\

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 7797, 1999

1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/98 $19.00+0.00

Pergamon

PII: S0160-7383(98)00051-6

TOURISM IN PARIS
Studies at the Microscale
Douglas G. Pearce
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Abstract: Selected examples of such attractions in Paris as churches, grands magasins and the
sewers are examined systematically in the light of the literature on tourist spaces and tourist
attractions to illustrate issues which arise in urban tourism at the microscale. Particular
attention is focused on issues of place identity and spatial management such as the display of
specialized markers and the setting aside of areas for specific functions. Combinations of these
measures are used, both as a reaction to visitor pressure and to foster tourist patronage and
use. The study concludes that tourists make identifiable and distinctive demands on places and
merit greater attention as users of space. Keywords: urban tourism, Paris, spatial management,
attractions, markers, churches, shops, sewers. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Re sume : Le tourisme a Paris: e tudes a la micro-e chelle. On examine divers endroits touristiques
de Paris*les e glises, les grands magasins et les e gouts*d|une manie re syste matique et avec
re fe rence aux e tudes conceptuelles des attraits et des espaces touristiques, ce afin d|illustrer
certains proble mes qui se pre sentent a la micro-e chelle dans le tourisme urbain. On se concentre
sur la question de l|identite des lieux et sur celle de la gestion des espaces en examinant les
diverses mesures mises en place comme re action a la pression touristique ou pour encourager
les visites. On conclut que les touristes ont des besoins clairs et particuliers et que leur usage
de l|espace me rite une plus grande attention. Mots-cle s: tourisme urbain, Paris, gestion de
l|espace, attraits, signaux, magasins, e glises, e gouts. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Geographical studies of the spatial structure of tourism have essentially ignored processes and phenomena at very localized scales. Much
of the research so far undertaken has concerned analyses of distributions and flows at the international, national and regional levels
(Pearce 1995). Certainly there is a plethora of local case studies but
these frequently focus on patterns of demand, processes of development and varied impacts rather than on the way in which tourism
is arranged in space. The spatial studies carried out at the local
scale have tended to examine the morphologies of specialized resorts,
especially coastal resorts, and the distribution of facilities in urban
areas, particularly hotels. A few have attempted to analyze intraurban tourist movements. Studies of tourism in urban areas, the
subject of this article, recognize and demonstrate that various forms
of zones exist (accommodation, historic sites, entertainment, attracDouglas Pearce is Associate Professor of Geography at the University of Canterbury (PB
4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email dougp@geog.canterbury.ac.nz). He has published
widely on many aspects of tourism, including three books entitled Tourist Development, Tourism
Today: A Geographical Analysis, and Tourist Organizations and two co-edited volumes entitled Tourism
Research: Critiques and Challenges and Change in Tourism: People, Places, Processes.

77

78

TOURISM IN PARIS

tions, etc.) in which different services and features used and visited by
tourists are located, often in a linear or clustered fashion (Burtenshaw,
Bateman and Ashworth 1981; Jansen-Verbeke 1986; Chazaud 1994;
Judd 1995; Pearce 1995; van den Berg, van der Borg and van der Meer
1995).
There is rarely any attempt to go beneath this level and to look at
the structure and functioning of individual components of any of these
zones. Yet these individual features constitute the basic building
blocks on which urban tourism is founded and understanding what
happens at this scale (the site-specific or microscale) is surely essential
for a fuller comprehension of tourism in the city as a whole. More
than two decades ago, sociologist McCannell drew attention to some
of the key elements of small scale tourism features when he wrote:
The current structural development of industrial society is marked by the
appearance everywhere of touristic space. This space can be called a stage
set, a tourist setting, or simply a set depending on how purposely worked
up for tourists the display is. (1973:597).

Despite being widely cited in the subsequent literature on tourism,

MacCannell|s concepts have scarcely been elaborated on nor tested
empirically. Indeed MacCannell himself does not illustrate his ideas
with in-depth treatment of specific examples. What is needed now is
both a more precise conceptualization of microscale tourism and
empirical research using more innovative field work than that commonly found in citywide studies. It is in this context that this article
seeks to make a contribution to the geography of urban tourism
through a systematic analysis of the structure and functioning of
selected microscale tourism spaces in Paris.
As a leading international destination, attracting some 20 million
visitors a year, Paris provides scholars with many stimulating research
opportunities, the scale and scope of which cannot be readily captured
in a single journal length article, for as Jules-Rosette observes:
Paris, an international city with multiple guises layered under its complex
history, offers a variety of touristic experiences. Everyone feels that Paris is
theirs. This characteristic of Paris as a city of plural cultures, neighbourhoods, and networks makes it an especially interesting subject for
research on tourism. (1994:679).

Jules-Rosette|s concern was with the sights and experiences which

constitute Black Paris, with understanding {{how a tourist attraction
is created within a community in the absence of an obvious sight or
spectacle|| (1994:680). Other writers, especially geographers, have
adopted various spatial perspectives on tourism in Paris, notably
through citywide unidimensional analyses, particularly of hotels
(APUR 1995; Chemla 1990; Pearce 1995) but also occasionally of
such other sectors as restaurants (Ortoli-Denoix 1990) and red-light
districts (Ashworth, White and Winchester 1988). A more general
conceptual overview is offered by Lozato-Giotart (1990) who proposes
the notion of a polarized geographic model of tourism in Paris, but
the multipolarity briefly outlined links the city with outlying regional
nodes such as Versailles and Chartres rather than focusing on any

