See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222457085

A Framework of Tourist Attraction Research

Article  in  Annals of Tourism Research · December 1987

DOI: 10.1016/0160-7383(87)90071-5

CITATIONS READS
376 11,416

1 author:

Alan Lew
Northern Arizona University
131 PUBLICATIONS   2,925 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Community Resilience to Rapid Tourism Development on Hailing Island, China View project

Revisiting, Reframing and Reaffirming Tourism Geographies: Critical Post-Disciplinarity Perspectives View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alan Lew on 07 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Annals ofikrrrm fixarch. Vol 14., pp 553-575, 1987 0160.7383157 $3 00 + 00
Printed m the USA All nghts reserved CopyrIght @ 1987 Perxamon Journals Inc and J. Jalan

A FRAMEWORK OF TOURIST
ATTRACTION RESEARCH
Alan A. Lew
Northern Arizona University, USA

Abstract: Although tourist attractions are fundamental to the very exist-

ence of tourism, there have been few attempts to come to terms with the
breadth of approaches that have been employed in their study. An exami-
nation of research methods used in the study of tourist attractions and the
tourist attractiveness of places reveals that most studies can be classified
into one or more of three general perspectives: the ideographic listing, the
organization, and the tourist cognition of attractions. Each of these per-
spectives shares a distinct set of questions concerning the nature of the
attractions, as expressed through the typologies used in their evaluation.
At the same time, all three perspectives make comparisons based on the
historical, locational, and various valuational aspects of attractions. This
framework can be applied in the comparison and evaluation of tourist
attraction related research. Keywords: tourist attraction, research meth-
ods, research evaluation.

R&umC: Un cadre pour la recherche sur les attractions touristiques. Bien

que les attractions touristiques soient fondamentales g l’existence mCme
du tourisme, on n’a pas souvent consid&& les differentes facons d’iborder
ce sujet. Une investigation des mCthodes de recherche que I’on peut em-
ployer pour etudier les attractions touristiques aussi bien que le degrt
d’inttrCt touristique d’un endroit don& rCvtle que la plupart des Ctudes
peuvent &tre classtes dans au moins une des trois catkgories suivantes: le
listage ideographique, l’organisation et la connaissance touristique des
attractions. Chacune de ces catCgories comprend une sCrie distincte de
questions au sujet de la nature des attractions, tel que cette nature s’expri-
me 2 travers les typologies qui sont employCes dans I’tvaluation des attrac-
tions. Tout en &ant distinctes l’une de l’autre, chaque cattgorie se base sur
des comparaisons semblables de l’histoire, de l’emplacement et d’autres
aspects tvaluables des attractions. On peut utiliser ce cadre pour com-
parer et Cvaluer les travaux de recherche relatifs aux attractions touristi-
ques. Mots clef: attraction touristique, methodes de recherche, tvalua-
tion de recherches.

Alan Lew is Assistant Professor of geography and public planning (Department of

Geograph!! Box 15016, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ 86011, USA). He
received his doctorate from the University of Oregon. His research interests include
tourism and urban development, with particular emphasis on the western US and
Asia.
553
34 TOC’RIST ATTRACTION RESEARCH

THE TOURIST ATTRACTION

Without tourist attractions there would be no tourism (Gunn
1972:24). Without tourism there would be no tourist attractions. Al-
though a tautology, such an argument still points to the fundamental
importance of tourist attractions and the attractiveness of places to
tourism. Efforts at specificity often reduce the simple concept of “tour-
ist attraction” to exploitable “resources” (Ferrario 1976:4), marketable
“products” (Wahab et al 1976:38) and “images” (WTO 1980a, 1980b).
or simply place “attributes” (Witter 1985: 16) or “features” (Polacek and
Aroch 1984: 17). Most researchers, however, agree that attractions are
the basic elements on which tourism is developed (Gunn 1979:48-73,
1980a; Lundberg 1980:33-40; Pearce 1981:30-Z).
In essence, tourist attractions consist of all those elements of a “non-
home” place that draw discretionary travelers away from their homes.
They usually include landscapes to observe, activities to participate in,
and experiences to remember. Yet it can sometimes be difficult to
differentiate between attractions and non-attractions. Transportation
(e.g., cruise liners), accommodations (e.g., resorts), and other services
(e.g., restaurants) can themselves take on the attributes of an attrac-
tion, further comp1icatin.g the distinction between various segments of
the tourism industry. At times, tourists themselves can even become
attractions (MacCannell 1976:130-l).
MacCannell (1976:109) proposes that a phenomenon must have
three components to be considered an attraction: a tourist, a site to be
viewed, and a marker or image which makes the site significant. These
criteria could enable virtually anything to become a tourist attraction.
Thus, “attraction” in its widest context would include not only the
historic sites, amusement parks, and spectacular scenery, which are
normally associated with the word, but also the services and facilities
which cater to the everyday needs of tourists. Also included would be
the social institutions which form the basis for the very existence of
human habitation. Non-entertainment oriented attractions have been
variously referred to as “comfort attractions” (Lew 1986a: 2 15), “condi-
tional elements” (Hansen-Verbeke 1986:86), or have been categorized
into “services and accommodations” (McIntosh and Goeldner 1984: 11)
or the nebulous “other” (Gunn 1979:58; Polacek and Aroch 1984: 17).
Although the importance of tourist attractions is readily recognized,
tourism researchers and theorists have yet to fully come to terms with the
nature of attractions as phenomena both in the environment and in the
mind (Gunn 1980a). An examination of some of the research related to
tourist attractions reveals a consistent pattern of research questions and
designs. The following discussion summarizes the range of approaches
employed in the categorization of attractions, as revealed in recent tour-
ism literature. The typologies, in part, reflect the nature of the various
disciplines involved. However, in the least the review provides an initial
step toward focusing on and understanding tourist attractions.

A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK
Research on tourist attractions have been undertaken from one or
more of three broad perspectives: the ideographic definition and de-
 ALANLEW 555

scription of attraction types, the organization and development of at-

tractions, and the cognitive perception and experience of tourist attrac-
tions by different groups. Each perspective addresses a shared concern
for a particular feature of tourist attractions. The essence of a compre-
hensive framework for tourist attraction typologies and research is
based on these three perspectives. It is appropriate to consider each as
one aspect of a single body of knowledge.
By comparing the different typologies employed by researchers, it is
also possible to identify general continua against which attraction char-
acteristics have been measured. In the examples below the identifica-
tion of attractions as being natural or social, reflecting separation or
connectivity, or offering security or risk are the principal continua basic
to the three perspectives. Further refinements of such measures are, of
course, necessary for use in research. For example, the nature-social
continuum includes a range of attraction types from wilderness to parks
and zoos to cities. Together, the three research perspectives and their
accompanying continua of attraction categories comprise a comprehen-
sive framework for understanding the diversity of typologies used in
research on tourist attractions. The examples provided for each of these
perspectives will clarify their differences.

