Inside Front Cover

39 downloads 0 Views 4MB Size Report
Sep 14, 2006 - example is the case of a cruise line based in the ... Norwegian, the engines were manufactured in ... tour operators, airlines and cruise lines,.
Editorial Policy

ALLAN B. DE GUZMAN

The Asian Journal of Tourism

and

Hospitality

Research

(AJTHR) is an international refereed journal dedicated to the advancement of knowledge frontiers and improvement of practice in tourism and hospitality management. The journal publishes full-length articles, research notes, and case studies from an interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspective. Articles submitted by both academic and industry practitioners are reviewed anonymously by at least two members of the international editorial board. It is published biannually in March and September by Rex Publishing Company, Quezon City, Philippines. All articles are published in English.

Founding Editor, University of Santo Tomas, Philippines

INTERNATIONAL EDITORIAL BOARD Paul Barron

The University of Queensland, Australia

Seung-Hee Baek

Shingu College, South Korea

Bill Bramwell

Sheffield Hallam University, UK

Deborah Breiter

University of Central Florida, USA

David Martin Consuegra

University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

Malcolm Cooper

Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Japan

Alain Decrop

University of Namur, Belgium

Belinda de Castro

University of Santo Tomas, Philippines

Murat Emeksiz

Anadolu University, Turkey

Adriana Galvani

Bologna University, Italy

Juergen Gnoth

University of Otago, New Zealand

Dogan Gursoy

Washington State University, USA

Michael Hall

University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Sunny Ham

University of Kentucky, USA

J.S. Perry Hobson

Southern Cross University, Australia

Samuel Seongseop Kim

Sejong University, South Korea

Bangsik Lee

Gyeoungju University, Korea

Bob McKercher

The HongKong Polytechnic University, HongKong SAR

Arturo Molina

University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

Nigel Morgan

University of Wales Institute, UK

Zhang Mu

Jinan University, China

Steve Tung-Chieh Pan

The HongKong Polytechnic University, HongKong SAR

Leonidas Papakonstantinidis Technical University of Kalamata, Greece Cheol Park

AJTHR Cover Design and Logo by Oliver R. Rabara, University of Santo Tomas, College of Fine Arts and Design; University of Northern Philippines.

Korea University, South Korea

Abraham Pizam

University of Central Florida, USA

Yaniv Poria

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel

Annette Pritchard

University of Wales Institute, UK

Mukesh Ranga

Bundelkhand University Campus, India

Agustin Santana

University of La Laguna, Spain

Thuy-Huong Truong

Victoria University, Australia

Paris Tsartas

University of Aegean, Greece

W. Terry Umbreit

Washington State University, USA

Roy Wood

The Oberoi Hotels and Resorts Group Centre of Learning and Development, India

Anna Cherylle Ramos

Layout Editor, University of Santo Tomas, Philippines

Josefina R. Navarro

Copy Editor, Manila, Philippines

Oliver R. Rabara

Art Editor, University of Northern Philippines

Evangeline E. Timbang

Publication Coordinator, University of Santo Tomas, Philippines

Copyright © 2007 Rex Publishing Co.

Table of Contents

Editorial From mode to node: The raison d’etere of the Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Allan B. de Guzman

1

University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines

Tourism through times: From agrarian societies to innovation-based economies Abraham Pizam and Robertico Croes

3

Understanding tourism – memorable moments in a complex timeframe Yaniv Poria, Richard Butler and David Airey

25

University of Central Florida, USA

Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, University of Strathclyde and University of Surrey, England

Understanding the movements of tourists in a destination: Testing the importance of markers in the tourist attraction system Bob McKercher and Gigi Lau

39

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

A shot in the dark? Developing a new conceptual framework for thanatourism Ria Dunkley, Sheena Westwood and Nigel Morgan

54

University of Wales Institute Cardiff Wales, United Kingdom

Segmentation of the e-travel industry: Travel website users versus non-users and reasons of using hospitality and travel websites Sunny Ham, Zhang Yi and Hazel W. Forsythe

64

University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA, J & C Travel, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA

The attribute background of destination judgments before and after the vacation experience Alain Decrop and Dirk Snelders

78

University of Namur, Belgium, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Analyzing behavioural trends in the use of tourist information sources Arturo Molina, Águeda Esteban and David Martín-Consuegra

89

University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

HTM study motivations and preferences: The case of Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese master’s students studying in Hong Kong Emily Ma, Samuel Seongseop Kim and Myong Jae Lee

99

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA, Sejong University, Seoul, Korea, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, USA

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research

I

The raison d’etere of the Asian Journal of Tourism and

Hospitality Research

Copyright © 2007 Rex Publishing Co.

Table of Contents

Positioning of Northeast International Airports to be hub airports Soo-Young Anne Hwang, Samuel Seongseop Kim and Sung-Hyuk-Kim

113

Future expectations of SMHES in Turkey Murat Emeksiz, Medel Yolal and Fatmagul Cetinel

128

Regional structuring of tourism employment in Greece (1993-2005) Paris Tsartas

139

International travelers’ perceptions of tourism services in Turkey: A systems approach Esergül Balci Bucak

150

New approaches to rural regional development and rural tourism SMEs Leonidas A. Papakonstantinidis

160

Hotel service quality and the satisfaction perceived by visitors to Korea Bangsik Lee

176

Sejong University, Seoul, Korea

Anadolu Universitesi, Turkey

University of Aegean, Greece

Abant Izzet Baysal Universitesi, Turkey

Technological Educational Institute, Greece

Gyeongju University, Korea

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research

II

Editorial From mode to node: The raison d’etere of the Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Allan B. de Guzman University of Santo Tomas Manila, Philippines 1008

As tourism and hospitality industry continues to expand in both time and space, the need to capture its dynamic faces, paces and phases call for a systemic and empirical framework of description. This framework is expected to provide new lenses and remarkable tools which are vital in magnifying and amplifying both the ontological and epistemological sides of the industry. While the delivery of products and services of the industry is facilitated by state-of-the-art technology and highly skilled manpower, the need to be informed and illumined by research findings, both from a positivist or interpretive perspective cannot be underestimated. Phenomena taking place in various tourism and hospitality sites are rich sources of insights, points for reflections, benchmarks, argumentation, discourse and platforms for planning and decision-making. These phenomena, which describe the tacit and embedded knowledge in the discipline, have attracted various scholars, practitioners, agencies and institutions to identify research agenda and protocols to ensure interpretation, re-interpretation, codification, communication in a language understood by the people belonging to the same discipline or profession

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Allan B. de Guzman.

Electronic mail may be sent via internet to [email protected] Copyright © 2007 Rex Publishing Co.

Research, as the language of information exchange, individual learning and organizational transformation, has become a valuable tool in knowing and understanding the unique experiences embedded in the industry’s thinking and practice. These experiences encompassing the industry’s infrastructure, culture and agents are considered interesting and stimulating texts to be read. As texts to be read, various reality frames are used by its key players to help surface the multifaceted features of the experience. These include historical, institutional, product, managerial, economic, sociological, psychological, anthropological, technological, philosophical approaches, among others. It should be noted, however, that in an attempt to represent realities following a conceptual or methodological framework, more often than not, the description may not always be generalizable in other contexts and may be interpreted or viewed as something contextual or cultural in nature.

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 1(1)

1

The raison d’etere of the Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research

While journals of international stature abound in western countries, it is challenging and inviting to note that a number of aggressive and exciting movements are taking place in Asia. The visibility and strong credibility of Hong Kong Polytechnic University in international publication, collaboration and innovation is an excellent example and model of this movement. No less than Naisbitt (1997) posits that “Asia was once the center of the world, and now the center is again returning to Asia” (16). Indeed, the so-called Asianization has become an interesting phenomenon.

developments and plans documented in leading tourism and hospitality journals across the globe. At the micro level, this melting pot of great minds and works of prolific and budding international researchers can expectedly provide an impetus of inspiration to teachers and students of various tourism and hospitality management institutions in the country to see the reciprocal interaction between teaching and research in higher education and at the same time, effect an improved synergy between the academe and the industry.

Driven by the need and passion to provide a meaningful node for knowledge creation, transmission, and utilization, the Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research in the Philippines was conceived to respond to the challenges of the present times and to ensure that the great promises of the future are adequately met. At the macro level, this international journal is geared toward complementing the various initiatives,

The comprehensiveness in scope and methodological perspectives of the works highlighted in this maiden issue are products of the support and cooperation of the thirty-three (33) international advisory board members whose passion and commitment to the life of the mind facilitated the birth of the first international journal in tourism and hospitality from the Pearl of the Orient Seas—The Philippines.

September 2007

2

Received 09 January 2007 Accepted 29 March 2007

Tourism through times:

From agrarian societies to innovation–based economies Abraham Pizam* and Robertico Croes Rosen College of Hospitality Management

Florida, USA

This article describes the progression of the tourism industry from its beginnings in ancient times through its current state and possible future developments in the 21st century. It does this by anchoring the historical state of the industry to the type of economy in which it existed - from agrarian through industrial, knowledge-based and innovation-based economies. Keywords: tourism industry, agrarian economies, industrial economies, knowledge-based economies, knowledge-based tourism, innovation-based tourism, disruptive-innovation.

INTRODUCTION

To demonstrate how the tourism industry progressed within the different types of economies that existed throughout the history of mankind, we describe the economic systems prevalent in agrarian, industrial and knowledge-based societies and then analyze the structure and functions of their associated tourism industries. Finally, we conclude with a hypothesized direction that the economy and the tourism industry will take in the middle of the 21st century. Agrarian Economies

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Abraham Pizam. Electronic mail may be sent via internet to [email protected]

Copyright © 2007 Rex Publishing Co.

Agrarian economies can be subdivided into two stages, slave-based systems which were prevalent in ancient times and serfdom-based systems that existed during the Middle Ages. During ancient times large scale commerce used slave labor which was constantly supplied by wars and conquests. In the Middle Ages, the manorial productive system replaced the slave-based economic systems. This stage started with the fall of the Roman Empire and lasted until the fifteenth century (Kaplanis, 2003). The classic manorial system was conceived as a household administrative unit, with low productivity, the dominance of physical over human capital, high fertility rates, high concentration of wealth and a hierarchical social stratification system with agriculture at the pinnacle, and trade activities somewhere close to the bottom (Sutherland, 2002).

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 1(1)

3

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES

Life during the Middle Ages was perilous, infested with malnutrition and disease, attachment to strong community ties and social values and ruled by oppressive nobility. Disintegration of the central power held by the Roman Empire brought about chaos and the unfolding of a new social contract reflected in the manorial production system triggering movement of the balance of power from the independent urban areas to rural areas. All were subjected to the so-called seigniorial jurisdiction. Towns declined as did knowledge acquired and accumulated during the antiquity stage preceding the manorial system (Casson, 1974; FernandezArmesto, 1995). Agricultural societies and their respective economic systems were composed of landlordswarriors, peasants, priests, merchants and tradesmen. Peasants lived on subsistence agriculture having little margin for deficiencies. Most food was appropriated by the landlords. Ownership of labor through the enserfment of peasants became the most crucial factor in the landlords-warriors group’s lifestyle. Social stability allowed them to pass these advantages to their families. The serfdom institution thwarted the mobility of peasants for labor. They became legally bound to live and work in one place serving the landowners. In towns, merchants and craftsmen were organized in guilds to regulate the quality of their products and protect their trade through exclusion from nobility. The guild structure reflected the hierarchical nature of Middle Age societies and was composed of master craftsmen, apprentices and journeymen. Constraints and confinement in mobility were also present in the guild system (Renard, 2000;Richardson, 2001). Stagnancy in living standards rose despite advances in technology prior to the Industrial Revolution (Goldstone, 2002; Kaplanis, 2003). Printing, gunpowder, water mills, clocks, and the

September 2007

invention of a three-field system of crop rotation improved efficiency. Advances in technology led to significant population growth which resulted in stagnation in living standards. Economic surplus generated by peasants was almost entirely appropriated by the nobility who was mostly interested in feasting and fighting (McCloskey and Nash, 1984). A high concentration of wealth was with the aristocracy that possessed between 30% and 40% of generated income (Lucas, 2003). This manorial system generated a hierarchical system yielding knights, church and peasants with uneven income distributions. Peasants were at the bottom of the ladder. It is safe to assume that the income of a peasant was less than one dollar per day in today’s currency. This uneven appropriation of the economic rent created the wealthy nobility. Increased trade provided a wide range of goods for nobles. By 1300, ships traveled from Genoa and Venice carrying precious metals, silks and other luxury goods from the Eastern Mediterranean out to England and Flanders (Belgium) taking wool, coal and timber in return. German and Dutch ships took iron, copper and lead south to the Mediterranean, taking back wine, oil and salt. Trade increase changed the source of power from prestige to the acquisition and holding of these goods, and to a lesser extent, to the prestige acquired through the maintenance of retainers and protection of peasants, leading to the gradual erosion of the political power of the landowning groups and to the decline of the feudal institutions (Pryor, 1980; Goldstone, 2002). By the mid 14th century Black Death reduced the population to around 30% and the manorial system could not be restored (Karakacili, 2004). Towns became important bastions of protection for the peasants in their struggle against the manorial reaction. High mortality created gaps in

4

ABRAHAM PIZAM AND ROBERTICO CROES

the nobility with the knights almost entirely replaced by new men with a different concept of nobility and the warrior mindset was changed for a more humanist self-image. Printing and the use of paper facilitated the bureaucratization of the state and added another avenue of social advancement to the traditional routes via church, war and commerce in the 15th century (Goldstone, 2002). Decline of the agrarian society in Europe generated conflicting forces thus changing Europe. Secular power became more important and more centralized than the church. The church became fragmented and the balance of power moved from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. Inflation and internal disorder persisted during the transition period toward the modern society. Tourism in the European Agrarian Economies of the Middle Ages During the middle ages, life was tied to one’s village, community or land, making mobility scarce. Mobility covered only small distances. Travel was the privilege of the wealthy, whether visiting villas at the seaside or searching for salvation through pilgrimage (Casson, 1974; Perrotta, 2003). Pilgrimage was the hallmark of Agrarian societies. Despite religious motivation, push factors affecting demand were similar to today’s constants including income, prices, available time and tastes and preferences. Sons of the nobility traveled in search of an heir, glory, or education. According to Verdon, (2003) travel for young aristocrats was apprenticeship. This is the harbinger of the Grand Tour in the later stage of tourism. People traveled for work, such as the clergy, emissaries and merchants. Women traveled but not everybody in the church approved the traveling of women. Pleasure was subsumed

