Communication, which indicates the degree of openness of the system, influences the dis- trict’s future projects.
The classificatory features mentioned above provide a starting point for the following specific tourism territory analysis.
of district is used as an attractive strategy that catches the attention of tourists and shop- pers.3The second category is the Ethnic Districtthat promotes places where ethnic groups live, as an attraction.4Thirdly,Sacred Spacesare considered as a constellation of spaces, specific to pilgrims and tourists.5Redevelopment Zonesare defined as specialized areas, which are spatially protected from usual life.6 The fifth category covers Entertainment Destinations, i.e. high-tech entertainment centers, cinema complexes, theme restaurants, etc. Finally, the Functional Tourism Districtexamines particular parts of cities under a spa- tial and functional perspective. Interesting case studies have been developed over different tourism districts in Paris (Pearce, 1998) and over theme districts of Singapore (Teo &
Huang, 1995). This district categorization identifies tourism areas where co-location of tourism resources benefits to the tourism development. These areas are specialized in one element that attract tourists such as historic heritage, exotic culture, sacred places, a (per- fect) place out of usual life problems, high-tech entertainment centers or specific tourism sector agglomerations.
The specificity of the ID framework analysis, compared with what has already been done, allows to analyze urban tourism as well as rural tourism. It defines the features of the LTS, focusing on all tourism actors within a determined space. This framework con- siders tourism actors in the broad sense of the word and analyses their organization method to work as being part of a system. The specificity of the ID framework for tourism is to identify the profile of a local tourism system, considering the destination as a whole and from a four-dimensional approach.
Application of the Framework to Tourism
The fact that local actors move together in a chosen direction is the chief factor in creat- ing a systemic tourism (systemic consciousness). The quantity and quality of connections (strategic means display) among actors determine the will to communicate. This commu- nication is intensified when there is a common cultural capital (degree of cumulativeness) and also by geographical proximity (degree of spatial concentration).
● Systemic consciousness degree
Owing to the diversity of tourism actors, it appears to be difficult for them to include others of their local environment in the end product that is perceived as a whole by tourists.
Considering tourism actors within a territory as being part of a LTS is equivalent to A Framework to Identify a Localised Tourism System 49
3See on this subject Ehrlich B. and Dreier P. (1999), The new Boston Discovers the Old: Tourism and the Struggle for a Livable City. In: Judd D.R. and Fainstein S.S., Editors, Tourist City, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 155–178. And also Lew A.A., Authenticity and sense of Place in the Tourism Development Experience of Older Retail Districts, Journal of Travel Research 27 4, pp. 15–22.
4 See on this subject Conforti J., Ghettos as Tourism attraction, Annals of Tourism Research 23, 1996, pp. 830–842.
5See on this subject Sachachar A. and Shoval N. (1999), Tourism in Jerusalem: A place to pray. In: Judd D.R.
and Fainstein S.S., Editors, The Tourist City, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 198–211.
6See on this subject Judd D.R. (1999), Constructing the Tourist Bubble. In: Judd D.R. and Fainstein S.S., Editors, The Tourist City, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 35–53.
considering local actors as one part of a transversal chain forming the end product, the des- tination. To sell this product, suppliers are grouped on a geographical base by distributors such as tourism offices (locally-based) or tourism houses (gathering together several bor- der tourism offices). Consequently, suppliers are presented as being part of a whole but this does not always reflect the field reality. The dimension of systemic consciousness degree is highly significant to analyze a LTS because it allows to explore the basis of the system, its foundations.
If one adopts the tourist’s perspective, the supply of a destination appears as a systemic product. Tourists consider all suppliers within the destination, from the basic services to the main resources, as being part of one product. Thus, through tourists themselves, tourism actors could become aware of the LTS. On top of this, the existence of structured transver- sal relationships among all actors that participate to the supply is required to enhance the work experience schemes of the destination actors. Consequently, structured tourism pro- duction and reception implies a minimum of cooperation among all actors and their inte- gration in the system. Producing a coherent tourism destination concerning demand perceptions and expectations requires developing a systemic product (Ruffino, 2006).
On the other, when adopting the tourism actor’s perspective, the systemic product does not always seem to be so obvious. Other suppliers can be considered both in a competitive or restrictive way. The trend for tourism actors to consider others as competitors only impedes to develop a systemic view of tourism within a destination. To consider tourism supply in a restrictive way is the main trend observed. Indeed, tourism gathers together a number of sectors such as accommodation, the cultural sector, entertainment, recreation, catering, transportation or other tourism-related services. These sectors collaborate mostly in an intersectorial way (implying only actors from one sector) while a trans-sectorial col- laboration (implying actors from several sectors) is significant for the coherence of the localized system. As a result, the difficulty in tourism is that actors are not always aware of their participation in a broader than sectorial system. Therefore, two extreme types of tourism actors have to be distinguished: actors who have a systemic view and increase their potentials by implementing the system and actors who only develop strategies to increase their own profits.
