall et al., 2004). While the negative repercussions for tourism demand to countries that become climate-change security hot spots is very obvious, no study has yet examined the economic consequences for these nations.

Impacts of Climate-Change Mitigation Policy The contribution of tourism to global climate change is anticipated to grow through the 2030s under a “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario (Gössling et al., 2013; see also Chapter 36). The tourism sector recognizes this is unsustainable and that future tourism growth must be decoupled from GHG emissions growth (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008; WTTC, 2010). While a large number of potential emission-reduction strategies have been identified for the tourism sector, to date neither the WTTC nor UNWTO has presented a detailed plan by which the projected BAU emissions be cut in half by 2035 (Scott et al., 2010; Gössling et al., 2013). A number of global energy futures projects that achieve the multidecade GHG emissionreduction goals of the international community/UN have been published by the International Energy Agency (2013) and nongovernmental organizations (e.g. Deng et al., 2012). These transition pathways to a low-carbon economy involve varied technological, managerial, and behavioral emission,reduction strategies, with some promoting nonlinear change to energy systems and social change. The implications of these proposed energy pathways for tourism remain dangerously unknown. The lack of a credible transformative strategy developed by the tourism sector to achieve their stated emission-reduction goals or any detailed assessment of the tourism implications of energy future scenarios raises fundamental questions about the future of global tourism growth projections in the emerging low-carbon economy. Discussions of the impact of mitigation policy on tourism have focused almost exclusively on air travel. With carbon-justified levies on international flights (e.g. UK Air Passenger Duty), international aviation entering the EU Emission Trading System in 2012, and a range of proposed policy frameworks to facilitate or require future emission reductions (Gössling et al.,

2013), the prospective impact on air travel costs has become unsettling for destinations that have significant long-haul tourism markets (e.g. Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia). Studies that have examined the potential impact of aviation-sector mitigation policies on international tourism demand have consistently found that policies as currently proposed would have little impact on overall tourism demand (typically less than 5% but regional differences are found due to proximity to primary international markets) (Mayor and Tol, 2007; Gössling et al., 2008; Cohen et al., 2011). Consequently, there is no evidence to suggest that current mitigation policies for international aviation would have even a moderate impact on tourism demand through 2020. Under more stringent global aviation mitigation policy regimes in the future, more significant decreases in tourist arrivals were projected for many long-haul destinations (Gössling et al., 2008); however, the implications for routing, modal shifts, and destination competitiveness remain uncertain. The tourism sector and international development agencies that promote tourism have not adequately considered the long-term implications of aviation and shipping mitigation policy for transforming international travel patterns and destination competitiveness (Scott et al., 2010; Gössling et al., 2013).

The Geography of Tourism Vulnerability to Climate Change The integrated effects of the four major types of climate-change impacts identified in Figure 37.1 will generate negative and positive impacts, creating a complex mosaic of “winners and losers” at the business, destination, and country scales. Establishing the differential climatechange vulnerability of major tourism regions around the world and of destination communities within them is vital to identify adaptation priorities. Global-scale comparisons of tourism climate-change vulnerability are summarized in Table 37.1. Expert-based approaches have the advantage of being able to holistically consider the entire climate change and tourism literature, but remain subjective. Indicators-based approaches are less subjective, but remain limited in terms of the availability of data for meaningful tourism specific indicators across a large number of countries. Table 37.1. Regional climate change vulnerability of the tourism sector.

The regional patterns of climate-change vulnerability show some consistencies across these assessments, with small island developing states and developing countries with large coastal tourism markets in Africa and Southeast Asia identified as being at the greatest risk. Significant regional information gaps mean these comparisons must be considered cautiously. Nonetheless, this geography of climate-change vulnerability has significant implications for the many developing countries where tourism is a key component of future economic development (Gössling et al., 2009; Hall et al., 2013). Differential climate-change vulnerability at the destination scale is very visible within most major tourism markets, with important implications for long-term investment, competitiveness, and sustainability. One tourism market that has received considerable attention because of its obvious vulnerability to changes in climate has been the ski industry. A number of studies have used common impact indicators to compare the implications of climate change for ski tourism in multiple destination communities within a single ski tourism marketplace. Figure 37.2 illustrates Dawson and Scott's (2013) projected evolution of the New England ski tourism market under increasing climatic warming. It reveals the changing geographic distribution of operating ski areas over time, as it contracts and consolidates into the climatically advantaged higher elevation destinations. Assuming ski tourism demand stays relatively stable (Scott et al., 2012a), the destination communities where ski areas are projected to remain operational could be in a position to take advantage of a changed business environment and gain the market share of their lost competitors. Although these ski areas and associated communities are likely to benefit from increased tourism revenue, they will still need to adapt and prepare for the possibility of increased development pressures (e.g. water use for snowmaking, real-estate development, slope expansion, congestion), crowding, and infrastructure deficiencies. In contrast, the communities that lose ski operations will need to prepare for lost winter tourism revenues and related jobs, and could also see a drop in real-estate value with flow-on effects for community services (Scott et al., 2012a). These more vulnerable ski areas will need to determine if they should invest heavily in adaptations that will aid in the continuation of ski industry at least in the short to medium term or if that investment should focus on other forms of economic diversification. These same questions about the future of tourism in an era of climate change will play out in thousands of destination communities around the world.

Figure 37.2. Projected contraction of the New England (USA) ski market under climate change. Adapted from Dawson and Scott (2013).

Adapting to Climate Change

Tourism stakeholders in all destinations will need to adapt to climate change, whether to minimize risks or to capitalize on new opportunities associated with local impacts of climate change or respond to impacts on competitors and across the broader tourism system. Positively, the dynamic nature of the tourism sector and its ability to cope with a range of shocks including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), terrorism attacks, major natural disasters, and financial crisis, suggests the sector possesses relatively high adaptive capacity overall (Scott et al., 2008; Hall, 2010). Adaptation in the tourism sector can be pursued by tourists, tourism operators, tourismdependent communities (destinations), national and international tourism organizations (government or industry), government agencies involved in tourism, tourism-focused nongovernmental organizations, international development organizations, and the financial sector (investors and insurers). The ability to adapt to climate change varies substantially across the wide range of tourism stakeholders (Figure 37.3).

Figure 37.3. Relative ability of tourism stakeholders to adapt to climate change.

Adapted

from Scott and Jones (2006).

Tourists have the greatest capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change, with freedom to avoid any destination negatively impacted by climate change. It is the response of tourists to the complexity of destination impacts that will reshape consumer demand patterns and play a pivotal role in the eventual impacts of climate change on the tourism sector worldwide. The perceptions of climate, environmental, or security conditions will influence destination image and will be central to the decision making of tourists (Gössling et al., 2012). Perceptions of climate-change impacts will be heavily influenced by the nature of media coverage (Scott et al., 2012a). At the enterprise level, climate-change adaptation will primarily focus on business preservation. The tourism industry is very image sensitive and based on past media coverage of potential impacts is therefore cautious about even publically acknowledging climate-change risks. This has posed an unfortunate barrier to advancing climate-change adaptation in the sector. Assessments of the state of climate-change adaptation by tourism operators and local tourism officials have consistently found low, but improving, levels of climate-change awareness and relatively low perceived climate-change risk (Scott et al., 2012a). There is very limited knowledge of the capacity of current climate adaptations of tourism operators to cope successfully with future climate conditions and little evidence of long-term strategic planning in anticipation of future changes in climate (Scott and Becken, 2010; Scott et al., 2012a). Consequently, there is concern that tourism stakeholders may be overestimating their capacity to adapt cost-effectively and sustainably (Scott et al., 2012a).

Scott et al. (2012a) summarize several key barriers to climate-change adaptation by tourism businesses and local tourism officials. There is not a long tradition of communication climate scientists and tourism businesses, and this poses a challenge for how to communicate weather and climate-change risk. Uncertainty over the magnitude and timing of future climate change translates into low confidence in the current understanding of how climate change would impact tourism and the perception that it is too early for large investments in adaptation. Limited technical expertise, human resources, and financial capacity are identified as critical barriers to climate-change adaptation in the tourism sector. Some tourism stakeholders have also voiced concerns that early adapters could be penalized by changes in adaptation legislation or the emergence of financial assistance for adaptation in the future. All studies have found that tourism stakeholders believe that leadership on climate change must come from government. The perception that government must lead climate-change adaptation is changing in other sectors. Recent extreme weather events have heightened demands by institutional investors and financial markets for disclosure of physical climate risk (Ceres, 2011; Mercer, 2011). As PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010) concluded: “Adaptation to climate change [risk] is not the exclusive ambit of the public sector. … Companies that act on these new opportunities place themselves in the forefront of sustainable entrepreneurship.” The broader business case for climate-change adaptation has been made extensively (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010; Ceres, 2011; Mercer, 2011), but has not yet been translated to the tourism sector. Destination communities possess the least adaptive capacity of major tourism stakeholders (Figure 37.3) because their visitor-based economy can be greatly affected by the adaptation of other tourism stakeholders (e.g. the decision of tour operators to direct tourists to other destinations less affected by climate change), adaptation by other sectors (e.g. the decision of insurance companies to declare areas as uninsurable because of high risk), the immobility of high-capital infrastructure, and the limited capacity of some destinations to rebrand themselves with other tourist attractions. A changing climate will lead to a changing business environment and changing community relationships in many destinations, new realities that the tourism sector has yet to consider with any depth. Adaptation will pose particular challenges in developing nations, which have lower adaptive capacity overall (Yohe et al., 2007), yet will have to undertake to a sufficiently high quality to still attract international tourists. The UNWTO, UN Environment Program (UNEP), and WTTC have all emphasized the important role of the tourism sector to develop strategies to assist local communities to understand climate-change vulnerabilities and increase their adaptive capacity, but a strategy for doing so has yet to be developed. Government legislation (both existing and forthcoming) will strongly influence enterprise- and community-level adaptation decisions (Scott and Becken, 2010). The influence of adaptation strategies by government (particularly transportation, water resources, energy, land-use planning, building codes, coastal and protected areas management) will have very important implications for tourism, but these policy and planning interactions have not been explored (Scott, 2011). While the tourism industry expects government to take the lead on climate

change, an assessment of tourism sector adaptation preparedness in 18 countries found, “The inescapable conclusion is that current [national tourism] policy [to adapt to climate change], with few exceptions, is inadequate to the scale of the challenge, both on mitigation and on adaptation” (OECD and UNEP, 2011: 4).

Conclusion: Is Tourism Prepared for Climate Change? Accumulating evidence indicates that climate change, particularly high-emission GHG scenarios, will alter the competitiveness of tourism destinations and has the potential to transform major market segments (Scott et al., 2012a, 2012b). The significance of climate change to tourism is not solely in some distant and remote future. Climate change is already affecting investment and operating decisions (Becken and Hay, 2012; Scott et al., 2012a) and, consequently, adaptation to the integrated effects of climate change will be fundamental to the development of sustainable tourism systems in the decades ahead. Nonetheless, available evidence suggests the level of preparedness within the sector remains low (OECD and UNEP, 2011; Scott et al., 2012a). A similar answer comes from the business community itself. KPMG's (2008) assessment of the regulatory, physical, reputational, and litigation risks as well as the level of awareness and preparedness across 18 major global economic sectors found tourism to be one of six sectors in the “danger zone.” The information requirements, policy changes, and investments needed for effective adaptation will require decades in some cases. As a result, the process of adaptation needs to commence in the very near future for destinations likely to be impacted by mid-century (Scott et al., 2008; Hall et al., 2013). Although understanding of the impacts of climate change has continued to improve over the last decade, major regional information gaps remain with regard to the losses and damages of natural and cultural resources critical for tourism, especially in developing countries that are anticipated being the most vulnerable to climate change. Addressing these key information gaps is a prerequisite to successful adaptation and should be a priority for the tourism research community. Unfortunately, a review of leading tourism journals revealed that climate-change papers represented fewer than 2% of all papers published in the same decade (Scott, 2011). The tourism sector seems to assume that information on climate-change risks, opportunities, and adaptations will come to them from the academic community, but in reality research investment is needed from the tourism industry, government agencies, and supranational organizations. Tourism cannot afford to remain one of the global sectors least prepared for climate change if it is to have a meaningful place in the economy of the future.

References Allison, I., Bindoff, N., Bindschadler, R., Cox, P., de Noblet-Ducoudre, N., England, M., Francis, J., Gruber, N., Haywood, A., Karoly, D. et al. 2009. The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science. Sydney: The University of New South Wales, Climate Change Research Centre.

Amelung, B., Nicholls, S., and Viner, D. 2007. Implications of global climate change for tourism flows and seasonality. Journal of Travel Research, 45: 285–296. Barnett, J. and Adger, W.M. 2007. Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Political Geography, 26: 639–655. Becken, S. 2013. A review of tourism and climate change as an evolving knowledge domain. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6: 53–62. Becken, S. and Hay, J. 2012. Tourism and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: From Policy to Practice. London: Earthscan. Bigano, A., Hamilton, J., and Tol, R. 2006. The impact of climate on holiday destination choice. Climatic Change, 76: 389–406. Ceres 2011. Physical Risks from Climate Change: A Guide for Companies and Investors on Disclosure and Management of Climate Impacts. Boston: Ceres. www.ceres.org/resources/reports/physical-risks-from-climate-change. Cohen, S., Higham, J., and Cavaliere, C. 2011. Binge flying: behavioural addiction and climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 1070–1089. DARA 2012. The Climate Vulnerability Monitor, 2nd edn. DARA: Madrid. http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/. Dawson, J. and Scott, D. 2013. Managing for climate change in the alpine ski sector. Tourism Management, 35: 244–254. Deng, Y.Y., Blok, K., and van der Leun, K. 2012. Transition to a fully sustainable global energy system. Energy Strategy Reviews, 1: 109–121. Deutsche Bank Research 2008. Climate Change and Tourism: Where Will the Journey Take Us? Berlin: Deutsche Bank Research. www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_ENPROD/PROD0000000000222943.pdf. Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. 2006. An introduction to tourism and global environmental change. In Tourism and Global Environmental Change, S. Gössling and C.M. Hall (eds), pp. 1–34. London: Routledge. Gössling, S., Hall, C.M., and Scott, D. 2009. The challenges of tourism as a development strategy in an era of global climate change. In Rethinking Development in a CarbonConstrained World, E. Palosou (ed.), pp. 100–109. Helsinki: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Gössling, S., Peeters, P., and Scott, D. 2008. Consequences of climate policy for international tourist arrivals in developing countries. Third World Quarterly, 29: 873–901. Gössling, S., Scott, D., and Hall, C.M. (2013) Challenges of tourism in a low-carbon economy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews – Climate Change, 4(6), 525–538.

Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M., Ceron, J.-P., and Dubois, G. 2012. Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 36–58. Hall, C.M. 2008. Tourism and climate change: knowledge gaps and issues. Tourism Recreation Research, 33: 339–350. Hall, C.M. 2010. Crisis events in tourism: subjects of crisis in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 13: 401–417. Hall C.M., Scott, D., and Gössling, S. 2013. The primacy of climate change for sustainable international tourism. Sustainable Development, 21: 112–121. Hall, C.M., Timothy, D., and Duval, D. 2004. Security and tourism: towards a new understanding? Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15: 1–18. Hamilton, J.M., Maddison, D.J., and Tol, R.S. 2005. Effects of climate change on international tourism. Climate Research, 29: 245–254.

International Energy Agency 2013. Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map. World Energy Outlook Special Report. Paris: International Energy Agency. www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2013/energyclimatemap/RedrawingEnergyClimateM IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2012. Summary for policymakers. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen et al. (eds), pp. 1–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KPMG 2008. Climate Changes Your Business. Amsterdam: KPMG. http://www.kpmg.nl/sustainability. Mayor, K. and Tol, R. 2007. The impact of the UK aviation tax on carbon dioxide emissions and visitor numbers. Transportation Policy, 14: 507–513. Mercer 2011. Climate Change Scenarios – Implications for Strategic Asset Allocation. London: Mercer. www.mercer.com/articles/1406410. New, M., Liverman, D., Schroder, H., and Anderson, K. 2011. Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1934): 6–19. OECD and UNEP (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and United Nations Environment Program) 2011. Climate Change and Tourism Policy in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD: www.oecd.org/cfe/tourism/48681944.pdf. Perch-Nielsen, S. 2010. The vulnerability of beach tourism to climate change – an index approach. Climatic Change, 100: 579–606.

PricewaterhouseCoopers 2010. Business Leadership on Climate Change Adaptation: Encourag​ing engagement and action. London: PricewaterhouseCoopers. www.pwcwebcast.co.uk/encouraging-engagement-and-action-full-report.pdf. Scott, D. 2011. Why sustainable tourism must address climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 17–34. Scott, D. and Becken, S. 2010. Adapting to climate change and climate policy: progress, problems and potentials. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18: 283–295. Scott, D. and Jones, B. 2006. Climate Change and Seasonality in Canadian Outdoor Recreation and Tourism – Executive Summary. Report prepared for the Government of Canada Climate Change Action Fund. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo. Scott, D., Amelung, B., Becken, S., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Gössling, S., Peeters, P., and Simpson, M. 2008. Technical Report in Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges, pp. 25–256. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organization; Paris: United Nations Environment Program; Geneva: World Meteorological Organization. Scott, D., Peeters, P., and Gössling, S. 2010. Can tourism deliver its aspirational greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18: 393–408; Scott, D., Gössling, S., and Hall, C.M. 2012a. Climate Change and Tourism: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. London: Routledge. Scott, D., Gössling, S., and Hall, C.M. 2012b. International tourism and climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews – Climate Change, 3(3): 213–232. Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L. (eds) 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stern, N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization) 2011. Tourism Towards 2030: Global Overview. UNWTO General Assembly, 19th session, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, 2011. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO 2012. UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2012 Edition. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO-UNEP-WMO (United Nations World Tourism Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Meteorological Organization) 2008. Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges, Madrid: UNWTO-UNEP. World Bank 2012. Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided.

Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank 2013. Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts and the Case for Resilience. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Economic Forum 2012. Global Risk Perception Survey. Davros: WEF. http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/view/section-four/survey-findings. WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council) 2009. Leading the Challenge. London: WTTC. www.wttc.org/bin/pdf/. WTTC 2010. Climate Change – A Joint Approach to Addressing the Challenge. London: WTTC. www.wttc.org/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/climate_change_-_a_joint_appro.pdf Yohe, G.W., Lasco, R.D., Ahmad, Q.K., Arnell, N.W., Cohen, S.J., Hope, C., Janetos, A.C., and Perez, R.T. 2007. Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds), pp. 811–841. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zeppel, H. 2011. Climate Change and Global Tourism: A Research Compendium. Australian Centre for Sustainable Business and Development Working Paper No. 3. Springfield: Australian Centre for Sustainable Business and Development, University Southern Queensland. www.usq.edu.au/ /media/USQ/acsbd/CCGlobalTourism-WP3%20(2).ashx.

Chapter 38 Coastal and Marine Tourism Emerging Issues, Future Trends, and Research Priorities Mark B. Orams and Michael Lück Coastal settings have always been important for human societies. They have formed a basis for settlement and transport, and have provided access to an important food source. In addition, these settings have been valued locations for recreation, and travel to coastal areas for leisure has been a common trend throughout human history (Orams and Lück, 2013). In the past four decades the use of marine ecosystems and adjacent coasts for recreation has mirrored the massive growth of tourism as a global phenomenon of the late twentieth century. Initially driven by the sea, sand, and sun desires of citizens from northern-latitude developed nations, who sought to escape the winter, coastal settings in warmer tropical and subtropical climates have been synonymous with mass tourism development. While beach-based holidays at hotels, resorts, and clubs provided near-shore marine recreational opportunities, the trend towards more diverse and geographically remote coastal and marine tourism (CMT) destinations did not begin until the last two decades of the twentieth century. Technology has had a major influence on this growth as the invention of new ways of getting on, in, and under the sea has provided new opportunities to utilize previously inaccessible locations. Important examples include the self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (scuba); robust, safe, and relatively affordable vessels (kayaks, surf-craft, boats, personal water craft), and new activities which harness the wind and/or waves (kite-boarding, windsurfing, wakeboarding). A further significant area of growth has been the design, building, and operation of large cruise ships which have brought mass tourism to the open seas and remote coastal destinations in an unprecedented way (Orams, 1999; Lück, 2014). In the twenty-first century, CMT is a global phenomenon that influences both the developed and less-developed nations, remote and urban destinations, and occurs in the context of mass tourism, alternative tourism, ecotourism, and adventure tourism. It is diverse in its activities, locations, and influence. Thus, it is an important area of academic and research focus.

CMT as an Area of Academic Focus Given that recreation and tourism are the most popular (in terms of numbers of people) human uses of coastal and marine settings it is surprising that the subject has received so little attention in the literature and in the fields of coastal zone management and marine affairs. Academic institutions and associated literature on human uses of coastal and marine settings have tended to focus on the legal and institutional frameworks for management, resource management, and the physical sciences (examples include coastal geomorphology, integrated coastal zone management, ecology, conservation biology, and fisheries management).

CMT as an explicit area of academic focus had its genesis in the first International Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism held in Hawai'i in 1990 (Miller et al., 2009). The proceedings of this congress (Miller and Auyong, 1991) provided a valuable resource for researchers and students focusing on CMT and the congress proved to be a catalyst for further editions. Subsequent conferences were held in Hawai'i, USA (1996), Vancouver, Canada (1999), Çesme, Turkey (2005), Auckland, New Zealand (2007), Port Elizabeth, South Africa (2009), and Breda and the Dutch Delta, The Netherlands (2012). Each of these resulted in published proceedings (see www.coastalmarinetourism.org for access to copies) that added to the literature on the CMT area. A further helpful publication by Orams (1999) offered a definition which sought to recognize the limits and importance of the geographical setting for marine tourism while acknowledging the diversity of human activities that occur in those settings. He proposed that marine tourism included those recreational activities that involve travel from the participants' place of residence that occur both in and on the sea or have the sea as their focus. This definition has given a starting point for those who have further explored the marine recreation and tourism realm. The addition of the prefix “coastal” to marine tourism acknowledges that the vast majority of marine tourists access the sea via the coast. Furthermore, marine recreational activities tend to occur in close proximity to coasts and the infrastructure that supports these activi​ties (such as boat ramps, wharves, marinas, ports, hotels, resorts, and so on) are coastal. Coastal locations are, in simple terms, defined as those areas that are adjacent to the sea (Beatley et al., 2002). The understanding of how far inland coastal zones extend varies. However, while some consider that the visual aspect is important (i.e. the coast extends inland until one cannot see over/past the near-shore geographical feature), others consider the coastal area extends inland as far as the water-catchment boundary (and thus the area that drains rainfall into the adjacent coastal and marine area) (Post and Lundin, 1996). The International Coastal and Marine Tourism Society (formed in 2009 at the World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism held in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, and formally launched in 2012) offers the following definition and explanation: Coastal and marine tourism includes those recreational activities which involve travel away from one's place of residence which have as their host or focus the marine environment and/or the coastal zone. The marine environment is defined as those waters that are saline and tide-affected. The coastal zone is defined as those areas of land which border the marine environment. The coastal zone extends inland to the first major change in topography beyond which coastal processes have little influence. (International Coastal and Marine Tourism Society, 2013) Further impetus to the development of CMT was provided by the founding of the journal Tourism in Marine Environments (TiME) by Michael Lück in 2004 and an increasing number

of CMT-related articles being published in a range of marine- or tourism-focused journals (examples include Ocean and Coastal Management, Coastal Management, Marine Policy, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Journal of Ecotourism, and Tourism Management). Other significant publications that have been important contributions to the field include Coastal Recreation Management (Goodhead and Johnson, 1996), Marine Ecotourism (Garrod and Wilson, 2003), Coastal Mass Tourism (Bramwell, 2004), Cruise Ship Tourism (Dowling, 2006), Marine Ecotourism (Cater and Cater, 2007), Managing Coastal Tourism Resorts (Agarwal and Shaw, 2007), Nautical Tourism (Lück, 2007), Water-Based Tourism, Sport, Leisure, and Recreational Experiences (Jennings, 2007), Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management (Higham and Lück, 2008), New Frontiers in Marine Tourism (Garrod and Gössling, 2008), The Encyclopedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments (Lück, 2008), Coastal Tourism Development (Dowling and Pforr, 2009), Cruise Tourism in Polar Regions (Lück et al., 2010), Cruise Operations Management (Gibson, 2012), The Business and Management of Ocean Cruises (Vogel et al., 2012), Nautical Tourism (Lukovic, 2013), and Coastal and Marine Tourism (Bull, 2013). Specific CMT qualifications or courses are offered at the University of Ulster (Northern Ireland), the University of Lincoln (UK), the University of Washington and Florida International University (USA), Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (South Africa), Auckland University of Technology (New Zealand), and Southern Cross University (Australia). In addition, CMT material is included in a wide range of courses offered by many universities worldwide. Thus, CMT is a broad area of academic focus and has engaged scholars from the humanities and social sciences, the natural sciences, and applied resource management areas. The field is maturing and developing a cohort of researchers, writers, and teachers who are advocating for CMT as a legitimate and important area of academic inquiry.

Research Approaches From an ontological perspective CMT provides an interesting paradox. The marine sciences tradition is solidly grounded in the positivist, reductionist paradigm whereby the researcher seeks to be a dispassionate, objective observer whose entire focus is on finding “truth.” The dominance of this paradigm in the wider natural sciences, but especially the biological sciences is, to date, so widespread and accepted that most researchers who operate within that tradition have little awareness of alternate ontological approaches or associated epistemologies. As a consequence many marine scientists who delve into the CMT area tend to dismiss any methodological approaches which are not positivist in their orientation and approach as “bad or soft science.” In contrast, the field of tourism studies has a broader background in the social sciences and humanities which has a more diverse range of research traditions and, as a consequence, has a greater level of awareness of the influence of ontological perspectives and epistemological approaches to research (Grimwood, 2013; Hall, 2013). In this context CMT has a wide range

of research methodologies applied to it which spans the entire range of social science research approaches. This is appropriate and CMT is deliberately, and by necessity, multi- and crossdisciplinary in its research paradigms and methods. This does provide challenges in encouraging the adoption or at least acceptance of a wide range of academic research traditions. Fortunately, universities and researchers are increasingly becoming accustomed to diverse approaches to research and recognize the need to apply a range of research methods to address questions in the CMT area. Nevertheless, the challenges in engaging researchers from different disciplinary traditions remain significant in the CMT area.

Emerging Issues and Future Trends Hall (2001) postulated that marine tourism was the “last frontier” for tourism development. His observation that marine tourism was expanding rapidly into remote locations previously inaccessible was correct and the expansion of tourism into distant coastal venues continues today. There are now no locations that are unavailable or inaccessible for tourists and the influence of human visitation to uninhabited (by humans) islands, reefs, polar regions, open oceans, and even deep-water canyons now presents a significant influence. These influences are seldom benign, but not always negative and while much of the literature reports on the negative consequences for coastal and marine ecosystems resulting from tourism there are a number of cases where tourism has provided the impetus for improved conditions and enlightened management. When examining CMT over the latter part of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first a number of global trends are apparent.

Geographical Expansion, Diversification, and the Influence of Technology The growing spread of CMT has been accompanied by a diversification of activities undertaken. Marine recreational activities are facilitated by equipment, vessels, and “toys” that allow people to conduct an incredible array of pursuits. Technological advances, inventions, and creative entrepreneurship have developed previously unthought-of opportunities. Examples include kite surfing, tow-in big-wave surfing boards, rebreather and nitrox scuba diving, personal water craft (of a variety of types), personal submersibles, private polar exploration vessels, hydrofoiling sailboats and surfing boards, sea kayaks, electronic navigation, and safety equipment [such as Global Positioning System (GPS) chart plotters, emergency position-indicating radio beacons (EPIRBs), Automatic Identification Systems, sonar-based fish finders and bathymetric mapping tools, radar systems, satellite using communication devices allowing voice and data transmission and receipt while at sea]. These two major trends; geographic expansion and increasing diversity of activities, have driven the massive growth in CMT activities over the past half century. It appears that these two trends will continue over the coming decades and, as a consequence, several commensurate issues will arise. First, the effects of CMT on remote locations will become more pervasive and widespread. It is likely that marine tourist explorers or pioneers who visit remote destinations could become the catalyst for development of those remote locations.

Consequently, a development path may result such as that postulated by Richard Butler (1980) in his often-cited tourist area life cycle model. Secondly, remote coastal destinations may deliberately seek to develop tourism as a mechanism for economic and social development. Thirdly, the increasing diversification of recreational activities and the expansion and increased popularity of desirable coastal destinations will produce conflict between incompatible and/or competing activities. Examples include high-quality surfing breaks which are valued by surfers but also desired for other marine recreational activities such as kite surfing, personal water craft use, paddle surfing craft, and swimmers. Fourthly, the geographic expansion will bring the developed world into contact with the less-developed world more frequently. Finally, the growth of CMT and the demand for resources needed for these activities will come into conflict with other human demands for and uses of those resources. Examples include the desire for urban waterfronts as recreational spaces versus their value as locations for commercial activities such as ports and docks for commercial vessels and the demand for coastal locations for residential housing (and exclusive access) versus the public desire for freedom of access to the sea and foreshore for recreation.

Human-Induced Climate Change The impacts of climate change for coastal and marine ecosystems are already apparent and present the most significant challenge facing the planet. Human-induced climate change is a conundrum for tourism and this has been widely explored in the literature (e.g. Nicholls, 2004; Hall and Higham, 2005; Simpson et al., 2008; Scott et al., 2012). Tourism is a relatively recent global phenomenon, but one of the most significant and influential changes in human activity across all human history. The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) predicts over 1 billion international tourists by the year 2020 and it is clear that domestic tourism will be even larger. The travel which is an integral part of tourism is currently almost entirely dependent on transportation mechanisms which utilize fossil fuels as their energy source. Thus, tourism contributes to greenhouse gas emissions (Gössling, 2011). CMT destinations are directly affected by the consequences of climate change (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010). For example, sea-level rise is challenging coastal structures and coastal communities and will continue to do so increasingly (Harley et al., 2006). Sea temperature increase is already, and will increasingly, affect marine ecosystems through coral bleaching, the increasing frequency and severity of storms, and through changes in marine habitats due to ocean acidification, changes in oceanic currents, and in species distribution and migration patterns. CMT, therefore, both contributes to and will be affected by climate change (Nicholls, 2004).

CMT as a Development Strategy For many marine-resource-dependent communities in the less-developed world, traditional livelihoods are threatened. In particular, many coastal peoples who have, for generations, sustained their communities through artisanal fishing practices have experienced a substantial decline in catch rates and a diminishing ability to support their families (Turner et al., 2007). Because tourism is, in most instances, a nonextractive activity, it is often seen as a potential

alternative livelihood (Fabinyi, 2010). However, significant challenges exist in transitioning these communities into the tourism sector. How this can be effectively and appropriately achieved remains to be determined. These challenges are further complicated by the need to carefully consider the needs, wants, and cultural priorities of indigenous peoples in remote coastal and island locations. The assumption that development is the desired outcome for all communities is widespread and virtually unchallenged in the Western world and in societies engaged in the global economic system. However, development (almost universally interpreted as “economic development”) is not necessarily what is desired by indigenous communities. Thus, CMT as a potential agent of change for remote coastal communities remains a contentious and largely unexplored area.

Environmental Impacts The issue of environmental impacts of tourism development and activities has been widely explored in the CMT realm. In particular, approaches to understanding the effects of tourism on marine wildlife have been well developed and widely applied. While much of this research has identified negative consequences for the targeted animals and host ecosystems it is important to understand that there are some circumstances where tourism has provided the impetus for improved outcomes for the environment. This is especially the case when the value of the coastal or marine ecosystem or resource for tourism results in protection for that resource as opposed to alternate destructive or nonsustainable uses. For example, the opportunities for tourism development have been successfully used as an argument for the establishment of marine protected areas (Sobel and Dahlgren, 2004; Hoyt, 2005). It is irrefutable that CMT does have environmental impacts and, furthermore, while tourism may be a more sustainable use of natural resources than extractive activities such as fishing or deep-sea mining, tourism is not inherently sustainable. The continued growth in scale and distribution of CMT will, therefore, be accompanied by increasing environmental impacts (Smith, 2007). What is more, these impacts are no longer constrained by remoteness or inaccessibility as humans access these destinations in greater numbers and undertake a wider range of activities than ever before.

Safety and Risk Management Because the sea provides challenges to human safety, the more visitors (tourists) engaging in sea-based activities the more injuries and fatalities are likely to occur. Tour operators are faced with a difficult task in that an increasing number of their clients are inexperienced seafarers but expectations of comfort, quality of experience, and safety are part of the growing competitive tourism marketplace. Improved technology has assisted greatly in reducing risks associated with navigation, weather prediction, hypothermia, nitrogen fixation (the “bends”), sun and wind burn, and even sea-sickness discomfort. However, the self-reliance that was once a prerequisite for seafarers is disappearing and increasingly those venturing to sea are relying on tour operators and professional staff to manage the risks associated with marine recreation on their behalf. For example, beach safety is becoming increasingly challenging for councils and surf lifesaving organizations and drowning, shark attacks, and crime are growing

issues (Wilks et al., 2004; Staines et al., 2005). Ocean cruises bear their own share of risks, from potential accidents such as groundings and sinking, to the outbreak of diseases on board (such as norovirus), passengers disappearing overboard, and sexual harassment and assaults (Klein, 2008, 2010; Klein and Poulston, 2011). Furthermore, the global spread of media coverage means that accidents and incidents are reported almost instantaneously and attention and expectations of appropriate actions in managing the safety of marine tourists are extremely high.

Human-Created or -Enhanced Marine Attractions The creation of artificial or replicate marine attractions is well established with the success of oceanariums and aquariums throughout the world. Holding marine animals captive in such facilities is controversial (Lück and Jiang, 2007; Jiang et al., 2008; Parsons, 2012) and in a trend that replicates the repositioning of terrestrial zoos as contributors to conservation and research (as opposed to commercial entertainment facilities) operations that hold marine animals captive are seeking to counter the growing opposition to their reason for existence. An alternate and growing approach has been the deliberate design and establishment of infrastructure that seeks to enhance marine ecosystems in natural settings. One such approach that is well established and widespread is the creation of artificial reefs (Stolk, 2007, 2008). Additional examples include the “reclaiming” of land from the sea for residential and recreational purposes, the establishment of coastal sea canal-based residential communities, and the construction of wharves, piers, coastal walkways, viewing platforms, and floating pontoons, all of which are used to seek to provide recreational and tourism opportunities.

Special Events, Sporting Contests, and Extreme Challenges Many coastal locations are deliberately establishing special events to encourage visitation (and the commensurate economic and social benefits) to their venues. Seafood festivals, surfing competitions, sand-sculpting contests, beach volleyball championships, sailing regattas, multisport races, music concerts, and wildlife festivals are examples of a multitude of deliberately staged events that encourage tourism from participators and spectators alike (Orams, 2007; Porter and Kaufman, 2013). The influx of people provides demand for a range of tourism and hospitality services (accommodation, food, entertainment, transport, souvenir retail). Because of the success of this strategy, seaside communities, local governments, and business associations are organizing and promoting an increasing number of such opportunities. One particular growth area is the spread of marine adventure-type challenges that are extreme in nature. Rowing or paddling across oceans, traversing sea ice on foot, surfing off-shore ocean reefs or waves in polar regions, solo around-the-world boating voyages, and deep diving (including breath-hold diving) are examples of the growing range of extreme activities which attempt to provide adventure and challenge, and deliberately place participants at risk of injury or death. Such activities have been growing in popularity and profile and this trend is likely to continue.

The Spread of Mass Tourism The growth of CMT and the development of facilities and opportunities to meet this demand (and create it) have spurred significant investment in commercial mass tourism. This is particularly evident in the cruise ship industry and in the beach resort industry (Klein, 2005; Smith, 2007). Significant investment in the development of coastal residential communities where holiday and permanent homes provide a marine recreational lifestyle has been widespread and has transformed many coastlines, particularly those in close proximity to urban areas.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections It is clear that CMT is a global phenomenon. Human uses of coastal and marine settings for recreation and enjoyment have always been important, but today they are pervasive and worldwide in their reach and impacts. The growing focus on CMT as an area of academic inquiry has been an important one and the resulting research, teaching, and learning have improved our understanding and ability to more carefully manage these activities and their effects. There is no doubt that CMT will continue to grow as the global human population grows, as technology creates more ways to access and use the sea for recreation, and as economies develop. The growth and associated trends and challenges identified above raise a number of important priorities for research. There are a wide range of research questions which, if used to guide research, can contribute to an improved understanding of CMT. The following are specific examples of questions which are derived from each of the issues described above. How can the special values (e.g. wilderness, high natural quality, integrity of indigenous cultures) of remote coastal and marine locations be maintained or enhanced when tourism develops? How can CMT destinations successfully adapt to the effects of climate change? How can tourism be created and managed so that it forms a positive alternative or supplemental livelihood for impoverished coastal communities? What are the environmental impacts of tourism activities on coastal and marine ecosystems and how can those effects be managed to reduce negative consequences and produce positive outcomes? How can the safety of participants in CMT (locals, tourists, and tourism brokers) be maximized while maintaining the elements of adventure and risk that enhance experiences? What human actions can improve, restore, and rehabilitate natural coastal and marine habitats? What are the effects (economic, social, environmental, and political) of the staging of large-scale special events in the marine environment?

What are the consequences of mass tourism development for coastal and marine destinations? Answers to questions such as these, and many others, will require a dedicated effort from researchers who wish to contribute to the further development of the CMT field. Credible research can increase our understanding and this increased understanding has the potential to contribute to wise decision-making. Given the huge challenges that confront coastal and marine ecosystems and coastal communities, such decisions and actions are very much needed. The challenges facing the planet and all life that depends on it are massive and CMT forms part of that wider challenge to human existence and to the biological systems that sustain all forms of life. The opportunity for CMT is for it to be developed and managed in a way that it becomes a positive force for these life-support systems as opposed to a force that is exploitive and ultimately destructive. When natural resources and ecosystems become valued as resources worthy of protection because of their contribution as attractions for tourism then results can, on balance, be positive. Examples include when coastal and marine ecosystems become formally protected as parks/reserves or given another formally protected status so that the natural processes are conserved and a tourism “product” is enhanced, or when a natural resource is no longer directly exploited because the species, habitat, or location is more valuable alive as a tourism attraction than consumed as a source of food or killed and sold as a commercial product. CMT can engender a greater appreciation for the importance of marine creatures and result in human action that benefits the ecosystem they depend on. The recent development of an academic focus on CMT has made a contribution to that end but, at this point, it remains just a beginning.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the wide range of scholars who have contributed to the development of the CMT field. In particular, the work of Jan Auyong and Marc Miller in founding the World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism was an important and leading initiative. The support of the Steering Committee for the subsequent congresses as well as the hosting committees and institutions is also much appreciated. Publishers of Tourism in Marine Environments, Cognizant Communication, have been valuable partners in developing the field as have publishers of the range of books focusing on CMT-related topics.

References Agarwal, S. and Shaw, G. (eds) 2007. Managing Coastal Tourism Resorts: A Global Perspective. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Beatley, T., Brower, D.J., and Schwab, A.K. 2002. An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management. Washington, DC: Island Press. Bramwell, B. (ed.) 2004. Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification and Sustainable

Development in Southern Europe. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Bull, A. 2013. Coastal and Marine Tourism. London: Routledge. Butler, R.W. 1980. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer/le Géographe Canadien, 24: 5–12. Cater, C. and Cater, E. 2007. Marine Ecotourism: Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Dowling, R.K. (ed.) 2006. Cruise Ship Tourism. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Dowling, R. and Pforr, C. (eds) 2009. Coastal Tourism Development. Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication. Fabinyi, M. 2010. The intensification of fishing and the rise of tourism: competing coastal livelihoods in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines. Human Ecology, 38(3): 415–427. Garrod, B. and Gössling, S. (eds) 2008. New Frontiers in Marine Tourism. Diving Experiences, Sustainability, Management. London: Routledge. Garrod, B. and Wilson, J. (eds) 2003. Marine Ecotourism: Issues and Experiences. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Gibson, P. 2012. Cruise Operations Management: Hospitality Perspectives, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Goodhead, T. and Johnson, D. (eds) 1996. Coastal Recreation Management: The Sustainable Development of Maritime Leisure. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Gössling, S. 2011. Carbon Management in Tourism: Mitigating the Impacts on Climate Change. London: Routledge. Grimwood, B. 2013. Social science ontology of environment. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and the Environment, A. Holden and D. Fennell (eds), pp. 19–30. Milton Park: Routledge. Hall, C.M. 2001. Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier? Ocean and Coastal Management, 44(9/10): 601–618. Hall, C.M. 2013. The natural science ontology of the environment. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and the Environment, A. Holden and D. Fennell (eds), pp. 6–18. Milton Park: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Higham, J.E. (eds) 2005. Tourism, Recreation, and Climate Change. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Harley, C.D.G., Hughes, R.A., Hultgren, K.M., Miner, B.G., Sorte, C.J.B., Thornber, C.S., Rodriguez, L.F., Tomanek, L., and Williams, S.L. 2006. The impacts of climate change in

coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters, 9: 228–241. Higham, J. and Lück, M. (eds) 2007. Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management: Insights from the Natural and Social Sciences. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Hoyt, E. 2005. Marine Protected Areas for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises: A World Handbook for Cetacean Habitat Conservation. London: Earthscan. International Coastal and Marine Tourism Society 2013. What is Coastal and Marine Tourism? www.coastalmarinetourism.org/what-is-cmt.html. Jennings, G. (ed.) 2007. Water-Based Tourism, Sport, Leisure, and Recreation Experiences. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. Jiang, Y., Lück, M., and Parsons, E.C.M. 2008. Public awareness and marine mammals in captivity. Tourism Review International, 11(3): 237–249. Klein, R.A. 2005. Playing off the Ports: BC and the Cruise Tourism Industry. Vancouver: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Klein, R.A. 2008. Paradise Lost at Sea: Rethinking Cruise Vacations. Black Point: Fernwood Publishing. Klein, R.A. 2010. Cruises and bruises: safety, security and social issues on polar cruises. In Cruise Tourism in Polar Regions: Promoting Environmental and Social Sustainability?, edited Michael Lück, Patrick T. Maher, and Emma J. Stewart, 57–74. London: Earthscan. Klein, R.A. and Poulston, J. 2011. Sex at sea: sexual crimes aboard cruise ships. Tourism in Marine Environments, 7(2): 67–80. Lück, M. 2007. Nautical Tourism: Concepts and Issues. Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication. Lück, M. (ed.) 2008. The Encyclopedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Lück, M. 2014. Coastal and Marine Leisure and Tourism. In The Earthscan Handbook of Ocean Resources and Management, H.D. Smith, J.L. Suarez de Vivero, and T. Agardy (ed.). London: Earthscan (in press). Lück, M. and Jiang, Y. 2007. Keiko, Shamu, and friends: educating visitors to marine parks and aquaria? Journal of Ecotourism, 6(2): 127–138. Lück, M., Maher, P.T., and Stewart, E.J. (eds) 2010. Cruise Tourism in Polar Regions: Promoting Environmental and Social Sustainability? London: Earthscan. Lukovic, T. 2013. Nautical Tourism. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Miller, M.L. and Auyong, J. 1991. Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and Marine

Tourism: A Symposium and Workshop on Balancing Conservation and Economic Development (Vol. I and II). Newport, OR: National Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute. Miller, M.L., Orams, M.B., Lück, M., Auyong, J., and Gräupl, A. 2009. A field taking shape: papers from the 5th International Coastal and Marine Tourism Congress. Tourism in Marine Environments, 5(2/3): 75–87. Nicholls, S. 2004. Climate change and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1): 238–240. Nicholls, R.J. and Cazenave, A. 2010. Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science, 328(5985): 1517–1520. Orams, M. 1999. Marine Tourism: Development, Impacts and Management. London: Routledge. Orams, M.B. 2007. The impacts of hosting a major marine sports tourism event: the America's Cup in Auckland, New Zealand. In Nautical Tourism: Concepts and Issues, M, Lück (ed.), pp. 25–36. Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication. Orams, M. and Lück, M. 2013. Marine systems and tourism. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and the Environment, A. Holden and D. Fennell (eds), pp. 170–182. Milton Park, Routledge. Parsons, E.C.M. 2012. Killer whale killers. Tourism in Marine Environments, 8(3): 153–160. Porter, B. and Kaufman, M. 2013. Juggling the environmental, social and economic benefits and costs of a green event. In Events, Society and Sustainability: Critical and Contemporary Approaches, T. Pernecky and M. Lück (eds), pp. 197–210. London: Routledge. Post, J.C. and Lundin, C.G. 1996. Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Washington, DC: World Bank. Scott, D., Hall, C.M., and Gössling, S. 2012. Tourism and Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. London: Routledge. Simpson, M.C., Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M., and Gladin, E. (eds) 2008. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in the Tourism Sector: Frameworks, Tools and Practices. Paris: UNEP. Smith, R.A. 2007. Anchoring Tourism to the Coast: Innovative spatial and community strategies. In Nautical Tourism: Concepts and Issues, M. Lück (ed.), pp. 25–36. Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication. Sobel, J. and Dahlgren, C. 2004. Marine Reserves: A Guide to Science, Design, and Use. Washington, DC: Island Press. Staines, C., Morgan, D., and Ozanne-Smith, J. 2005. Threats to tourist and visitor safety at

beaches in Victoria, Australia. Tourism in Marine Environments, 1(2): 97–104. Stolk, P. 2007. Loose lips and sinking ships: analysing the role of intergovernmental relations in the creation of artificial reefs for sustainable scuba diving tourism in Australia. In Proceedings of the 5th International Coastal & Marine Tourism Congress, M. Lück, A. Gräupl, J. Auyong, M.L. Miller, and M. Orams (eds), pp. 349–364. Auckland: School of Hospitality & Tourism and New Zealand Tourism Research Institute, AUT University. Stolk, P. 2008. Artifical reef. In The Encyclopedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments, M, Lück (ed.), pp. 34–37. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Turner, R.A., Cakacaka, A., Graham, N.A., Polunin, N.V., Pratchett, M.S., Stead, S.M., and Wilson, S.K. 2007. Declining reliance on marine resources in remote South Pacific societies: ecological versus socio-economic drivers. Coral Reefs, 26(4): 997–1008. Vogel, M., Papathanassis, A., and Wolber, B. (eds) 2012. The Business and Management of Ocean Cruises. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Wilks, J., Coory, M., & Pendergast, D. 2004. Tourists still getting the bends. Tourism in Marine Environments, 1(1): 61–62.

Chapter 39 Sociocultural Resilience and Tourism Debbie Hopkins and Suzanne Becken Tourism involves travel across space and cultures. Tourism always involves people and institutions, and as a result of the tourism activity both are, to varying degrees, changing or evolving. While this affects host communities and cultures, it also affects the tourists themselves, or indeed returning tourists and their relations at home. The impacts of tourism on these populations can be both positive and negative, and the degree to which the population can cope with the adverse effects of tourism can be discussed in terms of resilience. No two destinations, regions, or communities will have the same capacity to withstand change or external disturbances. The role of dynamically constituted culture on resilience has only recently been addressed by the academic community (Taufatofua and Craig-Smith, 2010) but is frequently considered in terms of disaster and hazard recovery (Cutter et al., 2008; Paton et al., 2008; Aldrich, 2012). Therefore, how “resilient” different actors and cultures are to changes is of significant interest to the academic community more broadly, but the tourism research community more specifically. In addition to questions considering why some individuals, communities, or institutions persist in their largely unchanging form, while others evolve, and whether they would evolve anyway, the situation is further complicated by the inclusion of tourism. In other words, what role does tourism play in sociocultural resilience? This is obviously a highly complex area, due to the fact that culture is inherently dynamic, even in the absence of tourism. Therefore it will always be difficult to isolate tourism influences from other change factors, especially in an increasingly rapidly changing world. Nevertheless, a social science framework for understanding this phenomenon, as provided in this chapter, is a potentially valuable contribution to the tourism and resilience literature. In order to achieve this, this chapter focuses on the roles of social capital and societal structures as two examples of the types of cultural aspects influencing resilience. Other highly influential factors include ethnic and gender identity (Clauss-Ehlers et al., 2006), knowledge and belief systems, traditions (Daskon, 2010), customs, and religious observances. Globalization has contributed to cultural homogenization, and this can be evidenced through the global tourism industry, which Ritzer (2004) argues leads to the “globalization of nothing”; non-places (Disneyland), non-things (mass produced souvenirs) and non-people (lack of meaningful social interactions). Reisinger (2013: 40) states that, “flows of people, information, signs and symbols that characterize global tourism delocalise culture, making it difficult to develop meaningful human interactions, or individual and communal identities.” Nevertheless, tourism can also have a positive impact on host cultures. In Hawai'i, Liu and Var (1986) reported high levels of perceived cultural benefits resulting from tourism, including providing a “cultural exchange” whereby Hawai'ian communities could both learn about other cultures and share their own culture with vacationers. In addition, 71% of participants in Liu and Var's study agreed that tourism had a positive impact on the cultural identity of Hawai'i. Therefore, the cultural implications of tourism development are both spatially and temporally

contingent. Tourism is an inherently “fuzzy” concept (Markusen, 1999; Scott et al., 2012), which has diversified into a wide variety of types of voluntary temporary mobilities, including visiting friends and relations, second-home travel, education, and business travel, and so on (Hall and Lew, 2009). This list is far broader than the traditional “popular” notion of tourism which is often limited to holiday and vacation travel for pleasure/leisure (Hall and Lew, 2009; Scott et al., 2012). Therefore there are a significant number of ways tourism can impact upon communities, societies, and regions, both physically (in terms of infrastructure, buildings, and town planning) and culturally. This chapter is concerned with the way sociocultural aspects of communities shape their resilience mechanisms to embrace positive impacts of tourism and work to reject or eliminate those influences which negatively impact upon the sociocultural fabric of the community.

Defining Resilience Resilience emerged, along with systems thinking, in the 1960s in the field of ecology (Davoudi et al., 2012). Definitions of resilience are closely tied to complex adaptive systems theory, providing conceptual tools for dealing with an increasingly uncertain future including forecast climate change (Berkes, 2007). A range of meanings and definitions of resilience have emerged, pertaining to a variety of world views and scientific traditions (Cutter et al., 2008; Davoudi et al., 2012). In particular, a distinction has been drawn between engineering resilience, which focuses on balance and equilibrium and ecological resilience, which considers the amount of shock a system can absorb (Holling, 1973, 2010). An engineering focus attends to the speed at which a system can return to an equilibrium state, under the presumption that the quicker the system rebounds, the more resilient it is. Ecological resilience, on the other hand, considers not the speed at which the system returns to equilibrium, but the intensity of disturbance a system can withstand while remaining within critical ecological thresholds (Davoudi et al., 2012). An important distinction between these two forms of resilience thinking is the existence of a singular and optimal equilibrium state. In contrast to the singular equilibrium model proposed by engineering resilience, ecological resilience argues that there are multiple equilibria (Davoudi et al., 2012) to which a system can evolve. This chapter is focused on a third definition of resilience; one which Davoudi et al. (2012) call evolutionary resilience and is closely aligned to socioecological resilience (Folke et al., 2010). This understanding of resilience rejects the notion of individual or multiple equilibrium states, arguing instead that over time systems can change regardless of external disturbances (Scheffer, 2009). Since systems are “complex, non-linear, and self-organizing, permeated by uncertainty and discontinuities” (Berkes and Folke, 1998: 12), this view considers resilience to be the ability to adapt and transform in response to internal and external stressors. This conceptualization of resilience is particularly relevant when considering the intertwined roles of culture and social structures for the development and/or existence of resilience. In terms of sociocultural and community-based resilience, attention is focused on how system members

read environmental change signals and modify practices based on social learning, collective knowledge, and observations (Christensen and Krogman, 2012). Resilience can be considered on a range of spatial scales. The resilience of communities has been a prominent scale, particularly in light of a drive towards sustainable communities (Wilson, 2010). Community resilience is considered in terms of “a community's ability to maintain, renew, or reorganize social system functions” (Varghese et al., 2006: 508). As such, community resilience is both an outcome (in terms of improved adaptive capacity) and a process (empowering communities to take control of their own developmental pathways) (Franklin et al., 2011). Social resilience is described by Adger (2000: 361) as “the ability of communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure.” Thus there are significant overlaps and interplay between socially/socioculturally focused resilience and community-based resilience. It has been argued that social resilience is eroded through traditional “command and control” resource management techniques as a result of “outsider control” (Christensen and Krogman, 2012) and the demotion of local knowledge (Berkes and Folke, 1998). In terms of local communities (rather than tourism operations or sectors), tourism can be considered as a tool through which resilience-oriented recovery (e.g. from a natural disaster) can be achieved (Muskat et al., 2012), a threat to which host communities must be resilient, and a way through which cultural resilience can be fostered. For example, Picard (1997: 181) states that, “the island of Bali has retained the vitality of its traditional culture in the modern world and many of them willingly credit tourism for providing the Balinese with an incentive to nurture their cultural heritage.” However, the maintenance of cultural heritage alone will not ensure the existence of resilience to external shocks and pressures.

