Frameworks for Tourism Research

For Mum and in memory of Dad

Frameworks for Tourism Research

Douglas Pearce

Professor of Tourism Management

School of Management
Victoria University of Wellington
Wellington, New Zealand
 CABI is a trading name of CAB International
CABI CABI
Nosworthy Way 875 Massachusetts Avenue
Wallingford 7th Floor
Oxfordshire OX10 8DE Cambridge, MA 02139
UK USA
Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 617 395 4056
Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 Fax: +1 617 354 6875
E-mail: cabi@cabi.org E-mail: cabi-nao@cabi.org
Website: www.cabi.org
© Douglas G. Pearce 2012. All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically,
by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of
the copyright owners.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library,
London, UK.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Pearce, Douglas G., 1949-

Frameworks for tourism research / Douglas G Pearce.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-84593-898-7 (alk. paper)
1. Tourism--Research. I. Title.

G155.A1P358 2012
910.72--dc23

2011047846

ISBN-13: 978 1 84593 898 7

Commissioning editor: Sarah Hulbert

Editorial assistant: Alexandra Lainsbury
Production editor: Tracy Head

Typeset by SPi, Pondicherry, India

Printed and bound in the UK by MPG Books Ltd
 Contents

Figures vi
Tables ix
Acknowledgements x

1 Introduction: Frameworks and Tourism Research 1

2 Theoretical Frameworks 17
3 Conceptual Frameworks 28
4 Analytical Frameworks 50
5 Integrative Frameworks 65
6 Multi-purpose Matrices 79
7 Process Frameworks 104
8 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks 130
9 Selecting and Developing Frameworks 152
10 Frameworks and Future Directions in Tourism Research 172

References 177
Author Index 195
Subject Index 201

v
 Figures

1.1 A schematic framework for the study of tourist development at

Mount Cook since 1884 2
1.2 A framework for the study of tourism and environmental stress 4
1.3 Frameworks and the research cycle 10
2.1 Levels of analysis in tourism studies 18
3.1 Concepts of tourism 30
3.1a The knowledge force field
3.1b Combining the relationship between recreation and leisure
and that between recreation and tourism
3.1c–d The relationship between tourism and hospitality research
3.1e–g Concepts of the geography of tourism
3.2 The ‘Special Interest Tourism (SIT)’ experience 33
3.3 A dark tourism spectrum: perceived product features of dark tourism
within a ‘darkest–lightest’ framework of supply 35
3.4 An integrated conceptual framework for ecotourism phenomena 36
3.5 Mountain tourism: a conceptual framework 37
3.6 The LIP (liminoidal, inversionary and prosaic) behaviours framework 39
3.7 Proposed conceptual model of the antecedents of Internet acceptance
and use as an information source by tourists 40
3.8 Conceptual model of the development of technological capability 41
3.9 Proposed model of the drivers and barriers of corporate greening
in the business events sector 43
3.10 A preliminary conceptual framework to understand the role of festivals
and events in regional development 44
4.1 Analytical framework for Phase 1 (impacts of tourism) of research
on responsible tourism in New Zealand 52
4.2 Analytical framework for a survey on responsible tourism in New Zealand 53
4.3 An analytical framework for examining the visitors’ perspective on
tourism distribution channels in New Zealand 53
4.4 Cluster analysis process framework 54
4.5 Analytical framework for operationalizing nodal functions 56
4.6 Growth/share matrix 56

vi
 Figures vii

4.7 Portfolio of Italy’s markets (1988) 57

4.8 An analytical framework for international tourism distribution systems 60
4.9 An analytical framework for whole-family experiential dimensions 62
4.10 Hierarchical structure of the thematic framework 63
5.1 An integrative framework for urban tourism research 66
5.2 An integrative framework for anti-poverty tourism (APT) research 67
5.3 A framework for understanding and creating knowledge about event tourism 68
5.4 A micro–macro framework of tourist motivation 70
5.5 A model for building competitive advantage from strategic management theory 72
5.6 A proposed framework for destination marketing alliance formation 74
5.7 Proposed tourists’ information search behaviour model 75
5.8 Research model into strategic alliance in tourism 77
6.1 Quadrant matrices in tourism research 81
6.1a Theory and method in tourism research
6.1b Partial industrialization: possible positions of organizations
directly supplying services and goods to tourists in terms
of their business strategies and degrees of industrial cooperation
6.1c Stakeholder orientation matrix
6.1d Iso-Ahola’s social psychological model of tourist motivation
6.2 A matrix of strategy-making process ideal types 83
6.3 Application of importance–performance analysis (IPA) to the
performance of tour guides in Hong Kong 85
6.4 Summary of 25-year scenarios for tourism and governance
in Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal 92
6.5 Grid-group analysis of chefs and occupational culture in a hotel chain 94
6.6 A model for responsible marketing of tourism 95
6.7 A framework for the inter-organizational analysis of tourism organizations 96
6.8 The tourism impact matrix of the Keszthely-Héviz region, Hungary 98
6.9a Model of strategic evaluation based on internal and
relational capabilities 100
6.9b Strategic evaluation of the factors determining the competitiveness
of the tourism destination 100
6.10 Loyalty segments of cruise ship passengers 102
7.1 Hypothetical evolution of a tourist area: the tourist
area life cycle (TALC) model 105
7.2 Miossec’s model of tourist development 107
7.3 Rural tourism development model 108
7.4 The resort development spectrum 108
7.5 A three-sector tourism resort 109
7.6 Strategic marketing planning for the tourism industry 114
7.7 Steps in the Samoa tourism plan review process 115
7.8 Monitoring framework to sustain biodiversity and tourism 116
7.9 Consumer information acquisition and processing model 118
7.10 A framework of the purchase–consumption system applied
to leisure travel behaviour 119
7.11 A conceptual model of case-based vacation planning 120
7.12 Representation of distribution functions for packaged tours 122
7.13 Distribution channels for chain hotels in Wellington,
New Zealand: independent leisure travellers 123
7.14 Stakeholder roles within a destination tourism disaster
management cycle as reported by tourism businesses 2½ years
following a major forest fire disaster 126
viii Figures

7.15 The policy cycle 127

8.1 The tourism system model 132
8.2 The integrated impact analysis model 132
8.3 A sustainable tourism system 133
8.4 An agritourism systems model 135
8.5 An enclave model of tourism in a peripheral economy 136
8.6 Tourism and the global–local nexus 139
8.7 Concept of the Tourism Futures Simulator 141
8.8 An influence reputation elite network 144
8.9 Social networks in Australian case studies 145
8.10 Distribution networks of (a) a small attractions operator
and (b) a chain backpacker hostel 146
8.11 Stages of indigenous tourism 148
8.12 The adaptive cycle 149
8.13 A conceptual framework for the inter-organizational
analysis of tourist organizations 150
9.1a Product/delivery process matrix of intangible services 161
9.1b Summary of the results of a travel services case study 161
9.2 A needs–functions model of tourism distribution 164
9.3 A conceptual framework for the preparation of the
Second Tourism Master Plan for Sarawak 167
 Tables

3.1 Community-level policy arenas exemplifying local power relations 45

3.2 Summary of power relations in a ski resort development project at Squamish
in British Columbia 46
4.1 Summary of analytical framework of stakeholder interactions 55
6.1 Focus and features of selected importance–performance analysis (IPA)
and related and revised matrices used in tourism research 86

ix
 Acknowledgements

Much of the research for this book was undertaken during periods of research and study
leave from Victoria University of Wellington. Part of this leave was spent in the School of
Travel Industry Management at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, where I was hosted by
Pauline Sheldon and Gui Lohmann. Fruitful discussions about frameworks were had with
Adam Weaver, who also read and provided insightful feedback on parts of the text. Heike
Schänzel provided valuable bibliographic assistance and carefully prepared the manu-
script while Tibor Zsirmik drew or redrew a number of the figures. Chantal’s continuing
support has enabled the successful completion of the manuscript.

Wellington, September 2011

x
 1
Introduction: Frameworks
and Tourism Research
Background and Rationale
Almost 40 years ago I started out on my first
piece of tourism research. My master’s the-
sis examined the development of tourism at
Mount Cook, a resort located in the Southern
Alps of New Zealand. At that time – in 1972 –
the history of tourist development at Mount
Cook spanned almost 100 years. One of the
challenges of writing up a thesis covering
such a long period was to find a structure
that would enable me to analyse and present
a substantial body of primarily archival
material in a clear, coherent and, above all,
manageable fashion. This was in a period
when tourism research was yet to emerge as
a distinctive field of interest and when there
were few parallel studies or models from
which to draw inspiration – Butler’s (1980)
tourist area life cycle model (TALC) was
still a decade away. While I cannot recall
the process by which it evolved, the struc-
ture that emerged was one that broke
down the history of tourism at Mount Cook
into four major periods identified on the
basis of whether the leading agent of devel-
opment came from the public or private
sector. Within each period, four major
themes were considered: attractions, accom-
modation, communications and tourists. In
effect, I had developed a process framework
(Fig. 1.1), one that broke the research down
© Douglas G. Pearce 2012. Frameworks for Tourism Research (D.G. Pearce)
into manageable chunks, a key consideration
for a novice researcher, and one that pro-
vided a logical structure with which to
present and interpret the pattern of devel-
opment that the resort had experienced
(Pearce, 1980a).
Since that time my research interests
and experience have been broadened and
extended. As a result, in the more than
three decades that have followed I have
developed, adopted and applied a range of
frameworks, sometimes quite consciously
and explicitly, on other occasions perhaps
more intuitively, as a matter of course. One
of the biggest drivers to develop an explicit
framework has been to organize, present
and interpret large and complex bodies of
ideas and material. One of my earlier books,
Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis
(Pearce, 1987, 1995b) for example, is
structured around a conceptualization of
tourism as an origin–linkage–destination
framework, a systematic structure that
provided conceptual coherence for the geo-
graphical treatment of tourism, both theo-
retical and empirical, at a range of scales
and in a variety of contexts. Another, Tourist
Organizations (Pearce, 1992a), provides a
systematic review and comparison of the
structure and functions of tourist organiza-
tions in six countries. Key to such an analy-
sis was the development of a conceptual
1
2 Chapter 1

Themes

Communications

Accomodation

Attractions

Tourists
Agent of change

Review and
1972
synthesis
Tourist Hotel
Corporation and
National Park Board
Tourist Department

1944 Review

Mount Cook
Motor Company

1922 Review

Tourist Department

1895 Review

Mount Cook
Tourist Company

1884 Introduction

Fig. 1.1. A schematic framework for the study of tourist development at Mount Cook since 1884. Source:
Redrawn from Annals of Tourism Research 7, Pearce, D.G. (1980) Tourism and regional development:
a genetic approach, 69–82, Copyright (1980) with permission from Elsevier.

framework drawing on inter-organizational Later, interest in the emerging but frag-

theory but incorporating tourism-specific
dimensions (Fig. 8.13). This framework pro-
vided a common structure with which to
analyse the organizations in the different
case studies, comprising a mix of federal
and centralized political systems, and then
to draw out and interpret the commonalities
and differences found so as to arrive at a
fuller understanding of the nature of tourism
organizations.
mented field of urban tourism prompted
the derivation of an integrative framework
that attempted to provide some order to a
disparate body of studies and thereby iden-
tify common themes and issues, as well as
demonstrate existing gaps in our knowl-
edge (Pearce, 2001). This framework (Fig. 5.1)
has proved useful not only in encourag-
ing work on particular aspects of urban
tourism but also in the development of
 Introduction: Frameworks and Tourism Research
integrative frameworks on other themes
(Chapter 5).
More recently, involvement in a large,
multi-year project on tourism distribution
has both reinforced the value of explicit
frameworks and provided additional insights
into their application. This project took a
whole systems approach to distribution,
initially based on a fairly conventional tier-
by-tier structure (Fig. 7.13), which proved
useful for systematically examining a range
of channel structures, analysing the role
of different channel members and assess-
ing channel performance (Pearce and Tan,
2004; Pearce et al., 2004; Pearce and
Taniguchi, 2008). The utility of this approach
lay not only in providing a common basis
on which various team members could
elaborate particular parts of the larger
project (Smith and Garnham, 2006; Schott,
2007; Smith, 2007) but also in reporting
back preliminary findings at industry pres-
entations and workshops. In the later stages
of the project, the various strands of the
earlier work were drawn together in a more
theoretically based needs–functions model
(Fig. 9.2) and a practical seven-step strategy
framework was developed as a means by
which practitioners might formulate their
own strategies (Pearce, 2009b). Towards
the end of the project, distribution was also
re-conceptualized in network rather than
tier-by-tier terms (Fig. 8.10). The network
framework opened up new insights into the
nature of distribution, called for new meth-
odologies and data sources, and in general
brought into relief the impact of alternative
frameworks on the whole research process
(Pearce, 2009a).
Experience in various consulting projects
has also reinforced my belief in the value of
explicit frameworks as a focus for consolidat-
ing effort and offering direction to team mem-
bers, communicating objectives and interim
findings to diverse stakeholders and provid-
ing structure to plans and final reports. From
1977 to 1979, the Environment Secretariat of
the OECD undertook a major research pro-
gramme on tourism and the environment
based on some 20 case studies of coastal or
alpine tourism. I prepared one of the New
3
Zealand case studies, that of Queenstown.
As the goal of the project was to develop
policy guidelines based on this comparative
research in the different member countries,
it was essential that the case studies focused
on the central problems and were reason-
ably uniform in structure and approach,
especially as little research had been under-
taken in this field at this time (Pearce,
1980b). Among the guidelines provided
by the secretariat was a framework in the
form of a tabular matrix for assessing the
impact of tourism on the environment
(Fig. 1.2). Figure 1.2 identifies a number of
tourist-generated stressor activities, the
associated stresses, subsequent environ-
mental responses and society’s reactions to
these, both individually and collectively.
Although the analysis of the international
case studies was not without its challenges,
as the framework was not always applied
consistently, a number of generalizations
with practical implications could be made.
Environmental deterioration, for instance,
was shown to occur more commonly where
there was a rapid and largely uncontrolled
growth of tourism, marked seasonal peaks,
little or no planning, few controls and
financial or technical inability to provide
adequate infrastructure.
As a member of a large planning team
preparing the Second Tourism Master Plan
for Sarawak in Malaysia, I was charged at
the outset with devising a framework that
would serve as a ‘big picture’ of the project
to coordinate everyone’s individual tasks,
convey to a diverse group of industry prac-
titioners and policy makers what the project
covered and how they might assist, and pro-
vide a template for the plan itself (Fig. 9.3).
Being able to put the essence of the whole
project and plan on to a single page proved
invaluable in all these respects. This whole
approach was then adopted in the prepara-
tion of the tourism master plan for the
neighbouring state of Sabah. In a later
project, the preparation of the (second)
Samoa Tourism Development Plan 2002–
2006, the planning framework, based on a
question-asking approach, did not emerge
until the final phase, where it served to

Stressor activities
1. Permanent environmental
restructuring
(a) Major construction activity
– urban expansion
– transport network
– tourist facilities
– marinas, ski lifts, sea walls
(b) Change in land use
– expansion of recreational lands
2. Generation of waste residuals
– urbanization
– transportation
3. Tourist activities
– skiing
– walking
– hunting
– trail bike riding
– collecting
4. Effect on population dynamics
– population growth
Fig. 1.2. A framework for the study of tourism and environmental stress. Source: Pearce, D.G. (1980b) after OECD.
4
Secondary response
Primary response (Reaction)
Stress Environmental Human
Restructuring of local Change in habitat Individual response
environments Change in population of – impact on aesthetic values
biological species Collective measures
– expansion of built Change in health and welfare of – expenditure on environmental improvements
environments man – expenditure on management of conservation
Change in visual quality – designation of wildlife conservation and national parks
– controls on access to recreational lands
– land taken out of primary
production
Pollution loadings Change in quality of Individual defensive measures
environmental media Locals
– air conditioning
– recycling of waste materials
Chapter 1
– protests and attitude change
Tourists
– change of attitude towards the environment
– decline in tourist revenues
Collective defensive measures
– expenditure on pollution abandonment by tourist-
related industries
– clean-up of rivers, beaches
Trampling of vegetation Change in habitat Collective defensive measures
and soils Change in population of – expenditure on management of conservation
biological species – designation of wildlife conservation and national parks
Destruction of species – controls on access to recreational lands
Population density Congestion Individual response
(seasonal) Demand for natural resources – attitudes to overcrowding and the environment
– land and water Collective measures
– energy – growth in support services, e.g. water supply, electricity
 Introduction: Frameworks and Tourism Research
draw the various facets of the plan together,
and to provide a ‘focused future’, the under-
lying thrust of the plan (Tourism Resource
Consultants, 2002). These two examples
also illustrate how frameworks might be
used at different stages of the planning proc-
ess: in the case of Sarawak, guiding the
project from the outset; in the case of Samoa,
being an outcome of the process.
Teaching and supervision constitute a
third area in which I have found the use of
frameworks very helpful. Having taught
research methods courses for many years
and supervised numerous theses, I have
found that a common challenge for many
students is mastering the big picture of the
research, of seeing how the whole process
fits together, of consistently appreciating
how the research questions formulated
relate to the data collected, how the types
of data collected and the way in which
this has been done are linked to the means
of analysis, and how the results might be
interpreted in terms of a theoretical frame-
work. Consequently, I have often laid less
stress on the individual components of the
research process and emphasized instead
the research cycle as a framework to guide
beginning researchers through the different
stages from problem formulation to report
writing and paper presentation. On top of
this basic framework, I have begun to layer
other frameworks, asking the students to be
explicit about their conceptual frameworks
or to identify their analytical frameworks.
Encouragement to elaborate such frame-
works has invariably produced structures
that have enabled them to manage their time
better and to make the most of their ideas
and the data they have collected.
In getting across to my students the
value of frameworks, I have inevitably
drawn on my own experiences outlined
above, starting with the Mount Cook
framework which served me well as a mas-
ter’s student. Beyond this, however, it is
only recently that I have begun to reflect
more systematically about the nature of
frameworks in tourism research. Although
some common threads may be evident in
the frameworks that I have used over the
last three decades – the use of scale as an
5
organizing device reflects my background
in geography and a temporal dimension
reflects my research origins in historical
geography – these frameworks have largely
been developed in isolation from each other
as new research problems have been tack-
led and new approaches have been framed.
There has been little conscious considera-
tion until now of the broader role that such
frameworks have played in my own research
or the research of others, let alone any
attempt to systematically review frame-
works for tourism, and to critically address
their various merits and applications.
In this I am not alone. As the following
chapters will demonstrate, a large and
diverse array of frameworks has been used
in tourism research. To date, however, frame-
works have received no systematic and
comprehensive treatment in the tourism
literature. Some studies begin by outlining
the limitations of existing theories or frame-
works, but more often a given framework
will be used or developed with little or no
wider discussion of the general nature and
role of frameworks, what they are and what
they help us to do. An exception to this
general pattern is P.L. Pearce’s (2005) review
of a series of ‘conceptual schemes’ for
understanding tourist behaviour. In con-
trast, systematic discussions of relevant
frameworks are becoming more common in
other literature types – as diverse as family
analysis (Nye and Berado, 1981), interna-
tional relations (Papp, 1991), sport psychol-
ogy (Hill, 2001), project management
(Forsberg et al., 2005) and teaching and
learning (Moseley et al., 2005). The nature
and role of frameworks in research, espe-
cially qualitative research, has also been
discussed by such writers as Miles and
Huberman (1994), Merriam (2001) and Anfara
and Mertz (2006).
The reasons these authors give for writ-
ing their books illustrate why a similar
review and discussion of frameworks for
tourism is long overdue. Nye and Berado
(1981, p. xiii), for example, note: ‘Our moti-
vation for developing a systematic statement
of the major subdisciplinary, disciplinary
and professional frameworks was the need
for communication’ to develop a common
6 Chapter 1
language and frame of reference for the
emerging field of family studies. Citing Hill
and Hansen (1960), Nye and Berado (1981,
p. 3) observed that ‘the identification of con-
ceptual frameworks is crucial both to the
inventory and codification of family research
and . . . to the eventual development and
accumulation of research propositions’. Nye
and Berado also suggest the delineation of
conceptual frameworks assists researchers by:
• making it explicit that a number of
different frameworks exist and represent
varied perspectives for viewing the
object of study;
• providing a listing and definition of the
central concepts of each framework
and making explicit their underlying
assumptions;
• introducing an element of orderliness
into the research process and findings
and offering useful tools in the develop-
ment of propositions that will stand the
tests of replication; and
• providing an ‘armoury’ of ideas.
Hill (2001, p. 185) echoes these first
two points, observing that ‘. . . the heart of
scholarship is perspective – theoretical per-
spective – for the theoretical model of the
practitioner is the lens that mediates all
observations. For this reason it is impera-
tive that practitioners and researchers
acknowledge the underlying assumptions
that shape the lenses they use to see the
world.’ Anfara and Mertz (2006, p. xiii) claim
that ‘ongoing confusion about the use of
theory and theoretical frameworks in quali-
tative research makes it all the more impor-
tant to openly address this issue, look
closely at what researchers do, and subject
their use of theory to review by others’.
Papp’s (1991, p. 19) book, organized around
six major frameworks based on a set of
concepts including levels of analysis and
forces for change, ‘proceeds from the
assumption that many methods of analysis
provide useful insights into the state of the
world, but none provides perfect insight’.
In tourism research, the issue is per-
haps not so much one of confusion but of
the fragmented state of this field of study,
characterized by the proliferation of diverse
and often unconnected frameworks. This
condition reflects both the object of study
and the nature of the researchers who study
it. Tourism is characterized by its complex-
ity: it is a multi-sectoral activity involving
multiple stakeholders; it has a complex
geographical pattern of supply and demand,
which is continuously evolving; it can be
viewed as a social, economic or environ-
mental phenomenon. As a result, tourism
has attracted the attention of researchers
from a wide range of disciplines, including
geography, economics, marketing, business
management, sociology and anthropology
and, increasingly, from a new generation
of scholars who have grown up within
the field of tourism studies. Each of these
disciplines brings its own set of lenses or
frameworks to the study of tourism; indeed,
if the pattern of my own research career out-
lined above is typical, each individual
researcher has his or her own disparate
toolkit of frameworks.
This diversity can be both enriching
and problematic. It is enriching because dif-
ferent frameworks can shed new light on
the subject and thereby advance our under-
standing and lead to more effective solu-
tions; but it may also be problematic in the
sense that the cumulative body of knowl-
edge is not necessarily advancing as effec-
tively as it might owing to the lack of a
common sense of direction, inadequate com-
munication across disciplines and between
researchers, and limitations in building on
what has gone before (Pearce and Butler,
2010b). As the writers in other fields have
noted, one way forward in this situation is
to address explicitly the nature and purpose
of the frameworks we use and how we use
them. This book aims to aid this process by
systematically setting out the main types of
frameworks that have been used in tourism
research, examining their distinguishing
features and how they are used, and illus-
trating these with specific examples. In this
way, the book seeks to assist researchers to
become more conscious of the range of
frameworks available and be more aware of
the opportunities for using them; to foster a
critical appreciation of appropriate frame-
works, both in their own work and the work
 Introduction: Frameworks and Tourism Research
of others; and to develop and/or apply
frameworks more effectively and thereby
enhance the quality of their research and
the way in which it is communicated.
The book is ambitious in scope; it cov-
ers a wide range of frameworks and diverse
aspects of their development and use. However,
it does not pretend to be exhaustive, for
many areas fall outside my fields of exper-
tise and experience, and limit my ability to
synthesize and critique certain types of
work and their associated frameworks – for
example economics and advanced quantita-
tive analysis. Nevertheless, it is hoped that
the structured and systematic approach
adopted here will encourage others working
in such areas to undertake complementary
reviews in the future, or at least to look
more critically at the frameworks that they
themselves are using.
Frameworks, Theories and Models
Even after limiting the scope of the book as
outlined above, any attempt to synthesize
and critique tourism frameworks remains a
challenging endeavour. Part of this chal-
lenge arises out of the complex nature of
tourism and from the multidisciplinary
nature of work in this field which has given
rise to a plethora of frameworks and varia-
tions in their use. This compounds issues
experienced elsewhere with regard to a gen-
eral looseness and inconsistency in the use
of terminology, the existence of different the-
oretical and methodological perspectives
on what is appropriate, and the degree to
which any frameworks are treated implic-
itly or explicitly. Although the term ‘frame-
work’ is widely used in tourism research,
frameworks are rarely defined very explic-
itly and, as in other fields (Anfara and
Mertz, 2006), there is no common and con-
sistently used definition. Indeed, what con-
stitutes a framework in general is usually
ignored or taken for granted as the discus-
sion in most studies passes directly to the
specific features of the framework in ques-
tion without any wider consideration of the
general nature and purpose of frameworks.
7
Terms are often used very loosely or inter-
changeably by different authors and the
frameworks themselves are applied in vari-
ous ways depending on the theoretical and
methodological stance of the researchers
concerned.
As a result, addressing the issue of
‘what is a framework’ is challenging. In the
wider social science research literature,
Willis (2007, p. 158) defines a framework as
‘a set of broad concepts that guide research’.
According to Moseley et al. (2005, p. 34):
‘A framework is a general term for a struc-
ture that provides support. In this context
[teaching and learning], it has to provide
support for thinking about thinking. On this
basis, lists, groups and taxonomies are frame-
works that may support such thought,
although the frames they offer may vary
from a stick to an edifice . . . The term frame-
work covers a wide variety of structures.’
The term ‘framework’ is frequently quali-
fied by some adjective that often, but not
always, emphasizes its derivation or use:
conceptual, theoretical, analytical, heuris-
tic, integrative, interpretative, institutional,
etc. Such terms, for example conceptual
frameworks and theoretical frameworks, are
commonly used interchangeably but may
also be given specific meaning.
Further confusion results from the lack
of a clear distinction between frameworks
and related terms such as theories and
models, an issue compounded by the lack
of consensus on these latter terms. In
particular, the issue of what constitutes a
theory is beset by semantic difficulties
and epistemological/ontological differences
between and within the quantitative and
qualitative branches of research as well as
between different disciplines (Nye and
Berado, 1981; Bacharach, 1989; Flinders
and Mills, 1993; Doty and Glick, 1994;
Miles and Huberman, 1994; Merriam, 2001;
Anfara and Mertz, 2006; Stock, 2010).
Bacharach (1989, p. 498), for example,
views theory as ‘a system of constructs and
variables in which the constructs are
related to each other by propositions and
the variables are related to each other by
hypotheses. The whole system is bounded
by the theorist’s assumptions.’ For Stock
8 Chapter 1
(2010, p. 20) a theory is ‘a conceptual
ensemble which defines a certain perspec-
tive and which, in the course of events,
aids the selection of the relevant elements
to be described, analysed, interpreted and
explained. Defined as a perspective, a the-
ory is a symbolic construction which aims
to make sense of the multiple facts with
which we are confronted.’
Citing Bacharach (1989), Doty and Glick
(1994, p. 233) observe:
Although there are no concise, unanimously
accepted definitions of a theory, theory-
building experts seem to agree that there
are at least three primary criteria that
theories must meet:
a) constructs must be identified;
b) relationships among these constructs must
be identified; and
c) these relationships must be falsifiable
[i.e. they must be testable].
Similarly, Van Scotter and Culligan (2003,
p. 16–17) assert:
The term theory refers to an organized
body of concepts and principles that are
intended to explain a phenomenon and the
context in which it exists. A theory is a
tentative, potentially falsifiable description
of how things are related. It summarizes
what is already known about a phenomenon,
reduces the list of possible alternative
explanations to a manageable number, and
provides hypotheses that can be tested. . . .
Research progresses by formulating
theoretical hypotheses about how
constructs are related and devising tests to
reject them.
Many qualitative researchers would
agree with the first two of Doty and Glick’s
(1994) criteria but differ with respect to the
third, the ability to falsify hypotheses,
arguing that many different realities exist
that can be interpreted but not formally
tested. Qualitative researchers also tend to
stress the importance of context in contrast
to the universal laws sought by other theo-
rists. In these respects, the term theory is
often used much more broadly in qualita-
tive research. Noting a lack of agreement in
its use, Flinders and Mills (1993, p. viii)
state that theory ‘can be defined in both nar-
row and broad terms, as formal explanatory
propositions, explicitly stated, or as tenta-
tive musings’ and that theory operates at
distinct levels: grand theories, theories
of the middle range and minor working
hypotheses. Later in this volume, Flinders
(1993, p. 118) elaborates on this point with
respect to a continuum of theory that ranges
from ‘the ideas or reasons to account for a
particular action at a particular time and
place’ to ‘grandiose and broadly conceived
orientations to understand how the world
operates’.
In a recent content analysis of the lead-
ing tourism journals, Smith and Lee (2010)
found that the term theory is being used in
varying ways and with differing levels of
rigour. They derived a sevenfold typology
of theory in tourism that ranges (pp. 31–32)
from ‘theory of the first type’ (‘capable of
producing new and significant falsifiable
predictions and conceptually linked to other
theories that provide an integrated under-
standing of some aspect of reality’) to
‘theory of the seventh type’, where the term
is used ‘uncritically, casually or without
substantive foundation’ (p. 34). They con-
clude that while there has been a relative
growth over the period in the theoretical
basis of the articles published in the jour-
nals examined, the term ‘theory’ is increas-
ingly being used in ways in which it has no
substantive meaning.
Less debate has occurred on any dis-
tinction between frameworks and models.
While writers such as Forsberg et al. (2005)
distinguish between the two, more gener-
ally the terms are used synonymously, or a
model is considered as one form of frame-
work, one in which the relationships between
constructs are more formalized than in other
types of frameworks. Forsberg et al. (2005,
p. 11) define a framework as ‘a set of assump-
tions, concepts, values and practices that
constitute a way of viewing reality’ whereas
a model is ‘a representation of the real thing
used to depict a process, investigate an oppor-
tunity or a risk, or evaluate an attribute . . .
they focus attention on critical issues while
stripping away less important details’.
However, they recognize the link between
the two, having observed earlier (p. xxv)
that models ‘provide a common conceptual
 Introduction: Frameworks and Tourism Research
frame of reference’. According to Chorley
and Haggett (1967, p. 22): ‘A model is . . . a
simplified structuring of reality which
presents supposedly significant features or
relationships in a generalized form’. As
Chorley and Haggett show in geography,
and Getz (1986) illustrates later for tourism
planning, numerous types of models are to
be found.
The approach adopted here is to clas-
sify and discuss frameworks in terms of
their function and form. First, different
types of frameworks might be identified by
how we use them, that is, by the functions
that they serve. In the next section, these
functions are discussed with reference to
how frameworks are used at various stages
of the research process – from problem
formulation through data collection and
analysis to the presentation and interpreta-
tion of results. On this basis, four functional
frameworks are identified and outlined:
theoretical, conceptual, analytical and inte-
grative. These frameworks are examined in
greater depth in Chapters 2–5. Secondly, as
discussed in Chapters 6–8, frameworks
take different forms and are configured in
different ways.
Frameworks, Functions and the
Research Process
Research can be defined in many ways but
in general can be thought of as ‘a system-
atic investigation to find answers to a
problem’ (Burns, 1997, p. 4).The research
process that enables this systematic investi-
gation is often expressed by frameworks
depicting a series of successive steps or
stages, frequently cyclical in nature (Pizam,
1991; Finn et al., 2000; Jennings, 2001; Veal,
2006; Long, 2007; Brotherton, 2008). These
variations on a theme are not surprising
given that the problems addressed differ and
that tourism research is undertaken for many
different purposes (exploratory, descriptive,
explanatory, predictive . . .), may be applied
or more theoretical in nature and is carried
out by researchers from different disciplinary
backgrounds using a range of approaches
9
(deductive/inductive, qualitative/quantita-
tive, positivist/phenomenological . . .).
Different sorts of frameworks tend to be
used in different ways at various phases in
the research process. This notion is devel-
oped in Fig. 1.3, which depicts the research
process as a cycle and shows how different
frameworks – theoretical, conceptual, inte-
grative and analytical – are characteristi-
cally used at different phases in the process.
The six major interrelated phases in the
inner circle of Fig. 1.3 are outlined below,
and then the frameworks depicted on the
outer arcs are briefly discussed. Chapters 2–5
further elaborate respectively on the ways
in which theoretical, conceptual, analytical
and integrative frameworks are used in the
different phases, with reference to specific
examples. The emphasis in these four
chapters is thus on demonstrating how vari-
ous sorts of frameworks can inform and
assist our research rather than on dealing
with how research in general is carried out,
how specific methodologies are used or
what the merits or otherwise of particular
approaches are, as these are covered else-
where in the literature.
If we consider research as the process
by which we seek answers to a problem,
then the process begins by formulating our
problem statement (Fig. 1.3). What questions
should we be asking? What is it that we
want answers to? What additional knowl-
edge do we need to address the problem we
have identified? How this stage of the proc-
ess is worked through varies quite substan-
tially depending on the approach being
taken but, in general, it consists of progres-
sively narrowing the focus of our study.
In the case of deductive studies, problem
formulation will take the form of theorizing
and establishing formal hypotheses to test
the relationships between variables. In other
instances, more general or specific questions
will be identified that we will seek answers
to. In establishing these hypotheses and gen-
erating questions to pursue, we will need to
review the literature in order to establish
what is already known about the topic,
to identify where the gaps in knowledge are,
to determine what is important and what
is of less consequence, and to see how other
10 Chapter 1

c or theoretica
m ati l
t he
k:
or
w etical frame
e eor wo
m Th rk
rk
a
fr

o
w
ve

e
am
ti

Problem
ra

Theoretical and
fr

practical implications formulation

eg

al
Int

Co
ptu

ncep
Conce

Presentation Research

tual
Research
and cycle design
interpretation

fram
ew
or
Data Data

k
analysis collection

o rk
An ew
l
alyt
a

ical fram
c
ti

ly
a
an
:
o rk
ew
Integrative fram

Fig. 1.3. Frameworks and the research cycle.

