a framework of tourist attraction research

Annals ofikrrrm fixarch. Vol 14., pp 553-575, 1987 0160.7383157 $3 00 + 00

Printed m the USA All nghts reserved CopyrIght @ 1987 Perxamon Journals Inc and J. Jalan

A FRAMEWORK OF TOURIST ATTRACTION RESEARCH

Alan A. Lew Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: Although tourist attractions are fundamental to the very existence of tourism, there have been few attempts to come to terms with the breadth of approaches that have been employed in their study. An examination of research methods used in the study of tourist attractions and the tourist attractiveness of places reveals that most studies can be classified into one or more of three general perspectives: the ideographic listing, the organization, and the tourist cognition of attractions. Each of these perspectives shares a distinct set of questions concerning the nature of the attractions, as expressed through the typologies used in their evaluation. At the same time, all three perspectives make comparisons based on the historical, locational, and various valuational aspects of attractions. This framework can be applied in the comparison and evaluation of tourist attraction related research. Keywords: tourist attraction, research methods, research evaluation.

R&umC: Un cadre pour la recherche sur les attractions touristiques. Bien que les attractions touristiques soient fondamentales g l’existence mCme du tourisme, on n’a pas souvent consid&& les differentes facons d’iborder ce sujet. Une investigation des mCthodes de recherche que I’on peut em- ployer pour etudier les attractions touristiques aussi bien que le degrt d’inttrCt touristique d’un endroit don& rCvtle que la plupart des Ctudes peuvent &tre classtes dans au moins une des trois catkgories suivantes: le listage ideographique, l’organisation et la connaissance touristique des attractions. Chacune de ces catCgories comprend une sCrie distincte de questions au sujet de la nature des attractions, tel que cette nature s’expri- me 2 travers les typologies qui sont employCes dans I’tvaluation des attractions. Tout en &ant distinctes l’une de l’autre, chaque cattgorie se base sur des comparaisons semblables de l’histoire, de l’emplacement et d’autres aspects tvaluables des attractions. On peut utiliser ce cadre pour com- parer et Cvaluer les travaux de recherche relatifs aux attractions touristiques. Mots clef: attraction touristique, methodes de recherche, tvaluation de recherches.

Alan Lew is Assistant Professor of geography and public planning (Department of Geograph!! Box 15016, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ 86011, USA). He received his doctorate from the University of Oregon. His research interests include tourism and urban development, with particular emphasis on the western US and Asia.

553

34 TOC’RIST ATTRACTION RESEARCH

THE TOURIST ATTRACTION

Without tourist attractions there would be no tourism (Gunn 1972:24). Without tourism there would be no tourist attractions. Al- though a tautology, such an argument still points to the fundamental importance of tourist attractions and the attractiveness of places to tourism. Efforts at specificity often reduce the simple concept of “tourist attraction” to exploitable “resources” (Ferrario 1976:4), marketable “products” (Wahab et al 1976:38) and “images” (WTO 1980a, 1980b). or simply place “attributes” (Witter 1985: 16) or “features” (Polacek and Aroch 1984: 17). Most researchers, however, agree that attractions are the basic elements on which tourism is developed (Gunn 1979:48-73, 1980a; Lundberg 1980:33-40; Pearce 1981:30-Z).

In essence, tourist attractions consist of all those elements of a “non- home” place that draw discretionary travelers away from their homes. They usually include landscapes to observe, activities to participate in, and experiences to remember. Yet it can sometimes be difficult to differentiate between attractions and non-attractions. Transportation (e.g., cruise liners), accommodations (e.g., resorts), and other services (e.g., restaurants) can themselves take on the attributes of an attraction, further comp1icatin.g the distinction between various segments of the tourism industry. At times, tourists themselves can even become attractions (MacCannell 1976:130-l).

MacCannell (1976:109) proposes that a phenomenon must have three components to be considered an attraction: a tourist, a site to be viewed, and a marker or image which makes the site significant. These criteria could enable virtually anything to become a tourist attraction. Thus, “attraction” in its widest context would include not only the historic sites, amusement parks, and spectacular scenery, which are normally associated with the word, but also the services and facilities which cater to the everyday needs of tourists. Also included would be the social institutions which form the basis for the very existence of human habitation. Non-entertainment oriented attractions have been variously referred to as “comfort attractions” (Lew 1986a: 2 15), “condi- tional elements” (Hansen-Verbeke 1986:86), or have been categorized into “services and accommodations” (McIntosh and Goeldner 1984: 11) or the nebulous “other” (Gunn 1979:58; Polacek and Aroch 1984: 17).

Although the importance of tourist attractions is readily recognized, tourism researchers and theorists have yet to fully come to terms with the nature of attractions as phenomena both in the environment and in the mind (Gunn 1980a). An examination of some of the research related to tourist attractions reveals a consistent pattern of research questions and designs. The following discussion summarizes the range of approaches employed in the categorization of attractions, as revealed in recent tourism literature. The typologies, in part, reflect the nature of the various disciplines involved. However, in the least the review provides an initial step toward focusing on and understanding tourist attractions.

A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK

Research on tourist attractions have been undertaken from one or more of three broad perspectives: the ideographic definition and de-

ALANLEW 555

scription of attraction types, the organization and development of attractions, and the cognitive perception and experience of tourist attractions by different groups. Each perspective addresses a shared concern for a particular feature of tourist attractions. The essence of a comprehensive framework for tourist attraction typologies and research is based on these three perspectives. It is appropriate to consider each as one aspect of a single body of knowledge.

By comparing the different typologies employed by researchers, it is also possible to identify general continua against which attraction characteristics have been measured. In the examples below the identification of attractions as being natural or social, reflecting separation or connectivity, or offering security or risk are the principal continua basic to the three perspectives. Further refinements of such measures are, of course, necessary for use in research. For example, the nature-social continuum includes a range of attraction types from wilderness to parks and zoos to cities. Together, the three research perspectives and their accompanying continua of attraction categories comprise a comprehensive framework for understanding the diversity of typologies used in research on tourist attractions. The examples provided for each of these perspectives will clarify their differences.

The Idiographic Perspective

Attraction typologies which focus on the ideographic perspective describe the concrete uniqueness of a site, rather than an abstract universal characteristic. At the most concrete level are those typologies in which specific attractions are individually identified by name (Nef- fler 1975:38; Pitts and Woodside 1986:21; Woodside et al 1986:ll). The listing of specific attractions by name is most often used in studies of small areas, such as cities, although exceptions exist (Machlis et al 1984:81). A list of places or countries as attractions is a variation of this approach (Goeldner et al 1975:95; Perdue and Gutske 1985:171; White 1985:534). Inasmuch as these can be further placed into general types, named attractions are not further distinguished as a separate type of ideographic approach to this review.

By far, the most common attraction typologies are general ideographic descriptions of similar attraction types (Archer 197 7 : 104; Christaller 1955; Goodrich 1978:4; Graburn 1977:27; Gunn, 1980:265; Lew 1986a:16; Matley 1976:5; Peters 1969:148-g; Smith 1977:2-3; Wahab et al 1976:38-g). The use of Standard Industrial Codes (SIC) is an example of this approach (Frechtling 1976:69-71), although variations are significant. Attraction typologies for use in determining monetary flows normally use an ideographic approach, classifying attractions into different “expenditure types” (Archer 1977: 104; Kreck 1985:28). Tourist guide books usually classify attractions under a combination of both specific and general categories (e.g., Liounis 1985).