Defining Culture Culture, like resilience, is a multifaceted term. The focus of this chapter is its usage as a social or anthropological term (Oakes and Price, 2008). It is argued that culture represents the longstanding, the collective, and the norm (Lipietz, 1999). However, culture is also dynamic, contested, and changeable (Sewell, 2008). Thus culture changes with place and time (Lipietz, 1999). Indeed, culture is argued to be a tool for both human geographers and ecologists in that it illustrates that, from place to place, community practices and behaviors are not homogenous (Lipietz, 1999). In terms of adaptation and resilience, Cuche (1996) argues that cultural adaptation to changing conditions has superseded genetic adaptation to environmental change, thereby emphasizing the increasingly important cultural dimensions of human–environment relationships. Despite the multitude of definitions, Sewell (2008) argues that distinctions between usage of the term culture are rarely made even though they constitute a crucial element of cultural research. He delineates a distinction between culture as a theoretically defined category and culture as a concrete and bounded set of beliefs and practices. In the latter sense, “culture … is commonly assumed to belong to or be isomorphic with a ‘society’ or with some clearly

identifiable sub-societal group” (Sewell, 2008: 42). This can be in terms of learned behavior and/or collective meaning making. Indeed, Lipietz (1999) argues that cultures have different capacities to tolerate individualistic behavior and allow individual freedoms. Fisher (2004) presents a “cultural circle” to explain the relationship between culture, experience, and behavior, arguing that, globally, few cultures exist as “closed systems.” It is important to note here that not all community members will be included in each cultural circle, with cultures fragmenting into subcultures which may or may not represent the original culture to varying degrees. Furthermore, in the context of this chapter, the cultural circle represents both the tourist and the host, with cultural processes occurring simultaneously in both groups. The importance of culture for resilience studies is that culture “shapes the availability and accessibility of facilitative resources (both internal and external) necessary for positive development under stress” (Ungar, 2010: 406). Thus the cultural circle symbolizes the interplay between culture, experience, and behavior and clearly demonstrates the connectivity between these factors in terms of sociocultural resilience. The relationships and dynamic nature of these factors can contribute to resilience through the construction of social capital.

The Value of Social Capital Social capital is a relatively neglected factor in resilience research (Aldrich, 2012), but there are examples of its application, particularly through the work of Adger (2000, 2003) and Adger et al. (2005). Social capital consists of the resources embedded in individual or community social networks comprising extended family networks, community support, and aid groups (Coleman, 1988; Dasgupta and Serageldin, 2000; Massey et al., 2002). Aldrich (2012: 13) argues that “stronger social capital results in building new norms about compliance and participation among network members; providing information and knowledge to individuals in the groups; and creating trustworthiness.” Social capital is a public good (Lesser, 2000); as such it can be argued that it is at risk of mistreatment as it exists in the commons, with no controls, ownership, or protection from exhaustion (Hardin, 2007). Consequently, social capital requires maintenance – such as time and energy – to remain productive, otherwise it can lose its value and status (Lesser, 2000). Furthermore, social capital does not belong to, and is not located in, any one actor. It exists due to the social relationships and interactions between the actors; thus it is dynamic and prone to changes and fluctuations. Adger (2003) states that, in terms of climatic risks, resilience is dependent on three factors: the social capital of the community or society, the flexibility and innovation of governance structures and industries, and the underlying health and wellbeing features of individuals and groups facing the impacts. These factors can also be seen as determining the resilience of communities and tourism destinations facing the impacts of tourism flows, coupled with an increasingly uncertain economic and environmental situation. In tourism studies, as with other academic fields, social capital has predominantly been employed in research focused on rural communities, particularly with respect to local development (Jóhannesson et al., 2003). While social capital has been identified as a source of

value for some communities, it is also a “slippery concept” (Jones, 2005), having both structural and cognitive components (Harpham et al., 2002). Structural aspects include networks, roles, and rules, with the cognitive components focusing on norms, values, attitudes, and beliefs as well as more connected issues involving degrees of trust, support, and reciprocity within the community setting. Despite early assumptions of a connection between the structural and cognitive aspects of social capital, research has suggested that community association does not guarantee personal connections (Grootaert and van Bastelaer, 2001; Jones, 2005). Social capital intricately connects the discourses of sociocultural and community-based resilience insomuch as community resources include natural, human, cultural, financial, builtenvironment, political, and social capital resources. These factors, in turn, contribute to the sustainability and resilience of the community to external stresses and pressures (Magis, 2010). Various forms of tourism, it is claimed, can stimulate cultural and social capital, as well as the local economy (Åkerlund and Müller, 2012). This includes the development of tourism events including Umeå's bid for European Capital of Culture 2014 (Åkerlund and Müller, 2012), where government discourses argued that tourism would promote and enhance local people, networks, interactions, and – thereby – social capital.

Resilience in Individualistic and Collectivist Societies Resilience research has been largely conducted in Western populations (Paton et al., 2008). It has been argued that the very construct of resilience is largely unknown outside of the Western and English-speaking nations (Ungar, 2010). As a result, research has begun to emerge considering resilience in collectivist societies including Thailand (Paton et al., 2008) and the conceptual and empirical challenges of understanding resilience across cultures (Ungar, 2010). When considering adaptive capacity in an individualist culture, analysis focuses on the interactions between individuals and the community (Paton and Johnston, 2006), with a “personal choice about levels of collaboration and cooperation rather than a cultural predisposition” (Paton et al., 2008: 109). A collectivist positioning, however, leads adaptive capacity, and indeed resilience, to arise from culturally embedded beliefs calling for collective action (Jang and Lamendola, 2006), focusing on alignment with collective goals, social relations, and social norms (Paton et al., 2008). Therefore, when considering community and/or resilience, culture is a critical factor which can contribute to, or reduce, resilience. The lack of research on collectivist societies has constrained the understanding of social capital and sociocultural resilience from a tourism perspective. However, catastrophic events over the past decade, including the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, have ignited considerable academic attention (Pardasani, 2006; Paton et al., 2008; Aldrich, 2011) largely focused on the role of social capital in recovery processes. For example, some consideration has been paid to the development of more resilient communities (Larsen et al., 2008). In their study of the Indian Ocean tsunami recovery, Larsen et al. (2008: iv) conclude that “the underlying causes of newly emerging vulnerabilities persist due to a lack of mechanisms for collective action in the wider recovery community and their limited capacity to learn to build resilience.” This highlights the

importance of sociocultural resilience in terms of social learning and social capital in building resilient communities. It could be argued that this would also be the case in a tourism context; however, more attention needs to be paid to the specifics of tourism case studies, where the impacts may not only be in the physical environment but also be social, economic, cultural, and political.

Tourism and its Sociocultural Impacts It is important to frame resilience research around understanding of the object being studied (the resilience of what?) and to what it is being resilient (Walker et al., 2004). In terms of the tourism industry, inbound tourism can have a range of positive and negative impacts upon host communities. It can contribute to changes in local value systems and morals, behaviors, relationships, collective lifestyles, creativity and traditions, and community structures (Mathieson and Wall, 1982). The term demonstration effect has been adopted by tourism scholars to explain the impact tourists can have on less-developed economies (Metalka, 1986: 30) through the imitation of other tourists' behaviors. Fisher (2004) identifies four categories of imitation resulting from the meeting of the imitator and the demonstrator: exact imitation, deliberately inexact imitation, accidental inexact imitation, and social learning. In terms of impacts, it has been argued that the consumption patterns of host communities are changing to replicate those of the tourists (de Kadt, 1979; Mathieson and Wall, 1982), often resulting in negative outcomes. Less attention has been paid to the positive outcomes of the demonstration effect including cultural pride (Jafari, 1989). However, Fisher (2004) contends that the demonstration effect is an inherently vague concept, which is difficult to disaggregate from other factors such as media influences, economic development, and increasing exposure to capitalism. Tourism has been employed as a developmental tool to create local employment, diversify economies, and prevent rural out-migration. Yet it can impact host communities economically, socially, culturally, and environmentally (Wall and Mathieson, 2006; Kim et al., 2012). Studies addressing the economic impacts of tourism have provided varied results. For example, Tosun (2002) finds that in some locations tourism can increase the local standard of living, whereas other studies have reported that tourism can increase the cost of goods, services, and land (Lundberg, 1990; Weaver and Lawton, 2001), thereby decreasing the local community's standard of living, with impacts on social and cultural wellbeing. Clearly there are both positive and negative attributes associated with the social and cultural impacts of tourism on host destinations (Teo, 1994). Socially, tourism can provide better infrastructure, amenities, and events for the local community but can also contribute to congestion and crowdedness. Kim et al. (2012: 2) suggest that tourism can, “contribute to social ills such as begging, gambling, drug trafficking, and prostitution, as well as uprooting traditional society and causing deterioration of the traditional culture.” Indeed, tourism has been deemed a “culture exploiter” (Young, 1973) with the abuse and misuse of traditional cultural structures. Conversely, research has suggested that tourism can be a positive incubator

for dying cultural practices and traditions, with tourism providing an outlet and rationale for reigniting cultural practices (Wang et al., 2006; Cecil et al., 2010).

Tourism and Resilience Research In terms of resilience, the tourism literature has predominantly focused on business enterprises (Biggs, 2011; Biggs et al. 2012), destinations, and industries (Strickland-Munro et al., 2010; Becken, 2013; Orchiston, 2013), rather than local communities. In keeping with the ecological origins of the resilience concept, Strickland-Munro et al. (2010) developed a framework for understanding the resilience of communities to the impacts of tourism in protected areas. Community in this research is defined in terms of physical boundaries and relates to the protected area tourism system. Sociocultural aspects are not explicitly included. In contrast, Ruiz-Ballesteros (2010) conceptualizes community as a socioanthropological concept that comprises, among others, social networks and practices, internal leadership and governing institutions, social structures, and conflict. Against this background, and by examining four proxies for resilience, Ruiz-Ballesteros finds that tourism contributes to the resilience of the local community in Agua Blanca, Ecuador. Similarly, in Biggs et al.'s (2012) study of tourism enterprises in Thailand highlights the importance of social capital as one factor of business resilience. While not focusing on communities as such, this study recognizes that businesses (especially the less formal lifestyle businesses) are embedded in social networks of both individuals and other businesses. These networks are underpinned by social norms, trust, and reciprocal exchange of support. The resulting social capital is particularly important during times of crises. The significance of networks as a resilience-enhancing factor has also been identified by Becken (2013) in her case study of tourism's resilience to climatic conditions in Queenstown, New Zealand.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections This chapter has critically examined sociocultural forms of resilience and tourism-reliant communities. It has identified the complexity of defining the term “culture” and the multifaceted relationship between culture and the tourism system. The demonstration effect was used to consider the positive and negative impacts of tourism on communities and their cultures. Nevertheless, no two cultures are the same, and as such they have varying coping capacities and ways of dealing with external stressors. Even within communities there will be a heterogeneous mix of subcultures and contextual factors facilitating or preventing the development of resilience. While acknowledging the wide range of cultural attributes contributing to resilience, this chapter has focused on the roles of social capital and social structures as two factors contributing to resilience through culture. In particular, this chapter has recognized the dearth of resilience research addressing non-Western and non-Englishspeaking societies. This is of particular importance when considering collectivist societies and the implications that cultural norms and behaviors could have on structures of resilience. In terms of methodology and methods, the complexity of studying both cultural issues and

communities calls for increasingly collaborative and multifaceted research (Westhues et al., 2008). This could include longitudinal research, or multiple phases, employing mixed methods which represent multiple stakeholder perspectives. Such research would benefit from the core involvement of researchers that are close to the culture, speak people's local language, have intimate knowledge of local values and customs, and maintain trusting relationships with those being investigated (Becken et al., 2013). This also highlights the need to better consider the role of the researcher(s) involved in cultural resilience research, and the coconstruction of knowledge. It seems that there is a major gap in the tourism literature, where we need to better understand how tourism communities function, their social capital, the factors contributing to the maintenance of social capital, and how tourism could contribute to the creation or destruction of social capital. More specifically it would then be important to study aspects of resilience that relate to cultural, societal (e.g. the collective versus the individualistic), and social structures. Greater understanding of such processes and dynamics is likely to contribute to the sustainability of communities and – as a result – tourist destinations.

References Adger, W.N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24: 347–364. Adger, W.N. 2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79(4): 387–404. Adger, W.N., Hughes, T.P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., and Rockström, J. 2005. Socialecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309(5737): 1036–1039. Åkerlund, U. and Müller, D.K. 2012. Implementing tourism events: the discourses of Umeå's bid for European Capital of Culture 2014. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 12(2): 164–180. Aldrich, D.P. 2011. The externalities of strong social capital: post-tsunami recovery in Southeast India. Journal of Civil Society, 7(1): 81–99. Aldrich, D.P. 2012. Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Becken, S. 2013. Developing a framework for assessing resilience of tourism sub-systems to climatic factors. Annals of Tourism Research, 43: 506–528. Becken, S., Lama, A., and Espiner, S. 2013. The cultural context of climate change impacts: perceptions among community members in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environmental Development, 8: 22–37. Berkes, F. 2007. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience

thinking. Natural Hazards, 41(2): 45–57. Berkes, F. and Folke, C. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. In Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds), pp. 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biggs, D. 2011. Understanding resilience in a vulnerable industry: the case of reef tourism on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Ecology and Society, 16(1): 30. Biggs, D., Hall, C.M., and Stoeckl, N. 2012. The resilience of formal and informal enterprises to disasters: reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(5): 645– 665. Cecil, A.K., Fu, Y.-Y., Wang, S., and Avgoustis, S. 2010. Cultural tourism and quality of life: results of a longitudinal study. European Journal of Tourism Research, 3(1): 54–66. Christensen, L. and Krogman, N. 2012. Social thresholds and their translation into socialecological management practices. Ecology and Society, 17(1): 5–14. Clauss-Ehlers, C.S., Yang, Y.-T.T., and Chen, W.-C.J. 2006. Resilience from childhood stressors: the role of cultural resilience, ethnic identity, and gender identity. Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 5(1): 124–138. Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95–S120. Cuche, D. 1996. La Notion De Culture Dans Les Sciences Sociales. Paris: La Découverte. Cutter, S.L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., and Webb, J. 2008. A placebased model for understanding community reliance to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4): 598–606. Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. 2000. Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. Daskon, C.D. 2010. Cultural resilience – the roles of cultural traditions in sustaining rural livelihoods: a case study from rural Kandyan villages in central Sri Lanka. Sustainability, 2(4): 1080–1100. Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L.J., Quinlan, A.E., Peterson, G.D., Wilkinson, C., Funfgeld, H., McEvoy, D., and Porter, L. 2012. Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2): 299–333. de Kadt, E.J. 1979. Tourism: Passport to Development? New York: Oxford University Press. Fisher, D. 2004. The demonstration effect revisited. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2): 428– 446.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., and Rockström, J. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4): 20–29. Franklin, A., Newton, J., and McEntee, J.C. 2011. Moving beyond the alternative: sustainable communities, rural resilience and the mainstreaming of local food. Local Environment, 16(6): 771–788. Grootaert, C. and van Bastelaer, T. 2001. Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations from The Social Capital Initiative. Social Captial Initiative Working Paper no. 24. Washington, DC: World Bank. Hall, C.M. and Lew, A. 2009. Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts: An Integrated Approach. London: Routledge. Hardin, G. 2007. The tragedy of the unmanaged commons. In Evolutionary Perspectives on Environmental Problems, D.J. Penn and I. Mysterud (eds), pp. 105–107. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Harpham, T., Grant, E., and Thomas, E. 2002. Measuring social capital within health surveys: key issues. Health Policy and Planning 17: 106–111. Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23. Holling, C.S. 2010. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In Foundations of Ecological Resilience, L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling (eds), pp. 51–66. Washington, DC: Island Press. Jafari, J. 1989. Sociocultural dimensions of tourism: an English language literature review. In Tourism as a Factor of Change: A Sociocultural Study, J. Bystrzanowski (ed.), pp. 17–60. Vienna: European Coordination Centre for Research and Documentation in Social Sciences. Jang, L.-J. and Lamendola, W. 2006. The Hakka Spirit as a predictor of resilience. In Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach, D. Paton and D. Johnston (eds), pp. 174–189. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. Jóhannesson, G.Þ., Skaptadóttir, U.D., and Benediktsson, K. 2003. Coping with social capital? The cultural economy of tourism in the north. Sociologia Ruralis, 43(1): 3–16. Jones, S. 2005. Community-based ecotourism: the significance of social capital. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2): 303–324. Kim, K., Uysal, M., and Sirgy, M.J. 2012. How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management 36: 1–14. Larsen, R.K., Miller, F., and Thomalla, F. 2008. Vulnerability in the Context of Post 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Recovery: Lessons for Building More Resilient Coastal

Communities. A Synthesis of Documented Factors Contributing to Tsunami Related Vulnerability in Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Risk, Livelihoods & Vulnerability Programme, Working Paper. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute. Lesser, E.L. 2000. Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications. Woburn: Butterworth Heinemann. Lipietz, A. 1999. Cultural geography, political economy and ecology. European Planning Studies, 7(1): 41–50. Liu, J.C. and Var, T. 1986. Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2): 193–214. Lundberg, D.E. 1990. The Tourism Business, 6th edn. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold. Magis, K. 2010. Community resilience: an indicator of social sustainability. Society and Natural Resources, 23(5): 401–416. Markusen, A. 1999. Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: the case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies. Regional Studies, 33(9): 869–884. Massey, D.S., Durand, J., and Malone, N.J. 2002. Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. 1982. Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. New York: Longman. Metalka, C. 1986. Demonstration effect. In The Dictionary of Tourism, C. Metalka (ed.), p. 30. Albany: Delmar Industries. Muskat, B., Nakanishi, H., and Blackman, D. 2012. Integrating Tourism into ResilienceOriented Adaptation and Recovery – the Case of Japan after the Tsunami 2011. Paper presented at the CAUTHE 2012: The New Golden Age of Tourism and Hospitality, Book 2, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference, Melbourne. Oakes, T.S. and Price, P.L. (eds) 2008. The Cultural Geography Reader. Abingdon: Routledge. Orchiston, C. 2013. Tourism business preparedness, resilience and disaster planning in a region of high seismic risk: the case of the Southern Alps, New Zealand. Current Issues in Tourism, 16: 477–494. Pardasani, M. 2006. Tsunami reconstruction and redevelopment in the Maldives: a case study of community participation and social action. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15(1): 79–91. Paton, D., Gregg, C.E., Houghton, B.F., Lachman, R., Lachman, J., Johnston, D.M., and Wongbusarakum, S. 2008. The impact of the 2004 Tsunami on coastal Thai communities:

assessing adaptive capacity. Disasters, 32(1): 106–119. Paton, D. and Johnston, D. 2006. Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. Picard, M. 1997. Cultural tourism, nation-building, and regional culture: the making of a Balinese identity. In Tourism, Ethnicity, and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies, M. Picard and R.E. Wood (eds), pp. 181–214. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Reisinger, Y. 2013. Reflections on globalisation and cultural tourism. In Routledge Handbook of Cultural Tourism, M. Smith and G. Richards (eds), pp. 40–46. Abingdon: Routledge. Ritzer, G. 2004. The “Mcdonaldization” of society. Journal of American Culture, 6(1): 100– 107. Ruiz-Ballesteros, E. 2010. Social-ecological resilience and community-based tourism. an approach from Agua Blanca, Ecuador. Tourism Management, 32(3): 655–666. Scheffer, M. 2009. Critical Transitions in Nature and Society, Princeton Studies in Complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Scott, D., Hall, C.M., and Gössling, S. 2012. Tourism and Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. London: Routledge. Sewell, Jr, W. 2008. The concept(s) of culture. In The Cultural Geography Reader, T.S. Oakes and P.L. Price (eds), pp. 40–50. Abingdon: Routledge. Strickland-Munro, J., Allison, H.E., and Moore, S.A. 2010. Using resilience concepts to investigate the impacts of protected area tourism on communities. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2): 499–519. Taufatofua, R.G. and Craig-Smith, S. 2010. The socio-cultural impacts of visiting friends and relatives on hosts: a Samoan study. In Island Sustainability, S. Favro and C.A. Brebbia (eds), pp. 89–100. Southhampton: WIT Press. Teo, P. 1994. Assessing socio-cultural impacts: the case of Singapore. Tourism Management, 15(2): 126–136. Tosun, C. 2002. Host perceptions of impacts: a comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research 29: 231–235. Ungar, M. 2010. Cultural dimensions of resilience among adults. In Handbook of Adult Resilience J.W. Reich, A. Zautra, and J.S. Hall (eds), pp. 404–423. New York: The Guilford Press. Varghese, J., Krogman, N.T., Beckley, T.M., and Nadeau, S. 2006. Critical analysis of the relationship between local ownership and community resiliency. Rural Sociology, 71(3): 505– 527.

Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., and Kinzig, A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2): 1–9. Wall, G. and Mathieson, A. 2006. Tourism: Changes, Impacts and Opportunities. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall. Wang, S., Fu, Y.Y., Cecil, A.K., and Avgoustis, S.H. 2006. Residents' perceptions of cultural tourism and quality of life: a longitudinal approach. Tourism Today, 6: 47–61. Weaver, D. and Lawton, L. 2001. Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research, 28: 349–458. Westhues, A., Ochocka, J., Jacobson, N., Simich, L., Maiter, S., Janzen, R., and Fleras, A. 2008. Developing theory from complexity: reflections on a collaborative mixed method participatory action research study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(5): 701–717. Wilson, G. 2010. Multifunctional “quality” and rural community resilience. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(3): 364–381. Young, G. 1973. Tourism: Blessing or Blight? Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Chapter 40 Tourism and Tourists in Nature, National Parks, and Wilderness Jarkko Saarinen Nature has only been a major attraction element for tourists for a relatively short period of time. Shortly before the industrial age and the birth of public vacationing, nature emerged as a recreational environment for the eighteenth-century Western upper classes to get away from crowded urban environments (Neumann, 1998). This early interest in natural settings was based on a Romantic movement that emphasized nature's spiritual and mental significance (Nash, 1982). In general, however, alongside the emerging positive spiritual and experiential values, wild nature was also an environment to be feared and avoided for many Westerners (Short, 1991), and the early Romantic touristic interest remained rather limited. Nevertheless, it created a basis for later uses and meanings of natural environments for tourists and the evolving mass-scale tourism industry (see Shields, 1990). Many natural and wild environments are now “universally regarded as a source of pleasure” (Wang, 2000: 80) and are actively promoted as sites for tourism consumption and associated place marketing (Saarinen, 2004; Hall and Boyd, 2005). Nevertheless, the early experiential character still forms a key element of nature as a tourist attraction, explaining why people go into nature and what they seek there. As noted by several scholars, the experience of the natural environment in tourism and recreation can symbolically and mentally relate to a past connection between people and the land and serve as a link that has disappeared from contemporary urban and suburban life (Oelschlaeger, 1991). This is especially the case with tourism in national parks and wilderness areas and contemporary modes of nature-based tourism, such as adventure tourism and ecotourism (Weaver et al., 2010). Modern tourism has used natural landscapes and elements for the growth basis of the industry. This has created a variety of positive and negative side effects for the environment and the industry. The touristic value of natural environments has been used for nature conservation goals and many iconic natural environments, such as Yellowstone National Park (USA), were established with the support of tourism interests (Hall, 1992; Eagles and McCool, 2002). Even in the present day, Hall (2006: 213) argues that “in many locations, tourism provides an economic justification to establish conservation areas, such as national parks.” The historical growth of visitation numbers to Yellowstone National Park, for example, demonstrates the importance and attraction value of nature in tourism and it also indicates the motivation for the industry to support specific nature conservation efforts. In the case of the Yellowstone, annual visitor numbers have grown from 19 575 in 1910 to 3 447 729 in 2012 (National Park Service, 2013a). This kind of growth rate also brings about some of the major challenges that have appeared in the relationship between a growth-oriented industry within the capitalistic mode of production and natural environments. Nature is a resource and a source of extraction for the tourism industry. Nature and especially

national parks and wilderness areas, however, cannot absorb very high tourist numbers and intensive tourism practices without negative consequences for the environment and the experiences nature-based tourists are searching for. This has led to attempts to regulate tourist numbers and the creation of various management procedures to limit the growth of tourism, but in spite of these attempts the growth of tourism has caused inevitable negative impacts on natural environments in many places. According to Van der Duim and Caalders (2002: 746) the impacts of tourism have been a major focal point in the policy discussions on tourism and nature, and the impacts are often perceived as conflicting with nature conservation (Goodwin, 1996). Similarly, Budowski (1976) indicated that the relationship between tourists and nature can be characterized by potentially disruptive and exploitative conflict situations. On the other hand, he also described the relation as a potentially symbiotic coexistence (Fennell and Weaver, 2005). In order to reduce the negative and optimize the positive impacts of a growing industry, new modes and forms of tourism utilizing nature have been developed in recent decades. These new nature-based forms of tourism include terms such as ecotourism, aiming at sustainable development in tourism. However, at the same time other forms of nature-based tourism have emerged, including adventure tourism and safari tourism, which may not always have explicit ideas or practices aiming for sustainability. This chapter takes an overview of the significance and role of natural environments for tourism and tourists. The special focus is on tourism and tourists in national parks and wilderness contexts. In addition, the chapter discusses the changing modes and forms of tourism in nature and existing and emerging issues of conflicts and their management in nature-based tourism.

The Role of Nature: Tourism in National Parks and Wilderness Areas Demand for the Wild Nature is a major tourist attraction and nature-based tourism is one of the central components of tourist activities today. Increased demand for tourists to experience nature has been based on the changing positive attitudes towards the environment in general (Hall and Page, 2002), and the development of accessibility to remote natural areas has integrated natural areas more closely to global tourism markets and the main tourist-generating regions. Ideally, nature-based tourism relies on the attractiveness of relatively underdeveloped areas characterized by natural attractions and environments and the associated activities that can be pursued there. According to Goodwin (1996: 287), nature-based tourism is a type of tourism that “encompasses all forms of tourism – mass tourism, adventure tourism, low-impact tourism, ecotourism – which use natural resources in wild or underdeveloped form.” Occasionally it is linked to the idea of alternative tourism or sustainable tourism (Whelan, 1991; Burton, 1998), but it can be concluded that sustainability is not strictly a condition for nature-based tourism utilizing the natural environment as its resource base. However, while sustainability would not do any harm to nature it would most probably limit some of the production modes of nature-based tourism.

It is estimated that nature-based tourism is one of the most rapidly growing sectors of tourism (Wearing et al., 2010: 80). The Ministry of Environment in Finland, for example, has stated that the growth of nature-based tourism is 8–10% per year (Ministry of Environment, 2002). While this may be the case, it is rather challenging to verify, as national or international tourism statistics do not separate nature-based tourism from other forms or environments of tourism. In addition, the definitions of nature-based tourism, such as the one given above, are difficult to operationalize in a statistical sense: “wild or underdeveloped” are not objective criteria but vary between places and cultures. Like nature (Beck, 1992), ideas of wild and wilderness are culturally constructed (Nash, 1982; Saarinen, 2005, 2013). In addition, many definitions of nature-based tourism also involve motivational aspects (Goodwin, 1996; Holden, 2008), which are important but, again, very difficult to transfer into statistics aiming to demonstrate the intensity and growth of nature-based tourism on a national or international scale. The growth estimates of nature-based tourism are often based on the generalizations of specific cases or the use levels of certain kinds of nature-based tourism attractions. Related to the latter perspective, national parks and wilderness areas have formed typical points of reference for such estimations (Cessford and Muhar, 2003). National parks are protected natural or nearnatural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic to the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities (IUCN, 1978). Recreational and visitor opportunities refer to the tourism potential which has been noted as significant in many places. In Finland, for example, total visitor numbers to national parks more than doubled in the 1990s and again in 2000s (Saarinen, 2005; Puhakka, 2008) and in 2009 visitor spending led to an economic impact of some €86 million and 1100 jobs in the areas that surround national parks (Huhtala et al., 2010). However, tourist interest is not evenly distributed between different areas: some national parks are receiving a much higher-than-average level of growth, while others may have more stable or even declining visitor numbers. In addition, different regions and countries are facing varying levels of growth. While Nordic and southern African countries, for example, have reported increasing visitor numbers since the 1990s (see Ferreira and Harmse, 1999; Saethorsdottir, 2004; Saarinen, 2005; Saayman and Saayman, 2006; Fredman and Tyrväinen, 2010), many North American national parks and wilderness areas have experienced much more stable or even decreasing interest (Table 40.1). In many cases in the USA, the growth of nature-based tourism in national parks occurred long before the 1990s and has actually stabilized in recent decades. Therefore, the estimated and promoted global growth of naturebased tourism should not be generalized automatically on a global basis. In addition to the geographical dimension, the touristic use of national parks and wilderness areas is also often highly seasonal, with intensive peak times and slow periods.

Table 40.1. Development of visitor numbers in 1940–2010 in selected National Parks in the USA.

Experiencing the Wild Why do people go to national parks and other natural environments? Are the reasons still related to sublime, enlightening experiences and nostalgic escapism from urban environments? According to international empirical studies, the spectrum of tourists' motivations to visit nature is broad (Uysal et al., 1994; Holden and Sparrowhawk, 2002). The motivations are largely based on experiences and activities that natural settings can provide in general. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989), for example, have reported that experiencing nature and its different aspects are of key interest to people who visit natural environments. It is difficult to disagree with such an obvious conclusion. Thus, elements such as experiencing peace and quiet and natural beauty, wildlife viewing, physical exercise, and spiritual encounters are among the main motivations for nature-based tourism. However, studies have also indicated social reasons (e.g. shared time and experiences with family or friends) and heritage and identity issues (e.g. visiting nationally or personally important sites) to be important motivations for nature tourists. Weaver et al. (2010: 80) indicate that natural areas can “represent, and are living embodiments of, the past, contributing to a sense of continuity and identity.” Van der Merwe and Saayman's (2008) study of the travel motives of tourists visiting the Kruger National Park in South Africa, for example, identified six motives: nature, activities, attractions, nostalgia, novelty, and escape. Thus, nature-based tourism experience by definition focuses on nature but it may go beyond to involve other experiences and dimensions. Van der Merwe and Saayman (2008: 158) also concluded that while there were commonalities with other similar studies conducted elsewhere internationally, “different attractions and destinations feed different motives to travel. Thus, although nature or natural environments can be seen as a single attraction category for tourism, they can involve cultural dimensions, for example, among other elements.” In addition to national parks, one specific and culturally loaded environment for nature-based tourism is the wilderness. According to Tuan (1974: 112), it is impossible to define a wilderness in an objective manner, but rather it receives its definition by way of being a state of mind. All this makes the wilderness a contested concept with connections to different kinds of objectives, values, uses, and attitudes globally, which can often be mutually contradictory (Nash, 1982; Hall, 1992; Burks, 1994; Saarinen, 2005). However, the wilderness is also a conservation category and an object for management practices (Hendee et al., 1990). Thus, it requires a more operational than “state-of-mind” definition. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), for example, has defined wilderness as protected areas that are usually large, unmodified, or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition (Category Ib) (IUCN, 1978; see also IUCN/WCMC, 1994). This kind of definition, emphasizing untouched and uncivilized characteristics of wilderness environments, is linked to the first wilderness legislation passed in the USA in 1964 (Wilderness Act, 1964). While there are numerous other definitions (Hallikainen, 1998; Saarinen, 2013), the IUCN and the US Wilderness Act form a global basis for wilderness and its uses in tourism: wilderness areas are places that provide primitive and unconfined recreational opportunities and experiences and a sense of remoteness, peace, challenge, and

escapism (Hendee et al., 1990; Higham, 1998). In addition to this diverse scale of tourist experiences and motivations, the possibility of solitude is often acknowledged as a desirable state among nature-based tourists in wilderness areas (Hammitt, 1982; Roggenbuck et al., 1993). The US Wilderness Act (1964: 1), for example, emphasizes that wilderness areas should offer “outstanding opportunities for solitude.” Obviously, as nature-based tourist numbers have grown, this has become an increasingly challenging state to reach for visitors and wilderness area managers.

Nature-Based Tourism Industry Old and New Modes of Nature-Based Tourism In tourism, any given environment, natural or urban, is not a static but constantly changing product of certain combinations of social, political, and economic relationships that are specific in space and time. Thus, not even the attractions of nature are static and “out there” waiting to be discovered and admired: in tourism they are our and others' constructions, dependent not only on individual perspectives but also changing societal contexts (Saarinen, 2004), i.e. what is seen and valued by nature-based tourists is often a cultural projection created by tourism and modernization in general. In tourism, nature and its specific elements have become products with certain qualities attached to particular places. For example, MacCannell (1992: 115) describes Yosemite National Park (USA) as a human product, a piece of nature that is marked off, interpreted, and museumized for the purposes of visitors and society. In addition to being a source and force of change to nature, nature-based tourism has itself transformed. Current high visitor numbers in national parks and many wilderness areas are based on individual but also increasingly packaged, or organized, tourism (Buckley, 1999). For example, in 2011 Grand Canyon National Park's 4 360 466 visits were largely based on 5 558 440 boardings on the organized shuttle service and 132 365 train boardings (northbound) (and 642 000 commercial air tour passengers in the 1997–1998 fiscal year) (National Park Service (2013b). The shuttle service operates like a city bus system with three shuttle routes and stops at shops, visitor centers, and popular viewpoints around the south rim of the Grand Canyon. This kind of development trend forms a sharp contrast to the discussions of the end of mass tourism and views linking nature-based tourism to small-scale and alternative modes of tourism (Poon, 1993). While the declaration of the end of mass tourism is still premature, there have been structural changes which have led to a decrease in the relative importance of mass tourism and modifications in the ways mass tourism itself operates (Fennell, 1999). It has been argued that the current tourism industry aims to create products in novel ways that conform better to the anticipated new kinds of individual and environmentally friendly structures of motivations, segments, and trends in tourist consumption (Urry, 1990). This shift is regarded as a step away from mass tourism towards individual travel in general (Mowforth and Munt, 1998), and the products of mass tourism have also transformed relatively towards increasing possibilities of flexibility, individuality, and even hybridity. For example, international tour

operators have created a product that links the Arctic Circle, Rovaniemi (Finland), and its winter activities and wilderness experiences with the tropical seaside resort of Phuket, Thailand, in the same 12-day package holiday (Hall et al., 2009). Some of the recent structural changes in the industry have been labeled with the terms alternative tourism and new tourism (Poon, 1993; Fennell, 1999). Alternative tourism modes aim to create a contrast to conventional mass tourism (Krippendorf, 1982), while the new tourism represents a supposedly more innovative post-Fordist style of tourist production (Urry, 1990). Some of these innovations are strongly based on the new kind of uses of nature in tourism and the growth of the so-called experience economy (Pine and Gilmore, 1999). The experience economy aims to interlink space, time, and human experiences together in systems in which individuals seek to perform a wide and new variety of activities (Saarinen, 2004) involving excitement, exercise, and speed (see Ryan et al., 2000). One of the core forms of these new modes of nature-based tourism with high emphasis on activity levels and experiences is related to adventure tourism (see Gyimothy and Mykletun, 2004; Buckley, 2006; Cater, 2006). For some, adventure tourism is seen as an active recreational practice which requires deep involvement: “being, doing and seeing” (Cloke and Perkins, 1998: 189) rather than “touristic staying.” Thus, it resonates strongly with the mental characteristics of naturebased tourism. Millington et al. (2001: 67) have stated that adventure tourism is a leisure activity that takes place in an unusual, exotic, remote, or wilderness destination (see Fennell and Eagles, 1990). According to Swarbrooke et al. (2003) adventure tourism is situated at the cutting edge of shifts in tourism production and consumption, which also underlines the key role of nature-based tourism in the tourism industry.

Evolving Conflicts The establishment and management of national parks and wilderness areas have created better possibilities for the public to visit them. While this has provided increasing and new kinds of possibilities for nature-based tourism experiences and activities, the growing levels of use have also started to pose a threat to ecological bases of protected areas and their wilderness characteristics. Although tourism has historically benefited the nature conservation movement and the establishment of many national parks, wilderness areas, and other protected area units (Butler and Boyd, 2000; Frost and Hall, 2010), the “presentist” situation is that increasing and transforming modes of nature-based tourism are targeting areas and places that exist primarily for nature conservation and protection purposes. In this respect, the historically conditional and often relatively widely accepted balance between nature conservation and tourism can be challenged, if there are no effective elements to limit the growth and related impacts of tourism (Saarinen, 2013). In addition to potential challenges with nature conservation and biodiversity issues, the increase in nature-based tourism can conflict with nature experiences focusing on solitude and an unconfined type of recreation (Higham, 1998). The increasing number of visitors require more infrastructure, services, and environmental modifications, for example, which may be regarded negatively by other user groups that prefer opportunities for solitude and the experience of unregulated and wild settings. In some cases, this may lead to a displacement

process; that is, a replacement of former users and user types by new modes of nature-based tourists and tourism products (see Anderson and Brown, 1984; Vaske et al., 1986). In this respect, the issue is not only related to the number of tourists but also to their nature. The increasing numbers of nature-based tourism will also probably bring new kinds of tourist groups with new sets of motivations, activities and user norms (see Patterson and Hammitt, 1990; Roggenbuck et al., 1993). Indeed, the increased attractiveness and numbers of visitors, along with diminishing wild or natural areas, creates substantial challenges for the management of these areas. The issue of carrying capacity in particular is problematic in the management of protected areas, as the process of determining maximum use levels has turned out to be a complex issue (see Butler, 1996; Lindberg et al., 1997). However, as nature-based tourism increases, strict place-specific limits to growth in tourism may be needed. In this respect, Butler (2010) has called for a revitalization of models such as carrying capacity in tourism and recreation research, which could be used to limit the growth of tourism if the ecological and sociocultural elements of natural environments are endangered due to intensive tourism use.

Conclusions: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections on Multiple Layers of Ambivalence The link between tourism and nature is almost as old as the history of nature conservation (Frost and Hall, 2010). The increasingly diversified forms of nature-based tourism have commodified and promoted natural environments and throughout this shared history the tourism industry has become a very significant user and powerful stakeholder in natural environments it uses or has a potential to use. In addition, tourism has also become a major element of change in many natural areas: nature-based tourism can provide positive contributions to environment and nature conservation, but it can also create negative impacts. In many respects, the relationship between tourism and nature has always been characterized by a certain level of contradictions and ambivalence, both supporting symbiotic and conflicting connections at the same time. Early interest in natural settings related to tourism and wellbeing was based on a Romantic movement, emphasizing a spiritual and mental significance nature afforded to people, while at the same time nature and particularly the wilderness were a feared “other” and avoided environment for people linked to agriculture and the evolving urban environment. A different kind of ambivalence emerged along with the growth of global tourism and touristic attractiveness of nature after the Second World War. This growth created more and more visible impacts of nature-based tourism in national parks, wildernesses, and natural environments in general, and the relationship between tourism and nature transformed towards critical discussions on the balance between the positive and negative impacts of tourism. Originally, these discussions were largely related to carrying capacity, which was abandoned in 1980s and relatively recently turned towards the idea of sustainable tourism. While sustainability is a holistic and future-oriented perspective on the use of ecological,

sociocultural, and economic resources, in tourism it has mostly focused on local-scale issues and management challenges. Recently, however, research needs and efforts beyond a single site or destination scale analysis have emerged in a conceptual level with an emphasis on “a more global-scale” focus in the research of tourism-environment nexus (Bramwell and Lane, 2008: 1; see also Gössling, 2002; Saarinen, 2006). There are many dimensions in global tourism–environment relations, but, on the one hand, it is about how the ambivalent relationship between tourism and nature has turned the adaptive capacity of the tourism system towards global environmental change, especially climate change. On the other hand, it is about how tourism “contributes” to that change and what kind of policy structures and elements of control and change (adjustments) are required and are emerging on local and global scales. One closely related indication of this is the discussion on new environmental ethics for tourism (Holden, 2003; Macbeth, 2005; Fennell, 2006) with less tourism-centric views in development and planning thinking and practices. However, as noted by Buckley (2012), empirical examinations and management processes on tourism impacts and environmental relations in a global scale are rare. One reason for this is probably the challenge in collecting, scaling, and analysing such system-level phemenon operating in and between local and global at the same time. In addition, the conceptual understanding of tourism–environment relations or the implications of “truly” sustainable development thinking in the global tourism system are still highly contested. What appears to be clear now in the context of tourism and tourists in nature is that for there to be areas that provide primitive and unconfined nature-based tourism opportunities and experiences in the future, there is a requirement for critical discussions and evaluations about the production modes of nature-based tourism. Key issues are how much and what kind tourism taking place in natural environments we allow and support in future as some places are already ecologically endangered and socially in a process of becoming “nonnature.” In addition, the development policies, structures, and management models that aim to safeguard natural environments in tourism uses in a local–global nexus need to be re-evaluated and clarified. In other words there is a need to shift or expand the focus of sustainability and environmental concerns in tourism from destinations to a global tourism system scale but also further develop planning processes, tools, and indicators for site-specific, local-scale management purposes in nature-based tourism development. All this calls for new theoretical and methodological perspectives, or a revival of previous approaches, in tourism studies which obviously are easier to plea for than produce, especially when considering currently hegemonic modes of tourism-centric thinking in development policies and plans in many places and parts of the world.

References Anderson, D. and Brown, P. 1984. The displacement process in recreation. Journal of Leisure Research, 16: 61–73. Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. 2008. Priorities in sustainable tourism research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16: 1–4. Buckley, R. 1999. Wilderness in Australia. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference Volume 2, S. McCool, D. Cole, B. Borrie, and J. O'Loughlin (compilers), pp. 190– 193. Ogden: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Buckley, R. 2006. Adventure Tourism. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Buckley, R. 2012. Sustainable tourism: research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 528–546. Budowski, G. 1976. Tourism and environmental conservation: conflict, coexistence, or symbiosis? Environmental Conservation, 3(1): 27–31. Burks, D. (ed.) 1994. Place of the Wild. Washington, DC: Island Press. Burton, R. 1998. Maintaining the quality of ecotourism: ecotour operators' responses to tourism growth. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6: 117–142. Butler, R. 1996. The concept of carrying capacity for tourism destinations: dead or merely buried? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2: 283–293. Butler, R. 2010. Carrying capacity in tourism. In Tourism Research: A 20–20 Vision, D. Pearce and R. Butler (eds), pp. 53–64. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers. Butler, R. and Boyd, S. (eds) 2000. Tourism and National Parks: Issues and Implications. Chichester: Wiley. Cater, C. 2006. Playing with risk? Participant perceptions of risk and management implications in adventure tourism. Tourism Management, 27: 317–325. Cessford, G. and Muhar, A. 2003. Monitoring options for visitor numbers in national parks and natural areas. Journal for Nature Conservation, 11: 240–250. Cloke, P. and Perkins, H. 1998. Cracking the canyon with the awesome foursome. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 16: 185–218. Eagles, P. and McCool, S. 2002. Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and Management. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Fennell, D. 1999. Ecotourism: an Introduction. New York: Routledge. Fennell, D. 2006. Tourism Ethics. Clevedon: Channel View. Fennell, D. and Eagles, P. 1990. Ecotourism in Costa Rica: a conceptual framework. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 8: 23–34. Fennell, D. and Weaver, D. 2005. The ecotourism concept and tourism-conservation

symbiosis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13: 373–390. Ferreira, S. and Harmse, A. 1999. The social carrying capacity of Kruger National Park, South Africa: policy and practice. Tourism Geographies, 1: 325–342. Fredman, P. and Tyrväinen, L. 2010. Frontiers in nature-based tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10: 177–189. Frost, W. and Hall, C.M. (eds) 2010. Tourism and National Parks. London: Routledge. Goodwin, H. 1996. In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5: 277–291. Gössling, S. 2002. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change, 12: 283–302. Gyimothy, S. and Mykletun, R. 2004. Play in adventure tourism: the case of arctic trekking. Annals of Tourism Research, 31: 855–878. Hall, C.M. 1992. Wasteland to World Heritage: Preserving Australia's Wilderness. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Hall, C.M. 2006. Tourism, biodiversity and global environmental change. In Tourism and Global Environmental Change, S. Gössling and C.M. Hall (eds), pp. 211–226. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Boyd, S. (eds) 2005. Nature-Based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Development or Disaster? Clevedon: Channel View. Hall, C.M., Müller, D., and Saarinen, J. 2009. Nordic Tourism: Cases and Issues. Clevedon: Channel View. Hall, C.M. and Page, S. 2002. The Geography of Tourism: Environment, Place and Space, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Hallikainen, V. 1998. The Finnish wilderness experience. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja, 711: 1–288. Hammitt, W. 1982. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness solitude. Environment and Behaviour, 14: 478–493. Hendee, J., Stankey, G., and Lucas, B. 1990. Wilderness Management. Golden: Fulcrum. Higham, J. 1998. Sustaining the physical and social dimensions of wilderness tourism: the perceptual approach to wilderness management in New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6: 26–51. Holden, A. 2003. In need of new environmental ethics for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1): 94–108.

Holden, A. 2008. Environment and Tourism. London: Routledge. Holden, A. and Sparrowhawk, J. 2002. Understanding the motivations of ecotourists: the case of trekkers in Annapurna, Nepal. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4: 435–446. Huhtala, M., Kajala, L., and Vatanen, E. 2010. Local Economic Impacts of National Park Visitors' Spending: The Development Process of an Estimation Method. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute, 149. Vantaa: Finnish Forest Research Institute. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 1978. Categories, Objectives and Criteria for Protected Areas. Commission in National Parks and Protected Areas, Committee on Criteria and Nomenclature. Gland: IUCN. IUCN/WCMC (International Union for Conservation of Nature/World Conservation Monitoring Centre) 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Cambridge: IUCN. Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Krippendorf, J. 1982. Towards new tourism policies. Tourism Management, 3(1): 135–148. Lindberg, K., McCool, S., and Stankey, G. 1997. Rethinking carrying capacity. Annals of Tourism Research, 24: 461–465. Macbeth, J. 2005. Towards an ethics platform for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32: 962–984. MacCannell, D. 1992. Empty Meeting Ground: The Tourist Papers. London: Routledge. Millington, K., Locke, T., and Locke, A. 2001. Adventure travel. Travel and Tourism Analyst, 4: 65–97. Ministry of Environment 2002. Programme for developing recreation and nature-based tourism. Suomen ympäristö, 535 (in Finnish). Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. 1998. Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. London: Yale University Press. National Park Service 2013a. National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics. https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/ParkSpecificReports/AnnualParkVisitation(AllYears)? Park=YELL. National Park Service 2013b. Grand Canyon: Park Profile 2012. www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload/2012grcaProfile.pdf. Neumann, R. 1998. Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature

Preservation in Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Oelschlaeger, M. 1991. The Idea of Wilderness: from Prehistory to the Age of Ecology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Patterson, M. and Hammitt, W. 1990. Backcountry encounter norms, actual reported encounters, and their relationship to wilderness solitude. Journal of Leisure Research, 22(3): 259–275. Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. 1999. The Experience Economy: work is theatre and every business a stage: goods & services are no longer enough. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Poon, A. 1993. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Wallinford: CABI Publishing. Puhakka, R. 2008. Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks. Fennia, 186(1): 47–58. Roggenbuck, J., Williams, D., and Watson, A. 1993. Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management, 17: 187–197. Ryan, C., Hughes, K., and Chirgwin, S. 2000. The gaze, spectacle and ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27: 148–163. Saarinen, J. 2004. Tourism and touristic representations of nature. In Geography: A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 438–449. Blackwell, Oxford. Saarinen, J. 2005. Tourism in northern wildernesses: nature-based tourism development in Northern Finland. In Nature-Based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Development or Disaster?, C.M. Hall and S. Boyd (eds), pp. 36–49. Clevedon: Channel View. Saarinen, J. 2006. Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33: 1121–1140. Saarinen, J. 2013. ‘Tourism into the wild’: the limits of tourism in wilderness. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and the Environment, A. Holden and D. Fennell (eds), pp. 145–154. London, Routledge. Saayman, M. and Saayman, A. 2006. Estimating the economic contribution of visitor spending in the Kruger National Park to the regional economy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(1): 67–81. Saethorsdottir, A.-D. 2004. Adapting to change: maintaining a wilderness experience in a popular tourist destination. Tourism Today, 4: 52–65. Shields, R. 1990. The ‘system of pleasure’: liminality and carnevalesque at Brighton. Theory, Culture & Society, 7: 39–72.

Short, J. 1991. Imagined Country: Society, Culture and Environment. London: Routledge. Swarbrooke, J., Beard, C., Leckie, S., and Pomfret, G. 2003. Adventure Tourism: The New Frontier. London: Butterworth Heinemann. Tuan, Y.-F. 1974. Topophilia. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Uysal, M., McDonald, G., and Martin, B. 1994. Australian visitors to US national parks and natural areas. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(3): 18–24. Van der Duim, R. and Caalders, J. 2002. Biodiversity and tourism: impacts and interventions. Annals of Tourism Research, 29: 743–761. Van der Merwe, P. and Saayman, M. 2008. Travel motivations of tourists visiting Kruger National Park. Koedoe, 50(1): 154–159. Vaske, J., Shelby, B., Graefe, A., and Heberlein, T. 1986. Backcountry encounter norms: theory, method and empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 18(3): 137–153. Wang, N. 2000. Tourism and Modernity. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Weaver, S., Stevenson, D., and Young, T. 2010. Tourist Cultures. London: Sage. Whelan, T. (ed.) 1991. Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wilderness Act 1964. Public Law, 88–577. 88th Congress, September 3, 1964.

Chapter 41 Exploring the Precautionary Principle in an Environment and Tourism Context David A. Fennell Over the past 50 years the tourism industry has exhibited remarkable change, innovation, and development. More efficient transportation and technological advancements, coupled with growing affluence, have increased the desire for travel abroad. Over these years, the prospects of increased foreign revenue, higher levels of income and employment, as well as greater public sector revenues, have been attractive forces catalyzing governments to develop new destinations (Archer, 1996). Unfortunately, such unprecedented growth has often been conceived as short-term financial gain, without due regard for long-term environmental or sociocultural implications. Hence, the paradox of tourism has been revealed: economic gain at the expense of the natural world and local identity and traditional cultures (CBD, 2001). In recognizing these problems, there has been a sustained call for better planning and management within the tourism industry, at all levels (Inskeep, 1991). One planning instrument which has received considerable attention recently is the precautionary principle, a concept which has provided guidance on debates regarding health and safety, as well as environmental and resource-management issues. “Precaution” is often applied in circumstances where chemicals have potentially toxic or bioaccumulative effects, and where usage could lead to serious physical harm on humans or the environment. It has thus become an increasingly powerful mechanism for environmental groups to amass political and public support. Intuitively, precaution appeals to our sense of controlling risks and detrimental outcomes, designed to address scientific uncertainty in areas where failure to act may lead to future harm or disaster (Kaiser, 1997). Just like sustainable development, precaution puts the onus on the present population to address current actions which may incite potential risks and detrimental consequences for future generations. However, although examined in detail in the aforementioned fields, it has received little attention in the realm of tourism. With this in mind, the aim of this chapter is to (i) provide a review of literature on the precautionary principle, (ii) explore the fundamental concepts that underlie the precautionary principle, and (iii) discuss its applicability to tourism.

The Precautionary Principle O'Riordan and Cameron define the precautionary principle as “a culturally framed concept that takes its cue from changing social conceptions about the appropriate roles of science, economics, ethics, politics and the law in proactive environmental protection and management” (O'Riordan and Cameron, 1994: 12). In this regard, precaution has been extended to include six basic concepts: (i) preventive anticipation, (ii) safeguarding ecological space, (iii) adoption of restraints that are not unduly costly, (iv) duty of care, or onus of proof on those who propose change, (v) promotion of the cause of intrinsic natural rights, and (vi)

paying for past ecological debt. More concisely, precaution is grounded in the need for a “premium on a cautious and conservative approach to human interventions in environmental sectors that are: (a) usually short on scientific understanding, and (b) usually susceptible to significant injury, especially irreversible injury” (Myers, 1993: 74). VanderZwaag (1994: 7) writes that there are a number of core elements associated with the precautionary principle, including: a willingness to take action (or no action) in advance of formal scientific proof; cost-effectiveness of action; that is, some consideration of proportionality of costs; providing ecological margins of error; intrinsic value of nonhuman entities; a shift in the onus of proof to those who propose change; concern with future generations; paying for ecological debts through strict/absolute liability regimes. The precautionary principle was conceived in Germany (Vorsorgeprinzip, meaning precautionary principle) during the 1970s for the purpose of exercising foresight in matters of environmental policy and resource protection (see Boehmer-Christiansen, 1994). It was introduced internationally in 1984 at the First International Conference on Protection of the North Sea (Tickner and Raffensberger, 1998). Since then, the principle has been extended into national and international environmental policy by more than 40 countries, and is now affirmed in many international treaties and laws (e.g. 1990 Bergen Declaration, 1992 Rio Declaration, 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna; Freestone and Hey, 1996; Rogers et al., 1997; Dickson, 1999; Ellis, 2000; Tapper, 2001). In 1992, the precautionary principle was incorporated into the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Principle 15 states that: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing costeffective measures to prevent environmental degradation (Van Dyke, 1996: 10). Responding to this document, VanderZwaag (1999) contends that phrases such as “according to their capabilities” are wide open to interpretation. He also questions how threats are to be determined; the role of scientific assessments; who will make such determinations; and to what extent economic costs should be weighed against environmental benefits. There is also the question of how principles are refined into practice, in much the same way decision makers have grappled with how to operationalize the principles of sustainable development. In general, precaution appears to be more supported in Europe, where it forms the basis of environmental law and policy in several European states (e.g. UK, Denmark, and Sweden). In North America, Canada has a long-standing history of implementing the precautionary approach in science-based programs of health, safety, and natural resources protection

(Government of Canada, 2001a). For example, discussions on the value of precaution have been taken up in regards to oceans policy. Canada's Oceans Act now requires the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to develop an oceans management strategy based on (i) sustainable development, (ii) integrated management, and (iii) the precautionary approach (as cited in VanderZwaag, 1999). Although the Canadian government does not consider the precautionary principle to be a rule of customary international law, there may be sufficient state practice to allow a good argument for the principle's induction into international law (Government of Canada, 2001b). In the USA, Tickner and Raffensberger (1998) note that the precautionary principle is a relatively new concept, although the general principle of precaution underpins much legislation.