DOUGLAS PEARCE

79

internal differentiation. The structure of tourism in France|s capital

has also been the focus of planners| attention, both at the citywide
scale, as in Paris| first tourism plan (Paris Promotion, Pauchant and
Barre re 1992), and in district plans and redevelopments, such as of
Montmartre (Mairie de Paris 1996) and of the Champs Elyse es (Pognant 1993).
Planning and architectural studies have also been prepared for
individual projects or sites experiencing heavy visitor pressure, for
example the Grand Louvre (Pei and Biasini 1989), Notre Dame
(CAFE/Argos 1991), and the Conciergerie Sainte-Chapelle (Atelier
de l|Ile, Brard and Frenak 1995). These studies, however, are solely
concerned with the individual site in question, concentrating on
resolving practical problems of the particular building or complex.
There is no attempt to identify broader issues nor to situate individual
cases in any wider context, especially the structure and functioning
of tourism at the microscale. It is this gap that this article seeks to
fill by systematically drawing on selected examples to arrive at a more
general understanding of this phenomenon. As such, it complements
related research which adopted a similar approach at a larger scale
to examine three tourism districts in Paris: the Ile de la Cite ,
Montmartre, and the Ope ra quarter (Pearce 1998). This article is
based on research undertaken in the city in 1995 and 1996, research
which is characterized by the use of multiple sources and approaches:
observation (including participant observation), interviews with key
personnel, recording and reading of diverse signs, analysis of documents, secondary data sources, and reference to previous studies.
Before outlining and examining the empirical examples in detail,
however, consideration needs to be given to the broader conceptual
basis of tourist spaces and attractions.
Tourist Spaces and Attractions
As with many other areas of tourism research, the study of urban
tourism spaces is not underpinned by an extensive theoretical base
(Pearce 1995) and it is also necessary to draw from other areas,
notably the conceptualization of attractions. A limited amount of work
in the urban literature has been concerned with a fairly descriptive
citywide examination or basic modeling of the distribution of tourism
services and facilities (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990; Cazes and
Poitier 1996; Getz 1994; Page 1995; Pearce 1995). Jansen-Verbeke
portrayed the inner-city environment as a product in which {{The
leisure function in general, and the touristic function especially, are
based on a spatial concentration of a wide variety of facilities as well
as characteristic features of the environment. The attraction is thus
both as an {activity place| and a {leisure setting| ||(1986:85). Judd also
emphasizes the agglomerative nature of the components {{making up
a tourist space|| (1995:179) but scarcely elaborates on its structure.
What is missing in all these cases is an explicit questioning of or
statement on what constitutes a tourism space. The emphasis is on the
location and distribution of visible, identifiable services, and facilities

80

TOURISM IN PARIS

which are thought to have a predominant, but not necessarily exclusive, tourism orientation. In contrast, Philip Pearce, a social psychologist, adopts a tourist-centered approach, arguing that since tourists
may be defined in experiential terms {{any environment which fosters
the feeling of being a tourist is a tourist environment||. He continues:
{{In general terms tourist environments will have high transient populations, a number of physical modifications to facilitate the inspection
of the locale, and an inherent structure to control visitor accessibility.
Such settings will create the transitory, insulated from danger, voyeuristic, occasionally exploitative souvenir mentality identified earlier
as characterizing the tourist experience||. Pearce contends that most
places can act as a setting for tourism experiences and that a hierarchical scale of tourism areas exists, ranging from whole countries
and continents down to a more specific level which {{consists of the
interiors of buildings, scenic vantage points and other small-scale
areas with high tourist usage||(1982:9899). Pearce dismissed as
piecemeal geographical approaches to classifying destination features,
favoring instead sociologist Cohen|s (1979) four-category model of
tourism environments based on authenticity and perceptions of staging. From the perspective of the tour guide, Schmidt (1979) proposes
a similar four-category classification of sites based on two variables:
whether the site exists purely to serve tourists or whether it has some
ongoing (non-tourist) purpose in itself and whether the setting is
internally highly structurally differentiated, or whether it is mostly
comprised of public space, with little structural differentiation.
Several of the key elements discussed by Pearce, Cohen and Schmidt
appeared in MacCannell|s (1973) seminal article and his subsequent
book (1976). MacCannell argued that {{all tourist experiences are
cultural experiences|| (1976:23), and that {{Touristic consciousness is
motivated by its desire for authentic experiences|| (1973:597) and in
this context developed the interest in touristic space cited above.
Building on Goffman|s (1959) front-back dichotomy of social space,
MacCannell contends touristic space exists as a continuum along
which six stages or regions might be identified depending on the
modifications made expressly for tourists. Although MacCannell
acknowledged that {{distinct empirical indicators may be somewhat
difficult to discover|| (1973:597), and although subsequent research
has put in question the search for authenticity as being a tourist|s
sole motivation, the basic notion of a continuum of regions adapted
to varying degrees for such purposes remains a fruitful avenue for
research on tourism spaces. Issues to be asked here include who is
doing the modification, how, why and with what results? So too is his
concept of an attraction as {{an empirical relationship between a
tourist, a sight and a marker (a piece of information about a sight [e.g.,
guidebooks, slideshows])||. He proceeds to elaborate in more general
terms on societal changes with regard to sightseeing:
Modern society, originally quite closed up, is rapidly restructuring or institutionalizing the rights of outsiders (that is, of individuals not functionally
connected to the operation) to look into its diverse aspects . . . Under normal
conditions of touristic development, no social establishment ultimately

DOUGLAS PEARCE

81

resists conversion into an attraction, not even domestic establishments (1976:41,

49, 52).

MacCannell|s ideas on the structure of an attraction are developed

by Leiper who adopts a systems approach in which he stresses the
functions of the markers which {{act as the catalytic element, linking
the human and nuclear elements of an attraction system|| (1990:187).
Leiper distinguishes between generating, transit, and contiguous markers which act to inform tourists in various ways including fostering
initial motivation, destination selection, itinerary planning, and
nucleus identification. His emphasis is on the functions of markers
with little attention being given to their meaning, to the messages
conveyed by the information provided. However, if attractions are to
be understood as touristic places then the messages of the markers
become critical. How are these places being presented? What are they
being presented as? This is essentially the approach taken by JulesRosette (1994) in her interpretation of Black Paris which, drawing
on MacCannell|s ideas, is largely based on the critical reading and
ethnographic description of two guidebooks.
Philip Pearce defines an attraction as {{a named site with a specific
human or natural feature which is the focus of visitor and management attention|| (1991:46). He then explores the nature of such
attractions and devises a set of principles which incorporate the visitors| and managers| perspectives, both being important if the functioning of these attractions/places is to be understood. Pearce develops
Canter|s (1975) work on sense of place and argues:
the physical attributes of a setting, the activities one performs in a setting
and the conceptions people bring to a setting are all required if one is to
fully understand and experience the unique sense of a specific location . . .
A good tourist attraction . . . is one in which the public has clear conceptions
of what the place is about . . . (1991:51).

