Journal of Vacation Marketing Volume 11 Number 1
The role of tourist icons for sustainable tourism
Susanne Becken
Received (in revised form): June 2004
Landcare Research, PO Box 69, Lincoln 8152, New Zealand
Tel: 0064 3-325 6701 3697; Fax: 0064 3-325 2127; E-mail: beckens@landcareresearch.co.nz
Dr Susanne Becken is working as a tourism
researcher with Landcare Research New Zealand
in the Sustainable Business Group, and as a part-
time lecturer at Lincoln University in the Environ-
ment, Society and Design Division. Her main inter-
ests include international and global tourist flows,
tourists’ resource consumption behaviour and the
interface of climate change and tourism. She has
published her research on energy use of tourism
and tourism’s contribution to climate change in
major international journals. She is also serving as
a guest editor for the Journal of Sustainable Tour-
ism, on which she is also on the editorial board.
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS: tourist icons, tourist flows,
regional development, tourist itineraries
This paper provides a discussion of tourist icons as
pull factors of a destination and problems associated
with icons. According to interviews held with major
wholesalers in Australia and inbound tour operators
in New Zealand, tourist icons vary in importance
to different segments of the market, with coach
tourists placing more importance on icons than free
independent travellers. Moreover, the need to base
overseas marketing on icons depends on the matur-
ity of the targeted market. A tourist survey in New
Zealand revealed that Milford Sound and Rotorua
were indeed the most commonly known attractions,
but that in addition to these two key icons, tourists
were attracted to natural features in general, such as
mountains and glaciers.
This paper argues that an overemphasis on
tourist icons potentially leads to unsustainable
tourism development, for the following reasons:
tourists travel large distances to visit the spatially
very dispersed tourist icons, and this results in
considerable amounts of greenhouse gas emissions,
even if they visit New Zealand for a short period
of time; the high visitation levels at popular sites
result in infrastructural bottlenecks, reaching carry-
ing capacity, which results in potentially significant
environmental and social impacts; and the uneven
geographical distribution of tourism spending is a
missed opportunity for much-needed regional
development. The current ‘100% Pure’ campaign
by Tourism New Zealand potentially contributes
to a more holistic promotion of New Zealand as
an attractive ‘natural landscape’ destination.
INTRODUCTION
Tourist icons are major pull factors of a
destination that attract the attention of po-
tential tourists. For many years, New Zeal-
and has capitalised on major tourist icons
such as Milford Sound, Maori culture and
geothermal attractions at Rotorua, the Wait-
omo glow-worm caves, and Mount Cook.
The existence of tourist icons, especially
when they are geographically dispersed, pre-
determines tourist itineraries to a large de-
gree. The consequences are a potentially
substantial resource consumption associated
with tourist transport, local hot-spots and
regional imbalances. This paper discusses
these issues in the New Zealand context.
Journal of Vacation Marketing
WHAT ARE TOURIST ICONS AND WHO Vol. 11 No. 1, 2005, pp. 21–30,
& SAGE Publications
MAKES THEM? London, Thousand Oaks, CA,
Icons are typically the major tourist attrac- and New Delhi.
www.sagepublications.com
tions at a destination; they are ‘natural or DOI: 10.1177/1356766705050840
Page 21
The role of tourist icons for sustainable tourism
built assets that are widely accepted by
visitors as important tourist attractions or
experiences’.1 In other words icons are ‘land-
marks that are instantly recognisable’2 and
often they are ‘famous because they are
famous’.3 Sometimes other features of a des-
tination reach iconic status, for example
destination-specific movies or famous indivi-
duals who function as a stimulus to visit the
region linked to this person.4 Tourist icons
are often used in marketing for ‘objective
positioning’ when a destination uses a un-
ique feature (eg the Grand Canyon) to posi-
tion itself in the market.5 ‘Subjective
positioning’ goes further by utilising these
icons to evoke specific feelings, for example
awe or admiration.
Tourist icons are the result of a long-term
process that involves marketing agencies,
operators and tourists. Mass media and tour
operators often use icons to attract the atten-
tion of potential customers. Tourists who
instantly recognise famous places showcased
on a brochure or other promotional material
are more likely to purchase the product.6
Icons are those attractions at a destination
that have reached ‘sacred state’ following a
five-step process of attraction development.7
Building upon MacCannell’s work, Pearce
et al.8 renamed the five sequential stages as
resource identification, marketing emphasis,
interpretation, sales and merchandising and
broader community use. Public and private
stakeholders play a role in this process by
developing and commodifying an attraction
and thereby constructing a ‘tourist gaze’.9
The tourist gaze describes tourists’ behaviour
to consume primarily visually and ‘anticipate
[. . .] intense pleasures’ when encountering
aspects that are ‘out of the ordinary’.
Photography is a major factor in the con-
struction of the gaze, because it has the
power to reinforce or even construct the
gaze associated with a specific site or sight.10
The constructed ‘tourist gaze’ is standardised
in guidebooks in the form of stereotypical
sights and routes that appeal to a wide range
of tourists.11 The process of ‘site sacrilisation’
and the tourist gaze can also be linked to the
‘circle of representation’,12 in which tourists
record their own experiences of famous sites
Page 22
in the form of photographs (objectifying the
experience and allowing reproduction).
These photographs are typically shown to
their friends or relatives at home, which
reinforces the circle by further promoting
the icon.
Recognising the importance of one or a
few icons that represent a country, the South
African Tourism Organisation (SATour) has
started to search for a national icon that
symbolises the country in tourism marketing
campaigns.13 This process involves local
authorities, the tourism industry and other
stakeholders, and is a top-down approach to
icon development. Similarly, the Western
Australian Tourism Commission (WATC)
emphasised the importance of tourist icons as
most effective attractions to generate eco-
nomic activity in the wider region. But the
WATC also emphasised that instead of hav-
ing a stand-alone icon, it is preferable to take
a cluster approach and support development
around the icon to be able to draw more
visitors to the area. They also note that
‘relevant dispersal strategies’ need to be in
place, recognising the trade-off between sup-
porting key locations versus the develop-
ment of a region as a whole.14
ICONS IN NEW ZEALAND
In a jubilee publication to celebrate the
100th anniversary of New Zealand’s national
tourism organisation, Tourism New Zealand
(TNZ)15 noted that the ‘early attractions
have become icons of the New Zealand
tourism industry today. . . these icons still
possess the same natural beauty that attracted
the first tourists more than 100 years ago’.
The best-known early attractions are the spas
in Rotorua (Figure 1), Milford Sound in
Fiordland (Figure 2), Mount Cook and the
Waitomo caves.
All these early attractions were ‘discov-
ered’ for tourism in the 1880s, starting with
small tourism operations — often a govern-
ment-owned hotel — and are today visited
by hundreds of thousands of tourists annually
(Table 1).
 Becken

