Step 3: The Advisory Bodies
1.2 Destination marketing Different terms are used to describe ‘places’ visi-
tors explore. Typical examples of such terms are
‘attractions’, ‘sites’ and ‘destinations’. Of these,
‘attractions’ are likely to be combined with
‘ visitor’ in tourism studies. A visitor attraction can be defined as ‘a permanent resource, either natural or human-made, which is developed and managed for the primary purpose of attracting
visitors’ (Hu and Wall, 2005, p. 619). For in- stance, natural visitor attractions include Victo- ria Falls (Zimbabwe and Zambia) and the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), whilst artificial visitor attractions include the Palace of Versailles (France) and Lotte World (South Korea). Regarding ‘sites’, Laws (1995) argues that every tourist ‘site’ has a unique mixture of characteristics decided by its geographical location, culture and history.
Table 4.1 shows the classification of tourist
‘sites’ suggested by Laws (1995) with examples from each category.
Regarding a ‘destination’, geographical and political elements are important, and it tends to be combined with ‘tourist’ in tourism studies. For example, Buhalis (2000, p. 98) defines a tourist destination as a ‘geographical region which is understood by its visitors as a unique entity, with a political and legislative framework for tourism marketing and planning’, whilst Pike (2008, p. 24) defines it as a ‘geographical space in which a cluster of tourism resources exist, rather than a political boundary’. In the context of this defini- tion, a ‘cluster’ means ‘an accumulation of tourist resources and attractions, infrastructures, equip- ment, service providers, other support sectors and administrative organisms whose integrated and coordinated activities provide customers with the experience they expected from the destination they chose to visit’ (Rubies, 2001, p. 39). Accord- ing to Pike (2008), there are three types of desti- nation cluster as follows (examples are provided by Pike (2008) and the author):
1. Section of political boundary – e.g. the French Quarter, New Orleans (USA); Museumsquartier, Vienna (Austria); Josefov, Prague (Czech).
2. A political boundary – e.g. Cusco (Peru), Kaunas (Lithuania), Marrakesh (Morocco), Dubai (UAE), Auckland (New Zealand), Shanghai (China), Goa (India).
3. Extending over political boundaries – e.g.
European Alps (Austria, Slovenia, Italy, Germany, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and France); Lake District National Park (Allerdale, Copeland, Eden and South Lakeland districts in England);
Yoshino- Kumano National Park (Mie, Nara and Wakayama prefectures in Japan).
Considering the magnitude of ‘cluster’ for the concept of ‘destinations’, of four types of ‘sites’
suggested by Laws (1995), purpose-built resorts should not be treated as ‘destinations’, although
the other three types of ‘sites’ (capital cities, de- veloped traditional centres and touring centres) can be seen as ‘destinations’.
As can be seen from the arguments on ‘at- tractions’, ‘sites’ and ‘destinations’ with regard to tourism, there is a certain degree of overlap with these terms. Considering these points, the author suggests his classification of WHSs.
Types and categories of WHSs established by UNESCO can be found in Section 4 in Chap- ter 1. In the author’s view, however, WHSs can be divided into three groups in terms of tourism:
•
‘objects’ which people come to see;•
‘attractions’ where people come to enter; or•
‘destinations’ where people come to explore, and often local communities exist in and/or around them.Which group a WHS falls into is decided chiefly by its size and relationship with tourism.
For instance, first, Madara Rider (cultural WHS in Bulgaria) and Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) (cultural WHS in Japan) (see Fig. 4.1) can be seen as ‘objects’. Second, Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties in Beijing
and Shenyang (cultural WHS in China) and Cologne Cathedral (cultural WHS in Germany) (see Fig. 4.2) can be regarded as ‘attractions’.
Third, Okavango Delta (natural WHS in Bot- swana) and Costiera Amalfitana (cultural WHS in Italy) (Fig. 4.3) can be viewed as ‘destina- tions’. Of these three groups, the marketing ac- tivities of WHSs in the ‘objects’ and ‘attractions’
categories would be led by WHSs or the country, city or town they belong to. In the case of WHSs in the ‘destinations’ category, the marketing ac- tivity is done mainly by the DMO they belong to geographically.
Marketing for WHSs is discussed in Section 2.
Prior to this, marketing for tourist destinations in general is discussed, as ‘destinations’ can be WHSs or may contain WHSs as ‘attractions’ and/or ‘objects’. Hence, it is important to explore how ‘des- tinations’ are marketed to domestic and interna- tional visitors before WHS marketing is discussed.
