Australia is no exception to the universal pattern of spatial concentration. At the state level, New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria together account for three quarters of all domestic and inbound visitornights, with a somewhat greater dispersal evident in the domestic sector due to the higher incidence of business and VFR traffic (see table 4.6). However, if considered at the level of Australia’s 76 official tourism regions, the true extent of concentration becomes more evident. As shown in figure 4.7, the top 16 regions accounted for 75 per cent of all accommodation roomnights in Australia (domestic and inbound combined) during the 2012 September quarter. Moreover, only two of these top regions (Australian Capital Territory and Central New South Wales) are noncoastal. Sydney and Melbourne together accounted for almost one in three occupied rooms during that period.
TABLE 4.6 Distribution of domestic and inbound visitor-nights in Australia by destination state or territory, 2011–12
State/
territory
No. of inbound visitor nights
(000s)
Percentage of all inbound
visitor nights
No. of domestic visitor nights
(000s)
Percentage of all domestic
visitor nights
Percentage of national population
NSW 67 299 33 81 987 30 33
Qld 42 107 21 73 698 27 20
Vic. 44 614 22 54 075 20 25
WA 27 660 14 27 320 10 10
SA 9 497 5 18 395 6 7
Tas. 3 111 1 8 938 3 2
NT 3 491 2 6 161 2 1
ACT 4 425 2 5 097 2 2
Total 202 204 100 275 671 100 100
Note:
Refers to Australians 15 years of age and older. For year ending September 30, 2012
Source: TRA (2012b, 2012c)
Darwin (284) 2.0%
Australia’s North West (245) 1.8%
Tropical North Queensland (716) 5.1%
Adelaide (471) 3.4%
Central NSW
(205) 1.5% Hunter (252) 1.8%
North Coast NSW (267) 1.9%
Central Queensland (269) 1.9%
Sunshine Coast (295) 2.1%
Gold Coast (836) 6.0%
Brisbane (975) 7.0%
Fraser Coast (286) 2.0%
Melbourne (1864) 13.3%
Australian Capital Territory (322) 2.3%
Experience Perth
(802) 5.7% Sydney (2399) 17.2%
FIGURE 4.7 Top 16 tourism regions in Australia by number and percentage of all accommodation room-nights, 2011
Source: ABS (2012)
C H A P T E R R E V I E W
Most inbound tourism still accrues to the advanced economies. However, the share of the emerging economies is steadily increasing due firstly to the emergence of 3S tourism as a major form of activity after 1950. Furthermore, economic growth and the appearance of a substantial middle class within the emerging economies are promoting increased inbound travel between the emerging economies as well as to the advanced economies. The formation of a pleasure periphery at the interface of the advanced and emerging economies is indicative of tourism’s increasing status as a global economic activity and agent of landscape change. Europe, North America, Oceania, the Middle East and the Caribbean are all overrepresented as destination regions relative to their resident populations. In contrast, South America, Africa and Asia are all underrepresented. The pattern of uneven distribution is also apparent within each of these regions and within individual countries such as Australia, where coastal areas and metropolitan area cores and exurbs account for most inbound and domestic tourism activity.
Tourism’s uneven pattern of distribution reflects differences in the influence of the ‘pull’ factors that encourage tourism in particular locations, and hence help to determine the global pattern of tourism systems. These pull factors include the geo
graphical proximity of destinations to markets, structural and political accessibility, the availability of sufficient attractions and services, cultural links between origin and destination regions, affordability, political and social stability at the local, national and regional levels, perceived personal safety, market image, and the mobilisation of protourism policies. Central to the management of tourism destinations is how much managers and planners are able to influence these forces. Nothing can be done, for example, to change the actual geographical distance of a destination from a market, or to modify the destination’s primary physical features. Similarly, little can be done, especially at the subnational scale, to influence exchange rates or the level of sociopolitical stability. However, the negative effects of these factors, where they exist, can be counteracted at least to some extent through effective image manipu
lation, the implementation of protourism policies, the establishment of compelling
‘created’ attractions, and the provision of political and infrastructural access to target markets.
