framke
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
1/26
1
Wolfgang Framke
The destination1: A problematic concept
Abstract:
One of the most used words in the field of tourism is destination used in marketing,
planning and development, and general research. One can find it in tourist guides,
brochures and homepages, and, of course, in all kinds of textbooks and readers in
tourism.
So it is obvious that one should be suspicious. How can one word contain so many of
tourisms aspects? Investigating the use of the word shows various ways of using it.
The word has no unique content, its meaning depends on ones purpose, be it
describing, communicating or analysing tourism. By taking a geographic perspective
one will evidently recognise the differences: destinations can be found in various
dimensions and on various regional levels: there exist static destinations in
connection to ones stay at a certain location; and there exist dynamic destinations,
where movement is the motive for a vacation; you can find destinations connected tonetworks and other relations in the industry, and so on.
The paper looks into and dicuss the conceptual abiguity of the destination taking a
departure in the various uses of the word and in theoretical work and in some
empirical work.
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
2/26
2
Introduction
One of the most frequently used words in tourism is destination, but it is used verydifferently by different actors. This raises the question if it is at all meaningful to
continue working with it, because the word spreads confusion rather than brings
clearness because there seemingly is some systematically self-contradictions in the
use of the word. Such as the destination as a narrative or as an attraction or as a
geographical unit or as an empirical relationship or as a marketing object or as a place
where tourism happens, orand so on.
The intention with this paper is to document the use of the word destination, to
analyse it, to discuss it and to present some empirical findings indicating how several
actors in tourism industry understand it and how they act at a destination. The
conclusion gives some advice on further use of this word. This article is only dealing
with leisure tourism.
This paper has the character of a discussion paper. It is the preliminary result of
almost 2 years of research in a destination project called Destination constructionand Development Representations, networks and strategies (Brenholdt et.al,
1999). The projects starting point was to combine three approaches in tourism
research the humanistic, the sociological and the economic. From the authors
earlier work2 on the constitution of the destination from a business perspective there
were some doubts whether the conventional business related economic definition (for
instance Burkart&Medlik 1974, Murphy 1985, Mill&Morrison 1992, Cooper et.al
1993) could be accepted as the definition, because several theoretical and empirical
exceptions could be identyfied. The work of sociological writers as MacCannell
(1976), Urry (1990, 1995) Lash&Urry (1994) and Rojek&Urry (1997) and others
gave the impression, that their understanding of the destination was fundamentally
different from the economists understanding.
1
In my own comments I consequently write destination to underpin my scepticism about the useoften uncritical or non-reflected of this word2 Framke, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
3/26
3
In the literature destinations seem to be established and described as images, as
narratives but do they have clear physical boundaries too? And are physical
boundaries or the absence of such relevant when talking about destinations?
Destinations seem to be described through their content of attractions, facilities and
services but is there any agreement about which factors are most important? At
destinations interactions may take place: between the tourists and the businesses,
mutually in the tourist industry, and between the single establishment and the tourist
organisations and the authorities but which importance have these relations
(described as social practice, network, contacts) in literature and the empirical reality?
And a destination is nothing without tourists. How is the tourist seen by the writers
and how can s/he be identified at a destination?
These four questions lead to an analysis of the use of the word destination(and itsdefinition as a term) in 4 directions:
1. How are the geographical physical boundaries of a destinations described?2. How are the content of a destinations described?
3. How are the existence of or the need for co-operation at a destination described?,and
4. How is the tourists behaviour understood?
If the assumption about actors different views of destination is right that will have
some serious consequences for the future use or non use of this word. In tourism
research as in all research one has to work with clear notions to get sufficient
results!
The method of that investigation is rather simple:
The starting point is a presentation of some destination definitions used in various
textbooks, where the choice of textbooks covers a historical period of about 30 years,
but was otherwise selected rather by chance than systematically, and which describe,
how several authors handle a destination. Two types of destination descriptions will
be presented, firstly a kind of classical or conventional description by researchers
working in a business inspired paradigm, secondly how sociologists think about it.
The last part of the paper presents some findings from some preliminary empiricalwork done in a research project - one of 14 research projects undertaken by the
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
4/26
4
Tourism Research Centre of Denmark. Three Danish destinations were investigated
with focus on
1. How they are represented by the tourists2. How the tourists, dwelling at a destination, act during their vacation, and3. How the tourist industry and some municipal departments understand the
destination and act in it.
This empirical material helps to throw light on the 4 dimensions of the destination
described and discussed in part 1 and part 2 of this paper. The conclusions on the
word destination will be based on this discussion.
Part I: The classical/conventional understanding of the destination during the
past 30 years
The first example is Peter Murphys Tourism. A Community Approach. This
textbook is from 1985, but the definition used in it is formulated in 1970 by N.
Georgulas:
Tourism as an industry occurs at destination areas areas with different naturaland/or man-made features, which attract non local visitors (or tourists) for [a variety
of] activities. (p.7)
and he combines it with Cohens (1974) and Plogs (1974) tourist typologies stating
that certain kinds of tourists, having certain demands, are structuring the destination.
