Tourism Geographies

An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment

ISSN: 1461-6688 (Print) 1470-1340 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20

Key issues in the conceptualization of tourism

destinations

Dobrica Zivadin Jovicic

To cite this article: Dobrica Zivadin Jovicic (2016) Key issues in the conceptualization of tourism
destinations, Tourism Geographies, 18:4, 445-457, DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2016.1183144

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1183144

Published online: 12 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1183

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtxg20

Download by: [179.95.49.228] Date: 16 October 2017, At: 06:22

 TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES, 2016
VOL. 18, NO. 4, 445 457
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1183144

RESEARCH FRONTIERS

Key issues in the conceptualization of tourism destinations

Dobrica Zivadin Jovicic
Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this paper is to review the evolution of how the Received 10 January 2016
term ‘destination’ has been used, critiqued, and analyzed. While the Accepted 8 April 2016
traditional view of a destination has largely focused geographical KEYWORDS
features and the systemic concept of tourism destinations has Tourism; geography;
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

focused on the interaction between tourists, the staff in industries development; destination;
providing tourism services, and the local population, more recent concept; system
conceptualizations of tourism destinations treat destinations as
complex adaptive systems that adapt to ever-changing economic, 关键词
political, and social trends. As well, recent work on integrative 旅游; 地理学; 发展;
目的地; 概念; 系统
conceptual frameworks of tourism destinations highlights
the importance of particular geographical elements in the
emergence and development of destinations which affect the
structure of the mode of production, the range of stakeholders
involved in tourism activity, and the entire process of destinations
evolution. Although the traditional geographic concept of
destination, from today’s point of view, is one-sided and not
comprehensive, geographical elements, however, are the nucleus
from which a tourism destination occurs and develops. In this
regard, it is indisputable that the geographical attributes of tourism
destinations represent the key component of their resource base.
This fact should be borne in mind in future conceptualizations of
destinations.

摘要
本文的研究目的是综述学界对目的地这个术语使用、评论与分析
的演变。尽管目的地的传统观点大多聚焦于目的地的地理特征, 同
时旅游目的地的系统概念强调旅游者、旅游业员工以及当地居民
之间的互动, 但最近对旅游目的地的概括更多地把目的地看作一个
复杂的适应系统, 响应瞬息万变的经济、政治与社会趋势。最近旅
游目的地整合性概念框架也强调特定地理要素在旅游目的地形成
与发展中的重要性, 这些地理要素影响目的地生产模式的结构、利
益相关者参与旅游活动的范围和目的地演化的整个过程。虽然目
的地传统的地理概念从当今的观点看是单方面的而且不是综合性
的, 但是地理要素是旅游目的地形成与发展的核心要素。就这一点
来说, 旅游目的地的地理属性代表了其资源基础的关键成分是不容
置疑的。这个事实在未来提炼旅游目的地的概念时不应忽视。

CONTACT Dobrica Zivadin Jovicic djovicic@gef.bg.ac.rs

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

 446 D. Z. JOVICIC

Introduction
Tourism as a field of study has been criticized as being atheoretical; that tourism studies
suffers from a ‘poverty of tourism theory’ because of both the dominance of economic
and policy research that privilege statistical analysis and mapping over the viewpoints of
cultural and social theorists, and the fragmentation of the field of study as a whole
(Franklin & Crang, 2001, pp. 5–6; see also Cohen, 1995; Lew, 2007; Lowry, Cartier, Back, &
Delconte, 2015; Nash, 1996). On the other hand, tourism studies has been criticized for
being too theoretical and lacking substantial empirical case studies to challenge prevailing
tourism theory in various tourism subfields (Cohen, 1995; Selby, 2004, p. 195; Truong &
Hall, 2015). While tourism scholars have struggled to maintain a balance between theory
and data, in recent years many tourism scholars have turned to reflecting on the current
status of research in many tourism subfields (Assaf & Josiassen, 2015; Bianchi, 2009; Butler,
1999; Frenzel, Koens, Steinbrink, & Rogerson, 2015; Ioannides, 2006; Leask, 2010; Nepal,
2009; Nepal & Chipeniuk, 2005; Richards, 2011a), which ‘state-of-the-art’ papers allow for
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

critical reflection and provide meaningful direction on the future of inter-disciplinary