Once, the types of tourism visitors could enjoy at ‘destinations’ were limited, and the number of established tourist destinations was also restricted. At that time, visitors tended to enjoy traditional leisure activities at limited destinations as follows:
Table 4.1. Classification of tourist sites. (From: Laws, 1995; examples are modified and added by the author)
Name Characteristics Examples
Capital cities Major cities that attract visitors for tourism business, family, cultural and administrative reasons
Athens, London, Paris, Madrid, Tokyo, Beijing, Bangkok
Tourists tend to cluster in particular zones where archaeological, shopping, cultural or entertainment facilities prevail
Developed traditional centres
Long-established village preserved as the focus for tourism developments
Kusadasi (Turkey), Bali (Indonesia), Acapulco (Mexico)
Hotels, bars and other tourist facilities surround the core zone, either located in a planned pattern or built speculatively
Tourist structures now dominate the area
Touring centres A town that has a high concentration of secondary tourist facilities, and good transport links both to the countries of the tourists and to the surrounding natural/cultural attractions
Salzburg (Austria), York (UK), Cape Town (South Africa)
Purpose-built
resorts All infrastructure and amenities are clearly focused on the business of catering to tourists’ needs
Walt Disney World Resort (USA), Universal Studios Singapore, Alton Towers Resort (UK)
Buildings constructed in the same era, and although their architectural style is highly controlled it may be different from that of the surrounding area
The resort provides all facilities needed by its guests during their stay
•
seaside – Brighton (UK) and Heiligendamm (Germany)•
spas – Budapest (Hungary) and Sofia ( Bulgaria)•
skiing – Chamonix (France) and St-Moritz (Switzerland)•
festivals – Venice (Italy) and Kyoto (Japan).These traditional tourism products and destinations are associated with mass tourism and a low level of market segmentation.
Nowadays, a variety of ‘new’ and ‘niche’
types of tourism has been developed and many new tourist destinations have been emerging as follows:
•
literature tourism – Bronte sisters (Haworth, UK) and Ernest Hemingway (Key West, USA);•
movie or drama tourism – The Lord of the Rings trilogy (New Zealand) and Winter Sonata (Chuncheon, South Korea);•
adventure tourism – rafting (Cairns, Australia) and caving (El Soplao, Spain);•
dark tourism – Nazi concentration camps (Auschwitz and Birkenau, Poland), andNational September 11 Memorial and Mu- seum (New York, USA);
•
food tourism – Pintxo (San Sebastián, Spain) and pizza (Naples, Italy);•
wine tourism – Bordeaux wine (Bordeaux, France) and port wine (Douro/Porto, Portugal);•
heritage tourism – cultural WHS (Historic District of Old Québec, Canada), natural WHS (Lut Desert, Iran), and mixed WHS (Laponian Area, Sweden).As discussed in Section 1.1, both image and text content are significant for tourism market- ing. This point is echoed by Francesconia (2011) who claims that visual aids, including photo- graphs, together with text information, play a crucial role in the formation of ‘designation im- age’. Destination image is commonly perceived as a key aspect in successful destination market- ing because tourism products are services. The destination image also has a significant impact on both the supply and demand sides of tourism.
In other words, tourism marketing is concerned Fig. 4.1. Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome). (Photo: the author)
with the selling of ‘dreams’ since consumers’ ex- pectations of intangible tourism services can be realized only after their visit to a destination.
Therefore the images held by visitors play a criti- cal role in their decision-making. Furthermore, there has been ever-increasing competition among tourist destinations. This is evidenced by the trends in the tourism market noted by Orbasli (2000). The rise of heritage tourism has been conspicuous, and previously unfamiliar places have been appearing in the heritage tourism mar- ket (Orbasli, 2000). In addition, former industrial
cities (e.g. Bradford, UK) have used their indus- trial heritage for economic purposes, including tourism. Also eastern European countries have become more accessible thanks to their mem- bership of the European Union. Hence, having a competitive destination image is vital for a desti- nation to be successful in tourism.
There is a variety of definitions of destina- tion images. In the early studies on this theme, Reynolds (1965) argues that a destination im- age is the mental construct that is developed by a potential tourist on the basis of a few selected Fig. 4.2. Cologne Cathedral. (Photo: the author)
impressions among the flood of total impres- sions. This selective filtering process is a form of perceptual defence (Reynolds, 1965); whilst Crompton (1979) defines a destination image as the sum of all those emotional and aesthetic qualities such as experiences, beliefs, ideas, rec- ollections and impressions that a person has of a destination. Compared to these, Parenteau’s (1995, cited in Gallarza et al., 2002) view of a destination image is rather negative: a favoura- ble or unfavourable prejudice that the audience and distributors have of the product or destina- tion. Since tourism services compete mainly via image (except repeat visitors), it is imperative that marketers understand that ‘perception is reality’. The brand image of a destination can be different from the brand identity intended by the DMOs (Pike, 2008), and it is difficult for market- ers to control it. It is also very challenging to es- tablish a comprehensive conceptualization of destination image, although many researchers have developed various concepts, models or frameworks to evaluate and analyse destination
images. For instance, Gunn (1988) suggests that destination images are formed in two phases. In the first phase, ‘organic images’ are developed through a person’s everyday assimilation of in- formation. This process includes a range of me- dia such as school geography readings, mass media and actual visits. In the second phase, ‘in- duced images’ are formed through the influence of tourism promotions directed by marketers.