Tourism and Precaution Tourism has consistently been shown to have an impact on air and water quality, erode soils, create noise pollution, expand the built environment, increase transport networks, disrupt species behavior in any number of ways, and dislocate human communities socially, politically, and economically. There have been literally hundreds of examples where tourism has been instituted in an ad hoc fashion and with little regard to appropriate socioecological planning. A classic example of poor development is Cancun, Mexico, where ineffective sewage management has polluted beaches, natural habitat has been reduced, economic benefits are unevenly distributed, changes in lifestyles and traditions occur, and increased competition for resources exists (see Daltabuit and Pi-Sunyer, 1990). The numerous ecological impacts stemming from tourism are likely to increase in number and intensity as domestic and international travel increases. The World Tourism Organization's Tourism 2020 Vision forecast predicts that travelers of the twenty-first century will go farther and farther, and that by 2020 one out of every three trips will be a long-haul journey to another region of the world (WTO, 2001). Such future tourist activities are forecasted to be most intense in “unspoilt” natural areas and remoter places, taking people to the most ecologically fragile parts of the earth (Holden, 2000; Martin, 2000). Tourism development, especially when it occurs in regions unaccustomed to the industry (e.g. Antarctica), holds many uncertainties and unknown impacts. Many of these areas are particularly sensitive to change: physically distinctive areas that are extremely vulnerable to increased human impact and environmental change due to tourism. deFur and Kaszuba (2002) consider the precautionary principle to be an invaluable tool when policy-makers are forced to make decisions with little or no experience or history to draw from. Thus, the precautionary principle may be most applicable in these areas of new tourism development, situations in which it may be especially difficult to predict and prove the full range of consequences. Adhering to the sustainability philosophy, the precautionary principle could be proactive in assessing impacts accruing from tourism while acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in these systems, instead of trying to modify systems to cope with resulting impacts as they occur. Hall (1995) and Faulkner (1998) argue that conventional Newtonian/Cartesian approaches to

tourism research are more in step with studying relatively stable systems, resulting in an inadequate understanding of the dynamics of change and chaotic phases of tourism development. In contrast to these traditional reductionist approaches to research on tourism destination development, Russell and Faulkner (1999) suggest that chaos and complexity theories provide a sound alternative perspective in recognizing that systems are innately complex (i.e. nonlinear), unstable, and dynamic/life-like. Tourism is an integrated system in which many elements are linked (e.g. environment protection, economic viability); thus changes in one element affect other elements (Swarbrooke, 1999). In line with these theories, the precautionary principle also acknowledges the possibility of change, instability, and uncertainty in systems. There is still a dearth of literature on tourism and the precautionary principle. Many texts mention the concept, but most do so only in passing or as it relates to some broader concept like sustainability. Tribe et al. (2000) mention the precautionary principle as a guide to effective policy development, along with conservation of resources, improvement of environmental quality, preventing environmental damage, the polluter-pays principle, and incentive-based policies. Kirstges (1995) also mentions precaution as one of several principles that should be followed by tour operators. Under the heading of “Precautionary Principle,” Kirstges observes that there should be an environmental audit for all developments that can cause negative impacts. See also Jennings (2003) in the context of sport and adventure tourism, Thorsby (2009) in the context of cultural heritage, Butler (2011) in the context of island tourism, and Soleimanpour (2012) in reference to environmental law and nature-based tourism. Two areas in tourism research that have focused on the precautionary principle are cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and Antarctica/the Arctic. In the former case, scholars have advocated precautionary principle for the better management of whale and dolphin tourism. In the absence of solid data on the real effects of boat noise and other related disturbances on cetaceans, a precautionary approach is suggested (see Garrod and Fennell, 2004; Lusseau et al., 2006; Martinez and Orams, 2011). With regard to the latter, scholars argue that better management techniques, including the precautionary principle, are needed to regulate tourism activities in Arctic and Antarctic regions (see Scott, 2001; Bastmeijer and Roura, 2004; Stewart and Draper, 2006). One of the most noteworthy applications of the precautionary principle to tourism is by Gössling (2001) in his work on sustainable water use in Zanzibar. He observes that tourism development has placed a significant level of pressure on the water resources of Zanzibar, including the lowering of the groundwater table, deteriorating water quality, and saltwater intrusion. Gössling recommends a precautionary approach, where water consumption would be reduced to 200 liters of water per bed space as compared to daily average consumption levels of 2000–3000 liters. Hall (2011) has used the precautionary principle in detail with reference to the management of tourism-related biological invasions, and Holden (1999) argues that the precautionary principle has a role to play in policies designed to limit the effects of downhill skiing in the Cairngorm Mountains in Scotland.

Precaution also appears to be frequently cited in tourism policy documents of various organizations. For example, The Wilderness Society (1999) of Australia, in its Tourism in Natural Areas Policy document, makes reference to precaution, under Policy 2: 2. Provision of visitor access to natural areas must not compromise or infringe on the environmental qualities of the area, or the normal and desired routine of local communities. It will be determined largely by the visitor carrying capacity of an area or the limits of acceptable change. Where difficulties are encountered in determining visitor carrying capacity, the precautionary principle should apply. The World Wildlife Fund (2002), in its tourism principles and aims, also makes reference to the precautionary principle, as follows: WWF will promote in particular the precautionary principle; the polluter pays principle; economic instruments; minimum standards; and environmentally sound technologies, especially in sustainable means of travel to reduce fuel consumption and pollution emissions. [WWF will] work with the tourism industry, governments and others to support the development of national and regional sustainable tourism policies. The World Wildlife Fund (2001) believes that action must be taken to reduce and, where possible, eliminate negative impacts on natural resources and processes. These actions include limiting tourism-related pollution so as not to exceed ecological carrying capacity (i.e. the robustness of habitats and their ability to replenish extracted resources), including wasteassimilation processes. Tourism-related pollution and exploitation must therefore be carefully controlled and regulated, and the precautionary approach should be considered a fundamental principle in tourism development. The BC Wilderness Tourism Association (2009), in their Code of Conduct, makes the following reference to the precautionary principle, as the last of 22 statements: “Follow the ideal of the precautionary principle: When in doubt – Don't!” Finally, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2001) has established International Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism with the purpose of assisting stakeholders at all levels in sustainable management. The report indicates that the act of decision making “should be a transparent and accountable process to approve or refuse a proposal, and it should always apply the precautionary principle” (CBD, 2001: 21). Given that none of these environmentally based organizations fully articulate the conceptual basis of the precautionary principle suggests that there is either a tacit understanding of precaution, or perhaps a lack of understanding of how it might be infused into tourism decision making. One could argue that principles such as low impact, sustainability, local control, and responsibility are implicit applications of the precautionary principle. In reality, however, what is needed is a more explicit understanding of how it applies in a tourism context. As such, the potential for integrating precaution into tourism planning has yet to be examined. However, in the context of urban planning and development, Counsell (1999) found that

proponents of weak sustainable development see the precautionary principle as an obstacle and threat to urban planning and development, while those who maintain a strong sustainable development perspective view it as necessary. Howie (2003) argues that the precautionary principle has been criticized because it is thought to counter the spirit of entrepreneurialism, under the belief that risk is often good for business. In a study of town planning in five regions of England and Wales, Counsell found that respondents (various community stakeholders involved in planning) were divided over the use of the precautionary principle, with many suggesting that it has been misapplied, with others considering that it has no place in planning. The author attributes this to the notion that engaging with socioeconomic themes and principles related to sustainable development poses many problems in a transition towards sustainable development. Counsell concludes by observing that, in a planning context, the precautionary principle has a role to play in safeguarding areas that are inviolable, to ensure that the overall quality of the environment is maintained. The aforementioned regard for assets and integrity holds true for communities in general. For example, Rogers et al. (1997) identify a number of cases where local people have been willing to spend time and money defending their natural environments from damage from large developments, because they recognize that the benefits they receive far outweigh the costs of defence. Such attempts provide further credence to the notion that communities need not sit idly waiting for others to decide their fate. This means that for tourism to be truly representative of a broad number of stakeholder groups, the natural environment included, many hard questions need to be addressed in regards to appropriate tourism planning, development, and management, and how precaution may guide better decision making. Some of these questions include the following. What in the community will be sacrificed for tourism development? What are the anticipated direct and indirect social, economic, and ecological impacts? Who inside and outside the community has been consulted, over what period of time? Who will be compensated for loss and how? Is the possibility for loss built into the proposal? How? What is the political and industry receptivity to the precautionary principle? How can precaution be built into these existing structures or vice versa? How can the scientific data that drive decision making be made more accessible to the public? Who has the knowledge to effectively plan with the interests of the community in mind? Many of these questions can be addressed through the precautionary decision-making framework initially proposed at the Wingspread Conference attended by scientists, academics, policy-makers, and environmental advocates (adapted here from Tickner and Raffensberger, 1998). Proposed steps for incorporating the precautionary principle for better tourism industry decision making are listed here.

Define the general duty to take precautionary action. This involves the adoption of a corporate or industry-wide duty to take precautionary action in the face of scientific uncertainty where there is a threat to human health or the environment. The concept of human health could be expanded to include an assessment of how tourism developments have impacts on the ecology and customs of local communities. Set aggressive goals/vision for achieving sustainability (backcasting). This step involves the establishment of clear and measurable goals from which to drive innovative best practices within the tourism industry. Assume responsibility for demonstrating the safety of products and processes. Tourism industry stakeholders involved in the planning, development, and management of the tourism industry must demonstrate the safety of their operations before engaging in such activities. Create criteria for decision making under uncertainty. Indicators of sustainability and other such tools will need to be employed for the purpose of determining how to assess, and what type of evidence to weigh in assessing, impacts. Use tools for implementing precautionary, preventive approaches. There are numerous tools for carrying out precautionary policies related to the provision of services. The recent focus on environmental management systems will provide direction in this regard. Use the “polluter-pays” principle. Offending parties must pay the costs of the damage they cause. One mechanism is assurance bonding. Companies are required to pay a premium before undertaking a project, which is based on the worst potential damage that might occur from development. If no damage occurs, the bond is returned to the developer. Develop a scheme to systematically evaluate alternative activities, technologies, chemicals, etc. In order to prevent an impact while creating another, developers must be careful that the substitutes they may use are not more harmful than the original product. This becomes especially salient in a tourism context where tourism developments have life cycles of many years. Assume a duty to monitor, understand, investigate, inform, and act. Tourism businesses have an obligation to investigate and understand their potential impacts, continuously. This calls for more science to understand how developments impact people, sites, communities, and regions. Companies should be responsible for periodic assessments and audits of their initiatives, over the long term. Employ participative corporate decision making. Just as many perspectives enrich decision making within a firm, tourism industry development decisions must be open to those who are often affected by the initiative. This means involvement by the development firm, governments, community members, and so on.

Conclusions: Reflections on Theory, Methods, and Practice There is general consensus pointing to the fact that precaution is a tool that is here to stay (VanderZwaag, 1999). The breadth of discussion on precaution and its inclusion as a principle in many international conventions serves notice that it holds potential in standing up to the many uncertainties which exist in human–environment relationships. However, like sustainability, there appears to be a void between what industry, environmentalists, and governments want. And it is understandable that the precautionary principle has led to a backlash from industry, because it accentuates the process of pulling back the reins on unfettered growth (Howie, 2003). So, while no caution is dangerous, too much caution may be equally counterproductive. Opponents suggested that there is a fear that if taken too far in the other direction, science will have no role to play in qualifying the usefulness of certain products (see Cohen, 2001). Scientific proof has thus become a burden and a barrier in the protection of the environment and people. At the same time, however, there must be the realization that market forces, left on their own, cannot alone run economies. Slowly, and with little respect for time (time to ask the right questions, to follow process, and to consider impacts over longer periods), there has been a steady erosion of a market culture, which is no longer respectful of the rule of law. As such, corporate actions have significant effects on quality of life, particularly in lesser developed countries (O'Riordan and Cameron, 1994). Tourism has been criticized for failing to adopt practices aimed at achieving sustainability (Swarbrooke, 1999; McCool and Moisey, 2001), even though there are several different mechanisms at hand to meet these challenges, including regulations, codes of conduct, action plans, and so on. In relation to these others mechanisms, the precautionary principle is underrepresented in the literature and in practice. Precaution holds promise as a planning tool that actualizes the imperative of sustainability, effectively managing tourism in a more proactive, future-focused manner and acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in tourism-related development and activities. Since tourism development is continuously stretching into less populated and more pristine environments, science is often unable to provide data or causal links connecting action to harm in these new, unique areas. Thus, the precautionary principle can be employed as a decision-making tool within tourism development for the purpose of safeguarding natural environments and securing human wellbeing. The proposed framework discussed earlier, for incorporating the precautionary principle into better decision making for the tourism industry, illustrates the relevance and potential applicability of the principle. One of the main drawbacks of the precautionary approach is that it does not directly offer explanations about how it should be applied. There are questions about who will implement, how they will implement, and what level of expertise is required to implement. This final question is especially important. After all, one need only look at the legacy of tourism to question process and end. What passes for “highly trained” and “expert” has too often reduced complex systems or entities into individual pieces for the purpose of making decisions, without

any effort to ask essential questions about the whole. In the absence of definitive expertise, politicians must still make decisions. They cannot sit idle and thus leave themselves open to criticism about not being active enough in policy-making, spending, and research and development. There comes a time for action, even though there is danger about the implications of such action. To politicians, it may be better to suffer criticism at a later date – when they may not be in power – than to suffer it at time when they are attempting to consolidate authority and popularity. Another constraint to the implementation of precaution is that a precise definition is far from clear, even though it has acquired the standing of a political/moral norm (Kaiser, 1997). Thus, increased attention should be paid to what the precautionary principle actually means to tourism and, in particular, how it can be operationalized. As well, the use of the precautionary principle for regulatory purposes is highly controversial. Some stakeholders express trepidation in the misuse or abuse of the precautionary principle, as evidenced by the extensive recent debate on the concept. Certain groups feel that it could be applied to perceived risks for which there is no firm scientific foundation. Many European industries view the precautionary principle decreasingly as an acceptable risk-management approach, and increasingly as a tool for the more radical environment and health advocates. This disenchantment is intensified both by reduced control over interpretation of precaution by regulatory bodies and by seeing the precautionary principle become a feature of arguments employed by those with very different worldviews (EEA, 2001). Furthermore, operationalizing precaution has been difficult in the absence of a broader link to theory and methods. However, there are a number of different research perspectives that might help to better position precautionary studies in tourism research and practice, including environmental governance, interdisciplinarity, complexity theory, and knowledge management. All of these may be characterized by a focus on bridging the natural and social sciences. Briefly, environmental governance theories place emphasis on better understanding the interactions of actors, decision-making structures, and power balances, as well as institutional arrangements (Glasbergen, 1998). Casting light on these structures may be the key to understanding why some groups pursue market interests over the interests of communities and the natural environment. Interdisciplinary methods and approaches include the integration of ideas from across fields and directed towards a common goal. For many it is the problem itself rather than the disciplinary orientation that is the central concern (Jantsch, 1972), and only multiple perspectives will allow us to understand how a project may positively or negatively impact a region. This will also demand the implementation of better methods to refine or manage knowledge: knowledge management is defined as “a process by which information is transformed into capabilities for effective action and used to reduce the uncertainty of decision making” (Cooper, 2002: 375). This aspect of uncertainty, so important in the precautionary principle, suggests that methods tied to complex systems theory would also be of value in addressing multifaceted tourism problems. As noted previously, systems are complex; they are dynamic and unpredictable, with no one rigid solution (see Hall, 1995; Faulkner, 1998). And because the knowledge of these systems is consistently incomplete, there is the need to integrate multiple perspectives – scientific and lay – in making appropriate decisions about

what is right in time and space (Scoones, 1999; Holling, 2001). The foregoing suggests that we may never be able to fully understand and control the impacts that tourism developments have on social and ecological systems. There will be cases where the best way forward, or perhaps the only way forward, is through the implementation of a precautionary approach. Indeed, those who are truly future-focused will appreciate the words of Confucius, who said “the cautious seldom err.” When it comes to the wellbeing of tourism destinations, and the people and natural features that comprise these areas, this type of thinking may prove advantageous.

References Archer, B. 1996. Sustainable tourism – do economists really care? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2(3–4): 217–222. Bastmeijer, K. and Roura, R. 2004. Regulating Antarctic tourism and the precautionary principle. The American Journal of International Law, 98(4): 763–781. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. 1994. The precautionary principle in Germany – enabling government. In Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, T. O'Riordan and J. Cameron (eds), pp. 31–60. London: Earthscan. BC Wilderness Tourism Association 2009. Code of Conduct. www.wildernesstourism.bc.ca/docs/WTA_Code_of_Conduct.pdf. Butler, R.W. 2011. Sustainable tourism in high-altitude islands: Shetland Islands. In Island Tourism: Sustainable Perspectives, J. Carlssen and R.W. Butler (eds), pp. 140–154. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environment Programme) 2001. Biological Diversity and Tourism: International Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism. www.biodv.org/programmes/socio-eco/tourism/guidelines.asp. Cohen, B.R. 2001. The safety nazis. American Spectator, 34(6): 16. Cooper, C. 2002. Knowledge management. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(2): 375–377. Counsell, D. 1999. Sustainable development and structure plans in England and Wales: operationalizing the themes and principles. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(1): 45–61. Daltabuit, M. and Pi-Sunyer, O. 1990. Tourism development in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 14(1): 9–13. deFur, P. and Kaszuba, M. 2002. Implementing the precautionary principle. The Science of the Total Environment, 288: 155–165.

Dickson, B. 1999. The precautionary principle in CITES: A critical assessment. Natural Resources Journal, 39: 211–228. EEA (European Environment Agency; Harremoes, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B., and Guedes Vaz, S.) (eds) 2001. Late Lessons From Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Committees. Ellis, J. 2000. The precautionary principle: from paradigm to rule of law. International Law, 2: 127–129. Faulkner, B. 1998. Introduction. In Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism: International Case Studies, E. Laws, B. Faulkner, and G. Moscardo (eds), pp. 1–10. London: Routledge. Freestone, D. and Hey, E. 1996. Origins and development of the precautionary principle. In The Precautionary Principle and Environmental Law: The Challenge of Implementation, D. Freestone and E. Hey (eds), pp. 3–12. The Hague: Kluwar Law International. Garrod, B. and Fennell, D.A. 2004. A content analysis of whalewatching codes of conduct. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4): 201–212. Glasbergen, P. 1998. The question of environmental governance. In Co-operative Environmental Governance, P. Glasbergen (ed.), pp. 1–20. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Gössling, S. 2001. The consequences of tourism for sustainable water use on a tropical island: Zanzibar, Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Management, 61: 179–191. Government of Canada 2001a. A Canadian Perspective on the Precautionary Approach/Principle Proposed Guiding Principles. www.ncr.dfo.ca/cppa/HTML/booklet_e.htm. Government of Canada 2001b. A Canadian Perspective on the Precautionary Principle/Approach. www.ncr.dfo.ca/cppa/HTML/Pamphlet_e.htm. Hall, C.M. 2011. Biosecurity, tourism and mobility: institutional arrangements for managing tourism-related biological invasions. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 3(3): 256–280. Hall, C.M. 1995. In search of common ground: reflections on sustainability and complexity and process in the tourism system – a discussion between C. Michael Hall and Richard W. Butler. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(2): 99–105. Holden, A. 1999. High impact tourism: a suitable component of sustainable policy? The case of downhill skiing development at Cairngorm, Scotland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(2): 97–107.

Holden, A. 2000. Environment and Tourism. London: Routledge. Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4: 390–405. Howie, F. 2003. Managing the Tourist Destination. London: Thomson. Inskeep, E. 1991. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York: Wiley and Sons. Jantsch, E. 1972. Technological Planning and Social Futures. New York: Halsted Press. Jennings, G. 2003. Marine tourism. In Sport and Adventure Tourism, S. Hudson (ed.), pp. 125–164. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press. Kaiser, M. 1997. The precautionary principle and its implications for science. Foundations of Science, 2: 201–205. Kirstges, T. 1995. Sanfter Tourismus, 2nd edn. Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag. Lusseau, D., Slooten, L., and Currey, R. 2006. Unsustainable dolphin-watching tourism in Fiordland, New Zealand. Tourism in Marine Environments, 3(2): 173–178. Martin, A. 2000. Making tourism sustainable. UNESCO Sources, 120: 10–12. Martinez, E. and Orams, M.B. 2011. Kia Angi Puku To Hoe I Te Wai: ocean noise and tourism. Tourism in Marine Environments, 7(3–4): 191–202. McCool, S.F. and Moisey, R.N. (eds) 2001. Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the Environment. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Myers, N. 1993. Biodiversity and the precautionary principle. Ambio, 22(2–3): 74–79. O'Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. 1994. The history and contemporary significance of the precautionary principle. In Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, T. O'Riordan and J. Cameron (eds), pp. 12–30. London: Earthscan. Rogers, M.F., Sinden, R.N., and De Lacy, T. 1997. The precautionary principle for environmental management: a defensive-expenditure application. Journal of Environmental Management, 51: 343–360. Russell, R. and Faulkner, B. 1999. Movers and shakers: chaos makers in tourism development. Tourism Management, 20(4): 411–423. Scoones, I. 1999. New ecology and the social sciences: what prospects for a fruitful engagement? Annual Review of Anthropology, 28: 479–507. Scott, S.V. 2001. How cautious is precautious? Antarctic tourism and the precautionary principle. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 50: 963–971.

Soleimanpour, H. 2012. Legal implications for nature-based tourism. In Ecotourism and Sustainable Tourism: New Perspectives and Studies, J.A. Seba (ed.), pp. 16–29. Oakville: Apple Academic Press. Stewart, E.J. and Draper, D. 2006. Sustainable cruise tourism in Arctic Canada: an integrated coastal management approach. Tourism in Marine Environments, 3(2): 77–88. Swarbrooke, J. 1999. Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Tapper, R. 2001. Tourism and socio-economic development: UK tour operators' business approaches in the context of the new international agenda. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3: 351–366. The Wilderness Society 1999. Tourism in Natural Areas Policy. www.wilderness.org.au/tourism-natural-areas-policy. Thorsby, D. 2009. Tourism, heritage and cultural sustainability: three ‘golden rules’. In Cultural Tourism and Sustainable Local Development, L.F. Girard and P. Nijkamp (eds), pp. 13–30. Surrey: Ashgate. Tickner, J. and Raffensberger, C. 1998. The precautionary principle: a framework for sustainable business decision-making. Environmental Policy, 5(4): 75–82. Tribe, J., Font, X., Griffiths, N., Vickery, R., and Yale, K. 2000. Environmental Management for Rural Tourism and Recreation. London: Cassell. VanderZwaag, D. 1994. CEPA and the Precautionary Principle/Approach. Hull, Quebec: Minister of Supply and Services. VanderZwaag, D. 1999. The precautionary principle in environmental law and policy: elusive rhetoric and first embraces. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 8: 355–375. Van Dyke, J.M. 1996. The Rio Principles and our responsibilities of ocean stewardship. Ocean & Coastal Management, 31(1): 1–23. WTO (World Tourism Organization) 2001. Tourism 2020 Vision – Global Forecast and Profiles of Market Segments. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. World Wildlife Fund. 2001. Position Statement on Tourism. www.panda.org/resources/publications/sustainability/tourism/tourpp.doc. World Wildlife Fund. 2002. Tourism. www.Panda.org/resources/pub...s/sustainability/tourism/will.html.

Chapter 42 The Sustainable Development of Tourism A State-of-the-Art Perspective David Weaver Sustainability, since its late 1980s popularization in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987), has evolved into a foundational construct for many sectors of human activity, including the tourism industry. Evidence of its formalization is widespread and includes specialized departments and policies within peak agencies such as the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), and Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA). Many other organizations and businesses claim adherence to codes of ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) principles that embody the ideals of sustainability (Garay and Font, 2012), which Saarinen (2006) thus characterizes as having “hegemonic” status in contemporary tourism discourses. Some definitions of sustainability still adhere to the intergenerational Brundtland perspective about managing a sector in such a way as to not constrain the options of future generations, but this provides little direction on implementation. More practical, and more conducive to a model of sustainability that promotes improvement over the status quo, is the idea of management that strives to minimize the associated environmental, economic, and sociocultural costs while maximizing associated environmental, economic, and sociocultural benefits (Weaver, 2006). Construed as such, sustainable tourism attainment is a two-step process. Indicators and benchmarks, modified as appropriate to take into account the circumstances associated with different kinds of businesses and destinations, initially aim to ensure impact neutrality (that is, have no net cost) by focusing on cost minimization. This can be described as status quo sustainability. Subsequently, they aspire to enhance this status quo by focusing on benefit maximization (that is, through enhancement sustainability). This approach correctly assumes that much of the multitrillion dollar tourism industry, with its much-vaunted 1 billion international stayovers and 4 or 5 billion domestic tourists, continues to operate in an unsustainable manner and that even the relatively modest goal of neutrality is still an elusive outcome for the overall industry. The distinction between status quo sustainability and enhancement sustainability also helps to address the long-standing issue of whether sustainable tourism is a goal or a process (Sharpley, 2000). To the extent that impact neutrality is an attainable and measurable outcome, status quo sustainability should be a priority goal for the tourism industry; to the extent that enhancement constitutes an open-ended improvement of the status quo, it is an ongoing and long-term aspirational process. This basic positioning of sustainable tourism helps to inform the major issue as to what constitutes the appropriate scale of sustainable tourism, which has long been framed as a debate between alternative and mass tourism.

Alternative and Mass Tourism

A focus of sustainable tourism discourses within the academic community over the past 20 years has been on the relative merits of alternative tourism and mass tourism as vehicles for facilitating the sustainability ideal. Related issues such as indicators and thresholds are then clarified as per the premises of each. Since the 1980s, advocates of alternative tourism have touted it in its diverse guises as the best way of achieving enhancement sustainability for host communities and natural environments. This conflation of alternative tourism with sustainable tourism has been largely discredited in part because of naivety about the inherent solidarity and integrity of local communities, and problems of intrusiveness and elitism (Butler, 1990; Clarke, 1997; Jafari, 2001). Nevertheless, and while the term “alternative tourism” itself is now largely avoided, there has been a recent interest in tourism models that perpetuate the community-smallness-localness-ethics ideal. Among these are “just tourism” (Hultsman, 1995), “justice tourism” (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008), “hopeful tourism” (Pritchard et al., 2011), and “slow tourism” (Lumsdon and MacGrath, 2011). This proliferation of “ethical” options is a reaction to (i) the perceived appropriation of sustainability by dominant mass tourism interests and (ii) the concurrent belief of alternative tourism advocates that mass tourism remains essentially and inherently unsustainable. Just tourism and the rest all imply the need for a paradigm shift away from the capitalist, progrowth tenets of contemporary mass tourism. None as yet, however, have gained any traction beyond their small and mostly academic circles of enthusiastic and idealistic proponents. A resolution-based dialectical approach, in which mass tourism is positioned as an existing thesis and alternative tourism as its aspirational antithesis, is an effective way of framing discourses about sustainable tourism, which is positioned accordingly as the emerging synthesis or compromise that combines the best characteristics of these opposing ideals. Using this framework, Weaver (2014) argues that alternative tourism, in all its real-world manifestations, is properly contextualized as an appendage of mass tourism rather than a freestanding entity. Clarke (1997) noted an emerging pattern of convergence in which alternative and mass tourism are seen to cross-fertilize, but Weaver extends this into a pattern of amalgamation that is necessarily skewed in favor of mass tourism. Whereas the latter faces the “prime contradiction” of breeched carrying capacities as the inevitable consequence of continued laissez-faire growth (Butler, 1980), alternative tourism faces at least four distinct contradictions, the first of which is the false hope of its unrealistic and unrealized expectations, as alluded to above (Butler, 1990). The second contradiction, “incompleteness,” holds that alternative cannot exist on its own and is completely dependent on mass tourism intermediaries such as airlines (Pearce, 1992). Third, the “growth paradox of success” posits that successful alternative tourism almost always evolves into something that increasingly resembles mass tourism, simply because of its enhanced desirability and hence demand, often from new markets. Weaver (2012) describes an “incremental” growth tendency in which managers of successful alternative tourism products implement new measures to accommodate more visitors within increased carrying capacity thresholds. The final contradiction is “nonreciprocal accommodation,” wherein alternative tourism can readily transition into mass tourism, but mass tourism cannot easily regress to alternative tourism. Mass tourism, moreover, can absorb selected alternative tourism characteristics without losing its identity as mass tourism, but alternative tourism cannot absorb mass tourism characteristics without losing its

identity as alternative tourism. The emerging universal model of sustainable tourism implicitly supported by the conventional global tourism establishment, according to Weaver (2014), is therefore “enlightened mass tourism” that combines the sustainability advantages of large-scale tourism with the ethical prerogatives of alternative tourism. Those advantages include critical mass to influence external systems and supply chains, the capacity to allocate resources to specialized sustainability units and innovations, and economies of scale that rationalize the implementation of energy-saving programs and other “green” initiatives. Energy savings, recycling, and programs such as towel reuse signs have been an integral part of mass tourism for several decades, although ethical reasons were not a major factor influencing their implementation. Rather, they save money and generate positive publicity (Goldstein et al., 2008), and thus are fully compatible with the capitalist paradigm and emblematic of “paradigm nudge,” or the opportunistic adoption of measures and policies that contribute to profitability (Weaver, 2007). The door to a higher level of ethical engagement and consequent focus on enhancement sustainability, however, is opened by the widespread and formal adoption of CSR policies, which serve as moral suasion for anyone wanting to call industry to task on overall or specific practices that are ethically questionable. Industry itself may feel increasing compulsion to push paradigm nudge even further due to growing recognition of the prime contradiction. There is increased, if implicit, recognition of the prime contradiction in industry surveys that reveal very strong support for CSR on the grounds that their long-term survival depends on the integrity of local environmental and cultural assets (Sheldon and Park, 2011). Changing consumer attitudes are also relevant, although environmental and social advocacy are not (yet) major influences on consumer decisions to purchase accommodation, air transport, and other tourism services (Becken and Hay, 2007). Accordingly, Zadek (2011) argues that CSR has evolved from a “first-generation” model where relevant practices do not threaten profits to a “second-generation” model in which CSR that makes explicit commitment to going beyond compliance and profitability is embedded in the business model. A “third generation” is foreseen in which major global environmental and social issues are addressed as part of the business model, thereby facilitating the ideal of enhancement sustainability. It is contended here that the amalgamation of mass tourism and alternative tourism characteristics into enlightened mass tourism is gradually emerging as the tourism synthesis best positioned to move the industry to enhancement sustainability, abetted by continuing technological innovation, changing consumer attitudes, and, perhaps, increasing disillusion with the “pure” capitalist progrowth paradigm. This assertion is of course open to debate, and the following three sections present case studies which illustrate the possible convergence of different tourism models toward enlightened mass tourism.

Bhutan and Dominica: Incremental Path? Bhutan and Dominica provide two different indications of what enlightened mass tourism that synthesizes mass and alternative tourism characteristics might look like from the perspective of

evolution along the incremental path to sustainable mass tourism convergence (Weaver, 2012). In both cases, government policies and physical isolation spawned long-standing deliberate alternative tourism-based strategies widely touted as exemplars for similar developing regions. In the case of Bhutan, international tourism was introduced in 1974 and has subsequently followed a “low-volume, high-yield” strategy that restricted international tourism (except for Indians) to a few thousand visitors a year until the early 2000s. This was enforced by a high daily tariff (fluctuating around US$200) per visitor, requirements to be accompanied by an officially approved guide on set itineraries, and difficulties in securing visas (Nyaupane and Timothy, 2010). Underlying this strategy has been the official policy of “gross national happiness” (GNH), an alleged middle path between economic development and preservation of environmental and cultural integrity. One environmental indicator related to GNH has been the allocation of protected-area status to 40% of Bhutan's territory, one of the highest levels in the world (Gurung and Seeland, 2008). During the early 2000s, and without altering any of its sustainability and GNH rhetoric, measures were initiated to dramatically increase the number of non-Indian foreign visitors, which subsequently increased from about 8000 in 2000 to over 21 000 in 2007 – most arriving aboard Drukair, the national carrier (Nyaupane and Timothy, 2010) – and an expected 60 000 in 2012 (Bhaumik, 2010). Much higher expectations can be inferred from recent plans to expand Drukair flights to Singapore and Hong Kong, participation in major regional travel fairs such as ITB-Asia, and official targets for tourism to directly support 25 000 jobs and contribute 15% to the gross domestic product by 2013. New areas are also gradually being made accessible to foreign tourists (Tourism Council of Bhutan, 2010). Such official efforts are abetted by strong sentiments among private operators to dramatically increase the number of high-spending foreign tourists without compromising policies of environmental and cultural protection (Gurung and Seeland, 2008). There is no change in the rhetoric of sustainability as these progrowth strategies evolve, but there are reasons for concern as of the time of writing. No controls, for example, are applied to high-volume, low-yield Indian tourists who are widely disliked by Bhutanese tourism workers. More broadly, some accuse the royal family of using GNH and isolationism to minimize external threats and maintain their own power and wealth, which derive in part from monopolistic prerogatives over crucial areas of tourism. Consequently, few real benefits are said to accrue to local people (Nyaupane and Timothy, 2010). In Dominica, the long-term decline of export agriculture and physical unsuitability for resortbased mass tourism has prompted an ecotourism-based alternative tourism policy since the early 1980s. Accordingly, and because expansion of the island's two small international airports is prohibitively expensive, international stayover growth has stagnated, increasing from 74 000 in 1999 to just 84 000 in 2006. Exemplary alternative tourism outcomes, abetted by government policy, include a professional and managerial population in tourism that is 90% Dominican, and an 88% rate of local ownership in the accommodation sector. This sector, moreover, obtains two-thirds of its produce and materials from local producers. Nature-based motivations still prevail strongly among inbound tourists, most of whom travel independently, and 20% of the land has been allocated to protected-area status to accommodate ecotourism-

type activity. Hotels account for only 29% of all accommodation and the guesthouses which dominate the sector are widely dispersed (Slinger-Friedman, 2009). Alternative-tourism-type indicators and thresholds, therefore, are largely fulfilled. The growth element in Dominican tourism is manifested in the more flexible cruise ship sector, which has expanded from fewer than 10 000 excursionists in 1990 to almost 300 000 on 194 calls during 2011–2012 (Dominica News Online, 2012). A strategy of dispersal has been implemented to avoid undue stress on popular sites, but there is still insufficient monitoring of those “hotspots.” Despite the positive indicators in the accommodation sector, Dominica has demonstrated a history of opportunism, implementing or proposing often dubious strategies to stimulate economic development. These have included passport-for-the-rich schemes, the issuance of “philatelic junk,” voting alignment with Japan against the moratorium on whaling, and hosting online gambling sites. Tourism-related schemes have included a cableway to access the most remote part of the interior (Slinger-Friedman, 2009). This pervasive opportunism portends a mass-tourism future for Dominica (population 75 000) though hopefully one where appropriate measures to increase carrying capacity are implemented periodically and where uncomplimentary economic “innovations” are discouraged or controlled.

Benidorm and Calviá: Organic Path? The Spanish resort-cities of Benidorm and Calviá are offered here as examples of “mature destinations” following the “organic” path to enlightened mass tourism. This trajectory applies to places where the development of tourism has mostly occurred as market-driven growth in coastal or alpine resource “hotspots” as per the classic tourism area life cycle (TALC) (Butler, 1980). Weaver (2012) argues that an “arena of innovation” presents itself after carrying capacity thresholds are exceeded in the stagnation and decline stages. On the premise that unsustainability is itself inherently unsustainable, governments and civic associations mobilize out of necessity to place the destination on a more sustainable footing, achieving “equilibrium,” not “stagnation,” in visitor numbers. The alternative of allowing a destination to decline permanently is theoretically possible but seldom encountered and, where it does occur, is mostly the consequence of external systems [e.g. Famagusta in Northern Cyprus (Turkey's invasion) and Pompeii (Vesuvius' eruption)]. Benidorm is a stereotypical pleasure periphery beach resort that evolved from a small fishing village in the 1950s to the “Manhattan of the Riviera” in the 1970s with high-rise apartments lining the beachfront. Cheap package tours, as per the classic high-volume, low-yield model, facilitated the arrival of British and other northern European tourists. By the mid-1980s, stagnation was evident due to environmental deterioration, competition from newer destinations, and increasing crime and tourist misbehaviour. The subsequent “maturation” of Benidorm has exhibited at least four phases, all of which contrast with deterministic models such as the TALC by demonstrating resilience in the face of internal and external adversity (Ivars et al., 2013). Adaptive innovations have included new attractions (e.g. water theme park, events venues, renovated promenade, athletic training facilities) and new luxury facilities

to expedite a shift to low-volume, high-yield markets. Cultivation of both domestic and international markets has also substantially eliminated any marked seasonality effects. More germane from a sustainability perspective have been the creation of new open spaces, blue flag certification of beaches, construction of urban landmarks, and designation of adjacent rural land as protected areas. An essential if counterintuitive element of emerging enlightened mass tourism is deliberate densification, manifested by the wall of high-rise buildings along the main beach. Condoned as part of the Spanish Ministry of Tourism's Coastal Tourism Plan for the 21st Century to make the country's littoral tourism more sustainable, the urban density model, or “Benidorm effect,” is associated with more efficient water use and waste management, amenability to pedestrian and public transit traffic, and a reduced development footprint that allows more adjacent areas to be preserved for conservation and nature-based tourism purposes (Rico-Amoros et al., 2009). The accommodation during the early 2000s of 10 million holiday visitors per year by a city of 71 000 permanent residents confirms the persistence of Benidorm as a successful and increasingly sustainable mass tourism destination. Improvements made to the quality of the tourist experience, moreover, merit the characterization of this stable large-scale visitor flow as sustainability-conducive “equilibrium” rather than “stagnation” as per the TALC. The combination of mass tourism and alternative tourism characteristics, in addition, suggest a transition from a pre-1990s Fordist model to neo-Fordism rather than post-Fordism (ClaverCortés et al., 2007). Facilitating factors include specialized institutions such as the Tourism Training Centre and the Benidorm Tourism Foundation, and the dominance of local business leaders in the tourism industry (Ivars et al., 2013). One problematic trend, however, has been the proliferation of dispersed, low-density development in the hinterland, which generates urban sprawl that counteracts the benefits of densification (Rico-Amoros et al., 2009). Calviá, on the Balearic island of Mallorca, has a history similar to Benidorm and was likewise infamous in an earlier generation as an international referent for unsustainable mass tourism and a haven for English lager louts (Domínguez-Mujica et al., 2011). Like Benidorm, crisis conditions were reached in the late 1980s (Essex et al., 2004), forcing government and business owners (also dominated by local residents) to take appropriate action. This included the demolition of poorly built or poorly sited high-rise blocks, a shift to higher-end accommodations, promotion of ecotourism in adjacent protected areas, and implementation of a densification strategy that concurrently allowed for more extensive open areas in both the urban core and semirural surrounds (Aguiló et al., 2005). The implementation of a facilitating Local Agenda 21 in the mid-1990s is notable. This innovation emerged from the First European Conference of Sustainable Cities and Towns held in Aalborg, Denmark, in 1994 and was defined as “the articulation of the local philosophy, strategy and plan of action to recover from the over-building and environmental destruction of the last two decades, and to guide the tourist sector in the next decades towards new formulas whose common denominator is sustainability” (Royle, 2009: 234). In this respect there is evidence of overreach, with an illfated carbon tax on certain types of accommodation removed after 2 years following extensive complaints from industry. Indeed, interviews with 23 key tourism stakeholders revealed strong support for environmental measures, such as key demolitions, that produced dramatic and

immediate visual improvements. Less enthusiastically endorsed were measures, such as the amelioration of water pollution, that are longer term, have less visible outcomes, and derive from the complex interaction of multiple culprits (Dodds and Butler, 2010). The authors note, however, that local nongovernmental organizations such as the Friends of the Earth have emerged as a powerful influence on the planning and management process, raising environmental awareness and keeping environmental issues at the forefront of the public policy arena.

Saemangeum: Induced Path? According to Weaver (2012), the third option for attaining enlightened mass tourism is along the “induced path,” wherein a large-scale destination is planned from its very beginnings on the site of farmland or other rural land uses. This “blank slate” approach to tourism development is associated historically with Mexican growth poles such as Cancún (Torres and Momsen, 2005) and is increasingly evident in East and Southeast Asia if only still as government aspirations. They are considered here, therefore, mostly as speculations. Among the earliest examples is the planned ecocity of Saemangeum (also known as Ariul, meaning water city), which is being developed in a 400 km2 area of reclaimed sea and farmland on the west coast of South Korea. The 34 km-long sea dike that makes the reclamation possible was begun in the early 1990s and completed in 2010 (Ariul, 2011). The creation of this palimpsest required the destruction of a large area of important migratory bird habitat (Science Daily, 2007) as well as the (compensated) displacement of thousands of local farmers and fishers. Subsequent criticism, arguably, embodies more the Buddhist impulses in South Korean society, while government and business support for the “creative destruction” model indicates Confucian influences related to greater end results and respect for authority. The alleged greater good is a multipurpose green economic hub for Northeast Asia with “futuristic green tourism” as one focus complemented by high-tech industry and organic agriculture. Facilities proposed in the 17.3% of Saemangeum designated for tourism and leisure include mass-tourism-related theme parks, a cruise ship port, marina, convention center, hotels, aquarium, and golf course, and alternative-tourism-related urban ecotourism and agrotourism. The city as a whole, however, is expected to become a tourist attraction. As of 2013, the private sector had made few investment commitments. The final dispensation of the city and the year of completion, therefore, are unknown (Ariul, 2011). One perspective is that Saemangeum was never more than a cynical attempt to gain votes in the host province (Kang, 2010), while others have expressed concerns about the region's pervasive air and water pollution, and the role of the global economy in dictating where sustainability fits into the ultimate development model.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections: Evolution or Revolution? Contradictions in both mass tourism and alternative tourism dictate the positioning of

sustainable tourism as an evolving synthesis necessarily dominated by mass tourism. The inclusion of an ethical component in this emergent enlightened mass tourism is critical to sustainable outcomes but a matter of concern given the danger signs identified in all five of the featured case studies. Its inclusion depends on a combination of (i) robust community and supercommunity organizations that function as lobbyists and watchdogs, (ii) effective government regulation and planning, and (iii) nonsuperficial industry self-regulation ideally based on external certification. The admixture and timing of these elements varies according to trajectory. For incremental destinations such as Bhutan and Dominica that are also emerging economies, strong civic watchdogs are necessary at least in the early phases to check the power of national elites who would benefit from status-quo intensification; that is, a transition to mass tourism that does not involve any change to the current power structure. In induced situations such as Saemangeum, government intervention is the critical catalyst, while community and industry mechanisms come into play as the destination evolves. Organic destinations such as Benidorm and Calviá are usually the most complex and require the concurrent interaction of all three groups to successfully navigate the opportunities inherent in the crisis state. The way that each of these stakeholder groups is most effectively activated under each of these trajectories is therefore an important area of investigation over the next decade of sustainable tourism articulation. Some supporters of alternative tourism advocate revolutionary change to avoid the dire consequences of unsustainable mass tourism, the same impulse that occurs among those who associate the latter with negative climate effects (Scott, 2011). However, given the inherent conservatism of government, industry, and consumers, it seems more likely that enlightened mass tourism will emerge through a gradual evolutionary process that, at least initially, focuses on status-quo sustainability. In addition to government regulation, industry selfregulation and organization advocacy, patterns of changing consumer attitudes and behavior will be a critical influence on this evolution. Currently, Western societies are dominated by superficial or veneer environmentalism in which dominant sentiments of concern about attendant environmental and social issues are not matched by equivalent actions such as reducing long-haul air travel or patronizing more expensive certified hotels (Weaver, 2006). Very high levels of participation in towel reuse programs, in contrast, reflect the lack of personal inconvenience or cost of such initiatives to these consumers (Goldstein et al., 2008). This lack of consumer traction along a deeper environmental and social trajectory is an impediment to accelerated industry self-regulation, government intervention, or organizational advocacy, although all of these could be mobilized to re-educate and habituate consumers. Within the industry, transformational visitor outcomes are associated with certain kinds of product interpretation, even in mass tourism attractions such as Tangalooma, Australia, where visitors interact with wild dolphins (Orams, 1997). Emerging activist online communities, including those focused on travel and tourism, may also exert increased influence (Rokka and Moisander, 2009). Methodologically, it is still evident from the literature that many supporters of alternative and conventional mass tourism are constrained and biased by ideological conformity. Resolutionbased dialectics, as an approach, conform more to the objectivity ideal of the knowledge-

based platform (Jafari, 2001) by seeking to resolve contradictions and distil the essential good from opposite perspectives. As such they complement the similar and popular dialectics of combining quantitative and qualitative research methods, and of soliciting/amalgamating data from both the demand (tourists) and supply (industry, community, government) sides (ClaverCortés et al., 2007). Also complementary is the use of diverse theoretical perspectives, including postdisciplinary approaches that focus on the problem at hand rather than the theoretical or methodological dogma of specific disciplines (Coles et al., 2009). A larger problem, however, is an academic system that privileges publication in refereed journals above the application and dissemination of that research to stakeholders who are most affected by the outcomes (Weaver, 2013).

References Aguiló, E., Alegre, J., and Sard, M. 2005. The persistence of the sun and sand tourism model. Tourism Management, 26: 219–232. Ariul 2011. Building a Green City of the Future. www.smgc.go.kr/eng/html/main.jsp. Becken, S. and Hay, J. 2007. Tourism and Climate Change: Risks and Opportunities. Clevedon: Channel View. Bhaumik, S. 2010. Bhutan looks to raise annual tourist numbers to 100,000. BBC News South Asia. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11313412. Butler, R. 1980. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24: 5–12. Butler, R. 1990. Alternative tourism: pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research, 28(3): 40–45. Clarke, J. 1997. A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5: 224–233. Claver-Cortés, E., Molina-Azorín, J., and Pereira-Moliner, J. 2007. Competitiveness in mass tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 34: 727–745. Coles, T., Hall, C., and Duval, D. 2009. Post-disciplinary tourism. In Philosophical Issues in Tourism, J. Tribe (ed.), pp. 80–100. Clevedon: Channel View. Dodds, R. and Butler, R. 2010. Barriers to implementing sustainable tourism policy in mass tourism destinations. Tourismos, 5: 35–53. Domínguez-Mujica, J., González-Pérez, J., and Parreño-Castellano, J. 2011. Tourism and human mobility in Spanish archipelagos. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 586–606. Dominica News Online 2012. Dominica to Welcome Two New Cruise Ships. http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/news/tourism-publicity/dominica-to-

welcome-two-new-cruise-ships/. Essex, S., Kent, M., and Newnham, R. 2004. Tourism development in Mallorca: is water supply a constraint? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12: 4–24. Garay, L. and Font, X. 2012. Doing good to do well? Corporate social responsibility reasons, practices and impacts in small and medium accommodation enterprises. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31: 329–337. Goldstein, N., Cialdini, R., and Griskevicius, V. 2008. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35: 472–482. Gurung, D. and Seeland, K. 2008. Ecotourism in Bhutan: extending its benefits to rural communities. Annals of Tourism Research, 35: 489–508. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. 2008. Justice tourism and alternative globalisation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16: 345–364. Hultsman, J. 1995. Just tourism: an ethical framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 22: 553– 567. Ivars, J., Rodríquez, I., and Vera, J. 2013. The evolution of mass tourism destinations: new approaches beyond deterministic models in Benidorm (Spain). Tourism Management, 34: 184–195. Jafari, J. 2001. The scientification of tourism. In Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century, V. Smith and M. Brent (eds), pp. 28–41. New York: Cognizant. Kang, H.-K. 2010. Ariul to become waterfront city in Saemangeum site. Korea Times. www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/10/113_59932.html. Lumsdon, L. and McGrath, P. 2011. Developing a conceptual framework for slow travel: a grounded theory approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 265–279. Nyaupane, G. and Timothy, D. 2010. Power, regionalism and tourism policy in Bhutan. Annals of Tourism Research, 37: 969–988. Orams, M. 1997. The effectiveness of environmental education: can we turn tourists into ‘greenies’? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3: 295–306. Pearce, D. 1992. Alternative tourism: concepts, classifications, and questions. In Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism, V. Smith and W. Eadington (eds), pp. 15–30. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., and Ateljevic, I. 2011. Hopeful tourism: a new transformative perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 941–963.

Rico-Amoros, A., Olcina-Cantos, J., and Sauri, D. 2009. Tourist land use patterns and water demand: evidence from the Western Mediterranean. Land Use Policy, 26: 493–501. Rokka, J. and Moisander, J. 2009. Environmental dialogue in online communities: negotiating ecological citizenship among global travellers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33: 199–205. Royle, S. 2009. Tourism changes on a Mediterranean island: experiences from Mallorca. Island Studies Journal, 4: 225–240. Saarinen, J. 2006. Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33: 1121–1140. Science Daily 2007. Wildlife Starves on Emptied Wetland. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070514163229.htm. Scott, D. 2011. Why sustainable tourism must address climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 17–34. Sharpley, R. 2000. Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8: 1–19. Sheldon, P. and Park, S.-Y. 2011. An exploratory study of corporate social responsibility in the U.S. travel industry. Journal of Travel Research, 50: 392–407. Slinger-Friedman, V. 2009. Ecotourism in Dominica: studying the potential for economic development, environmental protection and cultural conservation. Island Studies Journal, 4: 3–24. Torres, R. and Momsen, J. 2005. Planned tourism development in Quintana Roo, Mexico: engine for regional development or prescription for inequitable growth? Current Issues in Tourism, 8: 259–285. Tourism Council of Bhutan 2010. Newsletter Winter 2010. www.tourism.gov.bt/wpcontent/uploads/2011/01/2010-Newsletter-TCB.pdf. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weaver, D. 2006. Sustainable Tourism: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Weaver, D. 2007. Toward sustainable mass tourism: paradigm shift or paradigm nudge? Tourism Recreation Research, 32(3): 65–69. Weaver, D. 2012. Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism convergence. Tourism Management, 33: 1030–1037.

Weaver, D. 2013. Whither sustainable tourism? But first a good hard look in the mirror. Tourism Recreation Research, 38(3): 231–234. Weaver, D. 2014. Asymmetrical dialectics of sustainable tourism: toward enlightened mass tourism. Journal of Travel Research, doi: 10.1177/0047287513491335. Zadek, S. 2001. The Civil Corporation: The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship. London: Earthscan.