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

under piety and traveling meant preparing for eternal life. Pilgrims had no interest in learning other cultures, were averse to the primitive, lacked an appreciation for nature and scenery, and were detached from the enjoyment of arts unless for religion. Planning a pilgrimage was elaborate due to monetary concerns. Pilgrims had to buy all the necessary materials for the journey and find appropriate companions (Feifer, 1986 and Verdon, 2003). Costs were enormous, ranging from a year of a noble’s income to many years of a merchant’s income. For example, lodging at an inn close to Paris for daily room and board cost £2 at the pound’s value in 1980, equivalent to US$ 10.86 (Feifer, 1986). This amount is much higher than the less than a US$1 per day earning of arduous work. The total cost for a ten-week trip in the late 15th century to the Holy Land for a non noble individual was the equivalent of US$ 8,965 in 2005 dollars. Trips to religious sites were grueling with treacherous roads and travelers usually getting lost in the forests. Travelers were sometimes confronted with road blockages. The network of roads was governed by social categories; a wrong turn might cost a traveler a significant fine. After the 12th century, economic expansion took place in France, roads were upgraded and the first paved road appeared. Crimes against pilgrims were common and severe. Moreover, their journey consisted of compliance with a host of government regulations, taxes, tolls, and the acquisition of safe passages. Sometimes, travelers even had to bribe officials at “borders” for safe passage. The most popular religious sites used by the pilgrims were St. James of Compostela, Rome and Jerusalem. Travelers’ guidebooks, such as the Liber Sancti Jacobi, Le Guide du pelerine du SaintJacques-de-Compostelle and Sir John Mandeville’s Travels provided detailed directions and guidance

5

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES

about regions comprising these three sites which also contained customs, cuisine, route conditions, and other particulars of the regions. Guidebooks were particularly useful and frequently reissued and updated with the most recent indulgences and the most efficient routes through the city (Feifer, 1986; Verdon, 2003). According to Feifer (1986) the all-inclusive package was conceived during the Middle Age pilgrimages. Some savvy merchants in Venice understood the needs of the pilgrims en route to the Holy Land, hence they devised such a package. By paying one price, the pilgrim received one roundtrip transportation, including sleeping berth, meals plus daily wine, guided travel throughout the Holy Land and all fees, tolls and bribes (e.g., To enter Jerusalem, pilgrims paid an entrance fee and a total package price of US$3,782.63 in 2005 dollars). Tour operators performed important distribution and marketing functions such as demand generation through promotion, negotiation between tourism providers and consumers, physical possession of hospitality components (for example, transportation means), payment and financial arrangements. There were commercial relations throughout Europe and were helpful in money flow, bills of exchange and letter of credits. They gave information about new products (boat) they were selling as well as their activities such as religious, shopping and canal trips (Feifer, 1986). General consumption in tourism was translated into demand for specific sets of tourism products such as lodging facilities (inns) on the route to the destinations and clustered around shrines in the cities. Inns provided minimum of comfort to guests who had to sleep a dozen in a room and two to four in one bed. Brawls were often witnessed in licentious settings, such as inns were differentiated by the degree of comfort and ranged from seven to twenty beds each (Verdon, 2003).

September 2007

Sightseeing, shopping and the hosting of events prevailed, including fairs and jousting. Guides provided excursions in and out of cities and even took pilgrims to shop for souvenirs. By the time a typical pilgrim reached the Holy Land, he would have already spent more than US$ 16,259 (in 2005 dollars). Thus, only very few could have engaged in pilgrimage and the search for total piety, redemption and indulgence. By the 14th century, pilgrimage served a growing hospitality industry which offered lodging, eating places, shopping, attractions and events. Innkeepers and souvenir manufacturers prospered and the Church was the major beneficiary. Fierce competition existed and the destination life cycle became evident. For example, the Vezelay Cathedral in Burgundy showed signs of stagnation and even decline, thus reflecting differing development stages of the destination (Feifer, 1986). Trade and commerce also generated significant need to travel. Trade in the Middle Ages was a dangerous and risky business and the only way for merchants to protect themselves was by traveling together. Lodging was increasingly specialized to satisfy the needs of trade travel. Cities in Levant such as Almeria were said to have 970 hostels catering particularly to businessmen (Fernandez-Armesto, 1995). To summarize, the Agrarian society’s access to tourism was constrained. Demand was rooted in religion and trade. Spatial distribution of the hospitality industry existed in the concentration of lodging along the routes of religious attractions and commercial trade destinations. Furthermore, tour operators besides innkeepers and guides and a kind of all-inclusive groups emerged. Industrial Economies Industrial revolution, a term popularized by Arnold Toynbee, brought about major life

6

ABRAHAM PIZAM AND ROBERTICO CROES

changes including new production methods, new settlements, different political organizations, and changes in people’s values. The future was perceived with optimism, a major departure from antiquity and the agrarian society where the future was not trusted. Mentality changed to shaping a positive future, rising production, and increasing income for the benefit of all. This dynamic view brought about the desire for wealth (Perrotta, 2003). The way men and women earned a living went from peasant to producer of goods and services, from serfs to freemen and women, and from villagers to city dwellers. One of the hallmarks of the industrial society was remarkable growth in productivity induced by positive feedback on the economy, human capital more dominant than physical capital and low fertility. The average rate of productivity growth more than doubled between the first and second part of the 19th century (from 0.39 in 1800-55 to 1.06 in the period 1855-90) and doubled again between the second part of the 19th century and the 1920s (from 2.01 during 1890-1929); and doubled again during the subsequent time span (2.52 in 1929-66) (Alcaly, 2003). Both historians and economists agree that technological change has been the most significant contributor to the economic progress during and following the industrial revolution (Crafts, 1995; Goldstone, 2002; Clark, 2003; Lucas, 2003; Alcaly, 2003). The immense growth in productivity dramatically improved living standards per capita from 1855 to 1989. For example, the so-called Golden Quadrangle between London, Cardiff, Edinburgh, and Glasgow comprising of some ten million people, was the most affluent consumer market in the world during the 19th century. GDP per capita in England rose threefold from about US$1,200 in 1780 to US$3,300 in 1890 (1985 prices), yet growth was unevenly distributed (Madrick, 2002). Despite some wrenching changes, historians indicate that overall real wages rose, mortality decreased and literacy spread. Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

Growth continued unabated in the 20th century. Lucas (2003) estimated a multiple of five in world production from 1960 to 1985 equivalent to 2.3 percent more in real income per capita. “The entire human race is getting rich at historically unprecedented rates. The economic miracles of East Asia are, of course, atypical in their magnitude, but economic growth is not the exception but the rule in today’s world” (Lucas, 2003). Greater affluence brought about greater mobility. The industrial revolution removed social walls. Growing urbanization modified economic hierarchies, eliminating the privileges and rules of the hereditary aristocracy, and hence the political hierarchies as well. Birthplace no longer determined one’s life possibilities. Social mobility became one of the main characteristics of this new industrial society. All were free to choose their work environments and career opportunities. The mechanization of power and advances in communications (railroads, postal services, telegraph, telephone, radio and television) through enlarging markets brought about large productivity increases and led to new career opportunities. Electric power in the second half of the 19th century had a significant impact on productivity growth steadily permeating the industrial infrastructure to generate more efficient production processes (Goldstone, 2002; Clark, 2003). New products such as radios, refrigerators, electric water heaters, vacuum cleaners, clothes washers and cars were manufactured with efficiency and uniform quality at reasonable prices, thus enabling consumers to improve the quality of their lives. Mass and inexpensive modes of transportation such as trains and automobiles increased mobility and reduced travel time. Mobility coincided with an environment of higher wages, fewer hours of work, more leisure time and a ‘welfare state’ engaged in the 7

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES

protection of the weak. The industrial revolution had contradictory impact on the condition of human life: broader options associated with rising productivity of labor; destruction of traditional family life and production patterns and concentration of people in cities. There was growing attention to social issues from the political establishment, associated with the strength of organized labor. Basically, the welfare state embodied the idea that social conditions are not only individual, but public issues and citizens were protected by the state against social evils. Tourism in Industrial Economies The industrial revolution brought about shifts in the production and consumption of tourism. Tourism opportunities became available to an increasingly larger proportion of the population. Throughout this phase of tourism development, patterns and trends included new transport technologies and increased social access to tourism activities. The railway and automobile, and later on, the airplane had an immense impact on accessibility, tastes, preferences and costs. Increasing affluence, leisure time and social approval signaled the three prime requisites for the emergence of mass tourism, the hallmark of the 20th century. There was clear shift tin the pursuit of pleasure. As indicated in the previous section, prior to this period, few people traveled for leisure purposes due to: (a) the struggle to achieve subsistence; (b) restrictive laws and rules reflecting religious and social values opposed to tourism, which was considered frivolous; (c) the slow speed of transportation; and (d) the physical risks in traveling. However, with the advent of industrial economies all these changed positively. One form of tourism in the modern era was the Grand Tour in Europe inspired by the Renaissance and the emergence of interest in classical antiques (Towner, 1985; BrodskyPorges, 1981). However, the Grand Tour was

September 2007

highly confined to the aristocracy and presented clear spatial distribution patterns from the rich northern parts of Europe to Italy and Greece. The American counterpart of the Grand Tour was the Fashionable Tour in the 19th century (Weiss, 2004). World fairs on technology became increasingly popular after 1850’s. The Crystal Palace Exhibition in London in 1851 and the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia in 1876 enabled inventors and firms to exchange innovations across countries. More than six million visitors from many European countries attended the Crystal Exhibition and about ten million, mostly from the United States attended the exhibition in Philadelphia (Moser, 2004). These fairs reflected the growing importance of useful technology, the decreasing access costs of knowledge and technology, and the increasing synergy between savants (scholars/scientists) and fabricants (manufacturers). During the Second World War, the middle class gradually became engaged in tourism. Weiss (2004) estimated that at the brink of World War II, about five percent of the American population was traveling, signaling the participation of the middle class. This was up from less than 2% of the American population a few decades earlier. Tourism remained very modest in terms of demand, and for all purposes, there was still no sense of universal touring and vacationing (Williamson, 1930; Smith, 1998). After World War II, tourism took the form of mass consumption (Gunn, 1995). The world became irrevocably changed with technological innovation and social mobility. Tourism benefited from the redistribution of income, expanded public expenditures and the success of organized labor in enhancing entitlements to paid annual leave (Weiss, 2004). Travel and tourism became synonymous with an entitlement and hundreds of millions of people mobilized in the world for the meer sake of seeking pleasure on

8

ABRAHAM PIZAM AND ROBERTICO CROES

conducting business in an ever globalizing world. By the early1950’s, about 26 million arrivals took place in international travel, and this number increased over the last five decades by a factor of about 27. By this time tourism became a defining feature in people’s lives with steady rise in disposable income and increased spending on consumer goods and services. Demand for tourism goods and services increased proportionally in household budgets, indicating the income elasticity of this product. As real GDP per capita increased, tourism consumption captured a greater share of people’s budget. Tourism also consumed an increasing proportion of the national income and employment. Despite this ‘demand bias’, tourism still concentrated on the richest Northern countries. Changing tastes and preferences in the North triggered by better living standards, increasing holiday entitlements, changing demographics, and greater interest in exotic international travel resulted in significant tourism growth in the South to the extent that the latter had captured about 30% of the global tourism demand. A similar pattern derived from demand was discernable in the tourism industry. Hospitality businesses, gradually but steadily adopted more economies of scale and transnational strategies in order to be more efficient and competitive. The accommodation sector, for example, went through a production metamorphosis to become more competitive from small independently owned hotels to roadside motels, time shares, franchised hotels/motels and multi-national chains growing larger through the process. Lodging establishments were adjusted to changing tastes and new destinations from spas to beach resorts, from urban to rural locations, and from leisure to business activities. By 1957, the Hilton Corporation became one of the first lodging corporations to turn international and become truly transnational (Weiss, 2004).

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

Accessibility increased in the industrial society. Technology and the integration of markets gave very much impetus. The railway, automobile, jet airplane, telegraph, internet and the speed of money transfer dramatically reduced travel costs. While the automobile has given more people access to tourism opportunities within their own country, access to air travel made international travel more available. Thomas Cook founded the modern travel agency industry in Europe and organized the first package tours in the modern age (Withey, 1997), while American Express issued the first travelers’ checks in 1891 (Goldstone, 2001). Eventually, distributional channels through their oligopsonistic relationships with subcontracting businesses in the resorts enabled price reductions, thus increasing access to the product. The industrial society brought about proliferation of tourism products and services. New destinations developed. New products were produced such as political tourism, social tourism, cultural tourism, environmental tourism and sustainable tourism among others. Increased competition among destinations and hospitality products generated innovation in service delivery and marketing. Competitive strategies became the buzzword in this brave new world (Page, 2003). Government involvement in tourism came up due to the necessity of addressing market distortions and regulating the use of public goods such as enjoying the beach, the sun, the mountains and the scenery (Mak, 2003). The role that government intervention had taken ranged from supervision, promotion, preservation, and provision of public goods to skimming off any rent to benefit the general economy. This intervention manifested itself in the funding of destination promotion, research, training, building and maintenance of infrastructure as well as the financial support of tourism events to increase demand to a destination.

