Geographically informed discussions of tourism development (together with a range of spatial models) have been established within the tourism literature for some time (see, e.g., Britton, 1989; Miossec, 1977; Pearce, 1987, 1989). These studies generally reveal that the development of tourism in any given location depends upon the existence of a set of prerequisites for growth and that the resulting spatial forms of development and their geographical characteristics will reflect the interplay between several factors that may be conceived as shaping the directions that development may take.
The essential prerequisites are:
● the presence of resources and attractions – which will include the natural attributes of climate, landform, scenery and wildlife; the socio-cultural heritage of the destination area (such as places of interest, historic sites, local cuisine or arts and crafts); as well as attractions such as entertainments, theme parks or leisure complexes that may form part of a built environment;
● infrastructure, primarily in the form of accommodation, transportation services and public utilities such as water supplies, sanitation and electricity;
● sources of capital investment, labour and appropriate structures for marketing and promoting the destination.
The primary factors (or groups of factors) that are seen as shaping the physical development of tourism are identified in Figure 4.1 which attempts an outline summary of what is actually a most complex pattern of interrelations. Five primary factors are proposed:
● physical constraints;
● the nature of tourist resources and attractions;
● the state of the tourism market;
● planning and investment conditions;
● levels of integration.
It is argued here that the differing ways in which these factors exert their influence – both in isolation and in combination – will commonly result in one of four general forms of tourism development: enclaves, resorts, zones and regions. In spatial terms, these different forms are associated with varying levels of concentration or dispersal and may also be
FACTORSOFINFLUENCEDEVELOPMENTOUTCOMES Topography Availabilityofland Accessibility Existingdevelopment Natural/non-natural Unique/ubiquitous Dispersed/place-specific Commercial/ non-commercial Levelof(political)control Levelofplanning Sourcesofinvestment Patternsofownership Spatialintegration orsegregation Structuralintegration orsegregation Domestic/international Elite/mass Culturallysimilaror dissimilar
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS PLANNING & INVESTMENT CONDITIONS NATURE OFTHE TOURISMMARKET
FORMSOF DEVELOPMENT
CONCENTRATED DISPERSED
ENCLAVES RESORTS ZONES REGIONS
COASTAL–INLAND
RURAL–URBANNATUREOF TOURIST RESOURCES& ATTRACTIONS LEVELS OF INTEGRATION Figure4.1Factorsaffectingpatternsoftourismdevelopment
located into one of several geographic ‘contexts’ that are here expressed as simple continua:
urban/rural; coastal/inland; and lowland/mountain. In relation to the earlier discussion of the concept of ‘development’, it is evident that these factors reveal the incidence of development as both state and process. Hence, the influence of physical constraints, the nature of resources and attractions, and the state of the tourism market tend to reflect states of development;
whilst the influence of planning, investment and integration are much more reflective of process.
Physical constraints will often have a direct bearing upon forms of tourism development and consequent geographical patterns. Topography, for example, can influence the availability of suitable sites for construction, levels of access and the ease with which key utilities (water, power, sewage disposal, etc.) may be installed or extended from existing settlements and their infrastructure. ‘Difficult’ environments might include rugged coastlines (such as the Amalfi coast in Italy) or mountain zones (such as the Alpine zones in Switzerland – see Plate 4.1), both of which tend to fragment and disperse development in a way that is generally untrue of (say) a flat, open coastline which enjoys ease of access (such as the Languedoc-Roussillon region in France).
Second, development patterns will reflect the state and disposition of the resources and attractions around which tourism is based and affect, especially, the extent to which tourism
Plate 4.1
Tourism development in a difficult environment: the mountain resort of Zermatt, Switzerland
becomes dispersed or concentrated. In particular, unique or place-specific attractions, whether natural or non-natural, tend to focus development around the site(s) in question, whereas more ubiquitous or spatially extensive resources (e.g., an accessible coastline or good-quality rural landscapes) may have a dispersing effect. Thus, rural tourism – in which sightseeing is an important pastime – is often characterised by a diffuse pattern of development across a multiplicity of relatively small-scale sites, with activity frequently being absorbed within existing facilities through farm tourism or second homes (where these are conversions of existing properties).
Third, it is suggested that patterns of development will be influenced by the state of development within the tourism market. This will vary according to whether development is targeted at a domestic or an international clientele, but more significant distinctions will normally exist between mass and so-called ‘alternative’ forms of tourism, because of the contrasting volumes of activity that these sectors deliver.
Although, historically, many forms of tourism development were spontaneous and only loosely controlled, the value of tourism as a tool for regional and national development has tended to mean that the modern industry is far more closely regulated. Local planning and investment conditions will therefore provide a fourth primary influence upon forms of development, and, as Figure 4.1 suggests, important factors include political attitudes towards tourism and the levels of political control (including the extent to which effective land planning procedures are in place); the extent to which investment is local or external to the region; and the levels of corporate interest in tourism and the associated patterns of ownership. In a rapidly globalising area such as tourism, the incidence of external investment and foreign ownership of facilities can be especially influential on resulting patterns of development. Local and regional communities that are anxious to attract inward investment will often accept development conditions that are imposed by outside investors as a price to be paid to ensure that investment is secured.
Planning and investment conditions are closely allied with the final key factor, the level and nature of integration. Discussions of ‘integration’ of tourism development tend to use the term in two senses. At one level, concerns have focused upon the extent to which tourism development is integrated in a spatial sense with existing, non-tourist forms of development – in other words, is tourism inter-mixed with other functions and land uses, or is it spatially segregated? Alternatively, integration may refer to whether or not a development is integrated in a structural sense. A structurally integrated development will bring together all the key elements – accommodation, transportation, retailing, entertainment and utilities – within a single, comprehensive development. This form contrasts with what are sometimes termed ‘catalytic’ patterns of development (Pearce, 1989) in which a small number of lead projects that are often externally financed and controlled, stimulate subsequent rounds of indigenous development as local entrepreneurs are drawn into an expanding tourism industry.