Part 8 Tourism Policies, Planning, and Governance

Introduction Tourism Policies, Planning, and Governance C. Michael Hall The role of government in tourism and the influence of public policy on tourism development have long been of interest to scholars. Although the political dimensions of tourism have not been a major focal point of research (Benckendorff and Zehrer, 2013), there has nevertheless been sustained study of tourism planning and policies from various perspectives and approaches. Since the 1990s there has also been a gradual shift in approach in the tourism policy literature from the notion of government to that of governance, a situation which reflects broader political movements in the political economy of Western society and changes in political philosophy with respect to the role of government and the nature of government intervention (Dredge and Jenkins, 2011; Hall, 2011b). However, the change in the discourse of the role of the state in tourism has not necessarily been reflected in a deeper understanding of political theory and public policy analysis and their connectedness to the study of tourism (see Chapter 43 in this volume). One of the curiosities of research on policy, planning, and governance is that in many languages there is no substantial difference between the terms used to describe politics and policy (Hall and Jenkins, 1995). However, in the Anglo-American public administration tradition there has long been an avowed division between politics and policy and politics and public administration; that is, that politicians engage in politics and that the public service implements policies in an apolitical rational fashion. Yet, as Jenkins et al. argue in Chapter 43, all planning and policy is political in the sense that there is a contest between interests with respect to power and values and the determination of certain output and outcomes in the policy-making process. Although much of the tourism research literature does not deal with the politics of tourism directly, there is a significant history of research in the area (e.g. Richter, 1989; Hall, 1994; Henderson, 2003; Dredge and Jenkins, 2011), as well as studies of power (see Church, 2004; Church and Coles, 2007; and Hall, 2010a for reviews). Nevertheless, the field is not as well served as it could be. Attention to governance issues in tourism mirrors the broader growth of interest in, and development of, the concept in the policy sciences (Hall, 2011b). Governance is the act of governing and is an increasingly significant issue in the tourism public policy and planning literature. It has assumed importance as researchers have sought to understand how the state can best act to mediate contemporary tourism-related social, economic, political, and environmental policy problems at a time when the role of the state has itself changed given the dominance of neoliberal policy discourse in many developed countries (Bramwell, 2011; Hall, 2011a, 2011b). There is no single accepted definition of governance. This is reflected in Kooiman's (2003: 4) concept of governance as “the totality of theoretical conceptions on governing.” Definitions tend to suggest recognition of a change in political practices involving, among other things, increasing globalization, the rise of networks that cross the public–private divide, the

marketization of the state, and increasing institutional fragmentation. Two broad related themes can be recognized. First, it is used to describe contemporary state adaptation to its economic and political environment with respect to how it operates. Second, it is used to denote a conceptual and theoretical representation of the role of the state in the coordination or “steering” of socioeconomic systems of various scales; that is, local, regional, national, and global, particularly in relation to network relationships and public–private partnerships (Pierre and Peeters, 2000, 2005). Hall (2011b) suggested that the overarching concept in governance in public policy terms is the relationship between state intervention/public authority and societal autonomy or selfregulation. In tourism the notion of governance has been explored to varying degrees on topics ranging from innovation (Svensson, 2005), sustainable tourism (Dinica, 2009; Bramwell, 2010, 2011; Bramwell and Lane, 2011), environmental management (Duffy, 2006), and the development and promotion of place-specific tourism (Hultman and Hall, 2012) through to government intervention to change tourism-related behaviors (Hall, 2013, 2014). Hall (2011b) provides a framework of governance that reflects the relative balance of the power relationships that exist between public and private policy actors and the state's capacity for steering policy actors ranging from hierarchical top–down to nonhierarchical approaches. The resultant matrix identified four frameworks or types of governance in the governance literature: hierarchies, markets, networks, and communities. The role of networks and public–private partnerships in tourism policy has been a focus of research since the 1990s (Bramwell and Lane, 2000; Dredge and Jenkins, 2003; Dredge, 2006; Zapata and Hall, 2012), and coincided with the growth of work in public policy on governance and shifts in the nature of government in Western states. Work on networks in tourism has informed research on governance and has been affected by concepts of governance in return, although the ideological dimensions of network approaches and governance are often underplayed (Bramwell, 2011), as are issues of implementation (Hall, 2009a), and the potential of networks to become closed policy systems to alternative policy perspectives and other actors (Hall, 1999; Dredge and Jenkins, 2011). Within the context of policy learning Hall (2013) has also suggested that there is an overfocus in tourism on networking as an inherent good, without adequate consideration of the values of networks and their actions. An interest in networks as well as community-based approaches to intervention are also of significance in tourism planning. One of the most longstanding themes or traditions usually identified in the tourism planning literature (Hall, 2008) is the focus on community-based tourism (Murphy, 1985; Murphy and Murphy, 2004). Although the approach has been critically assessed and has often been regarded as failing to live up to its promise, because of either limited theorization or understanding of political realities (Blackstock, 2005), it has nevertheless proven to be highly influential with respect to a number of strands of tourism research, including several identified in this volume (Chapters 44, 45, and 47). These include the theme of community participation in destination decision making as one of the central tenets of sustainable tourism (Bramwell, 2010; Chapter 44), as well as its importance in tourism in less-developed countries with respect to poverty reduction (Saarinen et al., 2013; Chapter 48).

The role of tourism in local economic development and poverty reduction has been extensively explored since 2000 (Rogerson, 2006; Hall, 2007; Harrison and Schipani, 2007; Meyer, 2007, 2009; Scheyvens, 2007, 2011; Harrison, 2009; Rogerson and Rogerson, 2010, 2011; Zapata et al., 2011; Truong and Hall, 2013; Truong et al., 2014; Chapter 48). Such work has looked at direct linkages as well as the opportunities created in other sectors such as agriculture (Torres and Momsen, 2011; Spenceley and Meyer, 2012). Although the notion of pro-poor tourism has been extensively critiqued (Schilcher, 2007; Spenceley and Meyer, 2012), with substantial doubts raised about its overall contribution, the search for employment and economic development opportunities will mean that it will remain a significant policy area in tourism for the foreseeable future (Scheyvens, 2011; Chapter 48). In developed countries the focus on economic development and destination competitiveness has often been approached via the lens of innovation (Svensson, 2005; Hall and Williams, 2008; Hjalager, 2010; Chapter 13). Government is recognized as having an important role in tourism innovation via its public policy settings (Hall, 2009b), especially in relation to regional an industry innovation systems (Weidenfeld, 2013). Nevertheless, as Weidenfeld and Hall (Chapter 46) point out in this volume much more research is required on tourism innovation systems especially with respect to the relative roles of place-embedded qualities versus wider networks and relationships. Such questions remain extremely important in relation to questions of where and how government should invest in tourism innovation and the overall nature of state intervention in the sector in the pursuit of policy goals. The role of the state remains as important as ever in tourism, perhaps even more so given responses to recent economic and financial crises as well as natural disasters (Hall, 2010b; Chapter 49). Considerable work has been undertaken on the nature and role of state intervention in tourism, including in specific areas such as innovation and poverty reduction. However, compared to other areas of sectoral public policy the field remains relatively undertheorized overall, or at least poorly connected to some of the extant public policy and political science literatures (Chapter 43). Nevertheless, the political capacity for individual mobility across borders (Coles and Hall, 2011), as well as the capacities of the state with respect to tourism, remain important research opportunities. As some of the various contributions in this section suggest (Chapters 44, 45, and 48), the foundations for future research in the public policy area are much firmer than they were just a few years ago, although the character of research over the forthcoming decade will likely as much depend on the political will of individual researchers (Hall, 2011c) as the political activities of the state.

References Benckendorff, P. and Zehrer, A. 2013. A network analysis of tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 43: 121–149. Blackstock, K. 2005. A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1): 39–49. Bramwell, B. 2010. Participative planning and governance for sustainable tourism. Tourism

Recreation Research, 35(3): 239–249. Bramwell, B. 2011. Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: a political economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5): 459–477. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (eds) 2000. Tourism, Collaboration & Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability. Clevedon: Channel View. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. 2011. Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 411–421. Church, A. 2004. Local and regional tourism policy and power. In A Companion to Tourism, A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A. Williams (eds), pp. 555–568. Oxford: Blackwell. Church, A. and Coles, T. (eds) 2007. Tourism, Power and Space. London: Routledge. Coles, T. and Hall, C.M. 2011. Rights and regulation of travel and tourism mobility. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3: 209–223. Dinica, V. 2009. Governance for sustainable tourism: a comparison of international and Dutch visions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17: 583–603. Dredge, D. 2006. Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism. Tourism Management, 27: 269–280. Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. 2003. Federal–state relations and tourism public policy, New South Wales, Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, 6: 415–443. Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (eds) 2011. Stories of Practice: Tourism Policy and Planning. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. Duffy, R. 2006. The potential and pitfalls of global environmental governance: the politics of transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa. Political Geography, 25: 89–112. Hall, C.M. 1994. Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Hall, C.M. 1999. Rethinking collaboration and partnership: a public policy perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7: 274–289. Hall, C.M. 2007. Pro-poor tourism: do ‘tourism exchanges benefit primarily the countries of the south’? Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 111–118. Hall, C.M. 2008. Tourism Planning, 2nd edn. Harlow: Pearson. Hall, C.M. 2009a. Archetypal approaches to implementation and their implications for tourism policy. Tourism Recreation Research, 34: 235–245. Hall, C.M. 2009b. Innovation and tourism policy in Australia and New Zealand: never the

twain shall meet? Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1: 2–18. Hall, C.M. 2010a. Power in tourism: tourism in power. In Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights, D. Macleod and J. Carrier (eds), pp. 199–213. Bristol: Channelview. Hall, C.M. 2010b. Crisis events in tourism: subjects of crisis in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 13: 401–417. Hall, C.M. 2011a. Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: from first-and second-order to third-order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 649–671. Hall, C.M. 2011b. A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 437–457. Hall, C.M. 2011c. Researching the political in tourism: where knowledge meets power. In Fieldwork in Tourism: Methods, Issues and Reflections, C.M. Hall (ed.), pp. 39–54. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. 2013. Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable tourism consumption: beyond neoliberalism, ‘nudging’ and ‘green growth’? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21: 1091–1109. Hall, C.M. 2014. Tourism and Social Marketing. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. 1995. Tourism and Public Policy. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Williams, A.M. 2008. Tourism and Innovation. London: Routledge. Harrison, D. 2009. Pro-poor tourism: is there value beyond ‘whose’ rhetoric? Tourism Recreation Research, 34: 200–202. Harrison, D. and Schipani, S. 2007. Lao tourism and poverty alleviation: community-based tourism and the private sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2–3): 194–230. Henderson, J. 2003. The politics of tourism in Myanmar. Current Issues in Tourism, 6: 97– 118. Hjalager, A.-M. 2010. A review of the innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31: 1–12. Hultman, J. and Hall, C.M. 2012. Tourism place-making: governance of locality in Sweden. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 547–570. Kooiman, J. 2003. Governing as Governance. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Meyer, D. 2007. Pro-poor tourism: from leakages to linkages: a conceptual framework for creating linkages between the accommodation sector and ‘poor’ neighbouring communities. Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 558–583.

Meyer, D. 2009. Pro-poor tourism: is there actually much rhetoric?: and, if so, whose? Tourism Recreation Research, 34: 197–199. Murphy, P. 1985. Tourism. A Community Approach. London: Methuen. Murphy, P. and Murphy, A.E. 2004. Strategic Management for Tourism Communities: Bridging the gaps. Clevedon: Channel View. Pierre, J. and Peters, G. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. New York: St. Martin's Press. Pierre, J. and Peters, G. 2005. Governing Complex Societies: Trajectories and Scenarios. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Richter, L. 1989. The Politics of Tourism in Asia. Hawai'i: University of Hawaii Press. Rogerson, C.M. 2006. Pro-poor local economic development in South Africa: the role of propoor tourism. Local Environment, 11: 37–60. Rogerson, C.M. and Rogerson, J.M. 2010. Local economic development in Africa: global context and research directions. Development Southern Africa, 27: 465–480. Rogerson, C.M. and Rogerson, J.M. 2011. Tourism research within the Southern African development community: production and consumption in academic journals, 2000–2010. Tourism Review International, 15(1–2): 213–224. Saarinen, J., Rogerson, C.M., and Manwa, H. (eds) 2013. Tourism and the Millennium Development Goals: Tourism, Local Communities and Development. London: Routledge. Scheyvens, R. 2007. Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 231–254. Scheyvens, R. 2011. Tourism and Poverty. London: Routledge. Schilcher, D. 2007. Growth versus equity: the continuum of pro-poor tourism and neoliberal governance. Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 166–193. Spenceley, A. and Meyer, D. 2012. Tourism and poverty reduction: theory and practice in less economically developed countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20: 297–317. Svensson, B. 2005. A governance perspective on destination development: exploring partnerships, clusters and innovation systems. Tourism Review, 60(2): 32–37. Torres, R. and Momsen, J.H. (eds) 2011. Tourism and Agriculture: New Geographies of Production and Rural Restructuring. London: Routledge. Truong, V.D. and Hall, C.M. 2013. Social marketing and tourism: what is the evidence? Social Marketing Quarterly, 19: 110–135.

Truong, V.D., Hall, C.M., and Garry, T. 2014. Tourism and poverty alleviation: perceptions and experiences of poor people in Sapa, Vietnam. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2013.871019. Weidenfeld, A. 2013. Tourism and cross border regional innovation systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 42: 191–213. Zapata, M.J. and Hall, C.M. 2012. Public-private collaboration in the tourism sector: balancing legitimacy and effectiveness in Spanish tourism partnerships. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4: 61–83. Zapata, M.J., Hall, C.M., Lindo, P., and Vanderschaeghe, M. 2011. Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Current Issues in Tourism, 14: 725–749.

Chapter 43 Tourism and Public Policy Contemporary Debates and Future Directions John M. Jenkins, C. Michael Hall, and Muchazondida Mkono Public policy is a well-established academic discipline which continues to evolve, and which is critical to the understanding of tourism. Public policy studies are usually intended to do one or more of the following: advance public policy theory and its application to policy-making; examine the content of public policies; promote a better understanding of the policy process; improve decisions, choices, and outcomes of public policy; evaluate the impacts and outcomes of policies; and advocate policy shifts or positions (Ham and Hill, 1984; Kelman, 1987). Despite recent developments in tourism and public policy, tourism scholarship has generally remained stuck in examining the traditional models of governing and governance, and has yet to adequately embrace the policy implications of an increasingly globalized tourism system, the emerging Internet-based paradigm of governance, and the significant role of self-governance (metagovernance). In addition, given the longstanding interest in encouraging greater citizen engagement in the political process, there is a need to amplify the citizen voice in tourism policy research. In this chapter we briefly summarize and link key elements in tourism public policy research. We variously consider the research methodologies applied in the area, the scope for and balance between grand theory and case studies, including stories of practice, the limitations of policy analysis, and contemporary issues of global governance, metagovernance, digital citizenship (“citizen 2.0”), and e-governance.

Background Until the 1990s, public policy was often viewed simply as “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (Dye, 1972: 18). Put another way, and linked to three elements (values and intentions; commitment of resources; granting of rights and entitlements), public policy was widely considered as “an action which employs governmental authority to commit resources in support of a preferred value” (Considine, 1994: 3). Promoting a critical approach to public policy, Considine (1994: 4) presented an alternative definition: “policy is the continuing work done by groups of policy actors who use available public institutions to articulate and express the things they value.” More recently, scholars have extended what constitutes public policy even further, and, by way of example, attention has turned to matters of governance as opposed to government (Jessop, 2003). In the field of tourism studies, many authors (e.g. Richter, 1989; Hall, 1994, 2009a, 2014; Hall and Jenkins, 1995; Bramwell and Lane, 2000; Dredge and Jenkins, 2003, 2007a, 2007b, 2011; Airey and Chong, 2010) have described the significance of understanding tourism policymaking (including its implementation) in different contexts, histories, and settings. According

to Dredge and Jenkins (2011: 27) the most recent case studies in the field have: … demonstrated that collaboration is a difficult process; power varies among individuals and groups; there are different frames or ways of understanding any issue; and barriers to knowledge, learning and conflict enhance and empower some interests over others. … Another liminal space had been entered; a shift from government to governance. Different theoretical perspectives have been employed to understand the tourism policy process, but studies concerning elitist, Marxist, public choice, and corporatist perspectives, for example, have been lacking. Although not mutually exclusive perspectives, they do conceptualize the policy process in very different ways (Ham and Hill, 1984). Nonetheless, in the case of tourism, the diversity of perspectives is recognized with respect to studies of power and policy and decision making (Bramwell and Meyer, 2007; Church and Coles, 2007; Marzano and Scott, 2009; Hall, 2010a) that highlight the ways in which theories can be distinguished by their level of analysis, worldview, and the methods and analytical techniques employed in studying public policy. This situation has contributed to the lack of a dominant approach in public policy studies generally (Considine, 1994), and in tourism public policy research specifically (Hall and Jenkins, 1995; Dredge and Jenkins, 2007a). This means that the study of tourism politics and public policy lacks a broader comparative (grand theory) perspective. Nevertheless, there is growing acceptance that tourism public policy is the cumulative result of a range of forces from a complex web of actors, and is “concerned with the complex, diffuse and non-rational nature of the policy process” (Pforr, 2005: 334). Consistent with this thinking, tourism policymaking research since the 1990s has consistently emphasized the importance of collaboration and consensus-building among stakeholders (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007; Erkuş-Öztürk and Eraydın, 2010; Zapata and Hall, 2012). However, it has also been suggested that an uncritical emphasis on collaboration among stakeholders leads to a lack of appreciation of the extent to which subgovernments may form and exclude certain interests and values in the tourism policy-making process (Hall, 1999), and of the implications that this can have for policy learning and capacities for policy change (Hall, 2011a, 2014). Research tensions also arise as the boundaries between state, citizens, and society become increasingly blurred (Pforr, 2005). The breakdown of traditional boundaries between citizens, society, and government has created more corporatist and pluralist policy structures, which have important implications not only for the well-documented concerns about process, content, directions, and effectiveness of public policy and its explicitly political dimensions (Kerr, 2003; Altinay and Bowen, 2006; Church and Coles, 2007), but also for the unintended consequences of policy which have been all too rarely considered in tourism research.

Research Approaches Public policy research since the 1980s is characterized by diverse methods, a range of prescriptive and descriptive approaches, theory-based and applied works, and evaluations of intended policy outcomes (Pforr, 2005; Dredge and Jenkins, 2011). Tourism public policy

research has been grounded in a range of theoretical frameworks, such that methods and approaches have included positivist designs (Pforr, 2006; Erkuş-Öztürk and Eraydın, 2010) which have been popular in the Northern Hemisphere and particularly the USA, pragmatic or mixed methodologies (Spenceley, 2005), and interpretive designs (Göymen, 2000; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007; Stevenson et al., 2008; Hultmann and Hall, 2012) that are documented worldwide. The increasing uptake and growing influence of “critical” and interpretive research methodologies in tourism studies (Tribe, 2008; Dredge and Jenkins, 2011) has also influenced tourism policy research (Pforr, 2005; Dredge, 2006; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007; Nyaupane and Timothy, 2010; see Chapter 7 in this volume). It is unsurprising that tourism public policy debates, steeped as they are, for example, in the politics of destination image, identity, and place branding, easily lend themselves to critical frameworks of analysis. The appeal of critical approaches in tourism policy research lies in their ability to capture contestation, subjectivity, social construction, and competing/conflicting viewpoints, all of which are concomitant to most policy-making discourses and efforts. In postcolonial theory for example, which is inherently critical, it is possible to highlight the racial and social implications of policy decisions and processes, as well as the hegemony of power distribution in the policy process (Hall and Tucker, 2004).

Balancing Grand Theory and the Particular Grand theory (broad or abstract, analytical theory) has been developed alongside an expanding volume of case studies, focusing on specific, limited contexts. For example, Dredge and Jenkins' (2011) argue in favor of a social constructionist approach to public policy which reflects on practice cases, while acknowledging the importance of positioning the specific case experience in a broader, even global, sociopolitical system. Case studies have been undertaken from different perspectives, including interest group collaboration (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999), the role and funding of regional tourist boards and organizations (Jenkins, 2000; Kerr, 2003), the formulation of tourism master plans (Pforr, 2006), and local and regional government entrepreneurship (Schilcher, 2007). Studies have been concentrated in Western countries (e.g. Yüksel et al., 2005; Connelly, 2007; Dinica, 2009), although Asian (Sofield and Li, 2011), African (Cornelissen, 2005; Hall, 2009b), and Latin American (Zapata et al., 2011) research is growing in significance. Nevertheless, the geographical distribution of case studies is significant in its indication of the dominance of Western ways of knowing in the process of knowledge creation. Case studies in the form of “stories of practice” are capable of multilayered investigation of the particular. As Dredge and Jenkins (2011: 6) note, “they often approach complexities and conundrums, ethical issues and dilemmas,” and they can also employ social theories to interrogate the “events, decisions, and actions” involved in policy-making. For example, Pforr's (2005) exploration of tourism policy for the Northern Territory in Australia indicated the complex interplay of political-historical, constitutional, demographic, and sociocultural determinants in tourism policy-making via the application of three existing theoretical

frameworks: the systems model, the policy cycle model, and the policy network approach. Case studies have often been framed as instances of “lesson drawing;” that is, learning in light of empirical experience in a specified context (James and Lodge, 2003). Coupled with “policy transfer,” the two concepts cover processes by which knowledge of policy-making in one political system is used in the development of policies in another political system. Nevetheless, the transferability of policy lessons between contexts has been problematized in research, particularly in interpretive designs, because no two contexts are congruent. However, although it is beyond question that lessons can be learned by policy-makers from the experiences of other political systems, in transferring policy, adjustments have to be made in light of the differences between source and receiving contexts. In tourism policy (and planning) research, however, lesson drawing and policy transfer have been relatively rarely discussed (Church, 2004; Dredge and Jenkins, 2007c), despite it being an area of growing importance (Hall, 2011a; Mkono, 2012), and including such tourism policy arenas as hallmark events (Cook and Ward, 2011), urban regeneration (González, 2011), and planning strategies (van Heur, 2010).

Academic Policy Analysis Tourism researchers tend to adopt flexible frameworks of analysis, allowing themselves to comment on policy as they deem appropriate. Their focus appears to be on building conceptual and theoretical rigour, rather than on political relevance (Dredge and Jenkins, 2011), although such rigour is not as often evident as might be expected. Flexibility notwithstanding, research in the public policy arena is built up on two main types of theory: prescriptive models that seek to demonstrate how policy-making should occur relative to pre-established standards; and descriptive or analytical models that seek to document and explain the way in which the policy process actually occurs (Hall and Jenkins, 1995). Prescriptive policy analysis in tourism has attempted to provide practical recommendations for tourism development, particularly in relation to sustainable development (e.g. Zhang et al., 1999). In contrast, descriptive theories/models give rise to explanations about what happened during the decision and policy-making processes and help to understand the effects that choice, power, perception, values, and process have on policy-making. In other words, although prescriptive models are deductive, one cannot deduce in the absence of prior knowledge (Hall and Jenkins, 1995). Tourism scholars primarily draw from conceptual models that are not specific to their area of study. For example, Pforr (2005) applied Easton's (1965) systems model of the political system for a study on policy-making in the Northern Territory, which, while useful, does not capture the unique specifications and idiosyncrasies of the tourism system, such as its multisectoral nature, the presence of tourism activities which traverse a number of economic sectors, and the multiple scales at which tourism governance operates, as well as the mobile nature of its subjects. If these attributes are overlooked, which is not unlikely in the application of grand theoretical models, some nuances may be lost in the process of knowledge creation.

While the scope of policy analysis is broad, and its themes widely diverse, a recurrent observation is the chaotic and multifaceted nature of the policy-making process. Within tourism studies, this complexity is captured in part in the current orientation in policy research towards network analysis (Beritelli and Laesser, 2011). Network analysis shifts the focus of policy analysis from the outcome of policy-making to the process of policy-making. As Dredge (2006: 279), in a study of local government and industry relationships in Lake Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia, argued, “networks can be used as an organizing concept to understand the messiness of local tourism networks.” Work of this kind has been instrumental in shifting the focus of tourism policy research to governance, as opposed to government.

From Government to Governance A distinction is often drawn between government and governance (Allen et al., 2001; Finger and Pécoud, 2003). Governance is about the ways in which decisions are made, while government stresses the way in which those decisions are carried out (Marche and McNiven, 2003). Government also connotes the exercise of sovereign rule over society in a hierarchical manner (Sørensen, 2006), which can then lead to a lack of attention to other means by which the state exerts influence (Hall, 2011b). Increasingly, the term “governance” is substituted for the term “government” in academic and public discourse, as the former is seen as better capturing the intricate relationships between state, civil society, and economic interests more comprehensively, de-emphasizing the implicit overstatement of the role of governments by the latter (Dredge and Jenkins, 2011; Hall, 2014). In other words, central to a governance approach is the movement towards partnerships between governmental, paragovernmental, and nongovernmental organizations, within which the state is often “first among equals” (Jessop, 2004). From a social constructionist perspective, spaces of governance exist in liminality; that is, the contemporary context in which public policy is constructed, debated, evaluated, and implemented is not permanently fixed, because boundaries are fluid and evolving, existing on a threshold (Caffyn and Jobbins, 2003; Dinica, 2009; Bramwell, 2011; Dredge and Jenkins, 2011; Zahra, 2011). Such policy spaces constitute an ever-shifting, elastic zone, consisting of multiple players. Within this liminoid zone, governments are no longer seen as the all-powerful funders and providers of policy action, but as facilitators and enablers, creating an environment conducive to collaboration among existing and emergent policy communities and networks (Dredge and Jenkins, 2011). Thus governance denotes not what governments do, but how they facilitate and respond to the interactions of multiple forces to produce decisions that steer or orient societies towards desired goals (Jessop, 2004). At the risk of overstating the difference between the two overlapping conceptions of public policy actions, governance can therefore be construed as representing a paradigm shift from a traditional “government,” institutionalist perspective. A criticism which has often been leveled against the concept of governance is its overly descriptive nature, which pays more attention to identifying new political networks, rather than sufficiently, if at all, explaining how and why these new structures have emerged (Göymen,

2000; Jessop, 2003, 2004; Whitehead, 2003; Dinica, 2009). Further, governance is sometimes represented as a movement away from government (Sharpley, 2005), whereas government and governance are deeply entwined (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009; Bramwell, 2010; Hall, 2011b) with the state continuing to be the dominant legal authority. The “rise” of governance therefore does not signal the replacement of government. Rather, it signifies more of a transformation of both approach and understanding. Traditionally, governance has focused on domestic policy. However, with an increasingly globalized economy, governments at various scales are confronted by policy issues for which their solutions now transcend national borders. Examples include climate change, terrorism, natural resource management, and pollution. Global governance therefore re-articulates different levels of the territorial organization of power within the global political system of transnational relations (Rosenau, 1995; Duffield, 2001). The internationalization of policy frameworks and regimes has expanded the scope of governance to include foreign agents and institutions as sources of policy ideas, policy design, and implementation across all policy fields (Jessop, 2004) and at all scales. This is an extremely important development in tourism given the emergence of intermistic policy concerns as well as, for example, the growing international activities of the local state in matters such as tourism marketing, event development and promotion, and sister-city relations (Hall, 2005). A number of global and supranational governance themes have been discussed in tourism research, including sustainable development (Dinica, 2009; Anastasiadou, 2011), tourism and poverty reduction (Hall, 2007; Scheyvens, 2007; Zapata et al., 2011), biodiversity conservation (Duffy, 2006; Hall, 2010b), climate change (Zeppel and Beaumont, 2012; Scott et al., 2012; Gössling et al. 2013), rights of individual mobility (Coles and Hall, 2011), and trade in tourism services, including such controversial areas as medical tourism (Hall, 2011c; Lunt, 2011). Of great importance is the fact that public policy linked to many of these areas, such as climate change and tourism, depends on “value-driven decisions made in the context of uncertainty and complex socioeconomic, cultural, and political relationships” among domestic and international actors (Belle and Bramwell, 2005: 32; see also Yasarata et al., 2010). However, if governance in any domestic context is complex, global governance is perhaps even more so and is further complicated by the rise of new information and communication technologies that increase the reach of state decisions and policies as well as the organizations and individuals that interact with them and seek to exercise influence.

The Era of E-Governance? E-governance refers to a technology-mediated relationship between governments and their citizens, from the viewpoint of potential deliberation over civic communication, policy evolution, and the democratic expression of citizens' will (Backus, 2001; Marche and McNiven, 2003; Saxena, 2005). An important distinction is often made between e-government and e-governance. E-government can be understood to refer to the utilization of Internet technology for delivering government information and services to citizens. E-governance is broader, and encompasses all the rules, processes, and behaviors that affect the functioning of

public administration (Torres et al., 2006). In other words, e-governance includes egovernment in addition to the online engagement of stakeholders in shaping, debating, and implementing public policies (Heeks, 2001; Finger and Pécoud, 2003; Saxena, 2005; Torres et al., 2006). Dawes (2008) describes e-governance as comprising the use of information and communication technologies to support public services, government administration, democratic processes, and relationships among citizens, the private sector, civil society, and the state. For example, this may include the publication of tourism-related media releases, policy documents, strategic plans, and other governance communications on state websites. According to Torres et al. (2006: 280) e-governance may shift public managers' emphasis from producer concerns such as cost-efficiency, towards “focusing on user satisfaction and control, flexibility in service delivery, and network management with internal and external parties.” However, such a potential transition occurs in phases. Torres et al. (2006) describe these stages as (i) the billboard stage, where governments simply post information on websites; (ii) the partial service delivery stage, where governments incorporate e-mail systems as well as information and data-transfer technologies; (iii) the portal stage with fully executable and integrated service delivery, allowing online service and financial transactions; (iv) the seamless stage, characterized by full integration of e-services across administrative boundaries; and (v) the interactive democracy stage, wherein governments actively promote political participation online. In reality, the adoption of e-governance initiatives might not follow such a linear progression, with governments pursuing initiatives that fall into more than one phase simultaneously (Torres et al., 2006). E-governance has broad implications for governance that include new models of policy design, new forms of citizenship, new patterns of relationships and power, new possibilities for economic development, and new ways of engaging people with the political process (Marche and McNiven, 2003). For example, some states in the USA have adopted policies that open government deliberations to public view via broadcasts and webcasts (Dawes, 2008). For citizens, the implications of e-governance are encapsulated in the terms “digital citizenship” and “e-citizenship,” which capture the interplay between emerging technologies and sociopolitical systems. However, governments still have a long way to go before they can fully implement e-governance. In the USA, most governments have only utilized Internet technologies for one-way communications, as in the case of legislative websites and broadcasts, instead of interactive discussion or deliberation. Very few state websites facilitate online consultation with citizens, and governments still lack policies and procedures to support web-based public involvement (Dawes, 2008). Knowledge on the state of e-governance in other parts of the world outside the European Union and the USA remains scant. Backus (2001) highlights the major challenges limiting the prospects of e-governance implementation in developing countries: slow decision making, budget constraints, lack of expertise about technology, hierarchy in organizations, and a lack of clear cyber laws (Basu, 2004; Ndou, 2004; Dada, 2006), as well as relatively limited access to the Internet in many cases.

The e-governance model, though seeming to represent the future of governance, is not without its challenges and limitations. In particular, the reliance of e-governance on massive databases and networks gives rise to various privacy and security concerns (Dawes, 2008). Further, the possibilities of e-governance are not uniform for every polity. Since the effectiveness of egovernance depends in part on overall access to Internet resources, the digital divide within and between countries necessarily means different levels of potential for the leveraging of Internet technology in engaging citizens in the political process.

Digital Citizenship (Citizen 2.0) The implications of e-governance for policy-making can only be fully understood when considered in conjunction with its counterpart, “digital citizenship” or “citizen 2.0.” Digital citizenship refers to the effective and regular utilization of technology to engage meaningfully in society, politics, and government processes. Digital citizenship combines five types of behaviors (Shelley et al., 2004): e-communicating (e.g. chatting and emailing), e-democracy (e.g. online voting), e-surfing (browsing the Internet for information), e-working (working via a computer, connected to the Internet, typically from home), and e-consuming (purchasing online) (Chadwick and Howard, 2009). E-governance and digital citizenship feed off each other in a cyclical fashion: e-governance encourages digital citizenship, and increased levels of digital citizenship in turn encourage further movement from traditional offline to e-forms of governance. However, like egovernance, digital citizenship represents a major research gap in tourism policy research with many unanswered questions pertaining to the impact of digital citizenship on the political process. Examples include the role of the Internet in the organization by interest groups of consumer boycotts of tourism destinations or products (Henderson, 2003); the conduct of online political deliberation among citizens through such means as online discussions of environmental issues among travelers (Rokka and Moisander, 2009); and the ways in which the Internet promotes freedom of expression (Chadwick and Howard, 2009). There are many knowledge gaps surrounding digital citizenship. However, it is clear that citizenship is increasingly mediated by digital communication technologies, as Internet interfaces become cheaper, more widely accessible, and easier to use; as political parties and interest groups interact with their members online, attract new members, and seek to influence policy agendas; as government makes important information and documents available and collect it from citizens via the web; and as traditional and media organizations constantly update the news on their websites (Mossberger et al., 2008; Chadwick and Howard, 2009).

Self-Governing Networks: Metagovernance Beyond governance and global governance lies the less studied and more subtle and elusive concept of “metagovernance,” which can be understood as the “governing of governing,” based on a high degree of autonomy for a plurality of self-governing networks (Sørensen, 2006). As such, metagovernance is an indirect form of governance, through the organization of self-

organization (Jessop, 2003, 2004; Sørensen, 2006; Sørensen and Torfing, 2009). Like egovernance, metagovernance has lacked consideration in tourism studies, even though in practice there is a wide range of tourism metagovernance practices in operation. Metagovernance emerges in the context of a move towards the dehierarchization of the state, coupled with reflexive self-organization, in dealing with policy challenges that involve partners beyond, as well as within, the state (Jessop, 2003, 2004; Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009). Metagovernance works through framing self-governing institutions and frameworks, and through dialogue and deliberation (Jessop, 2004). In metagoverning, the state becomes just one participant among others in a pluralist guidance system, contributing its own resources to the negotiation process. As a result, the outcome of the metagovernmental negotiation process is typically an unstable equilibrium of compromise rather than a single, dominant alternative (Jessop, 2003, 2004; Meuleman, 2008; Sørensen, 2006). Metagovernance may be exercised through various combinations of hands-off framing of selfgovernance, hands-on support and facilitation, and hands-on participation (Jessop, 2003; Sørensen, 2006). Hands-off framing of self-governing institutions and networks can be implemented via shaping the political, financial, and organizational context within which selfgovernance occurs. In the tourism industry, the popular but nonmandatory accreditation and certification schemes are good examples of self-governance (Gössling, 2010), although such arrangements may fail to achieve desired policy (implementation) outcomes (Scott et al., 2012). Governments of different levels and persuasions worldwide actively participate in policymaking processes, most formally through their tourism agencies, tasked with the mandate of running the key tourism affairs of the state, in collaboration with other actors, and most usually linked to issues such as destination planning, marketing, promotion, and development. Metagovernance is nonetheless not the exclusive domain of state actors. Indeed, metagovernance can be exercised by an entire range of supranational, regional, and local institutions of the political system (Sørensen, 2006; Sørensen and Torfing, 2009). The complex networks of metagovernance in tourism, at domestic and international levels of policy-making, therefore constitute an important future area of inquiry for tourism scholars and those working in related disciplines.

Third and Fourth Way Politics: Contemplating the Future Following Giddens' (1998) proposition of a “Third Way” or pragmatic “new middle” political process that would capitalize on the strengths of the welfare state and the role of the market while reducing their weaknesses, questions of a new public policy paradigm were raised. Third Way politics is an attempt to bring out links between the personal and the political; to make the challenges facing human society intelligible as ethical issues (ethopolitics) (Rose, 2000; Hargreaves and Shirley, 2008). In this regard, a new debate has emerged around balancing the often competing political, cultural, economic, environmental, and social

outcomes of tourism (Burns, 2004; Scheyvens, 2007). In Third Way ethopolitics, emphasis is concentrated on social democracy, equality, and freedom, in an environment of inclusive participation (Giddens, 1998). The Third Way therefore advocates an active civil society, constantly engaged with government in policy processes. Burns (2004) views the Third Way as a prescription for the limitations of what he describes as a “masterplanning” approach to tourism public policy, which he characterizes as dominated by government, and as industry-biased. He provides various prescriptions, including regional networking, to combat the strength of transnational corporations, mechanisms for equitable distribution of benefits, and long-term development accounting. The challenge with such prescriptions, of course, is that they are not necessarily effective across contexts, as different environments bring unique permutations of diverse network communities, in constantly evolving social, economic, political, and cultural spaces. Notwithstanding its continued relevance, the Third Way does not represent the latest thinking in policy debates. Rather, recently, a Fourth Way has been suggested by Hargreaves and Shirley (2009), informed by an effort to learn from the best of the past, inspired by a commitment to more innovative and inclusive goals for the future, and built on the pillars of purpose and partnership, professionalism, and catalysts for coherence. However, these are grand objectives, and require more explicit breakdown into smaller units for practical implementation and more nuanced reflection to identify what a Fourth Way actually means for governance.

Theoretical and Methodological Reflections This chapter has summarized and traversed key elements in tourism public policy research. It has sought to encapsulate the focus of public policy research in tourism studies, reflect upon the range of applied research methodologies, identify gaps in the literature, and hence briefly discuss some of the contemporary issues where research is lacking but would prove fruitful. With respect to the latter, we consider issues such as global governance, e-governance, digital citizenship (citizen 2.0), and metagovernance to have considerable potential for research that is both applied and theoretically informed. Analyses of such topics informed by public policy theory would not only add significantly to the existing body of work, but are urgently needed. Since the 1990s the field of tourism studies has begun to embrace public policy research, but, given the infancy of the body of work, it remains fragmented. Few have grappled with public policy theories, models, and issues in compelling ways, and the failure to underpin case studies with rigorous theory perhaps reflects a tendency in tourism research for people to dabble in policy rather than embrace it as long-term scholarly commitment. Therefore, we wish to reinforce previous observations that it would be beneficial for tourism policy scholars, in addition to applying generic theoretical models, to develop and apply conceptual models that specifically denote the workings of the tourism political process (Hall and Jenkins, 1995; Dredge and Jenkins, 2007c), in a manner that is “dynamic, iterative and reflective” (Dredge and Jenkins, 2011: 9). With these things in mind, we therefore observe exciting opportunities

for research in tourism public policy and the politics of tourism, and for genuine interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary work, which is now beginning to emerge.

References Airey, D. and Chong, K. 2010. National policy-makers for tourism in China. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2): 295–314. Allen, B.A., Juillet, L., Paquet, G., and Roy, J. 2001. E-governance & government on-line in Canada: partnerships, people & prospects. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2): 93– 104. Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. 2009. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A, 41: 617–633. Altinay, L. and Bowen, D. 2006. Politics and tourism interface: the case of Cyprus. Annals of Tourism Research, 33: 939–956. Anastasiadou, C. 2011. Promoting sustainability from above: reflections on the influence of the European Union on tourism governance. Policy Quarterly, 7(4): 27–33. Backus, M. 2001. E-governance and Developing Countries: Introduction and Examples. IICD Research Report. The Hague: International Institute for Communication and Development. Basu, S. 2004. E-government and developing countries: an overview. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 18(1): 109–132. Belle, N. and Bramwell, B. 2005. Climate change and small island tourism: policy maker and industry perspectives in Barbados. Journal of Travel Research, 44: 32–41. Beritelli, P. and Laesser, C. 2011. Power dimensions and influence reputation in tourist destinations: empirical evidence from a network of actors and stakeholders. Tourism Management, 32: 1299–1309. Bramwell, B. 2010. Participative planning and governance for sustainable tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 35: 239–249. Bramwell, B. 2011. Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: a political economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 459–477. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (eds) 2000. Tourism, Collaboration & Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability. Clevedon: Channel View. Bramwell, B. and Meyer, D. 2007. Power and tourism policy relations in transition. Annals of Tourism Research, 34: 766–788.

Bramwell, B. and Sharman, A. 1999. Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research, 26: 392–415. Burns, P. 2004. Tourism planning: a third way? Annals of Tourism Research, 31: 24–43. Caffyn, A. and Jobbins, G. 2003. Governance capacity and stakeholder interactions in the development and management of coastal tourism: examples from Morocco and Tunisia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11: 224–245. Chadwick, A. and Howard, P. (eds) 2009. Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. Abingdon: Routledge. Church, A. 2004. Local and regional tourism policy and power. In A Companion to Tourism, A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A. Williams (eds), pp. 555–568. Oxford: Blackwell. Church, A. and Coles, T. (eds) 2007. Tourism, Power and Space. London: Routledge. Coles, T. and Hall, C.M. 2011. Rights and regulation of travel and tourism mobility. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3: 209–223. Connelly, G. 2007. Testing governance – a research agenda for exploring urban tourism competitiveness policy: the case of Liverpool 1980–2000. Tourism Geographies, 9: 84–114. Considine, M. 1994. Public Policy: A Critical Approach. South Melbourne: Macmillan. Cook, I. and Ward, K. 2011. Trans-urban networks of learning, mega events and policy tourism: the case of Manchester's commonwealth and olympic games projects. Urban Studies, 48: 2519–2535. Cornelissen, S. 2005. The Global Tourism System: Governance, Development, and Lessons from South Africa. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. Dada, D. 2006. The failure of e-government in developing countries: a literature review. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 26. http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/view/277. Dawes, S. 2008. The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review, 68(s1): S86–S102. Dinica, V. 2009. Governance for sustainable tourism: a comparison of international and Dutch visions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(5): 583–603. Dredge, D. 2006. Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism. Tourism Management, 27: 269–280. Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. 2003. Federal–state relations and tourism public policy, New South Wales, Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, 6: 415–443. Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J.M. 2007a. Introduction to tourism planning and policy. In Tourism

Policy and Planning, D. Dredge and J.M. Jenkins (eds), pp. 1–31. Milton: Wiley & Sons. Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J.M. 2007b. Historical development. In Tourism Policy and Planning, D. Dredge and J.M. Jenkins (eds), pp. 69–111. Milton: Wiley & Sons. Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J.M. 2007c. Conclusion: challenges and issues. In Tourism Policy and Planning, D. Dredge and J.M. Jenkins (eds), pp. 1–31. Milton: Wiley & Sons. Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (eds) 2011. Stories of Practice: Tourism Policy and Planning. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. Duffield, M. 2001. Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security. London: Zed Books. Duffy, R. 2006. The potential and pitfalls of global environmental governance: the politics of transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa. Political Geography, 25: 89–112. Dye, T. 1972. Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Easton, D. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Erkuş-Öztürk, H. and Eraydın, A. 2010. Environmental governance for sustainable tourism development: collaborative networks and organisation building in the Antalya tourism region. Tourism Management, 31: 113–124. Finger, M. and Pécoud, G. 2003. From e-government to e-governance? Towards a model of egovernance. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 1(1): 52–62. Giddens, A. 1998. The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Oxford: Polity Press. González, S. 2011. Bilbao and Barcelona ‘in motion’. How urban regeneration ‘models’ travel and mutate in the global flows of policy tourism. Urban Studies, 48: 1397–1418. Gössling, S. 2010. Carbon Management in Tourism. London: Routledge. Gössling, S., Scott, D., and Hall, C.M. 2013. Challenges of tourism in a low-carbon economy, WIRES Climate Change, 4(6): 525–538. Göymen, K. 2000. Tourism and governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 27: 1025– 1048. Hall, C.M. 1994. Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Hall, C.M. 1999. Rethinking collaboration and partnership: a public policy perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7: 274–289. Hall, C.M. 2005. Tourism: Rethinking the Social Science of Mobility. London: Pearson.

Hall, C.M. 2007. Pro-poor tourism: do ‘tourism exchanges benefit primarily the countries of the south’? Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 111–118. Hall, C.M. 2009a. Archetypal approaches to implementation and their implications for tourism policy. Tourism Recreation Research, 34: 235–245. Hall, C.M. 2009b. Tourism policy and politics in Southern Africa. In Sustainable Tourism in Southern Africa: Perspectives on Local Communities and Natural Resources in Transition, J. Saarinen, F. Becker, H. Manwa, and D. Wilson (eds), pp. 42–60. Bristol: Channel View. Hall, C.M. 2010a. Power in tourism: Tourism in power. In Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights, D. Macleod and J. Carrier (eds), pp. 199–213. Bristol: Channel View. Hall, C.M. 2010b. Tourism and the implementation of the convention on biological diversity. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5: 267–284. Hall, C.M. 2011a. Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: from first-and second-order to third-order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 649–671. Hall, C.M. 2011b. A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 437–457. Hall, C.M. 2011c. Health and medical tourism: a kill or cure for global public health? Tourism Review, 66(1/2): 4–15. Hall, C.M. 2014. Tourism and Social Marketing. Abingdon: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. 1995. Tourism and Public Policy. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Tucker, H. (eds) 2004. Tourism and Postcolonialism, London: Routledge. Ham, C. and Hill, M. 1984. The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books. Hargreaves, A. and Shirley, D. 2009. The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Heeks, R. 2001. Understanding E-governance for Development. Manchester: University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management. Henderson, J. 2003. The politics of tourism in Myanmar. Current Issues in Tourism, 6: 97– 118. Hultman, J. and Hall, C.M. 2012. Tourism place-making: governance of locality in Sweden. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 547–570. James, O. and Lodge, M. 2003. The limitations of ‘policy transfer’and ‘lesson drawing’ for public policy research. Political Studies Review, 1: 179–193.

Jenkins, J. 2000. The dynamics of regional tourism organisations in New South Wales, Australia: history, structures and operations. Current Issues in Tourism, 3: 175–203. Jessop, B. 2003. Governance and metagovernance: on reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony. In Governance as Social and Political Communication, H. Bang (ed.), pp. 101–116. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Jessop, B. 2004. Multilevel governance and multilevel metagovernance. Changes in the EU as integral moments in the transformation and reorientation of contemporary statehood. In Multilevel Governance, I. Bache and M. Flinders (eds), pp. 49–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kelman, S. 1987. Making Public Policy: A Hopeful View of the American Government. New York: Basic Books Kerr, W. 2003. Tourism Public Policy, and the Strategic Management of Failure. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lunt, N. 2011. Medical Tourism: Treatments, Markets and Health System Implications: A Scoping Review. Geneva: OECD, Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs. Marche, S. and McNiven, J. 2003. E-government and e-governance: the future isn't what it used to be. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 20: 74–86. Marzano, G. and Scott, N. 2009. Power in destination branding. Annals of Tourism Research, 36: 247–267. Mkono, M. 2012. Zimbabwe's tourism woes in the last decade: hindsight lessons for African tourism planners and managers. Tourism Planning & Development, 9: 205–210. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., and McNeal, R. 2008. Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ndou, V. 2004. E-government for developing countries: opportunities and challenges. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 18. www.ejisdc.org/ojs2./index.php/ejisdc/article/view/110/110. Nyaupane, G. and Timothy, D. 2010. Power, regionalism and tourism policy in Bhutan. Annals of Tourism Research, 37: 969–988. Pforr, C. 2005. Three lenses of analysis for the study of tourism public policy: a case from Northern Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, 8: 323–343. Pforr, C. 2006. Tourism policy in the making: an Australian network study. Annals of Tourism Research, 33: 87–108. Richter, L. 1989. The Politics of Tourism in Asia. Hawai'i: University of Hawaii Press.

Rokka, J. and Moisander, J. 2009. Environmental dialogue in online communities: negotiating ecological citizenship among global travellers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33: 199–205. Rose, N. 2000. Community, citizenship, and the third way. American Behavioral Scientist, 43: 1395–1411. Rosenau, J. 1995. Governance in the twenty-first century. Global Governance, 1: 13–43. Saxena, K.B.C. 2005. Towards excellence in e-governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18: 498–513. Scheyvens, R. 2007. Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 231–254. Schilcher, D. 2007. Growth versus equity: the continuum of pro-poor tourism and neoliberal governance. Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 166–193. Scott, D., Gössling, S., and Hall, C.M. 2012. Tourism and Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. London: Routledge. Sharpley, R. 2005. Managing the countryside for tourism: a governance perspective. In The Management of Tourism, L. Pender and R. Sharpley (eds), pp. 175–187. London: Sage Publications. Shelley, M., Thrane, L., Shulman, S., Lang, E., Beisser, S., Larson, T., and Mutiti, J. 2004. Digital citizenship parameters of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 22: 256–269. Sofield, T. and Li, S. 2011. Tourism governance and sustainable national development in China: a macro-level synthesis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 501–534. Sørensen, E. 2006. Metagovernance: the changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1): 98–114. Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. 2009. Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87: 234–258. Spenceley, A. 2005. Nature-based tourism and environmental sustainability in South Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13: 136–170. Stevenson, N., Airey, D., and Miller, G. 2008. Tourism policy making: the policymakers' perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35: 732–750. Torres, L., Pina, V., and Acerete, B. 2006. E-governance developments in European Union cities: reshaping government's relationship with citizens. Governance, 19: 277–302. Tribe, J. 2008. Tourism: a critical business. Journal of Travel Research, 46: 245–255.

Whitehead, M. 2003. In the shadow of hierarchy: meta-governance, policy reform and urban regeneration in the West Midlands. Area, 35: 6–14. van Heur, B. 2010. Small cities and the geographical bias of creative industries research and policy. Journal of Policy Research In Tourism, Leisure and Events, 2: 189–192. Yasarata, M., Altinay, L., Burns, P., and Okumus, F. 2010. Politics and sustainable tourism development–can they co-exist? Voices from North Cyprus. Tourism Management, 31: 345– 356. Yüksel, F., Bramwell, B., and Yüksel, A. 2005. Centralized and decentralized tourism governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32: 859–886. Zahra, A. 2011. Rethinking regional tourism governance: the principle of subsidiarity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 535–552. Zapata, M.J. and Hall, C.M. 2012. Public-private collaboration in the tourism sector: balancing legitimacy and effectiveness in Spanish tourism partnerships. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4: 61–83. Zapata, M.J., Hall, C.M., Lindo, P., and Vanderschaeghe, M. 2011. Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Current Issues in Tourism, 14: 725–749. Zeppel, H. and Beaumont, N. 2012. Climate change and tourism futures: responses by Australian tourism agencies. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 12: 73–88. Zhang, H.Q., Chong, K., and Ap, J. 1999. An analysis of tourism policy development in modern China. Tourism Management, 20: 471–485.

Chapter 44 Local Participation in Community Tourism A Critical and Relational Assessment Bill Bramwell There is much support in the tourism literature for greater participation by local actors in tourism planning processes in destinations. Proposals for community-based tourism have increased among researchers and practitioners as a part of “good governance” (Murphy, 1985). These include arguments for enhanced local mobilization and more decentralized decision making from national, regional, and local government to a wider range of participants. This local activity and decentralization to local actors is reflected in the emergence of community fora, community enterprise initiatives, and local collaborative arrangements. The discussion here focuses on cogovernance initiatives and mechanisms where local actors have direct and structured involvements in community-level tourism decision making. Thus, it is less interested in activities that only generate advice for policy-makers. Community-based tourism planning shares many features with community-based planning for other activities, but its features can also be affected by tourism's specific character. For instance, a community-based, participative approach might be encouraged or influenced by tourism often developing in places with limited development options, by it often affecting many local people but with perhaps only a minority gaining significant direct benefits, and by tourism tending not to feature prominently in democratic election campaigns. Three aspects of local participation in community-based tourism planning have often featured in the literature: increasing local democracy, and securing local socioeconomic and also sustainability benefits. According to Stone and Stone (2011: 99), “Ideally, community participation involves designing development so that the intended beneficiaries are at the forefront and participate, by mobilizing their own resources, making their own decisions and defining their own needs and how to meet them.” Researchers have identified several ways in which widening local participation in tourist destination governance potentially can result in benefits for local democracy, socioeconomic development, and sustainability. First, there can be local democracy benefits if decisions are made by residents rather than outsiders, and if they reflect local priorities. Timothy (2002: 154) suggests that local control of tourism planning potentially is beneficial because residents may have “a greater tendency to do it in a way that is in harmony with cultural traditions.” Second, there can be local socioeconomic benefits from community-based tourism as communities may be encouraged through this to mobilize their own resources and to secure more of tourism's benefits and fewer of its costs. Murphy (1985: 171) argues that local people's tourism experience can provide “a reservoir of information and enthusiasm if properly tapped.” According to Timothy (2002: 149), community-based tourism is “a way of empowering communities and affording them opportunities to break free from the destructive influence of mass tourism.” Third, the involvement of local actors in decision making might secure benefits for sustainability. Their interests, knowledge, and perhaps inclination to be

custodians of their local resources might promote more informed consideration of tourism's socioeconomic and environmental impacts (Bramwell and Sharman, 2000). From an assessment of community-based tourism in Tanzania, Nelson (2008: 314) concludes that it “has led to significant actions by local communities in support of wildlife conservation.” There is a growing view, however, that community-based tourism initiatives do not always deliver the anticipated benefits. Butcher (2012: 102) argues, for example, that “community participation … does not warrant its generally-held status as part of a progressive shift in development politics, specifically with regard to tourism.” Similarly, Gascón (2013: 2) considers that the opinion that community-based tourism “has serious limitations is gaining ground.” There are numerous potential difficulties hampering attempts to increase local benefits through local participation, and thus these initiatives need examining critically (Bramwell, 2010). The critical assessment here explores four aspects of these initiatives. First, it considers the practical processes of local participation in tourism planning and development. It applies an analytical framework of five sets of issues to be examined in order to evaluate whether the processes might deliver democratic and other benefits, and also overcome the difficulties potentially hindering positive outcomes. According to Gascón (2013: 2), it is important to provide critical evaluations of community tourism that consider the difficulties involved, not least because “the body of published cases has valued systematisation of good practice above critical assessments.” Second, it is contended that research on community tourism has led to a significant strand of the tourism governance literature being focused on the micropolitical level of communities and on local cogovernance based on deliberative discussion and negotiation among local actors. To some degree this might have narrowed the coverage of research on tourism governance. Third, partly for that reason, a case is made for a more broadly drawn perspective on community tourism. This is a holistic, relational, and multiscalar approach that recognizes the socioeconomic, governance, and other processes affecting local communities. It assesses processes that are internal and also external to local communities, and are at any spatial scale. Consideration is given to community links to external socioeconomic and political forces and actors, to local representative or electoral democracy, and to oppositional actors that reject participation in partnerships and fora. Fourth, the relational perspective suggests that both optimistic and pessimistic views about community tourism must be evaluated critically. It also indicates that we cannot assume a priori that local decision making is inherently more democratic than decision making at other spatial scales.