Given the tourist types show a historical change in demand the destinations will
develop in the same way answering with new types of different products and supply.
That means changing demands are changing supply and attractions at the destination,
thus creating dynamics over time. Murphy discusses several issues in relationship to
tourism, among them the structure and shifting content of the destination, the
conditions for the development of tourist destinations and how to manage and plan
destination development.
Murphy does not discuss any geographical limitations of the destination, neither is he
interested in the factual content of it. He points to the importance of some co-operation in the industry and with the authorities, but his interest is upon the
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
5/26
5
strategies that uses the non-local visitors demand and changes in demand to develop
tourist resorts, that both will
meet the needs of tourism and integrate them into the general planning process of
western nations . (p. XV)
as he states in the preface. Therefore Murphy understands the tourists seen as a
distinct type and their changing demand as the dynamic force in the development of
destinations, a development that should be planned strategically.
Burkart and Medliks Tourism. Past, Present and Future was first published in 1974.
They define the destination as follows:
This geographical unit visited by a tourist may be a self contained centre, a village or
a town or a city, a district or a region, an island, a country or a continent. This
geographical unit may be described as the tourist destination.The tourist
destination, however defined geographically, provides a convenient focus for the
examination of the tourist movement and of its manifold impact and significance.
How important any geographical unit is as a tourist destination, or how it is
potentially, is determined by three prime factors: attractions, accessibility and
amenities which may be termed the tourist qualities of a destination. (p. 46)
The authors supplement this definition stating that tourist organisations are needed to
maximise the destinations possibilities from tourism. About destinations the authors
state changes in the structure of the destinations in the last 150 years from very
specific spa-resorts to differentiated mass resorts. The dynamic in this shift raise from
the demand side caused by developing welfare and transport technology but always
based on some important attractions. To be a modern resort demands the development
of functionality in respect to accessibility and service supply.
Burkart and Medlik refuse to define the destination through geographical borders.
They observe destinations in a geographical hierarchy from a self-contained centre to
a county or a continent. Attractions, amenities, transport, infrastructure and tourist
organisations must be found. The authors does not discuss co-operation in the industryin a destination context, but they do so talking about travelling and agencies. Apart
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
6/26
6
from the two introductory chapters the book does not discuss the tourist as an actor
only in a historical context, they describe the shifting demand as a main factor in
changing resorts and destinations.
Mill and Morrison (1992) deal with the destination as a part of the tourism system .
Their definition says:
At a destination there is a mix of interdependent elements. The elements are
interdependent, because in order to produce a satisfying vacation experience, all
elements must be present.
The destination is composed of:
Attractions Facilities Infrastructure Transportation Hospitality. (p.263)
In this analytical context, the authors only focus on the content, the elements in a
destination. They say nothing about geographical borders, nor of co-operation within
the destination or about the tourist acting at the destination. Indirectly talking about
supply and the mix of independent elements at a destination where all elements must
be present in order to produce a satisfying vacation experience for the visitor the
demand tasks to the destination can be seen. But talking about a mix of elements
mean that co-operation between the elements not is seen as essential in constituting a
destination.
Another highly influential textbook is Cooper et als Tourism. Principles and
Practice, first published in 1993. In part 2,they state (The tourist destination):
The destination represents the raison dtre for tourism; it is the reason for travelling,
and the attractions at the destination generate the visit. (p. 77)
In fact, the authors do not provide a new story, we have heard it all before: Attractions
in a geographical place make tourists desire to visit it, and there demands part 1 of
their textbook generates supply and changing destination elements or supplies, if the
demand is changing. This changes a destinations character and structure too, and this
change is an objective for development planning.
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
7/26
7
At last in this first part of the paper i want to present two Danish examples of the
conventional understanding of the destination.
Jensen, Hansen and Metz (1993) definition is very close to that we have learned
earlier:
The definition of a tourist destination is a geographical area, which contains
landscape and cultural characteristics and which as in the position to offer a tourism
product, which means a broad wave of facilities in transport accommodation food
and at least one outstanding activity or experience. (p. 42)(the authors translation)
Again a focus on a geographical place with attractions, which makes tourist segmentsvisit it, and where the place develops a mix of supply elements which satisfy the
tourists demand. Although the authors state a hierarchy of geographical destinations,
too, they stress two items: firstly, that the destination is the smallest unit which can be
identified by a target segment; secondly, that the destination is the smallest
meaningful unit in a professional tourism context. Professional means that there must
exist some organisational conditions that make it possible for the destination to
develop as a centre for product owners and other groups interested in tourism at sucha place. The textbook deals with the actors in the tourist industry, but not in a
destination context. Therefore you can learn a lot about the service product and the
internal and external conditions of individual firms, but nothing about the production
chain or condition in the industry apart from the co-ordination work of tour agents.
The tourist is seen as a consumer only.