This process usually occurs when a person starts collecting information for his/her visit. Gunn (1988) claims that destination marketers should focus on improving ‘induced images’ since they can do little to change organic images.
Each tourist destination must gain an advantage over their competitors, especially be- tween similar destinations. In this sense, differen- tiation and uniqueness are crucial. There are several destinations that have similar character- istics and tourism resources. For example, the im- ages of Buddhist temples in China, South Korea and Japan would be difficult for westerners to differentiate, particularly if they have never been Fig. 4.3. Costiera Amalfitana. (Photo: the author)
to any of these countries. The same would apply to eastern people seeing the pictures of cathedrals in France, Italy and Germany. In light of the above, every effort should be made to make the destina- tion special and unique to attract first-time and repeat visitors. In reality, however, it is very de- manding, particularly with limited budgets and time. To overcome the challenges of differentia- tion and competition, destination ‘positioning’ is useful. Through this process, the destination could identify the market that the destination competes within, their position in that market, their main competitors and their target markets.
As shown in Section 1.1, nowadays most tourist destinations have their own websites to attract their target visitors and encourage their first or repeat visits. In many cases, these web- sites are owned and managed by DMOs. Such websites also work for first-time visitors as gate- ways to destinations. As argued above, currently many people want to visit places that have links to literature, movie or dramas. In recent years, an increasing number of tourist destinations have been promoted to visitors intentionally or unintentionally through their link to the above- stated mass media. Such mass media can be very powerful pull factors to induce people to visit the destination featured in the media (Jimura, 2010). In such a case, images delivered to con- sumers via these media can be understood as organic images as suggested by Gunn (1988). As discussed above, it is almost impossible for tour- ist destinations to control people’s organic imag- es, but they could still affect people’s induced images through their marketing activities. Sec- tion 2 examines tourism marketing and destina- tion marketing at WHSs.
2 World Heritage Sites: Tourism and Destination Marketing 2.1 World Heritage status as a brand Holding World Heritage (hereafter WH) status can enhance recognition and image (Smith, 2002; Jimura, 2007a, 2016) of the site. Accord- ing to Anholt (1998), having a WHS can greatly enhance the images of countries that have not been well-known to foreigners. Both recognition and image are significant elements of tourism
and destination marketing. Tourism marketing for WHSs or destinations having a WHS has been increasingly important as the international tourism market has become progressively com- petitive and the number of WHSs has also been steadily increasing every year. The power of WH status as a brand is one of the key themes that has been examined well in marketing, heritage and/or tourism studies (Hall and Piggin, 2003;
Li et al., 2008; Ryan and Silvanto, 2009, 2011;
Timothy, 2011). Most tourist destinations in- scribed as WHSs or those having a WHS appear to manipulate their WH status for their destination marketing in an affirmative manner (Timothy, 2011; Cassel and Pashkevich, 2014).
WHSs are inscribed by an international authority, UNESCO, and its nomination process is supported by advisory bodies consisting of international specialized agencies such as ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM. Hence it could be stated that WH status is awarded through the accreditations by these relevant international authorities and this status can act as a clear marker of authenticity and quality assurance (Bianchi, 2002; Smith, 2002; Poria et al., 2013;
Jimura, 2016). Thus, this validation of authen- ticity and quality can be regarded as an effective brand in terms of tourism and destination mar- keting (Bryce et al., 2015), although competi- tion among WHSs has also been getting fiercer due to the ever- increasing number of WHSs.
Ryan and Silvanto (2011) conclude that WH status as a brand is especially valuable for LDCs that are likely to have limited established brands for tourism and destination marketing com- pared with developed countries. Needless to say, however, WH status can also be a useful mar- keting tool for developed countries. For instance, Buckley (2004) refers to the effectiveness of WH status as a global brand, which can posi- tively influence the marketing for nature-based tourism in Australia. Ryan and Silvanto (2009) also note that WH status is seen as a widely re- spected brand by both host and guest sides of tourism.
Section 2.2 examines the tourism and desti- nation marketing for WHSs from the standpoint of the host side of tourism, referring to stake- holders and organizations involved in such mar- keting activities. On the other hand, Section 2.3 investigates it in relation to the guest side of tour- ism, focusing on visitors’ responses to WHSs.
2.2 Stakeholders and organizations in