METHODS Advertisement for Rotorua in the 1950s Figure 1

Four independent studies were carried out to
investigate the importance of tourist icons in
New Zealand as part of a broader project on
sustainable tourist itineraries. First, 201 inter-
national tourists were surveyed and inter-
viewed about their travel behaviour and
decision making. Their previous knowledge
about New Zealand as well as their per-
ceived highlights were investigated to gain
some knowledge about the importance of
icons. Secondly, 13 semi-structured inter-
views were held with major Australian
wholesalers, inbound tour operators and
travel agents who sell New Zealand in their
product line. A key interest in these inter-
views was the itinerary development for
package tours. A similar study (mail-back
survey) was undertaken in New Zealand on Source: TNZ, 2002
inbound tour operators for coach tours, in-
volving 13 operators. Finally, eight semi-
structured interviews were held with tourism Photograph of Milford Sound in Fiordland Figure 2
stakeholders in New Zealand. The selected
stakeholders from government, marketing
and industry reflect a wide range of roles in
the tourism sector.16 The focus of these
interviews was energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions, and the role of
tourist icons in this context was investigated,
as well as New Zealand’s dependency of
marketing on tourist icons and its influence
on tourist itineraries. The four different stud-
ies, their relevant sections referring to icons
and a reference for a more detailed outline of
the methods employed and results achieved
are presented in Table 2.17