The systemic consciousness of a destination is firstly submitted to the existence of a grouped implication of tourism actors, resulting in concrete actions at the destination level (for instance, promotion of the destination as a whole). From this statement, it is possible to determine how actors relate to each other. If tourism actors consider others only as com- petitors, they have no systemic consciousness. If partnership exists among actors of one sector, there is a low degree of systemic consciousness. If partnership exists in various or all sectors, there is a high degree of systemic consciousness. The degree of systemic con- sciousness increases with the integration of actors in the system, which can be seen more concretely through the strategic means display.
● Strategic means display
In order to be competitive and enhance the system performance, tourism can be analyzed through the major means developed by ID. Analyzing the role of local authorities, the ori- gin and distribution of financing sources, the existence of technical assistance and the deci- sion taking level, allows to determine a bottom-up or more top-down-oriented 50 Géraldine Maulet
implementation, which highlights the system creation process. Furthermore, in order to determine the potentialities to build a coordinate strategy among all actors, a significant element is to identify the bases of the systemic strategy. The willingness of actors to collabo- rate is the first necessary condition to display strategic means. The second condition occurs when actors trust each other and agree about the way to implant tourism in their area. The following stage occurs when actors share mutual profits and are part of a network of infor- mation exchange. Finally, actors can combine all aforementioned forms of cooperation.
A structured network of formal or informal relationships can facilitate partnerships among actors who are not automatically aware of their contribution to the systemic tourism product as demonstrated in the first dimension. The ability to develop strong and dense connections among a large range of actors within the limits of a destination depends mostly on actors themselves but also on a general sector trend. Indeed, tourism encourages actors to communicate with each other in multiple ways, e.g. by making itineraries effec- tive for tourists, hotels, restaurants, museums, attractions, etc. need to communicate.
Another common collaboration process of the tourism sector is to propose packages at a lower price than all services taken separately.
Furthermore, small actors realize that they have to develop a system and mobilize knowledge in order to keep a competitive position in the global or even national tourism market. The tourism industry includes a large array of actors that are mostly small-sized firms. Small- and Medium-sized enterprises play a vital role in tourism. These firms are pushed by the economic context to be part of a larger supply in order to be competitive.
The strategic means displayed by tourism actors can be analyzed through several vari- ables. If the public sector interferes in the development of a common promotion plan or a common strategy that groups all tourism actors of a specific area, the system is going to be more integrated than if the strategy only concerns some big actors of one sector. Other indicators are the existence of technical assistance at the destination level, the intervention of external actors in taking decisions about the destination and cooperation among actors (e.g. packages, itineraries or other forms of collaboration).
● Cumulativeness degree
While researching the diversity of tourism actors and their respective knowledge field, their location appears to be the main aspect they have in common. Sharing a territory,a fortioriduring a long period of time, seems to favor transversal relationships. If tourism actors share a common cultural identity, they are more apt to communicate and to partici- pate in a tourism system. Ruffino (2006) uses the concept of systemic product, with the purpose of studying the tourism supply from the perspective of learning processes. He explains the need for all actors to have a common relationship protocol, which includes local memory, professionalism and actor values. In this way, he gives some indicators to approach the concept of local identity shared by tourism actors.
The degree of cumulativeness focus both on tourism actors and the social, cultural and economic context. The size of the actor, the personality of the manager, the reason of the implementation in a specific area and the period of time since the establishment of the actor determine the influence they exercise on each other. The experience of actors within a geographical area to act as a receptive sphere for tourists also seems to be significant to the implementation of the system.
A Framework to Identify a Localised Tourism System 51
The trend for tourism actors to work as a LTS increases with the sharing of identity throughout time. The degree of cumulativeness gathers together elements highly linked with actors established area.
● Degree of spatial concentration
The spatial concentration in tourism is often linked with temporal concentration and perceived in terms of impact on natural and cultural resources at a tourist destination. The concentration of tourism actors within an area is considered here as an opportunity to col- laborate and to build a coordinate strategy but also to attract other actors within the area.
This notion raises the questions of the LTS borders.
Limits of the area identified as localized system can be defined by following the admin- istrative division and taking the territory of the competent tourism authority into consider- ation. Different scales of tourism space can then be analyzed within this approach, from national to provincial or local scale. This paper focuses on a local approach for its case study. The aim is to analyze a relatively simple situation in order to understand LTS mech- anisms and specificities.
