Geographies of Tourism : European Research Perspectives 9781781902615, 9781781902127

Citation preview

Tourism Social Science Series Volume 19

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Tourism Social Science Series Series Editor: Jafar Jafari University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain Tel: + (715) 232-2339; Fax: (715) 232-3200; Email: [email protected] The books in this Tourism Social Science Series (TSSSeries) are intended to systematically and cumulatively contribute to the formation, embodiment, and advancement of knowledge in the field of tourism. The TSSSeries’ multidisciplinary framework and treatment of tourism includes application of theoretical, methodological, and substantive contributions from such fields as anthropology, business administration, ecology, economics, geography, history, hospitality, leisure, planning, political science, psychology, recreation, religion, sociology, transportation, etc., but it significantly favors state-of-the-art presentations, works featuring new directions, and especially the cross-fertilization of perspectives beyond each of these singular fields. While the development and production of this book series is fashioned after the successful model of Annals of Tourism Research, the TSSSeries further aspires to assure each theme a comprehensiveness possible only in book-length academic treatment. Each volume in the series is intended to deal with a particular aspect of this increasingly important subject, thus to play a definitive role in the enlarging and strengthening of the foundation of knowledge in the field of tourism, and consequently to expand the frontiers of knowledge into the new research and scholarship horizons ahead. Published TSSSeries titles: Volume 18: Tourism Social Media: Transformations in Identity, Community and Culture, Ana Marı´a Munar, Szilvia Gyimo´thy, Liping Cai Volume 17: Culture and Society in Tourism Contexts, A.-M. Nogue´s-Pedregal Volume 16: The Discovery of Tourism Economics, Larry Dwyer Volume 15: The Study of Tourism: Foundations from Psychology, Philip Pearce Volume 14: Modern Mass Tourism, Julio R. Aramberri Volume 13: The Discovery of Tourism, Stephen L. J. Smith Volume 12: The Sociology of Tourism: European Origins and Developments, Graham M.S. Dann and Giuli Liebman Parrinello Volume 11: Explorations in Thai Tourism: Collected Case Studies, Erik Cohen Volume 10: Identity Tourism: Imaging and Imagining the Nation, Susan Pitchford Volume 9:

The Study of Tourism: Anthropological and Sociological Beginnings, Dennison Nash

Volume 8:

Contemporary Tourism: Diversity and Change, Erik Cohen

Volume 7:

Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development, T.H.B. Sofield

Volume 6:

Exporting Paradise: Tourism and Development in Mexico, Michael Clancy

Volume 5:

Tourism and Modernity: A Sociological Analysis, Ning Wang

Volume 4:

Tourism Community Relationships, Philip L. Pearce, Gianna Moscardo and Glenn F. Ross

Volume 3:

Tourism and Religion, Boris Vukonic´

Volume 2:

Leisure Migration: A Sociological Study on Tourism, Jo´zsef Bo¨ro¨cz

Volume 1:

Anthropology of Tourism, Dennison Nash

Tourism Social Science Series Volume 19

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

JULIE WILSON SALVADOR ANTON CLAVE´ Rovira i Virgili University, Catalonia, Spain

United Kingdom North America India Malaysia China

Japan

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2013 Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78190-212-7 ISSN: 1571-5043 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

Contents

Acknowledgments

Chapter 1 Introduction: Building Bridges in European Geographies of Tourism Julie Wilson and Salvador Anton Clave´ Chapter 2 Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism: Knowledge(s), Actions and Cultures C. Michael Hall Chapter 3 Nordic Tourism Geographies Jarkko Saarinen Chapter 4 From the Geography of Tourism to a Geographical Approach to Tourism in France Carine Fournier and Re´my Knafou Chapter 5 German Perspectives on Tourism Geography Nicolai Scherle and Hans Hopfinger Chapter 6 Regional Perspectives on Tourism Geographies: the Case of Greece Paris Tsartas, Harry Coccossis and Magdalena Vasileiou Chapter 7 Italian Tourism Geography: The Weight of the Idiographic Approach Alessia Mariotti

vii

1

11

35

55

69

91

105

vi

Contents

Chapter 8 Tourism Geography in the Low Countries: Quo Vadis? Myriam Jansen-Verbeke

125

Chapter 9 The Geography of Tourism in Spain: Institutionalization and Internationalization 151 Salvador Anton Clave´ Chapter 10 Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe 179 Salvador Anton Clave´ and Julie Wilson References

199

About the Authors

249

Subject Index

253

Acknowledgments

In the first instance, the editors would like to thank the contributing authors for their hard work on and commitment to this project. Sincere thanks are also due to the following individuals from the Research Group on Territorial Analysis and Tourism Studies (GRATET) at the Department of Geography at the Rovira i Virgili University for their assistance from the very beginning of this book project: Jordi Andreu, Monterrat Bustos, Francesc Gonza`lez Reverte´, Yolanda Pe´rez, and Antonio Paolo Russo. Other colleagues from the Department of Geography and Environmental Management at the University of the West of England, Bristol (UK) assisted us in making this volume a reality: Maria Casado-Diaz, Jackie Rogers, and, in particular, Tim Gale for his comments on the structure of the volume. Finally, the editors extend their thanks to the Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS) Special Interest Group on Tourism Geographies for supporting the project. Julie Wilson would personally like to thank Bernat Morera i Garcia, Rosa Garcia i Comas, Kate Gwinnett and Oscar eta eskerrik asko Aran, Bult, Julen eta Urko from Zarautz, osasuna! Salvador Anton Clave´ would personally like to thank Maria Angel Lanuza Escolano. Alessia Mariotti would like to thank Elena dell’Agnese, Fiorella Dallari, Gianmarco Ugolini, and Enza Zabbini for their advice in preparing Chapter 7. Finally, Myriam Jansen-Verbeke would like to thank Anya Diekmann, Isabelle Cloquet, and Dominique Vanneste for their collaboration on the bespoke regional sections of Chapter 8. Cover illustration Cassis, Provence, France (2005), by Salvador Anton Clave´

Chapter 1

Introduction: Building Bridges in European Geographies of Tourism Julie Wilson Rovira i Virgili University, Catalonia, Spain

Salvador Anton Clave´ Rovira i Virgili University, Catalonia, Spain

In an era when European countries and, in particular, the European Union as an institution are facing serious economic and social challenges, linguistic diversity remains one of the defining characteristics (or even strengths) that sets apart Europe as a continent and as an academic domain. Similarly, the way in which European academia deals with multilingualism has serious implications for international relationships, knowledge transfer, and the dissemination of academic production, particularly where the latter influences policy formation at a large scale. As Phillipson (2003) argues, there has been increasing concern that language policy in Europe (and by extension, in European academic circles) is not inclusive enough and the question remains whether the contemporary expansion of English represents a serious threat to other European languages. Indeed, in discussing the language policies that the Third World inherited from colonialism, Phillipson argues: Reference to English as a lingua franca generally seems to imply that the language is a neutral instrument for “international” communication between speakers who do not share

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Tourism Social Science Series, Volume 19, 1 9 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1571-5043/doi:10.1108/S1571-5043(2013)0000019001

2

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives a mother tongue. The fact that English is used for a wide range of purposes, nationally and internationally, may mislead one into believing that lingua franca English is disconnected from the many “special purposes” it serves in key societal domains. English might be more accurately described as a lingua economica (in business and advertising, the language of corporate neoliberalism), a lingua emotiva (the imaginary of Hollywood, popular music, consumerism, and hedonism), a lingua academica (in research publications, at international conferences, and as a medium for content learning in higher education), or a lingua cultura (rooted in the literary texts of English-speaking nations that school foreign language education traditionally aims at, and integrates with language learning as one element of general education). (2008, p. 250)

Phillipson goes on to argue that English could further be described as the lingua bellica of wars between states and in international conflict more generally (2008). Furthermore, he maintains that “… while English manifestly opens doors for many worldwide, it also closes them for others” (2008, p. 250).

EUROPEAN LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND ACADEMIA English, English Everywhere At a national level, there is often an imbalance between linguistic preservation goals and international visibility and dissemination for individuals and groups in academia. Alarmingly, decisions on where to publish are already perhaps more pressurized than what to publish for quality and impact reasons, but researchers whose first language is not English have an additional pressure of whether to publish in English (and in Anglo-American journals) or not. At times, this may be added to the existing pressure in the national arena, where invariably funding incentives are offered for producing academic publications in the national language(s), rather than in English (although in some cases, conversely, “internationalization” funds are also available to incentivize publishing in the English language and in the Anglo-American academic domain). However, Phillipson (2008, p. 253) asks whether English is really that predatory and contagious. Surely, he argues, the languages that have been

Introduction

3

consolidated in independent states over the past two centuries cannot be at risk? “Isn’t the commitment of the EU to maintaining and respecting linguistic diversity a guarantee of equality and fair treatment for European languages?” In a separate publication in 2003, he maintains that the position is far from clear, not least because language policy tends to be left to nationalist and market forces, and there is a fuzzy dividing-line between language policy as the prerogative of each member state and language as a European Union concern. Assuming that governmental institutions do not have a clear position on EU linguistic diversity (in contrast to national policy, where sometimes an overtly protective stance is often taken), it is not surprising that European universities do not take a single approach to dealing with multilingualism and their relationship with the English language in academic research and publishing. But the danger is that thanks to this English language dominance in publishing, there is probably an Anglo-American dominance in theory building, concept formation, and choice of research cases. Perhaps this signifies the emergence of paradigmatic cases and places—in the latter sense, see Robinson (2006) on the notion of “paradigmatic” cities. Apart from this ubiquity of the English language as lingua academica internationally, as mentioned above, there is another domain in which it is used globally: international tourism. Apart from the often-heard claims that Mandarin will become the predominant language, the international lingua turistica at present is arguably still English. It is beyond the scope of the present volume to take on the issue of English language dominance at the level of academia in its entirety. Nor is it the purpose of the book to tackle the issue in the context of the global tourism industry. What this volume aims to do, rather, is examine and uncover the extent of the issue in one particular academic field: the geography of tourism, geographies of tourism, or tourism geographies. In addition, the scale of analysis is in this case limited to Europe, where use of a large number of different languages makes it a particularly salient issue. Authors such as Gibson (2008) have critiqued the dominance of AngloAmerican voices specifically in the field of tourism geography. This is not just in linguistic terms, but also in relation to the framing and theorizing of space, place, and tourism (appearing largely based on Anglo-American research contexts due to their dominance in the distribution channels and thus the overall accessibility of English language literature). Indeed, Gibson’s (2008) analysis and breakdown of journal articles by author origins and languages shows that the “Anglo-American axis” that dominates scholarly publishing also permeates tourism geography. As such, the

4

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

volume has emerged from a perceived need within the geographies of tourism to step beyond the boundaries of Anglophone Anglo-American academia into the complex, diverse, and often mystifying domain of other languages used in academic research and publishing (in this case, European). The geography, or geographies, of tourism (a subdiscipline of geography) has now accumulated many long-standing research traditions in many different languages and cultural spheres in an international context. It is highly pertinent that both geography and tourism fields come under scrutiny for linguistic dominance in this way, being dependent as they both are on the geographical concepts of place, spatial relationships, mobility, scale, and order for their theorization and interpretation.

European Research Traditions Before examining the depths and diversity of other (or perhaps more appropriately, Other) languages in European research approaches in the geography of tourism, it is necessary to touch briefly upon a terminological issue: what is meant by a “research tradition”? In general terms, a research tradition provides a set of guidelines for the development of specific theories. Laudan’s working definition of a research tradition is “… a set of general assumptions about the entities and processes in a domain of study, and about the appropriate methods to be used for investigating the problems and constructing the theories within that domain” (1977, p. 374). Similar to but not synonymous with paradigms (Kuhn, 1970), research programs (Lakatos, 1978), and disciplines, a research tradition (as proposed by Laudan) has a number of common traits which include (a) a number of specific theories which exemplify and partially constitute it; some of these theories will be contemporaneous, others will be temporal successors of the earlier ones; (b) every research tradition exhibits certain metaphysical and methodological commitments which, as an ensemble, individuate the research tradition and distinguish it from others; and (c) each research tradition (unlike a specific theory) goes through a number of different, detailed (and often mutually contradictory) mutations and generally has a long history extending through a significant period of time (by contrast, theories are frequently short-lived) (Cronbach, 1957, p. 373). Within European academia, regional traditions certainly do exist and tourism geography is no exception to this. However, in evaluating their

Introduction

5

scale and scope, the breaking down of regional research traditions by countries or primary language(s) is far from easy. This volume has a chapter that deals with several different countries in a trans-border region (the Nordic Countries) in which as many different languages are spoken as there are countries. Further to this, these languages do not all share the same linguistic base; Finnish, for example, does not belong to the same Northern Germanic language group that the other countries do. Two chapters deal with more than one research and publishing language within a given country. Chapter 8 covers Belgium (French and Flemish) and Chapter 9 covers Spain, where apart from Castilian Spanish, a significant part of academic output gets published in Catalan and to a lesser extent, in Galician and Basque. In Spanish academic circles, publications in Portuguese often enter the scene where, despite the different language, there is a degree of mutual awareness between the countries, at least within geography. In the case of Belgium and Spain, there are research groups and academic journals that, while they may occupy the same geographical territory, do not necessarily use the same operational language. In addition, there are the countries that share a primary language, thus broadening the academic scene beyond national borders, which is the case in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (although as pointed out in Chapter 8, France and the French-speaking parts of Belgium (Wallonia) have not experienced the same degree of confluence between research traditions in the field of tourism geography). Furthermore, there is Greece, whose Hellenic alphabet has nothing in common with the Roman alphabet generally used in Romantic and Germanic languages; something which can act as a significant barrier to international knowledge transfer in terms of research outputs and is bound to increase the need to adopt English as lingua academica. This discussion does not end with the regions covered in this volume, as there are many more European languages and many more regional traditions in question. As such, while this could all be considered as diversity and richness in a subfield, it is also a complicating factor, not only for researchers, but also in terms of research administration, network management, conference organization, and the bibliographic and publishing spheres.

Moving beyond Anglo-American Traditions The main issue which needed to be dealt with in this volume was whether or not to include a bespoke chapter on the Anglo-American scene. This

6

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

was a tough decision to take, given that the volume is precisely about overcoming the dominance of Anglo-American traditions in the geography of tourism. After much deliberation, it was felt that to a great extent the absence of such a chapter would instead serve to strengthen the volume. Chapter 2 outlines various elements of the Anglo-American research traditions in tourism geography (see also Hall, 2013) and hence the noninclusion of a specific Anglo-American chapter was not seen as a particular problem in this case. Furthermore, one could argue rather easily that Anglo-American voices in this field are already audible in much of the published work in the tourism geography (Gibson, 2008) and this volume instead seeks to highlight alternative voices without further reinforcement of the AngloAmerican research traditions that are already familiar to many readers and which are accessible through various recently published reviews (Gibson, 2008; Hall, 2013; Hall & Page, 2009, 2011; Nepal, 2009; Wilson, 2012a).

Transcription and Translation of Conceptual Frameworks In setting about this book project, a generic structure for the chapter contributions was considered (although this was intended as a guideline only). The basic task was to make use of Scopus and respective national databases/citation indices to draw up an initial list of publications in each language region, including tourism articles in geography journals and geography-oriented articles in tourism journals. Beyond the basic research publication data generated, contributors were asked to consider and reflect upon their particular region/language: (a) theoretical traditions, theoretical e´poques specific to tourism geography and also more generally for geography and tourism studies; (b) structure and trajectory of the field, including productivity in terms of key institutions and individual scientific/academic production; and (c) challenges and future prospects, conclusions, and any other particular elements for inclusion in each individual case. Thus, authors were issued with exactly the same (albeit flexible) brief by the volume editors at the very beginning of the process. It is pertinent to note that the responses to the brief in the form of chapters varied considerably (in a positive sense) and that the resulting contributions displayed a diversity of characteristics in their final form. This was something that, while expected by the editors to a certain degree, was nonetheless surprising in terms of the extent of the diversity.

Introduction

7

As such, some contributions focus more on theoretical traditions and trajectories, while other authors have gone into more detail on institutional questions, in accordance with their own particular worldviews and understanding of the scene, plus their respective cultural backgrounds. In essence, contributors have had to adapt the editors’ brief and instructions to their own cultural, institutional, and national geopolitical contexts. In support of this variation among chapters, it can be said that this was inevitable to a point, in a volume where a wide diversity of cultural contexts, linguistic interpretations, and purely diverse theoretical traditions are at play. On the contrary, one may argue that this is a particular strength of the volume. The transfer of concepts and theories from one language into another in a multinational volume was always going to be a delicate endeavor, but the chapter contributors took up this challenge gamely. Further to this, the editors’ task in approaching this volume was somewhat complicated, in terms of the significant effort required in preserving the regional autonomy and national specificity of each contribution. This was particularly the case in terms of the linguistic accuracy in the expression of the content/ideas as transcription (rather than simple language translation) (Crane, Lombard, & Tenz, 2009; Smith, 1996; Twyman, Morrison, & Sporton, 1999). Keeping this in mind throughout, it was important to be careful not to tread too heavily when editing for fluency and language issues; trying at all times to maintain the original meaning of each concept and not end up with an Anglo-American abstraction of the ideas expressed, in keeping with the aims and spirit of the volume. Even any kind of basic harmonization and editing for style needed to be treated with caution, so as not to jeopardize the regional diversity of the volume. There was an inherent risk in editing for homogeneity in terms of language and structure, even if this would normally be desirable and indeed encouraged in a volume produced in the (US) English language. On this note, it is worth reminding that there can also be differences and issues in expression of meaning between US and UK English language writing styles, and even contrasting academic traditions (this is discussed in more detail in Chapter 10). As such, one only has to imagine the variance between many languages with different linguistic bases. In the case of this volume, three Indo-European language groups are represented (Romantic, Germanic, and Hellenic), although it is debatable whether Finnish belongs to this group. There are also observable differences in the way that US and UK publishers view and approach book projects, in terms of what each particular audience would want to read and in which style; a factor that

8

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

complicates even further a volume with a European geographical focus and an international audience.

Benefits of the Volume One of the major points of added value in this book is its extended bibliography containing more than 650 references in several languages. While not claiming to be exhaustive, it is hoped that this bibliography is sufficiently comprehensive in order to serve as a valuable tool for researchers in the tourism geography field and give an insight into a whole new landscape of tourism geography research written up in languages other than English (which could subsequently be translated if desired). This is particularly the case with the references to Greek sources, where the alphabet may have been a barrier to accessibility, as their original Greek titles have been translated into English in order to facilitate an understanding of the contents therein. Apart from this, all references are presented in their original language. Another strong point of this volume is the range and profile of its contributors. Bringing these scholars together under one banner is a privilege. It is also a relative luxury in this day and age to have a volume (or indeed an academic debating arena) dedicated to the architecture and anatomy of a (sub)discipline of geography and tourism, rather than a topicfocused volume. Recognizing that multilingual projects are rarely simple, it is worth noting that the editors of this volume bring their interesting contextual and linguistic backgrounds to the project; something which arguably has placed them in a strong position to edit this particular volume. Both have spent a considerable amount of time as visiting scholars in institutions beyond their originating countries, and also in cultural contexts where English is treated as a foreign language. Furthermore, both editors are multilingual (working in three and four languages, respectively), which has proved to be highly useful in the editorial process. In addition, one of the editors is originally from and studied under the Anglo-American tradition in geography, while the other has an academic trajectory in geography from a non-AngloAmerican tradition, allowing both sides of the coin to be viewed. Similarly, one is a native English speaker and the other is not, having acquired knowledge of English further down the line. The coverage of regions and languages presented in this volume is considerable. Chapter 2 sets the scene for the remainder of the volume with a comprehensive review of the current situation of language, dissemination

Introduction

9

channels, and accessibility to international research on the geographies of tourism. In the main body of the volume, seven chapters focus on the European research context of the field, dealing with the Nordic Countries (Chapter 3), France (Chapter 4), Germany and Austria (Chapter 5), Greece (Chapter 6), Italy (Chapter 7), The Netherlands and Belgium (Chapter 8), and Spain (Chapter 9). In the concluding chapter, the editors attempt to contrast similarities, differences, and future challenges in the field of tourism geography in the European context. It should be emphasized that the European geographical coverage of the volume is not 100% complete, as several language regions and their respective countries are not represented. This was mainly related to difficulties on the part of the editors (partly due to language barriers—a central issue in this volume) in locating and recruiting scholars from some regions. In other words, it is not that such scholars do not exist, rather they are somewhat more difficult to trace in Anglophone academic circuits and research networks. Indeed, there were a number of “false starts” from various regions, in which unfortunately efforts were thwarted at various stages in the process. In particular, the volume would have been much improved by additional contributions from (among others) Portugal, the Baltic region, the Balkan area, and notably from Eastern European countries (although, for example, readers may wish to refer to a couple of overview articles on ´ the Polish situation, Liszewski, 2010; Warszynska, 1984). Finally, it must be said that while academic research and publishing form the main focus, it must be remembered that teaching is also an integral part of this equation, albeit not the central raison d’tre of the present volume. This having been said, the reader will observe that many contributors argue that they have not been able to separate research trajectories and traditions from institutional factors, necessitating a holistic approach that the editors hope has been successful.

Chapter 2

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism: Knowledge(s), Actions and Cultures C. Michael Hall University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Abstract: Depending on the research approach one uses, the development of particular bodies of knowledge over time is the result of a combination of agency, chance, opportunity, patronage, power, or structure. This particular account of the development of geographies of tourism stresses its place as understood within the context of different approaches, different research behaviors and foci, and its location within the wider research community and society. The chapter charts the development of different epistemological, methodological, and theoretical traditions over time, their rise and fall, and, in some cases, rediscovery. The chapter concludes that the marketization of academic production will have an increasingly important influence on the nature and direction of tourism geographies. Keywords: Academic capitalism; Anglo-American geography; academic periphery; rankings INTRODUCTION In the second decade of the third millennium, the geography of tourism is undergoing a significant generational change as the geographers who gained their doctorates in the 1970s or previous decades enter retirement

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Tourism Social Science Series, Volume 19, 11 34 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1571-5043/doi:10.1108/S1571-5043(2013)0000019002

12

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

(Hall & Page, 2009, 2012). Such a change is leading to the desire to “stock take” the field before cultural and disciplinary memories fade (Hall & Page, 2009; Smith, 2010). This is clearly not the first generation of tourism geographers to have retired, but it is the first generation whose work has simultaneously existed in the academic fields of both geography and tourism studies. They are also part of the first generation whose work is truly internationalized as a result of their work becoming widely circulated outside of their own countries due to the impacts of information and communication technology and the adoption of English as the lingua franca of international business and the academy. However, academic production and dissemination, along with the labor market, are subject to the vagaries of globalization as any other industry or sector. Therefore, this chapter seeks to provide an account of the development of the geography(ies) of tourism in a global setting. It does this by reference to some of the main factors that have affected the geography of tourism in both a historic and a contemporary sense. Although the academic literature is substantially referenced, this review is also informed from the author’s institutional roles in the geography of tourism, observations from international conferences, travels, and the somewhat schizoid perspective of being primarily based in a business school at the time of writing. As with any global overview, it is also limited by the author’s own language limitations and access to journals and publications.

STUDYING THE GEOGRAPHIES OF TOURISM The study of tourism geography is embedded in the trends and issues of scientific and academic discourse and in the societies and institutions of which one is a part (Butler, 2004; Coppock, 1980; Coles, 2004; Hall, 2013; Mieczkowski, 1978; Nepal, 2009; Wilson, 2012a). As Johnston noted in his study of post-World War II Anglo-American geography, despite “ivory tower” accusations to the contrary, academic life “is not a closed system but rather is open to the influences and commands of the wider society which encompasses it” (Johnston, 1991a, p. 1). Discipline development, and the how, where, and why of what we do and do not study “is an investigation of the sociology of a community, of its debates, deliberations and decisions as well as its findings” (Johnston, 1991a, p. 11). Unfortunately, tourism geography has received only marginal coverage in the various editions of Johnston’s work, a situation which is commonplace in many accounts of the history of geographical thought. For example, the only mention of tourism

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism

13

by Peet (1998) is with respect to its perceived irrelevancy by radical and Marxist geographers in the 1960s and 1970s: There was a growing intolerance to the topical coverage of academic geography, a feeling that it was either an irrelevant gentlemanly pastime concerned with esoterica like tourism, wine regions, or barn types, or it was an equally irrelevant “science” using quantitative methods to analyze spatial trivia like shopping patterns or telephone calls, when geography should be a working interest in ghettos, poverty, global capitalism, and imperialism. (1998, p. 109) Similarly, tourism receives only brief mentions in works such as Massey, Allen, and Sarre’s (1999) Human Geography Today, Holt-Jensen’s (2009) Geography: History and Concepts, Castree, Rogers, and Sherman’s (2005) Questioning Geography, Massey’s (2005) For Space, Crang and Thrift’s (2000) Thinking Space, Cloke and Johnston’s (2005) Spaces of Geographical Thought; and was not essential to Agnew, Livingstone, and Rogers’ (1996) Human Geography: An Essential Anthology. Tourism is not mentioned at all in De Blij’s (2005) Why Geography Matters but is at least recognized in his later book on the power of place (2009) which has a discussion of medical tourism as an example of globalization. There are no tourism geographers who are Key Thinkers on Space and Place (Hubbard, Kitchin, & Valentine, 2004). Given this situation, it is no wonder that the relatively peripheral nature of the study of tourism within geography, or at least accounts of the history, philosophy, and theorization of human geography, is a significant issue in many reviews of the geography of tourism (Butler, 2004; Carlson, 1980; Gibson, 2008; Ioannides, 2006). Indeed, such a situation is mirrored in Gibson’s (2008) comment, “Tourism geography has its own geography of production and circulation, variegated differently than for other parts of geography. It still struggles to pervade publishing in ‘global’ journals, and yet, when eventually appearing elsewhere, tourism geography looks like to be on the whole more cosmopolitan.” This seems “an important—even defining—contradiction of tourism in contemporary geography,” according to Gibson (2008, p. 418) who also observed in the first of a series of reviews for Progress in Human Geography, “Although not taken seriously by some, and still considered marginal by many, tourism constitutes an important point of intersection within geography, and its capacity to gel critical, integrative and imperative research appears to be increasingly realized” (2008, p. 407).

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

14

Of course any question of marginality and peripherality requires the response of peripheral in relation to what? Gibson (2008) used the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI, now Web of Science) to analyze tourism within geography journals and argued that very little work was conducted on tourism geography in the 1960s and 1970s (averaging about five or six articles per year internationally). Growth occurred in the late 1980s and particularly into the 1990s, as human geography itself diversified. About 40 articles have been published annually in the last decade, across the selected geography journals (not including the specialist Tourism Geographies), and their breadth and diversity is striking. (2008, p. 409) Nevertheless, the rate suggested by Gibson’s analysis is equivalent to about one paper per ISI geography journal each year. A slightly higher rate was found in an analysis of tourism articles (defined by “tourism” being present in title, keyword, or abstract) from select leading geography journals during 1998 2009 (Table 1). Furthermore, as Gibson noted, “many researchers featuring in the SSCI bibliography would probably not Table 1. Journal

Articles in Selected Leading Geography Journals 1998 2009a Thomson Scientific Impact Factor 2009 Ranking in Geography

Annals of the Association of American Geographers Antipode

20/62 (1.434)

Area

17/62 (1.528)

Australian Geographical Studies/ Geographical Research Canadian Geographer

27/62 (1.290)

98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Average Per Year

6/62 (2.568)

41/62 (0.780)

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

3

1 1

1

0.42

1

1

1 2

2

1

3

0.33

1

0.33

2

1

2

0.33

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism (Continued )

Table 1. Journal

Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography Progress in Human Geography The Geographical Journal The Professional Geographer Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers

Thomson Scientific Impact Factor 2009 Ranking in Geography 26/62 (1.321)

98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Average Per Year

1

1

2/62 (3.590)

2

1

3

1

1

1

29/62 (1.226)

1

12/62 (1.712)

1

45/62 (0.717)

2

1

1

5

2

1

2

4

1

3

1

1

4

8

1 1

1

4/62 (3.413)

Total

15

1

7

2

9

3

1.25

2

1

0.33

1

0.75

2

1

2

7

2

7

0.66 1

1

0.66

1

2

1

0.66

6

11

8

0.61

a

Tourism in abstract, keywords, or title.

consider themselves tourism geographers or may not even list tourism as a specialist research interest” (2008, p. 409). What about the geography of tourism which is published in tourism and related journals? Unfortunately, until recently, very limited coverage of tourism journals in Web of Science suggests that this is not a very useful tool to analyze the scope of tourism geography. However, the Scopus database provides a significantly broader coverage of both geography and tourism journals. Table 2 provides a citation analysis of the title/abstract/ keywords of publications with geography/ies of tourism/recreation/leisure and variations thereof in the Scopus database. The most cited paper is that of Britton (1991), while the list also includes a book (Hall & Page, 2006). All of the top 25 most cited papers are written in English with the most cited non-English paper being that of Knafou et al. (1997), written in French with 15 citations. However, citation analysis is dependent both on the categories that are used and on what is actually included in the

16

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 2.

Rank

Most Cited Tourism Geographya Publications in Scopusb

Scopus Citations

Google Scholar Citations

Title

1

149

366

2

71

374

3

69

140

4

46

83

5

39

81

6=

37

93

6=

37

81

Tourism, capital, and place: Towards a critical geography of tourism The Geography of Tourism and Recreation “Cracking the canyon with the awesome foursome”: representations of adventure tourism in New Zealand Accounting for cultural meanings: The interface between geography and tourism studies re-examined Places around us: Embodied lay geographies in leisure and tourism Tourism, economic development and the globallocal nexus: Theory embracing complexity Forms of religious tourism

8=

36

68

8=

36

61

Year

Publication

Authors

Country of Affiliation of Author

1991

Environment & Planning D: Society & Space

Britton, S.

NZ

1999 (1st ed)

Book (Routledge)

Hall, C., Page, S.

NZ/UK

1998

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space

Cloke, P., Perkins, H.

UK/NZ

1994

Progress in Human Geography

Squire, S.

Canada

2000

Leisure Studies

Crouch, D.

UK

2001

Tourism Geographies

Milne, S., Ateljevic, I.

NZ/NZ

1992

Annals of Tourism Research Leisure Studies

Rinschede, G.

Germany

Aitchison, C.

UK

Leisure Studies

Aitchison, C.

UK

1999 New cultural geographies: The spatiality of leisure, gender and sexuality 2000 Poststructural feminist theories of representing others: A response to the “crisis” in leisure studies’ discourse

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism Table 2. Rank

Scopus Citations

Google Scholar Citations

Title

8=

36

74

11

30

37

12 =

26

34

12 =

26

67

12 =

26

75

15 =

24

38

15 =

24

55

17

21

28

18 =

20

47

18 =

20

51

20 =

18

46

Signs of the postrural: Marketing myths of a symbolic countryside Representations and identities in tourism map spaces Conceptualising tourism transport: Inequality and externality issues Tourism and the geographical imagination Atlantic City and the resort cycle background to the legalization of gambling Constructing tourism landscapes Gender, sexuality and space Circuits of tourism: Stepping beyond the “production/ consumption” dichotomy Weather, climate and tourism: A geographical perspective Local uniqueness in the global village: Heritage tourism in Singapore Geographical consciousness and tourism experience Exploring the evolution of tourism resorts

17

(Continued ) Year

Publication

Authors

Country of Affiliation of Author

1998

Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography

Hopkins, J.

Canada

2000

Progress in Human Geography

Casino Jr., V., Hanna, S.

USA/USA

1999

Journal of Transport Geography

Hall, D.

UK

1991

Leisure Studies

Hughes, G.

UK

1978

Annals of Tourism Research

Stansfield, C.

USA

2000

Tourism Geographies

Pritchard, A., Morgan, N.

UK/UK

2000

Tourism Geographies

Ateljevic, I.

NZ

2005

Annals of Tourism Research

Go´mez Martı´ n, M.

Spain

1999

Professional Geographer

Chang, T.

Singapore

2000

Annals of Tourism Research

Li, Y.

China

2004

Annals of Tourism Research

Papatheodorou, A.

UK

18

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 2.

(Continued )

Rank

Scopus Citations

Google Scholar Citations

Title

Year

20 =

18

42

2002

Applied Geography

Kent, M., Newnham, R., Essex, S.

UK/UK/ UK

22 =

17

0

Tourism and sustainable water supply in Mallorca: A geographical analysis Geography and tourism

1991

Mitchell, L., Murphy, P.

USA/ Canada

22 =

17

32

1996

Johnson, N.

Canada

22 =

17

63

NZ

16

37

Annals of Tourism Research Geographical Research

Pearce, D.

25 =

Hall, C.

NZ

25 =

16

47

Where geography and history meet: Heritage tourism and the big house in Ireland Towards a geography of tourism Reconsidering the geography of tourism and contemporary mobility Strengthening the ties between tourism and economic geography: A theoretical agenda

Annals of Tourism Research Annals of the Association of American Geographers

Professional Geographer

Ioannides, D.

USA

1991

2005b

1995

Publication

Authors

Country of Affiliation of Author

a

Scopus search: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“tourism/recreation/leisure geographies” OR “tourism/recreation/leisure geography” OR “geography of tourism/recreation/leisure” OR “geographies of tourism/recreation/leisure” OR tourism AND geography OR geographies.

b

As on October 10, 2010.

database. For example, what for many is arguably the most cited paper in tourism geography—that of Butler’s (1980) tourism area life-cycle with 514 citations—is not included, while neither is the most cited paper in Tourism Geographies by Williams and Hall (2000) (Table 3). The development of the journal Tourism Geographies, the first volume of which came out in 1999 (Lew, 1999), undoubtedly signaled a new stage in the development of the subfield, particularly as the editorial board includes

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism Table 3. Rank Citations

1

57

2

37

3=

34

3=

34

5

31

6

28

7=

24

7=

24

9

19

10

17

11 =

16

19

Twenty-five most Cited Articles in Tourism Geographiesa Title

Tourism and migration: New relationships between production and consumption Tourism, economic development and the global local nexus: Theory embracing complexity Comparing temporary mobility with permanent migration Tourism and international retirement migration: New forms of an old relationship in southern Europe Photography and travel brochures: The circle of representation Gazing on communism: Heritage tourism and post-communist identities in Germany, Hungary and Romania Constructing tourism landscapes Gender, sexuality and space Circuits of tourism: Stepping beyond the “production/ consumption” dichotomy Strengthening backward economic linkages: Local food purchasing by three Indonesian hotels Gay men, tourism and urban space: Reflections on Africa’s “gay capital” Landscapes of tourism: Towards a global cultural economy of space?

Year

Authors

Country of Affiliation of Author

2000 Williams, A., Hall, C.

UK/NZ

2001 Milne, S., Ateljevic, I.

NZ/NZ

2000 Bell, M., Ward, G.

Aust./Aust.

2000 Williams, A., King, R., Warnes, A., Patterson, G.

UK/UK/UK/ UK

2003 Jenkins, O.

Aust.

2000 Light, D.

UK

2000 Pritchard, A., Morgan, N.

UK/UK

2000 Ateljevic, I.

NZ

2000 Telfer, D., Wall, G.

Can./Can.

2003 Visser, G.

S. Africa

2002 Terkenli, T.

Greece

20

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 3.

Rank Citations

11 =

16

13 =

14

13 =

14

13 =

14

13 =

14

17 =

13

17 =

13

17 =

13

20 =

12

Title

Celebrating group and place identity: A case study of a new regional festival Tourism distribution channels in peripheral regions: The case of Southland, New Zealand Toward a better understanding of tourism and agriculture linkages in the Yucatan: Tourist food consumption and preferences Asian ecotourism: Patterns and themes The Olympic spirit and civic boosterism: The Sydney 2000 Olympics Conceptualizing city image change: The “re-imaging” of Barcelona Tourism “nonentrepreneurship” in peripheral destinations: A case study of small and medium tourism enterprises on Bornholm, Denmark Tourism smellscapes

(Continued ) Year

Authors

Country of Affiliation of Author

2001 De Bres, K., Davis, J.

USA/USA

2005 Stuart, P., Pearce, D., Weaver, A.

NZ/NZ/NZ

2002 Torres, R.

USA

2002 Weaver, D.

Can.

2001 Waitt, G.

Aust.

2005 Smith, A.

UK

2003 Ioannides, D., Petersen, T.

USA/Denmark

2003 Dann, G., Steen Jacobsen, J. 2007 Carl, D., Kindon, S., Smith, K.

UK/Norway

Tourists’ experiences of film locations: New Zealand as “Middle-Earth” Geographical research on 2004 Butler, R. tourism, recreation and leisure: Origins, eras and directions The Resort Development 2004 Prideaux, B. Spectrum: The case of the Gold Coast, Australia

UK/NZ/NZ

UK

Aust.

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism Table 3. Rank Citations

Title

Urban-rural migration, tourism entrepreneurs and rural restructuring in Spain The political economy of theme development in small urban places: The case of Roswell, New Mexico Constructions of surfing space at Durban, South Africa International retirement migration and tourism along the Lake Chapala Riviera: Developing a matrix of retirement migration behaviour Tourism and the environment: A geographical perspective Localities and tourism

a

21

(Continued ) Year

Authors

Country of Affiliation of Author

2002 Paniagua, A.

Spain

2002 Paradis, T.

USA

2002 Preston-Whyte, R.

S. Africa

2002 Truly, D.

USA

2000 Butler, R.

UK

2000 Gordon, I., Goodall, B.

UK/UK

Analysis as on September 29, 2010.

representatives from a range of tourism geography specialty groups of various national and international associations. Table 3 outlines the most cited papers of the journal on Scopus. The publications noted in Tables 2 and 3 reflect the often made assertion with respect to the depth of topic coverage found in tourism geography (Gibson, 2008; Hall & Page, 2009; Wilson, 2012a), illustrating what Paasi has referred to as “the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces” (2005b, p. 769). Table 4 notes the contribution to tourism citations by the country of the institution of the authors. With respect to the percentage contribution to the 25 most cited papers in Scopus under tourism and geography/ies, the leading countries were the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, and

22

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 4.

Comparisons by Country of Primary Affiliation of Authorsa

Country of Primary Affiliation of Authors

% Contribution to % Institutions % Contribution to 25 Most Cited Contributing Two 25 Most Cited Publications in or More Publications in Publications Listed Tourism Scopus Under in Scopus Under Geographies Tourism AND Geography/ies Tourism AND Geography/ies

Australia Austria Canada China Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Japan Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Romania Russia Serbia Singapore Slovenia South Africa

7.2 0.5 6.5 10.3 1.2

14.3

0.7 1.2 2.4 5.0 1.7 1.0 1.2 0.5 1.4 1.0 1.2 0.5 1.2 6.5

1.8

14 4

4

24

4

1.0 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.6 1.2 1.0

7.1

3.6

14.9 1.8

3.6

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism Table 4. Country of Primary Affiliation of Authors

Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Turkey UK USA a

23

(Continued )

% Contribution to % Contribution to % Institutions 25 Most Cited Contributing Two 25 Most Cited Publications in Publications in or More Tourism Scopus Under Publications Listed in Scopus Under Geographies Tourism AND Tourism AND Geography/ies Geography/ies 4

34 14

1.9 0.5 1.2 0.5 1.2 21.8 14.1

3.6

11.9 33.9

Analysis as on October 10, 2010.

the United States. The United States, New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom were the leading countries for authors of most cited papers in Tourism Geographies. Authors based in primarily English speaking countries accounted for 57.6% of institutions contributing two or more papers listed in Scopus under tourism and geography/ies. Given the substantial amount of non-English literature that exists, this cannot be reflective of tourism geography on a global basis. Table 5 details the wide range of journals and serials associated with the Scopus listing for those institutions having two or more publications lists. However, when the total number of publications is categorized according to the language of publication, 68% are in English, reflecting concerns not only about the peripheralization of non-English publications (and hence ideas) in the “international” discourse of tourism geography but also the emerging linguistic and institutional monopolization of international publishing spaces (Paasi, 2005b) (Table 6). There is a long legacy of account of tourism geographies by country or region: Australasia (Hall, 1999); Austria (Lichtenberger, 1984); Bulgaria (Bacˇvarov, 1984); China (Bao, 2002, 2009; Bao & Ma, 2011); Czech ˇ Republic (Mariot, 1984; Vystoupil, Kunc, & Sauer, 2010); France

24

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 5.

Institutions Making Two or More Contributionsa

Title

Number

Title

Number

Tourism Geographies

47

3

Geojournal Annals of Tourism Research

33 29

Geografski Obzornik

20

Acta Geographica Sinica Geography

19 19

Tourism Management Department of State Publication Background Notes Series Environmental Management Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography Geographische Rundschau

19 19

Dokumentacja Geograficzna ACME Mitteilungen Der Osterreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft Environment and History Environmental History Mediterranee Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Professional Geographer International Journal of Health Services

13 12 12

Leisure Studies Frankfurter Wirtschafts Und Sozialgeographische Schriften Progress in Human Geography

9 8

Social and Cultural Geography

7

7

3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

Moravian Geographical Reports Hommes Et Terres Du Nord Anatolia

3

Nordia Geographical Publications Geographische Zeitschrift Geoforum

3

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers Asia Pacific Viewpoint

3 3

3 3

3

3

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism Table 5. Title

7

Geografija V Soli

7

Journal of Cultural Geography Geographie Und Schule Foldrajzi Ertesito Terra

6

Geography Review Teaching Geography Chinese Geographical Science Current Issues in Tourism Documents D Analisi Geografica Journal of Historical Geography Annales De Geographie

Wirtschaftsgeographische Studien Espace Geographique Journal of Geography in Higher Education

Mappemonde Marine Pollution Bulletin Japanese Journal of Human Geography

(Continued )

Number

Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing

25

Title

Number

6 6

Vestnik Sankt Peterburgskogo Universiteta Seriya Geologiya I Geografiya Journal of Environmental Management Berichte Zur Deutschen Landeskunde Area Tourism Water Science and Technology Geographie Fennia Journal of Transport Geography Gender Place and Culture International Migration

6

Anatolia

3

6

European Urban and Regional Studies Wiener Geographische Schriften New Zealand Journal of Geography

3

Freizeit Und Erholung Als Probleme Der Vergleichenden Kulturgeographie Revue Belge De Geographie Regional Studies Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift

2

6 6 6 6 6 6

5 5 5

5 5 5

3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3

2 2 2

26

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 5.

Title

(Continued )

Number

Title

Number

Human Geography

5

2

Norois Revue De Geographie Alpine Geographie Et Cultures

5 5

Environment Development and Sustainability Environment & Planning A Nederlandse Geografische Studies Political Geography Geographia Medica Geografski Vestnik

Geografiska Annaler Series B Human Geography Estudios Geograficos Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie Journal of Travel Medicine Environmental Health Perspectives Geographical Review Tourist Studies Folia Geographica Series Geographica Oeconomica Geographica Slovenica Journal of Travel Research

a

5 4

2 2 2 2 2

4 4

Geograficky Casopis Geographical Review of Japan Series B

2 2

4

Prace I Studia Geograficzne

2

4

Erdkunde

2

4

Geographical Review of Japan Series A Espace Populations Societes Etudes Normandes

2

4 4

4 4

Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Seriya Geograficheskaya Australian Geographical Stidues Lecture Notes in Computer Science Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics

2 2

2 2 2

In tourism AND geography OR geographies in Scopus; analysis as on October 10, 2010.

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism Table 6.

27

Language of “Tourism & Geography” in Title, Abstract, Keywordsa

Language

Number of Publications

Percentage (%)

English French German Slovenian Chinese Spanish Japanese Russian Hungarian Polish Finnish Slovene Portuguese Otherb

627 75 57 29 26 14 10 8 7 7 5 5 4 13

68.0 8.1 6.2 3.1 2.8 1.5 1.1 0.9 7.6 7.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.4

Total number of publications

922

100.0

a

Analysis as on October 10, 2010. Croatian (2), Czech (2), Italian (2), Slovak (2), Swedish (2), Bulgarian (1), Catalan (1), Dutch (1).

b

(Barbier & Pearce, 1984; Lazzarotti, 2002); Germany (Benthien, 1984; Kreisel, 2004); Italy (Pedrini, 1984); Japan (Takeuchi, 1984; Tsuruta, 1994); New Zealand (Pearce, 2001); North America (Meyer-Arendt & Lew, 1999; ´ Meyer-Arendt, 2000); Poland (Warszynska, 1984); Rumania (Jancu & Baron, 1984); Russia (Preobrazhenskiy, Vedenin, & Stupina, 1984); South Africa (Magi & Nzama, 2002; Visser, 2009); the United Kingdom (Coles, 2009; Duffield, 1984); and the United States (Mitchell, 1984). But many of these reviews are idiosyncratic and do not systematically analyze the tourism geography literature for that country. Nevertheless, they can be useful for identifying some significant issues or themes, as are some of the thematic reviews of the field (Gibson, 2008, 2009, 2010; Hall, 2013; Hall & Page, 2009, 2012; Nepal, 2009). However, there is unfortunately little overt discussion from academics within the tourism geography and wider community with respect to whom and what is being published and researched, and why, although relevant literature is growing

28

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

(Aitchison, 2006; Che, 2010; Coles & Hall, 2006; Coles, Hall, & Duval, 2006; Hall, 2005a, 2013; Page, 2005; Smith, 2010; Tribe, 2009; Waitt, Markwell, & Gorman-Murray, 2008; Wilson, 2012a). This does not suggest that research and teaching interests and associated publications are completely irrational; indeed, there is a growing literature on the teaching of tourism geography (Che, 2009; Dornan & Truly, 2009; Schmelzkopf, 2002). But it emphasizes that the contents of an area of study at any one time and location do reflect “the response of the individuals involved to external circumstances and influences, within the context of their intellectual socialization” (Johnston, 1983, p. 4). Grano (1981) developed a model of external influences and internal change within geography that Hall and Page (2006) and Hall (2004) used as a framework with which to examine the field of tourism studies. According to Grano (1981), the relationship of academic space to external influence can be divided into three interrelated areas: knowledge (the content of tourism studies), action (tourism research within the context of research praxis), and culture (academics and students within the context of the research community and the wider society). Those who study tourism geography are a sub-community of the social science community, including geography and tourism studies, within the broader community of academics, scientists, and intellectuals, which itself is a subset of wider society. The society has a culture, including a scientific/ academic subculture within which the subject matter of the geography of tourism is developed. Action is predicated on the structure of society and its knowledge base: research praxis is part of that program of action, and includes tourism research (Hall & Page, 2006). Therefore, the community of academics is an “institutionalizing social group” (Grano, 1981, p. 26); a context within which individual academics and researchers socialize and network and which helps define the goals of their subject area in the context of the structures within which they operate. The content of a subject area or discipline must, in turn, be linked to its milieu, such as changes as to how universities and research is funded and the major social and scientific issues of the day.

Changes in the Field An obvious question is why should tourism be a significant subfield of geography? Its implications can be discussed for place, space, landscape, environment, and a range of other themes (Nepal, 2009). However, the sheer growth in international tourism and mobility and its contribution to

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism

29

economies should be noted. Indeed, shifts in terminology in the literature from “recreation” to “tourism” parallels the increased mobility of individuals over time, more so if one is looking through the major American geography journals, as well as in a broader context with respect to descriptions of research projects and publications. What was once “recreation” is now “domestic tourism.” In addition, changes in mobility patterns and the increased competition among places to attract mobile capital have led to changes in research funding, applications, and opportunities; the development of new educational courses; and, in some jurisdictions, increased government funding for tourism-related programs. The increased mobility of individuals for leisure and business purposes is part of broader processes of globalization in which the geography of tourism and those who engage in it are embedded. Individuals are part of an international labor market for academic talent, although some protectionism does exist, as well as an increasingly international set of educational institutions via either the attraction of international students and/or the development of new campuses or distance education modes. Teaching and research in tourism has become highly globalized, as evidenced by internationalization of journals, books, Internet communities, and scholarly meetings. This, however, depends on the capacity to communicate in English. Indeed, institutional demands to be international only strengthen the dominance of English as the current language of globalization and the reinforcement of the prestige of academic journals and articles published in English (Paasi, 2005b). Given the globalization of higher education and research, is it still even possible to talk of national or regional schools or approaches to tourism geography? The answer is a qualified yes. Language and institutional differences still remain, even though there is arguably a more global community of tourism geographers than ever. Globalization has had the effect of changing the “rules of the game” in higher education. This, however, is a complex, chaotic, multiscalar, multitemporal, and multicentric series of processes; these in turn operate in particular structural and spatial contexts in which pockets of resistance or conservatism offer alternatives to foreign or international influences. In some national jurisdictions, rewards are provided for various forms of “local” research or publication, including indigenous research. Nevertheless, some broader trends and issues can be identified. First is the (supposed) tension between applied and theoretical tourism geographies. Tourism studies have often been criticized as being atheoretical (Franklin & Crang, 2001). Yet, this has much to do with the desire to

30

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

promote certain types of theories over others, rather than suggesting that the geography of tourism is purely descriptive. Nevertheless, within much European and North American tourism geography, there has long been a strong element of spatial description that has not been well connected to economic, political, and/or social theory. Meyer-Arendt and Lew (1999), for example, note the more applied nature of tourism geographical research in North America. The perception of the geography of tourism in the broader field of tourism studies as being strongly applied and spatially descriptive has been projected by a number of influential reviews (Janiskee & Mitchell, 1989; Mitchell, 1979, 1984; Mitchell & Murphy, 1991; Pearce, 1979). While spatial atheoretical description had been strongly critiqued by geographers (Britton, 1978, 1979, 1983, 1991; Ioannides, 1995; Shaw & Williams, 1994), this was, and perhaps by some, still has not affected the perception of what the geography of tourism can offer more critical spatial understanding of tourism phenomena (Hall, 2011b). The applied vs. theory debate is not one isolated to tourism geography and is perhaps reflective of broader debates in tourism research and the social sciences. This also reflects on the emergence of new sets of ideas or “turns” that are adopted as part of the discourses of tourism geography. This means we have seen the often uncritical adoption of “gazes” (Crang, 1997a; Urry, 1990), new cultural geographies and turns (Aitchison, 1999), the mobility paradigm or turn (Adey, 2010; Cresswell, 2006; Hall, 2005c; Hannam, 2008; Sheller & Urry, 2006), and, more recently, the so-called “critical turn” in tourism studies (Bianchi, 2009). This is despite the fact that many of these “turns” have antecedents within geography that are often unacknowledged or unrealized. Therefore, there is perhaps a need to recognize that the discourse of tourism geography is itself embedded in the machinations of the academic fashion cycle, “which plays out through a particular industrial actor-network of academic knowledge production, circulation and reception” (Gibson & Klocker, 2004, p. 425), within which “favored academic personalities” are [s]wept up into international circuits of academic celebrity, a move that is dependent less upon internal disciplinary modes of evaluation than on the shifting imperatives of knowledge dissemination … Dedicated followers of fashion hurry to buy the new … book, an act of discernment and discrimination that starkly reveals the truism that identity is constructed in and through the consumption of commodities. (Barnett, 1998, p. 388)

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism

31

A second, and a rather shorter point, is that as in geography in general, there is often inadequate integration between physical and human geography, despite the increased needs of such approaches because of concerns over environmental change at various scales (Go¨ssling & Hall, 2006a, 2006b). This is not to suggest that geographers are not active in this field, but it is to propose that the perception of the geography of tourism is conditioned more by what happens within the intellectual debates of human geography than physical geography. Although fields such as climate change are potentially providing a new focal point for the integration of physical and human geography (Scott, Go¨ssling, & Hall, 2012). Third, many tourism geographers do not work in geography departments; they invariably work in tourism departments many of which are based in business schools. Such a situation is both a blessing and a curse. While it potentially provides for the circulation of ideas as well as alternative career paths, it may also weaken the strengths of the subdiscipline within geography because of the applied versus theoretical debates noted above (Hall & Page, 2006). Finally, these themes are part of a broader process of the globalization of higher education marked by international sets of university and journal rankings, increased competition for the international student market, and the opening of new campuses as part of the export of education. Although significant in themselves as indicators of a global “academic market” (and workforce) which is part of a “higher education industry,” they are also indicative of the spread of neoliberal ideas with respect to governance, education, and research policy. Ideas that emphasize the role of market forces, deregulation, and the state’s role in encouraging the market act as a mechanism for distributing goods and services, and result in a reduced social welfare role for the state. In the case of the latter, this also means that in many countries encouraging universities to search for new sources of income to replace declining government spending for higher education in real terms (Hall, 2010). Such shifts in the idea of higher education and the institutions and individuals within them has been discussed under the rubric of concepts such as “academic capitalism” (Paasi, 2005b; Rhoades & Slaughter, 1997; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997, 2001; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004), “the entrepreneurial university” (Clark, 1998), and “new managerialism” (Deem, 1998). In the case of the latter, this refers both to ideologies about the application of techniques, values, and practices derived from the private sector to public management of services concerned with the provision of public services, and to the actual use of those techniques and practices in publicly funded

32

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

organizations (Deem, 2001). This is, perhaps, best reflected in higher education by the use of teaching and research quality audits (Hall, 2005a, 2011a; Page, 2005), increasingly marked by simplistic notions of quality, and the international transfer of ideas and policies that surround them (Hall, 2011a, 2013). The concept of the entrepreneurial university describes the way in which tertiary institutions are “… pushed and pulled by enlarging, interacting streams of demand, [and] universities are pressured to change their curricula, alter their faculties, and modernize their increasingly expensive physical plant and equipment” (Clark, 1998, p. xiii). Such pressures come from government higher education, economic development, and innovation policies; the signing of free trade agreements that include educational services and qualifications recognition; and globalization. The notion of academic capitalism goes “beyond thinking of the student as a consumer to considering the institution as marketer” (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 1), with academics acting as “state-subsidized entrepreneurs” (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997, p. 9). This means that the “encroachment of the profit motive into the academy” identified by Slaughter and Leslie (1997, p. 210) has now become the norm. Academic capitalism refers to the way in which the academic staff of publicly funded universities deploy their academic capital to generate external revenues to the institution via the pursuit of market and market-like activities. Leading to a situation in which profit-oriented activities are presently embedded, “as a point of reorganization (and new investment) by higher education institutions to develop their own capacity (and to hire new types of professionals) to market products created by faculty and develop commercializable products outside of (though connected to) conventional academic structures and individual faculty members” (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, p. 11). Although the precepts of academic capitalism and the entrepreneurial university are not evenly adopted across the globe, primarily because of local factors affecting higher education institutions, some faculties and departments which are seen by university administrations as offering commercial and income-generating potential may be more susceptible than others to such reorientation. Those without such potential, especially in the humanities, may be forced to cut course offerings or even be closed or amalgamated. However, the geography of tourism, straddling both commercial and public research, is a clear candidate for the further development of entrepreneurial self-interest in commercial and research-granting activities. Nevertheless, to adapt academic behaviors away from such

Development(s) in the Geographies of Tourism

33

self-interest is likely to be extremely difficult, given the dominant commercial focus of the institutions and structures within which the tourism academy is increasingly embedded. Furthermore, if employment is subject to growth or maintenance of student numbers, attaining a certain number of publications in a determined set of journals, and attracting x amount of external income, then it is very hard to behave otherwise (Hall, 2010). The institutional aspects of research quality are extremely important for the assessment of tourism research. Arguably, for the allocation of academic prestige and funds, they are the most important in those jurisdictions that have established national research quality reviews (Hall, 2005a, 2011a; Page, 2003, 2005; Visser, 2009). This is because they set the “rules of the game” within which research is conducted and published. At a macro level, national structures and reviews define what constitutes “good” research by prescribing the means by which it is analyzed, who does the analysis, what is included in the analysis, where tourism studies lies as a body of knowledge, and what the implications of the analysis will be (Coles, 2009; Coles & Hall, 2006; Coles et al., 2006; Page, 2003; Visser, 2009). These are then responded to by meso-level tertiary institutions in the research review process. As Tewdwr-Jones commented, “Today, so much prestige is now attached to the results of the exercise at a time of fiscal concern, that results produce one of two possibilities: a better than expected performance may result in increased resources allocated to the university; a lower than expected result may just be the justification sought by vice chancellors eager to prune back expenditure and wield the axe” (2005, p. 318). This has a profound effect on the direction that scholarship then takes at both individual and departmental levels. Such a situation is also indicative of the process of economization that refers to the assembly of actions, behaviors, devices, institutions, objects, and analytical/practical descriptions which are tentatively and sometime controversially qualified as “economic” by scholars, lay people, and/or market actors (C¸alıskan & Callon, 2009). As Callon’s (1998) earlier work on the competition among calculative agencies noted: Imposing the rules of the game, that is to say, the rules used to calculate decisions, by imposing the tools in which these rules are incorporated, is the starting point of relationships of domination which allow certain calculating agencies to decide the location and distribution of surpluses. The extension of a certain form of organized market, an extension which ensures the domination of agents who calculate according to the

34

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives prevailing rules of that particular market, always corresponds to the imposition of certain calculating tools. (1998, p. 46)

Significantly, the neoliberal drive for efficiency and measurement in many government policies (Stein, 2002) has also meant the embrace of metrics that not only define quality in an instrumental manner (a formal set of journal rankings), but also inherently favor some publication outlets over others (such as journals over books) because of their coverage. In bibliometric terms, the limitation of metrics is very clearly recognized in the literature (Leydesdorff, 2009; Pendlebury, 2009); however, in policy terms it is not (Hall, 2011a).

CONCLUSION Metrics are a significant part of the geography and sociology of knowledge. For some, they identify the hegemonic nature of English and the discourses of Anglo-American geography (whatever that really is!). However, together with Paasi (2005b), the intent is to demonstrate that the globalization of the geography of tourism means that debates over subject matter, focus, and peripherality cannot be understood without recognizing that the occupation of academic space by English language journals and publishers is a result of the present-day practices of academic capitalism of which we are a part.