Four main ways of managing visitor flows in urban areas, according

to Cazes and Potier (1996), are: spatial measures (zoning, policies
favoring concentration, or dispersion); time management (for example through offering incentives to spread the load thoughout the day,
week, or year); limitation of entry (by such means as total or partial
closure, pricing, reservations and controlling infrastructural capacities) and provision of information and enhancing visitor awareness.
Cazes and Potier cite as an example of such management practices
those recently put in place at Versailles (extended opening hours,
providing additional access, separation of groups and individuals, and
defining visitor itineraries) and at the Louvre (obligatory group reservations, variable pricing at different hours, and opening new
rooms).
Establishing the nature of the attraction, being clear on what the
place is all about, and managing it appropriately are especially critical
in urban areas which are characterized by their multifunctionality.
While purpose-built facilities, including attractions, are found in
urban areas, the urban tourist will frequently, even predominantly,
use goods, services, and spaces provided in the first instance for local
residents and having functions other than those of serving the needs

82

TOURISM IN PARIS

of the visitor (Pearce 1989, 1995). In the urban context, the type and
degree of adaptation and management of these spaces for visitors
outlined by MacCannell, Schmidt, Cazes and Potier, and others thus
becomes very important. Although tourists are not of course unique
in having to share spaces with others or have special places created
for them; cities and other places have long been constructed and/or
divided on the basis of their use by different groups, identified in the
past by such variables as class and ethnicity and, more recently, by
others such as gender (Massey 1994; Mitchell 1996). Commenting on
Massey|s work in the context of urban design, Madanipour observes:
{{Conceptualization of place as contested space with multiple identities offers a dynamism in our understanding of places. It allows us to
grasp the diversity and difference of particular spaces within themselves and in relation to their contexts|| (1996:348).
Considerable scope exists for exploring the ways in which tourists
contest space, and tourism adds another layer to the identity of places.
The work on touristic spaces and attractions reviewed here provides
a useful basis for further research even if the spatial element has not
always been to the fore and basic concepts have yet to be fully
developed empirically. In particular, two inter-related sets of questions arise from the preceding review: One, what are the issues of
place identity which arise? How can one know these are tourist places?
What identity is given to them and by whom? What images and
identities are given or created by the markers? Two, how is space at
the microscale modified and managed for tourism, by whom and with
what results? Is modification and management reactive, that is a
response to tourism pressures, or proactive, that is a deliberate strategy to foster visitation?
TOURISM IN PARIS AT THE MICROSCALE
Given the size of Paris, the magnitude and hetereogeneity of tourism there, and the level of analysis adopted, a very large range of
potential examples exists with which to explore the questions and
issues raised in the above review. An exhaustive coverage of tourism
in the city at this scale is beyond the scope and aims of this article
which is more of an exploratory study into the structure and functioning of tourism at the microscale than a comprehensive analysis of
it in Paris. Consequently, a selection of cases is made for more detailed
treatment and subsequent comparison. The focus is on places which
might be thought of as attractions. Although other sites such as
transport nodes or modes of accommodation are also critical sectors,
attractions constitute the raison d|etre for visiting a destination and
further understanding of these is particularly important in this
context. Those examined here*churches, grands magasins, and the
city|s sewers*are a diverse but important and representative selection of Paris|s attractions (Pearce 1997) which will enable the issues
outlined previously to be explored and common features to be distinguished from ones specific to particular places. In addition, they
also share the characteristic feature of many urban attractions of
having other original and more dominant functions.

DOUGLAS PEARCE

83

Visits to religious sites are one of the most popular forms of cultural
tourism in Paris and other parts of France (Aucourt 1994; Colardelle
and Montferrand 1994; Pearce 1997). In the early 90s Notre Dame
cathedral was estimated to receive about 12 million visitors a year
and the Sacre -Coeur basilica about half that number (CAFE/Argos
1991; Fournier 1993; Terrien 1995). Even if these figures are only
estimates, there can be little doubt that they are among the most
visited sites in Paris (Pearce 1997). In comparison, the Louvre recorded 4.7 million visits in 1996 and the Eiffel Tower, 5.5 million.
Other churches renowned for their history and/or architecture, such
as St Germain-des-Pre s and St Eustache, as well as many smaller
ones, also attract a significant number of visitors each year, though
few exact figures are available. In order to examine a range of experiences, five examples have been selected: Notre Dame, Sacre -Coeur,
St Germain-des-Pre s, St Eustache and St Pierre. Some further indication of their touristic importance is given by the rankings accorded
by the Michelin guide for Paris (Michelin 1992): Notre Dame
cathedral ranks three stars, the next three merit two stars each, and
the smaller
Eglise St Pierre, located between Sacre -Coeur and the
artists| square (Place du Tertre) in Montmartre, a single star.
If visiting churches represents one face of tourism in Paris, the
historical and cultural, shopping constitutes another, the modern
and commerical. Shopping ranked in the top half dozen activities
undertaken by a sample of international leisure visitors in 1991 (Paris
et al. 1992) and accounted for about a fifth of all expenditure by
foreign, individual hotel guests (two, three, four stars and de luxe)
staying in the Ile de France in 1987 (Aidi 1991). Marked differences
are found on this item, the Japanese being the most prolific shoppers
while the British spend the least. The effect of foreign visitor shopping
is pronounced in some retail sectors of the city. In addition to supporting a large number of souvenir and gift shops, for example along
the Rue de Rivoli or adjacent to Notre Dame (Pearce 1998), tourists
may constitute a significant proportion of the clientele in other retail
stores. Customers from outside France, for instance, generate 18% of
the turnover of Printemps Hausmann, one of the two leading prestige
grands magasins (department stores) in Paris (Printemps nd). As a
result, general retailers may develop particular policies, including
spatial strategies, to cater for visiting shoppers. This article explores
the ways in which two of the grands magasins (Printemps and Galeries
Lafayette, both on the Boulevard Haussmann) foster touristic purchases in the context of their more traditional retail functions and
manipulate and manage space to facilitate this.
The third example chosen, the city|s sewers, is unique to Paris but
at the same time representative of a broader phenomenon. MacCannell cites the sewers of Paris as an example of attractions extending to public works and as an illustration of {{ {alienated leisure|
because such visits represent a perversion of the aim of leisure; they
are a return to the work place|| (1976:57). They are, he asserts {{The
presentation of the inner workings of society|s nether side . . .
(1976:55)|| Similarly, Philip Pearce (1982) lists, without enlargement,
the sewers of Paris as a touristic environment. Despite their fas-