research in various areas of tourism studies.
In line with other recent reviews on the literature on destinations (Pearce, 2014;
Saraniemi & Kyl€anen, 2011), the purpose of this paper is to review the way in which
research on tourism destinations has evolved over time. As an increasingly important factor
in international political and economic relations, hundreds of millions of people travel for
leisure and recreational purposes both domestically and internationally to one or more
‘destinations’. The term ‘destination’ is a problematic one, for while this term is probably
one of the most frequently used words in the tourism literature, the term has become so
common place that it has been taken-for-granted and therefore under analyzed (Pearce,
2014). While in recent years there have been a number of scholars who have undertaken
to define, delineate, and analyze tourism destinations, the term has seemed to spread con-
fusion rather than clarity because of systematical self-contradictions in the use of the word.
As Framke (2002, p. 98) questioned: ‘Is the destination an attraction, or a geographical unit,
or an empirical relationship or a marketing object, or a place where tourism happens…?’
This paper reviews the literature on various conceptualizations of destinations from the
1970s to the present day, and attempts to identify key destination concepts which have
significantly contributed to the development of theoretical thought in tourism. In particu-
lar, this literature can be broken down into five key approaches of views, which include:
classical, traditional views of destinations, destinations as an industrial district, the sys-
temic approach to tourism destinations, smart tourism destinations, and integrative con-
ceptual frameworks of tourism destinations.

The classical/traditional approach to tourism destinations

Initial research on tourism destinations (labeled here as the classical or traditional
approach to tourism destinations) focused on the study of the geographical characteristics
that defined a tourism destination. As Georgoulas (1970; quoted in Framke, 2002, p. 95)
noted, ‘Tourism as an industry occurs at destination areas areas with different natural
and/or man-made features, which attract non local visitors (or tourists) for a variety of
activities’. For Georgoulas, tourism destinations were places that contained various supply
 TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 447

elements that attracted tourists. Burkart and Medlik (1974) also viewed the destination in a
similar way, claiming that tourism destinations had a self-contained center, whether that
center was a specific town or city or larger in scale to include country or a continent. This
view was problematic in part because the geographic boundaries of these tourism desti-
nations were never delineated and could be simultaneously defined at multiple scales. It
was not until the 1990s that Heath and Wall (1992) would distinguish between tourism
destinations or localized spatial units of tourism development on the one hand, and tour-
ism regions on the other hand, which encompassed multiple localized destinations in
order to clarify the geographical boundaries of destinations.
In addition to understanding a destination as a particular geographic area, the classical
concept of a tourism destination was characterized by the view that tourism destinations
need to meet certain criteria in order to be considered a destination, and such criteria
include: having tourist attractions and accommodations as well as transport to, from, and
within the destination (Howie, 2003). Similarly, Gunn (1988) noted that tourism destina-
tions were single locations where various recreational and social facilities were found.
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

Consequently, this research on tourism destinations as agglomerations of attractions and

services (Burkart & Medlik, 1974; Mill & Morrison, 2012) did not emphasize aspects such as
cooperation within the destination or the role of tourists as actors in the destination, and
as such tourists are only seen as consumers that are satisfying their needs by using a desti-
nation’s supply of services, while neglecting the fact that changes in demand lead to
changes in the structure of destination.

Tourism destinations as industrial districts

The concept of industrial district is quite spread in modern industrial economics and in
business studies. The original discussion of industrial districts dates back to Marshall
(1920) who examined the agglomeration of specialized industries in particular locations.
Becattini (1990, p. 38) expanded the definition of industrial districts and Marshall’s analysis
of the economic effects of concentration of firms, defining ‘the industrial district as a
socio-territorial entity which is characterized by the active presence of both a community
of people and a population of firms in one naturally and historically bounded area’. In this
reconceptualization Becattini not only highlighted the importance of the social environ-
ment within an industrial district but also the multiple connections between the industrial
district and the external world. Russo and Segre (2009) broadened the definition of an
industrial district further to stress the importance of the cultural dimensions that are mani-
fested in industrial districts due to inter-corporate connections, and enhanced physical
and socio-cultural proximity which favors cooperation and exchange of knowledge and
skills between various stakeholders.
This idea of an industrial district has been seen as a suitable model for understanding
the development of destinations, particularly where number of tourism-related attrac-
tions, business, and services are located in order to generate wealth, occupation, and
well-being for the local community by exploiting and enhancing local resources. As with
Marshall’s industrial district model, travel and tourism industries (generally of small and
medium size) are located close to each other and are characterized by linkages among
themselves and with the local community. Additionally, the public sector institutions have
a crucial role in giving policy guidance and support in managing the resources that are
 448 D. Z. JOVICIC