Chapter 3

Nordic Tourism Geographies Jarkko Saarinen University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Abstract: Travel and tourism have had a long history in the Nordic countries, but research on tourism has a relatively short tradition in the region. Recently, academic interest in the Nordic tourism space has grown and diversified especially as a result of increasing numbers of academics and institutions involved with tourism geographies and studies and education in the region. The Nordic context has provided thematic focus areas for empirical studies that characterize tourism geographies in the region, with topics including nature-based tourism, utilization of wilderness areas, second-home and rural developments, impacts in peripheries, and tourism as a tool for regional development. In addition, there are emerging research themes outside of the traditional core topics, such as urban, events, and heritage tourism. Keywords: Nordic region; Scandinavia; regional development; nature-based tourism

INTRODUCTION Travel and tourism have had a relatively long history in the Nordic countries and the region has provided diverse opportunities for tourism and recreation, ranging from wilderness, nature-based, and adventure tourism activities to urban and cultural settings, attractions, and events. In contrast

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Tourism Social Science Series, Volume 19, 35 53 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1571-5043/doi:10.1108/S1571-5043(2013)0000019003

36

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

to this, research on tourism has a much shorter and thematically limited history in the region: there is a multitude of early travelogues, tourist guides, and yearbooks made by Nordic and international authors on different tourist routes, places and attractions, and interesting or peculiar aspects located in the region, but systematic research beyond descriptions and individual experiences was mainly missing till the second part of the 20th century. It is difficult to state the exact start of the academic interest in tourism geographies in the Nordic area, as the region consists of several countries and academic traditions. The core idea of the Nordic region is itself compounded with political geography. On the one hand, it refers to Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden and the associated territories of the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and A˚land. On the other hand, the Nordic region is formed by the members of the Nordic Council which was established in 1952. In public discussion, the Nordic region is often equated with Scandinavia. Although there are many common and historically shared elements, Scandinavia is a more limited linguistic and cultural area in which Denmark, Norway, and Sweden as constitutional monarchies form the core. Obviously, due to historical and current close interaction, there are many visible and hidden Scandinavian influences outside the core countries, but both in principle and practice the Nordic region is wider than Scandinavia. This applies also to tourism geographies in the region. Recently, academic interest in the Nordic tourism space has grown and diversified (Hall, Mu¨ller, & Saarinen, 2009). This is a result of increasing numbers of academics and institutions involved with tourism studies and education in the region (Table 1). In addition, the launch of a specific Table 1. Specific Theoretical Frameworks Related to Tourism Geographies Period 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Present

Theory Regionalism, regional description Regionalism, regional description, and areal differentiation Regionalism and spatial modeling, regional description, economy, and areal differentiation Spatial modeling and regional economy, supply demand, and growth of cautionary approaches Critical and adaptive studies, rise of sustainable tourism Diversification of tourism geographies Diversification of tourism geographies

Nordic Tourism Geographies

37

academic journal, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism in 2001 focusing on the region’s tourism and hospitality issues, has activated research and also made it more visible inside and outside the region. The Nordic tourism space, which is the scope area of the journal (in spite of the usage of Scandinavia in the title), is characterized by distinctive political and geographical boundaries and identities, environmental and cultural commonalities, economic and industrial linkages, and ease of internal mobilities (Hall et al., 2009, p. 3). These issues make Nordic tourism geographies distinct, but the region is also increasingly connected to the international stage of geographical research in tourism, which influences the current themes of tourism studies in the Nordic countries. The purpose of this chapter is to identify and introduce some of the key issues and traditional and emerging themes characterizing Nordic tourism geographies. The emphasis is on recent discussions and developments in the field. However, first the early phases of geographical research on tourism will be briefly overviewed, followed by a discussion on the selected key themes in research. Finally, some institutional issues and future prospects and challenges affecting and defining Nordic tourism geographies will be introduced and critically discussed. The terms “tourism geography” or “tourism geographies” the latter term aims to highlight the plurality of the geographical perspectives on tourism (Hall & Page, 2012) and “tourism geographer” are used rather liberally in this chapter (Wilson, 2012a). The general aspect behind the use of the terms is that the approach and conceptual basis of specific studies mentioned are “geographical,” while the term “tourism geographer” simply refers to a geographer who has published a research article or articles focusing on tourism. Obviously, labeling scholars as tourism geographers based on individual paper(s) may not necessarily reflect their own identification code as scholars.

TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES IN THE NORDIC REGION According to Jafari (1990, 2001), there have been several platforms or phases in international tourism research. The initial phase, the advocacy platform, represents a development orientation to the tourism industry through research. During the initial phase the research activities were focused on economic issues and impacts and enquiries were directly or indirectly driven by the needs of the industry and to boost the industry. The advocacy approach was challenged in the 1970s by the cautionary platform, warning that along with the positive economic impacts, potential

38

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

costs for the environment, local cultures and communities, and other economic fields are also evident. The cautionary views originated from evident negative impacts of the growing industry, but they also reflected the contextual discussions in academic research, environmental policies, and international politics focusing on the chemicalization of the environment and political and economic imbalances in North South relations (Britton, 1982; De Kadt, 1979; Young, 1973). These two phases in tourism research are polar opposites and in a way they both took the existing nature of the tourism industry for granted, while the third platform, the adaptive phase, aimed to look at alternative models in tourism development. Thus, the research was driven by the need to mitigate the negative and enhance the positive impacts (Macbeth, 2005). It had connections to the evolution of the green movement and consumerism in the 1980s which were manifested in the tourism context by the creation of the well-known term “ecotourism,” for example (Fennell, 1999). Later, along with the emergence of the ideology of sustainable development, the adaptive phase crystallized in sustainable tourism thinking in research and development policies in the late 1980s and early 1990s. For Macbeth (2005), the demand for sustainability in tourism development could represent an independent platform itself. On one hand, sustainable development in tourism became a driving force; a paradigm aiming to guide and control the industry’s operations (Saarinen, 2006). On the other hand, however, sustainable tourism represents a continuation of an adaptive platform aiming at social, cultural, economic, and environmental soundness, and better management models and practices in development (Hunter, 1997). The final phase in Jafari’s (2001) platforms is the knowledge-based approach which aims to represent a realistic perspective to research on tourism, its nature and impacts: tourism is recognized as a global-scale industry and a form of culture that is likely to grow and spread to new regions and places and, thus, there will be evidently increasing impacts of tourism in the future. In order to optimize and manage the impacts of the mega-scale industry, better knowledge, information, models, and theories were needed to be created by tourism scholars. In addition to Jafari’s phase categories, Holden (2003) and Macbeth (2005) have added new dimension to the evolution of academic tourism research: they both see a need for a new kind of ethics in tourism development (Fennell, 2006). This ethical platform emphasizes environmental issues, the limits to growth, and the restructuring of the local global nexus in tourism development and associated research perspectives.

Nordic Tourism Geographies

39

While different platforms in international tourism research (as published in the Anglo-American literature) can be seen as phases based on different kinds of contextual issues and processes at the time of their evolution, they all can still be traced within the approaches of current tourism research. With their different backgrounds, the platforms also indicate that tourism is part of, and should be seen within, wider geographical and socioeconomic processes and contexts. This indicates that tourism research does not happen in a vacuum but is influenced by societies and various academic traditions. Therefore, when looking at a specific academic disciplinary perspective to tourism research in a specific geographical region, it is not only important, but fruitful, to take the context into account. In the current case of geographical studies on tourism in the Nordic region, this is somewhat challenging, as the disciplinary traditions vary in substance and in timescale among the various Nordic countries (which have their sociocultural, political, and environmental commonalities), but also vary in terms of their differences. Thus, as the history of tourism studies in the region is relatively short and the geographical traditions partly vary among different countries, the overview discussed in the chapter represents a generalized approach to the evolution of Nordic tourism geographies.

The Evolution of Tourism Geographies in the Nordic Context In the Nordic countries, early questions in geographical studies on tourism were related to regional structures and the economics of tourism and supply demand patterns in spatial contexts. Ljungdahl (1938) made an early overview of the spatial structure of second homes in the adjacent areas of Stockholm, while Frimodig (1959) described the regional aspects of tourism as “the new industry” for the Bohusla¨n province in southwest Sweden, and Eriksson and Wiksto¨m (1961) made a geographical and economic analysis of tourism in Kiruna, the northern Swedish mining town. Thus, in many respects the Nordic home of the regional analysis of tourism can be located in Sweden and the studies conducted there were later followed up thematically and conceptually in other Nordic countries. In Finland, for example, similar regional case studies were done in the town of Hanko (Falenius, Gro¨nholm, & Lehtonen, 1963), the Province of Lapland (Helle, 1968, 1970), and the Etela¨-Pohjanmaa region (Hautama¨ki & Siirila¨, 1969). Irrespective of the country of origin, these pioneering studies were case-oriented and relatively descriptive in nature: typical of geographical research at the time.

40

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

In the academic geographical sense, early studies were mainly related to the subdiscipline called economic geography. Tourism was seen primarily as an industry through its economic contribution and resource needs in a regional context. By utilizing Jafari’s (1990) framework, the early studies of the 1950s and 1960s represented the advocacy platform, aiming to provide information and support for the industry’s development needs, especially to regional developers and planners working with the new emerging economic field. From the perspective of human geography, the pioneering studies were related to a regionalist approach (Hubbard, Kitchin, Bartley, & Fuller, 2002) aiming to map, inventory, and classify tourism resources and activities. However, by the 1970s studies started to involve positivistic elements, including conceptual tools and methods from spatial theories and modeling, which was typical of the discipline at the time (Johnston, 1991a, 1991b); thus, tourism and its different operations were seen as parts of spatial systems. In geographical studies on tourism, these spatial systems involved tourist flows, patterns, future development prospects, and demand supply structures in space (Bohlin, 1982; Hemmi, 1979; Hautama¨ki & Siirila¨, 1969). Methodologically, studies were based on quantitative approaches, which are still relatively characteristic of Nordic tourism research in general (Mehmetoglu, 2004). Along with the growth of spatial modeling, regional and descriptive studies on tourism structures were relatively common and based on the available common tourism resources. In the Nordic countries, especially in the peripheral regions, an increasing number of studies focused on tourism and recreation in nature conservation areas, typically in national parks (Ratilainen, 1976). Indeed, this general focus has been typical of Nordic tourism geographies until the present day (Puhakka, 2008; Zachrisson, Sandell, Fredman, & Eckerberg, 2006). While regional descriptive analyses were characteristic of many of these early studies, they also raised critical issues referring to the management of negative impacts (Borg & Ratilainen, 1974). These issues relate to Jafari’s cautionary platform in international tourism studies, whose aspect became much more visible in the Nordic context in the 1990s and 2000s (Ja¨rviluoma, 1993; Sandell, 2005; Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, 2004) with the support of sustainable tourism studies, implying a shift toward adaptive perspectives in tourism research (Aronsson, 1994, 2000; Saarinen, 2006). From the disciplinary point of view, the initial cautionary aspects of geographical tourism research provided an expansion toward behavioral geography approaches as characterized by individual and human preferences, decision-making processes, and behavior in natural environments. Early

Nordic Tourism Geographies

41

behavioral studies in geography were characterized by quantitative approaches and modeling and by the late 1980s and early 1990s, behavioral studies had begun to center on crowding and coping strategies, environmental preferences, and mental maps of tourism environments (Saarinen, 1998; Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, 2004). However, more humanistic approaches to the individual tourist’s experiences were also raised (Sandell, 1991), and methodologically, qualitative approaches became more evident (Mehmetoglu, 2004). Interestingly, some of the recent experience-focused studies have involved behavioral geography’s time space elements (Aronsson, 2000; Bærenholdt, Haldrup, Larsen, & Urry, 2004; Haldrup, 2004), which refers to one of the most internationally known Nordic theoretical frameworks, that is, time geography, which was originally developed in the 1960s in Sweden by Torsten Ha¨gerstrand (1970). As indicated earlier, evolved sustainable tourism studies in the 1990s were partly characterized by the premises of the adaptive platform. However, they were also influenced by critical (or cautionary) debates on tourism development and its relationship to the environment and local communities (Aronsson, 1994; Gı´ slado´ttir, 2006; Ja¨rviluoma, 1993; Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, 2004, 2010a). In geography, studies on tourism impacts were based on various traditions, including structuralist and realist approaches in human geography, while studies on the management of impacts and development of better indicators and policies guiding the industry were based on applied geography-oriented perspectives, aiming for higher policy relevancy and increased control over impacts (Sæþo´rsdo´ttir & O´lafsson, 2010). Studies on tourism impacts and management were also related to a knowledge-based platform, as several Nordic scholars emphasized the need for deeper knowledge and development of better indicators for tourism planning and management (Aronsson, 2000; Flogenfeldt, 1999). In addition, more recently the ethical platform-related conceptual or theoretical discussions have been raised by Nordic tourism geographers (Gren & Huijbens, 2012; Saarinen, 2006). In general, descriptive regional geographical approaches in tourism have been conducted up until the present day, but their role is nowadays quite limited in academic publishing. Early regional economic and spatial system analyses lost their visible role by the start of the 1990s (at the latest). Since then, Nordic geographical studies on tourism have been thematically versatile and methodologically and theoretically diverse. In this respect, Nordic tourism geographies do not differ greatly from the international Anglo-American-dominated research approaches. However, there are certain themes that are more emphasized and visible; thus, they can be seen as

42

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

particularly characteristic of Nordic tourism studies and geographies. Some of these characterizing themes will be discussed next, with a focus on those studies targeting geographical issues of tourism in the Nordic countries.

The Nordic Context In their 10 year anniversary editorial of Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Haukeland, Therkelsen, Furunes, and Mykletun state that from an empirical point of view, “nature-based and rural tourism are compelling characteristics defining the tourism and hospitality sector in the North” (2010, p. 173). Indeed, those themes form some of the core areas of tourism geographies in the Nordic region. According to the journal’s founding editors, the role of the Nordic context is crucial. As they stated in the inaugural issue’s editorial, “We think of tourism and hospitality as phenomena based on the natural, cultural, social, political, and economic resources that an area can provide, and also restricted by these same factors” (Mykletun & Haukeland, 2001, p. 1). Thus, from this perspective tourism is deeply embedded in space which empowers and limits the thematic array of and preferences for research topics. Although there are exceptions, the role of context is highly important. Paasi has similarly highlighted the role of contextuality in the development of social and cultural geography in Finland: while where theories and conceptual approaches may be drawn from the Anglo-American geographies, researchers “have simultaneously brought a novel contextual element into these theorizations, showing that the national and international perspectives are not inevitably strictly contradictory” (2005a, p. 606). This applies to Nordic tourism geographies, which are increasingly driven by international conceptual and theoretical perspectives, but at the same time are also contributing to international discussions via contextual empirical applications and/or theoretical developments. Research on second home tourism, for example, clearly demonstrates this issue. After a period of lower research activity, second home studies intensified in the late 1990s and 2000s, especially in Sweden (Mu¨ller, 1999, 2002, 2007; Marjavaara, 2007), but also elsewhere in the Nordic region (Flogenfeldt, 2004; Hiltunen, 2007; Huijbens, 2012; Kaltenborn, 1998; Pitka¨nen, 2008). While the topic has its international connections in the 1970s cautionary platform (Coppock, 1977), the Nordic context (characterized by open access to the natural environment, welfare-state, and highly developed statistical information resources and structures, for example) created specific

Nordic Tourism Geographies

43

advantages and boosted Nordic second home and related tourism research in a way that it is currently well known and also closely followed outside the region (Visser, 2006).

Geographies of Tourism and Regional Development In the Nordic region, the tourism industry has been an important and growing element in regional economies and in the everyday life and employment of local people. This is especially evident in the peripheral parts of the Nordic countries, where the relative role of tourism is often crucial. The industry has been used by governments and regional actors for regional development purposes and this has provided research needs and opportunities for researchers. This is the case especially in terms of early studies on tourism geographies, which were based on regional economic analyses of tourism and its development (Eriksson & Wiksto¨m, 1961; Frimodig, 1959; Helle, 1968). Thus, the study of the contribution and potentiality of tourism in regional development forms a traditional and long-term research theme in Nordic tourism geographies (Bohlin, 1982; Saarinen, 2003a, 2003b; Vuoristo & Araja¨rvi, 1990). However, as Aronsson (1989) has stated in relation to the Swedish context, knowledge of tourism and local development remained relatively underdeveloped till the late 1980s and was largely based on descriptive regional inventories, often focusing on specific standalone cases. This notion applies to many other Nordic countries as well as outside regions (Franklin & Crang, 2001). In the 1980s, the early descriptive approaches were partly transformed toward spatial modeling and local or regional strategic planning and development approaches. Currently regional development and economic studies in tourism geographies are increasingly based on critical discussions on core-periphery relations, power, and development (Lundmark, 2005; Lundmark & Stjernsto¨m, 2009; Mu¨ller & Jansson, 2007; Prokkola, 2007). However, critical approaches on the political economy of tourism development are still less practiced in the Nordic countries than in international tourism studies, but recently Nordic scholars have emphasized the need to analyze the politics of tourism development (Puhakka, 2008). Jo´hannesson and Huijbens (2010), for instance, have scrutinized the current policy discourses of tourism development in Iceland influenced by the role of the global credit crunch and the condition of economic recession. The relative lack of critical approaches on the political economy of tourism development may, at least partly, be explained by

44

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

the Nordic context and the welfare-state model that has traditionally supported well-being and living conditions in the peripheries through various regional development policy instruments, weakening those processes that create uneven regional development typical of many other countries, especially in the developing world. However, recently political and economic pressures toward centralization (including the global financial crisis) have increased and challenged previous regional structures. At the same time, possibilities to practice heavy subvention-based regional politics have been substantially narrowed, especially in the European Union member states of the Nordic countries. A specific subtopic in Nordic geographical studies on tourism and regional development is the analysis of tourist resorts or attractions and their development, and change and connections to surrounding regional structures. Some studies have followed Butler’s (1980) evolution lifecycle analysis, while others have approached destination development on the basis of regionalization theories or critical core-periphery studies (Hultman & Hall, 2012; Lundmark & Stjernsto¨m, 2009; Saarinen & Kask, 2008). In this context, the border regions have provided fruitful settings for new regional geography, political geography, and governance-based analysis of tourism development (Ioannides, Nielsen, & Billing, 2006; Prokkola, 2007).

Geographies of Nature-Based Tourism In tourism promotion and imagery, the Nordic region is characterized by the images of wilderness landscapes and natural environments with a wide spectrum of possibilities in nature-based tourism activities and adventure products. Natural resources and potential tourism activities have also formed major topics in Nordic tourism studies and, by extension, geographies (Haukeland et al., 2010; Hall et al., 2009). The dominant perspectives have been the analysis of user patterns, activities, preferences, and resources (Lundmark & Mu¨ller, 2010; Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, 2004; Wolf-Watz, Sandell, & Fredman, 2011), policies and processes in land use and user conflicts (Kaltenborn & Emmelin, 1993; Lundmark & Stjernsto¨m, 2009; Puhakka, 2008; Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, 2010b; Sandell & Fredman, 2010), tourism development and impacts (Aronsson, 2000; Gı´ slado´ttir, 2006), and the representation and construction of nature in tourism (Pitka¨nen, Puhakka, & Sawatzky, 2011; Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, Hall & Saarinen, 2011). Nature-based tourism has been approached from various perspectives, including regional economic issues, rural tourism development, and second

Nordic Tourism Geographies

45

homes and mobility studies. This indicates the central role of nature-based tourism studies in the Nordic research context. The editors of Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism reviewed the published articles in the journal; according to their inventory, nature-based tourism was among the most published topics with general hospitality and restaurant management papers (Haukeland et al., 2010). Specific centers of nature tourism research in geography are based at the University of Karlstad and Umea˚ University in Sweden, the University of Eastern Finland and the University of Oulu in Finland, and the University of Iceland. One of the characteristic focus areas in Nordic tourism geographies and nature-based tourism research has been related to the touristic role in, and use of, wilderness environments (Hall et al., 2009). As an idea, wilderness conjures up visions of remote, rough, wild, empty, and pristine natural areas. Interestingly, they are the same environments that may have previously hindered the possibilities of large-scale tourism development. Currently, however, wilderness environments and images are positively and increasingly used in place promotion and nature-based tourism activities, but this is not without conflicts. Their increased attractiveness and touristic use, along with their diminishment caused by other land use forms, such as mining and forestry, has created challenges for the carrying capacity and management of such areas. In nature-based tourism and recreation, wilderness areas are supposed to provide outstanding opportunities for the experience of solitude but, due to the increased numbers of tourists, the possibilities for this are diminishing. Thus, discussions for setting limits to growth in tourism in wilderness areas have evolved. In contrast to the Anglo-American research tradition, however, the issue of tourism and recreation carrying capacity has still remained a relatively little studied issue in the Nordic context (Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, 2004). Evolving tourism can be seen not only as a threat and management challenge to wilderness, but also as a social and economic activity that can support the protection of wilderness environments. Sæþo´rsdo´ttir (2010a, 2010b), for example, has approached wilderness as a resource for tourism in Iceland, where the tourism industry uses marketing slogans referring to the wilderness characteristics of the country: “Iceland naturally” and “Pure, Natural, Unspoiled.” This marketing approach has paid off. According to tourist surveys, a majority (76%) of the international tourists visit the country to experience the nature and about one-third visit the Highland (a large inland wilderness area in Iceland). In addition to tourism, there is increasing demand and competition for natural resources. In Iceland, power production is a major actor

46

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

interested in using the natural resources located in wilderness areas; and there are several plans for exploiting many of the major glacial rivers in the Icelandic wilderness areas, as well as establishing geothermal power plants. However, some of these planned sites are currently important for tourism or they are potential destinations for tourism in the future. According to Sæþo´rsdo´ttir (2010b), it is not clear whether the tourism industry and power production can coexist, and advocates the analysis of the situation with the aim of resolving the land use conflicts between tourism and power plant production. Sæþo´rsdo´ttir and O´lafsson (2010) have created a model to evaluate and rank the proposed new power plant projects according to their effect on nature-based tourism in the wilderness. In this respect, the relationship between tourism and nature is often seen as symbiotic.

Geographies of Second Home Tourism and Mobilities Second homes are an integral part of the Nordic tourism landscape (Hall & Mu¨ller, 2004a) and research in this area has a relatively long history in the region. Since the late 1990s, the topic has gained new research interest and international visibility (Kaltenborn, 1997, 1998; Kaltenborn, Andersen, Nellemann, Bjerke, & Thrane, 2008; Mu¨ller, 1999). Mu¨ller (2002) proposed four main explanations for the changes and increase in second home tourism and related research. First, in aging societies people can increasingly permit stays away from their primary residence. Second, urbanization and economic restructuring have transformed both peripheries and cores in a way that the societal change enables the supply and demand of second home tourism. There are available unused buildings and areas for second home uses, as well as flexible working conditions and accumulated capital in the centers, which allow short breaks outside the normal holiday seasons and support investment in second home properties. Third, the development of infrastructure, including transportation and communication systems, provides further possibilities for the short breaks (such as weekend trips) and distance-working based on stays in second homes. Finally, relatively recent changes in the 1990s and 2000s in Nordic property markets have internationalized second home tourism and made it both larger in scale and much more visible and economically important for host regions. European integration, for example, has dramatically changed the national property market protection in the Nordic region (with a few exceptions, Mu¨ller, 1999, 2007).

Nordic Tourism Geographies

47

Second, home tourism research is widely undertaken in the Nordic region (Flogenfeldt, 2004; Kaltenborn, 1998; Pitka¨nen, 2008) and there are several nodes focusing on second home tourism in geography, including Umea˚ University, Sweden, and the University of Roskilde, Denmark. In Umea˚, the main research approaches have been based on quantitative analysis and the novel use of geographical information systems and data materials (Marjavaara, 2007; Mu¨ller, 1999), while in Roskilde the focus has been more on tourist experiences, embodied movements, and their mappings in space-time trajectories with fruitful connections to contemporary international theoretical thinking on mobility (Bærenholdt et al., 2004; Bærenholdt & Grana˚s, 2008; Haldrup, 2004). In addition, scholars in the University of Eastern Finland have specialized in second home ownership and users’ relationship to host environments (Pitka¨nen, 2008; Pitka¨nen et al., 2011). Internationally, the edited book Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscape and Common Ground by Hall and Mu¨ller (2004b) has been influential. It represents the first major international analysis of second home tourism since Coppock’s (1977) seminal work. Although the book is mainly based on the works of international scholars outside the Nordic region, the issues raised are common and highly visible in the Nordic context as well.

Diverse Geographies of Tourism Although the Nordic region is visibly characterized by nature and wilderness landscapes in marketing, the cultural dimension is also evident in tourism products and research. In particular, the relationship between tourism and the indigenous people, the Sami, and their use of and role in tourism development has interested Nordic tourism geographers (Mu¨ller & Pettersson, 2006; Pettersson, 2003; Saarinen, 1999). While studies usually view host guest relationships in indigenous tourism critically through evidently or potentially uneven socioeconomic exchanges between the local Sami communities and the tourism industry, there are also developmentoriented studies. Mu¨ller and Pettersson (2001), for example, studied access to the emerging Sami tourism products in Northern Sweden. According to them, there are two major constraints in the development of Sami tourism. First, the indigenous attractions and resources are distributed geographically across various sites in the relatively large area. This creates a fragmented tourism system and counteracts with the needs and timeframes

48

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

of tourists, operators, and product development. Second, there is not enough local awareness on tourism and tourists’ needs among the local population and, thus, local business skills are often moderate, which has negative impact on the development of indigenous tourism. As a result, nonlocal tourism operations have sometimes taken over the “ethnic” tourism products (Saarinen, 1999), which runs contrary to the very idea of indigenous tourism. Host guest relationships relate to the thinking on sustainability in tourism development and especially to community participation and approaches in setting the limits to its growth (Saarinen, 2006). Sustainable tourism has provided a framework for Nordic geographers to approach the tourism-environment or tourism-community relations and impacts (Aronsson, 2000), and sustainability has been directly or indirectly present within various research themes in the Nordic context, including rural development and tourism (Haukeland et al., 2010). The geographies of rurality and tourism have a long tradition in Nordic geographies to the extent that rural tourism is said to characterize Nordic studies (Daugstad, 2008). Indeed, many issues that have been previously discussed, such as regional development, second homes, nature-based tourism, and indigenous tourism are also strongly related to rural contexts in research. Similarly, the common access to natural resources, which is typical of Nordic societies, and the related implications in tourism are widely used research themes in the Nordic context (Hammitt, Kaltenborn, Vistad, Emmelin, & Teigland, 1992; Sandell, 2005) which have a deep relationship with rural issues and land use conflicts between the industry and other livelihoods and different user groups. Nordic tourism geographers are also involved with global climate change discussions in tourism studies (Brouder & Lundmark, 2011; Go¨ssling & Hall, 2006b; Saarinen & Tervo, 2006). The theme is globally important and widely emerging as issue in academic research and is one which is estimated to be crucial, particularly as Nordic tourism is highly seasonal and dependent on the natural environment and its pristine condition. Thus, any perceived and estimated changes in natural resources and seasonality may have crucial impacts on the region’s tourism industry and increasingly on tourism-dependent local communities in the future, especially in the higher latitudes. In addition to theme-based studies with an empirical emphasis, Nordic geographers have also aimed to contribute to theoretical and conceptual developments (Hultman & Hall, 2012; Saarinen, 2004). According to Gren and Huijbens (2012, p. 156), although tourism has a strong relationship

Nordic Tourism Geographies

49

with the geographical context in which it occurs (as it is “fundamentally an earthly business”), it is surprising that the Earth itself has not yet been firmly theorized in tourism studies. Therefore, they argue that there is a need for the recognition of the Earth in theory, as not all such elements of material, hybrids, nonhumans, and their conditions (which are evident in tourism and related operations) can be solely driven by social constructivism. Therefore, they state that the society should not only be seen as a producer, but also as a product in tourism and the Earth. This geo-philosophical standpoint is especially relevant when looking at some of the key topics of current tourism studies and geographies, such as global environmental change, climate change and global warming, sustainability, governance, and carbon footprint/low-carbon societies.

Institutional Perspectives on Nordic Studies Institutionally, geographical research and education on tourism is mainly based in the departments of geography in the Nordic universities or other tertiary education institutions. In Finland, for example, tourism geography is a specialization field under general geography programs in the universities of Helsinki and Oulu. In contrast to this, some other Nordic universities and tertiary education institutions have created specific tourism programs attached to the departments of geography. The University of Iceland, and Umea˚ University and Karlstad University (both in Sweden), for example, offer tourism programs linked to geography. Interestingly, in the University of Iceland and Karlstad University, the hosting departments are actually named as the Departments of Geography and Tourism. Thus, established tourism studies have become a firmly integrated part of geography as an academic institution. There are also specific tourism research and education institutions involving tourism geographers, including Lillehammer University College (Norway), Center for Regional and Tourism Research, Bornholm (Denmark), and Icelandic Tourism Research Centre (Iceland). In addition to universities and other tertiary education and research organizations, there are other tourism research-related institutions, such as Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. Obviously, the journal is not limited to geographical approaches alone, but it has a clearly stated geographical focus aiming to cover “the Scandinavian Peninsula, Finland, the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea, Denmark and the North Sea Region, and also Iceland and the arctic areas around Svalbard”

50

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

(Mykletun & Haukeland, 2001, p. 1). This somewhat liberal but fruitful territorialization of the Nordic (context), which also reflects partly the Nordic Council’s working area, is evident, but in practice it is a bit more narrow in focus, if examined based on the research articles published therein. Between 2001 (the very first issue of the journal) and 2011 (volume 11, number 3), the majority of articles was published by Norwegian authors (33% of all authors/35% of the first authors), while Swedish scholars were responsible for 22%/22%. Finnish tourism scholars covered 14%/15%, while Danes represented 10%/10% and Icelandic scholars 2%/3%. Non-Nordic scholars represented 18%/16%. Based on this, the power house of Nordic tourism studies would be Norway, whose outcome may be a result of the recent strong national investments in tourism-related research and development in the country. However, it is also possible that Swedish, Danish, and Icelandic colleagues, for example, are more oriented to publishing internationally outside the Scandinavian journal. The Scandinavian journal is linked to the Nordic Society for Tourism and Hospitality Research. Like the journal, the society also provides an integrating institutional structure for the Nordic tourism scholars and geographers. The purpose of the society is to promote the academic studies on tourism and hospitality in the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden (http://www.northors.aau.dk/). In addition to the journal, the main instruments of the society to promote the field in the region are the annual Nordic Symposia on Tourism and Hospitality Research.

CONCLUSION Geographical studies on tourism have grown considerably in the past two decades in the Nordic countries. At the same time, research has become more versatile and scholarly activities resonate well with the international fields of studies and geographies. Although Nordic tourism geographers are increasingly contributing to academic research beyond the geographical boundaries of the region and also participating in theoretical and global-scale discussions, the Nordic context has provided thematic focus areas for empirical studies with certain strengths (but also constraints) that characterize tourism geographies in the region. Such characterizations are closely related to the resources for tourism in the region and their location. Traditionally, tourism has been perceived in a Christallerian way as a phenomenon typical of peripheral regions (Christaller, 1963),

Nordic Tourism Geographies

51

which are amenity-rich landscapes but also possess symptoms of an “objective” and “relative” marginality, such as geographical and economic isolation, lack of access, and local outcomes of these elements (Hall, 2005a; Shields, 1991). Therefore, it is not surprising that some of the key themes in Nordic geographies have been related to nature-based tourism, utilization of wilderness areas, second-home and rural developments, tourism impacts in peripheries, and tourism as a tool for regional development. Indeed, geography matters: the existing and/or perceived resources for tourism and their location in space have guided research activities by providing empirical cases and policy relevance. However, the academic value of such studies has been greatly based on the need to view tourism and related activities in a wider societal and environmental context. Tourism is not seen as having only internal processes and external impacts on outside systems, but also as a part of wider regional structures, scales, and processes. Due to globalization and global climate change, for example, peripheries and their changing nature, role, and governance will most probably determine the contextual and spatial ties of tourism in the future. However, there are emerging issues outside of the traditional views. Official tourism statistics and many Nordic tourism geographers claim the Christallerian view to be partly misleading. Tourism may be typical for peripheries, especially in a relative sense, but it is even more typical for urban environments (cores). In absolute terms, major capitals and urban centers, like Helsinki, receive many more tourists and more tourism revenue compared to the more peripheral destinations or “tourism-rich” provinces (such as Lapland or A˚land in Finland). As such, research on cultural tourism and tourism in urban environments has grown and will most probably receive increasing attention in the future. Similarly, there is an emerging interest in research on events and urban and heritage attractions which have not been studied widely in the past Nordic tourism geographies (A˚kerlund & Mu¨ller, 2012; Bærenholdt & Haldrup, 2006). Thematically, the existing and future possibilities for geographical research on tourism in the Nordic region are promising and expanding. However, there are also challenging issues limiting the development of tourism geographies. In addition to general trends based on increasing competition and limited financial resources in universities and research institutions (which obviously affect the Nordic countries differently depending on the specific economic situation), the small size of the research community is problematic for the wider development of tourism research in geography.

52

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Although the research field has expanded, it is still relatively small in terms of numbers and actors. New generations of tourism geographers are increasingly needed, which may become more difficult in future. Surprisingly, the emergent pressures on internationalisation may cause problems for the continued existence and attractiveness of the subdiscipline. On a principle level, the ongoing internationalisation of Nordic tourism geographies is typical of tourism geographies in general and provides an inevitable and much needed direction in itself. Until the present day, the trend has been mainly positive for the field. As indicated by Gibson, tourism geography is “on the whole more cosmopolitan” than many other parts of geography with “its own geography of production and circulation” (2008, p. 418). However, there are increasing elements that challenge the academic production and circulation system of tourism geographies in the Nordic countries. Like in many other countries and regions, internationalization of research and its evaluation can involve elements of academic capitalism and biased ranking systems potentially favoring certain ways, trends, and actors over others (Hall, 2010; Paasi, 2005b). Generally, the internationalization of research is seen as a quality assurance factor which is mainly observed and evaluated by the nature (and also number) of published outputs, usually journal articles. In the context of geography, this favors publishing in international journals which are often categorized based on the views from the core areas of the discipline. As a result, the top journals of international tourism studies are not usually ranked on the same high level as the top (or even some) of the mid-level journals in human, social, and economic geography. The new Finnish journal ranking system, “Publishing Forum,” for example, categorizes journals into three tiers in which level three represents the quality benchmark and point provider for universities and academic departments (http://www.tsv. fi/julkaisufoorumi). In geography or any other academic field, none of the international tourism journals reached levels two or three in the initial Forum’s ranking list. Thus, Annals of Tourism Research, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, and Finnish Journal of Tourism Research (Matkailututkimus) were supposedly all of the same lower quality, while the Political Geography, for example, represents the highest art in geographical research and publishing. Academically, this is unfortunate and even though Annals and Tourism Management have been later recategorized to level two, it means one cannot reach a top research quality by publishing in any tourism journals. Obviously, prominent PhD students and early career geographers will have to consider carefully where they want to place and contextualize their

Nordic Tourism Geographies

53

research in order to survive and proceed in their academic endeavors in future. This is more so if they wish to find a place and stay within departments of geography. Indeed, internationally, scholars have indicated a growing movement of tourism geographers away from geography departments (Butler, 2012; Hall & Page, 1999, 2012). If this is indeed the trend, it will most probably weaken the subdiscipline in the future, as there will be more limited opportunities to do tourism geography courses and research projects with substance-oriented supervision for students. Partly related to these challenges, some scholars have called urgently for postdisciplinary perspectives which would potentially reduce the problems of exclusive coredisciplinary politics and power relations in academia (Coles, Hall, & Duval, 2005, 2006). However, while some may believe the postdisciplinary phase has started, it seems the “Empire strikes back” (meaning, the coredisciplines) in the form of research assessment evaluations, journal rankings, etc., which all will have an effect on what kind of tourism geographies are published and in which journals in the future. Naturally, this issue will have an effect on both Nordic geographers and tourism researchers in general within and beyond the region. In spite of these challenges, geographical perspectives in tourism research will hopefully continue to have value in the Nordic context in the future. In order to avoid the unfortunate but potentially very negative consequences of the current biased mode of internationalization of the discipline in the form of biased journal rankings and research assessment evaluations, tourism geographers should be more active in promoting their research also within the geography discipline (Hall & Page, 1999). Although difficult and most probably frustrating, this can be achieved by participating in and influencing evaluation and ranking discussions, structures, and politics, and by publishing in the core journals of human and economic geography. That would keep the historically evident and fruitful relationships between tourism, human, and economic geographies alive and active, while leading to a mutual academic exchange between these different subdisciplines in the future.

Chapter 4

From the Geography of Tourism to a Geographical Approach to Tourism in France Carine Fournier University of Western Brittany, Brest, France

Re´my Knafou University of Paris 1, Panthe´on-Sorbonne, France

Abstract: This chapter demonstrates that despite an unfavorable disciplinary climate for new academic subjects in France, tourism found its place in the French geographical scene almost 40 years ago. The first part traces the history of tourism in French geography until the epistemological turn due to the research laboratory MIT in the mid-1990s. It also focuses on the absence of knowledge of the Anglo-American literature and of multidisciplinarity in French research on tourism. The second part focuses on the valorization of tourism geography research in France, emphasizing the development of multidisciplinarity since the early 2000s, including the creation of a multi-disciplinary tourism laboratory and two journals. The chapter concludes reflecting on the possibility of a science of tourism. Keywords: French geography; geographical approach to tourism; tourism geography; journals INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on the parallel and intertwining trajectories of tourism and geography in the context of France and the Francophone academic

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Tourism Social Science Series, Volume 19, 55 68 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1571-5043/doi:10.1108/S1571-5043(2013)0000019004

56

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

arena. To understand the confluence of these two areas of study, it is necessary to set out some of the underlying academic characteristics that have influenced the development of the field. For instance, in order to explain the evolution of the relationship between tourism and geography in France, a tradition of disciplinary weightiness must first be recognized, which has delayed the emergence of new topics. Therefore, it took a while before cities found their place as the subject of geographical studies, with the first handbook about cities by Pierre George published in 1952. Tourism studies had to wait until the end of the 1960s to emerge as a serious research field in its own right. The geography of tourism developed in France to a weak reception on the part of the geography community, who did not see enough inherent heuristic interest to invest in the field. This emerged from the marginalization of tourism geographers, who frequently voiced their disappointment related to the lack of recognition of their work. Moreover, because tourism was not generally regarded as a field of importance within other disciplines, geographers experienced a double “handicap”: that of being geographers and that of being interested in the study of tourism. Locked up in technocentric approaches, the “new French geography” displayed no real interest in tourism in contrast to Spanish geography at that time (Callizo, 1991). Marginalized by the more dominant traditional trends (geomorphology and rural geography), while not holding any intrinsic interest for the academic vanguard of the discipline, the geography of tourism in France arguably got off to a bad start. However, despite this unfavorable disciplinary context and lack of openness to new topics, tourism eventually managed to find its place in less than 40 years of those difficult early days.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL APPROACH TO TOURISM IN FRANCE In terms of key academics in the emergence of the research scene, geographer Olivier Lazzarotti (1994, 2002) was one of the first to focus on the beginnings of the relationship between tourism and geography in France. His initial paper highlighted a long-standing relationship between the two, making special reference to early texts such as those written by Maurice Le Lannou about Britain in 1938. Lazzarotti also noted that tourism is not often discussed in PhD studies, and where it is mentioned,

Tourism in France

57

it is only in terms of the epistemological frameworks of French geography. His study found that this theme is developed in urban studies, such as Chabot’s (1957), or those about circulation (Capot-Rey, 1947). There are also studies on tourism in regional geography theses such as that of Louis Burnet, Holiday and Tourism on the French Coasts (1963) or even that of Yvette Barbaza, The Human Landscape of the Costa Brava (1988). Lazzarotti also emphasizes that tourism signals its entry as a paradoxical sign of knowledge accumulation around an object whose definition continues to be a problem (2002). The geographical areas studied changed gradually as time passed from Daniel Clary’s study of Normandy in the 1960s to Georges Cazes’ work on new holiday camps in 1989, but the same could not be said of research methods (Cazes, 1989, 1992; Clary, 1977). In those early days, an emergent definition of the geography of tourism corresponded to a conventional approach to tourism in geography. The interest here was centered on the characteristics and orientation of visitor attractions, overlooking the more physical and human aspects of tourism. Geographers acted as though geography was the only discipline able to study tourism and tended to ignore other dimensions. Research approaches were focused on other “branches” built around a single theme, such as the geography of industry, leisure, manufacturing, sports, festivals, and more (Equipe MIT, 2000). Apart from the fact that the traditional approach did not allow anything other than generic knowledge accumulation, this way of conceiving tourism adapted the previously unsatisfactory definition available to researchers by using the definition from the World Tourism Organization: a tourist is a person who stays away from home for at least one night. If the accumulation of knowledge was a mainstay of the geography of tourism in Anglo-American research, then typologies (an industry standard) were key heuristic devices for French geographers. In this respect, tourism geography specialists were prolific researchers (Lozato, Dewailly, Cazes, and Yelles, among others). As such, the literature was awash with typological classifications of tourism places. Many took as a distinguishing criterion the specific geographical environment in question, which these days would not be the most sensible choice. Since the mid-1990s, a major shift has taken place in French tourism geography, largely due to Re´my Knafou and the Equipe MIT. The turning point can be dated back to “A Geographical Approach to Tourism” (Knafou et al., 1997). This article, providing an update on the current state

58

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

of the geography of tourism, concluded that tourism had only belatedly been of interest to geographers. In particular, it set out the need to revisit the very notions of tourism and leisure from a geographical point of view, thus highlighting the various types of places undergoing tourism development. But what, one might ask, is the difference between a geographical approach to tourism and the geography of tourism? Departing from the geography of tourism, this new approach focuses on highlighting the spatial dimensions, which means to describe and explain the elements and interrelationships of “tourism systems.” The quality of tourism places, their development, and the geographical characteristics of stakeholders (tourists, guides, businesses, etc.) are the responsibility of the “geographical approach to tourism.” It is important to think of this domain as being open, on the one hand, to other social sciences and humanities that are interested in tourism; on the other hand, to geography via the application of concepts to the study of tourism (distance, area, place, square, etc.) and via the fertilization of geography by the transfer of new ideas and knowledge (Equipe MIT, 2000). As such, the geography of tourism was succeeded by a “geographical approach to tourism,” which was a reflection on its nature as a social phenomenon. As another original subject that emerged from a deliberate strategy, this approach intended to contribute, through the heuristic richness of tourism activity, to the renewal of concepts and methods in geography. Re´my Knafou set out for the first time in French geography a typology of place defined by an original production process: the “integrated” winter sports resort. Already the author of an innovative thesis, Knafou (1978) laid the foundations for a new way of considering tourism, and hence its study. He brought to the table his considerable experience of time spent at the Institute of Saint-Gervais (in 1997). The start of this era brought together the future founding members of the Equipe MIT (created in 1993 at the University of Paris 7) and thus constituted the birth of the first team of geographers who would study tourism seriously in academic terms in France. This research team has, over the past 20 years, produced many publications, regularly authored by several of its members. Some publications have only been credited with the team name, without mentioning the names of the individual authors (Equipe MIT, 2000). The main contributions of this team include a theoretical distinction between the everyday and leisure time, with associated scales corresponding to displacement and distinguishing tourism from leisure. Previously, the places of everyday life were at the local scale, while leisure time and free

Tourism in France

59

time corresponded to the national and global scales and timeframes of tourism. Lately, multiple dwelling places and multiple mobilities have led to new ways of everyday living, mobility, and residence (Figure 1). While most researchers had until recently used an unsatisfactory definition of tourism, the Equipe MIT were instrumental in proposing a scientific definition: A system of actors, places, and practices that allow people to re-create by moving temporarily to other places (Equipe MIT, 2000). This system consists of companies (offering various services from travel agencies to restaurateurs and hoteliers, through carriers and tour operators), norms and values (for some, tourism is positive, for others negative), laws (about mobilities), paid/working holidays, tourists (who temporarily live in other places and are distinguished by their practices), tourism places, markets (often segmented), and nonmarket relationships (lending or exchanging housing), landscapes, etc., and other social institutions, imaginaries and images (conveyed through brochures, television, photographs and slides of other tourists), as well as discourse (from guides, academics, the media, popular culture, among other sources) (Knafou & Stock, 2003). According to the Equipe MIT, the aim of the “geographical approach to tourism” goes beyond the mere elaboration of a collection of case studies; rather its purpose is to identify models and geographical theories of spatial scale

B

national and global areas

Spacetime outside the scope

Spacetime outside the scope

A

Spacetime of tourisms

european and national areas

local area

spacetime of leisure

Spacetime outside the scope

Living place 1

spacetime of new residential modes Living place 2

timescale

the everyday life

hors quotidien

Figure 1. Space-Time of Tourism and Leisure

the everydays lifes

60

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

tourism. In this respect, the research team proposes a typology of places not based simply on the geographical environment (which does not discriminate) but rather on criteria such as the presence or absence of tourism capacity, the presence or absence of local population, and the existence of diverse urban and tourism functions. The Equipe MIT distinguishes four types of tourist places: the spot, the comptoir (a place created by and only for tourism, where there is no other activity than tourism, such as places like Disneyland Resort Paris or Club Med), the resort, and the town. This typology was developed taking into account the logic of tourism development (the importance of tourism in the location, plus the condition of the site before its development began). This was later expanded to five types: spot, comptoir, resort, town or village touristifie´ (a place invested and entertained by tourism, which is the essential function), and tourist city. As such, two types emerge when introducing a dialectic relationship between tourism and the urban condition: the resort with (new) urban functions and the city-resort. Over time, this typology has been regularly updated based on the evolving thought process of the team (Figure 2). The Equipe MIT has also encompassed within its literature the role of tourists in the creation of places, and the role of mobility and tourism practices. Finally, Re´my Knafou coined the concept of the “moment of place” (Equipe MIT, 2005) that helped to highlight the role of some places in the crystallization and embodiment of new tourism practices corresponding to some great successive inventions that constituted the “tourist revolution” (Knafou, 2005).

Presence or absence of tourism capacity

Presence or absence of local population

Existence of diverse urban and tourism functions

Tourist site (spot)

–

–

–

“comptoir”

+

–

–

Resort

+

+

–

Town

+

+

+

Figure 2. Typology of Tourist Places Source: Knafou and Stock (2003).

Tourism in France

61

Links to the Anglo-American Literature Gibson (2008) highlighted the fact that few French tourism geographers publish in the English language. In his study, he used the Social Science Citation Index to show that articles on tourism in international journals were in their vast majority written by British and North American authors, while research by authors with a French affiliation is virtually absent. The question remains as to whether French academic geographers are insensitive to the Anglo-American academic production or whether the theories in international English language journals manage to permeate the French academic scene. Indeed, the most famous models, such as Butler’s (1980) tourism area lifecycle, have been taken up in a large number of French studies. However, in general, there remained a degree of independence/ ignorance within French research in tourism in terms of the AngloAmerican research outputs (despite the translation into French of some key textbooks, such as those of geographer Douglas Pearce). This leads to the recent consideration of research themes that could allow tourism specialists to carve out a place more rapidly in the French geography landscape, but also in terms of the (re)discovery, with more than 10 years delay, of research already conducted by Anglo-Americans. For example, while in the late 1980s, tourism specialists in France were interested in its development in developing countries, in the United States there was already an interest in the tourism practices of the populations of these countries (French geographers have been interested in these issues only for a relatively short time). This can also be said of the practice of drawing analogies between different branches of geography and their application to tourism by, for example, borrowing concepts from urban geography. In the 1970s, Stansfield and Rickert (1970) worked on the notion of recreational business districts, and, in 1991, Burtenshaw talked about central tourist districts using the analogy of Central Business Districts CBDs. But it took until 2007 to read the same proposition in French writing on the topic, even though the relationship between tourism and cities had already been on the agenda of French researchers for some years. All of this may come down to a difficult relationship with other languages, or perhaps a resistance to embracing foreign research interests. This is somehow difficult to believe of researchers who work regularly with the concept of “Otherness.” How might this attitude toward Anglo-American academic output be otherwise explained? One element could have its origin in the lack of existence of a passeur (an intermediary) within the discipline.

62

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Indeed, there was no “transmitter” as Paul Claval used to be, providing researchers with French language advances on the Anglo-American scene (Chivallon, 2003).

Fragmented Research Created in 1995 by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), on the initiative of Re´my Knafou, its “Tourism: Places and Networks” research group was the first step in the recognition of tourism as an object of serious research. This group brought together researchers from different backgrounds into an effective multidisciplinary forum. However, despite the willingness of its researchers and its director, Georges Cazes, as evident from the publication in 2000 of a dictionary of concepts and methods of tourist observation (see Mesplier-Pinet & Elias, 2000) and the organization of a PhD student colloquium in 2001, this group has never been able to give rise to a real multidisciplinarity, nor it has been able to produce the outputs to consolidate tourism’s place in the social sciences. This is in contrast to the Equipe MIT, also founded in the 1990s, whose contributions were published either in the form of articles or books, including a trilogy titled Tourismes (Equipe MIT, 2002, 2005, 2011). The Equipe MIT, based in Paris, was the first research team organized around the study of tourism and new forms of geographic mobility (1993), first as MIT, or Mobilite´, Itine´raires, Territoires, and later as Mobilite´, Itine´raires, Tourismes. Composed of geographers, except Mireille Bruston a sociologist (died in June 2001), the team has varied in its composition throughout its existence. This was, however, with two constants: one, the presence of doctoral students and more teacher-researchers in an original process of collective text-writing, plus visiting staff opportunities for non-French young researchers. The work of this team has contributed significantly to changing the way tourism is conceived of and how its investigation is approached in France. These researchers provided a reference point for most of the PhD students in geography in their doctoral theses. In addition, the work of the MIT team has also found a favorable echo around the world and has even spread its output as far as Brazil (Knafou, 1999). In addition to three books, the Equipe MIT has also published a tourism handbook, primarily intended for students of business and tourism. In terms of academic production, it is noteworthy that there have also been a dozen PhD theses and five academics qualified to supervise PhD research

Tourism in France

63

under the banner of the team, which still has Re´my Knafou as its director at present. Landscapes of Geographical Tourism Research The current landscape of geographical research in tourism in France can be summarized fairly simply. Although tourism is outwardly recognized, still it is often marginalized within disciplinary teams, sometimes suffering from a poor image. Either it is not perceived (even in 2013) as a serious subject, or as everyone is a tourist at times, research and analysis are attempted without much base knowledge or interest in the topic. The caption of figures. Furthermore, in most universities where researchers collaborate as tourism specialists, it is more of teaching than research and does not give rise to the emergence of research teams, strictly speaking (as is the case in Lyon, Angers, Toulouse, Nice, and other institutions). One notable exception is the creation of EIREST (Interdisciplinary Research Team on Tourism); a multidisciplinary team in development since 2009, attached to the IREST (Institute of Research and Graduate Studies of Tourism) of the University of Paris 1 (Panthe´on Sorbonne), headed by Maria Gravari-Barbas. This new team is aware that tourism is a complex subject that requires the mobilization of numerous cross-disciplinary approaches. In addition, the team currently consists of geographers, economists, anthropologists, and sociologists from various French universities, such as Paris 1, Paris 2, Lyon, Lille 3, Brest, and others (Gravari-Barbas & Jacquot, 2012). Finally, there is another entity: the GRIL Tourism (Local Interdisciplinary Research Group on Tourism) in Grenoble. This interlaboratory group is not in itself a research team and mainly consists of researchers from the Dauphine´ and the Savoy University. Valorization of Tourism Research Tourism research in France has various channels to disseminate knowledge. Seminars and workshops are organized at the initiative of the researchers. These are supported, for example, by the Commission de Ge´ographie du Tourisme et des Loisirs (Commission of Geography of Tourism and Recreation), which is dependent on the Comite´ National Franc¸ais de Ge´ographie (the French National Geography Committee). A number of book collections and, relatively recently, two journals have been devoted entirely to this subject.

64

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

While some countries have one or even several refereed journals specifically devoted to tourism studies, France had none. This changed with the publication of the first issue of Mondes du tourisme in June 2010, published by ESPACES. Geographer Philippe Violier is the current leader of the project, although it was Re´my Knafou who was the originator of the project. The journal published a varia issue, without a central theme, whose aim was to promote multidisciplinarity (as not all the authors were geographers). It is a biannual paper journal, which costs 50 euros per issue, and the reader can also purchase individual items online, paying a sum of a few euros according to the paper’s length. The journal alternates between issues with different themes, although two special issues were published as “Towards a Theory of Geographical Approaches to Tourism” and “Political Spatialized Actions and Tourism.” Little is known about the distribution of this journal worldwide, as no data on downloads of articles is available, nor figures as to the number of papers sold. A check on the site SUDOC indicates that the journal is presently subscribed to by 11 French universities. Things have accelerated further in terms of French-language publications since the emergence of a second journal titled Via@: an international, multidisciplinary, and multilingual journal launched in March 2012. It is supported by 13 universities from nine different countries (Germany, Belgium, Brazil, Spain, the United States, France, Italy, Portugal, and Switzerland) and is electronic, has open access, and uses all the tools at its disposal to provide readers with quality publications. Driven by Re´my Knafou, it publishes original contributions and is a truly innovative multidisciplinary and multilingual journal. Indeed, a paper can be published in the native language of the author, with the possibility to translate it into three languages of their choice. To facilitate dissemination, its portal is available in seven languages of the aforementioned countries. Further, the journal relies on an international network of universities, which provides a better understanding of tourism and its social implications throughout the world and also promotes opportunities for collaborative work. Indeed, Via@ is offered by universities or research laboratories in a unique form of partnership, where everyone is required to participate in the collective project according to their abilities. The first issue of Via@ on tourism imaginaries was viewed by over 8,000 users in 82 countries, and this only four months after it went online: www.viatourismreview.net. As a biannual journal, it takes advantage of the flexibility of being an online publication and it has regular slots available for focusing on short articles available in three languages and derived from multimedia analytical materials (photographs, maps, paintings, films,

Tourism in France

65

animations, and more). The journal also keeps an eye on tourism news in the world. It highlights the work of young researchers more conventionally, listing new books, calls for papers, conferences, and other useful information. Via@ is seen as a space for exchange in real time between researchers from all disciplines and cultures. It offers a kind of Wikipedia where researchers can express themselves in their mother tongue and present ongoing work for reflection. In the case of this collaborative space, the model used is that of multilingualism inter-comprehension. The work of French geographers can reach the largest possible audience if research in tourism is published in formats suitable to professionals. Even though France is the leading country in the world in terms of tourism arrivals, the relationship between researchers and tourism professionals is still primarily one of mutual mistrust; a trend that the French Institute of Tourism failed to influence in 2008. This organization originally set goals to coordinate the work of tourism stakeholders at the national level, to ensure consistency and cohesion of local actions across the network of centers of excellence in tourism. It also aimed to improve innovation and experimentation while promoting the dissemination of best practice. However, it did not really manage to achieve these goals. It may be the case that the initiative was never intended to unite and promote tourism research, but rather to control or to marginalize its decision-making bodies (composed of policymakers, official, and business leaders) with no culture of research.

CONCLUSION Being increasingly aware of the relative complexity of tourism, the idea of multidisciplinary tourism studies is gaining ground in France. It began to be implemented by the Doctoriales du tourisme in Nice in 2008 on the initiative of the Adrets (Association for Development Research and Studies on Tourism), who offered a two-day meeting where graduate students and researchers met to exchange views on the students’ PhD topics. This first event brought together some 30 doctoral students from 11 different disciplines and enabled researchers from distant horizons to see how each of the participants dealt with tourism concepts and methodologies (Figure 3). Furthermore, the second Doctoriales du tourisme (this time international) were held in Paris in September 2011, organized by the EIREST and the UNESCO Chair. They were successful, in that they attracted 45 doctoral

66

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Figure 3. Map of the Participants of the “doctoriales du tourisme” in 2008

presenters from different disciplines and from a dozen different countries (Figure 4). If in the Anglo-American ambit, the concept of “tourism studies” is well known, in France, the idea of the existence of a field of tourism studies is not new either: Cazes (2001) reported discussions of the 1960s and the

Tourism in France

67

Figure 4. Map of the Participants of the “doctoriales du tourisme” in 2011 1970s based on the constitution of a touristologie or a te´orologie. However, these terms did not find favor at the time. Since 2000, the tourismologie created by Jean-Michel Hoerner has widened the consensus beyond the University of Perpignan. In his book Traite´ de tourismologie, Jean-Michel Hoerner, Professor of Geopolitics and Tourism, campaigned for the creation of tourismologie (tourism science). He attempted to lay down its theoretical foundations and defines tourismologie as … a human science, multidisciplinary and synthesis-oriented, studying travel and tourism industry. Science of synthesis (sic), it is also applied (such as management) and aspires to become the link between higher education in hospitality and tourism and the professionals of tourism. Scientific research related to tourism takes necessarily a lot of directions, because of its diversity and its economic or social importance. In this regard, the many facets of the tourism industry that require sectorial studies also require special consideration. This is the first trait of (“tourismologie”). But its commitment is not limited to redefining the hospitality and travel

68

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives industry, and then their future directions. “Tourismologie” is also a foresight science on the “leisure society” within our societies. It becomes critical, while never forgetting its professional goal. (Hoerner, 2002, back cover text)

This theoretical framework sparked a debate at the national level. Georges Cazes labeled it as “science by self-proclamation” (2001, pp. 16 19), while Re´my Knafou joined Cazes in qualifying this declaration of a de facto of “tourism science” as premature. He adds that the scientific recognition of tourism is still under construction: “Tourism research is poised to acquire, outside the field of tourism, the credibility that it lacked” (Knafou, 2005, p. 12). Thus, far from refusing to consider the existence of a tourism science, many researchers believe it is first necessary to prove it, using the depth and rigor that are lacking. Indeed, if tourism is now an undeniable scientific subject, analyzed using corpus, tools, and methodologies implemented from within various disciplines (anthropology, economics, ethnology, geography, management, history, semiotics, sociology, and others), it is only with these multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches that “tourism science” as a possibility could ever be explored.