84

TOURISM IN PARIS

cination for academic writers, it is important, however, to keep some

perspective on the sewers in terms of the attractions the city has to
offer. Although they have been opened to visitors since the end of the
19th century, today they attract only around 100,000 visitors a year,
of whom approximately 40% are foreign tourists, 30% are school field
trips, and the remaining 30% Parisians and visitors from other parts
of France. Thus while a novel attraction, a visit to the sewers is clearly
a very secondary one, accounting for somewhat less than 1% of all
foreign visitors to Paris each year. Nevertheless, in the context of this
article, the sewer visit provides further insights into how spaces are
organized and managed for tourists and others.
Churches
In view of the high transient populations recorded at religious sites
in Paris, it is not surprising that the Church and others have had to
address many of the issues outlined earlier in terms of multiple identities and management responses. These issues have been confronted
both collectively, for example through the Pastorale du Tourisme et
des Loisirs (PRTL), established in 1962 (de Brion 1993), and by
individual churches (Fournier 1993; Terrien 1995).
Pe re Aucourt, former national delegate of the PRTL, acknowledges
that {{Our churches have become tourist products|| (1994:153) and
contends that for many French people they have become lieux de
memoire (places of nostalgia). Speaking of religious sites in general,
Bauer argues churches have traditionally attracted visits from members of two different cults (using this term in a very broad sense), one
which worships {{the beauty, balance, means of construction and its
different relationships; the other, God in his house|| (1993:24). To
these two cults he adds a third, more recent and less passionate group
of visitors, the tourists. Other writers also distinguish between the
cultuel (religious) and the culturel (cultural), between a site|s religious
vocation and its tourist role (CAFE/Argos 1991; Javary, Tinard and
de Senneville 1993). Within these categories further distinctions can
be made from one site to another. Notre Dame, for example, is not a
place of pilgrimage like the Sacre -Coeur which is dedicated to the
worship of the Sacred Heart, but as the cathedral of Paris it plays a
leading national role. As Pe re Fournier of Notre Dame notes, a
cathedral is not like other churches; it is {{the festive place of prayer
for the Christian crowds|| rather than a place of silent personal meditation (1993:137). Moreover, cathedrals have always had multiple
roles*space in Notre Dame in the past was given over to medieval
guilds to hold meetings and {{History shows that . . . [it] was never
isolated and indifferent to the upheavals of the times|| (Javary et al.
1993:147). The cultural significance will also vary from one site to
another depending on its history, art, architecture, literary connotations, and physical setting. Many tourists will come on a short
general sightseeing visit or perhaps for a view of the city, for instance
from the forecourt of Sacre -Coeur or the towers of Notre Dame;
others may have a specialist interest in flying buttresses, stained glass

DOUGLAS PEARCE

85

windows, or paintings and devote their visit primarily or exclusively

to such features. The spiritual and the cultural are of course interrelated; church art and architecture are replete with meaning, the
buildings themselves being constructed to honor the Lord as well as
to provide a place of worship. Thus, those who visit religious sites, in
addition to the local faithful, do so for different reasons, come with a
variety of beliefs and understanding, and are likely to act in different
ways.
Insights into these different identities can be gleaned from the
different markers which now appear in many churches and cathedrals.
The mere existence of such markers is testimony to their being recognized as touristic places while the messages they convey highlight
some of the issues which multiple use may generate. The on-site
markers in these five churches can be divided into two main types:
printed or electronic signs and small publications. Both types of
marker are found at the entrance, some signs may be distributed
throughout, and in the larger buildings more substantial publications
may also be on sale. Two basic and inter-related messages are conveyed by the entrance signs: some statement of identity (conveying
simply what the place is) and instruction on how to behave appropriately in such a place. Variations on these themes occur from church
to church, but the key message is that this place of prayer is to be
respected by silence (Table 1). Except St Germain-des-Pre s, other
signs reserve certain sections for silent prayer or indicate no entry to
parts of the church when services are being held. In Notre Dame and
Sacre -Coeur arrows also indicate the one-way direction to be taken in
an attempt to manage visitor flows.
Other more specific signs are also found inside particular churches.
Thus, one in Notre Dame advises that {{The Church is the House of
God on Earth|| and elaborates on how art and architecture are used
to convey this message. St Germain-des-Pre s has a more elaborate
display of 11 panels illustrating the history of the construction of the
church and concludes with this message in French: {{Here, through
fourteen centuries of shadow and light, men have prayed in Faith and
Hope. Passersby, friends, we have recounted this history for you. It
invites us all to pursue it||. The Sacre -Coeur, in contrast, has a more
immediate building fund appeal, indicating that the basilica was originally built by private subscription, now needs maintenance and
advises {{Foreign currency welcomed||, perhaps the most universal of
all tourism signs.
It is, however, in the texts made available at the entrance that more
specific effort may be made to evangelize, the emphasis given to this
and the directness or sublety of the message to visitors varying among
the five churches. At St Germain-des-Pre s, a simple handout gives a
short history and architectural plan of it. That for St Eustache sends a
strong message of welcome, outlines its history, its services, and parish
activities, and concludes, for those entering the church {{who may
wonder perhaps to whom the prayers of the builders were addressed||,
with the parable of the Prodigal Son. At Notre Dame, texts are
distributed giving the theme of the mass, details about services, and
advice to non-believers (in English, French, and Japanese), not to join

86

TOURISM IN PARIS

Table 1. Entrance Signs in Selected Paris Churches

Notre Dame***
{{Welcome to Notre Dame. Place of Prayer. Silence||
(electronic sign in multiple languages)
Sacre -Coeur**
{{Silence||
(in French, English, German, Italian and Spanish)
St Germain-des-Pre s**
No signs but poster advising of guided visits on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons
St Eustache**
{{Welcome to Saint Eustache. Place of Prayer and Peace. Please don|t walk about
during service||
(in French, English, German)
E glise St Pierre*
{{This Church is not a museum. Do not go to the altar and do not cross the Church
during the offices. THANK YOU||
(in French, English, Italian and Spanish)
and
{{This is God|s house. It is a place of prayer and of silence. Please no shorts or
extravagant informal clothes. Men please take off your hats.||
Plus graphic signs indicating no smoking, drinks, food, dogs.
Source: Fieldwork.