8 years later (2001) one of the above mentioned authors Christjan Fussing Jensen
developed the concept of destination. His aim was to investigate the tourists demand
in depths as a reason for changes at the destination and thereby to develop the concept
of a dynamic destination. His conclusion about the destination is the following:
It is characteristic for the tourism sector that firms creating economic and job effects
are part of a bigger totality, where it is not the service offer of the single firms but all
service offers together, that are the sale argument [] This totality is in the literature
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
8/26
8
called a destination.. (2001, p. 7)(the authors translation) and The Dynamic
Destination can thus be described as a system consisting of three resource bases: The
attraction base, the facility base, and the market base(1997, p. 9).
Fussings resource-based approach gives a better understanding of those processes
that change the total supply of a destination, in case of change in demand and/or the
character of the attraction. In other words: the dynamic is the result of the tourists
demand for the resource-based possibilities, and the strategies, that either can answer
the new demand trends or can attract new tourist segments because the industry is able
to develop new attractive products.
In relation to the destinations limitation Fussing clearly experiences some problems.He is not using a geographical definition, because it is not the place which constitutes
a destination, but the elements and the change of elements, which determine the
destination area. Therefore the content (or elements in relation to the changing tourist
demand) is crucial for a destination. Fussing has a main focus on innovation in
tourism business, and on the total product as a result of a destinations effort to
answer the tourists changing demand this double focus postulates co-operation in
the industry in optimising a changing total service product at that place activating theresource bases in the single firm but he does not discuss geographical consequences,
because he can not identify geographical limitations of the destination. Though
Fussings understanding of the tourism system is based on economic theories his
model of a dynamic destination touches somehow upon more sociological
understandings of tourism space. Especially, the interaction between the tree bases
and one of them is the market base describing the tourists demand shows an implicit
understanding of the production of places, as will be shown in the papers next part.
Conclusion on part I:
What characterises the conventional understanding of the destination in general?
This will be answered in short by using the 4 key-words presented in the introduction:
Geographical limitation content - co-operation - tourists.
Geographical limitation: There exists no agreement about this among the cited authors- some talk about destinations on several geographic levels, others about the
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
9/26
9
destination as the smallest meaningful place with regard to the tourists demand. Most
of the authors refuse to discuss geographical borders, others have difficulties with
accepting the geographical dimension as a meaningful concept at all, arguing that it is
the content, the elements, and their changing pattern that constitute the destination.
But all agree on the term destination as important.
Content: Most authors described the destination as an agglomeration of attractions
and services like accommodation, beverage and information offices, and they
differentiated between core and periphery services. They agree mostly on a kind of
causality starting with attractions, followed up by core services in connection to
overnight stays, and periphery services like information service or retail trade. Some
even include the transport sector. Some more depth has the description of thedynamic destination which describes the interaction between tourists, resources and
elements, showing that the content of a destination is the result of this particular
interaction.
Co-operation: Several authors have a somewhat implicit understanding of what co-
operation means for the production of a destination. That has to do with the authors
analytical approach and the destination where the focus lies on, for instance, theattractions, the accommodation sector or the restaurants, but not how those types of
businesses between them produce the experience which a tourist asks for when
coming to that place. Only in the discussion of terms like total product or vacation
experience one can find some remarks about the necessity of co-operation. But there
is no discussion about the co-operations significance for the constitution of a
destination.
With Swarbrooke (pp. 165-166) it could be argued that literature about destination
management could have added some understanding of processes at a destination, but
as long as destination management only deals with planning, development, control
and marketing in general without caring about the single firm this approach will not
create knowledge about interorganisational relations.
Tourists are without exception seen as consumers that are satisfying their demands by
using a destinations supply of services. Changing demands make the destinations
change structure over time. Other tourist activities, their behaviour in general, areunderstood as part of a group, a type or a segment, where special interests have some
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
10/26
10
consequences for the structure of the destination. Only the resource based model takes
a more different view on the tourists importance for structuring the destination.
Part II: The sociological understanding of the destination during the past 30
years
One can say that modern sociological discussion on tourism started with Dean
MacCannells The Tourist A new Theory of the leisure class from 1976. Therefore
this part begins with his destination understanding.
First to observe is that MacCannel does not use the term at all. In Chapter 2 (which is
most relevant for my investigation), he is dealing with relationships between the
tourist, the attraction, and space, and step by step he integrates them into a kind of
system. This process can be shown by some quotations:
I have defined a tourist attraction as an empirical relationship between a tourist, a
sight and a marker. (p. 41)
Sights exist, but they only have a meaning for the tourist if they are communicated as
something interesting to the tourist, i.e. if they get a distinct meaning promoted by the
marker (all kind of communications and communicators).
And further, about its organisation and the content:
The touristic value of a modern community lies in the way it organises social,
historical, cultural and natural elements into a stream of impressions (p. 48), and
further:Distinctive local attractions contain (just behind, beside or embedded in the
parts presented to the tourists) working offices, shops, services and facilities: often an
entire urban structure is operating behind its touristic front (p. 50).
And further again:
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
11/26
11
Functioning establishments figure prominently as tourist attractions. Commercial,
industrial and business establishments are also basic features of social regions, or
they are first among the elements from which regions are composed. (p. 51)
Taken together the reader here gets something like the place called destination. But he
has no clear answer to the 4 questions asked in the beginning. He does not identify
geographical boundaries. The content of this place is described as an attraction where
all functions have some connections to one another, some are strong, others are
week; together these connections organise social elements of experiences or
impressions. They generate tourist regions (or, as he calls them, touristic districts) too.