The Idiographic Perspective

Attraction typologies which focus on the ideographic perspective

describe the concrete uniqueness of a site, rather than an abstract
universal characteristic. At the most concrete level are those typologies
in which specific attractions are individually identified by name (Nef-
fler 1975:38; Pitts and Woodside 1986:21; Woodside et al 1986:ll).
The listing of specific attractions by name is most often used in studies
of small areas, such as cities, although exceptions exist (Machlis et al
1984:81). A list of places or countries as attractions is a variation of this
approach (Goeldner et al 1975:95; Perdue and Gutske 1985:171; White
1985:534). Inasmuch as these can be further placed into general types,
named attractions are not further distinguished as a separate type of
ideographic approach to this review.
By far, the most common attraction typologies are general ideo-
graphic descriptions of similar attraction types (Archer 197 7 : 104;
Christaller 1955; Goodrich 1978:4; Graburn 1977:27; Gunn,
1980:265; Lew 1986a:16; Matley 1976:5; Peters 1969:148-g; Smith
1977:2-3; Wahab et al 1976:38-g). The use of Standard Industrial
Codes (SIC) is an example of this approach (Frechtling 1976:69-71),
although variations are significant. Attraction typologies for use in
determining monetary flows normally use an ideographic approach,
classifying attractions into different “expenditure types” (Archer
1977: 104; Kreck 1985:28). Tourist guide books usually classify attrac-
tions under a combination of both specific and general categories (e.g.,
Liounis 1985).
Not all typologies are intended to cover the entire spectrum of attrac-
tions. Stores (Keown et al 1984:27), restaurants (Smith 1985:588),
accommodations (Price 1980:26), inner-city areas (Hansen-Verbeke
1986:86), spectator sports (Ritchie and Aitken 1985:30), participant
556 TOURIST ATTRACTION RESE.iRCH

sports (Fesenmaier 1985:19), outdoor recreation (Bryant and Morrison

1980:4), and cruiseship activities (Field et al 1985:4) are examples of
subcategories of ideographic attraction types.
When combined with data on location, preference, perception, or
participation, ideographic attraction typologies have been further gen-
eralized through the use of multidimensional analysis, such as factor
analysis (Bryant and Morrison 1980:4; Eitzel and Swensen 1981:30;
Goodrich 1977b:8; Pizam et al 1978:319; Witter 1985:18) and multidi-
mensional scaling (Goodrich 1977a:12; 1978:4-6; Haahti 1986:21-i;
Pearce 1982:107-11; Perry 1975:119-24).
Among the more detailed and comprehensive examples of ideo-
graphic attraction listings are those developed by Ferrario (1976:ll l-
14), Gearing et al (1976:93), Ritchie and Zinns (1978:256-7), the
World Tourism Organization ( 1980a: 6- 17), and Shih ( 1986: 8). Using
Ritchie and Zinns as an example, at the most general level this classifi-
cation includes natural beauty and climate; culture and social charac-
teristics; sport, recreation, and educational facilities; shopping and
commercial facilities; infrastructure; price levels; attitudes toward tour-
ists; and accessibility. Each of these facets is divided into a long series of
elements, which are further divided into features that were inanimate,
those that expressed normal daily life activities, and those involving
activities beyond normal. Using this list, the researchers administered
surveys to public and private sector tourism professionals to ascertain
which elements were most important to the tourist attractiveness of the
Canadian province of Quebec.
Ritchie and Zinns’ typology is typical of ideographic approaches. It
allows an objective comparison of one destination with another in
terms of attractions. Certain aspects, however, are missing in the typo-
logy. As with most ideographic typologies, limitations exist in the as-
sessment of quality, management, and tourist motivation and prefer-
ence for different attractions. Also lacking is an understanding of the
spatial relationships between attractions. It might be possible to extrap-
olate some of these aspects from the less strictly ideographic categories
related to price levels, local attitudes toward tourists, and accessibility.
These aspects tend to be more organizational and cognitive than ideo-
graphic.
When attempting to incorporate organizational or cognitive perspec-
tives, ideographic typologies frequently become more abstract. For ex-
ample, Schmidt (1979:447-8) distinguished different types of attrac-
tions based on aspects which made them unique and therefore of
interest to tourists. Schmidt initially divided attractions into five
types, based on their geographical, social, cultural, technological, or
divine emphasis. These basic ideographic categories were than further
divided into those associated with: origins, transitions, extremes, and
changes. This typology was devised to try and explain why certain
places are particularly prone to attract tourists. While the approach
moves a step closer to incorporating the cognitive features of a site, at
the same time, it loses the readily identifiable image of the attraction
which is provided by the more clearly ideographic approach of Ritchie
and Zinns.
In general, the less abstract and the more concrete the research is,
 ALAN LEM’ 557

the more likely that it will incorporate an ideographic approach in the

conceptualization of attractions. Every attraction has. some tangible,
material presence. It is the appreciation and understanding of this
presence that the ideographic approach represents.
For the most part, researchers have attempted to develop compre-
hensive typologies in which every possible attraction could be classified.
The diversity of classification schemes indicates a somewhat arbitrary
methodology. A review of a number of ideographic typologies, howev-
er, indicates the most basic distinction employed to be that between
attractions which are nature-oriented and those with a human-orienta-
tion. This distinction, however, is only explicitly expressed in the typo-
logies proposed by Perry (1975:119) and Graburn (1977:27), although
it is also the basic dichotomy found in Gunn (1979:57-8). Most other
ideographic typologies are based on this same distinction, but with the
nature and human attractions divided up among several categories.
This is particularly true of the human-oriented attractions which tend
to dominate most ideographic schemes. For example, while Ritchie and
Zinns cover the nature-oriented attractions in one category (Natural
beauty and climate), the human-oriented attractions are divided into
seven basic types.’
One major difficulty some researchers encounter with a simple na-
ture-human typology is in the classification of infrastructure and ser-
vice facilities (e.g., Gunn 1979:57-8). While tourists use these facilit-
ies, they are not necessarily attracted to a specific location to see them.
However, given the breadth of the definition of tourist attraction, as
discussed above, such facilities do have value as attractions in that they
contribute to the overall ambience of the tourist experience. Further,
they are cultural manifestations and should, therefore, be included in
the human-oriented attraction category.
A complete listing of the attraction categories used in the various
ideographic typologies reviewed is shown in Table 1. These categories
have been rearranged within the nature-human continuum. The table
only includes general categories of attractions. It does not include all of
the specific terminology employed among the reviewed typologies due
to the inordinate length of this list. Nine categories of attractions are
indicated, based on a matrix of Nature, Human and Nature-Human
Interface across the top, and General Environments, Specific Features,
and Inclusive Environments along the side. The horizontal categories
portray three discrete groupings along the nature-human continuum.
Human intervention in nature and natural intrusions into human-built
environments require further refinements of the fundamental nature-
human dichotomy and are included in the Nature-Human Interface
attraction categories. The three vertical groupings of categories indi-
cate different levels of ideographic attractions. General Environments
are broad in scope and often large in scale. They generally require little
or no tourist involvement to exist. Specific Features are notably smaller
in scale and often have clear connections to tourism, although they are
sometimes peripheral to major tourist interests. The tourists them-
selves are passive in their involvement with specific features. Inclusive
Environments are the principal attractions which draw tourists to a
destination. They are inclusive in that they are environments in which
558 TOCRIST ATTRXCTIOS RESE;\RCH

Table 1. Composite Ideograph Tourist Attraction Typology

Nature-Human
Nature Interface Human

General Envlronmentr
1 Panoramas 4 Observational 7 Settlement Infrastructure
Mountain Rural/Agriculture Utility types
Sea Coast Scientific Gardens Settlement Morpl~ology
Plain Animals (zoos) Settlement Functions
Arid Plants Commerce
Island Rocks & Archeology Retail
Finance
Institutions
Government
Education & Science
Religion
People
Way of Life
Ethnicity

Specific Features:
2 Landmarks 5 Leisure Nature 8 Tourist Infrastructure
Geological Trails Forms of Access
Biological Parks To and from a Destination
Flora Beach Destination Tour Routes
Fauna Urban Information & Receptivity
Hydrological Other Basic Needs
Resorts Accommodations
Meals

Inclusive Environments:
3 Ecological 6 Participatory 9 Leisure Superstructure
Climate Mountain Activities Recreation Entertainment
Sanctuaries Summer Performances
National Parks Winter Sporting Events
Nature Reserves Water Activities Amusements
Other Outdoor Culture, History & Art
Activities Museums and Monuments
Performances
Festivals
Cuisine

