Merson Meany aera Gareth Shaw and Allan M. WilliamsIBG STUDIES IN GEOGRAPHY General Editors Felix Driver and Neil Roberts IBG Studies in Geography are a range of stimulating texts which cri- tically summarize the latest developments across the entire field of geography. Intended for students around the world, the series is published by Blackwell Publishers on behalf of the Institute of Brit- ish Geographers. Published Debt and Development Stuart Corbridge The Changing Geography of China Frank Leeming Critical Issues in Tourism Gareth Shaw and Allan M. Williams The European Community Allan M. Williams In preparation Geography and Gender Liz Bondi Population Geography A. G. Champion, A. Findlay and E, Graham Rural Geography Paul Cloke The Geography of Crime and Policing Nick Fyfe Fluvial Geomorphology Keith Richards Russia in the Modern World Denis Shaw A Geography of Housing Susan Smith The Sources and Uses of Energy John Soussan Retail Restructuring Neil Wrigley CRITICAL ISSUES IN TOURISM A Geographical Perspective Gareth Shaw and Allan M. Williams BLACKWELL (afed UR & Combrdge USAOne Introduction Tourism and Leisure: Definitions and Relationships The aim of this book is to outline critical issues in the study of the geography of tourism. While an interdisciplinary approach is adop- ted, the principal focus is on acknowledged areas of concern of geo- graphy, namely landscape space, place and locality. These are approached via tourism, and of resultant and contextual tourism environments. In addition, tourism is placed within the context of leisure. Leisure and tourism are closely related and one of the themes of this book is the links between them. There is, therefore, a need to set out their definitions. This is more difficult than first appears as there are a number of definitions of both concepts. Turning first to leisure, there are three main competing definitions to note (see de Grazia 1964; Kelly 1982; Patmore 1983, 5-6; Stockdale 1985, 13-14). These are based on time, activity and experience: © Leisure is juxtaposed with time which is functionally obligated to work, to biological needs such as eating or sleeping, or to other commitments such as travel to work. The residual time is con- sidered to be free time, and this is equated with leisure. Surveys suggest that in the European Community 15.7 per cent of an indi- vidual’s time, on average, is free time (figure 1.1). However, the notion of free time is itself ambiguous. Free time is usually used in the sense of ‘freedom from’ obligations such as work. This is quite different from the concept of ‘freedom to’ enjoy leisure; hence Rojek (1985, 13) states that ‘... the concept of free time has no intrinsic meaning’ with respect to leisure. It ignores the quality of the time available and the resources to allow participation in lei-4 Introduction Biological time Obligated time T% Figure 1.1 Individuals’ use of time in EC countries Source: World Tourism Organization (1983, 16) sure. Human agency is important, so that these vary between indi- viduals, while also having structural determinates such as class, life-cycle, race and gender. For example, the role of married women in the dual labour process (home and external workplace) means that the quality of time available to them is more frag- mented, as well as more spatially and socially constrained, than is the time available to married men (Hudson and Williams 1989, 112-15). Leisure is the time during which leisure activities are undertaken. This overlaps with the definition of recreation as the activities undertaken during leisure time. In this definition leisure takes on a strictly objective form — it is a list of activities proscribed by an external object such as a researcher or government department. Apart from a certain circularity in the argument, this definition is unsatisfactory because it assumes a false objectivity. Activities such as gardening or do-it-yourself home repairs may be regarded by different individuals as leisure or obligations. Introduction 5 e In response to the previous criticism, most recent research has viewed leisure as an attitude of mind (see, for example, Isa-Ahola 1980). It is the perception of activities by individuals which is important, for leisure is rooted in enjoyment, well-being and per- sonal satisfaction. Kelly (1982, 7) catches the essence of this defi- nition: ‘Leisure is defined by the use of time, not the time itself. It is distinguished by the meaning of the activity not its form’. Walk- ing may be an important leisure activity for some, but may be abhorred by others. Similarly, for some fortunate individuals, their jobs can be perceived as leisure. This approach implies that leisure activities are those freely entered into and which yield personal satisfaction. However, this notion can be misleading, for there are socially constructed boundaries to individual choices, based on social position, expectations and socialization. As Featherstone (1987, 115) states, ‘The significance and meaning of a particular set of leisure choices ... can only be made intelligible by inscribing them on a map of the class-defined social field of leisure and life- style practices in which their meaning and significance is relation- ally defined with reference to structured oppositions and differ- ences’. This experiential definition is the one that we have adopted in this book. The definition of tourism is also problematic. Gunn (1988), for example, considers that tourism includes all travelling except com- muting. This is too all-embracing, for it would involve not