researchers have tackled the problem. Given
the fragmentation of the field of tourism
studies and a common need to span across
different literatures, getting to grips with the
relevant studies, distilling the essential
ideas, findings and theories, and locating
our own research within the existing body
of literature to show the contribution that
we are making can be very challenging.
Synthesis, bounding and problem genera-
tion are key aspects of the problem formula-
tion stage. These are all tasks that are assisted
by the use of frameworks.
Research design follows the formula-
tion of the research problem. The primary
tasks here are to delimit the scope of the
project (what, where and over what period),
to operationalize concepts and definitions,
and to select the method or methods to col-
lect and analyse the data needed from among
the plethora of those available. Survey
research, for example, will involve consid-
eration of such issues as identifying the
target population and using a sample frame
to draw a representative sample, designing a
questionnaire and deciding on an appropri-
ate mechanism by which to administer it.
Qualitative research may involve decisions
about which communities to study, whose
experiences to observe and record, and how
this will be done – for example through
in-depth interviews, keeping diaries or
 Introduction: Frameworks and Tourism Research
participant observation. Multi-method stud-
ies will raise issues about which types of
data are to be collected by which methods
and how these will come together to answer
the research questions posed. What is the
unit of analysis – the individual tourist, the
host family, the tourism business or the des-
tination? Account must be taken of logistical
considerations as well. The research design
should also look ahead to anticipate how the
data collected will be analysed; for instance,
how will the survey data be processed and
what statistical tests will be applied.
Likewise, how will the transcripts of the
in-depth interviews or the observations of
visitor behaviour be handled?
Empirical data are then collected to test
the hypotheses or generate information to
address the questions specified following
the scope, definitions and procedures of the
research design. Tourism researchers use a
wide variety of data – observations, survey
results, interview transcripts, archival mat-
erial, expenditure records and photographs –
that are collected using different methods.
This information may be collected in differ-
ent field contexts: data on visitors may be
collected at home, in transit to and from the
destination and in different locales (e.g. at
hotels or while visiting and attractions);
information on hosts can be obtained at
home, at their places of employment, or
through intercept surveys in such places as
shopping malls.
Data analysis is essentially about sorting
the information that has been collected in
such a way that meaning can be derived,
patterns can be found, relationships exam-
ined and/or hypotheses tested. Before that,
however, the data need to be prepared and
generally reduced: quantitative survey data
will need be to be coded, input and proc-
essed; interviews will be transcribed; archi-
val material will be ordered and summarized.
How analysis proceeds will be determined
by the approach adopted: quantitative data
may be subjected to a variety of statistical
procedures to reveal patterns and test the
strength of relationships; in other cases, key
themes will emerge from repeated reading
and progressive coding of interview tran-
scripts or archival material.
11
The findings that result from the analysis
are then presented, discussed and/or inter-
preted. Again, considerable variation can
occur in the way this is done. Quantitative
data are usually presented by way of tables
and figures; the results of statistical tests are
given to indicate the strength of relation-
ships between variables; hypotheses are
accepted or rejected and the outcome may
be related back to some theory. Conversely,
where the process has been conducted
inductively, generalization from the empiri-
cal results may lead to the development of
theory. The findings of qualitative research
are often presented textually, but may be
supported by figures; they are commonly
descriptive or interpretive.
The theoretical and practical implica-
tions of the findings are then discussed,
generally with reference back to the wider
literature. The findings and implications
may in turn generate new questions or lead
to a reformulation of the problem statement,
and so a new cycle begins.
Four types of frameworks are depicted
in the outer arcs of Fig. 1.3: theoretical, con-
ceptual, analytical and integrative. As with
other types of frameworks, usage of these
terms varies considerably in the literature,
to the extent that they are often used inter-
changeably, even within studies. This is
especially the case with theoretical and
conceptual frameworks. Here, an attempt is
made to distinguish between these different
types of frameworks in terms of their main
functions; that is, how and where they are
used in the research process. To illustrate
their characteristics and functions the dis-
cussion will focus on core types and explicit
examples, but it is recognized that the
boundaries of this classification are blurred,
that the transition from one phase to another
in the research process is not always linear
and clear-cut, that different functions are
interrelated and that researchers vary in the
extent to which they elaborate on the frame-
works they are using.
Two basic tasks of frameworks are to
help us to organize and communicate the
research we do. In different ways and at dif-
ferent stages, frameworks assist us to organ-
ize our ideas, theories, the literature, our
12 Chapter 1
research design, the data we collect and the
results we obtain. Better organization leads
to better research as we identify and focus
on the critical issues and use our time and
resources more effectively and efficiently.
Better organization based on clear and explicit
frameworks also enables us to communicate
our ideas, processes and findings in a more
structured way, so that what we have done
and what we have found out is better under-
stood and can also be set more effectively in
the context of other research. In addition,
particular types of frameworks will also
have other more specific functions depend-
ing on where they are being used in the
research process.
Theoretical frameworks
According to Merriam (2001, p. 45) the
theoretical framework ‘is derived from the
orientation or stance that you bring to your
study. It is the structure, the scaffolding, the
frame of your study. Every study has one.’
This is to take a fairly broad and liberal view
of what constitutes a theory and echoes
Schwandt’s (1993, p. 8) claims that atheo-
retical research is impossible as ‘we have
partial foreknowledge of the phenomenon
we enquire into’. This point is developed
by Merriam (2001, p. 7), who states that:
‘Theory is present in all qualitative studies
because no study could be designed with-
out some question being asked (explicitly or
implicitly). How that question is phrased
and how it is worked into a problem state-
ment reflect a theoretical orientation.’ As a
result, Merriam claims (p. 7) that ‘a theo-
retical framework underlies all research’.
Anderson’s (1983, p. 12) distinction that ‘a
framework is a general pool of constructs
for understanding a domain but it is not
tightly enough organized to constitute a pre-
dictive theory’ appears very apposite here.
However, studies vary greatly in the ways in
which and the extent to which the research
is embedded in an underlying theory or
theories and the degree to which this under-
lying structure is made explicit. Added to
this are the differing views discussed earlier
as to what constitutes a theory. The attempt
of Smith and Lee (2010) to develop a typol-
ogy of theories used in tourism research
shows that the term is often used rather
loosely, while its relative infrequence sug-
gests that many theoretical frameworks
employed are implicit rather than expressly
stated. In one of the early reviews of the
field of tourism research, Dann et al. (1988)
defined theory (p. 4) as ‘that body of logi-
cally interconnected propositions which
provides an interpretative basis for under-
standing phenomena’.
The statements by Merriam (2001) and
Dann et al. (1998) indicate two of the key
functions of the theoretical frameworks
used in carrying out research. First, they
help us to formulate our research problem
by directing our attention to relevant and
important issues and relationships. In the
positivist tradition, this commonly takes
the form of suggesting formal hypotheses
to be tested but, as will be shown later,
other research approaches may also be sup-
ported by explicit theoretical frameworks
that shape the questions asked and the way
in which the research design is structured.
Secondly, theoretical frameworks provide
us with a basis for interpreting the empiri-
cal findings that result from our analysis.
They enable us to give meaning to our
results, to explain the patterns and trends
that emerge. Both of these phases can, of
course, be undertaken without such a
framework, and the absence of explicit
theoretical frameworks in much tourism
research suggests this is commonly the
case. Research problems, for example, may
originate from observation, from personal
experience, from the need to solve a real-
world problem. Results can also be inter-
preted in the light of personal experience,
by reflection or by comparison with other
sets of findings. However, undertaking
research with reference to a particular the-
ory or theories and making this theoretical
scaffolding explicit enables us to link our
work more clearly with the wider litera-
ture, increases our potential to focus on
significant relationships, to explain what
we have found and to consider the general-
ity of the findings beyond the immediate
 Introduction: Frameworks and Tourism Research
study. This is especially so when the rela-
tionship between these functions and
phases is linked from the outset, that is, the
research is initiated to explain rather than
merely explore or describe. In stressing the
advantages of adopting a theoretical frame-
work, Hinch and Jackson (2000, p. 103)
asserted that the use of a leisure constraints
framework ‘highlighted the advantages for
researchers in the area of tourism seasonal-
ity to incorporate a stronger theoretical
base, thereby overcoming the ceiling of
insight that has been self-imposed by a
rush towards quick solutions to a complex
problem’ (emphasis added).
Conceptual frameworks
Theoretical frameworks are seen here to
operate at a higher level than conceptual
frameworks, which are more tightly focused
on what is being studied. Conceptual frame-
works set out the key concepts and factors
to be investigated and the links between
these, as demonstrated by the following
quotations:
They [conceptual frameworks] were not
intended to be theories, but devices to map,
categorize and communicate the diverse
efforts of family researchers, practitioners
and would be theorists.
(Nye and Berado, 1981, p. xxvi)
Our perception of a conceptual framework is
the essential or important concepts employed
and the basic assumptions which underlie the
concepts and to a degree integrate them into
a meaningful configuration.
(Nye and Berado, 1981, p. 3)
Conceptual frameworks … are the researcher’s
first cut at making some explicit theoretical
statement.
(Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 91)
A conceptual framework explains, either
graphically or in narrative form, the main
things to be studied – the key factors,
constructs or variables – and the presumed
relationships among them. Frameworks
can be rudimentary or elaborate, theory-
driven or commonsensical, descriptive or
causal.
(Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 18)
13
Essentially, the conceptual framework is a
structure that seeks to identify and present in
a logical format, the key factors relating to the
phenomena under investigation. Depending
on the nature and purpose(s) of the research
project, the conceptual framework may be
correlational or causal in form.
(Brotherton, 2008, p. 78)
P.L. Pearce (2005, p. 12) prefers the term
‘conceptual schemes’, which refer:
To the use of well-defined and inter-
connected concepts as summary and
explanatory tools in elucidating how tourist
behaviour arises and functions. Conceptual
schemes go beyond both description and
mere re-statements of the observed world.
They are not, however, fully functioning
theories.
Shields and Tajalli (2006, p. 316) empha-
size the connective function of conceptual
frameworks, particularly in terms of student
research:
These frameworks help students connect
forward into the problem and give direction
on how to collect and analyse data. They
also have a connective function backward to
the literature and larger theoretical frameworks
(i.e. neo-classical economics, organization
theory).
As will be shown in Chapter 3, this connec-
tive function of conceptual frameworks is
critical for many forms of research, not just
that of students.
Analytical frameworks
An analytical framework might be thought
of as ‘a set of relationships that do not lead
to specific conclusions about the world of
events but can serve in organizing in a pre-
liminary way the object of the enquiry’
(Pacquet, 1993, p. 274, citing Leibenstein,
1976). Analytical frameworks serve to struc-
ture the analysis of data. They are related to
more operational aspects of the research
process (Fig. 1.3) and are generally found
towards the middle of research papers
rather than in the introduction. Two levels
of analytical frameworks might be identified.
At one level, these frameworks set out the
14 Chapter 1
structure and sequence according to which
the analysis of the data will be carried out
and the results will be presented. This is a
step that is often missing in much reported
research, particularly in student research
where the emphasis in discussions of meth-
odology is frequently limited to data collec-
tion, and issues of analysis are neglected
or are simply assumed to follow from a con-
ceptual framework. In many cases, the con-
ceptual framework may provide a basis for
the analysis, but articulation of a specific
analytical framework will assist this phase
of the research by laying out the structure
and order of analysis explicitly and by
discussing the logic of the underlying
sequence. Explicit analytical frameworks of
this sort are especially useful when various
steps and multiple methods are being
employed and/or large bodies of data are
being analysed. At another level, analytical
frameworks might be seen as a tool with
which more specific sets of data are ana-
lysed. They shape how the analysis is to be
undertaken.
Integrative frameworks
Integration, as the name suggests, is the
prime task of integrative frameworks. While
all frameworks, to a certain degree, bring
together variables and concepts, integrative
frameworks are distinguished by their
emphasis on integrating ideas, concepts,
theories and methods so as to synthesize
what is known about a particular phenom-
enon, to provide shape and structure to a
field of study or across fields of study, and/
or to combine approaches to studying the
field or particular phenomena. In terms of
what is being integrated, three main types of
integrative frameworks can be identified:
thematic, theoretical and methodological.
The need for and use of integrative frame-
works is well established in other areas, such
as management and marketing (Ginsberg,
1984; Jemison, 1984; Zahra and Pearce, 1989;
Hart, 1992; Workman et al., 1998; Vera
and Crossan, 2003; El-Ansary, 2006), but is
more recent and less widespread in tourism
studies (Pearce, 2001; Jamal and Lee, 2003;
Gursoy and McCleary, 2004; Zhao and
Ritchie, 2007). Integration can benefit dif-
ferent phases of the research process and
may also lead to more integrated solutions
to problems that may arise. New research
questions may be generated through the
cross-fertilization of ideas (Jemison, 1984),
by the identification of gaps in the litera-
ture or in our knowledge about a particular
problem or phenomenon (Pearce, 2001;
Zhao and Ritchie, 2007), and by the devel-
opment of new theoretical perspectives
(Vera and Crossan, 2003; Gursoy and
McCleary, 2004). Frameworks that inte-
grate different methodologies can also
enhance research design, data collection
and analysis (Armitage, 1995; Davies,
2003), and enable the findings of specific
studies to be put in context and show the
contribution that has been made more
effectively (Pearce, 2001).
In order to bring out the distinctive
features of these four types of frameworks,
many of the examples cited in Chapters 2–5
highlight studies that emphasize, respec-
tively, theoretical, conceptual, analytical and
integrative frameworks. Owing to considera-
tions of length, many journal articles focus
on or emphasize only one of these. This is
particularly the case in articles dealing with
the development of specific frameworks.
In reality, of course, the whole research proc-
ess involves various different phases and
functions that might be aided by the use of
successive types of frameworks (Fig. 1.3),
especially where large research projects and
theses are involved. Consideration needs
to be given, therefore, not only to the func-
tions of particular frameworks but to the
way in which two or more of these might be
used in any particular study (Cohen, 1993;
Schänzel, 2010).
Forms of Frameworks
The frameworks used by tourism researchers
can take various forms and be presented in
different ways. Most of the theoretical frame-
works discussed in Chapter 2, especially
 Introduction: Frameworks and Tourism Research
those dealing with grand and middle-order
theories, have been presented in narrative
form, whereby the different authors lay out
textually, with varying degrees of structure,
the concepts and propositions of the under-
lying theories that they are using. In contrast,
many of the conceptual, analytical and inte-
grative frameworks discussed in Chapters 3–5
have been presented schematically and con-
figured in different ways, for instance as
matrices, as types of systems, as Venn dia-
grams or as a spectrum. The challenge of
identifying and discussing different forms
of frameworks in other fields of study has
been met by writers in different ways, and
generally depends on the functions of the
frameworks and on whether they are
expressed in narrative form or are depicted
schematically.
Social scientists often take a more nar-
rative approach and elaborate a set of theo-
retical frameworks chapter by chapter,
often with reference to case studies (Papp,
1991; Flinders and Mills, 1993; Hill, 2001;
Anfara and Mertz, 2006). Hill (2001) inter-
prets a single case study from the perspec-
tive of five major psychological models
used by sports psychologists (psycho-
dynamic, behavioural, cognitive, humanistic
and neurolinguistic programming). Papp
(1991) organizes his analysis of interna-
tional relations into six major frameworks
based on a set of concepts that includes
levels of analysis and forces for change.
Contributors to Anfara and Mertz’s (2006)
volume follow a common format to present
and discuss the theoretical frameworks
they have used. In contrast, Miles and
Huberman (1994) focus on frameworks for
qualitative data analysis and argue (p. 22)
that ‘conceptual frameworks are best done
graphically rather than in text’. The reason
for this, they continue, is that ‘having to
get the entire framework on a single page
obliges you to specify the bins that hold
the discrete phenomena, to map likely
relationships, to divide variables that are
conceptually or functionally distinct, and
to work with all of the information at
once’. They emphasize the role of data dis-
play (‘you know what you display’), sug-
gest that there are two major families of
15
display formats (matrices and networks)
and elaborate on the variants of these.
As with the functional frameworks, the
boundaries between these two broad divi-
sions – narrative and schematic – are not
always sharply defined. In some cases, the
figure may be summarizing a lengthy text-
ual discussion; in others, the text is elabo-
rating on the schematic framework. Schematic
depictions alone are insufficient and such
frameworks need to be supported textually
to explain and justify the concepts and rela-
tionships shown. Many narrative frame-
works would benefit from some schematic
summary to communicate relationships
between concepts or variables more clearly.
The choice of form may simply reflect
the fact that some researchers envisage the
world visually and so express their key ideas
schematically, while others prefer a more
narrative approach. As the above examples
have indicated, the choice may also reflect
the way in which the research is being
undertaken and the function of the frame-
work being used – theoretical, conceptual,
analytical or integrative. Any discussion of
choice tends to focus solely on the selection
of the particular framework being used;
there is generally little or no mention of the
rationale for how the framework is presented –
graphically or textually. Moreover, while
critiques may be made of particular forms of
frameworks, for example the importance–
performance matrix (Oh, 2001), these are
rarely contextualized in terms of that frame-
work’s general characteristics – in this case
the broader use of a matrix.
As many of the basic features of textual
frameworks will be covered in Chapter 2
(on theoretical frameworks), the focus in
Chapters 6–8 is on the more commonly
used schematic frameworks employed by
tourism researchers. These schematic frame-
works, by their very nature, are often more
explicit than many of the textual ones, and
the differences between them are distin-
guished more readily in terms of how the
key concepts or variables and the relation-
ships between them are configured and ana-
lysed. Chapter 6 deals with one of the most
common forms of frameworks, the matrix,
and shows the many and diverse ways that
16 Chapter 1
matrices have been formatted and used.
Chapter 7 draws together and systematically
reviews a range of process frameworks used
in development, planning, decision making
and distribution. Chapter 8 reviews other
schematic frameworks that are config-
ured in different ways and often deal with
higher orders of complexity: systems, net-
works and composite frameworks. The fea-
tures, functions, strengths and limitations
of each form are discussed and illustrated,
with examples of their use in tourism
research. Matrices, for instance, are fre-
quently employed either as conceptual or
analytical frameworks (but rarely both in
the same paper); they can also be used as an
integrative framework.
After these chapters have established
the widespread utility of frameworks and
demonstrated the various forms that they
take, Chapter 9 addresses the issue of how
we might select the ones that we might use
in our own research, and how we might
develop and use frameworks of our own
design. Points discussed in this chapter
include the criteria and considerations that
we should use to select frameworks, whether
there is a need for tourism-specific frame-
works or whether more general frame-
works are adequate and appropriate, and
how we go about developing a framework.
Finally, Chapter 10 offers some more gen-
eral observations on frameworks and future
directions in tourism research.
 2
Theoretical Frameworks
Reflecting the diverse disciplinary back-
grounds they come from and the range of
problems addressed, tourism researchers
draw upon a wide range of theories in devel-
oping their theoretical frameworks. As in
other areas, these theories operate at different
levels: ‘grand theories, theories of the mid-
dle range and minor working hypotheses’
(Flinders, 1993, p. 118). Drawing upon the
different levels of analysis applied in main-
stream social science and the corresponding
levels of theory, Harrison (2007) proposes a
useful three-level framework for tourism
studies (Fig. 2.1; note that the original fig-
ure also lists authors whose papers deal
with particular levels of analysis). Level 1
involves those studies that focus on indi-
viduals, their social roles and a concern
with interactionism. Level 2 studies exam-
ine social structures and smaller social
systems, commonly viewed through the
lens of middle-range theory. Finally, Level 3
studies employ grand theory to examine
such topics as globalization and interna-
tional systems. In other fields or disciplines,
researchers may frame their levels of study
with reference to a hierarchy of different
phenomena – for example the firm, the
organizational field and industry – each of
which may have a similar related set of
theories (Lawrence et al., 1997). As Harrison
(2007, p. 69) acknowledges, the ‘boundaries
© Douglas G. Pearce 2012. Frameworks for Tourism Research (D.G. Pearce)
between levels of abstraction are blurred’ and
authors may range across levels. Moreover, as
Harrison (2010) shows in his review of
research on tourism and development,
the theoretical bases of any field of study
evolve as hypotheses are tested, confirmed
or rejected, or as competing theories
replace those no longer considered to be
adequate, empirically supported or politi-
cally appropriate.
It is, therefore, not surprising that in
tourism research different sorts of theoret-
ical frameworks are presented and applied
in various ways. Some, such as those based
on what Smith and Lee (2010) refer to as
Type 1 ‘traditional’ theories, have a very for-
mal structure that sets out the relationships
between various propositions, which are
then tested quantitatively. Others have an
explicit and ordered structure based on
key principles or features embedded in or
drawn from their underpinning theories.
These principles or features are then used
systematically and sequentially to analyse
the phenomena in question. In others, the
underlying theories are presented much
more discursively and the resultant frame-
works are rather looser in structure. Fairly
loose frameworks may also occur when the
underlying theories are only weakly devel-
oped, or there is little more than a fairly
general discussion of issues or a concern
17
18 Chapter 2

Globalization and international systems

Analyses of tourism and ‘sustainability’ in a global context Grand
Level 3 Tourism, international capitalism, modernity and postmodernity theory
Interlocking international organizations
Development theory and issues

Social structures and smaller social systems Middle-range

theory
Government and the state
Tourism as a feature of national and regional socio-economic systems
Level 2 Large tourism organizations, e.g. hotel groups, tour operators, etc.
Coherent combinations of institutions, social classes and ethnic groups
Economic, social and cultural institutions
Small-scale tourism economic organizations:
gender, kinship, religious and political institutions, trades unions, etc.

Social roles
‘Demonstration effects’
Conflict and cooperation
Acculturation Interactionism
Commoditization
Motivation and attitudes
‘Sex tourism’

Level 1

Individuals

Fig. 2.1. Levels of analysis in tourism studies. Source: Redrawn from Harrison, D. (2007) Towards developing
a framework for analysing tourism phenomena: a discussion, Current Issues in Tourism 10(1), 61–86.
Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).

with largely definitional matters. With the
use of grounded theory, the theory is gener-
ated inductively from the data analysed and
frameworks may be the outcome of the study
rather than a structure for the research. In
other cases still, the theoretical framework is
said to be constituted by the literature review,
even though the research reported is not
expressly structured by or informed by it.
The emphasis here is on the application
of theoretical frameworks that draw on a
named theory or theories rather than on
broader reviews of a particular theme. In most
cases, the presentation of theoretical frame-
works is largely textual but it may be accom-
panied by supporting figures. Although these
gradations from one sort of theoretical frame-
work to another based on their structure and
 Theoretical Frameworks
the nature of the narrative are not always
sharply defined, the characteristics of differ-
ent frameworks can be illustrated with refer-
ence to particular examples – ranging from
frameworks which have a more explicit
structure to those based on a looser narrative,
and also by the ways in which they are used
to link to the wider literature, formulate
research problems and interpret findings.
‘Traditional’ and Related Theories
In quantitative research, the process is
typically one in which the problem is
stated, a theoretical framework is devel-
oped, often from middle or lower level the-
ory, hypotheses are proposed and tested
after the variables are operationalized, and
the results are interpreted. Morais et al.
(2004) address the issue of customer loyalty
in this way. They assert that the literature
fails to provide an adequate understanding
of how loyalty develops and why many loy-
alty programmes lack effectiveness. They
argue there are limitations to the use of an
attitude-based framework for the analysis of
customer loyalty and propose an alternative
resource investment framework that draws
from resource theory and notions of reci-
procity and customer equity. In particular,
their theoretical framework proposes (p. 237)
that ‘when customers perceive that a pro-
vider is investing special resources in them,
they tend to respond with equitable invest-
ments in the provider and also subsequently
protect those investments by maintaining a
loyal relationship with that provider’. Two
hypotheses are then developed from this
and tested on data through structural equa-
tion modelling, namely: (i) that customers’
perceptions of investments made by the
provider significantly and positively influ-
ence customers’ reported investments in the
provider, and (ii) that customers’ reported
investments in the provider significantly
and positively influence customer loyalty.
The results from an analysis of data derived
from a survey of white-water rafters indi-
cated a good fit for the causal model and the
hypotheses are accepted. Morais et al. then
19
return to the theoretical implications of
their study and discuss how their findings
are consistent with the notions of reciprocity
and customer equity and how these support
the usefulness of resource theory.
A similar approach is used by Nunkoo
and Ramkisson (2010) to model community
support for a proposed integrated resort
project in Mauritius. They assert that while
much research dealing with residents’ atti-
tudes towards tourism has been atheoreti-
cal, social exchange theory has been used
successfully as a theoretical framework to
explain attitudes. Social exchange theory is
based on the proposition that individuals’
attitudes towards entering an exchange is
based on the perceived benefits and costs
that the exchange might bring. Drawing on
this theory, Nunkoo and Ramkisson develop
and test a structural model of community
support which proposes four antecedents of
residents’ views towards the benefits and
costs of the project: residents’ satisfaction
with their own community; utilization of
the resource base; state of the local economy;
and environmental attitudes. A series of
hypotheses is then developed and tested
using structural equation modelling and data
from a resident survey. The level of support
for the project was found to be determined
by all the factors except for the residents’
perceptions of the impact of development on
their utilization of the resource base.
In a more exploratory study, Woosnam
et al. (2009) examined the relationship
between residents and tourists. They argue
that the use of social exchange theory is
limited as it treats the relationship as one
based solely on financial transactions and
neglects any commonalities between the
parties. As a result they propose the use
of a theoretical framework drawing on
Durkheim’s (1915/1995) theory of emotional
solidarity to shed new light on the relation-
ships between residents and tourists in a
coastal county in South Carolina. The theo-
retical framework they put forward posits
that there are three major attributes that
bring about a sense of familiarity: shared
beliefs, shared behaviour and interaction.
Woosnam et al. (p. 247) contend that it is
appropriate to apply such a framework to
20 Chapter 2
their problem given that tourism has been
studied from a systems perspective (see
Chapter 8) and that much of Durkheim’s
work centred on ‘how components of a sys-
tem serve a purpose to bring about balance,
integration and cohesion within a society’.
They do not, however, attempt to test
Durkheim’s model, but use the framework
to identify what feelings and commonalities
residents have with tourists. Qualitative
data were collected through focus groups.
The theoretical framework helped shape
the semi-structured interview script, which
included such questions as: ‘How do you
feel about tourists that you encounter
locally?’; ‘What activities do you share with
tourists?’; and ‘What degree of interaction
do you personally have with tourists?’. The
results are then discussed in the light of
Durkheim’s work.
In such exploratory research, studies
may be designed around a set of research
questions rather than to test hypotheses.
An explicit theoretical framework helps
shape the research design by providing
guidance on the major questions to be asked.
Fall (2000) draws on Rokeach’s (1973) value
theory and Kahle’s (1983) social adaptation
theory to develop a theoretical framework
with which to explore the relationship
between personal values and the use of tour-
ism information sources. Fall outlines the
main premises and assumptions of these two
theories: first, values serve as standards that
guide ongoing activities and assist in resolv-
ing conflicts and making decisions; secondly,
situational factors influence attitude change
and help people adapt to their environment.
This assessment, in turn, suggests that values
play a key role in consumer behaviour related
to making travel decisions and leads to the
formulation of the following research ques-
tions, framed in an open manner:
• Which personal values have a significant
influence on the kinds of information
sources travellers use when planning
pleasure trips?
• Which personal values have a signifi-
cant influence on such travel-related
choices as destination choice, accom-
modation and trip date?
• Which personal value do residents of
Michigan and Illinois rate as the most
important from a list of values?
These questions are then pursued by a sur-
vey of households in the two states. Analysis
of the results revealed a set of significant
relationships between the values scales and
the information source scales.
In a different context, McColl-Kennedy
and Beverley (2003) use focus groups to test
the applicability of a theoretical framework
based on fairness theory adapted from the
work of Folger and Cropanzo (1998) and
applied to service failure and recovery in
the tourism sector. The model suggests that
consumers assess providers’ attempts to
recover from service failure in terms of
accountability and counterfactual thinking
with respect to three key elements: the
negative event (specific service failure or
poor service recovery); the conduct of the
provider; and the moral principles used by
the provider. Emphasis is also given to the
emotional outcomes, negative or positive,
resulting from the counterfactual thinking.
Again, the theoretical framework influenced
the series of questions that guided the
discussion of the focus groups’ experience
of negative service events that they had
experienced as tourists: ‘The questions were
aimed at tapping into the emotions experi-
enced, the fairness theory dimensions
(coulds, shoulds and woulds), counterfac-
tual thinking by participants, and their
assessments and how they came to these
views’ (McColl-Kennedy and Beverley, 2003,
p. 257). The focus groups’ responses sup-
ported the initial theoretical framework and
provided evidence to extend it by elaborat-
ing on the customer appraisal and response
process and by differentiating their emo-
tional responses and the varying levels of
satisfaction produced.
Asprogerakas (2007) structures his
study of the development of urban tourism
in Greater Athens around Porter’s theory
of competitive advantage (Porter, 1985).
The basic framework for this is expressed
as ‘Porter’s diamond’, which depicts four
determinants of competitiveness – factor
conditions, demand conditions, retail and
 Theoretical Frameworks
supporting industries, and firm strategy,
structure and rivalry – and the relationships
between these. Although developed with
regard to manufacturing and service indus-
tries, Asprogerakas (2007, p. 92) argues that
the framework is applicable to urban tour-
ism because tourism is an industry develop-
ing through competition. He investigates the
prospect for urban tourism in Greater Athens
by examining each of the four competitive-
ness determinants in turn, using a range of
different sources. He then returns to Porter’s
theory and draws his conclusions in relation
to it: that cultural sites are the main factor
condition, demand conditions are favour-
able but the absence of a well-structured
strategy has been a critical disadvantage.
Key Principles
Other theoretical frameworks organized
around a set of key principles and features
have been derived and used at different lev-
els and applied to a range of problems. Here,
the key principles or features are commonly
used sequentially to focus the problem,
shape the data collection and analysis, and
then to interpret the findings in the light of
the underlying theory.
Kneafsey (2001) explores the process
by which local residents are involved in the
commodification of rural Brittany. She bases
her case study on a framework derived pri-
marily from Ray’s (1998, 1999) ‘cultural
economy’ approach to rural development.
As Kneafsey explains (p. 763), this notion
‘consists of strategies to transform local
knowledge into resources available to the
local territory’, and this knowledge can be
identified through a range of cultural mark-
ers such as traditional foods and regional
languages, which form part of a ‘develop-
ment repertoire’. Within the cultural econ-
omy, Ray identified four distinguishable but
interrelated modes:
• Mode 1: commoditization of local/
regional culture using resources that
have a place identity and that can be
marketed directly or used in marketing
the territory.
21
• Mode 2: the construction and promo-
tion of a (new) territorial identity to the
‘outside’ by new or existing organiza-
tions or structures.
• Mode 3: engagement of the territorial
initiative in selling itself internally.
• Mode 4: emphasis on the normative
capacity of the culture economy, which
can operate within each of the other
three modes.
Kneafsey asserts that Ray’s concept of
the cultural economy provides a useful
framework for her case study, but by itself it
is insufficient as account also needs to be
taken of conflicts which may arise in attempt-
ing to mobilize local territorial knowledge.
To do this she complements the cultural
economy concept with a consideration of
the historical trajectories of old and new
social relations. In applying her framework
to the Breton case study, Kneafsey examines
each of the four modes in turn, starting with
consideration of the commodification of
local landscapes and traditional culture.
There is some drawing together of aspects of
the first three modes as she discusses the
ways in which the creation of a regional
park is involved in Modes 1, 2 and 3 simul-
taneously, and shows that each of these
modes has become normative in relation to
the park’s, but not necessarily the locality’s,
activities. She then goes on to examine how
social relations have shaped aspects of the
local cultural economy.
Several theoretical frameworks struc-
tured around an explicit set of principles
have been applied to case studies of the
cruise industry. Weaver (2005) explores
the extent to which the core principles
of the McDonaldization thesis proposed
by Ritzer (1993, 1998) are illustrated by
trends within the cruise ship sector.
According to Ritzer, the fast food chain
exemplifies the contemporary rationaliza-
tion process and is characterized by five
main principles: efficiency, calculability,
predictability, control and the ‘irrationality
of rationality’. After acknowledging criti-
cisms of Ritzer’s Weberian approach and
offering his own critique, namely that risk
and post-Fordist customization are in some
22 Chapter 2
ways at variance with certain aspects of the
McDonaldization thesis, Weaver uses these
five principles as a framework to examine
production and consumption trends on
supersized cruise ships. He looks, for
example, at what exemplifies efficiency,
calculability and control on board these
ships and concludes that many aspects of
production and consumption are consist-
ent with the principles that underline
McDonaldization. Then, as Kneafsey (2001)
does with the theory of cultural economy,
Weaver complements the McDonaldization
thesis by a consideration of additional
dimensions – in this case of risk and post-
Fordist customization.
In a second paper, Weaver (2006) exam-
ines the extent to which cruise vacations
exemplify a second concept, Disneyization
(Bryman, 1999, 2003). First, Weaver outlines
four principles that are said to underpin
Disneyization:
• themed environments;
• dedifferentiation of consumption;
• merchandising of company products;
and
• service work described as ‘emotional
labour’.
He then uses these principles as a frame-
work to explore life on board cruise ships,
discussing, for instance, the way themed
environments are created or cruise ship
employees are required to perform emo-
tional labour. In other words, the aspects of
cruise ship life that Weaver focuses on in
each paper are different and are very much
determined by the frameworks he uses. It is
also interesting to note in the light of his
use of two different frameworks applied to
the same sector, that Weaver (2006, p. 395)
concludes in his second paper that: ‘It is
possible to view McDonaldization and
Disneyization as complementary concepts.
The McDonaldization thesis seeks to capture
the way in which rationalization permeates
many aspects of contemporary society.
While supersized ships may operate in
accordance with McDonaldized principles,
Disneyization speaks to consumerism and
the surface appearance of commodities and
commodified realms.’
Yet a third framework to explore issues
in cruise tourism is applied by Wood
(2006). In moving to a broader scale than
Weaver, Wood suggests that cruise tourism
is a paradigmatic case of globalization.
He begins by acknowledging the many and
varied definitions and concepts of globali-
zation and the ways in which it may be
thought of as both process and project.
Wood selectively focuses on ‘one process
and one project that is believed to most
fully capture the meaning of globalization
together with particular relevance for
understanding the cruise industry’; the
process he emphasizes (p. 397) is deterri-
torialization, a process outlined in the
following terms:
We commonly think of globalization as
being about more extensive and deeper
interconnections between places. But
equally important is how this process
changes the nature of the place itself, such
that the global is now the local. This in
turn changes the relationship between
the place and the social, cultural and
economic life that goes on there,
disembedding the latter from its immediate
geography.
The project that Wood focuses on is
neoliberalism, an ideology built around
two core principles: abiding faith in the
superiority of markets in the allocation of
resources in society; and a drive to shift
power and decision making from the pub-
lic to the private sphere. Wood (p. 398)
sees the global tourism industry as ‘one
place where something quite close to a
realization both of a deterritorialized world
and of the neoliberal view of globalization
does exist’. He then proceeds to explore
the relationship between tourism and glo-
balization by considering the cruise indus-
try in terms of deterritorialization and then
of neoliberalism. He contends (p. 399) that
‘the contemporary large cruise ship is a
uniquely deterritorialized destination’.
Part of this deterritorialization he attributes
to the architecture and theming employed,
that is, he finds an alternative interpreta-
tion for the same features described by
Weaver because he is using a different
theoretical framework.
 Theoretical Frameworks
Broader Frameworks
Given the multiple dimensions and theori-
zations of globalization it is not surprising
that the phenomenon can be framed in dif-
ferent ways. Teo and Li (2003), for instance,
take a process approach to globalization and
stress the interplay between the global and
the local. In their review of the literature
(Teo and Li, 2003, p. 289) they argue that: ‘[I]n
recognizing the limitations of the globali-
zation rhetoric, a global/local framework
has been increasingly used to study social
phenomena in contemporary societies’
(emphasis added). This framework is not as
tightly expressed as some of the examples
above in terms of a set of specific principles
or features. Rather, the broad issues of global/
local dynamics and tensions are discussed,
after which Teo and Li set out a series of
questions in what might be thought of as
their global/local framework for their case
study of the Haw Par Villa in Singapore.
These questions include:
• What is the rationale for going global?
• How may this take place in such a small
city state as Singapore?
• What constitutes the local?
• How do different forms of local assertion
take place?
These questions are then addressed
sequentially with regard to Haw Par Villa.
Teo and Li (2003, p. 302) conclude that
‘universalism and particularism need to be
conjoined in order to better comprehend how
tourism as a complex phenomenon can influ-
ence national identities and in itself become
influenced in a highly connected world.
Rather than binary thinking such as global–
local, empowerment at both scales is occur-
ring which will help towards producing
anti-essentialist accounts of “globalization”.’
Thorns (1997) also draws attention to
global shifts and local reactions in his case
studies of tourism in three New Zealand cit-
ies. However, after outlining literature on
urban theory and tourism Thorns draws
not on globalization theories but, instead,
adopts Urry’s (1990) concept of the tourist
gaze as his framework. Thorns (pp. 193–194)
finds the tourist gaze ‘a useful concept for
23
redirecting attention from surveys of num-
bers of visitors to an analysis of the market-
ing and promotional aspects of the tourist
industry . . . [In addition it] can also stimu-
late a focus on those who are the construc-
tors of the gaze’. The key questions that
are then addressed with reference to the
case studies of Auckland, Wellington and
Christchurch are (p. 195): ‘the extent to which
international tourism has been a stimulus to
urban redevelopment, how the tourist gaze
has been reconstructed and what political
coalitions have been significant in these
shifts’. In his conclusions, Thorns tends to
stress the impact of the global, the importance
of difference and the local response to
accommodate the needs of international
tourists.
Other aspects of urban tourism are ana-
lysed by Gladstone and Fainstein (2001).
Utilizing the general framework of regula-
tion theory (Amin, 1994), they examine how
the characteristics and organization of tour-
ism in New York and Los Angeles affect
employment in the sector. As in the other
cases discussed above, the authors begin by
outlining the basic tenets of the underlying
theory used to frame their study, in this case
regulation theory, namely (p. 24) that ‘the
method by which capitalists extract profit
and retain economic control depends on a
whole set of social relations governed by for-
mal rules and informal norms’ and that par-
ticular modes of production are associated
with prevailing regimes of accumulation.
However, Gladstone and Fainstein argue
(p. 24) that the association of regime of
accumulation and mode of regulation can be
extended ‘to describe the governance of
particular places and economic sectors and
divorced from its tie to a theory that demar-
cates epochs as Fordist and post-Fordist’. In
this way, they contextualize the need to look
at the regulation of tourism sub-industries in
particular places and frame their two-city
comparison. In carrying out their compara-
tive study, Gladstone and Fainstein then
outline the spatial forms of tourism in New
York and Los Angeles, the cities’ tourist
markets, the types of tourism establish-
ments, and employment and labour market
characteristics, before turning to similarities
24 Chapter 2
and differences in tourism and local regula-
tion. These last aspects are then interpreted
in terms of the underlying theory leading to
the conclusion (p. 38) that ‘[D]ifferences
in regard to capital-labour relation and com-
munity labour relation between New York
and Los Angeles stem from different tradi-
tions of labour organization and different
political discourses’. However, the distribu-
tional consequences of tourism – ‘whether
a tourism orientation can be compatible
with regimes that are committed to wide-
spread improvement in earnings, particu-
larly among low-wage workers’ – are more
debatable.
In other instances, a theoretical frame-
work may be laid out in more general terms,
especially when a new approach is being
developed. Desforges (2001), for example,
proposes a theoretical framework that
links consumption studies with a reconcep-
tualization of money to interpret the ways
in which tourists seek to engage with desti-
nations. In establishing his framework,
Desforges draws on the emerging literatures
on the geography and sociology of money to
emphasize the complexities of money, the
importance of knowledge about money and
the role of money in forming social relations.
His embryonic framework is summarized
thus (Desforges, 2001, p. 355):
Money can be analysed as a social
relation, in which its use enables and is
enabled by particular social practices. The
circulation of knowledge about money may
be central to the formation of the sphere of
consumption. Within the field of tourism
consumption, we can seek to identify the
discourses in use to understand money,
think through the ways in which these are
linked to practice, and look at the ways in
which social groupings engage with these
knowledges and practices in distinctive
ways.
This framework is then used to analyse and
interpret themes relating to the imagina-
tions of place and money that emerged from
interviews with travellers in Peru. As
Desforges did not originally intend talking
to these travellers about money, the frame-
work would appear to have been developed
subsequently.
Tourism and gender studies constitute
a broader field in which theoretical frame-
works have been developed and applied
with varying levels of structure since the
mid 1990s (Kinnaird et al., 1994; Swain,
1995b; Kinnaird and Hall, 1996). Developing
on an earlier introductory paper (Kinnaird
et al., 1994), Kinnaird and Hall (1996) set out
a ‘gender aware framework’ for the analysis
of tourism which focuses on three principal
conceptual issues:
1. The activities and processes involved in
tourism development are constructed out of
gendered societies.
2. Gender relations both inform and are
informed by the practices of all societies.
3. Discussions of gender and gender relations
are concerned with issues of power and
control.
The first two of these issues are said to
reinforce the third. Kinnaird and Hall (1996)
elaborate on these issues with respect to
various aspects of tourism, respectively: the
gendered structure of employment in the
sector; the ways in which culture is com-
mercialized by tourism; and the ways in
which power structures dictate tourism
policy. Swain (1995b, p. 251) critiqued the
earlier presentation of this framework
(Kinnaird et al., 1994) on the grounds that it
did not adequately incorporate or articulate
related theories:
What are the predictive or organisational
strengths of this framework? All
discussion of feminist theory, of personal
or individual dimensions of tourism
development; or of sexuality as a social
phenomenon have been avoided.
The authors’ lack of a definition of
gender leads to a lack of a coherent
understanding of how the interlocking
dimensions of gender as identity and
social relations work in their framework
[emphasis added].
Few of the cases studies that follow
Kinnaird et al.’s (1994) introductory dis-
cussions draw on or relate to this frame-
work, focusing instead on specific issues
such as employment, without setting them
in much of a broader theoretical context.
Nor do most of the case studies in the
 Theoretical Frameworks
special issue of Annals of Tourism
Research (22(2)) edited by Swain (1995a)
elaborate or refer to explicit, developed
frameworks of tourism and gender. The
article by Garcia-Ramon et al. (1995) on
farm tourism and gender in Spain, for
example, lays out a framework, but this
essentially takes the form of a brief litera-
ture review that draws attention to the
importance of considering the integration
of women into productive work in the
restructuring of rural areas in Europe, and
the transformations that this may bring
about. Wilkinson and Pratiwi (1995) do go
further, setting their analysis of employ-
ment patterns in an Indonesian village
against a discussion of gender analysis
and development that addresses femi-
nism more directly. They then structure
their field work around Rao et al.’s (1991)
‘gender analysis framework’ and a check-
list of questions based on White’s (1991)
work on the integration of women in
research.
Researchers continue to have an active
interest in gender and tourism issues. In
addressing the well-established topic of
gender and farm tourism, Brandth and
Haugen (2010) draw on a now extended
literature both in that specific field and in
gender studies more generally, referring in
the latter to work on doing and undoing
gender to focus (p. 430) on ‘how gender is
performed, renegotiated, and undone in
various work settings’. It is this process
that they then explore in their five case
studies of farm tourist businesses in
Norway. Interestingly, while Brandth and
Haugen set their study against a more sub-
stantial review of the literature than do
Garcia-Ramon et al. (1995), and their
approach is structured and interpreted
explicitly in terms of the doing and undo-
ing of gender, they do not refer to using a
theoretical framework as such. In this
respect, Brandth and Haugen’s study is
typical of much tourism research where
the work may be contextualized in the lit-
erature but the actual framework is not
explicitly defined as such – while in many
other studies any framework is less overt
or only loosely embedded in the text.
25
Grounded Theory
With the use of the grounded research
method as a strategy for qualitative data
analysis, theory and theoretical frameworks
flow from the data analysis rather than guide
or structure it. With this approach, theory is
generated inductively from the data or,
where existing theories seem relevant but
are incomplete, they may be elaborated
through careful and iterative analysis of the
information (Strauss and Corbin, 1994).
Such an approach was used by Mehmetoglu
and Altinay (2006) to develop a framework
for understanding the international expan-
sion of hotel groups, a field in which their
literature review showed there had been
little theory-generating research. Their data
consisted of the transcripts of semi-structured
interviews, observations and complemen-
tary data relating to the expansion plans
of an international hotel organization.
Mehmetoglu and Altinay discuss in detail
the various steps taken to analyse and code
this information: familiarization; open, axial
and selective coding; and enfolding the lit-
erature. In this last phase, the themes that
emerged from the data analysis and were
brought together in the framework they pro-
pose were compared with already developed
models and frameworks in the international
expansion and strategic management litera-
tures, so that both internal and external
validity could be improved. The framework
used by Mehmetoglu and Altinay links fac-
tors relating to international expansion plans
and entry mode choice both to external and
internal environmental factors and to those
associated with organizational tension.
The authors conclude by discussing the
benefits and limitations of the grounded
theory approach.
Other interesting applications of
grounded theory include those by:
Hernandez et al. (1996) on residents’ atti-
tudes towards an instant resort enclave;
Herold et al. (2001) on female tourists and
beach boys; and Belhassen et al. (2007) on
cannabis usage in tourism. In these cases,
the studies are more supported by a range of
existing but incomplete theories against
which the emergent themes and concepts
26 Chapter 2
are examined and elaborated without, how-
ever, being formally structured into a new
framework along the lines taken by
Mehmetoglu and Altinay (2006).
Discussion and Conclusions
Theoretical frameworks, as the preceding
examples have shown, play an important
role in different phases of the research proc-
ess. First of all, they help us to focus our
study, delimit our research, formulate our
research questions and shape our research
design. In some instances, this occurs
through the development of formal hypoth-
eses that are tested to confirm or reject the
theories under consideration. In others, the
theoretical frameworks are directing atten-
tion to what are deemed to be the important
issues and relationships to be examined.
This, in turn, may assist us in deriving the
pertinent questions to be asked (e.g. Thorns,
1997; Fall, 2000; McColl-Kennedy and
Beverley, 2003; Teo and Li, 2003) or in
determining the key dimensions or features
of a particular phenomenon to be consid-
ered, such as the critical aspects of the
cruise ship industry (Weaver, 2005, 2006;
Wood, 2006), or the main features of tour-
ism and rural development (Kneafsey,
2001). Moreover, the theoretical frameworks
are directing our attention in an informed
way, that is, there is a theoretical rationale
for focusing on the features and relation-
ships identified.
At the same time, as the work of Weaver
(2005, 2006) and Wood (2006) on the cruise
ship industry clearly demonstrates, what is
being studied is a function of the particular
theoretical framework adopted. Testing the
McDonaldization thesis, exploring the
notion of Disneyization or setting our study
against some facet of globalization theory
leads us to focus on some issues and not on
others. The choice of the particular theoreti-
cal framework to be used is thus a major
consideration and needs to be addressed
explicitly. Morais et al. (2004), for example,
opt for a resource investment framework
over an attitude-based one, while Woosnam
et al. (2009) favour Durkheim’s theory of emo-
tional solidarity over social exchange theory.
In other cases, the authors acknowledge the
limitations of an existing theoretical frame-
work by adding to or complementing it:
Kneafsey (2001) complements Ray’s cultural
economy concept with a consideration of
the historical trajectories of old and new
social relations; Weaver (2005) enlarges on
the McDonaldization thesis by adding risk
and post-Fordist customization to Ritzer’s
five principles of contemporary rationali-
zation. Other researchers who find individ-
ual theories insufficient draw on several
theories in deriving their own framework
(Beritelli et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2009).
At the other end of the research proc-
ess, theoretical frameworks help us to inter-
pret the data we have collected and analysed,
and to give meaning to the results our
research has produced. At one level, this
may assist with such tasks as deriving cate-
gories for classifying information (Lee et al.,
2009). At another, the theoretical framework
helps us to explain what has been found:
Asprogerakas (2007) interprets his work on
urban tourism in Greater Athens in the light
of Porter’s theory of competitive advantage;
Woosnam et al. (2009) discuss their find-
ings with reference to Durkheim. Used in
this way, theoretical frameworks may bring
greater explanatory power to the problem.
Once again, though, we need to recog-
nize that the lens through which we are
looking at the findings will influence the
resultant interpretation: Weaver (2006) and
Wood (2006) offer alternative explanations
for the themed environments of cruise ships
as they are viewing the issue by applying
different frameworks. Adherents of the use
of grounded theory suggest that themes
should ‘emerge’ from the reading and
rereading of qualitative data rather than be
categorized according to some predeter-
mined framework, theoretical or otherwise
(Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2006). The exam-
ples cited above also illustrate how con-
trasting approaches might have a common
theoretical basis – compare, for example,
the way in which social exchange theory is
tested by Nunkoo and Ramkisson (2010)
using structural equation modelling, but
 Theoretical Frameworks
incorporated more broadly into Hernandez
et al.’s. (1996) grounded theory approach.
By linking the interpretation of the
results back to the theory that shaped the
research at the outset, theoretical frame-
works also serve to unify studies based on
them in a way that often does not happen in
research carried out without such frame-
works. This is most evident in confirmatory
research, where formal hypotheses are being
tested, but qualitative studies may also be
more tightly structured, as the examples
here have shown. Even more importantly,
the use of theoretical frameworks is a means
of situating a particular study in a larger
body of knowledge. In the problem formula-
tion phase, the specifics of a study are
developed with reference to wider questions
27
and issues; that is, the use of a theoretical
framework shows that research on the
matter at hand illustrates some broader phe-
nomenon such as globalization, gender
issues or conflict. Later, the presentation
and interpretation of the results with refer-
ence to the framework may demonstrate
more clearly the contribution which the
study may have made to understanding this
broader phenomenon by the explicit links
that have been established at the outset.
This is perhaps most evident with the
acceptance or rejection of formal hypotheses
that lend support to or refute the underlying
theories; however, qualitative studies framed
in terms of particular theories can also
provide evidence to support, extend or
challenge them.
 3
Conceptual Frameworks
Conceptual frameworks are used in various
ways, take various forms and may be more
or less elaborate depending on the type of
research being undertaken (Shields and
Tajalli, 2006; Veal, 2006). Conceptual frame-
works used in descriptive or exploratory
research are usually less elaborate or well
developed than those employed in explana-
tory, confirmatory or evaluative research.
With emerging, fragmented or broad themes,
conceptual frameworks play a key role in
identifying and bounding existing knowl-
edge and in identifying directions for future
research. By specifying and setting out, usu-
ally in diagrammatic form, what is to be
studied, these frameworks help us to con-
ceptualize a particular phenomenon. Their
use in this way is especially notable with
studies seeking to conceptualize particu-
lar forms of tourism, such as ecotourism
(Hvenegaard, 1994) or mountain tourism
(Nepal and Chipeniuk, 2005; Pomfret, 2006).
With more established topics or more spe-
cific research problems, conceptual frame-
works assist with shaping the research
design by helping us to identify, define and
operationalize the concepts to be used and
the relationships to be explored (Veal, 2006).
This, in turn, determines the data to be
collected and shapes the way in which the
analysis will be undertaken. Here, the con-
nective function of conceptual frameworks
28 © Douglas G. Pearce 2012. Frameworks for Tourism Research (D.G. Pearce)
stressed by Shields and Tajalli (2006) is
particularly important; that is, these frame-
works help us to bring together the various
phases of the research process and to link
our research to the literature and wider
issues.
Essentially, conceptual frameworks are
composed of concepts and the relationships
between these. As with other terms dis-
cussed in earlier chapters, some variation
occurs with regard to what constitutes a
concept and how the term is used. In many
studies, meaning is assumed and not
defined. In others, including some texts,
the terms concept and constructs are used
interchangeably. Veal (2006, p. 57) defines
concepts as ‘general representations of the
phenomena to be studied’. According to
Zikmund et al. (2010, p. 40), ‘a concept or
construct is a generalized idea about a class
of objects, attributes, occurrences, or proc-
esses that has been given a name’. Others
distinguish between concept and construct
with regard to the level of abstraction. For
Anfara and Mertz (2006, p. xv), concepts are
‘words that we assign to events’ and ‘often
these concepts will cluster and form a
higher-order unit of thought known as a
construct’. Similarly, Brotherton (2008, p. 80)
sees concepts as ‘collections of associated
events, objects, conditions, situations and
so on that are aggregated together’, while
 Conceptual Frameworks
constructs ‘are more abstract . . . and are
used to group related concepts together’. As
such, ‘both constructs and concepts help
us to simplify a complex world because
we can group together related things or
items to convey a quite complex idea more
simply’. Variables are the more concrete or
tangible manifestations of concepts and con-
structs. They are observable, measurable and
can assume two or more numerical values.
Sustainable development, for example, could
be considered a construct that brings together
the concepts of sustainability and develop-
ment. Development can be conceived in
many different ways and measured by such
variables as per capita income, levels of
education or car ownership, mortality rates
and so forth.
The conceptual framework also depicts
the relationships between the concepts or
variables that have been selected to repre-
sent the phenomena being researched.
These relationships may be expressed as
propositions and hypotheses. Sometimes
these terms are used interchangeably; in
other cases a distinction is made. For
Zikmund et al. (2010), propositions are the
statements that provide the logical linkage
between concepts; hypotheses are the
empirical counterparts of propositions
and are testable using variables. A similar
distinction is made by Bacharach (1989).
In many cases, a causal relationship is
postulated or hypothesized, that is, the
direction and strength of the relationship
between dependent and independent vari-
ables are indicated to explain an outcome
in a cause–effect relationship. In other
studies, frameworks may simply indicate
that there is a connection between particu-
lar concepts or variables but the direction
and strength of the relationships remain
to be identified.
The remainder of this chapter discusses
the use of conceptual frameworks in these
different ways, beginning with their use in
identifying, clarifying and conceptualizing
emerging, fragmented or broader themes.
Issues relating to the need to go beyond con-
ceptualization to apply conceptual frame-
works are then considered with reference to
more specific problems.
29
Conceptual Frameworks of Tourism
and Forms of Tourism
It is not surprising that tourism is conceived
of in different ways given its complexity
and multifaceted nature and the diversity of
disciplines for which it is has become a sub-
ject of research. Moreover, the growth in
tourism research over the last three decades
has resulted in an increasing concern and
focus on specific forms of tourism, such as
ecotourism, sustainable tourism, adventure
tourism or tourism in peripheral areas. In
this context, clear conceptual frameworks
can help situate the research being under-
taken and communicate how the researcher
conceives tourism or particular forms of
tourism. Poria et al. (2003) state that their
paper sets out to provide a framework
rather than a rigorous dictionary definition
of tourism and that their framework (p. 35),
‘although not aiming to provide a clear and
objective measurement tool, does aim at
facilitating the understanding of tourism by
setting out its main features, in a way that is
operable and useable for research purposes
and is coherently linked to other academic
concepts’. At either level – tourism in gen-
eral or subforms of it – these frameworks are
commonly developed with reference to ‘the
other’ or in terms of the portrayal of the con-
stituent parts of a framework and the rela-
tionships between them.
A major issue at a general level is to
identify and delimit the scope of tourism
research. Tribe (2006) explores the congru-
ence between the phenomenon of tourism
and tourism knowledge (generated by
research). He elaborates on this issue by ref-
erence to a conceptual framework composed
of three interlocking circles whereby knowl-
edge about the phenomenon of tourism,
whose borders are not known, are mediated
through a knowledge force field comprising
five factors – person, rules, position, ends
and ideology – each of which is examined
in turn (Fig. 3.1a). Tribe emphasizes that
these five factors are not discrete forces and
that the boundaries of tourism are not
known, hence the depiction of Circle 1 as a
broken line. As a result of the influence of
these force-field factors, Tribe (2006, p. 375)
30 Chapter 3