9

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES

Governments got intertwined with tourism businesses as tax dollars came up. American Express, for example, forged intimate relationships with the US government in the 1910’s and was instrumental in bringing back home 150,000 stranded American tourists in Europe due to the outbreak of World War I. During the peak month of American tourism in Europe, 150,000 Americans were stranded at a time of financial and political uncertainty. Guaranteed by a $10 million shipment of gold, the American Express Traveler’s Check became the most widely accepted currency in Paris (Weiss, 2004). As the industrial society was waning into a new form of societal organization, the tourism industry was adjusting to the new situation and becoming more complex, specialized and responsive to the changing tastes and preferences of individuals. KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMIES

As we knew in the previous sections, land and labor were the primary wealth creating assets of agrarian economies, while labor, capital and energy were the major factors of production in industrial economies. These, however, changed in the late 20th century when information and knowledge replaced capital and energy as the key factors of production in local, regional and national economies. Advances in technology particularly in Information and Computer Technology (ICT) had transformed the majority of wealth creating work from physically based to knowledge-based. Thus, in the “knowledgebased” or “knowledge” economies (also dubbed “new economy”), explicit knowledge or knowledge which can be expressed in words and numbers and shared in the form of data, scientific formulae and universal principles, can be distributed and shared instantly and systematically around the world. Furthermore, in the 21st century, global economy people move

September 2007

across borders and change jobs frequently. Even tacit knowledge, which is knowledge which people carry in their minds and can only be transmitted via training, can be disseminated rather quickly. This has led to awareness of the fact that the only advantage that an economy or a firm has over its competitors is the knowledge as well as creative talents of its workers to efficiently solve problems. (EnterWeb, 2006) 1. Definition of Knowledge-based Economy The term “knowledge worker” was first coined by Peter Drucker in Chapter 12 of his 1969 published book The Age of Discontinuity. Drucker described this worker as a highly trained, intelligent managerial professional paid for applying his /her knowledge and exercising his/her judgment and responsible leadership. Thus, Drucker can be considered as the prophet of the knowledge-based economy, years before it came into being (Drucker, 1969). The term, knowledge-economy, came to prominence in New Zealand in the mid 1990s as “a way of referring to the manner in which various high-technology businesses, particularly computer software, telecommunications and virtual services, as well as educational and research institutions, can contribute to a country's economy.” (Wikipedia, 2006a) Carl Dahlman, of the World Bank defined knowledge-based economy as: “An economy that makes effective use of knowledge for its economic and social development. This includes tapping foreign knowledge as well as adapting and creating knowledge for specific needs.” (Dahlman, 2003) The Collins Dictionary of Economics defines the new economy as: “…that part of the economy (and companies operating therein) based on new, innovative technologies and delivery systems, utilizing computers and the Internet…” (Pass, Lowes and Davies, 2003)

10

ABRAHAM PIZAM AND ROBERTICO CROES

2. Knowledge-Producing vs. Knowledge-Using Industries Knowledge-based economies consist of both knowledge-producing and knowledge-using industries. The first group consists of industries whose major product is knowledge itself. It includes industries such as information technology, software, biotechnology, universities and research institutes among others. They are usually populated by engineers, scientists, programmers and designers, whose major output is research that leads to the development of new products and services. These industries are operated not by machines or skilled workers, but by individuals engaged in research, design, and development. The second group is composed of industries that manage, process or convey information. It includes industries such as telecommunications, banking, insurance, advertising, law, government, education and social and personal services. They are usually populated by managers, lawyers, bankers, sales representatives, accountants, social and health workers, teachers and service renders among others. In these industries, effective handling and managing knowledge and information, rather than knowledge generation are the keys to success (Corbet, 2001). 3. Knowledge-based Services In the past, distinction between manufacturing and services led to the erroneous conclusion that services neither contribute to economic productivity growth nor generate innovations in their own right. The conventional view of innovation as a manufacturing-related activity has gradually been replaced by the recognition that services, particularly Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) play a significant role in the innovation processes. This shift was generated by the recognition of the growing shares of KIBS in the total generation of wealth. (Balaz, 2004) Recent evidence suggests that services are not only active users and adopters of new technologies, Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

particularly ICT, are also producers of technology. For example, the European Union's CIS (International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre) survey showed that service firms spent between 1.2% and 4% of their sales on innovation and the share of Business Enterprise R&D (BERD) expenditure conducted by the services sector in OECD countries which rose from less than 5% of total BERD in 1980 to more than 15% in 1995 (Wong and He, 2005). As suggested by Balaz (2004): “KIBS frequently have an important role in the creation and diffusion of knowledge …. Small and medium-sized firms, which do not have in-house R&D departments, can particularly benefit from diffusion of knowledge provided by KIBS-based firms. KIBS-based firms make a significant contribution to the enhancement of a system's innovative capability…. In this way, KIBS may account for significant contribution to the development of other sectors and growth in total output.” Balaz (2004:83) Hence, it is possible to conclude that both manufacturing and service industries are part and parcel of knowledge-based economies and that a common denominator for both groups is that their key assets are people whose knowledge and expertise constitute the bulk of the value of their firms. In knowledge-based economies such as those of Scandinavian countries, Australia, Switzerland, UK, New Zealand, the Netherlands, USA, Canada and Japan (knowledge –based countries ranked among the top 15 on the Knowledge Economy Index) “the net stock of intangible capital (e.g., education and research and development) has grown faster than tangible capital (buildings, transportation, roads, and machinery). For example, the US federally financed intangible capital has increased from 60% of the value of the 11

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES

federal financed physical capital in 1970 to 93% in 1998.” (Progressive Policy Institute, 1998) 4. Characteristics of Knowledge-based Economies In a publication entitled The New Economy Index (Progressive Policy Institute, 1998), the Progressive Policy Institute listed the following 13 characteristics of knowledge-based economies: More people work in offices than on shop floors In knowledge-based economies, though the net value of the goods produced in agriculture and manufacturing has continued to grow, the bulk of the workforce (60%-80%) spend their days in offices rather than in the fields and shop-floors, moving things, processing or generating information, or providing services to people. In these economies, more of the value-added is produced in offices than on the fields or shop floors. High and low-skill jobs have grown at the expense of midskill jobs

share of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For example, U.S. exports and imports have increased from 11% of GDP in 1970 to 21.2% in 2005. Increased foreign direct investment To access markets, technology and talent, knowledge-based businesses have to invest all over the world. Foreign direct investment data indicate that corporate activities such as businesses building plants or subsidiaries in foreign countries, and buying controlling stakes or shares in foreign companies are continually on the increase. Growth in entrepreneurial companies Knowledge-based economies have a constantly increasing number of entrepreneurs willing to take risks and start new, fast-growing companies that generate growth and job creation. Aggressive business competition

Knowledge-based jobs which require postsecondary, vocational, or higher education - have grown as a share of total employment, while the share of mid-level skilled jobs has declined. Concurrent with this, however, low skilled workers such as cashiers, janitors, dishwashers and waiters, who require little or no training, have increased their share in the economy and continue doing so in the future. Increase in the share of low -skilled jobs could be attributed to a combination of factors, the most important ones of which are the current inability to significantly increase the productivity of such jobs through automation and the consumers’ preference to be served by humans rather than machines, or to perform service themselves. Globalization of trade

Globalization, new technologies and increase in the number of small and innovative firms leads to competition increase, which puts pressure on cost cutting, outsourcing and job restructuring. Competitors’ collaboration Though competition has been on the rise in knowledge-based economies, so has the frequency of collaboration among competitors. This occurred due to awareness of the fact that innovations and technological advancements are more commonly generated in networks than in individual companies. Firms increasingly turn to one another as well as to their suppliers, customers, universities, and government-owned research institutions for sources of technology and innovation.

Trade and globalization have become an integral part of knowledge-based economies, as evidenced by the growing value of exports and imports as a

September 2007

12

ABRAHAM PIZAM AND ROBERTICO CROES

Persistent turbulence

thousands of other products and services.

In knowledge-based economies the number of firms being born and are dying every year grows exponentially. While such turbulence increases economic risks, it is also a major driver of economic innovation and growth. As less innovative and efficient companies die or shrivel, more innovative and efficient companies take their place.

Falling computing costs

Increase in consumer choices Technological advances in production methods enable companies to develop "flexible" factories and offices in which costs rise only a little extent when variety expands. More flexible and agile companies are better able to efficiently target new and diverse markets. Moreover, intense business competition forces companies to develop new products and services continually in order to have new markets. Speed as an important competitive advantage To survive in an economy that is highly dependent on continually changing technologies and frequent innovations, companies have to shorten the cycles between products/services development and their introduction into the market. Thus, the ability to innovate and get to the market faster has become an important determinant of competitive advantage. Cars that took six years from concept to production in 1990 now take two years. In the knowledge-based economy, people talk about technological evolution in "Web years" (three months of a normal year) because things change fast and frequently. Proliferation of microchips In knowledge-based economies, computer chips and circuit boards are part of everything from desktop computers to PDA’s, iPod’s, land phones, cellular phones, automobiles, kitchen appliances, garage door openers, medical devices and Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

IT products and services such as faxes, computers, PDA’s, telephones and the internet are transforming businesses and industries through increased efficiency, cost cutting, customizing products and services and increased production speed and the rendering of services. All this is done at continuously reduced computing costs. Inexpensive data transmission In knowledge-based economies, global communications must be instantaneous and inexpensive. Indeed, the cost of data transmission in the last three decades has been massively reduced, while its speed has exponentially increased. Though the foregoing characteristics have been proposed as indicators of knowledge-based economies, in our opinion they can also be used as accurate markers for determining whether a particular industry is knowledge-based or not. 5. Does the tourism industry possess the characteristics of a knowledge-based industry? Several writers claim that since the end of the 20th century the tourism industry has developed the characteristics of a knowledge-based industry. For example, Andrew Sia the 1997-1998 winner of the ICI-CCM Malaysian Environmental Journalism Award said in an essay entitled Loving Nature to Death: “….Tourism is a knowledge industry like education, entertainment and the media.” (EJA Awards, 1998).The same is true for Robert B. Bentley of the Portugal Hotel Association. In a speech made in Viseu, Portugal on October 16, 2003 entitled Information Technology and Tourism Organization, Bentley suggested that tourism is a knowledge-based industry based on the following observations:

13

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES



“Information technologies have made it possible for tourism operators to finally integrate all aspects of tourism including customers into a single industry. • The demand by tourism managers in city administrations, in hotels, in travel agencies and airlines for comprehensive, valid, precise and timely information is central to successful competitions. • Partnership between government and the private sector and increased cooperation and less competition among operators at a destination are essential to achieve a new competitive position. Information technology leads to greater decentralization in national tourism organizations in favor of greater voice for cities. Tourists seek destinations, not countries.” (Bentley, 2003:5) A similar observation was made by Clive B. Jones, Senior Vice President of Economics Research Associates. Jones, in a World Tourism Organization round table presentation entitled Knowledge Based Tourism that took place in Seoul, Korea on September 25, 2001, suggested that tourism is a knowledge-based industry of immense complexity because of these reasons:



“The product is amazingly diverse, with little standardization, and complicated lines of distribution. • The market is made up of travel intermediaries and millions of consumers making individual decisions according to different goals and needs. • Competition is widespread and difficult to predict. • Management is primarily in small and medium sized enterprises that are decentralized and difficult to coordinate. • Technology continually changes. Tourism is very often subject to external events over which it has little control.” (Jones, 2001:4)

September 2007

Kahle (2002) agrees with previous authors and suggests that “The intensive use of knowledge in the process of service production and the vast amounts of information related to the numerous and varying cooperative and competitive relations handled with modern IT equipment put the tourism industry close to the New Economy, even though it is part of the Old Economy. (Kahle, 2002a: 175) “… so we may subsume …that this industry is in many ways knowledgebased.“ (Kahle, 2002:6) However, even if other researchers and scholars would not have suggested that today’s tourism industry has the characteristics of a knowledgebased industry, one could have surmised that it is, by simply analyzing the presence or absence of the previously described 13 knowledge-based characteristics of the tourism industry. Cursory examination of the tourism industry in most countries around the world shows the following: More people work in offices More people work in the offices of public and private tourism enterprises such as, Destination Management Organizations, National Tourist Organizations, hotels, airlines, travel agents and tour-operators. than in frontline positions. This was the result of substantial increase in the productivity of the operational staff in all sectors of the industry. High and low-skill jobs have grown at the expense of midskill jobs In all sectors of the tourism industry, the number of specialized jobs requiring professional and/or college education such as IT specialists, engineers, marketing and advertising consultants and linguists, have grown at the expense of mid-skill jobs such as foremen and line supervisors. However, low skilled workers such as housekeepers, janitors, bellmen, gardeners, shortorder cooks, dishwashers and waiters, who require

14

ABRAHAM PIZAM AND ROBERTICO CROES

little or no training, have increased in numbers.

successfully and even drive very large traditional companies out of business.