Generalized from the following sources: Archer 1977:104; Bryant and Morrison 1980:4; Christaller
1955; Crompton 1979:ZO; Doyle et al 1977:118-20; Eastlack 1982:28; Eitzel and Swensen 1981:30;
Ferrario 1976:111-4; Gearing et al 1976:93; Goodrich 1977a:12; 1977b:& 1978:4; Graburn 1977:27;
Gunn 1979:57-S; 198Obz265: Haddon 1960:287; Henshall and Roberts 1985:229-30; Hills and Lundgren
1977:258,261; Jensen-Verbeke 1986:86, 92; Kreck 1985:28; Lew 1986:16; Liounis 1985; Matley
1976:s; Machlis et al 1984:80; Neffeler 1975:38; Peters 1969:148-9; Pizam et al 1978:319-20;
Polacek and Aroch 1984:17; Ritchie and Zinns 1978x256-7; Robinson 1976241-3; Schmidt 1979:447-E;
Shih 1986:8; Smith 1977:2-3; US Department of Commerce 1961:33; Van Veen and Verhallen
1986:46; Wahab et al 1976:38-9; Witter 1985:16; Woodside et al 1986:lO; WTO 1980a:6-17.

tourists become completely absorbed in the attraction experience. All

of the ideographic attractions examined in the literature fit within the
typology proposed in Table 1.

The Organizational Perspectiue

Ideographic approaches are the most frequent form of attraction

typology encountered in tourism research. The organizational perspec-
tive is a different research approach which does not necessarily examine
the attractions themselves, but rather focuses on their spatial, capacity,
 ALAK LEW 559

and temporal nature. In this approach, attraction typologies are devel-

oped to reflect these qualities.
Scale is the simplest basis for categorizing the spatial character of an
attraction within an organizational perspective. Simple scale contin-
uums are based on the size of the area which the attraction encompass-
es (Gunn 1972:40-42; Hills and Lundgren 1977:251-3; WTO
1980a:17). For example, a spatial hierarchy of attraction scale would
progress from the smallest specific object within a site to entire coun-
tries and continents (Pearce 1982:99).
Scale considerations can provide insight into the organization of
tourist attractions, their relationship to other attractions, and the rela-
tionship of attraction images to attractions themselves. These consider-
ations are important in the planning and marketing of tourism. Tour-
ism marketers promote the images of specific, small-scale attractions
(which are easier to sell) to create identifiers for larger attraction com-
plexes (Lew 1987; MacCannell 1976: 112; WTO 1980a). Planners are
then faced with the problem of an over-concentration of demand at
some tourist sites and underutilization of others.
Characteristics associated with the spatial integration of attractions
provide a more detailed understanding of the influence of scale. Several
approaches have specifically intended to highlight the spatial integra-
tion of attractions, including Gunn’s (1979:55, 1980b:265-6) distinc-
tion between “touring” and “destination” attractions and Pearce’s (198 1:
16-9) “catalytic-integrated” dichotomy.
According to Gunn, touring attractions are aimed at travelers who
are in transit and are characterized by short visits to many dispersed
and poorly integrated destinations. They, therefore, tend to not be of
the same quality of attractions as destinations with long-term and re-
peat visitor demands. As the name implies, destination attractions are
usually major centers of tourism and are characterized by numerous
tourist activities integrated around a central point. For a tourism plan-
ner, the primary considerations for touring attractions are mobility and
access, whereas destination planning centers on providing a mix that
offers both variety and stimulation. While Pearce’s dichotomy is based
on the historical development and presence or lack of planning in resort
communities, similar patterns of integrated (well planned) versus dis-
junctive (spontaneous, unplanned) spatial patterns arise.
Related to the spatial scale of an attraction is its capacity. The spatial
size of an attraction, however, may have little relationship to its capaci-
ty to accommodate large numbers of tourists. In addition to relative
desirability, factors which can affect the tourism capacity of an attrac-
tion include the availability of services (lodging, food, merchandise,
entertainment, etc.); the fragility of the attraction; the level of educa-
tion and technological development; and community and political sup-
port for tourism (Peck and Lepie 1977:160-l; Rodenberg 1980).
In addition to the spatial situation of an attraction, the concepts of
permanence and change affect the organization and development of
tourist attractions. This is seen in the distinction between “temporal”
and “site” attractions (Lundberg 1980:38) and can have a significant
impact on visitor flow patterns and infrastructure development. An
attraction characterized by a year-round flow of visitors is generally
560 TOURIST ATTR.XTIOS RESE.iRCH

better integrated into the local community than one with large seasonal
fluctuations. Long-term and repeat vtsitors are also preferred over
short-term, one-time visitors (Peck and Lepie 1977:160). In extreme
situations, isolated special event attractions can place a serious burden
on infrastructure capacities designed for fewer visitors (Lew 1985:9).
A listing of the attraction categories used in the various organization-
al typologies reviewed is shown in a matrix in Table 2. What these types
of studies most fundamentally accentuate is the difference between the
separation and connectivity of attractions. This dichot0m.y is applied to
organizational typologies of both spatial (scale) and functional (integra-
tion, capacity, and temporal) nature. Along the side of the matrix are
shown the different typologies focusing on spatial, capacity, and tempo-
ral aspects of attractions. Spatial typologies accentuate the spatial dif-
ferences which exist between attractions developing in association with
one another. In terms of size, attractions that are smaller in scope tend
toward greater separation and less connectivity. This does not apply,
however, to the size of the attraction’s market, where aspects of popu-
larity (a cross-perspective measure) and renown (cognitive perspective)
are more important. Capacity typologies, on the other hand, place
principal emphasis on the internal organization of attraction. Temporal
typologies focus on the organizational influence of time, both in terms
of how long and when an attraction occurs and the time a visitor spends
at the attraction.

The Cognitive Perspective

Studies of tourist perceptions and experiences of attractions consti-
tute the third major approach to the study of tourist attractions. More
so than with organizational perspectives, cognitive perspectives are
sometimes found intermixed with ideographic categories, although in
virtually all such cases the ideographic categories clearly predominate
(Eastlack 1982:28; Henshall and Roberts 1985:229; Lickorish 1974:2;
Neffeler 1975:36; Pearce 1982:107; Shih 1986:8; Wahab et al 1976:76).
Pearce defines a tourist place as “any place that fosters the feeling of
being a tourist” (1982:98). One way that this feeling has been under-
stood is through the juxtaposition of “outsideness” and “insideness”
(Relph 1976:48-55). 0 ne of the goals of the tourist is to penetrate into
the insideness or back region of the attraction in order to experience the
authenticity of a place (MacCannell 1976:94). For the tourist, some
risk is required to take this leap into authenticity. The review of cogni-
tive-oriented research typologies indicates that the degree to which
tourists are willing and able to take such a risk is a major indicator of
the general experiences offered by different types of attractions.
Every environment, not just tourist places, has elements of security
and risk. This is, however, a useful distinction to begin with. Tourist
places can further be distinguished by those which are primarily in-
tended for tourists and those which are not designed for them (Schmidt
1979:449). Tourists are, by definition, outsiders and places which are
primarily intended for them tend to focus on security and the minimi-
zation of risk. As such, these safe attractions frequently occur in a
staged, inauthentic and highly structured environment where tourists
 ,4LAi’! LEM 561

Table 2. Composite Organizational Tourist Attraction Typology

hdividuel/SeDeration CollectivitvfConnection

spatial Features: _
Unstructured Structured
Catalytic Integratedg
Unplanned infrastructure Planned infrastructureg
Inaccessible Accessiblee
Admission/permit barrier Free entrya
Isolated clusteredcdel
Touring Destinetiond e
Nucleus Inviolate belt Zone of enclosureC
Remote Rural Suburban Urbane
Outside SMSA Inside SMSAb
Local scale Regional National International scalem
Bulldi”gs/Site RegionelAocel Continentsjcountriesh