S U M M A RY O F K E Y T E R M S
Advanced economies a designation by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) of countries that are characterised by a high level of economic development and accompanying social indicators; these countries continue to account for most outbound and inbound international tourism activity
3S tourism a tourism product based on the provision of sea, sand and sun; that is, focusing on beach resorts
Distance–decay in tourism, the tendency of inbound flows to decline as origin regions become more distant from the destination
Emerging economies a designation by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) of countries that are characterised by a lower level of economic development and accompanying social indicators; cumulatively, these countries are accounting for a growing share of outbound and inbound international tourism activity
Global inequality in tourism a fundamental distinction pertaining to the relative spatial distribution of tourism at a global level
Hyperdestinations destinations where the annual intake of visitors dramatically outnumbers the permanent resident population; often characteristic of tourist shopping villages
Image in tourism, the sum of the beliefs, attitudes and impressions that individuals or groups hold towards tourist destinations or aspects of destinations. Destination image is a critical factor in attracting or repelling visitors.
Incremental access a policy, practised most notably in China, whereby new destinations within a country are gradually opened up to international (and possibly domestic) tourists
North–south flow a common term used to describe the dominant pattern of international tourist traffic from the advanced economies (located mainly in the northern latitudes, except for Australia and New Zealand) to the emerging economies (located mainly to the south of the advanced economies)
Pleasure periphery those less economically developed regions of the globe that are being increasingly mobilised to provide 3S and alpine tourism products
Political accessibility the extent to which visitors are allowed entry into a destination by a governing authority
Pull factors that help to stimulate a tourism product by ‘pulling’ consumers towards particular destinations
Small island states or dependencies (SISODs) geopolitical entities with a population of less than three million permanent residents and a land mass of less than 28 000 km2. SISODs are overrepresented as tourist destinations because of their ample 3S tourism resources.
Structural accessibility the extent to which a destination is physically accessible to markets by air routes, highways, ferry links etc., and through entry/exit facilities such as seaports and airports
Subnational inequality the tendency of tourism within countries, states and individual cities to be spatially concentrated
Sunbelt the name frequently applied to the 3Soriented American portion of the pleasure periphery. Wellknown destinations within the sunbelt include Hawaii, southern California, Las Vegas (Nevada), Arizona, Texas and Florida.
Tourist shopping villages small towns where the downtown is dominated by tourismrelated businesses such as boutiques, antique shops and cafés; they are also usually hyperdestinations
Urban–rural fringe (or exurbs) a transitional zone surrounding larger urban areas that combines urban and rural characteristics and benefits from proximity to each
Q U E S T I O N S
1 (a) How much is spatial imbalance evident in tourism at the international, national, subnational and local level?
(b) Why does this imbalance occur?
(c) What are the managerial implications of this imbalance at all four levels cited in (a)?
2 How do each of the ‘pull’ factors discussed in this chapter apply to Australia and New Zealand?
3 (a) Is it justifiable for governments to implement security procedures for visitors that cause significant inconvenience and aggravation?
(b) How could a better compromise between open borders and adequate security be attained?
4 (a) Why are tourists being targeted by terrorist groups?
(b) What can destination managers do to combat this phenomenon?
(c) To what degree should tourists be responsible for their own safety? Why?
5 To what extent can the tourism experience of Rwanda be replicated in other countries in subSaharan Africa?
6 What strategies could be implemented in order to increase Australia’s share of global stayover tourism to 1 per cent of the total (that is, about 10 million tourists per year)? Take into account the data provided in table 4.5.
7 What lessons for other emerging tourist destinations can be learned from the experience of Malaysian medical tourism?
8 (a) What specific managerial challenges are associated with tourism in the urban–
rural fringe?
(b) What is the best way of addressing these challenges?
E X E R C I S E S
1 (a) Rank the following ten destination countries beginning with the one that you would most like to visit for a onemonth vacation, and ending with the one that you would be least interested in visiting for a onemonth vacation.
Zimbabwe Fiji Mexico China
United States France Dubai India United Kingdom Russia
(b) Indicate the reasons for your rankings, referring in each case to each of the pull factors discussed in this chapter.
(c) Assigning a value of ‘5’ for each first choice, ‘4’ for each second choice, and so on, add up the class responses for each of the five destinations.
(d) Identify the overall class rankings.
(e) Do any consistent patterns emerge as to the reasons given for these rankings?
2 Figures 4.3 and 4.4 depict the top ten destinations for Australian outbound tourists in 2007 and 2011. Write a 500word report in which you:
(a) describe the differences between the two profiles (b) list the factors that help to explain these differences (c) predict what the pattern might look like in 2020.