RESULTS
The importance of icons
All four studies confirmed the importance of
tourist icons, although generally tour opera-
tors rated their importance higher than tour-
ists themselves. In the tourist survey, a large
number of interviewees had planned to see
the main icons of Milford Sound and Rotor-
ua. But most tourists had a much wider
perception of what they wanted to see or do
while in New Zealand. For example, ‘camp-
ing tourists’ (for a full analysis of tourist
types, see Becken et al.18 ) wanted to see
mountains and glaciers or specific sub-desti-
nations (eg the Bay of Islands). Other tourist
types, for example ‘rental car tourists’ and
‘backpackers’, seemed more attracted to ico-
nic sites than ‘camping tourists’. Highlights
reported by tourists in this survey were only
sometimes the tourist icons (usually Milford
Sound), but more often specific personal
experiences (eg hiking, rafting etc) or general

Page 23
The role of tourist icons for sustainable tourism

Table 1: Early tourist attractions in New Zealand

Tourism development of main icons
Rotorua 1880s Government developed Rotorua as thermal resort
1902 First balneologist in Rotorua
1908 Rotorua bathhouse built
2002 More than 500,000 visitors
Milford Sound 1888 Land route found from Te Anau by McKinnon and Mitchell
1888/1889 40 walkers on track
1891 First chalet accommodation
2002 More than 4,000 walkers on track and 410,000 visitors per year; 50 coaches
per day
Mount Cook 1882 First climbers
1884 Hermitage Hotel built
1894 First ascent of Mount Cook
1914 New Hermitage Hotel
1915 Skiing started
1922 Slogan ‘100 feet above worry level’
2002 Over 300,000 visitors per year
Waitomo Caves 1884 River entrance to glow-worm cave shown to Mace
1888 First visitors taken into the caves
1889/1890 360 visitors
1904 Waitomo Hotel built
2000 350,000 visitors to the glow-worm caves
Source: TNZ, 2002

Table 2: Studies drawn upon for this paper

Study Sample frame Icon-relevant question Reference
Tourist survey in International holiday tourists in What did tourists know Becken, 2003
New Zealand Christchurch or Auckland about NZ and what was
(Nov.–Jan. 2002/2003) their highlight?
[N ¼ 201]
Interview with Wholesalers selling NZ in Australia Importance of icons for Becken, 2004a
wholesalers in (Feb. 2003) [N ¼ 13] itinerary planning?
Australia
Survey/interviews ITO members of ITOC Importance of icons for Staudt, 2003
with inbound (March 2003) [N ¼ 13] itinerary planning?
tour operators
Stakeholder Advisory Group members to Potential for less icon- Becken, 2004b
interviews in FRST programme (Oct. 2003) dependent marketing and
New Zealand [N ¼ 8] regional itineraries?

natural features, such as the mountains, gla-
ciers or rainforest. From the tourist survey it
appeared that tourists are aware of the main
icons (as ‘emotive hooks’19 ), but both their
expectations and their holiday experiences
go far beyond visiting the few icons pre-
sented in Table 1.
Tour operators — both in Australia and in
New Zealand — noted that the inclusion of
icons in tourist itineraries is important, but
depends on the market. For example, budget
tours from Australia are more focused on
icons and ‘seeing as much as possible’ than
up-market tours that place more emphasis

Page 24
 Becken

on experience and indulgence. Similarly, in- PROBLEMS WITH TOURIST ICONS

bound tour operators (ITOs) in New Zeal- The existence of tourist icons predetermines
and stated that they perceived the Asian tourist itineraries, potentially resulting in
market as wanting to ‘see a lot in a short several negative effects, as outlined below.
time’, especially famous places, whereas the
special-interest market was believed to prefer
visiting locations off the beaten track.20 The
interviews revealed that the more mature the Energy consumption as a result of
market, the less icon-dependent is the mar- extensive travel
keting. Australian wholesalers increasingly If the icons are geographically dispersed —
try to include semi-iconic locations in their which is the case in many touring destina-
itineraries, which is challenging because tions (eg Australia, the USA, South Africa,
these lack an international reputation and China etc) — tourists have to travel large
infrastructure (quality accommodation), and distances to visit them. This may be incon-
may not meet tourist expectations. venient for the tourist, expensive and very
When asked about important factors for resource-intensive. In Australia, for example,
itinerary development, ITOs ranked eco- linking the main tourist icons of Sydney,
nomic and logistic factors highest, for exam- Ayers Rock, the Gold Coast and the Great
ple costs of transport (coach versus air Barrier Reef involves travel of over 8,000
travel), costs of accommodation, existing air km. In New Zealand, the two main icons of
links and the availability of coaches and Rotorua and Milford Sound are about 1,500
good-quality accommodation. Including km apart, and including both attractions in
tourist icons in the itinerary was also impor- one itinerary results in considerable travel.
tant, but only when the more basic exigen- The tourist survey revealed that tourists tra-
cies were solved (Figure 3). velled between 2,700 km (visiting friends