Chapter 5

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography Nicolai Scherle BiTS University of Applied Sciences, Iserlohn, Germany

Hans Hopfinger Catholic University of Eichsta¨tt-Ingolstadt, Eichsta¨tt-Ingolstadt, Germany

Abstract: This chapter aims to familiarize the reader with some of the important aspects of tourism geography in the German-speaking countries. It starts with a primarily historical-genetic perspective on tourism development and the theoretical traditions associated with them. The second section describes the structure of the discipline, with a focus on the institutionalization of the field in the universities including their research specialization. The chapter maintains that tourism geography plays a marginal role compared with other subdisciplines of geography, though this is reflected primarily in its institutionalization and less so in the research undertaken. The last section deals with the current challenges and future prospects in German-speaking geographies of tourism from a problem-centered perspective. Keywords: Tourism; leisure; research; German-speaking world; history; prospects INTRODUCTION This chapter begins by profiling some of the important lines of development in tourism geography in the German-speaking countries. This

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Tourism Social Science Series, Volume 19, 69 89 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1571-5043/doi:10.1108/S1571-5043(2013)0000019005

70

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

includes a primarily historical-genetic perspective, here called “tourism geography in the German-speaking countries” and not “German tourism geography,” as there are extremely close conceptual and institutional relations among German, Austrian, and Swiss (tourism) geography. The common language, along with the similar scientific traditions, have both led to a close relationship among members of a comparatively small scientific community by international standards. It is understood that the topic is very complex and that it is necessary to set priorities, which can lead to some regrettable shortening or even omissions within the chapter. Nevertheless, the most important trends in tourism geography in the German-speaking countries will begin to become visible (Table 1).

THEORETICAL TRADITIONS Hans Poser’s Fremdenverkehrsgeographie (1940s) Although it had very few precursors, such as the studies by Kohl (1841) or Sputz (1919), Poser’s tourism study on the Riesengebirge (Giant Mountains) published in 1939 is considered the main awakening of interest in the geography of tourism in the German-speaking world

Table 1.

Specific Theoretical Frameworks Related to Tourism Geographies

Period V

Theory

1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s

Hans Poser’s Fremdenverkehrsgeographie Walter Christaller’s central place theory The “Munich School” and the Geographie des Freizeitverhaltens The “Munich School” and the Geographie des Freizeitverhaltens Sustainable tourism and the diversification of supply and demand structures in tourism Sustainable tourism and the diversification of supply and demand structures in tourism Diversification or fragmentation of tourism geography Diversification or fragmentation of tourism geography

1990s 2000s Present

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography

71

(Ho¨vermann & Oberbeck, 1972; Kreisel, 2004). Poser’s study on one of the most popular destinations in the German Reich (which since the end of the World War II belongs to Poland and the Czech Republic) is not only considered the first commentary on how tourism and geography are connected, but also highlights the importance of tourism and leisure in reading Landschaft (landscape). By attempting to develop dialectic push and pull factors, Poser mainly argued that tourism takes place within geographical space to create its own particular type of cultural landscape. In this context, he pointed out that tourism and leisure represent important land uses which, when neglected, leads to a partial understanding of the organization and development of space. Despite being considered a relatively modern research approach for the time, it should be realized that Poser largely limited himself to the systematization of types of tourism and the spatial impact of leisure and tourism. To a great extent, he neglected a critical analysis of the tourists, including their motivations for visiting a specific destination and their behavior patterns (Jurczek, 2007).

Walter Christaller’s Central Place Theory (1950s) Christaller (1955) is considered one of the most important trailblazers of a spatial, nomologically exact geography of tourism in the German-speaking world. He attempted to apply the basic principles of his theory of central places to the spatial system of tourism (Hopfinger, 2007). This German geographer, who is also often cited by the English-speaking scientific community, is regarded as one of the first to introduce the perspective of location theory to tourism. The basis was Christaller’s hypothesis that those zones that lie farthest from central places and industrial agglomerations provide the most favorable conditions for attractions. Thus, he postulated a central-peripheral model of distribution for tourism, for which the polarity between the source area in the center and the destination at the periphery is a defining element. While Christaller conceded that it was not possible to derive “exact locational laws” for tourism with the “same mathematical precision” as in the theory of central places (1955, p. 6), others pursued a spatial-nomological course much more rigorously. For instance, about 20 years later, Kaminske (1977), patterning his work after ideas of Carroll and Bevis (1957) and Isard and Bramhall (1960), applied Newton’s law of gravitation to the traffic to and from recreation areas. In this

72

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

context, he attempted to prove that the volume of traffic between the place of origin and the destination depends on the size (mass) and the distance between them.

The “Munich School” and the Geographie des Freizeitverhaltens (1960s 1970s) A far-reaching change in tourism geography in the German-speaking countries occurred with the reconceptualization of social geography by the so-called “Munich School.” This rather controversial line of research succeeded for the first time in the history of the discipline in integrating the human being as an individual, or rather as a sociogeographic group, into the field’s system of thought (Hopfinger, 2007). Based on the model of a functional society with its basic functions of existence, Ruppert and Maier (1970; Ruppert, 1975) separated the function of leisure. They linked it with the spatial activities of social groups who visit sites of leisure activity and assign specific spatial requirements to them. On the one hand, the new approach of the Munich School gave a powerful impetus to tourism geography and led to interest in new issues and methods. In the process, the members of the school drew up what was to be a comprehensive “general geography of leisure,” which stood in a dialectical relationship to earlier tourism geography, because its central object of observation was leisure activity in space rather than the space itself. As Uthoff (1988) showed, this comprehensively formulated general geography of leisure definitely opened up the field to the investigation of spatially relevant activities and the application of action theory. On the other hand, the key concept of the Munich School of social geography (that of basic functions of existence) implies an overly narrow analytical reduction. Because it remains related to “the sphere of material objects of earthly space” (Werlen, 2000, p. 309), it has “little social reflection” (Hofmeister & Steinecke, 1984, p. 11) and results in “neglect of the political and economic situation” (Oestreich, 1977, p. 82). In spite of all their new approaches, in the end they postulated that geographical tourism research is first of all geography and thus a spatial science and not a behavioral science. To be sure, they conceded that conceptions of the reference area have changed. As Uthoff aptly pointed out, “[i]t is certainly today no longer a particular type of cultural landscape. It is a structural space; it is a functional space, it is a behavioral and interactive space. It has gained new dimensions…” (1988, p. 10). The crucial step

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography

73

toward a published, explicitly social-science, hermeneutically (and not nomologically) oriented discipline, as called for by Wirth (1984) and others, was not taken up within the scope of the Munich School. In particular, it was not reflected in its manifestation as “general geography of leisure.” Had this occurred, it would have led to an earlier understanding of the subject as a theoretically oriented modern or even postmodern social science.

Tourism Geographies in East Germany To a certain extent, the tourism geography in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), after the division of Germany at the end of the World War II, is an exception. In the course of the systematic development of socialism, an organized politicization of the sciences began, instrumentalizing in accordance with political goals (Kocka, 1998; Malycha, 2003). The ruling Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (Socialist Unity Party of Germany) clearly articulated its intention to orient scholarship toward political and economic goals. Especially the humanities and social sciences, to which tourism geography belongs, now played their role in the clash of ideologies, simultaneously implying the loss of a pan-German dimension of scholarship. Kreisel appropriately pointed to the persistence of an until-then-undivided German language tourism geography when he outlined the development of tourism geography as follows: In the communist German Democratic Republic (GDR), where the entire leisure industry operated under the suspicious eyes of the state, tourism research took a different tack to the West. In a curious way both Poser’s and Christaller’s legacies were evident in the GDR. At first, East German geographers remained faithful to Poser’s dictum that geography of leisure was primarily a geography of tourism destinations. Gradually, this focus changed. Tourism was extricated from its relationships with physical and cultural landscapes. Instead, it was conceptualized in a more abstract manner as a component in economic landscapes and in the state-regulated system of production and consumption. Soon the main task of tourism geography became “the study of tourism as a factor of territorial production complexes.” (2004, p. 167)

74

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Today tourism geography in the former GDR is primarily associated with the so-called “Greifswald Model of Recreational Geography” developed chiefly by Benthien (1984, 1997). This model, developed on the basis of a large number of case studies, comprises the social origin (recreation and tourism as needs of people in their leisure time), the basic theoretical conception or the basic model (the territorial or spatial recreational system), the important research fields and subject matter (the spatial requirements and consequences of leisure use), and the most important methodological steps toward syntheses that can be utilized in theory and planning. Whether and to what extent this model, developed under the conditions of a planned economy, can be transposed to the conditions of a market economy, as envisioned by its author, is disputed in the scientific community.

Sustainable Tourism and the Diversification of Supply and Demand (1980s 1990s) At a relatively early stage, German-speaking tourism geographers recognized that in order to handle the consequences of the rapidly developing leisure and tourism businesses and their transformation to a mass business, there had to be a change in the social and environmental perceptions of the field. Particularly the provocative publications by the team around Krippendorf in Switzerland (1975; Krippendorf, Zimmer, & Glauber, 1988) and the theses on “soft” tourism published by Jungk (1980) stimulated an intensive discussion, which initially concentrated on the negative environmental aspects. As issues of social compatibility began to play a stronger role and a general change in concept from “social” to “socially and environmentally sound” tourism occurred, the focus of interest within the field gradually shifted. The objective is clear and not contentious: supply and demand in tourism must change in equal measure so that nature, the most important capital of tourist development, is not destroyed, the culture of a destination is preserved, the social and economic quality of life of the persons in the destination is improved, but simultaneously the needs of the tourists are met. (Klemm, 1993, p. 65) Nevertheless, a sound theoretical concept that could be translated into a broader workable strategy was lacking. Positive mention should, however,

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography

75

be made of attempts to combine the concept of “soft” tourism with regional planning and to apply them practically under the topoi of “encouraging endogenous potentials” and “independent regional development” (Kru¨ger, 1995; Mose, 1998). Beginning at the end of the 1980s, the concept of “sustainable development” was enthusiastically adopted in reference to tourism, with the hope of finding a broader theoretical foundation. Under the thenceforth dominant catchword “sustainable” tourism, particularly Becker and his research team in Trier worked intensively on various approaches to sustainable (regional) development. Their efforts culminated in a textbook (Becker, Job, & Witzel, 1996). They developed a so-called “travel star,” which they offered (in vain) as a measure of sustainability, analogous to the hotel classifications. A large number of planning-related and regional papers emerged in which the concept was translated into practice, in some cases very successfully (Ba¨tzing, 1996; Job, 1996). In connection with the issue of long-haul tourism, the approach entered into the intensive discussions of the developing world (Vorlaufer, 1996; Wo¨hler & Saretzki, 2004). Ultimately, however, the German-speaking tourism geographers did not succeed in presenting a consistent, sound, and theoretically viable concept of “sustainability” or “sustainable tourism.” Sustainability was not the only discourse that dominated research in tourism geography in the 1980s and 1990s in the German-speaking countries as tourism turned into a mass business. The supply and demand structures were also becoming increasingly differentiated and the classic explanatory concepts did not provide any answers. The discourse on tourism geography was increasingly determined by the globalization discourse and the associated transformation processes from modern to postmodern societies, or rather from Fordist to post-Fordist service and production systems. In view of the new “postmodern complexity” (Hopfinger, 2007) the German-speaking scientific community viewed tourism increasingly as a post-Fordist/postmodern cultural practice, with the important conceptual impulses coming from sociology and anthropology. As examples, mention can be made to the works of the German sociologist Beck (1992; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002) on the risk society and individualization or of Auge´ (1995) on “non-places.” In the process, the focus shifted not only to the material substrate on which leisure and tourism find expression, such as brand lands or urban entertainment centers, but also to the increasing immaterial transformation of consumption patterns, which are reflected in increasing fragmentation, promotion, specialization, or sophistication.

76

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

The influence of the cultural turn on these developments from both a conceptual and a methodological perspective should not be underestimated. This implied a fundamental paradigm shift in close connection with the interdependent phenomena of globalization and regionalization. The traditional concept of culture, which was felt to be too static, essentialist and uniform was replaced by a more open, practice-oriented, flexible, and less essentialist concept of culture with a stronger basis in anthropology and the social sciences (Crang, 1997b; Debbage & Ioannides, 2005). Particularly remarkable were the changes at the methodological level, which were to have a lasting impact on tourism geography in the German-speaking countries. The earlier dominance of quantitativestandardized procedures was broken down and gradually a broad range of hermeneutical-qualitative methods gained ground. Instead of an objectifying approach in accordance with a scientistic-positivist model, researchers in tourism geography increasingly began to immerse themselves, for example, through participant observation and semi-structured, problemcentered or narrative interviews. With such techniques, they attempted to achieve a methodologically rigorous understanding of “the other” to inquire into the spatially related decisions of tourism actors, to detect the hidden structure of subjective perceptions and activities in a tourism context, or to decode and deconstruct attributed meanings and supercharged symbols (Blotevogel, 2003).

Diversification or Fragmentation of Tourism Geography (2000 Present) The key characteristic of tourism geography in the German-speaking countries since around the beginning of the new millennium is closely related to the conceptual and methodological implications of the cultural turn. This represented a strong diversification and fragmentation of the topics and issues investigated. First, there is the growing interest in cultural topics and an increasing conceptualization of space. As examples, one could mention how spaces and places are symbolically charged in the context of imaginary geographies, and also add the question of authenticity in view of an intensified “setting on stage” and the growing commodification of destinations (Pott, 2007; Wo¨hler, Pott, & Denzer, 2010). A particularly interesting issue from the perspective of both cultural studies and business management involves intercultural questions that tie into the complex dialectics of “own” and “other.” In view of the highly globalized tourism economy, this issue is meeting with intensified interest in

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography

77

the scientific community. In this context, the implicit and explicit commodification/instrumentalization of “foreignness” and “exoticism” in tourism value chains (Bartha, 2003; Rothfuß, 2004) have been investigated, and so have selected success factors in intercultural management (Scherle, 2004; Scherle & Coles, 2008). A further key focus of German-speaking tourism geographers since the beginning of the new millennium has been on the implications of climate change (Soboll & Schmude, 2011; Steiger & Mayer, 2008). In view of the enormous economic significance of tourism, especially in Switzerland and Austria, business representatives understandably are very interested in more in-depth studies that not only view the topic from a problem-centered perspective, but also point out potential strategies to help both destinations and businesses position themselves. An example is the uncertain future of a number of Alpine destinations, some of which would not survive without exceedingly sophisticated artificial snow technology. In sum, the topic of new media should be noted as the absolute megatrend that has done more to revolutionize the supply and demand structures in tourism in the past years than virtually any other phenomenon and whose further development is difficult to estimate at the present time. In particular, social media, which have fundamentally altered the communication structures between the supply and demand side, have attracted great interest in the German-speaking scientific community (Gu¨nther & Hopfinger, 2009; Kru¨ger, 2001). Whereas on the supply side, completely new business models are emerging and interactive forms of marketing and of communication with customers have triumphed, the demand side has achieved a previously unknown empowerment. Examples are the immense abundance of new booking and feedback channels, and especially also the many possibilities for user-generated content (Amersdorffer, Bauhuber, & Oellrich, 2010). Moreover, on the demand side, the medium of the Internet has opened up new forms of travel. For an Internet surfer at the beginning of the third millennium, travel is largely free and borderless in the sense of physical space, while it remains embedded in “global villages.” New (virtual) spaces are available that are not “either-or” alternatives to conventional travel, but augment the previously existing supply spectrum. In this complex and fragmented world of cyberspace, one central problem that emerges for the tourist is that of growing complexity. The critical user is permanently confronted with the following questions: what to read, hear, or see first, what is more or less important, or what choice best suits one’s needs (Scherle & Hopfinger, 2007).

78

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Structure and Trajectory of the Field The role of tourism geography in the German-speaking countries is rather marginal compared with other subdisciplines of geography, a fact that is reflected primarily in its institutionalization (less in the research done in the field). For instance, of the 64 geography departments in Germany listed by the Verband der Geographen an Deutschen Hochschulen (Association of Geographers at German Universities), only two, Trier and Eichsta¨tt, explicitly mention tourism geography in their department profiles (VGDH, 2012). Neither of these two universities (each of which have tourism geography taught programs with about 400 students) has an independent curriculum in tourism geography. Rather, geography of leisure and tourism is an area of specialization within a broader geography curriculum and can be chosen as such by interested students. In Trier, “Leisure and Tourism” is a possible area of specialization in the Bachelor degree applied geography. In Eichsta¨tt, students can specialize in “Leisure, Tourism, and Environment” as one of the three special subjects in the Bachelor degree course in geography. At both universities, new Masters degrees have been introduced in recent years in the Bologna Process. The conceptual focus in Trier is on “Tourism Development and Destination Management,” in Eichsta¨tt on “Tourism and Regional Planning.” The team in Trier currently consists of 3 researchers and 15 part-time lecturers, while the team in Eichsta¨tt comprises 6 researchers and 5 parttime lecturers. The comparatively large number of part-time lecturers, who are often experts from the tourism industry, clearly reflects the practical orientation of the two curricula. This is partially due to the fact that parttime lecturers cost the university less, because they do not have any official university position and consequently the university does not have to pay into the social security system for them. Trier and Eichsta¨tt differ somewhat in their research profiles. In the 1980s and 1990s, Trier concentrated on tourism and sustainable development. One of the ideas they developed was the already mentioned “travel star.” It was a tool for evaluating the sustainability of a trip in its ecological, economic, and social dimensions that was relatively easy to handle. The components trip to and from the destination, routes travelled in the destination, lodging, and purpose of trip, were used to determine whether the sustainability was good, average, or poor (Osterloh, 1997). Furthermore, under the aegis of Becker, Materialien zur Fremdenverkehrsgeographie (Materials on Tourism Geography) was formed. As of today, it is the most prestigious publication series in German language tourism geography.

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography

79

The series primarily publishes applied research results from the department. In 1991, the German state of Rheinland-Pfalz, Luxemburg, and the German-speaking community in Belgium founded the Europa¨isches Tourismus Institut (European Tourism Institute) in Trier. It is one of the leading institutions devoted to the evaluation and quality management of tourism and leisure in the German-speaking world. In the first few years after its founding, synergistic effects between the department in Trier and the research institute were utilized on both the conceptual and the methodological levels. In 2010, the institute was taken over by Project M, a private tourism research company. Meanwhile, the focus of tourism geography in Trier has shifted to mobility research, in which concepts from tourism geography and transportation geography are being closely linked (Kagermeier & Gronau, 2008; Schro¨der, 2008). The special feature of Eichsta¨tt’s major study program (Leisure, Tourism, and Environment) is its holistic conception, which is reflected not only in the fact that environmental aspects play an important role in research and teaching, but also in the explicit cooperation with selected related disciplines. An outcome of this cooperation was the successful establishment in 2003 of an endowed chair of tourism. The idea behind the establishment of this endowed chair was not only to expand the teaching and research portfolio in tourism geography, but also to explicitly integrate the tourism industry. Tourism geography is investigated and taught particularly in the departments of cultural geography and economic geography. The implications of the cultural turn have led to an increased interest in a cultural studies approach to tourism. In this context, a particular focus lies on aspects of intercultural communication and imagined geographies (Scherle & Nonnenmann, 2008; Schlaffke, 2007). Analogous to the Materialien zur Fremdenverkehrsgeographie published in Trier, Eichsta¨tt established its own independent publication series in 2000, the Eichsta¨tter Tourismuswissenschaftliche Beitra¨ge (Eichsta¨tt Contributions to Tourism Studies), which primarily encompasses studies on tourism as a cultural practice. Furthermore, after the Tourismus Journal was discontinued in 2007, the Department of Cultural Geography took the initiative to re-establish a German-language journal of tourism studies. In 2008, the Zeitschrift fu¨r Tourismuswissenschaft (Journal of Tourism Studies) was launched with reputed editors from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (more later). A further important step that helped to strengthen the profile of Eichsta¨tt’s tourism geography was the launch in 2006 of Tourismuszukunft

80

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

(tourism future) by three geography students in Eichsta¨tt. This institute, which evolved out of the blog with the same name, Tourismuszukunft.de, views itself as the leading e-tourism think tank in the German-speaking world. On one side, it concentrates on social media research, but additionally it advises tourism businesses on their social media strategy. Furthermore, since 2008, Tourismuszukunft, in close cooperation with the Department of Cultural Geography, has organized a so-called “Tourismuscamp,” the first barcamp specifically for tourism in Germany. In contrast to a classic conference, the topics of a barcamp are not determined in advance, but are decided democratically by the participants at the beginning of the conference. This innovative and unconventional type of meeting allows any participant to offer a session or a workshop on a topic with which he or she is familiar. At a barcamp, the normal hierarchy between speakers and audience at classic conferences is consciously broken down. This open and exceedingly discursive interaction between the barcamp participants promotes an intensive interdisciplinary exchange in an informal atmosphere and is thus much more effective and in touch with the times than traditional types of meetings (Bauhuber & Scherle, 2009). In line with the profile of Tourismuszukunft, the focus at the previous one was on social media issues. What is particularly gratifying is that the meetings are exceptionally well received by young participants and the tourism industry. Even if official university programs in tourism geography are limited to Trier and Eichsta¨tt, this does not mean that research is not being done at other universities that do not explicitly specialize in tourism (such as Bayreuth, Frankfurt, Greifswald, Go¨ttingen, Osnabru¨ck, or Paderborn). It is often being done under some other label, for instance economic, social, or (recently) cultural geography. The reasons for this are often rather pragmatic, for instance, to improve the standing of these subdisciplines when it comes to the acquisition of research funds and to have access to larger and more diversified job pools. A further difficulty for the standing of tourism geography in the German-speaking countries is the fact that much of the academic education related to tourism takes place at so-called universities of applied sciences, at which there are no explicit geography courses, much less courses in leisure and tourism geography. In recent years, these universities, whose focus is primarily on teaching and where little research is done, have greatly expanded their curricula. In this situation, suitable applicants with a more practical and business-oriented background were often lacking for the new positions. Therefore, a large number of geographers with an interest in tourism have increasingly drifted to these institutions. It goes without saying that this mobility is not the best for tourism

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography

81

as a university subject, from both a methodological and an institutional viewpoint. The most important institutional platform for German-speaking tourism geographers is the so-called Arbeitskreis fu¨r Freizeit und Tourismus (Working Group for Leisure and Tourism), which is organized under the umbrella of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Geographie (German Society for Geography). This working group normally meets once a year at an annual conference, which usually focuses on one main issue. The 2010 conference on “Trends and Challenges for Tourism Geography Research” was in Go¨ttingen and the 2011 conference on “Viable Tourism: Innovation and Cooperation” in Stralsund. Furthermore, the members were engaged in an intensive dialogue with related disciplines. To enable a change in perspective—and in pursuit of a common path to a theory of tourism—keynote speakers from psychology, sociology, anthropology, and folklore were invited to the 2001 2005 conferences. Simultaneously, however, they seek an exchange of expertise with the international tourism community, a fact that is particularly important for the relatively small number of Germanspeaking tourism geographers. For example, in 2002 a joint symposium was held in Mu¨nster by the British “Geography of Leisure and Tourism Research Group” and the Arbeitskreis fu¨r Freizeit und Tourismus. Its key concern was described by the organizer (Coles, 2004, p. 136): One of the driving forces behind the symposium was the desire to increase understanding of the ways in which tourism and leisure have been, and continue to be, read by geographers in different research communities, with their distinctive cultural, linguistic, and academic settings. As such, the central questions addressed at the symposium were “how have knowledge of tourism and leisure been produced by geographers in the past?” and “how are they currently being produced in the two language areas”? Are geographies of leisure and tourism read and produced quite differently? Or, is there a lingua franca to geographical investigation of tourism and leisure? Since 2008, the Arbeitskreis fu¨r Freizeit und Tourismus has published a series of its own, Studien zur Freizeit- und Tourismusforschung (Studies in Leisure and Tourism Research). The main intention of the series is to collect papers on tourism geography in an effort to make them more visible both within the discipline and to the outside world. Simultaneously, its

82

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

concern is to create an interdisciplinary platform for humanistically oriented studies in the field of leisure and tourism, in keeping with the interdisciplinary or trans-disciplinary nature of leisure and tourism research. The spectrum of the publications that have appeared so far extends from more theoretical papers to collections and evaluations of practical examples. The most important features of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Tourismuswissenschaft (German Society of Tourism Research) was founded in 1996. This interdisciplinary organization is the most important network for tourism researchers in the German-speaking countries, functioning as an important forum for colleagues in tourism geography and their research activities. Furthermore, it engages in comparatively successful lobbying. This task is easier for large entity with many members, such as this organization, than for smaller specialized agencies, such as Arbeitskreis fu¨r Freizeit und Tourismus. The latter works as an appendage to its exceedingly heterogeneous parent organization, Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Geographie. Only recently, the society passed a resolution in favor of maintaining and strengthening university curricula to counter the intensified shift of tourism research and teaching away from the universities to the universities of applied sciences. Similar to the Arbeitskreis fu¨r Freizeit und Tourismus, the society holds an annual conference on a tourism-related topic, followed by a colloquium for PhD students designed specifically to promote young talents. Likewise, since 2003 it has published its own series, Schriften zu Tourismus und Freizeit (Papers on Tourism and Leisure). The society’s calling card, nationally and internationally, is the ITB Science Award which is conferred annually at the world’s largest tourism trade fair, Internationale Tourismus-Bo¨rse (ITB) in Berlin. Awards are in three categories: the “best thesis in terms of industry relevance,” “best thesis in terms of scientific theory,” and “best international thesis.” In recent years, two special prizes— “best thesis on sustainability in tourism” and the “best thesis on tourism language, media and communication”—have been added.

CONCLUSION Tourism geography in the German-speaking countries is facing exceedingly complex challenges. To a certain extent, these challenges are similar to the current transformation processes in the neighboring European countries in the subject area itself and in the universities, though in some cases they have quite specific “national” characteristics (Walkenhorst, 2005, 2008;

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography

83

Welbers, 2001). The three most important challenges are the implementation of the Bologna Process aiming at the harmonization of the European Higher Education Area; the trans-nationalization of research landscapes patterned on the Anglo-American model; and the gradual loss of significance of tourism geography in favor of applied management studies. As for the Bologna Process, the key concern, along with a large number of other reforms, is to establish a two-tiered system of higher education composed of cycles ending with Bachelors and Masters degrees. Critics of the German higher education system, who tend to assume that its key actors lack the will to reform it, pin great hopes on the new study options, Bachelors and Masters degrees. The most important criticisms of the traditional German higher education system are that its academic and examination structure is monolithic, the curricula lack internationality, it is insufficiently practice oriented, and its graduates enter the labor market much too late while the dropout rates are too high. Particularly in view of the complex challenges of an increasingly globalized world in which the importance of such aspects as flexibility, intercultural competence, and lifelong learning is growing, Humboldt’s concept of a university that combined teaching and research faces criticism. For example, according to List: Not only the long duration of their studies and their high age make it difficult for German university graduates to find a job or participate in an academic exchange, compared with their fellow students from other countries. In addition, the German degrees of Diplom, Magister, and Staatsexamen are scarcely known outside of the country and lead to false assessments by foreign universities and employers. The introduction of a two-tiered system leading to bachelor and master degrees is therefore intended to make it easier to compare German and foreign degrees. (2000, p. 26) Anyone who thinks that the criticism of the German higher education system is limited exclusively to representatives of business-related institutions must, however, stand corrected. On the restructuring of the curricula, Schulze, a historian in Munich, states: We can therefore start with the insight that the past 120 years of German university history offer recurring evidence that Humboldt came to epitomize an elite vision and institution of education that has lacked any empirical basis since the

84

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives professionalisation of jobs starting in the late 19th century and completely since the emergence of the ‘mass university’ at the end of the 1960s. (2005, p. 1)

The proponents within the scientific community of the new system of higher education generally do not fundamentally reject Humboldt’s basic concepts, thinking for instance of the development of personality through science or the unity of teaching and research. Rather, they point out the historical and social context in which they originated, which is far removed from the conditions in postmodern information societies (Ash, 2006; Huber, 2001; Schulze, 2005). Indeed, it is difficult to see the usefulness of a concept of education developed under the social conditions of the early 19th century and applied to 1 2% of any age group. Whether this could be of more than symbolic use is questionable in an education system that at the beginning of the new millennium had to deal with more than 30% of an age group at institutions of higher education and a rapidly changing system of qualification (Buch & Schmitt, 2005; Schulze, 2005). Add this to the fact that internationally the proportion of young Germans studying at institutions of higher learning is still considered much too low. According to an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) study published around the turn of the millennium, a mere 16% of a given age group in Germany earn an academic degree, whereas the corresponding figures in Japan and the United States are 28% and 40%, respectively (OECD, 2000). Therefore, there are definitely plausible arguments for the introduction of the new study courses. Nevertheless, it needs to be pointed out that some key risks in the implementation of Bachelors and Masters degrees are in order to provide a well-rounded picture of the current discussion. To begin with, an aspect that is all too frequently overlooked in the pertinent discussions should be considered. Ultimately, with the introduction of these two degrees in the Bologna Process, educational structures are being adopted from other countries (specifically from the United States and the United Kingdom) whose educational structures and traditions differ greatly from those in the German-speaking countries. In this context, these two countries do not have a comparable dual education system which is closely geared to the job market and oriented to actual operations and practice (Scherle & Pillmayer, 2007). In comparison, in the English-speaking countries (ignoring the widespread but not overly respected on-the-job training, particularly for low-skilled jobs) the bachelor degree is usually the first qualification for a job, though it does

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography

85

not even begin to ensure the close dovetailing with the job market that the dual education system in the German-speaking countries does. One of the harshest critics of the current structural reforms in German higher education is German sociologist Beck, who knows both the German and the Anglo-American university systems, as he has taught at the Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich and the London School of Economics and Political Science: They say “Bachelor” and set into motion the McDonaldization of the German university. The professional standards and fields of discourse that emerged over the course of decades are being dismantled. In the end the chronically understaffed social sciences and humanities can no longer offer their own professional degrees. The last representative of his subject turns out the lights. (2005, p. 97) In his highly spirited but exaggerated article, addressed primarily to the parents of future students, the main objections to the current reform of higher education in Germany are reflected like in a burning glass. They include, first, the increased neoliberalization of universities that is not far from “McKinsey Stalinism” and in which Humboldt’s humanistic idea of education is sacrificed to an opaque network of accreditors, evaluators, education planners, and education snitches. The second is an increasing consumer culture (due not least to the introduction of tuition fees) in which “entrepreneurial” universities function primarily as mere service providers under the dictate of competition and flexibility and try out new types of “products” (modularized curricula, Bachelors and Masters degrees) or new styles for providing products and services (multiple-choice tests, PowerPoint presentations, Internet communication). Critical commentaries on this subject would go beyond the scope of an overview. It should, however, have become clear that the Bologna Process and the associated structural changes in German higher education represent challenges for the affected actors who are not to be underestimated. As at any time when a system changes or there is a paradigm shift, friction arises. It is still too early for a conclusive evaluation because, for one thing, the implementation of the new study courses has not been completed. Moreover, studies observing and evaluating the changes have yet to be done, especially in “exotic” fields like tourism geography. The second great challenge currently confronting the German system of higher education and/or tourism geography is an intensified

86

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

trans-nationalization of research landscapes patterned on the AngloAmerican model. This process is closely connected with the already outlined implementation of the Bologna Process, whose basic concept largely follows the Anglo-American university structures (Beck, 2005; Jarausch, 2003; Mittelstraß, 1994). Although it is largely undisputed in the Germanspeaking scientific community that the trans-nationalization of research represents a key competitive advantage, the consequences are viewed in increasingly critical terms. Particularly in the humanities and social sciences and not least in tourism geography, people are afraid that the cultures their disciplines developed within their national contexts are gradually being abandoned. A few years ago, the publication culture in tourism geography in Germany was an undertaking targeted largely at the German-speaking scientific community. There was (and still is) no German-language journal of tourism geography; instead as many as three journals of tourism studies compete for authors and for the favor of readers. Characteristic of these journals was not only their largely interdisciplinary and holistic orientation, but also the circumstance that—regardless of their articles, some of which were very good—they were not listed in the relevant international citation indices. Another largely German phenomenon was that many individual faculties published series of their own covering extremely diversified topics from all areas of geography, but whose clientele was chiefly limited to the department in question. Because of the enormously increased pressure to publish in international peer-reviewed journals (Fro¨hlich, 2002; Talib, 2000), the above-mentioned publications are caught in a vicious circle. On the one hand, the scientific community is less and less willing to publish in the relevant journals and on the other hand, the readership is decreasing, as the community shifts toward Anglo-American publications and to online databases. Under these circumstances, in 2007 the reputed German-language journal Tourismus Journal was discontinued. In 2008, a biannual publication for the German-speaking scientific community—Zeitschrift fu¨r Tourismuswissenschaft—was again launched. It was welcomed particularly by young researchers, partly for pragmatic reasons, because they hoped to be able to position themselves first within the German-speaking tourism community (which ultimately decides on appointments to professorships at German, Austrian, and Swiss universities) and partly because young researchers fear the language gap and the much longer and uncertain review process of the reputed Anglo-American journals.

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography

87

Particularly for colleagues who are not from the English-speaking world, the language gap is a challenge that must not be underestimated. Only very few scholars have enough of a command of English to be able to send a polished manuscript for publication to an Anglo-American journal. This is quite apart from the fact that every language has its own subtleties that are often lost in translation. Apropos translations, at least in the Germanspeaking countries, academics usually have to bear the costs of translation themselves, which of course ties up financial resources that are lacking in other places. This is particularly bitter for junior researchers who, especially in Germany, often have only part-time positions and for whom the cost of translation of a text about 6,000 words is about 700 800 Euros. A person who ultimately wants to exert influence on the direction of research has to join existing networks in internationalized fields of research, of which there are only a limited number. It is difficult for research that does not fit into such established, primarily Anglo-American dominated networks to even attract attention. Only in rare cases it is possible to build up a new international network and this requires extensive “investment” in personal relationships with joint conferences, research, and publication projects (Hartmann, 2006; Mu¨nch, 2009; Schimank, 2001). Though, as Mu¨nch (2007) tellingly showed in his Die akademische Elite (The Academic Elite), which attracted a great deal of attention in the German-speaking countries, regular successful publications in high-ranking international journals can only be achieved under the following conditions: the scientist becomes a member of a network that dominates the international scene in a certain research field, publishes in the key journals, and reviews manuscripts submitted for publication in these journals. The cohesion of this network is ensured by regular conferences and joint publications in special editions or collections of papers. For the involved researchers, membership of such a network not only reduces the constantly growing uncertainty, especially for junior researchers, in view of the increasing number of temporary positions but also collectively defines the relevant research questions, approaches, and methods. Thus, the researcher knows what is in vogue and which approaches and methodology are considered legitimate and adapts accordingly. That such research networks exert a normalizing or standardizing influence over a long period of time, with the result that unconventional research or research that is out of the ordinary has little chance to be published goes without saying. Oscillating between sarcasm and fine irony, the following citation by Mu¨nch points out the typical, largely ritualized reasoning that would probably keep Max Weber’s (1972[1920]) famous book, The Protestant Ethic

88

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

and the Spirit of Capitalism, from being accepted today by a scientific community in which Anglo-American journals dominate: The text casts too wide a net. Almost every single one of its different themes could be discussed in an independent essay. For this reason it lacks stringency and coherence in its arguments. Concepts are used without exact definition, farreaching claims made without evidence. The empirical evidence is thin. One learns nothing about the figures, representativeness or evaluation of the sources. The article lacks methodological exactness and the current state of research is not portrayed adequately. Not enough is said about the previous research and writings of Meyer and Mu¨ller. Although the text discusses an interesting theme, it is not developed sufficiently for publication. (2007, p. 177) Before continuing with the loss of significance of tourism geography visa`-vis applied management courses, it is also worth noting how this response to Weber’s text was signed off: The editors express their gratitude for your interest in this journal and wish the author every success in his/her further research on this important topic. (Mu¨nch, op. cit.) The third major challenge currently confronting tourism geography in the German-speaking countries is that tourism courses are gradually moving from universities to universities of applied sciences with their business and management departments that focus on teaching. The reasons for this development are extremely complex. First of all, in the German-speaking countries tourism tends per se to be considered an applied course of study that, compared with other exotic subjects, is distinguished by greater employability (Freyer & Pompl, 2000; Nahrstedt, 1994). Consequently, in the past two decades, dozens of tourism degree programs have been established at both state and private universities of applied sciences, and they enjoy a constantly rising demand. Here one should not forget that the establishment of tourism study courses definitely is a lucrative business, especially for private educational institutions, because the investment costs remain within limits (not least in comparison with technical and science curricula). Moreover, in the federal states of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, where the state-run universities of applied sciences are

German Perspectives on Tourism Geography

89

generally financed by the relevant state, the personnel costs are lower, partly because the salaries are usually lower than at universities and partly because they do not have the so-called Mittelbau (lecturers and senior lecturers associated with a chair) that is so characteristic of universities. To make matters worse, for tourism geography—analogous to many other fields in the humanities and social sciences and particularly in comparison with technical fields and the natural sciences—acquiring research funds is much more difficult. Here, the experience is often quite similar to that of the English-speaking scientific community. At the relevant conferences, one repeatedly hear statements to the following effect: “Avoid the t word [tourism] and go for the m word [mobility]” or “how can you do research on a topic that in the end is only associated with fun?” You may bemoan this situation, but the German-speaking countries appear to be experiencing with some delay developments that are already common in the English-speaking world. Particularly in view of the many open questions and the extremely uncertain future of tourism geography in the German-speaking countries, this chapter may end with the famous German playwright Bertolt Brecht, whose epilogue to The Good Person of Szechwan (2008) aptly summarizes the current situation of tourism geography in the German-speaking world: “Ladies and gentlemen, don’t feel let down: We know this ending makes some people frown. (…) Indeed it is a curious way of coping: To close the play, leaving the issue open. (…) Ladies and gentlemen, in you we trust: There must be happy endings, must, must, must!”

Chapter 6

Regional Perspectives on Tourism Geographies: The Case of Greece Paris Tsartas University of the Aegean, Greece

Harry Coccossis University of Thessaly, Greece

Magdalena Vasileiou University of the Aegean, Greece

Abstract: The aim of this chapter is to provide a holistic overview of issues and topics regarding tourism geography in Greece: from its origins to its current situation. By following a historical tracking of tourism activities in this country and the growth of tourism geography as an academic domain at the university level, the main goal is to analyze the shift of academic research on tourism from geographical perspective, as presented in both the Greek and English language literature. The chapter concludes that there is a need for practical orientation and redefinition of typologies of tourism geographies in order to apply a more sustainable and cross-disciplinary approach in the academic discourse on Greek tourism. Keywords: Tourism geography; Greece; Greek language; sustainability; development INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on research traditions in tourism and geography, both in Greece and in the Greek language. It provides an overview of the major Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Tourism Social Science Series, Volume 19, 91 103 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1571-5043/doi:10.1108/S1571-5043(2013)0000019006

92

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

issues which have affected the orientation of research and policy priorities since the early days. At the early stages of tourism development in Greece, it was actually the public sector that drove the resultant thematic orientation of academic research on economic and regional development, impacts on society and the environment, sustainable development, the shift to special types of tourism, and all of these in temporal sequence. Later on, a broader and less applied agenda brought the Greek academic society into the debate on tourism. With this in mind, this chapter first takes a look at the historical context of tourism in Greece and then examines the trajectory of academic research on tourism from a geographical perspective as published in Greek as well as in English, looking also at the links with other disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, and urban and regional planning.

CONTEXT OF TOURISM GEOGRAPHY RESEARCH Similar to other Mediterranean destinations, tourism has been a major economic force and an important driver for change in post-war Greece. In the Hellenic context, this industry has been responsible, directly or indirectly, for various important social, cultural, economic, and environmental changes (Terkenli, 1996). As a consequence, a growing scientific interest— from within and beyond the geography discipline—has also been expanding progressively, making tourism into a multidisciplinary field in Greece, contributing to the enrichment and specialization of research on the tourism phenomenon. In general, in spite of the fact that at a macroeconomic level there are various analyses and research activities on tourism growth and its impacts, a more holistic approach has been relatively limited in scope, especially at a microeconomic level (the business side). A major part of research activity on tourism in Greece has been focused on impacts, for example, from a social anthropological perspective (Galani-Moutafi, 2002), as well as in the broader field of geography (Table 1). Approaches toward the inter- or multidisciplinary field in a given country presents differences and particularities depending on its historical, social, economic, and political development over time. In contrast with the major European scientific traditions which focused on an academic

Regional Perspectives on Tourism Geographies Table 1.

List of Literature Relating to Tourism Development in Greece Theoretical Framework

Pre1930s

Reinventing cultural, historical, and national identity— Tourism activities are treated as an extra consumer activity

1930s

Reinventing cultural, historical and national identity— Institutionalizing tourism— Schools specializing in tourism vocational training—The academic community takes increased interest in tourism Tourism development, Tourism management, Tourism geography, Spatial planning Tourism legal framework

1940s

1950s

Reinventing cultural, historical, and national identity— Institutionalizing tourism Tourism development, Tourism management, Tourism geography, Spatial planning Economic and regional development focusing— Absorbing the Marshall Plan’s funding—Internal and inbound tourism development Tourism economics Tourism development, Tourism management, Tourism geography, Spatial planning

Author Lekkas (1996[1925])

Manos (1935, 1939)

Kollokas and Makris (1938)

General Secretariat of Tourism (1948); Manos (1948)

Agapitidis (1950) Soulantikas (1951)

93

94

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 1.

(Continued )

Theoretical Framework 1960s

1970s

1980s

Economic and regional Development focusing— Internal and inbound tourism development Tourist flows Tourism financing Mass tourism development establishes—New technologies and means of transport democratized tourism. Early steps of an inter-disciplinary approach to tourism Regional development Tourism development, Tourism management, Tourism geography, Spatial planning Mass tourism development model—First spatial analysis Tourism development, Tourism management, Tourism geography, Spatial planning, Regional development

Tourism consumption, Tourism economics Spatial analysis Tourism planning, Tourism development, Tourism geography 1990s

Mass tourism development model—First approach to sustainable tourism issues— Spatial planning

Author

Logothetis (1961) Central Bank of Greece (1967)

Pantelidis (1975) Petropoulos (1977)

Greek Ministry of Environment, Land Planning and Public Constructions (1989); Tsartas (1989); Zacharatos (1988) Zacharatos (1986) Komilis (1986) Tsartas (1988, 1989)

Regional Perspectives on Tourism Geographies Table 1.

95

(Continued )

Theoretical Framework Tourism geography, Anthropology of Tourism Tourism development, Tourism management, Environment Tourism planning, Spatial planning

Tourism planning, Tourism development, Tourism geography Tourism planning, Sustainable tourism development, Tourism geography, Regional development theories

Anthropology of tourism, Sociology of tourism, Tourism geography, Presentation of related theories

Special interest tourism, Sustainable tourism development, Tourism planning, Tourism geography Tourism cultural heritage, Tourism development, Tourism geography Tourism marketing

Author Giakoumis and Roua (1998); MoiraMylonopoulou (1999) Coccossis and Mexa (1997) Angelidis (1995); Coccossis (1995); Katochianou (1995); Lagos (1990) Varvaressos (1997/2004, 1998, 1999) Komilis (1992, 1993, 1995); Komilis and Vagionnis (1999); Lagos (1996, 1998); Parpairis (1994); Pavlopoulos (1999); Pavlopoulos and Kouzelis (1998) Htouris (1995); Lytras (2002[1991]); Manologlou, Tsartas, Markou, and Papliakou (1999); Tsartas (1996, 1998); Tsartas et al. (1995) Maroudas and Tsartas (1997)

Sidiropoulos (1998); Terkenli (1996) Igoumenakis (1996)

96

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 1.

(Continued )

Theoretical Framework 2000s

Redefining the land use and the benefits of alternative forms of tourism—Special interest tourism—Tourism seen as an experience—Use of typologies Tourism geography, Anthropology of tourism Spatial analysis, Regional development Tourism planning, Tourism development, Tourism geography

Tourism planning, Sustainable tourism development, Tourism geography, Regional development theories

Special interest tourism, Sustainable tourism development, Tourism planning, Tourism geography Tourism regional planning, Tourism policy, Sociology of tourism

Author

Moira (2005); Terkenli et al. (2007) Lagos and Stamatiou (2006) Andriotis (2003, 2005); Igoumenakis (2000); Kilipiris (2009); Konstantoglou (2005); Laskaratos (2000); Melissourgos (2008); Pappas (2006); Vlami (2008); Varvaressos (2008) Coccosis, Kyratsoylis, and Mexa (2000); Coccosis and Tsartas (2001); Tomaras and Lagos (2005); Tsartas (2010); Tsartas and Stavrinoudis (2006); Tsartas, Stogiannidou, and Stavrinoudis (2004) Apostolopoulos and Sdrali (2009); Vagianni (2003) Vassenhoffen and Koyrlioyros (2007)

Regional Perspectives on Tourism Geographies Table 1.

(Continued )

Theoretical Framework Tourism management, Tourism economics Tourism marketing Tourism research 2010s

97

Redefining the benefits of alternative forms of tourism— Special interest tourism— Tourism seen as an experience—New technologies define the new tourism phenomenon approach—Use of typologies Tourism development, Tourism business management Tourism economics Sustainable tourism development Tourism planning, Management and marketing Tourism geography Presentation of related theories

Author Zacharatos (2000, 2007) Koutoulas (2001) Galani-Moutafi (2002); Tsartas (2000)

Zacharatos (2010) Zacharatos (2012) Coccosis, Tsartas, and Grimpa (2011) Soteriadis and Farsari (2009) Terkenli et al. (2011) Tsartas (2010)

approach/scholarly analysis of tourism and its relationship to other sectors, the case in Greece was in relation and parallel to more general economic and regional development issues, mostly following private sector and business initiatives. Indicative of this reality is the fact that education relating to tourism in Greece was offered at a practical level, mainly focusing on professional training for such tourism businesses as hotels and restaurants. Such studies were offered by secondary and tertiary level public educational institutions, including technical high schools, vocational training institutes, technological educational institutions, schools of tourism professions (supervised by the Organization of Tourism Education and Training), as well as some

98

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

corresponding private colleges. At the university level, tourism-related studies have only been offered as postgraduate programs since 1998; first at the University of the Aegean and later at the University of Piraeus. Indeed, until 2009, there were no undergraduate level tourism studies in Greek universities. It was only then that the Department of Tourism Economics and Management was founded at the University of the Aegean, but was still not fully operational due to economic reasons. In recent years, some university level institutions such as departments of economics, management, geography, and planning (such as the Department of Spatial Planning and Regional Development at the University of Thessaly) have been offering courses and now supporting research, directly or indirectly, related to tourism and its development. In addition, several institutions such as the Center for Planning and Economic Research and the Greek National Center for Social Research focused on tourism research from an economics, business, and social anthropological perspective. Recent efforts are increasingly focused on modern priorities and perspectives such as environmental management and sustainable development. The practical- or vocational-oriented approach in Greek education and research institutes and the relatively late-coming higher education sector (only in the last 15 years) have conditioned and defined the characteristics of tourism research and analysis in this country. The approach was fragmented and oriented mostly to business/entrepreneurship, supporting the needs of an economy in recovery and development. In many respects, however, these activities have contributed to policymaking, often outwardly supporting political decisions. In general, in certain European countries such as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and France, tourism was incorporated at an early stage in other multiannual scientific traditions, in a continental approach. In Greece, tourism development as viewed from academia was seen under the spectrum of geography, history, and sociology, understanding the multiple aspects and the relationship defining them. Within this framework, tourism research tried to explore the impacts/relationships among social, cultural, economic, physical, and environmental dimensions by taking a synthesisbased approach (Terkenli, 1996).

Early Milestones in the Development of Tourism The underlying context of tourism development in the Greek context aids in understanding the trajectory of tourism as an academic subject within

Regional Perspectives on Tourism Geographies

99

and beyond geography. The very beginnings of tourism activity in Greece can be traced back to the ancient world, accompanying commercial and educational journeys/activities that were boosted by the evolution of transportation and the invention of scripture and money (Tsartas, 1996). In parallel, significant sports and religious events in the important cities of Ancient Greece offered an opportunity for travel and tourism activities, albeit in a very embryonic state (such as providing shelter and food). Through the years, tourism literature began to come to the forefront, at first not directly but rather via the major, seminal geographical and historical works of Herodotus, Strabo, Thales of Miletus, Pausanias, and other ancient writers, who presented various aspects of the cities they had visited. In addition, major destinations were considered as spa or thermal springs, which—following the initiative of ancient Greek medicine practitioners such as Asklepios (Asclepius) and Ippokrates (Hippocrates)—started to establish basic hospitality and medical centers. Alexander the Great’s conquests, followed by those of the Romans, facilitated and encouraged travel. In the Byzantine era, religious and pilgrimage tourism developed in Greece and other religious destinations. But in general, the middle ages were characterized by a decrease in travel activity mostly for safety reasons. This is a situation that the Crusades claimed to have resolved. In Greece, in the years of Byzantine Empire and Ottoman occupation, travelers did not follow the trends of the tourism culture in the rest of Europe. The years of the Renaissance found Greece under the Ottoman Empire and the country could not host commercial and other exhibitions that supported flows, consciousness, and organized development of tourism. Consequently, the literary and academic approach from Greek scholars was limited. Even in the years of the Grand Tour, Greece was not considered as a safe destination, so only a small number of inspired travelers visited its destinations, often relating to the fight for independence. In any case, those with access to tourism-related travel during that period (mostly European aristocrats) managed to visit and this began to put Greece’s history, geography, and entrepreneurship on the travel map, contributing to its intellectual (re)discovery by the rest of Europe, influenced by the ideas of human rights, romanticism, the Enlightenment years, and the like. In this respect, the academic literature referred either to unsystematic personal reminiscences and impressions or, in the case of business people or scientists being the writers, to technical descriptions of Greek topography, architecture, and natural resources (Dritsas, 2006). In the 19th century, Greece followed the overall European tourism trends, but with a great delay. This era saw the first characteristics that led

100

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

to Greek tourism development and its massification after the 1960s. The liberation from the Ottoman Empire, the development of transportation means, and the uprising of the bourgeoisie led to a quest for tourism destinations where people could meet for fun and socializing. Sea and thermal spring resorts became popular destinations and the newly born state recognized the potential for organizing this new consumer activity within the framework of tourism and leisure time. The contemporary travel books at that time (written mostly by visitors from abroad) depicted the way in which individual travel was gradually replaced by mass tourism catering to the uprising middle classes. It revealed the way in which tourism appropriated travel as a series of commodities for mass consumption (Dritsas, 2006). During the early decades of the 20th century, in Greece—as well as in other destinations, especially Mediterranean—tourism development was used (apart from providing an extra income) as a means of historical and ethnographical re-identification, encouraging domestic tourism as an activity for the general population. Until the World War I, more travel handbooks were published, providing details on expanding shipping, travel agency, hotel, and restaurant businesses. But still, tourism was not incorporated into any particular academic discipline. The only approach mentioned in the archives of the Hellenic Hotel Chamber is the establishment in 1929 within the University’s Club of Athens of a section dealing with tourism research and the development of international affairs for students (Zacharatos, 2010). Some touristic publications (not of academic origins but mostly touristic guides or economic journals) depicted the problems which tourism development was facing. They mostly revolved around statistical data, taxation issues, hotel supporting policies, and related legal frameworks. Gradually, in the following years, tourism received more attention by the scholars and the state. Due to the special characteristics and challenges of the Greek economy, both sides focused mostly on economic development, regional development, and consumption issues related to tourism. Until then, as already noted, tourism was treated in a fragmented manner as an economic sector that had less importance, despite the fact that it was institutionalized in order to boost the national economy (e.g., via the recognition of the right to paid vacation, formation of tourism vocational schools, and establishment of hoteliers’ unions and the National Tourism Organization). The 1950s saw a milestone that boosted the development of tourism considerably: the formation of the National Tourism Organization and the capital received through the Marshall Plan. As a consequence, several research projects and studies were realized in order to define strategic

Regional Perspectives on Tourism Geographies

101

initiatives for regional and economic development in general and indirectly for tourism development. In the next three decades, most research and reviews referred to case studies of areas with important tourism flows and evidence of development (such as Rodos island (Rhodes), the Cyclades, Athens) and the traditional spa cities which were “reinvented” (such as Loutraki and Edipsos). Development plans had to be implemented to serve as an example for other destinations. In the 1970s, the term “tourism geography” was used for the first time to specify tourism-related analysis in a published book by an academic scholar. Greece focused mainly on organizing tourism facilities and services at that time, rather than developing strategies. Only in the mid1980s was tourism eventually examined through interdisciplinary analysis. Ever since the country became a member of the European Union (EU) and there were funds available for tourism and regional development, academic research in tourism expanded as complementary to and in support of such EU programs. In the 1980s, the new academic institutions, such as the University of the Aegean, took an in-depth interest in using an interdisciplinary approach to tourism beyond simple economic analyses. They began to introduce history, geography, sociology, anthropology, spatial planning, and new technologies into the study of tourism (Coccossis & Psycharis, 2008; Gospodini, 2001, 2007, 2009). The majority of the publications produced over the course of 1980 to the 2010s are illustrative of this “turn” and provide the Hellenic scientific literature in tourism geography with remarkable academic contributions, in terms of both theoretical research and methodologies. Although this might be interpreted as a relatively small number of publications, one has to consider the fact that most of them in tourism (being itself a global phenomenon) were written in the English language in well-established scientific journals abroad (a sentiment echoed throughout the present volume). Still, while there may be a limited number of journals available for tourism geography researchers to publish in Greek, there are certainly an important number of books and PhD studies in the Greek language that support a wide-ranging network of academic literature references. Even then, the more enlightened views focused on the problems and trappings of the (mass) tourism development model implemented in Greek destinations, especially in terms of spatial planning, the overconcentration of development in some areas, carrying capacity, and sustainable development, as well as of the benefits of alternative forms of tourism (Moira, 2005). Although much has been written in that respect, there was little impact in terms of related policy action. From the perspective of the 2004

102

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Olympic Games, the Greek tourism geography community provided a number of studies at many levels and scales of analysis, trying to provide a conceptual framework for development in terms of rational, long-term planning, and the need to take it into consideration at state level. These studies also recognized and warned against losing out on major opportunities presented by such a mega-event, albeit without much success in practice. In the past two decades, special attention has been given from an academic perspective to issues such as sustainable planning and development in tourism planning, as the impacts of mass tourism threaten development opportunities for future generations while destroying non-renewable resources of the natural and human environment (Moira, 2005; Terkenli, 1996; Terkenli, Iosifidis, & Chorianopoulos, 2007). In addition, there was an increased effort to rediscover history of Greek tourism in entrepreneurial, social, and geographical terms through the support of digitalization and remastering of past archives in order to redefine the terms of Greek tourism development. Finally, a special reference should be made to the fact that in the last two decades, Hellenic academic researchers (as apparent through the references cited in this chapter and Table 1) have tried to define typologies of tourists, destinations, tourism activities, and products in terms of forming general interactive analytical frameworks through marketing, information and communications technologies (Stratigea, Papakonstantinou, & Giaoutzi, 2008), environmental management, carrying capacity, regional development, and economic impacts, among others (Coccossis & Constantoglou, 2008). Table 1 presents an indicative list of written material such as books, articles, special publications, PhD theses, and even conference proceedings (with a particular emphasis on the early years) relating to tourism geographies in Greece, authored by the Greek academic community and published in Greek language.

CONCLUSION In times of global economic crisis and considering tourism as a global industry, research on its geographical aspects and its synergies with other sectors (such as transport, culture, leisure, and infrastructure) is of special importance. After all, tourism is a dynamic multi-branch activity with multiple linkages to other economic activities. Its impacts on localities and regions are also of special interest, particularly for specific areas such as island, mountain, and city destinations. Furthermore, the world is changing

Regional Perspectives on Tourism Geographies

103

fast, and so is tourism, and more so in Greece, where the current economic conditions have presented a major challenge to the tourism industry (Papadoulaki, 2011). The anticipated and already observable changes in the structure and dynamics of tourism, such as effects on large and small businesses from the broader economic crisis, changes in leisure patterns and lifestyle preferences, shifts in production and consumption patterns, and advances in technology (and many more related alterations and impacts) clearly provide a potent platform for research by tourism geography researchers based in Greece. In this context, policy, planning, and analysis can not only benefit from such tourism geography research activities, but also provide an important framework for related research. Therefore, it is of highest importance that the academic and research approach to tourism development is multidisciplinary in nature and scope and that the Greek approaches to such research, published in the Greek language or otherwise, are rendered visible in the international scene. The sustainability of tourism development in Greece needs to evolve on a more practical level, with tangible strategic plans. There is a vast new area that is ripe for research in relation to special interest tourism products and activities, while there are also typologies that need to be redefined within the spectrum of tourism geography, in turn, informed by the sociology of tourism (Tsartas & Stavrinoudis, 2006). This would provide the foundations for a more holistic understanding based on geographical perspectives on tourism and its fields of theory and practice.