public goods, such as municipal infrastructure, culture, environment, sports and recreation
facilities, etc. (Baggio & Sainaghi, 2011).
Because tourism destinations consist in part of agglomerations of tourism-related busi-
nesses, it is easy to see why tourism scholars would study tourism destinations in the
same way as industrial districts. However, using industrial districts as a model to under-
stand destinations requires certain modifications to be considered. For example, the ‘tour-
ism product’ produced in tourism destinations is mainly an intangible and perishable
service product which makes it different from ‘usual’ industrial goods (Vanhove, 2005).
Despite the fact that in the digital era tourists have access to all kind of information facili-
tating them to make decisions on the purchase of tourism product (e.g. information on
the Internet and on social networks), visitors are unable to fully assess tourism products
attributes prior to consumption. In contrast, the situation is completely different in the
case of buying material goods when a customer can make a test drive before buying a car.
Also, there is a potential for possible conflict between tourists and the local population
at tourist destinations when local commercial businesses cannot meet the needs of the
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

residents and the tourists who are competing for the same resources and activities. Unlike
industrial districts, tourism destinations are systems based on the creative involvement of
tourists/consumers in the experience of local culture-based goods. Richards (2011b) notes
that creative tourism is a type of holiday devoted to learning a particular skill which
belongs to a culture of the host country. Consequently, for many tourists satisfaction
derives from participation in the local culture and knowledge in tourist destinations (Russo
& Segre, 2009). Saraniemi and Kyl€anen (2011, p. 139) also highlight the role of tourists as
cocreators of their own experiences, claiming that ‘the success of destinations lies in the
competitive processes that enable consumers to immerse themselves into, and find the
elements that they seek in presenting and producing their fragmented identities’. As
such, the geographical dimension (i.e. space and place attributes) is an essential compo-
nent of destinations that affects their market attractiveness and contributes to the signifi-
cant differences between destinations and districts.

The systemic approach to tourism destination

During the mid-1990s tourism scholars began to promote the ‘systemic approach’ to tour-
ism, and in doing so began to develop a more comprehensive and complex understand-
ing of tourist destinations. Advocating a systemic approach to tourism and to tourist
destinations, Butler (1999) argued that tourism had been isolated too long from the world
in which it existed, and such a situation should be changed. A similar opinion was shared
by Wall (1996), who noted that tourism should be considered in the context of the condi-
tions in which its development takes place, and systems that interact with tourism. There-
fore, interdependence of all the elements that make a tourist destination, and the effects
of tourism’s both positive and negative impacts on various interest groups can best be
negotiated if the destination is treated as an open and flexible system (Leiper, 2000). As
such, the open system model of tourism focuses on the interaction between tourists, staff
employed in industries involved in the production and provision of tourist services, and
residents of tourist destinations. This model also takes into account the economic, legal,
cultural, environmental, and technological aspects of the tourism process, and identifies
relationships that exist between them.
 TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 449

Apart from attractions, tourist accommodation, and transport to, from, and within tour-
ism destinations (i.e. the key components of the traditional destination concept), Howie’s
(2003) approach to the contemporary tourism destination argues that tourism destina-
tions are constantly in touch with its market, competitive, socio-economic, and ecological
environment. Similarly, Ritchie and Crouch (2003) suggest that one of the main determi-
nants of a destination’s competitiveness is a balanced progress of all its components
(economic, social, cultural, political, technological, and environmental).
The systemic approach to the destination has evolved significantly over the past
15 20 years. Laws (1995) points out that the general model of the open destination sys-
tem consists of a number of primary elements (anthropogenic and natural attractions),
and secondary elements including built hospitality facilities and infrastructures for the
successful development of tourism. As an open system, a tourism destination is subject to
influences from various environments (i.e. competitive, economic, ecological, socio-
cultural, and political) and therefore those responsible for the development of tourism at
destinations need to predict and respond to changes in these environments as best as
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

possible. In addition, Laws points out that while tourism destination as a whole may be an
open system, within tourism destinations there are also closed systems. A good example
of this is a theme park, where the maximum control is established over the input factors
and subsystems/elements within the attraction. However, closed systems may not be a
totally accurate description of individual attractions within a destination as even tourism
attractions need to collaborate with other tourism stakeholders in the destination in order
to achieve successful economic performance, the lasting satisfaction of tourists, and build-
ing of a successful tourism market image. For example, Disney World Florida is one of the
most popular theme parks in the world, separated in four theme parks and two water
parks, all with their own specialty attractions. However, the great wealth of attractions
and amenities throughout this park cannot be considered in isolation from services and
facilities offered by the hundreds of hotels in the immediate vicinity of the park. The man-
agement of both the park and hotel companies shares a common business interest, which
is reflected in motivating tourists to visit Disney World; as more tourists who come to the
park means higher occupancy of hotels, and conversely higher quality of services in the
hotels means a higher level of satisfaction of visitors to the theme park.
Rather than grouping elements of destinations into primary and secondary categories,
Cooper and Hall (2008) treat the tourism destination system in a more complex way. They
stress the importance of three key components that contribute to a certain place to
become a destination: location, locale and, sense of place. A destination is a specific point
on the earth’s surface that includes tangible and intangible components of the certain
place (locale), which include the destination as a physical setting with a particular land-
scape containing servicescapes or physical facilities that deliver tourism services. It is in
these landscapes and servicescapes as physical spaces of production and consumption
where tourism experiences are produced. By ‘sense of place’ Cooper and Hall refer to the
subjective, personal, and emotional attitudes that people have towards a place, which
lead tourists to travel to a destination. This approach by Cooper and Hall is holistic in that
they take into account its physical, geographical, marketing, and socio-cultural characteris-
tics/processes of tourism destinations.
Baggio and Cooper (2010), discussing the connections between different subsystems
within the destination system, note that each of its subsystem is composed of a number
 450 D. Z. JOVICIC