concludes that: ‘Tourism research carries
with it a subtle power to define: to skew: to
objectify: to foreground some issues leaving
others untouched: to legitimize some meth-
ods casting others to the periphery: to privi-
lege some groups whilst excluding others
and to tell stories in particularistic ways’. In
particular, he suggests that a double selec-
tivity operates in the construction of tour-
ism knowledge: first when the researcher
casts a gaze into the world of tourism (K→J
in Fig. 3.1a); and secondly, when the
research itself is carried out (represented by
the varying trajectories of K to Circle 3).
Segment ABC in Circle 3 represents topic
areas that are systematically and repeatedly
researched.
A second approach is to conceive of
tourism research in relation to some other
phenomenon or object of study. Mieczkowski

B
(a)
A C

J
Position
Ends
K
Person
Rules

Ideology
Z
Circle 1: Circle 2: Circle 3:
Tourism Knowledge force field Tourism knowledge

(b) Leisure (c) (d)

Tourism Tourism

Recreation Tourism Hospitality

Hospitality

(e) (f) (g)

Geography of tourism

Tourism Geography

Geography Tourism
r
og a u ris
To
phy

m
Ge

Fig. 3.1. Concepts of tourism. (a) The knowledge force field. Source: Redrawn from Annals of Tourism
Research 33, Tribe, J. (2006) The truth about tourism, pp. 360–381, Copyright (2006) with permission from
Elsevier. (b) Combining the relationship between recreation and leisure and that between recreation and
tourism. Source: Mieczkowski, Z.T. (1981) Some notes on the geography of tourism: a comment. Canadian
Geographer 25(2), 186–191, Copyright (1981), John Wiley & Sons. This material is reproduced with
permission of John Wiley & Sons. (c–d) The relationship between tourism and hospitality research. Source:
Redrawn from Faulkner (1998). (e–g) Concepts of the geography of tourism.
 Conceptual Frameworks
(1981) attempted to show the relationships
between tourism, leisure and recreation
(Fig. 3.1b), concepts whose fuzziness he
acknowledged. Leisure was defined in terms
of ‘free’ (uncommitted, discretionary) time.
Mieczkowski made no attempt to discuss
the numerous definitions of recreation but
suggested (p. 188) that the ‘general princi-
ple is that recreation is an experience dur-
ing leisure time; it is voluntary and results
in the revitalization (or recreation) of body
and mind’. He saw recreation as a signifi-
cant component of leisure, while acknowl-
edging that not all leisure time is given over
to recreation. Mieczkowski viewed tourism
and recreation as overlapping concepts:
most but not all tourism is recreational in
nature; much recreation occurs close to
home and does not involve tourism in terms
of travel and overnight stays. Figure 3.1b
thus depicts the relationships between these
three concepts, showing both the overlap
between tourism and recreation and the
existence of some tourism outside the realm
of leisure and recreation.
In revisiting Mieczkowski’s (1981)
framework, Poria et al. (2003) argued that
what matters is how individuals perceive
leisure and recreation, for example, whether
they perceive their time to be ‘free’ or not,
and how this affects their freedom to act. On
this basis Poria et al. elaborate a new frame-
work involving six different relationships
between leisure, time and recreation. This,
in turn, is extended to incorporate a spatial
or geographical frame in which activities
take place in certain time frames – at or
away from an individual’s normal place of
residence for more than 24 hours and less
than a year. Such a framework, they assert,
also provides a basis for segmenting tourists
and identifying tourism subgroups such as
‘business’ or ‘health’ tourism.
Faulkner (1998) suggests similar con-
ceptualizations of tourism research relative
to hospitality research. On the one hand,
the hospitality sector might be considered
part of the tourism industry and research on
it might be subsumed within the field in the
manner shown in Fig. 3.1c. On the other
hand, ‘it seems that tourism and hospitality
research have each evolved in such a way
31
that, in some respects, they have become
distinctive but overlapping fields of research
(Fig. 3.1d). They share some common sub-
ject matter foci and theoretical foundations,
but the two areas are sufficiently distinct to
be seen as separate fields’ (Faulkner, 1998,
p. 5). Likewise, the geography of tourism
might be seen as a subset of either the disci-
pline of geography or the field of tourism
research or, indeed, as an area of overlap
between the two (Fig. 3.1e–g). These different
conceptualizations – subset or overlap – also
apply to the relationship between tourism
research and other disciplines, such as man-
agement, marketing or sociology.
Some may see the graphic representa-
tions depicted in Fig. 3.1 as a sign that tour-
ism researchers have been going around in
circles in a fruitless quest to contextualize
their work. However, which of these basic
frameworks best represents the way we con-
ceptualize our research does matter and has
important implications for the theories,
methodologies and literature that we draw
on and the bodies of knowledge that we
contribute to, as Pearce (1999) and Gibson
(2008) have shown in relation to geographi-
cal research on tourism. As the field of
tourism studies has grown, so more and
more research on different facets of tourism
appears to be couched primarily as a subset
of this larger field, and overlaps with other
disciplines or fields are often weak (Pearce
and Butler, 2010a). Few researchers work-
ing on tourism distribution, for instance,
draw on the wider distribution literature in
marketing (Pearce, 2010b). As a result, they
have been slow to capitalize on the well-
developed body of methods and theories
found there and their approaches have
arguably been less robust as a result – the
quantitative proposition-testing methods
that typify much of the wider distribution
research have few parallels in research on
tourism distribution. Conversely, little or no
reference to tourism is found in the wider
marketing literature (Frazier, 1999; Ford,
2002), even though tourism is one of the
sectors where multichannel distribution, a
theme recently attracting much interest
from marketing researchers, emerged rela-
tively early on. Similarly, Dolnicar and
32 Chapter 3
Grün (2008) observe that factor-cluster seg-
mentation, which has a long history of use
in segmenting tourism markets, is not an
approach that is usually taken in the home
discipline of segmentation marketing.
Conceptual frameworks that attempt
to portray the complex nature and struc-
ture of tourism are usually depicted as a
system. These frameworks are dealt with
in Chapter 8.
Forms of tourism
The growth in research on particular forms
of tourism has been generated by several
interrelated factors (Pearce, 2002a). These
include:
• an increasingly competitive environ-
ment in which marketing strategies have
become progressively more targeted and
focused on narrower segments – a trend
reinforced by changing patterns of
demand;
• product diversification that has been
fuelled by these marketing strategies, as
well as by a growing awareness from a
wide range of related agencies that tour-
ism may contribute to the pursuit of
other objectives such as heritage con-
servation or rural development;
• a questioning of the consequences of
traditional mass tourism and a search
for alternative or more sustainable forms
of tourism believed to have more posi-
tive and fewer negative impacts; and
• a need for research specialization in
order to better understand the previous
factors, to attempt to keep up with at
least some aspects of the rapid expan-
sion of the sector – or perhaps a desire
for researchers to carve out a niche for
themselves in the rapidly expanding
literature.
This interest has led to the development
of conceptual frameworks that seek to char-
acterize and clarify particular forms of tour-
ism and to differentiate them from others.
The ways in which this has been under-
taken have evolved from a concentration on
definitional matters and a basic concern with
distinguishing the focal form concerned from
some other, through more nuanced differen-
tiations based on the use of continua, to more
detailed conceptual frameworks.
Much of the early work challenging
existing patterns of tourism development
was conceptualized in terms of polar oppo-
sites, whereby the characteristics of alterna-
tive or related forms of tourism were
systematically contrasted with those of what
were perceived to be the dominant main-
stream variety, usually mass tourism (Pearce,
1992b). Dernoi (1981), for example, contrasted
the features of alternative tourism with
those of conventional/commercial tourism;
Hasslacher (1984) distinguished between
‘hard’ and ‘soft’ tourism; while Picazo (1998)
differentiated tourisme de masse from tour-
isme de qualité. Use of such a dichotomous
conceptualization tends to throw into relief
the advantages of the more desirable form
of tourism being advocated at the expense
of the extreme depiction of the other. There
is scarcely any recognition here of varia-
tions in the mainstream nor any evidence
of intermediate cases, a view that conflicts
with observed situations (Pearce, 1992b;
Clarke, 1997).
In other cases, forms of tourism are
presented and discussed by way of a quad-
rant matrix in which a fourfold typology is
derived from a dichotomous division of two
dimensions. Butler and Hinch (1996), for
example, define indigenous tourism in
terms of indigenous control (low/high) and
an indigenous theme (present/absent).
In recognizing limitations in the use of
polar opposites as a means of conceptualiz-
ing forms of tourism, other researchers
have proposed the use of a continuum or
spectrum to acknowledge that clear-cut dif-
ferences covering all cases are rarely found.
Rather, differences are seen to occur in a
graduated fashion along one or more dimen-
sions. Wight (1993), for example, depicts an
ecotourism accommodation spectrum that
ranges from the ‘hard’ extreme of primitive,
non-permanent, resource-based on-site accom-
modation (hammocks and tent camps)
through to the ‘soft’ extreme of luxurious,
fixed-roof, off-site accommodation in nearby
 Conceptual Frameworks 33

villages, resorts or cities. Between the two
ends of this spectrum lie intermediate cate-
gories such as comfortable fixed-roof accom-
modation, either on-site or off-site. Wight
also reports on a study by the Organization
of American States, which suggested that
ecotourism could be characterized in terms
of two dimensions: a specialist or generalist
interest in nature and the degree of physical
effort involved in the activities. Each of
these dimensions ranges across a hard–soft
continuum to produce a matrix whereby
ecotourism markets might be categorized
into such segments as hard effort/nature
specialist, soft effort/nature specialist or soft
effort/nature generalist. Fennell and Eagles
(1996) offer a similar spectrum in which the
counter-flow dimensions of increasing cer-
tainty/safety and increasing preparation/
training are used to differentiate adventure
travel from tour travel and an intermediate
category of ecotourism. Arnegger et al.
(2010) propose a classification of nature-
based tourism by means of a four-by-four
tabular matrix in which the horizontal (x-)
axis depicts travel motivations in terms of
‘nature as a point of attraction’ (high/low)
while the vertical (y-) axis depicts four cate-
gories of service arrangements in terms of
individuality (high(independent)/low(fully
standardized)).
Trauer (2006) provides a very compre-
hensive review of attempts to conceptualize
and portray various types of special interest
tourism (SIT) before going on to present her
own generalized framework of the ‘SIT
Experience’ (Fig. 3.2). In Trauer’s framework,
the horizontal axis is a continuum of levels
of multidimensional involvement in an area
of interest, ranging from low involvement in
an ‘attraction’ with a special interest focus to
high levels of involvement characterized by
centrality and commitment. The vertical
axis represents a second continuum, the fre-
quency of SIT product purchase/participa-
tion, going from low ‘one-off’ experiences to
enduring involvement comprising repetitive
purchase/participation, the acquisition of
skills and exposure to more risky situations.
An innovation here is that the SIT experience
is set within a broader environment that
recognizes participation in the interest in the
home context. The resultant matrix depicts
four types of SIT tourists and four associated
zones. In addition, the diagonal suggests a
possible trajectory of involvement whereby
the individual moves from lesser to greater
involvement. Trauer then elaborates on this
framework with regard to the adventure
tourism experience by incorporating the
attributes of the individual, the demand fac-
tors and the product attributes.

LEISURE Frequency = Centrality

EXPERIENCE purchase/participation repetition
‘HOME (SIT career)
–Special Interest Tourism (SIT)–
CONTEXT’
Enduring high
Involvement
Risk Zone High Challenge Zone
–SIT Collector– –SIT Specialist–

SPECIAL INTEREST
TOURISM EXPERIENCE
low Situational Involvement high

Exploration Zone Comfort Zone Involvement in special

–SIT Novice– –SIT Specialist– interest focus
= Behavioural,
Cognitive + Affective
low (EI)

Attraction

Fig. 3.2. The ‘Special Interest Tourism (SIT)’ experience. Source: Reprinted from Tourism Management 27,
Trauer, B. (2006) Conceptualizing special interest tourism – frameworks for analysis, pp. 183–200, Copyright
(2006), with permission from Elsevier.
34 Chapter 3
While such graduated conceptualiza-
tions move beyond the use of a simple
dichotomous approach to better reflect the
realities of tourism, the use of only one or a
pair of dimensions in any spectrum is also
restrictive as forms of tourism may differ on
multiple variables, a point recognized by
both Wight (1993) and Fennell and Eagles
(1996), who go on to present more complex
conceptual frameworks. In a similar approach
to that discussed with reference to Fig. 3.1,
Wight portrays a series of Venn diagrams
that show overlapping areas of common-
ality between such forms of tourism as
nature tourism, adventure tourism and cultural
tourism, and include subsets of specialists
and generalists. Fennell and Eagles’ frame-
work is centred on the resource/tour and
shows the relationships between this and
aspects of the service industry (tour opera-
tion, resource management and community
development) on the one side and the visi-
tor component (marketing, visitor manage-
ment and visitor attitudes) on the other.
Stone (2006) attempts to overcome the
problem of multiple variables in his catego-
rization of the various manifestations of
dark tourism, that is, of death and macabre-
related tourist sites, attractions and exhibi-
tions. He observes (p. 150): ‘As tourism
products are multifaceted, complex in
design and purpose, and diverse in nature,
it is perhaps clear that the universal term
“dark” as applied to tourism is too broad
and does not readily expose the multi-layers
of dark tourism supply’. Drawing on the
literature, Stone proposes a dark tourism
spectrum ranging from the ‘darkest’ sites of
death and suffering to the ‘lightest’ sites
associated with death and suffering (Fig. 3.3).
Each shade of product is characterized by
multiple ‘dominating design features’.
Examples of these features are given for the
two extremes, in a fashion similar to the
polar opposites approach noted earlier
(Dernoi, 1981; Hasslacher, 1984), but with
the notable difference that intermediate
cases are incorporated in the spectrum so
that ‘one may be able to locate a product
and typify it, albeit in a rather “loose” fash-
ion’ (Stone, 2006, p. 152). One reason for
this looseness is that not all sites will
necessarily exhibit the same shade of dark-
ness on all features. Nor are the relation-
ships between all the features clearly linked.
Stone suggests that it is possible to begin
building a typology of dark tourism supply
using Fig. 3.3 as a conceptual framework
and goes on to outline seven types of dark
tourism suppliers.
Clarke (1997) provides an interesting
account of the evolution of different concep-
tualizations of sustainable tourism, showing
how criticism of the polar opposites and
continuum frameworks led to a more con-
sidered approach, what she refers to as a
position of movement, in which the concern
shifted from demonizing mass tourism to
considering how it might be made more
sustainable. This movement was evident on
three dimensions:
• in the issue of scale, a key attribute in the
polar opposites approach, which became
more objective and less emotive;
• as sustainable tourism became the goal
for attainment, rather than the posses-
sion of an existing scale; and
• as there was a shift in focus away from
classification towards operationalizing
current knowledge to move towards
attaining this goal.
This change, in turn, was followed by
a position of convergence, one in which
both large-scale and small-scale tourism
moved towards the goal of sustainability,
the former with a dominantly physical/
ecological perspective, the latter with more
of a social slant. There is also recognition
of the need to adapt ideas found in the
other position. This move towards conver-
gence is also noted by Fennell (1999), who
depicts a framework involving a variation
on overlapping circles, with the size of the
circles illustrating in a general sense the
relative size of mass and alternative tour-
ism. Alternative tourism is shown to con-
sist of two subsets: sociocultural tourism
and ecotourism. A further perspective is
offered by Hunter (1995), who suggests
two possible interpretations of sustain-
able tourism: ‘total immersion’ whereby the
concerns of sustainable tourism develop-
ment are presented as being wholly a subset
 Conceptual Frameworks 35

Higher Political Lower Political

Influence and Ideology Influence and Ideology

'Sites of Death 'Sites Associated with

and Suffering' Death and Suffering'

Darkest Darker Dark Light Lighter Lightest

Education Entertainment
Orientation Orientation

History Centric Heritage Centric

(Conservation/ (Commercial/
Commemorative) Romanticism)

Perceived Authentic Perceived Inauthentic

Product Interpretation Product Interpretation

Location Non-Location
Authenticity Authenticity

Shorter Time Scale Longer Time Scale

to the Event from the Event

Supply Supply
(Non Purposefulness) (Purposefulness)

Lower Tourism Higher Tourism

Infrastucture Infrastrutcure

Fig. 3.3. A dark tourism spectrum: perceived product features of dark tourism within a ‘darkest–lightest’
framework of supply. Source: Stone (2006), reprinted with permission from the editor of Tourism.

of the concerns of sustainable development relationships between the major compo-

more generally; and ‘partial immersion’
where some overlap occurs between the
two sets of concerns.
Other conceptual frameworks have been
more concerned with developing a better
understanding of a particular form of tourism –
especially for management purposes – than
with deriving typologies or differentiating
between different forms. The emphasis in
these frameworks is on multiple dimensions
or variables and the relationships between
them. Duffus and Dearden (1990) proposed
a conceptual framework setting out the
nents of non-consumptive wildlife recrea-
tion, which they identified as the focal
species or species groups, the wildlife user
and the history of the relationship between
the two. Their rationale for doing this was
(p. 217) ‘not only to enhance the concep-
tual clarity and link existing theoretical
structures in diverse bodies of literature to a
broader framework of understanding but
also to reinforce the case for the analysis
and management of non-consumptive wild-
life pursuits that includes both the human
and ecological dimensions’.
36
Similarly, Hvenegaard (1994) argued
that an adequate conceptual framework of
ecotourism was required in order to under-
stand its scope and implications. Building
in particular on the frameworks of Duffus
and Dearden (1990) and Fennell and Eagles
(1996) he produced an ‘integrated concep-
tual framework for ecotourism phenomena’
(Fig. 3.4). Notable additions are the inclu-
sion of local communities, the evaluation of
impacts by various visitors, community and
resource interests, and the incorporation of
these evaluations into visitor and resource
management, both of which are also affected
by government policy and public opinion.
In a related conceptual framework for
wildlife tourism, Reynolds and Braithwaite
(2001) also extend the ideas of Duffus and
Dearden (1990) and others in order to
develop some guiding principles to improve
the tourist experience while ensuring the
protection of the wildlife resource. Reynolds
and Braithwaite take a systems approach
with their framework, which shows the
main influences on wildlife tourism and the
Visitor
Management
Ecotourist
Type
Ecotourist
Historical Local ECOTOURISM
Relationship Communities
ACTIVITIES
Wildlife Species
and Habitat
Wildlife
Type
Resource
Management
Fig. 3.4. An integrated conceptual framework for ecotourism phenomena. Source: Hvenegaard (1994),
reprinted with permission from the editor of Journal of Tourism Studies.
Chapter 3
factors and modifiers that control them.
They then elaborate on various elements of
the conceptual framework, using, for exam-
ple, matrices to show the trade-offs between
the effects on wildlife and the richness/
intensity of the visitor experience; these are
indicative in nature rather than based on
empirical data.
In other instances, the setting becomes
the focus for developing a conceptual frame-
work of a form of tourism. Nepal and
Chipeniuk (2005), for example, draw atten-
tion to the characteristics and management
issues of mountain tourism by proposing a
basic conceptual framework composed of
three major components and the relation-
ships between these: supply, demand and
management. This framework is then used
to structure the discussion of these three
components (Fig. 3.5). First, the authors
outline the distinctive characteristics of
mountainous regions in terms of diversity,
marginality, difficulty of access, fragility,
niches for recreation activity specialization
and aesthetics. Secondly, the characteristics
Government Policy
Public Opinion
Visitor
Impact
Evaluation Community
Resource
Government Policy
Public Opinion
 Conceptual Frameworks 37

SUPPLY DEMAND

Mountain Resource Characteristics

Mountain Amenity Users
Diversity Fragility
Marginality Niche Local Recreationists
Difficult Access Aesthetics Tourists
Amenity Migrants

MANAGEMENT

Mountain Recreational Land Use

Tourism Center
Frontcountry
Backcountry

Fig. 3.5. Mountain tourism: a conceptual framework. Source: Nepal, S.J. and Chipeniuk, R.H. (2005) Mountain
tourism: toward a conceptual framework, Tourism Geographies 7, 313–333. Reprinted by permission of the
publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).

of amenity users are examined with respect • the presence of public open spaces,
to three groups: local outdoor recreationists, shared spaces characterized by a mix of
tourists and amenity migrants. These two diverse populations, possible meetings
components are brought together in the with ‘the other’ and the need to manage
third part of the framework, where Nepal these contacts; and
and Chipeniuk consider the management • the role of serendipity and likelihood of
issues arising from mountain recreational chance meetings resulting from the
land use. Here they adopt a zoning concept constant turnover of people.
involving three major zones – tourism cen-
Coëffé suggests that such features charac-
tres, ‘frontcountry’ and ‘backcountry’ – in
terize tourism outside city settings and
which the activities are said to differ as a
illustrates his argument with reference to
function of the mountain-specific character-
coastal tourism, for example, the location
istics and varying patterns of demand asso-
of major hotels on prime beachfront (sea-
ciated with these. The activities undertaken
front) sites, and the way in which social
in each zone are depicted by way of a spec-
norms influence behaviour on the beach, a
trum ranging from mass and low effort to
shared, often densely occupied space where
elite and high effort. At the same time, par-
issues such as nudity arise and conventions
ticular aspects of mountain tourism might
develop to manage this. He then goes on to
be examined in more detail. Pomfret (2006),
explore other features such as l’alterité
for instance, offers a detailed conceptual
(otherness), mobility and accessibility. The
framework to identify and better understand
concept of l’urbanité, he argues, allows one
the key influences on mountaineering par-
‘to consider tourism other than as the sum
ticipation and the actual experiences of it.
of the ever-increasing forms of tourism:
An interesting re-conceptualization of
rural tourism, green tourism, coastal tour-
urban tourism is provided by Coëffé (2010),
ism, urban tourism etc. L’urbanité enables
which is particularly pertinent here. He
tourism to be defined by understanding and
argues that what is important is not the
setting out the common properties of the
setting but rather the concept of l’urbanité,
phenomenon of tourism whatever forms it
the distinguishing features or qualities of
may take. At the same time, the concept of
urban life. These include:
l’urbanité allows the singularities of urban
• monumentality, whereby certain urban life produced by tourism to emerge’ (Coëffé,
forms are expressions of power; 2010, p. 67).
38 Chapter 3
From Conceptualization
to Implementation
These conceptual frameworks of various
forms of tourism are useful in helping us to
understand the ways in which tourism may
differ and, thereby, aid classification and
the development of typologies, alert us to
some of the management implications that
may arise in different areas and signal new
directions for research. A common feature
of the frameworks discussed here, however,
is that they generally do not go beyond con-
ceptualizing the forms outlined to opera-
tionalize the frameworks and to examine
empirically the issues identified. This may
reflect the exploratory nature of many of
the studies. It may also reflect some of the
practical challenges of operationalizing the
concepts and examining the relationships
between them. For example, when it comes
to empirical studies, some practical means
are needed for locating particular cases along
a soft–hard spectrum or investigating more
rigorously the relationships between supply
and demand. Sound empirical research is
now needed to validate these frameworks
and to establish in what ways, to what
extent and with what effects different forms
of tourisms do exist beyond the imaginings
of researchers.
These issues are not limited to research
on forms of tourism because conceptual
frameworks in other topic areas may also
not yet be underpinned by any substantial
empirical research, and the development of
a conceptual framework based on the litera-
ture may be the express goal of a paper. The
balance in emphasis between developing a
conceptual framework and applying it in
empirical work will often reflect the com-
plexity of the constructs and concepts being
brought together, the extent to which these
have been clearly articulated and the degree
of consensus about their use. Where the con-
cepts and constructs are complex, as yet
poorly developed and/or no general agree-
ment on their use exists, the emphasis will
generally be on developing the framework
by identifying the concepts and showing the
relationships between them. Conversely,
where the concepts are well established and
accepted, greater scope exists to apply the
frameworks and use them to guide the
empirical research.
A good example of the first of these two
approaches is Currie’s (1997) development
of a conceptual framework to explain the
way in which tourists retain some of their
home behaviours in the pleasure-tourism
environment. To start with, Currie argues
that there are three categories of individu-
als’ behaviour at home: work, leisure and
survival. He then introduces and discusses
established concepts associated with behav-
iour in the home environment, notably the
spillover leisure/familiarity and compensa-
tory concepts that offer explanations as to
why individuals participate in familiar or
compensating leisure activities. ‘Both con-
cepts function’, he observes (p. 887), ‘on a
work–leisure dichotomy, each assuming
that the behaviours are a direct reflection of
the work environment’. Following Gottlieb
(1982), when tourists move to a tourism
environment during their holidays they per-
ceive their behaviour not in terms of work
or leisure but in terms of their home envi-
ronment. Building on the work of van
Gennep (1906) and Turner (1974), Currie
asserts that this shifting of perception can
be explained with reference to the concepts
of liminality – the middle stage of transition
in a rite of passage – and a liminoidal state
associated with post-industrial societies
where individuals are free to choose to
make this transition. Extensions of this
latter concept to tourism are then discussed,
particularly the notion of tourists inverting
their behaviour when they are away from
home.
These concepts are then brought together
to construct a pleasure-tourism behaviours
framework, which Currie (1997) refers to in
terms of the concepts used as a LIP (liminoi-
dal, inversionary and prosaic) behaviours
framework. The framework’s focus is on
individuals; their behavioural differences,
he argues, stem from their home environ-
ment rather than their home society or
culture. In the LIP framework (Fig. 3.6), the
home environment is separated from the
liminoidal state of the tourism environment
by the limen, defined by Currie (p. 894) as
 Conceptual Frameworks
Pre-Pleasure Tourism
Engagement Phase
Limen
Home
Environment
Work
behaviors
Survival
behaviors
Leisure
behaviors
Fig. 3.6. The LIP (liminoidal, inversionary and prosaic) behaviours framework. Source: Reprinted from
Annals of Tourism Research 24, Currie, R.R. (1997) A pleasure-tourism behaviors framework, pp. 884–897.
Copyright (1997) with permission from Elsevier.
‘an imaginary transitional interweaving
corridor’. Having traversed the limen, indi-
viduals freely enter a liminoidal state where
their behaviour is unconstrained by the
home environment and they are able to
choose the behaviours they wish to follow.
These may be either prosaic – engaging in
spillover/routine activities similar to those
followed at home but in the new environment,
or inversionary (compensatory) – whereby
individuals invert their behaviour once
away from home. Although the clarity of the
schematic presentation of these changing
behaviours might have been enhanced if the
terms spillover/routine and compensatory
had been incorporated, and although the
nature of the limen is rather vague, Fig. 3.6
does offer some explanation of individuals’
behaviour while on holiday. Currie con-
cludes his paper by briefly outlining areas
for future research: specifying and catego-
rizing individual behaviours; and examin-
ing the degree to which these changes
and non-changes occur. In a later study,
Currie and Gagnon (2000) undertake a small
exploratory empirical study which exam-
ines the way in which the crossing of the
limen is related to individuals’ primary
expectations.
39
Pleasure Tourism
Engagement Phase
Liminoidal
State
Prosaic
behaviors
Inversionary
behaviors
In a rather different context, Riley and
Szivas (2003) construct a conceptual frame-
work for understanding pay determination
in tourism by drawing together theories and
ideas from five different perspectives: job
attributes; industrial structure; organiza-
tional structure; wider issues; and satisfac-
tion. Each of these themes is elaborated on
in turn and then synthesized in these terms
(Riley and Szivas, 2003, p. 456):
The central plank on which the framework
is built is the relatively low levels of
easily acquired skills leading management
not to reward tenure. The working principle
of the framework is that the factors consort
together to impact on the assumptions
made by managers about jobs and markets
and by workers about their horizons.
The management simply assumes that the
labour market will provide, that there is
no reason to reward tenure, that the need
for flexibility is constant and that there is
a tolerance of low pay.
A graphic representation would have
enhanced discussion of how these differ-
ent strands come together. The authors
conclude by suggesting areas in which
research needs to be done to substantiate
their framework.
40
Other authors draw on the literature,
present their framework schematically and
outline a set of more specific propositions
or hypotheses. Mulvaney et al. (2007) inte-
grate research from several disciplines to
develop a framework of work–family issues
in the hotel sector and then put forward a
series of propositions for future research in
this area. In a similar manner, conceptual
frameworks and propositions are proposed
by Xu and Chan (2010) for hotel experience
and customer-based brand equity and by
Dmitrovic et al. (2009) for conceptualizing
tourist satisfaction at the destination level.
The development of a conceptual frame-
work may also serve to bring together exist-
ing but piecemeal research in order not only
to suggest areas for future research but also
to draw out implications for management.
Such was the goal of Robbins et al. (2007) in
developing a framework for examining the
transport implications of holding special
events.
Quantitative studies
In other studies, the conceptual framework
sets out the research design for the empiri-
cal research that follows. Figures 3.7 and 3.8
illustrate the use of conceptual frameworks
in two different types of confirmatory
research. Figure 3.7 depicts the conceptual
framework developed by Casteñeda et al.
(2009) to analyse the antecedents of Internet
acceptance and use as an information source
by tourists. The authors draw on the litera-
ture, particularly Davis’s (1989) Technology
USEFULNESS
H1
H5
EASE OF USE H2
Fig. 3.7. Proposed conceptual model of the antecedents of Internet acceptance and use as an information
source by tourists. Source: Casteñeda, J.A., Frías, D.M. and Rodríguez, M.A. (2009) Antecedents of internet
acceptance and use as an information source by tourists. Online Information Review 33(3), 548–567.
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited all rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Chapter 3
Acceptance Model, to describe the concepts
incorporated, e.g. perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness, and to derive the
seven hypotheses relating to the relation-
ships between these. Hypotheses 1 and 2,
for example, state that the perceived ease of
use of the Internet positively determines the
tourist’s perceived usefulness of the medium
and attitude towards it. Hypotheses 3, 4 and
5 propose that the perceived usefulness of
the Internet positively determines the tour-
ist’s actual use of the medium, intention to
use it in the future and attitude towards it.
The hypotheses were tested on empirical
data derived from a survey of international
visitors to Spain, with scales for the meas-
urement of each of the variables being drawn
from the literature. Next, the model was
tested using structural equation modelling
and its goodness of fit was evaluated. The
results confirmed that, in terms of direct
effects, perceived usefulness is the main
determinant of both actual and future use of
the Internet by tourists, but when the total
effects were calculated for both beliefs the
degree of influence of ease of use was equiv-
alent to that of perceived usefulness on
actual and future use.
Kumar et al. (2008) examined the
relationship between innovation and tech-
nological capacity in Cuban hospitality
organizations using the model shown in
Fig. 3.8 as their conceptual framework.
At a general level, the framework, based on
a review of the technology management
and innovation literature, proposes that
innovation contributes to improved tech-
nological capacity, which leads to improved
economic performance. The authors do not
H3 ACTUAL USE
H4 H7
ATTITUDE H6 FUTURE USE
 Conceptual Frameworks 41