Chapter 7

Italian Tourism Geography: The Weight of the Idiographic Approach Alessia Mariotti University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Abstract: This chapter discusses the main research interests and outputs in the various branches of geography that have influenced the study of tourism from a geographical perspective. It argues that the idiographic tradition has been transversal throughout, leading to the growing interest for tourism within the geography academic community in the last 10 years. There is a focus on the birth of specific research groups, mainly related to a constellation of new university curricula on tourism and— with few exceptions of territorial tradition—to an intermittent availability of public research funds. The chapter concludes with a more general picture of the place of tourism within the geography discipline in Italy and of evolving trends in terms of research results, dissemination, and evaluation. Keywords: Italy; idiographic approach; tourism geography; economic geography, human geography

INTRODUCTION This chapter begins with the main research interests and outputs related to the various branches of geography through the ages while emphasizing that the idiographic tradition is transversal in studies relating to tourism. This is followed with a discussion on the growing interest for tourism within the geography community over the last 10 years. The focus is on the birth of

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Tourism Social Science Series, Volume 19, 105 124 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1571-5043/doi:10.1108/S1571-5043(2013)0000019007

106

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

specific research groups, mainly related to a constellation of new university curricula on tourism and, with few exceptions of territorial tradition, to the relative availability of public research funds. Early studies on tourism from a geographic perspective in Italy generally consist of classical regional monographs on destinations published between the early 1930s and late 1940s. After the World War II, a few Italian geographers started to propose certain tourism interpretive schemes based on economists’ main ideas about money circulation from non-tourist to tourist regions. Later, there appeared the analysis of two, equally important, specific types of region: those where tourism flows are inbound (passive) and those where tourism flows are outbound (active) ones. Nevertheless, the number of geographical studies on tourism-receiving regions has always been greater than in the other case. Italian approaches to tourism analysis refer, from the 1960s onwards, to four main branches of geography: economic geography, human geography, geography of environment, and geography of perception. In a relatively recent study, Claudio Minca, an eminent Italian colleague who has lived and worked for many years abroad, stated that “perhaps there is no such thing as an ‘Italian cultural geography’” (2005, p. 927). While trying now to define theoretical traditions and frameworks of other “sub-disciplines,” if one assumes that tourism geography is such, it is easy to resist the temptation of claiming that there is no such thing as Italian tourism geography. This could then lead to several conceptual mistakes and some disciplinary injustice. Thus, it is important to first outline a possible interpretation of the first question: is tourism geography a (sub)discipline? The correct handling of the issue could allow to better understand the reason why it is not an easy task to identify one or more Italian tourism geography schools (and not even schools of tourism studies), but just a few groups or, more often, a few individual geographers dealing with tourism subjects.

DEVELOPMENT TRAJECTORY OF TOURISM GEOGRAPHY The debate about tourism itself being a discipline has since long occupied academic thought and been a favorite subject matter of quite a large number of scholars (Hoerner, 2000; Leiper, 1981, 2000; Przeclawski, 1993; Ryan, 1997; Tribe, 2004), who, in some cases, have also fought for an institutional recognition of their research work within both the local and the international academic community. From economists to geographers, from anthropologists to sociologists, researchers involved in tourism studies seem, at

Italian Tourism Geography

107

least in Europe, to be facing the same lack of academic acknowledgment and respect, sometimes through unequal career upgrade opportunities or by limited research fund distribution. This is especially true of Italian economists committed to the development of tourism economics studies: one of the Italian School of Tourism Economics’ initiators concluded in a recent paper: “[…] tourism economics is an established economic discipline in applied economics” (Candela & Figini, 2009, p. 16). By following Candela’s and Figini’s arguments and definitions, while relying on Tribe’s (2004) and Hirst’s (1965) categories, one could also try to understand if tourism geography and in particular Italian tourism geography is a species discipline (or in Minca’s words, a subdiscipline) within geography (the genre discipline), or just a field of study. It is also important to ask if it possesses an interrelated set of concepts (the object) upon which the knowledge is developed (Hirst, 1965). This chapter argues that it is at least a de facto discipline, recognized by a community which guarantees its communication and habits and which develops its values and research (King & Brownell, 1966). It will trace the recent history of tourism geography studies in the Peninsula by highlighting a set of concepts used by Italian geographers over the past 60 70 years and their relationship with the parallel evolution of theoretical approaches in the different periods. Further, it outlines the general framework of Italian tourism geography production in the changing national academic world. This discussion leads to possible developments and perspectives on tourism geography and geography as a whole.

Theories, Themes and Perspectives Early studies on tourism from a geographical perspective mostly consisted of classical regional monographs based on idiographic approaches and focused on the physical characteristics of tourism destinations (Mori, 1942; Toschi, 1936). After the World War II, the first Italian geographer to write a monograph about Taormina was Umberto Toschi, one of the founders/initiators of the Italian academy (Toschi, 1947, 1952, 1957, 1959). A detailed biography of Toschi’s work, describing both his academic and professional activity as geographer, has recently been published in English (Zabbini, 2010). It was in this period that the early theoretical approaches appeared, seeking general rules, proposing common threads, and suggesting various interpretation tools for the tourism phenomenon. On the basis of the

108

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

economic studies on money transfer from non-tourism to tourism regions, Toschi spoke in 1947 about the “human aspects” of tourism: on the one hand, the reasons for tourism flows and on the other, the impact (environment, settlement, etc.) of tourism on destinations, which constituted the basis for the definition of homogeneous “regional groups.” At that time, and not just in Italy, the common idea was that the spatial distribution of the tourism phenomenon represented the starting point for the definition of different economic and tourism regions. Following Toschi’s approach, the object of the study of tourism geography consists of two regions: incoming tourism regions (active) and outgoing tourism regions (passive) in terms of places that generate tourists or that receive tourism, creating a sort of “geographical dialogue.” In his view, tourism geography was not a discipline per se, but a branch of the geography of circulation within economic geography (the Toschi model figure is available at https://campus.unibo.it/117412/1/Figure%207.1.pdf). In 1957, tourism geography studies were formally dealt with. During the XVII Italian Geographical Congress, Toschi, in his remarkable speech, spoke in general terms of tourism studies from a geographical perspective and suggested an original interpretation model for tourism regions. This way, he influenced many studies and approaches of other economic geographers in the years to come. In the same speech, Toschi also suggested a general methodological analytical framework to be used in the study of tourism regions, particularly distinction between “pure” tourists and simply foreigners; circulation of people, distinguishing between those traveling for pleasure and work; statistics; tourism destinations (regions); tourism centers (points); tourism regions within Italy; stream, point of access and lines/directions of tourism flows; seasonality; tourism as a migration fact; human impact on landscape (although landscape was not considered as a tourism resource); tourism and cartography; and finally tourism and geographical culture. The theory suggested by Toschi emerged from within a specific historical context in which the international literature was still limited. The main goal was to affirm and differentiate geography from economic studies, since tourism was not as developed in Italy as it is nowadays (Ugolini, 1996). This could explain, for example, the low interest in the role of landscape and its economic impacts, in environmental and urbanization issues, as well as in space and natural or cultural resource consumption. Only a few sporadic studies were carried out in these fields during the same period and up to the mid-1960s, but the weight of the idiographic approach limited in most cases the possibility to deepen relevant theoretical lines as

Italian Tourism Geography

109

“accessibility and tourism development” (Della Valle, 1964), vacation regions (Merlini, 1961; Pedrini, 1961); or the creation of a “tourism added value index” (Castaldi & Cardi, 1957). During the 1960s, with the exception of a large number of case studies being produced, statistical reporting and data describing the development of well-known Italian resorts in Tuscany, Liguria, and Campania, new theoretical aspects were introduced by Merlini in Bologna and Nice (1963) in Florence. The former worked on tourism taking into account its industrial features and its role in the transfer of money from one region to another, whereas the latter studied the relationship between tourism and society in terms of wealth distribution. This small-scale conceptual change was mainly due to increasing international exchange between academics (in most cases from other European countries) and the introduction of new methods, such as those deriving from quantitative geography or functionalism (Ugolini, 1996). It is, however, important to note that not one of these ideas led to a clear effort in the construction of a more formalized conceptual framework of Italian tourism geography (Minca, 1995), and these studies, scattered across the Peninsula, were not aimed at finding models or expanding previous theories, such as Christaller’s (1963). Moreover, the redundant number of articles and writings based on an idiographic approach led to a limited contribution to the analysis of the interactions between tourism development and territorial organization, which had been rapidly evolving due to changes in holiday consumption at that time and related internal South North migration flows: on the one hand, the reinforcement of well-established destinations and resorts and on the other the rise of new tourism products and locations. The diffuse research tendency of looking for recurrent phenomena in tourism development paths limited for a long time the use of new research methods focused on the impact of tourism on land use, economy, and society. As far as the human geographers’ contribution to tourism research is concerned, it was only in the early 1960 that initial studies on the interaction among landscape organization, ecology, and tourism development made their first appearance (Ferro, 1961), becoming increasingly more relevant in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Corna Pellegrini (1967, 1968, 1996 1997; Pellegrini & Saibene, 1973) and Brusa (1979) initially focused the research on other objectives than the economists’, such as socio-psychological tourism motives, thus linking tourism to the geography of perception and introducing for the first time in Italy the concept of the geography of leisure, especially in connection with urban areas. The studies conducted in

110

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Milan in collaboration with the local school of psychology (perhaps the first ever “disciplinary melting pot” later leading to an interdisciplinary approach) about the perceived image of tourism spaces generated a wide debate on account of the emphasis placed on subjectivity. Corna Pellegrini (1996 1997, 2000, 2008, 2009), the initiator in Italy of a new research approach, focused on the importance of the tourism “image” in the new post-industrial society. He was a prolific researcher and a passionate traveler (http://almatourism.unibo.it/article/view/2538/1919), influencing strongly the subsequent work of human geographers interested in tourism. The conceptual distance among the economic and human geographers was quite large: while the former focused on the so-called “passive” tourist areas (destinations) and on the impact of tourism mobility on settlement and service development, the latter investigated the new phenomenon of mass tourism in urban and industrial places of residence, the so-called “active” tourism areas. Therefore, the evolution of tourism studies within geography in Italy, after its birth among economic geographers, has since been widely developed (in terms of the number of studies conducted and the continuity in research) mostly by human geographers during the late 1970s, 1980s, and the first half of the 1990s, with very few exceptions. In this respect, the most notable contributions were Muscara`’s (1983) and Valussi’s (1986) in the early 1980s. In Venice, the former mostly worked on the definition of the tourism phenomenon and its ideological implications in an Italian society rapidly evolving toward consumerism, by stressing the role of tourism as consumption of environmental resources, as well as cause of exclusion of local populations from access to land and space, thus leading to a debate about the economic consequences of an undermanaged or mismanaged tourism development. The latter, at the time based in Udine but originally from the Trieste school, studied the impact of tourism on regional economic development from a regional geographical perspective.

Contemporary Research on Tourism Geography The relationship between tourism and environment, as well as tourism and the consumption of natural resources in terms of economic and cost-efficiency, was the main research interest of another Italian “environmental” geographer, Ugo Leone (1987, 1994), who started working more generally on human-related activities as major causal factors in the depletion of natural goods. The application of his ideas to territorial planning and regional development analysis was somehow contemporary and in line

Italian Tourism Geography

111

with the evolution of the sustainability paradigm in the discipline brought and disseminated across Italy by Adalberto Vallega (1995). He applied the General System Theory to the analysis of regional development and to the territorial management of human-related activities (including tourism, among others) in coastal areas. His work on this topic is well known in the international geography community, in that he was one of the few Italian geographers of his generation whose research was published in international journals and the quality of whose work was widely recognized through his International Geographical Union presidency between 2004 and 2008. The need for a formalization of geography applied to tourism-related studies had always been felt in Italian academic groups, but despite this, the opportunity that Vallega’s work represented and his holistic approach had very little success. Conversely, the 1999 translation (into Italian) of Lozato-Giotart’s 1993 handbook Ge´ographie du tourisme—de l’e´space regarde´ a` l’e´space consomme´ (from the gaze to the consumption of space) fared much better in Italy, in which a near-obsessive classification of tourism spaces was eventually recognized as the longed-for theoretical framework able to get Italian geography out of the descriptive quagmire. In the same period, Innocenti (1990) wrote and published several editions of one of the most popular Italian handbooks on tourism geography. He began by reexamining the distinction proposed by Toschi of active and passive tourism practices and spaces, and for the first time introduced a new classification (mobility, origin destination, structural, and evolutionary models) based on interpretation models of tourism activity in space by Britton (1980), Butler (1980), Campbell (1967), Gormsen (1981), Lundgren (1984), Miossec (1976), Pearce (1987), Plog (1973), and Thurot (1980). As mentioned before, although the 1990s represented a highly flourishing and productive period for Italian human geographers committed to tourism, the debate within the smaller community of economic geographers remained centered around specific funded research projects whose influential results, over the past 10 15 years, favored the presence of tourism geography in teaching programs and affected the choice and type of research objectives (Table 1). In fact, in the 1990s, postmodernism as a concept was applied in Milan by Elena dell’Agnese to critical and “post-tourism” studies (1997[1996]) see also dell’Agnese and Bagnoli (2004) for a postmodern analysis of tourism in the Liguria area and dell’Agnese and Ruspini (2005) for the first approach to tourism and gender in Italy. Meanwhile, in Trieste Claudio Minca (1996) edited a monograph on “ephemeral spaces.” Here, the attention

112

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 1. Italian Tourism Geography: A Summary Chartª

Author

Theoretical Background

Toschi

Economic theories Environmental conditions

Geography of circulation

Merlini

Tourism vocations Landscape

Economic geography

Barbieri and Nice

Locations and functions

Economic geography

Valussi

Idiographic studies Locations, development, and functions Muscara` Functions, resources Perception and consumption of territory Brusa and Corna Image and territory Pellegrini perception Leone Ecology Land use and environment Innocenti Comparison of economic and geographic theories Vallega

Zanetto and Lando

Turco

Dallari

Cencini

Minca and Dell’Agnese

a

General system theory

Sustainable development Local development

Conceptual Framework

Economic and regional geography

Research Objects

Tourism regions Localizations, services, land planning Road network Active tourism regions Tourism typologies Time: active, passive and of mobility Economic development of regions

Period (approximate)

Location

1936 1960

Bologna

1960 1970 and after

Bologna

1960 1970 and after

Florence

1965 1990

Trieste

Applied geography

Territorial organization and planning

Human geography Environment geography and policy Political and economic geography Social geography Geography of global change

Active and passive 1965 and after Milan tourism regions Land consumption 1974 and after Naples and resources

Economic geography Applied geography Territorialization, Human de-territorialization, geography and reterritorialization Local development Economic and regional Sustainable geography development Community Human nature based geography development Post-modernism Human geography Cultural studies

1965 and after Trieste and Venice

Models and classification

1980 1990 and after

Florence

Cognitive paradigms and models Formalization of results Clusters

1976 2006

Genoa

1980 and after Venice

Spatial aggregation forms Communities 1980 and after Milan and Regional L’Aquila development Local tourism 1982 and after Bologna systems Planning and Policy models Natural resources 1990 and after Bologna Africa Parks Images, perception 1995 and after Trieste, Venice, of spaces, visual and Milan approaches

The authors presented in this table are Italian geographers who consistently published articles and monographs on tourism issues. Considering the number of individual geographers who have been teaching or writing at least once in their life about tourism geography, this chart is not exhaustive. Source: Expanded and integrated table after Ugolini (1996).

Italian Tourism Geography

113

shifted from the passive tourism region (space), perceived as inconsistent, to “place,” a complex and subjectively defined item. Elsewhere, it was argued that “… the tourism region does not exist anymore, but there are as many tourist spots as the number of subjects perceiving the same space as being a tourism one” (Bagnoli, 2010, p. 12). This stream of conceptual and innovative research—linking together social theory, anthropology, semantic, and visual geography—produced at least a remarkably widespread presence of Italian tourism geography literature in international journals (Minca, 1996, 2005). The postmodern approach to tourism geography studies also originated from another Italian geographer’s work, Angelo Turco (1988; Turco & Brunet, 1984), who in the early 1980s introduced Claude Raffestin’s seminal work on territoriality (de-territorialization and re-territorialization) to the Italian scene (Raffestin, 1984). Turco also recently extended further the application of territoriality theories to tourism (2012). These studies have only recently (and with great difficulty) been brought to the attention of the Anglophone scientific community, making it difficult to give here an exhaustive explanation and a correct translation, although a 2012 special issue of Environment and Planning D (volume 30(1)) was dedicated to Raffestin’s ideas on territoriality and their introduction into the Anglophone world, with Francisco Klauser as Guest Editor (Klauser, 2012). Nevertheless, the considerations on the territorialization processes of tourism have very strong associations with those on local networks analysis, which have had (and continue to have) a considerably large success rate in studies on local development. In the same vein was the work of Gabriele Zanetto (1981, 1986, 2011; Zanetto & Calzavara, 1991; Zanetto & Soriani, 1996) and Fabio Lando (2008; Lando & Bertazzon, 2003; Lando & Zanini, 2008) in Venice, who were responsible for introducing the debate about quantitative approaches in geography to Italy. Moreover, since the 1990s, the Ca’ Foscari University had invested in a specific research center on tourism: the International Centre for Studies on Tourist Economy which is still very active. Many geographers have contributed to the studies and reports conducted by the center, which still feature an effective management and regional economic connotation. In this case, tourism in its multiple facets is perceived as a tool for regional development, in particular at the local scale. Local development issues were also central for Italian economic geographer Fiorella Dallari (1982, 1984, 1989, 1992, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Dallari & Grandi, 2005; Dallari & Mariotti, 2006; Dallari, Sala, & Grandi, 2008), whose research focused on the field of tourism geography, if only due to mere territorial and locational reasons. The approach to the issue of sustainability in tourism and on the role of tourism as a tool for local and

114

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

systems development had been conducted by Dallari at the University of Bologna since the early 1980s under the guidance of Pedrini (for a while head of the IGU Tourism Commission) and with more continuity from the late 1990s at the Rimini campus, set in a major Italian seaside destination. Dallari’s attention was focused on tourism policy analysis, dynamics of clustering within local tourism systems, and, especially in recent years, the role of cultural heritage as a factor of cohesion and as a territorial connection factor among local actors. Also from the University of Bologna, human geographer, traveler, photographer, and passionate naturalist Carlo Cencini (1981, 1996, 1998, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2012; Cencini, Marchi, Torresani, & Varani, 1988; Cencini & Varani, 1979) contributed to the Italian debate on tourism geography, dealing mainly with natural resource managementrelated issues and in particular with the community-based management of tourism resources in Africa and environmental sustainability. This short but detailed description does not conclude the analysis of the Italian scientific production in the field of tourism geography. Indeed, the scholars mentioned so far have shown a certain continuity of production for a rather long period of time, as well as a scientific interest in tourism research. However, some of them have gradually disappeared from the tourism academic scene and recent debates.

Research Groups and Funded Research Since the late 1990s and throughout the previous decade, geographical research on tourism has been kept alive by “traditional” research groups as well as by individual researchers. The support provided by a series of parallel funded Research Projects of National Interest has been influential. In fact, this had some consequences, both in terms of tourism research polarization in those universities able to secure funds (the Universities of ChietiPescara, Vercelli, Catania, Sassari, Rome, Novara, Bologna, to name a few) and in terms of the involvement of a larger number of young scholars and graduate students in tourism research (Table 2). The data concerning the funding of national projects helps in defining further the dividing line that exists between the economic geography approach to tourism and that of the human geographers. In fact, through the analysis of the scientific production on national and international journals during the 1990s, it was mostly human geographers that were interested in tourism. Their research offered some innovation in terms of theoretical approaches through publications in international journals and the

Italian Tourism Geography

115

Table 2. Projects of National Interest with a Geographical Approach Coordinator’s Name and University

Francesco Adamo Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro” Vercelli Attilio Celant Rome “La Sapienza”

AngeloTurco L’Aquila

Title of the Project

Year

Other Research Units Involved

Human or Economic Geography Connotation

Urban quality and 2007 2009 Naples “L’Orientale,” Economic competitiveness; Rome “La Sapienza,” geography Chieti-Pescara “G. the role of tourism policy and D’Annunzio,” Catania development Tourism and productive growth: Local inputs and territorial competitiveness

Tourism development and territorial transformations; urban areas, ecosystems, and regional complexity Tourism and sustainability in Africa

2002 2004 Bologna (two research units, one of statistics); ChietiPescara “G. D’Annunzio”; Catania; Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro” Vercelli; Bari “Aldo Moro”; Trento; Salento, Sassari 2005 2007 Bologna; Florence; Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro” Vercelli; Catania

2004 2006 Bologna; Rome “Tor Vergata”

Economic geography

Economic geography

Human geography

Source: MIUR dataset.

introduction in Italy of key concepts derived from both the Anglophone and Francophone scientific debate arena. Conversely, toward the end of the 1990s and over the 2000s, empirical research on tourism in Italy involved almost exclusively economic geographers. A set of recurring themes within different locations was consolidated: tourism, boating, and trade in Catania, the economic impact of urban tourism in Rome, districts and local development dynamics of

116

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

tourism in Bologna, and tourism (and more generally) mobility and food in Pescara and mountain tourism in Trento. The theme of tourism policies (at various geographical scales), with particular attention to urban areas, still constitute the main objective of the research group in Novara and Vercelli. Following the transfer in 2001 of expertise in the field of tourism to the regional administration, as well as incentives for the creation of local tourist systems, the driving transversal theme for research was territorial reorganization, which met the private operators’ need to participate more actively in order to achieve a dimensional optimum also functional to place promotion and marketing. Paradoxically, the economic geography of tourism is focused on what could be defined as exogenous input-induced process of re-territorialization (according to Raffestin’s (1984) categories), although it is difficult to pinpoint fully the conceptual framework. However, if the debate over the past decade has been ample on a national scale (and especially due to the subsequent reorganization of those local administrations responsible for promoting the various Italian tourism products and the parallel total absence of a defined guideline for country promotion on the international markets), one cannot tell if it was constantly brought to the attention of foreign colleagues through the usual channels of scientific research dissemination. With a few very recent exceptions (for instance the activities and publications related to the Department of Methods and Models for Economics, Territory and Finance in Rome), economic geography of tourism in Italy has always struggled to appear in international scientific journals and until now has almost exclusively used those national channels (where since the mid-1990s in his extensive bibliographic compilation, Piero Innocenti had detected over 1,000 tourism-related papers) recognized within the discipline as being of long-standing national prestige (http://www.pieroinnocenti.net). Using the Ministry of Research and University database, one can extrapolate further information on tourism geography activities and research topics in Italy over the past 10 years. In particular, two research units almost exclusively made up of geographers have been part of one of the latest tourism research projects funded in human science areas (Table 3) centered not only on Italy or more generally transversal themes, but also on particular locations beyond Europe. Tourism, as a cross-disciplinary field of study by nature, has allowed some human geographers to consolidate the collaboration with colleagues from other disciplines on African themes and community management of natural resources. Table 4 shows the considerable presence of tourism in research projects. The objectives of these projects within geography, while not focused centrally on tourism, include tourism research activities such as those carried

Italian Tourism Geography Table 3.

117

Geographers’ Contribution Coordinated in Other Disciplines

Coordinator’s name and University

Title of the Project

Luisa Faldini Genoa

Tourism, community, and local development in the African continent

Year

Geographer’s Research Units

2006 2008 Bologna; Turin

Human or Economic Geography Connotation Human geography

Source: MIUR dataset.

Table 4.

Tourism’s Presence in Other Funded Projects by Geographers

Coordinator’s Name and University

Carlo Brusa Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro”

Berardo Cori Pisa

Tullio D’Aponte Naples “Federico II”

Pierpaolo Faggi Padova

Title of the Project

Year

Migration and cultural integration processes; integration forms and territorial organization in some Italian realities Global change, sustainable development, and spatial dynamic in coastal regions of the Mediterranean

2008 2010

Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro” Vercelli

1999 2001

Chieti-Pescara “G. Human D’Annunzio”; Vencie geography “Ca’ Foscari”; Catania; Rome “La Sapienza”; Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro” Vercelli; Siena Piemonte Orientale “A. Economic Avogadro” Vercelli geography

Urban Ecosystem: Best practices for the government of urban sustainability and compatible development Local development: Land, actors, projects, and international comparisons

2004 2006

2004 2006

Research Units Working on Tourism

Chieti-Pescara “G. D’Annunzio”; Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro” Vercelli

Human or Economic Geography Connotation Human geography

Human geography

118

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 4.

Coordinator’s Name and University

Maria Gemma Grillotti

Angelo Turco L’Aquila

Gabriele Zanetto Venice “Ca’ Foscari”

(Continued )

Title of the Project

Year

Research Units Working on Tourism

Human or Economic Geography Connotation

The protection of typical products and quality of agriculture in Italy Territorial organization and environment protection in Africa The role of cities in regional development strategies in Mediterranean areas

2004 2006

Foggia; Palermo

Human geography

1999 2001

Bologna; Cagliari

Human geography

2000 2002

Venice; Catania

Economic geography

Source: MIUR dataset.

out by the universities of Vercelli (Oriental Piedmont) (Adamo, 2000, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2006) and Pescara. Here the human approach to the geography of tourism prevails over the economic approach, but even in this case (probably with the sole exception of colleagues in Turin and Venice) the research results are predominantly published in national journals. In order to conclude this analysis of tourism-related research projects funded in Italy, out of 20 funded projects with a tourism element and concerning human science areas since 1999 to the present day, as many as 12 have involved geographers. In general terms, the research objectives can be identified as follows: tourism economic impact projects at urban and regional scale, sustainability dynamics, and local development as far as human geographers are concerned.

Publishing and Italian Tourism Geography For both human and economic geography, until very recently, research findings have chiefly been published in conference proceedings, anthologies, and occasionally in journal special issues, as well as in the two most important Italian geographic journals. But so far few have involved results

Italian Tourism Geography

119

being disseminated through international journals, being more a choice of individual researchers than an established practice. The extreme polarization of resources and the recurrence of funds to some locations are also justified by teaching needs. This is not the place to deal with the issue of tourism geography education, but it is important to note that in most cases the form of geography most often taught is tourism. Bagnoli (2010) in the opening pages of a popular tourism geography manual duly points out that until 10 years ago, geographers were called upon to decide on the fate of their curricula classification in the academy and that only with great difficulty was it possible to maintain the distinction between programs in geography and those in tourism. With the geography community in Italy being so scarce (about 300; twothirds of which are human geographers), their presence within Faculty of Economics is becoming increasingly rare, having gradually been replaced by regional economists or applied economists. The limited number of geographers is also expected to decrease further due to recent university reforms, which have caused the disappearance of a number of faculties in order to give way to new departments, where the discipline rarely achieves a sufficient critical mass and weight to defend its own space (both in teaching and research terms). The present global crisis and the restrictive measures on public expenditure, as well as a clear strategy aimed at reducing the number of university professors, have also brought the turnover of the Italian academic domain to a relative standstill, thus cornering a number of minor disciplines perceived as culturally “marginal,” including geography. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide a thorough analysis of the reasons for the gradual disappearance of academic geography from the national scene, but of the many causal factors, an equally decisive one is the delay of Italian geographers in rearranging the level of quality of their research, as well as their decisions about the best “place” to have their work published (and in which language). As already mentioned, until a few years ago Italian geographers’ academic careers chiefly depended on their ability to have their research published in national book series (about 50 tourism geography books have been issued to date) edited and recognized by prestigious colleagues. This way, the presence of curricula or publications in peerreviewed journals was ignored once their research activity was assessed for upgrade. It is worth noting that the national system of research evaluation is a very recent feature in Italy. The new National Agency for the Evaluation of University Research became operational as little as three years ago and the process of defining quality in research is still being developed.

120

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

The limited number of geographers in Italy, together with a greater availability of research-related resources and willingness to attend conferences, had enabled better mobility for academics and allowed them to compare their research outputs in open meetings, with Rivista Geografica Italiana and Bollettino della Societa` Geografica Italiana as major Italian geography journals. The introduction of a peer-review system in these journals is fairly recent and for some time the selection of articles to be published was managed directly by the editorial board. In some universities, members of the younger generation of geographers have an educational background that includes PhDs from foreign universities, thus enabling them to overcome language barriers more easily (quite unusual for previous generations, for whom the main language was not English, but more often than not French). For better or for worse, this contingent have long since opted for the almost exclusive publication of their research results in international (English language) journals. This general framework explains why, searching by university and using “tourism” as the keyword in the Scopus database, the result is quite disappointing (better results can be obtained by switching the database and choosing Google Scholar instead), but it is still more meaningful if the results are compared to 2012 trends (Table 5). It should be noted that Table 5. Italian Tourism Geography Papers on SCOPUS by University University

University of Cagliari University of Chieti-Pescara University of Chieti Pescara University of Rome “La Sapienza” University of Oriental Piedmont A. Avogadro Vercelli University of Cagliari University of Chieti-Pescara University of Florence University of Genoa University of Bologna University of Trento

Author

Year Number of Citations

Iorio, Wall Montanari Staniscia Celata, Sanna

2012 2012 2012 2012

0 0 0 0

Afferni, Ferrario, Mangano Iorio, Corsale Montanari, Staniscia Loda Bartaletti Menegatti Andreotti

2011

1

2010 2009 2006 2001 1999 1999

5 2 0 0 0 0

Source: SCOPUS research October 2012.

Italian Tourism Geography

121

Italian colleagues working in universities abroad have not been taken into account in this analysis. Analysis of the presence of articles in tourism in the two most prestigious Italian geography journals (Rivista and Bollettino) provides, in addition to the marked discontinuity in the number and presence of articles, further confirmation of what has already been highlighted in this chapter (Tables 6 and 7). Most contributions start from an idiographic approach and any attempts to address the issue of tourism geography based on a deductive approach or by means of theoretical and speculative paradigms are quite rare and recent. This is especially true when authors belong to a human geography group, whereas spaces reserved for theoretical considerations are less explicit among economic geographers. Regarding the further subdivision quoted by Bagnoli (2010) within environmental or perception-based approaches, the former features once again a predominance of idiographic articles whereas the latter, based on perceptual geography and being more affected by international debates, favors a nomothetic analysis. Even the geographers in the Association of Italian Geographers, through the periodic publication GEOTEMA, have made way for colleagues who over the past 10 years have tried their hand at research on tourism by publishing the

Table 6.

Articles on Tourism in the Rivista Geografica Italianaa

Year

Tourism Articles

Year

Tourism Articles

Year

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

5 1 1 1

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

1

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

1 1 1 1

1

Tourism Articles

1 2 1 2 1 1 8

Year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Tourism Articles

3

1

3 5 2 1

a Four volumes per year, from 1894 to 1943; the word “tourism” has not been included in the glossary of the journal. From 1944 to 1963, only one article about tourism was published. In this table, short communications are not included.

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

122

Table 7. Year

Tourism Articles

Articles in the Bollettino della Societa` Geografica Italianaa Year

Tourism Articles

Year

Tourism Articles

Year

1970

1980

1

1990

2000

2

1971 1972

2

1981 1982

1991 1992

1

2001 2002

4 1

1973

1

1983

1

1993

2003

1

1984

1

1994

1

2004

1974

a

1 1

Year

Tourism Articles

1975

1985

1995

1

2005

3

1976

1986

1996

2

2006

1

1977 1968 1969

Tourism Articles

1978 1979

1 1

1987

1997

1

2007

2

1988 1989

1998 1999

2 3

2008 2009 2010

3 3 2

Four volumes per year since 1867. Short communications are not included in this table.

results of their work in 37 articles and 2 monographs about thermal tourism, both edited by Giuseppe Rocca (2006, 2009). The geography of tourism, as already mentioned, also represents one of the most popular courses in Italian university course timetables, leading to a remarkable and steady production of academic handbooks (10 of which are still currently available). Distinguishable on the basis of their distinctive human-economic-environmental-perceptive approach, they provide an insight into their authors’ background as well as into the specific needs and learning outcomes of the curricula they are part of.

CONCLUSION Italian geography (and tourism geography therein) these days is going through a notable period of reform, concerning new ways of disseminating spatially focused and territory-related research results, as well as tourism mobility issues. This undoubtedly represents a remarkable generation gap, where new geographers gradually abandon their academic isolation and question the way in which geographical knowledge in Italy is shared, the use of new methodologies for spatial analysis, and the categories, theories, and paradigms currently in use. The quantitative drive in the evaluation of

Italian Tourism Geography

123

the scientific production will force geography into a struggle for survival within Italian academia and it is very likely that the disquisition as to its possible status as a discipline or as an ancillary field of study within the tourism branch could become crucial. The need for new spaces and opportunities for scientific debate based on rigorous peer-review systems is felt strongly, as is the need to preserve the specificity of language expression, its syntactic complexity, as well as the endogenous analytical research approaches and traditions. With Italy becoming an increasingly marginalized country within Europe, the preservation of linguistic specificities and approaches to spatial analysis will need to cope with the pressing need to enter international scientific debates. For this reason, over the last five years the younger (and sometimes the older) generations of geographers have begun to work in parallel on two fronts: the modernization and internationalization of traditional national scientific journals and the creation of new open source spaces of multidisciplinary and multilingual debate on tourism (http://almatourism.unibo.it/ and http://www.viatourismreview.net) (see also Chapter 4 in this volume). Second, this is also true in terms of a recent recovery of the tradition of theoretical speculation in tourism academia more generally. In particular, it is worth mentioning, in terms of the tourism geography of perception, an interesting new line of research on visual culture (Malatesta & Anzoise, 2010). While the economic geography of tourism is developing new analytical approaches based on territorial complexity, often by using methodologies borrowed from other disciplines, the purpose is still the linking economy, tourism, and culture and the use of new objects such as cultural routes or cultural corridors as landscape reading frameworks. These categories should be able to bridge the gap between the perceptivecritical and cultural approaches to tourism geography and allow a shift from “ephemeral” networks (local, regional, and short-term and long-term) to more stable and consolidated networks, opting for local tourist systems. In closing this chapter, Minca’s (2005) point about cultural geography in Italy, which can be easily applied to tourism geography as well, comes to mind: Apart from a few “exceptional exceptions” […] the great bulk of writings focusing (explicitly or implicitly) on the relationship between culture and geography has been marked by a series of characteristics that, unfortunately, are also proper to a large part of recent Italian geographical production

124

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives more broadly: they often tend to ignore each other, thus precluding the possibility of any open disciplinary debate; they have a very limited impact outside of the discipline of geography; and, above all, they are the result of a sort of “splendid isolation” from current international debates. (2005, p. 927)

Chapter 8

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries: Quo Vadis? Myriam Jansen-Verbeke Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Abstract: The reflections in this chapter explore the genesis of tourism geography in the Netherlands and Belgium marked by political and linguistic constraints, plus historical, political, and cultural factors, as well as the footprints of some pioneers. The dual language use of French and Dutch/Flemish has often been offered as an excuse for the low profile of the region’s universities in international knowledge networks. However, thanks to the involvement in thematic networks and a growing pressure for researchers to publish internationally in peer-reviewed journals, the research landscape in tourism has definitely changed. Geographical and spatial approaches to tourism have led to a colorful research landscape today. Keywords: Cultural divergence; linguistic marks; associations; research networks

INTRODUCTION This chapter intends to present a sketch of past and present tourism studies in the Low Countries (the Netherlands and Belgium, comprising Wallonia and Flanders), with a focus on tourism geography in particular. Inspired by an earlier and similar exercise on the development of tourism in academic landscapes, from a sociological point of view (Lengkeek,

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Tourism Social Science Series, Volume 19, 125 149 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1571-5043/doi:10.1108/S1571-5043(2013)0000019008

126

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

2009a), this chapter examines the latest developments in tourism studies from a geographical perspective (Jansen-Verbeke & Ashworth, 1990; Jansen-Verbeke & Dietvorst, 1987; Lozato-Giotart, 1990; Pearce, 1995). Readers will note the relatively longer length of this chapter compared to others in this volume, which is due primarily to the fact that there are three separate regions in two different countries to be covered, each with marked differences in their historical and contemporary research trajectories in tourism geography.

TOURISM GEOGRAPHY: THE LOW COUNTRIES CONTEXT Being convinced, more than ever, that geography is a predominant vector in shaping the global tourism map and the destiny of regions, Kaplan (2012) argues that geographers have a mission to sharpen their knowledge for the future. With this in mind, a review of tourism geography research traditions in the context of the Low Countries is discussed.

Truncus Communis in Tourism Geography The current trend toward inter- and multidisciplinary studies in the geography of tourism implies that many concepts are being redefined, but place, territory, region, and habitat remain central in the geography lexicon. As many were instructed on the central place theory of Christaller (1955), the fixation with spatial models and dynamics continued (Miossec, 1977). The interaction of people and place and the inherent cohesion in habitats were gradually (re)valorized in tourism research. The search for understanding time space constraints in spatial behavior was initially inspired by the work of the Lund School (Ha¨gerstrand, 1979, 1984). This led to spatial choice analysis with various conjoint models (Timmermans, 1984), a highly specialized research orientation with many interesting applications in the field of leisure and tourism, while the geography of everyday life (Holloway & Hubbard, 2001) and the introduction of tourist time budgets (Cooper, 1981; Dietvorst, 1995; Pearce, 1988) opened new perspectives for much theoretical and empirical research on tourism and leisure. A typical geographers’ reflex to tourism is to describe and analyze the uniqueness of places and regions in terms of physical landscapes or urban morphology and cultural assets of a habitat, a knowledge that serves well

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

127

as a framework for preserving or developing attractive destinations. The “new” geographical gaze at territorial resources for tourism can be understood as a response to globalization as well as a determined search for the unique, so-called authentic and grass rooted, experiences (Jansen-Verbeke, Priestley, & Russo, 2008; Lew, Hall, & Williams, 2004). Socio-logical streams introduced by Giddens, Castells, and Bourdieu had a significant impact on geographers’ work as explained before by Lengkeek (Beckers, 1983; Lengkeek, 2009a). The intensification of spatial mobility for tourism and leisure purposes at a global (but also at a local) scale is yet another mainstream subject in tourism geography, involving environmental impact studies and community-based planning models (Lew, 1987; Murphy, 1985). As a result of the growing emphasis, managing spatial flows (Jansen-Verbeke & Spee, 1994), transformations in patterns (Ashworth & Dietvorst, 1995), and preservation or recreation of territorial coherence among people, place, and product (ESPON, 2003; Montanari & Williams, 2000) have become a shared field of interest for many tourism geographers worldwide. In recent studies, the focus and methods have shifted from the description and mapping of patterns to the analysis of processes of spatial dynamics induced by tourism (Jansen-Verbeke & Russo, 2008; Liszewski, 2010; Vanneste & Ryckaert, 2011). These emerging areas of interest and key issues in tourism could not easily be integrated in existing academic curricula, and were initially introduced as options or parallel tracks in various disciplines. The increased demand for higher qualified human resources with skills in tourism business and policies was in line with the rapid expansion of the industry in recent decades. Newer universities in Europe (and also founded or upgraded vocational schools) were more open to exploring new study areas than traditional ones. The professional universities mark the academic landscape in the Low Countries today often in association with established institutions. Sometimes shared Bachelor programs in leisure or tourism are preceding the step to common Master degrees. The door is open even for PhD projects. The idea for the Endowed University Chairs model supported by external funding was borrowed from the United States. This led to the introduction of a Chair in Tourism Management at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, at Wageningen University (for Tourism and Sustainable Development) and in 2009 also at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (referred hereafter as the KU Leuven), albeit in an alternative format. Funding endowed chairs is a temporary, yet important signal and also

128

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

a welcome to financial support, eventually not to a structural foundation for tourism studies in the long run. There also is a clear distinction in time and modus operandi of responding to the new social and economic realities in different countries in Europe. The time needed to create more awareness on tourism and affinity in various university faculties and departments is an important factor in explaining the fragmented academic landscape (Table 1). Estimating the share of tourism geography in each of the university programs is difficult. The imbedding of the tourism in a geography department and the actual

Table 1. Rankb

Universities and Associations Involved in Tourism Studiesa University

The Netherlands 2 Groningen 8 1 11 13

Created in

1614

7

Amsterdam Utrecht Nijmegen Tilburg Breda NHTV Wageningen

1632 1636 1923 1927/1996 2010 1918/2000

5

Breda NHTV Eindhoven

2010 1956

10

Rotterdam

1913/1973

12

Maastricht

1976

Stenden University Leeuwarden Saxion University of applied sciences Inholland University

Tourism Imbedded in

Spatial sciences/cultural geography Geography/sociology Geography Policy sciences/planning Leisure studies BA in Leisure Studies Cultural geography/tourism and sustainable development BA in Tourism Design and decision support systems in architecture and urban planning Hospitality management/ economy/business Cultural tourism/hospitality management Former vocational schools

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries Table 1. Rankb

University

(Continued )

Created in

Belgium Leuven 1425 1 Katholieke Universiteit 1835 Leuven 2004 5 2 3

6 4 18 7 9

Universite´ Catholique de Louvain Ghent Lie`ge University Brussels Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) Universite´ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) University of Hasselt

129

1970 1817 1817

Tourism Imbedded in

Geography/economy/ sociology/anthropology/ development studies KU Leuven Consortium for the Master in Tourism Geography Geography/sociology Spatial planning/economic geography

1834 1969

Geography

1969

Geography/planning

1971

Economy/MA Tourism (1990 1997) Mobility and transport Economy

Antwerp (Association)c 2003 Namur Faculte´ Notre 1962 Dame de la Paix

a

Regarding Associations—in the Netherlands, several vocational schools were upgraded to professional universities in the last decennium. b Rankings are sourced from web of universities in the home country: http://www. webometrics.info/en/Europe/Belgium/Netherlands/. Accessed on November 13, 2012. c The merger of the three Antwerp universities University of Antwerp (UA)/ Rijksuniversitair Centrum Antwerpen (RUCA)/Universitaore Faculteiten St Ignatius Antwerpen (UFSIA) took place in 2003.

contribution of its members or other scholars involved with space and territory in teaching and research are probably more indicative. In fact, the stage of tourism development in the country or the region and the geopolitical setting appear to be a relevant factor in explaining why some universities are now fully embracing tourism.

130

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Geopolitical Setting in the Low Countries This chapter cannot offer a fully documented report on the life cycle of tourism geography in the Low Countries; this would require an in-depth inventory. Marked by an academic career of cross-border commuting among universities in Belgium (KU Leuven), the United Kingdom (London School of Economics), and the Netherlands (Nijmegen and Rotterdam) and escapes for guest lecturing to exotic locations (Vietnam, South Africa, and China) and less exotic destinations (Maastricht, Lodz, Faro, Lisbon, Zagreb, Istanbul, Lille, etc.), this writer might be entitled to share some (critical) reflections (Jansen-Verbeke, 2010). To map the divergent setting in the Netherlands and Belgium requires an understanding of the common history and the historical dividing lines, and of similarities in the transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy, from rural to urban. In addition, cross-border research reveals the comparative and competitive advantages of three regions in a global tourism market, above all the divergence in national policies regarding the social revolution from a “work to leisure” society, from church to recreation, sports, and travel (Lengkeek, 2009b), and a changing focus from outgoing tourism flows to incoming ones (Jansen-Verbeke & Spee, 1994). The historical reference to the “Low Countries” mapped by Flemish cartographer J. Hondius in 1611 includes the territory of Flanders and Wallonia (Belgium), the Netherlands, and the most northern departments of France. The old Roman toponym Belgica was used to provide the entire Low Countries with a single geographic denominator. The Hondius map of the 17th century conveys the cultural divide and cultural identities in the Low Countries today. In the 16th century, the area known as the Seventeen Provinces was a loose confederation with little or no unifying “national” sentiment, nor a common culture or religion. Until today, this elucidates the cultural divergence between north and south (see Figure 1), despite the fact of sharing a common language (Figure 1). The common heritage is based on similar geographical conditions such as access to the North Sea, the coastal landscapes, and the maritime trade. However, in the last decennia, fundamental differences arose regarding political visions on planning policies and models to develop natural and historical resources into leisure and recreation landscapes and eventually into resorts and touristic cities (Pearce, 1996). According to the conclusions of a Dutch government project on “Landscape and Leisure in Europe” (Hazendonk, Hendriksand, & Venema, 2008), the present map of leisure landscapes is to a large extent the result of a rather unplanned urbanization

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

131

Figure 1. “Leo Belgicus” Map by Jacobus Hondius, 1611 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Belgicus. and tourismification (Jansen-Verbeke, 2013). This applies much less to the Netherlands than to other European countries. That is where the geopolitical split between the Netherlands and Belgium becomes manifest, both in landscape planning and management and in developing strategies for leisure, recreation, sports, and tourism (Pearce, 1996). Comparing views and land use maps of the coastal zone in Belgium and in the Netherlands is the most obvious prove. The Low Countries were (and still are) marked by a geographic hub position in Europe, on the crossroads between East and West, North and South. The deepening of the intra-Netherlands split of 1830 officially buried a nation that never was. The geopolitical situation of Belgium and the Netherlands in the heart of Europe today is considered to benefit from many opportunities with an exciting window on the world and other cultures, and an affinity with the languages of the neighbors (French, German, and English). Interestingly, these two countries (including three regions and three languages) with many comparative assets for tourism are culturally different in many ways. The language of the people of the Netherlands and Flanders is referred to as Dutch. Flemish refers specifically to Dutch as spoken in Flanders, characterized by a rich spectrum of regional accents and dialects. The three official languages in Belgium are Dutch (Flemish), French, and German. This linguistic situation proved to be a problematic inheritance of the past, explaining several political conflicts in Belgium and eventually also in the academic landscape and traditions. Two diverse processes—the split of the KU Leuven in 1970 and the University of Brussels in 1969—mark the

132

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Belgian university landscape. The linguistic border dividing Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia) coincides with the Via Belgica, the Roman heirbaan from Ko¨ln to Bavais (France) ever since the 4th century, a cultural divide between Latin and German Europe (Murphy, 1988). At present, two small countries, Belgium and the Netherlands, with about 22 million Dutch/Flemish-speaking citizens in the Netherlands and Flanders are a linguistic minority positioned between 90 million German-, 65 million English-, and 60 million French-speaking citizens. To the south of the historical linguistic border of Wallonia, French is the official language. Yet, language is not the only geopolitical factor explaining the intra-regional divergence in academic profiles. Since the Belgian (Dutch-, French-, and German-speaking) communities have gained full authority on educational issues within the federal structure of the Belgian state, there is no common Belgian educational policy or educational system (Vanneste, Huyghe, Vandesavel, and Vanginderachter, 2009). In fact, both cultural and religious history (and increasingly, economic factors) also reinforced the identity of the sub-regions in the Low Countries. This is reflected in the (re)organization of universities and their interest to invest in “new fields” such as tourism or leisure. The religious signatures of universities also played a role in the acceptance of leisure and recreation as a respectable study area at an academic level (Lengkeek, 2009b).

Academic Recognition of Tourism Studies The discovery of “foreign countries” has always been regarded as a mission or a passion of geographers and the sponsoring of national geographical societies’ offered a perfect legitimation and funding. However, despite the prominent role of geography (Von Humbolt style) and the pioneers in regional geography such as Vidal de la Blache, much of the once privileged position as scientists in studying tourism spaces or territories was lost. Following this, a long period of descriptive geography left a rich heritage of information, documents, and paintings or pictures of places and people, but failed to be recognized as a scientific discipline studying the physical, social, and economic evolution of landscapes and cities into tourism spaces. The gap between the good tourist guidebook (tourism geography in its most straightforward form) and the geographical interpretation of tourism as a system in a country or region is difficult to explain, in particular to the many professional guides or authors of well-documented guidebooks (in the style of National Geographic Magazine).

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

133

Stepping away from the case history as such, one can argue that the identification of the underlying structures and patterns, the vectors of change, and the impact of interacting processes requires a different mindset of the author. Geographers involved in the planning of field trips, editing excursion guidebooks, and drawing informative maps have delivered interesting inputs for further research, but often lack the necessary perspective and foresight to identify relevant research issues. This image of tourism and travel expertise might well be the reason for the slow acceptance and appreciation of tourism as an academic discipline, a reflection which is not exclusive to the Low Countries. Internationally, the publications of the first special issue on “Geography of Tourism” of Annals of Tourism Research in 1979 and 20 years later the first edition of the Tourism Geographies journal are milestones on the difficult road to recognition of tourism as a scientific discipline with its own rights, theories, and methods in the cradle of geographical sciences. In the boom period of tourism (ever since the 1960s), it became evident to what extent tourism research required an interdisciplinary approach and why the study of its aspects and impacts hardly fits into the traditional curricula at the established universities. This is in sharp contrast with the newer universities, upgraded polytechnic universities, and vocational tourism schools that were eager to explore the challenging field of social, economic, business, and environmental aspects of tourism. There was a booming tourism market and a growing demand for trained researchers and professional managers. In most countries, governmental support for more professionalism has been implemented, which has been a driving force in the expansion of facilities for tourism education. However, the number of tenured professorships (with tourism as the core task) or even endowed chairs fully geared to the development of tourism as an academic discipline was and still is rare in the Low Countries. The lack of fundamental research and, in many cases, a policy of business orientation in research projects is characteristic of much tourism research nowadays (Cooper, 2012) and the Low Countries are no exception. A wide range of interesting case studies, government reports, and explorative marketing studies fill libraries, but often fail to contribute to a theoretical framework, so badly needed for the progress in this field of social and spatial research. The opportunities to learn about tourism practice through contract assignments provide advantages for empirically based research, but these are marked by an imposed selection of key issues, objectives, and even (standard) research methods and ways of communicating the results. These reports, irrespective of the quality of the results and/or the

134

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

innovation level of the recommendations, seldom have an impact on international knowledge networks. This can be seen as a missed opportunity both for the progress of a developing discipline and for the researchers trying to position tourism as an academic discipline. Tourism as a “discipline” in its own right was until recently not embedded structurally in the curriculum of most of the traditional universities in Belgium or the Netherlands (Table 1). However, the scene changed dramatically in response to some obvious social and economic developments. First, the perception of tourism as a potential dynamic factor in processes of urban renovation and regional development changed, due to ongoing economic transformations and the emergence of a successful leisure economy. Benefiting from these trends required disciplinary expertise and skills to launch interdisciplinary debates, research methods, and planning models. Meanwhile, however, the existing tourism schools (operating at a vocational level) were mainly oriented toward training for practical skills in hospitality and travel or tour operations for the domestic and international markets. As such, there was clearly a knowledge gap to be bridged. Second, the booming of the tourism industry, since the 1970s, in combination with a growing global competition and the need to reach for new markets, domestic and abroad, increased the demand for higher level management skills and a multidisciplinary approach to implement the guidelines for a more sustainable development. Finally, the impact of marketing on destination development was yet another area of specialization in need of more in-depth studies and strategic thinking (Govers & Go, 2009); in this way, the tourism industry sent out clear signals. It became more hybridized and interesting to invest in, while this eventually led in the building of qualified human resources. This drive to understand the complexity of tourism has led to a multidisciplinary agenda in university faculties and the creation of governmental institutions, tourism study centers, and tourism offices at different scales, which in turn has also become attractive in terms of consultancy “expertise” activities (in the absence of a consensus on the profile of a “tourism expert”). This has meant an expanding job market over the past 20 years with specific demands regarding skills in tourism, and not least in terms of geographical knowledge and background skills in spatial planning and business management.

Tourism Geography Research Tracks The different response to market opportunities coming from academic forums or from professional networks is symbolic. The gap between applied

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

135

research in tourism (often based on case studies applying standard research models with little critical reflection on the validity of data and methods) and more advanced conceptual thinking and comparative studies is a clear token of a continued two-track approach to tourism research (Butler & Pearce, 2010; Jansen-Verbeke, 1998; Lew, 1987). From a sociological point of view, the issue of social tourism as “tourism for all” traditionally has a high priority on the academic agenda, both at Dutch and Belgian universities (Diekmann & McCabe, 2011). In the field of tourism geography, there is more diversity in themes and various explorative case studies in urban tourism (Ashworth, 1989; Borchert & Buursink, 1987; Jansen-Verbeke & Govers, 2010; Jansen-Verbeke & Lievois, 2008; Jansen-Verbeke, Vandenbroucke, & Tielen, 2005; Vos, Rulle, & Jansen-Verbeke, 2008), but as yet there are neither any mainstream nor collective research programs. New entries on the policy agenda were, for example, recreation planning and conflicting space uses in urban areas, in a society with increasingly high demands for leisure, outdoor recreation and sports activities and quality of residential areas (Ashworth, 1989; Jansen-Verbeke, 1992). Matching theory with practice—while combining social, economic, and spatial analysis— became a strong movement in the Netherlands, which affected policymaking and also education and research programs. Together with “green” suburbanization (and the “green widow phenomenon”) came a call for redefining and revitalizing urban centers, as inner city shopping could no longer compete with the modern and easily accessible peripheral shopping centers, which led to social segregation and the downgrading of older urban quarters that marked many landscapes and fed an anti-urban attitude. This trend had to be stopped and innovative policies for urban revitalization, in historic cities in particular, were promoted strongly. Research in the field of urban tourism became more sophisticated in analyzing and presenting spatial behavior patterns in different categories of urban visitors and distinct spatial settings. Gradually the definitions as well as the actual users and uses of leisure, recreation, shopping, and cultural facilities and events merged into one strongly interconnected market for the cultural economy. Initially with an outspoken emphasis on urban tourism (Jansen-Verbeke & Lievois, 2008), this turned into a growing concern to assess more adequately the multidimensional impact of tourism on place, space, and communities (Neuts & Nijkamp, 2012; Vanneste & Ryckaert, 2011). Obviously economic impact studies have a high priority for governments and tourism entrepreneurs irrespective of the wide range of other indicators available to measure carrying capacity, overcrowding, clustering, staged authenticity, and “tourismification,” among others (de Brabander, 1992;

136

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Wanhill & Jansen-Verbeke, 2008). An integrated approach to the process of tourismification, from an actor network perspective, was introduced by Rene´ van der Duim (Wageningen University) based on social theories rather than on geographical concepts or territorial frameworks. In fact, the dynamic concept of “tourismscapes” proves indeed to be most inspiring for geographical tourism research and it is a challenging tool in the discussion on sustainability in variable environmental settings (Magosse, Govers, & Jansen-Verbeke, 2008; van der Duim, 2007). The expertise that is required to reach this level of integration capacities presents, by definition, a multidisciplinary challenge, understanding the vectors of change in tourism systems in order to develop skills and tools to manage future development. Tourism geography courses at university level tend to seek a balance of attention for the four components of tourism: People Place Product Policy. Building knowledge on the social and environmental context of tourism, as well as on the market forces and policy frameworks, requires a multidisciplinary teaching module and the staff to teach it. Unless the tourism curriculum of each of the universities in Belgium and the Netherlands involved with tourism (teaching and research) could be scanned, there is no valid way to assess the real contribution of each to the development of tourism geography. The most appropriate indicator would be the quantitative and qualitative output of scientific publications by staff members (PhD theses and collective research papers). To what extent is there a research focus on spatial or territorial aspects of tourism when just glancing at the titles in about 80 (mainly English) journals? By using the criterion of internationally published research work over a certain time-span (a quick Google Scholar search), the academic contribution of the various departments and authors from the Low Countries can be assessed. However, it makes sense to take into account the research conditions in universities, such as the organization of research teams, the balance between disciplinary and interdisciplinary foci, academics and professionals or consultants, teamwork, and individual research tracks. The “Fundamenteel Tijd Ruimte Onderzoek: Space-Time Dynamics in Tourism” project in the Netherlands (1996 2002) was an excellent example of a collective research initiative; this is a fundamental time space research project with emphasis on tourism recreation developments in Europe, in which the universities of Tilburg, Wageningen, and Eindhoven participated. Multidisciplinary and social geography studies in this program led to more than 10 PhDs. The focus may be academic or applied and the final objective of the research project can be explorative or policy supporting.