in at communion time. Greater emphasis is given to the evangelical

message at Sacre -Coeur where more than two million small multilingual texts are distributed each year stressing the origins and
purpose of the basilica and offering three short prayers for nonChristians, non-Catholic Christians, and Catholics, {{negligent perhaps||. As Pe re Terrien, a former chaplain, notes, the basilica|s authorities, {{far from being content with a simple coexistence between
the visitors and worshippers, have discovered an incomparable possibility for dialogue . . . A high place of prayer, certainly, the Sacre Coeur is also trying to become a high place for meeting|| (1995:56).
However, the authorities there do not appear to see Sacre -Coeur as a
tourism destination because when the author tried to phone for an
appointment explaining the nature of this research, he was firmly told
{{We are a church, Monsieur, and have nothing to do with tourism||. In
contrast, an appointment was readily obtained at Notre Dame.
Other markers, or sources of information, may lay greater emphasis
on different characteristics of these places. The Michelin guide, for
instance, stresses history and architecture, and gives much more space
to descriptions of Notre Dame, St Germain-des-Pre s, and St Eustache
than to Sacre -Coeur and St Pierre in Montmartre (Michelin 1992).
No study of the message given by group guides has been attempted

DOUGLAS PEARCE

87

here; but these would similarly appear to stress art, architecture, and
history rather than more religious matters, though this may vary
considerably from group to group and guide to guide (CAFE/Argos
1991). Pe re Terrien (1995) suggests few tourist guides make allusion
to Sacre -Coeur being a work of faith. Some Montmartre guides, on
the contrary, stress the explicit symbolism and citywide dominance
of the basilica arising out of conservative Catholic reaction to the
Commune along the lines recounted by Harvey (1979); though as
with all history, there are different interpretations of the origins and
construction of Sacre -Coeur (Jonas 1995). For all the churches, the
messages conveyed by the markers are statements of place identity
and attempts to manage the {{cohabitation|| of the different users
of this space. This involves trying to maintain respect, limiting the
disruption of prayer and church services by keeping noise down, directing the flow of visitors, and excluding non-worshippers from certain
spaces. Signage may also be accompanied by other management measures, such as the use of physical barriers to restrict the movement of
groups and regular contact with guiding associations (advising them
of particular events and new developments and generally fostering
understanding of the needs of different church users) (Fournier 1995).
In the case of Notre Dame, a major review of the Cathedral was
commissioned in 1991(CAFE/Argos 1991) by the Caisse Nationale des
Monuments Historiques et des Sites (CNMHS), an agency of the
Ministry of Culture. In this regard it is important to remember that
in France virtually all churches are the property of the State (Sacre Coeur is one exception), which maintains the buildings while the
Church is responsible for their daily running (lighting, heating, and
cleaning). In the case of Notre Dame, visits to the towers are organized
by the CNMHS while the church is responsible for those to the treasury within the cathedral. The multiple identities of the cathedral
are set out in the introduction to the review: {{Notre Dame de Paris
has the difficult privilege of being at one and the same time one of
the most visited tourist monuments in France, the capital|s cathedral
and the parish of the diocese|| (CAFE/Argos 1991:3).
Major problem areas within Notre Dame identified in the review
are shown in Figure 1 which highlights difficulties arising from visitor
flows and congestion (over 30,000 visitors on peak days). While some
of the measures outlined above have alleviated some of the problems,
other proposals such as that to reduce pressure inside by developing
a separate reception center on the parvis has not eventuated. Other
problems noted in the study include lighting and pollution from the
increasing number of candles being burned and the sheer volume of
visitors. Moreover, the exhortations to silence and respectful behavior
are by no means universally followed here or in other churches; guides
continue to raise their voices to make themselves heard by their
groups, tourists persist in trying to capture the interior beauty of the
buildings by using their flashes.
Some of the issues regarding multiple identities and contested
places were brought home to the researcher as participant observer
when taking part in a 90 minute guided visit of the artwork in the
chapels of Notre Dame, the {{mais||, led by a guide from the CNMHS.

88
TOURISM IN PARIS

Figure 1. Inventory of Problems at Notre Dame. Note: Redrawn from CAFE/Argos (1991)

DOUGLAS PEARCE

89

To appreciate the art better, and to be heard above the other visitors,
the party of a dozen was often encouraged into the chapels themselves,
something the author as an individual visitor would not have contemplated. While this was apparently acceptable in certain areas, the
party was also discreetly led into one at the far end of the cathedral
in an area, according to the sign, reserved for prayer. Moreover, the
guide was indignant rather than chastened when one of the worshippers, at another spot, tried to hush the guide by reminding her that
the party were in a church*to which the guide observed rather
caustically {{that it is sometimes difficult for the history of art and
prayer to live together||. The guide also related how the poor lighting
of some of the pieces was a function of the difficulties which the split
responsibility of the state and church sometimes brought, one being
responsible for the fittings on the walls, the other for lighting costs.
When these incidents were later related to one of the clergy, he
nodded in recognition, saying without irony {{Some of these guides
[from the CNMHS] think they own the place||.
Grands Magasins
Printemps Haussmann, the chain|s main Paris complex, began
adapting to the growth in demand from foreign tourists in the early
70s. Initial efforts, like those at nearby Galeries Lafayette, consisted
of establishing a welcome desk with multilingual hostesses, and distributing maps of the city, two practices which continue to the present
day. In 1985 Printemps began to develop this market more actively,
promoting itself abroad with the assistance of the national tourism
office, the Maison de la France, taking part in travel marts, working
with tour operators, arranging familiarization trips, and so forth.
Special services offered to foreigners today include the welcome desk,
specialized shopping facilities, a multilingual guide to the different
departments in the store, a 10% discount card (on top of the VAT
refund), foreign exchange desks, and special fashion parades. Now
about a fifth of the customers are foreign, including both individual
general tourists and those on group tours, predominantly from Asia,
who have come to Paris especially for the shopping.
Printemps promotes itself as the {{The most Parisian department
store||, a claim which its neighbouring rival, Galeries Lafayette, would
perhaps dispute, but one which tries to appropriate for itself the city|s
long established tradition of elegance and fine living. Interestingly,
the Printemps Haussmann, is also an architecturally significant building and a classified monument, giving rise to the claim that {{With
more than 80,000 visitors a day . . . [it] attracts more visitors than any
other historic monument in France|| (Printemps nd:10). While some
visitors may admire in passing the ornate facades, sculpted decorations and stained class cupola, they nevertheless come primarily
to shop. Both Printemps and the Galeries Lafayette adopt specific
spatial strategies in attempting to attract visitors and provide for
them in a space that is predominantly given over to Parisian shoppers.
Both use a widely distributed city map as their prime informational