Globalization of trade Aggressive business competition Throughout history, the tourism industry has been on the forefront of the globalization of trade since a significant and constantly increasing proportion of patrons of tourism enterprises are international tourists. As such, the tourism industry is only one of the very few export industries in which the “product” is consumed within the country rather than being shipped abroad. Many products and services required by tourism enterprises such as foodstuff, furniture, equipment and computers among others, as well as many specialized services such as architecture, design, IT and advertising, are manufactured or have their origin abroad. An example is the case of a cruise line based in the USA. Practically all of the products and services available on its fleet are provided by vendors throughout the globe. The ship may have been built in Italy or Finland, the architects were Norwegian, the engines were manufactured in Germany, the furniture was made in China, the marine personnel are Filipino and the hotel staff originated from Indonesia. Increased foreign direct investment In the 21st century, the tourism industry was dominated by multinational corporations, financed by investors from the four corners of earth, who own and/or operate hotels, restaurants, tour operators, airlines and cruise lines, throughout the developing and developed parts of world. Growth in entrepreneurial companies Like its sister companies in other knowledgebased industries, tourism has always had its share in the creation of successful entrepreneurial companies. Whether large, such as low cost airlines, or small, such as the eco-tourism lodges in the Amazon River or Africa, many tourism entrepreneurs have managed to operate them Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

Globalization, the Internet and increase in the number of small and innovative tourism firms as well as the formation of new tourist destinations have led to significant increase in competition among tourism firms and tourist destinations. For example, while fifty years ago there were only a few dozen destinations specialized in the SSS (Sun, Sea, and Sand) market, today there are literally hundreds if not thousands of such destinations. Newcomers to this market such as Turkey, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, among others, succeeded in capturing a share of this market through aggressive pricing and innovating products. In doing so, they forced some of the conventional SSS destinations, such as Spain and Greece, to reposition themselves and offer other products. Collaboration among competitors During the last three decades, competition in the tourism sector has been constantly on the rise. Today, there are more than ever before active tourist destinations, more convention centers, more hotels and restaurants and more land, sea and air transport carriers. However, concurrent with these developments, there is a significant increase in collaboration among competitors. Airlines made global alliances (i.e. OneWorld, Skyteam), offered tourist destinations, established joint marketing and advertising programs (i.e. Mundo Maya in Central America) cruise lines shared the expenses of building new piers in the Caribbean islands and some of the world’s largest hotel chains jointly developed and adapted international guiding principles for sustainable hotel design and development. Even competing regional marketing organizations such as the Caribbean Tourism Organization and the Caribbean Hotel Association have recently decided to join their forces together in order to 15

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES

improve the efficiency of Caribbean tourism promotion. Persistent turbulence The tourism industry, like other knowledge-based industries, is a turbulent industry. Every day, new firms are being opened, while others cease to exist. A good example of this phenomenon is the airlines industry. Companies such as Braniff, Eastern, Euroceltic, Hellenic Star, Independence Air, Kiwi International, National, Pan Am, South East, Swissair, Tower, TWA, TTA, and Western Airlines, to name just a few, have ceased operations and no longer exist. On the other hand, new airlines, particularly budget airlines, are cropping up throughout the entire globe. Airlines such as Air Tran, Condor, Easy Jet, Fly Thomas Cook, Jet Blue, Jet X, Ryan Air, Spirit, Sterling, Transavia, and Vueling, to name just a few, have started operation in the last decade and already command a significant share of their markets. The same holds true for the hotel sector where every year, the industry undergoes incessant restructuring through countless mergers and acquisitions. While such turbulence increases the economic risks associated with tourism businesses, it is also a major catalyst for innovation and growth. As less innovative and efficient companies die, more innovative and efficient companies take their place. Increase in consumer choices Today the tourism and hospitality industry offers various products and services that cater to every taste and pocket. It does that not by “producing” an infinite number of products and services, but by developing "flexible" plants that can “produce” a myriad of products and services the cost of which rise little when variety expands. After all, the slogan “Have it your way” was invented by Burger King who still produces the same burger that it always did, but with a relatively large number of options relating to condiments and

September 2007

sauces, among others. The same is true with MacDonald’s and other fast food firms that have practically invented the term, “mass customization”, to describe the foregoing phenomenon. Firms in other sectors of the tourism industry do the same. In the hotel industry, for example, numerous hotel companies offer their guests a variety of product choices such as non-smoking rooms, different types of pillows and mattresses and even different types of beds (i.e. Westin Hotels and Resorts’ "Heavenly Bed."). The same is true with the cruise industry within which the confines of a single ship passengers can participate in various on-board activities per their interests and eat their meals in a variety of meal and dining options (health- oriented food, fast food, haute cuisine, free-style dining, formal dining, etc.). Speed as an important competitive advantage The ability to innovate and get to the tourism markets faster has become an important determinant of competitive advantage. Hence, tourism destinations and tourism enterprises take less time today to put a product or service in the marketplace than it took them a decade or two ago. Proliferation of microchips Like other knowledge-based industries, computer chips and circuit boards are present in every phase of tourism and hospitality operations, from desktop computers to printers, copiers, fax machines, land phones, VOIP phones (Voice Over Internet Protocol), cellular phones, PDA’s (Personal Digital Assistant), GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers, taxi cabs, rental cars, busses, railways, airplanes, cruise ships and restaurant kitchens, to name just a few. Falling computing costs Information technology products and services such as faxes, computers, PDA’s, cellular phones

16

ABRAHAM PIZAM AND ROBERTICO CROES

and particularly the Internet have totally transformed the tourism business. As a result of the lower cost of computing, tourism companies can improve their productivity, lower costs of operating their business and render customizable products to their customers. Inexpensive data transmission Buhalis (1998) predicted that the diffusion of ICT -based interaction in the tourism industry should result in the reduction of transaction costs. However, due to the great increase in the number of transactions and the deregulation of the telecommunication industry in Europe and North America, the costs of accessing the internet, and the business of booking and purchasing travel products on the Internet, has expanded exponentially. According to comScore Networks, 35 million consumers used web search for travel planning in April 2005 when 35 million U.S. consumers used a search engine to initiate travel planning. Those who bought travel online ultimately spent an estimated $6.6 billion in the category during the eight week analysis period” (comScore Networks, 2006). Having presented the foregoing evidence that the tourism industry has most if not all the characteristics of knowledge-based industries, it is also our duty to point out that not all sectors of the industry and every firm within each sector uses or manages knowledge effectively for its economic and business success. As a matter of fact, authors such as Cooper (2006); Hjalager (2002); Stamboulis and Skayannis, (2003) Faulkner et al, (1994) and others, have suggested that many tourism firms, particularly Small and Mediumsized Enterprises (SME) suffer from systematic lack of transfer of knowledge from academic and research institutions to their shops. Unfortunately, as discovered in a recent global study, this phenomenon is not unique to the tourism industry (Rieder and Ganter, 2006). The 2006 IBM Global Study that was conducted among the world’s top CEO’s and business leaders revealed that though Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

two thirds of their organizational efforts were targeted at discovering new business models and innovations, only 13% of these companies turn to academic or research institutions as a source of new ideas and driving innovations (Rieder and Ganter, 2006:36). Though there are numerous reasons why this phenomenon is prevalent in tourism, one major factor is that majority of tourism enterprises are small family businesses that would consider applying R&D results only if they perceive them to be inexpensive and of an immediate and practical application to their organizations (Hjalager, 2002). THE NEXT PHASE: INNOVATIONBASED ECONOMIES Most modern economists agree that innovation is a major force in economic growth. Some even claim that innovative activity is the single, most important component of long-term economic growth, (Rosenberg, 2004). Their rationale is based on the thinking that basically there are only two ways of increasing the output of the economy, namely: increasing the number of inputs in the productive process, or designing new ways for more output from the same number of inputs (Abramovitz et al, 1989 as quoted in Rosenberg, 2004:1). Some economists even suggest that the old model for business success which was based on the efficient use of capital and labor will no longer be relevant in the next phase of the economy. The emerging model for this phase is the creation and application of innovative products, services and business models to serve the ever-changing world. This requires (a) understanding customer needs (b) accessing the recent and most current knowledge, skills and ideas and (c) turning ideas and creativity into innovative products/services, business models, processes or techniques (Beacham, 2006).

17

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES

However, as is evidenced in knowledge-based economies, not all innovations lead to the same economic growth. Some may only cause minimum increase in efficiency and productivity, while others may cause a quantum jump, thus changing the nature of both the production and consumption of the product or service. In the next phase of the economy, significant economic and business growth can be achieved only through the development and adoption of one type of innovation, the disruptive innovation. 1. Disruptive vs. Incremental Innovation Innovations is classified into two types, disruptive and incremental. According to Thomond & Lettice (2002) disruptive innovation is “a term used to describe an innovation of highly discontinuous or revolutionary nature, which is the opposite of ‘evolutionary’ ‘incremental’ or ‘sustaining’ innovation.” Disruptive innovation is a successfully exploited product, service or business model that significantly transforms the demands and needs of a mainstream market and disrupts its former key players. (Thomond & Lettice, 2002:1). The term, disruptive innovation, was coined by Clayton M. Christensen and described in his books The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Christensen, 1997) and The Innovator's Solution (Christensen and Raynor, 2003). Disruptive innovations overturn existing dominant products or services in the market. They capture an existing market by either filling a role in a new market which an established product/service could not fill, or by successively moving up-market through performance improvements until finally displacing the market incumbents. (Hannaford, 2003; Stabe, 2002). Terms such as ‘disruptive’, ‘radical’, ‘non-linear’, ‘discontinuous’, ‘breakthrough’, ‘paradigm-shifting’ and ‘revolutionary’ are all used to describe what is in essence the opposite of incremental innovations. Incremental innovation can be defined as

September 2007

“change in an existing technology or combination of technologies that does not significantly alter functionality, but incrementally and continuously improves performance, features, safety and quality or lowers cost….Incremental innovation is a result of improvements suggested by those directly engaged in the design and production process, or as a result of initiatives and proposals by users” (Strategies 2 Innovate, 2006). According to Leifer et al. (2000) incremental innovation can keep large companies competitive in the short term. However, disruptive innovation can change the game, leading the way to long-term growth. The term, creative distruction, was first used by the Austrian-born economist Joseph Schumpeter who argued that "Innovation by the entrepreneur, lead to gales of 'creative destruction' as innovations make old inventories, ideas, technologies, skills and equipment obsolete. The question, as Schumpeter saw it, was not 'how capitalism administers existing structures,... but how it creates and destroys them.' This creative destruction has brought about continuous progress and improved standards of living for everyone." (Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2006) Examples of disruptive innovations products: • Digital cameras that disrupt film cameras • Desktop computers that disrupt mainframe computers. • CD’s displace vinyl records. • Automobiles that displace horses as means of transportation. • Jet engines that displace piston engines. • Transistors that displace vacuum tubes. • Antibiotics that displace sulfa and other antibacterial drugs • Digital communications and transmissions (i.e. fax machines and E-mails) that have displaced analogue communication and transmissions (i.e. telegrams).

18

ABRAHAM PIZAM AND ROBERTICO CROES

• • •

Mobile (cellular) phones that will probably displace land phones VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) that will probably displace traditional and mobile telephone service. “Flashcards” that will probably disrupt if not displace disk drives. (Stabe, 2002; Wikipedia, 2006b)

Examples of incremental innovation products: • Color TV’s which are an improvement of Black and White TV’s • Flat panel TV’s (i.e. LCD or Plasma) which are an improvement of tube-based TV’s • Zip disks which are an improvement on Floppy disks • Lap top computers which are an improvement of desktop computers • Upgrades to existing software 2. Characteristics of Disruptive Innovations According to Thomond & Lettice (2002:4), disruptive innovation has the following characteristics:



“It starts success by meeting the unfulfilled needs of an emerging or niche market. • Its set of performance attributes, highly rated by niche market customers, is not initially appreciated by mainstream markets. • Mainstream market customers as well as competitors’ value different performance attribute sets thus viewing the innovation as substandard. • Niche market adoption enables investment on the product, service or business model to increase performance, create or enter new niche markets and expand customer numbers. • Awareness of the product, service or business model increases, forcing and influencing

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

change in the mainstream markets perception of what it values. The change in the mainstream market’s perception of what it values as the catalyst that enables the innovation to disrupt and replace existing mainstream products, services or business models.” (Thomond & Lettice, 2002:4) 3. Business-Model vs. Technological Innovations A business-model innovation is “the discovery of a fundamentally different business model in an existing business….To qualify as an disruptive innovation, the new business model must enlarge the existing economic pie, either by attracting new customers to the market or by encouraging existing markets to consume more….Business model innovators do not discover new products or services but simply redefine what an existing product or service is and how it is provided to the customer. “ (Markides, 2006:20). Examples of disruptive business-model innovations are Amazon, E-Bay, Dell computers, Swatch watches, Charles Schwab stock brokers and NetBank among others. None of the above invented the products or services that they manufacture or sell, but redefined their products/services and invented new ways of offering these to the customer. For example, Amazon did not discover book selling but offered new ways of providing books to customers. The same is true for E-bay that did not invent auctions, Dell which did not invent computers, Swatch that did not invent watches, Charles Schwab that did not invent stock broking and NetBank that did not invent banking. These business-model innovators and other companies like them “invaded an existing market by emphasizing different product or service attributes to those emphasized by the traditional business models of the established competitors.” (Markides, 2006:20) By doing so they enlarged the existing markets and attracted new customers.

19

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES

Until recently, business–model disruptive innovations were thought to possess the same characteristics as technological or product/ service disruptive innovations. For example, Christensen (1997) and many of his followers suggested that “disruptive technologies tend to be associated with the replacement of the incumbents by entrants” (Danneels, 2004:247). If this holds true with business models as well, than sooner or later all traditional book sellers such as Barnes and Nobles would be replaced by Amazon type booksellers. Charles Schwab type of discount stock-brokerage houses would replace all traditional stock-brokers such as Merrill Lynch because they are superior in their business models. This claim is challenged by Markides (2006) who points out that available business literature suggests that new business-model innovations grow quickly in the initial phase of their introduction but fail to completely overtake the traditional way of competing. For example, “Internet banking and Internet brokerage have grown rapidly in the last five years but have captured only 10-20% of the market share. In market after market, new ways of competing grow to a respectable size but never really replace the old ways. Nor are these innovations expected to grow in the future to 100% of their markets” (Markides, 2006:21). This leads Markides (2006:21-21) to the conclusions that (1) new business models are not necessarily superior to the established companies employ and (2) that in order to compete with the new entrants, existing companies do not have to adopt new business models by themselves or create separate units . 4. Innovation in the Tourism Industry Like most other industries, the tourism industry has its share of innovative products/services introduced during the last fifty years. However, with very few exceptions, most products and service innovations were of an incremental rather

September 2007

than disruptive nature. While such innovations as the airline industry that displaced maritime passenger transportation, online (Internet) booking and reservation that displaced most of the travel agency businesses, the theme parks industry that displaced the amusement park business, in most other cases the verdict is not yet out whether a particular product/service innovation could be considered as a disruptive innovation since it displaced or disrupted former key players, or an incremental innovation. During the last century we have seen a whole new range of innovative tourism products/services which never existed before. Products/services such as winter tourism, cruise lines, convention centers, to name a few, have many of the characteristics of disruptive innovations, but none has yet managed to disrupt its key players, hence, at this stage, they might be considered only incremental. On the other hand the tourism industry has created many new business models that have the characteristics of disruptive innovations. Such business models as time shares, condo hotels, fast food restaurants, all-you-can-eat restaurants, chain of franchised hotels or restaurants and no-frills airlines, are typical examples of the numerous disruptive innovations created during the last 2-3 decades and many more are expected in the future. While as previously stated by Markides (2006), these new business models did not succeed in capturing the entire share of their markets, they nevertheless managed to enlarge existing markets by attracting new customers to the markets and/ or by encouraging existing customers to consume more. For example, time shares and condo hotels manage to capture a significant and growing share of the lodging market, but they have not destroyed the traditional hotel industry which still dominates the market. The same is true for fast food, the allyou-can-eat restaurant businesses and the no-frills