Not all typologies are intended to cover the entire spectrum of attractions. Stores (Keown et al 1984:27), restaurants (Smith 1985:588), accommodations (Price 1980:26), inner-city areas (Hansen-Verbeke 1986:86), spectator sports (Ritchie and Aitken 1985:30), participant

556 TOURIST ATTRACTION RESE.iRCH

sports (Fesenmaier 1985:19), outdoor recreation (Bryant and Morrison 1980:4), and cruiseship activities (Field et al 1985:4) are examples of subcategories of ideographic attraction types.

When combined with data on location, preference, perception, or participation, ideographic attraction typologies have been further generalized through the use of multidimensional analysis, such as factor analysis (Bryant and Morrison 1980:4; Eitzel and Swensen 1981:30; Goodrich 1977b:8; Pizam et al 1978:319; Witter 1985:18) and multidimensional scaling (Goodrich 1977a:12; 1978:4-6; Haahti 1986:21-i; Pearce 1982:107-11; Perry 1975:119-24).

Among the more detailed and comprehensive examples of ideographic attraction listings are those developed by Ferrario (1976:ll l- 14), Gearing et al (1976:93), Ritchie and Zinns (1978:256-7), the World Tourism Organization ( 1980a: 6- 17), and Shih ( 1986: 8). Using Ritchie and Zinns as an example, at the most general level this classification includes natural beauty and climate; culture and social characteristics; sport, recreation, and educational facilities; shopping and commercial facilities; infrastructure; price levels; attitudes toward tourists; and accessibility. Each of these facets is divided into a long series of elements, which are further divided into features that were inanimate, those that expressed normal daily life activities, and those involving activities beyond normal. Using this list, the researchers administered surveys to public and private sector tourism professionals to ascertain which elements were most important to the tourist attractiveness of the Canadian province of Quebec.

Ritchie and Zinns’ typology is typical of ideographic approaches. It allows an objective comparison of one destination with another in terms of attractions. Certain aspects, however, are missing in the typology. As with most ideographic typologies, limitations exist in the assessment of quality, management, and tourist motivation and preference for different attractions. Also lacking is an understanding of the spatial relationships between attractions. It might be possible to extrap- olate some of these aspects from the less strictly ideographic categories related to price levels, local attitudes toward tourists, and accessibility. These aspects tend to be more organizational and cognitive than ideographic.

When attempting to incorporate organizational or cognitive perspectives, ideographic typologies frequently become more abstract. For example, Schmidt (1979:447-8) distinguished different types of attractions based on aspects which made them unique and therefore of interest to tourists. Schmidt initially divided attractions into five types, based on their geographical, social, cultural, technological, or divine emphasis. These basic ideographic categories were than further divided into those associated with: origins, transitions, extremes, and changes. This typology was devised to try and explain why certain places are particularly prone to attract tourists. While the approach moves a step closer to incorporating the cognitive features of a site, at the same time, it loses the readily identifiable image of the attraction which is provided by the more clearly ideographic approach of Ritchie and Zinns.

In general, the less abstract and the more concrete the research is,

ALAN LEM’ 557

the more likely that it will incorporate an ideographic approach in the conceptualization of attractions. Every attraction has. some tangible, material presence. It is the appreciation and understanding of this presence that the ideographic approach represents.

For the most part, researchers have attempted to develop comprehensive typologies in which every possible attraction could be classified. The diversity of classification schemes indicates a somewhat arbitrary methodology. A review of a number of ideographic typologies, however, indicates the most basic distinction employed to be that between attractions which are nature-oriented and those with a human-orienta- tion. This distinction, however, is only explicitly expressed in the typologies proposed by Perry (1975:119) and Graburn (1977:27), although it is also the basic dichotomy found in Gunn (1979:57-8). Most other ideographic typologies are based on this same distinction, but with the nature and human attractions divided up among several categories. This is particularly true of the human-oriented attractions which tend to dominate most ideographic schemes. For example, while Ritchie and Zinns cover the nature-oriented attractions in one category (Natural beauty and climate), the human-oriented attractions are divided into seven basic types.’

One major difficulty some researchers encounter with a simple nature-human typology is in the classification of infrastructure and ser- vice facilities (e.g., Gunn 1979:57-8). While tourists use these facilities, they are not necessarily attracted to a specific location to see them. However, given the breadth of the definition of tourist attraction, as discussed above, such facilities do have value as attractions in that they contribute to the overall ambience of the tourist experience. Further, they are cultural manifestations and should, therefore, be included in the human-oriented attraction category.

A complete listing of the attraction categories used in the various ideographic typologies reviewed is shown in Table 1. These categories have been rearranged within the nature-human continuum. The table only includes general categories of attractions. It does not include all of the specific terminology employed among the reviewed typologies due to the inordinate length of this list. Nine categories of attractions are indicated, based on a matrix of Nature, Human and Nature-Human Interface across the top, and General Environments, Specific Features, and Inclusive Environments along the side. The horizontal categories portray three discrete groupings along the nature-human continuum. Human intervention in nature and natural intrusions into human-built environments require further refinements of the fundamental nature- human dichotomy and are included in the Nature-Human Interface attraction categories. The three vertical groupings of categories indicate different levels of ideographic attractions. General Environments are broad in scope and often large in scale. They generally require little or no tourist involvement to exist. Specific Features are notably smaller in scale and often have clear connections to tourism, although they are sometimes peripheral to major tourist interests. The tourists themselves are passive in their involvement with specific features. Inclusive Environments are the principal attractions which draw tourists to a destination. They are inclusive in that they are environments in which

558 TOCRIST ATTRXCTIOS RESE;\RCH

Table 1. Composite Ideograph Tourist Attraction Typology

Nature-Human Nature Interface Human

General Envlronmentr 1 Panoramas

Mountain Sea Coast Plain Arid Island

4 Observational 7 Settlement Infrastructure Rural/Agriculture Utility types Scientific Gardens Settlement Morpl~ology

Animals (zoos) Settlement Functions Plants Commerce Rocks & Archeology Retail

Finance Institutions

Government Education & Science Religion

People Way of Life Ethnicity

Specific Features: 2 Landmarks

Geological Biological

Flora Fauna

Hydrological

Inclusive Environments: 3 Ecological

Climate Sanctuaries

National Parks Nature Reserves

5 Leisure Nature Trails Parks

Beach Urban Other

Resorts

6 Participatory Mountain Activities

Summer Winter

Water Activities Other Outdoor

Activities

8 Tourist Infrastructure Forms of Access

To and from a Destination Destination Tour Routes

Information & Receptivity Basic Needs

Accommodations Meals

9 Leisure Superstructure Recreation Entertainment

Performances Sporting Events Amusements

Culture, History & Art Museums and Monuments Performances Festivals Cuisine

Generalized from the following sources: Archer 1977:104; Bryant and Morrison 1980:4; Christaller 1955; Crompton 1979:ZO; Doyle et al 1977:118-20; Eastlack 1982:28; Eitzel and Swensen 1981:30; Ferrario 1976:111-4; Gearing et al 1976:93; Goodrich 1977a:12; 1977b:& 1978:4; Graburn 1977:27; Gunn 1979:57-S; 198Obz265: Haddon 1960:287; Henshall and Roberts 1985:229-30; Hills and Lundgren 1977:258,261; Jensen-Verbeke 1986:86, 92; Kreck 1985:28; Lew 1986:16; Liounis 1985; Matley 1976:s; Machlis et al 1984:80; Neffeler 1975:38; Peters 1969:148-9; Pizam et al 1978:319-20; Polacek and Aroch 1984:17; Ritchie and Zinns 1978x256-7; Robinson 1976241-3; Schmidt 1979:447-E; Shih 1986:8; Smith 1977:2-3; US Department of Commerce 1961:33; Van Veen and Verhallen 1986:46; Wahab et al 1976:38-9; Witter 1985:16; Woodside et al 1986:lO; WTO 1980a:6-17.

tourists become completely absorbed in the attraction experience. All of the ideographic attractions examined in the literature fit within the typology proposed in Table 1.