Managerial Capability
Leadership and
employee support
Absorptive Capacity
Knowledge and
technical expertise
P
I e
n Group management
skills r
n f
Dynamic
o Learning o
v Project management Operational Capability
skills r
a Capability m
t Investment
Capability a
i Technological Capabilities n
o c
n e
Organizational Elements
Systems and
Learning culture Government Support
procedures

Organizational structure

Fig. 3.8. Conceptual model of the development of technological capability. Source: Reprinted from
International Journal of Hospitality Management 27, Kumar, U., Kumar, V. and de Grobois, D. (2008)
Development of technological capability by Cuban hospitality organizations, pp. 12–22. Copyright (2008)
with permission from Elsevier.

analyse all aspects of this framework, but Qualitative studies

focus on the extent to which technological
capacity is enhanced through the innova-
tion factors shown in the dotted box;
namely managerial capability, organiza-
tional elements, absorptive capacity and
government support. In this way, the frame-
work provides a structure to develop and
test a set of hypotheses relating to the rela-
tionships between technological capacity
(the dependent variable) and the innovation
factors (the independent variables), while at
the same time showing how this analysis
fits into a larger picture. The hypotheses
were then tested using regression analysis.
The regression results showed, inter alia,
that two of the four managerial skills (group
management skills and project manage-
ment skills) were significant for building
technological capacity through innovation.
They also confirmed the positive relation-
ship between learning culture and techno-
logical capacity, but organizational structure
and systems and procedures did not prove
to be significant.
In qualitative studies, conceptual frame-
works may take different forms and be used
and tested in different ways to those shown
in Figs 3.7 and 3.8. They may also be an out-
come of the study rather than a guiding
structure for it. An interesting example here,
particularly in the light of some of the points
made earlier relating to forms of tourism, is
that provided by Stokes’ (2008) study of
tourism strategy making in the events tour-
ism domain in Australia. Drawing on the
literature, Stokes proposes three frame-
works for events tourism strategy making,
which are summarized in tabular form. In
effect, this might be considered a typology
rather than three separate frameworks, with
each type defined in terms of four major ele-
ments: focus; organizational structure; proc-
esses and people; and decision criteria. She
observes (Stokes, 2008, p. 257) that the
framework provides ‘generic categories or
scenarios for investigation, rather than alter-
natives that have clear and measurable
42 Chapter 3
boundaries. Thus, the frameworks are suited
to interpretive research where thick descrip-
tion can be used to illustrate viewpoints
about which of these applies to events tour-
ism strategy making in a particular state or
territory.’ Two research propositions were
formulated from convergent interviews with
industry experts and the literature. These
propositions were then explored in multiple
case study research ‘for their relevance rather
than to prove or disprove theory’ (Stokes,
2008, p. 258). In an interesting application
of a continuum, Stokes asked respondents
in this process to indicate the nature of
stakeholder input to overall events tourism
strategy making with reference to a scaled
continuum. The continuum ranged across
the three types of stakeholder orientation –
from community orientation, through a
midpoint depicting synergy to corporate
orientation. This approach appeared to
be effective, with most interviewees indicat-
ing positions to the corporate end of the
continuum.
Murphy and Boyle (2006), drawing on
existing models and a range of earlier stud-
ies, developed a conceptual framework for
cultural tourism development in the post-
industrial city, which they then tested in
Glasgow, UK using information obtained
from semi-structured in-depth interviews
with key informants. The Glasgow findings
supported the main factors in the frame-
work, but Murphy and Boyle also identi-
fied a set of contextual factors that played a
significant role in that city – factors such as
the role of individuals and the relation-
ships between them and the role of the
community. They concluded that the frame-
work would be useful in comparative stud-
ies of cultural tourism development in
other cities, but stressed that (p. 125): ‘The
real insight into what happens in cities can
only be revealed from in-depth qualitative
research’.
Mair and Jago (2010) examined the
extent to which a general model of the driv-
ers and barriers of corporate greening can be
applied in the business events tourism sec-
tor. First, drawing on the literature, they
proposed a general model which built upon
the specifics of three earlier models and
also incorporated additional drivers and
barriers to greening and the influence of the
media on levels of sustainability. Mair and
Jago then undertook an exploratory study in
the business events sector that involved a
small number of in-depth interviews using
a series of open questions to gather informa-
tion about perceived drivers and barriers,
followed by more specific questions relat-
ing to various dimensions that had arisen in
other studies. This qualitative information
was then coded according to themes derived
from the literature and from the emergent
data. These themes led, in turn, to the devel-
opment of a more specific conceptual frame-
work for the drivers and barriers of corporate
greening in the business events sector
(Fig. 3.9). In this way, the relevance to the
business events sector of the concepts
depicted in the original model has been
tested, although not in the conventional
quantitative sense of the term. On the basis
of the themes identified, certain dimensions
that appeared in the general model were
dropped (e.g. financial benefits as an inter-
nal driver, stakeholder pressure as an exter-
nal driver) and others, such as the media,
were confirmed as playing an influential
role. The authors claim that their framework
offers a much more structured approach to
research in this field, but recognize the need
for replication on a larger scale to ascertain
its generalizability.
In a similar way, Moscardo (2007)
developed a preliminary conceptual frame-
work to understand the role of festivals
and events in regional development. She
begins by noting that, while a significant
amount of research has been carried out on
the impacts of festivals and events, there has
been little work examining their contri-
bution to regional development. Moscardo
then takes an inductive approach to
the analysis of 36 case studies drawn from
the literature, following in particular
Eisenhardt’s (1989) steps in case study
analysis. The a priori constructs are those
identified in Moscardo’s earlier model of
regional tourism development (Moscardo,
2005) and in the literature on social capital
and community well-being. Thirteen key
themes emerged from the content analysis,
 Conceptual Frameworks 43

Organisational
Context Drivers (internal)

Business type The presence of an

internal CSR policy Very
Business size green
Barriers
Catalysts
Industry sector
Lack of time
Media
Organisational Level of
values Drivers (external) Lack of resources uptake of
Culture sustainable
Competitive advantage Lack of knowledge/ practices and
Eco
awareness/skills facilities
External Context Image enhancement champion

Economic situation Supply chain Operational Not

timeframe green at
Consumer trends Customer CSR policies all
Hygiene factor
Available
technology

Political leadership

Fig. 3.9. Proposed model of the drivers and barriers of corporate greening in the business events sector.
CSR, corporate social responsibility. Source: Mair, J. and Jago, L. (2010) The development of a conceptual
model of greening in the business events tourism sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18, 77–94.
Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).

the relative importance of which was estab-
lished by the frequency of each theme.
Clusters of themes were also identified by
creating a co-occurrence matrix. This sug-
gested three categories or groups of themes:
those associated with building social
capacity, increased community capacity
and support for other activities. In the sec-
ond stage of the analysis, these themes
were compared with those in Moscardo’s
earlier model and the social capacity build-
ing and community capacity building lit-
erature. Some overlap was found in this
comparison, although the factors were con-
ceptualized in different ways. The analysis
also revealed the ways in which the differ-
ent factors were connected. The findings
were then drawn together in the form
shown in Fig. 3.10, and show the role of
events and festivals in regional tourism
development. Community involvement is
at the heart of the framework – it enhances
the two key components of regional devel-
opment: social capital and community
capacity. Moscardo (2007, p. 31) concludes
her study by observing: ‘The challenge for
future researchers is to develop ways to
more systematically measure these regional
benefits and use such measures to test
aspects of the model’.
Table 3.1 illustrates another type of a
conceptual framework, a typology that has
been applied in a mixed-method empirical
case study of power relations and community-
based tourism planning in Canada (Reed,
1997). Here, Reed adapts a typology from
public policy research. This framework
incorporates three key concepts, namely
different community-level policy arenas:
developmental, allocational and organiza-
tional. The general features of these are
described, their application to community
tourism is outlined, and the main players in
each arena are identified. While recognizing
that in practice questions of development,
allocation and organization overlap, Reed
argues (pp. 569–590) that ‘by separating
these issues, however, the typology can help
explain why certain elements of the com-
munity’s power structure will be mobilized
to act and what tactics they might use to
respond to community-based planning
processes’. She then goes on to apply the
typology to identify, analyse and discuss
conflicts and power relations which arose
in the community-based planning process
in Squamish, British Columbia; that is, the
framework shaped the direction of her study
and guided the data collection and analysis.
The conceptual framework also proved an
44 Chapter 3

Successful Regional Events and Festivals

Revenue
Infrastructure
Destination
awareness
Connections to Community Presentation of
regional place involvement regional products &
services
Skills
Leadership

Enhanced sense Positive social Mechanisms/

of place & local interaction partnerships for
identity coordination

Social Capital Community Capacity

Positive Regional Development Outcomes

Fig. 3.10. A preliminary conceptual framework to understand the role of festivals and events in regional
development. Source: Reproduced with permission of Cognizant Communication Corporation from
Moscardo, G. (2007) Analysing the role of festivals and events in regional development. Event Management
11, 23–32; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Inc.

effective means of organizing and commu-
nicating the empirical findings, as these are
summarized and presented in a similar
manner (Table 3.2). The three arenas are
dealt with in sequence; the relationships
that are explored are between the actors
involved respectively with development,
allocation and organization. This revealed
that different types of tactics were used by
the various players in the planning process
 Conceptual Frameworks 45

Table 3.1. Community-level policy arenas exemplifying local power relations.

Policy arena

Developmental Allocational Organizational

General description Provision of lands and Traditional public Involves decisions about
marketing services provided the structure of decision
by local government making
Involves policies that Typically, pluralist Debates about organiza-
directly enhance the politics may occur tion do not necessarily
economic status of the within allocational challenge the sub-
community debates stance of developmental
policies
Typically, conventional Examples: schools, Examples: type of
elites form a major sewers, garbage electoral procedures,
influence in develop- collection, parks advisory committees to
mental policy council
Example: hotel, airport
development
Application to Conventional views of Requires public Decisions about how
community tourism tourism see it as a funding for tourism is to be
developmental issue, infrastructure and determined and
characterized by services to be managed and by whom
‘products’ (land based) shared between
and ‘marketing’ residents and
tourists
Challenges may be Example: signs, public
raised that attempt to washrooms
incorporate access to
environmental quality
and recreational
pursuits
Competing visions will
cause conflict between
conventional and
counter-elites over
specific initiatives
Main players Municipality Municipality Municipality
Chamber of Commerce Chamber of Chamber of Commerce
Commerce
Provincial/federal Community Federal/provincial
regulators organizations development agencies
Large-scale developers New operators/ Community organizations
businesses
Long-standing
residents
New residents New operators/
businesses
New operators/ New residents New residents
businesses Specific individuals or
groups may also be
important in power
struggles

Source: Annals of Tourism Research 24, Reed, M.G. (1997) Power relations and community-based tourism planning,
pp. 566–591. Copyright (1997) with permission from Elsevier.
 46
Table 3.2. Summary of power relations in a ski resort development project at Squamish in British Columbia.

Policy arena and example Main players Key actions Discussion and resolution

Developmental:
Brohm Ridge Ski Municipality Lobbying in favour of provincial government The debate over Brohm Ridge revolved around the
Resort Proposal appropriate type and scale of development for tourism
in the community. The result was a modified form of
co-optation where conventional power elites ensured
the project was not denied.
Provincial government Initial refusal, required a community process
Private developer Lobbying municipality and individuals
Citizen’s Advisory informally

Chapter 3
Committee Split between committee at large and winter
Private recreation group tourism committee
Lobbying in opposition to provincial and
municipal governments
Allocational:
Overall plan and its Municipality Non-decision making The plan was deliberately oriented towards procedural
implementation elements over identification of the specific project.
This orientation allowed the municipality and the
Chamber to declare that the uptake had to come from
private sector. As a result, the municipal council did
not allocate any public funds to implement any
recommendations, and implementation was marred by
non-decision making by the public sector. In the
allocational arena, marginalization of the planning
effort resulted.
Chamber of Commerce Support of private sector initiative for
Citizen’s Advisory implementation
Committee Recommendations contained in the plan. No
further lobbying after the plan was
completed
Organizational:
Recommendations for a Municipality No direct action, although municipal These recommendations posed a clear threat to the
tourism association representative facilitated a subsequent Chamber, a conventional power elite. The demand for
and a tourism meeting of tourism operators the changes to the recommendations marked an
coordinator attempt to render the plan marginal. Despite these
changes, new voices are being expressed with
respect to tourism development, representing a
juxtaposition of traditional and new models of
organization.
Chamber of Commerce Opposed the recommendations and
Community Futures demanded changes
Originally supported the change and its
profile in Squamish would have been
enhanced if it had succeeded
Citizen’s Advisory Some members believed that the recommen-

Conceptual Frameworks
Committee dations would allow other groups to be
included in the nature and form of tourism
as it developed

Source: Annals of Tourism Research 24, Reed, M.G. (1997) Power relations and community-based tourism planning, pp. 566–591. Copyright (1997) with permission from Elsevier.

47
48 Chapter 3
to influence collaboration: in the develop-
ment arena modified co-optation occurred;
in the allocational arena the plan was mar-
ginalized; and in the organizational arena
there was evidence of the juxtaposition of
traditional and new models. Given these
tactics, Reed concluded that the develop-
ment of tourism in emerging destinations
required a slow process of community
building. She also noted that other factors
may play a role, notably the impact of per-
sonalities and the circumstances of individ-
ual parties, factors that were not expressly
included in the conceptual framework,
which focused on institutions of power.
Moreover, local level complexities and
diversity also limited the development of
theoretical explanations.
Discussion and Conclusions
As the preceding discussion and examples
have shown, conceptual frameworks are
used at different levels and in varying ways.
At a higher level, the way in which we con-
ceive of the research that we do on tourism
– whether we see it as part of the field of
tourism studies or some other discipline or
field, or whether we locate it in an area or
areas of overlap (Fig. 3.1), can have a major
influence on how we position our studies,
what theories and methods we draw on and
the audiences to which we address our find-
ings. This is becoming an increasingly sig-
nificant issue given that fragmentation,
piecemeal growth and dissemination in
specialized tourism journals, books and
conferences have become the hallmarks of
much tourism research in recent decades
(Pearce and Butler, 2010a). In addition,
closer engagement with other disciplines
and fields of study may strengthen the
research that is being done on tourism.
Thinking more consciously about how we
approach and bound our research at this
level and in these ways, and reference to
basic conceptual frameworks such as those
depicted in Fig. 3.1, may assist us to move
forward in this regard. In other words, if
we see our research as being located solely
as a subset of the field of tourism studies or
a branch of geography, have we considered
the implications of doing this and the limi-
tations that this may have? What might be
gained from taking a broader approach?
Similar issues arise with some of the con-
ceptualizations of particular forms of tour-
ism as Hunter (1995) and Clarke (1997)
demonstrate for sustainable tourism.
The proliferation of studies on different
forms of tourism has generated a plethora of
conceptual frameworks. This illustrates the
role that such frameworks may have in
emerging areas of research where there is a
particular need to identify the relevant con-
cepts and show the relationships between
them. Most such studies have been con-
cerned with a specific form of tourism, be it
ecotourism, sustainable tourism or mountain
tourism. In some cases, there is a concern to
differentiate one form from another – most
evident in the early attempts to distinguish
alternative tourism from mass tourism
(Pearce, 1992a) – but, with the exception of
Trauer’s (2006) review of special interest
tourism, there is scarcely any recognition in
the studies cited that the various approaches
reviewed above constitute part of a more
general research problem: that is, how to
identify and characterize particular forms of
tourism and the various management and
other issues associated with them. The succes-
sive treatment of these frameworks shows
that they have much in common and that
the conceptualizations of these forms have
progressed in similar ways through the use
of polar opposites and continua to more
detailed frameworks that begin to systema-
tize the relevant concepts and relationships
between them. The basic supply, demand
and management framework used by Nepal
and Chipeniuk (2005) for mountain areas,
for example, could be readily adapted and
applied to other settings such as coastal,
rural or peripheral areas.
Two complementary ways forward in
this domain might be identified. Scope
exists to develop an explicit generic con-
ceptual framework of forms of tourism that
might be applied more broadly. Such a
framework would go some way towards
establishing the extent to which tourism as
 Conceptual Frameworks
a whole might be disaggregated into mean-
ingful forms and what the critical distin-
guishing concepts are. At the same time, the
search for common properties drawing on
broader concepts, such as Coëffé (2010) has
done in terms of l’urbanité, will contribute
to a better understanding of what the more
fundamental features of tourism are.
While the conceptual frameworks
derived for forms of tourism and other
emerging topic areas highlight the impor-
tance of identifying relevant concepts and
examining the relationships between them,
this is but one step, albeit a crucial one, in
the research process. Much more effort
49
needs to go into subsequently operational-
izing and implementing these frameworks.
Conversely, many empirical studies that
focus on the data collection and analysis
would benefit from the incorporation of
an explicit conceptual framework. The
examples in the latter part of this chapter
(Figs 3.7–3.10) have shown how this can
be done in a range of quantitative and
qualitative studies where the research
design, data collection and, in varying
degrees, the analysis and interpretation of
results have benefited from the clarity and
structure provided by the conceptual
frameworks used.
 4
Analytical Frameworks
Analytical frameworks help us to structure
the analysis of our data and to order and
communicate our findings. As with other
frameworks, they take various forms and
are used in different ways depending on the
nature and scale of the problem being
addressed, the methods being employed
and the type of data being analysed. At one
level, these frameworks set out the structure
and sequence according to which the analy-
sis of the data will be carried out and the
results will be presented; at another, they
might be seen as a tool with which more
specific sets of data are analysed.
In many quantitative studies the struc-
ture of the analysis flows from the concep-
tual frameworks adopted and a set of related
propositions or hypotheses to be tested in
various ways (Figs 3.6, 3.7). In others, the
structure of the analysis is embodied in the
methods employed, which follow a com-
monly recognized set of steps. Which meth-
ods and which analytical frameworks are
deemed to be appropriate, however, may
evolve as the strengths and limitations of
current and new approaches are debated
and evaluated. This evolution is illustrated
well by Frechtling and Smeral’s (2010)
review of approaches to measuring and
interpreting the economic impacts of tour-
ism. These authors show how initial frame-
works for measuring the direct economic
50 © Douglas G. Pearce 2012. Frameworks for Tourism Research (D.G. Pearce)
impacts of tourism were superseded by
various types of multipliers and input–output
models that, in turn, gave way to the use of
computable general equilibrium (CGE) mod-
els, the development of tourism satellite
accounts and an interest in frameworks for
assessing the impact of mega events.
Many challenges arise in the analysis of
qualitative data as the research problems
addressed are commonly more open and
exploratory than in quantitative studies.
The information generated by in-depth
interviews, focus group discussions, con-
tent analysis of documents and other such
techniques may be very dense and rich, and
is often more intangible and less structured
in nature. Without a clear analytical frame-
work, the analysis of such material can be
very daunting and the communication of
findings rather problematic as the reader
becomes lost in an often lengthy and opaque
discussion. Moreover, as Riley and Love
(2000, p. 182) observed in their review of
the state of qualitative research: ‘it is diffi-
cult for non-qualitative researchers to under-
stand and accept findings as reliable and valid
if they are not fully explicated. . . . Usually,
qualitative scholars described many parts
of the research process thoroughly, but
often their explanations of their analytical
procedures and interpretation were con-
spicuous by their absence’ (emphasis added).
 Analytical Frameworks
Much scope exists, then, to elaborate on and
elucidate the analysis and interpretation
phases of the qualitative research process
(Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2006).
In this chapter, the higher level analyti-
cal frameworks that assist in the structuring
and sequencing of the data analysis will be
illustrated first before examples are given of
the use of frameworks to undertake func-
tions such as classifying, diagnosis and
comparison. Other examples of frameworks
used in the analysis of qualitative data are
then given.
Structuring the Analysis
When a large body of data is being analysed,
an analytical framework serves to organize
the structure of the analysis and acts as a
road map to communicate the way and
the order in which the results will be ana-
lysed and presented. This helps both the
researcher and the reader. In large studies,
such as PhD theses, multiple frameworks
may be needed to structure the different
phases or forms of the analysis.
Davina Stanford’s PhD thesis (Stanford,
2006) examined responsible tourism and
responsible tourists in New Zealand, and
sought to identify what makes a responsible
tourist. Her research involved a multistage
approach. In the first stage, she sought to
identify, through primary and secondary
research, issues and examples that might
illustrate responsible (or irresponsible)
actions as reflected in a range of impacts
identified in New Zealand in general and in
her two case study areas, Rotorua and
Kaikoura, in particular. Figure 4.1 depicts
the analytical framework for this stage, a
straightforward matrix that sets out the
different types of impacts experienced in
the country as a whole and in each of the
case study areas, along with the sources
used, primary or secondary. The presenta-
tion of the results from this stage followed
this structure, that is, she dealt in turn with
the economic, social, environmental and
cultural costs and benefits of tourism in
New Zealand, then in Kaikoura and finally
51
in Rotorua. At the end of that chapter the
different impacts were summarized in a
table following the same format as Fig. 4.1,
in which the specific impacts of each type
are listed for the country and for two case
studies.
From this, five actions were selected to
be followed up in the second stage of the
research: recycling, crime prevention, water
conservation, experiencing local culture
and spending money. In this second stage,
a survey of visitors to Rotorua and Kaikoura
was carried out to collect data on tourist
behaviour relating to these five actions.
Section A of the questionnaire collected
basic trip information. Section B was based
on Ajzen’s (1988) theory of planned behav-
iour and sought to identify instances of
responsible behaviour and the influences
and constraints on this behaviour. By seek-
ing responses in Section C to a series of
scenarios relating to the five actions, the
survey also generated data exploring
effective means of encouraging responsible
behaviour using Kohlberg’s (1980) stages
of moral development. The way in which
information from Sections B and C is pro-
gressively analysed and then integrated is
set out in a second analytical framework
(Fig. 4.2), which depicts the steps taken
to analyse the responsible actions and
the scenarios and shows how these come
together to contribute to a better under-
standing of what makes a tourist responsi-
ble. Given the amount of data collected,
the framework was an invaluable aid
to Davina in terms of staying on top of the
analysis and ordering the presentation of
her findings, and provides the reader with
a point of reference for the various facets of
the analysis.
In articles, a single analytical frame-
work may suffice to lay out the structure of
the analysis. Figure 4.3 depicts the analyti-
cal framework used to examine and present
survey data dealing with the visitors’ per-
spective on tourism distribution channels
(Pearce and Schott, 2005). The complexity
here arises from the scope of the project. In
this case, surveys had been undertaken in
two different locations, one a major resort
destination (Rotorua), the other an urban
52
New Zealand
Source
Impacts Primary/Secondary
Economy
Costs
Benefits
Society
Costs
Benefits
Environment
Costs
Benefits
Culture
Costs
Benefits
Fig. 4.1. Analytical framework for Phase 1 (impacts of tourism) of research on responsible tourism in New
Zealand. Source: Stanford (2006), reprinted with permission from the author.
area (Wellington). In terms of market seg-
ments, the focus on the international/
market dichotomy was a function of the
expected differences in the use of distribu-
tion channels between these two key mar-
kets. In addition, information had been
sought about the channels used for three
sectors (transport, accommodation and
attractions), as well as for three functions
of distribution: information search, booking
and payment. Figure 4.3 brings these dif-
ferent elements together and is used ini-
tially to structure the discussion of the
methodology, explaining what data had
been collected and why. The framework
then serves to introduce the presentation of
the findings by which the tables were
ordered according to the presumed sequence
of distribution activities from the visitors’
Chapter 4
Kaikoura Rotorua
Source Source
Primary/Secondary Primary/Secondary
perspective: information search, booking
and purchase.
Frameworks are especially useful in
setting out complex, multi-step analytical
procedures by providing a structure to out-
line and justify the steps taken and to make
the sequence of the analysis clearer. Zhou
and Ap (2009), for example, used the scheme
shown in Fig. 4.4 to illustrate the steps that
they took in their cluster analysis of Beijing
residents, based on their perceptions of the
2008 Olympic Games. In a similar fashion,
Formica and Uysal (2006) set out a nine-
step analytical framework for evaluating
destination attractiveness as applied to
tourism regions in Virginia. Their review of
the literature indicated that it was desirable
to use an analytical technique which com-
bined the evaluation of existing resources
 Analytical Frameworks 53

Section B: Responsible actions

1. Cross-tabulate all 2. Explore key 3. Use 4. Calculate

demographic and variables which respondent’s mean number of
travel style variables show statistical own words to responsible
with all the questions significance for explore actions for each
relating to the greatest number of influences and of the key
responsible actions questions with constraints variables as
for statistical regards to each identified in
significance action Stage 2

What makes a tourist responsible?

1. Compare 2. Compare 3. Compare

scenarios with each scenarios with each respondents’
other (scale of 1–5) other based on ‘most’ preferences for certain
for mode and mean and ‘least’ likely to messages with actual
responses influence responses behaviour as identified
in Section B

Section C: Communication

Fig. 4.2. Analytical framework for a survey on responsible tourism in New Zealand. Section A (not included
in the figure) collected basic trip information; Section B sought to identify instances of and influences on
responsible behaviour; Section C sought responses to a series of scenarios. Source: Stanford (2006),
reprinted with permission from the author.

Destination
Rotorua Wellington
Distribution Function Market Market

(multiple channels) Sector International Domestic International Domestic

Information Search Transport

Accommodation
Attractions

Booking Transport
Accommodation
Attractions

Payment Transport
Accommodation

Fig. 4.3. An analytical framework for examining the visitors’ perspective on tourism distribution channels in
New Zealand. Source: Pearce, D.G. and Schott, C. (2005) Tourism distribution channels: the visitors’ perspective,
Journal of Travel Research 44(1), 50–63. © 2005 by SAGE Publications. Reprinted by Permission of SAGE
Publications.
54 Chapter 4

Resident Perceptions towards the Impacts of the 2008 Olympics

Factor Analysis

Factor Scores for Four Impact Dimensions

Ward’s (hierarchical) Cluster Analysis to

Assess the Range of the Cluster Numbers n

Randomly Split Data into Two Sets – D1 & D2

D1 D2

Cross Validate Solution in D1 & D2 via K-means Procedure

to Confirm Most Appropriate Cluster Solution N within n

Combine Data Set D1 & D2

K-means Cluster Analysis with the N solution

Assign Cluster Membership to Each Case

Describe, Analyze, & Label Clusters

Discriminant Analysis to Identify Significant Independent Variables

Evaluate Results & Develop Cluster Profiles

Fig. 4.4. Cluster analysis process framework. Source: Zhou, Y. and Ap, J. (2009) Residents’ perceptions
towards the impacts of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. Journal of Travel Research 48, 78–91. © 2009 by
SAGE Publications. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.

and their perceived attractiveness rather Classification

than focus just on the resource base or
demand, as many previous studies had
done. They therefore set out to develop a
more comprehensive approach to measure
destination attractiveness and to test the
relationships between the components.
A common task in both qualitative and
quantitative research is to categorize data and
classify the phenomena under study, whether
as a goal in itself or as a preliminary step to
a larger problem, such as investigating a

process, measuring impacts or making
recommendations about particular issues.
Frameworks, especially if theoretically
based, can provide a sound and explicit
structure for this task. Jobbins (2003), for
example, carried out a series of in-depth
interviews to investigate how local govern-
ance systems in Morocco and Tunisia were
affected by stakeholder interactions. He
drew on Kooiman’s (2000) socio-political
theory of governance to develop an analyti-
cal framework to analyse stakeholder inter-
actions. Following Kooiman, the framework
takes the form of a matrix that sets out three
elements of governance – capacities, inter-
actions and governing orders – and the way
in which they operate at intentional levels
but are also embedded within conditional
contexts (Table 4.1). The elements summa-
rized by Table 4.1 are elaborated on in the
text. Interactions, for example, are defined
(Jobbins, 2003, p. 457) as ‘the processes and
structures through which actors exchange
and combine capacities. . . . The intentional
level refers to the outcome of actions
expressing the goals, interests and purposes
of actors. The conditional level consists of
institutions, rules and behaviours, technol-
ogies and patterns of behaviour that limit
and/or permit the intentional level.’ The cat-
egories outlined in Table 4.1 were used as
a basis for coding the transcripts of the
interviews and organizing the presentation
Table 4.1. Summary of analytical framework of stakeholder interactions.
Capacities Images
Tools
Action potential
Interactions
Governing orders
Source: Jobbins, G. (2003) The effects of stakeholder interactions on capacity for integrated coastal governance in
Morocco and Tunisia, Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 6(4), 455–464, reprinted by permission of the
publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).
Analytical Frameworks 55
of results and subsequent discussion. In a
similar way, Malloy and Fennell (1998) use
a matrix based on theories of ethics and
locus of analysis to identify and compare
codes of ethics. In this case, the framework
aided the analysis not of interview tran-
scripts but of the content of 40 codes of
ethics.
A different type of analytical frame-
work was used by Lohmann and Pearce
(2010) to operationalize tourism nodal
functions. Tourism nodes have been con-
ceptualized in various ways, such as gate-
ways, destinations and stopovers. However,
to use these concepts in empirical work
they must first be made operational, that is,
they need to be expressed in such a way
that data can be collected and analysed in
meaningful categories which correspond
to these terms. After outlining the various
concepts, Lohmann and Pearce derived an
analytical framework that would differenti-
ate between them using a combination of
measures of length of stay and main reason
for visiting the node (Fig. 4.5). Use of this
framework enabled illustrative survey data
on the visitation patterns of ferry passen-
gers travelling between two tourist nodes in
New Zealand (Wellington and Picton) to be
collected and then analysed so as to iden-
tify those who were making the ferry ports
their main destination, having a stopover,
or simply catching the ferry there (i.e. using
Intentional level Conditional level
Data, opinions, ideas, beliefs Culture, means of data
collection and analysis,
prejudices, ideology,
assumptions,
epistemology
Regulatory, market-based, Resources
communicative, behavioural
norms
Authority, legitimacy Power relations
Values, goals, interests, Institutions, customs, rules,
purposes technology
Problem solution Institutional development
56 Chapter 4

How many nights is the passenger spending

in the node before/after taking the ferry?

Gateway
Yes Traveller
(GT)
Is inter-island connection the main
Zero
reason for going to the node?
(SV1)
No Stopover
Visitor
(SV)

No (SV2)
No Is inter-island connection
One Is this the sole the main reason for going
destination (TI=100)? to the node?

Yes (DT2) Yes

Destination Overnight
Two or more Gateway
Tourist (DT)
(DT1) Visitor (OGV)

Fig. 4.5. Analytical framework for operationalizing nodal functions. Source: Reprinted from Journal of
Transport Geography 18, Lohmann, G. and Pearce, D.G. (2010) Conceptualizing and operationalizing
nodal tourism functions, pp. 266–275. Copyright (2010) with permission from Elsevier.

the port as a gateway). These categories Relative market share

were then used to explore the behaviour of High Low
different groups of visitors – international,
regional and other domestic travellers, and
Market growth rate
High

Question
to assess the extent to which gateway and Stars
marks
stopover passengers might be induced to
extend their visits.
Low

Analytical Frameworks
as Diagnostic Tools
Analytical frameworks may also be used
as diagnostic tools to evaluate a problem
and suggest strategic actions. One common
approach in marketing and in other tour-
ism applications is portfolio analysis using
the growth/share matrix developed by the
Boston Consulting Group (BCG). Other frame-
works used as diagnostic tools are dis-
cussed in subsequent chapters, particularly
matrices, which are the subject of Chapter 6.
Cash Dogs
cows
Fig. 4.6. Growth/share matrix.
The y-axis of the BCG matrix indicates
market growth; the x-axis shows market
share relative to the market leader, as shown
in Fig. 4.6. Determination of the midpoint
on the vertical (y) axis depends on the pre-
vailing range of growth rates; Kotler et al.
(1996) suggest that a growth rate above 10%
is considered high. A value of 1.0 is usually
 Analytical Frameworks 57

used as the dividing line in terms of relative
market share. A portfolio of business units
is then plotted on the matrix according to
their performance on these two measures.
Proportional circles may also be used to
represent the volume of business from each
unit. Each of the quadrants is typically
labelled according to its growth/share char-
acteristics: ‘stars’ fall in the high market
share/high growth quadrant; ‘dogs’ in low
market share/low market growth; ‘cash
cows’ in high market share/low growth; and
‘question marks’ in low market share/high
growth. In this way, proponents argue,
analysts and managers can better assess the
performance of their portfolio as a whole
and identify where best to allocate resources.
Initially used in marketing with respect
to products, the growth/share matrix has
been primarily employed in tourism to ana-
lyse a destination’s portfolio of markets and
to assist in target market selection, usually
at the national level (Fig. 4.7), but also at a
local scale – as in the case of Amsterdam
(van Limburg, 1997). Figure 4.7 depicts
Italy’s portfolio of tourist markets in 1988.
Calantone and Mazanec (1991) use 0% as
their midpoint to take into account declines
as well as growth. Proportional circles
representing the number of bed nights
recorded are used to show the ‘importance
value’ of each market. In this way, Fig. 4.7
provides a good overview of the situation in
Italy at that time; it highlights the impor-
tance of Germany, shows the potential of
the Swiss market and the decreasing growth
rates for the UK, the USA, France and
Denmark. In other applications, the growth/
share matrix has been applied to market
segments. March (2000), for example, con-
siders the strategic position of Japanese
travellers to Australia in the growth of seg-
ments defined in terms of the Japanese
travel life cycle, while Zins (1999) portrays
a portfolio of European vacation style types
for Austria using a modified matrix whose
axes are propensity to visit Austria and
exploited share of market potential. The
growth/share matrix has also been used in
other areas, such as menu engineering
(Cohen et al., 2006).
Advocates of the growth/share matrix
suggest that it facilitates a balanced approach
to selecting target markets and adopting
appropriate strategies, such as increasing,
maintaining and reducing investments in
particular markets or even abandoning
them – for example, using revenue from the

growth rate
10 1. F.R. Germany
2. Netherlands
3. United Kingdom
4. France
5
5. USA
6. Benelux
7 7. Switzerland
0 8. Sweden
6 2 9 10. Denmark
11. Austria

(5) 11
10 1
3

5 4
(10)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1 2 3 5 10
relative market share