20

ABRAHAM PIZAM AND ROBERTICO CROES

airlines which have not made a dent in their respective traditional industries. In the same vain, new business processing techniques that were developed by or for the hospitality/tourism industry such as: Yield Management, Destination Management Systems, Frequent Flyer/Guest Programs, Energy Management Systems, Electronic Locking Systems, Global Distribution Systems, Mass Customization, Property Management Systems, Revenue Management, Self-Service Technologies (i.e. Self Check-out Systems), and Central Reservations Systems (CRS), can be considered as having some, if not all, of the characteristics of disruptive innovations. As previously cited, one of the best examples of disruptive innovations in the tourism industry is the online reservation, purchasing and ticketing of airline and other transportation products, such as cruises, bus tours and rental cars. During the last decade the Internet has managed to singlehandedly transform the role of travel agents, and sharply reduce the size of the travel agent industry. These travel agencies that survived have done so by providing new services to potential travelers which require expert knowledge and advice that can only be delivered through personal customer relationship. In essence these businesses have transformed themselves from agencies that provide information, book, sell travel products and earn their profits from commissions, to travel consultancies that advise customers on anything related to travel in exchange for professional fees (Rosenberg, 2004:6). In conclusion, if tourism businesses were to survive and flourish in the next phase of the economy, they will have to continuously develop, adopt and market innovative: products, services, business models, work processes and management techniques. This could be achieved only through

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

the elimination of major barriers which currently prevent most hospitality businesses from being truly innovative. These barriers are failure to adopt innovative ideas produced in the knowledge shops of academic and research institutions, failure to recognize changes, threats and opportunities in the global society, lack of organizational ambition and vision, aversion to risks, lack of market understanding, lack of expertise in their service or production processes and lack of finance (Beacham, 2006). REFERENCES Abramovitz, M., Galambos, L., Gallman, R. (1989). Thinking About Growth and other Essays on Economic Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alcaly, R. (2003). The New Economy. And what it means for America’s Future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Balaz, V. (2004) Knowledge-Intensive Business Services in Transition Economies, The Service Industries Journal, 24(4), 83-100. Beacham, J. (2006). Succeeding Through Innovation: Sixty Minute Guide to Innovation Turning Ideas into Profit. www.dti.gov.uk/ innovation (retrieved June 6, 2006). Bentley, R. B. (2003). Information Technology and Tourism Organization. Madrid: Sustainable Tourism Development Associates. Brodsky-Porges, E. (1981). The Grand Tour. Travel as an Educational Device, 16001800. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), 171 -186. Buhalis, D. (1998). Strategic use of information technology in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 19(5), 409–421. Casson, L. (1974). Travel in the Ancient World. London: Allen & Unwin. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

21

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES

Christensen, C. M. & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The Innovator's Solution, Harvard Business School Press. Clark, G. (2003). The Great Escape: The Industrial Revolution in Theory and in History. (unpublished). comScore Networks (2006). www.comscore.com. (retrieved January 29, 2006) Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (2006). Schumpeter, Joseph Alois Biography. Retrieved February 6, 2006, from www.econlib.org. Cooper, C. (2006). Knowledge Management and Tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 47-64. Corbet, M. (2001). Employee-Ownership in the Knowledge Industries, Poptel, UK. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from www.coop.org/calendar/ga2001/service -poptel.pdf. Crafts, N. (1995). Macroinventions, Economic Growth and ‘Industrial Revolution’ in Britain and France. Economic History Review, 48, 591-598. Dahlman, C. (2003) “World Bank Knowledge Economy Products and Strategy: Emerging Lessons,” a presentation made at the PREM Learning Week, April 9, 2003, Washington DC. Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive Technology reconsidered: A Critique and Research Agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4), 246-258. Drucker, Peter F. (1969). The Age of Discontinuity, Heinemann, London. EnterWeb (2006). Knowledge Economy. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from www.enterweb.org -knowledge economy. EJA Awards (1998). Current Winners Retrieved February 6, 2006, from www.EJAaward.com.my - eja awards. Faulkner, F, P. Pearce, R. Shaw & B. Weiler (1994), Tourism Research in Australia, Proceedings for the Tourism Research and Education Conference, CAUTHE, Brisbane:

September 2007

3–25. Feifer, M. (1986). Tourism in History. New York: Stein and Day Publishers. Fernandez-Armesto, F. (1995). Millennium: A History of the last Thousand Years. New York: Simon & Schuster. Goldstone, J. (2002). Efflorences and Economic Growth in World History: Rethinking the Rise of the West and the Industrial Revolution. Journal of World History, 13(2), 323-389. Goldstone, P. (2001). Making the World Safe for Tourism. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gunn, C. (1995). America’s Tourism Explosion and Its Modern Fallout. Unpublished Paper, Texas A&M University. Hjalager, A. (2002). Repairing Innovation Defectiveness in Tourism, Tourism Management, 23(5),465–474. Hannaford, S. (2003). Disruption and Oligopolies Retrieved January 30, 2006, from www.oligopolywatch.com. Jones, C. B. (2001). Knowledge Based Tourism, World Tourism Organization Round Table, Seoul, Korea: September 25, 2001 Retrieved January 26, 2006, from www.econres.com/documents/ip.html. Kahle, E. (2002) Implications of "New Economy" Traits for the Tourism Industry, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 3(3/4),5-23. Kaplanis, C. (2003). The Debasement of the ‘Dollar of the Middle Ages’. The Journal of Economic History, 63(3), 768-801. Karakacili, E. (2004). English Agrarian Labor Prodcutivity Rates before the Black Death: A Case Study. The Journal of Economic History, 64(1), 24-60. Leifer, R., C. M. McDermott, G. C. O'Connor, L.S. Peters, M. P. Rice, & R. W. Veryzer. (2000). Radical Innovations, How Mature Companies Can Outsmart Upstarts, Boston: HBS Press. Lucas, R. (2003). The Industrial revolution. Past

22

ABRAHAM PIZAM AND ROBERTICO CROES

and Future. In Robert Lucas. Lectures on Economic Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Madrick, J. (2002). Why Economies Grow. The Forces that Shape Prosperity and How We Can Them Working Again. New York: A Century Foundation Book. Mak, J. (2003), Tourism and the Economy, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 1925. McCloskey, D. and J. Nash (1984). Corn at Interest: The Extent and Cost of Grain Storage in Medieval England. American Economic Review, 74(1), 174-187. Moser, P. (2004). How do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from 19th Century World Fairs. htpp://web.mit.edu/moser/www/ pat501.pdf. Page, S. (2003). Tourism Management, Managing for Change. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann. Pass, C., Lowes, B., & L. Davies (2003) Collins Dictionary of Economics, 3rd ed. London, Collins Publishers Perrotta, C. (2003). The Legacy of the Past: Ancient Economic Thought on Wealth and Development. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 10(2), 177229. Progressive Policy Institute (1998). The New Economy Index. Retrieved January 2, 2006, from ww.neweconomyindex.org. Pryor, F. (1980). Feudalism as an Economic System. Journal of Comparative Economics, 4, 56-77. Rieder, W. & Ganter, G. (2006). Collaboration and Partnerships among Top Sources for New, Innovative Ideas. Business Guide to Switzerland, 3(5-6), 36-38. Renard, G. (2000). Guilds in the Middle Ages. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada: Batoche Books. Richardson, G. (2001). A Tale of Two Theories: Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

Monopolies and Craft Guilds in Medieval England and Modern Imagination. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 23(2), 217-242. Rosenberg, N. (2004). Innovation and Economic Growth, Retrieved January 2, 2006, from www.OECD.org/ dataoecd/55/49/34267902.pdf Smith, V. (1998). War and Tourism. An American Ethnography. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 202-227. Stabe, M. (2002) Definition of Disruptive Innovation, Institut Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from www.innovation.iao. fraunhofer.de/seiten/projekte/DI.html. Stamboulis, Y and P. Skayannis (2003), Innovation Strategies and Technology for Experience-Based Tourism, Tourism Management, 24(1),35–43. Strategies 2 Innovate (2006). Radical and Incremental Styles of Innovations. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from www.strategies2innovate.com. Sutherland, D. (2002). Peasants, Lords, and Leviathan: Winners and Losers from the Abolition of French Feudalism, 17801820. The Journal of Economic History, 62 (1), 1-24. Thomond, P & F. Lettice (2002) Disruptive Innovation Explored. Proceedings of the 9th IPSE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications www.cranfield.ac.uk/sims/ecotech/pdf/ disruptive-pt.pdf (retrieved February, 4, 2006). Towner, J. (1985). The Grand Tour. A Key Phase in the History of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 12, 297-333. Verdon, J. (2003). Travel in the Middle Ages. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Weiss, T. (2004). Tourism in America before World War II. The Journal of Economic History, 64(2), 289-327. Wikipedia (2006a). Knowledge Economy. Retrieved January 3, 2006, from 23

TOURISM THROUGH TIMES

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Knowledge_economy. Wikipedia (2006b). Disruptive technology. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from www.Wikipedia.com. Williamson, J. (1930). The American Hotel: An Anecdotal History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Withey, L. (1997). Grand Tours and Cook’s Tours: A History of Leisure Travel, 1750 to 1915. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Wong, P.K. and Z.L.He (2005). A comparative study of innovation behaviour in Singapore's KIBS and manufacturing firms, The Service Industries Journal, 25 (1), 23-42.

September 2007

24

Understanding tourism:

Received 15 February 2007 Accepted 26 April 2007

Memorable moments in a complex timeframe

Yaniv Poria1*, Richard Butler2 and David Airey3 Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel 2 University of Strathclyde, Scotland 3 University of Surrey, England

1

This theoretical paper raises four issues. First, it suggests that another element needs to be considered to fully understand the nature of tourism in our time: control. In addition, this paper leads to the idea that tourism is not a monolithic activity for an individual, but consists of many different layers of experiences such that the phenomenon or essence of tourism cannot be understood without acknowledging these different layers. Third, it provides a rationale for distinguishing between tourism sub-groups instead of the current approach which highlights the space attributes in which the tourist is located. Fourth, we argue here that although a tourist experience may be spread over a long timeframe, it may be that only a few moments constitute the essence of the tourism experience. Finally, possible contributions arising from the novel approach presented to researchers and practitioners alike are highlighted. Keywords:

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yaniv Poria, School of Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel, Tel +972 (8) 6479737, (E-mail: [email protected]). Richard Butler, Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde, Curran Building, 94 Cathedral Street, Glasgow, G4 0LG Strathclyde, Scotland, Tel +44 (0) 141 552 2870 (E-mail: [email protected]). David Airey, Faculty of Management and Law, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, England, Tel +44 (0) 1483 689656 (E-mail: [email protected])

Copyright © 2007 Rex Publishing Co.

leisure; recreation; perception; free.

INTRODUCTION

Attempts to understand tourism as a phenomenon usually dwell on its relationship with recreation and leisure as well as on issues such as distance travelled from home, duration of travel, motive for travelling and activities undertaken or space attributes in which the activities occur. From these relationships, subgroups of tourism such as ecotourism, business tourism, heritage tourism and short-stay tourism have emerged. Research has rarely highlighted the fact that within the timeframe which tourists spend away from home, they frequently have a range of different experiences which do not relate but even contradict one another. All these timeframes and 'microexperiences' should be considered and clarified to understand individual 'macro experience' which results in good tourism management. This paper reviews previous attempts of defining and clarifying the meaning of tourism and its subgroups. Beyond this, it also suggests that another

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 1(1)

25

UNDERSTANDING TOURISM

element needs to be considered to fully understand the nature of tourism in our timefirst, as a social phenomenon, and second, in relation to the role it plays in an individual’s experiences in life. Within the tourism timeframe, individuals view their experiences in various ways, influenced particularly by the extent to which they perceive time as “free” or “non-free”. This proposition leads to the thinking that tourism is not a monolithic activity for an individual, but consists of various experiences such that the phenomenon or essence of tourism cannot be understood without acknowledging its many aspects. Considering individual tourist experience as a single phenomenon leads to misunderstanding of the experience which researchers attempt to rationalize. Misunderstanding, in turn, affects the approach practitioners take and scholars use to clarify behaviours during a tourist experience. The paper also emphasises that revealing the essence of individual tourist experience requires study and clarification of its components and their respective links, rather than the study of the entire travel timeframe as if it were a single monolithic experience. There are two main reasons why scholars need to highlight sections of the travel experience, whether these are timeframes or specific moments. Sociological theorists (e.g. Rojek, 1995; Urry, 1990) suggest that tourists usually pursue a different role during their absence from home. It should thus be assumed that tourists play several roles, as needed, and pursuing those roles is necessary. We also argue that although tourist experience may spread over a long timeframe, only a few moments make up the essence of the tourism experience which affects the perception of the entire trip. It is these moments, particularly, and the time that the individual searches for such moments, rather than the long time during which no significant activity takes place. These 'moments' are at the core of people's perception of the quality of experience, influencing issues such as satisfaction gained from a trip or the desire to be involved in a similar tourist

September 2007

experience in the future. Finally, the study highlights the possible contributions of the novel approach presented to researchers and practitioners alike. CLARIFYING TOURISM

Attempts to clarify tourism and identify its essence have resulted in various explanations about its nature. Questions on the nature of tourism and its subgroups and attempts to clarify what it is are common in tourism literature (Burkart, 1981; Knight, 1996; Poria et al., 2001a; 2002). Attempts to conceptualize tourism have given rise to various explanations of its essence. Scholars from a range of academic disciplines (Leiper, 1979; McKercher, 1996; Smith & Turner, 1973; Tribe, 2006; Wilson, 1998), as well as different government organisations, have established and utilized various frameworks interpreting tourism with approaches ‘reflecting their own perception and interest’ (Smith, 1988, p. 180), not to mention their academic background. These frameworks represent two types: technical and conceptual (Burkart & Medlik, 1974). Technical definitions usually emphasize variables such as distance of individuals from their normal place of residence and the duration of travel. These definitions may include motives for travelling although inclusion of these makes this definition less useful in identifying who is a tourist and who is not. Definitions usually suggest that tourism is travel for more than 24 hours and less than a year, and at least as far as international tourism is concerned away from the individual’s home country. The commonly cited definition of the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) is an example of the technical approach. Technical definitions are useful for measurement purposes, but are narrow in scope and do not shed light on the various aspects of tourism as a social phenomenon. Conceptual definitions are attempts to clarify tourism as a social phenomenon with a holistic 26