The Organizational Perspectiue

Ideographic approaches are the most frequent form of attraction typology encountered in tourism research. The organizational perspective is a different research approach which does not necessarily examine the attractions themselves, but rather focuses on their spatial, capacity,

ALAK LEW 559

and temporal nature. In this approach, attraction typologies are developed to reflect these qualities.

Scale is the simplest basis for categorizing the spatial character of an attraction within an organizational perspective. Simple scale contin- uums are based on the size of the area which the attraction encompasses (Gunn 1972:40-42; Hills and Lundgren 1977:251-3; WTO 1980a:17). For example, a spatial hierarchy of attraction scale would progress from the smallest specific object within a site to entire countries and continents (Pearce 1982:99).

Scale considerations can provide insight into the organization of tourist attractions, their relationship to other attractions, and the relationship of attraction images to attractions themselves. These considerations are important in the planning and marketing of tourism. Tour- ism marketers promote the images of specific, small-scale attractions (which are easier to sell) to create identifiers for larger attraction complexes (Lew 1987; MacCannell 1976: 112; WTO 1980a). Planners are then faced with the problem of an over-concentration of demand at some tourist sites and underutilization of others.

Characteristics associated with the spatial integration of attractions provide a more detailed understanding of the influence of scale. Several approaches have specifically intended to highlight the spatial integration of attractions, including Gunn’s (1979:55, 1980b:265-6) distinction between “touring” and “destination” attractions and Pearce’s (198 1: 16-9) “catalytic-integrated” dichotomy.

According to Gunn, touring attractions are aimed at travelers who are in transit and are characterized by short visits to many dispersed and poorly integrated destinations. They, therefore, tend to not be of the same quality of attractions as destinations with long-term and repeat visitor demands. As the name implies, destination attractions are usually major centers of tourism and are characterized by numerous tourist activities integrated around a central point. For a tourism plan- ner, the primary considerations for touring attractions are mobility and access, whereas destination planning centers on providing a mix that offers both variety and stimulation. While Pearce’s dichotomy is based on the historical development and presence or lack of planning in resort communities, similar patterns of integrated (well planned) versus dis- junctive (spontaneous, unplanned) spatial patterns arise.

Related to the spatial scale of an attraction is its capacity. The spatial size of an attraction, however, may have little relationship to its capacity to accommodate large numbers of tourists. In addition to relative desirability, factors which can affect the tourism capacity of an attraction include the availability of services (lodging, food, merchandise, entertainment, etc.); the fragility of the attraction; the level of education and technological development; and community and political support for tourism (Peck and Lepie 1977:160-l; Rodenberg 1980).

In addition to the spatial situation of an attraction, the concepts of permanence and change affect the organization and development of tourist attractions. This is seen in the distinction between “temporal” and “site” attractions (Lundberg 1980:38) and can have a significant impact on visitor flow patterns and infrastructure development. An attraction characterized by a year-round flow of visitors is generally

560 TOURIST ATTR.XTIOS RESE.iRCH

better integrated into the local community than one with large seasonal fluctuations. Long-term and repeat vtsitors are also preferred over short-term, one-time visitors (Peck and Lepie 1977:160). In extreme situations, isolated special event attractions can place a serious burden on infrastructure capacities designed for fewer visitors (Lew 1985:9).

A listing of the attraction categories used in the various organizational typologies reviewed is shown in a matrix in Table 2. What these types of studies most fundamentally accentuate is the difference between the separation and connectivity of attractions. This dichot0m.y is applied to organizational typologies of both spatial (scale) and functional (integration, capacity, and temporal) nature. Along the side of the matrix are shown the different typologies focusing on spatial, capacity, and temporal aspects of attractions. Spatial typologies accentuate the spatial differences which exist between attractions developing in association with one another. In terms of size, attractions that are smaller in scope tend toward greater separation and less connectivity. This does not apply, however, to the size of the attraction’s market, where aspects of popularity (a cross-perspective measure) and renown (cognitive perspective) are more important. Capacity typologies, on the other hand, place principal emphasis on the internal organization of attraction. Temporal typologies focus on the organizational influence of time, both in terms of how long and when an attraction occurs and the time a visitor spends at the attraction.

The Cognitive Perspective

Studies of tourist perceptions and experiences of attractions consti- tute the third major approach to the study of tourist attractions. More so than with organizational perspectives, cognitive perspectives are sometimes found intermixed with ideographic categories, although in virtually all such cases the ideographic categories clearly predominate (Eastlack 1982:28; Henshall and Roberts 1985:229; Lickorish 1974:2; Neffeler 1975:36; Pearce 1982:107; Shih 1986:8; Wahab et al 1976:76).

Pearce defines a tourist place as “any place that fosters the feeling of being a tourist” (1982:98). One way that this feeling has been under- stood is through the juxtaposition of “outsideness” and “insideness” (Relph 1976:48-55). 0 ne of the goals of the tourist is to penetrate into the insideness or back region of the attraction in order to experience the authenticity of a place (MacCannell 1976:94). For the tourist, some risk is required to take this leap into authenticity. The review of cognitive-oriented research typologies indicates that the degree to which tourists are willing and able to take such a risk is a major indicator of the general experiences offered by different types of attractions.

Every environment, not just tourist places, has elements of security and risk. This is, however, a useful distinction to begin with. Tourist places can further be distinguished by those which are primarily intended for tourists and those which are not designed for them (Schmidt 1979:449). Tourists are, by definition, outsiders and places which are primarily intended for them tend to focus on security and the minimization of risk. As such, these safe attractions frequently occur in a staged, inauthentic and highly structured environment where tourists

,4LAi’! LEM 561

Table 2. Composite Organizational Tourist Attraction Typology

hdividuel/SeDeration CollectivitvfConnection

spatial Features: _ Unstructured Catalytic Unplanned infrastructure Inaccessible Admission/permit barrier Isolated Touring Nucleus Inviolate belt Remote Rural Suburban Outside SMSA Local scale Regional National Bulldi”gs/Site RegionelAocel

Structured Integratedg Planned infrastructureg Accessiblee Free entrya clusteredcdel Destinetiond e Zone of enclosureC Urbane Inside SMSAb International scalem Continentsjcountriesh

Caps&y Features: Craft tourism Slow growth Small/Low capacity

Temporal Peaturesz Event Itinerant, Short-term Single visitation

Smell industrial Transient development Medium

Large industrial tourismk Rapid growth’ Large/High capacitya

Sitef Resident, Long-termi Multiple visltetionde

Sources: eFerrario 1976:195-7; bGoeldner et al 1975:97; CGUM 1972:40-2, 44-523 dGU”n 1974:55; eGu”” 199op:255-6; fLundberg 1990:38; gPeerce 1991:16-9; hPeerce 1992:99; ‘Peck and Lepie 1977:160-l; JRobinson 1976:42; kRodenberg 1980; lSchmidt 1979:449; mWTO 198Oa:17.

primarily relate to the promoted or advertised image, rather than the direct experience of the site. MacCannell (1976:lll) refers to this as “marker involvement,” because the tourist is more interested in the label that is attached to the attraction than the attraction itself. Most historic sites, such as empty battlefields, are marker involvement types of attractions. Non-tourist oriented attractions involve greater risk, are less structured, and are generally more authentic. The tourists’ interest is stimulated by the actual site itself. The experience in this situation is one of “sight involvement,” or one where what is supposed to be seen does not interfere with what is seen and experienced. Outstanding natural landscapes and culturally unique places are examples where “sight involvement” often predominates over “marker involvement.”