Factors that are important for itinerary development by ITOs: mean and standard deviation Figure 3

Average
7.0
SD
6.0

5.0
Likert scale rating

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
Available coaches
Accessibility

Previous experience
accommodation

$ accommodation
Icon attraction

Off the beaten

Length of tour

$ attractions

Air links

Experience of
$ transport

attractions
Available

track

Page 25
The role of tourist icons for sustainable tourism

and relatives tourists (VFR)) and 3,900 km
(camping and backpacker tourists). The
average energy use per tourist for transport
was about 3,990 MJ, which is equivalent to
116 litres of petrol and the emission of 275
kg of carbon dioxide. One reason for this
travel might be the location of tourist icons,
especially in combination with tourists’ per-
ception of New Zealand as being a small
country and easy to travel. Moreover, tour-
ists across all tourist types stated that they
enjoy ‘travelling between places’ and they
typically want to see both the North and the
South Islands, hence a deep-rooted expecta-
tion and image of New Zealand as a touring
destination (Table 3).
Figure 4: Buses on the Milford road
Source: Carey, 2003
Ecological and social sensitivity at
tourist icon locations
High visitation levels at ‘hot-spots’ often
result in environmental and social impacts,
pressure on the local infrastructure and user
conflicts. The sensitivity of the environment
and the attitude of the community towards
tourism have an important influence on the
impact caused by tourism.21 Milford Sound
is the most pressing New Zealand example
of an iconic site reaching carrying capacity,
although there is fierce debate about the
exact number of tourists at which entrance
should be denied.22 This debate highlights
the controversy around the concept of carry-
ing capacity and the need for indicators to
assess the limits of acceptable change, a more
recent concept for visitor impact manage-
ment. The ever-increasing flows of tourists
to Milford Sound face congestion on the
access road and insufficient facilities (eg toi-
lets and sewage system), and as a result
visitors complain about overuse and crowd-
ing (eg aircraft noise and ‘queuing’). In the
peak season there are up to 50 buses and
4,000 visitors in the Sound per day (Figure
4), which poses the risk of destroying the
experience tourists wish to have at Milford
Sound.23
Some interviewed stakeholders suggested
that icons have to be better managed so that
they function as hubs with appropriate tour-
ist infrastructure, and as a result other loca-
tions are not exposed to undesired tourism

Table 3: Travel attitudes of tourists on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5

(strongly disagree) (means)
NZ is a small It is worth New Zealand
I enjoy travelling I want to see as country and easy travelling only is easy to
between places much as I can to cover as a whole one island travel**
Coach 2.0 2.2 2.8 3.4 1.6
VFR 1.6 1.7 2.0 3.7 1.8
Auto 1.9 2.6 2.7 3.3 2.1
Backpacker 1.7 2.3 2.2 3.3 1.6
Camper 1.6 2.6 2.4 3.3 1.6
Comfort 1.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 1.9
** Highly significant difference between tourist types (ANOVA, p , 0.001)