YANIV PORIA, RICHARD BUTLER and DAVID AIREY

view. They attempt to avoid classification of individuals 'into boxes', and as such, appeal to researchers adopting a feminist research approach. These definitions usually relate to leisure, recreation, time and space (McKercher, 1996). Although these are inadequate for measurement purposes, and as such, cannot serve as definitions, they bring to light the complexity of tourism as a social phenomenon – an essential aspect for the investigation of tourism and tourism management. A usual criticism against conceptual definitions is that they do not always identify who is not a tourist. It is argued that if it is not possible to identify who is not a tourist and what is not tourism, it is, mutatis mutandis, which is, it is not possible to say who is a tourist and what tourism is. Scholars utilizing conceptual or technical definitions frequently claim that they define tourism, but in reality, actually only define tourist. Although important, and at the core of tourism, it is only one component of tourism and is equivalent to defining football by concentrating on the football players and ignoring the game itself. The evolution of leisure and recreation Attempts of highlighting the nature of tourism or distinguishing tourism subgroups are often based on concepts of leisure and recreation. For example, a decision whether visitors to holy religious sites should be regarded as tourists or pilgrims is based on the perception of the visit as recreation or the timeframe as leisure. Mieczkowski, moved by the failure of geographical science ‘to establish its (i.e. the geography of tourism) proper relation with the interdisciplinary field of tourism research’ (1981, p. 187) and Britton’s thought (1979) that it is important in theory building to establish basic notions and concepts, for purposes of a theoretical framework on tourism. Mieczkowski emphasised relationships between leisure and recreation as central to the understanding of tourism. He argued that tourism should be divided into three: (1) tourism which takes place not during leisure, (2) tourism which takes place Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

in leisure, and in which recreation activity does take place, (3) and tourism during leisure which does not involve recreation activity. Mieczkowski knew the debate among philosophers and sociologists concerning the meaning of leisure and recreation and the fuzziness of these concepts (a review of these approaches exists in Mieczkowski 1990). He decided to define leisure as ‘free (uncommitted, discretionary) time in contrast to work, workrelated and existence time’ (1981, p. 187). This approach to leisure, originating from Roman philosophical ideas, which has also been adopted by other tourism scholars (e.g. Shaw & Williams, 1994), is not necessarily relevant anymore, particularly in today's western world. Mieczkowski, himself, also suggested that a more ‘appropriate framework would be based on the idea that tourism was a socio-economic phenomenon associated mainly with the modern industrial age’ (1981, p. 189). Recreation and leisure have been defined and approached differently throughout history. While leisure literally means opposite to work, it is claimed that in today's world, those who have the economic power and freedom to move from one space to another are passing through the ‘modern industrial age’, and their understanding of leisure and work, and the relationship between them has become more complex (Burke, 1995; Thompson, 1968). Boundaries between and among work, daily life and leisure have been altered such that people can no longer say there is merely ‘fuzziness on the edges’ (Mieczkowski, 1981), as they currently overlap (Coalter, 1999). This is the result of working environments which allow individuals a certain degree of freedom. Today's working environment as well as changes in social norms have brought about concepts such as freedom, work, time and leisure to be perceived differently from the past (Billinge, 1996; Thompson, 1967). These concepts, today, may differ from one another, but do not contrast with each other. Nevertheless, leisure and recreation are still important in understanding tourism, but 27

UNDERSTANDING TOURISM

these should be approached more flexibly. The approach adapted is based on De Grazia’s criticism of the conceptualization of leisure as free time: ‘The word, leisure, has always referred to something personal, a state of mind or quality of feeling. It appears that in changing the term “leisure” to “free time” one shifts from a qualitative to a quantitative concept’ (1962, p. 87). Similarly, recreation is associated with individual perceptions and attitudes toward an activity in a certain context. In line with this, Chubb and Chubb’s approach to recreation (1981) is adopted. They state that recreation is ‘any type of conscious enjoyment. It can take place at any time and in any location…the only criterion is whether or not the participant perceives the activity as recreational’ (1981, p. 6). The outcome of Chubb and Chubb's approach is that the same activity will be considered as recreation by some participants and not by others. The approach adopted here is supported by research that explores the perception of 1) time as leisure and 2) recreation as an activity, about which it is argued that these concepts are multidimensional and have different meanings to different people (Kelly, 1971; Shaw, 1985).

routine' or even part of it. If in the past tourism was compared to secular pilgrimage, it should be recognised that this is no longer the case. Travel today, is a relatively simple act, which is pursued spontaneously with minimum planning, and may take a very short time. It is often time out rather than a spiritual experience. A long weekend (with children) to a capital city, which takes a 3-hour flight and two days at the destination, can very well be decided on spontaneously. Even if the city is an ecclesiastical centre, such as Rome, the trip is not necessarily approached as pilgrimage.

Leisure and recreation as conceptualized here are associated with the individuals' subjective perception of the time, space, and activity in which they are involved. It is important to differentiate between being a tourist and feeling like a tourist. The need to differentiate between the two is based on issues which, although important to the understanding of tourism, are commonly ignored. For example, in contrast to the common approach, the understanding of tourism should be in the light of elements such as companions in travel, and the fact that going abroad or on vacation is a mundane activity. Technological changes which have resulted in ease and relatively low cost of travel as well as changes in social norms affecting people's perception of leisure and recreation should be considered. Due to the ease and simplicity of travel, the activity is no longer demanding, and as such, perceived as less 'escape from the normal

Integrating time

September 2007

This paper highlights the individual subjective perception as crucial to understanding tourism. Scholars can argue that this approach will result in inflation of tourism experiences as each individual feels differently. However, individuals do not differ so much in their perception of what is leisure or recreation. There is commonality among individuals, based on which tourism is understood as a social phenomenon. There are only a few common patterns which can be identified based on individual subjective perceptions, and tourism should be clarified in terms of these patterns.

Another concept should be integrated and ‘modernized’ (or post-modernised) for the understanding of tourism, namely, the tourists’ perception of time as ‘free’ or ‘non-free’. The notion of time has been subject to various interpretations, resulting in different meanings attached to it. These meanings differ across historical periods and geographical locations (Billinge, 1996; Burke, 1995; Thompson, 1967). From an abstract viewpoint, time is now seen as something which can be measured through the use of a watch or understood as a commodity (Billinge, 1996). Time has already been subdivided and its subgroups integrated into attempts to clarify tourism. Distinction usually exists between essential time (work time + work related time + subsistence time) and total time (essential time + discretionary (leisure time)). It is 28

YANIV PORIA, RICHARD BUTLER and DAVID AIREY

argued that although it is easy to differentiate between work time and non-work time, this differentiation is no longer at the core of tourism. Of value is the need to highlight the ‘transformation of our experience of it’ (Billing, 1996, p. 448). People tend to distinguish between ‘free time’ and ‘non-free time’. This distinction is linked to the concept of ‘control’. Control explains social behaviours as well as perceptions of time during human history (Davidson, 2001; Thompson, 1967). Control is also used by many theorists to explain people's behaviours emphasising, for example, social norms as a control agent in the modern world. It is argued that the links between control and tourism, although virtually ignored, are actually at the core of tourism. Control may not only explain why people get involved in tourism in the first place (run away from a controlled environment or the desire to feel less in control). Control can also be a reference point in understanding tourism, on a theoretical level, through comparison of sense of control in the home environment and in the space where the tourist activity takes place. Additionally, changes in sense of control during travel may be at the core of tourism experience. Furthermore, the issue of control may explain elements of tourist behaviours of importance to those catering to tourists. The expectation and readiness to be controlled, for example, explains the decision to join organized tours. Control also explains preferences for hotel type or the satisfaction gained from a vacation with children. The issue of control is crucial to the understanding of tourism, and as such, the need to highlight whether time is perceived as controlled (not free) or not controlled (free) is added to the conceptualization of tourism. Actual relationships between the concept of control (free time vs. non free time), leisure and recreation are presented in Figure 1. As can be seen, six possible situations are described. These situations present rare opportunities for current tourism research. For example, an individual can Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

be at work and consider part of that time as free while being a tourist, a distinction that is important in understanding tourist behaviours. The figure emphasises two issues, namely: tourist perception of the activity in which they are involved, and perception of the timeframe in which the activity occurs. Distinction between ‘free time’ and ‘non-free time’ relates to tourist perception of freedom to act in a certain way (this, as explained later, may be influenced by several factors). Second, with this approach, what the individual perceives as ‘leisure’ could take place in a timeframe regarded as ‘non-free time’. 'Free' and 'control' are subjective notions based on individual perception. However, as in the context of leisure and recreation, a common pattern emerges among tourists. Time perception Non-free time

Free time Recreation

6

5

4

Leisure Recreation

3

2

1

Figure 1 Relationship between Leisure, Time and Recreation

Figure 1 indicates that there is greater likelihood that leisure and recreation will occur during ‘free time’ than ‘non-free time’. In addition, the borders of the different ‘frames’ are not drawn as definite lines. This is done to emphasise that an individual can move from one situation to another during the same tourist experience. This move can occur instantly, and to understand this transfer, researchers have to clarify the essence of tourist experiences during travel. * The six situations described 1* Activity taking place in time perceived as ‘free time’ which is not considered by individuals as leisure, and does not include any activity they regarded as recreational 2* Activity taking place during time individuals regard as ‘free time’ and that which they perceive as leisure - however they regard no activity as 29

UNDERSTANDING TOURISM

recreational activity takes place; 3* Activity taking place during the time the individuals regard as ‘free time’ and perceived as leisure, and regarded as recreational; 4* Activity taking place during the time individuals regard as ‘non-free time’ but nevertheless perceive as ‘leisure’, with the activity being perceived as recreational by the individual; 5* Activity taking place during the time regarded as ‘non-free time’ which is perceived as leisure time, but does not include any activity considered as recreational. 6* Activity taking place at the time individuals regard as ‘non-free time’ which is not perceived as leisure, and does not include any activity considered recreational. The rationale for looking at the perception of time is in line with sociological theories adopted by scholars (e.g. Rojek, 1995; Urry, 1990) who established what is known today as sociology of tourism. Those scholars utilized the role theory to explain tourist behaviour. They clarified tourist behaviours based on the role individuals choose to play as tourists and their role they play in their home environment. The perception of time as free or not has an effect on the role that the tourist may choose to play or adopt during travel. Individual behaviour as tourists can also be clarified in line with the push and pull factors (Dann, 1977). Sense of control may serve as a crucial element to explain why a certain element is pull or push. It should be noted that individual perception of the host as controlled may be crucial to the understanding of the perception of the host (or show performed by the host) as authentic and real, which affects individual perception of the host as pull factor. The use of essence of control can explain various phenomena in tourism. For example, in research dealing with gay and lesbian tourist experiences, these groups’ perceptions of their home environment as free as well as their tourist September 2007

experiences as free are of crucial importance. A hotel, for example, is perceived as shelter from the outside world, a place less controlled by social norms as it provides anonymity to the individual and space in which one can feel free. In visiting historical and cultural sites, the issue of control plays a major role. Tourists who visit heritage sites have different perceptions of time as free and do not feel obliged to visit. Those who are heritage tourists feel they have to visit the site and have no freedom in the decision to visit. Those who visit a site because they are interested to learn but do not regard the site as part of their own heritage, feel no such obligation to visit There is a need to distinguish various factors that make the individual feel that a certain time is controlled and not free. Most barriers can be classified into situational, personal and social elements. Situational elements are those which prevent tourists from moving from one space to another and which are not linked to individual personal characteristics, such as non-availability of a car for travel to destinations or the need to leave a certain destination at a certain time to catch a flight. Personal elements are linked to characteristics of individuals which prevent them from feeling free. Due to shyness, an individual may not be free to act as desired. A blind tourist may not be able to get to a certain location .Social elements prevent the individual from feeling free due to social norms or social rules. For example, certain behaviours in the public domain are not allowed for couples of the same gender. From a tourist to tourism The conceptual framework centers on tourists and their perception of time and activity. A common approach in studies such as geography and history, namely the integration of the concepts of time and geographical space, will be used here (Davidson, 2001; Howe, 2000; Soja, 1998). Geographical limits and timeframes presented in Figure 2 are by their nature quantitative and objective, and as such, open to questions which could be raised, such as ‘why 24 30

YANIV PORIA, RICHARD BUTLER and DAVID AIREY

hours?’ or ‘why is the geographical space a normal place of residence?’. The conceptual framework presented here involves both the quantitative and qualitative research approach. Although recognizing that positioning individuals into boxes may have some disadvantages, to claim that researchers cannot (or should not, if adopting a feminist research approach) classify who is a tourist indicates that they cannot also argue who is not a tourist. The outcome of the framework presented here is that tourism needs to be distinguished from activities taking place in the individual’s normal place of residence. In certain situations, tourism can indeed take place when time ‘away’ is less than 24 hours or more than a year. (This is illustrated in Figure 2, which indicates that ‘tourism’ is not restricted to ‘more than 24 hours or less than one year’.) The rationale for differentiating between tourists who stay less than 24 hours and those who stay longer is that those who sleep in a certain destination should be defined as tourists due to issues such as money spent at the destination. The rationale of highlighting one’s place of residence is that one cannot feel like a tourist in the normal place of residence. It is specifically claimed here that even if the individuals argue that they do not feel like a tourist, researchers capture them as tourists. The framework presented here identifies who is a tourist as well as what tourism is. Tourism is movement of people to a place outside their

Time frame Less than 24 hours

More than 24 hours, less than one year

More than one year

Not normal place of residence

frame

Tourism

Geographic

Normal place of residence

Figure 2 The relationships between the time and the geographic frame, and tourism leisure and recreation

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

normal place of residence during a certain timeframe, followed by return to that place of residence. Tourists are not forced to move and can avoid travelling (unlike refugees). Tourists also do not regard the destination they are moving to as their new home as that would make them emigrants to the destination area. TOURISM SUBGROUPS AND THE TOURIST SUBGROUPS: DO THEY REALLY EXIST?