It is the tourist who is essential in this system because s/he looks for attractions, and
in using them starts a social and a spatial process. This process is described as beingstructuralistic, determined by society, not as a result of the tourists individual
behaviour.
20 years later Tim Edensor, in his Tourists at the Taj (1998, in chapter 1), deals
extensively with the construction of the tourist space and so, indirectly, touches the
destination problem. He says:
Similarly, heritage centres, hotel landscapes, resorts, interpretative and
information facilities, conference centres, souvenir and craft emporia, hi-tech
transportation and communication, and a host of supplementary amenities, along with
the aforementioned malls and supermarkets, are the typical ingredients of a serially
produced tourist space. (p. 12)
and
Through place-marketing and the construction of tourist attractions, potted historical
narratives are produced, only certain features of attractions and tourist space are
highlighted, and the movement and time of tourists must fit in with this packaging.
The author very clearly describes a typical content of a destination, and as
MacCannell, but less structuralistic in his approach he stresses, that it is necessary to
communicate the value of the attractions to make them relevant for the tourist, theconsumer. Somewhat later he stresses with Rodman (1992):
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
12/26
12
places come into being through practice, not just narratives (p.642). These
practical tourist networks constitute an assemblage of objects, places and people that
are bound into a relationship . (p. 20)
As a kind of conclusion on this argument he writes:
An identification of these various spatial networks through which places become
diversely constituted advances a progressive notion where places are conceived as
processes rather than essences. Places have multiple identities, are situated points
at which a variety of activities occur and a diverse range of people pass through on
different routes. (p. 20)
What Edensor really is saying here is that destinations as limited geographical
features do not exist. They are tourist spaces produced by the social practice of the
tourist, which comprise various attractions and businesses, though with differentiation
from one local place to another. He does not talk about co-operation in these spaces,
the term social relations is used for all kind of relationship between the tourists, the
industry, the organisations and the attractions, but without specifying them. It is the
tourist and the other agents who construct through their interactions or social
relationships the place in space.
The most recent example illustrating the sociological perspective is Kevin Meethans
Tourism in Global Society. Place, Culture, Consumption from this year. As Edensor
before, he does not define a destination, but says:
Yet the important point here is not so much the physical patterns or typologies of
spatial development that can be identified, that is treating space as an abstract and
neutral category, but the way in which these spatial patterns interrelate with socio-
cultural values and perceptions. (p. 16)
And later on:
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
13/26
13
The resort areas developed as a consequence of modernity, and are linked to the
process of urbanisation and industrialisation, and the creation of both mass markets
and mass consumption. (p. 17)
Like Edensor, he sees the tourist space as a social production. The destination, as a
tourism space is a space for consumption, which contains all attractions and services
related to tourists demands. It is a dynamic space where images and values change
together with the consumer/tourist and changes in, for example, transport and
infrastructure. Such value changes could be a new perception of history (recycling of
both the past and other cultures (p. 28)), and a destination development process
(though he doesnt use these words) including image development and economic
development as a global process is starting. Therefore Meethan together withMacCannell and Edensor (and others) - refuse to talk aboutdestination boundaries in a
physical sense. Co-operation for Meethan is the co-ordination of people across space
and time (p. 31), where the tourist industry plays an important role using and
producing representations of the tourist space. So the tourist is indeed very central
in this process. He is on search for images (or attractions), and in searching and
finding and using images the tourist produces space, or with a traditional word, a
destination.
As a conclusion on part II the following statement:
Geographical definition: None of the authors give a clear geographical definition on
the destination. Tourism has something to do with a geographical place or a
geographical space, but this place or space has no defined boundaries. The
sociological authors indeed have problems in attacing the destination, that place
where tourism happens. Such places are dynamic, they develop in a continuos process
where all actors but especially the tourist constitute the space by acting socially
together.
Content: Therefore the content of the destination in general is undefined, too, because
it depends on various social contacts. Central in this dynamic are the relations
between the tourists and the attractions. The relations form an image, and the image
again attracts tourists and others producing tourism space. But it is somewhat unclearwhat attraction means in this context, some mention single attractions like traditional
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
14/26
14
nature, man made attractions and culture and events, others mention the tourism space
including all attractions and services.
Co-operation: The closest definition of co-operation are two terms used, the one
called connections, the other social practice which probably include commercial
contacts.
Tourists: The tourist is perceived as a consumer, and mass consumption constitutes
tourism resort areas. The most central figure in this system is the tourist. His demands,
his social practice constitute the tourism space, the resort, the destination and thus all
the actors in it.
Part III: Empirical findings
The third part of this paper shortly presents some empirical findings from ongoing
research about destination representation and construction in Denmark, findings
which throw some light on the 4 questions outlined at the beginning. The empirical
cases were a part of north-western Jutland (Destination Jammerbugt), the city of
Roskilde near Copenhagen, and the island of Bornholm. Among other issues, theresearchers had an interest in three groups of actors the tourist, the formal
organisations representing the destination (authorities and local/regional tourist
organisations), and the commercial actors. They were asked how they imagine and
define the destination in words and in action or practice. In this part of the paper the
answers to the 4 questions will be integrated in the discussion of the mentioned three
groups of actors.