Caps&y Features:
Craft tourism Smell industrial Large industrial tourismk
Slow growth Transient development Rapid growth’
Small/Low capacity Medium Large/High capacitya

Temporal Peaturesz
Event Sitef
Itinerant, Short-term Resident, Long-termi
Single visitation Multiple visltetionde

Sources: eFerrario 1976:195-7; bGoeldner et al 1975:97; CGUM 1972:40-2, 44-523 dGU”n 1974:55;
eGu”” 199op:255-6; fLundberg 1990:38; gPeerce 1991:16-9; hPeerce 1992:99; ‘Peck and Lepie
1977:160-l; JRobinson 1976:42; kRodenberg 1980; lSchmidt 1979:449; mWTO 198Oa:17.

primarily relate to the promoted or advertised image, rather than the

direct experience of the site. MacCannell (1976:lll) refers to this as
“marker involvement,” because the tourist is more interested in the label
that is attached to the attraction than the attraction itself. Most historic
sites, such as empty battlefields, are marker involvement types of at-
tractions. Non-tourist oriented attractions involve greater risk, are less
structured, and are generally more authentic. The tourists’ interest is
stimulated by the actual site itself. The experience in this situation is
one of “sight involvement,” or one where what is supposed to be seen
does not interfere with what is seen and experienced. Outstanding
natural landscapes and culturally unique places are examples where
“sight involvement” often predominates over “marker involvement.”
The categories common to studies oriented toward the perception
and experience of tourist attractions are shown in Table 3. In addition
to the Security-Risk continuum, along the top, these typologies have
been divided into those that focus on general Tourist Activities, the
general Attraction Character, and the individual Tourist Experience,
along the side. The Participatory category of the ideographic typology
(Table 1) appears to overlap somewhat with the Tourist Activities cate-
gory presented here. For example, a “campground” is clearly an ideo-
graphic attraction, however “camping” is more of an experience. Partic-
ipation makes these attractions more than just sites to be observed.
They remain ideographic, however, in that they do not attach a specific
experience to the attraction. In theory, cognitive categories can be
attached to any type of ideographic category (which further makes their
intermixing with ideographic categories inappropriate).
562 TOURIST ATTRXCTION RESEARCH

Table 3. Composite Cognitive Tourist Attraction Typology

Security Risk

Tourist Activities:
Educationrh Exerciser Explorationr
place to talkk Face-to-face meetingh
Guided tours Unguided touringp
Passivee Activeg

Attraction Characters
Contrived Staged Denial of authenticity Authenticb
Especially animated Inanimate Normal daily life”
Evoked set Inert set Inept setqs
International/extended market National Regional Local marketist
Tourism oriented Non-tourism orientedP
Touristy Authenticg
Structured/Organized UnstructuredP
Front region Back regionl
Modern TraditionaI/Antiquatedgt
Heard a lot about/Important placek Abeence of other tourists1

Tourist Experiences:
Expensive/Luxury/ Economy/Reasonable Prices/ Inexpensive/
QuaHty/Prestigeeht value for Moneydo Cheapcklt
SafelSanitaryCer Different/Getting awaydhk EscapismlFreedomr
Pleasant/FriendlyCdko Companionshi r Novelty’
Leisurely/Restful/ Fun/Swinging I!1 Adventurous/Wild/
RelaxingfQuietfHomelyehkort Excitingegklort
Mass Produced Experience Limited Ex erience Individual Experiencef
Common/Ordinarygm Interestin b uniquegm
No role transformation Role transformationf
Recreational Diversionary Experiential Experimentai Existentiala
Marker involvement Sight involvementI
Familiar Exoticg
Easy dr quick/Easy to tourdgk Effort to tow%

Sources: acohe” 1979a:l83; bCohen 1979bs26; Vrompton 1979:ZO; dHaahti 1986:lS; eH,enshall and
Roberts 1985:229; fKotIer 1984:lO; gLew 1986b; hLickorish 1974:Z; iLundberg 1980:38; IMacCannell
1976:92, 111-7; kNeffeler 1975:33-8; IPearce 1982r107; mPiperoglou 1968:170; “Ritchie and Zinns
1978:257; oShih 198&S; PSchmidt 1979:449; qThompeon and Cooper 1979:24; rWahab et aI 1976:76;
swoodside et al 1971:123; tWT0 1980bs27.

The major difference between cognitive typologies focusing on Tour-

ist Activities and those within the Tourist Experience category is that
the activity-oriented research tends to be primarily behavioral, while
the experience-oriented research is approached from either behavioral
or phenomenological perspectives. Mere preference for one type
of attraction over another is not classified as being within the experien-
tial perspective of this framework, but rather is a cross-perspective as-
pect.
The Attraction Character category refers to the general perceptual
nature of the attraction. How animated (staged) and how well-known
(evoked set) an attraction is are included in this category. Related to an
attraction’s renown is the concept of market scale (Lundberg 1980:38),
with internationally known attractions offering less risk in the tourist’s
itinerary planning than smaller market attractions.

Cross- Perspective Measures

Two ways of combining ideographic, organizational, and cognitive
perspectives have been identified. These are the combining of compli-
 ALAN LEW 563

mentary categories from different perspectives, and research measures

which are common to all three perspectives.
The ideographic, organizational, and cognitive perspectives have
useful application within their defined contexts. No single approach,
however, is able to cover the entire range of research interests on tourist
attractions. Ideographic approaches, with their detailed and lengthy
descriptive categories, tend to be weak in shedding insight on the or-
ganizational and experiential aspects of attractions. More abstract or-
ganizational categorizations can get bogged down in the specificity of
ideographic categories and the diversity of human experiences. Cogni-
tive approaches do not adequately address the complimentary and
competitive nature of specific attractions, nor their spatial and tempo-
ral relationships. These shortcomings, however, are fully acceptable
within the context of the research objectives of each approach, so long
as they are recognized as such.
These differences do not preclude the combination of categories from
different perspectives. Ideographic, organization, and cognitive ap-
proaches can even be quite complimentary to one another. For exam-
ple, the experience of an individual at an attraction can be highly
influenced by its organization, with poor infrastructure, and low quali-
ty services causing experiences of difficulty and incomprehensibility. As
discussed above, the ideographic approach, due to its fundamental
nature, is the most frequently used in combination with another per-
spective. Further examination of such cross-perspective relationships
offers a potential venue for developing a comprehensive typology of
tourist attractions.
Other measures of attraction research are more distinctly cross-per-
spective in that they can be employed in any of the three approaches
described above. However, they are not typologies. Three of these have
been identified: historical, locational, and valuational measures. His-
torical measures compare one place at more than one point in time to
determine trends and changes. Locational measures compare the same
attraction categories at different locations. Valuational measures (the
numeric rating of attractions) are obtained through visitor preference
surveys, tourist attendance and usage rates, guidebook analysis, sur-
veys of experts or professionals in the field, and economic expenditures
and income (cf. Ferrario 1976; Lew 1986a). Whereas some form of
valuation determination is included in most attraction research, histor-
ical and locational comparisons are limited to the research objectives of
a particular study.

APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK TO PAST RESEARCH

The tourist attraction framework may be applied in several different

ways. Its use in assessing the methodological approaches of selected
tourist attraction studies is examined in depth here. The framework,
used in this way, helps highlight the decisions which the researcher
makes in formulating the research design. It also allows a better under-
standing of the relationship between different studies and of the utility
of a single study within the context of the three perspectives.
56-i TOURIST .iTTRXCTIOS RESE;\RCH

For the sake of brevity, the examples chosen focus exclusively on t\vo
types of subject matter: national or regional planning. and image stud-
ies. These have been selected because each is a major area of tourism
research. Although the examples were chosen arbitrarily, they do pro-
vide the opportunity to explore the applicability of the framework as an
evaluative tool.