The borders of the tourism system can also be seen by means of actors themselves, i.e.
localizing the area where partner actors are established. In this case, the limits of the LTS are the result of strategies that are developed from existing networks between actors. This approach raises the question of the attractiveness of the LTS for external actors.
A combination of these two approaches, administrative and fictive borders, is chosen in this case. Analyzing systemic tourism from a local perspective would mean taking the ter- ritory of competent local authority as a maximum space scale. On the contrary, the mini- mum space scale is determined by the area where tourism actors entertain relationships. To compare the two approaches should underscore the importance of administrative limits for building a tourism system. The objective is also to be able to identify cores of tourism actors within the administrative limits.
The degree of spatial concentration for a destination that claims to have a coherent sup- ply is quite variable. It can be regarded as a high degree of concentration if tourism actors have mutual dependency relations. By contrast, many actors having a lot of connections with external firms could point to a low degree of spatial concentration. This situation shows the foundations of another type of system, the reticular tourism system, which has no territorial bases.
Application of the Framework to the Rochefort Entity
The framework does not aim to analyze an area in an exhaustive way, but intends to focus solely on key elements that are determinant to qualify an area as LTS.
Rochefort is an entity gathering together 13 villages (12,000 inhabitants), situated in a rural area of 165 km2, between Namur and Bouillon (South Belgium). The tourism actors established in Rochefort are attractions (Domain of the Caves of Han, Centre for Country Life and Forgotten Crafts, the Gallo-Roman Archaeopark of Malagne, Cave of Lorette- Rochefort, Tourist Train of Rochefort), museums (Lavaux-Sainte-Anne Castel, Feudal Castle of Vêves, Domain of the Caves of Han “Museum of the Subterranean World”, 52 Géraldine Maulet
Permanent Animation Centre of Railway and Stone, Remains of the Castle of the Counts, Ecomuseum “La Besace”), three tourism offices (“syndicat d’initiative”) acting only in the entity, a “tourism house” (“Maison du tourisme”) focusing on Rochefort and two other entities and the local public authorities (tourism represents approximately 1.5% of the whole entity’s budget). The accommodation and gathering is composed of 19 hotels, 8 B&B’s, 14 self-catering cottages, 5 campings and 40 restaurants. Other tourism actors in Rochefort comprise various associations involved in sports or the organization of events.
The methodology used to study Rochefort is mainly based on field experience and inter- views with tourism actors.
Partnerships exist through various sectors in Rochefort. First of all, there exists a high participation of actors during talks organized by the Tourism House once every year.
Second, the main objectives are shared by tourism actors wanting to sell an integrate and coherent product in order to attract more tourists to the area, but whose priority is the visibility of their own product. A joint promotion of the area is organized by the Tourism House. Furthermore, there is a convention of partnership in order to develop a joint and more egalitarian form of promotion. Every actor donates an amount of money, corre- sponding to their profits. These indicators show a high degree of systemic consciousness in Rochefort.
The local authorities intervene in the promotion and strategy by financing the tourism office. The convention of partnership among actors favors the distribution of financial resources. No technical assistance exists at the destination level but one actor (Cave of Han) organizes language classes every year in order to professionalize their staff. Finally, decisions are taken locally without major intervention of external actors. These indicators show a high display of strategic means at the system level.
The oldest actor in the area was established in 1895, while the two most recent firms are strategically set up in the vicinity of existing big attractions. The management educa- tion level is similar in most cases (majority of master degree). This education level com- bined with the manager establishment in the entity, are indicators that point in the direction of a cultural identity. The actors’ size indicates that there is a leading firm within the area.
This leader helps structuring the partnerships among all smaller actors of the same sector (attractions and museums), even if they are involved in the same phase of the production process and normally tend to compete rather than to co-operate. The presence of this leader creates a balance between competition and cooperation, increasing the profits of every actor of the “cultural-leisure” sector. Other sectors are involved as well and brought into this process through the creation of packages (cooperation with the transportation sector and with the accommodation sector). The fact that the leader is both the oldest firm in the area and the greatest in terms of profits or visitor number, reinforces the indicators of the framework. The degree of cumulativeness in Rochefort appears to be very high according to these indicators.
Finally, the administrative border of the entity combined with the fictive border, deter- mined by the actors’ relationships, show the presence of two cores of spatial concentration, grouping a majority of tourism actors.
To conclude, Rochefort’s entity can be classified as a destination close to the LTS. The indicators chosen for the ID framework reflect the presence of a LTS in this case.
A Framework to Identify a Localised Tourism System 53