90

TOURISM IN PARIS

tool, especially for individual visitors. In addition to highlighting the

major historical attractions of the city, the maps act as very specific
markers, showing the location of each chain|s branches in Paris,
though obviously not those of its rival. Their prime purpose is clearly
to assist visitors to find their way to the right store. Once at the store,
the multilingual informational leaflets available at the welcome desk
provide more detailed information about the layout of each store and
the location of the various departments which, in the case of Printemps
Haussmann, are spread over a surface area of five hectares in three
adjoining buildings.
Specific provision in both cases is made for foreign groups whose
requirements include nearby bus parking (no easy matter along the
Boulevard Haussmann), easy access to the goods they want to purchase (Schmidt|s (1979) heterogeneous environment factor), and
foreign language assistance. The management response to this has
been to create specialized retail spaces catering especially for this
market with maximum discretion and minimum disruption to the
stores| more traditional clientele, defined by Printemps Hausmann as
{{an intelligent middle class with high purchasing power|| (Printemps
nd:26). In terms of bus parking, the Printemps Haussmann is more
favorably placed than its rival, there being some 20 spaces for coaches
along the Rue de Provence. From here, group tourists, mainly Asian,
have what is effectively backdoor entrance to the Express Duty Free
boutique where they are served by specialist hostesses/interpreters.
More than 3,500 such groups were handled in 1992. In addition, the
ground floor of the Printemps de la Mode, houses a well known
Japanese partner, the Takashimaya boutique, specializing in sales of
luxury and travel goods. This exclusive retail space staffed by some
20 Japanese sales assistants, {{prospects for and looks after its compatriots|| (Printemps nd:29). Similar arrangements exist at the
Haussmann branch of the Galeries Lafayette where, at ground level on
the Rue de la Chause e d|Antin side of the store, an Espace Lafayette
International has been created to service foreign group tourists. Here
brand name perfumes, scarves, accessories, and other Parisian items
are displayed for sale by Japanese, Chinese and other foreign language
staff, together with the foreign exchange and discount services. In
the case of the Galeries Lafayette, no special bus parking areas are
available but some space capable of taking three to four buses along
the curbside of the Rue de la Chausse e d|Antin adjacent to the Espace
Lafayette International was observed to be appropriated by the placement of traffic cones which were judiciously removed and replaced by
a concierge when buses or limousines arrived and departed.
At Printemps Haussmann, the other area reserved specifically for
foreigners is that under the store|s cupola where a 45 minute fashion
parade is held every Tuesday morning and on Fridays from March to
October. These have proved very popular (attracting over 20,000
foreigners in 1990) by providing visitors with the opportunity to
experience what is a distinctively Parisian occasion. In MacCannell|s
terms, the fashion parades clearly take place in what is very much a
staged setting, the parades being directed exclusively at foreigners. It
is also a fairly sophisticated marketing ploy, the models presenting

DOUGLAS PEARCE

91

quality ready-to-wear garments rather than exclusive haute couture,

the prices being detailed in the catalogue handed out on arrival. The
majority of Paris| more exclusive fashion shows take place today
in the multi-purpose rooms of the large new Carrousel commercial
complex developed in association with and adjacent to the Hall Napole on of the redeveloped Grand Louvre, which now draws more than
six million visitors a year, over half of whom are foreigners. In contrast
to the preceding examples where particular provision is now being
made for international shoppers, specific attention is being paid in
the case of the Carrousel to provide retail outlets of high quality
and ensure that {{this new space can become an attractive place for
Parisians who can find there restaurants, bookshops, boutiques selling
objets d|art, records, fashion etc . . .|| (Muse e du Louvre 1993:85).
The Sewers
Significant changes in location and organization of the visits to the
sewers have occurred over the past century. Postcards on sale today
depicting earlier visits show that in 1892 the public entrance was at
the Place du Chatelet and that by 1920 it had been moved to the Place
de la Madeleine. In both cases short visits were made by a combination
of electric rail-cars and boats drawn by the egoutiers (sewerage workers). Such visits were made on one or two days a month during the
summer, attracting a few hundred visitors each month. In 1973 the
public visits were shifted to their present location adjacent to the
Seine beneath the Place de la Re sistance. As a node in the city|s
extremely large and varied sewerage system, this site provides ready
access to a variety of different system components: primary and secondary galleries and conduits, sand filtering basins, overflow outlets,
regulatory reservoirs, and more. The visit began in an exhibition hall
displaying various documents relating to the history and workings of
the sewer, followed by a short slide show and then a walk through
some 200 meters of the sewers. For reasons of security and hygiene
the boat trips had by then been abandoned. Significant refurbishing
of the sewer visit took place in 1989 with the opening of the new
museum, improvements to the lighting and display of the visitor
circuit (Figure 2) and the construction of an above ground ticket
office.
These latest developments were not undertaken primarily to
enhance the sewer visit for tourists. Rather, the goal was to educate
Parisians, particularly school children, about what the city council is
doing in the fields of sewage and waste water treatment, and to show
ratepayers what was involved in the council|s large expenditure in
this field (one billion francs over five years from 1991). The new
museum was to be the showcase for the work of the division of the city
council concerned, the Direction de la Protection de l|Environnement,
Section de l|Assainissement de Paris. The sewer visits are staffed by
a dozen egoutiers (of a total of 600), from this section, with the current
site providing ample opportunity to display and discuss the various
technical aspects of the sewers. While an image of Jean Valjean, from