Regional Planning Studies

Piperoglou (1966), in evaluating the tourist attractions of western
Greece, undertook the following steps:
1. The definition of three main attraction types: “Ancient Greece,” “pic-
turesque villages and islands,” and “sun and sea.”
2. A survey of tourists to determine their preference for each attraction
type.
3. An evaluation of attractions to determine their “uniqueness.”
4. The mapping of attractions to determine their proximity to access
points within defined regions and to urban settlements of 50,000 or
more people. Higher values were given to attractions with better
accessibility.
5. Development priorities were assigned based on the overall value of
each region.
The steps in Piperoglou’s study respectively involved the following
aspects of the tourist attraction framework.
1. A nature versus human attraction tvpology (Ideographic Perspec-
tive, Panoramas, Leisure Nature, and Lei&d Sup&&ucture iate-
gories). Of the three attraction types employed in the study, “pictur-
esque villages and islands” is the most natural and of the Panoramas
category (although the rural villages could also be of the Observa-
tional category). “Sun and sea” is essentially a reference to beaches
and resorts and clearly of the Leisure Nature ideographic category,
while “Ancient Greece” is the most social, falling within the Leisure
Superstructure category.
An assessment of preference (Cross-Perspective, Valuation type).
Tourist preference is one of the cross-perspective measures which
can be applied to typologies based on any of the three perspectives.
The survey used by Piperoglou resulted in an additional value given
to the more popular of the attraction types.
An experience measure of “uniqueness” (Cognitive Perspective,
Tourist Experience category). This evaluation was used to distin-
guish between individual attractions of the same attraction type,
resulting in each attraction having its own numeric value.
Two spatial measures of clustering and accessibility (Organizational
Perspective, Spatial Features). These measures were given the
strongest value as each coincidence of more than one attraction type
within a days journey from a regional center raised the attraction
value of that region by one power. Larger weights were given to
regions with large urban centers, which implied better infrastruc-
ture and access
 ALAN LEW 565

5. A location comparison of regions (Cross-Perspective, Locational

type).
Table 4 compares this study with the tourist attraction framework. It
is apparent from this summary that Piperoglou’s approach is a well
balanced, using typologies associated with all three perspectives. One
measure (with three categories) is provided from the ideographic per-
spective. This measure actually encompasses several different catego-
ries from Table 1. One measure (with two categories) is from the
cognitive perspective. Two measures, both spatial features, are from
the organizational perspective (two categories each). In addition, two
measures are of the cross-perspective type. Although the study includes
elements from all three perspectives, Piperoglou gave greater emphasis
to the organizational measures, both in terms of having more of them
and in the larger weighted values they received in determining regional
attraction ratings. This is, therefore, primarily an organizational study.
In a similar evaluation of the tourist attractions of South Africa,
Ferrario (1976) undertook the following approach:
1. Determination of 22 types of attractions (Ideographic Perspective,
most categories). In addition, these were further divided into 51
classes, which were still further subdivided. All of the nine categories
of ideographic attractions were included.
2. Survey of tourist demand for the basic 22 types of attractions (Cross-
Perspective, Valuation type). Tourist demand here is the same as
preference in Piperoglou’s study above. It is essentially used to rank
types of attractions.
3. Determination of the appeal or popularity of the attraction types
(Cross-Perspective, Valuation type). This was based on the frequen-
cy that the type of attraction was mentioned in a number of tourist

Table 4. Piperoglou’s Evaluation of Tourist Attraction in Western Greece

Perspectiveand Categcw TYoolo~~ and Form of Evaluation

Ideographicr
Panoramas, Leisure Nature, Ancient Greece - Picturesque Village - Sun and Sea
and Leisure Infrastructure (subjective expert evaluation)

Organizationalr
Spatial Features Clustered - Dispersed
(number of attraction types within 80 km. of a base point)

Spatial Features Accessible - Isolated

(presence of city of 50,000 or more in the region)

Cognitive:
Tourist Experience Unique - Common (subjective expert evaluation)

Cross-Perspective Meaaurear
Valuation Preference (tourist survey)

Locational Regional Comparisons (mapping)

566 TOLYRIST ATTRACTION RESEXRCH

guide books. It was a form of expert judgement and provided a

weighted value to the preferences obtained in the tourist survey.
4. A survey of expert opinions on the accessibility of specific attractions
measured in terms of (a) Seasonality (Organizational Perspective,
Temporal Feature); (b)C onservation (Organizational Perspective.
Capacity F’eature). This measure essentially related to the fragility of
the attraction, or its ability to withstand large numbers of visitors:
(c)Popularity (Cross-Perspective, Valuation type). This was based
on visitation rates; (d) Accessibility to nearest town (Organizational
Perspective, Spatial Feature); (e) Admission or permit requirements
(Organizational Perspective, Spatial Feature): (f) Importance
(Cross-Perspective, Valuation type). This was obtained by a subjec-
tive rating of the attraction as compared to other attractions of the
same type.
5. The determination of the tourist potential (Cross-perspective, Valu-
ation type) of 2,365 attractions based on a formula in which all the
above measures were employed (Ferrario 1976:252-62). In a situa-
tion like this, numeric values allow the direct comparison of attrac-
tion categories based on different perspectives.
6. The mapping of these values and the introduction of a clustering
weight (Organizational Perspective, Spatial Feature). Clusters of low
potential attractions were valued lower than isolated, but major at-
tractions. This weighting was based primarily on increasing the
value of the number of foreign tourists to heavily visited attractions.
7. Determination of major attraction regions or clusters and sugges-
tions for development (Cross-Perspective, Locational type). Regions
were identified based on the comparative numeric values resulting
from steps 5 and 6 above. These values do not represent attraction
types, but do permit a comparison of the overall attractiveness of one
place to another.
Table 5 summarizes the perspectives, categories and typologies em-
ployed in the South African study by Ferrario. This summary indicates

Table 5. Analysis of Ferrario’s Evaluation of Tourist Attraction

Perspective and Category ‘Qpology and Form of Evaluation

Ideographic:
All nine categories Nature - Culture (22 types)

spatial Features Dispersed - Clustered (mapped proximity)

Spatial Features Isolated - Accessible (expert judgment)
Spatial Features Controlled Access - Open Access
(expert judgment)

Capacity Features Low - High Carrying Capacity (expert judgment)

Temporal Features Highly Seasonal - Year Round (expert judgment)

Cross-Penpectlve Me.%swe.%
Valuation Preference (tourist survey)
Valuation Importance (expert judgment)
Valuation Popularity (visitation rates end expert judgment)

Locational Regional Comparisons (mapping)

 ALAN LEM 567

that Ferrario’s approach is a strong organizational study in that it uses

at least one typology from each of the three categories associated with
the organizational perspective. It is also apparent that Ferrario includ-
ed a large number of cross-perspective valuation measures, although an
effort was made to reduce the combined value of these valuation mea-
sures in the final formula. Pearce (1981:32) has pointed out that these
valuation measures resulted in Ferrario’s emphasizing well-established,
existing tourist attractions.
The objective of Ferrario’s study was similar to that of Piperoglou’s,
that is, to evaluate the future development potential of tourist attrac-
tions and attraction complexes. Both studies were primarily from an
organizational perspective, although Ferrario’s was more so, and both
attempted “to reduce phenomenon of aesthetic or cultural significance
to quantifiable magnitudes for purposes of comparative evaluation”
(Piperoglou 1967: 169). A comparison of the two studies shows how
Ferrario’s emphasis on the cross-perspective valuation measure asso-
ciated with a very detailed listing of attractions types may have accen-
tuated the existing tourist attractions, whereas Piperoglou’s focus on
spatial organizational features over popularity probably presented a
better evaluation of development prospects of unestablished areas. The
emphasis on established attractions in Ferrario’s study makes an im-
plied policy judgement of expanding the existing tourism product rath-
er than developing new ones.