F U R T H E R R E A D I N G
Carlsen, J. (Ed.) 2011. Island Tourism: Sustainable Perspectives. Wallingford:
CABI. Sustainable island futures are the focus of this textbook, which combines issues such as climate change, host–guest interactions and product rejuvenation.
Duval, T. (Ed.) 2004. Tourism in the Caribbean: Trends, Development, Prospects.
London: Routledge. The Caribbean is arguably the most tourismintensive of the world’s regions, and this edited volume considers relevant issues such as the role of hedonism in developing the product, cruise ships, ecotourism, postcolonialism, and community and small business perspectives.
Lohman, G. & Dredge, D. (Eds) 2012. Tourism in Brazil: Environment, Management and Segments. London: Routledge. This is the first English language text to provide a detailed analysis of domestic and international tourism in Brazil, the dominant tourism destination of South America and host of mega
events in 2014 and 2016.
Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G. & Pearce, P. 2012. Tourist Shopping Villages: Forms and Functions. London: Routledge. Parameters of successful tourist shopping villages are analysed using case studies from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States, United Kingdom and Ireland.
Timothy, D. 2012. Tourism and Political Boundaries. London: Routledge. The persisting importance of international boundaries as a control mechanism on tourist movements is a central theme of this text, which adopts macrothemes of geopolitics and globalisation.
THE DOMESTIC PLEASURE PERIPHERY IN BRAZIL
Brazil, more than any other emerging economy, best illustrates the dynamics of a domesticallydriven coastal pleasure periphery (Pegas, Weaver & Castley in press). By way of context, Brazil is an uppermiddle income country with a
2010 per capita GDP of almost US$11 000 — eighty
second among 227 monitored countries (World Bank 2011). However, this relative prosperity masks high levels of internal inequality, with the richest and poorest 10 per cent of families respectively accounting for 42.5 per cent and 1.2 per cent of total consumption (CIA 2011). This inequality is geographically reflected in a sharp divide between the wealthier South and the poorer North, with the richest state (São Paulo) having a per capita income six times higher than the poorest state (Maranhão) (SilveiroNeto & Azzoni 2006).
Since at least the 1970s, Brazilian federal governments have implemented policies that have attempted to redress the economic imbalance between the North and North
East states on one hand and the South and SouthEast states on the other. Tourism, in particular, has been regarded as an activity with the capacity for developing the economy along the NorthEast’s coastline. Unlike the classic pleasure periphery model where foreign corporations (with assistance from destination governments) dominate the development process, the growth of Brazil’s northeastern coastal pleasure periphery has been largely instigated and funded by the Brazilian federal government itself through the Tourism Development Program (PRODETUR) it established in 1991. Representing collaboration between all levels of government and various financial and tourism agencies, PRODETUR has made strategic investments in construction (e.g. infrastructure) and airports within places and regions that have been identified as being economically deprived but rich in tourism potential (e.g. beaches, cultural heritage). With such infrastructure in place, the risks to private enterprise are reduced and it can proceed with resort or hotel investment accordingly. Of all private tourism investment in Brazil between 2006 and 2012, 85 per cent was allocated to the NorthEast, along with 91 per cent of all jobs (or 55 600 of 61 300). The vast majority of this investment has been made by Brazilian corporations.
The contemporary coastal pleasure periphery of Brazil reflects this combination of domestic private and public investment. Using Google Earth and various secondary Brazilian sources, 195 tourism cities (i.e. at least 10 000 residents) were identified within a 10 km distance from the coast (Pegas, Weaver & Castley in press). Notably, the tourism cities in the NorthEast are to a large extent ‘induced’
in the sense that their growth and livelihood has been based on PRODETUR and other government investments that in turn attracted private investment in accommodation. In contrast, tourism cities in the SouthEast (including Rio de Janeiro) are mostly ‘organic’ in that private investment was not generally predicated on similar kinds of public investment. Prosperous and closeby domestic markets, instead, have ensured that hotel investments would not involve high levels of financial risk. Southern tourism cities also contain a large number of second houses and apartments, mostly maintained by residents living in areas far removed from the beach. One feature common to NorthEast and Southern states is the presence of ‘beachfront metropolises’, or large urban municipalities where tourism is locally important but represents only a small proportion of all economic activity. The classic example is Rio de Janeiro, which is internationally known for its iconic Copacabana and Ipanema beaches. Examples in the NorthEast include Salvador and Recife.