92

TOURISM IN PARIS

Figure 2. Lay-out of the Visit to the Sewers of Paris

Note: Redrawn from Visitor Leaflet

Victor Hugo|s Les Miserables, is featured on the cover of the visit

brochure, the literary and cinematic romanticism of the sewers is all
but absent during the course of the visit. Rather, the environmental
education dimension is stressed in the museum display which traces
the history of the city in terms of four inter-related themes: the
evolution of Paris (growth in population, manufacturing, and associated needs); provision of drinking and industrial water; sewage treatment techniques and waste water disposal; and environmental
impacts. These themes are presented in a color-coordinated fashion
in a set of well-illustrated panels in the Belgrand Gallery. In what is
clearly an authentic setting, the panels are displayed on a grid beneath
which rush the waters from a filtering reservoir. Elsewhere along the
circuit various bits of arcane equipment associated with the maintenance of the sewers are displayed and the functions of the different
galleries explained.
As the director of the visits acknowledged, {{Tourism is not the goal,
it|s not the business||. Entrance fees are relatively modest (25 francs
or about $4 in 1995) and the aim is to cover costs and not be a
charge on the ratepayer, not to run as a commercial operation. Little

DOUGLAS PEARCE

93

promotion is undertaken, but details of the sewer visits and opening

hours are given in various city guides and leaflets. One informational
leaflet is put out by the city council under the slogan {{Come and
discover an unusual Paris|| and advertises {{A guided visit by egoutiers
in the heart of the sanitation network, a museum, an audio-visual
show||. In the Michelin guide the sewers rate a third of a page but no
star.
Nevertheless, the management are conscious of the need to take
account of demand, have undertaken visitor surveys to gauge satisfaction, and subsequently have made changes to some aspects of the
visit, such as upgrading the audio-visual presentation. In particular,
in response to visitor demand for a more authentic experience, one in
which they would gain an impression of really being in the sewers and
perhaps feel a little bit afraid, a very short stretch of an artificial
sewer has been incorporated into the visitor circuit (Figure 2). This
replicates some of the many kilometers of smaller narrow canals which
make up much of the network but are otherwise not available at this
site. Thus, while the bigger galleries beneath the Place de la Re sistance facilitate the visit of large groups, it has been felt necessary to
recreate a smaller, more confined passage which responds to the
visitors| image of what a sewer is or should be.
CONCLUSION
Closer examination of microscale areas frequented by tourists in
Paris has revealed a number of features which hitherto have attracted
little attention in the literature on urban tourism and which begin to
flesh out empirically some of the notions of attractions raised by
other researchers. It has been possible to pursue the notion of what
constitutes a touristic place by exploring issues of place identity and
the development of spatial management techniques in attempts either
to manage the pressure generated by visitors or to foster and facilitate
such visits. Following Philip Pearce (1982), at one level places can be
defined in terms of the presence of transient populations, some of
whom are tourists in the sense of being non-resident visitors, the
number and characteristics of whom can be determined by surveys,
entrance figures, or in a more general sense through simple observation. In many urban settings, tourists constitute but one network of
users of any space and it is through the gradual emergence of different
markers that more tangible manifestations of tourism|s presence
appear. Because of the networks of different users who have different
needs and behavior, the use of space may become contested in the
manner outlined in more general terms by Massey (1994). Ironically,
in many such instances places can then be identified by being labeled
with a non-touristic function as, in response to visitor pressures, markers may seek to reaffirm the original vocation of the place. This is
most evident in the {{place of prayer|| markers now found in many
Parisian churches visited by tourists. In other instances, special places
are set aside specifically for international visitors and are so labeled,
such as the Espace Lafayette International. In the case of the sewers,
the museum in the Belgrand Gallery makes it clear that this is the

94

TOURISM IN PARIS

site of a large and innovative system. While cohabitation between

different networks may be difficult, as in the case of the worshippers
and sightseeing tourists, in other instances the differences will be less
pronounced and co-existence will pose few problems, as with visits by
school field trips or foreign tourists to the sewers.
The managers of these sites have become increasingly aware of
their multiple identities and have developed strategies to deal with
the issues which have arisen. Of the four major visitor strategies
discussed by Cazes and Potier (1996), those involving the enhancement of visitor awareness and spatial measures appear the most
common. In each case varying degrees of information are provided:
to inform and encourage correct behavior in the churches, to facilitate
shopping, and to increase understanding of the sewers. Many strategies put in place to deal with tourists have an explicit spatial dimension. In the case of the churches, where the stance is effectively a
reactive one, efforts may be made to direct the flow of visitors and to
exclude them from certain spaces within, either morally through
signage or physically, for example roping off certain areas or installing
wooden barriers. Such measures may become more restrictive during
services, one of the few instances with these examples of time management. On the other hand, the grands magasins have fostered this
new demand by discreetly creating specialized retail spaces which
facilitate shopping by foreign customers and do so in such a way that
they do not detract from the experience of their more traditional
clientele. In the case of the sewers, the city authorities have opened
up a very small part of an extremely extensive network to the public.
Originally a response to demand from the curious few, the site has
recently been developed primarily in terms of environmental education rather than for tourism, but through the creation of the artificial sewer even this space has been manipulated to respond to visitor
expectations.
Management of places of multiple-use frequented by tourists is
clearly important for tourism because these are the attractions, the
reasons why tourists have traveled often quite long distances to visit
the city. Therefore greater attention needs to be given to these microscale considerations for it is at this level that many of the visitors|
experiences are played out and their levels of satisfaction determined.
At the same time, their interaction with the other networks of users
must be taken into account as these same places may also constitute
significant parts of the daily spaces of the city|s residents. The visitor
management responses which are emerging, whether reactive or proactive, are increasingly affecting the ways in which others may make
use of different urban spaces and thus are becoming progressively
more important in understanding how parts of modern cities function.
While tourists in many cities may not yet constitute such numerous
groups as those defined in more traditional terms such as class, race,
or gender, these examples from Paris do show that they do make
identifiable and distinctive demands on places and that they merit
greater analysis as users of space.
The focus here has been on place identification through the reading
of signs and the management of touristic spaces. Considerable scope

DOUGLAS PEARCE

95

exists to increase the range or examples examined in Paris and in

other cities and to give greater weight to the user|s perspective and
individual behavior in these contexts, whether tourist, local worshipper, or resident shopper. These microscale studies also need to
be kept in perspective by carrying out other research which examines
the linkages between specific sites and how these fit into their neighborhood, tourism zones, and the city as a whole. Q
Acknowledgments*This article is based on research undertaken during study leave
from the University of Canterbury while the author was a professeur associe at the
UFR de Ge ographie, Universite de Paris IV (Paris-Sorbonne). Personal thanks are
extended to Jean-Robert Pitte whose assistance made this stay possible.