only all out-of-home recreation but also travelling for such purposes as visit- ing doctors. Another definition stresses that tourism involves travel- ling away from home for leisure purposes. It is therefore seen as a Subset of leisure and of recreation. For example, Kelly (1985) writes that tourism is ‘. . . recreation on the move, engaging in activity away from home in which the travel is at least part of the satisfaction sought’. There is ambiguity here in that it is not clear whether ‘away from home’ begins at the front door, involves a substantial journey of @ minimum length or implies an overnight stay away from home. The definition that we follow here is that preferred by international orga- nizations such as the World Tourism Office, which is that tourism includes all travel that involves a stay of at least one night, but less than one year, away from home. This therefore includes travel for such purposes as visiting friends or relatives, or to undertake busi- ness. _ The definition of tourism adopted is an objective one which stands in contrast to the experiential definition that we have favoured for Ieisure. However, it is the definition most commonly in use within a6 Introduction the literature on tourism. More importantly, we do not believe that pleasure tourism can be studied in isolation from other forms of tourism such as business travel. The economics of the air travel and the accommodation industries, for example, are based on the carriage of both business and holiday tourists. Furthermore, it is common for business tourists to enjoy leisure activities during their trips. We have therefore made the leisure tourist the principal focus of this book. But we also argue that this sector cannot be adequately understood without considering leisure as a whole, as well as the tangential and sometimes overlapping business tourism sector (see figure 1.2). Much of the previous literature on tourism, leisure and recreation has developed as separate strands of research and teaching, often with very few points of contacts (see Fedler 1987). One of the aims of this book is to help to rectify this imbalance. We would not go so far as to agree with Jansen-Verbeke and Dietvorst (1987, 263) that ‘... in the perception of the individual at least, the distinction between recreation and tourism is becoming irrelevant’, but the perceptions are increasingly linked. There are a number of points at which tour- ism and (non-tourism) leisure are interrelated, and neither can be Leisure Leisure Leisure Leisure Leisure Leisur 2g 5 a o a e is 2 a a 2; 5 Q Business Non-tourism tourism leisure Leisure Leisure | ainsie7 ainsie7 einsje7 eunsie7 eunsieq eunsieq ‘@1Ns|e7] euNnsie7] eunsie7 ensie7 einsje7 eunsie7 Figure 1.2 Conceptualization of tourism, leisure and recreation study Introduction 7 adequately understood without reference to the other. First, they are tied together in the same time-space framework. Individuals’ lives, measured as trajectories through time, have a certain structure. Work and other functional obligations mean that there is a rhythm to the time available for leisure — leastwise for most people. The total amount and the quality (degree of fragmentation, possibility of inter- ruptions by functional obligations such as family care etc.) varies through the day, the week, the year and the life-cycle. Work and family/household obligations are the most important influences, but these are not deterministic. Most individuals have the potential to” yary the amount of time that they devote to leisure, by reorganizing the time that they spend on other activities. As tourism involves a minimum of one night spent away from home, this activity is only possible during certain blocks of time available for leisure. While this is an absolute irreducible, the propensity to participate in tourism during certain blocks of time changes with levels of economic devel- opment. For example, technological advances in travel may make it attractive to take short tourism breaks. In addition, tourism and non-tourism leisure make demands upon the same household budget. If the disposable income available is inadequate to satisfy both sets of demand, then they are in a sub- stitutional relationship. The degree of substitution depends on the socio-psychological motivations of the individual. Thus the desire to discover new places via tourism is not easily substituted by locally based recreation. However, there is a reasonably close degree of sub- stitutability between playing golf while on holiday and doing so locally. Costs also effect substitutability. A leisure good for the home may only be afforded by foregoing a major holiday, or vice versa. Finally, the objects of both tourism and local leisure activities are socially constructed (Urry 1990). It is sometimes suggested that their respective constructions are not only independent but diagonally opposed. Gunn (1988, 13), for example, states that ‘Because recrea- tion is value-loaded (healthful, purposeful), its proponents often view tourism, with its emphasis on consumerism and commercialism, as an adversary’. However, most evidence suggests that there are links between their social constructions. Some of the enjoyable experiences of a holiday may be built into the social construction of what com- Prises desirable local Icisurc. Examples include dry ski slopes and French-style bistros. Alternatively, the experience of local leisure affects the social construction of tourism. For example, the impor- tance attached to in-home electronic entertainment equipment leads to the