Practical Processes and Outcomes, and Their Difficulties Critical assessments are required of the practical processes and outcomes of community tourism and local participative tourism planning. There are several sets of issues affecting whether these processes and outcomes are successful in meeting their goals, such as in

promoting local democracy and socioeconomic gains. The first three sets of issues examined here relate to democratic goals, and they were developed from suggestions by Bramwell and Sharman (1999, 2000). These are, first, the scope of the participation in the cogovernance arrangements, including whether the range of participants is representative; second, the intensity, openness, and fairness of the interactions and negotiations among participants, including the extent to which power differentials among them are overcome; and, third, whether the parties reach agreements about priorities and whether these are the final decisions that are applied. To this are added here two further sets of issues affecting the success of community-based tourism. These concern, fourth, the extent to which the benefits from tourism development are secured by the community and also distributed equitably between community members; and, fifth, how the community fares in relation to the external structural constraints on local decision making and socioeconomic returns (Blackstock, 2005). This analytical framework of five sets of issues helps us to assess whether power imbalances among actors are reduced through local governance arrangements, and whether the processes and outcomes are empowering and equitable. Each set of issues is discussed in turn, focusing on likely practical difficulties. The success of local participation is affected, first, by the scope of participation, including whether the range of participants is representative of all relevant parties. There is an ideal of inclusiveness here, “whereby all affected parties must be involved in making a decision” (Purcell, 2008: 71). But that ideal is very difficult to achieve, for example because of the limited financial, imaginative, and communicative resources of agencies conducting deliberative processes. Communities are rarely the homogeneous and cohesive units that might be implied. Usually they are divided by differences in values and aims, multiple hierarchies, and internal tensions and conflicts (Salazar, 2012). Thus, more powerful actors may deliberately exclude less influential actors who oppose their objectives. Jamal and Getz (2000) identify how participants in collaborative meetings set up to agree a growth management strategy for the tourism center of Canmore in Canada excluded the less visible segments of the community and the advocates of a “no growth” strategy. Some groups may also lack the resources and skills to engage in formal policy-making processes. Poor social groups may be further discouraged by a cultural acceptance that planning decisions are made by a narrow group of people, or by their having a long history of political exclusion. In an assessment of tourism planning in Indonesia's Yogyakarta province, Timothy (1998, 1999) found that an acceptance that political control and policy decisions rest externally in the hands of central government and a few influential politicians meant there was little pressure to widen local decision making. The success of local cogovernance, second, is also influenced by the intensity, openness, and fairness of participants' interactions and deliberations. Ideally there is a need for power-free, respectful, fair, and undistorted negotiations. This requires that the honest views of all affected parties are expressed, listened to, and considered equally, that all are engaged fully and fairly, that confidence and trust emerges among all participants, and that open and fairly conducted debate and negotiation occurs about priorities (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). The importance of such deliberative processes for successful joint working is indicated in a survey by Laing et

al (2009: 218) of participants in local partnerships in Australia bringing together protected area agencies and the tourism industry. The participants regarded three features of the partnerships' internal processes as most important: open communication between partners, trust between partners, and commitment by partners to the partnership. But power relationships in such joint working are unlikely to be neutralized even through skilful mediation, and participants have different capacities to manage the interactions to achieve their own goals. In partnership meetings to devise a strategy to manage tourism-related growth in Canmore, the participating actors were not all listened to equally, with this being affected by the perceived legitimacy of their views and by some participants' aggressive tactics (Jamal and Getz, 2000). In a study of a community-based tourism initiative in Fiji, Farrelly (2011: 831) concludes that “a lack of formal education, … poor information in the lead-up to the meeting and the European decision-making process during the meeting, all contributed to an inability for community members to make fully informed decisions and contributions.” Nelson (2008: 314) also contends that among community-based tourism ventures in Tanzania there were “numerous examples of decision-making processes that violate collective consensual norms, whereby a few leaders allocate tourism concessions without involving the broader community.” Local cogovernance may also succeed, thirdly, when agreements are reached about tourism priorities, and when these are final decisions and not just advice for others to decide. Kelly et al. (2012) observe that agreements were reached among the public and private sectors and semi-state agencies in the early phase of a marine conservation and tourism partnership for the Shannon area. But the agreements subsequently were eroded as the private sector operators began to feel excluded from the decision making: “The initially high level of consensus over partnership actions began to dissipate, however, as the realities of partnership working … became apparent” (Kelly et al., 2012: 775). Partnership participants also may not accept that all of the agreements reached are in their own interests, so they may not be committed to them all. In a study of collaboration to develop a visitor management plan for the Hope Valley in the UK, Bramwell and Sharman (1999: 31) argue that, while the plan claimed to be based on “a strong consensus and support for the overall programme,” in interviews many participants expressed reservations about some plan proposals. In addition, agreement may be reached only by ignoring issues that could lead to conflict. In the Hope Valley case, the agreed plan did not examine the area's carrying capacity and the possibility of restricting tourist numbers. By not considering these issues the plan appealed to many actors, but it also omitted these significant but contentious questions. A further consideration is whether decisions reached through deliberative mechanisms are only consultative or are the final decisions to be applied. Fourth, joint local tourism initiatives may successfully bring socioeconomic benefits to local communities and these benefits may be distributed equitably among community members. From a survey of community-based tourism enterprises in southern African countries, Spenceley (2008: 370–371) found they provided various benefits for local people, including employment, access to finance, community infrastructure, education, product development, and local procurement. Yet she observes that, “although there were some success stories, the majority struggle to survive with problems of accessibility in remote locations, limited market access,

poor promotion, low motivation and constrained communication.” It is now more widely recognized that such initiatives can often struggle, notably when local people lack the knowledge and capacity to attract sufficient numbers of tourists to sustain viable local enterprises and adequate local economic returns. Communities are also usually stratified, such as by wealth, contacts, and influence, which affects the distribution of tourism's benefits and costs. Nelson (2008) notes that, while the community-based tourism ventures he studied in Tanzania could provide positive benefits, the revenues they produced were often appropriated by local elites, so that “few economic benefits reach community members except for those benefiting directly through employment” (Nelson, 2008: 314). Fifth, local tourism decision making may successfully retain or pull back political power from outside institutions and socioeconomic power from external commercial businesses. This can empower communities politically and economically. Yet outside involvement can be fundamental to achieve economic development, such as to attract sufficient tourist numbers. Particularly in less developed countries, it can be important to involve external actors to overcome a lack of education, business experience, and financial resources within local communities. There may also be influential external actors with property rights or other economic and political interests who are involved in local tourism development. External linkages can be necessary, but they may be constraining. As Gascón (2013: 2) argues, often “the structural constraints of the tourism industry and/or the State – constraints which hamper the local population's control over the activity – are undervalued.” From Nelson's (2008: 317) study of Tanzania's community-based tourism, he concludes that the country's “modern economy is highly contested terrain, with rural communities struggling to access the opportunities that growing markets like tourism create, in the face of competition from more powerful public institutions and some private sector actors.” There can be powerful external business interests, for example, which restrict the revenues received by community-based initiatives. Key roles in community tourism projects may also be played by externally based international development and aid agencies. These agencies may devolve natural resource management to local people, but this “becomes a hollow exercise if this devolution is already oriented to specific types of outcomes and assumes that existing resource management practices are irrelevant, or perhaps even inimical to conservation goals” (Brockington et al., 2008: 99). Community participation was combined with wildlife conservation and ecotourism in the Campfire programme introduced in rural Zimbabwe in the late 1980s. In a discussion of Campfire, Butcher (2005: 120) notes the strong influence on the outcomes of the national government's Parks Department and big nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) which funded the projects. He concludes that “Campfire is less a case of ‘co-management’, as claimed, and more a case of ‘persuasion’. Ultimately that power to persuade is strong, backed up by the financial authority of the NGOs.”

A Relational and Interscalar Critical Assessment: Theory and Methods

So far this critical review of community tourism and local participative tourism initiatives has identified practical difficulties to overcome or to be reduced in pursuit of their goals. It is surprising that the literature has not focused more on the political and socioeconomic influence over local communities often exerted by external institutions and businesses. Some studies of community tourism pay only limited attention to external links and forces, despite their potential importance. As Nault and Stapleton (2011: 696) observe, “although community ownership and management of ecotourism ventures is possible, communities still require some form of collaboration or partnership with outside stakeholders.” This can be especially important for effective integration into the international tourism industry. In this context, Sakata and Prideaux (2013: 3) note how “community-based initiatives are seldom controlled and managed by the target community,” arguing that “many of the problems encountered in [community-based ecotourism] projects stem from inequitable power relations between local communities and ‘outsiders’ ” (Wearing et al., 2005; Manyara and Jones, 2007). This issue relates to established distributions of control between internal and external actors, and also to whether community-based tourism initiatives, as they progress, can begin to accumulate more local control. The analytical frameworks and methodologies used in community tourism research potentially could encourage it to focus more on the micropolitical level within communities rather than on community links to external influences. Arnstein's (1969) framework of levels of participation within communities has been influential in community tourism research. Her typology considers the degree of power shared by government institutions and devolved to other actors, on a scale of rising participation from manipulation to citizen control. Another scale of participation is by Pretty (1995), which features “manipulation” at one end and “self mobilization” at the other. Butcher (2012: 103) argues, however, that these typologies have “nothing to say about the prior limits placed on the community from without,” including “issues of power between nations, between the developed and developing world.” Thus, these frameworks might tend to focus more attention on relationships inside communities than on external processes interacting with them. This tendency potentially might also be encouraged by the methodologies used in studies in this field. Some studies use network analysis to explore the actors involved in community tourism initiatives, such as in local partnerships and business coalitions. This technique may be used to trace regular interactions among active participants, many of whom may live locally, but potentially this might overlook the structural influence of markets, intermediaries, and agencies which are based externally and are not participants. A similar potential tendency might also occur with ethnographic approaches in this field that focus on in-depth immersion in local communities. A significant part of the tourism governance literature focuses on community-based tourism, concentrating on local deliberative democracy and often on arrangements outside of the public sector or other traditional institutions. To some extent this might have narrowed the coverage of tourism governance research. The attention given to deliberative democracy in new partnership arrangements in the tourism literature perhaps reflects a view that over the past thirty years government and representative democracy have become a less significant influence in many countries. But here there is a risk of underestimating the state's continuing significance.

Some researchers contend, for example, that government often remains powerful in contemporary governance, retaining regulatory control over many organizations that at first can appear independent of it (Bramwell, 2011). The state's continuing influence can occur, for instance, through subtle government steering of the priorities for action of the new agencies and partnerships. It still also provides much funding, even if that is reduced, and it remains an important source of societal regulation. The literature on local tourism cogovernance sometimes also pays limited attention to oppositional actors who engage in policy contestation and resist cooperative arrangements. These actors may seek contestation as they consider it the most effective means to advance their cause, wishing to avoid being “co-opted” in a cooperative search with others for shared agreements. Thus, Purcell (2008: 77) argues that “the demand that all groups put the common good ahead of their own interests imposes an unequal burden. … The common-good ethic restricts the political options of disadvantaged and marginalized groups.” Given these trends associated with the literature on community-based tourism and local participative tourism governance, it is contended that research in this field should also consider the influence of formal and traditional governance, oppositional actors (both within and outside local destinations), and the political, socioeconomic, and other interactions between local communities and external businesses and institutions. More generally still, this research would benefit from using a holistic and relational perspective. This is a broadly drawn approach that examines the many relevant processes without predetermined boundaries and at all spatial scales, including interactions within and between social, economic, political, and environmental domains (Yeung, 2005; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007). This perspective considers the connected and circulating relations among actors, microprocesses, and macrostructures in society that often interact in complex and rich ways, including through interactions with the environment (Bathelt, 2006). These connected and circulating relations are conceived as causal mechanisms of continuities and changes. This holistic and relational approach is gaining some prominence in the social sciences (Urry, 2003). By adopting a relational perspective, community tourism research would consider the many socioeconomic, governance, and other processes affecting local communities, both internal and external, as well as the interacting relations between them. Here the operation of macrostructures, such as capitalism and its market relationships, would be one important consideration. Attention would be directed to the influence of capital flows, the extraction of profits and the relations between enterprises, together with how interactions in local economies are integrated within regional, national, and global economic systems. From this relational perspective community tourism relations are seen as socially produced through relationships between actors and structures, and the different geographical scales are seen as having interacting relations with communities based on these relationships. “Each scale, therefore, is inseparably defined by and tied to the others” (Born and Purcell, 2006: 198). Thus, the local scale interacts with other, larger, scales, from regional to the international, and these relationships and their associated scales are fluid and dynamic. To fully understand local communities, therefore, there is a need to interrogate the relationships

among scales. This involves researching both intra- and interscalar relationships, and the dynamic and emergent interactions between scales. In terms of governance, for example, there can be transferrals of state competences, policy priorities, or activities between spatial scales, such as from national to local government, or to nongovernmental entities or agencies at a local scale (Yüksel et al., 2005; Oliveira and Breda-Vázquez, 2010). This is sometimes called “state rescaling,” and it may be associated with struggles for political control between different government tiers, or top–down or local pressure to shift authority to another government tier or to informal organizational arrangements or to the private sector (Bulkeley, 2005). From a relational perspective, therefore, research on local tourism cogovernance should consider the many socioeconomic, governance, and other interactions between local communities and the wider world. The relational view of scale, and notably the idea that scale is constructed socially through societal relationships, has been a focus in some political and economic geography, and it can usefully be applied to community tourism research (Brenner, 1999; Swyngedouw, 2000).

Assessing the Potential Significance of Community Tourism A relational and multiscalar perspective in community tourism research suggests that scales are “not independent entities with pre-given characteristics” (Purcell, 2006: 1921). Thus, any particular scale can be associated with any particular outcome, depending on the specific circumstances and relationships. This insight might discourage an a priori assumption that certain spatial scales are inherently more effective in achieving desirable outcomes, whether that is for increasing democracy or more equitable development. While communities are places that local people may identify with, community tourism is not automatically more democratic or economically equitable than initiatives at other spatial scales. Similarly, it would be incorrect to suggest that community tourism will always be substantially manipulated and made impotent by more powerful interests. Instead, the outcomes depend on the contingent circumstances, such as the specific agendas of the actors involved and the particular forces at play. Thus, the geographical scale can have a range of possible outcomes, both good and bad, according to the specific circumstances (Born and Purcell, 2006). Research in this field needs to avoid reification of the local and it should undertake critical assessments to determine what the outcomes are, and why. The relational perspective suggests that both optimistic and pessimistic views about community tourism have to be assessed critically. Some commentators, for example, conclude quite pessimistically that the expansion of deliberative planning has been an “antipolitical strategy” that marginalizes the importance of political contestation in economic development. They suggest that a consensus strategy can be a way of avoiding turning questions of interests, representation, justice or power into political questions (Jayasuriya and Hewison, 2004; Brand and Gaffikin, 2007). It is noted that the new contexts for community involvement emphasize

consensus building, with the working procedures for consultation and collaboration often codified in ways that discourage conflict-based “factional politics.” Further, local participative policy-making may help to reduce the influence of local government, of traditional liberal democratic politics, and of oppositional conflicts. In such ways the underlying tensions, conflicts, and politics could be obscured from view in a process where local policy-making is depoliticized, with issues being taken out of recognizable public concern (Hickey and Mohan, 2005). As Connelly (2006: 14) suggests in relation to the rhetoric of partnership and consensus, there is “a suspicion that it merely suppresses conflict, raising the question ‘consensus on whose terms?’ ” (Miraftab, 2009). If research on tourism governance focuses largely on consensus-building approaches it could discourage recognition of the roles for lobbying, contestation, and protest in democracy. Oppositional politics, rather than a search for consensus, may sometimes be the most effective way for less powerful actors to secure political influence (Purcell, 2006). Yet some commentators who suggest that deliberative planning has been an “antidemocratic strategy” also assert that this approach can provide new opportunities and new agendas for actors who previously were excluded from policy processes (Cornwall and Coelho, 2007). They suggest that political learning can take place through this approach, and that this new awareness can be transferred to other contexts. According to Newman and Clarke (2009: 67), in the new deliberative fora “people may also bend, inflect and enrol such developments into other purposes and possibilities” (Taylor, 2007). Thus, it is recognized that the new deliberative arrangements potentially can lead to active governance even when initially this might appear unlikely. Both optimistic and pessimistic interpretations of communicative planning, therefore, require critical assessment, based on examinations of the specific relationships found in particular circumstances.

Conclusion Governance arrangements are often becoming more complex. The calls to widen local participation, and the neoliberal distrust of government, have encouraged the use of various cogovernance arrangements, and for tourism activity this is sometimes seen in communitybased tourism initiatives and local partnership arrangements. Another neoliberal pressure here may also be a desire to reduce government expenditure. It has been argued that it is necessary to assess critically whether local tourism cogovernance initiatives represent “good governance” and result in increased and more equitably distributed local economic returns. Governance involves policies and actions to “steer” society, including orienting development along certain paths, as well as collective decisions to define those paths (Bramwell and Lane, 2011). There are questions, therefore, about whether local tourism cogovernance processes succeed in encouraging more appropriate development and more democratic outcomes. The processes and outcomes vary between cases, and thus evaluations must consider the specific contingent circumstances. The evaluations inevitably are difficult. It was contended here that they are likely to be more effective when the processes involved are considered critically, holistically, relationally, and

across geographical scales. This entails considering the many socioeconomic, governance, and other processes affecting local community tourism, both internal and external to the communities, as well as the relations between them. The potentially important relations include the interscalar interactions, such as economic exchanges, between local communities and the wider world. There are also interactions to consider with the institutions of representative democracy and with oppositional actors, both within and outside local destinations.

References Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35(4): 216–224. Bathelt, H. 2006. Geographies of production: growth regimes in spatial perspective 3 – toward a relational view of economic action and policy. Progress in Human Geography, 30(2): 223– 236. Blackstock, K. 2005. A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1): 39–49. Born, B. and Purcell, M. 2006. Avoiding the local trap. Scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(2): 195–207. Bramwell, B. 2010. Participative planning and governance for sustainable tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(3): 239–249. Bramwell, B. 2011. Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: a political economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5): 459–477. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. 2011. Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5): 411–421. Bramwell, B. and Meyer, D. 2007. Power and tourism policy relations in transition. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3): 766–788. Bramwell, B. and Sharman, A. 1999. Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2): 392–415. Bramwell, B. and Sharman, A. 2000. Approaches to sustainable tourism planning and community participation. the case of the Hope Valley. In Tourism and Sustainable Community Development, G. Richards and D. Hall (eds), pp. 17–35. London: Routledge. Brand, R. and Gaffikin, F. 2007. Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning Theory, 6(3): 282–313. Brenner, N. 1999. Globalisation as reterritorialisation: the rescaling of urban governance in the European Union. Urban Studies, 36(3): 431–451.

Brockington, D., Duffy, R., and Igoe, J. 2008. Nature Unbound. Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas. London: Earthscan. Bulkeley, H. 2005. Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography, 24(8): 875–902. Butcher, J. 2005. The moral authority of ecotourism: a critique. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(2/3): 114–124. Butcher, J. 2012. The mantra of “community participation” in context. In Critical Debates in Tourism, T. Singh (ed.), pp. 102–108. Bristol: Channel View. Connelly, S. 2006. Looking inside public involvement: how is it made so ineffective and can we change this? Community Development Journal, 41(1): 13–24. Cornwall, A. and Coelho, V. 2007. Spaces for change? The politics of participation in new democratic arenas. In Spaces for Change? The Politics of Citizen Participation in New Democratic Arenas, A. Cornwall and V. Coelho (eds), pp. 1–29. London: Zed Books. Farrelly, T. 2011. Indigenous and democratic decision-making: issues from community-based ecotourism in the Boumā National Heritage Park, Fiji. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7): 817–835. Gascón, J. 2013. The limitations of community-based tourism as an instrument of development cooperation: the value of the social vocation of the territory concept. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(5): 716–731. Hickey, S. and Mohan, G. 2005. Relocating participation within a radical politics of development. Development and Change, 36(2): 237–262. Jamal, T. and Getz, D. 2000. Community roundtables for tourism-related conflicts: the dialectics of consensus and process structures. In Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, B. Bramwell and B. Lane (eds), pp. 159–182. Clevedon: Channel View. Jayasuriya, K. and Hewison, K. 2004. The antipolitics of good governance. from global social policy to a global populism? Critical Asian Studies, 36(4): 571–590. Kelly, C., Essex, S., and Glegg, G. 2012. Reflective practice for marine planning: a case study of marine nature-based tourism partnerships. Marine Policy, 36(3): 769–781. Laing, J., Lee, D., Moore, S., Wegner, A., and Weiler, B. 2009. Advancing conceptual understanding of partnerships between protected area agencies and the tourism industry: a postdisciplinary and multi-theoretical approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2): 207– 229. Manyara, G. and Jones, E. 2007. Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: an exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 15(6): 628–644. Miraftab, F. 2009. Insurgent planning: situating radical planning in the Global South. Planning Theory, 8(1): 32–50. Murphy, P. 1985. Tourism. A Community Approach. London: Methuen. Nault, S. and Stapleton, P. 2011. The community participation process in ecotourism development. A case study of the community of Sogoog, Bayan-Ulgii, Mongolia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6): 695–712. Nelson, F. 2008. Livelihoods, conservation and community-based tourism in Tanzania: potential and performance. In Responsible Tourism. Critical Issues for Conservation and Development, A. Spenceley (ed.), pp. 305–321. London: Earthscan. Newman, J. and Clarke, J. 2009. Publics, Politics and Power. Remaking the Public in Public Services. London: Sage. Oliveira, C. and Breda-Vázquez, I. 2010. Contradictory rescaling: confronting state restructuring and the building of new spatial policies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(4): 401–415. Pretty, J. 1995. The many interpretations of participation. Focus, 16(1): 4–5. Purcell, M. 2006. Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Studies, 43(11): 1921–1941. Purcell, M. 2008. Recapturing Democracy. Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures. London: Routledge. Sakata, H. and Prideaux, B. 2013. An alternative approach to community-based ecotourism: a bottom-up locally initiated non-monetised project in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2012.756493. Salazar, N. 2012. Community-based cultural tourism: issues, threats and opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1): 9–22. Spenceley, A. 2008. Implications of responsible tourism for conservation and development in Southern Africa. In Responsible Tourism. Critical Issues for Conservation and Development, A. Spenceley (ed.), pp. 361–376. London: Earthscan. Stone, L. and Stone, T. 2011. Community-based tourism enterprises: challenges and prospects for community participation; Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(1): 97–114. Swyngedouw, E. 2000. Authoritarian governance, power, and the politics of rescaling. Environment and Planning D, 18(1): 63–76. Taylor, M. 2007. Community participation in the real world: opportunities and pitfalls in new

governance spaces. Urban Studies, 44(2): 297–317. Timothy, D. 1998. Cooperative tourism planning in a developing destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(1): 52–68. Timothy, D. 1999. Participatory planning: a view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2): 371–391. Timothy, D. 2002. Tourism and community development issues. In Tourism and Development. Concepts and Issues, R. Sharpley and D. Telfer (eds), pp. 149–164. Clevedon: Channel View. Urry, J. 2003. Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity. Wearing, S., McDonald, M., and Ponting, J. 2005. Building a decommodified research paradigm in tourism: the contribution of NGOs. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(5): 424– 439. Yeung, H. 2005. Rethinking relational economic geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(1): 37–51. Yüksel, F., Bramwell, B., and Yüksel, A. 2005. Centralized and decentralized tourism governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4): 859–886.

Chapter 45 Partnerships, Tourism, and Community Impacts María José Zapata Campos The issue of collaboration through partnerships is a major theme in the policy-making, planning, and governance of tourism (Bramwell, 2004). Well-known examples of partnerships are tourist boards, industry associations, tourist consortiums, chambers of commerce, city convention bureaux, and development agencies, among others. Partnerships are also referred to in the literature as tourism networks (Lynch and Morrison, 2007; Dredge and Pforr, 2008; Beamont and Dredge, 2010; Baggio, 2011; Bramwell and Lane, 2011; Kokkranikal and Morrison, 2011), clusters (Hall et al., 2007; Michael, 2007; Huijbens et al., 2014), strategic alliances (Pansiri and Courvisanos, 2010), and hybrid organizations (Zapata and Hall, 2012). Since the 1980s, partnerships have gained popularity as instruments for tourism planning, policy-making, community development, product development, marketing, and destination management. Partnerships and collaboration have been introduced as strategies to fight what are perceived as the “evils” that threaten the tourism industry in many tourism administrations around the world. Today the concept of partnership is still portrayed as a magic solution both in tourism scholarship and in policy documents. In modern societies, the boundaries between dichotomies such as the public and the private, and the global and the local, appear to vanish. Despite this disappearance, the issue of partnerships is still significant in the governance of complex metaproblems such as climate change or sustainable development. However, while partnerships, and more loosely structured forms of interorganizational collaboration such as networks, might enhance policy learning and exchange, promote business activities, and improve community cohesion, they also present certain downsides. Partnerships can be controlled by vested interests, become window-dressing rituals to legitimize decisions already taken, and discourage social participation. Previous research has shown how partnerships reflect their societal context (Zapata and Hall, 2012). Therefore, this chapter examines partnerships' performance, practices, challenges, and impacts by framing partnerships in the institutional and governance environment in which they are embedded. In the next section, the rise of tourism partnerships is described. Then the state of the art in the research on partnerships in tourism scholarship is presented. Next, the impacts associated with tourism partnerships' performance are critically discussed. The chapter concludes with an exploration of future research questions on tourism partnerships.

The Rise of Tourism Partnerships The rise of partnership formation in the tourism sector is a global phenomenon, and is related to changes in the institutional arrangements that shape tourism destination governance, such as the public sector's pursuit of effectiveness, the redefinition of the public sector, public budget cuts, the fragmentation of the tourism sector, processes of standardization and imitation, the

institutionalization of the tourism sector, and the projectification of public policy-making. The public sector's pursuit of effectiveness and the accompanying processes of marketization, as characteristics of the “new public management,” have resulted in forms of governance that have encouraged the outsourcing of public services and decentralization in the political process, through partnership formation (Peters, 1998; Hall, 1999, 2008; Peters and Pierre, 2010; Torfing et al., 2012). The introduction of market-oriented management ideas in the provision of services responds to the ambition to overcome the inflexibility and bureaucracy characteristic of public administration. Partnerships have become more prevalent in the delivery of public services, particularly in relation to nontraditional sectors such as culture, arts, leisure, and tourism (Wilson and Boyle, 2004). For example, marketing tourism destinations has been one of the main areas of interest for public–private collaboration in response to the demand for greater effectiveness and the global reduction of public expenditure. Similarly, national public administrations, as a result of their redefinition in the context of the network society, have developed a relational interventionist model through new network governance frameworks (Bult-Spiering and Dewulf, 2006). The new role of the public sector is not only to regulate and control tourism externalities, but also to support and create the leverage conditions to improve the competitiveness of the business sector. Research, marketing, training, education, innovation, facilitation of private investments, and generation of trust to strengthen social capital are key issues in achieving greater efficiency in the new public policies. In this relational mode, the public sector adopts the role of initiator and convenor of collaborative adventures that encourage the participation of the tourist industry in policymaking through different kinds of collaborative arrangements. Furthermore, the decentralization of many national tourism administrations has resulted in the transference of competences and resources to regional and local governments, and the consequent multiplication and growth of collaborative partnerships at regional and local levels. The growth of partnerships is also related to the processes of publicness (Bozeman, 1987) whereby the government extends its reach toward spaces and organizations, such as business networks, that may otherwise have been regarded as belonging to the private business sphere and to civil society. The private sector is put “in the driving seat” (Grimshaw et al., 2002: 499) of many partnerships created to implement policies that support local economic development. This external control tactic became popular in the 1990s and the beginning of the twenty-first century in those European countries where private networks had been founded and were financially supported by public organizations, as in European Union programs and funding (Zapata and Hall, 2012). Similarly, deregulation processes, the impact of neoliberal political ideologies since the 1980s, the demand for reduced public borrowing, the cuts in public funding, and the effects of the 2008 financial crisis have resulted in the privatization of functions and services previously provided by governments (Hall, 1999, 2008; Dredge and Jenkins, 2007). They have also driven the public sector to look for partnerships with the private tourism sector to implement policies and projects (Hall, 2009). Furthermore, in the context of “a project society” (Lundin and Söderholm, 1998), project

management has increasingly become an important part of public policy-making. Accordingly, the growth of tourism projects being carried out increasingly via temporary organizations such as partnerships are also the result of the projectification of local politics, policies, and public management (Sjöblom, 2006). The characteristic fragmentation and interdependency of the tourist sector along horizontal and vertical chains have also affected the intensification of collaborative arrangements, which often lead to tourism partnerships. In a similar fashion, partnerships have become the widespread organizational solution to deal with indivisible and complex metaproblems, such as climate change (Castán Broto and Bulkeley, 2013) and sustainable development (Roome, 2001), which are “too extensive and too many-sided to be coped with by any single organization” (Trist, 1983: 270). As a consequence, “the response capability required to clear up a mess is inter- and multi-organizational” (Trist, 1983: 270) via, for example, tourism partnerships. Interestingly, the integration of these fragmented environments and constituents results quite often in inconsistencies within the fragmented and conflictive interests represented within these partnerships. Similar to other public policy sectors (Torres and Pina, 2001), tourism partnerships have been institutionalized as the rational myth (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) for tourism destination management. Partnerships have become a taken for granted and widespread organizational solution to plan, govern, and manage tourism at the destination. Tourism partnerships aim to conceal societal values conferring legitimacy and trust (as collaboration via partnerships) with the need to be effective. Opening, for instance, strategic planning to the community through partnership participation involves more time, energy, and a consequent loss of decision making and power for municipalities. In other words, while public organizations might use partnerships to “bring societal actors into joint projects, it tends to see its policies obstructed by those networks” (Pierre and Peters, 2000: 20). The social legitimacy of collaboration processes explains how some tourism partnerships' performance and outcomes seem to lead irrationally to recently founded partnerships that are inoperative, tourist actors that consider participation a waste of time, or local tourist boards that constrain public participation instead of supporting it. Partnership formation is also typically the organizational response of tourist organizations in highly structured and mature tourism networks. In a mature tourism sector, rules, values, beliefs, modes of governance, and management become increasingly structured or institutionalized. In this context, interorganizational relationships intensify, an increasing number of organizations develop similar bodies or practices, and new coalition patterns of dominance emerge (Phillips and Hardy, 2000). The highly cohesive nature of mature tourism networks leads to increasing interorganizational exchanges, often via partnerships. This is a circumstance that should make practitioners reflect on the challenges of starting collaborative arrangements in young environmental contexts where interorganizational relationships are still loose.

Partnerships in Tourism Scholarship: State of the Art

Within the social sciences, the issue of partnerships has been approached from different theoretical perspectives: strategic management (Trafford and Proctor, 2006), stakeholder theory (Thomasson, 2009), transaction cost economics (Rangan et al., 2006), resource dependence theory (Long, 1997), political theory and governance (Hall, 2011), power (Bramwell and Meyer, 2007), negotiated order (Gray, 1989), actor-network theory (Lindberg and Czarniawska, 2006), and sociological new institutionalism (Zapata and Hall, 2012). The work of Gray (1989) and Waddock (1991) on organizational and collaboration studies served to inspire research on interorganizational relationships and partnerships in tourism studies. These early studies focused on the assessment of informal interorganizational relationships (e.g. transactions, resource exchange, contacts, or joint activities) between public organizations, chambers of commerce, and tourism associations adjacent to natural parks (Selin, 1993). Research in this area has also covered constraints on and societal forces enhancing collaborative responses (Selin and Chavez, 1995), and the internal dynamics and effectiveness of partnerships (e.g. Selin and Myers, 1998) and their evolution (Selin and Chavez, 1995). The role of collaboration and partnerships in tourism planning has been thoroughly covered (Jamal and Getz, 2000), even in relation to power and governance (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999; Bramwell and Lane, 2000, 2011; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007). The diversity of collaborative arrangements covered under the concept of partnerships has also been explored in the tourism literature by developing tourism partnership typologies. Based on Waddock's original partnership typology, Long (1997) developed a classification of tourism partnerships (programmatic, federational, and systemic partnerships) according to the scope of the issues tackled by these partnerships (structural characteristics, product-oriented versus process-oriented, and with diverse expected outcomes). Selin and Chavez (1995) explored the existence of different types of tourism partnerships according to their degree of institutionalization; that is, to what extent the partnerships' organizational arrangements are highly structured (i.e. with formal written or legal agreements) or unstructured (i.e. with informal verbal agreements), or are created for the short term or the long term. Selin (2000) expanded this classification and developed a typology of tourism partnerships plotted along five primary dimensions: geographic scale, legal basis (externally mandated versus grassroots), locus of control (agency versus stakeholders' control), organizational diversity and size, and time frame (permanent versus temporary structure). Caffyn (2000), following this dynamic approach, examined how tourism partnerships changed over time and the commonalities in their dynamics and evolution. She observed that according to the partnerships' scope of agenda and resources, partnerships could be temporary or be stabilized permanently. Caffyn noted that those partnerships with more specific agendas such as environmental sustainability or heritage conservation had additional rationales for survival. Palmer and Bejou (1995) concluded that immature partnerships have limited coverage, a loosely structured form, low levels of member motivation, and informal modes of operation. Finally, Zapata and Hall (2012) classified tourism partnerships according to the basis of who finances and who sits on the management committees of these partnerships. The absence of mixed public–private partnerships, the emergence of hybrid quasipublic and quasiprivate partnerships, and the dependence on public funding stand out as the main findings of their

analysis of tourism partnerships in Spain. The richness and variety of these typologies show the multiplicity of perspectives and insights into the multifaceted nature of public–private partnerships. This previous research also shows that partnerships cannot be separated from the local, regional, national, and supranational contexts in which they are embedded. Therefore, for an understanding of a tourism partnership's characteristics, structure, and performance, it is necessary to take account of the institutional arrangements within which such partnerships operate. The term institutional arrangements is understood to encompass politics and interest groups; the rules, norms, and legislation; the structure of the public administration and governmental platforms; and also the predominant values, beliefs, and even acceptable behavior in which partnerships are embedded. More specifically, the creation and characteristics of tourism partnerships are also bound to the specificities of the tourism sector (Zapata and Hall, 2012), such as the degree of governmental intervention, the strength of the private sector, and the maturity of the partnerships' networks. Other specificities such as the economic contribution of tourism and its status at the public policy level will also have implications for, for example, the available resources for partnership formation. These institutional arrangements have the capacity to shape partnerships' characteristics, practices, and impacts via the available resources, the core actors, the operational capability, the legal framework, partnership's position regarding policy decision-making power, and even the values and preferences of partnerships' participants. Despite partnerships being reflections of their environments, partnerships also interact with institutional pressures (Phillips and Hardy, 2000), with avoidance, circumvention, influence, or even manipulation of the source of the pressure (Oliver, 1991). The organizational configuration, practices, performance, and even the impacts of tourism partnerships are thus the combination of the institutional constituents conferring legitimacy and other resources necessary to the partnership, as much as the partnerships' responses to those constituents.

A Critical Assessment of Partnership Performance and Impacts Collaboration and participation processes via tourism partnerships may both catalyze positive community impacts and hinder sustainable, fair, and democratic community development along the lifespan of these collaborative arrangements. Partnerships can contribute to more efficient policy formulation and tourism planning by bringing local expertise, interests, and needs into top–down formulated policies, programs, and projects. Similarly, they can also improve the chances of a more effective implementation of plans and policies by establishing consensus in the early stages of planning (de Araujo and Bramwell, 2002). Outcome-oriented partnerships can also succeed in attracting further visitors, improving market access, increasing visitor numbers, increasing entrepreneurial activity, developing competitive and quality products, enhancing visitor experience, increasing trickle-down economic benefits, offering opportunities for business development interventions, and even strengthening the synergies between tourism and other sectors such as agriculture (Morrison et al., 2004; Pyo, 2010).

Partnerships can also lead to increased pooling of resources by the stakeholders. Local tourist boards in Spain that have opened up to the participation of both private and public organizations have more robust budgets than purely public tourist organizations (Zapata and Hall, 2012). Other commentators have argued that tourism partnerships also have the capability to buffer adverse tourism impacts and hence contribute to more sustainable tourism development (Bramwell and Lane, 2000). In this regard, partnerships can contribute to establishing more democratic consensus among all parties with respect to the type of tourism product, the use of local resources, and the community image to be portrayed (Blackman et al., 2004). Partnerships have also been shown to be trust-building mechanisms in tourism destinations. They can contribute to enhanced learning and exchange between participants, strengthening local skills, knowledge, and information (Zapata et al., 2011). Partnerships can also promote communication, information education, knowledge development, social capital (Morrison et al., 2004), community cohesion (Pyo, 2010), and hope for a better future (Zapata et al., 2011). By facilitating interorganizational exchanges, partnerships can strengthen the network of community contacts with the institutional environment, productive networks, and markets, as has been shown in community-based tourism partnerships (Stronza and Gordillo, 2008; Zapata et al., 2011). However, partnerships also have downsides and can lead to potential problems. For example, partnerships have high transaction costs that can easily overcome their potential benefits. Partnerships also face potential internal tensions, contradictions, paradoxes, and ambiguity (Thomasson, 2009) as a result of encountering organizations that come from different sectors, hold different interests, “have different core missions, employ different types of people, use different languages, and operate on different timetables” (Long and Arnold, 1995: 43). Participation can also be trapped in one-way communication, underusing the available knowledge among the partners and wasting precious opportunities for innovation and change. The loss of trust in participatory processes may have adverse impacts on communities that already have scarce resources and extinguish local actors' hopes for a better future (Zapata et al., 2011). Who is involved in partnership, how loosely organized social groups are represented, what interests are represented, who has access to decision making, how information is accessed by participants, and how benefits are distributed are therefore critical issues of power shaping tourism partnerships (Bramwell and Lane, 2000) and community impacts. Since partnerships can challenge established power structures, they can either be openly contested by dominant organizations and businesses (Bramwell and Lane, 2000) or become window-dressing rituals to legitimize decisions already taken. Finally, partnerships as part of governance networks tend to bring nonelected actors with vested interests into public policy formulation and making (Brandsen and Karré, 2011). How these interests are balanced and managed to formulate and implement democratic and fair policies is a significant issue that currently challenges partnership governance.

Future Research Developments in Tourism Partnerships: Reflections on Theory, Methods, and Practice Partnerships have become the rational myth in tourism destination management: the obvious choice based on sets of shared assumptions about what constitutes modern strategic management and governance (Phillips and Hardy, 2000); a metaphor (Mosse and Lewis, 2006) that mobilizes social participation, articulates interests, catalyzes changes, induces development, and effectively implements policies and entrepreneurial activities; and the organizational solution to deal with indivisible and complex metaproblems such as sustainable tourism development (Roome, 2001) in the context of a networked and projectified society. Key questions that future research needs to address include the following.

Partnership Continuity Partnerships are born as temporary organizations, and therefore issues of organizational survival are crucial to understanding partnership practices and impacts. Previous research has shown how those partnerships that succeed in periodically broadening their agendas to include issues of larger social concern can co-opt new partners (Waddock, 1991; Zapata and Hall, 2012), regain resources and social legitimacy, and transform into permanent governmental arrangements. Future research should address partnerships' concern about organizational continuity and examine how the pursuit of both efficiency and legitimacy becomes central to understanding partnership practices. Similarly, future studies should take into consideration how tourism partnerships become semipermanent governmental arrangements via, for example, processes of publicness.

Role of Intermediaries in Tourism Partnerships and Network Governance Partnerships put together a multiplicity of different actors who hold conflicting interests and come from different organizational cultures. The role of partnership members as intermediaries between different organizations is still insufficiently explored in the tourism literature. These “translators” have been addressed through concepts such as intermediary organizations (Braun, 1993), boundary organizations (Guston, 2001), boundary spanners (Bozeman, 1987), hybrid organizations (Kickert, 2001; Thomasson, 2009), development brokers or translators (Mosse and Lewis, 2006), mediators (Latour, 2005), and intermediaries (Guy et al., 2011). Latour (2005: 39) defines mediators as those who “transform, translate, distort, and modify the meaning of the elements they are supposed to carry.” Consultants, experts, civil society organizations, officers in charge of interorganizational relations, managers, and community leaders are all more than mere intermediaries or transmitters between the partnership and their organizations. They make interpretations and transform the meaning of a partnership or project, constantly creating interest and making it real (Mosse and Lewis, 2006). Future research in tourism partnerships needs to address how partnership intermediaries perform their

translations between organizations, favor some interests to the detriment of other interests, shift or perpetuate power dynamics between local actors, and explore the contradictions faced by intermediaries as a result of operating in different organizational worlds (i.e. ambiguity, tensions). Similarly, future research could address which consequences are experienced within partnerships as a result of combining characteristics from different sectors, how this multiorganizational nature generates ambiguity and contradictory demands, and how partnership governance is concerned with the balance of legitimacy and effectiveness (Thomasson, 2009).

Methods to Research Partnerships Future research is still needed to extend the understanding of partnerships beyond single case studies, as the predominant method used in part of the literature. Comparing partnerships in time, and between places and societies, could contribute to overcoming this limitation, as well as using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods Network analysis is also a method that has shown potential to increase the understanding of public–private partnerships, and could lead to significant new insights in the future. In a more qualitative approach, the “following/knotting the network” method developed by actor-network theorists (e.g. Lindberg and Czarniawska, 2006) has shown its capability to trace back and forth in time and place the net of actors engaged in collaborative arrangements such as partnerships. In this line, shadowing techniques (Czarniawska, 2007) and ethnographic multisituational observations (Marcus, 1995) could also contribute to opening the black box of partnerships, as well as to improving the understanding of the multiple spaces where collaboration simultaneously takes place.

Partnerships in Destination Governance Structures and Networks Future research needs to contextualize the understanding of tourism networks and partnerships as instruments of governance “occurring within particular frames or images of governance rather than in isolation” (Hall, 2011: 16). For example, in interactive governance models (Torfing et al., 2012), characteristic of Scandinavian societies, partnerships have become embedded structures in governance, and will continue being part of the operation of destination governance structures (Yûksel et al., 2005) in future. In that context, governance networks and partnerships pull together A plurality of social and political actors with diverging interests [who] interact not only to formulate but also to implement and achieve common objectives by means of mobilizing, exchanging and deploying a range of ideas, rules and resources. (Torfing et al., 2012: 213) Finally, further research is still necessary to expand the understanding of power dynamics and tourism partnerships via new theoretical perspectives such as actor-network theory (e.g. Latour, 2005). Future research could explore how power emerges through organizing or, in other words, as the effect of actions carried out via tourism partnerships: how some of the actions will cease, whereas others will stabilize in new practices, displacing some actors and

establishing new power hierarchies and centralities.

References Baggio, R. 2011. Collaboration and cooperation in a tourism destination: a network science approach. Current Issues in Tourism, 14: 183–189. Beaumont, N. and Dredge, D. 2010. Local tourism governance: a comparison of three network approaches. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18: 7–28. Blackman A., Foster, F., Hyvonen, T., and Moscardo, G. 2004. Factors contributing to successful tourism development in peripheral regions. Journal of Tourism Studies, 15: 59–70. Bozeman, B. 1987. All Organizations Are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bramwell, B. 2004. Partnerships, participation and social science research in tourism planning. In A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, M.C. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 541–554. Oxford: Blackwell. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (eds) 2000. Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability. Clevedon: Channel View. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. 2011. Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 411–421. Bramwell, B. and Meyer, D. 2007. Power and tourism policy relations in transition. Annals of Tourism Research, 34: 766–788. Bramwell, B. and Sharman, A. 1999. Collaboration in local tourism policy-making. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2): 392–415. Brandsen, T. and Karré, P.M. 2011. Hybrid organizations: no cause for concern? International Journal for Public Administration, 34(13): 827–836. Braun, D. 1993. Who governs intermediary organizations? principal–agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy, 13(2): 135–162. Bult-Spiering, M. and Dewulf, G. 2006. Strategic Issues in Public-Private Partnerships: An International Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Caffyn, A. 2000. Is there a tourism partnership life cycle? In Tourism, Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, B. Bramwell and B. Lane (eds), pp. 200– 229. Clevedon: Channel View. Castán Broto, V. and Bulkeley, H. 2013. A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23: 92–102.

Czarniawska, B. 2007. Shadowing and Other Techniques for Doing Fieldwork in Modern Societies. Malmö: Liber. de Araujo, M.L. and Bramwell, B. 2002. Partnership and regional tourism in Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4): 1138–1164. Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J.M. 2007. Tourism Planning and Policy. Milton: John Wiley. Dredge, D. and Pforr, C. 2008. Policy networks and tourism governance. In Network Analysis and Tourism: From Theory to Practice, N. Scott, R. Baggio, and C. Cooper (eds), pp. 58–78. Clevedon: Channel View. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grimshaw, D., Vincent, S., and Willmott, H. 2002. Going privately: partnership and outsourcing in the UK public services. Public Administration, 80(3): 475–502. Guston, D.H. 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4): 399–408. Guy, S., Marvin, S., Medd, W., and Moss, T. 2011. Shaping Urban Infrastructures: Intermediaries and the Governance of Socio-Technical Networks. London: Earthscan. Hall, C.M. 1999. Rethinking collaboration and partnership: a public policy perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3–4): 274–289. Hall, C.M. 2008. Tourism Planning Processes and Relationships, 2nd edn. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Hall, C.M. 2009. Archetypal approaches to implementation and their implications for tourism policy. Tourism Recreation Research, 34(3): 235–245. Hall, C.M. 2011. Framing governance theory: a typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 437–457. Hall, C.M., Lynch, P., Michael, E.J., and Mitchell, R. 2007. Micro-clusters and networks: the growth of tourism. In Micro-Clusters and Networks: The Growth of Tourism, E.J. Michael (ed.), pp. 141–152. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Huijbens, E., Jóhanesson, H., and Jóhanesson, G. 2014. Clusters without content? Icelandic national and regional tourism policy. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, in press. Jamal, T. and Getz, D. 2000. Community roundtables for tourism-related conflicts: the dialects of consensus and process structures. In Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, B. Bramwell and B. Lane (eds), pp. 159–182. Clevedon: Channel View.

Kickert, W.J.M. 2001. Public management of hybrid organizations: governance of quasiautonomous executive agencies. International Public Management Journal, 4: 135–150. Kokkranikal, J. and Morrison, A. 2011. Community networks and sustainable livelihoods in tourism: the role of entrepreneurial innovation. Tourism Planning and Development, 8(2): 137–156. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindberg, K. and Czarniawska, B. 2006. Knotting the action net, or organizing between organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22: 292–306. Long, P. 1997. Researching tourism partnership organizations: from practice to theory to methodology. In Quality Management in Urban Tourism, P.E. Murphy (ed.), pp. 235–251. London: Wiley. Long, F.J. and Arnold, M.B. 1995. The Power of Environmental Partnerships. Fort Worth: Dryden Press. Lundin, R. and Söderholm, A. 1998. Conceptualizing a projectified society. In Projects as Arenas for Renewal and Learning Processes, R. Lundlin and C. Midler (eds), pp. 12–33. Boston: Kluwer. Lynch, P. and Morrison, A. 2007. The role of networks. In Micro-Clusters and Networks: The Growth of Tourism, E.J. Michael (ed.), pp. 43–63. Oxford: Elsevier. Marcus, G.E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24: 95–117. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. 1977. institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 440–463. Michael, E.J. ed. 2007. Micro-Clusters and Networks: The Growth of Tourism. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Morrison, A., Lynch, P., and Johns, N. 2004. International tourism networks. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(3): 197–202. Mosse, D. and Lewis, D. (eds) 2006. Development Brokers and Translators: The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic response to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145–179. Palmer, A. and Bejou, D. 1995. Tourism destination marketing alliances. Annals of Tourism Research, 22: 616–629.

Pansiri, J. and Courvisanos, J. 2010. Attitude to risk in technology-based strategic alliances for tourism. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 11(3): 275– 302. Peters, G. 1998. With a little help from our friends: public-private partnerships as institutions and instruments. In Partnerships in Urban Governance, J. Pierre (ed.), pp. 11–33. London: Macmillan. Peters, G. and Pierre, J. 2010. Public-private partnerships and the democratic deficit: is performance-based legitimacy the answer? In Democracy and Public-Private Partnerships in Global Governance, M. Bexell and U. Mörth (eds), pp. 41–54. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Phillips, L. and Hardy, C. 2000. Inter-organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1): 23–43. Pierre, J. and Peters, G. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Pyo, S. 2010. Measuring tourism chain performance. Service Industries Journal, 30(10): 1669–1682. Rangan, S., Samii, R., and Van Wassenhove, L.N. 2006. Constructive partnerships: when alliances between private firms and public actors can enable creative strategies. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 738–751. Roome, N. 2001. Conceptualizing and studying the contribution of networks in environmental management and sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10: 69– 76. Selin, S. 1993. Collaborative alliances: new interorganisational forms in tourism. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(2–3): 217–227. Selin, S. 2000. Developing a typology of sustainable tourism. In Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, B. Bramwell and B. Lane (eds), pp. 129– 142. Clevedon: Channel View. Selin, S. and Chavez, D. 1995. Developing an evolutionary tourism partnership model. Annals of Tourism Research, 22: 844–856. Selin, S. and Myers, N. 1998. Tourism marketing alliances: member satisfaction and effectiveness attributes of a regional initiative. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7(3): 79–94. Sjöblom, S. 2006. Towards a projectified public sector – project proliferation as a phenomenon. In Project Proliferation and Governance – The Case of Finland, S. Sjöblom, K. Andersson, E. Eklund, and S. Godenhjelm (eds), pp. 9–33. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Stronza, A. and Gordillo, J. 2008. Community views of ecotourism: redefining benefits.

Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2): 444–468. Thomasson, A. 2009. Exploring the ambiguity of hybrid organisations: a stakeholder approach. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(3): 353–366. Torfing, J., Peters, G., Pierre, J., and Sörensen, E. 2012. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Torres, L. and Pina, V. 2001. Public-private partnership and private finance initiatives in the EU and Spanish local governments. European Accounting Review, 10, 601–619. Trafford, S. and Proctor, T. 2006. Successful joint venture partnerships: public-private partnerships. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(2): 117–129. Trist, E. 1983. Referent organizations and the development of interorganizational domains. Human Relations, 36: 247–268. Waddock, S. 1991. Correlates of effectiveness and partner satisfaction in social partnerships. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 4(2): 74–89. Wilson, L.-A. and Boyle, E. 2004. The role of partnerships in the delivery of local government museum services: a case study from Northern Ireland. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(6): 513–533. Yûksel, F., Bramwell, B., and Yûksel, A. 2005. Centralized and decentralized tourism governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4): 859–886. Zapata, M.J. and Hall, M.C. 2012. Public-private collaboration in the tourism sector: balancing legitimacy and effectiveness in local tourism partnerships. the Spanish case. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4(1): 61–83. Zapata, M.J., Hall, M.C., Lindo, P., and Vanderschaeghe, M. 2011. Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(8): 725–749.

Chapter 46 Tourism in the Development of Regional and Sectoral Innovation Systems Adi Weidenfeld and C. Michael Hall Competition and globalization are factors that challenge tourism enterprises and destinations to develop and introduce new products, services, and concepts at an increasing speed (Hjalager, 2010b). This is particularly relevant for the role of tourism in the regional development strategies of many localities, and particularly for peripheral regions suffering from outmigration and economic decline in traditional staple industries, such as agriculture, fishing, timber, and mining (Carson and Carson, 2011). In such locations unintended knowledge outflows from firms may be limited and firms' ability to access new external knowledge is reduced (McCann and Ortega-Argilés, 2013). The regional innovation system(s) (RIS) concept is a systemic approach to the diffusion of innovations at the regional scale. It is used in research for analyzing very complex and diverse innovative profiles and trajectories, and has been adopted as a comprehensive framework for guiding implementation of regional innovation policies strategies and planning in diverse regional contexts (Asheim and Coenen, 2006; Pinto and Guerreiro, 2010). RIS are “a subsystem of knowledge generation and diffusion (knowledge infrastructure dimension), which includes R&D institutes, educational bodies and technology transfer organizations, and a subsystem of knowledge application and exploitation (business dimension), which is made up of the companies located in the region” (Trippl, 2010: 151). They are shaped by existing industry structures and technology paths, the set of knowledge organizations, and prevailing institutions and networks. As a consequence, they exhibit a high degree of inertia leading to phenomena of path dependency and “lock in” in particular regions and to a certain degree of stability in terms of regional disparities in innovation and economic development (Tödtling and Trippl, 2013). A modern systemic approach views innovation both as a latent feature as well as an outcome of the knowledge investment and transfer process, translated to growth outcomes. Systems approaches to innovation in terms of the relationships between firms and institutions has focused mostly on sectoral and technological innovation systems and more recently extended to geographical ones, which are becoming increasingly influential on policy-making, particularly in relation to notions of regional competitiveness (Hall, 2007, 2013; Bristow, 2010). The RIS approach has heavily influenced policy thinking in explaining significant regional diversity in innovative performance and identifying possible policy responses, and was particularly adopted by policy-makers across and beyond European Union and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states as part of a wider process of regionalization of industrial policy and economic development policies (Bristow, 2010). Many of the policy interventions are aimed at overcoming some of the perceived systems configuration failures (McCann and Ortega-Argilés, 2013) in an effort to compete more effectively in attracting and retaining capital, people, firms, and, of course, tourists.

In tourism, there are two main approaches, geographical (mostly national and regional) and sectoral (regardless of the territorial dimension), to conceptualize the diffusion of innovation knowledge transfer (Sundbo et al., 2007). There is a growing number of studies on the innovation system approach in tourism (Mattson et al., 2005; Sundbo et al., 2007; Hjalager et al., 2008; Hjalager, 2010b) as well as recent attempts to consider destinations as RIS (Carson and Jacobsen, 2005; Svensson, 2005; Tremblay, 2005; Guia et al., 2006; Nordin and Svensson, 2007; Prats et al., 2008; Carson and Carson, 2011; Hsu et al., 2013; Weidenfeld, 2013), and more limited attention to the local scale (Guia et al., 2006; Prats et al., 2008). Surprisingly, there are very few studies of sectoral innovation systems (SIS) in tourism that are not also regional (Hall and Baird, 2013), although several scholars acknowledge their existence (Sundbo et al., 2007; Hall and Williams, 2008). Drawing on recent theoretical frameworks in economic geography and tourism studies, this chapter explores the concepts of regional and sectoral innovation systems in general and in tourism in particular by discussing these concepts in the first two sections. Then, in the third section, it is questioned whether and to what extent they are relevant to the tourism industry. The chapter is particularly critical towards the notion of tourism regional innovation system(s) (TRIS) in the fourth section. The final section suggests several policy implications and calls for further empirical studies, which may develop a more coherent theoretical framework of the relationships between tourism and innovation systems.