Page 26

development. While Milford Sound is an
example of environmental impacts resulting
from tourist visitation (and possibly social
impacts on tourists), Rotorua is an example
of potential impacts on the community and
especially on Maori culture.
Regional development
Tourism is increasingly seen as a catalyst for
regional development, and a number of
studies and projects have investigated how
tourism could support development in per-
ipheral regions.24 Zhang and Murphy,25 for
example, discussed four different models for
regional tourism development in Victoria,
Australia, and Yunnan, China, concluding
that government policies have considerable
influence on how international tourism de-
velops and how stakeholders in the regions
perceive growth, the dispersion of develop-
ment, metropolitan control and major factors
for development. Possible risks associated
with tourism development in peripheral re-
gions have been discussed by Hohl and
Tisdell.26 These include vulnerable social
structures (often involving indigenous peo-
ples), economic leakages to the economic
centre, environmental degradation and car-
rying capacity issues, seasonality and a nar-
row customer base.
Because tourists are drawn mainly to ico-
nic sites, in their limited time and/or budgets
there is little room to visit less well-known
but possible equally attractive, less-crowded
destinations. Hence the promotion of tourist
icons at a destination is usually at the expense
of secondary locations, which are disadvan-
taged in their tourism development. The
survey of international tourists showed that
camping and backpacker tourists were more
regionally dispersed than other tourist types
(measured as diversity of overnight loca-
tions). Coach tourists, in contrast, were rela-
tively concentrated in the main gateways and
tourist icons.
The stakeholder interviews showed that
New Zealand marketing agencies seek to
move away from promoting icons, but inter-
viewees noted that the private sector tends to
continue promoting the most famous sites,
Becken
often because large companies profit from
existing structures and also because it is easier
to sell what the ‘customer recognises’. The
current national marketing by TNZ and
recent initiatives by RTOs aim to diversify
the product so that secondary attractions are
included in itineraries and tourists are en-
couraged to stay longer. TNZ’s strategy is to
promote regions by identifying regional
icons that help convince overseas trade to
package products that contain the specific
region. Once a region is well known among
wholesalers and tourists it is possible to pro-
mote regional itineraries that help to take
pressure off traditional icons and stimulate
regional development. RTOs support trends
towards inclusion of non-mass-market loca-
tions, for example by familiarisation tours
and promotional material. The viewpoints of
major stakeholders concerning tourist icons
are compiled in Table 4.
CONCLUSION
There are benefits associated with promoting
one or several icons that symbolise a country
and make the destination immediately re-
cognisable in promotional material. These
benefits, however, can be juxtaposed with
disadvantages associated with tourist icons
(Table 5).
In the case of a destination with a limited
number of geographically dispersed tourist
icons there are several risks inherent in rely-
ing too much on these icons for tourism
development. In these cases, the degree to
which the tourist icon provides overall ben-
efits or impacts depends on several factors,
for example:
— sensitivity of the environment and the
carrying capacity or limits of acceptable
change of the ecosystem in which the
icon is located
— accessibility and distance to supporting
tourist infrastructure (eg accommoda-
tion)
— existence of a cluster of attractions
around the tourist icons to maximise
wider benefits for the region
— community attitude, support and partici-
Page 27
The role of tourist icons for sustainable tourism

Table 4: Role of major stakeholders in relation to icons (+ positive or – negative

relationship)
Stakeholder Key role Relationship to icons
Tourism New Marketing of + use(d) icons as key pull factors in overseas marketing
Zealand destination (universal) + regional icons
+ effective marketing

want to diversify product and image

increase visitor activity and spending by providing
quality products
Regional tourism Marketing of region + icon in the region is initial pull factor for tourists
organisations (universal, and specific + icon to promote the region within New Zealand
where possible),
want to encourage regional development
distribute benefits in
have greater influence on itineraries
the region
increase length of stay

increase visitor spending by quality products
Operators (eg Promote their products + use icons to promote destination
inbound tour + continue icon-based itineraries, easy decision making
operators and and want to sell what customers know
other providers)
pressure that tourists want to see all the icons and have
to build their itinerary accordingly

difficult to introduce new locations or attractions
Tourists Consume products, + exposed to marketing, easy decision making
services, experiences + collect unique sights
+ status; tourist gaze

want to go off the beaten track

demand greater experience

special interest, niches

Table 5: Pros and cons of tourist icons

Pros
Instant recognition (‘hook’)
Universal marketing (mass tourism)
Effective promotion with spin-off effects
Serve as growth pole
Provide infrastructure that is demanded by
tourists
Concentration of visitors (better management?)
Differentiate regions
Cons
Create clichés
Prevent more sophisticated marketing and
diversified products
Predetermine itineraries with large travel distances
when several dispersed icons
Only a limited number of growth poles
Counteract regional development
Concentration of visitors leads to local impacts
Disadvantage regions that do not have one single
famous icon