Attraction Image Studies

Image is the most important aspect of a tourist attraction from a
marketing point of view. It also has a major impact on the cognitive
experience of an attraction. Britton (1979) has examined the themes
used to advance the image of Third World countries as tourist destina-
tions. Through inductive analysis of advertising for the Caribbean, six
dominant themes were identified. These themes and their relationship
to the proposed attraction framework, include:
1. Mythification and fantasy, in which places are portrayed as para-
dises of the untouched and exotic (Ideographic Perspective, mostly
Nature and Nature-Human Interface categories). Most of the ideo-
graphic categories can be manipulated to fit within this scheme,
although urban oriented and lifestyle characteristics tend to be of the
Romanticization theme, below. The Cognitive Perspective, (Attrac-
tion Character and Tourist Experience) is implied from emphasis on
authenticity and the sense of escape associated with this classifica-
tion.
2. Minimization of foreignness in places considered too “strange” and
possibly uncomfortable for tourists (Cognitive Perspective, Tourist
Experience). Advertisements often explicitely try to balance risk
with security experiences, such as showing a photo of a luxury hotel
next to one emphasizing the exoticness of a place.
3. Recreation, entertainment, and enjoyment, with little, if any, refer-
ence to cultural attractions (Ideographic Perspective, Participatory
and Leisure Superstructure). The enjoyment aspect of this attrac-
tion type is of the Cognitive Perspective, Tourist Experience catego-
568 TOURIST ATTRXCTION RESE.ARCH

ry, with considerable more emphasis on security than risk experi-

ences.
Romantization, of traditional (and often poverty stricken) lifestyles
(Ideographic Perspective, Settlement Infrastructure). The Cognitive
Perspective, Tourist Activity may be implied from this if the adver-
tisement promotes a sense of exploration.
Placelessness, in which images are transferred from other, better
known, attractions and associated with the advertised place. rather
than using the place itself. This type of attraction is classified as
being .of the Cognitive Perspective, Attraction Character category
because of its basis on well-known attractions.
Realistic portrayals of attractions (Ideographic Perspective, Settle-
ment Infrastructure) are limited, but growing through efforts to
stem some of the negative social impacts of Third World tourism.
The Cognitive Perspective, Tourist Activity may be implied from
this if the advertisement promotes a sense of education.
With the possible exception of “realistic portrayals,” these themes all
emphasize the security characteristics of the cognitive perspective (Ta-
ble 3). They are often used in combination with one another in a single
advertising effort, demonstrating the complex nature of attraction im-
ages. They are summarized in Table 6. Unlike the planning studies
examined above, this study does not incorporate the organizational
perspective in any way. The suggested attraction categories are a mix of
ideographic and cognitive perspectives. In their definition, they are
primarily ideographic. However, Britton also incorporates numerous
implied cognitive perspectives within each type. Thus, analysis of the
study reveals that travel advertisements have ideographic (Nature-Hu-
man) and cognitive (Security-Risk) aspects.

Table 6. Analysis of Britton’s Study of Third World Tourism Marketing Image

Perspective and Category Typology and Form of Evaluationa

Ideographic:
Nature, Nature-Human Interface Mythification

Participatory, Leisure Superstructure Recreation and Entertainment (combined)

Settlement Infrastructure Romanticized Tradition versus Realistic Portrayal

Cognitive:
Tourist Experiences, Tourist Activities Exploration - Escape - Education -
Enjoyment - Familiar or Comfortable
(implied in association with ideographic types)

Attraction Cnaracter Authenticity

(implied in association with mythification)

Attraction Character Association with famous other plece~

Cross-Perspective Measures:
Locational (comparisons of advertisements for
different places).

aThe ideographic and cognitive typologies are all based on the subjective evaluation ot place
portrayals.
 ALAKLEM: 569

The final study to be analyzed is a publication by the World Tourism

Organization (1980a) which outlines a research method for developing
national tourist attraction images. The WTO approach is directed
principally at the identification and development of a national “brand
image,” that is, an image that readily evokes the name of the country in
the visitor’s mind. Examples of such brand images include the maple
leaf for Canada and the Eiffel Tower for France. The approach, there-
fore, deals with countries as tourist products, rather than the variety of
attractions within a country.
The approach suggested in this report is:
1. An exhaustive analysis of reality, involving a survey of a country’s
strengths and weaknesses in six types of resources: natural environ-
ment; sociocultural environment; government support for tourism;
infrastructure; economy; and tourism planning and resource man-
agement.
2. Determination of a suitable brand image. This is done through
analysis of tourist motivations for visiting the country and through
survey of selected groups to identify their images of the country.
3. Development and marketing of the new image or corrections to old
images.
Using the framework to analyze the WTO approach to attraction
images, the research steps are (see Table 7):
1. Division of attractions into ideographic types (Ideographic Perspec-
tive, most categories).
2. Valuation of natural and social attractions on a scale of “weak-
unsure - strong” (Cross-Perspective, Valuation type). How this valu-
ation is conducted is unclear, as the reader is referred to another
WTO publication (1980b).
3. Assessment of attractions on an “expensive-inexpensive” scale (Cog-
nitive Perspective, Tourist Experience). This is the economic section
of the initial resource survey.
4. Assessment of the attractions on a “government support-antago-
nism” scale (Ideographic Perspective, Tourist Infrastructure). This is
the government section of the resource survey.
5. Assessment of the attractions on a “planned-unplanned scale (Or-
ganization Perspective, Spatial Feature). This is the planning and
management section of the resource survey.
6. Assessment of attractions/resources on an “adequate-inadequate in-
frastructure” scale (Organizational Perspective, Spatial Feature).
This is the infrastructure section of the resource survey.
7. Survey of target groups to determine motivation and preference for
attraction types and characteristics. Preferences are of the Cross-
Perspective, Valuation type, while motivations fall within the Cogni-
tive Perspective, Tourist Activities, and Experiences categories.
8. Assessment of attractions/resources on a “local-extended market”
scale (Cognitive Perspective, Attraction Characteristic). This is an
aspect of the brand imageability of the attractions and is based on
their prominence.
While also based primarily on the cognitive perspective, the WTO
approach differs from Britton’s study in its incorporation of organiza-
tional perspective categories - a perspective ignored by Britton. The
370 TOCRIST ATTRACTION RESE.ARCH

Table 7. Analysis of the WTO’s Publication on Tourist

Perspective and Category Typ4ogy and Form of Evaluation

Ideographict
Most categories Natural - Social - Cultural (general categories)

Tourist Infrastructure Government Welcome - Antagonism toward tourism

(expert judgment)

organizational:
Spatial Features Planned - Unplanned
(compared to competing attractions/countries)

Spatial Features Adequate - Inadequate infrastructure

(compared to competing attractions/countries)

Cognitive:
Tourist Experience Expensive - Inexpensive
(compared to competing attractions/countries)

Tourist Experiences and Activities Motivation (survey of selected groups)

Attraction Character Local - Extended Market (unspecified)

Crass-Perspective Measures:
Valuation Strength of attraction image

Valuation Preference for attractions among target tourist groups

reason for this may be linked to the nature and function of the WTO as
an organization composed of and working for government tourism
bodies. Governments have a stronger interest in infrastructure develop-
ment and planning than does the private-sector advertising industry
which Britton’s study examined. Thus, not only is the framework re-
flective of research approaches, but it also appears to indicate different
perspectives held by various segments of the tourism industry.
There is another difference between the WTO approach and all the
other studies assessed here: WTO is not a research project, but rather
an outlined methodology intended to be employed by others. In addi-
tion to the steps outlined above, the report discusses considerations in
marketing the defined image. Whether the methodology is affective in
achieving its goals cannot be determined in the publication itself. This
does not, however, limit the application of the tourist attraction re-
search framework due to its specific focus on methodology.