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

137

The European Spatial Planning Observation Network initiated several multicentered projects, for instance, on “Spatial Effects of Cultural Heritage and Identity” (2004 2006). The project was coordinated by the Ca’ Foscari University—Venice, with the KU Leuven, the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and other European universities as partners. This was the most rewarding and heuristic experience, leading to several co-authored publications (ESPON, 2006). From 2001 onwards, the Flemish government and the Flanders Tourist Board supported the creation of the Center for Tourism Policy Studies hosted at the KU Leuven. Expectations were high; the initial enthusiasm of the team was great and contagious, but gradually the proposed model of integration in different departments and disciplines (sociology, economy, geography) faded away. Slowly some antagonism grew from the “wellestablished” colleagues (not involved in tourism) against this type of external and (by definition) less academic interference in research design and methods. Other international networks in the field of tourism and leisure are facilitating special interest groups and smaller collective projects, such as the Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS), which was established in 1991 to develop transnational educational initiatives in tourism and leisure (Richards, 1995). ATLAS provides an international forum to promote staff and student exchange, to generate transnational research, and to facilitate curriculum and professional development. The association currently has members in more than 70 countries. Several Belgian and Dutch universities became active member. Its new chairperson recently completed a cooperation project between three European and five African universities, leading to research output and four new PhD projects (van der Duim et al., 2011). Other examples of common research interests include an ongoing European Union (EU) project on social tourism under the Calypso initiative in which the Free University of Brussels (ULB) is actively participating and a research project on social tourism in Flanders and Wallonia, where a common research methodology has been used (Diekmann & Bauthier, 2012). There is also the international association of Living Cities in which KU Leuven researchers were involved with case studies in Ghent, contributing to setting up a longitudinal monitoring system for measuring the multidimensional impact of major public events (Jansen-Verbeke & Lievois, 2008). In the context of the new professional universities in the Netherlands, more associations can be expected in terms of developing research tracks such as Center for Leisure and Tourism Research, a new partnership

138

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

between the Nationale Hogeschool voor Toerisme en Verkeer (NHTV)Breda, Wageningen, and Tilburg Universities (since 2010). In 2013, these partners will team up with Hogeschool Zeeland University of Applied Sciences and Stenden University (Leeuwarden) to build a Center of Expertise, based on grants from the Dutch government. An important indicator of the research orientation of university teams is the international publication list in peer-reviewed journals and books by specialized publishers in the tourism “publish or perish in the university rat race” market. The option to publish research results in a book in one’s own language is in most cases not recommended because it has a mini-market for scientific publications on specialized topics, unless the author promotes his/ her own book as a requisite handbook for students, and that for several years. Moreover, the fact that tourism research is not often appreciated as “real scientific” work in the eyes of many explains why much of resulting research work remains hidden. In order to join or to compete with native English-speaking colleagues, additional efforts are required. The problem of exclusion from the international (booming) market of books on tourism is recognized by the key players in this publishing business; scholars from English-speaking countries predominate in the flagship publications, without even an attempt to refer to non-English publications (Lew et al., 2004). The vast and valid research undertaken in other parts of the world is often denied visibility, unless it happens to cross the road of English-speaking scholars. In any case, a fast intrusion of English as a language in teaching is obvious. Several Bachelor and Master programs are offered in English. In this respect, the language barrier may no longer be a handicap for the generation of scholars and students to come. The present situation of teaching in “poor English” to the international student audience recently led to a debate in Flemish parliament. The proposed policy is to introduce a language test for university lecturers teaching in English. According to Flemish law, all teaching at Bachelor level had to be offered in Dutch, except for international programs. At the Master level, each program in English must have an equivalent in Dutch at one of the Flemish universities. This proved to be a real obstacle in attracting foreign staff members. The situation also implied another linguistic barrier: a threshold to write syllabi, papers, or even Master or doctoral theses in English. This tends to be more problematic in Belgium than in the Netherlands. There is no obligation for PhDs at Belgian universities to publish their theses, but this has consequences for international visibility. The internationalization wave is also affecting nomination commissions for tenured professorships. For a long time, the practice of protectionism

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

139

(and even inbreeding) was rather common in Belgium. A high percentage of university staff members had no international “immersion” experience, beyond a few visits to conferences or workshops or an occasional guest lecture. The idea that each lecturer/professor should spend at least one year at another university is gaining momentum, albeit unrealistic for many. Dutch universities have a much longer tradition of an open window on the world. Several professors in geography/tourism departments are “imported” (Groningen, Wageningen, Tilburg, Rotterdam, and Breda) and the presence of foreign students at the universities has been part of the scene for many years. Despite the progression of internationalization and the irreversible move to English as the common language, the identity of universities still stands. The historical background and geographical situation, as well as the trial and error experiences in establishing a university center for tourism and/or leisure studies, mark the intra-regional diversity today. The objective here is not to write a comprehensive report on the history of sinuous paths to discover tourism, nor to sketch a profile of each current tourism curriculum, nor to list the names of all key players in this “revolution.” The purpose is to simply comment on how and why the Belgian or Dutch traditional model is (or was) different and how it is now converging toward a global prototype of market-oriented tourism centers. Being more geared to applied research and innovative themes, the impact of tourism geography risks is being reduced merely to some interesting maps and eyecatching pictures on the wall. Tourism geographers will have to step beyond their core area of expertise. It is important that they deal with the convergence of traditional educational landscapes into a 21st century mainstream of communication and marketing issues. To move in this direction, the transformation processes of the three regions can aid in providing a framework for thinking and action.

Tourism Profile of Dutch Universities Inspired by the retrospective chapter by Jaap Lengkeek (2009a), the vectors of change in the Dutch academic landscape can be suggested. Several chairs in tourism or in tourism-supporting disciplines are landmarks in this field, albeit with different accents. The University of Groningen claims to have the longest tradition, moving from geography to spatial sciences, and keeping in touch with various aspects of tourism. Since the appointment of Greg Ashworth in 1994 as Professor of Heritage Management and Urban Tourism, research concentrated on urban planning and tourism, including

140

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

aspects of heritage management in the broad field of the geography of tourism and leisure. The Faculty of Spatial Sciences now has an overarching “Wellbeing, Innovation and Spatial Transformation” research theme, with investigation in the tourism and/or leisure area connecting to it. The two departments of Economic and Cultural Geography, which work closely together, are especially interested in the role of tourism and/or leisure in regional development, regional identity, place branding and destination marketing, and the contribution of leisure to well-being. The University of Wageningen has a more recent trajectory in tourism, now upgraded to a university program. This institution has been involved in developing courses in tourism ever since its Erasmusfunded partnership in the Homo Ludens project (1990 1993) (Fache´, 1996, 2000). Initially this ambitious project to install a European Master degree in leisure and tourism was hosted in Ghent. Adri Dietvorst, a geographer, was appointed to lead this. He was succeeded by Jaap Lengkeek, who strengthened in Wageningen University the social science approach to tourism and leisure significantly (Lengkeek, 2009a, 2009b). The interest in sustainable development and tourism became a strong field of expertise and eventually led to an endowed chair in 2010 (Rene´ van der Duim) and 16 PhD fellows were attracted. The appointment of Claudio Minca (2011) as Professor in Cultural Geography and staff members from the United States and Singapore indicates a new orientation for this international center. The role of the University of Tilburg tends to be different, with a clear focus on leisure sciences traditionally embedded in a sociological team, but still several geographers took the lead (Beckers and Richards). The recent move of a Bachelor track in Leisure Studies and the expected move of the Master program to the University of Breda (the former tourism school and research center of Breda NHTV) are clear signs of changing collaboration networks in the academic landscape of the professional universities. Tourism at the Erasmus University Rotterdam is marked by its embedding in the Business and Management School. The introduction of tourism was facilitated by a foundation of important players in the Dutch tourism market (endowed chair inaugurated in 1993). This sub-track eventually concentrated on the hospitality and hotel market and on marketing and place branding, in line with the renewed collaboration with the Hotel School in The Hague. Frank Go is presently leading this track, within which tourism geography is a background tableau. Other traditional universities in the Netherlands, such as Utrecht, Amsterdam, Nijmegen, and Twente, have no specific profile in tourism studies. However, sporadically

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

141

they report interesting projects or PhD studies on environmental issues, tourism as a tool for developing countries, tourism and urban planning, and the like. The Stenden University of Leeuwaarden, former Christian Polytechnic North Netherlands, built experience in the field of leisure studies as an international coordination institute, World Leisure International Center of Excellence (1990 1996), with Teus Kamphorst as its Director. In 1996 the center, including its Master program, was relocated to Wageningen University and gradually integrated in its Master program in Leisure Tourism and Environment. The cooperation between the center and Wageningen has since been dissolved. Another peripheral university in terms of the geography of the Netherlands is the University of Maastricht, linked with the Hotel school of Maastricht, functions mainly as a highquality professional school attracting many foreign students and which focuses on the hotel as well as meetings, incentives, conferences, and exhibitions market, with an emphasis on applied research (Munsters, 2008).

Tourism Profile of French-Speaking Universities in Belgium The first significant marker for tourism research in French-speaking Belgium, according to Anya Diekmann and Isabelle Cloquet (Personal Communication, 2013), came in the 1950s when Arthur Haulot as the Commissioner-General of Tourism in Belgium brought “social tourism” into the general debate. From the rather narrow approach of considering it for the disadvantaged, he broadened the notion to something larger by introducing the “tourism for all” perspective. Moreover, he called for increased government responsibility by highlighting the links between participation in tourism and the role of the state in improving the dignity and well-being of all its citizens, laying the basis for the future view of EU social tourism policy (Minnaert, Diekmann, & McCabe, 2011). It was in Brussels under the auspice of Arthur Haulot that the Bureau International du Tourisme Social was created in 1963. In 2011 its name was changed to the International Social Tourism Organization. With the passage of time, it has become one of the most important actors in the social tourism field worldwide, connecting various national/regional and local authorities, stakeholders, and, since recently, research institutes and scholars. However, while tourism became a socially recognized and “researchable” subject in many countries, not much was happening in Belgium’s universities and research institutes. Not belonging really to any classic

142

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

discipline, tourism had been long considered a profession that should only be taught in Hautes Ecoles (technical colleges). Existing research dealing with tourism was widespread throughout various faculties (Champion, Monnesland, & Vandermotten, 1996) and was mostly in the hands of a few individual researchers, mainly geographers, anthropologists, and economists. Attempts to organize research and create a university degree roughly linked to tourism started in the 1990s at the Universite´ Catholique de Louvain created by Albert d’Haenens. However, while tourism was an underlying topic, the program focused mainly on communication issues related to heritage. From that perspective, it highlighted the slowly growing interest of historians in tourism matters and set the context for the future developments. These limited efforts to integrate tourism in university curricula were rather unsuccessful and the program was closed down. However, consciousness of the need for research—at least in clearly tourism-related areas—was maintained with the creation of the Groupe d’Etude pour la Valorisation des Espaces Ruraux et Urbains in the early 1980s at the Universite´ Libre de Bruxelles. Consequently, the group mainly focused on land planning issues, heritage, and landscape in the French-speaking part of Belgium. Tourism, which constantly appeared as a key issue in their studies, began to arouse the interest of group’s geographers and historians. At this stage, the need to develop tourism as an independent curriculum became obvious. Conscious that French-speaking Belgium did not have any higher education at university level in tourism, in contrast to an increasing number of universities in neighboring countries, geographers under the lead of Christian Vandermotten of Universite´ Libre de Bruxelles and the Groupe d’Etude pour la Valorisation des Espaces Ruraux et Urbains started in the early 1990s to take an interest in such a curriculum. At the same time, the conclusions of the Assises du Tourisme (conference on future tourism development in Brussels organized by the authorities) in 1994 tackled the need for the development of skills and qualification for the tourism industry and called for the creation of a university degree in tourism. In 1993, at a time when the interest in environmental matters was growing worldwide, Groupe d’Etude pour la Valorisation des Espaces Ruraux et Urbains gave birth to the Institut de Gestion de l’Environnement et d’Ame´nagement du Territoire, a multidisciplinary institute for environmental studies. As previously mentioned, mainly human geographers and

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

143

historians delivered what little existing tourism research there was at that time. This social science background fitted perfectly well with the concepts of the Institut de Gestion de l’Environnement et d’Ame´nagement du Territoire, then considered as the right host base for developing an academic tourism curriculum. Talks began between the Universite´ Libre de Bruxelles and the authorities of the Communaute´ Franc¸aise. The different stakeholders involved in the preparation of the program decided to organize a second cycle providing for Bachelor degrees from Hautes Ecoles based on tourism education. The aim of the two-year program was (and still is) to train future executives for the tourism industry, while taking into account heritage, local communities, the environment, and land use/urban planning. Almost starting from scratch, the university collaborated with the Institut Arthur Haulot of the Haute Ecole Lucia de Broucke`re in order to not only build on the in-depth knowledge of the tourism industry and broad ranging experience of this high school (educating tourism professionals since 1958), but also facilitate the transition from the Hautes Ecoles to universities. Parallel to the launching of the academic program, the Institut de Gestion de l’Environnement et d’Ame´nagement du Territoire set up a research department aiming to analyze tourism issues and centralizing research in Wallonia and Brussels, which has been led previously by multiple researchers in various universities and faculties. Moreover, in 1997, the Institut de Gestion de l’Environnement et d’Ame´nagement du Territoire created together with three other partners the Groupe de Recherche en Tourisme (GT4). Two of the partners were from Wallonia and were academic, while two were from Brussels and more linked to vocational training programs. During this time, the research of the GT4 was the core of Walloon tourism research generating the knowledge base for future tourism development and policies. For instance, the GT4 conceived the first overarching database on tourism attractions in Wallonia, established for the first time visitor profiles of Walloon attractions and developed indicators for measuring quality in tourism supply. However, at that time, there was little thought of disseminating research results through academic channels. When the GT4 ceased its activity, due to several reasons, among them political and strategic rationales, a new research center with a new team was created at ULB, the Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Tourisme Territoires et Socie´te´s. With the new millennium came a new consciousness of tourism issues. Tourism development in Brussels and Wallonia relied more and more on

144

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

research and development monitored in a (until then inexistent) professional and systematic manner. The recognition of tourism as a study domain, as well as the need for strengthening policies and strategies through academic research, several universities such as Lie`ge (Schmit & Decroly, 2011), Mons, Namur, and Brussels began to develop tourism research. However, the existing research centers are relatively small and in most cases amount to one or two academics focusing on tourism research. Inscribed in the tradition of its multidisciplinary approach to tourism, the research department of the Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Tourisme Territoires et Socie´te´s at the ULB under the direction of Jean-Michel Decroly and Anya Diekmann continues to be important in terms of a critical mass of staff members and doctoral research. That is notably due to the close link between the research department and the Master program, being the only one in the French-speaking community. Throughout its history, the Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Tourisme Territoires et Socie´te´s has been linked to social sciences, with a significant background in geographies and history. Along with its multidisciplinary context, the tourism phenomenon is understood via a global approach based on the interactions among tourism, spatial, and social dynamics in urban as well as in rural environments in postmodern traditions (Decroly, Duquesne, Delbaere, & Diekmann, 2006; Diekmann & McCabe, 2011; Hannam & Diekmann, 2010). In other universities, tourism research is in the hands of individual researchers, integrated within various faculties and consequently within various research traditions. For instance, the Centre d’Etude du Tourisme (CTS) of the Universite´ Catholique de Louvain, since the merger between Universite´ Catholique de Louvain and the Faculte´s Universitaires Catholiques de Mons, is active in the field of tourism policies and public management at a regional level. As former partner in the GT4, the CTS composed by Jeremy Dagnies and Alain Schoon (2011) focuses mainly on applied research. Indeed, the CTS is charged with developing and monitoring a quality strategy dedicated to Walloon destinations and tourism services. Another research center that addresses tourism issues, though not specifically, is the Center for Research on Consumers and Marketing Strategy. The group is directed by Alain Decrop (2006, 2010) within the Louvain School of Management. The Center for Research on Consumers and Marketing Strategy considers tourism as an insightful field for studying group processes, interpersonal and intercultural phenomena with a focus on consumer decision making and behavior, qualitative interpretative methods, and leisure/tourism marketing.

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

145

Apart from some individual researchers, while Belgium has not managed yet to establish or have a strong influence upon international tourism research, it still plays an important role in converging different cultures. Being at the frontline among the French-, Dutch-, German-, and Englishspeaking worlds and their often varying perceptions of the tourism phenomenon, many researchers attempt to combine, and sometimes oppose or integrate, the different traditions, contributing thus substantially to tourism research. This duplicity is visible not only in the publications of Belgian researchers in both cultures, but also through their participation and membership of intercultural associations and organizations.

Tourism Profile of Flemish-Speaking Universities As shown in Table 1 the Flemish region has a wide range of universities all linked in different ways with the development of tourism at Bachelor, Master, or PhD levels. Based on details supplied by Dominique Vanneste (Personal Communication, 2013), tourism studies at an academic level were the outcome of a long political debate during the 1990s in which the Flemish Council for Tourism played an important role. Reaching an academic consensus, despite the various fragmented initiatives and expertise, was finally the only solution to cope with insufficient funding and problems of staff capacity. Initially, the inclusion of specialized tourism courses in the established universities such as KU Leuven or Ghent was experimental, trying to find the right balance between theoretical approaches and pragmatic application and between discipline-based courses and multidisciplinary orientations, as well as sustainable financial resources. Lessons could be drawn from the various tryout models. Many collective case studies between researchers emerged following the turn of the century in the Flanders tourism geography research scene, such as organizing an international conference in Bruges, “The Tourist-Historic City of Bruges,” in 2002, the year of Bruges Cultural Capital of Europe (Bryon & Russo, 2003). The practice of collective case studies was continued for some time, such as a field study on Brussels’ events and a survey among international residents, which were an eye-opener regarding urban tourism policies. Eventually international publications also resulted from the teamwork built through joint teaching programs (Jansen-Verbeke et al., 2005; Magosse, Govers, & Jansen-Verbeke, 2008; Wanhill & JansenVerbeke, 2008). Several projects on tourism geographical issues were

146

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

reported, such as an international workshop on trends and competition among (historical) spa resorts (Vos, Rulle, & Jansen-Verbeke, 2008). According to Dominique Vanneste (Personal Communication, 2013), a new policy introduced by the Flemish government in 2004 was geared to a structural collaboration between Flemish universities and vocational schools in the field of tourism. A compromise for a postgraduate tourism curriculum—between theory and practice—was reached. Dominique Vanneste, a geographer at the KU Leuven, became the director of the consortium and coordinator of this multicenter program. A new Master of Science in Tourism (the KU Leuven Consortium) was launched in 2004, supported by a 10 educational institutions including 4 universities: the KU Leuven as coordinator, and the University of Gent, the Flemish University of Brussels, and the University of Hasselt, along with six university colleges (former vocational schools in Flanders). Under the auspices of the Consortium, the Flemish government decided to support the research within the program by financing an Endowed Chair in “Management and Tourism” (2009 2013). In addition, a number of public and private stakeholders created a special foundation: the Urbain Claeys Fund for the Master of Tourism. By facilitating series of colloquia, symposia, and guest lectures by experts from academia and practice, this foundation contributes effectively to the ongoing debate on key issues in sustainable tourism, climate change, and other upcoming conflicts affecting tourism. As in many other academic centers, environmental issues, climate changes, natural disasters, and heritage preservation have a high priority nowadays on the agenda. This shift in priorities is mobilizing disciplinary knowledge of physical geography, geology, seismology, and other fields. The advantage of tourism studies being embedded in a strong geography department will soon show. Establishing a synergy between the individual research agendas of the lecturers (with different disciplinary backgrounds, interests, and networks) with the Center for Tourism Policy Studies never was evident. Indeed, the mission of the research center being mainly to produce policy-supporting studies and reports, dealing with local or regional themes, there is a gap between theoretical and conceptual research in an international framework. This eventually became a threshold, certainly in the perspective of launching research PhD programs. The lack of funding for fundamental scientific research in tourism is a serious constraint for the development of a qualified university team. In spite of this, a small number of PhD studies have successfully been defended in the last decennium, with doctoral fellows also coming from

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

147

other disciplines (mainly geography). Since PhD candidates in Belgium are not obliged to publish their thesis in English, much of this explorative or innovative work remains undisclosed. Recently Association for Tourism Research was created at the KU Leuven, with the objective of developing more research activities in this field. It is apparent that new partnerships in international educational exchange programs (such as Erasmus Mundus, UNWTO Knowledge Network, UNITWIN, and others) will open further new horizons.

CONCLUSION The gap between the Belgian and Dutch academic landscapes regarding tourism studies as discussed in this chapter is almost history now (or so it seems). One can argue that linguistic divides hardly play a role any more in the European competitive academic arena. Intra-regional cultural differences within the Low Countries will probably go unnoticed by other Europeans, but they do exist and have left their marks, as illustrated above. So both streams, convergence through partnership in European or other international projects and divergence in corporate culture, interest, and expertise, are redesigning the European map of research clusters and networks in tourism. All signs point to more convergence in tourism education models, the merging of professional skills and theoretical knowledge, using one language, one accreditation system, with everyone anxiously watching for innovative trends in research. But how this is affecting the cultural identity of universities and scholars, the creativity of research agendas, and the success of publications remains to be seen. One problem is that while the multidisciplinary aspects of tourism research are one of its major strengths (since it allows for consideration of various viewpoints), it is arguably also its greatest weakness because there is no real consensus on how to define and approach the study object (Jafari, 2000). In general, the Dutch academic forum and government departments have tended to be responsive to new trends in leisure and tourism by recognizing, at an early stage, the importance of social, spatial, and economic impacts. Various aspects of this emerging leisure society were soon examined to anticipate new spatial claims, emerging social needs, changing mobility patterns, and aiming to identify economic opportunities. Both academic and applied research preparing for, or reacting to, policymaking in this new field has been a real incentive in the Netherlands since the 1980s. Until today, the close links between specialized governmental

148

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

departments and university research teams, even at the regional or local level, has created a positive incubation climate for research. Full support for international teaching and research programs explains the successful trajectory of several universities and associates in anticipating the new millennium demands for leisure, recreation, culture, tourism, and paratourism (Jafari, 1982, 2000). The process of developing tourism and leisure at an academic level in Belgian universities had to cope with specific obstacles at a regional political level, as well as language issues, and, above all, having to create interdepartmental teaching and research units. Generating such a mindset in the traditional universities took several years. “Academic status”—once seen as a quality label—now tends to become a symbol of discrimination. But this is not unique to the context of the Low Countries. Thus, gradually the discrepancy between a scientific or professional curriculum in tourism (and between fundamental and applied research) is reducing. Tourism is moving to the arena of applied sciences, developing advanced tools to manage cyberspaces, to infiltrate the virtual world, replacing the formal study of tourism spaces and “sense of place” experiences by destination imaging, and much more. Regression of disciplinary knowledge and expertise suggests a forthcoming scenario with no specialists needed, rather innovative models and communication tools, as well as a new terminology replacing the traditional lexicon of tourism geography. In sum, the abiding influence of geography on the genesis of the global tourism map, of international mobility flows, and the transformation of so many natural and human landscapes into tourism landscapes, is a strong argument in favor of putting more emphasis on geography in tourism education in the Low Countries. A revival of geographical interest is to be expected for several reasons. Knowledge of geography, in its rich spectrum of specializations, is the way to manage sustainable forms of tourism development in a hot, flat, and crowded world (Friedman & Friedman, 2008). The future of tourism can be read from the global map, the changes in climate and biodiversity, the geological and geopolitical turbulent zones, and the peace and the conflicts zones. Whatever historical divide there is among ideas and regions, the time has come to aim for a world in which the “phenomenon of tourism for pleasure” is more sustainable. Acknowledgments—The author expresses her gratitude to the Belgian and Dutch colleagues for their information on past and present Tourism Master Curricula and partnerships in international networks regarding teaching and research in the field of tourism geography. Thanks in

Tourism Geography in the Low Countries

149

particular are due to Anya Diekmann, Isabelle Cloquet, and Dominique Vanneste for their collaboration on the bespoke Walloon and Flemish regional sections of this chapter. This chapter represents the author’s personal view on the tourism geography map of the Low Countries, with much detail and many names, intentionally or inadvertently, left out.

Chapter 9

The Geography of Tourism in Spain: Institutionalization and Internationalization Salvador Anton Clave´ Rovira i Virgili University, Catalonia, Spain

Abstract: This chapter reflects upon the trajectory of research in the geography of tourism in Spain. It begins with a review, including the evolution of the main topics present in the subdiscipline, with a special focus on developments since the 1990s. This is followed by an analysis of the current role and potential impact of academic tourism geography and a discussion on the recent growth in the publication of research results in international journals. Of importance are the institutional factors that explain the increasing recognition of research on the geography of tourism in Spain. Finally, the chapter discusses the hegemony of positivist approaches pivoting on land use, local and regional development, impact analysis, and landscape transformation, as well as the emerging links between Spanish tourism geography and the international mainstream schools of thought. Keywords: Geography of tourism; research; institutionalization; Spain

INTRODUCTION This chapter reflects upon the trajectory of tourism studies from a geographical perspective in the Spanish context. A review of the evolution of the

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Tourism Social Science Series, Volume 19, 151 177 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1571-5043/doi:10.1108/S1571-5043(2013)0000019009

152

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

main research themes, with a special reference to its development since the 1990s, sets the stage. The potential impact of Spanish tourism geography is discussed, based on an analysis of the most cited outputs published in indexed journals, and some of the institutional factors that explain the recent growth of research on the geography of tourism are introduced. The focus remains on the hegemony of approaches pivoting on land use, local and regional development, impact analysis and sustainability issues, transformation of landscape, growing link between the geography of tourism in Spain and the international mainstream schools of thought, as well as research challenges and opportunities ahead. In a review of Spanish geography of tourism up until the 1990s (Anton Clave´, Lo´pez Palomeque, Marchena, & Vera Rebollo, 1996a), various recurring research themes were identifiable during the development phases of tourism research, especially in the 1970s and 1980s (albeit somewhat lacking in conceptual and methodological soundness and differentiation inherent in research on other economic activities at that time). Among other things, these themes dealt with the transformation of coastal environments; the urban processes associated with the residential spread resulting from tourism development; analysis of tourism supply and demand at different scales; regional and local impacts of tourism; valorization of natural and cultural heritage for tourism; emergence of tourism in inland areas; emergence of the historic city as a tourism product; and tourism policy analysis. These themes have been mostly associated with four basic foundational determinants of the geography of tourism in Spain: the academic character of geographical research into tourism (particularly in the context of its insufficient institutionalization in Spanish universities); the application of specific research methodologies from geography without adapting them as specific tools for analyzing the spatial dynamics of tourism; the diversity of the spatial elements of tourism; and, finally, the multiple effects of tourism on different areas of society, economy, and territory. From an epistemological perspective, moreover, most of the past research focused (with a few exceptions) on examining processes, conducted locally by adopting empirical approaches with topics that are not necessarily generalizable (Lo´pez Palomeque, 1984; Luis, 1988; Valenzuela, 1992). These circumstances, however, began to change in the second half of the 1980s and especially during the 1990s, when doctoral dissertations began to emerge, a couple of geographical descriptive books about tourism were published (Barrado & Calabuig, 2001; Calabuig & Ministral, 1994), and first theoretical and comprehensive manuals of the geography of tourism and the territorial analysis of tourism by Spanish authors (Table 1)

The Geography of Tourism in Spain

153

Table 1. Reference Textbooks on Geography of Tourism (1980s/1990s)a Title

Geografı´ a de Turismo Aproximacio´n a la Geografı´ a del Turismo Ana´lisis Territorial del Turismo. Hacia una nueva Geografı´ a del Turismo a

Authors

Year

Google Scholar Citations

Dı´ az A´lvarez

1988

60

Callizo Soneiro

1991

153

Vera Rebollo, Lo´pez 1997 Palomeque, Marchena, and Anton Clave´

315

As on August 30, 2012.

appeared (Callizo, 1991; Dı´ az Alvarez, 1988; Vera Rebollo, Lo´pez Palomeque, Marchena, & Anton Clave´, 1997). Related to the aim, scope, and intention of this book, it must be noted that there is more than one language in question in the case of Spain. Although most of the scientific production in tourism geography that is not disseminated in English or French is published in Castilian Spanish, there is also a significant major academic and scientific output that includes doctoral dissertations and monographs in the other languages spoken in Spain, mainly Catalan (official language in the universities of Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, and Valencia, which are major tourism Mediterranean destinations), as well as Galician and Basque.

RECENT EVOLUTION AND MAIN RESEARCH TOPICS A study coordinated by Ferna´ndez Tabales, Garcı´ a Herna´ndez, and Ivars (2010) on geography of tourism in each of the 17 Spanish autonomous communities noted that since the mid-1990s and the first decade of the present century, the geography of tourism in Spain has evolved from its emergent state (as described previously) to a much stronger scientific and institutional position, especially in regions where tourism has greater social, economic, and territorial presence (Garcı´ a Herna´ndez & Calle Vaquero, 2004).

154

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Ferna´ndez Tabales et al. (2010) outline a series of factors that have intervened in this disciplinary consolidation and also in the broadening of research on tourism in the geographical domain, such as the increased complexity of tourism activity and the resultant necessity for scientific research and reflection; the institutionalization of tourism studies at a university level; and the consolidation of tourism administrations in Spain, especially at the level of the autonomous communities. The study also indicates that insufficient attention is being given to tourism research, as well as disciplinary-based problems such as methodological uncertainty, scarcity of research teams or consolidated research groups, and limited academic recognition of research on tourism. In any case, significant contributions to tourism research have increased both qualitatively and quantitatively, something which is evident not only in the papers presented at the conferences of the Association of Spanish Geographers and their Working Group on Tourism, Leisure and Recreation, but also in the increasing number of doctoral theses (Ferna´ndez Tabales et al., 2010; Vera Rebollo, Lo´pez Palomeque, Marchena, & Anton Clave´, 2011), research projects getting financed, and international publications. It must be emphasized, with respect to research projects funded between 2008 and 2013, that Spanish government’s SubDirection General for Research Projects funded a total of 28 projects in geography of tourism (representing 13% of the total projects funded during this period for the geography as a whole).

Research Themes The Working Group on Tourism, Leisure and Recreation of Asociacio´n de Geo´grafos Espan˜oles (Association of Spanish Geographers) began to take shape in 1987 and was finally approved in the late 1990s. Since its inception 13 conferences have been organized, and such events indicate the evolution and diversification of research themes of geography of tourism in Spain over the past 20 years. The 13 meetings held until 2012 have resulted in 593 publications in tourism geography, mostly produced by researchers from Spanish universities (as the number of international delegates has been quite limited until recently), including keynote speeches, invited papers, and poster presentations. The participation of international invited keynote speakers was not seen until the early 2000s. In terms of the conference themes, several topics have been recurrent (Table 2): the development, restructuring, and renewal of mature tourism destinations; the analysis of impacts, strategies, and dynamics of tourism in cities; the evaluation of tourism product development, destination positioning, and management

The Geography of Tourism in Spain

155

Table 2.

Tourism, Recreation and Leisure AGE Working Group Conferences

Year

Theme

Contents

Organizer/Place

Proceedings

1990 Tourism and territory in Spain

Theoretical issues Regional case studies

Universitat de les Illes Treballs de Balears, Palma de Geografia, 43 Mallorca (1990)

1992 Tourism and geography issues

Tourism and development Tourism and agricultural spaces Restructuring of tourism destinations Types of tourism spaces Tourism impacts Tourism and geographical education

Universitat Jaume I, Castello´n

1993 Tourism: education, Innovation in product destination development restructuring, and Education in tourism new products Restructuring of mature destinations

Papers de Turisme, 11 (1993)

Universitat de les Illes Picornell, Seguı´ , and Benı´ tez Balears, Palma de (2006) Mallorca

1995 Tourism in inland regions and cities

Potential for development Universidad Experiences Auto´noma de Policies Madrid, Toledo

Valenzuela (1997)

1996 Tourism and destination planning

Planning successful case studies Methods and tools for tourism destination planning Policies for the development of new tourism products

Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona

Oliveras and Anton Clave´ (1998)

1998 Tourism and the city

Cultural issues in tourism City marketing Tourism education

Universidad de Las Morales (2000) Palmas, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Joint Conference with the Urban Geography AGE working group

156

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 2.

Year

Theme

(Continued )

Contents

Organizer/Place

Proceedings

2000 Tourism and urban change

Tourism, cities, and megaevents Tourism and natural interest areas Urban heritage

Universidad de Almerı´ a, Almerı´ a Joint conference with the Urban Geography AGE working group

Ferna´ndez Gutie´rrez, Pumares, and Asensio (2002)

2002 Geography and tourism management

ICT and destination management Local policies and destination management

Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela

Santos (2003)

2004 Tourism and spatial Growth in mature change destinations Alternative uses in new tourism destinations

Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza

Lacosta (2006)

2006 Old problems (and new solutions) for tourism destinations

Opportunities for urban tourism Challenges in rural tourism Restructuring of coastal destinations

Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Universidad de Castilla la Mancha, Cuenca

Troitin˜o, Garcı´ a Marchante, and Garcı´ a (2008)

2008 Commercialization, landscape, and identity

Analysis and planning tools Planning of tourist areas Landscape, identity, and image

Ivars Baidal and Vera Rebollo (2008)

2010 Globalization and crisis

Recent evolution and future strategies for destinations Transportation and cities Images and cultural representations

Instituto Universitario de Investigaciones Turı´ sticas, Universidad de Alicante, Alicante Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, ColmenarejoMadrid

2012 Tourism and territory. Innovation, renovation, and challenges

Tourism facing climate change Tourism destinations, between renovation and reinvention Public management of tourism: past, present and future

Universitat de Barcelona and Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona, Barcelona

forthcoming

Grupo TERAP (2011)

The Geography of Tourism in Spain

157

mostly in rural areas; and the design and application of planning techniques and instruments for tourism destinations. There have also been sessions devoted to theoretical issues and case studies. Other topics that have been of interest in more than one of the conferences relate to tourism education and local and regional economic development. Further, since the early 2000s, specific sessions on cultural tourism in natural areas and rural tourism have been organized. Within all of these themes and topics, there has been a secondary emphasis on the impacts of tourism on geographical space and in recent congresses, thematic sessions have been scheduled on innovative and interdisciplinary research topics such as issues of landscape and identity, image, information technology and communications, and tourism and climate change. Nevertheless, although the subject of tourism has been incorporated within some of the general conferences organized by the Association of Spanish Geographers and despite the qualitative and quantitative growth in geographers researching tourism in Spain (and their changing roles in the analysis of tourism), relatively little attention is paid to this specialism in terms of the general context of geography in Spain. For example, the Spanish contributions to the 32nd IGU Congress held in Cologne in 2012 (entitled “New Trends in the XXI Century Spanish Geography”) did not include any explicit chapter on the geography of tourism among their seven invited contributions (or the additional contributions from its 13 presentations). However, the invited speakers on immigration (Domı´ nguez, 2012), globalization (Olcina, 2012), environmental risk (Saurı´ , 2012), and urban models (Valenzuela, 2012) made some passing reference to tourism activity and its significant contributions to the geography of tourism; yet as a whole, the role of the geography of tourism in this review was minor. Otherwise, the intensification and recognition of studies on the geography of tourism is reflected in the increasing participation of geographers in other scientific meetings, such as those of the Spanish Regional Science Association, the congresses of the Spanish Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism, plus the annual conferences on tourism organized by Jaume I University in Castello´ and the Tourism and Information and Commu-nication Technologies biannual conference organized by the University of Ma´laga to mention but a few of the important tourism conferences held in Spain. In terms of texts that synthesize the current focus of research on the geography of tourism in Spain, it is worth noting the recently published handbook coordinated by Vera Rebollo (Vera Rebollo et al., 2011). This is one of the theoretical and applied reference texts on the subject published in Spain after 2000 (in fact, it is a revised version of the text that the same

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

158

authors published in 1997). As seen in Table 3, this is a text that— beyond its capacities in conceptualizing the role of tourism in different environments—is also distinguished by its significant applied orientation from the perspective of destination planning. In this sense, compared to Table 3. Title Focus Concepts

Content-based Comparison of Two Academic Handbooks Wilson (2012b)

Tourism geography: the view from “space” Poststructuralism Critique of the critical turn Ethics Individuation and space Performance Sensous geographies Queer perspectives Gender Postcolonialism Gentrification Mobilities turn Lifestyle Creativity Making and unmaking places Metaspatialities

Vera Rebollo et al. (2011) Spatial analysis and destination planning Tourism Tourism analysis Tourism geography Tourism location Spatial diversity Destination typologies Destination evolution Economic impacts Tourism and regional development Tourism and local competitiveness Innovation The making of tourism landscapes

Approaches Economy of tourism spaces Historical geographies Spatial analysis Time geography Marketing of tourism destinations Tourism and development Environmental discourses Landscape perspectives International air transport Modalities

Coastal resorts Rural tourism Tourism and the city Mass tourism

Coastal tourism Rural tourism Urban and metropolitan tourism Mountain tourism Tourism in protected areas Corporate entertainment facilities

The Geography of Tourism in Spain Table 3. Title

Wilson (2012b)

Planning

159

(Continued ) Vera Rebollo et al. (2011) Spatial tourism planning principles Policies for tourism destination development Tourism planning and governance Public management of tourism Techniques for tourism area planning Sustainable tourism indicators Environmental impact assessment Natural areas protection Environmental labeling and auditing Carrying capacity Landscape management Resources inventory and assessment ICT tools for planning GIS Marketing

another handbook of the geography of tourism published in English by Routledge (Wilson, 2012b), apart from some points of confluence, it is clear that there are distinctions in research on tourism geography in Spain in terms of certain theoretical, epistemological, and conceptual debates that emerge periodically and now dominate hegemonic circuits of knowledge that are produced in English and published in global journals.

Knowledge Dissemination Only part of the total research on the geography of tourism by Spanish scholars is published in indexed journals (in either Spain or internationally). An analysis of their publications in indexed journals using Scopus (Table 4) shows that only nine journals contained two or more articles from Spanish authors in the period 1990 2012. Of these, four are Spanish discipline-based journals in geography (Boletı´n de la Asociacio´n de

160

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 4.

Top Scopus Journals with Articles in Tourism Geographya

Journal 1993 2012

Boletı´n de la Asociacio´n de Geo´grafos Espan˜oles Tourism Management

Number Tourism Geography articles by Spanish authors

Rank/Subject Area

SJR

H Index

14

303/Q3 Geography, Planning & Development 52/Q1 Business, Management & Accounting 107/Q1 Geography, Planning & Development 289/Q3 Geography, Planning & Development 133/Q1 Business, Management & Accounting 435/Q4 Geography, Planning & Development 157/Q1 Business, Management & Accounting 308/Q3 Geography, Planning & Development 3/Q1 Urban Studies

0.026

3

0.054

52

UK

0.032

16

USA

0.026

5

Spain

0.04

57

USA

0.025

1

Spain

0.039

25

0.026

3

0.042

62

9

Tourism Geographies

8

Documents d’Ana`lisi Geogra`fica

6

Annals of Tourism Research

5

Scripta Nova

4

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

3

Estudios Geogra´ficos

3

Urban Studies

3

Country

Spain

UK

Spain

UK

a

As on August 30, 2012. An initial search on tourism AND geography OR geographies was refined as follows: by the three principal subject areas (Social Sciences, Business/Management/ Accounting and Environmental Science); by at least one of the authors having a Spanish university affiliation; and by keywords corresponding to the geography discipline. Table includes journals with more than two articles.

Geo´grafos Espan˜oles, Documents d’Ana`lisi Geogra`fica, Scripta Nova, and Estudios Geogra´ficos) with a total of 27 articles; one is an international geography journal (Urban Studies) with three articles, and the remaining four are tourism international journals (Tourism Management, Tourism Geographies, Annals of Tourism Research, and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism) with a total of 25 articles identified.

The Geography of Tourism in Spain

161

In respect of these types of journals, therefore, there is a certain balance between what might be called academic dissemination through geographical journals in the Spanish linguistic context (which includes a journal that publishes articles in Catalan and English, as well as in Spanish: Documents d’Ana`lisi Geogra`fica), and dissemination through tourism journals in the English linguistic context (this might be due to the fact that Spanish academic tourism journals are not included in Scopus). Table 5 shows, moreover, that those Spanish geography journals included in Scopus where academic articles on tourism are published have the highest quality and impact (two are top ranking geography journals in Spain and the other two are in the top 10) taking into account the quality indicator Impact Factor of the IN RECS index (the quality index of academic journals in Spanish). The IN RECS database also includes three Spanish journals that publish interdisciplinary tourism research that occupy a mid-position in the ranking of geography journals (between positions 23 and 26 of a total population of 51 journals). In any case, these do not appear in the Scopus database (Table 6). Nevertheless, such journals are of considerable importance from Table 5.

IN RECS Impact Factor of the Top Spanish Journals in Scopusa

IN RECS Rank in Geography 2000 2009 (N = 51)

Journal

Citations % of IN RECS per Cited Impact Article Articles Factor 2010

1

Scripta Nova. Revista Electro´nica de Geografı´a y Ciencias Sociales

1.479

85.6

0.674

2

Boletı´n de la Asociacio´n de Geo´grafos Espan˜oles

1.051

45.5

0.328

8

Estudios Geogra´ficos

0.652

33.8

0.213

9

Documents d’Ana`lisi Geogra`fica

0.648

32.4

0.188

a

As on August 30, 2012.

162

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Table 6.

Impact Factor of Spanish Tourism Journals in IN RECS Databasea

IN RECS Rank in Geography 2000 2009 (N = 51) 23 24 26 a

Journal

Estudios Turı´sticos Cuadernos de Turismo Papers de Turisme

Citations % of IN RECS per Cited Impact Article Articles Factor 2010

0.269 0.264 0.231

17.5 20.2 15.4

0.049 0.221 0.000

As on August 30, 2012.

the point of view of dissemination of scholarly articles on Spanish tourism geography of tourism. In fact, Estudios Turı´sticos has four of the 20 most cited articles in Spanish tourism geography, and Papers de Turisme and Cuadernos de Turismo contain one each. Put another way, 30% of the 20 most cited articles on the geography of tourism in Spain have been published in academic journals that although may have considerable recognition at a domestic level do not appear in the common international (and more general) indexing databases. It is also significant to note (Table 7) that in Spain there are a total of 10 journals in tourism that actively publish geographers’ research, including seven that did not appear in 2012 in any of the two reference rankings that were used in preparing this article (IN RECS in Spain and Scopus at an international level). Six of them were launched only since the last decade. Beyond the formal system of impact factors, they illustrate the dynamism of research on tourism in Spain (of which a significant part is undertaken by geographers). Logically, it goes without saying that as these journals evolve, there may be significant changes over the coming years in terms of their academic recognition and subsequent presence in indexing systems. According to information provided by both IN RECS and Scopus, Table 8 shows the 20 most cited articles in tourism geography in Spain. In order to unify the source for the number of citations, the table includes the number of citations for each in Google Scholar on the reference date. Seven of the most cited articles were published in multidisciplinary international refereed journals in the field of tourism (Tourism Management, Tourism Geographies, Annals of Tourism Research, and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism) which coincides entirely with the international

The Geography of Tourism in Spain Table 7.

163

Academic Journals in Tourism Published in Spain, 2012a

Journal

Publisher

First Issue

Online Access

Estudios Turı´sticos

Instituto de Estudios Turı´ sticos

1963

Papers de Turisme

Age`ncia Valenciana de Turisme Universidad de Murcia Universitat de les Illes Balears

1989

http://www.iet.tourspain.es/esES/documentacionturistica/ revistaestudiosturisticos/ Paginas/default.aspx http://papersdeturisme.gva.es

1998

http://revistas.um.es/turismo

Instituto Universitario de Ciencias Polı´ ticas y Sociales. Universidad de La Laguna Septem Ediciones

2003

http://www.pasosonline.org/

2004

http://www.restma.com/home. html

2006

http://www.aecit.org/jornal/ index.php/AECIT

2008

http://ruc.udc.es/dspace/handle/ 2183/7671 http://www.eutm.es/revista/

Cuadernos de Turismo Annals of Tourism Research en espan˜ol Pasos. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural

RESTMA. Revista de Economı´a, Sociedad, Turismo y Medio Ambiente Revista de Ana´lisis Turı´stico

ROTUR. Revista de ocio y turismo Gran Tour

Investigaciones Turı´sticas

a

Asociacio´n Espan˜ola de Expertos Cientı´ ficos en Turismo Universidade da Corun˜a Escuela Universitaria de Turismo de Murcia Instituto Universitario de Investigaciones Turı´ sticas. Universidad de Alicante

As on August 30, 2012.

1999

2010

2011

http://www. investigacionesturisticas.es/iuit

164

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 8. Top 20 Cited Articles in Tourism Geography in Spaina

Reference

Theme

Priestley and Mundet Evolution of tourism (1998) destinations Ca`noves, Villarino, Rural tourism Priestley, and Blanco (1996) Go´mez Martı´ n (2005) Rodrı´ guez (2001) Paniagua (2002) Anton Clave´ (1998)

Weather and tourism Retirement migrations Rural tourism Evolution of tourism destinations Rullan Salamanca Tourism and spatial (1999) change Vera Rebollo and Evolution of tourism Montfort (1994a) destinations Pollard and Evolution of tourism Rodrı´ guez (1993) destinations Lasanta, Laguna, Tourism and local and Vicentedevelopment/ski Serrano (2007) resorts Troitin˜o (1995) Tourism in natural areas Vera Rebollo and Evolution of tourism Montfort (1994b) destinations Delgado, Plaza, Rural tourism/tourism Hortelano, and Gil and local de Arriba (2003) development Anton Clave´, Lo´pez Palomeque, Marchena, and Vera Rebollo (1996b) Anton Clave´ (1996)

State of the art of the geography of tourism

Evolution of tourism destinations/theme parks development Go´mez Martı´ n (1999) Weather and tourism Rico Amoro´s, Environmental impacts Olcina-Cantos, and of tourism Saurı´ (2009)

University

UAB U. Girona UAB U. Santiago UAB UAB U. Barcelona CSIC CSIC U. Rovira i Virgili

Google Scholar Citations

Source

128

Scopus

103

Scopus

88 57 46 34

Scopus Scopus Scopus IN RECS

U. Illes Balears

34

IN RECS

U. Alicante U. Jaume I U. of Ulster U. Ma´laga CSIC

33

IN RECS

30

Scopus

24

Scopus

U. Complutense

22

IN RECS

U. Alicante U. Jaume I U. Cantabria U. Cantabria U. Salamanca U. Salamanca U. Rovira i Virgili U. Barcelona U. Sevilla U. Alicante

22

IN RECS

21

IN RECS

20

IN RECS

U. Rovira i Virgili

13

IN RECS

U. Barcelona U. Alicante U. Alicante UAB

12 12

IN RECS Scopus

The Geography of Tourism in Spain Table 8. Reference

Garcı´ a, Pollard, and Rodrı´ guez (2003) Baylina and Berg (2010)

Valenzuela (2003)

(Continued )

Theme

Tourism and integrated coastal zone management Rural Tourism

Second homes development

165

University

U. of Ulster U. of Ulster U. Ma´laga UAB Norvegian U. of S&TechTrondheim U. Auto´noma de Madrid

Google Scholar Citations

Source

11

Scopus

11

Scopus

7

IN RECS

a

As on August 30, 2012. Articles within the top 1% IN RECS Spanish geography cited articles 1994 2009 + Top 10 cited articles in tourism geography in journals included in Scopus. In the case of the Scopus database, an initial search on tourism AND geography OR geographies was refined as follows: by the three principal subject areas (social sciences, business/management/accounting and environmental science); by at least one of the authors having a Spanish university affiliation; and by keywords corresponding to the geography discipline.

journals where Spanish tourism geography researchers have also published their work. A further six articles, as mentioned previously, were published in Spanish interdisciplinary tourism journals, in this case only indexed in IN RECS (Estudios Turı´sticos, Papers de Turisme, and Cuadernos de Turismo). This also means that there are 10 articles (six published in Spanish tourism journals and four in geography journals) that are among the top 1% of the most cited articles in the whole geography discipline in Spain between 1994 and 2009. The Spanish geography journals where most researchers published in geography of tourism correspond generally to those geography journals that contain the four most cited articles published therein (Boletı´n de la Asociacio´n de Geo´grafos Espan˜oles, Documents d’Ana`lisi Geogra`fica, and Estudios Geogra´ficos). To this list one can add Investigaciones Geogra´ficas and notably without the inclusion of Scripta Nova. Finally, three international geography journals appear that are not among the top percentages in terms of number of articles published by Spanish authors (Geoforum, European Urban and Regional Studies, and Land Use Policy), while Urban Studies is not on the list of journals with articles with the most citations in the geography of tourism.

166

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

In thematic terms, the most cited articles only partially overlap with the subjects of analysis of the recurrent conferences on tourism geography in Spain, as indicated earlier. Where topics do coincide, it is worth highlighting that the evolution, restructuring, and renewal of tourism destinations appears, with 30% of the most cited contributions, as the most important issue from the point of view of collective recognition of research on geography of tourism is in Spain. It should also be noted that 20% of the most cited contributions refer explicitly to the analysis of rural tourism or tourism in rural environments. However, and despite having been one of the most common themes of the Tourism, Leisure and Recreation research group congresses, urban tourism analysis does not feature as a topic in the list of the most cited articles. In addition, with the exception of an article on Integrated Coastal Zone Management and despite the clear orientation of Spanish tourism geography to planning and policy questions, this issue is not present in the more widely cited contributions. One article is entirely theoretical and has as many as five address-specific issues or themes (theme parks, second homes, ski resorts, retirement migration, and tourism in natural areas). Finally, further important topics of interest relate to local and regional economic development and, with the variations noted above in respect to more targeted analytical approaches as to the effects of climate change on tourism, there is a visible interest in the relationship between climate and tourism. On the other hand, two new topics of analysis have appeared more recently, namely tourism and spatial transformations and the environmental impacts of tourism. It goes without saying that this is only a partial representation of the entire output of Spanish researchers working on the geography of tourism. There are also numerous books with a wide circulation that collate academic outputs on a diversity of topics in the field and which, however, do not appear in any standardized databases and as such do not feature in this analysis. By way of illustration, it can be highlighted that the topic of evolution and restructuring of destinations has featured in several books, in some cases as a result of other conferences, symposia, and sectoral scientific workshops (including Herna´ndez Martı´ n & Santana, 2010; Lo´pez Olivares, 2011; and Vera Rebollo & Rodrı´ guez, 2012). It should also be emphasized that there is much research published in scientific journals considered to be part of the tourism geography field but which has not been counted by the indexing systems. These contributions in general relate to issues of regional and local development analysis, effects of low-cost air transport systems on destinations, analysis of the spatial

The Geography of Tourism in Spain

167

behavior of tourists, analysis of natural environments, entertainment sector, dynamics and diffusion of uneven development models in other Spanish-speaking tourism destinations (especially in Latin America and the Caribbean), second homes, analysis of land-use change in coastal areas, events, cultural tourism, and urban and gender studies—all as related to the analysis of tourism development, to name but a few topics. Also noteworthy, even though not reflected in existing indexing systems, are the various important works synthesizing the most diverse geographical dimensions of tourism, and which make a significant contribution in terms of thematic cartography, including some thematic tourism atlases (Lo´pez Palomeque, 2009; Sancho Comins & Panadero, 2004; Sancho Comins & Vera Rebollo, 2008). These contributions are of intrinsic interest from a disciplinary perspective, but they are not disseminated in international scientific knowledge circuits because they are institutional publications.

The Institutional Factor Any analysis of the evolution of tourism research in geography must also consider the institutional context within which it has occurred. In this regard, geography, as a field of education, has had a limited presence until recently in the Spanish university system. Similarly, there is the late arrival of leisure, recreation, and tourism studies in Spanish academic settings (Esteban, 2000; Vera Rebollo & Ivars, 2001). As a result of these two factors, beyond their antecedents in previous decades, and the emergence of a research dynamic in this area in the 1980s (Anton Clave´ et al., 1996a), it is only since the 1990s and especially during the first decade of this century that there has been a more widespread and consolidated research dynamic and relative growth in tourism research undertaken by geographers in Spain. In addition, it was from this time that the resulting body of knowledge started disseminating internationally. It is important to highlight that of the 114 geography of tourism articles listed in Scopus published by researchers from Spanish universities, 51% (58 articles) were published between 2010 and 2012, 43% between 2000 and 2009, and only 6% before 1999. Indeed, it was not until the 1990s that, with the adoption in 1990 of the general directives for a curriculum for Bachelors degree in geography, that the first specific geography degree in Spain was launched. In parallel, from 1996 onwards, official guidelines were produced and approved, allowing the development of curricula for university diplomas in tourism. At this time, geography of tourism was routinely

168

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

introduced into university-level geography courses, which formed the basis of a specific body of knowledge derived from this line of investigation. As a consequence (and particularly following the consolidation of geography as a subject area within tourism studies), a new dynamic has emerged with a high degree of specialization of academic staff, refocusing their research interests in some cases. This is coupled with the emergence of a new generation of professors and researchers in Spanish universities with a clear research orientation in tourism geography, which has undoubtedly increased the Spanish capacity in this respect. In fact, the effects of the introduction of tourism into the Spanish university system are undoubtedly important, not just for geography (Castillo, Tomillo, & Garcı´ a Go´mez, 2010). As such, tourism studies today (mainly the new degree in tourism resulting from the adaptation of the old diploma within the guidelines of the European Higher Education Area) are conducted in 50 Spanish universities, taught in over 70 centers (both university-owned and universityaffiliated). Moreover, the fact that as a result of the implementation of European Higher Education in Spain, Masters-level studies have been officially introduced (some of which had their origin in institutions’ own degrees) and PhDs in tourism. The majority of centers providing postgraduate programs in Spain are integrated into the Red Interuniversitaria de Posgrados en Turismo (Interuniversity Network of Postgraduate Education in Tourism), comprising 21 public and private universities (Table 9; also Garcı´ a, Lo´pez, Rabassa, & Valde´s, 2012). Except for those specific programs oriented exclusively toward business management or economic analyses of tourism, many taught at postgraduate level included a strong geographical dimension. More specifically, 13 of them offer pathways specializing in destination management and planning, a frequent focus of research in Spanish tourism geography. As Vera Rebollo et al. (2011) observe, the provision of teaching tourism in undergraduate degrees, Masters, and PhD programs has since the mid-2000s strengthened the growing critical mass of geographers with specialization in tourism-related subjects. Significantly, of the 13 Spanish universities which publish the most in international refereed journals (Table 10), only the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the University of the Basque Country, and the Autonomous University of Madrid do not have an official Masters degree in tourism and are not integrated, therefore, into the Red Interuniversitaria de Posgrados en Turismo network. Park, Phillips, Canter, and Abbott (2011) note that during the 2000 2009 period, the University of the Balearic Islands was ninth in the world rankings of

The Geography of Tourism in Spain

169

Table 9. Spanish Universities with Postgraduate Programs in Tourism 2012a University

Master Degrees/Doctoral Degree

Specialization in Geography of Tourism

U. de Alicante

Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Doctorado en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo

U. de Barcelona

Master Oficial en Gestio´n Estrate´gica de Empresas Turı´ sticas Master Oficial en Direccio´n de Empresas Hoteleras Master Oficial en Innovacio´n de la Gestio´n Turı´ stica

Tourism management in urban destinations

U. de Girona

Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Erasmus Mundus European Master in Tourism Management Master en Turismo Cultural Doctorado en Turismo, Derecho y Empresa

Tourism destination planning

U. de A Corun˜a

Master Oficial en Planificacio´n y Gestio´n de Destinos y e Nuevos Productos Turı´ sticos Doctorado Interuniversitario en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo

Tourism planning

U. de La Laguna

Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Doctorado en Turismo

Innovation strategies for tourism destinations

U. de Ma´laga

Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Doctorado en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo

Planning and management of tourism destinations

Master Oficial en Turismo Urbano y Gestio´n de Empresas Turı´ sticas

Planning and management of urban tourism

U. de Oviedo U. de Santiago de Compostela

170

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Table 9. .

University

(Continued )

Master Degrees/Doctoral Degree

Specialization in Geography of Tourism

Doctorado Interuniversitario en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo U. de Sevilla

Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Doctorado en Turismo

U. de Zaragoza

Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo

U. de las Islas Baleares

Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Doctorado en Economı´ a del Turismo y del Medio Ambiente

Management and planning of tourism destinations

U. Rovira i Virgili

Master Oficial en Te´cnicas de Ana´lisis e Innovacio´n Turı´ stica Doctorado en Turismo y Ocio

Destination planning and management systems

U. de Vale`ncia

Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Doctorado en Economı´ a Internacional y Turismo

Tourism planning

U. de Vigo

Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Interior y de Salud Doctorado Interuniversitario en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Master Universitario en Direccio´n de Proyectos de Ocio: cultura, turismo, ocio y recreacio´n Master Universitario en Organizacio´n de Congresos, Eventos y Ferias Doctorado en Ocio y Desarrollo Humano

U. de Deusto

Public policy, planning and management in tourism

The Geography of Tourism in Spain Table 9. University

171

(Continued )

Master Degrees/Doctoral Degree

Specialization in Geography of Tourism

U. de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Master Oficial en Direccio´n y Planificacio´n del Turismo Master Universitario Internacional en Desarrollo Integral de Destinos Turı´ sticos Doctorado en Perspectivas Cientı´ ficas sobre el Turismo y la Direccio´n de Empresas Turı´ sticas

Tourism planning

U. Rey Juan Carlos

Master en Direccio´n Turı´ stica Internacional Doctorado en Turismo

Tourism planning

U. Complutense de Madrid

Master Universitario en Direccio´n y Gestio´n de Empresas Hoteleras

U. Extremadura

Master Universitario en Administracio´n de Organizaciones y Recursos Turı´ sticos

U. Polite´cnica de Cartagena

Master en Direccio´n y Gestio´n de Empresas e Instituciones Turı´ sticas

UOC

Master en Estrategia y Gestio´n Sostenible de Destinos Turı´ sticos Postgrado en Direccio´n y Marketing de Organizaciones Turı´ sticas

Tourism destination planning

a

As on December 25, 2012. Information from universities integrated into the network Red Interuniversitaria de Posgrados en Turismo. Source: Author’s own elaboration from Red INTUR database.

universities for their research, but this ranking was not limited to geographers’ only. In more detail, the study coordinated by Ferna´ndez Tabales et al. (2010) reviewing research in tourism geography identifies up to 44 research groups

172

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Table 10. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 7 7 10 10 10 10

Top Universities Publishing Tourism Geography (1993 2012)a University

Number of Articles

Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona Universitat d’Alacant/Universidad de Alicante Universitat de les Illes Balears Universitat Rovira i Virgili Universitat de Girona Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Universidad de Sevilla UPV/EHU Universidad de Ma´laga Universitat de Barcelona Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid Universidad de Zaragoza Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

15 14 12 11 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4

a As on August 30, 2012. An initial search in Scopus database on tourism AND geography OR geographies was refined as follows: by the three principal subject areas (social sciences, business/management/accounting and environmental science); by at least one of the authors having a Spanish university affiliation; and by keywords corresponding to the geography discipline.

mostly based in geography departments in different Spanish universities that variably focus on tourism from a geographic perspective. Of these 44, Table 11 lists the 16 research groups that include explicitly the word tourism in their title. The dominance of those universities located on the Mediterranean coast and the Canary (Ma´laga, Seville, Tenerife, Barcelona, Baleares, Murcia, Girona, Tarragona, Alicante, and Castello´n) is easily observable, although in addition to universities in Madrid, Salamanca, Extremadura, and Galicia. This trend toward the polarization of tourism studies at selected universities and particularly in those located in the principal Spanish tourism destinations was also observed by Vargas (2011) at a multidisciplinary level, taking into account the research contributions from all disciplines. Among the remaining groups that undertake tourism research, the relative dedication to the spatial analysis of tourism (in its various forms) is also very relevant. This is the case, for example, for the research group on

The Geography of Tourism in Spain Table 11.