Page 28

pation in tourism development and the
degree to which the icon is internally or
locally controlled.
A destination has some (but limited) room
to choose the icons it wishes to promote,
and also the balance at which icons are pro-
moted compared with other non-iconic at-
tractions or sites. In an earlier study, Pearce27
suggested that overseas marketing should
consider how the destination is marketed
and to whom, and noted that in the New
Zealand situation growth in the Asian and
North American markets is likely to lead to
uneven development in favour of metropoli-
tan areas and main attractions, at the expense
of regional areas. When building an image
and ‘constructing the gaze’ by using icons it
is useful to take into account that different
types of tourists gaze differently, and there-
fore are attracted to different kinds of iconic
locations. Backpackers, for example, were
found to seek particular views and reproduce
them,28 which in the case of New Zealand
differ slightly from the general icons. For
example, backpackers greatly anticipate par-
taking in activities such as bungee jumping
in Queenstown, kayaking in the Abel Tas-
man National Park and hiking the Tongariro
Crossing (increasingly branded as ‘the best
one-day walk in the world’). More research
in the multidimensionality of tourist icons
would be useful in this regard, with a specific
focus on what types of icons are ubiquitous
and which ones are market-specific.
Recently, New Zealand with its ‘100%
Pure NZ’ and the ‘interactive traveller’ cam-
paign has sought to diversify its image and
move away from simply showing iconic
locations that are gazed. Instead, current
promotional material shows active visitors
who engage with the environment (the ‘in-
teractive traveller’). Because this type of
tourist experience requires greater involve-
ment by tourists, it is envisaged that these
tourists will stay longer and as a result spend
more. This experience-focused promotion
(as opposed to a product-based promotion29 )
has the potential to diversify tourist flows,
decrease pressure on tourist icons and enable
regions to participate in tourism develop-
Becken
ment. Tourists who are more interested in
experiencing the destination in a qualitative
rather than quantitative way potentially trav-
el shorter distances compared with those
who want to maximise visiting the country’s
icons. It is possible that the current cam-
paigns have recognised an actual trend of
international tourists, while the industry re-
presented by wholesalers and ITOs fails to
adapt to these new markets. It is re-
commended that more in-depth research is
undertaken on the gap in (perceived) impor-
tance of tourist icons on the part of tourists
and the tourist industry.
There is no universal recipe for the degree
to which a destination could or should build
their marketing around a selected number of
tourist icons. In the case of New Zealand,
this study has shown that there is advantage
in shifting away from promoting mainly four
tourist icons across the country. The benefits
from more diversified marketing lie in the
potential reduction of energy consumption,
the reduction of hot-spots with local impacts
and the potential for regional development.
New Zealand is in a good position to attract
less icon-oriented tourists because of its ex-
tremely diverse environment and culture, its
potential to satisfy tourists who seek quality
experiences and the continuously increasing
demand from international tourists wishing
to visit the country, which in turn allows
New Zealand to be more selective in terms
of who it wants to attract.
REFERENCES
(1) Western Australian Tourism Commission
(2002) ‘A new concept for regional tourism’,
discussion paper, www.westernaustralia.net.
(2) Smith, A. and Casey, C. (2001) ‘Icons of
travel’, The Age, 2nd April, www.theage.
com.au/travel/2001/04/02/
FFXEMI7J1LC.html.
(3) Urry, J. (1990) ‘The Tourist Gaze. Leisure
and Travel in Contemporary Societies’,
Sage Publications, London, p. 12.
(4) Pearce, P., Morrison, A. and Moscardo, G.
(2003) ‘Individuals as tourist icons: A devel-
opmental and marketing analysis’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 10, Nos 1/2, pp.
63–85.
Page 29