RIS Tacit knowledge can be shared effectively between individuals, who share a common social context, including values, language, culture, and history, giving rise to a certain institutional structures, which constitute national or regional innovation systems and influence the way firms are organized and interrelated, as well as the public sector's role and the way in which science/technology and R&D systems are organized (Cooke et al., 1997; Gertler, 2003). An innovation system is a set of relationships between entities and nodal points involved in innovation that involve varying degrees of interdependence (Asheim and Gertler, 2006) and consist of dynamic and complex interactions between actors in networks, characterized by institutional features at different territorial scale of analysis reflecting differences in institutional settings, social situation, and innovation needs (Hall and Williams, 2008). As the importance of these interactions grows, they tend to become regionally contained, particularly in terms of specialized suppliers and their relationships with customers and system governance by regional authorities. Small and medium-sized enterprises can develop their competitive advantage based on socially and territorially embedded interactive learning processes – a set of norms, values, attitudes, routines, and expectations shaped by institutional forces that constitute the “regional culture” – which influences firms' regional practices and relationships (Asheim and Gertler, 2006). Regions are “territories smaller than their state possessing significant supra-local governance capacity and cohesiveness differentiating them from their state and other regions, [which] …

have evolved along different trajectories through combinations of political, cultural and economic forces” (Cooke et al., 1997: 480). These trajectories can emerge in regionalism, where cultural or economic cohesiveness and identity, underlie the power to activate strong social capital and realize the capabilities of regional interests (Cooke et al., 1997). They are considered as both repositories and sources of new knowledge derived from firms interacting locally with adequate institutional support, which are able to achieve higher rates of innovation and therefore generate economic growth and employment (Uyarra and Flanagan, 2013). The institutional capacity of regions is regarded as central to sustaining economic performance in disruptive periods, and innovation is the focus of much of the place-based approach in economic development (Wolfe, 2013) and competitiveness (Bristow, 2010). The rationale for having territorially based innovation systems (national, regional, or local) is the existence of historical technological trajectories based on “sticky” knowledge and localized learning resulting from promoting systemic relationships between production, knowledge infrastructure, and between end-users and producers at different geographic scales. Interactive, collective learning is based on intra- or interorganizational institutions (routines, norms, and conventions) regulating collective action as well as on tacit mechanisms for the absorption of codified knowledge drawing from the interpretation of “local codes” (Asheim and Coenen, 2006; Asheim and Gertler, 2006). “Local” refers to the context in which knowledge is produced through an active process of creative construction “on site” according to specific local rules involving people, places, ideas, and material artifacts and can be applied in other geographical areas. The local culture with specific norms, values, and institutions (formal and informal) facilitate the transfer of tacit forms of knowledge from one actor to another (Malmberg and Maskell, 2002). Learning regions, industrial clusters, and RIS concepts have been used to explain the conduit of knowledge in a specific geographic context, and how spatial proximity between firms influence learning and knowledge. The concept of RIS differs from these others by including several sectors from the regional economy with firms and knowledge organizations interacting systematically (Hall and Williams, 2008). It highlights the regional dimension of new knowledge generation and exploration and constitutes a powerful concept for explaining regional differences in innovation capacity (Tödtling and Trippl, 2013), understood as the ability of the local economic system to move beyond previous ways of operating and develop new ideas and processes in response to changing circumstances (Carson and Jacobsen, 2005). Institutional features in RIS may either enhance or stifle the knowledge flows required for innovation, depending on their configuration. Modern policies regarding regional innovation are aimed at fostering innovation related activities by building or enhancing local links between firms, institutions, and other knowledge actors such as universities, in ways which seek to overcome free-rider problems, utilizing financial and technological support to innovative small firms. Some policy interventions are based on market or systems failure logic or, in some cases, ad hoc logic with no central repository of best practice or policy experiences to draw from (McCann and Ortega-Argilés, 2013). The differences between tourism firms in different geographical areas are often explained by

social factors, for example managerial professionalism, rather than spatial factors (Sundbo et al., 2007). However, such an ad hoc approach ignores the dynamism of regional systems, particularly that supportive institutions are time- and place-specific and may change over time. The key weakness of the literature on the RIS concept is focusing on existing structures and relations (e.g. institutional set-ups and linkages), rather than on dynamism, reconstruction, evolution over time, and the role of individual economic agents. There is also often overemphasis on the regional level compared to nonlocal networks, and on certain components including institutions that are expected to exist in an “idealized” system. The RIS concept may also promote unrealistic expectations about the feasibility of reproducing all the relevant elements in a territory while downplaying its underlying conditions and bottom–up processes (Tödtling and Trippl, 2013; Uyarra and Flanagan, 2013). Changes in RIS remain understudied and may pay insufficient attention to the role of “soft” institutions (change of routines and attitudes), changing elements (e.g. the closure or establishment of research organizations and firms), as well as changes in knowledge relations and networks within the region and beyond, such as the breakup or reconfiguration of existing hierarchical relations and the creation of new ones (Asheim and Gertler, 2006; Tödtling and Trippl, 2013). Such changes may be particularly important for tourism where new regional actors, such as airlines, hotels, and attractions that draw on international knowledge connections, subsequently affect the configuration of local knowledge networks and diffusion of innovations in tourism. Change may also include the development of new “hard” (e.g. the opening and closure of research institutions and keystone firms) and “soft” (e.g. changes of routines such as the introduction of new opening hours) institutional arrangements and elements.

SIS A sector is defined as a “set of activities that are unified by some linked product groups for a given or emerging demand and which share some common knowledge” (Malerba, 2005: 385). Firms have some commonalities with others in the same sector but are also heterogeneous. When “heterogeneous firms facing similar technologies, searching around similar knowledge bases, undertaking similar production activities, and embedded in the same institutional setting, share some common behavioral traits and develop a similar range of learning patterns, behavior, and organizational form” (Malerba, 2005: 387), they constitute a SIS. The main three dimensions of the SIS are knowledge and technological domain, actors and networks, and institutions. In the system, the specific knowledge base, technologies, and inputs for each sector usually change over time. There are also systemic interactions between a wide range of actors including consumers, producers, suppliers, researchers, and institutions for generation and exchange of knowledge. The institutional dimension includes norms, habits, established practices, rules, and regulations that influence cognition and interactions among actors. SIS can have local, regional, and/or global dimensions, which often coexist in each sector. Learning, behavior, and the capabilities of agents including heterogeneous firms are bounded or constrained by the institutional, knowledge base and technology context of the sector and

develop similar learning, organizational, and behavioral patterns as organizations (Malerba, 2005).

Tourism Innovation Systems Tourism innovations are distinct within the service sector and are usually characterized by moderately innovative businesses, although they are less technically innovative than others and perform mainly incremental innovations based on previously available knowledge within the organization (Sundbo et al., 2007; Camisón and Monfort-Mir, 2012). Tourism innovations often constitute developments such as product differentiation, product line extension via brand policies, or changes to the cost (price)/quality ratio of the product. They are often classified as product, process, organizational/managerial, market innovations, and more tourism-specific distribution innovations and institutional innovations such as new destinations, the packaging of multidestinations, the development of new market segments, and new procedures (Hall and Williams, 2008; Hjalager, 2010a). Although tourism carries the characteristics of service innovation, the degree to which technology-based innovation processes typical of manufacturing can be applied to service industries in general and tourism in particular remains is debated (Sundbo et al., 2007). Tourism innovation systems (TIS) are defined as “the parts and aspects of the economic structure and institutional set-up affecting learning and innovation in tourism firms” (Sundbo et al., 2007: 93), and are both geographical and sectoral systems in destination regions (Sundbo et al., 2007). According to Hjalager (2010b) an innovation system can be labeled as a “tourism innovation system” if it includes: stable relations between a large number of actors from the public, voluntary and business sectors with intermittent links to educational institutions, which have proven to be mutually beneficial and synergetic; examples of consequential innovations in terms of products and services for tourists, in terms of environmental protection and development methods, and in terms of the development of human resources; an innovation system that has been able to benefit distinctly and positively from external opportunities, such as new regulations. The tourism system's capacity to innovate is determined by entrepreneurial capabilities; economic competence (generated through education, skills, and experience); a critical mass and diverse clusters of products and resources; internal and external networks; wellfunctioning mechanisms for the production and distribution of knowledge; productive public– private sector interactions; and a favorable institutional environment that includes high levels of local social capital, as well as explicit formalized institutions that support tourism (Carson and Jacobsen, 2005).

Tourism Sectoral and Regional Innovation Systems

The understanding of the TIS requires a discussion of the unique characteristics of the tourism industry as a sectoral and a regional system. The extent to which it is a SIS and differs as a distinct RIS from those of manufacturing and other service industries is examined in this section. However, whereas it may be easier to argue for a distinct tourism SIS, the literature is less coherent in the support of the notion of tourism RIS. Alternatively, it may be argued that TIS are SIS within the broader RIS rather than a separate RIS.

Tourism Sectoral Innovation Systems SIS are based on the idea that different industries and sectors, such as tourism, operate under different knowledge, regulatory, and technology regimes, and that these are characterized by particular combinations of opportunities. The driving forces may be highly integrated into national or even regional dynamics, but may also transcend spatial boundaries. Although the outer limits are blurred, tourism is a sector in its own right, recognized as such by business actors and policy-makers (Hall and Williams, 2008; Hjalager, 2008; Hjalager, 2010b). The TIS is comprised of different SIS as firms often do not operate within the same knowledge base; do not utilize the same technologies, inputs, and demands; and do not share the same beliefs, objectives, and behaviors. For example, in studying winegrowing businesses in New Zealand, Hall and Baird (2013) note that the partially industrialized nature of many tourism businesses meant that many wineries coexisted in two SIS – wine and tourism – which made the innovation profile of such businesses different from those that were situated in tourism or wine alone. In tourism destinations inter- or intrasectoral knowledge transfer, balanced product similarities, complementarities, and sector-related variety are necessary conditions for facilitating interfirm knowledge transfer and spatial diffusion of innovations (Weidenfeld, 2013). They can be intrasectoral systems in the form of networks in the same branch of tourism (e.g. visitor attractions, hotels), or of relations among complementary firms (e.g. hotel and transport), and between suppliers or distributors and tourism firms (Sundbo et al., 2007). Intrasectoral knowledge (e.g. between two hotels) refers to the importance of sharing industryspecific experience and relevant knowledge, accumulated in diverse sectors and sectors along the value chain (Williams and Shaw, 2011).

TRIS Tourism has many special features that do not resemble manufacturing and other service industries. It is linked to specific localities and influenced by the interactions with customers to a higher extent than other industries excluding retailing, hospitality and some personal services. Therefore the importance of the spatial context for innovation in tourism is crucial. TRIS comprises “a whole range of actors, organisations and institutions that contribute to the success of tourism in a specific region or destination” (Carson and Carson, 2011: 375). The public sector is often a key stakeholder and codriver in tourism innovations systems, contributing to strategic capacity, infrastructures, (research-based) knowledge, legal frameworks, and skill-enhancement facilities, such as in, for example, the Nordic countries (Hjalager et al., 2008) and Australia and New Zealand (Hall, 2009).

Collaborative networks and networking are interactive knowledge transfer channels, which are based on a social and geographical proximity and play a key role in the transformation of tourism destinations into innovation systems (Carson and Jacobsen, 2005; Novelli, Schmitz, and Spencer, 2006; Hjalager et al., 2008; Hjalager, 2010b; Prats et al., 2008). They are particularly important in more peripheral and rural tourism destinations, characterized by sparse tourism businesses at lower spatial proximity (Carson and Jacobsen, 2005). The importance of localism and spatial proximity between tourism businesses also derive from the centrality of the destination as a local innovation network, which generates unique new product development processes in a competitive globalized world (Guia et al., 2006). The extent of the local and external networks of businesses in TRIS are considered crucial for knowledge transfer and innovation and for determining whether the concept of distinct TRIS is theoretically justified. Depending on the context, local tourism networks tend to be loose, dense, and explorative (i.e. characterized by more general information), whereas nonlocal networks are strong, sparse, and exploitative (i.e. sustaining the transfer of deeper knowledge). This results from economic and cultural distances between tourism firms within the destination region and conversely from the economic and cultural proximities of spatially distant tourism firms. However, the combination of local and nonlocal networks engenders important innovation benefits (Sørensen, 2007; Sundbo et al., 2007; Prats et al., 2008). Density of information rather than that of relations influences the type of information distributed and therefore the strength of relations determines the type of information distributed in the network (Sørensen, 2007). It may also result from contextual factors; for example, the characteristics of firms, destinations, and tourists, destination developments, and changing tourism trends. Nevertheless, the prevalence of local versus nonlocal networks in influencing knowledge flows and the degree to which they benefit innovation among tourism firms remain understudied (Sundbo et al., 2007). TIS (sectoral and regional) are composed of a large number of interacting multiple tourismrelated actors from the public, voluntary, and business sectors (i.e. organizations, institutions, and individuals) as well as collaborative linkages with other sectors such as the public, construction, and educational sectors (Hjalager et al., 2008). The interdependency between actors may lead to the transfer and/or initiation of knowledge leading to the development of new ideas into new products and services (Tremblay, 2005). These potentially mutually beneficial and synergetic relations are supported by ancillary services and external actors (such as educational institutions) and influenced by the local macro-environment (i.e. political, technological, social, and historic characteristics) within the same territory, and may lead to innovations in terms of products and services for tourists and other consumers (Guia et al., 2006; Hjalager et al., 2008; Hjalager, 2010b; Williams and Shaw, 2011). This view is particularly relevant to explaining the relatively limited success of leisure oriented tourism in staples-dependent regions where new institutional arrangements are required (Carson and Carson, 2011). The impact of sharing the same culture, norms, routines, and values among actors in RIS has been examined (Asheim and Gertler, 2006), but less attention has been given to the contribution of knowledge, embedded in regional geographic resources, such as local codes

related to culture, narratives, folklore, specific natural features and habits, to the production process and innovation. In the context of tourism, regional knowledge is particularly related to the symbolic knowledge base including such factors as the aesthetic attributes of products, designs, images, and the appeal of various cultural artifacts and narratives as a way of adding value to products. The knowledge involved is incorporated and transmitted in aesthetic symbols, images, (de)signs, artifacts, sounds, and narratives and is strongly tied to a deep understanding of the habits and norms and “everyday culture” of specific social groupings (Asheim et al., 2007).

Tourism as a Facilitator and Enabler of RIS Evidence from Danish and a few other mainly European case studies suggests that the role of individual actors (a person, a private firm, or a public organization) rather than the involvement of many actors is highlighted as the most important factor in the success of TIS in destinations. Mattson et al. (2005) argued that such an “attractor-based innovation system” includes the initiator (called “scene maker”) and the maintainer (the “scene taker”), who create local networks including firms from different industries and public institutions. However, the emphasis on highly localized learning of individual tourism actors with various players from other industries does not support the notion of unique RIS, dominated by tourism firms. Alternatively, the contribution of tourism as an enabler or facilitator of RIS, particularly to high road strategies to regional innovation, including the provision of both soft (skills, knowledge, trust) and hard (transport, communication, finance) infrastructures, is acknowledged in the literature (Hall and Williams, 2008) but remains empirically understudied. First, tourism makes a direct contribution to the quality of life including enhancing place image and visibility, connectivity, and high levels of amenity, which are pivotal in creating an attractive place for human capital and maintaining linkages with external actors. Second, tourism firms including hospitality and leisure have an enabling function for the RIS (as well for SIS) in terms of providing adequate infrastructure for the mobility of internal and external actors, such as transport, accommodation, and communication facilities (Hall and Williams, 2008). Third, both tourism and nontourism firms gain information and knowledge from international tourists as customers, suppliers, or other producers. Therefore it enables external links with international innovation networks, allowing access to deeper knowledge flows and innovations. Fourth, like any other SIS within a destination region, tourism is a source of innovation (Williams and Hall, 2002) and creativity, particularly given that learning and knowledge exchange is a defining factor in its networks (Morrison et al., 2004), which are the main components of innovation systems (Hjalager et al., 2008) and creative regions (Gibson, 2010).

Conclusions This chapter has explored the relevance of both RIS and SIS to the tourism industry in the context of the most recent economic geography literature. It also provided a review of the

commensurate concepts in the tourism literature with respect to tourism regional and sectoral innovation systems. The geographical approach refers to the concept of RIS and depends on the relations among spatially proximate components and actors, who facilitate intraregional interactions and a circulation of knowledge, information, resources, and human capital within and between subsystems and carry out innovations within institutional frameworks (Cooke et al., 1997; Asheim and Coenen, 2006; Pinto and Guerreiro, 2010; Trippl, 2010). The SIS concept is based on the idea that different industries and sectors, such as tourism, operate under different knowledge, regulatory, and technology regimes, and that they are characterized by particular combinations of opportunity, through mobilizing their specific constellation of regimes (Hjalager et al., 2008). Tourism sectoral innovation systems in destinations therefore consist of inter- and intrasectoral innovation systems (Figure 46.1).

Figure 46.1. The relationships between tourism, regional, and sectoral innovation systems. TSIS, tourism sectoral innovation system. TIS are perceived as both sectoral and regional in the tourism literature. Tourism has characteristics of a distinct service sector (or industry) and as a service sectoral innovation system, whereas the existence of distinct RIS in tourism destinations has potentially far less justification conceptually and empirically. On the one hand, knowledge transfer and innovative activities in tourism tends to be inextricably linked to its local knowledge in terms of culture, landscape, and natural resources and to interactions between actors as well as networks and networking which are based on social and spatial proximity between actors. On the other, the importance of local networks to innovations in tourism destinations might be overestimated given their tendency to remain loose and more explorative compared to more sparse but exploitative nonlocal networks. Further, there are several other aspects which do not support the notion of RIS. First, the contribution of interactions between tourism actors whose mutual trust tends to remain low in a very competitive business environment is questionable. Second, knowledge transfer is often influenced by ad hoc contextual factors, changing tourism trends,

and managerial skills rather than institutional arrangements while knowledge transfer mechanisms, including research institutes, do not support the importance of spatial proximity between tourism actors as crucial to innovation. Third, the boundaries of TRIS are blurred (Figure 46.1) due to their high permeability to economic activity, particularly in context of globalized competition. It is, however, possible that the notion of TRIS is more relevant to rural, peripheral, and island destinations where tourism substitutes traditional staplesdependent industries, and its actors become the dominant group in the region. It is therefore surprising that while there has been discussion on the relevance and applicability of RIS to tourism, the concept of a tourism sectoral innovation system (with no spatial aspects) has been largely ignored conceptually and empirically. It is even more surprising that there is a dearth of knowledge on the contribution of tourism to RIS, which may have far more implications for regional development policies than tourism sectoral and regional innovation systems. The chapter also suggests that the underresearched contribution of tourism to RIS and SIS should be brought forward in the research agenda. TIS are potentially best understood through the comparison of several in-depth case studies, and by attempting to address, analyze, and expand theoretical foundations and practical issues from the richness of their details. This may include a comparison of several tourism destinations in terms of the existence of a TIS, the extent to which it is sectoral and/or regional and its influence on new product or process development within the destination region and beyond. Such examination needs to include an analysis of the characteristics of both sectoral and regional innovation systems. Case studies may include in-depth interviews with tourism managers engaged in any learning and knowledge transfer processes, and other stakeholders, including tourism and regional development officers, heads of tourism associations, and policy-makers as well as social network analysis. The role of tourism in engendering local connections, improving the quality of life, and internationalization of knowledge, and the impact of new tourism innovations on other sectors in the RIS, may have been downplayed in both the tourism and economic geography literature as well as by practitioners and actors. The relationships between tourism, sectoral, and regional innovation systems remain to be explored and this is likely to provide further implications for the innovation policy agenda.

References Asheim, B.T. and Coenen, L. 2006. Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: on knowledge bases and institutional frameworks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31: 163–173. Asheim, B., Coenen, L., and Vang, J. 2007. Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases: sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25: 655–670. Asheim, B. and Gertler, M.S. 2006. The geography of innovation. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, and R.R. Nelson (eds), pp. 291–317. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bristow, G. (2010) Critical Reflections on Regional Competitiveness: Theory, Policy, Practice. London: Routledge. Camisón, C. and Monfort-Mir, V.M. 2012. Measuring innovation in tourism from the Schumpeterian and the dynamic-capabilities perspectives. Tourism Management, 33: 776– 789. Carson, D.A. and Carson, D.B. 2011. Why tourism may not be everybody's business: the challenge of tradition in resource peripheries. The Rangeland Journal, 33: 373–383. Carson, D. and Jacobsen, D. 2005. Knowledge matters: harnessing innovation for regional tourism development. In Regional Tourism Cases – Innovation in Regional Tourism, D. Carson and J. Macbeth (eds), pp. 19–29. Altona: Common Ground. Cooke, P., Oranga, G.M., and Etxebarria, G. 1997. Regional innovation systems: institutional and organizational dimensions. Research Policy, 26: 475–491. Gertler, M.S. 2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 3: 75–99. Gibson, C. 2010. Guest editorial – creative geographies: tales from the ‘margins’. Australian Geographer, 41: 1–10. Guia, J., Prats, L., and Comas, J. 2006. The destination as a local system of innovation: The role of relational networks. In Tourism Local Systems and Networking, L. Lazzeretti and C. Petrillo (eds), pp. 57–66. Oxford: Elsevier. Hall, C.M. 2007. Tourism and regional competitiveness. In Developments in Tourism Research, J. Tribe and D. Airey (eds), pp. 217–232. Oxford: Elsevier. Hall, C.M. 2009. Innovation and tourism policy in Australia and New Zealand: never the twain shall meet? Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1: 2–18. Hall, C.M. 2013. A review of “Competitiveness and tourism”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, doi:10.1080/09669582.2013.820886. Hall, C.M. and Baird, T. 2013. Innovation in New Zealand wine tourism businesses. In Handbook of Research on Innovation in Tourism Industries, G.A. Alsos, D. Eide, and E.L. Madsen (eds), pp. 249–274. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Hall, C.M. and Williams, A.M. 2008. Tourism and Innovation. London: Routledge. Hjalager, A.M. 2010a. Progress in tourism management- a review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31: 1–12. Hjalager, A.M. 2010b. Regional innovation systems: the case of Angling tourism. Tourism Geographies, 12: 192–216.

Hjalager, A.M., Huijbens, E.H., Björk, P., Nordin, S., Flagestad, A., and Knútsson, Ö. 2008. Innovation Systems in Nordic Tourism. Oslo: Nordic Innovation Center. Hsu, S.-M., Hsieh, P.-H., and Yuan, S.-T. 2013. Roles of SMEs in service industry innovation: a case study on leisure agriculture service in tourism regional innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 33: 1068–1088. Malerba, F. 2005. Sectoral systems of innovation. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, and R. Nelson (eds), pp. 380–406. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. 2002. The elusive concept of localisation economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34: 429–449. Mattson, J., Sundbo, J., and Fussing-Jensen, C. 2005. Innovation systems in tourism: the roles of attractors and scene-takers. Industry and Innovation, 12: 357–381. McCann, P. and Ortega-Argilés, R. 2013. Modern regional innovation policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 6: 187–216. Morrison, A., Lynch, P., and Johns, N. 2004. International tourism networks. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16: 197–202. Nordin, S. and Svensson, B. 2007. Innovative destination governance. The Swedish ski resort of Åre. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8: 53–66. Novelli, M., Schmitz, B., and Spencer, T. 2006. Networks, clusters and innovation in tourism: a UK experience. Tourism Management, 27: 1141–1152. Pinto, H. and Guerreiro, J. 2010. Innovation regional planning and latent dimensions: the case of the Algarve region. Annals of Regional Science, 44: 315–329. Prats, L., Guia, J., and Molina, F.-X. 2008. How tourism destinations evolve: the notion of tourism local innovation system. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(3): 178–191. Sørensen, F. 2007. The geographies of social networks and innovation in tourism. Tourism Geographies, 9: 22–48. Sundbo, J., Orfila-Sintes, F., and Sørensen, F. 2007. The innovative behaviour of tourism firms – Comparative studies of Denmark and Spain. Research Policy, 36: 88–106. Svensson, B. 2005. A governance perspective on destination development: exploring partnerships, clusters and innovation systems. Tourism Review, 60(2): 32–37. Tödtling, F. and Trippl, M. 2013. Transformation of regional innovation systems: from old legacies to new development paths. In Re-framing Regional Development: Evolution, Innovation and Transition Regions and Cities, P. Cooke (ed.), pp. 297–317. London: Routledge.

Tremblay, P. 2005. Learning networks and tourism innovation in the Top End. In Regional Tourism Cases – Innovation in Regional Tourism, D. Carson and J. Macbeth (eds), pp. 53–60. Altona: Common Ground. Uyarra, E. and Flanagan, K. 2013. Reframing regional innovation systems: evolution, complexity and public policy. In Re-framing Regional Development: Evolution, Innovation and Transition Regions and Cities, P. Cooke (ed.), pp. 146–165. London: Routledge. Weidenfeld, A. 2013. Tourism and cross border regional innovation systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 42: 191–213. Williams, A.M. and Hall, C.M. 2002. Tourism, migration, circulation and mobility: the contingencies of time and place. In Tourism and Migration: New Relationships Between Production and Consumption, C.M. Hall and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 1–52. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. 2011. Intenationalization and innovation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 27–51. Wolfe, D.A. 2013. Regional resilience, cross-sectoral knowledge platforms and the prospects for growth in Canadian city-regions. In Re-framing Regional Development: Evolution, Innovation and Transition Regions and Cities, P. Cooke (ed.), pp. 54–72. London: Routledge.

Chapter 47 Critical Success Factors for Creating Community-Based Tourism Amran Hamzah Amidst the wide-ranging definitions of community-based tourism (CBT), there appears to be a gap between the theoretical and the practical (Goodwin, 2009). In 1997, the Responsible Ecological Social Tours project (cited in REST, 2011: 14), a Thailand-based nongovernmental organization (NGO), offered one of the earliest and often cited definitions of CBT as: … tourism that takes environmental, social and cultural sustainability into account. It is managed and owned by the community, for the community, with the purpose of enabling visitors to increase their awareness and learn about the community and local way of life. As explicitly stated in the above definition, active local involvement and local control are central to the spirit and character of CBT (Tosun, 2000; Mann, 2001; Scheyvens, 2002; Mitchell and Ashley, 2010). On the other hand, international donors and NGOs have tended to embrace CBT firstly as a vehicle to reinforce conservation agendas, and secondarily for its potential social benefits. The Worldwide Fund for Nature (CTO, 2013: 5) succinctly described this perspective: Community-based tourism is a visitor-host interaction that has meaningful participation by both, and generates economic and conservation benefits for local communities and environments. … The use of CBT as a rural development catalyst is favored by many developing countries because it is perceived to have low startup capital requirements and is relatively easy to implement (Hjalager, 1996; Tooman, 1997; Sharpley, 2002; MacDonald and Joliffe, 2003). Proponents of CBT claim that it can help the local community to generate income, diversify the local economy, preserve local culture, conserve the natural environment, and provide educational opportunities (MacDonald and Jolliffe, 2003; Briedenhann and Wickens, 2004; Harrison and Schipani, 2007). More specifically, CBT has been fully embraced by many governments in developing countries due to its compatibility with poverty-reduction agendas (Mitchell and Ashley, 2010). Despite its assertive name, it is ironic to note that the community is seldom the initiator of such projects and they seldom even wanted to be involved in the first place. More often than not, international donor agencies are the initiators, with tourism being a significant development policy for the New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID), the German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ), and the SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, among others. From that perspective, Harrison and Schipani's (2007) use of the concept of donor-aided, community-based tourism (or DACBT) may be more succinct in reflecting the true nature of this phenomenon.

Notwithstanding the popularity of CBT in contemporary development practice, scholars have largely taken a critical stance against its effectiveness, in the areas of both poverty alleviation and development. CBT has been criticized for being overly dependent on funding from donor agencies, suffering from poor governance, and having poor market access (Blackstock, 2005; Harrison, 2008; Goodwin and Santilli, 2009). In generating economic benefits, Mitchell and Ashley (2010: 54) argued that “CBT earnings tend to be modest relative to the investment costs,” and given that CBT projects mostly involve remote communities with low levels of education, their participants often lack an understanding of tourist demands (Denman, 2001), along with the capacity to successfully operate a tourism business (Telfer and Sharpley, 2008). Denman (2001) further argued that the potential of CBT is often suppressed by both a lack of “buy-in” from the community. Other known challenges include the ad hoc treatment of CBT projects, a lack of meaningful strategic planning, a lackadaisical approach to problem-solving processes (Mitchell and Hall, 2005), a lack of strategic management at various levels, and poor product presentation (Jenkins and Parrott, 1997). Other issues that researchers have identified in reviewing CBT development efforts include a lack of local capacity to deliver quality services, manipulation by local elites, and weak links with external organizations and institutions (Jenkins and Parrott, 1997; Scheyvens, 2007; Vignati and Laumans, 2009). As an alternative to CBT, there is a growing school of thought that rather than focusing on local ownership, management, and control, tourism involving rural communities should be more concerned about its distributive benefits. This approach is referred to as community benefit tourism initiative (CBTI) (Simpson, 2008) or community benefiting through tourism (CBtT) (Sofield, 2009). Proponents of CBTI/CBtT argue that the local community could benefit from tourism without having to be directly involved in it and without having to own or control the businesses. They further suggested that tourism businesses in rural areas need to be driven by the private sector to be successful (Nelson, 2000; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005; Li, 2006). This view represents a radical departure from the traditional concept of CBT, and a total contrast to the assertion by Murphy and Murphy (2004) that communities should build up their capacity to handle community-based tourism businesses around the four essential components of the business model, which are planning, organization, leadership, and control. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) organization commissioned a study in 2008 to examine and identify the factors that contributed to the success of 10 selected CBT projects in the APEC economies. Those projects, listed in Table 47.1, were identified as among the most successful in the region at that time. The effort was to identify factors that lead to their success, rather than those that lead to the failure of others, and resulted in a practical guide to CBT development for practitioners (Hamzah and Khalifah, 2009). Through a series of more recent qualitative interviews, conducted in 2012, this chapter revisits the 2008 study and provides some reflection on how the APEC CBT projects have continued to develop. While the initial report accentuated the apparent difference between conceptual (academic) and practical (development agency) perspectives on CBT, this current assessment may provide a starting point from which to bridge the gap between the two.

Table 47.1. Ten successful community-based tourism projects in the APEC region. Source: Hamzah and Khalifah (2009).

Initiator Project and site Government Guisi Community Based Heritage Tourism, Guimaras, The Philippines Seongeup Folk Village, Jeju Island, South Korea NGO Ta Phin Village, Sapa, Vietnam Lashihai Homestay, Lijiang, China Miso Walai Homestay, Kinabantangan Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia Industry Saung Angklung Udjo, Bandung, Indonesia St. Jacobs County, Toronto, Canada Shui-Li Snake Kiln Ceramic Park, Nantou County, Chinese Taipei Community Whale Watch Kaikoura, New Zealand Kuku Yalanji Dreamtime Walk, Mossman, Australia

From Local Champion-Led to Broader CommunityBased Organization In remote, isolated, and impoverished communities, the leadership and organizational capacity required to successfully operate a CBT project are usually nonexistent. While formal leaders, such as the village headman, are competent in overseeing a community's cohesion and welfare based on traditional knowledge systems, they might not have the capacity to lead a tourism business. Capacity building is therefore a major challenge to help ensure the initial success of a CBT effort. Longer-term success, however, requires a transition from a “local champion” to a more diversified management model (Moeurn et al., 2008). In the APEC study (Hamzah and Khalifah, 2009), except for the government-initiated projects, all of the successful models of CBT were driven not by formally elected leaders, but by such local champions or what Hatton (1999) called a “spark.” It is widely acknowledged that the early stages of CBT are an important and influential “make or break” period (Kelly and Moles, 2000; Mbaiwa, 2004; Carbone, 2005), during which the role of the local champion is crucial. It is, however, difficult to define such champions. In the case of Ta Phin Village in Sapa, Vietnam, the local champion was a “Gen Y” individual who was so proud of his heritage that he started a specialist tour company to showcase the unique cultural heritage of his Red Dao ethnic group. At the Miso Walai Homestay in Sabah, Malaysia, an Australian nature guide who became a volunteer CBT coordinator eventually devoted almost 14 years of his life to building local capacity while concurrently lifting the morale and pride of the community. Despite initially being verbally abused, spat on, and ridiculed as a “misplaced white man,” he persevered and trained an energetic and passionate local youth who had completed tertiary education (the first

from the village to do so), and who then succeeded him to become an indigenous local champion. He went on to become the chairman of the local tourism cooperative (KOPEL) and the driving force behind the ongoing business success of the Miso Walai Homestay (Hamzah and Mohamad, 2012). Over time, he has delegated most of KOPEL's decision making to an emerging second tier of local champions, comprising youths who had left the village to work in the city but were persuaded to return and serve the local community. Continuing education and leadership capacity building has given them new skills, knowledge, and a progressive worldview that has enabled them to advance and diversify the development efforts of the tourism cooperative. They are not immune to the challenges identified in similar CBT efforts elsewhere, including growing expectations from the local community, petty jealousies, and internal conflicts (Wyllie, 1998; Blackstock, 2005), but the experiences that they have gained from their exposure to the more complex and competitive environment of the city have made them more resilient and somewhat better prepared for these encounters. In spite of the difficulty in defining the official role and legitimacy of a local champion, his or her attributes should include trustworthiness, perseverance, selflessness, patience, good communication skills, self-discipline, resourcefulness, and a perspective that is visionary, proactive, courageous, and sensible (Hamzah and Khalifah, 2009). The late Bill Solomon was a leader of the Kati Kuri Māori of Kaikoura, New Zealand, and became the local champion in founding the award-winning Whale Watch Kaikoura company (Chipperfield, 2009). He displayed these attributes by firstly being able to foresee the imminent demise of the fishing industry and the closure of the local railway service, along with the potential economic catastrophe that might hit the Māori community as a result. Secondly, he was visionary in predicting that wildlife tourism and specifically whale watching could become a major tourism resource for the Māori. Finally, he was well respected to the extent that he convinced the Māori elders to mortgage their houses to buy the first batch of passenger boats for whale watching, after government agencies and banks were unwilling to offer financial assistance. In this way, the Māori community collectively self-funded the creation of the Whale Watch Kaikoura company, which has continued as successful community-based corporation after Bill Solomon's passing in 2001. His outstanding local champion role, however, is still fondly remembered and cherished even by the younger Whale Watch Kaikoura crew who were too young to know him when he was alive (Lisa Bond, Marketing Manager, Whale Watch Kaikoura, New Zealand, pers. comm., 2012). At Saung Angklung Udjo in Bandung, Indonesia, the late Pak Udjo Ngalagena's (1929–2001) work as the local champion was relentless, selfless, and passionate in reviving local interest in the traditional Sundanese musical instrument, the angklung. He set up Saung Angklung Udjo as an academy cum workshop in 1958 to train local children in playing the instrument, which later attracted both international and domestic tourists. His children took the helm of Saung Angklung Udjo in the 1990s, under the elder Udjo Ngalagena's guidance. While the increasing tourist arrivals had brought significant economic benefits to the local community, the Udjo family became concerned that commodification might affect the authenticity and sanctity of the family-operated academy. Instead of limiting the number of tourist arrivals, the Udjo family took the innovative action of appointing a professional Operational Manager to handle the

tourism components of Saung Angklung Udjo, while they concentrated on the cultural preservation activities. In essence, Saung Angklung Udjo's business model is more akin to CBTI (Simpson, 2008) or CBtT (Sofield, 2009). By, 2012, Saung Angklung Udjo had become a diversified and complex nonprofit educational organization. Its tourism component attracted more than 100 000 visitors, with profits from cultural performances, guesthouses, catering activities, and merchandising supporting those activities in addition to providing scholarship for academy students. Saung Angklung Udjo has created employment for more than 1200 local artisans in 11 surrounding villages who produce around 20 000 angklungs per month. These are sold to both tourists and angklung clubs and associations in Indonesia and abroad. In conformity with CBTI/CBtT, the artisans work from their homes with hardly any contact with the tourists. Thus, tourism supports, but does not intrude on, local livelihoods. As a CBT project matures, it is argued that the local champion should make way for a broaderbased organization, so as to curb potential hegemonic manipulations and to ensure accountability and transparency (Moeurn et al., 2008). This gradual transfer of leadership from a local champion-led to a broader organization was evident at Miso Walai Homestay where a formal tourism cooperative (KOPEL) was established under the auspices of the Malaysia Cooperative Societies Commission (SKM) to ensure transparency and accountability in its financial transactions. Likewise, Whale Watch Kaikoura set up a community-based company, while Saung Angklung Udjo appointed professionals to operate and manage its tourism and other extended business activities. In all of these successful CBT examples, the transfer of leadership was instrumental in consolidating local ownership and sense of control, while at the same time bringing increasing integration of these CBT projects into the mainstream national tourism economy.

Alleviating Dependency and Reducing the Gestation Period Another major challenge facing CBT projects is a dependency on donors due to the local community's lack of financial and organizational capacity (Rogerson, 2007; Buccus et al., 2008; Suntikul et al., 2010). This is related to the efforts at building leadership capacity, but has more to do with structural relationships rather than charismatic leadership. Even the Namha Ecotourism Project, which is regarded as the most successful CBT project in Laos, has required almost relentless “hand holding” by a large team of technical advisors from their international donor agency (Harrison and Schipani, 2007). The dependency syndrome creates a situation where external stakeholders, such as donors, assume the “position of perceived authority” and are reluctant to adapt their best practices to the local culture and conditions (Teye et al., 2002). Meanwhile the local community's lack of capacity perpetuates their overreliance on donors and the convenience of receiving aid (Lever et al., 2005). As a result, it is not uncommon for CBT projects to fall apart upon the withdrawal of external aid (Shunnaq et al., 2008). For example, when SNV Netherlands decided to pull out from all of its CBT

projects in Cambodia in early 2012, the government had to turn to the local universities to provide interim leadership for these projects (Neth Baromey, Royal Phnom Penh University, Cambodia, pers. comm., 2012). Further complicating matters, the overreliance on donors can become precarious when donors are primarily driven by an environmental conservation agendas, with economic performance and the livelihood of the local communities being given secondary, and sometimes inadequate, attention (Butcher, 2007; Ghasemi and Hamzah, 2010; Huxford, 2010). Most of the APEC success stories share a focus on the development of human capital in the early formative years of CBT efforts. Miso Walai Homestay, for example, implemented innovative methods such as cultural mapping, role playing, and exposure trips to successful tourism destinations for local community members to experience good-quality services, which they could model when hosting their own guests. They adopted a gradual and incremental approach that could be summarized as: Phase 1, preparation of a tourism master plan over a 2-year period involving the local community; Phase 2, capacity (skills) building over a 3-year period; and Phase 3, physical infrastructure development matching the level of local community readiness and market demand. During its formative years, Whale Watch Kaikoura actually suffered a backlash from some members of the local Māori community, who had felt frustration that their business interests were being marginalized by tour operators based in the nearby city of Christchurch. Those sentiments peaked with the burning of a tourist bus in 1991. This infamous incident, dubbed the “Crazy Season”, triggered the Māori leaders to embark on a capacitybuilding program for local youths. In another APEC case study, the provincial government of Guimaras in the Philippines decided that the local community at Guisi were so impoverished, uneducated, and isolated that it spent the first 5 years of the Guisi Community Heritage Tourism (GCHT) project focusing on capacity building. Weaning the local community off of a dependence on outside aid is essential, but there is little consensus on the length of the gestation period between when aid starts and when it should end. On the one hand, the United Nations Development Programme recommends a 5-year gestation period for community-based projects to achieve maturity (Moeurn et al., 2008), but in practice the gestation period for a CBT could be as long as 10 years, as in the case of the Chisankane CBT project in Zambia (Sakala, 2004). Due to their challenging socioeconomic conditions and isolation, the Miso Walai Homestay in Sabah, Malaysia, located in northeastern Borneo, took 14 years to become fully self-reliant. A longitudinal study carried out at the Miso Walai Homestay revealed that the decision to spend the first 3 years focusing solely on capacity building was risky as many of the locals interviewed recalled becoming apprehensive and agitated with the slow (but deliberate) progress of the CBT in attracting guests to the homestay providers (Hamzah and Mohamad, 2012). Such a lengthy capacity-building process would test the patience of any rural community, which explains why the United Nations Development Programme recommends that “quick win projects” should be implemented along the way to pacify potential discontent among sections of the local community (Moeurn et al., 2008). Quick-win projects could be in the form of setting up a CBT center, and hosting school groups and familiarization trips for tour operators. On the other hand, the success of quick-win projects might also sidetrack the CBT

project from its long-term goals.

Sustaining Commercial Viability and Developing Career Paths Harrison and Schipani (2007) argue that it is too simplistic and misleading to analyze the economic benefits of CBT using standard economic methods such as return on investments (ROI) due to the diverse goals that such projects typically seek to achieve. Those goals may include a desire to provide employment for youths to keep them in their home community, a need to supplement subsistence livelihoods to improve quality of life, a desire to conserve natural or cultural resources, or a desire to build entrepreneurial capacity within a community. Although Mitchell and Ashley (2010) observed that CBT earnings are modest relative to their total investment costs in time and money, they also admitted that almost any increase in income would mean a lot to the poorest rural communities. A value-chain analysis could be more appropriate as a monitoring tool in CBT through its ability to identify gaps and weaknesses where interventions can be made to achieve distinct policy objectives. That being said, it was probably a less than impressive outcome of a value-chain analysis by SNV Netherlands, in an evaluation of its CBT projects in Cambodia, that resulted in it pulling out from the country in 2012 (Trevor Sofield, Sun Yat-sen University, China, pers. comm., 2012). Ultimately, the success of a CBT project may be best measured in how it is perceived by its employees and the community overall. Those perceptions are enhanced when the CBT project offers clear opportunities for personal and professional advancement. In the case of Malaysia's Miso Walai Homestay, the starting salary of the tourism cooperative's (KOPEL) full-time staff was found to be lower than that of villagers employed by private ecolodges in the neighboring villages of Sukau and Bilit in the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary. However, the annual salary increases and bonuses of ecolodge employees were limited, while the KOPEL staff were allowed to perform other tasks on a part-time basis that could generate far more in extra income (Jaafar et al., 2012). Within the diversified umbrella of KOPEL, members were also allowed to set up family cooperatives to operate businesses such as fish farms. Many of the senior guides interviewed also aspired to opening their own tour agency to handle inbound tourists to the eastern Sabah tourist belt, and some intended to venture into biomass production. At New Zealand's Whale Watch Kaikoura, local guides have been paid to attend training to be promoted to the rank of boat captain and other advanced positions (Lisa Bond, pers. comm., 2012). Even the company's current chief executive officer had risen through rank and file, from his initial job as a “very shy Māori guide.” At Indonesia's Saung Angklung Udjo, student excellence is rewarded through a three-tier financial award program in which 80% is kept as savings for their future and the remaining 20% given to the student's parents. Outstanding senior students, above 17 years of age, are encouraged to become contract staff of Saung Angklung Udjo, while the best angklung musicians are frequently invited to perform internationally. Some had even left the academy to become national media personalities and celebrities (Satria Yanuar Akhbar, Operational Manager, Saung Angklung Udjo, Indonesia,

pers. comm., 2011). Economic opportunities and rewards can also come about in more indirect ways, again as suggested by the CBTI/CBtT approach. At St. Jacobs County, which is located near Toronto, Canada, the Old Order Mennonite community initially resented being treated as “tourism exhibits” and having their traditional and quaint lifestyle being the subject of the tourist gaze. As the tourism industry expanded, St. Jacobs County was transformed into a major retail tourism destination and the Mennonite community became empowered not only as employees but also as owners and operators of small tourism-related businesses, thus easing their integration into the regional mainstream economy and society (Mitchell and de Waal, 2009).

Establishing Partnerships with Specialist Tour Operators in Mature Stages Partnerships with private-sector tourism enterprises are crucial to the economic success of most CBT projects (Harrison and Schipani, 2007). Most of the CBT projects included in the APEC study went through a product life-cycle experience in which tourist arrivals increased at a gradual rate, but would then reach a flat plateau. They would remain at that level unless they were able to attract new market segments. One way to overcome their lack of capacity to carry out intensive marketing and promotion is to develop partnerships with independent tourism businesses that are able to help them to move up the value chain (Miyakuni and Vander Stoep, 2007; Hamzah and Khalifah, 2009). Such partnerships help to pave the way for a CBT to gradually become a more mainstream tourism product. The Miso Walai Homestay, for example, has established partnerships with voluntourism and specialist tour operators such as Gecko, Intrepid Travel, Exodus, Raleigh International, and Global Vision International (GVI), as well as with some of the ecolodge owners along the Kinabatangan River. Unlike what is experienced in most of the CBT projects in Malaysia (ECERDC 2009), these partnerships have helped Miso Walai to reduce seasonality issues and create a more predictable flow in arrivals. Similarly, the professional managers hired by Saung Angklung Udjo quickly established business ties with the tour operators and hotels in Bandung and Jakarta, as well as with international tour companies, while Whale Watch Kaikoura is now well established on New Zealand's mainstream tourist circuit.

Conclusions From an ideological standpoint, CBT has been criticized as representing the dilemma of uneven development, in which developing countries have been economically disempowered in the world economic system (Mowforth and Munt, 2003). As a consequence, dependency is a constant, and while a CBT may be easy to start, it is very difficult to sustain (Hamzah and Khalifah, 2009). Nurturing local communities to become self-reliant is the most difficult challenge during the early inception stages of a CBT project, during which “hand holding” and allowing for local champions to assume leadership roles are important for success. Given that CBT is a dynamic process, focusing on capacity building that appropriately addresses different

stages of development is essential, as reflected in numerous manuals, handbooks, and best practices specifically developed for CBT projects (Mann, 2001; AusAID, 2006; Hamzah and Khalifah, 2009; Asker et al., 2010). Adapting best practices to the local conditions of time and place is imperative and should be complemented by innovative methods in capacity building. Ultimately the long-term success of a CBT project depends on its integration with the mainstream tourism industry, especially through partnerships with the private sector. Such partnerships could move CBT up the value chain (higher-quality products and higher-paying customers), and in the process expand its market. As a CBT product matures and gaps in the local capacity are reduced, the CBT organization should focus on value creation by increasing the depth of the tourist experiences and forming integrated and cooperative marketing agreements so that yields can be increase over time. Another important lesson from successful CBT projects is that self-improvement opportunities and having employee career paths are more important than merely making a living from the project. The most successful APEC case studies demonstrated that CBT is used as a means to an end, by providing a training ground for local communities to acquire the organizational and business skills to grow entrepreneurs in a diversity of rural economic sectors, beyond tourism.

References Asker, S., Boronyak, L., Carrard, N., and Paddon, M. 2010. Effective Community Based Tourism: A Best Practice Manual. APEC Tourism Working Group. Griffith University, Queensland: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre. AusAID. 2006. A Staged Approach to Assess, Plan and Monitor Capacity Building. Australian Government/AusAID. www2.adb.org/documents/others/gov-cd/stagedcapacity.pdf. Blackstock, K. 2005. A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1): 39–49. Briedenhann, J. and Wicken, E. 2004. Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of rural areas-vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management, 25(1): 71–79. Buccus, I., Hemson, D., Hicks, J., and Piper, L. 2008. Community development and engagement with local governance in South Africa. Community Development Journal, 43(3): 297–311. Butcher, J. 2007. Ecotourism, NGOs and Development: A Critical Analysis. London: Routledge. Carbone, M. 2005. Sustainable tourism in developing countries: poverty alleviation, participatory planning, and ethical issues. The European Journal of Development Research, 17(3): 559–565. Chipperfield, M. 2009. New Zealand: whale-watching company wins Virgin Holidays Responsible Tourism Awards. The Telegraph: Travel, November 11. www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/hubs/greentravel/6543760/New-Zealand-Whale-watching-

company-wins-Virgin-Holidays-Responsible-Tourism-Awards.html. CTO (Caribbean Tourism Organization) 2013. Competing with the Best – Good Practices of Community Based Tourism in the Caribbean. St. Michael, Barbados: CTO. www.onecaribbean.org/content/files/part%201%20competiting%20with%20best.pdf. Denman, R. 2001. Guidelines for Community-Based Ecotourism Development. Gland: WWF International. www.icrtourism.org/Publications/WWF1eng.pdf. ECERDC (East Coast Economic Region Development Council) 2009. Business Strategy & Implementation Plan for the Proposed Homestay & Kampungstay Tourism Development. Final Report. Kuala Lumpur: ECERDC. Ghasemi, M. and Hamzah, A. 2010. An Evaluation of The Role and Performance of NGO's in Community Based Ecotourism at Ulu Geroh, Gopeng Malaysia. Proceedings of the 4th Tourism Outlook & 3rd ITSA Conference 2010. Goodwin, H. 2009. Reflections on 10 years of pro-poor tourism. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(1): 90–94. Goodwin, H. and Santilli, R. 2009. Community-Based Tourism: A Success? International Centre for Responsible Tourism (ICRT) Occasional Paper 11, University of Greenwich. www.haroldgoodwin.info/uploads/CBTaSuccessPubpdf.pdf. Hamzah, A. and Khalifah, Z. 2009. Handbook on Community-Based Tourism: How to Develop and Sustain Community Based Tourism. Singapore: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=952. Hamzah, A. and Mohamad, N.H. 2012. Critical success factors of community based ecotourism: case study of Miso Walai Homestay, Kinabatangan, Sabah. The Malaysian Forester, 75(1): 29–42. Harrison, D. 2008. Pro poor tourism: a critique. Third World Quarterly, 29(5): 851–868. Harrison, D.H. and Schipani, S. 2007. Lao tourism and poverty alleviation: community-based tourism and the private sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2/3): 194–230. Hatton, M.J. 1999. Community-based tourism in the Asia Pacific. Singapore: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Hjalager, A.-M. 1996. Tourism and the environment: the innovation connection. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(4): 201–218. Huxford, K.M.L. 2010. Tracing Tourism Translations: Opening the Black Box of Development Assistance in Community Based Tourism in Vietnam. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Jaafar, S., Rafy, S.M., Diyana, N., Khairi, M., and Hamzah, A. 2012. An Evaluation of the

Economic Benefits of Community Based Tourism Using Value Chain Analysis. Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), vote no. 78648. Malaysia: Ministry of Higher Education. Jenkins, T. and Parrot, N. 1997. Marketing In the Context of Quality Products and Services In The Lagging Regions Of The European Union. RIPPLE Working Paper 4. Aberystwyth: Institute of Rural Studies. Kelly, R. and Moles, R. 2000. Towards sustainable development in the mid-west region of Ireland. Environmental Management and Health, 11(5): 422–432. Kontogeorgopoulos, N. 2005. Community-based ecotourism in Phuket and Ao phangnga, Thailand: partial victories and bittersweet remedies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1): 132–143. Lever, J.P., Pinol, N.L., and Uralde, J.H. 2005. Poverty, psychological resources and subjective well being. Social Indicators Research, 73(3): 375–408. Li, W. 2006. Community decision-making: participation in development. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1): 132–143. MacDonald, R. and Joliffe, L. 2003. Cultural rural tourism: evidence from Canada. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(2): 307–322. Mann, M. 2001. The Community Tourism Guide. London: Earthscan. Mbaiwa, J.E. 2004. Prospects of basket production in promoting sustainable rural livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(4): 221–235. Mitchell, C.J.A. and de Waal, S.B. 2009. Revisiting the model of creative destruction: St. Jacobs, Ontario, a decade later. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(1): 156–167. Mitchell, J. and Ashley, C. 2010. Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity. London: Earthscan. Mitchell, M. and Hall, D. 2005. Rural tourism as sustainable business: key themes and issues. In Rural Tourism And Sustainable Business, D. Hall, I. Kirkpatrick, and M. Mitchell (eds), pp. 3–16. Clevedon: Channel Views. Miyakuni, K. and Vander Stoep, G.A. 2007. Linking linkage concepts from diverse fields to build a community-based tourism planning framework: the case of Shuri, Japan. Tourism Geographies, 8(3): 286–309. Moeurn, V., Khim, L., and Sovanny, C. 2008. Good practice in Chambok community-based ecotourism project in Cambodia. In Poverty Reduction that Works: Experience of Scaling Up Development Success, P. Steele, N. Fernando, and M. Weddikkara (eds). London: Earthscan. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. 2003. Tourism and Sustainability: Development and New Tourism in the Third World, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.