173

Geography Research Groups in Spain including Tourism

Research Group Tourism and Territory Territorial and Tourism Studies Tourism, Competitiveness and Sustainability Tourism and Spatial Planning Tourism in Inland Areas Tourism and New Socio-Economic Dynamics in Rural Areas

Networked Organizations, Innovation and Development Strategies for Tourism Products Multidisciplinary Laboratory for Tourism Research Spatial Analysis and Tourism Studies Planning and Management for Sustainable Tourism Laboratory for Planning, Organization and Study of Tourism Spaces Analysis of Tourism in Extremadura Rural Change, Human Mobility, Tourism and Territory Territorial and Tourism Studies Tourism, Heritage and Development Tourism and Territory

University Ma´laga Sevilla La Laguna (Tenerife) La Laguna (Tenerife) Salamanca Auto´noma de Barcelona UOC (Barcelona) Illes Balears Santiago de Compostela Vigo Murcia Girona

Girona Rovira i Virgili (Tarragona) UOC (Barcelona) Alicante Jaume I (Castello´n) Extremadura Illes Balears Illes Balears Complutense (Madrid) Auto´noma de Madrid

Source: Author’s own elaboration from Ferna´ndez Tabales et al. (2010).

Spatial Analysis and Regional Development at the University of Barcelona, the Spatial Analysis group at the University of Santiago de Compostela, and the Territory and Sustainability group at the University of the Balearic Islands, among others. It can also be argued, on the other

174

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

hand, that the level of consolidation of the research groups in terms of their size or their academic orientation is directly linked (despite their specific ideological or epistemological positions) to the research policy in the regions where they are located. Finally, and while difficult to measure, the consolidation of tourism in Spain as a competitive political arena for the regions (as well as the need for destinations and tourism enterprises to generate knowledge and innovation) has led to the creation of knowledge transfer and research organizations at various levels, from local tourism observatories to research centers (Anton Clave´ & Duro, 2010). In these centers, geography researchers have often played an important role and, consequently, they are also indirectly linked to the increase in academic outputs in tourism from the geography discipline. Furthermore, Vera Rebollo et al. (2011) list several Spanish centers for research and knowledge dissemination in the field of tourism that are linked to universities. They include the University Institute of Social and Political Sciences at the University of La Laguna in Tenerife, the UNESCO Chair in Sustainable Tourism Planning and Development at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, the Tourist Information Systems of Asturias connected to the University of Oviedo, the Center for Studies and Research on Tourism at the University of Santiago de Compostela, the Tourism and Leisure Science and Technology Park associated with the Rovira i Virgili University of Tarragona, and the Tourism Research Institute at the University of Alicante. In the same vein, the changes that have occurred during the 2000s in relation to a greater institutionalization of geography and tourism studies implemented at the university level have also increased the participation of geographers in applied research and planning in tourism, such as forecasting in tourism, strategic planning, governmental white papers, and others (Lo´pez Olivares, 2010; Lo´pez Palomeque, 2010; and Santos, 2010). From a purely academic perspective, the inclusion of tourism as a priority research area in state governmental tenders during the first decade of this century has also had considerable effect (tourism was considered a key sector in the National Plan for Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation for the period 2008 2011), albeit greater in some regions than in others. Beyond this dynamic, it can be observed that the geography of tourism has also played an important role from the perspective of strengthening the institutionalization of the geography discipline itself in Spain.

The Geography of Tourism in Spain

175

CONCLUSION The significant growth in tourism research within Spanish geography has emerged in line with the evolving process of institutionalization of university-level studies in geography and in tourism since the 1990s. This trend is also observable at a general level within other academic disciplines concerned with the study of tourism (Vargas, 2011). However, there are differences between the tourism geography research as published by Spanish universities and that published in more hegemonic international academic circles. In Spain dominant geography research themes in tourism tend to emphasize the value of territory and spatial analysis in its development processes, as well as in the planning and management of its operations. From a transversal perspective, the principal themes in the current Spanish tourism geography are several: dynamics and evolution of specific modes of tourism in local and regional destinations (coastal, rural, natural, urban, mountain); links between tourism and land-use change; characteristics of change in and hierarchies of tourism flows; patterns of second homes location, development, and impacts; analysis of sustainable use of tourism resources; tourism and heritage in historic cities; environmental analysis of tourism development and impacts (including climate changes issues); and tools for planning and development of tourism destinations. In general, there is a dominance of positivist approaches that can be attributed to the characteristics of mainstream geography research in Spain and to the enduring status of Mediterranean as a destination for other countries. In fact, tourism-shaped landscapes—mainly urban landscapes of mass coastal destinations—have been theorized from the very beginning of tourism geography analysis in Spain. This resulted from an exogenous process of accommodating (physically and culturally) groups of temporary “users” in a given place. This has been a common ideological feature in the interpretation of other modes of development. It has also been a key focus of the geography of tourism in Spain, in particular in terms of land use, capital accumulation impact studies, and physical landscapes analyses (including both critical/Marxist views “against” tourism and neoclassical studies on tourism growth). Nevertheless, new views have surfaced recently in relation to coastal mass tourism destinations as complex systems (Anton Clave´ & Gonza´lez Reverte´, 2007) that can be understood saliently within the interpretative framework of emerging evolutionary economic geography approaches.

176

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

It is only more recently that new anthropogenic concepts have entered the scene, such as the perception of tourists and tourism by the host community and the idea of temporary resident populations in tourism destination. Additionally, there has also been some initial interest in recent years in approaches regarding identity, image, and even the subjective discourse of the agents of tourism activity. As a result, the emerging research is focusing on the analysis of tourist practices (time-space behavior, performativity, innovation, and cocreativity). As noted by Vera Rebollo et al. (2011), an important feature of much of the growing body of Spanish geographical research on tourism is a progressive attempt to integrate into mainstream interpretation and analysis in geography and social sciences in terms of spatial analysis, regional analysis, and urban analysis. This may have led to a reduction in specific, overt geographical discourses on tourism in relation to those in other disciplines (economics, urban planning, and even sociology) but, on the contrary, it has also meant that the dominant interdisciplinary discourses on tourism in Spain are increasingly geographical and spatial in orientation. For the most part limitation in the geographical areas analyzed by the Spanish tourism geography, which corresponds to the Spanish geographical area or the different or the different regions therein. There are only few researchers and groups that extend the geographical reach of their study areas beyond Spain, but there are signs that this is beginning to change. There is now, for example, an international network of researchers with a specific interest in the role of international cooperation in tourism development (International Network of Researchers in Tourism, Cooperation and Development), which was launched in 2008. Its membership include the majority of Spanish geographers working on tourism themes (as well as tourism academics from other disciplines and academics and professionals from other countries) who have conducted research projects in this field, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean. In relation to this particular geographic area, while the networking relationship between researchers from both sides of the Atlantic has been and continues to be very intense, there is still a significant dispersion of knowledge circuits, research dissemination, and disciplinary interdependencies. Apart from the wide potential for future research by geographers dedicated to the geography of tourism in Spain, researchers continue to face some basic challenges (Vera Rebollo & Ivars, 2001), including the need (a) to increase social relevance to underpin research—whether academic or applied—and situate it more centrally within societal questions, thus enhancing the applicability of knowledge production; (b) to expand the

The Geography of Tourism in Spain

177

depth of methodological approaches and conceptual and methodological responses to new processes and activities affecting tourism and leisure spaces (Ferna´ndez Tabales et al., 2010); (c) to accommodate specificity in tourism research and to promote its subsequent official recognition, although this is improving via the increased dissemination of research in dedicated, specialist journals; (d) to eliminate possible bias and subjectivity in research that, within the design and methodological development of studies, may cause the market to influence the research outcomes, projects, and plans, particularly in terms of their territorial dimension (or where the research is finally applied); (e) to form subject-specific research teams and multidisciplinary groups in the search for solutions to new problems in tourism and recreation development in order to reduce the fragmentation in departments operating in different Spanish universities. Finally, future goals for researchers working in tourism geography in Spain are many. Based on the discussion advanced in this chapter, they may include (1) the consolidation of research, particularly in the most relevant topics such as coastal tourism, destination development, rural tourism, sustainable development, and tourism impacts; (2) the opportunity to develop new research themes and approaches related to the analysis of demand behavior, use of GIS for tourism destination planning and management, transportation and mobilities, leisure, tourism and identity, landscape analysis, and international cooperation in tourism; (3) the need to overcome the dominance of empirical and idiographic studies and to develop theoretical and methodological frameworks related to the analysis of change in destinations; (4) the need of link research and planning (strategic and physical) for deeper engagement of tourism geographers in the development and management of tourism activity; (5) the necessity to increase the integration of tourism research carried out by Spanish centers into the main currents and channels of research output dissemination on an international level, as well as to promote new networks and systems of permanent exchange among research groups; and (6) the opportunity to establish institutional links and formalize collaborative investigation in line with the emergent research on the geography of tourism in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Chapter 10

Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe Salvador Anton Clave´ Rovira i Virgili University, Catalonia, Spain

Julie Wilson Rovira i Virgili University, Catalonia, Spain

In order to build bridges among different traditions within geographies of tourism, the contributions to this volume have the capacity of explaining to an English-speaking academic audience and scholars working from within different linguistic region what exactly it is that tourism geographers are researching in these non-Anglophone European regions/linguistic domains. In fact, academics that do not have the capacity to speak/read/understand other languages arguably miss out on the opportunity to import/use/adapt/ analyze ideas, concepts, views, interpretations, and even empirical case studies produced and subsequently published in other languages, unless they happen to get translated and published in the Anglo-American domain. This is an important and relevant point in the sense that parallel academicuniverses based on the geographies of tourism have been created and are still in the process of expanding into other regions and languages. In addition, even though number of academic outputs that get published in the dominant Anglo-American circuits of knowledge dissemination is growing, many ideas, concepts, views, and interpretative frameworks that hold potential interest in terms of the development of the discipline remain on the

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives Tourism Social Science Series, Volume 19, 179 198 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1571-5043/doi:10.1108/S1571-5043(2013)0000019010

180

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

periphery or are excluded entirely. As a consequence, these ideas tend to remain isolated with respect to other regional and linguistic traditions. Therefore, it is entirely logical that one of the main purposes of this volume was to examine the what, why, and where of published outputs in different languages by researchers from each particular region. But how is this related to the specific geographical tradition(s), culture(s), or academic contexts (and even the underlying characteristics and trajectory of the development of tourism) in each regional linguistic domain? Furthermore, how are regional/linguistic academic traditions related to other geopolitical circumstances and power relations within established countries, such as regional or cultural alliances or regional/linguistic differences present within the borders of each country? The cultural and political discussion on the Nordic idea as the framework for geographies of tourism, the reference to the Francophone area, the German-speaking countries or the Greek language area in the case of the three chapters devoted to France, Germany, and Greece is a case in point. Moreover, language as a geopolitical factor for explaining intraregional divergence in academic profiles among Dutch, French, or German speakers in Belgium is explained in Chapter 8. Finally, even though in principle there is a shared common academic tradition in Spain, Chapter 9 illustrates a case with linguistic diversity inherent in academic production (including publications in Castilian Spanish, Catalan, Galician, and Basque) as well as the surprising lack of a common academic tradition in tourism geography with the large Spanish-speaking Latin American research community. Actually, this has also been observed in other branches of geography, as noted by Garcı´ a Palomares, Michelini, and Mı´ nguez (2009). The ideas, contents, and questions in this book are of general interest for geography and also for other social sciences related to tourism. For example, the 2012 Geographica Helvetica Symposium was devoted to the making of academic geographies in Europe, noting that human geography in Europe (and globally) is still shaped by so-called “national” or “languagebased” traditions, such as Francophone or “deutschsprachige” geography. Even within Anglo-American geography, nuances can be detected between British and US geographies (as observed in the introduction to this volume). These various national traditions have emerged from very specific national genealogies of geography, which in turn has been shaped by specific philosophical thought traditions, backgrounds of practicing social sciences, and styles of academic writing. Furthermore, these genealogies shape the present-day praxis of both emergent and established scholars in these different academic spaces.

Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe

181

Within Europe, regional traditions in academia (almost always related to the distribution of languages) have tended to have their own circuits of knowledge production and exchange, including conferences, research networks, journals, and associations. Although it is entirely understandable that researchers tend to gravitate toward academic circuits in their own particular linguistic contexts, interestingly this only tends to happen where the language is very widely spoken (as is often, for example, the case with French, German, and Spanish networks). The editors of this volume agree with the viewpoint of the Geographica Helvetica Symposium organizers, with respect to the volume’s contributions, that while there is a drive toward internationalization, the richness of each tradition should be preserved, rather than buried. Furthermore, it would be desirable if researchers are empowered to export their work beyond their regional bases into the global academic arena (and not necessarily just within the Anglo-American circuits). Without projects like the present volume, only those researchers that possess native or acquired bilingualism or multilingualism (or at least a reading-level working knowledge of another language) are able to be surprised, inspired, or attracted by developments in the discipline originating from other cultural and linguistic contexts. Indeed, only this knowledge of foreign languages allows individuals to benefit from the inherent cross-fertilization that may arise from research conducted in different regional/linguistic environments. In this sense, this volume may be considered to be a part of the long legacy of highlighting in English-language geographies of tourism the research which is being undertaken and published in other European countries, regions, and linguistic domains. This legacy is becoming increasingly established in English-language journals such as Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Space, Place and Environment and, as stated by its editor Alan Lew, the editorial team has been “considerably hampered in our internationalization efforts by language barriers” (2002, p. 225). In this sense, some particular precedents of the chapters in this book are the reviews of “country” tourism geographies previously published on Finland (Saarinen, 2003a; 2003b), France (Barbier & Pearce, 1984; Lazzarotti, 2002), Germany (Benthien, 1984; Kreisel, 2004), Austria (Lichtenberger, 1984), Italy (Pedrini, 1984), and Spain (Anton Clave´ et al., 1996a). All of these are useful for identifying significant issues or themes in the contextual regional/linguistic realities within which they were produced. This is relevant in the sense that, as Hall explains in Chapter 2, although there is little discussion from academics within the tourism geography community as to the reasons why certain topics are studied and approaches developed, this is

182

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

a key issue to understanding the evolution of the subdiscipline (Coles & Hall, 2006; Equipe MIT, 2011; Hall & Page, 2009; Page, 2005; Tribe, 2009; Vera Rebollo et al., 2011; Wilson, 2012). As explained in the introductory chapter, this volume has involved a combined effort to share the keys to understanding some of the other regional and linguistic traditions in the geography of tourism in Europe in order to identify similarities, differences, and challenges for the future development of the subdiscipline. It is reasonably clear from the volume’s contributions to allow the editors to state that there are indeed regional/ linguistic schools of tourism geographies in Europe and, in consequence, it makes sense to talk about regional/linguistic traditions. There are also trajectories of theoretical and methodological internationalization in different countries that can shed new light on the global development of tourism geographies at a worldwide scale. This presents a challenge for each of these regional/linguistic traditions and for the future evolution of the whole body of knowledge on tourism geographies, with its growing circulation of concepts, themes, and epistemological approaches from regional/linguistic traditions other than the dominant Anglo-American in tourism geography today.

EUROPEAN REGIONAL/LINGUISTIC TRADITIONS In order to achieve a comparative view, this concluding chapter will summarize some emerging common issues raised from the themes, information, and processes explained in each chapter. First, there is the issue of similarities in the academic status and scientific nature of the tourism geography in each of the reviewed traditions. Second, there is an observed evolution, as well as the epistemological foci, predominant in each of the regional/ linguistic traditions. This is both related to the characteristics of tourism development itself in each geographical area and also to the origin, developments, and trends of geography as a discipline in each country/ region/linguistic domain. Third, there are also links to the specialization and differentiation of research themes. Fourth, explaining some of these specificities, there is the process of institutionalization within the geography of tourism in each case and the role of this process in explaining the current strengths and weaknesses of the field. Fifth, there is the need to ensure a global dissemination of academic research as a tool for achieving international recognition of the quality of research, particularly the ability to influence epistemological, theoretical, and practical debates on the current

Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe

183

development of the field from its country/region/linguistic base. This is related to the adoption of English as lingua franca by researchers (as discussed in Chapter 1), as well as the growing importance and prominence of the most renowned English-language academic publishers (even in nonEnglish speaking countries). To this one might add the role conferred upon (or otherwise) languages other than English in the global circulation of knowledge.

Academic Status and the Nature of Scientific Enquiry Hall (2013) explains in the case of the dominant Anglo-American geography tradition that tourism geography appears rather marginalized when compared with other subdisciplines of geography. In general, the contributions in this volume observe a similar tendency in most of the European traditions. This is a common feature that can perhaps be explained in terms of peripherality, as well of a relative dearth of inherent heuristic interest from the point of view of classical geographers (and other social scientists and even some policymakers) and a lack of institutionalization until recent times. In Chapter 8, Jansen-Verbeke explains in the case of Belgium and Netherlands, for instance, that tourism as a field of study in its own right was until recently not embedded structurally within the curriculum of most of the traditional universities. As such, as Scherle and Hopfinger state in the final section of Chapter 5, it is already common for European tourism geographers to hear repeatedly everywhere they go from their more traditional disciplinary contemporaries “Avoid the t word (tourism) and go for the m word (mobilities)” or “how can you do research on a topic that in the end is only associated with fun?” This can also be related to an often inadequate integration and historical mutual tension between human and physical geographers, where the focus of the research is tourism development. However, the scene is changing partially in response to the obvious geographical, social, and economic importance of the activity in some places and also because the greater academic recognition of the scientific field at least in some of the regions/linguistic domains analyzed as, for instance, the Low Countries, the Nordic region and, to some extent, Spain and Greece. In the case of the latter, for instance, as explained by Tsartas, Coccossis, and Vasileiou (Chapter 6), the steep rise in European Union funding since the 1980s and 1990s has led to a proliferation of projects, posts, and research interest in tourism from a regional development

184

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

perspective based on interdisciplinary approaches. There is no doubt, in this sense, that geographical, economic, and social contexts (including the importance of tourism as an activity and its perception by policymakers) have influenced the process of institutionalization of the field and, consequently, research topics and the very structure of academic environments. This also has consequences for the social and academic recognition of research output, as in the case of Spain where currently geographers tend to publish in the top Spanish geography journals as well as in other tourism-oriented publications. From a global point of view, this can be observed as a strategic precedent (wherever possible) to avoid the negative consequences of the current biased mode of research assessment based in (arguably biased) journal ranking exercises and evaluations. In fact, as stated by Hall and Page (2009), tourism geographers should be more active in promoting their research within the geography discipline, and this can only be achieved by aiming for greater influence in the mainstream debates of the discipline and a higher recognition from the rest of geography and from society. On the subject of whether economic geographers ignore tourism, Ioannides suggests that “the task falls on the tourism geographers to submit their work to various academic publications in the discipline” (2006, p. 82). This commitment has to be concealed with the increasing brain drain (to paraphrase Hall in Chapter 2) of tourism geographers from geography departments to business and tourism studies domains. This is related to an increasing awareness among academics (including geographers) of the need for a multidisciplinary or even postdisciplinary approach to the analysis of tourism (Coles et al., 2006). This is discussed in Chapter 6 within the Greek context when admitting that, in contrast with the other European scientific traditions, in Greece the analysis of tourism has developed in relation to and driven by general economic and regional development issues. Complementarily, Jansen-Verbeke accepts in Chapter 8 that tourism analysis (as far as geographers are concerned) “is moving to the arena of applied sciences, developing advanced tools to manage cyberspaces, to infiltrate the virtual world, replacing the formal study of tourism spaces and ‘sense of place’ experiences by destination imaging, etc.” In consequence, some of the classical debates on the nature and scope of geography and tourism need to be viewed from the perspective of the dichotomy between the disciplinary roots and the needs of multidisciplinarity and postdisciplinarity. As Jansen-Verbeke recognizes in the context of the Low Countries, the “regression of disciplinary knowledge and expertise suggests a forthcoming scenario with no specialists needed, but innovative models and

Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe

185

communication tools and, a new terminology replacing the traditional lexicon of tourism geography.” That implies, of course, the sharing of complementary theoretical or explanatory frameworks with other disciplines. This is the case, for instance, in the adoption of the same timing approach framework (borrowed from sociology) to explain the development process of tourism geography as study field in the Nordic countries and in the German-speaking world (Jafari, 2001; also see Saarinen, Chapter 3 and Scherle and Hopfinger, Chapter 5 of this volume).

The Diversity of European Tourism Geography Traditions There have been several attempts to trace a chronological framework in understanding the evolution of tourism research in accordance with a general model. Butler (2004) describes a succession of descriptive, thematic, and contemporary (diverse/critical/reflexive) “eras” and, in this vein, it is true that the different contributions allow observation of this, even though there are substantial differences in terms of the context of the originating culture, the development process, and the current themes and research directions. These mostly imply a move from initially strong, spatially descriptive approaches toward the more complex, reflexive, and situated analysis of flows, places, policies, and behaviors. In more specific terms, contributors demonstrate that behind this general pattern, the recent history of tourism geography in each of the regional/linguistic European domains evolved in parallel with the predominant general theoretical approaches of particular time periods in each particular place. This can clearly be observed in the present volume, for instance in the case of the Nordic countries and, more specifically, by Mariotti when tracing the evolution of geographical Italian approaches to tourism from the 1960s onwards in Chapter 7. In this case, four main branches of geography (economic geography, human geography, geography of environment, and geography of perception) have led academic production in Italian tourism geographies. Moreover, in the case of France, in the mid-1990s the new geographical approach to tourism originated by the Equipe MIT signaled the start of a less descriptive and more explanatory understanding of tourism. This new approach was focused on highlighting its spatial dimensions, with the aim of describing and explaining the elements and interrelationships of tourism “systems.” Explicitly, the approach tried to link the geographical vision of tourism with other traditions in the social sciences and humanities with a

186

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

focus on tourism, via the application of geographical concepts to the study of tourism and the fertilization of geography through the transfer of new knowledge. In contrast, Scherle and Hopfinger describe in their contribution (Chapter 5) that “the key characteristic of tourism geography in the German-speaking countries since around the beginning of the new millennium is closely related to the conceptual and methodological implications of the cultural turn.” This represented a strong diversification and fragmentation of tourism geography as discipline and the successful introduction of important concepts from sociology and anthropology into German-speaking tourism geography. The influence of this turn has been particularly remarkable, both epistemologically and in terms of the topics and issues being researched. Finally, even maintaining the general evolution from the early empirical and descriptive base to a more explanatory and modeling-based approach, a large part of research activity on tourism in Greece has been focused on impacts, particularly the problems of the tourism development model implemented in Greek destinations, especially in terms of spatial planning, overconcentration of development in some areas, carrying capacity and sustainable development, as well as the relative benefits of alternative forms of tourism. In essence, the differing approaches in each regional and linguistic domain are an interesting and heuristic illustration of the point that, besides the general evolution of scientific paradigms, place matters when researchers focus their interest, methods, and approach. This highlights the role of context as a positive factor for the development of the field, but also underlines the critical distance between the work of tourism geographers as practitioners and some of the more recent academic turns in the social sciences. This is also connected, in consequence, to the growing differentiation between pure and applied research and the progressive deeper engagement of tourism geographers in the actual development and management of tourism. All of this has consequences, in the end, in terms of the internationalization of research results. Research outputs carry the risk of being rejected by leading publishers if they are not adapted or explained (via a process of transcription) in accordance with the dominant academic fashion.

Specialization and Differentiation of Research Themes The keywords “place,” “space,” “landscape,” and “environment” remain central for tourism geographers. The uniqueness and attractiveness of

Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe

187

places, physical landscape, urban morphology, or cultural and environmental resource preservation are some of the most common objectives of study within these keywords. Certainly, mobility(ies), environmental impact studies, and planning models are topics that derive directly from earlier manifestations of tourism research, enabling them to connect with popular sociological streams and applied contemporary issues. Nevertheless, besides the common academic disciplinary legacy and the many parallels among regional/linguistic domains, there are certain themes that are more pronounced and visible in each, depending on the particular geographical tradition as well as on the economic and touristic dynamics of the place. Thus, these themes can be seen as particular characteristics, confirming that academic life and scientific research is, as Johnston argues “open to influences and commands of the wider society which encompasses it” (1991a, p. 1). Regional development, nature-based tourism, and second homes, as well as particular topics related to indegeneity, sustainability, rurality, and climate change are among the most recent foci of interest in Nordic geographies of tourism (Chapter 3). Complex typological analysis taking into account the role of tourists in the creation and evolution of destinations and the role of mobility in explaining the characteristics of tourist places appears as the most highlighted issue in the French contribution (Chapter 4). Among German tourist geographers, recent developments have been based to imaginary geographies, commodification of destinations, intercultural questions, implications of climate change, and role of media and new virtual spaces in tourism development and evolution (Chapter 5). Impacts, regional development, consumption issues, and sustainable tourism planning remain as the main focus of tourism geographies in the Greek domain (Chapter 6), while in Italy issues related to territorial complexity from an economic geography perspective and to visual culture are generating new and interesting outputs (Chapter 7). In the Low Countries, multidisciplinary aspects of tourism ranging from globalization to geopolitics, and from leisure to regional development, are leading the current research scene in tourism geography (Chapter 8). Finally, in Spain the challenge of the development; the restructuring and renewal of mature destinations from an evolutionary perspective; and the analysis of impacts, strategies, and dynamics of tourism in cities are among the most common tourism topics of research. Other important issues include the evaluation of tourism product development, destination positioning and the design and application of planning techniques/instruments for tourism destinations (Chapter 9).

188

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Regarding the differences among regional/linguistic domains, various questions arise, including whether the differences in the orientation of tourism research (in terms of approaches and theories) are a direct consequence of the nature of the place as either tourism-generating or tourism-receiving areas. Lying beneath the Italian focus on territorial complexity and spatial restructuring, the Spanish interest on destination evolution and transformation, the French tradition of building destination typologies, and even the Greek orientation to impacts and policy analysis, is there a shared interest as far as the Mediterranean is home to the most significant worldwide tourism-receiving countries in terms of numbers? If it were the case, another question then arises: Is it relevant for the whole of tourism geography as a field that the majority of the outputs from this Mediterranean body of research (and the subsequent related theory deriving from them) has hardly been disseminated in the dominant Anglo-American circuits of knowledge? Of course, spatial models, behavioral research, political economy analysis, sustainable and environmentally sensitive approaches, as well as more poststructural approaches such as the new mobilities paradigm, cultural interpretations, globalization, performativity, creativity, or authenticity (to cite but a few) are also alive in the regional traditions reviewed, but they are certainly not the most common nor most developed research perspectives.

The Institutionalization of Tourism Geography The position of tourism and the geography of tourism in universities and other educational and research institutions of each region/linguistic domain is, without any doubt, a key factor in explaining the evolution and recognition of the field in each country. This allows understanding of the position of tourism and geography within departments, faculties, and universities and the presence of the tourism geographers in other research centers and institutions. In this sense, this volume’s contributions also display that “the study of tourism geography is embedded in academic and scientific discourse and the institutions of which it is part” (Hall, 2013, p. 4). In general, the contributors underline that of the global challenges that the European university system faces, a part of them are derived from or related to the Bologna process of reorganization of university-level education at the European Union level and that impacts are being noted to some extent within the development of the geography of tourism (Scherle and Hopfinger, Chapter 5). Complementarily, there is a general agreement that acquiring funds for tourism research is, like in the case of other social

Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe

189

sciences, very difficult. In some cases, European Union research programs (Fournier and Knafou, Chapter 4 and Tsartas et al., Chapter 6) and other funding sources derived from governmental and the tourism industry requiring knowledge and advice are also generating new applied discipline developments and research posts. The role of autonomous governments in the case of Spain in promoting research involving tourism geography groups and academic individuals (Chapter 9) serves as an example. The fact that various contributors to this volume highlight that internationally-important research projects are getting funded in the tourism geography area is a strong indicator of the health of the field, even though the underlying institutional position is often vulnerable and fragile in certain cases. Behind this general picture, there are still many differences among the countries featured in this book. In the Nordic region, for instance, established tourism studies have become a firmly integrated part of geography as an academic institution, and there are specific tourism research and education institutions involving tourism geographers. In France, as stated by Fournier and Knafou, tourism geographies used to be attached to particular groups or specific professors, such as Knafou himself, and are very dependent on the dynamics of the head of each group and their specific ability to create networks, involve institutions, and obtain funding for research. This is similar to Italy, where within Italian geography schools, only individual or small groups of geographers dealing with tourism subjects can be identified. In Germany, only 2 of 64 geography departments, Trier and Eichsta¨tt, explicitly mention tourism geography in their department profiles, even though research on it is also conducted in other geography departments. In Greece, the practical/vocational-oriented approach of tourism in educational and research institutes and the relatively late-coming higher academic sector both condition the characteristics of tourism geography research and analysis. In fact, the situation of tourism studies in Greece has aspects in common with the situation in other countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, or some of the Nordic countries, where academic education related to tourism takes place at “universities of applied sciences,” whose focus is primarily on teaching and not research. Conversely, the existence of PhD programs in tourism that include explicit tourism geography research foci, as is the case in Spain, is a clear demonstration of the growing recognition of the domain in specific contexts. Finally, there is a relatively recent process, such as in the Netherlands or Spain, of creation of research institutes, innovation centers, and academic tourism-oriented associations and networks, usually with formal or personal links with

190

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

universities, which have had an impact upon the development of tourism geography research. Further, in Spain, the acceptance of tourism as an educational domain in the university since the mid-1990s has generated a new dynamic with a high degree of specialization of academic staff in the field, with several geographers refocusing or incorporating tourism as a research interest in some cases.

Internationalization as a Dynamic Process The contributors to this book draw a diverse picture in relation to the degree of internationalization of the various “schools” of tourism geography produced in Europe. These range from the “splendid isolation” of some Italian tourism geographers from current international debates (Chapter 7) to the Nordic region (Chapter 3), where geographies of tourism are increasingly driven by international conceptual and theoretical perspectives. Applying Fournier and Knafou’s statement about France (Chapter 4) to the other regions/linguistic domains, regional geographies of tourism in Europe appear to be sensitive to and embrace the main ideas, concepts, theories, and approaches that circulate in the Anglo-American knowledge dissemination circuit (mainly the international English-language journals) and permeate the European and the global non-English speaking academic scene (Hiernaux-Nicolas, 2008). In general, however, there clearly remains a degree of independence between regional geographies and AngloAmerican internationally dominant geography. At times, there is also a tendency toward ignorance of the Anglo-American circuits, with respect to those regional tourism geographies outputs not published in the English language nor in the leading international English-language journals. Naturally, languages barriers are important as key factors in understanding this situation, and this may vary in each specific region, in terms of the difficulties that non-English-speaking tourism geographers face in accessing internationally recognized English journals. This is also the case in terms of the often closed circuits of Anglo-American tourism geographers that at times do not take into account nor facilitate the integration of academics from other European regional geographical traditions into international networks. The result is the creation of separate, parallel worlds between the Anglo-American and the other research traditions. As a consequence, for instance and independently of the quality factor, there are curious situations such as that in which the first and only existing piece of work on tourism in Spain written in English and published in international

Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe

191

circuits was written/edited almost exclusively by native English-speaking scholars (Barke, Towner, & Newton, 1996). Nevertheless, as Saarinen states in the case of Finland (Chapter 3), where theories and conceptual approaches have been drawn more centrally from Anglo-American geographies and where cooperation among researchers from different traditions is more commonplace, a novel contextual element appears in which both regional/linguistic and international perspectives combine to become inevitably promising and fertile as research pathways. In any case, in this language-driven discussion on internationalization, there is a hidden factor beyond the adoption of English as communication tool that needs to be highlighted. This has been mentioned specifically in the present volume in the case of the German-language tourism geographies. As Scherle and Hopfinger discuss in Chapter 5, in some cases the internationalization of research might not be seen as a competitive advantage in some social sciences (such as the geography of tourism) if the research cultures that the field has developed within the national context might gradually be abandoned in favor of new research landscapes exclusively built on the Anglo-American model. In fact, as Gutie´rrez and Lo´pez Nieva stated for human geography as a whole discipline, international journals “have not attained a high degree of internationalization” (if “internationalization” implies a process including languages other than English) and that “this is probably in part a matter of tradition” (2001, p. 54). The issue of internationalization cannot be discussed only in relation to the adoption of English as lingua franca. It must include other facets related to the adoption (or not) of dominant Anglo-American research approaches, theories, and paradigms. It also necessitates the existence, as contributions to this volume have implied, of research issues and topics that invariably will not (and could not) become dominant at the international level, but nonetheless hold a depth if interest in at least one specific regional/linguistic academic community. For instance, McKercher, Law, Weber, Song, and Hsu (2007) discuss the various reasons why referees might reject manuscripts. In essence, the contributions to this volume highlight that, in most cases, regional/linguistic European geographies of tourism have their focus only (or mostly) in their own regional/linguistic areas, particularly where case studies are used. There are, of course, strong postcolonial links in terms of the choice of where to focus research interests within one’s own language capabilities, such as French tourism geographers doing research in other Francophone areas. Aside from these, though, there are still no significant

192

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

international knowledge circuits, research dissemination channels, and disciplinary interdependencies that function in languages other than English. Surprisingly, internationalization and adoption of English as lingua franca tend to be influenced by each region’s own linguistic domain(s) in the academic evaluation of research institutions. This is generally due to the fact that an important indicator of research quality centers on international publications in peer-reviewed and ISI journals in almost all cases in English (see Garcı´ a Palomares et al. (2009) in the case of the relative recognition of Spanish geography journals among Spanish and Latin American geography scholars). Similarly, the only books that tend to be recognized by research quality evaluation agencies are those published in English by specialist Anglophone publishing companies. This is arguably an effect of impact/citation indices such as ISI web of knowledge impact factors, plus Scopus and Google Scholar citations (Hall, 2011a), but it is also the result of taking into account only the English-language citations in Anglo-American circuits of knowledge dissemination (McKercher, 2008). As a consequence, bodies of work—such as the most cited handbook in tourism geography in Spanish (with 315 citations) are not at all visible for the whole academic international community (Chapter 9). Subsequently and somewhat ironically, authors have problems having their work accepted by their own national research quality agencies in terms of quality assessment. Paradoxically, in Europe relatively few non-native English-speaking scholars (except perhaps those working in the United Kingdom) have enough of a command of English to send a manuscript off directly to an Anglo-American journal or publisher without any assistance at all in terms of translation or correction. In fact, in order to join the ranks of native English-speaking colleagues, considerable additional efforts are required. Thus, valid and promising research undertaken by non-native Englishspeaking European tourism geographers is often denied visibility only because the internationalization of research and its evaluation can involve elements of academic capitalism and biased ranking systems (Hall, 2010). In consequence, as Gibson (2008) highlights, indexed articles on tourism in international journals in their vast majority are written by British and North American authors and to a lesser extent, their Antipodean and South African counterparts. This is, incidentally, a general problem inherent in knowledge distribution within geography and other contextually rooted social sciences. As indicated by Gibson (2008), nevertheless, tourism geography is “on the whole more cosmopolitan” than other subdisciplines of geography and as such, any dominance could be more easily readdressed

Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe

193

than in other scientific domains such as the sociology of tourism. This is in sharp contrast with the polyglot tradition in sociology, where “tourism research seems to be dominated by monoglot Anglophones who are either unwilling or unable to learn another language, and hence are blissfully unaware of what is taking place elsewhere in the world” (Dann, 2005, 2011, p. 15). Thus, despite the probably irreversible move toward English as lingua franca, in terms of internationalization there are many elements that challenge the academic production and circulation system of regional/linguistic European geographies of tourism. First, as highlighted by Mariotti in Chapter 7, there is a need for scientific debate based on rigorous peer-review systems, but also a need to preserve the specificity of each language expression: its syntactic complexity as well as the analytical research approach. Second, although publications written in the English language in well-established scientific journals are growing, there is a significant number of articles, books, and doctoral theses in all the other European languages that support a wide-ranging network of academic literature references. This literature also relates to the cultural, academic, and scientific identity of each country/region/linguistic domain that clearly needs to be taken into account. Finally, there is a full range of academic journals in languages other than English such as Zeitschrift fu¨r Tourismuswissenschaft in German or Cuadernos de Turismo in Spanish, to cite only two, that contain remarkable academic contributions in terms of theoretical research and methodologies, that even if they were listed in the citation ranking reports would only gain a secondary position. This is not because of their relative recognition in their regional/linguistic domain, but because they were not written in English and as such, will not be understood by international Anglophone audiences. For this reason, several contributions in this book underline the linguistic debate that surrounds the need for the internationalization of traditional non-English speaking scientific journals. Solutions proposed range from the adoption of the English language (in the case of the Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism) to the creation of the exemplary multilingual, international, and multidisciplinary open access journal Via@ in France with the support of 13 universities from nine different countries. In this case, researchers can write in their native language with the possibility of having it read in three languages, since the articles are translated systematically into two other languages. In this case, the journal offers the reader a web portal in seven languages to facilitate dissemination. Other examples

194

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

are the publication since 1999 of a version in Spanish of the Annals of Tourism Research, as well as the Pasos, which publishes articles in various languages online journal. Further, there is the possibility of including multilingual abstracts, as is the case with the journal Tourism Geographies.

INTERNATIONALIZATION CHALLENGES Dann and Liebman Parrinello’s final words in their 2009 volume in this very same Emerald Tourism and Social Science Series refer to the difficult task of putting together diverse contributions when tracing the European origins and developments of the sociology of tourism. Some of their thoughts coincide entirely with those of the editors of the present volume on regional European geographies of tourism, in particular the numerous and lengthy exchanges of dialog among editor, publisher, and contributors; the several revisions needed for each individual chapter; and the same long period (three years) needed to achieve the proposed goals. Interestingly, exactly the same as in their case, the majority of the contributors do not have English as their mother tongue. Many concluding ideas have already been outlined, but the initial pages of the introductory chapter still need to be highlighted. In particular, interpretation of the diversity of the tourism geography academic landscape as a strengthening element, the challenge of creating a multilingual network of connected circuits of research dissemination in bridging different academic traditions, and the opportunity to advance toward the development of a cross-fertile tourism geographies environment. These are major challenges. It must be emphasized that this volume is confined to European traditions in the geographies of tourism, but its overall message represents a challenging point of view that could be adopted in other geographical areas (and language contexts) of the world.

The Preservation of a Diverse Academic Landscape Scherle and Hopfinger state (Chapter 5) that the transnationalization of academic landscapes is both an opportunity and a problem. This volume’s contributions highlight a considerable and healthy flow/circulation of ideas underpinning European research on geographies of tourism that could certainly gain more recognition if introduced into a reconfigured network of circuits of knowledge. Arguably, these are not exactly the same circuits

Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe

195

between regional/linguistic academic traditions (they would never be identical in any case), but this is a cultural and not a language issue. It relates to the translation and transcription of ideas according to a series of cultural norms, historical, and geographical contexts and the places’ (and individuals’) experiences with the tourism phenomenon itself. Herein lies the problem: transnationalization implies the translation and interpretation of ideas, concepts, theories, and approaches with the aim of communicating them with the goal of also preserving the identity of each academic landscape. In this vein, in addition to noting how geographers from European regional/linguistic traditional adopt (sometimes uncritically) key concepts developed and discussed extensively within the dominant Anglo-American tradition (the “cultural turn,” the new mobilities paradigm, the “critical turn,” power debates), tourism geography as a whole should benefit from debates launched from and/or enriched within other academic traditions. In fact, it is only with a multicultural and multidisciplinary approach that French epistemological debates linked to the consideration of tourism as a scientific field could be explored (Jansen-Verbeke, 2008). Parallel to this, the recognition of the earth in tourism theory as discussed within the Nordic area tradition is a geophilosophical standpoint that is especially relevant for tourism geography as a whole when looking at some of the key current topics, such as global environmental change, climate change, sustainability or governance, or carbon footprint/low-carbon societies. It is due to the specificity and uniqueness of each academic landscape that scientific questions and hypothesis can appear. It may be due to opportunities given by transnationalization that geographers from different traditions could enrich and evolve their own academic landscapes. For instance, this may represent a solution for the critical problem stated by Scherle and Hopfinger in Chapter 5 about the difficulty for Germanspeaking tourism geographers to present an updated consistent, sound, and theoretically viable concept of “sustainability” or “sustainable tourism” that could follow the tradition initiated by the provocative publications by Krippendorf’s team in Switzerland (Krippendorf, 1975; Krippendorf et al., 1988).

Internationalizing the Dissemination of Scientific Production The linguistic dimension has been considered as a key issue in this volume, and it may be true that probably the language divides hardly play a role

196

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

in the European competitive academic arena and are far greater than the cultural divides. Nevertheless, the question is not exactly based on the language (Hall, chapter 2 of this volume), insofar as the predominant Anglo-American research itself is truly international in terms of cases, theory building, and nationality/first language of the authors, and it also displays evidence of intercultural working. This can be extended to many English-speaking scholars conducting research (and particularly field work) internationally and in other languages/cultural contexts (using or not translators and interpreters out in the field, see for example Veeck, 2002 and Watson, 2004 in the context of geography field work). As such, the question centers on adoption and legitimation of mainstream ideas, theories, approaches, and topics through the dominant Anglo-American, Englishlanguage journals. This linguistic issue invites consideration of the notion that English can threaten the explicit and rich differences between academic traditions. As Hall also maintains in his contribution, this question cannot be understood without recognizing that the occupation of academic space by English-language journals and publishers is also a result of the present-day practices of academic capitalism and entrepreneurial universities, of which scholars are a part. Nevertheless, as the present volume illustrates, in situations such as the Nordic case, the English language should be transformed into an opportunity even for those non-Anglo-American tourism geographers, as long as it is treated with multicultural and multilingual sensitivity. In parallel to the problem of whether non-English speakers are able to communicate research outputs in English is that whether native English speakers are able to understand not only other languages but also other academic traditions and cultural contexts (Crane, Lombard, & Tenz, 2009; Smith, 1996; Squires, 2010; Temple & Young, 2004; Twyman, Morrision, & Sporton, 1999). Indeed, Crane et al. (2009) affirm that with research in multilingual and intercultural settings becoming more and more common, the issue of translation (and the role of researcher’s reflexivity therein) is attracting increased attention in the social sciences. In all probability, the increasing number of international doctoral students writing in English while researching in other cultural contexts and languages will help, but even more probable as a key challenge to address is how to get beyond the identified weaknesses associated with the Anglo-American dominant journals. This is not only in terms of linguistic barriers, but also in terms of limits to the comprehension of each regional/linguistic academic landscape (Crane et al., 2009; Smith, 1996). Some solutions can be multilingual, such as extended abstracts and indexing, multilingual journals, referees’ sensitivity, open access publishing, Web 2.0 and 3.0, multilingual blogs, networking

Conclusion: Contrasting Geographies of Tourism in Europe

197

(such as academia.edu), Internet-based free translation tools, and Listservs with digests in other languages. In any case, mutual understanding among different academic traditions can only be possible when researchers (whether coming from the dominant tradition or not) have the chance to personally “experience” a different academic landscape. In this vein, when discussing 59 well-recognized geographers “22 of them had multiple institutional affiliations in different countries with several having visiting positions in non-Englishspeaking countries simultaneously with their permanent positions” (Hall, 2013, p. 9). This presents an opportunity for the creation of transnational networks based both on academic affinities and in personal lifestyle reasons for mobility that should have an impact in the future evolution of the field. Additionally, the creation of multinational research teams, Europeanfunded research programs, cross-national publishing partnerships (including mentoring schemes), international doctoral workshops, research groups in international associations such as the International Geographical Union and the Association of Tourism and Leisure Education, as well as bilateral events focusing on partnerships between national research groupings are also important in this sense. There is an evident risk in this respect, insofar as the expense of simultaneous translation at international conferences can more than double the operating cost of an event and, in the current challenging economic climate, significant savings can be made by not offering simultaneous translation services. The problem is that this can have the potential consequence of reducing the participation of international scholars, but also of boosting the profile of the host language at an international level. This is turn can create difficulties for the international dissemination of ideas, theories, and approaches that lie at the core of a mutual understanding among different traditions. In the end, this is crucial not only to ensure, in a highly globalized world, the free exchange of ideas, concepts, and theories, breaking the potential isolation of some tourism geography scholars from non-dominant traditions of their peers elsewhere, but also to introduce high-quality, seminal and inspiring research (originally published in languages other than English) to the entire world. In this vein, the highly illustrative comment of Tim Coles as guest editor of Tourism Geographies for the occasion of the symposium “Tourism and Leisure Research in the New Millennium: Progress from the German and English Speaking World” is relevant. He discussed this language issue by aligning it to the relative accessibility in English of the work of Christaller and Krippendorf: “As an acute manifestation of this […] sadly many readers of this journal [Tourism Geographies]

198

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

may not be able to identify, and hence benefit from, many of the seminal and insightful German-language contributions on tourism and leisure” (Coles, 2004, p. 136). Creating the Opportunity for a Cross-fertilization Environment The question is whether tourism geographers, constituting relatively small groups in each region/linguistic domain (including the Anglo-American domain), will face the common challenge of creating a joint cross-fertilization (or seedbed) environment, in a landscape of increasing academic competition, limited financial resources in universities, fragmentation of research institutions, and relative lack of recognition. Gutie´rrez and Lo´pez Nieva were perhaps radical when considering the potential role of journals in achieving this challenge in the case of human geography as a whole. They conclude their study on the internationalization of the English-language international journals stating that “that human geography is still fragmented into national or linguistic communities” and indicate the path may lie in asking “international” journals to start to manage their production “to unite the international community of geographers into a truly global forum” (2001, p. 67). In the case of tourism geography, the particular inherent global, international, multilocal, and mobile nature of the study domain may help: transport and travel firms, tour operators, and destination and hospitality managers might be ready to acquire knowledge from truly internationally recognized teams that are global and multibased in terms of scope and experience. In this sense, albeit often accompanied by criticism, universities in several of the geographical domains explored in this volume have started to offer internationally recognized tourism, travel, and transportation programs in English. Convergence through partnership in European and global projects are also a way forward, as is aiming for a sensitivity within Anglo-American circuits of knowledge to the interests and cultural uniqueness of regional linguistic traditions, multilingual, and multicultural joint approaches and networking. A wise use of English as a meeting ground for a common academic debate is also necessary, rather than solely as a linguistic option in publishing, perhaps representing a salient response to divergence in interests and expertise. This should present an opportunity for redesigning an interconnected, Europe-wide (and global) body of tourism research in geography that is truly respectful of the identity of each country, region, and linguistic domain.

References

Adamo, F. (2000). Towards sustainable tourism in Italy. In Geo-Italy 4: Geographies of diversity, Italian perspectives (pp. 323 337). Roma: CNR: Italian Committee for International Geographical Union and Societa` Geografica Italiana. Adamo, F. (2004a). Valori culturali, sviluppo e pianificazione territoriale. In V. Ruggiero (Ed.), Centri storici e identita` locale nella progettazione dello sviluppo sostenibile di sistemi del turismo. Roma: CNR. Adamo, F. (2004b). Culture, tourist destinations development and planning. In K. Smith & K. Schott (Eds.), Proceedings of New Zealand tourism and hospitality research conference, Wellington. Adamo, F. (2004c). Approdi turistici. In Atlante Nazionale dei Tipi Geografici. Firenze: IGM. Adamo, F. (Ed.). (2006). Competitivita` e sostenibilita`. Tipi di turismo, strategie d’impresa e politiche del territorio. Bologna: Pa`tron. Adey, P. (2010). Mobility. London: Routledge. Afferni, R., Ferrario, C., & Mangano, S. (2011). A place of emotions: The sacred mount of Varallo. Tourism, 3(59), 369 686. Agapitidis, S. (1950). The Marshall plan and the Greek programme for economic development. Athens: Higher School of Industrial Studies Publications. (English translation of title in Greek). Agnew, J., Livingstone, D., & Rogers, A. (Eds.). (1996). Human geography: An essential anthology. Malden: Blackwell. Aitchison, C. (1999). New cultural geographies: The spatiality of leisure, gender and sexuality. Leisure Studies, 18, 19 39. Aitchison, C. (2006). The critical and the cultural: Explaining the divergent paths of leisure studies and tourism studies. Leisure Studies, 25, 417 422.

200

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

A˚kerlund, U., & Muller, D. (2012). Implementing tourism events: The discourses of Umea˚’s bid for European capital of culture 2014. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 12, 164 180. Amersdorffer, D., Bauhuber, F., & Oellrich, J. (2010). Das Social Web: Internet, Gesellschaft, Tourismus, Zukunft. In D. Amersdorffer, F. Bauhuber, R. Egger, & J. Oellrich (Eds.), Social Web im Tourismus: Strategien Konzepte Einsatzfelder (pp. 3 16). Heidelberg: Springer. Andreaotti, G. (1999). A la recherche d’un tourisme perdu: psychologie du paysage et tourisme culturel. Geographie et Cultures, 29, 103 120. Andriotis, K. (2003). Alternative tourism and its differentiating features. Topos, 20 21. (English translation of title in Greek). Andriotis, K. (2005). Tourism development and planning. Athens: Stamoulis. (English translation of title in Greek). Angelidis, M. (1995). The spatial planning in Greece: Problems of development, spatial planning and environment. Technical Chronicles, 5, 63 68. (English translation of title in Greek). Anton Clave´, S. (1996). El parque tema´tico Port Aventura.Estrategia de producto para la reestructuracio´n de nu´cleos turı´ sticos consolidados en Catalun˜a. Estudios Turı´sticos, 130, 7 36. Anton Clave´, S. (1998). La urbanizacio´n turı´ stica. De la conquista del viaje a la reestructuracio´n de la ciudad turı´ stica. Documents d’Ana`lisi Geogra`fica, 32, 17 43. Anton Clave´, S., & Duro, J. (2010). Innovacio´n turı´ stica en Espan˜a: Retos de la polı´ tica turı´ stica, gobernanza de los destinos y desarrollo de sistemas territoriales de innovacio´n. Estudios Turı´sticos, 185, 7 322. Anton Clave´, S., & Gonza´lez Reverte´, F. (Eds.). (2007). A propo´sito del turismo: La construccio´n social del espacio turı´stico. Barcelona: UOC. Anton Clave´, S., Lo´pez Palomeque, F., Marchena, M., & Vera Rebollo, J. (1996a). Tourism research in Spain: The contribution of geography (1960 1995). Tourism Review, 1, 46 64. Anton Clave´, S., Lo´pez Palomeque, F., Marchena, M., & Vera Rebollo, J. (1996b). La investigacio´n turı´ stica en Espan˜a: aportaciones de la Geografı´ a (1960 1995). Estudios Turı´sticos, 129, 165 207.

References

201

Apostolopoulos, K., & Sdrali, D. (2009). Alternative tourism and rural tourism: Theoretical approach and applications. Athens: Ellinoekdotiki. (English translation of title in Greek). Aronsson, L. (1989). Turism och lokal utveckling: En turism-geografisk studie. Meddelanden Fra˚n Go¨teborgs Universitets Geografiska Institutioner Serie B, 79, 1 323. Aronsson, L. (1994). Sustainable tourism systems: The example of sustainable rural tourism in Sweden. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(1/2), 77 92. Aronsson, L. (2000). The development of sustainable tourism. London: Continuum. Ash, M. (2006). Bachelor of what, master of whom? The Humboldt myth and historical transformations of higher education in German-speaking Europe and the US. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 245 267. Ashworth, G. (1989). Urban tourism: An imbalance in attention. Progress in Tourism. Recreation and Hospitality Management, 1, 33 55. Ashworth, G., & Dietvorst, A. (Eds.). (1995). Tourism and spatial transformations: Implications for policy and planning. Wallingford: CAB International. Auge´, M. (1995). Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London: Verso. Bacˇvarov, M. (1984). The geography of tourism and recreation in Bulgaria. GeoJournal, 9, 71 73. Bærenholdt, J., & Grana˚s, B. (2008). Places and mobilities beyond the periphery. In J. Bærenholdt & B. Grana˚s (Eds.), Mobility and place (pp. 1 10). Aldershot: Ashgate. Bærenholdt, J., & Haldrup, H. (2006). Mobile networks and place making in cultural tourism: Staging Viking ships and rock music in Roskilde. European Urban and Regional Studies, 13(3), 209 224. Bærenholdt, J., Haldrup, H., Larsen, L., & Urry, J. (2004). Performing tourist places. Aldershot: Ashgate. Ba¨tzing, W. (1996). Tourismus und nachhaltige Regionalentwicklung im Alpenraum. Geographische Rundschau, 48(3), 145 151. Bagnoli, L. (2010). Manuale di geografia del turismo. Dal Grand Tour ai Sistemi Turistici. Milano: UTET.

202

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Bao, J. (2002). Tourism geography as the subject of doctoral dissertations in China, 1989 2000. Tourism Geographies, 4, 148 152. Bao, J. (2009). From idealism to realism to rational idealism: Reflection on 30 years of development in tourism geography in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 64, 1184 1192. Bao, J., & Ma, L. (2011). Tourism geography in China, 1978 2008: Whence, what and whither? Progress in Human Geography, 35, 3 20. Barbier, B., & Pearce, D. (1984). The geography of tourism in France: Definition, scope and themes. GeoJournal, 9, 47 53. Barke, M., Towner, J., & Newton, M. (Eds.). (1996). Tourism in Spain, Critical Issues. Wallingford: CAB International. Barnett, C. (1998). The cultural turn: Fashion or progress in human geography? Antipode, 30, 379 394. Barrado, D., & Calabuig, J. (Eds.). (2001). Geografı´a mundial del turismo. Madrid: Sı´ ntesis. Bartaletti, F. (2001). Tourismus in den italienischen alpen. Geographische Rundschau, 53(4), 48 53. Bartha, I. (2003). Ethnotourismus in Marokko: Die Inszenierung der Berberkultur. Geographische Rundschau, 55(3), 34 38. Bauhuber, F., & Scherle, H. (2009). Konferenz 2.0—Das Tourismuscamp in Eichsta¨tt. Zeitschrift fu¨r Tourismuswissenschaft, 2(1), 204 206. Baylina, M., & Berg, N. (2010). Selling the countryside: Representations of rurality in Norway and Spain. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(3), 277 292. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage. Beck, U. (2005). Was zur Wahl steht. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage. Becker, C., Job, H., & Witzel, A. (1996). Tourismus und nachhaltige Entwicklung: Grundlagen und praktische Ansa¨tze fu¨r den mitteleuropa¨ischen Raum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

References

203

Beckers, T. (1983). Planning voor vrijheid: Een historisch-sociologische studie van de overheidsinterventie in rekreatie en vrije tijd. Ph. D. thesis, Gebieden van de Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen. Benthien, B. (1984). Recreational geography in the German democratic republic. GeoJournal, 9, 59 63. Benthien, B. (1997). Geographie der Erholung und des Tourismus. Gotha: Perthes. Bianchi, R. (2009). The ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies: A radical critique. Tourism Geographies, 11, 484 504. Blotevogel, H. (2003). Neue Kulturgeographie. Entwicklung, Dimensionen, Potenziale und Risiken einer kulturalistischen Humangeographie. Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde, 77(1), 7 34. Bohlin, M. (1982). Fritidsboende i den regionala ekonomin. Uppsala: Kulturgeografiska Institutionen. Borchert, J., & Buursink, J. (Eds.). (1987). Citymarketing en Geografie. Amsterdam: Nederlandse Geografische Studies 43, Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap (KNAG)/ Utrecht Geografisch Instituut. Borg, P., & Ratilainen, T. (1974). Kansallispuistojen ka¨yto¨n kanavointi: Kaksi erilaista ratkaisua. Terra, 86(4), 161 168. Brecht, B. (2008). The good person of Szechwan. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Britton, R. (1978). The geography of tourism: A critical view. Transition, Quarterly Journal of the Socially and Ecologically Responsible Geographers, 8(2), 1 5. Britton, R. (1979). Some notes on the geography of tourism. Canadian Geographer, 23(3), 276 282. Britton, R. (1980). The evolution of a colonial space economy. Journal of Historical Geography, 6(3), 251 274. Britton, R. (1982). The political economy of tourism in the third world. Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 331 358. Britton, R. (1983). Book review: Pearce, D. G. 1981: Tourist development. Topics in applied geography. Progress in Human Geography, 7, 618 621.

204

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Britton, R. (1991). Tourism, capital, and place: Towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9, 451 478. Brouder, P., & Lundmark, L. (2011). Climate change in Northern Sweden: Intra-regional perceptions of vulnerability among winter-oriented tourism businesses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(8), 919 933. Brusa, C. (1979). Evoluzione di un’immagine geografica. Il Varesotto turistico secondo i Baedeker, le guide del Touring e alcune fonti locali. Torino: Giappichelli. Bryon, J., & Russo, A. (2003). The tourist historic city. Annals of Tourism Research, 30, 492 494. Buch, F., & Schmitt, T. (2005). Die neuen Studienga¨nge und der Arbeitsmarkt. U¨berlegungen zur Einfu¨hrung der konsekutiven Studienstruktur in den Geisteswissenschaften. Retrieved from http://www.zeitenblicke.de/2005/1/buch/Buch.pdf. Accessed on January 30, 2012. Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5 12. Butler, R. (2004). Geographical research on tourism, recreation and leisure: Origins, eras and directions. Tourism Geographies, 6, 143 162. Butler, R. (2012). Tourism geographies or geographies of tourism: Where the bloody hell are we? In J. Wilson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of tourism geographies (pp. 26 34). London: Routledge. Butler, R., & Pearce, D. (Eds.). (2010). Tourism research: A vision 20/20. Oxford: Goodwill Publishers. Calabuig, J., & Ministral, M. (1994). Manual de geografı´a turı´stica de Espan˜a. Madrid: Sı´ ntesis. C¸alıskan, K., & Callon, M. (2009). Economization, part 1: Shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization. Economy and Society, 38, 369 398. Callizo, J. (1991). Aproximacio´n a la Geografı´a del Turismo. Madrid: Sı´ ntesis. Callon, M. (1998). Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. In M. Callon (Ed.), The laws of the markets (pp. 1 57). Oxford: Blackwell. Campbell, C. (1967). An approach to research in recreational geography. In J. Minghi (Ed.), The geographer and the public envirnoment (pp. 85 90). B. C. Geographical Series, No.7 Occasional Papers in Geography. Vancouver: Tantalus.