of stakeholders connected by a web of linkages. In that context, they conceptualize a des-

tination as a network of connected organizations that are either directly or indirectly
related to tourism but whose productivity is very important for the fluid functioning of
the destination system. Argote and Igram (2000) argue that information and knowledge
which flows into and throughout a tourism destination are also important, since they
determine the ability of a destination to adapt to external changes, and therefore remain
competitive.

Tourism destination as a complex adaptive system

Recently, the attention of tourism academics has been drawn to understanding a destina-
tion as a complex adaptive system (Baggio & Sainaghi, 2011), which implies that a destina-
tion is a system of many parts which are coupled in a non-linear fashion. A non-linear
connection means that a change caused by some external/internal factor on one subsys-
tem is not proportional to a change on the other destination subsystems, caused by the
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

same factor. When there are many nonlinearities in a system (many components as in the
case of a tourism destination), its behavior can be unpredictable, including destination
stakeholders. For instance, if there is not enough snow during the winter season in a cer-
tain destination in a high mountain, not all hotels will suffer the same damage, because
they will not behave in the same way in these circumstances. The hotels with a more flexi-
ble pricing policy, greater volume of services within the hotel facilities, and focused on
segments of demand that are not fans of winter sports activities, will survive on the mar-
ket, despite unfavorable weather conditions for tourism economy.
Complex adaptive systems are called adaptive because the constituent components of
a system adapt to events around them (Levin, 2003; Lewin, 1999). A key feature of adap-
tive systems is that they form structures that somehow maintain their integrity in the face
of continuing change. In contrast to the reductionist approach and the traditional idea of
cause and effect which implies predictability, the concept of a complex adaptive system is
based on the notion that its elements are connected by diverse non-linear relationships,
and that reactions to the external environment are not predictable.
The theory of complex adaptive systems facilitates our understanding of the ability of
tourism to recover from the natural and man-made events that have occurred in recent
period (the energy crisis between 1967–1979, the threat of bird flu, the Indian Ocean tsu-
nami and seaquake in 2004, the recovery from the global economic crisis in 2008, and the
swine flu outbreak in 2009, among others) as well as the ability of certain destinations to
maintain great popularity and tourist demand in the long term (e.g. Co ^te d’Azur). Non-lin-
ear relationships between the components, self-organizing dynamics, and other charac-
teristics of complex adaptive systems, have enabled many destinations to achieve the
sustained growth in the second part of twentieth century in the face of drastic external
changes.

Smart tourism destination

In recent period, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have dramatically
changed the world we live in, and tourism is among the sectors that have been most
transformed (Atzori, Iera, & Morabito, 2010). The strong development and convergence of
 TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 451

ICTs have changed the traditional frame for tourism development, and brought smartness
into tourism destinations. Although the concept of smart tourism destination is still in
progress, there are more and more articles devoted to this issue (Baggio & Del Chiappa,
2014; Del Chiappa & Baggio, 2015; Morelli et al., 2013; Racherla, Hu, & Hyun, 2008). On the
basis of the aforementioned literature, it can be concluded that a smart tourism destina-
tion is a knowledge-based destination, where ICTs are used to provide a technological
platform on which information and knowledge relating to tourism activities could be
instantly exchange. Thus, all destination stakeholders are enabled to have efficient access
to knowledge and information, allowing them to improve themselves, and participate, as
much as possible, in building and maintaining the competitiveness of a certain destina-
tion on the market.
Discussing the term ‘smart tourism destination’, Baggio and Del Chiappa (2014)
expanded the above-mentioned definition (Baggio & Cooper, 2010), that a destination is a
network of connected organizations that are either directly or indirectly related to tourism,
stressing that such a network is complemented by a technological infrastructure aimed at
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