The identity of the Brazilian coastal pleasure periphery extends to the domestic market. Many of the nine million international tourists who arrived in 2011 were attracted by the beachfront metropolises and coastal tourism cities, but their numbers are dwarfed by the domestic traffic, estimated nationwide at 156 million in 2007. Another prevalent pattern is the dominance of intrastate traffic, which accounts for 50–90 per cent of all tourism activity depending on the state. In most cases, this intrastate traffic consists of residents driving from their residences in beachfront metropolises and other large cities to nearby coastal tourism cities for their annual vacation and on other holiday occasions. Interstate travel is less common, and mostly involves people from the South travelling to the NorthEast.
Transfers of wealth within Brazil, accordingly, are related more to investment than actual tourist expenditures.
Continued growth of Brazil’s coastal pleasure periphery is all but assured by an expanding population, increasing prosperity, and the status of beaches as a core element of the national identity (Kane 2010) and a central focus on international marketing (Bandyopadhyay & Nascimento 2010). Hosting international mega
events in 2014 (World Cup) and 2016 (Summer Olympics) have also raised Brazil’s profile as an inbound destination. Yet, despite a high level of government intervention, problems are evident that may reduce the capacity of the pleasure periphery to achieve positive economic and social outcomes for Brazil. One environmental concern is the periphery’s location within the endangered Atlantic rainforest, remnants of which could still be destroyed to make way for future direct and indirect tourism development. A more positive alternative is to preserve such remnants as part of a competitive advantage that offers high quality beach and rainforest experiences in the same day. On a larger scale, there are also fears of ‘Floridisation’, or the emergence of continuous resort and urban development across hundreds of kilometres of coastline, as has occurred in Florida in the United States.
At a social level, opportunities to enjoy the best areas of the beach are still largely denied to many poor Brazilians who face a sort of informal beach
apartheid. Destabilisation is also evident in some northeastern communities, with local residents blaming rapid tourism development and an influx of workers from other parts of Brazil for higher costs of living and increased violence and drug use (Pegas & Stronza 2010). Several tourism cities in the NorthEast continue to suffer economic deprivation, with 40 per cent or more of residents living below the poverty line. Such emerging and persistent problems bring home the point that a dominantly domestic pattern of stakeholder involvement and control is no guarantee of economically, environmentally or socially sustainable outcomes.
Q U E S T I O N S
1 Write a 1000word report in which you describe the extent to which the development of the Brazilian coastal pleasure periphery has been assisted by each of the pull factors outlined earlier in this chapter.
2 (a) Using Google Earth (or a similar map resource), identify one coastal tourism city in Brazil’s NorthEast, and one in the Southern region.
(b) Write a 500word report in which you describe how these two cities differ, based only on this mapping data.
(c) In this report, describe subsequent research that would be necessary to clarify the apparent differences and similarities between these two cities.
R E F E R E N C E S
ABS 2001. 2001 Year Book Australia. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
ABS 2003. Family Characteristics, Australia. Catalogue No. 4442.0. www.abs.gov.au.
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
ABS 2005. Overseas Arrivals and Departures. Catalogue No. 3401.0. www.abs.gov.au.
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
ABS 2008. Overseas Arrivals and Departures. Catalogue No. 3401.0. www.abs.gov.au.
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
ABS 2012. ‘Tourism Region Maps and Correspondence File, Australia, 2012’. Catalogue No. 9503.0.55.001. www.abs.gov.au. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Altinay, L., Var, T., Hines, S. & Hussain, K. 2007. ‘Barriers to Sustainable Tourism Development in Jamaica’. Tourism Analysis 12: 1–13.
Banyopadhyay, R. & Nascimento, K. 2010. ‘Where Fantasy Becomes Reality: How Tourism Forces Made Brazil a Sexual Playground’. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18:
933–49.
Carlsen, J. & Butler, R. (Eds) 2011. Island Tourism: Sustainable Perspectives. Wallingford:
CABI.
CIA 2011. ‘Factbook: Brazil’. www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworldfactbook/
geos/br.html.
COTRI 2012. ‘Current Situation of China’s Outbound Tourism’. China Outbound Tourism Research Institute. www.slideshare.net/COTRI_Outbound/
currentsituationofchineseoutboundtourism13932993.