Tourists: Most of the conventional literature about destinations stress that tourism is
a temporary trip from a permanent place of living to an other place, where the tourist
is staying a shorter period having a good time with experiences and recreation
transport between these places can be seen as a necessary evil. On the other hand, the
more sociological literature stressed that the tourist not necessaryly stay at one place
they often visit several places or are travelling around having satisfactory experiences
by travelling. Here the tourist gaze plays a very important role as a source of this
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
15/26
15
experience, stressed by Urry (1990), Osborne (2000) and others. Jonas Larsen (2001)
is doing profound research about the tourist glance of the tourist in motion.
Although the mobile practice of the tourist challenge the concepts of destination the
travellers are not travelling all the time they have to stop for eating and sleeping, and
they will stop at places with interesting views and some relevant facilities and
services. These stopping places can be called nodes on the travelling line where the
tourist gets into contact with persons and establishments, and consequently constitute
a tourist place if those stops happen. Though tourists come to a distinct place to sleep,
to eat and so on for a period. This does not mean that they are staying permanently at
this place, as Michael Haldrup, stresses observing that many tourists are extremely
mobile despite a permanent holiday address. He says:
By utilising the possibilities of motorised mobility for exploring the region, a
heterogeneous tourist space is produced through a pattern of mobility that is quite
indifferent to local places and national boundaries. Instead local significance are
consumed in the passing (p. 11)
This tourists behaviour makes a destination definition based on geographicalboundaries absurd, and therefore, perhaps the sociological authors do not use the term
destination but talk about tourism place, space and social practice.
From the tourists point of view one can say that the destination (or what you want to
call it) at any time exists at that place (in case it is visited by tourists) and where the
tourists actually perform any kind of social practice. This social practice is not limited
to actors in the tourism industry alone, but includes all contacts at this place.
Formal organisations: How does the destination look in the eyes of authorities and
tourism organisations?
One of the most important attractions in Denmark is the nature the seaside, the
dunes, the forests. Most of them are an object of landscape planning, preservation and
nature mediation by the planning authorities, and one should believe they would think
about their landscapes as tourist attractions and as destinations. But not all of them
do so. A nature mediator told that she had asked the manager of the county how shewas supposed to handle tourism in her work, and he answered:
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
16/26
16
You are not supposed to work with tourism at all. To do so we have the tourist
information, they get money to sell Roskilde county to the tourists. Your job is only to
guarantee god nature mediation to the citizens in Roskilde county. (Interview, the
authors translation)
Though Roskilde county is not a tourist region primarily based on nature experiences,
this attitude is typical for the landscape planning authorities in most Danish counties
planning for tourism is an object for the economic department and/or the regional
tourism organisation.
Another important tourist attraction is the cultural site of a city. An interview with thepolitical leader of the leisure and culture affairs committee of Roskilde showed, that
the citys responsibility for tourism does not belongs to this committee but to the
committee for economics, where the mayor is the head of the committee3. Asked what
the committee of the leisure and culture affairs especially planned to do for tourism,
the answer was:
Hitherto in this committee we did not sit down saying: now we have to do somethingto increase for tourism in Roskilde municipality, I must admit. We havent.
(Interview, the authors translation)
In a way, one can say that the relevant authorities most of all think in economic terms
on tourism though they should think in attraction value and products. Sharply spoken
they are only interested in the economic effects of tourism, but not in the question of
destination boundaries or destination content or even the tourists. De facto they
have deposited their responsibility for tourism development of their specific region or
place to the tourism organisations.
How do the tourism organisations handle this responsibility? The answer is not very
clear and it depends in some way on their place in the administrative hierarchy, that is,
whether they are working on a local, a regional or an interregional level. Most of them
felt a responsibility for their sponsors, whether municipalities, a co-operation of
3 It is this committee which means the mayor who negotiates with the tourist organisation andgrants the money for its activities
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
17/26
17
municipalities or one or several counties because they to some degree finance their
activities. This responsibility means that their focus most of all lies inside the
boundaries of these administrative entities. On the other hand, they distinguish
between the tourists wishes everything dealing with accommodation and meals
were recommended inside their municipality/destination area. Some more advanced
experiences also were recommended outside the region because at the moment none
of them exists inside the administrative borders (examples from western Jutland). If
we accept tourist brochures as a tourist organisations representation of a destination
we can see that the editors text and photos have the focus on the distinct place, while
the advertisers destination description of the same place is another: an actor far away
from the destination can buy space in a brochure and in this way be represented as a
part of this destination (and at the same time as part of several destinations) which to some extent reflects the tourists mobility in space.
Commercial actors: They are a very inhomogeneous number of businesses producing
goods and services to satisfy the tourists demand. In the empirical material most of
the actors are placed in the attraction and accommodation sectors, but there are actors
from the restaurant and production sectors, too.