Discussion
The analysis of the attractions typologies employed in these four
examples demonstrates the potential usefulness of the framework as a
tool in research evaluation. As would be anticipated, the organizational
emphasis of the two planning studies contrasted with the cognitive
emphasis of the image studies. Ferrario’s (1976) planning study, howev-
er, was found to be more comprehensive in its use of different types of
organizational categories than that of Piperoglou. Ferrario’s study was
also found to have incorporated numerous cross-perspective valuation
measures, which caused him to emphasize existing attractions more so
 ALAN LEW 571

than Piperoglou. The WTO image study involved a greater emphasis

on organizational categories than did the study by Britton (1979),
which was more purely cognitive in nature.
The strength of the framework as an evaluative tool lies in the three
distinct typologies. They can be used to judge basic research objectives
of relevant investigations, to compare the research designs of similar
studies, and to examine the type, quantity, and quality of the data
collected.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the applicability of the framework for the comparative

evaluation of past research, it can also be applied in the formation of
research objectives and research design. An understanding of alterna-
tive approaches to tourist attraction study will help ensure that the data
collected will match the intended objective of the research.
While the framework appears to be consistent within the subject
matter of tourist attractions, it also fits into the larger area of general
tourism research. Mitchell (1979:239) proposed a frame-of-reference
for tourism research. It divides tourist attraction research into nine
basic components arranged in a matrix of Demand, Supply, and Link-
ages on one axis and Purpose, Structure, and Distribution on the other.
The tourist attraction framework suggested here fits into the Structure
vector, with the ideographic perspective associated with the supply
component, the organizational perspective associated to the linkages
component, and the cognitive perspective related to the demand com-
ponent. This further supports the value of the attraction framework in
organizing research on tourist attractions.
The tourist attraction framework provides insight into the relation-
ship of attraction research to some of the fundamental questions of
human existence. The relationship of the human environment to the
natural environment, the tension between the human need for collec-
tive behavior and the need for independence, and the psychic qualities
of fear and security are shown to be basic concerns explored by tourist
attraction research. The considerations of these relationships in and of
themselves should improve one’s appreciation of the depth of tourism
research.
In the last analysis, the necessity of a comprehensive organization of
tourist attraction typologies is an important issue. Places are different
from one another and, it could be argued, attraction typologies must
reflect this difference. This writer would not deny such to be the case.
However, the review of tourist attraction research reveals such a high
degree of consistency in the general categorization of attractions that
surely some fundamental organization would be beneficial, if only to
enable researchers to communicate in the same language. While the
framework proposed here may appear inappropriate to some, it does
offer a basis for further discussion on the nature of tourist attrac-
tions. 0 0
572 TOURIST ATTRXCTIOS RESEARCH

REFERENCES
.4rcher, B.
1977 Input-Output Analysis: Its Strengths. Limitations and \\eaknesses. 111 The
80’s_Its Impact on Travel and Tourism hfarketing. Eighth annual conference
proceedings, The Travel Research Association. June 12-15. Scottsdale, Arizona.
pp. 89-107. Salt Lake City: TTRA.
Britton, Robert
1979 The Image of the Third World in Tourism hlarkering. Xnnals of Tourism
Research 6(3):318-29.
Bryant, B. E.. and A. J. Morrison
1980. Travel *Market Segmentation and the Implementation of XIarket Strategies.
Journal of Travel Research 18(3):2-l 1.
Christaller, Walter
1955 Beitrage au einer Geographie des Fremdenverkehrs (Contributions to a
Geography of Tourism). Erdkunde 9( 1): 1-19.
Cohen, Erik
1979a .4 Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 13: 179-201.
197913 Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
6( 1): 18-35.
Crompton, John L.
1979 An Assessment of the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destination and the
Influence of Geographical Location Upon That Image. Journal of Travel
Research 17(4):18-23.
Doyle, W. S., J. Pernica, and M. Stern
1977 Some Technical Aspects of a Recent Study of Tourism in New York State. In
The 80’s_Its Impact on Travel and Tourism Marketing. Eighth annual
conference proceedings, The Travel Research Association, June 12-15.
Scottsdale, Arizona, pp. 109-120. Salt Lake City: TTRA.
Eastlack, J. O., Jr.
1982 Applying a Package Goods Research Method to Tourism Marketing. Journal of
Travel Research 20(4):25-29.
Eitzel, M. J., and P. R. Swensen
1981 Taking the Mystery out of Travel and Tourism Investment Decisions. Journal
of Travel Research 20(2):24-34.
Ferrario, Francesco
1976 The Tourist Landscape: A Method of Evaluating Tourist Potential and its
Application to South Africa. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography,
University of California, Berkeley.
1979 The Evaluation of Tourist Resources: An Applied Methodology. Journal of
Travel Research 17(3): 18-22 and 17(4):24-30.
Fesenmaier, Daniel R.
1985 Modeling Variation in Destination Patronage for Outdoor Recreation Activity.
Journal of Travel Research 24(2): 17-23.
Field, Donald R., Roger N. Clark, and Barbara A. Koth
1985 Cruiseship Travel in Alaska: A Profile of Passengers. Journal of Travel
Research 24(2):2-8.
Frechtling, D. C.‘ ’
1976 Pronosed Standard Definitions and Classifications for Travel Research. In
Markciing Travel and Tourism. Seventh annual conference proceedings, The
Travel Research Association, June 20-23, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 59-73. Salt
Lake City: TTRA.
Gearing, Charles E., William W. Swart, and Turgut Var
1976 Establishing a Measure of Touristic Attractiveness. In Planning for Tourism
Development, Gearing, C. E., Swart, W. W. and Var T., eds. pp. 89-103. New
York: Praeger.
Gocldner, C. R., K. Dicke, and Y. Sletta, eds.
1975 Travel Trends in the United States and Canada, 1975 edition. Boulder,
Colorado: Business Research Division. University of Colorado.
<Goodrich, _J. N.
1977a Differences in Perceived Similarity of Tourism Regions: A Spatial Analysis.
,Journal of Travel Research 16( 1): 10-13.
 ALAN LEW 573

197ib Benefit Bundle Analysis: An Empirical Study of International Travelers.