References

205

Candela, G., & Figini, P. (2009). Tourism economics: A discipline of economics. AlmaTourism: Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development, 0, 8 19. Ca`noves, G., Villarino, M., Priestley, G., & Blanco, A. (1996). Rural tourism in Spain: An analysis of recent evolution. Geoforum, 35, 755 769. Capot-Rey, M. (1947). Ge´ographie de la circulation sur les continents. Paris, Coll. Ge´ographie Humaine 20, NRF Gallimard. Geography of traffic on the continents: Gallimard. Carlson, A. (1980). Geographical research on international and domestic tourism. Journal of Cultural Geography, 1, 149 160. Carroll, J., & Bevis, H. (1957). Predicting local travel in urban regions. Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 3, 410 419. Castaldi, F., & Cardi, F. (1957). L’indice di valorizzazione turistica del tratto di costiera GaetaSperlonga. Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Navale di Napoli, pp. 135 151, Naples. Castillo, M., Tomillo, F., & Garcı´ a Go´mez, F. (2010). Principales tendencias de la investigacio´n turı´stica en Espan˜a y Europa. Madrid: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad Europea Miguel de Cervantes. Castree, N., Rogers, A., & Sherman, D. (Eds.). (2005). Questioning geography: Fundamental debates: Essays on a contested discipline. Malden: Blackwell. Cazes, G. (1989/1992). Les nouvelles colonies de vacances? Paris, l’Harmattan, 2 volumes. Cazes, G. (2001). A propos de tourismologie, la science par autoproclamation? Espaces, 178, 16 19. Celata, F., & Sanna, V. (2012). The post-political ecology of protected areas: Nature, social justice and political conflicts in the Gala´pagos Islands. Local Environment, 17(9), 977 990. Cencini, C. (1981). Rimini. Turismo e urbanizzazione. In Conoscere l’Italia (EmiliaRomagna) (pp. 610 615). Novara: Ist. Geogr. de Agostini. Cencini, C. (1996). Il Delta meridionale, evoluzione di un territorio tra urbanizzazione e Parco naturale. In C. Cencini (Ed.), Emilia Romagna, una regione di transizione (pp. 55 100). Bologna: Pa`tron.

206

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Cencini, C. (1998). Il turismo in Antartide, una prospettiva di sviluppo sostenibile. In P. Ghelardoni (Ed.), Studi in onore di Mario Pinna (Vol. II, pp. 351 361). Roma: Memoria della Societa` Geografica Italiana. Cencini, C. (2005). Modelli spaziali e prospettive del turismo in Namibia. In Categorie geografiche e problematiche di organizzazione territoriale. Scritti in onore di Ricciarda Simoncelli (pp. 91 110). Bologna: Pa`tron. Cencini, C. (2007). Chasse au trophe´e en Afrique noire: Crime e´cologique ou tourisme durable? Cas d’e´tude du Zambie et Zimbabwe. In L. Faldini (Ed.), Tourisme et durabilite´ en Afrique (pp. 229 242). Roma: CISU. Cencini, C. (2009). Ecoturismo in Gabon. Una sfida per la conservazione delle foreste in Africa Centrale. In F. Bianchini, C. Cipollari, E. Magnani, & C. Notarangelo (Eds.), Esperienze nel continente africano. Il turismo come strumento di sviluppo locale sostenibile (pp. 143 156). Roma: CISU. Cencini, C. (2012). Antarctica l’ultima frontiera del turismo. Bologna: Bologna University Press. Cencini, C., Marchi, M., Torresani, S., & Varani, L. (1988). The impact of tourism on Italian deltaic coastlands: Four case studies. Ocean and Shoreline Management, 11, 353 374. Cencini, C., & Varani, L. (1979). Per una carta dei “carichi” turistici sugli arenili: esperienze di ricerca nelle spiagge di Romagna. Atti Convegno Cartografia Tematica Regionale, pp. 417 423. Rome. Central Bank of Greece (1967). The financing of tourism. Athens: Institute of the Bank of Greece. (English translation of title in Greek). Chabot, G. (1957). L’e´vasion urbaine. La vie Urbaine, 108 116. Champion, T., Monnesland, J., & Vandermotten, C. (1996). The new regional map of Europe. Progress in Planning, 46(1), 1 89. Che, D. (2009). Teaching tourism geography. Tourism Geographies, 11, 120 123. Che, D. (2010). Publishing tourism geography research. Tourism Geographies, 12, 324 328. Chivallon, C. (2003). Une vision de la ge´ographie sociale et culturelle en France. Annales de ge´ographie, 112, 646 657.

References

207

Christaller, W. (1955). Beitra¨ge zu einer Geographie des Fremdenverkehrs. Erdkunde, 9(1), 1 19. Christaller, W. (1963). Some considerations of tourism locations in Europe: The peripheral regions—under-developed countries—recreation areas. Papers in Regional Science, 12(1), 95 105. Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organisational pathways of transformation. New York, NY: Elsevier. Clary, D. (1977). La fac¸ade littorale de Paris. Paris: Ophrys. The coastal frontage of Paris. Cloke, P., & Johnston, R. (2005). Spaces of geographical thought: Deconstructing human geography’s binaries. London: Sage. Coccossis, H. (1995). Tourism and sustainable development. Current Issues, 55, 21 27. (English translation of title in Greek). Coccossis, H., & Constantoglou, M. (2008). The use of typologies in tourism planning: Problems and conflicts. In H. Coccossis & Y. Psycharis (Eds.), Regional analysis and policy: The Greek experience. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag (Springer). Coccosis, H., Kyratsoylis, I., & Mexa, A. (2000). Tourism and the environment. Mytilini: Laboratory of Environmental Planning, University of the Aegean. (English translation of title in Greek). Coccossis, H., & Mexa, A. (1997). Tourism and environment: In search of a balance. In Sustainable development and education. Athens: Prefecture of Aetoloakarnania and Ministry of Environment, Public Works and Planning. (English translation of title in Greek). Coccossis, H., & Psycharis, Y. (Eds.) (2008). Regional analysis and policy: The Greek experience. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag (Springer). Coccosis, H., & Tsartas, P. (2001). Sustainable tourism development and environment. Athens: Kritiki. (English translation of title in Greek). Coccosis, H., Tsartas, P., & Grimpa, E. (2011). Special interest tourism: Demand and supply of new tourism products. Athens: Kritiki. (English translation of title in Greek). Coles, T. (2004). Tourism and leisure: Reading geographies, producing knowledges, Tourism Geographies 6(2), 135 142.

208

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Coles, T. (2009). Tourism studies and the governance of higher education in the United Kingdom. Tourism Geographies, 11, 23 42. Coles, T., & Hall, C. (2006). Editorial: The geography of tourism is dead. Long live geographies of tourism and mobility. Current Issues in Tourism, 9, 289 292. Coles, T., Hall, C., & Duval, T. (2005). Mobilizing tourism: A post-disciplinary critique. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2), 31 41. Coles, T., Hall, C., & Duval, T. (2006). Tourism and post-disciplinary enquiry. Current Issues in Tourism, 9, 293 319. Cooper, C. (1981). Spatial and temporal patterns of tourist behaviour. Regional Studies, 15(5), 359 371. Cooper, C. (2012). Contemporary tourism education: Notes from the frontline. In T. Singh (Ed.), Critical debates in tourism (pp. 200 208). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Coppock, J. (1977). Second homes: Curse or blessing? Oxford: Pergamon. Coppock, J. (1980). The geography of leisure and recreation. In E. Brown (Ed.), Geography yesterday and tomorrow (pp. 263 279). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Corna Pellegrini, G. (1967). La geografia del tempo libero. Annali di Ricerca e Studi Geografici, 2, 33 42. Corna Pellegrini, G. (1968). I Lidi Ferraresi. In Studi e ricerche sulla regione turistica. I Lidi Ferraresi (pp. 35 131). Pubblicazioni dell’Universita` Cattolica del S. Cuore, Saggi e Ricerche, III, Scienze Geografiche, 2, Milano. Corna Pellegrini, G. (Ed.). (1996 1997). Turismo come cultura dell’incontro. Annali Italiani del Turismo Internazionale, 2, 1 10. Corna Pellegrini, G. (2000). Turisti viaggiatori: Per una geografia del turismo sostenibile. Milano: Tramontana. Corna Pellegrini, G. (2008). Geografia delle meraviglie: Identita` e fruizione dei beni culturali e naturali. Milano: CUEM. Corna Pellegrini, G. (2009). Geography and tourism. AlmaTourism: Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development, 2(4), 1 7.

References

209

Corna Pellegrini, G., & Saibene, C. (1973). La regione turı´ stica. In G. Corna Pellegrini (Ed.), La ricerca geografica urbana (pp. 191 222). Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Crane, L., Lombard, M., & Tenz, E. (2009). More than just translation: challenges and opportunities in translingual reserach. Social Geography, 4(1), 39 46. Crang, M. (1997a). Picturing practices: Research through the tourist gaze. Progress in Human Geography, 21, 359 373. Crang, M. (1997b). Cultural turns and the (re)constitution of economic geography: Introduction to Section One. In R. Lee & J. Wills (Eds.), Geographies of economies (pp. 3 15). London: Arnold. Crang, M., & Thrift, N. (Eds.). (2000). Thinking space. London: Routledge. Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern western world. New York, NY: Routledge. Cronbach, L. (1957). Educational psychology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Dagnies, J., & Schoon, J. (2011). Gouverner le tourisme en Wallonie: entre rupture et incre´mentalism. In S. Pradella (Dir.), Rescaling Belgian state. Dallari, F. (1982). La neve ed il turismo invernale nell’Appennino settentrionale. In C. Brusa (Ed.), Riflessioni geografiche sull’Emilia-Romagna (pp. 207 213). Milano: Unicopli. Dallari, F. (1984). L’emprise du tourisme dans l’ıˆ le d’Elba. In L. Pedrini & C. Ciaccio (Eds.), Le tourisme dans les petites ıˆles (pp. 102 113). Messina: Colloque de la Commision UGI de la Ge´ographie du tourisme et des loisirs. Dallari, F. (1989). L’agriturismo nell’alta valle dell’Adige. Rassegna di studi turistici, 24 (3/4), 155 181. Dallari, F. (1992). Alcune riflessioni sul turismo e la geografia. In I. Tomo & C. Cerreti (Eds.), Genova, Colombo, il mare e l’emigrazione italiana nelle Americhe, Atti XXVI Congresso Nazionale di Geografia (pp. 262 266). Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Treccani. Dallari, F. (2004). Sviluppo e ricomposizione territoriale: sistemi locali e turismo. In A. Savelli (Ed.), Turismo, territorio, identita`. Ricerche ed esperienze nell’area mediterra´nea (pp. 285 306). Milano: Franco Angeli.

210

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Dallari, F. (2007a). Distretti turistici tra sviluppo locale e cooperazione interregionale. In F. Bencardino & M. Prezioso (Eds.), Geografia del turismo (pp. 195 215). Milano: McGraw-Hill. Dallari, F. (2007b). Turismo tra sostenibilita` ed Etica In Geografia, societa`, politica, La ricerca in geografia come impegno sociale (pp. 125 142). Milano: Franco Angeli. Dallari, F., & Mariotti, A. (Eds.). (2006). Turismo: Tra sviluppo locale e cooperazione interregionale. Bologna: Pa`tron. Dallari, F., & Grandi, S. (Eds.). (2005). Economia e Geografia del Turismo: L’occasione dei GIS. Bologna: Pa`tron. Dallari, F., Sala, A., & Grandi, S. (Eds.). (2008). Turismo e Turismi tra politica e innovazione. Bologna: Pa`tron. Dann, G. (2005). The theoretical state-of-the-art in the sociology and athropology of tourism. Tourism Analysis, 10, 1 13. Dann, G. (2011). Anglophone hegemony in tourism studies today. Enlightening tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, 1, 1 30. Dann, G., & Liebman Parrinello, G. (Eds.). (2009). The sociology of tourism: European origins and developments. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Daugstad, K. (2008). Negotiating landscape in rural tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 402 426. De Blij, H. (2005). Why geography matters: Three challenges facing America: Climate change, the rise of China, and global terrorism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. De Brabander, G. (1992). Toerisme en Economie. Leuven: Garant. De Kadt, E. (Ed.). (1979). Tourism—Passport to development? New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Debbage, K., & Ioannides, D. (2005). The cultural turn? Toward a more critical economic geography of tourism. In A. Lew, C. Hall, & A. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 99 109). Malden: Blackwell. Decroly, J., Duquesne, A., Delbaere, R., & Diekmann, A. (Eds.). (2006). Tourisme et socie´te´: autour de la vision du tourisme de A. Haulot. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Universite´ de Bruxelles.

References

211

Decrop, A. (2006). Vacation decision making. Wallingford: CAB International. Decrop, A. (2010). Le touriste consommateur: Comprendre les comportements pour ame´liorer son efficacite´ marketing. Brussels: De Boeck. Deem, R. (1998). New managerialism in higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities. International Studies in the Sociology of Education, 8, 47 70. Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37, 7 20. Delgado, C., Plaza, J., Hortelano, L., & Gil de Arriba, C. (2003). Turismo y desarrollo local en algunas comarcas de la montan˜a canta´brica. Cuadernos de Turismo, 12, 7 34. dell’Agnese, E. (1997[1996]). Ricerche geografiche e antropologiche nel turismo come cultura dell’incontro. Annali Italiani del Turismo internazionale, 2, 147 160. dell’Agnese, E., & Bagnoli, L. (2004). Mode e modi del turismo in Liguria. Milano: Cuem. dell’Agnese, E., & Ruspini, E. (Eds.). (2005). Turismo al maschile, turismo al femminile. Padova: Cedam. Della Valle, C. (1964). Geografia del turismo. Memorie della Societa` Geografica Italiana, 26, 413 422. Dı´ az Alvarez, J. (1988). Geografı´a de Turismo. Madrid: Sı´ ntesis. Diekmann, A., & Bauthier, I. (2011). Tourisme Social en Wallonie. Re´alite´s et Perspectives. Rapport pour le CGT. Bruxelles: IGEAT-ULB. Diekmann, A., & McCabe, S. (2011). Systems of social tourism in the European Union: A critical review. Current Issues in Tourism, 14, 417 430. Dietvorst, A. (1995). Tourist behaviour and the importance of time-space analysis. In G. Ashworth & A. Dietvorst (Eds.), Tourism and spatial transformations: Implications for policy and planning (pp. 163 181). Wallingford: CAB Interntional. Domı´ nguez, J. (2012). The scientific and social challenges posed by foreign immigration in Spain. In New trends in the XXI century Spanish geography. Spanish contribution to IGU 32nd Congress Cologne 2012, Madrid (pp. 329 347).

212

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Dornan, D., & Truly, D. (2009). Tourism geography education: Opportunities, obstacles and the production of tourism geographers. Tourism Geographies, 11, 73 94. Dritsas, M. (2006). From travelers accounts to travel books and guide books: The formation of a Greek tourism market in the 19th century. Tourismos Journal, 1, 27 52. Duffield, B. (1984). The study of tourism in Britain—A geographical perspective. GeoJournal, 9, 27 35. Equipe MIT (2000). La mise en tourisme des lieux: un outil de diagnostic. Mappemonde, 77(1), 2 6. Equipe MIT (2002). Tourismes 1. Lieux communs. Paris: Belin. Equipe MIT (2005). Tourismes 2. Moments de lieux. Paris: Belin. Equipe MIT (2011). Tourismes 3. Re´volution durable. Paris: Belin. Eriksson, A., & Wiksto¨m, U. (1961). Turismen i Kiruna. Kiruna. ESPON (European Spatial Observation Network) (2006). The role and spatial effects of cultural heritage and identity. Luxemburg: EUROSTAT. Esteban, A. (2000). La investigacio´n turı´ stica en la universidad espan˜ola. Estudios Turı´sticos, 144/145, 155 180. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/ servlet/ejemplar?codigo=148464 Fache´, W. (1996). Europeanisation of leisure and tourism education at the university of Gent. Spectrum Freizeit, 18(2/3), 166 185. Fache´, W. (2000). Conceptualisering en operationalisering van internationalisering van universitair onderwijs. In F. Simon (Ed.), Liber amicorum Karel de Clerck (pp. 267 312). Gent: CSHP. Falenius, H., Gro¨nholm, H., & Lehtonen, L. (1963). Turismen i Hango¨. Meddelanden fra˚n Ekonomisk—Geografiska Institutionen vid Svenska Handelsho¨gskolan Helsingfors, 23, 117 156. Fennell, D. (1999). Ecotourism: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge. Fennell, D. (2006). Tourism ethics. Clevedon: Channel View. Ferna´ndez Gutie´rrez, F., Pumares, P., & Asensio, A. (Eds.). (2002). Turismo y transformaciones urbanas en el siglo XXI. Almerı´ a: Universidad de Almerı´ a.

References

213

Ferna´ndez Tabales, A., Garcı´ a Herna´ndez, M., & Ivars, J. (Eds.). (2010). La investigacio´n de la Geografı´a del Turismo en las comunidades auto´nomas espan˜olas. Orı´genes, desarrollo y perspectivas de una disciplina en el horizonte de la Geografı´a. Madrid: Grupo de Geografı´ a del Turismo, Ocio y Recreacio´n. Ferro, G. (1961). Per una pianificazione paesistica della Riviera Ligure. In Atti del XVIII Congresso Geografico Italiano, Trieste (pp. 262 268). Flogenfeldt, T. (1999). Traveler Geographic origin and market segmentation: The multi trips destination case. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8, 111 118. Flogenfeldt, T. (2004). Second-homes as part of a new rural lifestyle in Norway. In C. Hall & D. Muller (Eds.), Tourism, mobility and second-homes. Between elite landscapes and common ground (pp. 75 86). Clevedon: Channel View. Franklin, A., & Crang, M. (2001). The trouble with tourism and travel theory? Tourist Studies, 1(1), 5 22. Freyer, W., & Pompl, W. (2000). Schlu¨sselkompetenzen fu¨r das internationale Tourismusmanagement. In S. Landgrebe (Ed.), Internationaler Tourismus (pp. 114 130). Mu¨nchen: Oldenbourg. Friedman, T. (2008). Hot, flat and crowded. Why the world needs a green revolution—And how we can renew our global future. London: Penguin. Frimodig, L. (1959). Turism I Bohusla¨n—en ny industry. Meddelanden fra˚n Handelsho¨gskolan i Go¨teborg, Geografiska Institution, No. 58, pp. 1 79, Go¨teborg. Fro¨hlich, G. (2002). Anonyme Kritik. Peer Review auf dem Pru¨fstand der empirisch-theoretischen Wissenschaftsforschung. In E. Pipp (Ed.), Drehscheibe EMitteleuropa: Information: Produzenten, Vermittler, Nutzer. Die gemeinsame Zukunft. Wien: Phoibos. Galani-Moutafi, V. (2002). Research on tourism in Greece and Cyprus—A anthropological approach. Athens: Propompos. (English translation of title in Greek). Garcı´ a, G., Lo´pez, E., Rabassa, N., & Valde´s, L. (2012). La Redintur. Una apuesta desde la universidad para potenciar los estudios de posgrado en turismo en Espan˜a y mejorar la competitividad del sector turı´stico. El primer Forum Redintur. Estudios Turı´sticos, 190/191, 11 19. Garcı´ a, G., Pollard, J., & Rodrı´ guez, R. (2003). The planning and practice of coastal zone management in southern Spain. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(2/3), 204 223.

214

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Garcı´ a Herna´ndez, M., & Calle Vaquero, M. (2004). La investigacio´n geogra´fica espan˜ola en materia de turismo (1997 2004). Anales de Geografı´a, 24, 257 277. Garcı´ a Palomares, J., Michelini, J., & Mı´ nguez, M. (2009). La presencia de la geografı´ a iberoamericana en las revistas cientı´ ficas espan˜olas. Biblio W. Revista Bibliogra´fica de Geografı´a y Ciencias Sociales, 845. Retrieved from http://www.ub.es/geocrit/b3w-845.htm General Secretariat of Tourism (1948). Study for the needs of the Greek tourism economy for the years 1948 1951. Athens: President of the Government. (English translation of title in Greek). George, P. (1952). La ville: le fait urbain a` travers le monde. Paris: PUF. The city: Urban made Worldwide. Giakoumis, H., & Roua, I. (1998). Greece—The journey of the Hellenists 1896 1912. Athens: BastasPlessas Publications. (English translation of title in Greek). 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. Gibson, C., & Klocker, N. (2004). Academic publishing as ‘creative’ industry, and recent discourse of ‘creative economies’. Some critical reflections. Area, 36, 423 434. Gı´ slado´ttir, G. (2006). The impact of tourist trampling on Icelandic andosols. Zeitschrift fu¨r Geomorphologie, 143, 53 70. Go´mez Martı´ n, B. (1999). La relacio´n clima-turismo: Consideraciones ba´sicas a los fundamentos teo´ricos y pra´cticos. Investigaciones Geogra´ficas, 21, 21 34. Go´mez Martı´ n, B. (2005). Weather, climate and tourism: A geographical perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 571 591. Gormsen, E. (1981). The spatio-temporal development of international tourism: Attempt at a centre-periphery model. In La consommation d’Espace par le Tourisme et sa Preservation (pp. 150 170). Aix-en-Provence: C.H.E.T. Gospodini, A. (2001). Urban design, urban space morphology, urban tourism. An emerging

References

215

new paradigm concerning their relationship. European Planning Studies, 7(9), 925 935. Gospodini, A. (2007). Cultural and leisure clusters in Greek cities: Spontaneous formation and laissez-faire development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 2(2), 119 133. Gospodini, A. (2009). The landscapes of cultural and leisure economies in Greek cities. Aeichoros Papers on Planning and Development, 6(1), 10 28. Go¨ssling, S., & Hall, C. (2006a). Conclusion: ‘Wake up—This is serious’. In S. Go¨ssling & C. Hall (Eds.), Tourism and global environmental change: Ecological, economic, social and political interrelationships (pp. 305 320). London: Routledge. Go¨ssling, S., & Hall, C. (Eds.). (2006b). Tourism and global environmental change. London: Routledge. Govers, R., & Go, F. (2009). Tourism destination image formation. In M. Kozak & A. Decrop (Eds.), Handbook of tourist behavior (pp. 35 49). New York, NY: Routledge. Grano, O. (1981). External influence and internal change in the development of geography. In D. Stoddart (Ed.), Geography, ideology and social concern (pp. 17 36). Oxford: Blackwell. Gravari-Barbas, M., & Jacquot, S. (2012). Les ge´ographes et les me´tiers du tourisme. EchoGe´o. Retrieved from http://echogeo.revues.org/13009 Greek Ministry of Environment, Land Planning and Public Works. (1989). Corfu: Special land planning, landscape protection and upgrading tourism research (Vol. 1). Athens. (English translation of title in Greek). Greek Ministry of Environment, Land Planning and Public Works. Gren, M., & Huijbens, E. (2012). Tourism theory and the earth. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 155 170. Grupo TERAP (Ed.). (2011). Espacios y destinos turı´sticos en tiempos de globalizacio´n y crisis. Madrid: Universidad Carlos III. Gu¨nther, A., & Hopfinger, H. (2009). Neue Medien—neues Reisen? Wirtschafts- und kulturwissenschaftliche Perspektiven der eTourismus Forschung. Zeitschrift fu¨r Tourismuswissenschaft, 2(1), 121 150. Gutie´rrez, J., & Lo´pez Nieva, P. (2001). Are international journals in human geography really international? Progress in Human Geography, 25, 53 69.

216

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Ha¨gerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science. Regional Science Association Papers, 24, 7 21. Ha¨gerstrand, T. (1984). Escapes from the cage of routines: Observations of human paths, projects and personal scripts. In J. Long & R. Hecock (Eds.), Leisure, tourism and social change (pp. 7 19). Dunfermline: Dunfermline College of Physical Education. Haldrup, M. (2004). Laid-back mobilities: Second-home holidays in time and space. Tourism Geographies, 6, 434 454. Hall, C. (1999). Voices from the periphery: Recent Australasian writings on tourism and related subjects. Tourism Geographies, 1, 244 250. Hall, C. (2004). Reflexivity and tourism research: Situating myself and/with others. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 137 155). London: Routledge. Hall, C. (2005a). Systems of surveillance and control: Commentary on ‘An analysis of institutional contributors to three major academic tourism journals: 1992 2001’. Tourism Management, 26, 653 656. Hall, C. (2005b). Reconsidering the geography of tourism and contemporary mobility. Geographical Research, 43, 125 139. Hall, C. (2005c). Tourism: Rethinking the social science of mobility. Essex: Pearson. Hall, C. (2010). Academic capitalism, academic responsibility and tourism academics: Or, the silence of the lambs?, Tourism Recreation Research (35, 298 301). Hall, C. (2011a). Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Management, 32, 16 27. Hall, C. (2011b). Spatial analysis: A critical tool for tourism geographies. In J. Wilson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of tourism geographies (pp. 163 173). London: Routledge. Hall, C. (2013). Framing tourism geography: Notes from the underground. Annals of Tourism Research. Retrieved from http://ds.doi.otg/10.1016/j.annals.2013.06. 007. Hall, C., & Mu¨ller, D. (2004a). Introduction: Second homes, curse or blessing? Revisited. In C. Hall

References

217

& D. Mu¨ller (Eds.), Tourism, mobility and second homes: Between elite landscape and common ground (pp. 3 14). Clevedon: Channel View. Hall, C., & Mu¨ller, D. (Eds.). (2004b). Tourism, mobility and second homes: Between elite landscape and common ground. Clevedon: Channel View. Hall, C., Muller, D., & Saarinen, J. (2009). Nordic tourism: Cases and issues. Clevedon: Channel View. Hall, C., & Page, S. (1999). The geography of tourism: Environment, place and space. London: Routledge. Hall, C., & Page, S. (2006). The geography of tourism and recreation (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Hall, C., & Page, S. (2009). Progress in tourism management: From geography of tourism to geographies of tourism—A review. Tourism Management, 30, 3 16. Hall, C., & Page, S. (2011). From the geography of tourism to geographies of tourism. In J. Wilson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of tourism geographies (pp. 9 25). London: Routledge. Hammitt, W., Kaltenborn, B., Vistad, O., Emmelinand, L., & Teigland, J. (1992). Common access tradition and wilderness management in Norway: A paradox for managers. Environmental Management, 16(2), 149 156. Hannam, K. (2008). Tourist geographies, tourist studies and the turn towards mobilities. Geography Compass, 2, 127 139. Hannam, K., & Diekmann, A. (2010). Tourism and India: A critical introduction. London: Routledge. Hartmann, M. (2006). Die Exzellenzinitiative—ein Paradigmenwechsel in der deutschen Hochschulpolitik. Leviathan, 34(4), 447 465. Haukeland, J., Therkelsen, A., Furunes, T., & Mykletun, R. (2010). 10-year anniversary editorial. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 173 176. Hautama¨ki, L., & Siirila¨, S. (1969). On the future development of recreational facilities in Finnish-speaking Etela¨-Pohjanmaa. Fennia, 98(2), 5 43. Hazendonk, N., Hendriksand, M., & Venema, H. (2008). Greetings from Europe. Rotterdam: OIO Publishers. Helle, R. (1968). Lapin matkailututkimus. Lapin matkailututkimuksia I. Lapin teollisuustoimikunnan osamietinto¨, 67(4), 1 58. Helle, R. (1970). Tourism in Lapland: An inventory and challenge for planners. Oulun yliopiston maantieteen laitoksen julkais uja, 30, 1 64.

218

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Hemmi, J. (1979). Kainuun matkailun aluerakenne ja siihen liittyva¨t kysynta¨- ja tarjontamallit. Joensuun korkeakoulu, historian, maantieteen ja muiden aluetieteiden osaston julkaisuja, 10, 1 171. Herna´ndez Martı´ n, R., & Santana, A. (Eds.). (2010). Destinos maduros ante el cambio. Reflexiones desde Canarias. La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna. Hiernaux-Nicolas, D. (2008). El giro cultural y las nuevas interpretaciones geogra´ficas del turismo. GEOSUP Espac¸o e Tempo, 23, 177 187. Hiltunen, M. (2007). Environmental impacts of rural second home tourism—Case Lake District in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(3), 243 265. Hirst, P. (1965). Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. In A. Archimbault (Ed.), Philosophical Analysis and Education. Hently: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hoerner, J. (2000). Pour la reconnaissance d’unesciencetouristique” (en france`s). Espaces, 173, 18 20. Hoerner, J. (2002). Traite´ de tourismologie. Pour une nouvelle science touristique. Perpignan: Presses universitaires de Perpignan. Ho¨vermann, J., & Oberbeck, G. (1972). Han Poser zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. In J. Ho¨vermann & G. Oberbeck (Eds.), Hans Poser Festschrift (pp. 9 18). Go¨ttingen: Goltze. Hofmeister, B., & Steinecke, A. (1984). Geographie des Freizeit- und Fremdenverkehrs. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Holden, A. (2003). In need of new environmental ethics for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30, 94 108. Holloway, L., & Hubbard, P. (2001). People and place. The extraordinary geographies of everyday life. London: Pearson Prentice Hall. Holt-Jensen, A. (2009). Geography: History and concepts. London: Sage. Hopfinger, H. (2007). Die Geographie der Freizeit und des Tourismus: Versuch einer Standortbestimmung. In C. Becker, H. Hopfinger, & A. Steinecke (Eds.), Geographie der Freizeit und des Tourismus. Bilanz und Ausblick (pp. 1 24). Mu¨nchen: Oldenbourg.

References

219

Htouris, S. (1995). Culture and tourism: Tourism as a network i. e. production. Journal of Modern Issues, 55, 8 56. (English translation of title in Greek). Hubbard, P., Kitchin, R., Bartley, B., & Fuller, D. (2002). Thinking geographically: Space, theory and contemporary human geography. London: Continuum. Hubbard, P., Kitchin, R., & Valentine, G. (Eds.). (2004). Key thinkers on space and place. London: Sage. Huber, L. (2001). Wer B.A. sagt, muß auch C sagen. Sollen flinke Retuschen vor echten Reformen schu¨tzen? Ein Verdacht. In U. Welbers (Ed.), Studienreform mit Bachelor und Master: gestufte Studienga¨nge im Blick des Lehrens und Lernens an Hochschulen Modelle fu¨r die Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften (pp. 495 499). Neuwied: Luchterhand Neuwied. Huijbens, E. (2012). Sustaining a village’s social fabric? Sosiologia Ruralis, 52(3), 332 352. Hultman, J., & Hall, C. (2012). Tourism place-making: Governance of locality in Sweden. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 547 570. Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 850 867. Igoumenakis, N. (1996). Tourism marketing. Athens: Interbooks. (English translation of title in Greek). Igoumenakis, N. (2000). Tourism and development. Athens: Interbooks. (English translation of title in Greek). Innocenti, P. (1990). Geografia del turismo. Rome: NIS. Ioannides, D. (1995). Strengthening the ties between tourism and economic geography: A theoretical agenda. Professional Geographer, 47, 49 60. Ioannides, D. (2006). Commentary: The economic geography of the tourist industry: The years of progress research and an agenda for the future. Tourism Geographies, 8, 78 86. Ioannides, D., Nielsen P., & Billing, P. (2006). Transboundary collaboration in Tourism: The case of the Bothnian Arc. Tourism Geographies, 8, 122 142. Iorio, M., & Corsale, A. (2010). Rural tourism and livelihood strategies in Romania. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(2), 152 162.

220

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Iorio, M., & Wall, G. (2012). Behind the masks: Tourism and community in Sardinia. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1440 1449. Isard, W., & Bramhall, D. (1960). Methods of regional analysis. New York, NY: Wiley. Ivars Baidal, J., & Vera Rebollo, J. (Eds.). (2008). Espacios turı´sticos, Mercantilizacio´n, paisaje e identidad. Alicante: Instituto Universitario de Investigaciones Turı´ sticas. Jafari, J. (1982). Paratourism and its contribution to the hospitality industry. In A. Pizam, R. Lewis, & P. Manning (Eds.), The practice of hospitality management (pp. 427 439). Wallingford: CAB International. Jafari, J. (1990). Research and scholarship: The basis of tourism education. Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(1), 33 41. Jafari, J. (Ed.). (2000). Encyclopaedia of tourism. London: Routledge. Jafari, J. (2001). The scientification of tourism. In V. Smith & M. Brent (Eds.), Hosts and guests revisited (pp. 28 41). New York, NY: Cognizant. Jancu, M., & Baron, P. (1984). Directions of Romanian tourism and of tourist research. GeoJournal, 9, 75 76. Janiskee, R., & Mitchell, L. (1989). Applied recreation geography. In M. Kenzer (Ed.), Applied geography: Issues, questions, and concerns (pp. 151 153). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1992). Urban recreation and tourism, Physical planning issues. Tourism Recreation Research, 17(2), 33 45. Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1998). Ge´ographie du tourisme: les pistes de recherches en Flandres. Tijdschrift van de Belgische Vereniging voor Aardrijkskundige studies, 2, 226 235. Jansen-Verbeke, M. (2008). A geographer’s gaze at tourism. Documents d’Ana`lisi Geogra`fica, 52, 15 29. Jansen-Verbeke, M. (2010). Milestones, scenic views and tourist traps along my academic path. In S. Smith (Ed.), The discovery of tourism (pp. 209 223). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Jansen-Verbeke, M. (2013). Mutation of cultural landscapes: The ‘unplanned’ tourism map of Europe. In C. Costa, E. Panyik, & D. Buhalis (Eds.), European tourism planning and organisation systems (Vol. I). Clevedon: Channel View.

References

221

Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Ashworth, G. (1990). Environmental integration of recreation and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 618 622. Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Dietvorst, A. (1987). Leisure, recreation and tourism: A geographic view on integration. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 361 375. Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Govers, R. (2010). Brussels: A multilayered capital city. In B. Ritchie & R. Maitland (Eds.), City tourism: National capital perspective (pp. 142 158). Wallingford: CAB International. Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Lievois, E. (2008). Visiting patterns in historic cityscapes: A case study in Ghent, Belgium. In M. Jansen-Verbeke, G. Priestley, & A. Russo (Eds.), Cultural resources for tourism: Patterns, processes, policies (pp. 17 30). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Jansen-Verbeke, M., Priestley, G., & Russo, A. (Eds.). (2008). Cultural resources for tourism: Patterns, processes, policies. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Russo, A. (2008). Innovative research on the spatial dynamics of cultural tourism. In M. Jansen-Verbeke, G. Priestley, & A. Russo (Eds.), Cultural resources for tourism: Patterns, processes, policies (pp. 1 14). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Spee, R. (1994). A regional analysis of tourist flows within Europe. Tourism Management, 16(4), 73 82. Jansen-Verbeke, M., Vandenbroucke, S., & Tielen, S. (2005). Tourism in Brussels, capital of the new Europe. International Journal of Tourism Research, 7, 109 122. Jarausch, K. (2003). Amerika—Alptraum oder Vorbild? Transatlantische Bemerkungen zum Problem der Universita¨tsreform. In M. Berg & P. Gassert (Eds.), Festschrift fu¨r Detlef Junker (pp. 571 589). Stuttgart: Steiner. Ja¨rviluoma, J. (1993). Paikallisva¨esto¨n asennoituminen matkailuun ja sen seurausvaikutuksiin—esimerkkina¨ Kolarin kunta. University of Oulu Research Institute of Northern Finland Research Reports, 110, 1 152. Job, H. (1996). Modell zur Evaluation der Nachhaltigkeit im Tourismus. Erdkunde, 50(2), 112 132. Jo´hannesson, G. T., & Huijbens, E. (2010). Tourism in times of crisis: Exploring the discourse of tourism development in Iceland. Current Issues in Tourism, 13, 419 434.

222

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Johnston, R. (1983). On geography and the history of geography. History of Geography Newsletter, 3, 1 7. Johnston, R. (1991a). Geography and geographers: Anglo-American human geography since 1945. London: Edward Arnold. Johnston, R. (1991b). A question of place: Exploring the practice of human geography. Oxford: Blackwell. Jungk, R. (1980). Wie viele Touristen pro Hektar Strand? Pla¨doyer fu¨r ‘sanftes Reisen’. Geo, 10, 154 156. Jurczek, P. (2007). Geographie der Freizeit und des Tourismus: Disziplingeschichte und Perspektiven. In C. Becker, H. Hopfinger, & A. Steinecke (Eds.), Geographie der Freizeit und des Tourismus. Bilanz und Ausblick (pp. 25 34). Mu¨nchen: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. Kagermeier, A., & Gronau, W. (2008). Erfolgsfaktoren intermodaler Mobilita¨tsangebote von Freizeit und Tourismus. In W. Freyer, M. Naumann, & A. Schuler (Eds.), Standortfaktor Tourismus und Wissenschaft: Herausforderungen und Chancen fu¨r Destinationen (pp. 219 232). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Kaltenborn, B. (1997). Recreation homes in natural settings: Factors affecting place attachment. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 51, 187 198. Kaltenborn, B. (1998). The alternate home: Motives of recreation home use. Norsk Geografisk Tidskrift, 52, 121 134. Kaltenborn, B., Andersen, O., Nellemann, C., Bjerke, T., & Thrane, C. (2008). Resident attitudes towards mountain second-home tourism development in Norway: The effects of environmental attitudes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 664 680. Kaltenborn, B., & Emmelin, L. (1993). Tourism in the High North: Management challenges and recreation opportunity spectrum planning in Svalbard, Norway. Environmental Management, 17(1), 41 50. Kaminske, V. (1977). Zur Anwendung eines Gravitationsansatzes im Naherholungsverkehr. Zeitschrift fu¨r Wirtschaftsgeographie, 21(4), 104 107. Kaplan, R. D. (2012). The revenge of geography. New York, NY: The Random House. Katochianou, D. (1995). Economic and spatial development of tourism in Ellada: A first impression. Current Issues, 55, 62 71. (English translation of title in Greek).

References

223

Kilipiris, V. (2009). Sustainable tourism development: Empirical approaches. Kilkis: Disigma. (English translation of title in Greek). King, A., & Brownell, J. (1966). The curriculum and the disciplines of knowledge: A theory of curriculum practice. New York, NY: Wiley. Klauser, F. (2012). Thinking through territoriality: Introducing Claude Raffestin to Anglophone Sociospatial Theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(1), 106 120. Klemm, K. (1993). Umwelt- und sozialvertra¨glicher Tourismus: Rahmenbedingungen von Raumordnung, Regional- und Bauleitplanung. In G. Haedrich, C. Kaspar, K. Klemm, & E. Kreilkamp (Eds.), Tourismus-Management: Tourismus Marketing und Fremdenverkehrsplanung (pp. 65 76). Berlin: de Gruyter. Knafou, R. (1978). Les stations inte´gre´es de sports d’hiver des Alpes franc¸aises, L’ame´nagement de la montagne a` la franc¸aise. Paris: Masson. Knafou, R. (1999). Turismo e Territo´rio: por uma abordagem cientı´ fica do turismo. In A. Rodrigues (Ed.), Turismo e Geografia: reflexo˜es teo´ricas e enfoques regionais (pp. 62 74). Sa˜o Paulo: HUCITEC. Knafou, R. (2005). La recherche en tourisme s’organise. Espaces, 4, 11 15. Knafou, R., Bruston, M., Deprest, F., Duhamel, P., Gay, J., & Sacareau, I. (1997). Une approche ge´ographique du tourisme. L’Espace Ge´ographique, 26 (3), 193 204. Knafou, R., & Stock, M. (2003). Tourisme. In J. Le´vy & M. Lussault (Dirs.), Dictionnaire de la ge´ographie et de l’espace des socie´te´s (p. 933). Paris: Belin. Kocka, J. (1998). Wissenschaft und Politik in der DDR. In J. Kocka & R. Mayntz (Eds.), Wissenschaft und Wiedervereinigung. Disziplinen im Umbruch (pp. 435 459). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Kohl, J. (1841). Der Verkehr und die Ansiedlungen der Menschen in ihrer Abha¨ngigkeit von der Gestaltung der Erdoberfla¨che. Dresden: Arnold. Kollokas, S., & Makris, N. (1938). Greek tourism law. Athens: Deputy Ministry of Press and Tourism. (English translation of title in Greek). Komilis, P. (1986). Spatial analysis of tourism. Athens: CPER. (English translation of title in Greek).

224

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Komilis, P. (1992). Tourism and regional development: Theoretical, methodological and planning approaches. In K. Koutsopoulos (Ed.), Development and planning: Interdisciplinary approach (pp. 247 272). Athens: Papazisi. (English translation of title in Greek). Komilis, P. (1993). Tourism as a factor sustainable development: Regional and spatial dimension. Athens: TEE. (English translation of title in Greek). Komilis, P. (1995). Tourist policy and integrated tourism development areas. Contemporary Issues, 55, 77 80. (English translation of title in Greek). Komilis, P., & Vagionnis, N. (1999). Tourism planning: Method and evaluation practices. Athens: Propompos. (English translation of title in Greek). Konstantoglou, M. (2005). Typology of tourist coastal areas using geographical information systems. PhD dissertation, University of the Aegean, Mitilini, Greece. (English translation of title in Greek). Koutoulas, D. (2001) Theoretical definition of the tourism product as a basis for tourism marketing. PhD dissertation, University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece. (English translation of title in Greek). Kreisel, W. (2004). Geography of leisure and tourism research in the German-speaking world: Three pillars to progress. Tourism Geographies, 6(2), 163 185. Krippendorf, J. (1975). Die Landschaftsfresser: Tourismus und Erholungslandschaft— Verderben oder Segen? Bern: Hallwag. Krippendorf, J., Zimmer, P., & Glauber, H. (Eds.). (1988). Fu¨r einen anderen Tourismus: Probleme, Perspektiven, Ratschla¨ge. Frankfurt: Fischer. Kru¨ger, R. (1995). Nachhaltige regionale Entwicklung mit Tourismus. Konzeptionelle Ansa¨tze und Strategien ihrer Umsetzung. In C. Becker (Ed.), Ansa¨tze fu¨r eine nachhaltige Regionalentwicklung mit Tourismus (pp. 53 66). Berlin: Verlag fu¨r universita¨re Kommunikation. Kru¨ger, R. (2001). Zwischen Strandurlaub und Internet: Ra¨ume des Reisens. Tourismus Journal, 5(3), 365 374. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lacosta, A. (Ed.). (2006). Turismo y cambio territorial. eclosio´n, aceleracio´n, desbordamiento? Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza. ?

References

225

Lagos, D. (1990). The structural problems of Greek tourism. Tourism and economy Journal, 136, 168 178. (English translation of title in Greek). Lagos, D. (1996). Tourism development and structured environment. Topos, 12, 214 227. (English translation of title in Greek). Lagos, D. (1998). Tourism as a factor promoting regional development. Topos, 14, 47 65. (English translation of title in Greek). Lagos, D., & Stamatiou, E. (2006). The spatial structure of political dimensions of tourism. Paper presented at the international Conference “Cultural environment and tourism: The role of the architect”. Proceedings published by the Technical Chamber of Greece, Athens (pp. 406 416). (English translation of title in Greek). Lakatos, I. (1978). Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lando, F. (2008). Turisticita` ipotesi per un’interpretazione. In A. Sala, S. Grandi & F. Dallari (Eds.), Turismo e turismi tra politica e innovazione (pp. 13 26). Bologna: Pa`tron. Lando, F., & Bertazzon, S. (2003). Il sistema urbano e turı´ stico. In S. Soriani (Ed.), L’articolazione territoriale dello spazio costiero. Il caso dell’Alto Adriatico (pp. 99 119). Venice: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina. Lando, F., & Zanini, F. (2008). L’impatto del turismo sul commercio al dettaglio. Il caso di Venezia. In P. Romei (Ed.), Turismo sostenibile e sviluppo locale (pp. 231 263). Padova: CEDAM. Lasanta, T., Laguna, M., & Vicente-Serrano, S. (2007). Do tourism-based ski resorts contribute to the homogeneous development of Mediterranean mountains? A case study in the Central Spanish Pyrenees. Tourism Management, 28, 1326 1339. Laskaratos, A. (2000). Tourism issues. Athens: Aegean University Press and Chamber of Hotels. (English translation of title in Greek). Lazzarotti, O. (1994). La ge´ographie dans la controverse touristique. Annales de Ge´ographie, 103, 627 650. Lazzarotti, O. (2002). French tourism geographies: A review. Tourism Geographies, 4, 135 147. Laudan, L. (1977). From theories to research traditions. In R. Giere & L. Laudan (Eds.), Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. University of

226

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

California Press. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1410120/From_ theories_to_research_traditions Le Lannou, M. (1938). Itine´raires de Bretagne, guide ge´ographique et touristique. Paris: Baillie`re. Leiper, N. (1981). Towards a cohesive curriculum in tourism: The case of distinct discipline. Annals of Tourism Research, 8, 69 83. Leiper, N. (2000). An emerging discipline. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 805 809. Lekkas, N. (1996[1925]). Touring in Greece. Chios: University of the Aegean Publications. (English translation of title in Greek). Lengkeek, J. (2009a). Tourism studies in Belgium and the Netherlands. In G. Dann & G. Liebman Parrinello (Eds.), The sociology of tourism: European origins and developments (pp. 275 297). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Lengkeek, J. (2009b). Van Homo Ludens naar Homo Turisticus: regressie of een stap in de menselijke evolutie? Wageningen: Wageningen University. Leone, U. (1987). Geografia per l’ambiente. Roma: Nuova Italia Scientifica. Leone, U. (1994). Geografia, politica dell’ambiente, eco-politica. In Dalla geografia politica alla geopolı´ tica. Memorie della Societa` Geografica Italiana, 52, 211 219. Lew, A. (1987). A framework of tourist attraction research. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 553 575. Lew, A. (1999). Editorial: A place called tourism geographies. Tourism Geographies, 1, 1 2. Lew, A. (2002). Editorial: Internationalizing tourism geographies. Tourism Geographies, 4, 225 226. Lew, A., Hall, C., & Williams, A. (Eds.). (2004). A companion to tourism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Leydesdorff, L. (2009). How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1327 1336. Lichtenberger, E. (1984). Geography of tourism and the leisure society in Austria. GeoJournal, 9, 41 46.

References

227

List, J. (2000). Bachelor und Master Sackgasse oder Ko¨nigsweg? Ko¨ln: Deutscher Instituts-Verlag. Liszewski, S. (2010). Tourism studies: Situated within multiple disciplines or a single independent discipline? Tourism/Turyzm, 20(2), 37 44. Ljungdahl, S. (1938). Sommar-Stockholm. Ymer, 58, 218 242. Loda, M. (2006). Der einzelhandel im stadtzentrum florenz zwischen touristischem druck und ausla¨ndischer unternehmerschaft. Belgeo, 1 2, 99 111. Logothetis, M. (1961). Rodos’ tourism. Athens: National Bank of Greece. (English translation of title in Greek). Lo´pez Olivares, F. (2010). Comunidad Valenciana. In A. Ferna´ndez Tabales, M. Garcı´ a Herna´ndez, & J. Ivars Baidal (Eds.), La investigacio´n de la Geografı´a del Turismo en las comunidades auto´nomas espan˜olas. Orı´genes, desarrollo y perspectivas de una disciplina en el horizonte de la Geografı´a (pp. 177 192). Madrid: Grupo de Geografı´ a del Turismo, Ocio y Recreacio´n. Lo´pez Olivares, D. (Ed.). (2011). Renovacio´n de destinos turı´sticos consolidados. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch. Lo´pez Palomeque, F. (1984). Las investigaciones sobre el turismo en Espan˜a. Actas del VIII Coloquio de Geografı´ a, Barcelona AGE. (pp. 474 489). Lo´pez Palomeque, F., dir. (2009). Atles del Turisme a Catalunya. Mapa Nacional de l’Oferta i els Productes Turı´stics. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament d’Innovacio´ Universitats i Empresa. Lo´pez Palomeque, F. (2010). Catalun˜a. In A. Ferna´ndez Tabales, M. Garcı´ a Herna´ndez, & J. Ivars Baidal (Eds.), La investigacio´n de la Geografı´a del Turismo en las comunidades auto´nomas espan˜olas. Orı´genes, desarrollo y perspectivas de una disciplina en el horizonte de la Geografı´a (pp. 157 175). Madrid: Grupo de Geografı´ a del Turismo, Ocio y Recreacio´n. Lozato-Giotart, J. (1990). Ge´ographie du Tourisme: De l’espace regarde´ a` l’espace consomme´. Paris: Masson. Luis, A. (1988). Aproximacio´n histo´rica al estudio de la geografı´a del ocio: Guı´a introductoria. Barcelona: Anthropos.

228

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Lundgren, J. (1984). Geographic concepts and the development of tourism research in Canada. Geojournal, 9, 17 25. Lundmark, L. (2005). Economic restructuring into tourism in the Swedish mountain range. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(1), 23 45. Lundmark, L., & Muller, D. (2010). The supply of nature-based tourism activities in Sweden. Tourism, 58(4), 379 393. Lundmark, L., & Stjernsto¨m, O. (2009). Environmental protection: An instrument for regional development? National Ambitions versus Local Realities in the Case of Tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 9(4), 1 19. Lytras, P. (2002[1991]). A society of Leisure. Athens: Interbooks. (English translation of title in Greek). Macbeth, J. (2005). Towards an ethics platform for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 962 984. Magi, L., & Nzama, T. (2002). Perspectives on recreation and tourism geographies in South Africa. South African Geographical Journal, 84, 67 76. Magosse, R., Govers, R., & Jansen-Verbeke, M. (2008). Policy, cultural heritage and tourismscapes: A case study of Brussels. In M. Jansen-Verbeke, G. Priestley, & A. Russo (Eds.), Cultural resources for tourism; Patterns, processes, policies (pp. 185 196). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Malatesta, S., & Anzoise, V. (2010). Visual and tourist dimensions of Trentino’s borderscape. In P. Burns, J. Lester, & L. Bibbings (Eds.), Tourism and visual culture (Vol. 2, pp. 44 61). Wallingford: CAB International. Malycha, A. (Ed.). (2003). Geplante Wissenschaft: Eine Quellenedition zur DDRWissenschaftsgeschichte von 1945 1961. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsanstalt. Manologlou, E., Tsartas, P., Markou, A., & Papliakou, V. (1999). Tourism as a factor social change. Athens: Exantas-EKKE. (English translation of title in Greek). Manos, A. (1948). Greek tourism and its exploitation. Feasibility studies for the reconstruction and recovery of Greece. Athens: Federation of Technical Sciences and Experts. (English translation of title in Greek). Manos, G. (1935). Tourism in Greece: Systematic analysis of the tourism problem. Athens: Pyrsos SA. (English translation of title in Greek).

References

229

Manos, G. (1939). Tourism in Greece. Athens. (English translation of title in Greek). Mariot, P. (1984). Geography of tourism in Czechoslovakia. GeoJournal, 9, 65 68. Marjavaara, R. (2007). Route to destruction? Second home tourism in small island communities. Island Studies Journal, 2(1), 27 46. Maroudas, L., & Tsartas, P. (1997). Alternative forms of tourism in small and remote islands in the Aegean: From isolation to sustainable development in Business at the dawn of the 21st century. Chios: Publication of Business Administration Department, University of the Aegean. (English translation of title in Greek). Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage. Massey, D., Allen, J., & Sarre, P. (1999). Human geography today. Cambridge: Polity Press. McKercher, B. (2008). A citation analysis of tourism scholars. Tourism Management, 29, 1226 1232. McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 31, 455 470. Mehmetoglu, M. (2004). Quantitative or qualitative? A content analysis of Nordic research in tourism and hospitality. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4 (3), 176 190. Melissourgos, G. (2008). Local/regional development and the geography of land planning contradictions: Study two cases tourism development in Greece and Spain. Ph.D. dissertation. Harokopio University, Athens. (English translation of title in Greek). Menegatti, B. (1999). Geoeconomic processes in the northwestern Adriatic coastal plain. Acta Geographica Sinica, 54(6), 550 558. Merlini, G. (1961). Le vocazioni turistiche dell’Appennino Emiliano-Romagnolo. In Contributi al 1° Convegno per il turismo appenninico (pp. 11 16). Bologna: Istituto di GeografiaEconomicaUniversita`. Mesplier-Pinet, J., & Elias, S. (2000). Dictionnaire des concepts et me´thodes de l’observation touristique. Paris: ONT. Meyer-Arendt, K. (2000). Commentary: Tourism geography as the subject of North American doctoral dissertations and master’s theses, 1951 98. Tourism Geographies, 2, 140 156.

230

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Meyer-Arendt, K., & Lew, A. (1999). Commentary: A decade of American RTS geography. Tourism Geographies, 1, 477 487. Mieczkowski, Z. (1978). The place of geography of tourism and recreation in the system of geography and in the field of leisure research. Wiener Geographische Schriften, 51 52, 87 94. Minca, C. (1995). Verso una teoria geografica per il turismo. Analisi dei processi territoriali in un parco nazionale canadese. Rivista Geografica Italiana, 102, 63 90. Minca, C. (1996). Spazi effimeri, Geografia e turismo tra moderno e postmoderno. Padova: Cedam. Minca, C. (2005). Italian cultural geography, or the history of a prolific absence. Social and Cultural Geography, 6, 927 949. Minnaert, L., Diekmann, A., & McCabe, S. (2011). Defining social tourism and its historical context. In S. McCabe, L. Minnaert, & A. Diekmann (Eds.), Social tourism in Europe: Theory and practice (pp. 18 30). Clevedon: Channel View. Miossec, J. (1976). Ele´ments pour une the´orie de l’espace touristique. Les Cahiers du Tourisme, C36. Aix-en-Provence: C.H.E.T. Miossec, J. (1977). Un mode`le de l’espace touristique. L’Espace ge´ographique, 1, 41 48. Mitchell, L. (1979). The geography of tourism. An introduction. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 235 244. Mitchell, L. (1984). Tourism research in the United States: A geographic perspective. GeoJournal, 9, 5 15. Mitchell, L., & Murphy, P. (1991). Geography and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18, 57 70. Mittelstraß, J. (1994). Die unzeitgema¨ße Universita¨t. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Moira, P. (2005). Tourism geography of Greece. Athens: Interbooks. (English translation of title in Greek). Moira-Mylonopoulou, P. (1999). Tourism geography—Europe. Athens: Stamoulis. (English translation of title in Greek).

References

231

Montanari, A. (2012). Cross-national co-operation and human mobility: An introduction. International Review of Sociology, 22(2), 175 190. Montanari, A., & Staniscia, B. (2009). Culinary tourism as a tool for regional re-equilibrium. European Planning Studies, 17(10), 1463 1483. Montanari, A., & Williams, A. (Eds.). (2000). European tourism: Regions, spaces and restucturing. Chichester: Wiley. Morales, G. (Ed.). (2000). Turismo y Ciudad. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Asociacio´n de Geo´grafos Espan˜oles. Mori, A. (1942). Una marina emiliana: Cattolica. Studi Urbinati, 14(Serie B 1/2), 93 132. Mose, I. (1998). Sanfter Tourismus. Amsterdam: G + B. Mu¨ller, D. (1999). German second home owners in the Swedish countryside: On the internationalization of the leisure space. Ph.D. dissertation. Umea˚ University, Umea˚, Sweden. Mu¨ller, D. (2002). German second home development in Sweden. In C. Hall & A. Williams (Eds.), Tourism and migration: New relationships between production and consumption (pp. 169 186). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Mu¨ller, D. (2007). Second homes in the Nordic countries: Between common heritage and exclusive commodity, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(3), 193 201. Mu¨ller, D., & Jansson, B. (Eds.). (2007). Tourism in peripheries. Wallingford: CAB International. Mu¨ller, D., & Pettersson, R. (2001). Access to Sami tourism in northern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(1), 5 18. Mu¨ller, D., & Pettersson, R. (2006). Sami heritage at the winter festival in Jokkmokk, Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6(1), 54 69. Mu¨nch, R. (2007). Die akademische Elite: Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Mu¨nch, R. (2009). Globale Eliten, lokale Autorita¨ten: Bildung und Wissenschaft unter dem Regime von PISA, McKinsey and Co. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Munsters, W. (2008). Cultuur Toerisme. Leuven: Garant.