The second issue presented here is the identification of tourism subgroups and tourist groups. Are researchers capable of distinguishing between tourists and tourism subgroups? Can they distinguish heritage tourism from historic, educational, legacy or cultural tourism? What is the difference between lake tourism and river tourism? We should likewise ask whether researchers and practitioners can distinguish between subgroups of tourists and justify the need for this differentiation. What is the real difference between cultural tourists and educational tourists? Is this difference meaningful, and to whom? In this section it is argued that a strong theoretical argument should be proposed to support any claim for the existence of a subgroup. It is proposed that such subgroups (of tourism and tourists) should be clarified, based on relationships between the tourists’ visitation patterns, the site attributes as perceived by them and the main motivation for the visit. It is, however, not inferred that subgroups of tourism do not exist, but for some of them, there is often little justification for their existence. This may lead to misunderstanding, misclassification and mismanagement of those subgroups if they are not really different from each other. The difficulty of distinguishing between various subgroups of tourism and tourist segments could be regarded as a symptom of growth in the number of tourism-related scholars and 31

UNDERSTANDING TOURISM

subsequent interest in publishing and being cited. As literature on tourism grows, develops and segments, and as more researchers pursue research on tourism-related issues, subgroups of tourism have emerged. As disciplines develop, and as the amount of research conducted and the number of researchers involved increases, subjects tend to be divided into subfields of interest. It is also in the researchers’ interest to be recognized for their particular speciality. On the one hand, such developments can indicate depth and intensity of research to such a degree that some subfields can develop as semi-disciplines in their own right. On the other hand, such subdivision could be taken to represent uncertainty and lack of conceptual development within the subject. Tourism, as a relatively new area of academic study, has gone through much rapid fragmentation into subgroups. In the thirty years or so that tourism has been a subject for serious academic study (only two academic tourism journals are more than three decades old), well over one hundred subdivisions of tourism have appeared in academic literature. In 1991, Boyd identified over one hundred subgroups, and more appear every year. These range from well used subgroups such as urban tourism and nature tourism, to very specific ones such as dark tourism or most recently, cycle (Lumsden, 2001) or border tourism. Differentiation between dark, darker and darkest tourism, can serve as an example. What was a fruitful way to differentiate between different heritage attractions may evolve in the future into further segmentation of tourism subgroups. Researchers and practitioners need to consider whether such fragmentation serves any useful academic purpose or facilitates the management of tourism experiences. This section highlights heritage tourism as a case study. Heritage tourism has become a wellrecognised subgroup of tourism, which like other subgroups, has recently received its own journal (joining other subgroups of tourism such as ecotourism, and sustainable tourism). A review of literature reveals that heritage tourism in and by September 2007

itself has been divided into other groups. One example of this is the emergence of subgroups based on heritage attributes, including cultural heritage (Alzua et al., 1998), built heritage (Black, 1990), urban heritage (Chang et al., 1996), natural heritage (Keller, 1999), industrial heritage (Verbeke, 1999), rural heritage (Prideaux & Kininmont, 1999), local heritage (Teo & Yeoh, 1997), culinary heritage (Reynolds, 1994; Romagnoli, 1995), human heritage (Simic, 1994) and dark heritage (Seaton, 1996). Such subgroups have likewise been subdivided. Culinary tourism, for example, is subdivided into food tourism and wine tourism, and as noted dark tourism has been divided into darker tourism and darkest tourism as well as grief tourism, thanatourism etc. Another example is found in the literature related to different aspects of the operational management of ‘heritage’ in tourism. Discussion of topics such as heritage attractions (Schouten, 1995), consumers in heritage places (Prentice, 1994), heritage marketing (Halls, 1994) and heritage interpretation (Goodey, 1993) also supports the argument that heritage itself is being further fragmented into even more specific subgroups. Heritage, in general, and in the tourism literature, in particular, is regarded as a concept which is difficult to define and distinguish from terms such as culture, history and memory (Alzua et al., 1998; Garrod & Fyall, 2000; Poria et al., 2003a). How do scholars really know what heritage means for tourists, who are at the core of heritage tourism as a social phenomenon? For convenience, three working approaches for ‘heritage tourism’ may be adapted to illustrate the current confusion in tourism literature. The first approach is to regard heritage tourism as the presence of tourists in places classified as heritage, with actual tourists and their visitation patterns less emphasised (e.g. Cheung, 1999; Cossons, 1989; Garrod & Fyall, 2000). This means that tourists who enter spaces categorized as heritage sites are regarded as heritage tourists, engaged in heritage-related activities, even if they 32

YANIV PORIA, RICHARD BUTLER and DAVID AIREY

are not aware that the site is a heritage site. The second approach is one stage further, and emphasises the tourists rather than the site’s attributes (Swarbrooke, 1993). This approach focuses on the tourists’ motivation to visit the site, showing willingness to learn and be involved in an educational experience because of the historic attributes of the site. However, this approach, it is argued, does not touch the core of the phenomenon of heritage. Moreover, the approach cannot assist practitioners as it does not distinguish between a motivation to visit and the motivation for a visit. This approach does not provide sufficient base to confirm that heritage tourism is actually a subgroup of tourism, distinct from historical tourism, cultural tourism and educational tourism. Basing an approach on the link between the tourist and the site attributes, and connecting this link to tourist behaviour is one way of preserving and distinguishing heritage tourism meaningfully. This approach refers to interaction between tourists and site attributes on two different levels, namely: tourist perception of a site as a heritage site and tourist visitation patterns associated with their perception. This definition emphasises tourists’ states of mind. This is because ‘tourism’ is, in essence, as exemplified before, a social phenomenon, and its understanding requires focus on individuals rather than on site attributes. The following definition of heritage tourism provides the integration of these three approaches (adapted from Poria et al., 2001b, 2003a): “A subgroup of tourism, in which the main motivation for being involved is based on the attributes of a place (demonstrated by the heritage site’s attributes) according to the tourists’ perception of the site (demonstrated by the tourists’ perception of the site in relation to their own heritage)." TOURISM-THREE TIMEFRAMES AND FEW MEMORABLE MOMENTS

There is need to inquire about and understand micro timeframes, i.e. specific moments and Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

tourist search for these moments to understand and manage tourist experience. In the service literature, it is common to approach overall service experience as a series of 'moments of truth' or ‘critical incidents’. These are moments in which consumers are experiencing interaction through which they are getting service by an employee or the organization representative. These are moments of much significance, as individuals judge and perceive their satisfaction from service accorded them. The same approach should be adopted by tourism scholars and practitioners. Today, in the research and management literature, we attempt to unravel an individual tourist experience, while asking the individual to capture and visualize the entire time period during which tourist experience occurs. We often attempt to capture individual quantification of satisfaction from complete travel experience. Managers and scholars use the same approach when clarifying subsections of tourist experience. Individuals are asked, for example, to report their overall hotel experience or overall satisfaction with the tour guide. It is more than reasonable to assume that tourists cannot remember everything and are highly influenced by specific moments and incidents. We should challenge ourselves by asking: What can we learn from an individuals' estimation of their travel? Does the fact that they say it was 'OK' mean that we can learn that 'OK' was the average of the tourist experience, or is it an abstract concept influenced by only a few memorable moments? Several issues of importance to the study and practice of tourism should be raised which are associated with the ignorance of these memorable micro-moments. It is suggested that the estimation of the 'average' of a certain period, although being highly important, should not be the only indicator, and researchers and practitioners should go one stage further and clarify those memorable moments which affect the perception of the 'average', the overall impression of the travel. To identify those memorable moments, we offer here a typology of different types of times from which a tourist 33

UNDERSTANDING TOURISM

experience is composed. The first type of time is the time of travel from the home environment to the destination, and the time from the moment the tourists leave the destination until they arrive back in their home environment. This timeframe is composed of different actions, including purchase of tickets, and time at the airport during the check-in process. To simplify things, this time period is from the moment the aspiring tourists leave home until they arrive at the destination and vice versa on the way back. An individual will often make attempts to shorten this time period, in order to lengthen the time at the destination or minimize an undesired experience (an exception for this is a cruise or a pilgrimage when the travel is the core of the tourist experience rather than a mechanical process to reach a destination). We would like to note that for some, components of this timeframe (such as a visit to a duty-free shop) may be part of the second timeframe, the tourist experience itself, being associated with the state of mind of being a tourist. We suggest that in the future, given the need for security procedures and the length of time people will have to wait for connecting flights and the emergence of low-cost companies' service standard, this timeframe will become longer for most travellers or at least will seem longer. The second time period is the time in which individuals are involved in the tourist experience. This is the timeframe in which individuals are in a state of mind where they feel like tourists in the sense that they are located outside their home environment. This timeframe is associated with a sense of enjoyment and/or other emotions linked to a specific tourist experience (in the case of heritage tourism this may be sadness and sense of belonging). Based on the definition provided later, during this timeframe individuals are tourists (although they may not feel like tourists). The third type of time, unlike the other two, is not a period but rather specific moments which individuals will be able recall and refer to later. These memorable moments may be the highlights (positive as well as negative) of the tourist experience, which consciously or unconsciously, have a major affect on the September 2007

perception of the tourist experience. Note, such memorable moments may not always occur tourist experiences may involve no highlights. These timeframes are presented in Figure 3. TimeType1 Fromthehome environment tothe destination

Time type2 –Beinga tourist at thedestination

TimeType1 Fromthedestination tothehome environment

Timetype3–Thememorablemoments

Figure 3 Types of time during travel

These types of time can be attributed on a monetary basis. The first timeframe is characterised by a certain degree of displeasure or even suffering which individuals would like to avoid or minimize. From an economic perspective, the individual is often ready to pay to avoid or minimize the length of this type of time. However, this is a period during which individuals must be involved, in order to get from one space to another. The second time period is the time at the destination; a timeframe which the individual relates with certain feelings he expects, and for which he is willing to pay, such as feeling romantic in Paris, sad at Auschwitz Concentration Camp, or sexy in Ibiza. The third timeframe consists of moments which the individual associates with very high levels of enjoyment or suffering, moments which have a substantial effect on the perception of the quality of travel as far as 'value for money' is concerned. It is these moments for which an individual may also be ready to pay a substantial amount of money. For example, tourists visiting London will be willing to pay a certain amount of money to watch their football club in a match. However, these very tourists, if possible, may be ready to pay more for a high quality game, one which will always be remembered. This is also true to other components of the tourist experience, such as visits to a museum or vacation on the seashore. The typology presented here and the importance

34

YANIV PORIA, RICHARD BUTLER and DAVID AIREY

of identifying these moments (or even creating them) is vital to understanding and managing tourist experience. It is argued that timeframe classification should be adopted primarily by those who manage 'sections' of the tourist experience, as unless an individual is on an organized tour, practitioners are often interested only in their travel. The three types of times reported here are relevant not only to the entire tourist experience, but also the travel sectors. For example, these three time types are relevant to understanding the individual experience of a tourist attraction. The first type of time represents the time it takes to reach the site from the individual’s permanent or temporary accommodation and return. The second timeframe involves the stay at the site itself. The memorable moments are those moments that take place during the visit and which will have a major impact on the individual’s perception of the experience of the visit to the site. APPLICATION TO TOURISM RESEARCH

Knowledge of tourism is regarded as useful for both practical and theoretical purposes (Ostrowski, 1988; Poria et al., 2001a; 2003b). Hence, it is argued that the six ‘situations’ presented here, as well as the theoretical framework provided for tourism and the rationale for claiming the existence of a tourism subgroup are relevant to the academic study of tourism as well as for issues linked to tourism management. The theoretical framework presented, for example, provides a basis for the segmentation of tourists, which has implications to the management of tourism. It also provides justification for considering tourism ‘subgroups’. For example, using the Mieczkowski diagram, ‘business tourism’ and ‘health tourism’ would be in the same category based on his research assumptions. They are non-leisure but relate to work and existence, and as such do not take place in leisure time and are not recreational. The approach suggested in this paper is that these two Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

subgroups of tourism should not be considered the same. Tourists who travel on their free time to undergo health treatment may be in a completely different group (1, 2 or 3). This distinction is important in tourism management, as it suggests that the individual state of mind should be emphasized. Another example that illustrates use of this framework is that of two women on a business trip, one with ‘free time’ and the other, ‘non-free time’. Based on Mieczkowski, those two tourists will be classified in the same group. Figure 1 suggests that they should be classified differently to understand how tourists choose their hotel accommodation in regard to tourist attractions at the conference venue, and may also provide information about their interest in visiting local tourist attractions. This conceptual framework has several outcomes. First, the travel experience should not be regarded as monolithic. Tourists may be ecotourists, for example, during one part of their vacation but not during another. The same individual may be an educational tourist in one museum and a heritage tourist in another. This explains inconsistencies researchers have to deal with in what seems to be the same situation tourists behave differently during their travel experience. Another outcome of this framework is the need to explore individual perception of time as free or non-free. This explains many elements of the tourist experience. However, there is need to emphasise the value of identifying factors that explain individual perception of a timeframe as free. In contrast to Mieczkowski, it is suggested that tourists can ‘move’ between categories. Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to suggest that individuals can be classified into different subgroups of tourism during the same tourist experience even if they are located at the same specific place. Those who cater to tourists should not assume that tourists belong to only one tourist type throughout their entire tourist experience (they may be cultural tourists one day

35

UNDERSTANDING TOURISM

and mass tourists the next; they may be gay tourists and cultural tourists at the same time). Researchers and practitioners should take into account that tourists assume different roles during their travel. This paper aims to develop a framework for tourism rather than a dictionary definition to ‘judge’ rigorously what tourism is and isn’t, or who is a tourist and who is not. This framework attempts to capture two different notions of 'being a tourist' – something that can be measured, and 'feeling like a tourist' – a notion that depends on individual state of mind, which cannot be easily measured. This framework, although not claiming to provide a clear objective measurement tool, aims to facilitate the understanding of tourism by setting out its main features, in a way that is operable and useable for research purposes and is coherently linked to other academic concepts. This process of challenging the existence of the multiplicity of tourism subgroups makes a potential contribution to tourism research in two related areas. The approach presented here could be applied to other specific subgroups of tourism, and it may be worthwhile for researchers to explore the nature of other subgroups before actually accepting and discussing them. This also raises the issue of the appropriateness of offering educational courses on very specific sub-areas of tourism, when the conceptual and theoretical justification for such courses has not yet been fully explored. It is argued that if scholars are willing to create differentiation between tourism and its subgroups, they should have a strong rationale to suggest that each group is unique. Otherwise, researchers may be labelling and naming something that does not really exist, or for which the core of the phenomenon is not clear. Practitioners also need to clarify that not all visitors to a space are part of that space’s tourism (i.e. not all those visiting a river are part of river tourism, not all those who visit museums are cultural tourists). September 2007