The categories common to studies oriented toward the perception and experience of tourist attractions are shown in Table 3. In addition to the Security-Risk continuum, along the top, these typologies have been divided into those that focus on general Tourist Activities, the general Attraction Character, and the individual Tourist Experience, along the side. The Participatory category of the ideographic typology (Table 1) appears to overlap somewhat with the Tourist Activities category presented here. For example, a “campground” is clearly an ideographic attraction, however “camping” is more of an experience. Partic- ipation makes these attractions more than just sites to be observed. They remain ideographic, however, in that they do not attach a specific experience to the attraction. In theory, cognitive categories can be attached to any type of ideographic category (which further makes their intermixing with ideographic categories inappropriate).

562 TOURIST ATTRXCTION RESEARCH

Table 3. Composite Cognitive Tourist Attraction Typology

Security Risk

Tourist Activities: Educationrh place to talkk

Exerciser

Guided tours Passivee

Attraction Characters Contrived Staged Denial of authenticity Especially animated Inanimate Evoked set Inert set International/extended market National Regional Tourism oriented Touristy Structured/Organized Front region Modern Heard a lot about/Important placek

Tourist Experiences: Expensive/Luxury/

QuaHty/Prestigeeht SafelSanitaryCer Pleasant/FriendlyCdko Leisurely/Restful/

RelaxingfQuietfHomelyehkort Mass Produced Experience Common/Ordinarygm No role transformation Recreational Diversionary Marker involvement Familiar Easy dr quick/Easy to tourdgk

Economy/Reasonable Prices/ value for Moneydo

Different/Getting awaydhk Companionshi r Fun/Swinging I!1

Limited Ex erience Interestin b

Experiential Experimentai

Explorationr Face-to-face meetingh Unguided touringp Activeg

Authenticb Normal daily life” Inept setqs Local marketist Non-tourism orientedP Authenticg UnstructuredP Back regionl TraditionaI/Antiquatedgt Abeence of other tourists1

Inexpensive/ Cheapcklt

EscapismlFreedomr Novelty’ Adventurous/Wild/

Excitingegklort Individual Experiencef uniquegm Role transformationf Existentiala Sight involvementI Exoticg Effort to tow%

Sources: acohe” 1979a:l83; bCohen 1979bs26; Vrompton 1979:ZO; dHaahti 1986:lS; eH,enshall and Roberts 1985:229; fKotIer 1984:lO; gLew 1986b; hLickorish 1974:Z; iLundberg 1980:38; IMacCannell 1976:92, 111-7; kNeffeler 1975:33-8; IPearce 1982r107; mPiperoglou 1968:170; “Ritchie and Zinns 1978:257; oShih 198&S; PSchmidt 1979:449; qThompeon and Cooper 1979:24; rWahab et aI 1976:76; swoodside et al 1971:123; tWT0 1980bs27.

The major difference between cognitive typologies focusing on Tour- ist Activities and those within the Tourist Experience category is that the activity-oriented research tends to be primarily behavioral, while the experience-oriented research is approached from either behavioral or phenomenological perspectives. Mere preference for one type of attraction over another is not classified as being within the experiential perspective of this framework, but rather is a cross-perspective aspect.

The Attraction Character category refers to the general perceptual nature of the attraction. How animated (staged) and how well-known (evoked set) an attraction is are included in this category. Related to an attraction’s renown is the concept of market scale (Lundberg 1980:38), with internationally known attractions offering less risk in the tourist’s itinerary planning than smaller market attractions.

Cross- Perspective Measures

Two ways of combining ideographic, organizational, and cognitive perspectives have been identified. These are the combining of compli-

ALAN LEW 563

mentary categories from different perspectives, and research measures which are common to all three perspectives.

The ideographic, organizational, and cognitive perspectives have useful application within their defined contexts. No single approach, however, is able to cover the entire range of research interests on tourist attractions. Ideographic approaches, with their detailed and lengthy descriptive categories, tend to be weak in shedding insight on the organizational and experiential aspects of attractions. More abstract organizational categorizations can get bogged down in the specificity of ideographic categories and the diversity of human experiences. Cogni- tive approaches do not adequately address the complimentary and competitive nature of specific attractions, nor their spatial and temporal relationships. These shortcomings, however, are fully acceptable within the context of the research objectives of each approach, so long as they are recognized as such.

These differences do not preclude the combination of categories from different perspectives. Ideographic, organization, and cognitive approaches can even be quite complimentary to one another. For example, the experience of an individual at an attraction can be highly influenced by its organization, with poor infrastructure, and low quality services causing experiences of difficulty and incomprehensibility. As discussed above, the ideographic approach, due to its fundamental nature, is the most frequently used in combination with another perspective. Further examination of such cross-perspective relationships offers a potential venue for developing a comprehensive typology of tourist attractions.

Other measures of attraction research are more distinctly cross-perspective in that they can be employed in any of the three approaches described above. However, they are not typologies. Three of these have been identified: historical, locational, and valuational measures. His- torical measures compare one place at more than one point in time to determine trends and changes. Locational measures compare the same attraction categories at different locations. Valuational measures (the numeric rating of attractions) are obtained through visitor preference surveys, tourist attendance and usage rates, guidebook analysis, surveys of experts or professionals in the field, and economic expenditures and income (cf. Ferrario 1976; Lew 1986a). Whereas some form of valuation determination is included in most attraction research, historical and locational comparisons are limited to the research objectives of a particular study.

APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK TO PAST RESEARCH

The tourist attraction framework may be applied in several different ways. Its use in assessing the methodological approaches of selected tourist attraction studies is examined in depth here. The framework, used in this way, helps highlight the decisions which the researcher makes in formulating the research design. It also allows a better understanding of the relationship between different studies and of the utility of a single study within the context of the three perspectives.

56-i TOURIST .iTTRXCTIOS RESE;\RCH

For the sake of brevity, the examples chosen focus exclusively on t\vo types of subject matter: national or regional planning. and image studies. These have been selected because each is a major area of tourism research. Although the examples were chosen arbitrarily, they do provide the opportunity to explore the applicability of the framework as an evaluative tool.

Regional Planning Studies

Piperoglou (1966), in evaluating the tourist attractions of western Greece, undertook the following steps: 1. The definition of three main attraction types: “Ancient Greece,” “pic-

turesque villages and islands,” and “sun and sea.” 2. A survey of tourists to determine their preference for each attraction

type. 3. An evaluation of attractions to determine their “uniqueness.” 4. The mapping of attractions to determine their proximity to access

points within defined regions and to urban settlements of 50,000 or more people. Higher values were given to attractions with better accessibility.