creating a digital environment which supports cooperation and knowledge sharing, and
open innovation. Accordingly, effective knowledge-based destination management
should consider both the virtual and the real components of the network structure of des-
tination (Del Chiappa, & Baggio, 2015).
It seems that the related concept, although it is still in the progress, is the latest phase
in the evolution of systemic approach to a tourist destination which is in a close interac-
tion with its macro environment, adapting to the changes in it. The dynamic changes in
technological and social environment cause changes in the structure of destination sys-
tem, which becomes more complex but also more effective through: inclusion of new
stakeholders and improving the exchange of information/knowledge between them,
enhancement of the tourist’s experience, more efficient allocation of tourism resources,
etc. (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2014).
Creating a digital environment enables also better collaboration between tourism
companies and tourists, who can exchange and share information and knowledge.
Thus, smart tourism destinations highlight the role of tourists as cocreators of their
own experiences, ‘enabling consumers to immerse themselves into, and find the ele-
ments that they seek in presenting and producing their fragmented identities’ Sara-
niemi and Kylanen (2011, p. 139).

The integrative conceptual framework of tourism destinations

After analyzing the various approaches and concepts of tourism destinations and
highlighting contributions and shortcomings of each of them individually, Pearce (2014)
presented what he called the integrative conceptual framework of tourism destinations,
with an aim to conceptualize more precisely and more comprehensively the phenomenon
of tourism destinations. This framework is based on three key dimensions geographic,
mode of production, and dynamic between which there is a high degree of intercon-
nectedness and interdependence (Table 1).
The geographic dimension of Pearce’s integrative conceptual framework focuses on
attributes related to space (i.e. the spatial concentration and colocation of specialized tour-
ism firms and activities, spatial extent, sybsystems, etc.) and place (i.e. cultural
 452 D. Z. JOVICIC

Table 1. Dimensions and elements of destinations (Pearce, 2014).

Geographic Dimension Space Spatial concentration and colocation, spatial extent, spatial scales,
subsystems, etc.
Place Cultural characteristics, social embeddedness, geographical
embeddedness, tourism resources, etc.
Mode of Production Structure Interdependence, complementarity, etc.
Behavior Cooperative, competitive
Actors
Dynamic dimension Structural evolution
Driving factors Cultural, economic, adaptation, innovation

characteristics, social and geographical embeddedness, tourism resources, etc.). The mode
of production dimension includes elements that are crucial for the functioning of the des-
tinations, which include structural, behavioral elements, and individual actors. In the inter-
pretation of the structural elements, Pearce shares the views of researchers who support
the concept of a destination as an industrial district and who emphasize the importance
of colocation and proximity of tourism companies and related institutions, the interdepen-
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

dence of companies offering complementary products and services within the destina-
tion, and cooperative but competitive behavior of firms within the destination. The
complementary nature of tourist services encourages firms to cooperate, achieving bene-
fits of creating the integral destination product, and satisfying the needs of the tourists at
an adequate level (Gaido, 2002; Hjalager, 2000). Actors involved in the modes of produc-
tion are various groups of the destination stakeholders: tourism firms, local authorities
and other public institutions, tourists and residents.
The dynamic dimension of Pearce’s integrative conceptual framework highlights
the inherently dynamic nature of destinations that change over time under the influ-
ence of external and internal driving factors. This is a widely accepted notion shared
by the vast majority of researchers: that tourism destinations are complex adaptable
systems means that such systems adapt to events around them and have the capacity
to learn from experience and change. For instance, destinations in the high moun-
tains, which have relatively successfully operated in the seasons when there was not
enough snow, can use this experience in the future, if they meet similar challenges.
Thanks to the experience gained, these destinations are likely to make additional
modifications of their offer (e.g. a greater volume of services for segments of demand
that are not fans of winter sports activities), in order to be more prepared for the
business in terms of the negative effects of climatic factors.
Summarizing his integrated framework of tourism destinations, Pearce (2014, p. 149)
conceptualized a destination ‘as a dynamic, geographically based mode of production
that provides interdependent and complementary products to tourists and transforms
the spaces and places in which this production occurs’. Pearce believes that there are
more similarities than differences between the different theoretical approaches in the
tourism literature, and thus his integrated framework of tourism destinations. The first
and may be the most important dimension is the geographical dimension, as the geo-
graphical characteristics of a tourism destination make a foundation for tourism develop-
ment. The geographic dimension is also closely linked to the ‘the mode of production’
dimension, which both change over time under the influence of external and internal fac-
tors (e.g. managerial skills, competition, the impact of economic, natural, political, techno-
logical environment, etc.).
 TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 453