Fig. 4.7. Portfolio of Italy’s markets (1988). Source: Reprinted from Annals of Tourism Research 18,
Calantone, J. and Mazanec, J.A. (1991) Marketing management and tourism, pp. 101–109. Copyright (1991)
with permission from Elsevier.
58 Chapter 4
‘cash cows’ (mature markets) to invest in
promising ‘stars’ (Henshall and Roberts,
1985; Heath and Wall, 1992; Kotler et al.,
1996; Perdue, 1996; Ãguas et al., 2000).
Portfolio analysis also has its critics.
Many of the limitations are summarized by
Calantone and Mazanec (1991), Heath and
Wall (1992), Ãguas et al. (2000) and Fyall
and Garrod (2005). These include issues
related to the measurement and relevance of
the two dimensions (market growth and
share), the exclusion of other factors (e.g.
the behaviour of competitors and other
external influences), the non-incorporation
of qualitative information and the relation-
ship between markets. Drawing on studies
that have assessed the actual application of
the growth/share model, and on his own
application of it to the airline industry,
Drews (2008, p. 52) questions the use of the
BCG matrix, arguing about the use of sim-
plicity, clarity, compression of information
and reduction in complexity if these miss
essential factors in the strategic analysis.
Variations on the BCG model are to be
found, both in terms of the variables used and
how the matrix is presented and analysed.
Henshall and Roberts (1985), for example,
use an industry attractiveness matrix where
composite indices of generating country
attractiveness and competitiveness replace
the simpler growth/share measures. They adopt
a nine-cell matrix by including a medium
category on each access and use it to position
New Zealand’s portfolio of markets. Ãguas
et al. (2000) also adopt composite measures
of attractiveness and competitiveness in their
analysis of Portugal’s tourist market portfo-
lio. In his analysis of target markets for the
Colorado ski industry, Perdue (1996) takes
as his two dimensions high/low existing
sales and high/low incremental sales poten-
tial to identify four types of markets: ‘estab-
lished’, ‘opportunity’, ‘question’ and ‘inept’.
This approach is based on the belief that
tourism marketers must both maintain
important existing markets and at the same
time penetrate markets with high incremen-
tal sales potential. Incremental sales poten-
tial is measured by subtracting actual sales
from predicted sales (as measured by a
regression model). Lee et al. (2006) also take
an economic approach to target market
selection, developing an Economic Value
Portfolio Matrix based on a stay–spend
index, which, they assert, combines the two
factors most relevant to a market cluster’s
profitability, namely trip expenditure per
person and average length of stay.
Comparative Studies
Explicit analytical frameworks are valuable
in comparative studies to structure and order
what is being compared. According to
Warwick and Osherson (1973, p. 7) ‘compari-
son in its broadest sense is the process of dis-
covering similarities and differences among
phenomena’. While common in other fields
and being increasingly used in tourism stud-
ies, the comparative approach is still often
used rather implicitly by tourism researchers,
many of whom do not cast their use of this
approach in a broader methodological dis-
cussion (McDowall and Choi, 2010; Rutin,
2010). Being more explicit about the purpose
and nature of a comparative framework can
strengthen the research design and sharpen
the analysis undertaken.
In essence, comparative research
involves the investigation of a problem in
two or more places, or in one place at two or
more points in time, using a common
research design so that equivalent data may
be systematically collected, analysed and
compared in order to address a general
question or set of questions (Pearce, 1993a).
Comparative studies are generally under-
taken either for the practical purpose of
transferring experience from one context to
another or to stimulate the development of
theory through explanation and generaliza-
tion. In the former case, for example, Cottrell
and Cutumisu (2006) compared aspects of a
verified Protect Area Network (PAN) Park
with a candidate park in order to share
lessons between the two. In the latter case,
comparative research aims to distinguish
the general from the specific, an espe-
cially useful attribute in a field that is still
characterized by the prevalence of single
case studies. As Przeworski and Teune
 Analytical Frameworks
(1970, p. 30) noted: ‘the role of comparative
research consists of replacing proper names
of social systems by the relevant variables’.
Explanation or generalization through com-
parative research is usually sought via one
of two paths; a positive approach in which
similarities are identified in independent
variables associated with a common out-
come, or a negative one whereby independ-
ent variables are associated with divergent
outcomes. Researchers examining tourism’s
role in development, for example, have
compared similar cases with divergent out-
comes: Matarrita-Cascante (2010) compared
the experiences of two Costa Rican commu-
nities, while Bishop (2010) analysed the
case of two island states in the Caribbean.
Key methodological considerations in
developing the research design and an
explicit analytical framework are the choice
of cases to be studied, the factors to be
examined and the way in which the com-
parative analysis is to be undertaken (Pearce,
1993a). Three broad approaches might be
distinguished: comparative case studies,
element-by-element comparisons and quan-
titative and graphical analyses.
Comparative case studies are seen here
as those that have been designed specifi-
cally as part of the comparative process,
that is, they are set up, analysed and inter-
preted using a common framework that
enables comparisons to be made. Pearce
et al. (2007) used this approach to investi-
gate whether, in what ways and why the
distribution channels for New Zealand
tourism varied among the country’s three
largest markets – Australia, the USA and
the UK – and to consider what implica-
tions any variations had for marketing
the country’s tourism products. Comparison
of the three markets was based around a
clear delineation of factors that character-
ize distribution structures: channel depth;
attributes of the intermediaries; the level
of destination specialization; the degree
of integration between channel members;
and the market segments targeted (e.g.
independent or group tourists). A struc-
tural diagram incorporating these factors
was derived for each case; this diagram
provided a focus for the discussion of the
59
functions of each intermediary, the rela-
tionships between channel members and
why the structures identified had come
about. Distribution in each of the three
markets was discussed on a case-by-case
basis before the cross-market patterns were
compared to draw out more general find-
ings relating to the research findings
addressed. In other words, the comparison
occurred after the cases had been pre-
sented, with comparison being facilitated
by the common format and structural dia-
grams used. Differences occurred from
market to market, for example, but these
tended to be variations from a traditional
channel structure. Reasons for variations
in channel depth and the level at which
destinations specialize were also identi-
fied. The need for further work on interna-
tional tourism distribution in other contexts
was also discussed and a more systematic
framework by which this might be carried
out was proposed (Fig. 4.8). In this way,
and following Przeworski and Teune
(1970), the proper names of the social sys-
tems studied have been replaced by the key
variables. In particular, the framework
shown in Fig. 4.8 suggests that a compre-
hensive approach is required in which anal-
ysis of channel structure characteristics
needs to be complemented by the system-
atic analysis of the market and destination
characteristics.
In the second approach – element-
by-element comparisons – the comparison
occurs throughout the analysis as each ele-
ment or variable from the cases studied is
examined in turn. Matarrita-Cascante (2010)
uses such a framework and interactional
theory in his comparison of tourism devel-
opment in two Costa Rican communities.
After outlining the contextual attributes of
Liberia and La Fortuna, Matarrita-Cascante
analyses and interprets the development
process and outcomes in each community
in turn with regard to the key features of
interactional theory (communication and
collective action, tolerance and commun-
ion), processes and outcomes. These fea-
tures are then brought together in a useful
comparative summary table that enables
a ready appreciation of the differences
60 Chapter 4

Market characteristics Destination characteristics

Intervening
Size distance Size and geography
• Geographic scale Product diversity
• Population short- Forms of tourism
Market maturity medium- • Resort based
• Demand & long-haul • Circuit travel
• Industry structure travel Scale and structure of
Market penetration providers and intermediaries
Diversity of demand

Channel Structure
characteristics

Channel depth
Intermediaries’ characteristics
Concentration and integration
Specialisation
• Market
• Functional
• Destination

Fig. 4.8. An analytical framework for international tourism distribution systems. Source: Pearce, D.G.,
Tan, R. and Schott, C. (2007) Distribution channels in international markets: a comparative analysis of
the distribution of New Zealand tourism in Australia, Great Britain and the USA. Current Issues in
Tourism 10, 33–60. Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.
tandfonline.com).

between the two communities and why
these have emerged. This, in turn, provides
insight at the local level into the changes
that tourism may bring.
A similar framework is used by Beaumont
and Dredge (2010) in their innovative study
of local tourism governance. Their compari-
son is based not on different communities
but on three different governance networks
that existed simultaneously in a single
Australian local government area. In order to
investigate the effectiveness of institutional
arrangements, Beaumont and Dredge begin
by identifying the parameters of good govern-
ance. Then, after outlining the characteristics
of the three networks, they compare and con-
trast them parameter by parameter, including
positive cultures, constructive communica-
tion and engaged communities; transparency
and accountability; vision and leadership;
and clear operational structures. This discus-
sion is aided by a comparative table setting
out the performance of each network on
each parameter. From this analysis, a series
of tensions and trade-offs was revealed and
greater understanding of issues of local gov-
ernance emerged.
Questions of manageability may arise in
using either the comparative case or element-
by-element approach when there are a
greater number of cases and more variables
or parameters than in the examples just out-
lined. Here, where the scope of the problem
warrants and the nature of the data allows,
the third approach – the use of quantitative
and graphical techniques – may be used to
increase the number of cases or variables
examined. Loukissas (1982) for instance,
derived a fourfold typology of 38 Greek islands
based on two independent variables – com-
munity size and tourist density – and then
analysed three sets of dependent variables:
location of tourism development, differ-
ences in characteristics of development and
differences in impacts. Pearce (1995b) used
a series of localization of Lorenz curves to
 Analytical Frameworks
compare the spatial concentration of domes-
tic and international tourism in eleven
European countries. The comparison revealed
that both forms of tourism were spatially
concentrated but that international tourism
was generally the more concentrated of
the two.
Other Frameworks for Qualitative
Analysis
Various other types of qualitative analytical
frameworks are used in tourism research,
but treating their functions in a systematic
fashion is complicated by the range of prob-
lems addressed and the frameworks used,
and also by the extent to which any frame-
work is explicitly elaborated or is rather
more implicit. Here it is useful to recall
Pacquet’s view that an analytical framework
might be thought of as ‘a set of relationships
that do not lead to specific conclusions
about the world of events “but can serve in
organizing in a preliminary way the object
of the enquiry”’ (Pacquet, 1993, p. 274, cit-
ing Leibenstein, 1976). Frameworks can
range from those that are basic and whose
function is to set out findings, to those that
are more penetrating and analytical in
nature.
In their examination of Australian
responses to the crises of 2001 (the impacts
on firms servicing Australia’s tourism indus-
try of three major crises – including the
failure of the HIH Insurance Company,
the World Trade Center terrorist attacks and
the collapse of Ansett Airlines), Anderson
et al. (2007), for example, present a straight-
forward ‘conceptual framework for data ana-
lysis and discussion’ that sets out the different
events and the short-term and medium-term
responses to them. Results from semi-
structured interviews are then presented,
focusing in turn on the events, the impact of
these, and the various responses taken (infor-
mation gathering, customer service, financial
activities . . .). While the different elements
are not particularly interrelated in the
discussion, the structure provided by the
framework is quite clear.
61
In other instances, the analytical frame-
work is used to examine a body of information
more systematically and/or to identify and
extract a set of themes. Bramwell and
Sharman (1999) develop an analytical frame-
work that consists of a list of issues to
assess local collaborative tourism policy
making and apply this to a case study of the
Hope Valley in Britain’s Peak District
National Park. In particular, they were
concerned with issues to be considered
when evaluating whether local collabora-
tive tourism policy making is inclusionary
and involves collective learning and con-
sensus building. Bramwell and Sharman
draw on three related areas of literature –
inter-organizational collaboration, commu-
nicative approaches to planning and citizen
participation – to identify three sets of
issues: the scope and intensity of collabora-
tion and the extent of collaboration that
emerges. The interview data from the case
study respondents are then analysed in
terms of these issues. This analysis revealed
varying degrees of inclusiveness and
showed only partial consensus in support
for the park’s visitor management plan.
The authors also concluded that other issues
might have been included and note the
possibility of extending the framework to
incorporate policy implementation issues.
In other words, while Bramwell and
Sharman’s framework was based on a fairly
thorough review of the literature, new issues
emerged from the empirical work, illustrat-
ing the point that good analytical frame-
works should provide structure but not be a
straitjacket.
Other applications of analytical frame-
works in inter-organizational analysis are
provided by Stokes (2004) and Therkelsen
and Halkier (2008). The latter develop their
framework to analyse place branding. The
framework depicts the interrelationships
among and between two sets of actors
involved in place branding – tourism and
investment organizations – and also links
umbrella brands to the way in which images
are configured to promote places to tourists
and investors. Therkelsen and Halkier use
this framework in the first part of their ana-
lysis of place branding in Denmark to examine
62 Chapter 4

aspects of the relations between two national
organizations – Visit Denmark and Invest in
Denmark – based largely on interviews with
the organizations’ brand managers. In the
second part, they analyse the national web
sites of each organization in terms of ele-
ments that reflect investor or tourist appeal.
This analysis highlighted contrasting atti-
tudes to cross-sectoral branding initiatives
and found variable commonality in the
images and themes portrayed by the two
organizations.
Schänzel (2010) took an innovative and
comprehensive whole-family approach to
investigating the nature of family holidays,
one that not only took a longitudinal
approach involving pre-holiday, on-holiday
and post-holiday phases, but also considered
family holidays from three G perspectives:
generation, gender and group dynamics.
Two major themes emerged from her
grounded theory approach to the analysis of
her family interview material: family time
and own time. Given the complexity of the
three dimensions of her study – longitudi-
nal or temporality, the three G perspectives,
and the family time/own time themes –
some clear structure was needed in order to
draw out, illustrate and present the key
points of her interview material. Such a
structure was provided by the framework
depicted in Fig. 4.9, which enabled her to
focus on the two sets of themes over time
from the three G perspectives. This approach
contrasts with that of Bramwell and
Sharman (1999) in that the family time/own
time themes emerged from her reading of
the transcripts, whereas in the Hope Valley
case the framework of identified issues
drove the analysis.
With reference to her own work analys-
ing focus group transcripts, Thomas (2004)
offers a more generic overview of the pro-
cesses associated with the coding and gener-
ation of themes from qualitative data. In
particular, she advocates the use of hierar-
chical thematic frameworks to illustrate the
synthesis and abstraction of the themes in
her research. Thomas notes (p. 207) that
such frameworks (see Fig. 4.10) illustrate
‘how themes have been developed through
higher degrees of abstraction and synthesis
from individual themes (low level of abstrac-
tion, supported by textual evidence) to the
synthesizing of themes (interaction of two
or more individual themes at the middle
level of abstraction) to broad conceptual
areas (high level of abstraction)’. Moving up
the thematic hierarchy thus involves a grad-
ual move from the descriptive to the inter-
pretive. A similar process of thematic
analysis is outlined by Parag and Ryan

Themes
y
lit
ra Post-holiday
po On-holiday
m
Te Pre-holiday

Family time Own time

Generation
Perspectives

Gender

Group dynamics

Fig. 4.9. An analytical framework for whole-family experiential dimensions. Source: Reproduced with
permission of Cognizant Communication Corporation from Schänzel, H.A. (2010) Whole-family
research: towards a methodology in tourism for encompassing generation, gender, and group
dynamic perspectives. Tourism Analysis 15(5), 555–569; permission conveyed through Copyright
Clearance Inc.
 Analytical Frameworks 63

HIGH LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION BROAD CONCEPTUAL AREA

MID LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION SYNTHESISING THEMES

(INTERACTION OF TWO OR MORE
INDIVIDUAL THEMES)

Low Level of Abstraction Individual theme Individual theme

Source material Textual evidence Textual evidence

Quotations Quotations

Fig. 4.10. Hierarchical structure of the thematic framework. Source: Figure 12.2 from Thomas, K. (2004) The
research process as a journey: from positivist traditions into the realms of qualitative inquiry, pp.197–214
in Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (eds) Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and
Methodologies, Routledge. Reprinted with permission.

(2011), who use a ‘push and pull’ framework
to examine aspects of destination choice in
Mauritius. Following Braun and Clarke
(2006), Parag and Ryan also underline the
need to generate a ‘thematic map’ to check
that the themes work in relation to the coded
extracts and the entire data set, and illus-
trate this with reference to their study.
Discussion and Conclusions
The use of analytical frameworks in tourism
research has been rather variable. As the
examples of their use as diagnostic tools
and in comparative studies that are dis-
cussed above have shown, clear and explicit
analytical frameworks have been used to
structure and communicate particular forms
of analysis. In many other instances, however,
especially in much qualitative research, the
way in which the analysis has been framed
is often much less apparent. The way the
analysis is structured is commonly taken
for granted or assumed to follow from the
theoretical or conceptual frameworks that
may have been used. As Chapters 2 and 3
have shown, these other frameworks can
indeed provide guidance for the analysis
64 Chapter 4

and interpretation of empirical data. However,
much scope exists to complement the theo-
retical and conceptual with specific analyti-
cal frameworks to sharpen up and articulate
more clearly this more operational side
of the research process. Many studies
would benefit from more effort going into
developing and using appropriate analytical
frameworks to set out and explain more
clearly what is being done in this later phase
of the research process (see Fig. 1.3). It is,
after all, from the analysis that the findings
from our research emerge. Greater confi-
dence in our findings will result if users are
shown that appropriate and robust means of
analysis have been employed.
 5
Integrative Frameworks
Given the complexity, fragmentation and
lack of coherence that characterize much
tourism research, considerable scope
exists to use integrative frameworks to
bring greater direction, structure and
purpose to the field (Pearce and Butler,
2010b). The need for this integration is
well summed up by Gallarza et al. (2002,
pp. 72–73), who note with respect to
research on tourism destination image
(TDI): ‘The very large number of previous
studies on TDI, both theoretical and empir-
ical, gives the researcher interested in the
topic what could be defined as a “kaleido-
scopic view” of the construct, or a contin-
uously reduced and changing vision. Amid
the multidimensionality of all tourism
studies, these visions of TDI are never
general enough to offer a global perspec-
tive.’ Three broad sets of integrative
frameworks have been put forward. First,
there are those that take a primarily
thematic approach to integrate the litera-
ture on particular topics. A second set of
frameworks considers multiple theoreti-
cal lenses through which various prob-
lems might be viewed and attempts to
bring these together. A third set address
the use of mixed methods and offer
frameworks that endeavour to integrate
these.
© Douglas G. Pearce 2012. Frameworks for Tourism Research (D.G. Pearce)
Integrating the Literature
Integrative frameworks can provide more
focused, structured and effective literature
reviews. They are particularly useful in defin-
ing the nature and scope of newly emerging
themes and in identifying directions for
further study. With more established topics,
they enable us to synthesize a large body of
studies and draw out the major findings. In
particular, an integrative framework enables
us to go beyond an aggregative process that
identifies key themes (Robinson and Barron,
2007; Robertson et al., 2009) to explicitly
explore the relationships among findings
and between themes, and to establish more
effectively what the cumulative body of
knowledge is.
Figure 5.1 depicts an integrative frame-
work for urban tourism research, a topic
that developed as a significant and dis-
tinctive field of study during the 1990s
(Pearce, 2001). The framework takes
the form of a matrix that emphasizes
the identification of subject cells within the
matrix that are structured in terms of the
different spatial scales (site, district, city-
wide, regional, national and international)
at which urban tourism might be studied on
the vertical (y) axis and the various themes
(demand, supply, development, marketing . . .)
65
66
d p
an
m pp
de su
regional/
national/
international
l i n ka g es
city-wide
SCALE
district
site
Fig. 5.1. An integrative framework for urban tourism research. Source: Reprinted from Annals of Tourism
Research 28, Pearce, D.G. (2001) An integrative framework for urban tourism research, 926–946. Copyright
(2001), with permission from Elsevier.
that might be researched on the horizon-
tal (x) axis. The examination and fleshing
out of individual cells within the matrix
(e.g. city-wide studies of demand or impact
assessments in particular districts) needs
to be complemented by more integrative
approaches (represented by the symbolic
chains in Fig. 5.1) that systematically
examine linkages both horizontally (that is,
which integrate different themes at the same
spatial scale) and vertically (that is, which
examine a theme across two or more spatial
scales). Thematic integration, for example,
might include more explicit consideration
of the match between supply and demand
and of the relationship between develop-
ment and impact or, indeed, of the connec-
tions between all four. Examination of
multi-scale integration may draw attention
to how patterns of demand or the impacts of
tourism vary at city-wide, district and site-
specific levels. From a second or related
perspective, relationships might be explored
in terms of who or what constitutes the links
between the scales or themes, that is, how
are the linkages to be conceptualized and
measured? Lines of enquiry here include:
detailed examination of behaviour as visi-
tors arrive in a city, travel around within it
and visit particular sites; analyses of exter-
nal and internal accessibility; and studies
Chapter 5
THEMES
nt n t
me g tio s ct en
tin n g i za t ion pa ssm
ly l o
rke
nn
i n
er
a im se
ve ga
de ma pla or op as
l i n ka g e s
on organizational and operational arrange-
ments at different scales and across differ-
ent areas of responsibility.
The Pearce (2001) framework was then
used to systematically review the literature
on urban tourism. It proved useful in order-
ing a large number of studies and enabled a
more coherent picture of urban tourism to
emerge. This integrative approach, for exam-
ple, brought out common features at the
district level (e.g. of historic districts, ethnic
districts, sacred spaces and redevelopment
zones), scarcely perceived previously as a
distinctive subfield. Conversely, the quasi-
absence of site-specific studies drew attention
to the paucity of work done at the micro-
scale and underlined the research gap
that exists there. The focus on regional,
national and international relationships dis-
tinguished two approaches – theoretical and
functional – and identified opportunities to
bring these approaches together. The more
systematic and integrative approach fos-
tered by the framework also permitted some
progress to be made in pursuing Ashworth’s
(1992) question of whether or not there is an
urban tourism, and suggested this issue
might best be explored at scales other than
the city wide.
Frequent citation of the Pearce (2001)
study testifies to the utility of the framework
 Integrative Frameworks 67

and the literature reviewed in this way.
It has been cited with reference to both the
general state of urban tourism research and
the nature of urban tourism (e.g. Murphy
and Boyle, 2006; Mbaiwa et al., 2007; Alfasi
and Fenster, 2009), and with respect to some
of the key issues just outlined, such as tour-
ist districts (Maulet, 2006) and, in particu-
lar, multi-scale approaches. With regard to
the latter, Chang and Huang (2004) use the
framework shown in Fig. 5.1 as a broad
guide to review urban tourism using a scalar
perspective (global–local), while Barrado
Timón (2001) analyses aspects of tourism in
Madrid from the metropolitan scale to clus-
ters of tourism features on particular streets.
Deng et al. (2010) modify the framework,
substituting attributes for themes at differ-
ent scales in their analysis linking urban
forests and urban tourism. In their study of
the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao area, Tao
et al. (2005) pick up on the need to examine
a range of factors at the city and regional
level, and propose (p. 177) a methodology
presented as a region–city/theme–factor
matrix ‘to make clear how urban tourism
studies vary with the changes of dimensions
of time and space’. Progress, they argue,
will be made from combining micro-level
analysis of city factors with a macro-level
examination of regional themes.
Zhao and Ritchie (2007) structure their
review of tourism and poverty alleviation
around an integrative framework for anti-
poverty tourism (APT) research (Fig. 5.2).
They offer their review in response (p. 121)
‘to the severe mismatch between research
and practice [in the previously separate
domains of tourism and poverty which]
highlights an urgent need for a more system-
atic, comprehensive and coherent approach
to guide the enquiries of this emerging field
of research’ (emphasis added). Their paper
aims (p. 121) to provide an integrative frame-
work on APT ‘which is intended to serve as
a catalyst that can stimulate more future,
in-depth investigations’. In concluding the
paper, Zhao and Ritchie assert (p. 137) that it
‘not only contributes to the clarification of
the boundary and scope of APT research,
but also functions as a public platform for
researchers with diverse background and
interests to identify and discuss common
themes embedded in the framework’.
The central part of Zhao and Ritchie’s
(2007) framework (Fig. 5.2) is ladder-like or
hierarchical in form, with the three lower
levels of factors (stakeholders, APT themes
and determinants) constituting the process
and mechanisms that lead to poverty alle-
viation through tourism. The upper parts of
the framework address the complementary

Competitive to POVERTY ALLEVIATION Complementary to

Other Approaches Other Approaches
Analysis Monitoring Evaluation

DETERMINANTS
MICRO ENVIRONMENT

MACRO ENVIRONMENT

Opportunity Empowerment Security

APT THEMES
Destination Local Destination
Competitiveness Participation Sustainability

STAKEHOLDERS
The Poor Governments Private Sector Tourists Civil Society Aid Donors

Fig 5.2. An integrative framework for anti-poverty tourism (APT) research. Source: Zhao, W. and Ritchie, J.R.B.
(2007) Tourism and poverty alleviation: an integrative research framework. Current Issues in Tourism 10, 119–143.
Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).
68 Chapter 5

or competitive nature of other poverty a reminder of the need for stakeholder

alleviation approaches, while the inclusion
of micro- and macro-environmental factors
underlines the impact on APT of internal
and external influences and pressures. The
literature on each of these components is
then reviewed in turn before research needs
and opportunities are addressed. Here,
attention is drawn not only to the scope for
more research on individual components,
but also the need to explore relationships
horizontally among components of the same
dimension, as well as the linkages between
levels. In this way, new questions are gener-
ated that, in turn, have implications for
research design, given the increased empha-
sis on exploring linkages and relationships.
In addition to ‘inspiring’ research, Zhao and
Ritchie suggest that the framework also has
practical applications in providing planners
and managers with a holistic picture of APT
issues, a means of evaluating the perform-
ance of APT development initiatives and
involvement and collaboration. Finally, they
note (p. 138) the need to broaden the litera-
ture review beyond tourism to the develop-
ment literature on poverty ‘in order to seek
more theoretical justification for the con-
stituent components and the structure of
the framework’.
Getz (2008) offers a ‘framework for
understanding and creating knowledge about
event tourism’ (Fig. 5.3), the purpose of which
(p. 404) is ‘spurring theoretical advance-
ment, identifying research gaps and assist-
ing professional practice’. It is primarily
used as a structuring device to order a large
body of literature on event tourism and pro-
vides (p. 421) ‘a framework that can be used
by managers and policy makers to shape
their overall understanding and approach
to event tourism’. The links between the
various themes are not well developed and
in this sense the framework is not particu-
larly integrative. Rather, the emphasis is on

PERSONAL
ANTECEDENTS
AND CHOICES
• Needs, motives, preferences
• Leisure and work contexts
• Barriers and constraints
Temporal Patterns • Cultural and community Spatial Patterns
influences

PLANNING AND OUTCOMES AND

NATURE AND MEANINGS
MANAGING EVENT THE IMPACTED
OF EVENT TOURISM
TOURISM
• Stakeholders and EXPERIENCES • Personal
organizations • The travel and event • Societal, political
• Goals and strategies experience (for visitors, • Cultural
• Resources used participants, organizers) • Economic
• Professionalism • Meanings attached to • Environmental
Event Tourism

Policy Knowledge
Creation
PATTERNS AND PROCESSES
• Spatial and temporal patterns
• Policy
• Knowledge creation

Fig. 5.3. A framework for understanding and creating knowledge about event tourism. Source: Reprinted
from Tourism Management 29, Getz, D. (2008) Event tourism: definition, evolution, and research, pp. 403–428.
Copyright (2008) with permission from Elsevier.
 Integrative Frameworks
identifying key research questions on each
theme and suggesting possible research
methods. In this way, the framework and
associated tables and text outline a compre-
hensive research agenda which researchers in
event tourism will find very useful in the
problem formulation and research design
phases of their research.
The three studies just cited (Pearce,
2001; Zhao and Ritchie, 2007; Getz, 2008)
are review articles structured around inte-
grative frameworks. While these identify
questions for further research, the authors
themselves do not pursue the issues identi-
fied, at least not within the confines of these
papers. In other research, for example PhD
study, integrative frameworks will prove
helpful in drawing together the literature
reviewed, enable the thesis to be situated in
the larger body of knowledge and, thereby,
assist the researcher to formulate the problem
and design the research that is to be carried
out subsequently.
Integrating Theories and Approaches
In contrast to the frameworks shown in
Figs 5.1 and 5.2, which essentially integrate
content, other integrative models seek to
draw together different theoretical bases or
approaches to particular problems. One of
the earliest attempts to combine different
theoretical frameworks in tourism was
Machlis and Burch’s (1983) paper, which
sought to integrate the behaviour of tourists,
the evolution of the tourism industry and
the impacts of tourism for hosts and guests.
They begin by suggesting the inadequacy of
three prevailing analytical frameworks: the
construction of typologies of tourists, tour-
ism and attractions; the anthropological
treatment of the process of acculturation;
and economic analyses of tourism as an
industry, with an emphasis on shifts in sup-
ply and demand. Such frameworks, they
argue (p. 668), did not ‘permit the analyst to
deal simultaneously with the many social,
institutional and economic relations set
up by tourism activity . . . they tend to lose
sight of the interconnection between the
69
behavioural routines of daily life. There is a
need for an integrated theory of tourism,
one that treats tourism and its many social
relations as integral to the social order.’
Machlis and Burch (1983) took the view
that the relations between tourists and hosts
could be seen as an expression of the rela-
tions between strangers and, as such, an
adaptive cycle occurs in tourism relations
similar to that found between other groups
of strangers. This adaptive cycle was seen to
have two sets of cyclical elements: collective
and interpersonal. The three structural
cycles of collective order and meaning are
those relating to organization, participation
and transaction. Each of these is described
in turn with reference to a figure outlining
‘plausible indicators’. The organizational
cycle, for example, is depicted in terms of
the ratio of local to foreign decisions as a
measure of relative power, and the ratio of
tertiary production (such as tourism) to pri-
mary production as a measure of organiza-
tional level. The dominant organizations at
various stages in the changing production
and social power cycles are also identified.
The second set of cycles is framed with
reference to the use of myth to give meaning
to daily, interpersonal actions. Myths involve
three elements – symbolization, expectation
and interaction – for which corresponding
cycles are also identified. Together, the two
sets of cycles are said to provide a more
comprehensive picture of adaptive change
(Machlis and Burch, 1983, p. 685): ‘Structural
cycles permit the adaptation of the larger
collective whole to changes in its social and
ecological conditions, while the cycles of
myth reflect the adaptation of individuals
to changes in interpersonal conditions’. The
cycles and their associated variables are
integrated by way of a summary table that
illustrates Machlis and Burch’s assertion
that the different cycles are interrelated, and
that the ways in which hosts and guests
order their relations at any stage reflect the
relative positions of power between stran-
gers and are also associated with a particular
stage of interpersonal adjustment organized
around appropriate myths.
Jamal and Lee (2003) also argue the need
for micro-level studies of the individual
70 Chapter 5

undertaken from a social–psychological through the conditions created that foster

approach to be complemented by the macro-
level analysis of social structures carried
out by sociologists, in their case with the
aim of developing a more robust theory of
tourist motivation. Each approach provides
understanding but also has limitations.
Micro-level studies, they claim (p. 50) ‘gen-
erally fail to address the processes and means
by which certain motivations arise and not
others, or the relationship between and indi-
vidual’s need and the wider environment’
while macro-sociological approaches (p. 52)
‘remain insufficient in explaining tourist
motivations without including micro-
psychological and other dimensions of human
desires and needs satisfaction’. Drawing on
the work of Bourdieu (1977, 1984), Veblen
(1994) and others, Jamal and Lee then pro-
pose a ‘micro–macro framework of tourist
motivation’ (Fig. 5.4). This relates the micro-
level factors associated with the tourist to
broader social structures and social change
the desire to travel (restlessness, inauthen-
ticity, anomie . . .). Taking a production–
consumption approach, the model also
incorporates a macro-level ‘tourism produc-
tion system’ which caters to the needs and
desires of travellers. Reciprocal relationships
are shown between the macro-level factors,
that is, the conditions of modernization,
industrialization and urbanization both en-
able the tourism production system and are
reinforced by it. Jamal and Lee then offer
directions for further micro–macro research.
In the field of strategic management,
scale issues are commonly expressed in terms
of external (macro) and internal (micro) fac-
tors, each with a distinct body of theory.
Industrial organization (IO) theory empha-
sizes the influence of the external environ-
ment on a firm’s activities, strategies and
competitiveness, for example Porter’s (1980)
five forces model. In contrast, the resource-
based view (RBV) stresses the importance of

Social Structures
&
Social Change
(Modernization,
Industrialization,
Urbanization)

Restlessness
Tourism Production
Inauthenticity
System
Anomie
(Loss of meaning, Loss of (Infrastructure, Tourism
connection with nature, Industry, Destination,
Other experiences of Government)
disequilibria)

Tourist
(With basic human needs,
desire to travel, experiences;
Engages in consumption of
sights, images and so forth)

Fig. 5.4. A micro–macro framework of tourist motivation. Source: Reproduced with permission of Cognizant
Communication Corporation from Jamal, T. and Lee, J.H. (2003) Integrating micro and macro approaches to
tourist motivations: toward an interdisciplinary theory. Tourism Analysis 8(1), 47–59. Permission conveyed
through Copyright Clearance Inc.
 Integrative Frameworks
the firm’s resources and capabilities, that is,
competitiveness and performance are a func-
tion of these internal factors. These two
theories might be seen as complementary
fields which add to an understanding of
building competitive advantage through stra-
tegic management. Moreover, if a destina-
tion is perceived as having many similarities
with the firm then these theories might be
integrated and applied to destination com-
petitiveness (Flagestad and Hope, 2001; Lee
and King, 2006).
Flagestad and Hope (2001) present a
useful integrative model (Fig. 5.5) that
shows the ways in which not only IO and
RBV theories but also those of organiza-
tional economics (OE) can be brought
together to identify key elements that con-
tribute to enhanced strategic management
and thus to greater competitive advantage
(NB: Flagestad and Hope’s original figure
also lists authors whose papers deal with
particular elements). The value of Flagestad
and Hope’s framework lies in its broad
theoretical underpinning, in specifying what
the key elements of each theory are and in
illustrating how they fit into an overall pro-
cess leading to increased performance. They
build on the ideas of this framework to con-
sider the factors that influence strategic suc-
cess in winter sports destinations, before
presenting a community/corporate model
of destination organizational structures and
a conceptual model for the analysis of the
strategic management of winter sports
destinations.
A similar approach is taken by Lee and
King (2006), who link IO and RBV theories
and other ideas about competitiveness into
a ‘unified conceptual framework’ of hot
springs destination competitiveness. In Lee
and King’s framework, tourism destination
resources and attractors (internal) and envi-
ronments (external) are depicted as influ-
encing destination competitiveness as well
as each other. Destination competitiveness
is also shown to be determined by destina-
tion strategies, though, curiously, the
strategies are not seen to be influenced by
either the resources and attractors or by the
environments. The absence of these links is
somewhat puzzling as two of the three
71
research propositions they put forth pro-
pose that these internal and external factors
‘have the potential to influence tourism
strategy formulation and implementation’.
Lee and King then use their framework to
explore issues of the competiveness of hot
springs in Taiwan.
Environmental characteristics and
internal factors (inputs) are also included,
along with other dimensions (strategic
orientation, process, outputs, markets and
outcomes), in what Phillips (1999) calls a
‘multidimensional contingency model of
hotel performance’. This is derived from
an amalgamation of the relevant finance,
marketing strategy and performance litera-
tures, and emphasizes the need to go
beyond technique to incorporate process
and structure.
In seeking to provide a theoretical basis
from which to operationalize the governance
structures of destinations in the Swiss Alps,
Beritelli et al. (2007) reviewed four micro-
theories of corporate governance – property
rights theory, agency theory, transaction
cost economics and network theory – and
derived six dimensions relevant to corpo-
rate governance: transaction costs, power
asymmetries, interdependence, trust/control,
knowledge and informal, personal connec-
tions. Collectively the different theories
and associated dimensions provide a more
complete underpinning to their research
problem than any single theory alone gives.
The first two theories aid understanding of
the relationship between stakeholders,
while the latter two help to explain institu-
tional arrangements and stakeholder con-
figurations. Beritelli et al. then examined 12
case studies with respect to a range of quan-
titative and the qualitative items used to
operationalize the six dimensions.
In a similar fashion, Lee et al. (2009)
set their study of political involvement and
relationships influencing the progress of a
tourist heritage site in Korea in the context
of four broad theoretical approaches: col-
lective action; group identification; social
exchange and structure and dynamics.
These different perspectives suggest that
(p. 360) ‘various routes to conflict’ may
exist, but the authors also note that progress
 72
IO Organizational
Industrial organization
economics
(IO)
OE (OE)

Strategic industry
factors I
m
p
l
e
IO, OE and RBV Relevance m
Strategy e Competitive
complementary n Performance
Heterogeneity Sustainability process t
a
advantage
theories t
i
Sources and potential for competitive advantage o
n

Chapter 5
resource-based theory

Classic rent
‘Appropriability’

theory
to competition
competences

Ex ante limits
Origin of the

Firm effects
Inimitability
Distinctive

Imperfect
mobility
RBV

Roots of Basis for sustainability Nature of strategic performance in

heterogeneity resource-based theory

Fig. 5.5. A model for building competitive advantage from strategic management theory. RBV, Resource-based view. Source: Redrawn from Tourism Management 22,
Flagestad, A. and Hope, C.A. (2001) Strategic success in winter sports destinations: a sustainable value creation perspective, pp. 445–461. Copyright (2001) with
permission from Elsevier.
 Integrative Frameworks
can occur even in the face of conflict.
Categories developed from the theoretical
framework were then used to interpret the
interview data relating to their Korean case
study.
In the context of destination marketing,
Wang and Xiang (2007) argue that none of
the commonly used theoretical paradigms on
inter-organizational relationships and strate-
gic alliances – resource dependency theory,
transactions cost economics, strategic man-
agement theory and network analysis – can
single-handedly explain inter-organizational
relationships in tourism, and that an integra-
tive framework is needed to explain the
behaviour of tourism organizations in form-
ing marketing alliances and networks. The
framework they propose (see Fig. 5.6) is
structured around four major constructs:
the precondition construct; the motivation
construct; the process construct; and the
outcome construct. It integrates elements of
the various theories reviewed, for example,
transaction costs and strategic management,
and the various stages of a complex process
from the preconditions of destination mar-
keting alliance formation through to outcomes.
Seven propositions for future research are
put forward, with the authors acknowledg-
ing the need for more study to confirm or
challenge aspects of their framework. They
also identify a need to develop tangible
quantitative indicators of the outcomes, to
explore the relationships between marketing
alliances and other networks, and to carry
out longitudinal and case study research
examining the internal processes of inter-
organizational partnerships.
A comprehensive model of tourists’
information search behaviour was proposed
by Gursoy and McCleary (2004) that inte-
grates three major theoretical streams of
research: the psychological/motivational –
combining individual, product class and
task-related variables; the economics
approach – using cost–benefit and econom-
ics of information theory; and the informa-
tion processing approach – focusing on
memory and cognitive processing theory.
Drawing on an extensive review of these
three literatures, Gursoy and McCleary
develop 21 propositions regarding the direct
73
and indirect relationships between the eight
categories of determinants affecting internal
and external search (Fig. 5.7). Their model
reads from right to left, and progressively
sets out the antecedents of pre-purchase
information search. It is proposed that the
perceived cost of internal and external
information search and the level of tourists’
involvement directly influence internal
and/or external search, while their familiarity
and expertise, learning and previous visits
do so indirectly. The cost of internal and
external search is mediated by the influence
of familiarity and expertise.
Gursoy and McCleary (2004) argue that
their model not only integrates three differ-
ent approaches but also sheds new light on
particular theoretical aspects of information
search behaviour (p. 367): ‘The model pro-
poses that their prior product knowledge
has two general components: familiarity
and expertise, as opposed to the general
belief among tourism researchers that this
knowledge is a uni-dimensional construct
and can be easily measured by counting the
number of previous trips taken to a given
destination’. In this way, the authors
raise new considerations for research design.
The 21 propositions that they set out pro-
vide many opportunities for problem
formulation, especially as they themselves
did not test the model. It is likely that few
individual projects could test all 21 propo-
sitions, but the model provides a framework
within which particular sets of propositions
could be progressively explored. Given the
amount of work being done in the field of
tourism information search, it is not sur-
prising that an integrative study such as this
has proved useful and has been widely cited
(e.g. Hyde, 2007; Pan et al., 2008; Park and
Kim, 2010).
Other authors develop and then apply
their own framework. Moliner et al. (2007)
develop an integrative framework to explore
the causal link between perceived relation-
ship quality and post-purchase perceived
value. This brings together ideas about cog-
nition and affect. It draws on Fishbein and
Ajzen’s (1975) expectancy-value model that
emphasizes cognition – an ‘experiential’
line of research that assigns preference to
 74
PRECONDITION MOTIVATION PROCESS OUTCOMES

Crisis Strategy oriented Communication Trust Commitment Strategy

realization
Competition Expand market
Increased
Assembling Ordering Implementation Evaluation Transformation product
Develop product
Economic portfolio portfolio
Issue Establish Assign Assess Evolve into
condition
identification goals roles predefined stronger Destination
Transaction cost competitiveness
oriented goals partnerships
Organization Partner Develop Execute
Organization
selection programs programs Check against Finish

Chapter 5
support Efficiency learning
expectations completely
Technology Economic scale & Knowledge
scope transfer
Form
Learning Governance structure Conflict management Org. innovation
strategic networks
oriented Hierarchy Conflict/compromise
Collaboration
Networks Individual/common Social capital
Coordination building
Expand capability Market benefits
Cooperation
Competition/cooperation
Affiliation Relationship
Broaden
building
knowledge base

Fig. 5.6. A proposed framework for destination marketing alliance formation. Source: Wang, Y. and Xiang, Z. (2007) Toward a theoretical framework of collaborative
destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research 46(1), 75–85. © 2007 by SAGE Publications. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.
 Integrative Frameworks 75

Previous
Visits P11+

Internal
Familiarity
Search
P13+ P12+
P7–
P8+
Cost of Inter- P5–
nal Information
P17+ P14+ Search
P4+ P1–
Involvement P6+

P18+ P15+ P3+

P16+ Cost of Exter-
nal Information
P20+ Search
P2–
Intentional
Learning P9–
P10–
External
P21+ P19+ Search
Expertise

Incidental
Learning

Note : P = Proposition

Fig. 5.7. Proposed tourists’ information search behaviour model. Source: Reprinted from Annals of Tourism
Research 31, Gursoy, D. and McCleary, K.W. (2004) An integrative model of tourists’ information search
behavior, pp. 353–374. Copyright (2004), with permission from Elsevier.