Managers and practitioners should ask themselves how to implement the theoretical division of the tourist experience into three timeframes. Two major outcomes are stressed. First, practitioners should learn how to minimise the length of the first type of time (the journeys to and from the site). This can be done in two different ways such as reducing length of time objectively or reducing it subjectively (i.e. the perception of the length of time by the individual). This can be done not only by reducing the actual length of time it takes an individual to reach a destination, such as, for example, improving flight connections. This can also be done by causing the tourist to perceive travel to and from the destination as an enjoyable experience. The second outcome is that practitioners should learn how to manage memorable moments. This includes learning to plan and create positive memorable moments as well as learning how to avoid negative ones. Researchers should learn the nature of those moments based on tourism experience and how to duplicate these. REFERENCES

Alzua, A. O’leary, J. T., & Morrison, A. M. (1998). Cultural and heritage tourism: Identifying niches for international travellers. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 9(2), 2-13. Black, N. L. (1990). A model and methodology to assess change to heritage buildings. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(1), 15-23. Boyd, S. W. (1991). ‘Towards a Typology of Tourism: Setting and Experience’ presented at the Association of American Geographers, East Lakes Division, Youngstown, Ohio. Britton, R. (1979). Some notes on the geography of tourism. The Canadian Geographer, 23(3), 276-82. Burkart, A. J. (1981). How far is tourism a trade or industry?. Tourism Management, 2(3), 36

YANIV PORIA, RICHARD BUTLER and DAVID AIREY

146. Burkart, A. J., & Medlik, S. (1974). Tourism, past present and future. London: Heinemann. Burke, P. (1995). Viewpoint: The invention of leisure in early modern Europe. Past & Present, 146, 136-46. Carr, J. (1990). Whose heritage is it anyhow?. Interpretation Journal, 47, 3-5. Chang, T. C., Milne, S., Fallan, D., & Pohlmann, C. (1996). Urban heritage tourism: the global-local nexus. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 284-305. Cheung, S. C. H. (1999). The meaning of a heritage trail in Honk Kong. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 570-588. Chubb, M., & Chubb, H. R. (1981). One third of our time?: An introduction to recreation behavior and resources. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press. Coalter, F. (1999). Leisure sciences and leisure studies: The challenge of meaning. In Jackson, E. L., & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 507-19). State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing. Cohen, E. (1974). Who is a tourist? A conceptual clarification. Social Review, 22(4), 527-53. Cossons, M. (1989). Heritage tourism: Trends and tribulations. Tourism Management, 10(3), 192-194. Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, egoenhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4(4), 184-194. Davidson, J. (2001). Dover, Foucault and Greek homosexuality penetration and the truth of sex. Past & Present, 170, 3-51. De Grazia, S. (1962). On time, work and leisure. New York: Anchor Books. Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 682-708. Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 1, Number 1

Goodey, B. (1993). Planning for the interpretation of industrial heritage. Interpretation Journal, 54, 5-9. Halls, S. (1994). Marketing heritage. Leisure Manager, 12(4/5), 32-33. Howe, S. (2000). Viewpoint: The politics of historical ‘Revisionism’: Comparing Ireland and Israel/Palestine. Past & Present, 168, 227-53. Keller, A. (1999). Jobs and the natural heritage in Scotland. Countryside Recreation, 7(1), 6. Kelly, J. R. (1972). Work and leisure: A simplified paradigm. Journal of Leisure Research, 4(1), 50-62. Knight, J. (1996). Competing hospitalities in Japanese rural tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 165-80. Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism: Towards a definition of tourism, tourist, and the tourist industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 390-407. Lumsdon, L. (2000). Transport and tourism: Cycle tourism- A model for sustainable development?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(5), 361-377. McKercher, B. (1996). Differences between tourism and recreation in parks. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 563-75. Meiczkowski, Z. T. (1981). Some notes on the geography of tourism. [A comment]. The Canadian Geographer, 25, 86-91. Meiczkowski, Z. T. (1990). World trends in tourism and recreation. New York: Peter Lang. Ostrowski, P. W. (1988). Understanding tourism. Problems of Tourism, 11(3), 3-20. Poria, Y., Butler, D., & Airey, D. (2001a). Tourism sub-groups: Do they exists? Tourism Today, 1, 14-22. Poria, Y., Butler, D., & Airey, D. (2001b). Clarifying heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 1047-9. Poria, Y., Butler, D., & Airey, D. (2003a). The core of heritage tourism: Distinguishing heritage tourists from tourists in

37

UNDERSTANDING TOURISM

heritage places. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 238-254. Poria, Y., Butler, D., & Airey, D. (2003b). Revisiting Mieczkowski’s conceptualisation of tourism. Tourism Geographies, 5(1), 26-38. Prentice, R. (1994). What the consumer wants: The customer base for the interpretation of Scotland’s built heritage. Interpretation Journal, 57, 4-9. Prideaux, B. R., & Kininmont, L. J. (1999). Tourism and heritage are not strangers: A study of opportunities for rural heritage museums to maximise tourism visitation. Journal of Travel Research, 37 (3), 299-303. Romagnoli, G. F. (1995). Rome’s Jewish quarter: A rich culinary heritage. Gourmet, 55(8), 52-55, 90-94. Reynolds, P. (1994). Culinary heritage in the face of tourism. Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, 6, 189-194. Roberts, K. (1999). Leisure in contemporary society. Oxon: CABI International. Rojek, C. (1995). Decentring leisure: Rethinking leisure theory. London: Sage. Schouten, F. (1995). Improving visitor care in heritage attractions. Tourism Management, 16(4), 259-261. Seaton, A. (1996). From thanatopsis to thanatourism: Guided by the dark. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2, 234–244 Shaw, G. & Williams, A. M. (1994). Critical issues in tourism: A geographical perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Shaw, S. M. (1985). The meaning of leisure in everyday life. Leisure Sciences, 7(1), 1-24. Simic, A. (1994). Evaluation of the natural and human heritage of Biokovo area. Acta Turistica, 6(2), 123-159. Smith, S.L.J. (1988). Defining tourism: A supplyside view. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(2), 179-90. Smith, M. A., & Turner, L. (1973). Some aspects of the sociology of tourism. Society September 2007

and Leisure, 3, 55-71. Soja, E. W. (1998). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso. Swarbrooke, J. (1993). The future of heritage attractions. Insights, 4, D15-D20. Teo, P., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (1997). Remaking local heritage for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 192-213. Thompson, E. P. (1968). Time, work-discipline and industrial capitalism. Past & Present, 38, 56-97. Tribe, J. (2006). The truth about tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 360381. Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications. Verbeke, M. J. (1999). Industrial heritage: A nexus for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 70 -85. Wilson, K. (1996). Market/Industry confusion in tourism economic analyses. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(4), 803-17. growth. Kritiki Press, Athens. [In Greek]

38

Understanding the movements of tourists in a destination:

Received 18 January 2007 Accepted 31 March 2007

Testing the importance of markers in the tourist attraction system Bob McKercher* and Gigi Lau The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hong Kong

This study examines the movements of tourists in Hong Kong within the conceptual framework of tourist attractions systems. This framework argues the importance of ‘tourist markers’ signals sent in influencing visitation. Markers received prior to departure are felt to play an influential role in motivating visitation. This study found a strong correlation between pre departure awareness and absolute visitor numbers. However, the study also determined that popular attractions likewise generate more spontaneous visits by previous tourists, suggesting the importance of destination awareness. The study also identified the importance of proximity to major attractions as the motive for spontaneous visitation. Keywords:

tourist attractions systems, markers, awareness.

INTRODUCTION

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bob McKercher. Electronic mail may be sent via internet to [email protected].

Copyright © 2007 Rex Publishing Co.

Various factors influence the movements of tourists within a destination. Lew and McKercher (2006) in a review of previously published materials identified a number of factors that influence either destination choice or attraction preference, as well as distance decay and market access (Greer & Wall, 1979; Paul & Rimmawi, 1992; McKercher, 1998a,b; Pearce, 1988), urban transport modeling (Meyer & Miller, 1984; Rodriguez, 2003), the mode of transport used by tourists (Page,1999), tourist time budgets (Chavas et al, 1989; McKean et al. 1995, Truong & Henscher, 1985; Walsh et al., 1990), the tourist’s personality style and resultant preferences (Debbage, 1991; Fennel, 1996), place knowledge (Fodness & Murray 1997; Stewart & Vogt, 1999), and other factors. Relatively little research, has however been conducted on the role of specific attractions in influencing movement patterns. Attractions are truly an underresearched area of tourism, even if it is widely recognized that they drive tourism. Some good conceptual work has been produced describing the nature of attractions (Lew, 1987; Pearce, 1991), outlining a hierarchy of attractions (Mill & Morrison, 1985; McIntosh & Goeldner, 1990), and describing attraction systems (Leiper, 1990, Richards, 2002). Not much Note: Funding for the project was provided for by a grant from the Hong Kong Universities Grant Committee

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 1(1)

39

UNDERSTANDING THE MOVEMENTS OF TOURISTS IN A DESTINATION

empirical work has been undertaken to test these ideas empirically. McKercher Ho and du Cros (2004) examined the factors affecting the popularity of cultural attractions, and McKercher Wan and Tse (2006) conducted a study questioning whether short duration festivals were tourist attractions. Frost (2003) Leiper (1997) and Teo and Yeoh (1997), for their part, have documented failed attractions. Besides these studies and a few others, most research on attractions tends to be limited. This paper thus examines visitation patterns to a variety of tourist attractions in Hong Kong empirically among long haul international tourists. Tourist attractions systems Leiper (1990) first dwelt on the concept of tourist attraction systems, although he acknowledges the influence of earlier work by MacCannell (1976) and Gunn (1972) (both as cited by Leiper, 1990). He adapted a systems approach which defines tourist attractions as consisting of three elements, namely: a tourist, a site or nucleus and a marker. Each plays a fundamental role in explaining how places attract tourists. The first two elements, the tourist and the site / nucleus, need little explanation, while the third element, the marker, needs elaboration. Briefly, Leiper (1990:382) asserts that the tourist is the center of the attraction system, for without tourists, places would not be thought of as attractions. Likewise, the attraction itself is the nucleus for visitation. How important the site is in the overall decision to visit can be used as a proxy to rank attractions. Primary attractions / nuclei influence destination choice. Tourists are aware of these prior to departure which stimulates the visit. Secondary attractions are known prior to the visit, but these play no significant role in the itinerary. Tertiary attractions are unknown pre-visit but are discovered by the individual after arriving at the destination (Leiper, 1990). Pre-departure awareness levels thus serve as proxy to rank

September 2007

attractions, as high order attractions are known, while awareness levels decline further down the attractions’ hierarchy. Awareness is signaled by the ‘marker’. Markers are defined as “items of information about a phenomenon that is a potential nuclear element in tourist attraction (Leiper, 1990:377).” In layperson’s terms, a marker may be any form of information about the attraction that conveys information and motivates visitation. Markers, thus serve both as the link between the tourist and the attraction and as a catalyst for visitation. As such, they play a critical role in the attractions system. Markers are of three levels, namely: generating markers, transit markers and contiguous or in-destination markers. Generating markers refer to information received prior to departure. Transit markers relate to information gathered en-route, while contiguous markers relate to information received at the destination. Richards’ (2002) study of cultural tourism participation illustrates the role and importance of generating markers, in particular, as almost half of all tourists surveyed indicated their decision to visit cultural sites prior to departure. Special interest tourists, long haul tourists and those on limited time budgets are more likely to rely on generating markers compared to other visitors. This finding is consistent with Shoval and Raveh’s (2004) argument that tourists, on limited time budgets, must set priorities prior to departure about which attractions they wish to visit and which they will skip. Tourists are unlikely to vary their potential itineraries, once set, other than to participate in activities of short duration. METHOD

This paper is part of a larger study examining the movements of independent tourists in Hong Kong. Guests at five participating hotels located in the tourist node of Tsim Sha Tsui, on the Kowloon side of the Hong Kong harbor, were 40

BOB MCKERCHER and GIGI LAU

invited to participate. Potential participants were approached at check-in. A non-probability, judgmental sample was used, which was felt to be the most appropriate and pragmatic method for gathering data. Participants had to satisfy three criteria such as: they had to be non local residents, be pleasure tourists and be free, independent tourists (FIT). Data used in this study were collected over a 10 month period beginning in November, 2004. Data collection consists of four discrete stages, consequently requiring significant time investment on behalf of the visitor. Participation rates in the 3rd and 4th stages was expected to be lower. Visitors completed a detailed arrival survey, via face to face interviews. This survey thus gathered demographic and trip information, motivations and expected activities. A total of 1151 individuals participated in this stage. The second stage consists of the completion of a trip diary documenting the respondent’s daily movements in Hong Kong. These data were analyzed, using GIS software.

RESULTS Demographic and Trip Profiles of Respondents Table 1

Demographic Profiles of Respondents (n=274) ORIGIN

38.4 12.0 26.7 9.4

Asia Other

12.4 1.5

TRAVEL EXPERIENCE

Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 1(1)

%

Inexperienced/no prior international travel

10.3

Average’ experience

26.0

Experienced Very experienced

34.4

GENDER

Male Female

29.3

% 35.3 64.7

AGE

%

55

36.2

HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

High School or less

The third stage involved post trip assessment. Respondents were asked further details of their trip, if they extended their stays, their satisfaction levels and were asked to describe unexpected activities or experiences. However, the study team desired much more information than could be collected during this interview. As such, participants were also provided with a more comprehensive self completion survey which they were asked to complete and return by mail. This fourth data collection instrument sought additional details on motives using semantic differential statements, more details on 33 activities pursued or places visited, awareness levels of these places, if and when awareness occurred and if or when the decision was made to visit. These data were the focus of this study. A total of 320 participants returned the accomplished questionnaire. Data cleaning reduced the usable sample to 274 respondents.

%

Australia/ NZ Canada/USA UK Other Europe

% 24.4

University

51.3

Post graduate qualification

24.3

INCOME