The geographical dimension of tourism destinations disputes the view that the globali-
zation of the tourism markets makes it difficult for places to be differentiated from their
competitors. Zukin (1991) and Barke and Harrop (1994) share such a view, claiming that
the result of globalization is a sameness of place, because of which it is difficult for places
to be differentiated from their competitors (they view sameness as an outcome of prog-
ress in information technologies enabling the most appealing aspects to be copied and
appeared in a competitor’s portfolio, soon). Accordingly, one can cite the case of Canary
Island of Tenerife which is characterized by unique natural attractions a mountain range
with the mighty volcanic crater Canadas del Teide, and the 3718 m high Teide peak in its
center; ideal climatic conditions which include a comfortable temperature throughout the
year; a seaside offering as well beautiful steep coasts as wide beaches of fine sand, etc.
on the basis of which a distinct and rich tourist offer has been shaped, that cannot be cre-
ated in other parts of Europe. The eye-catching brand of this destination, ‘Island of Eternal
Springtime’, reflects the unique geographical features of the island, by which it differs
from competing destinations, offering tourists an authentic experience of high quality.
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

Conclusion
The changing focus in relation to tourism destination conceptualization in recent decades
has been caused by intensive development of tourism globally, the increasing complexity
of the structure of tourism destinations, the maturation of theoretical thought, and
attempts by tourism scholars to influence the practice of tourism development more so
than in the past.
According to the classical or traditional approach to tourism destinations, destinations
were assigned a passive role in tourism development, being treated as spatial units that
are the objects of tourist visits. However, since the late 1990s, the growing complexity of
tourism as a geo-spatial, economic, and socio-cultural phenomenon caused theorists to
recognize that tourism destinations should be considered to be a very active subject of
tourism development with destination stakeholders being actively involved in the deci-
sion-making process. As the structure and substructures of tourism destinations and its
relationship with the external environment have become increasingly complex, relation-
ships between tourism destination subsystems have become non-linear in character and
the outcomes of their behavior, caused by external and external inputs, are not predict-
able. Consequently, destinations have evolved into more complex systems whose man-
agement has become more difficult and demanding. Increasing the number of
destination stakeholders significantly contributes to greater complexity of destination sys-
tems, and, among them, there are many non-tourism businesses, which include tourist
programs in their portfolio.
Many of tourism scholars agree with treating tourism destinations as complex adaptive
systems, because it is a concept which is characterized by comprehensive and in-depth
approach. Comprehensive studies of the structure of such networks have significantly
contributed to the creation of high quality theoretical basis for the adoption of appropri-
ate management decisions which will make such networks more efficient. There is no
doubt that in the future a significant number of tourism destinations will face serious
global challenges which may adversely affect their profitability, such as climate change or
increased energy costs. A deepening knowledge of the structure of a tourism destination’s
 454 D. Z. JOVICIC

network, with an emphasis on the study of non-linear relationships between tourism com-
ponents and self-organizing dynamics, could contribute to the reduction of possible nega-
tive effects of future development. Therefore, concept of a tourism destination as a
complex adaptive system is, so far, the highest level of evolution of the systemic approach
to tourism destinations, focused on the elaboration of the complex structure of destina-
tions, which increases under the influence of internal and external factors.
The digital revolution and the outstanding progress in ICTs have led to the emergence
of concept of smart destinations, as knowledge-based destinations, in which knowledge
and information are accessible to all stakeholders, facilitating them to carry out continu-
ous innovation of their performance and activities, as much as possible. This concept is
linked to the concept of complex adaptable systems, given that smartness contributes to
a greater complexity of destinations, and increases their ability to adapt to the constant
changes of external and internal factors.
It is important to stress that the geographical dimension makes up the nucleus of the
destination upon which all the other dimensions of a destination depend. For example, a
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

small municipality of Zafferana Etnea in Sicily has gained wide popularity only because it
is the major tourist stopping point for expeditions to the summit of Mt. Etna, and it is clear
that the related geographical phenomenon has enabled tourism development in a given
area. Unlike other industries, development of tourism requires quality, well-preserved, and
attractive geographical areas, with physical and human attributes that can satisfy the
needs of tourists. Geo-spatial areas that are characterized by highly attractive attributes
over time become popular destinations, primarily due to the interests of tourists, who
often are not interested to find out whether the respective destination is a complex
system in which a large number of stakeholders are networked, exchanging knowledge,
and information.
The emphasis on destinations as systems/networks and the focus on the exchange of
knowledge between stakeholders has led to a de-emphasis on the importance of geo-spa-
tial features of destinations. As such, it is good that the integrative conceptual framework
of destinations affirms the importance of geographical elements for the creation and evo-
lution of destinations. Travel movements make tourism a geo-spatial phenomenon,
reflecting the differences and specificities of the two types of geographic areas: the places
of residence in which tourist needs occur and tourist areas, in which those needs are satis-
fied. Natural and cultural attractions, because of its attributes, are key pull factors encour-
aging the tourist clientele to make movements, which means that they are the basic
object of tourism demand.
Although the traditional geographic concept of destination, from today’s point of
view, is one-sided and not comprehensive, geographical elements, however, are the
nucleus from which a tourism destination occurs and develops. In this regard, it is indis-
putable that the geographical attributes of tourism destinations represent the key compo-
nent of their resource base. The unique physical and human characteristics of certain
destinations are the basis for shaping successful tourism brands, and leveraging a position
on the market. These facts should be borne in mind in future conceptualizations of
destinations.
Scientific theory of tourism still lags behind advanced, widespread, and developed
practice of tourism development, although tourism scholars have significantly intensified
their work over the past few decades in order to have more influence on tourism practice.
 TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 455