Do the commercial actors have a distinct idea of the that they are a part of, and of the
geographical boundaries of this place? This question is very hard to answer clearly,
too. In Roskilde, a city of approximate 50.000 inhabitants near Copenhagen (a
distance of about 30 kms), the focus lies on the main attractions in the city the
cathedral and the Viking Ship Museum. When asked about Roskilde as an original
destination some actors seem to have the opinion that Roskilde could be a part of the
greater Copenhagen destination, because many of Roskilde tourists come on a day
trip from Copenhagen. Others wish to give Roskilde a more independent status as a
main attraction point on the destination Sealand Island (Copenhagen is not
included).
In Jutland Destination Jammerbugt the commercial actors do not accept a
Destination Jammerbugt as a destination at all. On the other hand, they can not
define any destination in the region in which they are placed, and asked about
important attractions in their region they mentioned - besides the nature and theseaside - attractions all over the northern Jutland region. One explanation could be
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
18/26
18
that seaside tourism here is a phenomenon spread over the area and without a major
distinct node inside the area, while Roskilde with its attractions and facilities inside its
agglomeration is identified as a distinct destination.
Now the crucial question is: do tourism actors co-operate to produce their services and
goods in order to satisfy the tourists demand for a total experience? To put it short:
They do not, if the initiative to do so is supposed to be their own. If the tourist office
or a tour operator ask them to do so it may happen that they become part of a package
if they can see any positive economic outcome from this initiative. Very often this
happens to be an ad hoc action. It is more likely that bigger actors now and then
become part of a common product than small family actors. The only local co-
operation can be found regarding the production of an actors single product: Almostall services in connection with maintaining the production apparatus are placed at the
local site; but if the actor needs material inputs for his own production this input
usually, at non-urbanised places (as in Destination Jammerbugt), will come from
outside the destination.
One kind of co-operation (or network) involve all actors even the minor ones : the
marketing of the place in which they are situated, and the distribution of their product.Most of them realise that they do not have sufficient resources to do this job
themselves successfully, therefore they have to do it together with their competitors
and supplement actors. On the other hand, there are different opinions on how to do it,
and on which geographical level it should be done. Members of a hotel chain often
have a more horizontal chain perspective in trying to tie the tourists mobility in space
to the production system of the chain, while independent actors and the tourism
organisation think in a vertical destination perspective, The first mentioned try to tie
tourists to several packages they have in control across many regions, the last
mentioned try to tie them to their specific place, and both try to produce loyalty.
Powerful actors are more interested in regional or national marketing initiatives than
small enterprises, which think more in direction of local distribution than international
positioning. Put in an other words: different actors place themselves on different
levels in the destination hierarchy choosing different partners for marketing
activities.
Conclusion
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
19/26
19
What is the outcome of these exercises? There can be given some answers to the 4
points raised in the beginning:
1. How are the geographical physical boundaries of a destination described?
Four different destination definitions can be observed:
The destination as an agglomeration of actors seen from the supply side, whichexist in a kind of strategically dependency. This definition can be described as a
pragmatic demarcation which is analogue to marketing practice.
The commercial actors (the industrys) empirical documented co-operation/network describes another space which is connected to the production
chain and which differs from firm to firm.
The authoritative actors (the authorities, the organisations) acting in space insideadministrative boundaries given in advance.
The tourists tourism space/place produced by their mobility and social practice.
The business-inspired conventional authors are convinced of the importance of the
destination as a key factor in tourism, a place containing actors who produce
together a total product which is the answer to the tourists expectations of a totalexperience. They are convinced that the actors understandings of the destination
based on a variety of products satisfying the tourists demand is identical to the
tourists understanding of the place they are visiting. Moreover, Swarbrooke (2001)
recently gave an outstanding and pointed summary about the traditionalists
understanding of the destination. But it is not evident what geographical status this
destination has - if any at all. Perhaps Neil Leiper (2000) in some way means the
same when sarcastically criticise the destination as raison dtre of tourism.
The sociological authors, on the other hand are not very interested in the destination.
They deal with tourists and their performances, their social acting in time and space,
and argue that every tourist by acting socially creates his own tourism place or space.
But place and space are not identical, following Haldrups interpretation of de Certeau
(1988):
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
20/26
20
Following Michel de Certeau he draws a line between place and space in relation to
tourism practices. Whereas places according to de Certeau are the stable,
strategically ordered homogenous configurations (the region as it is represented
symbolically through narratives, marketing material, art works etc. and embodied
materially in architecture, signs and markers, and the physical lay-out) he defines
space as practised place i.e. the spaces produced by agents employing a
variety of tactics that rest on an ongoing and contingent process of reconstruction of
practice and the mobilisation of different degrees of reflexivity . (p. 8).
The empirical work showed that both the industrys, the authorities and the tourists
practices only to some degree verify with the general theories on destinations
most congruence exists between the tourists behaviour and the sociologistsdescription of the tourists social practice. On the other hand, tourism places and
tourism spaces exist, and both the tourists, the industry and the governments/
authorities act in concrete spatial contexts.