affect, and Berkowitz’s (1993) theory that
shows how affective and cognitive elements
interact to influence behaviour. Six hypoth-
eses are then developed; a causal model is
posited and then empirically tested with
reference to travel agencies and tile sales
establishments in Spain.
Integrating Mixed Methods
In terms of research design, data collection
and analysis, there has been an increasing
use of mixed methods in tourism research.
Mixed methods studies involve ‘the collec-
tion or analysis of both quantitative and/
or qualitative data in a single study in
which data are collected concurrently or
sequentially, are given a priority, and involve
the integration of data at one or more
stages in the process of research’ (Cresswell,
2003, p. 212, cited by Pansiri, 2005, p. 197).
Explicit integrative frameworks that inte-
grate different methodologies are less
common. Tideswell et al. (2001), for exam-
ple, advocate an integrative approach to
tourism forecasting that combines quanti-
tative top-down and bottom-up approaches
with a qualitative Delphi survey to obtain
key industry input, and they illustrate this
with an analysis of forecasts in South
Australia. They pragmatically combine dif-
ferent methods without any explicit integra-
tive framework and without questioning
any underlying assumptions. More generally,
Downward and Mearman (2004, p. 112)
argue, ‘when it comes down to advocating
76 Chapter 5
the triangulation of methods, the literature
resorts to the argument that the researcher
essentially faces a choice of either a prag-
matic judgement to combine methods . . . or
a clash of ontologies’.
Davies (2003) makes the case for a more
explicit integrative framework with refer-
ence to industrial organization and decision
making by tourism suppliers. According to
Davies (p. 107), ‘an integrating framework
ought to encompass an alternative logic of
inference, the changing nature of the busi-
ness environment, and linking and bridging
mechanisms’. In particular, with regard
to the problem he is studying – strategic
decision making – he sees a need to ‘move
away from the equilibrium perspective that
assumes the environment is both static and
exogenous, to one assuming dynamics and
endogeneity’. To this end, he offers a frame-
work that combines the commonly used
BCG growth/share matrix (Fig. 4.6) with a
dynamic dimension involving quantitative/
qualitative contexts and environments.
However, the graphical presentation of this
is not particularly clear, and the discussion
of the qualitative and quantitative environ-
ments and contexts would benefit from
elaboration and greater illustration through
examples.
More useful is Davies’ (2003) preliminary
discussion of the benefits of methodological
triangulation, and the epistemological and
ontological issues underlying different
approaches that limit or influence their
integration. Davies (p. 102) contrasts, for
example, the belief in one ‘truth’ and uni-
versal laws underlying quantitative
approaches, with the qualitative approaches
that ‘rest on a view that multiple realities
exist, can only be studied holistically
and require an open system approach’.
The extent to which complementarity can
occur, he suggests, is in part a question of
level, and may be less acute in terms of
mixing quantitative and qualitative meth-
ods than in mixing the conflicting para-
digms on which these methods are based.
Ultimately, Davies argues (p. 104) that tri-
angulation of quantitative and qualitative
data ‘can only occur if the philosophical
debate is put to one side’.
Other writers, however, assert that
this is not necessarily the case and claim
certain philosophical positions support the
triangulation of quantitative and qualitative
methods; they thus provide a theoretical
underpinning for methodological integra-
tion. Downward and Mearman (2004, p. 119)
conclude that ‘it is possible to show logic-
ally that different methods of analysis can
be indicative of different levels of abstrac-
tion of a layered tourism reality, or object
of analysis’. They argue (p. 108) that critical
realism offers a philosophical position
which enables a consistent research pro-
gramme involving the triangulation of quan-
titative and qualitative methods to be
established. Critical realists point to the
epistemic fallacy of covering law explana-
tions operating within a closed-system
ontology. Critical realism ‘embraces an
open-systems view, implying that among
other things, human agency is embedded in
organic social context’ (Downward and
Mearman 2004, p. 113). Downward and
Mearman contend (p. 115) that ‘“quantita-
tive” and “qualitative” approaches are not
dual, they overlap to a degree in underlying
logic and this can also apply to objects of
analysis’. Consequently, ‘different research
methods can be logically employed to reveal
different features of the same reality with-
out the presumption of being exhaustive . . .
the critical-realist perspective renders a
need for the triangulation to have an
explicitly ontological dimension to capture
related, but different layers of this reality’.
They then offer an applied example of
potential options.
Pansiri (2005), in turn, sees limitations
in the positions of both Davies (2003), in that
his position does not fully address the lack of
ontological foundation and resolve associ-
ated methodological issues, and Downward
and Mearman (2004), as their critical realism
is too simplistic and their approach does not
understand the social world in its totality; he
argues that pragmatism is the best paradigm
for justifying the use of mixed-methods
research. Key attributes of pragmatism that
emerge from Pansiri’s review of the literature
are: that it emphasizes the research problem
more than the method or its underlying
 Integrative Frameworks 77

paradigm; that both knowledge and social using this approach appears in a later article
reality are based on beliefs and habits that (Pansiri, 2006).
are socially constructed by the process of
institutionalization, legitimization and
socialization; and that in terms of modes of
enquiry it embraces both quantitative and Conclusions
qualitative methods. Drawing on these
attributes, and on his own model that exam- The three sets of integrative frameworks
ines the interplay between managerial char- reviewed in this chapter have demonstrated
acteristics and strategic alliance practices, the benefits to different phases of the research
Pansiri then develops a model for research- process that bringing together content, theo-
ing strategic alliances in tourism (Fig. 5.8). In ries and approaches, and methodologies,
Fig. 5.8, the various stages of the project – the can produce. The resultant synthesis that
theoretical basis of the study that emerges such frameworks bring can contribute sig-
from the literature review and the associated nificantly to tackling the complexity of tour-
data collection and analysis techniques – are ism and reducing the general fragmentation
linked together in a manner consistent with and lack of coherence which characterize
a pragmatist position. The empirical study much research in this field. More work now

Literature Review
Managerial Characteristics Strategic Alliance Practice
Age Other career experiences Internal & external drivers Strategic alliance type
Education Willingness to take risks Choice of alliance partners Strategic alliance structure
Tenure of office Financial position Alliance performance
Functional traits Tolerance of ambiguity

Research Project
Industries
Characteristic
Tourism

Research Focus
Tourism Industry & Methodology

Literature Review
Theoretical
interplay between
cognitive study &
strategic alliances in Permission
Industries
Connected
Tourism

tourism Ethics Approval

Primary
Pragmatist Inquiry
Research Methodology

QUESTIONNAIRE INTERVIEWS
Analysis

Data Data
Analysis Analysis

Industry Performance
Findings
Theory Development
Implications

Fig. 5.8. Research model into strategic alliance in tourism. Source: Pansiri, J. (2005) Pragmatism: a methodological
approach to research strategic alliances in tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development 2(3),
191–206. Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).
78
needs to be done to combine the three
approaches to integration that have been
discussed.
Figures 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 have demon-
strated how diverse but related studies on
quite broad themes can be brought together
to reveal their broader structure, to provide
a clearer overall picture to contextualize the
contribution of particular studies and to
highlight existing gaps in our knowledge.
At the same time, these integrative studies
of content could be strengthened by a fuller
discussion of the associated theoretical and
methodological issues, particularly those
concerning the relationships between the
various constructs or variables presented.
Figures 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 have shown the
value of shedding light on a particular prob-
lem through the use of multiple theoretical
lenses and of combining different approaches.
While some of the authors mentioned in this
section have implemented their frameworks
empirically (Lee and King, 2006; Moliner
et al., 2007), in other cases only directions for
future research or untested propositions have
been advanced and more work is required to
develop the methodologies needed to carry
out the research (Jamal and Lee, 2003; Gursoy
and McCleary, 2004; Wang and Xiang, 2007).
Even the earliest of these frameworks,
Machlis and Burch’s (1983) cycles of struc-
ture and meaning, seems to remain untested.
Although referred to in reviews of anthro-
pological and sociological studies of tour-
ism, and despite the indicators being made
Chapter 5
explicit, no empirical studies based on their
framework appear to have been undertaken.
This lack of implementation may result
from the lack of acceptance of this early
framework – Dann and Cohen (1996) find it
innovative but over-deterministic – but, clearly,
the complexity the framework encompasses
also presents many methodological challenges
for researchers attempting to follow through on
all the cycles mentioned.
Some of the methodological challenges
of implementing integrative frameworks are
raised in the third section of the chapter,
where various theoretical issues relating to
the use of mixed methods are highlighted,
notably the extent to which the use of differ-
ent methods to pursue specific aspects of a
topic is seen to be complementary or in con-
flict. Pansiri’s (2005, 2006) research usefully
illustrates how these different forms of inte-
gration – of content, of theory and of meth-
odology – can be brought together. However,
as a comparison of Figs 5.6 and 5.8 shows,
in terms of the actual dimensions of alliance
formation, Pansiri’s framework is not as
comprehensive as that of Wang and Xiang
(2007), an illustration perhaps of the trade-
offs that may need to be made and a recog-
nition that in practice the scope of integration
is not unlimited. Nevertheless, integrative
frameworks are very powerful tools, and
further development and application of
them is a very fruitful avenue for future
research endeavour, as will be discussed
further in Chapter 10.
 6
Multi-purpose Matrices
The matrix is one of the most common
frameworks used in tourism research.
The term is used in varying ways, but it
generally refers to frameworks that relate
one concept or variable to another either
by creating a four-cell or quadrant matrix
through the intersection of two axes or
dimensions, or by ‘crossing’ two lists of
variables set up as rows and columns
to produce a tabular matrix (Miles and
Huberman, 1994). Both matrix configura-
tions (cf. Figs 6.1 and 6.7) can provide a
fairly straightforward framework showing
the relationship between the two selected
concepts or sets of variables. Matrices are
flexible, they can be adapted to a range of
problems and applications, and are rela-
tively easy to produce, present and inter-
pret. Quadrant matrices in particular are
used in basic and applied research as both
conceptual and analytical frameworks that
aid such functions as classifying, position-
ing and diagnosis. Examples seen in earlier
chapters include their use in classifying
forms of tourism (Fig. 3.2) and the various
applications of the growth/share matrix in
portfolio analysis (Figs 4.6 and 4.7). Other
uses and applications are systematically
examined in this chapter. The first part of
the chapter discusses the structure and use
of quadrant matrices, first as conceptual
© Douglas G. Pearce 2012. Frameworks for Tourism Research (D.G. Pearce)
and then as analytical frameworks. Selected
applications of tabular matrices are then
considered in the second part of the chap-
ter, extending the range of such frame-
works seen earlier (Figs 1.2, 4.1 and 5.1).
However, mathematical matrices used in
more quantitative studies, such as the
social accounting matrix to estimate the
economic impacts of tourism (Wagner,
1997), are beyond the scope of this book.
Finally, some of the broader issues associ-
ated with the use of matrices are discussed
and conclusions are drawn.
Quadrant Matrices
With the quadrant matrix, the basic approach
is to depict one concept or dimension on
the horizontal or x-axis and the other on the
vertical or y-axis, each generally being
expressed as a continuum of high/low,
weak/strong or some other contrasting set of
values (e.g. active/passive, sparse/dense).
The quadrants created by the intersection of
the two axes produce a fourfold typology,
which commonly forms the basis of a clas-
sification system and/or is used to depict
the relative positions of the phenomena
being analysed.
79
80 Chapter 6
As conceptual frameworks
Researchers have conceptualized a wide
range of tourism problems and phenomena,
both at a general level and with regard to
more specific issues, by portraying the inter-
relationships of two concepts or dimensions
in the form of a matrix. In the context of this
book on tourism research, Dann et al. (1988)
provide a particularly relevant example of
using a matrix in this way. They begin their
assessment of the state of the art of tourism
research by modelling the interplay of what
they consider to be the two key dimensions
by which progress in research might be
measured: theory and method. They define
methodology (p. 4) as ‘the acceptance of
standardized procedures; according to
which research is carried out and evalu-
ated’. Dann et al. recognize (p. 4) that ‘both
theory and method are clearly essential to
any mature research and constantly interact
with each other’. It is the interaction
between theoretical awareness and meth-
odological sophistication which is the focus
of their assessment and the basis of their
matrix (Fig. 6.1a). Four basic, perhaps stereo-
typical, categories of research were identi-
fied in this way: theoretical discourse
without empirical foundation (Quadrant 1);
descriptive essays that assemble a collection
of impressionistic and anecdotal material
(Quadrant 2); data analyses devoid of theo-
retical content (Quadrant 3); and Quadrant 4,
‘the desired optimum in which there is a
correct balance of theory and method’. Dann
et al. then suggest that progress in tourism
research might be assessed by tracing any
identifiable transition in the research being
done from Quadrants 1 and 2, via Quadrant
3 to Quadrant 4. They follow this up by
quantifying the style of research and types of
analysis reported in the Annals of Tourism
Research in the pre- and post-1980 period
and conclude (p. 10) that at the time of writ-
ing (1988) ‘it would be premature to argue
that tourism research has reached the happy
state of Quadrant 4’.
Also at a general level, Leiper et al.
(2008) challenge the conventional concept of
tourism as an industry and choose a matrix
as a means of conveying their countervailing
notion of partial industrialization in tourism.
In doing this, they are conscious of the need
to express their concept clearly and in a
graphical form if their arguments are to gain
more traction and greater acceptance. Leiper
et al. argue that it is misleading to consider
tourism as an industry by taking a broad
demand-side perspective, instead asserting
that a supply-side approach is more appro-
priate. They consider the degree of industri-
alization in tourism in terms of two strategic
positions that suppliers might take. On their
matrix (Fig. 6.1b) the vertical axis depicts the
business strategies of suppliers, in particular
the degree to which they compete for tour-
ists’ custom through targeted strategies.
Businesses lying at the upper end of the con-
tinuum deploy resources to attract tourists in
general or some particular segment of tour-
ists; for those at the other end of the contin-
uum, tourism custom is only incidental and
no specific strategies are employed to gener-
ate this business. The horizontal axis depicts
a second set of ‘industrial strategies that
normally accompany business strategies’,
defined essentially in terms of the extent to
which suppliers cooperate ‘with other sup-
pliers pursuing similar strategies in the same
or related markets’. The rationale for using
these two strategic orientations is justified
with reference to the literature and specific
examples. The resultant quadrant identifies
four different levels and types of industriali-
zation. Levels of industrialization are highest
in Quadrant 1: organizations that fall in this
quadrant have business strategies for tour-
ism and cooperate with similarly oriented
businesses, for example retail travel agen-
cies, tour operators, airlines and hotels.
Organizations located in the other quadrants
reflect lower levels of industrialization: for
example, those in Quadrant 2 may be ‘lone
wolves’ or new businesses that target tourists
but have not yet developed forms of coopera-
tion with other businesses. Those in Quadrant
3 neither have business strategies for tourism
nor cooperate with other suppliers, although
they may supply tourists directly, while
organizations in Quadrant 4 are not in the
business of tourism but may nevertheless
back their local tourism association. Leiper
et al. then report on two empirical case
 Multi-purpose Matrices 81

(a) Low on (b) Competing for tourists’ custom via

methodological business strategies targeting
sophistication their distinctive attributes

tourism industries

tourism industries
2 1 2 1

No cooperative
participation in

cooperation in
awareness

awareness
theoretical

theoretical

Extensive
High on
Low on

3 4 3 4

High on Passively accepting tourists as customer:

methodological no business strategies targeting
sophistication their distinctive attributes

(c) STAKEHOLDER 1 (d)

Relationship Seeking intrinsic rewards
orientation Personal Interpersonal
Escaping everyday environments
STAKEHOLDER 2

1 2 Personal
1 2
Relationship

Transaction

environment
orientation

orientation

4 3 Interpersonal
3 4
environment

Transaction
orientation

Fig. 6.1. Quadrant matrices in tourism research. (a) Theory and method in tourism research. Source:
Redrawn from Annals of Tourism Research 15, Dann, G., Nash, D. and Pearce, P. (1988) Methodology in
tourism research, pp. 1–28. Copyright (1988), with permission from Elsevier. (b) Partial industrialization:
possible positions of organizations directly supplying services and goods to tourists in terms of their
business strategies and degrees of industrial cooperation. Source: redrawn from Leiper, N. et al. (2008)
Partial industrialisation in tourism; a new model. Current Issues in Tourism 11(3), 207–235. Reprinted by
permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com). (c) Stakeholder
orientation matrix. Redrawn from Annals of Tourism Research 26, Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999)
Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model, pp. 312–328. Copyright (1999), with permission from
Elsevier. (d) Iso-Ahola’s social psychological model of tourist motivation. Redrawn from Annals of Tourism
Research 9, Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1982) Toward a social pyschological theory of tourism motivation: a rejoinder,
pp. 45–56. Copyright (1982), with permission from Elsevier.

studies from Australia that lend support to
their contention of partial industrialization
in tourism, as most of the businesses sur-
veyed fell outside Quadrant 1. The authors
then discuss why the concept of partial indus-
trialization in tourism matters in practice,
outline a means of measuring an index of
industrialization and illustrate how this
might be used to improve policy making in
tourism.
Other writers use quadrant matrices to
conceptualize different aspects of strategies
and strategy making than those outlined
by Leiper et al. (2008). Siguaw et al. (2003)
use a pricing (fixed/variable) and duration
(controlled/uncontrolled) matrix in their
82 Chapter 6
background discussion of revenue manage-
ment strategies in service industries. Drawing
on this they note (p. 541) that the ‘most
effective applications of revenue manage-
ment are generally found in industries in
which both duration and price can be man-
aged’; in tourism, this includes the hotel,
airline, rental car and cruise line sectors.
This conceptualization helps to explain
why such sectors have been to the fore
in adopting new electronic distribution
channels. Richardson and Dennis (2003)
introduce strategic marketing strategies by
reference to Ansoff’s (1987) growth vector
matrix, which identifies four classes of strat-
egies by crossing existing and new products
against existing and new markets. In the
context of UK vineyards, the new market/
new product quadrant suggested a strategy
of diversification into wine tourism.
Different strategic considerations are
incorporated in Sautter and Leisen’s (1999)
conceptualization of the management of
multiple stakeholders in tourism develop-
ment and planning processes, in which a
common relationship/transaction contin-
uum is used to depict the orientation of the
members of a given dyad (Stakeholders 1
and 2) on the vertical and horizontal axes of
the matrix (Fig. 6.1c). Drawing on the work
of Grönross (1995), they elaborate on the
notion of the relationship/transaction strat-
egy continuum which represents the degree
to which strategic orientation in the man-
agement of services emphasizes a longer
term, process-based (relationship) orienta-
tion or a more immediate, outcome-focused
(transaction) orientation. Sautter and Leisen
argue (p. 318) that before proceeding with
development efforts planners should seek
to identify where the orientations of all
groups affected by a venture lie and what
congruency exists between them. Such an
approach is needed because ‘as congruency
across stakeholder orientation increases, so
does the likelihood of collaboration and
compromise’. The degree of congruency
between the various dyads of stakeholders,
for example residents and tourists, can be
established with reference to the matrix.
Sautter and Leisen (1999, p. 319) assert that
‘[p]lanners should seek to maximize the
number of stakeholder interactions that fall
into either quadrant 1 or 3’. In Quadrant 1,
both the residents and tourists favour devel-
oping close relationships with one another
and planners should seek to foster a high
level of interaction between the two groups,
while in Quadrant 3 (a dual transaction
orientation) the converse applies and prod-
uct development is transaction centred and
often requires a different type of infrastruc-
ture. More difficult scenarios and planning
challenges arise with the incongruent orien-
tations of Quadrants 2 and 4, in which one
group is more interested in relationship build-
ing while the other favours a transaction-
based approach. The authors provide
examples of situations in each quadrant and
offer suggestions based on this approach for
strategies to reinforce stakeholder align-
ment, although they do not operationalize
their framework by an empirical study.
Harrington (2005) proposes a nuanced
fourfold typology of ‘ideal types’ of strategy-
making processes for hospitality and tourism
firms (Fig. 6.2). Drawing heavily on the litera-
ture, this is based on a generic ‘how’ and ‘who’
approach to strategy making: the left-hand
vertical axis depicts an emergent–deliberate
continuum while the lower horizontal axis
represents an individualistic–collective con-
tinuum. Harrington argues (p. 379) that ‘the
selection of an ideal type is proposed to
occur through management choice with a
co-alignment of the external and internal
environment’. To enable identification of the
appropriate environmental conditions,
Harrington adds two further dimensions, a
right-hand vertical axis representing high–
low dynamism and an upper horizontal
continuum of high–low complexity. The
co-alignment of the two sets of axes is then
justified theoretically. Harrington claims
(p. 383) that ‘[t]his synthesis illustrates that
multiple process models exist and their use-
fulness depends on the context in which
firms operate’.
In a rather different context, Cohen (1979)
uses a matrix to elaborate on MacCannell’s
(1973) notions of staged authenticity and
tourist space. The two dimensions in Cohen’s
matrix are the nature of the scene and
the tourist’s impression of the scene, with
 Multi-purpose Matrices 83

C
Complexity
Low High

Emergent High
Entrepreneurial Model Adaptive Model

Q3 Q4 D
A Dynamism
Q1 Q2

Linear Model Integrative Model

Deliberate Low

Individualistic Collective
B

Fig. 6.2. A matrix of strategy-making process ideal types. Source: Harrington, R.J. (2005) The how and who
of strategy making: models and appropriateness for firms in hospitality and tourism industries. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research 29(3), 372–395. © 2005 by SAGE Publications. Reprinted by permission of
SAGE Publications.

distinctions being made on each dimension
in terms of their real or staged nature. Cohen
argues that it is the second dimension that
is missing in MacCannell’s analysis and that
the fourfold typology which his own matrix
produces not only enables the classifica-
tion and comparison of different kinds of
touristic situations, but also permits typical
processes of change to be outlined by consid-
ering the transition between different types
of situation.
A common characteristic of the use of
quadrant matrices as conceptual frame-
works is that they are just that; they are not
taken beyond the conceptual stage and fully
operationalized and implemented. Weaver
(2000), for instance, proposes a series of
destination development scenarios based
on a destination possibilities matrix in
which the axes are regulation (high/low)
and intensity (high/low). This gives rise to a
fourfold typology: deliberate alternative
tourism (high/low); circumstantial mass
tourism (low/low), sustainable mass tourism
(high/high) and unsustainable mass tourism
(low/high). The originality of Weaver’s
approach is that a dynamic element is then
incorporated into the matrix, because he
outlines seven possible development trajec-
tories or scenarios as destinations evolve
from one category to another – for example
from circumstantial alternative tourism to
deliberate alternative tourism or unsustain-
able mass tourism – and the conditions
under which this might occur. Towards the
end of his paper, Weaver offers a very sum-
mary application of the framework to the
Gold Coast of Australia, before going on to
conclude (p. 223): ‘The actual operationali-
zation of the model will require extensive
investigation into a number of relevant
areas, but most importantly the establish-
ment and measurement of criteria by which
to gauge tourism intensity, regulation and
sustainability (and, hence, allowing for the
allocation of destinations to appropriate
categories)’. No indication is given of just
how such criteria might be established.
In other instances, concepts developed
in the form of matrices have subsequently
been operationalized and examined empiri-
cally by other researchers. Iso-Ahola (1982),
for example, developed his ideas on moti-
vation in terms of two dimensions whose
84 Chapter 6
interrelationships are portrayed by a matrix
(Fig. 6.1d). He argues (p. 261) that tourism
‘is a dialectal process because it provides an
outlet for avoiding something and for simul-
taneously seeking something’. In conse-
quence, ‘it is futile to attempt to categorically
separate reasons from benefits, because rea-
sons (e.g. exploring new places) can be ben-
efits and benefits (e.g. escape from routine)
can be reasons of tourism behaviour’. With
reference to his matrix, Iso-Ahola (p. 160)
asserts: ‘In deciding the relative importance
of the two forces, he [the tourist] deals with
their personal and/or interpersonal dimen-
sions’ so that ‘in theory, it is possible that a
given tourist can be placed in one of the four
cells . . . under given circumstances at a given
time’. Snepenger et al. (2006) tested Iso-
Ahola’s concept using confirmatory factor
analysis on data derived from a convenience
sample of undergraduate students and found
that the best fit model was one that incor-
porated the four categories he proposed:
personal seeking, personal escape, intraper-
sonal seeking and intrapersonal escape.
In a similar fashion, Carmichael (2000)
tested a long-standing matrix model of
cultural contact (Abler et al., 1975) with
reference to classifying resident attitudes
and behaviours towards the development of
a casino. Here, the matrix classifies residents
on a positive/negative attitudinal dimen-
sion and an active/passive behavioural
dimension. Composite scales for each of
these dimensions are then developed and
applied in a survey of nearby residents
with three categories defined for each; the
attitudinal dimension included a neutral
class and the behavioural one a ‘no action’
category. Carmichael’s results revealed links
between positive attitudes and actions and
between negative attitudes and actions, but
showed that the majority of the residents
had taken no action at all.
As analytical frameworks
A second set of quadrant matrices have been
used as analytical frameworks in tourism
research to diagnose, classify, position and
otherwise analyse a wide variety of
phenomena. When matrices are used as ana-
lytical rather than conceptual frameworks
greater account must be taken of issues
relating to their operationalization and
implementation, particularly to questions of
measurement. As well as determining the
dimensions to be used, decisions need to be
made about the attributes to be included, the
derivation of scales, the placement of the axes
or grid lines and the way in which the matrix is
analysed and interpreted. These issues are
illustrated first with reference to importance–
performance analysis, and then analytical
frameworks based on other forms of quad-
rant matrices are considered.
Importance–performance analysis
One of the most common forms of the quad-
rant matrix is that used in importance–
performance analysis (IPA). IPA was proposed
by Martilla and James (1977) for use as a
diagnostic tool in developing more effective
marketing strategies by combining measures
of importance and of performance, rather
than using just one variable, that is, an
attribute is evaluated not just on how well it
performs but on how important it is in terms
of customer satisfaction, destination image,
competitiveness or some other factor. This
type of matrix has since been widely applied,
adopted and adapted by numerous tourism
researchers in studies as diverse as visitor
satisfaction in national parks, escorted tour
evaluations, airline service quality and des-
tination image (Table 6.1).
In IPA, the basic approach consists
of identifying a set of salient attributes,
measuring their importance and perform-
ance, plotting these measurements on an
importance–performance matrix, and then
interpreting the results according to which
of the quadrants the attributes fall into
(Fig. 6.3). The quadrants are formed by the
intersection of the two axes, placed usually,
but not always, at the means of the scales or
grand means of the attribute scores. In this
way, ‘IPA assesses the convergence between
the importance of specific attributes and how
well a service provider is supplying those
attributes’ (Farnum and Hall, 2007, p. 65).
 Multi-purpose Matrices 85

4.5
Concentrate Here Keep Up K
the Good Work
D
E/N
I
4.4 L
T
G
B
H
A O
Importance

4.3 Low Priority P Possible Overkill

C

S
Q
M
4.2 F
J

4.1
3.7 3.8
Performance
Notes:
A. Communicate well in Mandarin/Cantonese
C. Generate friendly atmosphere
E. Knowledge of destination
G. Good presentation skills
I. Inform safety regulations
K. Punctual
M. Pay attention to details
O. Respect customer
Q. Always available for help
S. Appear neat and tidy
3.9 4 4.1
B. Well trained
D. Able to solve problems
F. Inform destination’s custom
H. Briefing on daily itinerary
J. Introduce reliable shops
L. Deliver service promised on itinerary
N. Honest and trustworthy
P. Friendly
R. Sense of humor
T. Polite

Fig. 6.3. Application of importance–performance analysis (IPA) to the performance of tour guides in Hong
Kong. Source: Reprinted from Tourism Management 25, Zhang, H.Q. and Chow, I. (2004) Application of
importance-performance model in tour guides’ performance: evidence from mainland Chinese outbound
visitors in Hong Kong, pp. 81–91. Copyright (2004) with permission from Elsevier.

Attributes located in the top left quadrant,
for example, are deemed to be important
but are not performing well, while those
found in the bottom right quadrant are per-
forming well but are not seen by customers
to be important. This, in turn, suggests stra-
tegic responses, indicating where managers
should ‘concentrate’ their efforts and allo-
cate their resources, where they should
‘keep up the good work’, where they should
assign ‘low priority’ attributes or where they
should identify areas of ‘possible overkill’ –
that is, attributes may be being allocated
more resources than their importance indi-
cates is warranted.
Figure 6.3 illustrates the application of
IPA to the performance of tour guides in
Hong Kong (Zhang and Chow, 2004).
Overall, the guides are seen to be perform-
ing well as 11 of the 20 attributes fall in the
‘keep up the good work quadrant’. However,
the authors suggest that efforts need to be
made to maintain and improve quality service
in these areas as the mean score ratings of
performance were lower than those of
the importance ratings. They indicate that
 86
Table 6.1. Focus and features of selected importance–performance analysis (IPA) and related and revised matrices used in tourism research.

Author Focus x-axis y-axis Cross-hairs/grid-line setting

Importance–performance analysis
Bruyere et al. (2002) User satisfaction in parks Performance Importance Scale means and
and recreation managerial
Chu and Choi. (2000) Hotel selection factors Performance Importance Factor mean scores
Crotts et al. (2002) Organizational needs for Performance Importance Grand mean scores
heritage areas
Edward and George (2008) Destination attractiveness Performance Importance Grand mean scores
Farnum and Hall (2007) White-water rafting Performance Importance Grand mean scores and
confidence intervals
Hudson et al. (2004) Service quality in tour Performance Importance Managerial (scale)
operating sector
Janes and Wisnom (2003) Private club attributes Performance Importance Grand mean scores and
(satisfaction) managerial

Chapter 6
Jones and Baloglu (2006) Investment in sales technology Performance Importance Grand mean scores
(satisfaction)
Kao et al. (2008) Travel motivations Performance Importance Scale means
Koh et al. (2010) Spa goers’ satisfaction Performance Importance Scale means
Lee and Lee (2009) Destination image Performance Importance Factor mean scores
Leong (2008) Airline service quality Performance Importance Scale-centred, data-centred
O’Leary and Deegan (2005) Destination image Pre-/post-trip Importance Grand mean scores
performance
Oppermann (1996) Convention destination images Importance Performance Grand mean scores
Oral and Whitfield (2010) Convention destination selection Importance Performance Overall mean, median
Pritchard and Havitz (2006) Destination evaluation Importance Performance Comment count and
z-scores
Ritchie (1998) Bicycle tourism Performance Importance Grand mean scores
Smith and Costello (2009) Culinary event satisfaction Performance Importance Grand mean scores
Wade and Eagles (2003) Visitor satisfaction in national Performance Importance Managerial
parks
Williams and Dossa (2003) Wine tourism Performance Importance Scale means
Wu and Weber (2005) Delegates’ perceptions of Importance Performance Grand mean scores
convention centre importance
Zhang and Chow (2004) Tour guides’ performance Performance Importance Grand mean scores
Related and revised matrices
Deng (2007) Satisfaction with hot springs Implicitly derived Satisfaction Grand mean scores
importance performance
Duke and Persia (1996) Escorted tour evaluations Pre-/post-trip Importance Scale means
expectations
Enright and Newton (2004) Destination competitiveness Relative Importance Grand mean scores
competitiveness
Frauman and Banks (2011) Gateway resident perceptions Importance Current conditions Grand mean score (y-axis),
managerial (x-axis)
Huan et al. (2002) Attributes for inbound visitors Relevance Expectation Grand mean scores and
reasoned/managerial
Li and Cai (2008) Souvenir shopping attitudes Importance Satisfaction Scale means
Liu (2010) Cultural tourism attractions Explicit importance Performance Grand mean scores
Implicit importance Explicit performance Grand mean scores

Multi-purpose Matrices
Mount (2005) Hotel employee satisfaction Performance Derived importance Grand mean scores
Prasad and Dev (2000) Hotel brand performance Performance Awareness Index of 100
Tonge and Moore (2007) Visitor satisfaction in marine-park Satisfaction Importance Scale means
hinterlands
Tribe and Snaith (1998) Holiday satisfaction Performance Expectation Scale means
Truong (2005) Holiday satisfaction Experience Expectation Scale means