Dowling, R. (Ed.) 2006. Cruise Ship Tourism. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Gatsinzi, J. & Donaldson, R. 2010. ‘Investment Challenges in the Hotel Industry in Kigali, Rwanda: Hotel Managers’ Perspectives’. Development Southern Africa 27:
225–40.
Goeldner, C. & Ritchie, J. 2012. Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. Twelfth Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley.
Grosspietsch, M. 2006. ‘Perceived and Projected Images of Rwanda: Visitor and International Tour Operator Perspectives’. Tourism Management 27: 225–34.
Hall, D., Marciszweska, B. & Smith, M. 2006. Tourism in the New Europe: The Challenges and Opportunities of EU Enlargement. Wallingford: CABI.
Henderson, J. 2003. ‘Terrorism and Tourism: Managing the Consequences of the Bali Bombings’. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 15: 41–58.
Israeli, A. & Reichel, A. 2003. ‘Hospitality Crisis Management Practices: The Israeli Case’. International Journal of Hospitality Management 22: 353–72.
Issa, I. & Altinay, L. 2006. ‘Impacts of Political Instability on Tourism Planning and Development: The Case of Lebanon’. Tourism Economics 12: 361–81.
Larsen, S. 2011. ‘Tourism in a Decade of Terrorism, Disasters and Threats — Some Lessons Learned’. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 11: 215–23.
Lee, CK., Kang, S., Reisinger, Y. & Kim, N. 2012. ‘Incongruence in Destination Image:
Central Asia Region’. Tourism Geographies 14: 599–624.
Lee, H., Guillet, B., Law, R. & Leung, R. 2012. ‘Robustness of Distance Decay for International Pleasure Travelers: A Longitudinal Approach’. International Journal of Tourism Research 14: 409–20.
Mishkin, S. 2012. ‘Chinese Tourists Boost Taiwan’s Economy’. Washington Post.
30 August. http://articles.washingtonpost.com.
Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G. & Pearce, P. 2012. Tourist Shopping Villages:
Forms and Functions. London: Routledge.
National Visitor Safety Program 2008. ‘National Visitor Safety Handbook’. Tourism Australia. www.tourism.australia.com.
Novinite.com 2012. ‘Tourists [sic] flows from Israel back to normal — Bulgarian minister’. 25 August. www.novinite.com.
ONT 1998. A Monthly Facts Sheet on the Economic Impact of Tourism and the Latest Visitor Arrival Trends. Canberra: Office of National Tourism. August.
Ospina, G. 2006. ‘War and Ecotourism in the National Parks of Colombia: Some Reflections on the Public Risk and Adventure’. International Journal of Tourism Research 8: 241–46.
Pegas, F. & Stronza, A. 2010. ‘Ecotourism and Sea Turtle Conservation in Praia do Forte, Brazil’. Conservation and Society 8: 15–25.
Population Reference Bureau. 2011. ‘2010 World Population Data Sheet’. www.prb.org.
Prokkola, E. 2010. ‘Borders in Tourism: The Transformation of the SwedishFinnish Border Landscape’. Current Issues in Tourism 13: 223–38.
Rittichainuwat, B. 2013. ‘Tourists’ and ‘tourism suppliers’ perceptions toward crisis management on tsunami. Tourism Management 34: 112–21.
SilveiroNeto, R., & Azzoni, C. 2006. ‘Location and Regional Income Disparity Dynamics: The Brazilian Case’. Papers in Regional Science 85: 599–613.
Smith, V. L. 2004. ‘Tourism and Terrorism: The “New War” ’. In Aramberri, J. and Butler, R. (Eds) Tourism Development: Issues for a Vulnerable Industry. Clevedon, UK:
Channel View, pp. 275–90.
Timothy, D. 2012. Tourism and Political Boundaries. London: Routledge.
Tourism Queensland 2013. ‘Gold Coast, Famous for Fun’. www.tq.com.au/tqcorp_06/
destinations/goldcoastandhinterlandzone/goldcoast/marketing/goldcoastbrand/
goldcoastfamousforfun.cfm.
TRA 2007a. ‘Outbound Trips: Domestic Market Tourism Facts, Year Ending March 2007’. www.tra.australia.com.
TRA 2007b. ‘Travel by Australians, December 2007: Quarterly Results of the National Visitation Survey’. www.tra.australia.com.