As a general answer to the first question it can be concluded that neither the economic
writers, nor the sociological writers and nor the empirical findings show any special
interest in describing the destination or the tourist place/space by physical
geographical borders. The destination is a narrative created by marketing: it is a
place structured by processes and experienced by social actions, and it exists on
various geographical levels, but it is never a place with clear boundaries.
2. How are the content of a destination described?
When talking about the content of a destination, the economic authors mention three
central notions: attractions, facilities, and services. But not all of them differentate
between them, some take the destination as an attraction, where an attraction is
defined as an agglomeration of experiences, facilities and services. Non-commercial
attractions such as landscapes, townscapes, beaches etc. are mentioned, but not
seriously analysed. The sociological literature is talking about images which are
experienced by interaction with the tourist. Such images, for instance, are landscapes
and townscapes as a part of the cultural heritage. Facilities and services are noticed,
but not analysed as such. The cited empirical findings point out the same descriptions
of content depending on whom has been interviewed the tourists, the commercialactors or the formal organisations.
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
21/26
21
3. How are the existence of or the need for co-operation at a destination described?
In business economics, co-operation and networks play an important role analysing
production of goods and services. Economic authors in the field of tourism accept co-
operation as a mean of production, but most of them do not analyse it in any depth.
The commercial actors only have a limited co-operation and network practice which
if this is a general practice in the tourist industry - perhaps explains why the authors
are not particular interested in this issue. Only in marketing organisations like tourist
offices co-operation seems to play an important role in telling the story of a
destination. Sociological authors in general ignore the fact of co-operation in the
tourism industry (with the exception of Meethan who shows a combined economic
and sociologic understanding of the actors interactions at a tourist place). In stead ofco-operation these authors talk about social practice as the mean which tightens
tourists, attractions etc. together in a tourist space. But it is hard to see how the
interaction takes place between tourists and the tourism industry, between the actors in
the tourism industry, and with the authorities, and which mechanisms in this
interaction create the destination.
In general, the field of co-operation in tourism etc. is not extensively investigated.
This should be done remembering the pivotal role this issue plays in research on theproduction of goods. This does not mean that co-operation necessarily should be more
important in tourism it is only that we really dont know what co-operation means in
tourism, and this should be clarified.
4. How is the tourist behaviour understood?
To put it in short: the economic literature interprets the tourists as initiators of mass
consumption. The industry answers to these demands by establishing of different
supplies of services and goods. The sociological literature is more interested in the
tourists behaviour in time and space, their social practice, for instance, in producing
tourist places/spaces. The findings confirm both aspects as relevant for tourism
research on the other hand they hardly fit together, and both are not very precise in
their description of relations between tourists and a destination. Research is needed
here too.
Now, finally: what is a destination?
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
22/26
22
At least two answers can be given:
1. The authors conclusion is that the sum of interests, activities, facilities,
infrastructure and attractions create the identity of a place the destination. It has a
static dimension the place and a dynamic dimension the mix and agglomeration
of agents and products/services, varying with the tourists historically different
demand. But our understanding of the destination or the attractions attracting tourists
could be wrong, as Leiper (2000) writes:
There is no evidence that any destination ever attracted, in a literal sense, any
tourists. [] The main causal factors of tourist flows are not located in destinations
but in traveller generating regions, in places where trips begin, where the forces that
stimulate tourists motivations are located and where marker systems directing
tourists to nuclear elements of attractions begin. (p. 366).
2. The answers to the four questions end up with the insight that interaction, co-
operation, networking and social practice are crucial activities describing a
destination, its content, its relations and its tourists. Further research is necessary.
The structure in the tourist industry is very different from the structure in the goods
producing industry goods. But in tourism most of all produces services, not goods. Itis a consumer market, but this market is very unstable and has to be re-produced all
the time, and there exist many freeriders in this field. In short: does tourism research
has a theory and methods to investigate this? The same relationships in other fields of
production have been analysed for years by of economic sociology why do those
researches only very rarely work with tourism? It is this kind of research which is
needed.
And what about the use of the word destination? Maybe Leipers critique mentioned
in the last quote is right, so, if we are doing tourism research we only should use this
word related to marketing. Marketing creates narratives, images, brands that mediate a
place to the potential tourist in the traveller generating regions. When the tourist visits
this place he creates his own tourist space. The industry, as a part of the tourists social
action space, even create an economic space. Both spaces are differing as described
earlier, but both have their origin in images promoted by the marketing mediation of a
place called destination.
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
23/26
23
And this raises the last questions for further research: What importance has the
marketing promoted destination for co-operation and networking in the industry?
And which relations exist between a destination as the product of marketing and the
tourists behaviour, social practice and geographical pattern of motion in his space?
Literature
Burkart, A.J. & Medlik, S.: ( 1974): Tourism. Past, Present and FutureBrenholdt, J.O, (2001): Om produktionen af destinationen for turisme. Paper,
submitted to journal
Brenholdt, J.O. (2000): Revised research design on the project:): Destination
construction and development Representations, networks and strategies.Paper.