5. Development priorities were assigned based on the overall value of each region.

The steps in Piperoglou’s study respectively involved the following aspects of the tourist attraction framework. 1. A nature versus human attraction tvpology (Ideographic Perspec-

tive, Panoramas, Leisure Nature, and Lei&d Sup&&ucture iate- gories). Of the three attraction types employed in the study, “picturesque villages and islands” is the most natural and of the Panoramas category (although the rural villages could also be of the Observa- tional category). “Sun and sea” is essentially a reference to beaches and resorts and clearly of the Leisure Nature ideographic category, while “Ancient Greece” is the most social, falling within the Leisure Superstructure category. An assessment of preference (Cross-Perspective, Valuation type). Tourist preference is one of the cross-perspective measures which can be applied to typologies based on any of the three perspectives. The survey used by Piperoglou resulted in an additional value given to the more popular of the attraction types. An experience measure of “uniqueness” (Cognitive Perspective, Tourist Experience category). This evaluation was used to distin- guish between individual attractions of the same attraction type, resulting in each attraction having its own numeric value. Two spatial measures of clustering and accessibility (Organizational Perspective, Spatial Features). These measures were given the strongest value as each coincidence of more than one attraction type within a days journey from a regional center raised the attraction value of that region by one power. Larger weights were given to regions with large urban centers, which implied better infrastructure and access

ALAN LEW 565

5. A location comparison of regions (Cross-Perspective, Locational type). Table 4 compares this study with the tourist attraction framework. It

is apparent from this summary that Piperoglou’s approach is a well balanced, using typologies associated with all three perspectives. One measure (with three categories) is provided from the ideographic perspective. This measure actually encompasses several different categories from Table 1. One measure (with two categories) is from the cognitive perspective. Two measures, both spatial features, are from the organizational perspective (two categories each). In addition, two measures are of the cross-perspective type. Although the study includes elements from all three perspectives, Piperoglou gave greater emphasis to the organizational measures, both in terms of having more of them and in the larger weighted values they received in determining regional attraction ratings. This is, therefore, primarily an organizational study.

In a similar evaluation of the tourist attractions of South Africa, Ferrario (1976) undertook the following approach: 1. Determination of 22 types of attractions (Ideographic Perspective,

most categories). In addition, these were further divided into 51 classes, which were still further subdivided. All of the nine categories of ideographic attractions were included.

2. Survey of tourist demand for the basic 22 types of attractions (Cross- Perspective, Valuation type). Tourist demand here is the same as preference in Piperoglou’s study above. It is essentially used to rank types of attractions.

3. Determination of the appeal or popularity of the attraction types (Cross-Perspective, Valuation type). This was based on the frequen- cy that the type of attraction was mentioned in a number of tourist

Table 4. Piperoglou’s Evaluation of Tourist Attraction in Western Greece

Perspective and Categcw TYoolo~~ and Form of Evaluation

Ideographicr Panoramas, Leisure Nature, and Leisure Infrastructure

Organizationalr Spatial Features

Spatial Features Accessible - Isolated (presence of city of 50,000 or more in the region)

Cognitive: Tourist Experience

Cross-Perspective Meaaurear Valuation

Locational

Ancient Greece - Picturesque Village - Sun and Sea (subjective expert evaluation)

Clustered - Dispersed (number of attraction types within 80 km. of a base point)

Unique - Common (subjective expert evaluation)

Preference (tourist survey)

Regional Comparisons (mapping)

566 TOLYRIST ATTRACTION RESEXRCH

4.

5.

6.

7.

guide books. It was a form of expert judgement and provided a weighted value to the preferences obtained in the tourist survey. A survey of expert opinions on the accessibility of specific attractions measured in terms of (a) Seasonality (Organizational Perspective, Temporal Feature); (b)C onservation (Organizational Perspective. Capacity F’eature). This measure essentially related to the fragility of the attraction, or its ability to withstand large numbers of visitors: (c)Popularity (Cross-Perspective, Valuation type). This was based on visitation rates; (d) Accessibility to nearest town (Organizational Perspective, Spatial Feature); (e) Admission or permit requirements (Organizational Perspective, Spatial Feature): (f) Importance (Cross-Perspective, Valuation type). This was obtained by a subjective rating of the attraction as compared to other attractions of the same type. The determination of the tourist potential (Cross-perspective, Valu- ation type) of 2,365 attractions based on a formula in which all the above measures were employed (Ferrario 1976:252-62). In a situation like this, numeric values allow the direct comparison of attraction categories based on different perspectives. The mapping of these values and the introduction of a clustering weight (Organizational Perspective, Spatial Feature). Clusters of low potential attractions were valued lower than isolated, but major attractions. This weighting was based primarily on increasing the value of the number of foreign tourists to heavily visited attractions. Determination of major attraction regions or clusters and sugges- tions for development (Cross-Perspective, Locational type). Regions were identified based on the comparative numeric values resulting from steps 5 and 6 above. These values do not represent attraction types, but do permit a comparison of the overall attractiveness of one place to another. Table 5 summarizes the perspectives, categories and typologies em-

ployed in the South African study by Ferrario. This summary indicates

Table 5. Analysis of Ferrario’s Evaluation of Tourist Attraction

Perspective and Category ‘Qpology and Form of Evaluation

Ideographic: All nine categories

spatial Features Spatial Features Spatial Features

Capacity Features Low - High Carrying Capacity (expert judgment)

Temporal Features Highly Seasonal - Year Round (expert judgment)

Cross-Penpectlve Me.%swe.% Valuation Valuation Valuation

Preference (tourist survey) Importance (expert judgment) Popularity (visitation rates end expert judgment)

Locational Regional Comparisons (mapping)

Nature - Culture (22 types)

Dispersed - Clustered (mapped proximity) Isolated - Accessible (expert judgment) Controlled Access - Open Access (expert judgment)

ALAN LEM 567

that Ferrario’s approach is a strong organizational study in that it uses at least one typology from each of the three categories associated with the organizational perspective. It is also apparent that Ferrario included a large number of cross-perspective valuation measures, although an effort was made to reduce the combined value of these valuation measures in the final formula. Pearce (1981:32) has pointed out that these valuation measures resulted in Ferrario’s emphasizing well-established, existing tourist attractions.

The objective of Ferrario’s study was similar to that of Piperoglou’s, that is, to evaluate the future development potential of tourist attractions and attraction complexes. Both studies were primarily from an organizational perspective, although Ferrario’s was more so, and both attempted “to reduce phenomenon of aesthetic or cultural significance to quantifiable magnitudes for purposes of comparative evaluation” (Piperoglou 1967: 169). A comparison of the two studies shows how Ferrario’s emphasis on the cross-perspective valuation measure associated with a very detailed listing of attractions types may have accen- tuated the existing tourist attractions, whereas Piperoglou’s focus on spatial organizational features over popularity probably presented a better evaluation of development prospects of unestablished areas. The emphasis on established attractions in Ferrario’s study makes an implied policy judgement of expanding the existing tourism product rather than developing new ones.