Murphy, P.E. and Murphy, A.E. 2004. Strategic Management for Tourism Communities: Bridging the Gaps, Aspects of Tourism series. Clevedon: Channel View. Nelson, S.P. 2000. The Inter-Relationship Between Nature Based Tourism in a Community and Nearby Lodges in the Brazilian Amazon. Presented at the Cuarta Feria Ecoturistica y de Produccion, July 15–23, 2000, Buena Noche de Hato Nuevo, Manoguayabo, Santo Domingo, D.N., Republica Dominica. REST (Responsible Ecological Social Tours) 2011. Community Based Tourism Handbook – Community Based Tourism: Principles and Meaning. Chiangmai: Thailand Community Based Tourism Institute. http://mekongtourism.org/website/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2011/02/CBT-Handbook-Principles-and-Meanings-by-CBT-IThailand.pdf. Rogerson, C.M. 2007. Tourism routes as vehicles for local economic development in South Africa: the example of the Magaliesberg Meander. Urban Forum, 18(2): 49–68. Sakala, S.S. 2004. Towards Establishing Sustainability Of Community Based Development Projects With Special Reference To Chisankane Community Project. St. Clements University. www.stclements.edu/grad/gradsaka.pdf. Scheyvens, R. 2002. Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities. Harlow: Pearson Education. Scheyvens, R. 2007. Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. In Pro-poor Tourism: Who Benefits?: Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction, C.M. Hall (ed.), pp. 121–144. Clevedon: Channel View. Sharpley, R. 2002. The challenges of economic diversification through tourism: the case of Abu Dhabi. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(3): 221–235. Shunnaq, M., Schwab, W.A., and Reid, M.F. 2008. Community development using a sustainable tourism strategy: a case study of the Jordan River Valley touristway. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(1): 1–14. Simpson, M.C. 2008. Community benefit tourism initiatives – A conceptual oxymoron? Tourism Management, 29(1): 1–18. Sofield, T. 2009. New Paradigms and Resilience for Responsible and Sustainable Tourism in Developing Countries. Keynote address presented at 1st World Ecotourism Conference 2009, July 15–17, Vientiane, Laos. Suntikul, W., Bauer, T., and Song, H. 2010. Towards tourism: a Laotian perspective. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(5): 449–461. Telfer, D.J. and Sharpley, R. 2008. Tourism and Development in the Developing World. London: Routledge.

Teye, V., Sonmez, S.F., and Sirakaya, E. 2002. Residents' attitudes towards tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3): 668–688. Tooman, A.L. 1997. Tourism and development, Journal of Travel Research, 35: 33–40. Tosun, C. 2000. Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21: 613–633.

Vignati, F. and Laumans, Q. 2009. Value Chain Analysis as a Kick Off For Tourism Destination Development In Maputo City. International Conference on Sustainable Tourism in Develop​ing Countries. www.snvworld.org/en/Documents/Knowledge%20Publications/Value%20Chain%20Analysis%20as% Wyllie, R.W. 1998. Hana revisited: development and controversy in a Hawaiian tourist community. Tourist Management, 19(2): 171–178.

Chapter 48 Strengthening Tourism–Poverty Linkages Christian M. Rogerson Over the past decade the tourism–poverty nexus has consolidated as a major “growth pole” in international tourism debates and writing (Hall, 2007; Scheyvens, 2007, 2011). In particular, the focus on issues of poverty has been isolated as one of the leading contributions made by geographers to tourism scholarship (Hall and Page, 2009; Palomino-Schalscha, 2012; Saarinen et al., 2013). Although several reasons can be put forward to account for this burst of scholarship around the connections between tourism and poverty, of core importance has been the controversies sparked by the emergence of “pro-poor tourism.” This approach to tourism development has been lauded as having the potential to reconfigure the ways in which the private sector, governments, development agencies, and nongovernmental organizations are working to ensure tourism is actually delivering a larger share of tangible benefits to the poor (Scheyvens, 2009, 2011; Scheyvens and Russell, 2009; Mitchell and Ashley, 2010). The conceptual evolution, discourse, and praxis of pro-poor tourism energized an extended and rich literature which fundamentally has impacted the research agenda, most especially for tourism scholars writing about the Global South (Rogerson, 2006; Hall, 2007; Mitchell and Ashley, 2010; Scheyvens, 2011; Zapata et al., 2011; Saarinen et al., 2013; see also Chapter 45). In particular, for the region of sub-Saharan Africa, which is increasingly the front line in the battle for global poverty alleviation within the context of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, pro-poor tourism debates are of vital importance in contemporary tourism research and writings (Rogerson and Rogerson, 2011; Rogerson, 2012a; World Bank, 2012). Spenceley and Meyer (2012) identify research issues relating to intersectoral linkages as vital for enhancing the pro-poor impacts of tourism and of special relevance in the environment of sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank's flagship study on tourism in sub-Saharan Africa isolates the local sourcing of goods as one of the key issues for deepening and sustaining the success of tourism in Africa. It argued that by local procurement tourism can contribute to social inclusiveness, making it an attractive sector for poverty alleviation (World Bank, 2012). Almost 15 years after the birth of the concept proponents of pro-poor tourism suggest the benefits of pro-poor tourism interventions “are locally significant” (Goodwin and Bah, 2013: 394). Building from an evidence base of research conducted by the Overseas Development Institute, Mitchell (2010a: 3) asserts there is now mounting empirical material which “shows that tourism can transfer significant benefits to local economies and communities around tourist destinations, making a case for identifying tourism as a mechanism for poverty reduction in some low-income countries.” For other writers the argument remains less convincing and so the “jury must still be out,” more particularly given the acknowledged difficulties in calculating the net benefits that tourism brings to local communities (Harrison, 2008). Arguably, the weight of existing evidence signals that “there is a need for effective governance structures if tourism is to maximize benefits for the poor” (Scheyvens, 2007: 248). Question marks can be raised, however, as to whether the rhetoric of pro-poor tourism is merely a

means whereby the tourism industry can reclaim its credibility as an engine for economic growth; it cannot be assumed that the industry's major stakeholders, with their concerns for profit maximization, will prioritize a commitment to local poverty alleviation (Harrison, 2009; Scheyvens, 2009, 2011; Saarinen et al., 2013). In a useful contribution Meyer (2009) makes clear that the business of the major players in the tourism industry is simply that of business rather than of poverty alleviation. Furthermore, it is posited that the essence of pro-poor tourism was never about theorization or subscribing to particular ideologies; rather, it was about seeking to identify workable market intervention strategies to enable the poor to participate in the tourism industry (Ashley and Roe, 2002; Meyer, 2009; Goodwin and Bah, 2013). Building linkages between tourism establishments and local economies is one of the central tenets and “action points” of the pro-poor tourism agenda (Goodwin, 2007; Meyer, 2007). The nurturing of local business linkages offers one critical “pathway” by which the tourism sector can transfer benefits to local communities in and around destinations (Mitchell, 2010a; Mitchell and Ashley, 2010). Scheyvens and Russell (2009: 17) maintain that “a key contribution of tourism as an agent of development is its potential to stimulate backward linkages” within local economies. Importantly, in documented cases where tourism has been demonstrated to have strong pro-poor impacts, it is argued that “the impact is the result of strong linkages” (Mitchell, 2010a: 5). Accordingly, it is argued by the work of the British Overseas Development Institute, one of the originators of the concept of pro-poor tourism, that “it is very important for mainstream tourism to develop and maintain tourism poverty linkages” (Mitchell, 2010a: 6). In capitalizing upon a growing tourism industry van der Duim et al. (2011: 17) identify the significance of developing “new economic alliances” including “those between the tourism industry and other economic sectors in the destination.” Much of the practice of pro-poor tourism interventions is associated with bringing local producers into supply chains. The rest of this chapter reviews the state of the art on research and debates surrounding tourism–poverty linkages and in particular on how these new alliances around linkages might be strengthened in the context of tourism in the Global South.

Develop Policy for Linkages, Not Leakages The impact of tourism on local economies in much of the Global South is tempered by the frequent occurrence of high levels of external leakage which refers to “the failure of tourist spending to remain in the destination economy” (Sandbrook, 2010a: 125). Leakages exist “when revenue leaves the destination as profit to non-local businesses or for the purchase of external goods and services” (Sandbrook, 2010b: 21). Commonly, the existence of economic leakages is cited as a core reason accounting for tourism's failure to catalyze the desired or expected level of local economic development in peripheral regions (Lacher and Nepal, 2010; Rogerson and Rogerson, 2010; Goodwin and Bah, 2013). Explanations for recorded high leakages in peripheral tourism destinations are multifaceted and encompass lack of capital, local ownership, local employment, and an inability to link tourism to the local economy (Lacher and Nepal, 2010; Rogerson and Rogerson, 2010).

It must be appreciated, however, that high levels of leakage do not necessarily negate tourism's potential as a vehicle for development in poor rural areas of developing countries. Indeed, while considerable leakages are recorded at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, retained tourism revenue is the dominant contribution to the local economy (Sandbrook, 2010a: 133). By acknowledging the significance of retained tourism revenue the policy focus is reoriented away from plugging leakages towards linkage analysis (Mitchell and Ashley, 2010). Arguably, the successful broadening and deepening of linkages is an integral part of making tourism work for economic diversification. Without new alliances for intersectoral collaboration and fomenting sustainable linkages between tourism demand and other sectors in the destination economy, tourism will fail as a trigger for local entrepreneurship. Overall, the capacity of destinations to “capture the gains” from tourism growth hinges crucially upon a capacity for strengthening local linkages in value chains and the building of new economic alliances between tourism and other sectors in the destination economy. In the absence of strong linkages a destination becomes merely a “place” in the global tourism value chain that offers up its natural assets for limited return. Levels of leakage are related to local capacity to provide necessary skills, food, and other supplies which are demanded by tourism enterprises. Leakages can exist in both urban and rural tourism destinations, albeit the weight of existing evidence suggests it is particularly in rural areas that the question of leakages is most acute. The inability to link local economic activities to tourism is a consequence of the fact that “rural areas are typically unable to supply the tourism industry with the goods it needs to sustain itself at a competitive price” (Lacher and Nepal, 2010: 82). Telfer and Sharpley (2008) and Scheyvens and Russell (2009) draw attention also to the need for greater understanding of the differential forms of tourism in destinations and hence the types of goods and services that are required and also to the issue of the scale and pace of tourism development as large-scale developments frequently outstrip the capacity of local suppliers (Kirsten and Rogerson, 2002). Several scholars acknowledge intersectoral linkages between tourism and other economic sectors often are minimal in the rural environment of developing countries. In addition, Sandbrook (2010b: 22) states leakages can be strong “in the case of luxury tourism where accommodation and service providers tend to be owned by non-local actors.” Tourism planners acknowledge that in the context of the developing world intersectoral linkages between tourism and other economic sectors often are weak and must be improved through integrating tourism more closely into local economies thereby to catalyze other local activities (Meyer, 2006; Lacher and Nepal, 2010; Mutimucuio and Meyer, 2011). It is argued “if destinations are to maximize benefits from tourism development, they must strategically increase backward economic linkages” (Mak et al., 2012: 192). This places a premium on the need “to investigate and strengthen the economic linkages between tourism areas and their hinterlands” (Telfer and Wall, 1996: 635). The successful broadening and deepening of local geographical linkages is regarded as an integral element of both making tourism work for economic diversification and enhancing tourism impacts for pro-poor development (Telfer and Sharpley, 2008). Rightly, Scheyvens (2011: 153) considers reducing leakages and “maximising multiplier effects should perhaps be a major goal of governments of developing countries with

a significant tourism potential.” This said, while tourism exhibits impressive growth rates in many parts of the Global South, “the density of poverty-reducing local linkages is variable” (Mitchell and Ashley, 2010: 3). The best way to reduce leakages is by direct interventions to increase local and intersectoral linkages. Among the different “pathways” the poor can obtain benefits from tourism are significant “indirect benefit flows” through induced impacts which exist in tourism supply chains. For Mitchell (2008) the indirect links through supply chains often have a larger impact on poor people living around a tourist destination than direct links in the form of wage employment opportunities. The income earned from such supply chains is described by Ashley and Haysom (2008) as “pro-poor flows” as tourism linkages are able to incorporate the poor. The successful building of linkages is considered a function of several factors, most significantly of improving the business environment, enhancing human capital, a safe environment, and increasing the participation of women in economic activities (Mitchell, 2008). Now, several scholars advocate that “much can be done to boost linkages” which is potentially a more fruitful focus for policy-makers than seeking to plug leakages (Mitchell and Ashley, 2007). Among others, Meyer (2007) and Anderson and Juma (2011) demonstrate that supply chains represent an important avenue for reducing poverty through tourism. In particular, the writings of Mitchell and Ashley (2006, 2010) point to the unexploited potential of linkages and assert that national tourism policies in the Global South should devote increased attention on how to promote and strengthen tourism–poverty linkages. The establishment and consolidation of local economic linkages is viewed as both a fundamental element for sustainable tourism development (Scheyvens and Russell, 2009) and a necessary step towards maximizing tourism's potential for achieving broad-based patterns of economic and social development (Scheyvens, 2011). The acceleration of local impacts and enhanced local economic development is one positive outcome of successful linkage construction (Rogerson and Rogerson, 2010; Goodwin and Bah, 2013). Indeed, stimulating local entrepreneurs to engage with the tourism sector is an important factor in maximizing the potential of the sector to contribute to regional and local development. From a review of international experience Ashley et al. (2007: 17) argue the local sourcing of products and services, such as food, furnishings, or guest amenities, is an effective and underutilized way for tourism establishments to expand economic opportunities through their core business activities. Both Kirsten and Rogerson (2002) and Ashley and Haysom (2008) signal that in many instances the incorporation of local enterprises into tourism supply chains can support more households than the provision of direct employment opportunities. In the Global South procurement that is undertaken by the accommodation sector is considered to offer a particularly high level of opportunities for engaging with groups of smaller, local, and disadvantaged entrepreneurs as suppliers and to facilitate diversification in the rural nonfarm economy. Local procurement initiatives have focused around a range of initiatives, including local products, furniture, cultural tours, and – perhaps most importantly – the building of linkages with local farmers (Goodwin, 2007). A critical research finding across the experience of the Global South is that tourism tends to work less progressively precisely in those destinations that need it most. This is because it is often in the most fragile economies that the

greatest difficulties arise in linking local communities with the tourist dollar (Mitchell, 2010b: 1). The core role of expanding tourism–agriculture linkages is underlined by the experience of Kumarakom, in the Indian state of Kerala, which is distinguished by the official adoption by the state government of pro-poor tourism policies. In terms of what is known as the Responsible Tourism Initiative in Kerala one central policy objective is to revive the local agricultural sector and to link “the local population with the tourism businesses and market” (Michot, 2010: 10–11). Harnessing the linkage potential of tourism has become a focus of economic development in other destinations where there is growing recognition of the potential for creating synergistic alliances between the sectors of tourism and agriculture (Rueegg, 2009; Torres and Momsen, 2011; Rogerson, 2012b, 2012c). With the expansion of tourism-led development in several countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, many agricultural economists, tourism scholars, and development planners are examining mechanisms to foment “responsible linkages” between agriculture and tourism. A closer synergy between tourism and agriculture is viewed as offering a promising development intervention in the Global South because a major segment of production and of community livelihoods is inextricably wedded to agriculture. Anderson and Juma (2011: 49) aver “linking the tourism industry with local agriculture is crucial for poverty reduction in developing economies because the majority of their people depend on agriculture-related activities for survival.” Likewise, Meyer (2007) contends that developing the local sourcing of agricultural products is one of the key benefits that the tourism sector can offer to poor communities in the Global South. Nevertheless, according to Mutimucuio and Meyer (2011: 27) the opportunities for creating these intersectoral linkages “are often underdeveloped.”

Research on Tourism–Agriculture Linkages The nexus of tourism and agriculture has attracted growing scholarly and policy attention for linkage development across a number of tourism destinations in the Global South (Telfer and Wall, 1996, 2000; Torres, 2003; Meyer et al., 2004; Torres and Momsen, 2004; Konig, 2007; McBain, 2007; Rueegg, 2009; Rylance et al., 2009; Anderson and Juma, 2011; Rogerson, 2011; Torres and Momsen, 2011; Hunt et al., 2012; Rogerson, 2012b, 2012c; Pillay and Rogerson, 2013; Rogerson et al., 2013). The establishment and strengthening of linkages between the two productive sectors of agriculture and tourism offers a host of possibilities for encouraging “inclusive growth” through opening up economic opportunities, constructing resilience in rural communities and enhancing the potential for sustainable development. Torres and Momsen (2011: 1) declare the “potential for creating synergistic relationships between tourism and agriculture has been widely recognized by development planners, policy-makers and academics alike.” Arguably, strengthening the linkages between agriculture and tourism is central to promoting symbiosis rather than conflict between the two sectors (Rueegg, 2009). The benefits of a closer alliance include decreased leakages through imports, improvement in tourism industry food supplies, increased tourist access to local foods, and improved sustainability for tourism,

including through poverty reduction (Torres and Momsen, 2011). Scheyvens and Russell (2009: 19) observe: “Since most developing countries have agrarian societies, backward linkages between tourism and the agricultural, farming, fishing and animal husbandry sectors that allow local producers to supply tourism industry food needs has been viewed as a particularly important component of pro-poor tourism development.” Pro-poor tourism writings highlight several reasons why local farmers in the Global South should supply tourism enterprises with food products (Torres and Momsen, 2004; Meyer, 2006; Konig, 2007; Rylance et al 2009). Tourism projects often are initiated in regions where the livelihoods of the poor are dominated by food production. The supply of tourism establishments with food products builds upon the existing skills of the poor without changing their livelihood strategies as well as utilizing the productive assets of the poor in terms of land and labor (Torres and Momsen, 2004: 302). New skills learned in the production of food for tourism establishments potentially also can allow farmers to transfer such skills to other food supply chains (Rylance et al., 2009). In attaining the objectives set by pro-poor tourism, the supply chain to tourism enterprises is especially potent because it can disperse the benefits of tourism spatially well beyond that of the destination (Mitchell and Ashley, 2010). For tourism destinations distant from the major tourism source markets of the Global North, expanding the share of local food sourcing contributes further to sustainable development by diminishing the carbon “foodprint” of tourism resorts or accommodation establishments (Gossling et al., 2011). Accordingly, the agricultural sector offers “promising good opportunities” for nurturing linkages between the accommodation sector and poor neighboring communities (Meyer, 2007: 568) with the supply of fresh vegetable produce considered as offering the greatest potential for local linkage. In several parts of the Global South hotels, safari lodges, and all-inclusive resorts have been encouraged to reduce their long-distance food sourcing in favor of procuring a greater share of locally available agricultural produce, including the diversification of the food supply chain to incorporate local foods. Despite the several acknowledged benefits from localizing food production and stronger tourism–agriculture linkages, recent international research shows the continued strength of imported foods in high-end tourism accommodation in many developing countries (Berno, 2011). Although there is widespread agreement that increased demands from tourism should be met by local agricultural supplies, as observed by Timms and Neill (2011: 104), “the empirical results of achieving these benefits, for the most part, have been less than stellar.” The leading trend is for most tourism establishments to source food from wherever is cheapest, most reliable, most easily accessible, and of assured quality (Torres and Momsen, 2004). Across the experience of Caribbean resorts, Cancun, and Lombok it was observed that hotels serve a high proportion of imported foods. The predominant pattern in these resorts is for highend tourism establishments to procure required food from distant and mainly large suppliers rather than from local small enterprises or poor entrepreneurs. In South Africa, Zambia, and Botswana the food-procurement arrangements of rural safari lodges are demonstrated to be nonlocal and not pro-poor (Rogerson, 2011, 2012b, 2012c; Hunt et al., 2012). The overwhelming majority of safari lodges do not source the bulk of their fresh

vegetable requirements from proximate local communities. Instead, the largest segment of supplies is channelled through urban-based distributors or sources. In South Africa a vital role in the safari food chain is played by the Johannesburg Fresh Produce Market which is the source for purchases of key intermediary suppliers who are gatekeepers in respect of articulating the geography of food supplies (Rogerson, 2012c). In Zambia a parallel role is assumed by the city of Lusaka, the purchasing hub for the leading local intermediary supplier to the lodges (Rogerson, 2011). Commonly, even in circumstances where local fresh produce is available, the majority of this local fresh produce is not sold directly to safari lodges but rather is channelled first to urban markets before returning back to the lodges via the intermediary supplier, an arrangement which greatly adds to the carbon foodprint of these establishments as well as contradicting commitments made to responsible tourism practices. The limits of local supplier development to the safari lodge sector reflect an inherent asymmetry between the needs of high-end lodge operations and the capacity of underdeveloped local economies to supply the sophisticated goods and services required to service the demands of urban elites who make up the mass of lodge clientele (Hunt et al., 2012). Only in isolated pockets of Southern Africa has the safari lodge industry stimulated groups of small local producers to service the food supply chain of lodges and correspondingly to generate substantial local benefits (Rogerson, 2011, 2012c; Hunt et al., 2012). The implications of sourcing food products from distant large-scale suppliers for local economies are reduced impacts for local development and most especially limited pro-poor impacts (Torres, 2003; Torres and Momsen, 2004; Meyer, 2007; Rueegg, 2009). In the opinion of Mitchell and Ashley (2010) the results of tourism–agriculture linkage initiatives are considered disappointing. The existing work on tourism–agriculture linkages draws attention to different influences that impact food-supply procurement patterns and prospects for backward linkage development (Torres and Momsen, 2011). The characteristics and strength of linkages are considered associated with several demand-, supply-, or production-related and marketing or intermediary factors (Torres, 2003). In a seminal contribution Meyer (2007: 569) argues that to both support the procurement of local inputs for accommodation establishments and maintain sustainable linkages between tourism and agriculture, “the demand, supply and marketing and intermediary related factors as well as government policy need to be taken into account.” With regard to demand-side factors much significance attaches to the nature of tourism development which can shape patterns of procurement. The type of accommodation (whether foreign-owned or managed enterprises), type of tourist (package or independent), and the training, nationality, and language skills of chefs/food and beverage managers are some factors which result in long-distance food sourcing and correspondingly only weak local linkages (Torres, 2003; Meyer, 2006; Rueegg, 2009; Rogerson, 2012c). With the upper end of international tourism markets, health and safety issues and the high expectations of guests in terms of food quality (freshness) are vital influences on hotel food purchase patterns often “making imports inevitable in most developing countries” (Konig, 2007: 29). Major production-related influences encompass environmental constraints, the nature of local farming systems, high prices of local products, supply inconsistencies, absence of the local production

of certain goods, and specifically of the types and quality of foods demanded by international tourists (Meyer, 2007; Rogerson et al., 2013). Additionally, local tourism–agriculture linkages can be restricted by lack of interaction between the two sectors from marketing constraints, deficient distribution infrastructure, kickbacks paid to local chefs by large food suppliers, and inexperience of local producers in marketing (Rueegg, 2009). Often the weak channel of communication between the tourism and agricultural sectors “means that there is generally limited awareness of what is required by tourists and what can be produced locally to satisfy the demands of the tourism sector” (Meyer, 2006: 31). Other research underlines the limited communication channels between food producers and procurement which precipitates mistrust between buyers and potential suppliers (Torres and Momsen, 2004; Meyer, 2006; Rogerson, 2011, 2012b, 2012c). In certain instances mistrust is anchored on sociocultural, ethnic, or racial differences which obstruct linkage formation or consolidation (Torres, 2003; Rueegg, 2009; Hunt et al., 2012; Rogerson, 2012c). The absence of any coherent policy focus by national governments for energizing tourism– agriculture linkages is another critical issue in the Global South (Torres and Momsen, 2004, 2011). Commonly the growth of, and policy development for, tourism and agriculture are considered separate rather than interconnected policy spheres (Rogerson, 2011). Tourism policy – especially in sub-Saharan Africa – often is focused mainly on accelerating visitor volumes to the neglect of encouraging intersectoral collaboration and constructing bridges between agriculture and tourism (Rogerson, 2012a). The South African policy environment offers one exception as commitments to the development of “responsible tourism” in the country include the encouragement of local sourcing by tourism accommodation establishments. More broadly, the innovation of supportive government policies can assist local agricultural producers through interventions such as the provision of microcredit finance, training, or mediation efforts between the agriculture and tourism sectors (Konig, 2007).

Theoretical Reflections Tourism-led development interventions are a critical and growing focus in the Global South. Nevertheless, there is mounting concern that the embrace of outward-oriented neoliberal development strategies can spawn the emergence of polarized rather than inclusive forms of tourism development. In order to avert scenarios of polarized development, of critical importance is the formation of local linkages in tourism destinations. As argued elsewhere, the understanding of why such linkages infrequently occur and identifying the necessary conditions for them to do so is an essential prerequisite for grounded policy development (Torres and Momsen, 2004; Rogerson et al., 2013). Arguably, the unfolding debates on tourism–agriculture linkages underscore that the impact of pro-poor tourism initiatives often hinges crucially upon the role of national government policy and supporting interventions. In addition, sight must not be lost of the potential for making connections between tourism and local economic development planning and of interventions which can be launched by subnational levels of government. Indeed, the prospects for strengthened tourism–poverty linkages will be enhanced if tourism planning can be embedded

as part of wider strategic initiatives for place-based interventions and active local and regional economic development planning across the Global South (Rogerson and Rogerson, 2010). This conclusion points to a challenge for tourism geographers to address the limited existing connections between theoretical and empirical works on tourism impacts upon destinations on the one hand and the theoretical currents unfolding around local and regional economic development on the other (see Pike et al., 2010; Barca et al., 2012).

References Anderson, W. and Juma, S. 2011. Factors constraining the linkages between the tourism industry and local suppliers of meats in Zanzibar. In New Alliances for Tourism, Conservation And Development in Eastern and Southern Africa, R. van der Duim, D. Meyer, J. Saarinen, and K. Zellmer (eds), pp. 49–62. Delft: Eburon. Ashley, C. and Haysom, G. 2008. The development impacts of tourism supply chains: increasing impact on poverty and decreasing our ignorance. In Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development, A. Spenceley (ed.), pp. 129–156. London: Earthscan. Ashley, C. and Roe, D. 2002. Making tourism work for the poor: strategies and challenges in Southern Africa. Development Southern Africa, 19(1): 61–82. Barca, F., McCann, P., and Rodriguez-Pose, A. 2012. The case for regional development: place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52: 134–152. Berno, T. 2011. Sustainability on a plate: linking agriculture and food in the Fiji islands tourism industry. In Tourism and Agriculture: New Geographies of Production and Rural Restructuring, R. Torres and J. Henshall Momsen (eds), pp. 87–103. London: Routledge. Goodwin, H. 2007. Measuring and reporting the impact of tourism on poverty. In Tourism Research: New Directions, Challenges and Applications, D. Airey and J. Tribe J (eds), pp. 63–75. Oxford: Elsevier. Goodwin, H. and Bah, A. 2013. Pro-poor tourism and local economic development. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and the Environment, A. Holden and D.A. Fennell (eds), pp. 392–400. Abingdon: Routledge. Gössling, S., Garrod, B., Aall, C., Hille, J., and Peeters, P. 2011. Food management in tourism: reducing tourism's carbon ‘foodprint’. Tourism Management, 32: 534–543. Hall, C.M. ed. 2007. Pro-Poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Clevedon: Channel View Press. Hall, C.M. and Page, S.J. 2009. Progress in tourism management: from the geography of tourism to geographies of tourism – a review. Tourism Management, 30: 3–16. Harrison, D. 2008. Pro-poor tourism: a critique. Third World Quarterly, 29: 851–868.

Harrison, D. 2009. Pro-poor tourism: is there value beyond ‘whose’ rhetoric? Tourism Recreation Research, 34: 200–202. Hunt, H., Rogerson, C.M., Rogerson, J.M., and Kotze, N. 2012. Agriculture-tourism linkages in Botswana: evidence from the safari lodge accommodation sector. Africa Insight, 42(2): 1–17. Kirsten, M. and Rogerson, C.M. 2002. Tourism, business linkages and small enterprise development in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 19(1): 29–58. Konig, D.A. 2007. Linking Agriculture to Tourism in Sierra Leone – A Preliminary Research. Unpublished MA (Sustainable Tourism Management) Dissertation, University of Applied Sciences of Eberswalde, Germany. Lacher, R.G. and Sanjay K. Nepal. 2010. From leakages to linkages: local-level strategies for capturing tourism revenue in Northern Thailand. Tourism Geographies, 12(1): 77–99. Mak, A.H., Lumbers, M., and Eves, A. 2012. Globalisation and food consumption in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 171–196. McBain, H. 2007. Caribbean Tourism and Agriculture: Linking to Enhance Development and Competitiveness. Port of Spain, Trinidad: United Nations ECLAC. Meyer, D. 2006. Caribbean Tourism, Local Sourcing and Enterprise Development: Review of the Literature. London: Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership. Meyer, D. 2007. Pro-poor tourism: from leakages to linkages: a conceptual framework for creating linkages between the accommodation sector and ‘poor’ neighbouring communities. Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 558–583. Meyer, D. 2009. Pro-poor tourism: is there actually much rhetoric?: and, if so, whose? Tourism Recreation Research, 34: 197–199. Meyer, D., Ashley, C., and Poultney, C. 2004. Tourism-Agricultural Linkages: Boosting Inputs From Local Farmers, Business Implementation of Pro Poor Tourism: Case Study Briefs 3. London: PPT Pro-Poor Tourism. Michot, T. 2010. Pro-poor Tourism in Kumarakom, Kerala, South India: Policy Implementation and Impacts, Working paper no. 7. Delray Beach, FL: Guild of Independent Scholars and the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. Mitchell, J. 2008. Tourism Development in Cape Verde: The Policy Challenge of Coping with Success, Report prepared for UNDP. London: Overseas Development Institute. Mitchell, J. 2010a. An Unconventional But Essential Marriage: Pro-Poor Tourism and the Mainstream Industry. London: Overseas Development Institute. Mitchell, J. 2010b. Tourism in Poor Places – Who Gets What? www.odi.org.uk/opinion/4717-tourism-poor-places-gets.

Mitchell, J. and Ashley, C. 2006. Tourism Business and the Local Economy: Increasing Impact Through a Linkages Approach, Briefing paper. London: Overseas Development Institute. Mitchell, J. and Ashley, C. 2007. ‘Leakage Claims’: Muddled Thinking and Bad for Policy?, Opinion 81. London: Overseas Development Institute. Mitchell, J. and Ashley, C. 2010. Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity. London: Earthscan. Mutimucio, M. and Meyer, D. 2011. Pro-poor employment and procurement: a tourism value chain analysis of Inhambane Peninsula, Mozambique. In New Alliances for Tourism, Conservation and Development in Eastern and Southern Africa, R. van der Duim, D. Meyer, J. Saarinen, and K. Zellmer (eds), pp. 27–47. Delft: Eburon. Palomino-Schalscha, M. 2012. Geographies of tourism and development. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 187–193. London: Routledge. Pike, A., Rodriguez-Pose, A., and Tomaney, J. (eds) 2010. Handbook of Local and Regional Development. London: Routledge. Pillay, M. and Rogerson, C.M. 2013. Agriculture-tourism linkages and pro-poor impacts: the accommodation sector of coastal Kwa-Zulu-Natal, South Africa. Applied Geography, 36: 49– 58. Rogerson, C.M. 2006. Pro-poor local economic development in South Africa: the role of propoor tourism. Local Environment, 11: 37–60. Rogerson, C.M. 2011. Tourism food supply linkages in Zambia: African safari lodge sector. Tourism Review International, 15(1–2): 21–35. Rogerson, C.M. 2012a. The tourism-development nexus in sub-Saharan Africa: progress and prospects. Africa Insight, 42: 28–45. Rogerson, C.M. 2012b. Strengthening agriculture-tourism linkages in the developing world: opportunities, barriers and current initiatives. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7: 616–623. Rogerson, C.M. 2012c. Tourism-agriculture linkages in rural South Africa: evidence from the accommodation sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20: 477–495. Rogerson, C.M. and Rogerson, J.M. 2010. Local economic development in Africa: global context and research directions. Development Southern Africa, 27: 465–480. Rogerson, C.M. and Rogerson, J.M. 2011. Tourism research within the Southern African development community: production and consumption in academic journals, 2000–2010. Tourism Review International, 15(1–2): 213–224.

Rogerson, C.M., Hunt, H., and Rogerson, J.M. 2013. Safari lodges and local economic linkages in South Africa. Africanus, 43(1): 3–17. Rueegg, M. 2009. The Impact of Tourism on Rural Poverty Through Supply Chain Linkages to Local Food Producers in the Bolivian Altiplano. Unpublished MSc (Development Studies) Dissertation, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Rylance, A., Spenceley, A., Mitchell, J., and Leturque, H. 2009. Tourism–Led Poverty Programme: Training Module for Agriculture. Geneva: International Trade Centre. Saarinen, J., Rogerson, C.M., and Manwa, H. (eds) 2013. Tourism and the Millennium Development Goals: Tourism, Local Communities and Development. London: Routledge. Sandbrook, C. 2010a. Putting leakage in its place: the significance of retained tourism revenue in the local context of rural Uganda. Journal of International Development, 22: 124–136. Sandbrook, C.G. 2010b. Local economic impacts of different forms of nature-based tourism. Conservation Letters, 3: 21–28. Scheyvens, R. 2007. Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 231–254. Scheyvens, R. 2009. Pro-poor tourism: is there value beyond the rhetoric. Tourism Recreation Research, 34: 191–196. Scheyvens, R. 2011. Tourism and Poverty. London: Routledge. Scheyvens, R. and Russell, M. 2009. Tourism and Poverty Reduction in the South Pacific. Report for NZAID. Wellington: NZAID. Spenceley, A. and Meyer, D. 2012. Tourism and poverty reduction: theory and practice in less economically developed countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20: 297–317. Telfer, D.J. and Sharpley, R. 2008. Tourism and Development in the Developing World. London: Routledge. Telfer, D.J. and Wall, G. 1996. Linkages between tourism and food production. Annals of Tourism Research, 23: 635–653. Telfer, D.J. and Wall, G. 2000. Strengthening backward economic linkages: local food purchasing by three indonesian hotels. Tourism Geographies, 2: 421–447. Timms, B. and Neill, S. 2011. Cracks in the pavement: conventional constraints and contemporary solutions for linking agriculture and tourism in the Caribbean. In Tourism and Agriculture: New Geographies of Production and Rural Restructuring, R. Torres and J. Henshall Momsen (eds), pp. 104–116. London: Routledge. Torres, R. 2003. Linkages between tourism and agriculture in Mexico. Annals of Tourism

Research, 30: 546–566. Torres, R. and Momsen, J.H. 2004. Challenges and potential for linking tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives. Progress in Development Studies, 4: 294–318. Torres, R. and Henshall Momsen, J. (eds) 2011. Tourism and Agriculture: New Geographies of Production and Rural Restructuring. London: Routledge. van der Duim, R., Meyer, D., and Saarinen, J. 2011. Introduction: new alliances. In New Alliances for Tourism, Conservation and Development in Eastern and Southern Africa, R. van der Duim, D. Meyer, J. Saarinen, and K. Zellmer (eds), pp. 13–25. Delft: Eburon. World Bank 2012. Transformation Through Tourism: Development Dynamics Past, Present and Future. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Zapata, M.J., Hall, C.M., Lindo, P., and Vanderschaeghen, M. 2011. Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Current Issues in Tourism, 14: 725–749.

Chapter 49 Tourism Crises and Disasters Moving the Research Agenda Forward Brent W. Ritchie, Judith Mair, and Gabby Walters

Introduction Undoubtedly, the tourism industry is one of the most economically important industries worldwide, yet it is also one of the most susceptible and vulnerable to crises and disasters (Pforr, 2009). Faulkner (2001) notes an increasing number of disasters and crises which affect tourism-related industries, ranging from natural to human-influenced incidents. As readers of this chapter will discover, the tourism industry has experienced many crises and disasters, including terrorist attacks, political instability, economic recession, biosecurity threats, and natural disasters. Cassedy (1992) states that tourism is often unable to rebound as quickly as other businesses, since much of a destination's attraction is derived from its image, which may be tarnished by a crisis or disaster. Further, many tourism operators are small enterprises and may lack the resources and capabilities to rebound quickly. Such events often divert tourism flows away from not only a particular destination, but also neighboring regions or countries (Cavlek, 2002), thus negatively impacting tourism industries, the tourists they serve, and local communities (Mansfeld and Pizam, 2006). Therefore, crises and disasters bring about tremendous challenges for the recovery and survival of the tourism industry, especially in riskprone destinations. A crisis is defined as “a low-probability, high-consequence event that develops very rapidly and involves ambiguous situations with unknown causes and effects” (Robert et al., 2007: 109). Common characteristics of crises tend to be that they are internal and thus the organization or destination has some power or influence over a crisis. As Prideaux et al. (2003: 478) suggest a disaster “… can be described as unpredictable catastrophic change that can normally only be responded to after the event, either by deploying contingency plans already in place or through reactive response.” Pelling (2003: 4) suggests natural disasters are a humanitarian disaster with a natural trigger, impacting on society through destroying property and, in some cases, killing individuals. Both crises and disasters can be linked with internal weaknesses that exacerbate disasters and disaster response. The management of crises and disasters is vital to reduce the impacts and improve recovery time both at an organizational and destination level. Effective crisis and disaster management includes three steps: (i) planning and preparedness activities before a crisis or disaster, (ii) response to, or management of, a crisis or disaster as it occurs, and (iii) final resolution to a new or improved state after the crisis or disaster is over (Ritchie, 2009). The focus of this chapter is the first two steps: the proactive actions undertaken before a crisis or disaster hits; and attempts by managers to minimize damages and maximize potential opportunities during a crisis or disaster. In tourism this often includes crisis or disaster communication and recovery

marketing efforts to rebuild consumer confidence, and in the long term attract markets back to the destination and/or tourism businesses. As Pforr and Hosie (2008) argue, despite increasing knowledge in the field, the tourism crisis and disaster literature appears to be very fragmented and disjointed with no clear indication of the nature of research and future directions. We currently have a poor understanding of what research has been carried out and how the research has been undertaken. Answering these questions is vital to identify gaps in knowledge and future research directions. This chapter addresses this challenge through a synthesis of existing literature in the field relating to the two steps noted above, including topics, methodologies, and suggestions for future research.

Planning and Preparedness Planning or preparedness activities, often referred to as reduction and readiness, have been suggested as important in improving a rapid response to tourism crises and disasters. Rittichainuwat (2012) points to the importance of infrastructure measures to reduce risk during a crisis in relation to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Examples given include adequate tsunami warning systems and traffic-management plans for emergency evacuations. However, many studies note a lack of formal crisis or emergency management plans in tourism (e.g. Anderson, 2006; Coles, 2004; Volo, 2008). For instance, Tsai and Chen (2010) found that in Taiwan, following a series of earthquakes, local hoteliers finally developed disastermanagement strategies, but that this was a reaction to disaster, rather than a proactive decision before a disaster occurs. A number of researchers have also been concerned about the lack of appropriate crisis-management plans in specific sectors of tourism, such as the hotel industry (Henderson and Ng, 2004; Lu and Law, 2007; Okumus and Karamustafa, 2005). This lack of planning and preparedness is apparent not only at the level of the individual operator, but also at the local or regional destination marketing organization (DMO) level (Ritchie et al., 2004; Ghaderi et al., 2012), and in some cases at the international or national level (Volo, 2008). Henderson (2002) notes that many formal crisis-management plans have an emphasis on the individual firm, and that they are not therefore directly applicable to national tourism organizations (NTOs). Therefore, specific regional and national crisis-management planning is required. This point is reinforced by Kaklauskas et al. (2009), while Wayne and Carmichael (2005) proposed that traditional and safe travel markets should be the focus of emergency marketing plans. Further, Faulkner and Vikulov (2001) suggest that a postdisaster planning regime needs to reinforce positive changes and nullify the negative changes produced by a disaster. Ritchie (2008) argues that NTOs and DMOs need to assist stakeholders to develop reduction and readiness strategies and highlights an urgent need to understand any potential barriers to tourism disaster planning at a national, regional, and local level. Low levels of tourism crisis and disaster planning may be related to the nature of tourism and the industry structure, comprising small operators which are interconnected in a “value chain.” Hystad and Keller (2008) found that barriers to disaster planning included a lack of money (68% of the sample), lack of knowledge (48%), inability to make changes to a small business

(23%), and a perceived lack of cohesiveness in the tourism industry (14%). One possible reason for a lack of action could be a perceived lack of responsibility by tourism managers, who feel it is the role of emergency managers to develop plans and preparedness activities (Drabek, 2000). Indeed, Prideaux (2004) argues that contingency planning is not in the normal operating framework of many small tourism businesses that do not plan beyond day-to-day survival. Ritchie et al. (2011) also found that larger hotels, established for a longer period, had a higher likelihood of undertaking crisis planning than their counterparts. Planning for a lowlikelihood but high-impact crisis or disaster may be perceived as a waste of resources by smaller operators. Other studies suggest that beliefs, attitudes, norms, and past behavior may influence planning intentions and actual behavior of tourism operators. Using the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), Wang and Ritchie (2012) found that attitudes, subjective norms, and past crisis experiences were the key factors that influence crisis planning behavior and that further research is needed, including the underlying beliefs of tourism operators which shape their attitudes, perceptions, and intentions to undertake crisis planning (Wang and Ritchie, 2013). Such research may provide suggestions on how to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises (which form a significant proportion of the tourism industry) to become more resilient through undertaking planning and preparedness activities. Resilience is an overarching framework which can be used to understand how organizations deal with risk, uncertainty, and organizational change (Bhamra et al., 2011). Resilience activities include the activities and processes which help organizations withstand external shocks and disruptions, and/or to recover quickly from any possible adverse impacts on their operations.

Response and Recovery The majority of past studies on tourism crises and disasters have focused on response and recovery. The most common tourism crisis or disaster contexts studied previously include terrorist attacks (primarily the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but also the Bali bombings, and the London bombings of 2005), earthquakes (mostly in Taiwan and Japan), and bushfires (Australia and Canada). The Boxing Day Tsunami of 2004 and the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan have also been the subject of several articles. Research on the disaster recovery efforts of affected destinations has identified four key areas; communication, the media, recovery marketing strategies, and tourist response. Effective communication has been identified as a crucial factor in tourism crisis management (Ghaderi et al., 2012). The importance of receiving accurate and updated information from emergency managers within and beyond organizations and individual businesses was highlighted by Hystad and Keller (2008) and Wayne and Carmichael (2005), who stressed the need for effective partnerships to facilitate crisis communications. Anderson (2006) also noted that staff and personnel require support during times of crisis and that one form of support that organizations can provide is timely and accurate information. According to Ritchie (2008), communication with visitors, in the form of information and guidance to those who are present at the time of the disaster, is also important, particularly when taking into account their lack of

local knowledge and potential displacement. Those who have already booked trips to the destination are also in need of up-to-date information regarding the accessibility and condition of the destination (Henderson, 2007). However, while the need for effective communication strategies is clear, research has yet to explore effective means of disseminating crucial information to the visitor market. The management of the media has also been identified as an important issue. Researchers have documented the impact of media coverage on destination image. For example, previous research has implied that media coverage of a disastrous event is both sensationalized and consistently negative (Peters and Pikkemaat, 2005; Pearlman and Melnik, 2008; Ghaderi et al., 2012; Walters and Mair, 2012), resulting in a devastating impact on tourism demand. There is also a relationship between the viewer's interpretation of events (i.e. the extent of the damage) and their geographical proximity. Walters and Clulow (2010) revealed that the further the distance between the viewer and the affected destination, the more incoherent their understanding of the events that took place. Given the global reach of today's media, this is problematic for affected destinations and there is a clear need for media-management strategies in this regard. However, the positive impact of the media in the disaster and immediate postdisaster phases has been acknowledged in several studies. Ciocco and Michael (2007) argue that media coverage can hasten the delivery of necessary recovery funds, while Chacko and Marcell (2008) suggest that the dissemination of positive news stories can potentially offset any negative publicity. Tsai and Chen (2010) conclude that the reporting of good management during the recovery process can also build consumer confidence in a destination. Surprisingly, the Internet, one of the most popular reporting tools for the media, has received little attention to date within this realm of academic research. The use of social media in particular brings even more complexity to the management of media and therefore offers substantial opportunities for future research. Marketing and promotions are key to assisting a tourist destination to recover after a crisis or disaster (Hystad and Keller, 2008), and specific marketing strategies have been shown to be more effective than broad or unfocused communications (Peters and Pikkemaat, 2005). The main aims of postdisaster marketing include correcting misperceptions about the disaster (the scale of the disaster and the extent of the damage), and restoring confidence in a destination. Destinations also find it hard to maintain a brand or positive message in the marketplace. Despite the misgivings of some DMOs, the market is not necessarily averse to DMOs continuing to actively promote and market an area that has been affected by a disaster (McKercher and Pine, 2005; Walters and Mair, 2012). However, as Armstrong and Ritchie (2008) note, recovery messages have to be open, clear, and consistent in order to address the perceptual crisis that often lies at the heart of efforts at disaster recovery marketing. A crisis or disaster will ultimately influence the tourist's destination decision-making process (Cavlek, 2002; Pine and McKercher, 2004; Kozak et al., 2007; Armstrong and Ritchie, 2008; Pearlman and Melnik, 2008). Rates of recovery and timeframes vary depending on the scale of the disaster: Henderson (2008) noted signs of improvement only a month following the Bali bombings whereas in Taiwan, following the earthquakes there, recovery took longer than expected (Huang and Min, 2002). Indeed, inbound arrivals had not recovered 11 months after

that disaster (Huang and Min, 2002). Recovery times range between 6 and 24 months based on the nature of the crisis or disaster, the response of the destination and the propensity of the market to return to the destination (Ritchie, 2009). Researchers also agree that one of the key challenges destination marketers face is the management of negative perceptions towards their destination and subsequent travel intentions. More cancellations (Huang and Min, 2002), more last-minute bookings (Hystad and Keller, 2008), and more self-drive travel for visiting friends and relatives (Fall and Massey, 2005) are all likely changes in behavior following a disaster. While it appears that a sense of loyalty and the appeal of friends and relatives may encourage visitation, Prideaux et al. (2008) stress that more postdisaster visitation data is necessary to understand perceptions, behaviors, and expectations of visitors. In particular there is still disparity between intentions and actual behavior (McKercher and Hui, 2004) and so further research is needed to fully understand postdisaster tourist behavior. It is important to recognize, however, that every crisis and disaster is unique and that every postdisaster recovery marketing strategy needs to consider both the nature of the disaster and its location (see for example; Armstrong and Ritchie, 2008; Carlsen and Hughes, 2007; Pearlman and Melnik, 2008; Prideaux et al., 2008; Walters and Mair, 2012). Research should therefore continue to uncover the multitude of contexts within which disastrous events occur and the role context plays in recovery marketing.

Research Approaches and Methods Faulkner (2001: 136) noted that the industry does not seem to make any progress in understanding the importance of crisis- and disaster-management planning due to “the limited development of theoretical and conceptual frameworks required to underpin the analysis of this phenomena.” Some of the research that has been carried out into tourism destinations and crises and disasters is of a high standard, but the field is still at an early and relatively descriptive stage, with many papers reporting on case studies and/or single events. Although crises and disasters may be unique, it is surprising that few studies have sought to undertake comparative studies or explore similarities. There are currently over 50 papers in academic journals examining tourism and disasters/crises (Mair et al., 2013). Of the quantitative journal papers that focus on tourism crises and disasters, several used economic and econometric analyses, including time series data (Huang and Min, 2002), an economic forecasting model (Eugenio-Martin et al., 2005), and a secondary analysis of economic data provided by the International Monetary Fund (Wang, 2009). Of the remainder, the most popular form of data collection and analysis was the questionnaire. While some of the questionnaires were of tourist industry stakeholders such as coach operators (Ready and Dobie, 2008), hotels (Henderson and Ng, 2004; Wang and Ritchie, 2012), and convention and visitor bureaux (Fall and Massey, 2005), most studies were directed at potential or actual visitors (for example Pearlman and Melnik, 2008; Prideaux et al., 2008; Walters and Mair, 2012). Fewer questionnaires included resident perceptions and responses to disasters in tourism destinations (e.g. Moreira, 2008). Generally most studies provided only descriptive statistics, whereas others used more complex inferential statistical

techniques. The qualitative studies on the other hand were carried out almost exclusively with tourism industry and government stakeholders such as operators, destination-management organizations, and emergency personnel (e.g. Faulkner and Vikulov, 2001; Coles, 2004; Peters and Pikkeman, 2005; Anderson, 2006; Ciocco and Michael, 2007; Armstrong and Ritchie, 2008; Niinenen and Gatsou, 2008; Ghaderi et al., 2012). Only one qualitative study took the potential visitor as its focus (Walters and Clulow, 2010). This strongly suggests that there is further need to undertake qualitative research to better understand the views, opinions, and attitudes of visitors and potential visitors, as well as local residents in tourism destinations affected by disaster. The methods used in the qualitative studies were primarily interviews, and qualitative content analysis of secondary data and literature. Most have used interview techniques (usually semistructured interviews), and only one (Walters and Clulow, 2010) used focus groups. There were a few more innovative research methods used; for example, Carlsen and Liburd (2008) incorporated group discussion using a group problem-solving process, the nominal group technique, into their study, while Ciocco and Michael (2007) used narrative analysis to investigate how tour operators were able to recover their business following bushfires in Australia. Content analysis of existing literature and of secondary data sources was a relatively common research method, sometimes used alone (e.g. Henderson, 2002, 2007; Ritchie et al., 2004; Laws and Prideaux, 2005; Scott and Laws, 2008; Volo, 2008) and sometimes in combination with other data-collection methods such as interviews or participant observation (Armstrong and Ritchie, 2008; Carlsen and Liburd, 2008). Interestingly, no papers used visual analysis techniques which may be particularly important in understanding risk perceptions and image formation. The case studies on the topic of tourism and crises tended to take a fairly narrow approach, focusing on one destination and one disaster. The exceptions to this are noted in Table 49.1 which illustrates the range of case studies and contexts.

Table 49.1. Research case studies and context. Study Carlsen and Hughes (2007) Chacko and Marcell (2008) Goodrich (2002)

Context Mauritius: the tsunami

Henderson (2008) Ingram et al. (2006) *Ladkin et al. (2008)

Indonesia: the Bali bombings Sri Lanka: the tsunami London and the UK: London bombings, foot and mouth and recession Ireland Australia: 9/11, SARS, and collapse of Ansett Airlines Brazil: beach pollution Taiwan: earthquakes

*O'Brien (2012) *Prideaux (2004) Santana (2004) Tsai and Chen (2010, 2011) Yang et al. (2011)

New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina USA: post 9/11

China: Wenchuan earthquake

*Case studies focusing on a wider context than simply one single case. SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome.

The quantitative studies have focused mainly on the tourism industry, possibly at the expense of a better understanding of potential visitors. At the same time, the qualitative studies have not engaged as thoroughly with industry, suggesting that we currently have an unbalanced and narrow understanding of disaster and crisis management as a holistic phenomenon. There were only four papers in our review which were conceptual in nature. Ritchie (2004) proposed a strategic and holistic approach to crisis and disaster management for the tourism industry. Huang et al. (2008) developed an integrated model of proactive and reactive strategies for use before, during, and after crises, and Kaklauskas et al. (2009) proposed a knowledge model for postdisaster management. Finally, Scott et al. (2008) provided a summary of our existing theoretical understanding of tourism crisis recovery management. Therefore, there remain significant gaps in our knowledge and some limitations on the usefulness of our existing knowledge, as to date it has been built on largely descriptive analyses and secondary data.

Conclusion and Research Futures The tourism crisis and disaster literature is growing but appears to be very fragmented and disjointed with no clear indication of the nature of research and future directions. This chapter

has provided an overview of what research has been carried out and how the research has been undertaken. The review has identified gaps in knowledge and approaches to studying tourism crisis and disaster planning and management. One of the key concepts that has emerged in this chapter is the need to move away from reactive strategies and ad hoc responses towards a more resilience-based planning approach (Scott and Laws, 2008). Researchers should focus their attention on the planning and preparedness stage and explore how tourism businesses and destinations can become more resilient. In particular, it is important to understand the barriers of, and facilitators to, developing resilience. A lack of awareness, understanding, and capacity among tourism managers may be restricting tourism crisis and disaster planning. Therefore, research should explore these problems. The nature of the tourism industry also needs to be better understood to develop appropriate interventions to create resilient tourism industries. Research is required to understand the information needs of key tourism stakeholders and how to transmit appropriate crisis communication messages to these stakeholders. For instance, the travel trade need to be kept informed in order to communicate with their clients or potential clients, while potential tourists, and tourists in an area affected by a crisis or disaster, may need different information, and different channels of communication may be more effective. The media is also an important stakeholder and media-management strategies need to consider different needs and expectations of media agencies. Many issues have been overlooked, such as focusing on identifying the audience, developing goals for communicating effectively and creating strong positive messages, possibly because these take time to develop and implement and because of challenges in developing a consistent message across a number of tourism stakeholders. Research is needed to explore appropriate communication messages and channels for a range of stakeholders, considering their differences. In particular, social media can be especially important in disaster communication (Yates and Paquette, 2011), and may be regarded by consumers as more interactive, authentic, and credible in the recovery marketing stage (Schultz et al., 2011). Although social media may be able to influence tourist decision making, it is unclear how best to use social media due to concerns over its credibility and trustworthiness compared with traditional media (Tham et al., 2013). These issues should be explored in future research. Research is also needed to identify when recovery marketing campaigns should start, what they should include and how their effectiveness should be evaluated. Such information is vital for the future support of recovery marketing campaigns by government and industry. The tourist response to crises and disasters, and how this influences their destination choice, is also lacking. Consumer behavior and decision-making theory could be applied to better understand the influence that a crisis or disaster has on travel intentions and actual behavior. Research across disaster or crisis contexts is important to identify whether strategies work across contexts (such as bushfires, cyclones) or whether successful strategies are disaster or crisis specific. As demonstrated in the review of research approaches and methods, future research needs to go beyond descriptive case studies focusing on single crisis or disaster events. There are few

conceptual or theoretical studies in the field. Theories and techniques from the communication field such as communication models, public relations, and framing analysis could be used to further the understanding of effective crisis and disaster communication. The application of psychology theories and concepts may improve our understanding of the cognitive and affective factors (such as fear, worry and empathy) which may influence risk perceptions and repeat visitation to affected destinations. Few innovative methodologies were found from our review of the literature, with many studies relying on descriptive analyses and secondary data. Quantitative research has focused mainly on tourists and not tourism organizations, while more qualitative research is needed on visitors and residents to better understand their crisis and disaster behaviors. If the quality of future research can be improved, then it is hoped that better insights will be generated and potentially lead to improved practices in the tourism industry to deal with tourism crises and disasters in the future.

References Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2): 179–211. Anderson, B.A. 2006. Crisis management in the Australian tourism industry: preparedness, personnel and postscript. Tourism Management, 27(6): 1290–1297. Armstrong, K. and Ritchie, B.W. 2008. The Heart Recovery marketing campaign: destination recovery after a major bushfire in Australia's national capital. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4): 175–189. Bhamra, R., Dani, S., and Burnard, K. 2011. Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18): 5375–5393. Carlsen, J.C. and Liburd, J.J. 2008. Developing a research agenda for tourism crisis management, market recovery and communications. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4): 265–276. Carlsen, J.C. and Hughes, M. 2007. Tourism market recovery in the Maldives after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4): 139–149. Cassedy, K. 1992. Preparedness in the face of crisis: an examination of crisis management planning in the travel and tourism industry. In World Travel and Tourism Review Volume 2, J.R.B. Ritchie and D. Hawkins (eds), pp. 169–174. Canada: CAB International Cavlek, N. 2002. Tour operators and destination safety. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2): 478–496. Chacko, H.E. and Marcell, H.M. 2008. Repositioning a tourism destination: the case of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4): 223– 235.

Ciocco, L. and Michael, E.J. 2007. Hazard or disaster: tourism management for the inevitable in Northeast Victoria. Tourism Management, 28(1): 1–11. Coles, T. 2004. A local reading of a global disaster: some lessons on tourism management from an Annus Horribilis in South West England. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2–3): 173–197. Drabek, T.E. 2000. Disaster evacuations: tourist-business managers rarely act as customers expect. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(4): 48–57. Eugenio-Martin, J.L., Sinclair, M.T., and Yeoman, I. 2005. Quantifying the effects of tourism crises: an application to Scotland. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 19(2–3): 21–34. Fall, L.T. and Massey, J.E. 2005. The significance of crisis communication in the aftermath of 9/11: a national investigation of how managers have re-tooled their promotional campaigns. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 19(2/3): 77–90. Faulkner, B. 2001. Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management, 22(2): 135–147. Faulkner, B. and Vikulov, S. 2001. Katherine, washed out one day, back on track the next: a post mortem of a tourism disaster. Tourism Management, 22(2): 331–344. Ghaderi, Z., Puad Mat Som, A., and Henderson, J.C. 2012. Tourism, crises, and island destinations: experiences in Penang, Malaysia. Tourism Management Perspectives, 2–3: 79– 84. Goodrich, J. 2002. September 11, 2001 attack on America: a record of the immediate impacts and reactions in the USA travel and tourism industry. Tourism Management, 23(6): 573–580. Henderson, J. 2002. Managing a tourism crisis in Southeast Asia. The role of national tourism organisations. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 3(1): 85– 105. Henderson, J.C. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and tourism: hotel companies in Phuket, Thailand, after the Indian Ocean tsunami. Hospitality Management, 26(1): 228–239. Henderson, J.C. 2008. Terrorism and tourism: managing the consequences of the Bali bombings. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(1): 41–58. Henderson, J.C. and Ng, A. 2004. Responding to crisis: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and hotels in Singapore. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(6): 411–419. Huang, J.-H. and Min, J.C.H. 2002. Earthquake devastation and recovery in tourism: the Taiwan case. Tourism Management, 23(2): 145–154. Huang, Y.-C., Tseng, Y.-P., and Petrick, J.F. 2008. Crisis management planning to restore tourism after disasters: a case study from Taiwan. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,

23(2–4): 203–221. Hystad, P.W. and Keller, P.C. 2008. Towards a destination tourism disaster management framework: long-term lessons from a forest fire disaster. Tourism Management, 29(1): 151– 162. Ingram, J.C., Franco, G., Rumbaitis-del Rio, C., and Khazai, B. 2006. Post disaster recovery dilemmas: challenges in balancing short-term and long-term needs for vulnerability reduction. Environmental Science, 9(4): 607–613. Kaklauskas, A., Amaratunga, D., and Haigh, R. 2009. Knowledge model for post-disaster management. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 13(2): 117–128. Kozak, M., Crotts, J.C., and Law, R. 2007. The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(4): 233–242. Ladkin, A., Fyall, A., Fletcher, J., and Shipway, R. 2008. London tourism. A ‘post-disaster’ marketing response. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4): 95–111. Laws, E. and Prideaux, B. 2005. Crisis management: a suggested typology. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 19(2–3): 1–8. Lu, S. and Law, R. 2007. Technology crisis management in Mainland China: a study of hotels in Hangzhou. Information Technology in Hospitality, 4(4): 153–159. Mair, J., Ritchie, B.W., and Walters, G. 2013. A systematic review of post-disaster and postcrisis recovery strategies for tourist destinations. Tourism Management (in press). Mansfeld, Y. and Pizam, A. 2006. Tourism, Security, and Safety: From Theory to Practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. McKercher, B. and Hui, E.L.K. 2004. Terrorism, economic uncertainty and outbound travel from Hong Kong. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2–3): 99–115. McKercher, B. and Pine, R. 2005. Privation as a stimulus to travel demand? Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 19(2–3): 107–116. Moreira, P. 2008. Stealth risks and catastrophic risks. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4): 15–27. Niininen, O. and Gatsou, M. 2008. Crisis management: a case study from the Greek passenger shipping industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4): 191–202. O'Brien, A. 2012. Wasting a good crisis: development failure and Irish tourism since 2008. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2): 1138–1155. Okumus, F. and Karamustafa, K. 2005. Impact of an economic crisis evidence from Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4): 942–961.

Pearlman, D. and Melnik, O. 2008. Hurricane Katrina's effect on the perception of New Orleans leisure tourists. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 25(1): 58–67. Pelling, M. 2003. Paradigms of risk. In Paradigms of Risk, M. Pelling (ed.), pp. 1–16. London: Routledge. Peters, M. and Pikkemaat, B. 2005. Crisis management in alpine winter sports resorts – the 1999 Avalanche Disaster in Tyrol. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 19(2–3): 9–20. Pforr, C. 2009. Crisis management in tourism: a review of the emergent literature. In Crisis Management in the Tourism Industry: Beating the Odds?, C. Pforr and P. Hosie (eds), pp. 37–52. Surrey: Ashgate. Pforr, C. and Hosie, P.J. 2008. Crisis management in tourism—preparing for recovery. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2): 249–264. Pine, R. and McKercher, B. 2004. The impact of SARS on Hong Kong's tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(2): 139–143. Prideaux, B. 2004. The need to use disaster planning frameworks to respond to major tourism disasters: analysis of Australia's response to tourism disasters in 2001. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(4): 281–298. Prideaux, B., Coghlan, A., and Falco-Mammone, F. 2008. Safety and security in tourism: recovery marketing after crises. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4): 163–174 Prideaux, B., Laws, E., and Faulkner, B. 2003. Events in Indonesia: exploring the limits to formal tourism trends forecasting methods in complex crisis situations. Tourism Management, 24(4): 475–487. Ready, K.J. and Dobie, K. 2008. Real and perceived terrorist threats: effects of September 11, 2001 events on the U.S. motorcoach-based tourism industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(1): 59–76. Ritchie, B. 2004. Chaos, crises and disasters: a strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 25(6): 669–683. Ritchie, B. 2008. Tourism disaster planning and management: from response and recovery to reduction and readiness. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(4): 315–348. Ritchie, B.W. 2009. Tourism Crisis and Disaster Management. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Ritchie, B.W., Bentley, G., Koruth, T., and Wang, J. 2011. Proactive crisis planning: lessons for the accommodation industry. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 11(3): 367–386. Ritchie, B.W., Dorrell, H., Miller, D., and Miller, G.A. 2004. Crisis communication and

recovery for the tourism industry: lessons from the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2–3): 199–216. Rittichainuwat, B.N. 2012. Tourists' and tourism suppliers' perceptions toward crisis management on tsunami. Tourism Management, 34(1): 112–121. Robert, K.H., Madsen, P., and Desai, V. 2007. Organizational sensemaking during crisis. In International Handbook of Organizational Crisis Management, C.M. Pearson, C. RouxDufort, and J.A. Clair (eds), pp. 107–122. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Santana, G. 2004. Crisis management and tourism: beyond the rhetoric. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(4): 299–321. Schultz, F., Utz, S., and Goritz, A. 2011. Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations Review, 37: 20–27. Scott, N. and Laws, E. 2005. Tourism crises and disasters: enhancing understanding of system effects. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 19(2–3): 149–158. Scott, N., Laws, E., and Prideaux, B. 2008. Tourism crises and marketing recovery strategies. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4): 1–13. Tham, A., Croy, G., and Mair, J. 2013. Social media in destination choice: distinctive electronic word-of-mouth dimensions. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 30(1–2): 144–155. Tsai, C.-H. and Chen, C.-W. 2010. An earthquake disaster management mechanism based on risk assessment information for the tourism industry – a case study from the island of Taiwan. Tourism Management, 31(4): 470–481. Tsai, C.-H. and Chen, C.-W. 2011. The establishment of a rapid natural disaster risk assessment for the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 32(1): 158–171. Volo, S. 2008. Communicating tourism crises through destination websites. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 23(2–4): 83–93. Walters, G. and Clulow, V. 2010. The tourism market's response to the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires: the case of Gippsland. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 27(8): 844–857. Walters, G. and Mair, J. 2012. The effectiveness of post-disaster recovery marketing messages – the case of the 2009 Australian bushfires. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 29(1): 87–103. Wang, J. and Ritchie, B.W. 2012. Understanding accommodation managers' crisis planning intention: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Tourism Management, 33(5): 1057–1067.

Wang, J. and Ritchie, B.W. 2013. Attitudes and perceptions of crisis planning among accommodation managers: results from an Australian study. Safety Science, 52: 81–91. Wang, Y.-S. 2009. The impact of crisis events and macroeconomic activity on Taiwan's international inbound tourism demand. Tourism Management, 30(1): 75–82. Yang, W., Wang, D., and Chen, G. 2011. Reconstruction strategies after the Wenchuan Earthquake in Sichuan, China. Tourism Management, 32(4): 949–956. Yates, D. and Paquette, S. 2011. Emergency knowledge management and social media technologies: a case study of the 2010 Haitian earthquake. International Journal of Information Management, 31(2): 6–13.

Part 9 Conclusions

Chapter 50 Theoretical and Methodological Challenges for Tourism Just Out of Sight or Just Within our Reach? Allan M. Williams, C. Michael Hall, and Alan A. Lew

Reflections on this Volume As comprehensive and far reaching as this volume is, it only scratches the surface of understanding tourism. It is not a comprehensive state-of-the-art review of tourism research, and it is not an encyclopedia. Nor is it an attempt to provide a rationale for the way tourism is, or should be, structured for academic study. Tourism is such a complex and evolving phenomenon that no single volume could hope to achieve these objectives. In part this relates to the futility of seeking simple, unproblematic definitions of tourism. Instead, this book has sought to celebrate the richness and diversity of tourism studies, the meeting points and sometimes clashes between approaches, and new perspectives confronting traditional, sometimes dogmatic, approaches and beliefs. We have sought to give voice to a range of scholars and scholarly perspectives. Of course, there are shared approaches and concerns among many of the contributors, but there are also different theoretical and methodological orientations, possibly even distinct communities or subcommunities of scholars (see Tribe, 2010). They speak from many different viewpoints within the theoretical and methodological mosaic that constitutes tourism, let alone social science. And it is the broad social science realm, rather than the field of management studies, which has been the guiding framework for all our contributors. That is not to say we are disinterested in understanding the industry, and wish to draw down the shutters in the ivory towers of academia. But the question of interest is what type of research on what type of impacts, and on whom. While tourism business research has benefited by tending to be particularly close to industry, the industry is only one part of the picture, and this broader view is central to the way that most tourism researchers view their field of study. We have become accustomed to enumerating the many stakeholders in tourism: not only the different sectors of the industry, but also the diverse groups of tourists and local residents, nongovernmental organizations, and the diverse articulations of the state, often expressed in various forms of partnerships and collaborations, as well as more critical notions of what constitutes business and management studies (see also Chapters 44 and 45). But – as we argue later in this chapter – even this framework is problematic, because it narrows our vision to the active players in tourism, rather than questioning its larger structures. The contributors were invited to review the shifting foci of research in their fields, and to include reflections on future theoretical and methodological challenges. In the next section, we reflect on their reflections, and then highlight four themes that seem especially germane, relevant, or challenging to the trajectory of tourism research. Finally, we turn briefly to consider the trajectory of the tourism academy and the issues this poses for the future of

tourism research. It is in this sense that we consider that this book is as much about beginnings as about endings. It looks backwards and forwards, establishes the lineage of selected themes, current concerns, and future possibilities. Readers may find it both optimistic and pessimistic: so much begun, so much still to do. Ultimately it all depends on where you stand, and in which direction you are looking.

Tourism: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges Methodology sometimes appears to be an afterthought in many publications, or at least is confined to the detailing of the research process as part of a highly stylized process of jumping through a series of hoops to satisfy journal reviewers. In other words, it is a focus on what has been done, rather than a broader set of reflections about the implications of adopting particular methodological approaches. We therefore asked the contributors to address this in some way in their individual chapters. Given the number and the diversity of these contributions, there is inevitably a mixed picture, but some tendencies do shine through. In general there is considerable methodological diversity, and it tends to vary in predictable ways across subject areas and themes. Economic researchers have largely adopted positivist approaches, although there are important strands of political economy, and there is evidence of increasing sophistication in the approaches of the former (Song and Li, 2008). Geographers concerned with spatial analyses have also adopted positivist approaches, mostly of a generic type, but including spatially specific techniques, such as spatial interaction and diffusion models and measures of spatial proximity (Vasiliadis and Kobotis, 1999; Hall, 2012). There is also a vast tranche of research in tourism management, especially in marketing, motivations, behavioral, and decision-making studies, which utilize quantitative methods, often based on using factor analysis and clustering techniques, in a search for underlying order; the roots of such research can often be found in social psychology (see Chapter 3). New technologies, such as the application of GPS tracking systems (Chapter 20), and Internet-based surveys, have also refreshed positivist approaches in recent years, although at worst these can sometimes resemble techniques in search of a theoretical framework, while focusing on what is (relatively) easily measurable (e.g. movements of individuals or prices/yields) rather than the forces which shape and give meaning to these. Positivist approaches have intuitive appeal in terms of “rigour,” the ability to utilize large secondary data sets, and also for governments seeking inputs into evidence-based policies. That rigour is of course sometimes deceptive, as is the objectivity of such approaches. In reality, their application is riddled through with subjective decisions relating to the data collection and analytical stages, such as what questions to ask, how to ask them, which techniques to utilize, and which data transformations to apply (Ayikoru, 2009). At their best, positivist researchers detail these techniques meticulously, and provide access to their data, enabling transparency and replication, but there are also many examples of inadequate methodological accounts concealing badly designed surveys, poor and unrepresentative responses, and failure to address the assumptions embedded in particular techniques And, many critics would add, an inherent tendency to produce increasingly sophisticated statistical

summaries, and measurements of associations, without being able to dig deeper into meanings, causes, and the sheer unpredictability, variability, and culturally situated nature of much human behavior. In other subfields of tourism, such as the cultural geography or anthropology of tourism, qualitative approaches have been in the ascendancy. Interviews, and participant observation, have been the main research methods (see Chapter 5), although there is still relatively little tourism research which is based on extensive participant observation, resulting in interviews having become the dominant form of qualitative data. There has also been reliance on focus groups, and increasingly on various forms of visual analysis and photo-elicitation (Chapter 26). The lack of rigour in much qualitative research was noted by Baxter and Eyles (1997), and with Crang (2002) emphasizing that there is at least as much onus on qualitative researchers to exercise rigour, and to be transparent in reporting their research methods. By and large the research community has responded to this clarion call, although many papers still provide scant explanation about their collecting of data or evidence, and means of analysis. For example, a term such as “thematic analysis” may conceal a multitude of decisions taken in the course of the analysis that are often poorly recorded and assessed. At worse, quotations from interviews still appear out of context as justification for particular arguments, with no sense of how these fit into the full set of interviews or forms of data collection, with lurking concerns about the selectivity of insights and evidence. The same applies to other forms of qualitative data, whether photographs, or the observation of tourism practices. As with quantitative research, technological developments are opening up new avenues for research, such as the use of Internet blogs and discussion fora, tablet applications, or new forms of video recording equipment. There have been many attempts to combine quantitative and qualitative research methods in recent years, with mixed methods becoming the new methodological orthodoxy (Riley and Love, 2000). Typically, qualitative methods are used to inform quantitative research design, or qualitative methods are used to investigate in more depth the processes underlying the associations and other patterns identified in quantitative research. This conjoint use of different methods certainly offers the richness of contrasting perspectives, and sometimes – as described above – they can be mutually informing. But there are limits to the extent to which such methods can be integrated, due to being embedded in different theoretical frameworks, which not only use different techniques but ask fundamentally different questions. It is like trying to see what there is inside a building: different windows provide different insights into what lies within, but the quantitative and qualitative windows may be looking into different rooms, without telling us how they are connected. Finally on methods, we think there is need to reflect on whether the multiple, sometimes parallel and sometimes contradictory, research efforts of a host of researchers is a source of diversity and creative insights, or represents a profound fragmentation of research effort. Given the nature of research resourcing, most empirical research projects are substantially constrained. Publicly funded research projects, especially by national research councils, may have longer timelines and broader remits than industry funded research, which mostly tends to focus on pressing issues, requiring shorter-term responses. Private funders may also offer more

resources than are usually available from individual universities. But most research, other than that based on secondary sources, tends to involve case studies, or small samples of questionnaires or interviews for highly specific subpopulations. They capture the here and now, in a thematic, spatial, and temporal sense, even if the best research seeks to contextualize or generalize this cautiously and appropriately. But there is still an overwhelming picture of individual researchers chipping away at no more than one or two faces of a multifaceted reality. Perhaps this is all that research can ever aspire to, and, as some postmodernists would argue, should aspire to (Ayikoru, 2009). But one of the many casualties of such fragmentation is the lack of longitudinal studies that analyze changes, whether in individual or group practices and behavior, or in the trajectories of firms or ideas. And this is a failing that applies as much to quantitative research (e.g. the lack of panel data in many areas of tourism) as to qualitative research (where the use of diaries is probably the main exception; for example Markwell and Bache, 1998).

Challenges for Tourism Research Turning from methodology to substantive research foci, the celebration of diversity, which we consider to be one of the hallmarks of this volume, necessarily poses difficulties when trying to identify some of the key recent or emerging research themes in tourism. The following review, therefore, makes no claim to be comprehensive, but considers four themes that are illustrative of some of the major challenges that confront, or should confront, tourism research: the environment, risk and uncertainty, globalization, and mobility rights. First, the relationship between tourism and the natural environment is a well-established theme in tourism research. This literature has tended to be longer on case studies and advocacy, and shorter on critical social science content, although there is evidence that this is changing. Recent research has made significant advances in terms of understanding the bases of individual behavioral adjustment to the emerging dictates of climate change (Gössling et al., 2012) and especially the notion of binge consumption, or the prioritizing of expenditure on air travel well beyond the expectations of “rational economic decision making” (Cohen et al., 2011). More recently, vulnerability and resilience have attracted research attention (see Chapter 39), posing broader questions about social and natural systems, and requiring that we contextualize the discussion of particular tourism practices within this framework, a possibly somewhat ironic situation given the supposed centrality of systems in tourism thinking (Hall and Page, 2010). To a considerable extent, the relationship between tourism and the environment has been framed in terms of the sustainability agenda (Hall and Lew, 1998). Sustainability is a multifaceted concept, embracing both intergenerational and intragenerational equity issues, and addresses social, economic, and environmental dimensions. Research has, however, been highly selective, and there is far more research on intergenerational equity issues – conserving resources for future generations – than there has been on intragenerational equity. The latter raises issues about the distribution of social welfare, social and territorial justice, and the geographies of power and democracy (Hall, 2010). Much of the research on sustainability,

particularly in more developed economies, considers these issues as a set of givens, and fails to address how the negotiation of the sustainability outcomes of tourism practices is deeply shaped by social cleavages. In part, it reflects the increasing hegemony of neoliberalism, where markets are seen to produce outcomes, and most sustainability policies are framed by these relationships (for example, using taxes to change the pricing of scarce resources or products with negative externalities, via taxes). In contrast, a system of allocative rationing would provide a very different social outcome to, say, access to long-haul travel and other activities with high carbon imprints. However, such approaches are well off stage in the present political climate, as – in reality – they also were in earlier, more social regulatory models (Esping-Anderson, 1990). Another issue in relation to the environment is whether tourism research has been not just multidisciplinary, in the sense of extending across the social sciences, but whether it has been transdisciplinary in terms of bridging the natural and social sciences. While environmental impacts are a long-established research concern in tourism studies, much of the research is poorly informed by natural science research (Butler, 2000). There are a number of reasons for this, including the difficulties of trying to bridge the theories, methods, and even the language of the social and natural sciences. There are few individuals with highly developed transdisciplinary research skills (for example, capable of publishing both in the top social and natural science journals), while transdisciplinary research teams often lack the shared understandings and terminologies that allow them to implement genuinely integrated research projects, or to edge towards new theories that cross the divide. Similar debates have been occurring in migration studies, and it is interesting to note the conclusions of the transdisciplinary team of Black et al. (2011: S10) in their widely lauded attempt to produce a new conceptual framework in this field. They stress the need to “focus attention away from the idea that environmental change directly causes migration, towards an understanding of the broader drivers of migration, and how these are susceptible in different and inter-linked ways to environmental change.” Tourism can be substituted for migration in this conclusion. Risk and uncertainty is another important agenda for tourism research. We noted in the conclusions to the first version of the Companion (Williams, 2004) that there had been a significant growth of concern with risk and uncertainty in response to a rapidly shifting series of challenges that included terrorism, war, international bio-insecurity, and economic uncertainty. There has been no lessening subsequently of tourism and tourist concern around any of these issues and, indeed, 2008 turned out to be a pivotal moment in the emergence of chronic and systemic insecurity in the global economic system. Moreover, the growth of the Internet, and especially of the social media, have effectively provided an amplification system, whereby images of dead or devastated tourists or tourism destinations can be beamed almost instantly around the world, undermining most of the traditional means of bad news management, and destination marketing. Tourism researchers have, of course, responded to these emerging challenges, and there have been studies of demand adjustment in response both to the 2008 economic crisis and to particular natural or political crises (Sönmez and Graefe, 1998). There is also a substantial and expanding literature on risk management (Chapter 49) dealing mainly with how

organizations respond to, learn from, and plan how to respond to crises. Another important avenue of research has focused on individual risk perceptions (Reisinger and Mavondo, 2005). Once again, it seems we have strongly emerging research areas that focus on individual parts of the tourism-risk relationship, but not on the entire system. How do understandings of risk among tourists, organizations, and governments differ, and – more fundamentally – does our research on them allow integration of knowledge across actors and scales? This is essentially a question of how we conceptualize risk (Park and Reisinger, 2010). The fundamental divide is between the positivist approaches which see risk as measurable, “objective,” and out there, as opposed to those who see it as socially constructed (Taylor-Gooby and Zinn, 2006). How do you reconcile, for example, the findings from a behavioral economics study of risk that seeks to measure individual risk tolerance (Williams and Baláž, 2013) with a sociology of how risk discourses are constructed both in the popular and policy domains (Cohen and Neal, 2010)? Globalization constitutes a number of processes and challenges for tourism (Held, 2000). First there are the changing spatialities of tourism flows, reflecting a shift in the traditional divides between the Global North and South, and the Global East and West (see Chapter 1). However, while there is no doubt of the growing scale of domestic and international tourism centered on countries such as South Korea and China, the globalization of tourism remains highly uneven. The predominant trend is towards macroregionalization. For example, most of the principal destinations of the burgeoning outbound Chinese tourism market are to be found in Asia, while most of the leading destinations for European tourists are other European countries. Additionally, the most significant spatial reordering has so far been confined to East and Southeast Asia, and there are still large parts of the world's population, particularly in subSaharan Africa, who do not participate in any form of activity as tourists, let alone international tourists. A second set of globalization issues center on the globalization of capital (Chapter 15), and there is growing challenge to the power and reach of the transnational companies of the Global North, whether in terms of airlines or hotel chains. However, there is more macroregionalization than “true” globalization, and highly uneven participation and control over transnational capital. A number of points arise from this, including the changing relationships between transnational companies and different national regulatory systems, and the interaction between local and global suppliers. Thirdly, the internationalization of labor constitutes another aspect of globalization (Chapter 10). This represents not only the transfer of human capital, but also of encultured and embedded tacit knowledge (Williams, 2006), with implications for firm performance and innovation (Paraskevopoulou et al., 2012). Finally, there is the globalization of information and images, driven by corporations, national tourism organizations, and especially social media, which are fundamentally transforming the relationships between producers and tourists, and posing significant challenges for destination marketing and product development (Chapter 16). The final theme in this review chapter addresses an important set of issues around mobility rights that tourism researchers are only just starting to explore (Coles and Hall, 2011). Rights have traditionally been highly location-specific, and since at least the nineteenth century, and to varying degrees before and since then, have been territorially delimited by state boundaries (Brysk and Gershon, 2004). Typically these rights are defined in terms of citizenship and

permanent or temporary residence, but this position is much weaker in respect of tourists. Of course, while traveling abroad citizens have been able to make some claims on their national governments, ranging from consular support in the case of accidents or losses to evacuation under conditions of extreme crisis. However, the continuing growth of international tourism is intensifying the demand for such extraterritorial support. There are also some supranational arrangements – notably among European Union states, but also between New Zealand and Australia, among others – which extend extraterritorial rights beyond national boundaries to tourists in respect of health care, second-home ownership, and entrance fees (e.g. not being discriminated against compared to local residents) (Bauböck, 2006). But there are also spaces, such as international airports, where the rights of individuals remain hazy. And the growing use of the Internet to purchase tourism services across national boundaries also raises questions about the rights of tourists; who and where does one turn to for recourse, whether in response to criminal deception or to unsatisfactory tourism experiences? The ascription of citizenship rights still lags well behind the reality of an increasingly mobile population. What rights permanent residents should possess compared to second-home owners, seasonal residents, tourists, and visitors is something that is still largely worked out in practice, often in the resolution of land use or other conflicts, rather than being firmly theoretically or legally grounded.

Looking Outside the Box: Redefining the Tourism Research Agenda This broader framing of the key issues and the key players in tourism is, of course, profoundly mediated by power relationships, built firmly, but not only, on social cleavages of class, income, gender, ethnicity, and spatiality (Chapter 5). Moreover, this then becomes locked into a different set of power structures in academia, which shape not only who does the researching and publishing (Chapter 25) but also who defines what constitutes the research agendas. An outsider reviewing the research undertaken and published in the tourism field would be likely to form the impression of a vast array of largely incremental research being undertaken by a small army of researchers unevenly distributed across the globe, and highly unevenly connected to each other. To some extent this is driven by the relationships between tourism researchers and public- and private-sector policy-makers and organizations who habitually seek answers, or at least insights, into the issues that they face and must resolve here and now, whether for economic survival or to improve outcomes for communities. Such links are much closer in hospitality than in tourism research, perhaps because of the way the former is rooted more in management studies. Even so, it is difficult to avoid the conclusions that often we have been unable to see the wood for the trees: we have focused so much on what exists in terms of small parts of the tourism system that we have failed to ask the questions of why things exist in the form they do. In Chapter 25 Pritchard questions the highly gendered nature of tourism research, in terms of both what is researched and who does the research, and in Chapter 19 Meethan raises similar

issues in respect of ethnicity. This is part of a more general set of power-based inequalities, in relation to which voices are heard in tourism studies. The voices of the poor, the Global South, and non-Western cultures are all muffled. Not only does this raise fundamental equity issues, but it necessarily means that our understanding of tourism is less complete than it should be, and at worst barely gets below the surface of the phenomena that we study. Tourism studies has made significant contributions in some respects, notably in the now substantially critiqued concept of pro-poor tourism (Harrison, 2008), the growth of non-Western perspectives on Asian tourism (Winter, 2009), and in some strands of sustainable tourism research (although note the reservations expressed earlier). But we often allow the underlying power structures to remain out of sight. Or we do not ask fundamental questions about how tourism activity is not only shaped by deep structural inequalities but contributes to their reproduction. Investment in, and the production and distribution of, tourism services are parts of the process of uneven capitalist accumulation (Chapter 4). Tourism practices are part of the embedding of particular forms of consumption in capitalist and quasicapitalist societies, including the globalization of preferences and values.

The Trajectory of the Tourism Academy The nature of the tourism academy has changed significantly in recent decades. Tourism as a field of study initially emerged from the efforts of scholars embedded in particular disciplines. For example, Erik Cohen's early and seminal work on the sociology of tourism was published in journals such as Social Research (Cohen, 1972), and much of the early work on tourism impacts emerged from economics and geography departments. Several decades later, tourism has developed a plethora of its own journals, conferences, and associations. There have also been major institutional changes, with the emergence of separate undergraduate and postgraduate courses, departments, and even colleges dedicated to tourism and hospitality, and more recently to events. Tourism researchers increasingly focus on publishing in tourism journals, and in particular in “the top tourism journals” as defined in terms of impact factors (Benckendorff and Zehrer, 2013; Xiao et al., 2013). This has occurred for a variety of reasons, many related to the highly constructed notion of what constitutes “the top journals,” the role of government-mandated research assessment exercises, and for some to their training. In contrast, they are only lightly represented in the pages of the leading geography, sociology, and economics journals, although they are better represented in some of the environmental ones. This raises the inevitable question of whether the tourism academy has built itself an academic silo, which has constrained its effective engagement with the wider social sciences, and with critical social science in particular. Perhaps this is inevitable in any “sector-oriented” field of studies, and perhaps tourism is not so different from, say, agricultural studies or mining studies, in this respect. But the outcome is the same: tourism researchers have increased their potential to interact as a community while being less successful in building strong bridges to other disciplines. Academic cosmopolitanism should be the goal: being open to, and contributing to, ideas in other disciplines and fields, and to theoretical and methodological insights globally, rather than the hegemonic Anglo-American domain. There are also significant

challenges in terms of being subject to shared systems of academic evaluation and refereeing, within both the social sciences and the sciences. This sentiment echoes some of our reflections in the conclusions to the first manifestation of this Companion, published a decade earlier. However, it will probably take at least another decade before we have a clearer understanding of whether that goal is just out of sight or just within our reach.

References Ayikoru, M. 2009. Epistemology, ontology and tourism. In Philosophical Issues in Tourism, J. Tribe (ed.), pp. 62–79. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Bauböck, R. 2006. Migration and Citizenship: Legal Status, Rights and Political Participation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Baxter, J. and Eyles, J. 1997. Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing ‘rigour’ in interview analysis. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, 22: 505–25. Benckendorff, P. and Zehrer, A. 2013. A network analysis of tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 43: 121–149. Black, R., Adger, N., Arnell, N.W., Dercon, S., Geddes. A., and Thomas, D.S.G. 2011. The effect of environmental change on human migration. Global Environmental Change, 21S: S3– S11. Brysk, A. and Shafir, G. (eds) 2004. People Out of Place: Globalization, Human Rights and the Citizenship Gap. New York: Routledge. Butler, R.W. 2000. Tourism and the environment: a geographical perspective. Tourism Geographies, 2: 337–358. Cohen, E. 1972. Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39: 164–182. Cohen, E. and Neal, M. 2010. Coinciding crises and tourism in contemporary Thailand. Current Issues in Tourism, 13: 455–475. Cohen, S., Higham, J.E.S., and Cavaliere, C.T. (2011). Binge flying: behavioural addiction and climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 1070–1089. Coles, T. and Hall, C.M. 2011. Rights and regulation of travel and tourism mobility. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3: 209–223. Crang, M. 2002. Qualitative methods: the new orthodoxy? Progress in Human Geography, 26: 647–655. Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M., Ceron, J.-P., and Dubois, G. 2012. Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 39: 36–58. Hall, C.M. 2010. Equal access for all? Regulative mechanisms, inequality and tourism mobility. In Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects, S. Cole and N. Morgan (eds), pp. 34–48. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Hall, C.M. 2012. Spatial analysis: a critical tool for tourism geographies. In The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies, J. Wilson (ed.), pp. 163–173. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A. (eds) 1998. Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. London: Longman. Hall, C.M. and Page, S. 2010. The contribution of Neil Leiper to tourism studies. Current Issues in Tourism, 13: 299–309. Harrison, D. 2008. Pro-poor tourism: a critique. Third World Quarterly, 29: 851–868. Held, D. 2000. Introduction. In A Globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics, D. Held (ed.), pp. 1–12. London: Routledge. Markwell, K. and Basche, C. 1998. Using personal diaries to collect data. Annals of Tourism Research, 25: 228–231. Paraskevopoulou, A., Markova, E., Williams, A.M., and Shaw, G. 2012. Migration and innovation at the bottom end: understanding the role of migrant managers in small hotels in the global city. Mobilities, 7: 389–414. Park, K. and Reisinger, Y. 2010. Differences in the perceived influence of natural disasters and travel risk on international travel. Tourism Geographies, 12: 1–24. Reisinger, Y. and Mavondo, F. 2005. Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: implications of travel risk perception. Journal of Travel Research, 43: 212–225. Riley, R.W. and Love, L.L. 2000. The state of qualitative tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 27: 164–187. Song, H. and Li, G. 2008. Tourism demand modelling and forecasting—a review of recent research. Tourism Management, 29: 203–220. Sönmez, S. and Graefe, A. 1998. Influence of terrorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 25: 112–144. Taylor-Gooby, P. and Zinn, J.O. 2006. Risk as an interdisciplinary research area. In Risk in Social Science, P. Taylor-Gooby and J.O. Zinn (eds), pp. 20–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tribe, J. 2010. Tribes, territories and networks in the tourism academy. Annals of Tourism

Research, 37: 7–33. Vasiliadis, C. and Kobotis, A. 1999. Spatial analysis – an application of nearest–neighbour analysis to tourism locations in Macedonia. Tourism Management, 20: 141–148. Williams, A.M. 2004. Contemporary themes and challenges in tourism research. In A Companion to Tourism, A.A. Lew, C.M. Hall, and A.M. Williams (eds), pp. 611–619. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Williams, A.M. 2006. Lost in translation: international migration, learning and knowledge. Progress in Human Geography, 30: 588–607. Williams, A.M. and Baláž, V. 2013. Tourism, risk tolerance and competences: travel organization and tourism hazards. Tourism Management, 35: 209–221. Winter, T. 2009. Asian tourism and the retreat of Anglo-western centrism in tourism theory. Current Issues in Tourism, 12: 21–31. Xiao, H., Jafari, J., Cloke, P., and Tribe, J. 2013. Annals: 40–40 vision. Annals of Tourism Research, 40: 352–385.

Index ABBA Festival (Trundle) Aborigines Academy of Hope access actor-network theory (ANT) partnerships relational geography technologies adventure tourism nature-based tourism advisories see travel advisories Africa aging Agnew, John agriculture land-use tourism water security aid organizations air transportation see aviation airports delays security shopping retail centres transnational space Algeria All Creatures Great and Small alternative tourism defined

development environmental protection livelihood Alzheimer's disease amenity; see also amenity migration place attractiveness amenity migration second homes Americas Anderson, Hans Christian Andorra Annals of Tourism Research Anne of Green Gables Antarctic anthropocene anthropology anti-semitism Appadurai, Arjun Arab Spring Arctic Argentina Buenos Aires Art Murmur district (Oakland) artificial reef Asian Development Bank Asian tourism research Asia-Pacific Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Association of American Geographers (AAG) Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS)

Ateljevic, Irena attraction Australasia Australia New South Wales Byron Bay Falls Creek Parkes Sydney Tamworth The Tocks Northern Territory Uluru (Ayers Rock) Queensland Brisbane Victoria Melbourne Austria Salzburg automobilities defined aviation and biofuels carrier accidents charter services economic geography of emissions Ayikoru, Maureen Ayurveda B&B see bed and breakfast

Battery Park (Manhattan) battlefield tourism bed and breakfast behavioralism Belhassan, Yaniv Benedorm effect Bhaskar, Roy Bhutan Bianchi, Raoul binge consumption biodiversity; see also ecology conservation; see also national parks defined loss biofuel aviation water footprint biopolitics boat dragonboat racing events marine tourism noise borderlands borders mobility constraints Boschma, Ron Bosker, Gideon Bourdieu, Pierre Boxing Day tsunami

Brandt Report (Independent Commission on International Development Issues) Braveheart Brazil Rio de Janeiro British Columbia Wilderness Tourism Association Britton, Steve Brouder, Patrick Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development) Buddhism bushfire business travel Butler, Richard Byrne, Denis Cairngorm Mountains (Scotland) Calgary Exhibition and Stampede Cambodia Canada Alberta Canmore Ontario St. Jacobs Toronto Prince Edward Island Canary Wharf (London) capital flow carbon footprint calculation cardiology Caribbean carrying capacity

ecological GPS data precautionary principle casino Caton, Kellee Cayman Islands Central America; see also Latin America Central Europe; see also Europe cetaceans Chabad Movement Chambers, Donna Channel Tunnel Chicago School of Economics China Beijing Gansu Shanghai Yangshuo Yunnan Dali Lake Legu Chinatown (San Francisco) Christianity Church, Andrew Churchill, Neil circular statistics circulation citizenship commercialization digital

medical climate change adaptation direct impacts economic geography governance indirect impacts mobilities policy resilience social construction tourism transport vulnerability cluster creative gay and lesbian coastal and marine tourism academic focus climate change development strategy environmental impacts of research approaches Coles, Tim Collins, Greg commodification authenticity care cultural geography ethnicity

language place promotion political economy souvenirs commodity chain communication studies community festivals migrant policy religious researching community-based tourism compulsion to proximity conspicuous consumption consumer addiction consumer behavior anticonsumerism branding shopping social media taste consumer boycotts consumer society consumerism; see also consumer behavior; consumer society consumption conspicuous economic geography experience economy patterns

place regulation theory souvenirs Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Cook, Thomas coral bleaching Coronation Street corporate social and environmental responsibility (CSR) corporeal proximity Costa Rica Council for Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) country music Crang, Mike creative industry cultural quarters special interest tourism Cresswell, Tim crime crisis defined economic financial pension planning recovery response critical theory critical tourism perspectives critical tourism studies movement critiques

inclusion methodologies pedagogy researcher reflexivity critical turn technology Croatia Dubrovnik Crocombe, Ron cruise tourism shopping and retail Cuba Culler, Jonathon cultural capital cultural change cultural city cultural distance cultural economy cultural geography see geography cultural industry; see also creative industry cultural quarter cultural turn geography culture consumer entrepreneurial global material tourism Current Issues in Tourism

cyclone Cyprus Famagusta Czech Republic Czechia Darjeeling Himalayan Railway (DHR) dark tourism Darling Harbourplace (Sydney) data mining GPS data Davies, Justine Davos Declaration on Climate Change and Tourism daytripping decision-making precautionary research deforestation de Kadt, Emanuel demonstration effect defined Denmark dependency dependency theory Desforges, Luke Desmond, Jane destination attributes development economic connectivity entrepreneurship

marketing and promotion souvenirs tourist flows to tourist flows within destination area destination marketing organization (DMO) development studies deworldment Dicken, Peter digital citizenship digital economy digital footprint digital individual; see also privacy digital media digital networks digital space digital technology see digital media disaster see crisis disaster planning Disney, Walt dissonant heritage Docklands (Melbourne) Dollywood dolphins domestic tourism transport Dominica Dourish, Paul dragon boat racing Dredge, Diane

Dubai Duval, David e-governance; see also governance earthquake Eastern Europe; see also Europe ecological footprint see global footprint ecology; see also biodiversity resilience economic development local and regional preservation economic geography see geography Economic Geography economic linkage economics Chicago School development evolutionary economy capitalist creative cultural digital experience global informal island low-carbon night political

rural symbolic ecosystems; see also biodiversity coastal and marine ecotourism; see also national parks; wilderness Ecuador Agua Blanca educational travel effective tourism exclusion zone (ETEZ) Egypt Egyptian Center for Women's Rights Elvis Revival Festival (Parkes) embedded cognition embodiment emotional labor emotions enclave tourism medical entrepreneurship changing research agenda entrepreneurial cultures entrepreneurial processes; see also innovation lifestyle local motivations networks sustainable environment environmental change; see also climate change environmental ethics

environmental health environmental impact see environmental change environmental justice environmental law environmental values see environmental ethics environmentalism enworldment EQUATIONS Eriksson, Rikard Estonia ethics research ethnic enclaves ethnic tourism ethnicity defined ethnography autoethnography visual ethnomethodology Europe European Sport Management Quarterly European Union Directives Emission Trading Scheme Schengen Agreement Event Management events gay and lesbian hallmark

religious roles sporting trends evolutionary economic geography (EEG) see geography evolutionary turn excursion see daytripping experience economy defined experience landscapes geography experiencescape experiential landscape externalities fantasy events farmers' markets Fashionable Tour Featherstone, Mike Federal Communications Commission (FCC) feminist theory FIFA World Cup Fiji film financial budget Finland Rovaniemi firm survival Fisherman's Wharf (San Francisco) fishing

Flavell, Adrian Flognfeldt, Thor Florida, Richard focus groups food religion food tourism Formula One fossil fuel Foucault, Michel France Languedoc Paris Frankfurt School see critical theory Franklin, Adrian Frenken fun Ganges River gap year Garland, Alex gaze; see also tourist gaze gazing; see also tourist gaze digital landscape sexualized Geertz, Clifford gender assignment critical tourism studies identity

labor mobility General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) Geographic Information System (GIS) geography cultural economic evolutionary economic geography landscape relational Germany Berlin Ghana Gibson, Chris Giddens, Anthony Gide, Andre Gilmore, James global footprint biodiversity climate change land use scope water Global North Global Positioning System (GPS) global sex trade Global South global warming see climate change globalization defined development

economic events heritage resistance shopping transnational corporations governance development of concept e-governance environmental heritage metagovernance participative government; see also governance, neoliberalism federal governance local and regional postnational Graceland Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Grand Tour Great Barrier Reef Great Wall of China Greece Crete Gretzel, Ulrike grey economy see informal economy Guggenheim museums Guinea

Kankan Habermas, Jurgen habitat Hadrian's wall Hall, C. Michael Hägerstrand, Thorsten Hancock, Mary Hannam, Kevin Harry Potter Hartwick, Elaine Hawai'i Declaration on Tourism Hazburn, Waleed Heartbeat hegemony applied business research agenda English language neoliberal heritage; see also World Heritage conservation landscape language religious sport tourism mobilities transport heterolocal lifestyles; see also second-home tourism Hinduism Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act (UK) homophobia Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region (SAR)

Hong Kong Hooks, Bell hopeful tourism; see also alternative tourism critiques of hospitality critical entrepreneurship gender migrant workers mobilities sexual harassment small business hostessing Hotel du Vin housing studies Hudson River human rights Hungary Hurricane Katrina Iceland Icelandic ash cloud identity, personal; see also gender; national identity immobilities implementation e-governance entrepreneurs and networks income inequality Independent Commission on International Development Issues (Brandt Report) India Chennai

Mumbai indigenous knowledge indigenous people human rights language souvenirs Indonesia Bali Bandung informal economy Information Technology and Tourism (ICT); see also Internet globalization Inglis, Fred innovation; see also entrepreneurship economic geography employee knowledge transfer networks regional resilience sectoral small firm tourism tourism regional innovation system tourism sectoral innovation system tourist types institutional arrangements innovation networks institutional thickness

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) International Federation for Information Technologies in Travel and Tourism International Geographical Union Commission on Tourism, Leisure and Global Change International Journal of Urban and Regional Research International Labour Organization (ILO) International Monetary Fund (IMF) Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) international tourism arrivals environmental implications expansion forecasts International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Internet; see also ICT e-governance globalization health information interviews Iraq Ireland Dublin Shannon Islam sex tourism island tourism Italy Capri Naples Palermo Pompei

Rome Taormina Jainism Jamaica Port Royal Japan Jaramillo, Nathalia Johnston, Ron Jordan Journal of Air Transport Management Journal of Ecotourism Journal of Sport & Tourism Journal of Sport Management Journal of Sustainable Tourism Journal of Transport Geography Journal of Travel Research Judaism just tourism; see also alternative tourism justice tourism; see also alternative tourism Kazakhstan Kenny, Erin Kentucky Derby Festival Kincheloe, Joe Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara kiteboarding Kros labor see tourism labor Laos Vientiane Larsen, Jonas

Latin America Law, John learning region Lefebvre, Henri leisure constraints economy landscapes space tourism, relationship to transport work, relationship to leisure studies Lencek, Lena length-of-stay Lewis, Virginia life-history narratives lifestyle entrepreneurship lifestyle mobility; see also second-home tourism literary arts Livingstone, David local economic development see economic development local government see government Löfgren, Olaf longitudinal studies Lusch, Robert Macau Special Autonomous Region (SAR) MacCannell, Dean Magh Mela festival (India) Malaysia

Sabah Maldives management business destination disaster event growth knowledge network risk sport strategy visitor Maoz, Darya marine tourism see coastal and marine tourism market segmentation marketing campaigns destination niche organizations Markov chains Martin, Ron Marxism masculinism mass tourism night economy material culture McHugh

McIntosh, Alison McLaren, Peter media; see also ICT mass social mediascapes medical tourism destinations generation Mediterranean Meethan, Kevin mega-mall Mennonite Merriman, Peter metagovernance see governance methodology Mexico Cancun Middle East Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries migration economic entrepreneurial labor lifestyle second-home Millennium Bridge (Gateshead) Millennium Development Goals Mings, Robert mobile city

mobilities aeromobilities automobilities communicative corporeal travel ethnicity global heritage imaginative labor methods rights mobilities paradigm mobility turn modernization theory more-than-representational geographies Morgan, Nigel Morocco Tangier Morrison, Alison multilocal living; see also second-home tourism multiple dwelling; see also second-home tourism multiplier effects museumization museums retail music Myanmar national identity national parks

nature nature-based tourism adventure tourism neoliberalism neo-Marxism Netherlands Amsterdam networks; see also governance; planning entrepreneurial innovation public policy self-governing new public management New Zealand Kaikoura Queenstown Niagara Falls night economy nongovernmental organization (NGO) Nordic region North America North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) North, Douglass Northern Cyprus see Cyprus Famagusta Northern Europe; see also Europe Norway nostalgiascape Oakes, Timothy Oceania

Oceans Act (Canada) O'Dell, Tom Olympic Games Summer Oppermann, Martin Oswin, Natalie outbound tourism overseas experience (OE) Paasi, Ansi Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) Pacific Islands package tour Parker, Stanley participant observation partnership see networks Pattana, Kitiarsa pedestrian zones pension crisis performance districts information technology staged authenticity performity Peru Philippines photo-elicitation photography digital landscape tourist gaze

physiology Picard, Michel picturesque pilgrimage Pine, Joseph place commodification ethnic heritage identity landscapes promotion remembrance representation second homes signification urban placecentric design planning conservation events experiential human resource infrastructure institutions land use scenario second homes spatial strategic

tourism planning town planning Plog, Stanley Poland political economy commodification comparative defined institutions regulation theory policy analysis change defined events governance learning projectification politics climate science cultural gender heritage Third Way pollution air beach cross-boundary noise water

population geography Port Campbell National Park Portugal Port Vell (Barcelona) positionality positivism postcolonialism postdisciplinarity postmodernity tourist gaze postpositivism poststructuralism poststructural feminism poverty; see also poverty reduction homophobia poverty reduction power academy geographies precautionary principle defined Pritchard, Annette privacy public pro-poor tourism see poverty reduction public administration e-governance public policy see policy publically funded research Qatar

qualitative research crisis research innovation studies landscapes medical tourism motivations partnerships retail souvenirs scholarship sport tourism sustainable development urban tourism quantitative research crisis research innovation studies landscapes linguistics medical tourism motivations partnerships retail souvenirs scholarship sport tourism sustainable development urban tourism visual research Raitz, Vladimir Rajotte, Fred rational choice real tourism

recreation regional government see government relational turn religion residential tourism; see also second-home tourism resilience resort resource management responsible tourism Rio Carnival risk Rojek, Chris Romanticism Romantic movement Ross, Michael route Roy, Sujama rural tourism second homes Russia safari Salazar, Noel scale and tracking technologies Schengen Agreement scuba seasonality second-home tourism impacts location

meanings and motivations migration secondary data sets self-guided tours serious leisure service-dominant logic (SDL) severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) sexual harassment sexualization sight sacralization Silk Road Singapore Chinatown Clarke Quay Kampung Glen Little Asia Singapore River Singapore Urban Development Authority situated action Slovenia slow tourism; see also alternative tourism small and medium enterprises (SMEs) models of growth Smith, Melanie Smith, Stephen Smith, Valene snowbirds social capital social geography see geography social justice

social media social psychology social welfare Somalia Sound of Music South Africa Cape Town Johannesburg South America South Korea Saemangeum Southeast Asia; see also Asia-Pacific Southern Africa; see also Africa souvenirs consumption perception space space–time compression Spain Asturia Balearic Islands Barcelona Benidorm Bilbao Calviá Cataluña Gran Canaria Ibiza Murcia Santiago de Compostela

Seville spatial analysis spatial behavior intervening factors modelling interdestination tourist movements modelling intradestination movements path dimension territoriality spatial fixity spatial governance spatial proximity spatial structure special-interest tourism spiritual capital spiritual tourism spirituality; see also religion stag night stakeholder strategy sublime sub-Saharan Africa; see also Africa; Southern Africa sunlust supply chain surfing surveillance society; see also privacy sustainability local events sustainable development events

development theory precautionary principle sustainable tourism; see also alternative tourism; sustainable development heritage tourism Sweden Dalarna Umeä system climate earth economic innovation political resilience socio-technical tourism systems theory Taiwan Tanzania technology; see also ICT diffusion economic driver Telfer, David Temple Bar (Dublin) temporary mobility Terkenli, Theano territorial justice terrorism; see also crime surveillance Thailand

Bangkok Phuket theme park Third Way politics time budget time geography time-space diary Times Square Tobler, Waldo tourism academic institutions disciplinarity statistical definition Tourism Area Life Cycle Tourism Geographies tourism imaginary tourism labor experiences human capital market characteristics mobility significance study of Tourism Management tourism multipliers Tourism New Zealand Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSAs) Tourism Society tourism system see system; systems theory Tourism and Travel Research Association (TTRA)

tourist decision-making tourist flows see spatial behavior; trips tourist gaze; see also gazing family landscape tourist motivation concept use history of study of positive psychology tourist shopping villages (TSVs) tourist talk transit transit route transport costs transportation studies spatial tracking transworldment travel advisories Tribe, John trips; see also spatial behavior and consumer characteristics direct route itinerary trip types partial orbit return Tunisia Turkey typologies sport tourism

ubicomp (pervasive and ubiquitous computing) uncertainty United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Cornwall Gateshead Hope Valley Kingston-upon-Hull Liverpool London Manchester Scotland South Tyneside Yorkshire United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) United Nations Habitat (UN-Habitat) United Nations List of Protected Areas United Nations Millennium Development Goals United Nations World Tourism Organization 2020 Vision Global Report on Women in Tourism leadership United States of America Arizona Palm Springs California Hollywood Los Angeles Oakland

San Francisco Florida Miami Hawai'i Honolulu Louisiana New Orleans Maine Nevada Las Vegas New England New Hampshire Baltimore New York New York South Dakota Tennessee Memphis Pigeon Forge unworldment urban tourism Urry, John vacation homes see second homes values VanderZwaag, David Vesuvius Vietnam Sapa Visiting Friends and Relations (VFR) visitor access

visual research; see also gaze volunteer tourism; see also gap year von Gloeden, Wilhelm von Platten, August vulnerability climate wakeboarding Wall Drugstore wanderlust water use Waterton, Emma Wearing, Stephen weather events wellbeing; see also medical tourism wellness tourism; see also medical tourism whales wilderness; see also ecotourism; national parks; nature conflicts demand experience tourism Wilderness Society (Australia) Williams, Allan M. windsurfing wine tourism; see also food tourism Wingspread Conference Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act (WCPSA) (USA) working holiday; see also gap year

World Bank World Commission on Environment and Development see Brundtland Commission World Economic Forum (WEF) World Heritage World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) World Values Survey Worldwide Fund for Nature tourism policies Wutai Shan Yamuna River Yellowstone National Park Yeoh, Brenda yoga tourism Yosemite National Park Zambia Zilinger, Marlin Zimbabwe zoos Zukin, Sharon

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.