The evolution of the concepts of tourist destinations is the result of strong development
of tourism as a global geo-spatial, socio-cultural, and economic phenomenon, but also of
the progress achieved in the development of tourism theory.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributor
Dobrica Z. Jovicic has a doctorate in tourism. The title of his dissertacion is: ‘Tourism and Environment
in the Context of Sustainable Development’. He is employed as a full professor at the University of
Belgrade Geographical Faculty, Serbia. His tourism research interests include tourism policy, sustain-
able development of tourism, and management of tourism destinations.
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

References
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150 169. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2893
Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15),
2787 2805. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010
Assaf, A.G., & Josiassen, A. (2015). Frontier analysis: A state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis. Jour-
nal of Travel Research, 17, 1 16. doi:10.1177/0047287515569776
Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2010). Knowledge transfer in a tourism destination: The effects of a network
structure. The Service Industries Journal, 30(10), 1757 1771. doi:10.1080/02642060903580649
Baggio, R., & Del Chiappa, G. (2014). Real and virtual relationships in tourism digital ecosystems. Infor-
mation Technology and Tourism, 14(1), 3 19. doi:10.1007/s40558-013-0001-5
Baggio, R., & Sainaghi R. (2011). Complex and chaotic tourism systems: Towards a quantitative
approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(6), 840 861.
doi:10.1108/09596111111153501
Barke, M., & Harrop, K. (1994). Selling the industrial town: Identity, image and illusion. In J.R. Gold & S.
V. Ward (Eds.), Place promotion: The use of publicity and marketing to sell towns and regions (pp.
93 114). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Becattini, G. (1990). The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. In F. Pyke, G.
Becattini, & W. Sengenberger (Eds.), Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy (pp.
37 51). Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
Bianchi, R.V. (2009). The ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies: A radical critique. Tourism Geographies, 11(4),
484 504. doi:10.1080/1461668090326265
Burkart, A.J., & Medlik, S. (1974). Tourism: Past, present and future. London: Heinemann.
Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. (2014). Smart tourism destinations. In Z. Xiang & I. Tussyadiah (Eds.),
Information and communication technologies in tourism 2014 (pp. 553 564). Vienna: Springer.
Butler, R.W. 1999. Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 7 25.
doi:10.1080/14616689908721291
Cohen, E. (1995). Contemporary tourism Trends and challenges: Sustainable authenticity or con-
trived post-modernity? In R. Butler, & D. Pearce (Eds.), Change in tourism: People, places, processes
(pp. 12 29). London: Routledge.
Cooper, C., & Hall, M. (2008). Contemporary tourism: An international approach. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Del Chiappa, G., & Baggio, R. (2015). Knowledge transfer in smart tourism destinations: Analyzing the
effects of a network structure. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 145 150.
doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.02.001
 456 D. Z. JOVICIC

Framke, W. (2002). The destination as a concept: A discussion of the business-related perspective

versus the sociocultural approach in tourism theory. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tour-
ism, 2(2), 92 108. doi:10.1080/15022250216287
Franklin, A.S., & Crang, M. (2001). The trouble with tourism and travel theory. Tourist Studies, 1(1),
5 22. doi:10.1177/146879760100100101
Frenzel, F., Koens, K., Steinbrink, M., & Rogerson, C.M. (2015). Slum tourism: State of the art. Tourism
Review International, 18(4), 237 252. doi:10.3727/154427215X14230549904017
Gaido, L. (2002). Du concept de station au concept du district [From the concept of resort to the con-
cept of district]. Revue de Geographie Alpine [Journal of Alpine Research], 90(4), 109 116.
Gunn, C.A. (1988). Vacations cape, designing tourist regions. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Heath, E., & Wall, G. (1992). Marketing tourism destinations: Strategic planning approach. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Hjalager, A.M. (2000). Tourism destinations and the concept of industrial districts. Tourism and Hospi-
tality Research, 2(3), 199 213. doi:10.1177/146735840000200302
Howie, F. (2003). Managing the tourist destination. London: Cengage Learning EMEA.
Ioannides, D. (2006). Commentary: The economic geography of the tourist industry: Ten years of
progress in research and an agenda for the future. Tourism Geographies, 8(1), 76 86.
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