Attraction Image Studies

Image is the most important aspect of a tourist attraction from a marketing point of view. It also has a major impact on the cognitive experience of an attraction. Britton (1979) has examined the themes used to advance the image of Third World countries as tourist destinations. Through inductive analysis of advertising for the Caribbean, six dominant themes were identified. These themes and their relationship to the proposed attraction framework, include: 1. Mythification and fantasy, in which places are portrayed as para-

dises of the untouched and exotic (Ideographic Perspective, mostly Nature and Nature-Human Interface categories). Most of the ideographic categories can be manipulated to fit within this scheme, although urban oriented and lifestyle characteristics tend to be of the Romanticization theme, below. The Cognitive Perspective, (Attrac- tion Character and Tourist Experience) is implied from emphasis on authenticity and the sense of escape associated with this classification.

2. Minimization of foreignness in places considered too “strange” and possibly uncomfortable for tourists (Cognitive Perspective, Tourist Experience). Advertisements often explicitely try to balance risk with security experiences, such as showing a photo of a luxury hotel next to one emphasizing the exoticness of a place.

3. Recreation, entertainment, and enjoyment, with little, if any, reference to cultural attractions (Ideographic Perspective, Participatory and Leisure Superstructure). The enjoyment aspect of this attraction type is of the Cognitive Perspective, Tourist Experience catego-

568 TOURIST ATTRXCTION RESE.ARCH

ry, with considerable more emphasis on security than risk experiences. Romantization, of traditional (and often poverty stricken) lifestyles (Ideographic Perspective, Settlement Infrastructure). The Cognitive Perspective, Tourist Activity may be implied from this if the advertisement promotes a sense of exploration. Placelessness, in which images are transferred from other, better known, attractions and associated with the advertised place. rather than using the place itself. This type of attraction is classified as being .of the Cognitive Perspective, Attraction Character category because of its basis on well-known attractions. Realistic portrayals of attractions (Ideographic Perspective, Settle- ment Infrastructure) are limited, but growing through efforts to stem some of the negative social impacts of Third World tourism. The Cognitive Perspective, Tourist Activity may be implied from this if the advertisement promotes a sense of education. With the possible exception of “realistic portrayals,” these themes all

emphasize the security characteristics of the cognitive perspective (Ta- ble 3). They are often used in combination with one another in a single advertising effort, demonstrating the complex nature of attraction images. They are summarized in Table 6. Unlike the planning studies examined above, this study does not incorporate the organizational perspective in any way. The suggested attraction categories are a mix of ideographic and cognitive perspectives. In their definition, they are primarily ideographic. However, Britton also incorporates numerous implied cognitive perspectives within each type. Thus, analysis of the study reveals that travel advertisements have ideographic (Nature-Hu- man) and cognitive (Security-Risk) aspects.

Table 6. Analysis of Britton’s Study of Third World Tourism Marketing Image

Perspective and Category Typology and Form of Evaluationa

Ideographic: Nature, Nature-Human Interface

Participatory, Leisure Superstructure

Settlement Infrastructure

Mythification

Recreation and Entertainment (combined)

Romanticized Tradition versus Realistic Portrayal

Cognitive: Tourist Experiences, Tourist Activities Exploration - Escape - Education -

Enjoyment - Familiar or Comfortable (implied in association with ideographic types)

Attraction Cnaracter Authenticity (implied in association with mythification)

Attraction Character

Cross-Perspective Measures: Locational

Association with famous other plece~

(comparisons of advertisements for different places).

aThe ideographic and cognitive typologies are all based on the subjective evaluation ot place portrayals.

ALAKLEM: 569

The final study to be analyzed is a publication by the World Tourism Organization (1980a) which outlines a research method for developing national tourist attraction images. The WTO approach is directed principally at the identification and development of a national “brand image,” that is, an image that readily evokes the name of the country in the visitor’s mind. Examples of such brand images include the maple leaf for Canada and the Eiffel Tower for France. The approach, therefore, deals with countries as tourist products, rather than the variety of attractions within a country.

The approach suggested in this report is: 1. An exhaustive analysis of reality, involving a survey of a country’s

strengths and weaknesses in six types of resources: natural environment; sociocultural environment; government support for tourism; infrastructure; economy; and tourism planning and resource management.

2. Determination of a suitable brand image. This is done through analysis of tourist motivations for visiting the country and through survey of selected groups to identify their images of the country.

3. Development and marketing of the new image or corrections to old images. Using the framework to analyze the WTO approach to attraction

images, the research steps are (see Table 7): 1. Division of attractions into ideographic types (Ideographic Perspec-

tive, most categories). 2. Valuation of natural and social attractions on a scale of “weak-

unsure - strong” (Cross-Perspective, Valuation type). How this valuation is conducted is unclear, as the reader is referred to another WTO publication (1980b).

3. Assessment of attractions on an “expensive-inexpensive” scale (Cog- nitive Perspective, Tourist Experience). This is the economic section of the initial resource survey.

4. Assessment of the attractions on a “government support-antagonism” scale (Ideographic Perspective, Tourist Infrastructure). This is the government section of the resource survey.

5. Assessment of the attractions on a “planned-unplanned scale (Or- ganization Perspective, Spatial Feature). This is the planning and management section of the resource survey.

6. Assessment of attractions/resources on an “adequate-inadequate infrastructure” scale (Organizational Perspective, Spatial Feature). This is the infrastructure section of the resource survey.

7. Survey of target groups to determine motivation and preference for attraction types and characteristics. Preferences are of the Cross- Perspective, Valuation type, while motivations fall within the Cogni- tive Perspective, Tourist Activities, and Experiences categories.

8. Assessment of attractions/resources on a “local-extended market” scale (Cognitive Perspective, Attraction Characteristic). This is an aspect of the brand imageability of the attractions and is based on their prominence. While also based primarily on the cognitive perspective, the WTO

approach differs from Britton’s study in its incorporation of organizational perspective categories - a perspective ignored by Britton. The

370 TOCRIST ATTRACTION RESE.ARCH

Table 7. Analysis of the WTO’s Publication on Tourist

Perspective and Category Typ4ogy and Form of Evaluation

Ideographict Most categories

Tourist Infrastructure

organizational: Spatial Features

Spatial Features

Cognitive: Tourist Experience

Tourist Experiences and Activities

Attraction Character

Crass-Perspective Measures: Valuation

Valuation

Natural - Social - Cultural (general categories)

Government Welcome - Antagonism toward tourism (expert judgment)

Planned - Unplanned (compared to competing attractions/countries)

Adequate - Inadequate infrastructure (compared to competing attractions/countries)

Expensive - Inexpensive (compared to competing attractions/countries)

Motivation (survey of selected groups)

Local - Extended Market (unspecified)

Strength of attraction image

Preference for attractions among target tourist groups

reason for this may be linked to the nature and function of the WTO as an organization composed of and working for government tourism bodies. Governments have a stronger interest in infrastructure development and planning than does the private-sector advertising industry which Britton’s study examined. Thus, not only is the framework re- flective of research approaches, but it also appears to indicate different perspectives held by various segments of the tourism industry.

There is another difference between the WTO approach and all the other studies assessed here: WTO is not a research project, but rather an outlined methodology intended to be employed by others. In addition to the steps outlined above, the report discusses considerations in marketing the defined image. Whether the methodology is affective in achieving its goals cannot be determined in the publication itself. This does not, however, limit the application of the tourist attraction research framework due to its specific focus on methodology.