REFERENCES
Aidi, A.
1991 Les De penses des Touristes
Etrangers. Collection de l|E
conomie de Tourisme
No 17. Paris: La Documentation Franc aise.
APUR
1995 L|Ho tellerie de Tourisme a Paris et en Ile de France. Evolution 199094.
Paris: Atelier Parisien d|Urbanisme.
Ashworth, G. J., P. E. White, and H. P. M. Winchester
1988 The Red Light District in the West European Landscape. Geoforum 1988
19:201212.
Ashworth, G. J. and J. E. Tunbridge
1990 The Tourist-Historic City. London: Belhaven.
Atelier de l|Ile, D. Brard, and C. Frenak
1995 Conciergerie SainteChapelle:
Etude de Faisibilite et de Programmation.
Paris: Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques et des Sites.
Bauer, M.
1993 Tourisme Religieux ou Touristes en Milieu Religieux. Esquisse d|une Typologie. Les Cahiers Espaces 30:2437.
Burtenshaw, B., M. Bateman, and G. J. Ashworth
1981 The City in West Europe. Chichester: Wiley.
CAFE/Argos
1991
Etude de Mise en Valeur de la Cathe drale Notre Dame de Paris, de sa
Crypte Arche ologique et de l|Ensemble de son Site. Paris: Caisse Nationale de
Monuments Historiques et des Sites.
Cazes, G., and Potier, F.
1996 Le Tourisme Urbain. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris.
Canter, D.
1975 The Pyschology of Place. London: The Architectural Press.
Chazaud, P.
1994 Quels Espaces, Quels Loisirs, Quelles Strate gies Pour le Tourisme Urbain
d|Agre ment. Espaces 39:4452.
Chemla, G.
1990 Ho tellerie de Luxe et Tourisme d|Affaires a Paris. Cahiers du CREPIF 30:79
114.
Fournier, J.
1993 Notre Dame de Paris, Pour Quel Tourisme? Les Cahiers Espaces 30:136
139.
1995 Notre Dame de Paris. Haltes 95:2526.
Getz, D.
1993 Planning for Tourism Business Districts. Annals of Tourism Research
20:583600.
Goffman, E.
1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City NY: Doubleday.

96

TOURISM IN PARIS

Harvey, D.
1979 Monument and Myth. Annals Association of American Geographers 69:362
381.
Jansen-Verbeke, M.
1986 Inner-city Tourism: Resources, Tourists and Promoters. Annals of Tourism
Research 13:79100.
Javary, C., C. de Senneville, and Y. Tinard
1993 De la Valorisation de Notre Patrimoine Monumental Religieux. L|exemple
de Notre Dame de Paris. Les Cahiers Espaces 30:140147.
Jonas, R.
1995 Le Monument Comme Ex-voto, le Monument Comme Historiosophie: la
Basilique du Sacre -Coeur. Cahiers du CREPIF 53:2138.
Judd, D. R.
1995 Promoting Tourism in US Cities. Tourism Management 16:175187.
Jules-Rosette, B.
1994 Black Paris: Touristic Simulations. Annals of Tourism Research 21:679
700.
Leiper, N.
1990 Tourist Attraction Systems. Annals of Tourism Research 17:367384.
MacCannell, D.
1973 Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings.
American Journal of Sociology 79:589603.
1976 The Tourist: a New Theory of the Leisure Class. London: MacMillan.
Madanipour, A.
1996 Urban Design and Dilemmas of Space. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space 14:331335.
Mairie de Paris
1996 Prote ger et Mettre en Valeur Montmartre. Paris: Mairie de Paris.
Massey, D.
1994 Space, Place and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Michelin
1992 Paris. Watford: Michelin Tyre.
Mitchell, D.
1996 Introduction: Public Space and the City. Urban Geography 17:127131.
Muse e du Louvre
1993 Grand Louvre, Aile Richelieu. Dossier de presse. Paris: Muse e du Louvre.
Ortoli-Denoix, V.
1990 Ge ographie des Restaurants de Paris au Cours des Deux Derniers Sie cles. In
Les Restaurants dans le Monde et a Travers les Ages, A. Huetz de Lemps et J.R. Pitte eds., pp. 1725. Gle nat: Grenoble.
Page, S.
1995 Urban Tourism. London: Routledge.
Paris Promotion, E. Pauchant, and A.-D. Barre re
1992 Plan d|Ame nagement du Tourisme Parisien. Paris: Paris Promotion.
Pearce, D. G.
1989 Tourist Development (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.
1995 Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.
1997 Analysing the Demand for Urban Tourism: Issues and Examples from Paris.
Tourism Analysis 1:5*18.
1998 Tourist Districts in Paris: Structure and Functions. Tourism Management
19:4965.
Pearce, P. L.
1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour. Oxford: Pergamon.
1991 Analysing Tourist Attractions. Journal of Tourism Studies 2:4655.
Pei, I. M., and E. J. Biasini
1989 Les Grands Desseins du Louvre. Paris: Hermann.
Pognant, P.
1993 Le Sauvetage des Champs-E
lyse es. Paris Projet 30/31:7079.
Printemps
(nd) Le Printemps Corporate File. Paris: Printemps.
Schmidt, C. J.
1979 The Guided Tour: Insulated Adventure. Urban Life 7:441467.

DOUGLAS PEARCE

97

Terrien, B.
1995 Les Visiteurs de la Basilique. Cahiers du CREPIF 53: 5563.
van den Berg, L., van der Borg J., and van der Meer, J.
1995 Urban Tourism: Performance and Strategies in Eight European Cities. Aldershot: Avebury.
Submitted 9 July 1997
Resubmitted 23 February 1998
Accepted 15 April 1998
Refereed anonymously
Coordinating Editor: Georges Cazes