Journal of Travel Research 16(2):6-g.
1978 A New Approach to Image Analysis Through Multidimensional Scaling.
Journal of Travel Research 16(3):3-7.
Graburn, N. H. H.
1977 Tourism: The Sacred Journey, In Hosts and Guests, V. Smith, ed. pp. 17-31.
University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia.
Gunn, Glare A.
1972 Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions. Austin, Texas: Bureau of Business
Research, University of Texas.
1979 Tourism Planning. New York: Crane Russak.
1980a Ammendment to Leiper. The Framework of Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 7:253-255.
1980b An Approach to Regional Assessment of Tourism Development Potential. In
Tourism Planning and Development Issues, D. E. Hawkins, E. L. Shafer and J.
M. Rovelstad, eds. pp. 261-276. Washington: George Washington University.
Haahti, Antti J.
1986 Finland’s Competitive Position as a-Destination. Annals of Tourism Research
13(1):11-35.
Haddon,‘John
1960 A View of Foreign Lands. Geography 45 (209) pt. 4:286-289.
Henshall, Brian D., and Rae Roberts
1985 Comparative Assessment of Touristic Generating Markets for New Zealand.
Annals of Tourism Research 12(2):219-238.
Hills, Theo L., and Jan Lundgren ’ ’
1977 The Impact of Tourism in the Caribbean: A Methodological Study. Annals of
Tourism Research 4(5):248-267.
Jansen-Verbeke, Myriam
1986 Inner-city Tourism: Resources, Tourists and Promoters. Annals of Tourism
Research 13(1):79-100.
Keown. Charles, Laurence Jacobs, and Reginald Worthley
1984 American Tourists’ Perception of Retail Stores in 12 Selected Countries.
lournal of Travel Research 22(3):26-30.
\ ,
Kotl&. Phillip
1984 “Dream” Vacations, The Booming Market for Designed Experiences. The
Futurist 18(5):7-13.
Kreck. Lothar A. ’
1985 The Effect of the Across-the Border Commerce of Canadian Tourists on the
City of Spokane. Journal of Travel Research 24( 1):27-31.
Lew. Alan A.
1985 Bringing Tourists to Town. Small Town 16(1):4-10.
1986a Guidebook Singapore: The Spatial Organization of Urban Tourist
Attractions. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Oregon.
1986b Tourist and Tourguide Perceptions of Tourist Attractions in Singapore. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers,
Minneapolis. Minnesota, May 2-7, 1986.
1987 The History. Policies and Social Impact of International Tourism in the Peo-
me’s Renublic of China. Asian Profile. 15(2):117-128. ,
Lickorish, L: J.
1974 Travel Research Needs in Critical Times. In The Contribution of Travel
Research in a Year of Crisis. Fifth annual conference proceedings, The Travel
Research Association, September 8-l 1, Williamsburg, Virginia, pp. 1-3. Salt
Lake City: TTRA.
Liounis. Audrey, ed.
1985 Fodor’s Arizona. New York: Fodor’s Travel Guides.
Lundberg. Donald E.
1980 The Tourist Business (4th ed.). Boston: CBI.
%lacCannell. Dean
1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken Books.
Xlachlis. G. E., D. D. Field, and M. E. Van Every
1984 A Sociological Look at the Japanese Tourist. In On Interpretation: Sociology
374 TOURIST ATTR.XTION RESEARCH

for Interpretation of Natural and Cultural Resources. .\lachlis. G. E. and Field.

D. R.. eds. pp. 77-93. Corvallis. Oregon: Oregon State Lniwrsiry Press.
Matley. Ian ,CI.
1976 The Geograph! of International Tourism. Association of .\mericnn
Geographers, Resource Paper No. 76-1. \\‘ashington. D. C
hIcIntosh, Robert W., and Charles R. Goeldner
1984 Tourism: Principles, Practices. Philosophies (4th ed.). Ne\v York: John \\‘ilev.
hlitchell. Lisle.
1979. The Geography ofTourism. Annals ofTourism Research 6(3):235-244.
Neffeler. S. H.
1975 Tourism in San Diego. The Research Dimension. In The Impact of Travel.
Sixth annual conference proceedings, The Travel Research Association.
September 18-21. San Diego, California. pp. 33-38. Salt Lake City: TTRX.
Pearce, Douglas
1981 Tourism Development. New York: Longman.
Pearce. Phillip
1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. Oxford: Pergamon.
Peck, John Gregory, and Alice Shear Lepie
1977 Tourism Development in Three North Carolina Towns. In Hosts and Guests:
The Anthropology’of Tourism. V. L. Smith. ed. pp. 139-182. Philadelphia:
Universitv of Pennsvlvania Press.
Perdue. Richard R., and Larry D. Gutske
1985 Spatial Pattern of Leisure Travel by Trip Purpose. Annals of Tourism Research
12(2):167-180.
Perry. Michael
1975 Planning and Evaluating Advertising Campaigns Related to Tourist
Destinations. In Management Science Applications to Leisure Time Operations.
Ladany, Shaul P., ed. pp. 116-123. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co.
Peters, M.
1969 International Tourism. London: Hutchinson.
Piperoglou, John
1966 Identification and Definition of Regions in Greek Tourist Planning. In Papers.
Regional Science Association 18:169-76.
Pitts, Robert E., and Arch G. Woodside
1986 Personal Values and Travel Decisions. Journal of Travel Research 25( 1):20-25.
Pizam, Abraham, Yoram Neuman, and Arie Reichel
1978 Dimensions of Tourist Satisfaction with a Destination Area. Annals of Tourism
Research 5(3):314-322.
Polacek. Michal. and Rudolnh Aroch
1984 Analysis of Cultural Sights Attractiveness for Tourism. The Tourist Review
39(4):17-18.
Price, Richard L.
1980 A Geography of Tourism: Settlement and Landscape on the Sardinian Littoral.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Oregon.
Relph, Edward
1976 Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.
Ritchie, J. R. Brent, and Catherine E. Aitken
1985 Olympulse II-Evolving Resident Attitudes Towards the 1988 Olympic Winter
Games. Journal ofTrave Research 23(3):28-33.
Ritchie, J. R. Brent, and Michael Zinns
1978 Culture as a Determinant of the Attractiveness of a Tourism Region. Annals of
Tourism Research 5(2):252-267.
Robinson, H. .4.
1976 A Geographv of Tourism. London: Macdonald & Evans.
Rodenburg, Ey . ’
1980 The Effects of Scale on Economic Develooment: Tourism in Bali. Annals of
Tourism Research 7(2):177-196.
Schmidt, Catherine
1979 The Guided Tour. Urban Life 7(4):441-467.
Senior, Robert
1982 The World Travel Market. London: Euromonitor.
 ALAN LEW 575

Shih, David
1986 VALS As A Tool of Tourism Market Research: The Pennsylvania Experience.
Journal of Travel Research 24(4):2- 11.
Smith, Stephen L. J.
1985 Location Patterns of Urban Restaurants. Annals of Tourism Research
12(4):581-602.
Smith, Valene L., ed.
1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Thompson, John R., and Phillip D. Cooper
1979 Additional Evidence on the Limited Size of Evoked and Inept Sets of Travel
Destinations. Journal of Travel Research 17(3):23-5.
U.S. Department of Commerce
1981 Creating Economic Growth and Jobs Through Travel and Tourism.
Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development
Administration.
Van Veen, Walle M. Oppedijk, and Theo W. M. Verhallen
1986 Vacation Market Segmentation: A Domain-Specific Value Approach. Annals
of Tourism Research 13(1):37-58.
Wahab, Salah, L. J. Crampon, and L. M. Rothfield
1976 Tourism Marketing: A Destination-Oriented Programme for the Marketing of
International Tourism. London: Tourism International Press.
White, Kenneth J.
1985 An International Travel Demand Model: US Travel to Western Europe.
Annals of Tourism Research 12(4):529-545.
Witter, Brenda Sternquist
1985 Attitudes About a Resort Area: A Comoarison of Tourist and Local Retailers.
Iournal of Travel Research 24(1):14-19.
Woodside, Arch G., Ellen M. Moore, Mark A. Bonn, and Donald G. Wizeman
1986 Segmenting the Timeshare Resort Market. Journal of Travel Research
24(3):6-12.
Woodside, Arch G., Ilkka Ronkainen, and David M. Reid
1977 Measurement and Utilization of the Evoked Set as a Travel Marketing
Variable. In The 80’s_Its Impact on Travel and Tourism Marketing. Eighth
annual conference proceedings, The Travel research Association, June 12- 15,
Scottsdale, Arizona, pp. 123-130. Salt Lake City: TTRA.
World Tourism Organization
1980a Evaluating Tourism Resources. Madrid: WTO
1980b Tourist Images. Madrid: WTO.

Submitted 26 November 1985

First revised version submitted 23 Tune 1986
Second revised version submitted SO January 1987
Third revised version submitted 29 May 1987
.4ccepted 16 June 1987
Refereed anonymously

View publication stats