Discussion

The analysis of the attractions typologies employed in these four examples demonstrates the potential usefulness of the framework as a tool in research evaluation. As would be anticipated, the organizational emphasis of the two planning studies contrasted with the cognitive emphasis of the image studies. Ferrario’s (1976) planning study, however, was found to be more comprehensive in its use of different types of organizational categories than that of Piperoglou. Ferrario’s study was also found to have incorporated numerous cross-perspective valuation measures, which caused him to emphasize existing attractions more so

ALAN LEW 571

than Piperoglou. The WTO image study involved a greater emphasis on organizational categories than did the study by Britton (1979), which was more purely cognitive in nature.

The strength of the framework as an evaluative tool lies in the three distinct typologies. They can be used to judge basic research objectives of relevant investigations, to compare the research designs of similar studies, and to examine the type, quantity, and quality of the data collected.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the applicability of the framework for the comparative evaluation of past research, it can also be applied in the formation of research objectives and research design. An understanding of alterna- tive approaches to tourist attraction study will help ensure that the data collected will match the intended objective of the research.

While the framework appears to be consistent within the subject matter of tourist attractions, it also fits into the larger area of general tourism research. Mitchell (1979:239) proposed a frame-of-reference for tourism research. It divides tourist attraction research into nine basic components arranged in a matrix of Demand, Supply, and Link- ages on one axis and Purpose, Structure, and Distribution on the other. The tourist attraction framework suggested here fits into the Structure vector, with the ideographic perspective associated with the supply component, the organizational perspective associated to the linkages component, and the cognitive perspective related to the demand component. This further supports the value of the attraction framework in organizing research on tourist attractions.

The tourist attraction framework provides insight into the relationship of attraction research to some of the fundamental questions of human existence. The relationship of the human environment to the natural environment, the tension between the human need for collec- tive behavior and the need for independence, and the psychic qualities of fear and security are shown to be basic concerns explored by tourist attraction research. The considerations of these relationships in and of themselves should improve one’s appreciation of the depth of tourism research.

In the last analysis, the necessity of a comprehensive organization of tourist attraction typologies is an important issue. Places are different from one another and, it could be argued, attraction typologies must reflect this difference. This writer would not deny such to be the case. However, the review of tourist attraction research reveals such a high degree of consistency in the general categorization of attractions that surely some fundamental organization would be beneficial, if only to enable researchers to communicate in the same language. While the framework proposed here may appear inappropriate to some, it does offer a basis for further discussion on the nature of tourist attractions. 0 0

572 TOURIST ATTRXCTIOS RESEARCH

.4rcher, B. REFERENCES

1977 Input-Output Analysis: Its Strengths. Limitations and \\eaknesses. 111 The 80’s_Its Impact on Travel and Tourism hfarketing. Eighth annual conference proceedings, The Travel Research Association. June 12-15. Scottsdale, Arizona. pp. 89-107. Salt Lake City: TTRA.

Britton, Robert 1979 The Image of the Third World in Tourism hlarkering. Xnnals of Tourism

Research 6(3):318-29. Bryant, B. E.. and A. J. Morrison

1980. Travel *Market Segmentation and the Implementation of XIarket Strategies. Journal of Travel Research 18(3):2-l 1.

Christaller, Walter 1955 Beitrage au einer Geographie des Fremdenverkehrs (Contributions to a

Geography of Tourism). Erdkunde 9( 1): 1-19. Cohen, Erik

1979a .4 Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 13: 179-201. 197913 Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research

6( 1): 18-35. Crompton, John L.

1979 An Assessment of the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destination and the Influence of Geographical Location Upon That Image. Journal of Travel Research 17(4):18-23.

Doyle, W. S., J. Pernica, and M. Stern 1977 Some Technical Aspects of a Recent Study of Tourism in New York State. In

The 80’s_Its Impact on Travel and Tourism Marketing. Eighth annual conference proceedings, The Travel Research Association, June 12-15. Scottsdale, Arizona, pp. 109-120. Salt Lake City: TTRA.

Eastlack, J. O., Jr. 1982 Applying a Package Goods Research Method to Tourism Marketing. Journal of

Travel Research 20(4):25-29. Eitzel, M. J., and P. R. Swensen

1981 Taking the Mystery out of Travel and Tourism Investment Decisions. Journal of Travel Research 20(2):24-34.

Ferrario, Francesco 1976 The Tourist Landscape: A Method of Evaluating Tourist Potential and its

Application to South Africa. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley.

1979 The Evaluation of Tourist Resources: An Applied Methodology. Journal of Travel Research 17(3): 18-22 and 17(4):24-30.

Fesenmaier, Daniel R. 1985 Modeling Variation in Destination Patronage for Outdoor Recreation Activity.

Journal of Travel Research 24(2): 17-23. Field, Donald R., Roger N. Clark, and Barbara A. Koth

1985 Cruiseship Travel in Alaska: A Profile of Passengers. Journal of Travel Research 24(2):2-8.

Frechtling, D. C.‘ ’ 1976 Pronosed Standard Definitions and Classifications for Travel Research. In

Markciing Travel and Tourism. Seventh annual conference proceedings, The Travel Research Association, June 20-23, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 59-73. Salt Lake City: TTRA.

Gearing, Charles E., William W. Swart, and Turgut Var 1976 Establishing a Measure of Touristic Attractiveness. In Planning for Tourism

Development, Gearing, C. E., Swart, W. W. and Var T., eds. pp. 89-103. New York: Praeger.

Gocldner, C. R., K. Dicke, and Y. Sletta, eds. 1975 Travel Trends in the United States and Canada, 1975 edition. Boulder,

Colorado: Business Research Division. University of Colorado. <Goodrich, _J. N.

1977a Differences in Perceived Similarity of Tourism Regions: A Spatial Analysis. ,Journal of Travel Research 16( 1): 10-13.

ALAN LEW 573

197ib Benefit Bundle Analysis: An Empirical Study of International Travelers. Journal of Travel Research 16(2):6-g.

1978 A New Approach to Image Analysis Through Multidimensional Scaling. Journal of Travel Research 16(3):3-7.

Graburn, N. H. H. 1977 Tourism: The Sacred Journey, In Hosts and Guests, V. Smith, ed. pp. 17-31.

University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Gunn, Glare A.

1972 Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions. Austin, Texas: Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas.

1979 Tourism Planning. New York: Crane Russak. 1980a Ammendment to Leiper. The Framework of Tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research 7:253-255. 1980b An Approach to Regional Assessment of Tourism Development Potential. In

Tourism Planning and Development Issues, D. E. Hawkins, E. L. Shafer and J. M. Rovelstad, eds. pp. 261-276. Washington: George Washington University.

Haahti, Antti J. 1986 Finland’s Competitive Position as a-Destination. Annals of Tourism Research

13(1):11-35. Haddon,‘John

1960 A View of Foreign Lands. Geography 45 (209) pt. 4:286-289. Henshall, Brian D., and Rae Roberts

1985 Comparative Assessment of Touristic Generating Markets for New Zealand. Annals of Tourism Research 12(2):219-238.

Hills, Theo L., and Jan Lundgren ’ ’ 1977 The Impact of Tourism in the Caribbean: A Methodological Study. Annals of

Tourism Research 4(5):248-267. Jansen-Verbeke, Myriam

1986 Inner-city Tourism: Resources, Tourists and Promoters. Annals of Tourism Research 13(1):79-100.

Keown. Charles, Laurence Jacobs, and Reginald Worthley 1984 American Tourists’ Perception of Retail Stores in 12 Selected Countries.

lournal of Travel Research 22(3):26-30. Kotl&. Phillip

\ ,

1984 “Dream” Vacations, The Booming Market for Designed Experiences. The Futurist 18(5):7-13.