doi:10.1080/14616680500392515
Laws, E. (1995). Tourist destination management. London: Routledge.
Leask, A. (2010). Progress in visitor attraction research: Towards more effective management. Tour-
ism Management, 31(2), 155 166. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.09.004
Leiper, N. (2000). Are destinations ‘the heart of tourism’? The advantages of an alternative descrip-
tion. Current Issues in Tourism, 3(4), 364 368. doi:10.1080/13683500008667878
Levin, S.A. (2003). Complex adaptive systems: Exploring the known, the unknown and the unknow-
able. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 40(1), 3 19. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-02-
00965-5
Lew, A.A. (2007). Invited commentary: Tourism planning and traditional urban planning theory: Plan-
ners as agents of social change. Leisure/Loisir: Journal of the Canadian Association of Leisure Stud-
ies, 31(2), 383 391. doi:10.1080/14927713.2007.9651387
Lewin, R. (1999). Complexity, life on the edge of chaos. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Lowry, L.L., Cartier, E.A., Back, R.M., & Delconte, J.D. 2015. Addressing the need for new tourism the-
ory: The utility of constructivist grounded theory methodology for theory development. Tourism
Travel and Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally. Retrieved from http://schol
arworks.umass.edu/ttra/ttra2015/Qualitative_Research_Methods/14
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.
Morelli, V.G., Weijnen, M., Van Bueren, E., Wenzler, I., De Reuver, M., & Salvati L. (2013). Toward intelli-
gently sustainable cities. From intelligent and knowledge city programmes to the achievement
of urban sustainability. TeMA Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 1, 74 86.
doi:10.6092/1970-9870/1496
Mill, R.C., & Morrison, A.M. (2012). The tourism system (7th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Nash, D. (1996). Anthropology of tourism. New York, NY: Pergamon.
Nepal, S.K. (2009). Traditions and trends: A review of geographical scholarship in tourism. Tourism
Geographies, 11(1), 2 22. doi:10.1080/14616680802643219
Nepal, S.K., & Chipeniuk, R. (2005). Mountain tourism: Toward a conceptual framework. Tourism Geog-
raphies, 7(3), 313 333. doi:10.1080/14616680500164849
Pearce, D.G. (2014). Toward an integrative conceptual framework of destinations. Journal of Travel
Research, 53(2), 141 153. doi:10.1177/0047287513491334
Racherla, P., Hu, C., & Hyun, M.Y. (2008). Exploring the role of innovative technologies in building a
knowledge-based destination. Current Issue in Tourism, 11(5), 407 428. doi:10.1080/
13683500802316022
Richards, G. (2011a). Creativity and tourism: The state of the art. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4),
1225 1253. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.07.008
 TOURISM GEOGRAPHIES 457

Richards, G. (2011b). Cultural tourism trends in Europe: A context for the development of Cultural
Routes. In K. Khovanova-Rubicondo (Ed.), Impact of European Cultural Routes on SMEs’ innovation
and competitiveness (pp. 21 39). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Ritchie, J.R., & Crouch, G.I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective.
Wallingford, CT: CABI.
Russo, A.P., & Segre, G. (2009). Destination models and property regimes: An exploration. Annals of
Tourism Research, 36(4), 587 606. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.04.002
Saraniemi, S., & Kyl€anen, M. (2011). Problematizing the concept of tourism destination: An analysis of
different theoretical approaches. Journal of Travel Research, 50(2), 133 143. doi:10.1177/
0047287510362775
Selby, M. (2004). Understanding urban tourism: Image, culture and experience. London: I. B. Tauris.
Truong, D., & Hall, C.M. (2015). Promoting voluntary behaviour change for sustainable tourism: The
potential role of social marketing. In C.M. Hall, S. Gossling, & D. Scott (Eds.), The Routledge hand-
book of tourism and sustainability (pp. 246 260). Abingdon: Routledge.
Vanhove, N. (2005). Economics of tourism destinations. London: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Wall, G. (1996). Integrating integrated resorts. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 713 717.
doi:10.1016/0160-7383(95)00091-7
Downloaded by [179.95.49.228] at 06:22 16 October 2017

Zukin, S. (1991). Landscapes of power: From detroit to disney world. Berkley: University of California
Press.