87
88 Chapter 6
particular effort should be directed at the
guides’ problem-solving abilities, the only
attribute located in the ‘concentrate here’
quadrant. Zhang and Chow conclude that
relatively fewer resources should be spent
on the seven service quality attributes in the
‘low priority’ quadrant, but caution that
these should not be neglected entirely as
they all had mean importance scores greater
than 4.1. Finally, while maintaining high
standards, resources should not be over-
utilized in terms of the guides’ appearance,
the only attribute in the fourth quadrant.
IPA thus offers researchers and mana-
gers a diagnostic tool that is relatively low
cost and flexible, one that is readily under-
stood owing to its visual depiction and ease
of interpretation, and one that facilitates
drawing conclusions and taking action
(Duke and Persia, 1996; Bruyere et al., 2002;
Janes and Wisnom, 2003). At the same time,
various limitations in the use of IPA have
been raised and a range of conceptual and
practical considerations need to be
addressed (Duke and Persia, 1996; Oh, 2001;
Koh et al., 2010).
A first concern is with the conceptuali-
zation, definition and validity of the varia-
bles used: importance and performance.
These terms have been used and measured
in various ways. Duke and Persia (1996,
p. 210) note that performance measures
‘may include expectation, satisfaction,
preference levels, or others depending on
the managerial purpose or decision needed’.
While Duke and Persia differentiate
between expectation, satisfaction and pref-
erences, these terms are often used inter-
changeably with performance, resulting in
a degree of conceptual confusion (Oh,
2001). Other writers make an explicit case
for substituting satisfaction for perform-
ance (Tribe and Snaith, 1998; Tonge and
Moore, 2007). In their study of gateway res-
ident perceptions of tourism development,
Frauman and Banks (2011) interpret per-
formance (p. 132) as ‘how [local] conditions
are perceived to currently exist’. The
absence of criterion validity for attribute
importance has also been raised: important
for what and when (Oh, 2001; Pritchard
and Havitz, 2006)?
Oh (2001) also notes that insufficient
consideration has been given to the predic-
tive validity of absolute versus relative
importance and to the causal relationship
that exists between importance and per-
formance. In response to the latter issue,
Deng (2007) and Liu (2010) propose the use
of an implicitly derived importance variable
based on Kano et al.’s (1984) three-factor
theory. This theory recognizes three catego-
ries of service attributes:
• basic factors (dissatisfiers), the minimum
requirements that cause dissatisfaction if
not fulfilled but do not lead to satisfac-
tion when met or exceeded;
• excitement factors (satisfiers), which
increase satisfaction if delivered but
do not result in satisfaction if they are
not; and
• performance factors, which produce
satisfaction when performance is high
and dissatisfaction when it is low.
To operationalize this approach, a matrix is
produced wherein the two axes represent
explicit (self-stated) importance and implicit
importance. Implicit importance is derived
indirectly ‘by a partial correlation analysis of
the single performance statements of the
attributes against the overall satisfaction
score’ (Liu, 2010, p. 682). The resultant four
quadrants are reinterpreted in terms of three-
factor theory: basic, high and low perform-
ance, and excitement. In comparing the
results of traditional IPA with those derived
from the revised explicit importance/implicit
importance matrix, Liu identifies some nota-
ble changes in attribute positioning, demon-
strating how use of the IPA matrix is sensitive
to the importance measure used.
Depending on the purpose of the study,
other variables may also be used in varia-
tions on IPA (Table 6.1). Prasad and Dev
(2000), for instance, use a matrix to examine
hotel brand performance by measuring per-
formance against brand awareness rather
than importance to identify four brand
types: ‘brand champion’ (high/high), ‘trou-
bled brand’ (low/high), ‘weak brand’ (low/
low) and ‘rising brand’ (high/low). Enright
and Newton (2004) evaluate the relative
 Multi-purpose Matrices
competitiveness and importance of Hong
Kong’s tourism attractions and business-
related factors. Huan et al. (2002, p. 256)
prefer the more generic term action grid
analysis (AGA) ‘since AGA provides a con-
ceptual framework that does not in any way
depend on having importance and perform-
ance variables’. Their analysis of foreign visi-
tors’ assessment of the attributes of Taiwan is
based on relevance and achievement.
A second consideration in the use of
IPA involves which attributes to include in
the analysis. There is no prescribed, univer-
sal list of these. The number and type of
attributes used vary depending on the nature
and purpose of the study, as well as on prac-
tical considerations such as questionnaire
length. Where the concern is with diagnos-
ing service or product performance as a basis
for making managerial decisions, the empha-
sis will be on including those attributes that
can be manipulated (e.g. quality of equip-
ment, in-flight services) rather than on
broader social or physical environmental
factors beyond the control of the organiza-
tion (Farnum and Hall, 2007; Leong, 2008).
In other instances, a wider range of attributes
may be deemed relevant. Tonge and Moore
(2007, p. 770) argue that: ‘For protected
areas, services are only one element contrib-
uting to the opportunities provided and
resultant experiences. Central to experiences
of natural areas is the condition of natural
features, such as wildlife and water bodies.
Basing the analysis on satisfaction rather
than performance enables visitors’ responses
to elements such as these, additional to serv-
ice provision, to be accessed and analysed.’
A panel of experts, focus groups and pilot
studies may be used to determine the rele-
vance of the final set of attributes to be
included (Zhang and Chow, 2004; Leong,
2008; Koh et al., 2010). The 20 tour guide
attributes shown in Fig. 6.3, for example,
were retained by Zhang and Chow (2004)
from a preliminary list of 40 after a pretest
among scholars, industry staff and travel
agency managers. Factor analysis has also
been used to reduce a large list of attributes
to a smaller number of factors, which are
subsequently used in the IPA (Chu and Choi,
2000; Lee and Lee, 2009).
89
Studies applying some form of IPA to
destinations underline the importance
of taking account of destination-specific
attributes rather than generic factors (Tribe
and Snaith, 1998; Enright and Newton,
2004; O’Leary and Deegan, 2005; Truong,
2005). Enright and Newton (2004, p. 781)
stress that ‘competitiveness cannot be
assessed in a vacuum’, and had respondents
in their survey evaluate the competitiveness
of Hong Kong on a range of attributes rela-
tive to the destination’s competitors in the
Asia-Pacific region. O’Leary and Deegan
(2005, p. 250) followed a review of the des-
tination image literature with a survey of
French visitors and used a free elicitation
technique to identify destination attributes
‘in an attempt to gain a truly accurate repre-
sentation of the French tourist’s image of
Ireland’. Pritchard and Havitz (2006) applied
a content analytic approach in their destina-
tion appraisal of Western Australia. Rather
than analysing tourists’ general experiences
there, they focused on the positive and neg-
ative aspects of the trip by asking survey
respondents about the best and worst things
that had happened. Content analysis of this
information was then used to classify the
positive and negative attributions of such
elements as the destination’s infrastructure
and environment. A measure of perform-
ance was subsequently derived from fre-
quency counts of the positive and negative
comments on each attribute.
A third practical issue in IPA is that of
how the scale of the variables used is con-
ceptualized and measured, an issue often
not elaborated on in many studies. In his
critique of IPA, Oh (2001) asks if the con-
cept of importance is unidirectional or bidi-
rectional. With the former, a scale from ‘no
importance’ to ‘very important’ would be
used; with the latter, that of ‘very unimpor-
tant’ to ‘very important’. Oh was of the view
that a unidirectional scale makes more sense
‘[p]rovided that the concept of importance
reflects the “level” or “strength”, rather than
evaluations of goodness or badness, of the
attribute characteristic. . . . Nonetheless, the
bi-directional scale with modified wordings
may be useful when measuring relative
importance.’
90 Chapter 6
Enright and Newton (2004) used a bidi-
rectional scale to measure both importance
and competitiveness. A bidirectional scale
(1 = much worse, 3 = the same, 5 = much
better) was favoured for competitiveness as
the respondents were being asked to rank
how competitive Hong Kong was relative to
other destinations in the region; the reason
for its use in measuring importance was not
stated but may be because of comparability.
A bidirectional scale was also used by Prasad
and Dev (2000) in their hotel brand equity
study, in which the performance and aware-
ness axes are centred on an index of 100 – the
average score across all the brands consid-
ered. Their performance index is a composite
measure of four different indicators, while
awareness reflects the percentage mentioning
the brand name.
The placement of the axes, grid lines or
cross hairs assumes much greater signifi-
cance when a matrix is being used as an
analytical framework rather than as a purely
conceptual one in which the axes are usu-
ally located at the midpoints of the dimen-
sions to produce four equal quadrants. With
IPA, the manner by which the grid lines are
placed determines the quadrants into which
particular attributes fall; this, in turn,
affects the analysis, interpretation and
managerial actions recommended. Different
placements can suggest different actions
(Crompton and Duray, 1985; Hudson et al.,
1998, 2004; Janes and Wisnom, 2003;
Farnum and Hall, 2007). Martilla and James
(1977) observed that the positioning of
the axes was a matter of judgement and that
the value of IPA lay in identifying relative
rather than absolute levels of importance
and performance. They suggested that
the midpoint of a five- or seven-point scale
would constitute a useful division of the
matrix or grid, but also acknowledged that
in the absence of low values there may be a
case for moving the axes one point over.
At the same time, Martilla and James recog-
nized (p. 79) that median values as a meas-
ure of central tendency were ‘theoretically
preferable to means because a true interval
scale may not exist’. A further choice lies in
the use of scale means or actual (score)
means. Oh (2001, p. 626) argued that the
use of scale means provided a simpler
description than actual means as ‘the mean-
ing of the original scales provides easy and
valid interpretation of the data’. Both scale
means and actual means continue to be
used widely (Table 6.1). In some cases, the
performance axis, and occasionally also the
importance axis, may be placed at a greater
value than the mean to reflect an organiza-
tion’s high or stringent service quality stand-
ards (Bruyere et al., 2002; Janes and Wisnom,
2003; Hudson et al., 2004; Frauman and
Banks, 2011).
Several attempts have been made to
systematically compare the results obtained
from different approaches. Crompton and
Duray (1985) compared four alternative
approaches to IPA. They found that ‘self-
stated’ methods – those using mean and
median value plots – yielded similar results.
Likewise, the two ‘statistical’ methods they
employed, in which either Pearson or
Spearman correlation coefficients were
used in conjunction with median values,
also produced similar attribute positioning.
The most apparent differences in plots were
between those produced by the self-stated
and statistical methods. Citing evidence
from the literature linking features to per-
ception, Crompton and Duray suggest that
the statistical methods may produce
more accurate results. Leong (2008) used
three different approaches to analyse the
service quality of a budget airline in
China: the scale-centred (scale means)
approach; the data-centred (actual means)
approach; and a median-centred approach.
His results proved somewhat inconclusive
as to which approach provided a more accu-
rate classification. Leong concluded that
where the attributes fell into the same quad-
rant using all three IPA approaches, the
attributes could be confidently said to
belong to that quadrant. In his study, this
occurred with only five of the 13 attributes
analysed: ease of ticket purchase/reserva-
tion, comfort, safety, reliability and overall
flight experience. There was less certainty
with the other attributes.
Other studies also draw attention to
the location of attributes among the four
quadrants and to the care needed with
 Multi-purpose Matrices
interpretation, particularly where the
attributes fall close to the intersection of the
grid lines (see Fig. 6.3). In this respect, it is
useful to recall that Martilla and James
(1977, p. 79) suggested that ‘particular atten-
tion should be given to the extreme observa-
tions’. Oh (2001, p. 622) underlined some of
the implications of the causal relationship
between importance and performance in
traditional IPA, noting in particular that ‘a
positive correlation between the two varia-
bles tends to result in prescribing more
suggestions of “keep up the good work”
(Quadrant 1) or “low priority” (Quadrant
3)’. In their research on white-water rafting
experiences, Farnum and Hall (2007) used a
modified IPA technique that employed con-
fidence intervals to establish the stability of
the quadrant locations of attributes. They
found that a third of the 27 attributes could
not be reliably located within a particular
quadrant as they had 95% confidence inter-
vals that overlapped the axes. Some
researchers prefer to interpret the attributes
with respect to a diagonal or ‘draw line’
rather than to the horizontal/vertical grid
lines (Tribe and Snaith, 1998; Bacon, 2003;
Truong, 2005; Leong, 2008). Leong (2008,
p. 54) extends the traditional IPA framework
in this way observing: ‘any point which lied
above the 45 degree line would indicate that
the particular attribute has failed to live up
to customers’ expectation. Hence for these
attributes, there must be possible areas
for improvement that management must
look into’.
A further variation on the use of IPA is
to carry out the analysis and interpretation
for different segments of the population
using two or more matrices rather than
limiting the study to that of the population
as a whole with a single aggregate matrix.
This approach questions the assumption
underlying many IPA studies that the user
population being researched is homoge-
nous. Rather, different subgroups within a
population might be expected to have dif-
ferent attitudes to what is important and
how well the attributes are performing.
As a consequence, management strategies
based on the interpretation of an overall
IPA matrix may be misleading and lead to
91
the displacement of certain user groups
(Vaske et al., 1996, Bruyere et al., 2002;
Huan et al., 2002; Wade and Eagles, 2003;
Koh et al., 2010). As with other segmenta-
tion studies, different approaches can be
used to identify subgroups: nationality
(Huan et al., 2002; Lee and Lee, 2009); park
users (Bruyere et al., 2002; Wade and
Eagles, 2003); residents (Frauman and
Banks, 2011) and benefits sought (Koh
et al., 2010). Enright and Newton (2004)
produce separate importance/competitive-
ness matrices for tourism attractors and
business-related factors, while O’Leary and
Deagan (2005) compare importance and
pre- and post-visit performance matrices.
The value of such segmentation is well
illustrated by Bruyere et al. (2002, p. 90–91),
who conclude:
Given the aggregate results . . . EVRPD [the
park management agency] might be inclined
to proceed with business as usual for each
of the six attributes, since each fell in the
quadrant of ‘keep up the good work’. By
incorporating segmentation in the analysis,
however, a different picture unfolds for
management of the marina store, youth
soccer leagues, bicycle rental and tennis
courts. The aggregate ratings in importance–
performance lead managers to follow one
strategy; segment ratings lead to another.
An IPA without segmentation can lead
researchers to make inaccurate conclusions
and managers may be spending limited
resources unwisely as a result.
Interpretative and descriptive approaches
Other researchers adopt a more interpretative
or descriptive approach to the use of matri-
ces as analytical frameworks, outlining the
combination of elements by which a partic-
ular dimension might be assessed rather
than quantifying relevant attributes on each
axis. Various forms of quadrant matrices
have been used in this way, but none as
frequently as those used in IPA.
The development and interpretation of
a matrix is a common step in scenario plan-
ning for various tourism futures (Yeoman,
2005; Daconto and Sherpa, 2010; Heicks,
2010; Page et al., 2010). According to
Daconto and Sherpa (2010, p. 104): ‘Scenario
92
planning (SP) is a tool for dealing with
uncertainty and complexity in devising
long-term strategies (Schwartz, 1998). It is
based on formulating narrative descriptions
of alternative hypothetical futures as a way
to overcome biased views of the world and
help managers prepare for developments
that cannot be anticipated by extrapolating
from past trends’. The way in which matri-
ces are developed and used in scenario
planning varies but, typically, four scenar-
ios are produced from a matrix whose two
axes represent the key drivers of change or
major themes. Plausible story lines are then
fleshed out around each of the resultant sce-
narios and used to focus thinking for longer
term strategic planning.
In developing scenarios for the future of
tourism management in Sagarmatha National
Sherpa unity
Local park governance fails to manage tourism impacts. In 2015 the
national political system changes to stronger central government. Park
management reverts to command and control. Sherpa exploit
paternalistic government to retain control over land tenure and tourism.
Educated young Sherpa continue to migrate away from Khumbu and
manpower immigration continues to surge in the park, driven by
tourism jobs and unskilled labour. A more composite cultural identity
gradually emerges in Khumbu. Sherpa retain ownership of most
tourism enterprises and of the value chain, but tourism quality
standards stagnate due to lack of innovation. Infrastructure
development improves telecom access and traffic congestion with
a cableway; major gaps in public services remain. Tourist arrivals
and revenues grow. Forest and wildlife resources decline due to
ineffective management.
− Control of tourism industry by outsiders
Autonomous Khumbu
Political reform turns Nepal into a federal state in 2015. The regional
administration includes a Sherpa Autonomous Area, which manages
the park and buffer zone and shares tourism revenues 70:30 with
the regional government. A regional public investment company
develops infrastructure. Public service provision (health, education,
etc.) grows. This stems and partially reverses educated Sherpa
outmigration. Local schools integrate Sherpa culture and language
and provide vocational and tourism training. Local skills and
institutional capacity grow. Tourism and transport infrastructure grow
through careful balance of options. Strong resource stewardship
prevails. Access is improved through air links; an access road plan
is shelved. Local tourism products are diversified. Sherpa retain
control of local tourism and the value chain. Immigration of
non-Sherpa continues but share of skilled labour grows within it.
Fig. 6.4. Summary of 25-year scenarios for tourism and governance in Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal.
Source: This figure is part of an article first published in Mountain Research and Development (MRD):
Daconto, G. and Sherpa, L.N. (2010) Applying scenario planning to park and tourism management in
Sagarmatha National Park, Khumbu, Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 30(2), 103–112.
doi:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-09-00047.1.
Chapter 6
Park in Khumbu, Nepal, Daconto and Sherpa
(2010) undertook a series of workshops in
which the participants jointly selected the
two drivers whose evolution they consid-
ered to be the most uncertain and difficult to
control: the centralization of governance
and the extent of control of the tourism
industry by outsiders relative to the Sherpas
(Fig. 6.4). On the matrix, these two dimen-
sions are depicted in terms of greater (+) or
lesser (−) centralization and outside control.
The four resultant scenarios are labelled
‘Sherpa unity’, ‘loss of voice’, ‘autonomous
Khumbu’ and ‘missed opportunity’. The
aim of the accompanying storylines was
‘to trace plausible change trajectories from
the present situation to each future scenario
using the drivers identified in the system
description and picturing realistic behaviour
+
Loss of voice
Large-scale investments by outside investors allied with assertive
Centralized governance
central government lead to sprawling tourism development across
the park, including most valleys and scenic spots. Air access and
energy generation plants are scaled up. Declining landscape quality
threatens the park’s World Heritage Site status. International chain
resorts spread. Tourism volume grows heavily, along with leakage
of revenues. Outsiders gradually displace Sherpa from both
ownership and management of tourism enterprises, relegating them
to marginal sectors (cultural products). Outside investors and
operators engage local communities, mainly through social
responsibility actions. Local communities’ influence on park and
tourism management gradually fades. Environmental impact and
cultural change mitigation strategies only slow down irreversible
change in scenic quality and the social fabric.
+
Missed opportunity
National political reforms support gradual devolution to local
authorities. Heavy tourism growth is coupled with continued
emigration of young educated Sherpa from Khumbu. The park
attracts steady investment flows. Non-Sherpa business interests
encroach on local enterprises and gain influence over central and
local politicians, obtaining favourable concession terms. They
leverage aggressive marketing to raise tourism volumes. Intensive
infrastructure development (telecom, air access, cableways, new
wide trails, energy) takes place. Migrant workers increase their share
of local small service enterprises. Sherpa still retain a share of
business, but inequality among them grows, and a section becomes
increasingly disenfranchised. Environmental pollution grows and
landscape quality declines.
 Multi-purpose Matrices
by park stakeholders’ (Daconto and Sherpa,
2010, p. 106). These scenarios were then
validated by further discussion.
Yeoman (2005) reports on the develop-
ment of scenarios for Scottish tourism
around 2015 using a matrix built on two
themes: the economic environment and
consumer propensity. In this case, the
themes were constructed from multiple
rather than single drivers and the outcomes –
the extremes of the axes – are said to repre-
sent alternatives rather than opposites:
respectively, deflation/disinflation or pros-
perity and price sensitivity or sophistica-
tion. Four scenarios were developed in
which the narratives are accompanied by
quantitative projections of revenue, spending
patterns and the value of tourism by expend-
iture type. In a second paper, Yeoman dis-
cusses how scenario planning was used by
VisitScotland to consider how an imminent
war in Iraq might affect Scottish tourism
(Yeoman et al., 2005). Multiple driving
forces were ‘calibrated based on identifying
the degree of high uncertainty with the most
direct impact’ (Yeoman et al., 2005, p. 8)
and two overarching themes – nature of dis-
ruption and economic behaviour – were
identified and formed the axes for the matrix
upon which the four scenarios were built.
Heicks (2010) begins his examination of
the likely state of China’s airline industry in
2019 by indicating that a ‘preliminary analy-
sis’ had identified two major criteria affect-
ing its development: the business model
(full-service or low-cost carrier) and the rate
of passenger growth (negative or rapid).
These constituted the axes of his matrix. The
resultant four scenarios were then reviewed
by a panel of experts. In an opposite approach
to that taken by Yeoman (2005); this scenario
analysis was then used to identify the driv-
ers of airline performance in China. These
included GDP (gross domestic product) and
income, government regulation and owner-
ship restrictions. Heicks (2010, p. 76) argues
that due to the importance of these latter fac-
tors ‘firms need to think through a range of
alternatives that can come about quite
quickly through a change in leadership’.
Cameron (2001) used grid-group analy-
sis to examine chefs and occupational
93
culture in a hotel chain during a period of
change. He argues (p. 107) ‘it is the charac-
teristics of each quadrant “type” rather than
diverse labels used by researchers, that
attention should be focused [on] if any
meaningful grid-group analysis is to be
done’ (Fig. 6.5). It should be noted that the
term grid is being used here not with refer-
ence to the matrix itself, as in AGA, but
instead (p. 105) to ‘the set of rules and con-
straints placed on, for example, individual
behaviour’. This approach enabled Cameron
to explain the chefs’ response to changes
introduced by management. Grid-group
theory was also employed by Duval (2006,
p. 1) to ‘explore a conceptual tie between
migration and tourism’. In Duval’s paper,
the grid dimension of the matrix portrays
strong/weak transnational participation
while the group dimension reflects strong/
weak transnational belonging. The scope of
tourism/migration linkages is said to be
most evident where strong grid-group rela-
tionships give rise to socially meaningful
return visits.
In other instances, more specific forms
of matrices have been developed and applied
to particular problems. Hudson and Miller
(2005), for example, assert that a company’s
position with regard to responsible market-
ing can be measured with respect to two
dimensions: environmentally responsible
action and environmental communication.
They list a set of responsible actions and
suggest that communication can be meas-
ured by analysing a variety of media
(Fig. 6.6). The combination of these pro-
duces a set of elements that characterize
each quadrant and enable a company to be
assessed. After analysing the performance of
a Canadian heli operator using information
from stakeholder interviews, observational
research and content analysis of communica-
tion material, they positioned it in the ‘reactive’
quadrant, although there were indications
that the company was moving towards a
more ‘proactive’ stance. Recommendations
as to how it might reach this ‘desired’ posi-
tion were then offered. A similar approach
was taken by Lashley (1998), who proposed
that approaches to the management of
human resources in service companies can
94 Chapter 6

Strong (or) high

(Craft hotels)
(Grid)
Precisely defined roles and status;
limited scope for individual
autonomy and entrepreneurial activity.
Grid/ (strong or high)
Group (weak or low)
(Group – eg in-group/out-group
processes) Occupation group and
corporate/organisation group engage
in selective screening. Behaviour is
ordained and fully defined by group/
social classification without ambiguity.
GRID
(Entrepreneurial hotels)
(Grid)
Individuals have opportunity for
free competition with others; status
judged primarily on merit.
Grid/ (weak or low)
Group (weak or low)
(Group – eg in-group/out-group
processes) Occupation group and
corporate/organisation group engage
in selective screening. Behaviour is
ordained and fully defined by group/
social classification without ambiguity.
(Bureaucratic hotels)
(Grid)
Precisely defined roles and status;
limited scope for individual
autonomy and entrepreneurial activity.
Grid/ (strong or high)
Group (strong or high)
(Group)
Individuals are subordinate to those
of the group. Control and a high
sense of belonging are exercised
in the name of the group.
B C
A D
(Traditional hotels)
(Grid)
Individuals have opportunity for
free competition with others; status
judged primarily on merit.
Grid/ (weak or low)
Group (strong or high)
(Group)
Individuals are subordinate to those
of the group. Control and a high
sense of belonging are exercised
in the name of the group.

Weak (or) low 0

Weak (or) low GROUP Strong (or) high

Fig. 6.5. Grid-group analysis of chefs and occupational culture in a hotel chain. Source: Cameron, D. (2001)
Chefs and occupational culture in a hotel chain: A grid-group analysis. Tourism & Hospitality Research 3(2),
103–114. © 2001 by SAGE Publications. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.

be identified by reference to a matrix where
the two axes represent external/internal
control and customized/standardized offer.
The management styles of the four resultant
quadrants (involvement, professional, par-
ticipative, and command and control) were
defined in terms of a set of features reflecting
each dimension, which were then used to
analyse the approach of specific companies.
In examining the causes of the non-
establishment of a national park in northern
Sweden, Sandell (2005) also adopts an inter-
pretative approach but emphasizes the ten-
sion between the forces represented on the
axes of his matrix more than the labelled
cells. The horizontal axis illustrates the
tension between ‘functional specialization’
and ‘territorial adaptation’, while the vertical
axis represents the tension between the strate-
gies of ‘active’ use versus ‘passive’ contempla-
tion of the landscape. He argues that various
combinations of tensions exist: horizontal,
vertical and diagonal. Sandell begins with a
conceptual framework of four generic eco-
strategies derived from the basic matrix and
progressively explores the Swedish case with
reference to four related matrices, thereby
connecting his case study with broader issues.
Tabular Matrices
Tabular matrices have been widely used in
tourism research; they take various forms,
occur with differing levels of complexity
 Multi-purpose Matrices 95

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION
ENVIRONMENTALLY Measured by analysis of brochures, newsletters, websites,
RESPONSIBLE ACTION company reports, press releases, signs, and awards.
LOW
Measured by analyzing:
Environmental policy INACTIVE
Policy on wildlife
No support or involvement
Policy on vegetation
from top management
Waste management LOW Environmental management
Fuel management
not necessary
Energy & recycling
No environmental reporting
Forest harvesting
No employee environmental
Education & training
training or involvement
Community relations
Research & knowledge
Connections to regulatory regimes
REACTIVE
Some involvement of
top management
HIGH Environmental management
is a worthwhile function
Internal reporting but no
external reporting
Some employee
environmental training or
involvement
HIGH
EXPLOITIVE
Some involvement of top
management
Environmental issues dealt
with only when necessary
External reporting but no
internal reporting
Little employee training or
involvement
PROACTIVE
Top management involved in
environmental issues
Environmental management is
a priority item
Regular internal and external
reporting including an
environmental plan or report
Employee environmental
training of involvement
encouraged

Fig. 6.6. A model for responsible marketing of tourism. Source: Reprinted from Tourism Management 26,
Hudson, S. and Miller, G.A. (2005) The responsible marketing of tourism: the case of Canadian Mountain
Holidays, pp. 133–142. Copyright (2005) with permission from Elsevier.

and have been applied to a variety of differ-
ent problems. Although individual research-
ers may elaborate on their structure and
derivation, and some common recognition of
the application of matrices in environmental
impact assessment is found (Williams, 1987;
Stohlgren and Parsons, 1992), there has
generally not been any methodological dis-
cussion of the nature and application of
tabular matrices in tourism. In general
terms, the tabular matrix consists of a set of
columns and rows that relate the classes or
properties of one variable or concept to
another. At a basic level, the resultant table
might be distinguished from the quadrant
matrices discussed in the preceding sec-
tion simply by the greater number of cells
produced (more than four). More funda-
mental differences occur in the way in
which the contents of the rows and columns
are presented and analysed. While the two
dimensions may be presented as continua,
the tables and rows more commonly depict
multiple discrete categories of the two vari-
ables, often in qualitative terms, but quanti-
fied values or scores may also be used. This
makes the tabular matrix a flexible tool
that can be widely applied and one that
often enables a more detailed analysis to be
undertaken than when quadrant matrices
are used. Tabular matrices can be read in
various ways: attention can be directed at
specific cells where categories of the two
variables intersect or at the overall pattern;
the matrix can also be read vertically, hori-
zontally or diagonally. Reference to particu-
lar examples will clarify and illustrate these
features and issues.
Figure 6.7 depicts the matrix used in
the inter-organizational analysis of tourist
organizations in Sarawak, which formed
a key part of the preparation of a tourism
master plan for the state (Pearce, 1995a).
It is what may be referred to as a function-
ordered matrix, that is, the horizontal axis
systematically displays the range of func-
tions that different agencies might carry out
while the vertical axis lists the various
agencies involved in these. The matrix was
developed from an earlier comprehensive
96 Chapter 6

Fu n ct i o ns

Visitor Develop- Opera- Planning

Marketing Research Regulation Training
Servicing ment tions and policy

State
tourism
agency

National
tourist
Ag e n ci e s

organiz-
ation
Private
sector
organiz-
ation
Develop-
ment
corpora-
tions
Other
govern-
ment
agencies

Fig. 6.7. A framework for the inter-organizational analysis of tourism organizations. Source: Figure 12.3
from Pearce, D.G. (1995) Planning for tourism in the 1990s: an integrated, dynamic multiscale approach,
pp. 229–244 in Butler, R. and Pearce, D. (eds) Change in Tourism: People, Places, Processes, Routledge.
Reprinted with permission.

study of tourist organizations (Pearce,
1992b) and used in the data collection
phase of the Sarawak project as a frame-
work for wide-ranging discussions with the
agencies concerned, for assessment of cur-
rent practices and for evaluation of the
available documentation. In the analysis
phase, a summary matrix was prepared in
which the functions carried out by each
agency were listed and briefly described
(the details are omitted here owing to the
confidential nature of the exercise). When
the cells were filled out, the matrix served
to summarize the major findings and to dis-
play clearly and succinctly the gaps and
overlaps. Reading the rows horizontally
enables the diverse functions undertaken
by each agency, and thus their role in devel-
oping tourism, to be understood. Reading
the columns vertically reveals which and
how many agencies are involved with a
particular function – for instance, who is
engaged in marketing or development.
Looking across the matrix as a whole ena-
bles potential issues of coordination to be
identified and gaps or deficiencies in the
system to be determined. This can suggest
areas of possible institutional restructuring.
For example, is duplication occurring in
which multiple agencies undertake the
same function (e.g. marketing) or are their
activities coordinated? Is research support
available to planners, policy makers and
marketers? Are any key functions not
being carried out, that is, are any columns
entirely blank? If so, which agency should
fill this gap? With suitable modification to
the list of relevant agencies and functions
this matrix could be applied in a wide vari-
ety of situations and readily incorporated
into the planning process. A similar part-
nership/activity matrix was employed by
March and Wilkinson (2009) to investi-
gate inter-organizational relationships in
the Australian wine tourism region of the
Hunter Valley.
 Multi-purpose Matrices
Tabular matrices have been used in a
range of other development and planning
applications. Taylor (1980) presented a very
basic demand–supply matrix as a means of
matching the resources of particular areas
with demand from specific market segments.
A more detailed worked example of this
type of approach is provided by Dwyer and
Edwards (2000), who developed a market/
asset matrix for nature-based tourism in an
outer suburb of Sydney. Their matrix served
to assess the natural assets of the area in
terms of market segments, using a three-star
grading system and differentiating between
sites in terms of their current state and when
they had been modified. du Cros (2001)
addressed a similar problem with regard to
assessing the sustainable development of
cultural heritage sites, that is (p. 167), what
is the best way ‘to identify in advance herit-
age places with the best potential to with-
stand heavy visitation while appealing highly
to tourists’. She set this problem in the con-
text of the conservation–commodification
debate and proposed a nine-cell matrix
that shows the relationship between the
continua of market appeal and robusticity
(the sites’ ability to withstand high levels of
visitation), each categorized into high, mod-
erate and low classes. Placement of the sites
in the appropriate cell enables their poten-
tial to be assessed. Ideal sites, for example,
would be those with high market appeal
and high-to-moderate robusticity, while
sites with similar appeal but low robusticity
would present major management chal-
lenges. Li and Lo (2004) operationalized
this matrix in a case study in Hong Kong by
developing a scoring system based on a set
of sub-indicators for each continuum.
Impact assessment matrices are another
form of this framework used in tourism
development and planning. Following
Leopold (1971), selected types of tourist
activity are arranged along one axis and dif-
ferent types of impact along the other – the
impacts being the dependent variable or
outcome of the activities. Differing levels of
information relating to the magnitude and
importance of the impacts associated with
each activity may be recorded in the cells.
Leopold recommended scoring magnitude
97
and importance on a scale of one to ten, but
simpler measures have also been used,
reflecting the challenges of measuring
impacts in the field. Puckzkó and Rátz
(2000), for example, used a simplified ver-
sion of Leopold’s approach and shaded the
cells of the matrix according to the low,
moderate and high adverse or beneficial
impacts identified through interviews with
residents, tourists and industry representa-
tives (Fig. 6.8). In other cases, variations on
the axes are found. Stohlgren and Parsons
(1992) proposed a campsite impact matrix
to evaluate wilderness impact management
options where the vertical axis represents
the total weighted value of impacts classi-
fied into three categories (low, moderate
and high), and the horizontal axis the
weighted values by campable mile, also
divided into three classes. Stohlgren and
Parsons used their matrix to quantify poten-
tial recreational opportunities for wilder-
ness visitors in a spectrum of areas ranging
from low-impact dispersed camping to
high-impact concentrated camping. Fennell
and Butler (2003) developed a matrix for
measuring tourist group pressure in which
selected stress/impact variables are arrayed
against four types of resource/destination
relationships: predatory, competitive, neu-
tral and symbiotic. They suggested that, as
the criteria used to differentiate between
these relationships for each of the stress
variables have been designed using con-
tinua (high–moderate, moderate–low),
(p. 204) ‘impacts might best be categorized
rather than precisely measured for the pur-
pose of establishing indicators of impact’.
Hughey et al. (2004) extended the manage-
ment aspect by incorporating into the cells
of their asset matrix (for which the dimen-
sions are importance and fragility), monitor-
ing indicators and associated management
guidelines.
Economic impacts may also be assessed
using a tabular matrix. Dwyer et al. (2000)
proposed a rather extensive matrix for assess-
ing the impact of events and conventions in
which the columns cover a comprehensive
range of economic impacts (e.g. gross direct
expenditure by visitor/delegate, organizer tim-
ing and source of expenditure; transferred,
 Built Ecological Biological Physical and chemical characteristics

98
Flora Fauna Water Earth Atmosphere

Endangered species

Endangered species
Aquatic vegetation

Terrestrial animals
Aquatic animals

Air movements
Water balance

(Micro)climate
Underground
Temperature
Eutrofication

Ecosystems

Compaction
Local styles

Food chain

Air-quality
Land use

Land use
Stability
Surface

Surface
Erosion
Density

Bushes

Insects
Quality
Grass

Noise
Trees

Birds
Soil

Soil
/ / \ Exotic flora & fauna introduction Modification
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Species composition of Legend:
/ / / / / / / \ / Ground water regime
Adverse
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / Irrigation
/ / / / / / / / / Burning / low
/ / / / / / / / / / / / Built up
/ / / / / Shorelines moderate
/ / / / / / / Urbanization Land
/ / / / / / / / / / / Road network development high
/ / / / / Enclosures transformation
/ / / / Fill ups
/ / / / / / / / / / / Growth of recreational areas and
\ \ \ Erosion control
Beneficial
/ / / / / / / / / / Pier, marinas construction

Chapter 6
\ \ Landscaping \ low
Thermal-water Resource
/ / / / / Well drilling moderate
/ / / / / / / / / / / Clear cutting extraction
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Reforestation high
\ Repatriation of wildlife Reformation
\ Underground water
Waste collection & recycling
/ / / / / / Roads
/ Air Transport
/ / Trains
/ / / / / Boats
&
/ / Cables Infrastructure
Communication
/ / / / / / Waste disposal sites
/ Illegal dumping Waste
/ Disposal of refuse
/ Sewagepipes management
/ Sewage treatment
/ / Plant protection Chemical
/ / / / / Extermination of mosquitos interventions
/ / / / Operational failiures
Drain aways
Accidents
/ / /

Fig. 6.8. The tourism impact matrix of the Keszthely-Héviz region, Hungary. Source: Puczkó, L. and Rátz, T. (2000) Tourist and resident perceptions of the physical
impacts of tourism at Lake Balaton, Hungary: issues for sustainable tourism management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8, 458–478. Reprinted by permission of the
publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).
 Multi-purpose Matrices
switched and retained expenditure; multi-
pliers and additional impacts) while the
rows represent the different industry seg-
ments affected (e.g. accommodation, internal
transport). The authors suggest that such a
framework can be useful for facilitating the
evaluation of the economic contribution of
an event or convention, and forecasting the
tangible and intangible impacts as well as
guiding the preparation of data collection
instruments.
Matrices have also been applied to a
variety of other problems in tourism
research, including: the evaluation of web
sites (Jeong, 2002); destination competitive-
ness (Rodríguez-Díaz and Espino-Rodríguez,
2008); human resource management (Liu
and Wall, 2006); knowledge management
(Hattendorf, 2002); differentiating between
sources and channels in information search-
ing (Grønflaten, 2009); attraction account-
ability (Cornelis, 2010); and defining the
field of the geography of tourism (Mitchell,
1979; Wu and Cai, 2006). Hattendorf (2002),
for example, stresses the need to take a more
balanced approach to knowledge manage-
ment projects, and proposes a knowledge
supply chain matrix that aligns strategy,
organization (process and structure) and
resources against the four core processes in
knowledge management: generation, stor-
ing, transfer/application and measurement.
As a result, he argues, a comprehensive
approach needs to be taken to the resultant
16 fields; he illustrates this approach for an
airline industry firm.
Whatever the measurement or classifi-
cation system used, the results displayed in
these matrices can again be analysed and
interpreted horizontally, vertically, cell by
cell or overall. In summarizing the results
from their study (Fig. 6.8), Puckzkó and
Rátz (2000, p. 476) observed: ‘The signs
show that there were very few substantial
positive impacts and the substantial nega-
tive ones were of a much greater number.
It is also seen that the transformation of
landscape, waste management and public
road transport cause the broadest impacts,
while looking from the other side of the
matrix, air quality, surface/soil, and plants
suffered the most impacts.’ Stohlgren and
99
Parsons (1992) used the individual cells
of their matrix to identify campsites with
varying levels of potential for further devel-
opment. Similarly, with reference to a tour-
ism human resources matrix that crosses
tourism employment categories by three
constructs (tourism policies, labour condi-
tions and accessibility to industry), Liu and
Wall (2006) note (p. 166): that ‘it is possible
. . . to emphasize information that is specific
to an individual cell or to highlight linkages
with other elements for the purpose of gen-
erating propositions (a combination of rows
or columns)’.
In contrast, with their matrix, which
constitutes a model of the strategic evalua-
tion of destinations based on their internal
and relational capabilities, Rodríguez-Díaz
and Espino-Rodríguez (2008) place greater
emphasis on the main diagonal and on the
areas above and below it (Fig. 6.9 a). For
them (p. 372), the ‘main diagonal represents
the balance situation of a sector at a given
moment in relation to the importance of
each factor and its capacity to generate syn-
ergies in the destination’. The factors in Box
A constitute its core competence: they are
valuable, non-substitutable, inimitable and
rare. They are integrated into the basic con-
cept of the destination and generate syner-
gies with the other factors. As a result, these
attributes form the basis of the sustainable
management of the destination. In contrast,
the elements in Box C are of low strategic
value and produce few synergies. The fac-
tors in Box B constitute an intermediate
case, ‘they represent competitive opportu-
nities for the destination but have not devel-
oped all their potential’ (p. 372). The area
above the diagonal shows potential strengths
which are not yet well integrated in the des-
tination, while that below it contains
attributes that are developing a high rela-
tional potential but are as yet unrecognized
by destination managers.
Rodríguez-Díaz and Espino-Rodríguez
(2008) evaluate the destination competitive-
ness of Gran Canaria by using this matrix to
analyse the results of a survey of industry
representatives scored on a seven-point
Likert scale. Following the model, percen-
tiles were used to divide the results into
100 Chapter 6

(a) Relational/ Internal strategic value

Internal Low Medium High

Low Integration
C High internal values
Potential attributes to
Type I
Attributes not attributes that do not
generate internal
generating internal and
Relational strategic value

produce any synergies

capabilities
relational capabilities in the rest of destination

Attributes with a high

Potential relationships to B
internal value that
Type III Type II

generate relational Potential attributes of

produce a limited
capabilities core competence
synergy effect
High Integration

High potentials to
Relationships not develop core
exploited to develop competence but
core competence attributes are not
considered important
A
Attributes generating
internal and relational
capabilities: core
competence

(b) Internal strategic value of the competitive factors

Low 3,93 Medium 4,56 High
Political management of
destination
Low

Non-hotel

Airlines
Relational strategic value
of the competitive factors

Socio-cultural
3,73
Customer
Wholesalers and
Medium

performance
retailers
Complementary offer Human and financial
Cust. segments
resources
Direct sales
Service companies
4,37 (outsourcing)

Public infrastructures
Geographic environment
High

Hotels

Fig. 6.9. (a) Model of strategic evaluation based on internal and relational capabilities. (b) Strategic evaluation
of the factors determining the competitiveness of the tourism destination. Source: Rodríguez-Díaz, M. and
Espino-Rodríguez, T.F. (2008) A model of strategic evaluation of a tourism destination based on internal and
relational capabilities. Journal of Travel Research 46(4), 368–380. © 2008 by SAGE Publications. Reprinted
by permission of SAGE Publications.

three groups on each dimension (Fig. 6.9 b); and sustainability, while the main weak-
this figure shows that almost all of the fac- nesses are seen in Box C (top left). The two
tors included in the survey fall on the main factors lying off the diagonal – airlines and
diagonal, suggesting a strong correlation customer performance – might be consid-
between the two variables. The factors hav- ered internal strengths that have not yet
ing the highest internal and relational val- developed synergies with the destination’s
ues were Gran Canaria’s geographical other resources. Drawing on this analysis,
location, hotels and public infrastructure Rodríguez-Díaz and Espino-Rodríguez go
(Box A, bottom right). The largest number on to suggest actions to manage the destina-
of factors is located in Box B (top centre), tion in a more integrated and sustainable
characterized by medium levels of strength manner.
 Multi-purpose Matrices
Discussion and Conclusions
As the examples in this chapter have shown,
matrices, in their various forms, constitute
flexible frameworks that can be applied
conceptually and empirically to a wide
range of tourism problems. Their wide-
spread use might, in large part, be attributed
to the two-dimensional nature of these
frameworks, which makes their construc-
tion and interpretation relatively straight-
forward even if a number of technical
considerations do arise when they are used
to analyse empirical data. A key assumption
underlying the use of these matrices is that
the problem in question can be understood
and analysed by examining the relationships
between two sets of constructs or variables
and, in the case of the quadrant matrix, that
most situations can be characterized by a
fourfold typology. This raises the issue of
whether or not such an approach is overly
reductionist, a point touched on in Chapter
4 with respect to some of the criticism of the
growth/share matrix; are two dimensions
and four categories adequate here?
In this regard, it should be recalled that
early proponents of the use of a matrix
stressed the need to go beyond reliance on a
single variable: Martilla and James (1977)
combined measures of performance with
those of importance; Cohen (1979) added the
tourist’s impression of the scene to the nature
of the scene, real or staged; Iso-Ahola (1982)
recognized that tourists could simultane-
ously be seeking and avoiding. But is it nec-
essary to go further and incorporate additional
variables or dimensions? In focusing on the-
ory and method, Dann et al. (1988) provided
a very useful basis for discussing progress in
tourism research (Fig. 6.1a). However, by
concentrating on just these two dimensions
no consideration is given to what is being
researched and whether or not it is impor-
tant. Progress can also be made as the scope
of research on particular topics is widened or
deepened, as investigation moves from the
superficial and peripheral to matters of real
substance or significance, however that may
be determined, and as the results of research
are taken up and applied (Pearce, 2010b).
Likewise, the various examples cited of the
101
use of matrices to depict and interpret stra-
tegic issues (Figs 6.1b, 6.1c, 6.2, 6.9) clearly
indicate that matters of strategy can be con-
sidered with respect to more than two
dimensions.
In many cases, the selection of the two
dimensions to be used appears to be taken
for granted, for it is often neither elaborated
upon nor justified. In others, some theoreti-
cal basis for the variables chosen is provided:
the strategic dimensions used by Sautter and
Leissen (1999), Harrington (2005), Leiper
et al. (2008) and Rodríguez-Díaz and
Espino-Rodríguez (2008), for instance, are
introduced or justified by reference to the
literature – albeit to different theories. With
IPA and related matrices, there is often some
discussion of which variables to use, for
example satisfaction or performance (Tribe
and Snaith, 1998; Tonge and Moore, 2007).
Scenario planners tend to derive the dimen-
sions of their axes empirically (Yeoman,
2005; Daconto and Sherpa, 2010). There is,
though, rarely any mention of why only two
dimensions are used; hence, the use of these
matrices as an appropriate framework is suf-
ficient. In the case of scenario planning, the
four scenarios produced by a quadrant matrix
appear to be regarded as a manageable
number for which to prepare narratives and
consider alternative futures. Tabular matri-
ces are used in part because of the scope they
offer to derive more than a fourfold classifi-
cation (du Cros, 2001; Rodríguez-Díaz and
Espino-Rodríguez, 2008).
Other researchers, though, do tackle this
issue by incorporating additional dimen-
sions into their matrices or, recognizing the
limitations of analysing only two variables,
by proposing alternative frameworks.
Harrington (2005) does this rather ingen-
iously by adding environmental conditions
to his strategy-making matrix using the
right-hand vertical axis (high–low dyna-
mism) and upper horizontal axis (high–low
complexity) (Fig. 6.2). Such a modification
only makes sense, however, where the two
sets of axes are theoretically co-aligned.
Another approach is to extend the
matrix into a three-dimensional cube
(Fig. 4.9). This can be a useful structuring
device for writing up material, but the
102 Chapter 6
First time cruisers
Lo attachment Hi attachment Lo attachment
Lo intensity
Disillusioned Possible Low
loyalty loyalty
Fig. 6.10. Loyalty segments of cruise ship passengers. Source: Petrick, J.F. (2005) Reoperationalising the
loyalty framework. Tourism and Hospitality Research 5(3), 199–212. © 2005 by SAGE Publications.
Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.
ability to visualize and locate individual
cells beyond the first tier of the third dimen-
sion on such a diagram can be difficult.
Hinch and Higham (2001) proposed a three-
dimensional framework for sport tourism
research in which (p. 53) ‘sport becomes the
first among equals in relation to the other
two dimensions [temporal and spatial]’.
Illustrative themes are given for each dimen-
sion – rule structure, physical competition
and playfulness for sport; duration, season-
ality and evolution for the temporal dimen-
sion; and location, region and landscape
for the spatial dimension – to produce a
27-block cube. Examples of each dimension
are then provided in turn before the authors
illustrate the potential synergistic benefits
of exploring the relationships of individual
blocks within the cube, while noting (p. 56)
‘[s]ome of these relationships will be of
more interest than others’. In a similar fash-
ion, Collins-Kreiner and Wall (2007) suggest
there are advantages in extending tradi-
tional SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, oppor-
tunities and threats) analyses to include a
level of research dimension (local, regional
and national) and one considering different
aspects of analysis (social, cultural, eco-
nomic . . .). The three dimensions are pre-
sented as a cube-like matrix. Collins-Kreiner
and Wall’s account of the analysis of the
Western Negev study area proceeds from
the SWOT features at the national level,
through the regional to the local. However,
not all aspects are dealt with at each level;
Two or more cruises
Hi attachment
Hi intensity Lo intensity Hi intensity
Spurious Latent High
loyalty loyalty loyalty
that is, there is no attempt to fill out each
cell in the matrix.
Petrick (2005) argued the case for a
more comprehensive approach to consumer
loyalty than the use of a psychological
attachment/behavioural consistency matrix,
and in his segmentation study of cruise pas-
senger loyalty also distinguished between
first-time visitors and actual ‘loyal’ visitors.
Although the depiction of his resultant
sixfold categorization (Fig. 6.10) is rather
more complex than a conventional quad-
rant matrix, the three variables used in
Petrick’s survey (attachment, intensity and
first-time/repeat cruise) yielded meaningful
segments. In particular, the addition of the
first-time/repeat variable shed light on first-
time cruise passengers who had yet to dem-
onstrate their loyalty, with two categories of
this group being identified based on their
potential behaviour: the ‘disillusioned’ and
the ‘potentially loyal’. A posteriori segmen-
tation or classification studies, of course,
take an altogether different approach, using
some form of multivariate analysis that
does not predetermine either the number of
categories or the dimensions to be used
(Dolnicar and Grün, 2008).
In conclusion, the widespread use of
matrices in tourism research is a testament
to their flexibility and ready applicability.
They are valuable frameworks. The value
of many matrices could, nevertheless, be
increased if some of the issues and limita-
tions arising from their basic structure were
 Multi-purpose Matrices 103

addressed more frequently and explicitly.
In particular, more discussion is called for in
many studies of the implications of trading
off the relative simplicity of these frame-
works against the complexity of the ques-
tions being addressed. Not only do the two
dimensions of the matrix used need greater
justification, but the merit and limitations of
taking a two-dimensional approach must
also be established more clearly. Greater
effort is also required to operationalize the
conceptual matrices being proposed, as well
as to strengthen the theoretical basis of many
analytical matrices.
 7
Process Frameworks
Process frameworks have been widely
employed in various fields of tourism
research, such as development, planning,
travel decision making and distribution. In
tourism, much of the early work on process
frameworks or models occurred in relation
to tourist development. One reason for this
was the close association between develop-
ment and process. Friedmann (1980), for
example, observes (p. 4): ‘We . . . tend to
think of development as a process of change
or as a complex of such processes which is
in some degree lawful or at least sufficiently
regular that we can make intelligent statements
about it’ (emphasis added). The derivation
of various process models of tourist devel-
opment might be interpreted as a search for
regularities in the way in which tourism has
evolved. Although there has been some
comparative assessment of the tourist devel-
opment models (Pearce, 1989), such mod-
els, and those in other fields, have generally
been treated in terms of their individual
merits and there has been little attempt to
elucidate and discuss the general features
and applications of tourism process frame-
works (Smallman and Moore, 2010). A very
useful exception is Johnston’s (2006) dis-
cussion of the ontological foundations of
Butler’s (1980, p. 7) TALC model, in which
he attempted to ‘shore up the theory under-
lying the model’. In this chapter, key points
104 © Douglas G. Pearce 2012. Frameworks for Tourism Research (D.G. Pearce)
from Johnston’s paper, along with a consid-
eration of related issues from Webber (1991)
and Smallman and Moore (2010), are
reviewed first to outline the general features
of process frameworks. These features are
then elaborated upon and illustrated with
examples from the fields mentioned above.
In order to contextualize Johnston’s
discussion, it is necessary to summarize the
TALC, perhaps the most frequently cited of
all tourism frameworks (Butler, 2006).
The two axes of the TALC are time and a
measure of demand (the number of tour-
ists). The typical growth in tourist numbers
is shown to follow an S-shaped pattern
consistent with the concept of the product
life cycle on which it is based (Fig. 7.1).
Butler identified six stages in this evolu-
tionary sequence of a tourist area, which he
elaborated on in the text: exploration,
involvement, development, consolidation,
stagnation and rejuvenation or decline.
No specific facilities for visitors exist in the
first stage; those in the involvement stage
are primarily provided by locals, but then
local involvement and control decline rap-
idly in the development phase as the role of
external developers increases and the
nature of the attractions and accommoda-
tion changes. This period of rapid growth
is followed by consolidation, stagnation
and then either decline or rejuvenation as
 Process Frameworks 105