Kreck. Lothar A. ’ 1985 The Effect of the Across-the Border Commerce of Canadian Tourists on the

City of Spokane. Journal of Travel Research 24( 1):27-31. Lew. Alan A.

1985 Bringing Tourists to Town. Small Town 16(1):4-10. 1986a Guidebook Singapore: The Spatial Organization of Urban Tourist

Attractions. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Oregon. 1986b Tourist and Tourguide Perceptions of Tourist Attractions in Singapore. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Minneapolis. Minnesota, May 2-7, 1986.

1987 The History. Policies and Social Impact of International Tourism in the Peo- me’s Renublic of China. Asian Profile. 15(2):117-128.

Lickorish, L: J. ,

1974 Travel Research Needs in Critical Times. In The Contribution of Travel Research in a Year of Crisis. Fifth annual conference proceedings, The Travel Research Association, September 8-l 1, Williamsburg, Virginia, pp. 1-3. Salt Lake City: TTRA.

Liounis. Audrey, ed. 1985 Fodor’s Arizona. New York: Fodor’s Travel Guides.

Lundberg. Donald E. 1980 The Tourist Business (4th ed.). Boston: CBI.

%lacCannell. Dean 1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken Books.

Xlachlis. G. E., D. D. Field, and M. E. Van Every 1984 A Sociological Look at the Japanese Tourist. In On Interpretation: Sociology

374 TOURIST ATTR.XTION RESEARCH

for Interpretation of Natural and Cultural Resources. .\lachlis. G. E. and Field. D. R.. eds. pp. 77-93. Corvallis. Oregon: Oregon State Lniwrsiry Press.

Matley. Ian ,CI. 1976 The Geograph! of International Tourism. Association of .\mericnn

Geographers, Resource Paper No. 76-1. \\‘ashington. D. C hIcIntosh, Robert W., and Charles R. Goeldner

1984 Tourism: Principles, Practices. Philosophies (4th ed.). Ne\v York: John \\‘ilev. hlitchell. Lisle.

1979. The Geography ofTourism. Annals ofTourism Research 6(3):235-244. Neffeler. S. H.

1975 Tourism in San Diego. The Research Dimension. In The Impact of Travel. Sixth annual conference proceedings, The Travel Research Association. September 18-21. San Diego, California. pp. 33-38. Salt Lake City: TTRX.

Pearce, Douglas 1981 Tourism Development. New York: Longman.

Pearce. Phillip 1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. Oxford: Pergamon.

Peck, John Gregory, and Alice Shear Lepie 1977 Tourism Development in Three North Carolina Towns. In Hosts and Guests:

The Anthropology’of Tourism. V. L. Smith. ed. pp. 139-182. Philadelphia: Universitv of Pennsvlvania Press.

Perdue. Richard R., and Larry D. Gutske 1985 Spatial Pattern of Leisure Travel by Trip Purpose. Annals of Tourism Research

12(2):167-180. Perry. Michael

1975 Planning and Evaluating Advertising Campaigns Related to Tourist Destinations. In Management Science Applications to Leisure Time Operations. Ladany, Shaul P., ed. pp. 116-123. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co.

Peters, M. 1969 International Tourism. London: Hutchinson.

Piperoglou, John 1966 Identification and Definition of Regions in Greek Tourist Planning. In Papers.

Regional Science Association 18:169-76. Pitts, Robert E., and Arch G. Woodside

1986 Personal Values and Travel Decisions. Journal of Travel Research 25( 1):20-25. Pizam, Abraham, Yoram Neuman, and Arie Reichel

1978 Dimensions of Tourist Satisfaction with a Destination Area. Annals of Tourism Research 5(3):314-322.

Polacek. Michal. and Rudolnh Aroch 1984 Analysis of Cultural Sights Attractiveness for Tourism. The Tourist Review

39(4):17-18. Price, Richard L.

1980 A Geography of Tourism: Settlement and Landscape on the Sardinian Littoral. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Oregon.

Relph, Edward 1976 Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.

Ritchie, J. R. Brent, and Catherine E. Aitken 1985 Olympulse II-Evolving Resident Attitudes Towards the 1988 Olympic Winter

Games. Journal ofTrave Research 23(3):28-33. Ritchie, J. R. Brent, and Michael Zinns

1978 Culture as a Determinant of the Attractiveness of a Tourism Region. Annals of Tourism Research 5(2):252-267.

Robinson, H. .4. 1976 A Geographv of Tourism. London: Macdonald & Evans.

Rodenburg, Ey . ’ 1980 The Effects of Scale on Economic Develooment: Tourism in Bali. Annals of

Tourism Research 7(2):177-196. Schmidt, Catherine

1979 The Guided Tour. Urban Life 7(4):441-467. Senior, Robert

1982 The World Travel Market. London: Euromonitor.

ALAN LEW 575

Shih, David 1986 VALS As A Tool of Tourism Market Research: The Pennsylvania Experience.

Journal of Travel Research 24(4):2- 11. Smith, Stephen L. J.

1985 Location Patterns of Urban Restaurants. Annals of Tourism Research 12(4):581-602.

Smith, Valene L., ed. 1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press. Thompson, John R., and Phillip D. Cooper

1979 Additional Evidence on the Limited Size of Evoked and Inept Sets of Travel Destinations. Journal of Travel Research 17(3):23-5.

U.S. Department of Commerce 1981 Creating Economic Growth and Jobs Through Travel and Tourism.

Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration.

Van Veen, Walle M. Oppedijk, and Theo W. M. Verhallen 1986 Vacation Market Segmentation: A Domain-Specific Value Approach. Annals

of Tourism Research 13(1):37-58. Wahab, Salah, L. J. Crampon, and L. M. Rothfield

1976 Tourism Marketing: A Destination-Oriented Programme for the Marketing of International Tourism. London: Tourism International Press.

White, Kenneth J. 1985 An International Travel Demand Model: US Travel to Western Europe.

Annals of Tourism Research 12(4):529-545. Witter, Brenda Sternquist

1985 Attitudes About a Resort Area: A Comoarison of Tourist and Local Retailers. Iournal of Travel Research 24(1):14-19.

Woodside, Arch G., Ellen M. Moore, Mark A. Bonn, and Donald G. Wizeman 1986 Segmenting the Timeshare Resort Market. Journal of Travel Research

24(3):6-12. Woodside, Arch G., Ilkka Ronkainen, and David M. Reid

1977 Measurement and Utilization of the Evoked Set as a Travel Marketing Variable. In The 80’s_Its Impact on Travel and Tourism Marketing. Eighth annual conference proceedings, The Travel research Association, June 12- 15, Scottsdale, Arizona, pp. 123-130. Salt Lake City: TTRA.

World Tourism Organization 1980a Evaluating Tourism Resources. Madrid: WTO 1980b Tourist Images. Madrid: WTO.

Submitted 26 November 1985 First revised version submitted 23 Tune 1986 Second revised version submitted SO January 1987 Third revised version submitted 29 May 1987 .4ccepted 16 June 1987 Refereed anonymously

a framework of tourist attraction research

Documents