The role of tourist icons for sustainable tourism
(5) Chacko, H. E. (1997) ‘Positioning a tour-
ism destination to gain a competitive edge’,
Hotel Online, www.hotel-online.com/Neo/
Trends/AsiaPacificJournal/
PositionDestination.html.
(6) Jenkins, O. H. (2003) ‘Photography and
travel brochures: The circle of representa-
tion’, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 5 Number
3, pp. 305–328.
(7) MacCannell, D. (1989) ‘The Tourist: A
New Theory of the Leisure Class’, 2nd edn,
Schocken, New York.
(8) Pearce et al., ref. 4 above.
(9) Urry, ref. 3 above, p. 3.
(10) Crawshaw, C. and Urry, J. (1997) ‘Tourism
and the photographic eye’, in Rojek, C.
and Urry, J. (eds) ‘Touring Cultures. Trans-
formations of Travel and Theory’, Rout-
ledge, London, pp. 176–195.
(11) Pagenstecher, C. (2003) ‘The construction
of the tourist gaze. How industrial was
post-war German tourism?’, www.eh.net/
XIIICongress/cd/papers/
4Pagenstecher392.pdf.
(12) Jenkins, ref. 6 above.
(13) Ntuli, D. (2003) ‘Hunt is on for SA’s defin-
ing symbol’, Sunday Times, 23rd February,
www.suntimes.co.za/2003/02/23/politics/
politics02.asp.
(14) Western Australian Tourism Commission,
ref. 1 above.
(15) Tourism New Zealand (2002) ‘1901 to
2001. 100 Years of Tourism’, Tourism
New Zealand, Wellington.
(16) Heath, E. (1999) ‘Key trends in destination
marketing: Lessons from global ‘‘best
practice’’ destinations’, in Ruddy, J. and
Flanagan, S. (eds) ‘Tourism Destination
Marketing. Gaining the Competitive Edge’,
Tourism Research Centre, Dublin Institute
of Technology, Dublin.
(17) Becken, S. (2003) ‘An integrated approach
to travel behaviour with the aim of develop-
ing more sustainable forms of tourism’,
Landcare Research Internal Report
LC0304/005, Landcare Research, Lincoln;
Becken, S. (2004a) ‘Potential for sustainable
tourist itineraries — An investigation into
Australian wholesalers’, Tourism Review Inter-
national Vol. 8, pp. 33–43; Staudt, B. (2003)
‘Coach tourism in New Zealand’, Freie wis-
senschaftliche Arbeit zur ;Erlangung des
Grades einer Diplom-Wirtschaftsgeogra-
Page 30
phin, Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität, Mu-
nich; Becken, S. (2004b) ‘Tourism
stakeholders’ attitudes towards 14 green-
house gas emission strategies’, paper pre-
sented to Second International Workshop
on Climate, Tourism and Recreation, Crete,
9th–12th June.
(18) Becken, S., Simmons, D. and Frampton, C.
(2003) ‘Segmenting tourists by their travel
pattern for insights into achieving energy
efficiency’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol.
42, No. 10, pp. 48–56.
(19) AC Nielsen (2002) ‘New Zealand product:
Potential and actual visitor feedback from
key markets’, report prepared for Tourism
New Zealand, November.
(20) Staudt, ref. 17 above.
(21) Horn, C. and Simmons, D. (2002) ‘Com-
munity adaptation to tourism: Comparison
between Rotorua and Kaikoura, New
Zealand’, Tourism Management, Vol. 23 No.
2, pp. 133–143.
(22) Coventry, N. (2003) ‘Inside tourism’, On-
line Magazine, No. 471, October.
(23) Carey, P. (2003) ‘Sound and fury’, The
Listener, 26th July, pp. 27–30.
(24) Briedenham, J. and Wickens, E. (2004)
‘Tourism routes as a tool for the economic
development of rural areas — Vibrant hope
or impossible dream?’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 71–79; Murphy, A. and
Williams, P. W. (1999) ‘Attracting Japanese
tourists into the rural hinterland: Implications
for rural development and planning’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 487–499.
(25) Zhang, Y. and Murphy, P. (2003) ‘The
application of regional development models
in China and Australia for tourism: A com-
parative study’, Pacific Tourism Review, 6, pp.
169–184.
(26) Hohl, A. E. and Tisdell, C. A. (1995)
‘Peripheral tourism. Development and
management’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 517–534.
(27) Pearce, D. (1990) ‘Tourism, the regions and
restructuring in New Zealand’, Journal of
Tourism Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 33–42.
(28) Jenkins, ref. 6 above.
(29) King, J. (2002) ‘Destination marketing or-
ganisations — Connecting the experience
rather than promoting the place’, Journal
of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.
105–108.