expectation that television sets, and even videos, should be Provided in tourist accommodation. More fundamentally, Urry ee8 Introduction (1990) argues that innovations in local leisure ~ such as theme parks and leisure centres — have contributed to British seaside holiday resorts losing their exotic allure, appearing to offer only commonplace experiences. The relationship between tourism and locally based lei- \ sure is not fixed: it is culturally and economically contingent. The expectations of participation in leisure and tourism, as well as the economics of their supply, change over time and between societies: this is only to be expected as they are socially constructed. Further- more, leisure is culturally specific, being influenced by culture as well | as being an important clement in culture. One of the most obvious | examples was the prioritization given by Protestantism to work over most forms of leisure. ~The relationship between tourism and leisure is also historically specific (Rojek 1985, 23-9). Until the twentieth century, for example, the costs of travel, the limited availability of holidays, and the abso- lute levels of incomes meant that tourism was essentially a preserve of the upper classes and some of the middle classes, even in the most developed countries. There was, therefore, a clear class basis as to who could participate in both tourism and leisure. The relationship between tourism and leisure has also been affected by what has been termed ‘time-deepening’. There are three aspects of time-deepening; ‘.. undertaking an activity more quickly or satisfying some need through an activity more quickly, undertaking more than one activity simultaneously, and using time more precisely’ (Gobey 1985, 19). The post-1950 era of mass consumption in the developed countries saw an increase not only in the number of goods that people owned but also in the number of leisure activities that they participated in. This was greatly facilitated by improvements in personal mobility, especially the extension of car ownership. At least of equal impor- tance was a change in people’s aspirations. There was a parallel, and linked, series of changes in tourism in the developed world in the post-1950 period. Mass tourism only came into existence in the 1950s, but it was part of the major shift which occurred in consumption and in expectations regarding con- sumption. This was to change further in the 1960s with the growth of mass international tourism, particularly from Europe and the USA. At first, the destination countries were mainly in the Caribbean or involved other European countries. However, by the 1980s mass tourism from these countries, and from new sources such as Japan, was being extended to a wide range of countries in the Third World. This affected both the attraction of traditional tourist destinations and participation in local leisure activities. One of the central contentions of this volume is the need to place Introduction 9 the study of tourism in context of leisure. The following sections underline this point by briefly reviewing their interrelated roles in economic development, the quality of life and lifestyles, and culture. This also serves to emphasize that tourism is not a peripheral aspect of local, national or global economy and society. Instead, it is critical to all of these and to the spheres of both production and consump- tion. Economic Structures: Commodification and Privatization The importance of the services sector has grown in both absolute and relative terms in most countries in recent decades. In the USA, for example, there was a 12 per cent increase between 1947 and 1980 in the proportion of all employment which was in this sector (Knox and Agnew 1989, 183). While this is often linked to the process of dein- dustrialization, this is an ethnocentric view founded in the experi- ences of the developed countries. For example, because of the impact of technological change, many of the more recently industrialized countries have not developed large manufacturing sectors in employ- ment terms (Urry 1987, 5-6). In addition, some less developed coun- tries have based their development strategies on the service industries — whether offshore financial services as in the Bahamas, or tourism as in the Seychelles. The previous neglect of the services sector has been remedied to some extent in recent years. In particular, the producer services have been extensively analysed for their role in capital accumulation and uneven development (see, for example, Marshall 1989). However, the consumer services have tended to be ignored, despite the fact that they consistently feature amongst the most rapid growth sectors in most developed countries (see Urry 1987, 11). One of the sectors of most rapid growth is undoubtedly tourism and leisure services (see Cham- pion and Townsend 1990, on the UK). Their economic importance is considerable. Thus, in 1985 international and domestic tourism alone accounted for global expenditure equivalent to $1800 billion (Gunn 1988, 3), and the leisure industries for an even higher level. Tourism and leisure are also important elements in labour markets, With tourism accounting for more than one million jobs in the UK alone. Although there is a considerable debate about the nature of tourism employment (Williams and Shaw 1988), this has not dimin- ished its attraction to politicians and economic planners seeking rapid Tesponses to the growth of unemployment which has accompanied the recurrent crises in capitalist economies. There is also a need to _.._