232

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Murphy, A. (1988). The regional dynamics of language differentiation in Belgium: A study in cultural Political Geography. University of Chicago Research Paper No. 277 Chicago, IL. Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. London: Methuen. Muscara`, C. (1983). Gli spazi del turismo: Per una geografia del turismo in Italia. Bologna: Pa`tron. Mykletun, R., & Haukeland, J. (2001). Scope and background—The “Nordic Context”. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(1), 1 4. Nahrstedt, W. (1994). Tourismusberufe fu¨r Hochschulabsolventen: Untersuchung zur Sicherung der Effizienz und Qualita¨t der Aus- und Weiterbildung von Tourismusexperten an deutschen Hochschulen mit besonderer Beru¨cksichtigung der Differenzierung nach Universita¨ten und Fachhochschulen. Bielefeld: IFKA. Nepal, S. K. (2009). Traditions and trends: A review of geographical scholarship in tourism. Tourism Geographies, 11, 2 22. Neuts, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). Tourist crowding perception and acceptability in cities: An applied modelling study on Bruges. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 2133 2153. Nice, B. (1963). Note sulla regione turistica Toscana, In Scritti geografici in onore di Carmelo Colamonico (pp. 203 224). Napoli: Loffredo. OECD. (2000). Bildung auf einen Blick. Retrieved from http://www.kmk.org/doc/ oecd-bildung.htm. Accessed on October 10, 2006. Oestreich, H. (1977). Anmerkungen zu einer ‘Geographie des Freizeitverhaltens’. Geographische Rundschau, 29(3), 80 83. Olcina, J. (2012). Globalization and sustainability: Threats to the environment in a globalized world—The point of view of Spanish Geography. New trends in the XXI century Spanish geography. Spanish contribution to IGU 32nd Congress Cologne 2012, Madrid (pp. 374 392). Oliveras, J., & Anton Clave´, S. (Eds.). (1998). Turismo y planificacio´n del territorio en la Espan˜a de fin de siglo. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Osterloh, G. (1997). Der Reisestern: Regionalisierung eines Modells zur Evaluation der Nachhaltigkeit von Reisen am Beispiel der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In C. Becker (Ed.), Beitra¨ge zur nachhaltigen Regionalentwicklung mit

References

233

Tourismus: ausgewa¨hlte Vortra¨ge der 18 20. Sitzung des Arbeitskreises “Freizeit- und Fremdenverkehrsgeographie” (pp. 57 76). Verlag fu¨r Universita¨re Kommunikation, Berlin. Paasi, A. (2005a). Between national and international pressures: Contextualizing the progress of Finnish social and cultural geography. Social and Cultural Geography, 6(4), 607 629. Paasi, A. (2005b). Globalisation, academic capitalism and the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning A, 37, 769 789. Page, S. (2003). Evaluating research performance in tourism: The UK experience. Tourism Management, 24, 607 622. Page, S. (2005). Academic ranking exercises: Do they achieve anything meaningful? A personal view. Tourism Management, 26, 663 666. Paniagua, A. (2002). Urban-rural migration, tourism entrepeneurs and rural restructuring in Spain. Tourism Geographies, 4, 349 371. Pantelidis, E. (1975). Tourism and regional development. Athens: Directorate of Economic Research Bank of Greece. (English translation of title in Greek). Papadoulaki, E. (2008). Travel business history in Greece: Entrepreneurial and financial practices. Paper Presented in European Business History Association’s (EBHA) 12th annual conference, Bergen, Norway. Papadoulaki, E. (2011). Greek tourism and economic crisis in historical perspective: The case of Travel Agencies, interwar years. Paper Presented in European Business History Association’s (EBHA) 15th annual conference, Athens, Greece. Pappas, N. (2006). Researching the economic, social and territorial dimension of tourism in Rhodes through the perceptions of key Informants. Ph.D. dissertation. University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece. (English translation of title in Greek). Park, K., Phillips, W., Canter, D., & Abbott, J. (2011). Hospitality and tourism research rankings by author, university, and country using six major journals. The first decade of the new millennium. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 35(3), 381 416. Parpairis, A. (1994). Methodological framework for tourist carrying capacity: Theoretical framework and empirical approach -the case of Myconos. Ph.D. dissertation.

234

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

University of the Aegean, Μytilini, Greece. (English translation of title in Greek). Pavlopoulos, P. (1999). Issues of economic and tourism policy. Athens: Institute of Tourism Research and Forecasting. (English translation of title in Greek). Pavlopoulos, P., & Kouzelis, A. (1998). Regional development of Greece and tourism. Athens: Institute of Tourism Research and Forecasting. (English translation of title in Greek). Pearce, D. (1987). Tourism today: A geographical analysis. New York, NY: Wiley. Pearce, D. (1979). Towards a geography of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 245 272. Pearce, D. (1988). Tourism time budgets. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 106 121. Pearce, D. (1995). Tourism today: A geographical analysis. Harlow: Longman. Pearce, D. (1996). Federalism and the organization of tourism in Belgium. European Urban and Regional Studies, 3(3), 189 204. Pearce, D. (2001). Re´flexions sur une ge´ographie nationale du tourisme: Le cas de la Nouvelle-Ze´lande. Annales de Geographie, 619, 266 283. Pedrini, L. (1961). La carta delle vocazioni turistiche nell’Appenino EmilianoRomagnolo. In Contributi al primo Convegno sul turismo appeninico (pp. 19 28). Bologna: Istituto di GeografiaEconomicaUniversita`. Pedrini, L. (1984). The geography of tourism and leisure in Italy. GeoJournal, 9, 55 57. Peet, R. (1998). Modern geographical thought. Oxford: Blackwell. Pendlebury, D. (2009). The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57, 1 11. Petropoulos, A. (1977). Tourism geography of Greece. Athens: Tyrovolas. (English translation of title in Greek). Pettersson, R. (2003). Indigenous cultural events: The development of a Sami winter festival in northern Sweden. Tourism, 51(3), 319 332. Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.

References

235

Phillipson, R. (2008). Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integration and globalisation. World Englishes, 27(2), 250 267. Picornell, C., Seguı´ , J., & Benı´ tez, J. (Eds.). (2006). La formacio´, la rehabilitacio´ i les noves modalitats turı´stiques. Palma de Mallorca: Universitat de les Illes Balears. Pitka¨nen, K. (2008). Second home landscape: The meaning(s) of landscape for second home tourism in Finland. Tourism Geographies, 10, 169 192. Pitka¨nen, K., Puhakka, R., & Sawatzky, M. (2011). The role of nature in the place meanings and practices of cottage owners in northern environments. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 65(3), 175 187. Plog, S. (1973). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Association Quarterly, 14, 55 58. Pollard, J., & Rodrı´ guez, R. (1993). Tourism and Torremolinos: Recession or reaction to environment. Tourism Management, 14(4), 247 258. Poser, H. (1939). Geographische Studien u¨ber den Fremdenverkehr im Riesengebirge: ein Beitrag zur geographischen Betrachtung des Fremdenverkehrs. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck und‚ Ruprecht. Pott, A. (2007). Orte des Tourismus: Eine raum- und gesellschaftstheoretische Untersuchung. Bielefeld: Transcript. Preobrazhenskiy, V., Vedenin, Y., & Stupina, N. (1984). Development of recreational geography in the USSR. GeoJournal, 9, 77 82. Priestley, G., & Mundet, L. (1998). The post-stagnation phase of the resort cycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 25, 219 231. Prokkola, E. (2007). Cross-border regionalization and tourism development at the Swedish-Finnish border: “Destination Arctic Circle”. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(2), 120 138. Przeclawski, K. (1993). Tourism as the Subject of Interdisciplinary Research. In D. Pearce & R. Butler (Eds.), Tourism research: Critiques and challenges (pp. 113 134). London: Routledge. Psycharis, Y. (2008). Public spending patterns. In H. Coccossis & Y. Psycharis (Eds.), Regional analysis and policy: The Greek experience (pp. 41 71). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag (Springer).

236

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Puhakka, R. (2008). Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks. Fennia, 186(1), 47 58. Raffestin, C. (1984). Territoriality. A reflection of the discrepancies between the organization of space and individual liberty. International Political Science Review, 5 (2), 139 146. Ratilainen, T. (1976). Kansallispuistojen vaikutusalueet. Terra, 88(1), 35 39. Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (1997). Academic capitalism, managed professionals, and supply-side higher education. Social Text, 51, 9 38. Richards, G. (1995). European Tourism and Leisure Education. Trends and Prospects. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Rico Amoro´s, A., Olcina-Cantos, J., & Saurı´ , D. (2009). Tourist land use patterns and water demand. Evidence from the Western Mediterranean. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 493 501. Robinson, J. (2006). Ordinary cities: Between modernity and development. London: Routledge. Rocca G. (Ed.). (2006). Dai luoghi termali ai poli e sistemi locali di turismo integrato. Bologna: Pa`tron. Rocca G. (Ed.). (2009). Dal turismo termale al turismo della salute: i poli e i sistemi locali di qualita`. Bologna: Pa`tron. Rodrı´ guez, V. (2001). Tourism as a recruiting post for retirement migration. Tourism Geographies, 3, 52 63. Rothfuß, E. (2004). Ethnotourismus: Wahrnehmungen und Handlungsstrategien der pastoralnomadischen Himba (Namibia): ein hermeneutischer, handlungstheoretischer und methodischer Beitrag aus sozialgeographischer Perspektive. Passau: Selbstverlag des Fachs Geographie der Universita¨t Passau. Rullan Salamanca, O. (1999). Crecimiento y polı´ tica territorial en las Baleares (1955 2000). Estudios Geogra´ficos, 60, 403 442. Ruppert, K. (1975). Zur Stellung und Gliederung einer Allgemeinen Geographie des Freizeitverhaltens. Geographische Rundschau, 27(1), 1 6. Ruppert, K., & Maier, J. (1970). Zur Geographie des Freizeitverhaltens: Beitra¨ge zur Fremdenverkehrsgeographie. Kallmu¨nz: Lassleben.

References

237

Ryan, C. (1997). Tourism: A mature discipline. Pacific Tourism Review, 1(1), 3 5. Saarinen, J. (1998). Cultural influence on response to wilderness encounters: A case study from Finland. International Journal of Wilderness, 4(1), 28 32. Saarinen, J. (1999). Representations of indigeneity: Sami culture in the discourses of tourism. In P. Sant & J. Brown (Eds.), Indigeneity: Constructions and re/presentations (pp. 231 249). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Saarinen, J. (2003a). Commentary: Tourism and recreation as subjects of research in Finnish geographical journals. Tourism Geographies, 5, 220 227. Saarinen, J. (2003b). The regional economics of tourism in Northern Finland: The socioeconomic implications of recent tourism development and future possibilities for regional development. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 3 (2), 91 113. Saarinen, J. (2004). ‘Destinations in Change’: The transformation process of tourist destinations. Tourist Studies, 4(2), 161 179. Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 1121 1140. Saarinen, J., & Kask, T. (2008). Transforming tourism spaces in changing socio-political contexts: The case of Pa¨rnu, Estonia, as a tourist destination. Tourism Geographies, 10, 452 473. Saarinen, J., & Tervo, K. (2006). Perceptions and adaptation strategies of the tourism industry to climate change: The Case of Finnish nature-based tourism entrepreneurs. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2(2), 214 228. Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, A. (2004). Adapting to change: Maintaining a wilderness experience in a popular tourist destination. Tourism Today, 4, 52 65. Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, A. (2010a). Planning nature tourism in iceland based on tourist attitudes. Tourism Geographies, 12, 25 52. Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, A. (2010b). Tourism struggling as the wilderness is developed. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 334 357. Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, A., Hall, C., & Saarinen, J. (2011). Making wilderness: Tourism and the history of the wilderness idea in Iceland. Polar Geography, 34(4), 249 273.

238

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, A., & O´lafsson, R. (2010). Nature tourism assessment in the Icelandic Master Plan for geothermal and hydropower development. Part I: Rapid evaluation of nature tourism resources. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(4), 311 333. Sancho Comins, J., & Panadero, M. (dirs.). (2004). Atlas del turismo rural de Castilla-La Mancha. Madrid: Ministerio de Educacio´n y Ciencia. Sancho Comins, J., & Vera Rebollo, J. (dirs.). (2008). Turismo en espacios rurales y naturales. Atlas Nacional de Espan˜a. Madrid: Centro Nacional de Informacio´n Geogra´fica-Instituto Geogra´fico Nacional. Sandell, K. (1991). “Ecostrategies” and environmentalism: The case of outdoor life and Friluftsliv. Geografiska Annaler. Series B: Human Geography, 73(2), 133 141. Sandell, K. (2005). Access, tourism and democracy: A conceptual framework and the non-establishment of a proposed national park in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(1), 63 75. Sandell, K., & Fredman, P. (2010). The right of public access: Opportunity or obstacle for nature based tourism in Sweden?, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 91 309. Santos, X. (Ed.). (2003). La Geografı´a y la gestio´n del Turismo. Santiago: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Santos, X. (2010). Galicia. In A. Ferna´ndez Tabales, M. Garcı´ a Herna´ndez, & J. Ivars Baidal (Eds.), La investigacio´n de la Geografı´a del Turismo en las comunidades auto´nomas espan˜olas. Orı´genes, desarrollo y perspectivas de una disciplina en el horizonte de la Geografı´a (pp. 213 230). Madrid: Grupo de Geografı´ a del Turismo, Ocio y Recreacio´n. Saurı´ , J. (2012). Socio-environmental risks and conflicts. In New trends in the XXI century Spanish geography. Spanish contribution to IGU 32nd Congress Cologne 2012, Madrid (pp. 393 404). Scherle, N. (2004). International bilateral business in the tourism industry: Perspectives from German-Moroccan co-operations. Tourism Geographies, 6(2), 229 256. Scherle, N., & Coles, T. (2008). International business networks and intercultural communications in the production of tourism. In T. Coles & C. Hall (Eds.), International business and tourism: Global issues, contemporary interactions (pp. 124 142). London: Routledge.

References

239

Scherle, N., & Hopfinger, H. (2007). Tourismus und Medien zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. In A. Gu¨nther, H. Hopfinger, H. Kagelmann, & W. Kiefl (Eds.), Tourismusforschung in Bayern: Aktuelle sozialwissenschaftliche Beitra¨ge (pp. 363 370). Mu¨nchen: Profil. Scherle, N., & Nonnenmann, A. (2008). Swimming in cultural flows: Conceptualizing tour guides as intercultural mediators and cosmopolitans. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 6(2), 120 137. Scherle, N., & Pillmayer, H. (2007). Competing for education in tourism: Herausforderungen von Bachelor und Master vor dem Hintergrund neuer dualer Berufsausbildungsga¨nge. In J. Schmude & K. Schaarschmidt (Eds.), Tegernseer Tourismus Tage 2006 Proceedings (pp. 181 192). Regensburg: Beitra¨ge zur Wirtschaftsgeographie. Schimank, U. (Ed.). (2001). Die Krise der Universita¨ten. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Schlaffke, M. (2007). Von Bollenhu¨ten und Ritterburgen: Tourismuswerbung und Raumbilder. Mu¨nchen: Profil. Schmelzkopf, K. (2002). Interdisciplinarity, participatory learning and the geography of tourism. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26, 181 195. Schmit, F., & Decroly, J. (Eds.). (2011). Questionner le tourisme rural. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ ge´ographique de Lie`ge, 57, France. Schro¨der, A. (2008). Low-Cost-Carrier und ihre Beeinflussung raum-zeitlicher Systeme im Tourismus. In W. Freyer, M. Naumann, & A. Schuler (Eds.), Standortfaktor Tourismus und Wissenschaft: Herausforderungen und Chancen fu¨r Destinationen (pp. 253 268). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Schulze, W. (2005). ‘Mit Humboldt nach Bologna!’—Grundfragen der Neuordnung von Studienga¨ngen. Retrieved from http://www.zeitenblicke.de/2005/1/schulze/ Schulze.pdf. Accessed on January 30, 2012. Scott, D., Go¨ssling, S., & Hall, C. (2012). Tourism and climate change: Impacts, adaptation and mitigation. London: Routledge. Shaw, G., & Williams, A. (1994). Critical issues in tourism: A geographical perspective. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38, 207 226.

240

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Shields, R. (1991). Places on the margin: Alternative geographies of modernity. London: Routledge. Sidiropoulos, G. (1998). The peninsula of Athos as communication and cultural tourist attraction pole. Review of Social Research Journal, 95, 69 85. (English translation of title in Greek). Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (2001). Expanding and elaborating the concept of academic capitalism. Organization, 8, 154 161. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Smith, F. (1996). Problematising Language: Limitations and Possibilities in ‘Foreign Language’ Research. Area, 28(2), 160 166. Smith, S. (Ed.). (2010). The discovery of tourism. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Soboll, A., & Schmude, J. (2011). Mensch-Umwelt-Systeme unter dem Einfluss des globalen Wandels. Ein Ansatz zur integrierten regionalen Global Change Forschung am Beispiel des Themenkomplexes Tourismus und Klimawandel. Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde, 85(1), 127 150. Soteriadis, M., & Farsari, I. (Eds.). (2009). Alternative and special forms of tourism: Planning, management and marketing. Athens: Interbooks. (English translation of title in Greek). Soulantikas, P. (1951). Tourism. Athens. (English translation of title in Greek). Sputz, K. (1919). Die geographischen Bedingungen und Wirkungen des Fremdenverkehrs in Tirol. Dissertationsschrift, Universita¨t Wien, Wien. Squires, A. (2010). Methodological challenges in cross-language qualitative research: A research review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 277 287. Staniscia, B. (2012). Mobility of students and attractiveness of universities. The case of Sapienza University of Rome. International Review of Sociology, 22(2), 245 258. Stansfield, C., & Rickert, J. (1970). The recreational business district. Journal of Leisure Research, 4, 213 225.

References

241

Stratigea, A., Papakonstantinou, D., & Giaoutzi, M. (2008). ICTs and tourism marketing for regional development. In H. Coccossis & Y. Psycharis (Eds.), Regional analysis and policy: The Greek experience (pp. 315 333). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag (Springer). Steiger, R., & Mayer, M. (2008). Snow-making and climate change: The future options for snow production in Tyrolean ski resorts. Mountain Research and Development, 28(3/4), 292 298. Stein, J. (2002). The cult of efficiency (2nd ed.). Toronto: House of Anansi Press. Stjernsto¨m, O., & Lundmark, L. (2009). Environmental protection: An instrument for regional development? National ambitions versus local realities in the case of tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 9(4), 387 405. Takeuchi, K. (1984). Some remarks on the geography of tourism in Japan. GeoJournal, 9, 85 90. Talib, A. (2000). The RAE and publications: A view of journal editors. Higher Education Review, 33(3), 32 46. Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research, 4 (2), 161 178. Terkenli, T. (1996). The cultural landscape-Geographical approaches. Athens: Papazisis. (English translation of title in Greek). Terkenli, T., et al. (2011). Modern Greek landscapes. Athens: Melissa. (English translation of title in Greek). Terkenli, T., Iosifidis, T., & Chorianopoulos, I. (Eds.). (2007). Anthropogeography—Man, society and space. Athens: Kritiki. (English translation of title in Greek). Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2005). Return of the indicators: The research assessment exercise 2008. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, 317 322. Thurot, J. (1980). Capacite´ de charge et production touristique. In Etudes et me´moires (Vol. 43). Aix-en-Provence: C.H.E.T. Timmermans, H. (1984). Decompositional multi attribute prefrence models in spatial choice analysis: Some recent developments. Progress in Human Geography, 8(2), 189 221. Tomaras, P., & Lagos, D. (2005). Agrotourism as a factor of local development: The case of Greece.

242

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Inspection Spatial development, planning and the environment. Topos, 24 25, 5 16. (English translation of title in Greek). Toschi, U. (1936). Taormina. Un centro di economia turistica. In Memorie dell’Istituto di Geografia dell’Universita` di Bari (pp. 134 147). Bari. Toschi, U. (1947). Appunti per la geografia del turismo. In Annali della Facolta` di Economia e Commercio. (pp. 134 147). Bari: dell’Universita` di Bari. Toschi, U. (1952). La determinazione delle regioni turistiche. In Atti del convegno Treure :darrera de “U.I.C.C.” Aspetti territoriali dei problemi economici, Bologna (pp. 81 96). Toschi, U. (1957). Aspetti geografici dell’economia turı´ stica. In Atti del XVII Congresso Geografico Italiano, Bari (pp. 443 470). Toschi, U. (1959). Il turismo. In Geografia Economica (pp. 370 397). Turin: UTET. Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism—Epistemological issues. In J. Phillipmore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism (pp. 46 62). London: Routledge. Tribe, J. (Ed.). (2009). Philosophical issues in tourism. Bristol: Channel View. Troitin˜o, M. (1995). Espacios naturales protegidos y desarrollo rural: una relacio´n territorial conflictiva. Boletı´n de la Asociacio´n de Geo´grafos Espan˜oles, 20, 23 37. Troitin˜o, M., Garcı´ a Marchante, J., & Garcı´ a, M. (Eds.). (2008). Destinos turı´sticos: Viejos problemas, nuevas soluciones? Cuenca: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Tsartas, P. (1988). Tourism development stages planning at the prefecture of Cyclades. Social Research Review, 70, 191 210. (English translation of title in Greek). Tsartas, P. (1989). Social and economic impact of tourism development at the Municipality of Kyklades and especially at the islands of Ios and Serifos, during the period 1950 1980. Athens: National Center for Social Surveys—EKKE. (English translation of title in Greek). Tsartas, P. (1996). Tourists, travelling, places: Sociological approaches to Tourism. Athens: Exantas. (English translation of title in Greek). Tsartas, P. (1998). Social and environmental impact of tourism in small urban centers with development of tourism. Topos, 15, 109 124. (English translation of title in Greek). ?

References

243

Tsartas, P. (2010). Greek tourism development: Characteristics, research, proposals. Athens: Kritiki. (English translation of title in Greek). Tsartas, P. (Ed.). (2000). Tourism development: Multidisciplinary approaches. Athens: Exantas. (English translation of title in Greek). Tsartas, P. et al. (1995). Social and cultural impacts of tourism development in the Municipalities of Corfu and Lasithi. Athens: National center for Social Research. (English translation of title in Greek). Tsartas, P., & Stavrinoudis, T. (2006). The implementation of the principles of local agenda 21 for the sustainable tourism development less favored regions. The case of small Aegean islands. Aeichoros Journal, 5, 38 57. (English translation of title in Greek). Tsartas, P., Stogiannidou, M., & Stavrinoudis, T. (2004). Less-favored areas as tourist destinations: issues of organisation and management. In G. Spilanis, T. Iosifidis, & A. Kizos (Eds.), Development strategies in less-favored regions. Athens: Gutenberg. (English translation of title in Greek). Tsuruta, E. (1994). Current trends in Japanese tourism geography and the post-resort boom era: Towards a sublimation between Anglo-American and Japanese studies. Jimbun Chiri/Human Geography, 46(1), 66 84. Turco, A. (1988). Verso una Teoria Geografica della Complessita`. Milano: UNICOPLI. Turco, A. (2012). Turismo e territorialita`. Modelli di analisi, strategie di comunicazione e politiche pubbliche. Milano: UNICOPLI. Turco, A., & Brunet, R. (1984). Regione e regionalizzazione. Milano: Franco Angeli. Twyman, C., Morrison, J. & Sporton, D. (1999). The final fifth: autobiography, reflexivity and interpretation in crosscultural research. Area, 31(4), 313 325. Ugolini, G. (1996). Turismo, valori ambientali e organizzazione del territorio: il caso della Liguria. Collana di Studi dell’istituto di Geografia economica e di economia dei trasporti. Genova: Universita` di Genova. Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Uthoff, D. (1988). Tourismus und Raum. Entwicklung, Stand und Aufgaben geographischer Tourismusforschung. Geographie und Schule, 10, 2 12.

244

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Vagianni, E. (2003). Using the SWOT analysis in spatial and development planning: The case of ecotouristic planning Lesvos. Topos, 20 21. (English translation of title in Greek). Valenzula, M. (1992). Geografı´ a del Turismo y del Ocio. Aportacio´n Espan˜ola al XXVII Congreso Internacional de la UGI, Fundacio´n BBV, Barcelona (pp. 203 212). Valenzuela, M. (1997). Los turismos de interior: el retorno a la tradicio´n viajera. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid. Valenzuela, M. (2003). La residencia secundaria en a´mbitos metropolitanos. Estudios Turı´sticos, 155/156, 113 157. Valenzuela, M. (2012). Progress towards a more sustainable urban model for Spain in the 21st Century. In New trends in the XXI century Spanish geography. Spanish contribution to IGU 32nd Congress Cologne 2012, Madrid (pp. 405 430). Vallega, A. (1995). La regione, sistema territoriale sostenibile. Milano: Mursia. Valussi, G. (1986). Per una geografia del turismo in Italia. Quaderni dell’Istituto di Geografia e della Facolta` di Economia e Commercio dell’Universita` di Trieste, 1, 1 39. van der Duim, R. (2007). Tourismscapes: An actor-network perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 961 976. van der Duim, V., Meyer, D., Saarinen, J., & Zellmer, K. (Eds.). (2011). New alliances for tourism, conservation and development in Eastern and Southern Africa. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers. Vanneste, D., Huyghe, S., Vandesavel, K., & Vanginderachter, K. (2009). Languages and aspects of tourism education and training in Flanders. Scottish Languages Review, 19, 25 34. Vanneste, D., & Ryckaert, L. (2011). Networking and governance as a success factor for rural tourism? The perception of tourism entrepreneurs in the Vlaamse Ardennen. Bulletin de la Socie´te´ ge´ographique de Lie`ge, 57, 53 71. Vargas, A. (2011). Los principales destinos son tambie´n las principales potencias en la investigacio´n en turismo? Estudios Turı´sticos, 188, 91 111. Varvaressos, S. (1997 and 2004). Tourism: Economic approaches. Athens: Propompos. (English translation of title in Greek).

References

245

Varvaressos, S. (1998). Tourism: Concepts, sizes, structures; the Greek reality. Athens: Propompos. (English translation of title in Greek). Varvaressos, S. (1999). Tourism development and decentralisation. Athens: Propompos. (English translation of title in Greek). Varvaressos, S. (2008). Tourism economics: Conceptual, theoretical and methodological approaches from the 19th to the 21st century. Athens: Propompos. (English translation of title in Greek). Vassenhoffen, L., & Koyrlioyros, H. (2007). Social and political dimensions of planning of space. In T. Terkenli, T. Iosifidis, & I. Chorianopoulos (Eds.), Anthropogeography- Man, Society and Space. Athens: Kritiki. (English translation of title in Greek). Veeck, G. (2001). Talk is Cheap: Cultural and Linguistic Fluency During Field Research. Geographical Review, 91(½), 34 40. Vera Rebollo, J., & Montfort, V. (1994a). Agotamiento de los modelos turı´ sticos cla´sicos. Estudios Turı´sticos, 123, 17 45. Vera Rebollo, J., & Montfort, V. (1994b). El modelo turı´ stico del mediterra´neo espan˜ol. Agotamiento y estrategias de restructuracio´n. Papers de Turisme, 14 15, 131 148. Vera Rebollo, J., & Ivars, J. (2001). La formacio´n y la investigacio´n turı´ stica en Espan˜a: una visio´n de sı´ ntesis Papers de Turisme, 29, 7 27. Vera Rebollo, J., Lo´pez Palomeque, F., Marchena, M., & Anton Clave´, S. (1997). Ana´lisis Territorial del Turismo, Hacia una nueva Geografı´a del Turismo. Barcelona: Ariel. Vera Rebollo, J., Lo´pez Palomeque, F., Marchena, M., & Anton Clave´, S. (2011). Ana´lisis Territorial del Turismo y Planificacio´n de Destinos Turı´sticos. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch. Vera Rebollo, J., & Rodrı´ guez, I. (Eds.). (2012). Renovacio´n y reestructuracio´n de destinos turı´sticos en a´reas costeras. Marco de ana´lisis, procesos, instrumentos y realidades. Vale`ncia: Publicacions de la Universitat de Vale`ncia. VGDH. (2012). Geographische Institute. Retrieved from http://vgdh.geography-in-germany.de. Accessed on January 30, 2012. Visser, G. (2006). South Africa has second homes too! An exploration of the unexplored. Current Issues in Tourism, 9, 351 383. Visser, G. (2009). Tourism geographies and the South African National Research

246

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

Foundation’s researcher rating system: International connections and local disjunctures. Tourism Geographies, 11, 43 72. Vlami, A. (2008). Funding and geographical development of the Greek Tourism: The case of Greek Hotel Industry 1950 2005. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Patras, Patras, Greece. (English translation of title in Greek). Vorlaufer, K. (1996). Tourismus in Entwicklungsla¨ndern: Mo¨glichkeiten und Grenzen einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung durch Fremdenverkehr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Vos, K., Rulle, M., & Jansen-Verbeke, M. (2008). Cultural heritage and the rejuvenation of spa towns. Evidence from four European cities. In M. Jansen-Verbeke, G. Priestley, & A. Russo (Eds.), Cultural resources for tourism; Patterns, processes, policies (pp. 215 230). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Vuoristo, K., & Araja¨rvi, T. (1990). Methodological problems of studying local income and employment effects of tourism. Fennia, 168(2), 153 177. ˇ Vystoupil, J., Kunc, J., & Sauer, M. (2010). 50th anniversary of geographical research and studies on tourism and recreation in the Czech Republic. Moravian Geographical Reports, 18, 2 13. Waitt, G., Markwell, K., & Gorman-Murray, A. (2008). Challenging heteronormativity in tourism studies: Locating progress. Progress in Human Geography, 32, 781 800. Walkenhorst, H. (2005). Europeanisation of the German education system. German Politics, 14 (4), 468 484. Walkenhorst, H. (2008). Explaining change in EU education policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 567 587. Wanhill, S., & Jansen-Verbeke, M. (2008). Cultural events as catalysts of change. Evidence from four European case studies. In M. Jansen-Verbeke, G. Priestley, & A. Russo (Eds.), Cultural resources for tourism; Patterns, processes, policies (pp. 125 144). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. ´ Warszynska, J. (1984). Geography of tourism in Poland. GeoJournal, 9, 69 70. Watson, J. (2004). ‘What a dolt one is’: Language learning and fieldwork in geography. Area, 36(1), 59 68. Weber, M. (1920 and 1972). Gesammelte Aufsa¨tze zur Religionssoziologie I. Tu¨bingen: Mohr Siebeck.

References

247

Welbers, U. (2001). Studienreform mit Bachelor und Master. Eine einfu¨hrende Problembeschreibung aus der Sicht des Lehrens und Lernens an Hochschulen. In U. Welbers (Ed.), Studienreform mit Bachelor und Master: gestufte Studienga¨nge im Blick des Lehrens und Lernens an Hochschulen— Modelle fu¨r die Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften (pp. 1 22). Neuwied: Luchterhand. Werlen, B. (2000). Sozialgeographie: Eine Einfu¨hrung. Bern: Haupt. Williams, A., & Hall, C. (2000). Tourism and migration: New relationships between production and consumption. Tourism Geographies, 2, 5 27. Wilson, J. (2012a). Tourism: The view from space. In J. Wilson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of yourism geographies (pp. 1 5). London: Routledge. Wilson, J. (Ed.). (2012b). The Routledge handbook of tourism geographies. London: Routledge. Wirth, E. (1984). Geographie als moderne theorieorientierte Sozialwissenschaft? Erdkunde, 38(2), 73 79. Wo¨hler, K., Pott, A., & Denzer, V. (2010). Formen und Konstruktionsweisen von Tourismusra¨umen. In K. Wo¨hler, A. Pott, & V. Denzer (Eds.), Tourismusra¨ume: Zur soziokulturellen Konstruktion eines globalen Pha¨nomens (pp. 11 19). Bielefeld: Transcript. Wo¨hler, K., & Saretzki, A. (2004). Nachhaltigkeitsdenken und Nachhaltigkeitsreden: Ethikdiskurs im Tourismus. In K. Luger, C. Baumgartner, & K. Wo¨hler (Eds.), Ferntourismus wohin? Der globale Tourismus erobert den Horizont (pp. 327 342). Innsbruck: StudienVerlag. Wolf-Watz, D., Sandell, K., & Fredman, P. (2011). Environmentalism and Tourism Preferences. A Study of Outdoor Recreationalists in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 11(2), 190 204. Young, G. (1973). Tourism: Blessing or blight? Harmondsworth: Penguin. Zabbini, E. (2010). The Geographer’s profession: Umberto Toschi. AlmaTourism: Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development, 1(1), 91 95. Zacharatos, G. (1986). Tourist consumption. The calculation method and its usefulness for investigating effects of tourism in national economy. Athens: Centre of Planning and Economic Research. (English translation of title in Greek). Zacharatos, G. (1988). The problems and prospects of tourism in Greece. In E. Katsoulis,

248

Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives

T. Giannitsis, & P. Kazakos (Eds.), Greece towards 2000: Politics and society, economy, external relations (pp. 273 289). Athens: Papazisi and F. Ebert Stiftung. (English translation of title in Greek). Zacharatos, G. (2000). Package Tour. Athens: Propompos. (English translation of title in Greek). Zacharatos, G. (2007). The measurement of tourism—Statistics and national accounting: The Greek example, (1925 2005). Athens: Ministry of Development. (English translation of title in Greek). Zacharatos, G. (2010). Milestones in the evolution of Greek hotel industry. Athens: Hellenic Hotel Chamber publications. (English translation of title in Greek). Zacharatos, G. (2012). Statistics of Greek tourism. National and regional figures of Greek hotel industry, 1929 2009. Athens: Hellenic Chamber of Hotels, (fothcoming) (English translation of title in Greek). Zachrisson, A., Sandell, K., Fredman, P., & Eckerberg, K. (2006). Tourism and protected areas: motives, actors and processes. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 2(4), 350 358. Zanetto, G. (1981). Progressi e tendenze della geografia quantitativa europea. Rivista Geografica Italiana, 88, 310 319. Zanetto, G. (1986). Une ville touristique et ses habitants: le cas de Venise. Loisir et Socie´te´, 9, 117 124. Zanetto, G. (2011). L’ambiente sociale come fattore dello sviluppo turistico: elementi da valutare e inventariare. In F. Adamo (Ed.), Qualita` italia. Contributi per l’analisi delle risorse turistiche. Bologna: Pa`tron. Zanetto, G., & Calzavara, A. (Eds.). (1991). Il turismo nelle citta` d’arte “minori”. Padova: CEDAM. Zanetto, G., & Soriani, S. (1996). Tourism and environmental degradation: The Northern Adriatic Sea. In G. Priestley, J. Edwards, & H. Coccossis (Eds.), Sustainable tourism? European experiences (pp. 137 152). Wallingford: CAB International.

About the Authors

Salvador Anton Clave´, Ph.D. , is a full professor of regional geographical analysis at the Rovira i Virgili University, Catalonia (Spain) where he serves currently as dean of the Faculty of Tourism and Geography and as director of the Science and Technology Park for Tourism and Leisure. His research concentrates on the evolution of mass coastal tourist destinations, tourism planning and development, and the globalization of leisure facilities. His publications include The Global Theme Park Industry (2007), Ana´lisis Territorial del Turismo y Planificacio´n de Destinos Turı´sticos (2011, coauthored), and 10 Lessons on Tourism: The Challenge of Reinventing Destinations (2012, editor). Harry Coccossis is professor of urban, spatial and environmental planning at University of Thessaly in Greece. His research work on tourism planning and development, sustainable development, and environmental planning is internationally recognized and he has conducted and participated in more than 50 national and international research projects. He has been a consultant to many international organizations (such as European Commission, OECD, World Bank, FAO, and UNEP) and he has authored or coauthored 12 books and more than 50 scientific articles in internationally peer-reviewed journals and books. He has also been president of the Hellenic Open University, Greece, since 2009. Carine Fournier is associate professor in geography at the University of Western Brittany (Brest, France). She is currently copy editor and webmaster of the International Association for Interdisciplinary Tourism Via@ and Treasurer of the French Association for Development of Research and Studies on Tourism. Member of the Interdisciplinary Research Team on Tourism, University Paris 1— Panthe´on Sorbonne, she is conducting research on the relationship between

250

About the Authors

tourism and metropolization, studying more particularly Barcelona and Madrid. C. Michael Hall is professor in the Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury, New Zealand; docent, Department of Geography, University of Oulu, Finland; visiting professor, Linnaeus University School of Business and Economics, Kalmar, Sweden; and senior research fellow, School of Tourism & Hospitality, Faculty of Management, University of Johannesburg. Coeditor of Current Issues in Tourism, he has published widely in the areas of tourism, environmental history and change, and gastronomy. His current research interests include high latitude and Nordic attractions and the Gru¨ner Baum Merzhausen. Hans Hopfinger holds the chair of cultural geography at the Catholic University of Eichsta¨tt-Ingolstadt (Germany). He is the author of many publications on the geography of tourism and leisure and the founder and current editor-in-chief of the Zeitschrift fu¨r Tourismuswissenschaft (tw) and of the series Eichsta¨tter Tourismuswissenschaftliche Beitra¨ge. Currently he is vice chairman of the working group “Freizeit- und Tourismusgeographie” (leisure and tourism geography) in the Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Geographie (German Society for Geography) and vice president of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Tourismuswissenschaft (German Society of Tourism Research). Myriam Jansen-Verbeke is emeritus professor (geography-tourism) at the Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium. She is now looking back at her academic path as a sinuous road from urban geography to urban planning; from leisure, recreation, and tourism to the discovery of tourism and heritage; from the hardware of planning tourism landscapes to the software for marketing cultural tourism experiences. She maintains that cultural differences in tourism development and policymaking between different countries have offered a lifetime resource for reflection, study, debate, teaching, and research, while intercultural exchange of ideas on key issues in tourism academia has been her driving force. Re´my Knafou , emeritus professor at the University of Paris 1—Panthe´on-Sorbonne, has been director of research at CNRS and Professor at the University Paris 7—Diderot, where he created “Mobility, Routes, Tourism,” from 1993 to 2008 the only French

About the Authors

251

research team working mainly on tourism. He is director of the Mappemonde Collection, Editions Belin (Paris), president of the French Association for Development of Research and Studies on Tourism, and president of the International Association for Interdisciplinary Tourism Via@. His research topics include tourism practices, the relationship of tourism and memory, place and meaning of tourism in contemporary societies. Alessia Mariotti, Ph.D. , is assistant professor in tourism geography at the School of Economics, Management and Statistics at the Bologna University, Rimini Campus, Italy. She has been a consultant to international organizations (UNESCO, World Bank, Council of Europe, etc.). She is a member of the UNESCO/UNITWIN Network, “Culture, Tourism, Development” and on the editorial board of the international, interdisciplinary, and multilingual journal Via@ and of AlmaTourism—Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development. Her research topics are focused on cultural heritage, culture and social identity, industrial clusters, and cultural resources for local sustainable tourism development. Jarkko Saarinen is professor of geography, at the University of Oulu, Finland, and senior research fellow at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. His research interests include tourism development and sustainability, tourism and climate change, and the utilization and construction of nature and local cultures in tourism. He is currently the vice president of the International Geographical Union and associate editor in the Journal of Ecotourism. His recent publications include Nordic Tourism (2009, with Hall and Mu¨ller), Tourism and Change in the Polar Regions (2010, coedited with Hall), and Tourism and Millennium Development Goals (2013, coedited with Rogerson and Manwa). Nicolai Scherle is professor for tourism management and intercultural communication at the BiTS, University of Applied Sciences, in Iserlohn (Germany). His research foci and interests are tourism and intercultural communication, entrepreneurship, and tourism media. His monograph on the presentation of cultural aspects in German-language travel guides was awarded a research prize at the International Tourism Fair (ITB) in Berlin in 2000. He is member of the Royal Geographical Society and the Intercultural Research Network Forarea.

252

About the Authors

Paris Tsartas is professor in the Business School and Rector of the University of the Aegean, Greece, where he teaches tourism development. In addition, he teaches tourism at the Hellenic Open University, where he acts as a Scientific Coordinator. He is a member of more than 12 professional societies and international organizations, a reviewer, and a member of editorial boards of 15 scientific journals on tourism and editor-in-chief of TOURISMOS: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism. He is a full member of the Advisory Committee in the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management of Cyprus University of Technology. Magdalena Vasileiou is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the Business School of the University of the Aegean in Chios, Greece. She specializes in sustainable development and special interest tourism. She is also a full member of the Laboratory of Tourism Research and Studies at University of the Aegean, where she has participated in European programs (EQUAL, INTERREG, ISTOS, ARCHIMED, SAGITTARIUS, etc.), as well as research, studies, and guides regarding tourism and sustainable development, in collaboration with various private and public institutions. Julie Wilson, Ph.D. , is professora investigadora in geography in the Research Group on Territorial Analysis and Tourism Studies of the Rovira i Virgili University, Catalonia (ES) and senior research fellow in Tourism Geography in the Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of the West of England, Bristol (UK). She has been a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellow and a Fulbright Schuman Advanced Research Scholar working at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (ES), Columbia University, and CUNY Brooklyn College (USA). Her major publications include The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Geographies (Routledge, 2012, editor), Tourism, Creativity and Development (Routledge, 2007, coeditor).

Subject Index

Academic capitalism, 11, 31 32, 34, 52, 192, 196 Actor network theory, 30, 136 ADRETS (Association for Development Research and Studies on Tourism), 65 Adventure tourism, 16, 35 Advocacy platform, the, 37, 40 Africa, 19, 21 22, 27, 112, 114 115, 118, 130 Almatourism, journal, 110, 123 Alpine tourism, 77 Ancient Greece, 99 Anglo-American tradition, 5 6, 8, 195 Annals of Tourism Research, journal, 52, 133, 160, 162, 194 Anthropology, 68, 75 76, 81, 92, 95 96, 101, 113, 129, 186 ‘Applied’ research in geography, 79, 139, 141, 144, 174, 186 Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS), 137 Association of Spanish Geographers (AGE), 8, 83 84, 154 157, 163 Australia, 20, 22 23 Austria, 5, 9, 22 23, 77, 79, 88, 181

Bachelor, 78, 83 85, 127, 138, 140, 143, 145 Baltic Sea, 49 Basque language, 5, 153, 180 Behavioral geography, 40 41 Belgium, 5, 9, 64, 79, 125, 129 132, 134, 136, 138 139, 141 142, 145, 147, 180, 183 Boletı´n de la Asociacio´n de Geo´grafos Espan˜oles, journal, 159 160, 165 Bollettino della Societa` Geografica Italiana, journal, 120 Bologna Process, 78, 83 86, 188 Brain drain, 184 Brazil, 62, 64 Bulgaria, 23 Business schools, 31 Canada, 16 18, 21 22 Capital, 16, 19, 29, 32, 46, 74, 100, 145, 175 Carbon footprint, 49, 195 Caribbean, the, 167, 176, 177 Carrying capacity, 45, 101 102, 135, 159, 186 Cartography, 108, 167 Catalan language, 5, 153, 161, 180 Cautionary platform, the, 37, 40, 42

254 Subject Index Central Place Theory, 70 71, 126 China, 17, 22 23, 130 Climate Change, 31, 48 49, 51, 77, 146, 156 157, 166, 175, 187, 195 Coastal tourism, 177 Comite´ National Franc¸ais de Ge´ographie, 63 Commodification, 76 77, 187 Consumer demand, 32 Cosmopolitanism, 13, 52, 192 Creative geographies, 188 Creativity, 147, 158, 188 Critical turn in tourism studies, 30, 195 Cuadernos de Turismo, journal, 162, 165, 193 Cultural Tourism, 51, 128, 157, 167 Cultural turn, 76, 79, 186, 195 Culture, 25, 28, 38, 59, 65, 74, 76, 85 86, 99, 102, 108, 123, 130, 147 148, 180, 185, 187 Czech Republic, 22 23, 71 Danish language, 50 Denmark, 20, 22, 36, 47, 49 50 Descriptive approaches, 43, 185 Destination marketing, 140 Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Geographie (German Society for Geography), 81 Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Tourismuswissenschaft (German Society of Tourism Research), 82 Development, 4, 11 13, 15 21, 23, 25 27, 29, 31 33, 35, 37 38, 40 48, 50 51, 55 56, 58, 60 61, 63, 65, 69 71, 73 75,

77 78, 84, 88, 91 103, 106 107, 109 118, 125, 127 129, 133 134, 136 137, 140, 142 146, 148, 151 152, 154 155, 157 160, 164 167, 173 177, 179 180, 182 188, 190, 194 Differentiation, 36, 152, 182, 186 Discipline, 8, 12, 28, 40, 52 53, 56 57, 61, 69, 72 73, 81, 92, 100, 105 108, 111, 116, 119, 123 124, 132 134, 142, 145, 159 160, 165, 172, 174, 179, 181 182, 184, 186, 189, 191 Discourse, 12, 16, 23, 30, 59, 75, 85, 91, 176, 188 Dissemination (of research outputs), 1 2, 8, 12, 30, 64 65, 105, 116, 159, 161 162, 174, 176 177, 179, 182, 190, 192 195, 197 Doctoral theses, 62, 138, 154, 193 Doctoriales du tourisme, 65 67 Documents d’Ana`lisi Geogra`fica, journal, 160 161, 165 Domestic tourism, 29, 100 Dutch language, 130 Earth, the (as a theoretical construct), 49 Economic geography, 18, 40, 52 53, 79, 105 106, 108, 112, 114 118, 123, 129, 175, 185, 187 Economics, 39, 68, 85, 93 94, 97 98, 107, 116, 119, 130, 176 Ecotourism, 20, 38 Eichsta¨tter Tourismuswissenschaftliche

Subject Index 255 Beitra¨ge (Eichsta¨tt Contributions to Tourism Studies), journal, 79 Empiricism, 42, 50, 51, 115, 126, 133, 152, 177, 179, 186 Entertainment, 75, 158, 167 Entrepreneurial university, the, 32, 85, 196 Environmental discourses, 158 Epistemology, 11, 55, 57, 152, 159, 182, 186, 195 Equipe MIT, 57 60, 62, 182, 185 Espaces, journal, 64, 142 Estudios Geogra´ficos, journal, 160, 165 Estudios Turı´sticos, journal, 162, 165 Ethics (in tourism development), 38, 47 48, 109, 158, 176, 187 Ethnology, 68 EU research programs, 189 European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON), 127, 137 European Union, 1, 3, 44, 101, 137, 183, 188 189 European Urban and Regional Studies, journal, 165 Events management, 197 Evolutionary economic geographies, 175 Faroe Islands, 36 Finland, 22, 35 36, 39, 42, 45, 47, 49 51, 181, 191 Finnish language, 5, 7 Flanders, 125, 130 132, 137, 145 146 Flemish language, 5, 125, 131, 132, 145

Fordism, 75 Former German Democratic Republic (GDR), the, 73 74 France, 5, 9, 22 23, 55 59, 61 67, 98, 130, 132, 180 181, 185, 189 190, 193 French language, 62 From geography to geographies of tourism, 184 Galician language, 5, 153, 180 Gender, 16 17, 19, 25, 111, 158, 167 Geoforum, journal, 165 Geographica Helvetica Symposium (2012), 180, 181 Geographical approach to tourism, the, 56 65, 185 Geographical Information Systems, GIS, 47, 177 Geographie des Freizeitverhaltens, 70, 72 Geographies of circulation, 52, 108 Geography departments, 31, 53, 78, 172, 184, 189 Geography journals, 6, 14, 29, 120 121, 161, 165, 184, 192 Geography of perception, 106, 109, 123, 185 Geo-philosophy, 49 German language, 73, 78 Germany, 5, 9, 16, 19, 22, 27, 64, 69, 73, 78 80, 84 88, 180 181, 189 Global financial crisis, 44 Globalization, 12 13, 29, 31 32, 34, 51, 75 76, 127, 156 157, 187 188 Governance-based analysis, 44

256 Subject Index Greece, 5, 9, 19, 22, 91 94, 97 103, 180, 183 184, 186, 189 Greek language, 91 92, 101 103, 180 Greenland, 36 Hegemony, 151 152 Hellenic alphabet, 5 Heritage, 17 19, 35, 51, 95, 114, 130, 132, 137, 139 140, 142 143, 146, 152, 156, 173, 175 Historical geographies, 158 History, 4, 12 13, 18, 24, 35 36, 39, 46, 55, 68 69, 72, 83, 98 99, 101 102, 107, 130, 132 133, 139, 144, 147, 185 Homo Ludens Program, 140 Hondius, Jacobus, 130, 131 Host guest relationships, 47, 48 Human geography, 13 17, 24 26, 31, 40 41, 105 106, 112, 118, 121, 180, 185, 191, 198 Iceland, 36, 43, 45, 49 50 Icelandic language, 46, 50 Identity, 20, 30, 93, 132, 137, 139 140, 147, 156 157, 176 177, 193, 195, 198 Idiographic approach, 105, 107 109, 121 Imagery, 44 Impacts, 12, 35, 37 38, 40 41, 44, 48, 51, 92, 98, 102 103, 108, 133, 147, 152, 154 155, 157 158, 164, 166, 175, 177, 186 188 Imperialism, 13 IN RECS index (Spain), 161

Indigenous people, 47 Institutional factors, 9, 151 152 Institutionalization, 69, 78, 151 152, 154, 174 175, 182 184, 188 Integrated Coastal Zone Management, 165 166 International Geographical Union (IGU), 111, 114, 157, 197 International Network of Researchers in Tourism, cooperation and Development, 176 Internationale Tourismus-Bo¨rse (ITB), 82 Internationalization, 2, 29, 52 53, 123, 138 139, 151, 181 182, 186, 190 194, 198 ISI journals, 192 Italian language, 27 Italy, 9, 22, 27, 64, 105 106, 108 111, 113, 115 116, 118 120, 122 123, 181, 187, 189 Japan, 22, 26 27, 84 Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 160, 162 Journal rankings, 31, 34, 53 Knowledge-based approach, the, 38 Labor markets, 12, 29, 83 Land use conflicts, 46, 48 Land Use Policy, journal, 165 Landscape, 8, 28, 46 47, 57, 61, 63, 71 72, 108 109, 112, 123, 125, 127 128, 130 132, 139 140, 142, 151 152,

Subject Index 257 156 159, 177, 186 187, 194 198 Language policy, 1, 3 Lapland, Province of, 39 Latin America, 167, 176 177, 180, 192 Leisure, 15 18, 20, 24, 29, 57 59, 68 69, 71 75, 78 82, 100, 102 103, 109, 126 128, 130 132, 134 135, 137, 139 141, 144, 147 148, 154 155, 166 167, 174, 177, 187, 197 198 Lifestyle migration, 103, 197 Lingua academica, 3, 5 Lingua Franca, 1 2, 12, 81, 183, 191 193 Lingua Turistica, 3 Linguistic diversity, 1 3, 180 Low Countries, the, 183 184 Management studies, 83 Marginalization (of geographers/ tourism studies researchers), 56 Marxism, 13, 175 Mass tourism, 94, 100, 102, 110, 158, 175 Master, 83, 127, 129, 138, 140 141, 144 146, 148, 169 171 Materialien zur Fremdenverkehrsgeographie (Materials on Tourism Geography), journal, 78 McDonaldization, 85 Mediterranean region, the, 172, 175, 188 Mega-events, 102 Methodology, 87, 137 Mondes du tourisme, journal, 64

Multidisciplinarity, 55, 62, 64, 184 Multilingualism, 1, 3, 65, 181 Munich School, the, 72 73 Natural areas, 45, 157, 159, 164, 166 Nature, constructions and representations of, 44 Neoliberalism, 2 Netherlands, the, 9, 125, 128, 131 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 147, 183, 189 New managerialism, 31 New Mobilities Paradigm, 188, 195 New Zealand, 11, 16, 20 23, 25, 27 Non-native English speakers, 192 Non-places, 75 Nordic countries, 5, 9, 35, 37, 39 40, 42 44, 50 52, 185, 189 Nordic Symposia on Tourism and Hospitality Research, 50 North Sea Region, 49 Norway, 20, 22, 36, 49 50 Norwegian language, 50 Open access publishing, 196 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 84 Papers de Turisme, journal, 162, 165 Pasos, journal, 194 Peer review, 86, 120, 123, 138, 192, 193 Performativity, 176, 188 Peripheralization (of geographers/ tourism studies researchers), 23 PhD program, 146, 168, 189

258 Subject Index Physical geography, 31, 146 Place, 3 4, 11, 13, 16, 20, 25, 28, 45, 52 53, 55 62, 70 72, 80, 105, 113, 116, 119, 126 127, 129, 135 136, 140, 148, 155 156, 175, 181, 184 189, 193 Planning, 16, 26, 41, 43, 74 75, 78, 92 98, 101 103, 110, 112 113, 127 131, 133 135, 137, 139, 141 143, 155 160, 166, 168 171, 173 177, 186 187 Poland, 22, 27, 71 Political economy, 21, 43, 188 Political geography, 26, 36, 44, 52 Portuguese language, 5 Positivism, 40, 76, 175 Postcolonialism, 158 Postdisciplinarity, 184 Post-Fordism, 75 Postmodernism, 111 Poststructuralism, 158 Poverty, 13 Power, 11, 13, 43, 45 46, 50, 53, 180, 195 Prestige (in academia), 29, 33, 116 Product supply, 48, 49, 154 Progress in Human Geography, journal 13 Qualitative methods, 76 Quantitative methods, 13 Ranking systems, 52, 192 Recreation, 15 16, 18, 20, 29, 35, 40, 45, 63, 71, 74, 127, 130 132, 135 136, 148, 154 155, 166 167, 177 Recreational Business District, 61

Red Interuniversitaria de Posgrados en Turismo, RedIntur (InterUniversity Network of Postgraduate Education in Tourism), 168 Refereeing process, 64, 162, 168 Regional analysis, 39, 176 Regional development, 35, 43 44, 48, 51, 75, 92 98, 100 102, 111, 113, 118, 134, 140, 151 152, 158, 173, 183 184, 187 Regionalism, 36 Research agenda, 146 147 Research project(s), 29, 53, 100, 111, 114, 116, 118, 133, 136, 137, 154, 176 Research tradition, definition of, 4 Rivista Geografica Italiana, journal, 120 Romania, 27 Rural tourism, 42, 44, 48, 156 158, 164 166, 177 Russia, 22, 27 Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 37, 42, 45, 49, 52, 193 SchriftenzuTourismus und Freizeit (Papers on Tourism and Leisure), journal, 82 SCOPUS, 6, 15 18, 21 23, 26, 120, 159 162, 164 165, 167, 172, 192 Scripta Nova, journal, 160, 165 Second homes, 39, 46 48, 165 167, 175, 187 Semiotics, 68 Social Science Citation Index (SSCI, now Web of Science), 14, 61

Subject Index 259 Social theory, 30, 113 Societa` Geografica Italiana (Association of Italian Geographers), 121 Sociology, 12, 34, 68, 75, 81, 92, 95 96, 98, 101, 103, 128 129, 137, 176, 185 186, 193 194 South Africa, 21 22, 27, 130, 192 Spain, 1, 5, 9, 17, 21, 23, 64, 151 155, 157, 159 163, 165 169, 171, 173 177, 179 181, 183 184, 187, 189 190 Spanish Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism, 157 Spanish language, 27 Spatial analysis, 94, 96, 122 123, 135, 158, 172 173, 175 176 Spatial planning, 93 95, 98, 101, 129, 134, 137, 173, 186 Spatial transformations in tourism, 140, 166 Special interest tourism, 95 97, 103 Specialization, 49, 69, 75, 78, 92, 134, 168 171, 182, 186, 190 Staged authenticity, 135 Studien zur Freizeit-und Tourismusforschung (Studies in Leisure and Tourism Research), journal, 81 Sub-discipline, 106 Sustainability, 26, 38, 48 49, 75, 78, 82, 91, 103, 111, 114 115, 117 118, 136, 152, 173, 187, 195 Sweden, 23, 36, 39, 41 42, 45, 47, 49 50 Swedish language, 27, 39, 43 Switzerland, 5, 23, 64, 74, 77, 79, 88, 98, 195

Teaching (of tourism geography), 9, 28, 29, 32, 63, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 88, 111, 119, 129, 136, 138, 145, 148, 168, 189 Territorialization, 50, 112 113, 116 Theory, 3 4, 16, 19, 30, 36, 49, 64, 70 72, 74, 81 82, 103, 108, 111 113, 126, 135, 146, 188, 195 196 Thermal spring resorts/spas, 100 Time geography, 41, 158 Tourism Area Life Cycle, 18 Tourism as ‘fun’, 89, 100, 183 Tourism geographers, 12 13, 15, 29, 31, 37, 41, 47 53, 56, 61, 74 75, 77, 81, 127, 139, 177, 179, 183 184, 186, 188 192, 195 196, 198 Tourism Geographies, journal, 3, 11, 14 19, 21 26, 29, 31, 34 37, 39 43, 45, 47, 49 53, 64 65, 70, 73, 79, 86 88, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101 103, 118, 121, 133, 160 163, 181 182, 184 185, 187, 189 194, 197 Tourism impacts, 41, 51, 155, 177 Tourism Management, journal, 52, 156, 162 Tourism promotion, 44 Tourism statistics, 51 Tourism systems, 58, 112, 114, 136 Tourismification, 131, 135 136 Tourismologie, 67 68 Tourismscapes, 136 Tourismus, journal, 79 Tourist gaze, the, 30, 111, 127 Transcription, 6 7, 186, 195 Translation, cost of, 87 Translation, simultaneous, 197 Transnationalism, 194, 195

260 Subject Index Trieste School, the, 110 Typologies (of tourism), 1 6, 8 9, 11 48, 50 53, 55 60, 62 74, 76 84, 86, 88 89, 91 103, 105 116, 118 126, 128 130, 132 148, 151 177, 179 198

Urban condition, the, 60 Urban Studies, journal, 160 Urban tourism, 116, 135, 139, 145, 166 Urbanism, 35, 46, 51, 108, 130, 135

UK and US English, differences between, 7 UNESCO, 65, 174 Uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces, the, 21 United Kingdom, 21, 23, 27, 84, 98, 130, 192 United States, 23, 27, 61, 64, 84, 127, 140 UNITWIN, 147 UNWTO Knowledge Network, the, 147

Via@, journal, 64 65, 193 Visual approaches and methodologies, 112 Wallonia, 5, 125, 130, 132, 137, 143 Wilderness, 35, 44 47, 51 Wine regions, 13 Zeitschrift fu¨r Tourismuswissenschaft, Journal of Tourism Studies, 79