Roskilde University
Brenholdt, J.O, Framke, W., Nilsson, P.. (1999): Destination construction and
development Representations, networks and strategies. Paper.. Roskilde
University
de Certeau, M. (1988): The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press
Christiansen. P.E., Framke, W.& Skjtt-Larsen, T. (1996): Interorganisatoriske
relationer som grundlag for transportgenerering I en dansk region., Lahmann,H. &
Pedersen, L.H. (eds): Trafikdage p Aalborg Universitet, Konferencerapport 2,
Aalborg Universitet, 877-899
Cohen, E. (1972): Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39,
164-182Cooper, C. et al. (1993): Tourism.Principles and Practice. London
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
24/26
24
Edensor, T. (1998): The Tourist at the Taj. London
Framke, W. (2001): Die Destination von morgen zwischen Markenbildung und
Flexibilitt (in print)
Framke, W. (2001): Dnemark als Tourismusland: Entwicklung, Probleme und
Strategien.Heidelberger Geographische Gesellschaft, HGG-Report (in print)
Framke, W. (2000): Destinationsbegriff und interorganisatorische Beziehungen im
Tourismusgewerbe neue Forschungsanstze in Dnemark .Proceedings
Framke, W. (1999): Samarbejde i Turismesektoren eksempel Bornholm.
Konferensrapport 7:e Nordiska forskarsymposiet I Turism 1998. ETOUR,
rapportserien, Rapport R 1999:2, stersund, 119-132
Framke, W. (1998): Destinationsudvikling.Lyck, L (ed.):Turismestrategi og
udvikling i Grnland. Kbenhavn, 11-37Framke, W. (1997): Turismens produktionssystem: Aktrrelationer. Overvejelser
baseret p interviews med turistvirksomheder i Trekantomrdet/Danmark.
WP3/1997-PROTEUS. Kbenhavn
Framke, W. (1996):Horisontale, vertikale og diagonale relationer indenfor det
turismerelevante produktionssystem. WP9/-PROTEUS, Kbenhavn
Framke, W. & Brenholdt, J.O. (2000): Destination Construction.Travel
&Destination. Proceedings of a Conference held at Roskilde University 17.02.200.Geography Roskilde University Working Paper #152/Publication from the Tourism
Research Centre of Denmark, 15-28
Geogulas, N. (1970): Tourist destination features.Journal of Town Planning
Institute,56, 442-446
Haldrup, M. (2001): Tourists in time and space mobility tactics and the making of
tourist spaces.Draft. Roskilde University
Haldrup, M. (2001): Deconstruction Destinations?Mobility and Transport An
Anthology. The Danish Transport Council, Note 01-03, 73-85
Jacobsen, J.K.S.&Viken, A. (1999): Turisme. Stedet i en bevegelig verden. Oslo
Jensen, C.F., Hansen, J. & Metz, L.(1993): Turistvirksomhed. Kbenhavn
Jensen, C. F. (2001):Den innovative adfrd i oplevelsesintensive virksomheder. Et
strategisk perspektiv i turisme. Forskningsrapport 01:2, Center for Servicestudier,
Roskilde Universitet
Jensen, Chr. Fussing (1997): The Dynamic Destination. A Resource based Perspective
of Tourism. Congress Paper. Edinburgh
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
25/26
25
Larsen, J. (2001): Tourist Mobilities and the Travel Glance: Experiences of being on
the move. Draft. Lancaster University
Lash, S. & Urry, J. (1994): Economies of Sign and Space. London
Leiper, N. (2000): Are Destinations The Heart of Tourism? The advantages of an
Alternative Description. Current Issues in Tourism, Vol.3, No.4
MacCannel, D. (1976): The Tourist. A new Theory of the Leisure Class. Berkeley
Mill, R.C. & Morrison, A.M. (1992): The Tourism System. Englewood Cliffs
Murphy, P. (1985): Tourism. A Community Approach. New York
Nilsson, P. (2001): Tourism practices and the production of destinations.
Representations, networks and strategies. Tourism Business Networking and
restructuring on Bornholm.Draft, Research Centre of Bornholm
Osborne, P. (2000): Travelling Light: Photography, Travel and Visual Culture.Manchester
Plogh, S.C. (1974): Why destination areas fall in popularity.Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Qarterly, 14, 4, 43-45
Ringer, G. (Ed.)(1998):Destinations. Cultural landscapes of tourism. Routledge
Advances in Tourism, London
Rodman, M. (1992):Empowering place: multilocality and multivocality.AmericanAnthropologist, 94, 640-656
Rojec, C. & Urry, J. (eds.)(1997): Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and
Theory. London
Saarinen, J. (1998): Tourist destinations and attractions interpretations of the
spatiality of tourist motives.Nordisk Samhllsgeografisk Tidskrift, no. 26, 52-63
Swarbrooke, J. (2001): Organisation of tourism at the destination. In: Wahab, S. &
Cooper, C.: Tourism in the Age of Globalisation. London, 159-182
Swarbrooke, J. & Horner, S. (1999): Consumer Behavior in Tourism. Oxford
Srensen, F. (2001): Networks in production of destinations.Draft. Roskilde
University
Urry, J. (1991): The Tourist Gaze. London
Urry, J. (1995): Consuming Places. London
-
8/3/2019 Framke ...
26/26