Rejuvenation A
B
Critical range of Stagnation
elements of
capacity Consolidation C
Decline
D
Number of tourists

Development

Involvement
Exploration

Time

Fig. 7.1. Hypothetical evolution of a tourist area: the tourist area life cycle (TALC) model. A–E represent the
possible outcomes on a continuum from rejuvenation (renewed growth and expansion) (A) to (immediate)
decline (E). Source: Butler, R. (1980) The concept of a tourist area life cycle of evolution: implications for
management of resources. Canadian Geographer 24(1), 5–12. Copyright (1980), John Wiley & Sons. This
material is reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons.

pressure on resources increases and capac-
ity constraints come into play.
Following Glaser (1978), Johnston (2006,
p. 10) suggests that ‘a process can be onto-
logically defined when there are two or more
temporally distinct parts to a phenomenon
and these occur directionally from one to
the next’. As Glaser states, basic social proc-
esses are considered to have three proper-
ties: ‘stages’, ‘variability’ and ‘pervasiveness’.
Johnston continues (p. 10):
occur quickly in which case there would be
a ‘critical juncture’ or more slowly, as a
‘blurry transition’. It is unlikely that they
will occur identically in different case
situations. Basic social processes are thus
variable in the sense that no two entities
ever go through a specific process in exactly
the same manner. The final point is that
social processes were considered basic
because they were pervasive. They occur
again and again because of the ‘patterned,
systematic uniformity flows of social life’.

With respect to stages, he [Glaser] asserted Through the comparative analysis of

they are relatively unique in form/condition
and consequences. They have ‘breaking
points’ that can be discerned on the basis of
a sequence that has general time limits.
Stages are in fact ‘theoretical units’ and the
point of identifying these is to be able to
show that variations exist in the pattern of
behaviour being studied, and to account for
these variations. The length of time for each
stage is not fixed, but is a function of the
conditions that create the changes leading
to the next stage. These conditions might
the literature of four non-tourism processes,
Johnston then goes on to identify seven
‘epistemologically oriented elements’ com-
monly held by processes, which might be
generalized and extended, as here:
1. The entity undergoing the process, for
example a resort or destination in the case
of development, a firm with regard to strate-
gic processes or an individual in terms of
travel decision making.
106 Chapter 7
2. The internal characteristics of the entity,
that is, the features of the resort, firm or
individual that are changing. ‘It is the state
of these at any given point in time that pro-
vides an indication of what stage the entity
is in’ (Johnston, 2006, p. 14).
3. The users of the entity, tourists in the
case of destinations, analysed by volume
and type. This element is less relevant for
some of the other process frameworks.
4. Stages of the process as conceptual
units – in terms of framework configura-
tions these are fundamental features. Key
questions are how many stages are there
and what distinguishes one from the next?
The labelling of these stages is significant
for conveying what the overarching nature
of the stage is. Webber’s concern (1991)
was with a broader attempt to distinguish
periods of economic life, a period being
defined as ‘an interval that shares some
common characteristics during which
features of social life are relatively con-
stant’. As with stages, this raises the ques-
tion of ‘what variables determine the
character of the periods that they identify?’
(Webber, 1991, p. 170).
5. The mechanisms that cause stage
changes and are driving the process.
As noted by Glaser (1978), these may
be rapid at ‘critical junctures’ or more grad-
ual ‘blurry transitions’. Webber (1991,
p. 170) observed that ‘a period is followed
by a time of transition, during which the
conditions of the succeeding period are
established’. Key considerations here relate
to whether all mechanisms are acting at the
same rate and whether all characteristics
are changing at the same pace and in the
same direction.
6. The macrostructural conditions under
which the process occurs. These may con-
strain, facilitate or otherwise modify the
typical sequence of stage change.
7. The typical sequence and the variability
of stages. Glaser (1978) argued that to be a
distinctive process there needs to be a dis-
cernible pattern to the way in which stages
occur, while at the same time recognizing
they would not always come in the same
order and that some variability might be
expected.
Johnston (2006) elaborates on these
elements for the TALC. The elements also
constitute a good basis for considering other
process frameworks, both for tourist devel-
opment and for use in other fields. In a
recent review of process studies in tourist’s
decision making, Smallman and Moore
(2010, p. 404) tend to take a narrower view
of what constitutes a process. In their four-
fold typology of tourist decision making,
they characterize much of the work done in
this field (e.g. Fig. 7.10), as variance studies
‘of tourists’ decisions by causal analysis of
independent variables that explain choices
(dependent variable) by a tourist’ (Smallman
and Moore, 2010, p. 404). Variance studies
may be simple or complex. Smallman and
Moore also distinguish between simple
and complex process studies. The former
include studies of ‘tourists’ decision-
making narrating sequences of events,
stages or cycles of decisions in choices’
while the latter refer to ‘the tourists’ deci-
sion-making narrating emergent actions
and activities by which individual or group
choices unfold’ (Smallman and Moore,
2010, p. 404). While the narrower focus of
Smallman and Moore may have merit for
investigating causality in tourist decision
making, the broader approach to process
frameworks outlined by Johnston (2006) –
drawing on Glaser (1978) – is the one that
will be primarily adopted here. As with
other frameworks, the process frameworks
reviewed in this chapter reflect the com-
plexity of tourism, be it the numerous and
multifaceted aspects of destinations, the
multiple dimensions that might be taken
into account by planners or the challenges
of understanding how individuals make
the many and varied decisions about the
trips they take. As a result, the focus of
these frameworks varies and there is inevit-
ably much selectivity in what is included
in particular frameworks.
Development Process Frameworks
Figures 7.2–7.5 show how researchers
have stressed particular elements more
 Process Frameworks 107

Fig. 7.2. Miossec’s model of tourist development. Source: Miossec (1976), reproduced with permission from
R. Baretje and from Pearson Education for the redrawn version from Pearce (1989).

than others and, as a result, have generated
different frameworks to represent pro-
cesses of tourist development. These frame-
works, it should be noted, focus on the
ways in which tourism is seen to develop;
there is less consideration given to the
ways in which and the extent to which
the growth of the sector contributes to
development more generally. These broader
dimensions of development are commonly
dealt with by a range of other theoretical
frameworks, such as those embedded in
pro-capitalist Modernization Theory, anti-
capitalist Underdevelopment Theory or,
more recently, theories of globalization
(Harrison, 2010).
108 Chapter 7

Stage I: Evolution of Tourism

--Tourists Begin to Arrive in the Community

--Tourism Grows, But There are Few Services to Support Tourism
--Resources, Parks, or Culture Continues to Attract Tourists

Transition
--Process Begins to Formalize
--Involvement of Individuals
--Involvement of Tourism
Organizations

Stage II: Formation

--Formalization of the Tourism Process
--Formation of Tourism Organizations
--Involvement of Business Organizations
--Examples: Merchants Association, PCI, NDC, HCI
Transition
--Organizations Take Over Tourism Functions
--Programming of Festivals and Events
--Beginning of Promotion and Marketing
Stage III: Development

--Programming of Special Events and Attractions

--Individual Promotion and Marketing
--Beginning of Area Scheduling

Transition
--Dedicated Tourism Taxes
--Movement Toward Centralization
--Movement to Packaging of Area
Stage IV: Centralization
--Genesis of CVBs
--Tourism Tax Implementation
--Centralized Planning, Promotion, and Advertising
--Regional and County-wide Planning and Promotion

Fig. 7.3. Rural tourism development model. Source: Lewis, J.B. (1998) A rural tourism development model.
Tourism Analysis 2, 91–105. Reproduced with permission from the publisher.

Market Sectors
No. of tourists/
resort price level
Rejuvenation
Stagnation
Decline
International Tourism

National Tourism
Transition
Zone Regional Tourism

Local Tourism

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Capacity/Time

Local Regional National International Decline/
Tourism Tourism Tourism Tourism Stagnation/
Rejuvenation

Fig. 7.4. The resort development spectrum. Source: Reprinted from Tourism Management 21, Prideaux, B.
(2000) The resort development spectrum – a new approach to modelling resort development, pp. 225–240.
Copyright (2000), with permission from Elsevier.
 Process Frameworks 109

Price D4
S5
E3
P3
D2
S3 S4 D5
E2
P2
S2
D D3
S1
E1
P1
S
D1

O Q1 Q2 Q3 Capacity/Time

Fig. 7.5. A three-sector tourism resort. D, demand; E, equilibrium; P1–P3, (increasing) prices of market
sectors 1–3; Q1–Q3, (increasing) resort capacity/time; S, supply. Source: Reprinted from Tourism
Management 21, Prideaux, B. (2000) The resort development spectrum – a new approach to modelling
resort development, pp. 225–240. Copyright (2000), with permission from Elsevier.

In Fig. 7.2, the entity is the larger terri-
tory within which a number of resorts
develop (Miossec, 1976). The four key
characteristics – resorts, transport, tourist
behaviour, and the attitudes of decision
makers and the population in the receiving
region – provide an overall perspective on
development and are shown to evolve
graphically in an interconnected manner
from a pre-tourism phase to a highly devel-
oped fifth phase. In the early phases (0 and
1), the region is isolated, there is little or no
development, tourists have only a vague
idea about the destination, while local resi-
dents tend to have a polarized view of
what tourism may bring. The success of the
pioneer resorts leads to further develop-
ment (Phase 2). As tourism expands, an
increasingly complex hierarchical system of
resorts and transport networks evolves,
while changes in local attitudes may lead to
complete acceptance of tourism, the adop-
tion of planning controls or even the rejec-
tion of tourism (Phase 3). Meanwhile, the
tourists have become more aware of what
the region has to offer, with some spatial
specialization occurring. Miossec is less
explicit about what (and who) is driving the
change, for example, what leads to the ini-
tial development of resorts, but in the later
stages suggests that it is tourism itself, rather
than the original attractions, which are now
drawing many visitors to the area. This
change of character induces some tourists to
move on to other areas. Neither does Miossec
give much attention to the users, though
these are presumably the growing numbers
of tourists; nor does he give attention to
the macrostructural conditions, except for
the improving external linkages. He does
acknowledge that each of the four character-
istics may not develop at the same pace – a
likely source of problems – and allows for
two different futures, one in which the terri-
tory is completely given over to tourism, the
second in which a development plan incor-
porates ecological safeguards and limits the
spread of tourism.
In Fig. 7.3, the entity is a rural area
undergoing tourism development. In con-
trast to Miossec’s (1976) more conceptual
approach, Lewis’s (1998) model is induc-
tively derived from the comparison of qual-
itative case studies of four rural communities
in Indiana. The characteristics of the four
stages and the terms used to label them are
drawn from the fieldwork; thus Stage I ‘was
designated evolution because the respond-
ents overwhelmingly used that term to
describe the development of tourism in
their community’ (Lewis, 1998, p. 96).
Lewis’s framework is also notable for the
incorporation of explicit transitions, an
indication that there is no abrupt change
from one stage to the next. These transi-
tional features also help to identify the
110 Chapter 7
underlying mechanisms, for example, the
programming of festivals and events or a
move towards centralization. The mac-
rostructural conditions do not feature
explicitly in the model but were used to
select the case studies – for example, the
presence or absence of a natural resource
attraction. Lewis addresses the question of
time, noting (p. 101) that: ‘each community
went through the stages presented in this
model, but did so at different times and
required different amounts of times to move
through the process. Consequently, assign-
ing a time line to the model would be
inappropriate.’ He does note, however, that
one of the communities failed to move
through the stages and might be considered
a negative case.
The resort development spectrum
presented by Prideaux (2000) is a third
variation on a development framework
(Fig. 7.4). While straightforward in appear-
ance, Prideaux’s model is notable for its
more theoretical derivation, his outlining
of the underlying assumptions about the
development of coastal resorts, a detailed
account of stage characteristics listed in a
separate table, and a much more direct
emphasis on what is driving the change
from one phase to the next. Indeed,
Prideaux’s article serves as a useful caution
against relying solely on the schematic
depiction of a framework independent of
accompanying text and material. Prideaux
(p. 229) argues that shifts in demand–
supply equilibrium points (Fig. 7.5) con-
stitute the basic mechanism for resort
development: ‘Once an equilibrium point is
reached, further growth is unlikely to occur
unless capacity and existing travel barriers
are overcome and the resort is able to attract
a new market segment of tourists such as
those who prefer air travel to their automo-
bile as their normal transport mode’. These
new segments progressively add regional,
national and international layers of demand
at each successive phase as new sectors are
attracted that are prepared to pay a higher
price than the previous sector, until a fifth
phase is reached where several trajectories
are possible as (p. 235) ‘growth is not nec-
essarily an infinite possibility’ (Fig. 7.5).
Prideaux (p. 233) is very explicit about
what is driving the process: ‘The model
postulates that growth occurs as a result of
expansion of the resort’s infrastructure and
parallel development of new market sec-
tors. The key components determining the
shape of the growth curve are the willing-
ness of suppliers to invest in new tourist
facilities, the rate of construction of new or
expanded transport infrastructure designed
to transport additional tourists from new
market sectors. The role of external politi-
cal and economic forces will also become
evident as the resort moves into the inter-
national market place.’ Prideaux is also
very clear about the stage changes (p. 233):
Each new phase of development will be
characterized by a change in the style of
hotels and apartments constructed.
Progression from one phase to the next is
dependent on the development of new or
expanded transport facilities.
Further, Prideaux notes that exceptions to
the typical sequence outlined are possible
as well: growth may cease or resorts may
jump a phase.
Prideaux (2000) illustrates his model
by reference to the Gold Coast of Australia,
claiming that its strength lies in its ability
to be operationalized. This is certainly
assisted by the explicit listing of the major
characteristics of each stage. Other models,
however, suggest that the pattern of increas-
ing prices resulting in the addition of ever
more distant market segments may not be a
universal mechanism. The process outlined
by Gormsen (1981), for instance, in the
context of the historical development of
European coastal tourism, is one in which
the participation of social classes is increas-
ingly broadened (‘mass follows class’), the
spectrum of accommodation is progres-
sively widened from hotels to camping
grounds, and local and regional initiatives
extend developments initiated by external
agents. Likewise, in the Caribbean Thurot
(1973) outlines a process of an increasing
democratization of visitors and a concomi-
tant construction of more modest hotels as
improved air access has opened up island
destinations.
 Process Frameworks
Russell and Faulkner (1999) offer an
alternative framework to explain the devel-
opment of tourism on the Gold Coast of
Australia. While acknowledging the role of
transport improvements, as in Prideaux’s
framework, Russell and Faulkner give weight
to who is driving the development by bring-
ing the role of individuals to the fore. They
identify the importance of the underlying
‘edge of chaos’ conditions that prevailed and
stress the role of influential entrepreneurs as
‘chaos makers’ – individuals ‘whose entrepre-
neurial flare (sic), determination and creativity’
was responsible for initiating innovations in
the region during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Both Russell and Faulkner (1999) and
McKercher (1999) challenge the conven-
tional tourism development process frame-
works for being reductionist and focusing
on order, linearity and equilibrium. In con-
trast, they draw on chaos and complexity
theory and contend that tourism is ‘an inher-
ently non-linear, complex and dynamic sys-
tem’ (McKercher, 1999, p. 425) and that
‘individual differences and random exter-
nalities provide the driving force for variety,
adaptation and complexity’ (Russell and
Faulkner, 1999, p. 414). A fuller discussion
of systems as alternative frameworks is pre-
sented in Chapter 8. Here, it is suggested
that some of the key differences between the
development process frameworks and the
chaos/complexity framework are not as great
as portrayed by McKercher and Russell and
Faulkner; rather, the different approaches
emphasize different characteristics. In par-
ticular, both frameworks recognize the exist-
ence of phases or states and changes from
one phase or state to another. The chaos
theory advocates note that:
Chaotic systems evolve abruptly from one
state to another, rather than evolving
slowly between the two states.
(McKercher, 1999, p. 428)
The equilibrium of the system is punctuated
with long periods of relative stasis (phases)
interrupted by bursts of evolutionary
change (phase shifts).
(Russell and Faulkner, 1999, p. 415)
These views are reasonably consistent
with the process elements outlined in the
111
introduction to this chapter, though tending
more towards Glaser’s (1978) ‘critical junc-
tures’ than to ‘blurry transitions’. The chaos
theory advocates tend to focus more on
what causes phase shifts, on what drives
change from one state to another. For them,
this change is seen to lie in chaotic upheaval.
Chaotic upheaval is portrayed as creative,
resulting from ‘dramatic variations in behav-
iour or extreme sensitivity, or both’ (Cole,
2009), and is attributed to factors such as
small changes, ‘rogue’ elements and exter-
nal events, factors that are said to be
largely overlooked in the more conventional
process frameworks. Cole (2009, p. 693)
asserts that ‘despite their sensitivity and
unpredictable short-run behaviour, the
chaos trajectories are quite coherent in
terms of amplitude and frequency of fluc-
tuations’. He explores the parameters of
change in tourism by developing a logistic
tourism model, the core of which (p. 707) is
‘a supply–demand relationship drawing on
observations of tourism development at the
global, local and discrete-project scales’.
A further framework to explain the
evolution of destinations is offered by Plog
(1973, 2001), who suggests that the evolu-
tion of destinations is largely a function of
the varying appeal that they offer at differ-
ent times to different market segments.
Plog’s framework is not depicted directly in
terms of the various stages of development
but, rather, with reference to the psycho-
graphic positioning of destinations based
on a continuum of personality types ranging
from ‘pyschocentrics’ (‘dependables’) to
‘allocentrics’ (‘venturers’). According to this
framework, destinations will be ‘discov-
ered’ by allocentrics, but as they become
better known and attract more visitors, such
as the mid-centrics, the allocentrics will
move on. As the population is said to be
normally distributed, this means that ‘the
ideal positioning for most destinations lies
somewhere in the middle of the near-
venturer segment. A destination at this point
has the broadest positioning appeal possi-
ble because it covers the largest portion of
the psychographic curve’ (Plog, 2001, p. 20).
According to Plog (1973, p. 16), ‘we can
visualize a destination moving across the
112 Chapter 7
spectrum, however gradually or slowly, but
far too often inexorably towards the poten-
tial of its own demise. Destination areas
carry within them the potential seeds of
their own destruction, as they allow them-
selves to become more commercialized and
lose their qualities which originally attracted
tourists’. In his updated article, Plog (2001)
depicts the shift in the psychographic posi-
tioning of destinations from 1972 to 2001
based on large-scale surveys of the travel
habits of American households.
One common issue that runs through
these frameworks is the question of the
inevitability of the sequence of the stages
outlined, whether in terms of the TALC
(Butler, 2006) or the ‘seeds of destruction’
inherent in Plog’s (1973, 2001) framework.
Prideaux (2000, p. 238) claims that ‘the
strength of the Resort Development
Spectrum is that it points out the type of
actions that are required, ex ante, to facili-
tate the growth of a resort from one phase to
the next’. The chaos and complexity theory
advocates stress the adaptive capacity of
systems to self-organize and adjust, and in
challenging the linearity and predictability
of development processes they question the
ability of planners and the public sector to
control the evolution of tourism. McKercher
(1999, p. 433) argues: ‘The role of public sec-
tor players in a chaotic tourism system
becomes one of trying to influence the direc-
tion of growth within broad parameters
rather than trying to exert control over it’.
Drawing on transformation theory, McLennan
et al. (2010) explore in more detail the inter-
action between structures and institutions to
offer a more optimistic perspective on direct-
ing the long-run transformation of destina-
tions. They propose a framework of tourism
transformation incorporating four dimen-
sions: time, space, institutions and struc-
ture. In terms of the time dimension,
transformation theorists use the concept of
sequential time, but also recognize that
‘change occurs through ongoing cyclical
patterns that are usually described as a
three-stage transition process that com-
mences in a steady state, undertakes change,
and then enters a new equilibrium before
recommencing a new transition’ (McLennan
et al., 2010, p. 6). McLennan et al. (2010,
p. 17) conclude that ‘by initially taking a
cyclical time strategy, as opposed to sequen-
tial time investigations, it may be possible
to limit the influence of time and space and
focus on the interaction between structure
and institutions’.
Planning Process Frameworks
A second set of frameworks deals more spe-
cifically with the planning process. Tourism
planning, like planning in general, has
evolved and various definitions of it are to
be found (Pearce, 1989; Gunn and Var, 2002;
Dredge and Jenkins, 2007). Whatever the
purpose of planning, it is commonly seen as
a rational process involving a set of interre-
lated stages, as:
an ordered sequence of operations, designed
to lead to the achievement of either a single
goal or to a balance between several goals
(Hall, 1970, p. 4)
strategic activity comprising a number of
stages that lead to the determination of a
course of action to meet pre-determined goals
(Dredge and Jenkins, 2007, p. 467)
Thus, ‘planning models represent the process
by which many actions are carried out to
achieve multiple, inter-related, sequential
goals and is begun in advance or anticipa-
tion of action’ (Stewart and Vogt, 1999, p. 81,
after Hoc, 1988).
Frameworks for tourism planning struc-
ture the various steps to be undertaken in
order to develop and implement a tourism
plan. The resultant plan itself will contain a
number of interrelated elements. These may
be presented in a stepwise fashion, though
other configurations are also possible, par-
ticularly systems (Chapter 8). The prime
emphasis in planning frameworks is deter-
mining what needs to be done at each step
in order to inform subsequent stages.
Such frameworks usually follow a sequence
that involves setting goals, collecting and
evaluating information (both internal and
external), assessing options, developing
strategies, proposing implementation actions
 Process Frameworks
and monitoring (Pearce, 1989). There is,
however, little agreement on the specifics of
the process; the number of stages proposed,
the scope and content of each, how they are
labelled, and the way in which they are
ordered or configured vary from plan to plan
depending on the nature, purpose and scale
of the plans in question as well as on the
approach of the planners concerned. Some
are primarily marketing plans, others focus
on the supply side, emphasize broad strate-
gic directions or adopt a more comprehen-
sive master-planning approach. Tourism
plans are prepared at a range of scales from
the local to the international and commonly
cover 5–10 year periods, but longer and
shorter horizons are also used.
Gunn and Var (2002) outline a generic
supply-side regional planning process con-
sisting of the following five steps, each of
which may have a number of components:
Step 1. Setting objectives
Step 2. Research
Step 3. Synthesis–Conclusions
Step 4. Concepts
Step 5. Recommendations
The authors emphasize that this process
assumes several antecedents to these steps,
namely the existence of a well-represented
body to sponsor the process, balanced goals,
local involvement and broadly directed
recommendations. They then illustrate the
diversity of stages and approaches used in
tourism planning with reference to a wide
range of cases, primarily from North America.
One of these, a tourism plan for Alberta, is
depicted as having as many as 24 distinct
steps, although most have six or eight.
The preparation of the Samoa Tourism
Development Plan 2002–2006 (Pearce,
2008b) was conceptualized and operation-
alized in three broad phases:
1. Inception Phase: establishing the plan-
ning context and providing a situational
analysis; identifying key issues and formu-
lating a draft goal for the plan.
2. Strategic Phase: developing strategies
to address the issues identified in the
inception phase and to meet the goal
formulated.
113
3. Action Phase: integrating and evaluating
ideas and material from Phases 1 and 2 into
seven strategies under the core strategy of
developing a focused future for tourism in
Samoa and setting out an action programme
to implement the strategies and the plan as
a whole.
Stakeholder consultation and participation
was a key input in the first two phases; the
third was undertaken essentially by the
planning team.
Figure 7.6 depicts a six-stage strategic
marketing planning process which shows the
more specific marketing-oriented activities
involved at each stage, especially the multi-
ple activities associated with research and
analysis and plan development (Edgell et al.,
1999). While the plan has a rational sequence
it also allows for creativity. Thus, in the first
phase the emphasis is on broad objectives
rather than the identification of specific goals –
which comes later. The third phase provides
for ‘creative infusion’ after the results of the
research and analysis are reviewed.
Other stepwise frameworks provide addi-
tional information, emphasize different stages
in the process or focus on particular aspects.
Bécherel (2001) concentrates on the situa-
tional phase of a human resource planning
study in Brazil – what he characterizes as the
‘where we are now phase’, in which many
research techniques are applied. Formica
(2002) offers a destination attraction frame-
work consisting of the following six steps:
• Define the region under question.
• Measure the unit area.
• Inventory the resources of the region.
• Group the resources into attraction fac-
tors or categories.
• Evaluate the attractions.
• Present the results in a geographical
fashion.
Each of these six steps is accompanied by
the relevant procedure; resources, for exam-
ple, are grouped on the basis of factor analy-
sis and attractions are evaluated in terms of
factor scores. Blackman et al. (2004) outline
a four-step framework that puts more
emphasis on the latter stages of the process,
involving implementation and operation.
 114
Needs Research Creative Strategic Marketing Training
Analysis & Analysis Infusion Positioning Plan Implementation
Development Evaluation &
Adjustment

Future Seeking SMART

Client Goals
Stakeholder
Team Positioning/
Internal Repeat
Prospects Branding/
Analyses Customers
Image Sales,
Service &
Marketing A Practical Desired Development Leadership
Client’s Audit Exercise in Overall Segment of Strategies Training
Creativity for Positioning/ Marketing
Broad
Client’s Branding/ Plan

Chapter 7
Objectives Industry & Critical Success
Market Executives Image Development
Factors
Assessment Identification Implementation
Product/New
Products
Competitor Marketing
Analyses Price Mix
Evaluation/
Adjustment
Marketing
Customer Promotion Information
Research System
Sales Channel Development
Customer
Segmentation &
Strategic Budgets
Target Market
Alliances
Identification

Fig. 7.6. Strategic marketing planning for the tourism industry. Source: Edgell, D.L., Sr, Ruf, K.M. and Agarwal, A. (1999) Strategic marketing planning for the tourism
industry. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 8, 111–120. Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).
 Process Frameworks
The four stages – planning, organizing, lead-
ing and controlling – are matched by a par-
allel set of concepts, influencing factors,
procedures and methods, which indicates in
more detail what is involved at each step.
The authors suggest, for example, that con-
sensus needs to be reached in the first step
before attention can switch to organizing,
and that to proceed successfully beyond this
second stage, champions will be required to
provide leadership. Similarly, du Rand and
Heath (2006) present a three-step framework
and associated procedures for developing
and implementing food tourism.
These frameworks commonly include a
feedback loop from the final phase (as in
Fig. 7.6) to indicate that planning might be
considered an ongoing process in which
plans need to be revised as conditions change
and new information becomes available
(Gunn and Var, 2002). Some plans will spe-
cifically include a mid-term or periodic
review (Pearce, 2000); others will incorpo-
rate an explicit monitoring function to enable
changing conditions to be assessed and the
attainment of goals to be evaluated (Saleem,
1992; Catibog-Sinha, 2008). Figure 7.7 out-
lines a process by which the mid-term review
for the Samoa Tourism Development Plan
1992–2001 was undertaken (Pearce, 2000).
This process begins by highlighting the key
elements of the plan, which then enables a
targeted evaluation framework to be devel-
oped (Step 2). Key issues identified from this
stage lead to an updated action programme.
Catiboga-Sinha (2008, p. 253) presents
a six-step monitoring framework (Fig. 7.8),
which emphasizes the role and types of
research needed as the steps ‘involve a sys-
tematic collection of available data to inform
management decisions on recreational use’.
The six steps are:
1. Identify the problem or need.
2. Identify the objectives.
3. Collect baseline data on the environmen-
tal, social and economic aspects of tourist
development.
4. Manage the data collected – one tech-
nique recommended is a summary tabular
matrix similar to those discussed in
Chapter 6.
115
Step 1 Key Elements of Plan
Evaluation
- technical assessment
- goal attainment
- implementation
Step 2 - quantitative and qualitative
evaluation
overall assessment
Step 3 Identification of Issues
Development Action
Programme
Step 4
(updated implementation
programme)
Fig. 7.7. Steps in the Samoa tourism plan review
process. Source: Reprinted from Tourism
Management 21, Pearce, D.G. (2000) Tourism plan
reviews: methodological considerations and issues
from Samoa, pp. 191–203. Copyright (2000) with
permission from Elsevier.
5. Identify monitoring strategies.
6. Modify the management regime.
As Gunn and Var (2002) note, the ‘ration-
alist’ approach has its critics because plan-
ning for tourism at the destination scale is
complex and may involve too many factors
to deal with in a strictly rational manner.
As an alternative, they advocate a more
organic approach and offer an 11-step ‘organic/
rational planning process’ based on the frame-
work of the landscape architect Steiner. This
is presented as a more flexible and iterative
method, depicted as a circular process at the
heart of which is education and citizen
involvement, such involvement constituting
both a separate step and part of the entire
process. Similar concerns are expressed
by Burns (2004), who highlights a bipolar
116 Chapter 7

Identify the problem/needs

Identify the objectives

BASELINE DATA

Biodiver- EXAMPLES:
EXAMPLES: Tourism
sity • Species inventory
• Literature • Distribution study
• Anecdotes Socio- • Socio-economic
• Local knowledge economic surveys

DATA MANAGEMENT EXAMPLES:

Analysis Organisation Storage • GIS
Retrieval Reporting • Statistical analysis

Identify the monitoring strategies

EXAMPLES: EXAMPLES:
• Species • ROS
• Ecosystem Biodiversity Visitor impact • VIM
• Habitats assessment assessment • LAC
• Landscape
No No
Is biodiversity status being Is visitation quality
affected by tourism? being reduced?
Yes Yes

Modify management regime

Fig. 7.8. Monitoring framework to sustain biodiversity and tourism. GIS, geographical information system;
LAC, limit of acceptable change; ROS, recreation opportunity spectrum; VIM, visitor impact management.
Source: Catibog-Sinha, C. (2008) Visitor impact and biodiversity: A monitoring framework for protected areas
in Southern Highlands, New South Wales, Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 13, 245–263.
Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).

approach to much tourism planning, with an
emphasis either on a rightist ‘Tourism First’
approach or a leftist ‘Development First’
path. Drawing on Giddens (1998), Burns puts
forward a conceptual framework for a ‘Third
Way’ of tourism planning, one which stresses
the need for a realistic acknowledgement of
the pitfalls and problems of both tourism and
tourism master planning, and the link
between the two.
Decision-making Process Frameworks
Other researchers have used process frame-
works to investigate aspects of tourists’
decision-making behaviour. Here, the focus
is on the individual rather than the destina-
tion, with all the complexities and chal-
lenges that arise from seeking to understand
human behaviour. The sequence of stages,
or logic of progression, is usually related to
phases in trip taking and the associated
decision making. The general concern has
been not so much with the mechanisms that
drive change from one stage to the next, but
with understanding the multiple attributes
that underlie successive phases of behav-
iour, such as obtaining information, evalu-
ating options and making choices. Indeed,
Steward and Vogt (1999, p. 82) assert that:
‘Travel planning research to date has tended
to emphasize the content (length of stay,
 Process Frameworks
activities, etc.) and other characteristics of
the plan (such as planning time), but not
planning mechanisms’. Smallman and
Moore (2010, p. 415) contend that ‘variance,
simple process and interpretive . . . research
conceptualizes tourists’ decision-making as
an orderly process of discrete state transfor-
mations, with well-defined inputs and
outputs’ before going on to argue:
Conventional models fail to acknowledge
that tourists’ decision-making is often
focused on poorly defined ‘problems’ in
which there is considerable emotional
capital. Tourists will have varying degrees
of experience in such problem solving, but
notwithstanding this, conventional models
are poorly suited to explaining how people
make such choices. This is because they
make an assumption of process-time ordering
that is absent in all but a few cases.
Much of the research on decision making
by tourists draws upon ideas and concepts in
two seminal frameworks, that by Clawson
and Knetsch (1966) on the ‘total recreation
experience’ and that of van Raaij and
Francken’s (1984) vacation sequence. Each
framework has a five-stage sequence. The
five phases of the experience identified by
Clawson and Knetsch reflect the temporal
and spatial sequence of a recreational trip:
1. Anticipation – planning and thinking
about the trip prior to leaving home.
2. Travel to the site or destination.
3. On-site or at-destination experience.
4. Return travel.
5. Recollection – recall, reflection and
memories.
Before using this sequence as a frame-
work to structure his review of environmen-
tal psychology and tourism, Fridgen (1984,
p. 23) notes ‘an argument has to be made for
analysing tourism in terms of travel phases’.
Referring to the concept of behaviour set-
tings and the work of Russell and Ward
(1982), he suggests (p. 24) that ‘people not
only act in their present setting, they also
plan for subsequent settings’.
van Raaij and Francken’s (1984) frame-
work focuses on decision making and deals
with the individual and household factors
117
determining the vacation sequence, which
is said to occur in the following stages:
• the generic decision, that is, to go on
vacation or stay at home;
• the acquisition of information that
may perform several functions at differ-
ent stages;
• joint decision making by household
members;
• vacation activities; and
• satisfaction and complaints.
Most tourism researchers, however, have
focused on particular stages of these two
frameworks rather than on all five, often
subdividing them depending on the specific
focus of the problem being considered, nota-
bly information search, destination choice,
trip or product purchase and consumption.
Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998), for example,
adopt and extend Assael’s (1984) consumer
information acquisition and processing
model, which sets out the multiple stages
that individuals go through in deciding to
make a purchase:
1. Consideration of input or background
factors influencing the purchase decision.
2. Information acquisition from external
and internal sources.
3. Information processing: categorize,
evaluate, organize and retain.
4. Brand evaluation.
5. Purchase and consumption.
Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998) propose an
intermediate phase between the first of
these two stages, one which recognizes that
travellers have multiple information needs
or roles – functional, hedonic, innovation,
aesthetic and sign – that further define and
predict the relationship between the back-
ground factors and the use of specific source
categories (Fig. 7.9). Bieger and Laesser
(2004) focus on the pre-trip phase and dis-
tinguish between the importance of infor-
mation sources used before and after the
trip decision.
Much of the destination choice research
draws on other consumer research to sug-
gest that non-routine, high-involvement
purchases such as travel are phased. As out-
lined by Crompton (1992), the destination
118 Chapter 7

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Input Variables Search for Additional Information

Consumer:
Demographics Information
Personality Processing:
Lifestyle Categorize
Motivations Information Brand Purchase
Evaluate
Acquisition Evaluation and
Organize
Environmental: Consume
Retain
Social
Cultural
Situation

Marketing:
Product External Past
Internal
Price Sources: Experience
Sources:
Place Passive
Memory
Promotion Active

Adopted from Assael (1984).

Fig. 7.9. Consumer information acquisition and processing model. Source: Reprinted from Annals of
Tourism Research 25, Vogt, C.A. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (1998) Expanding the functional information search
model, pp. 551–578. Copyright (1998) with permission from Elsevier.

choice process involves a progressive nar-
rowing of the destinations being considered
in a three-stage process:
1. Development of an initial set of destina-
tions, the awareness set.
2. Discarding of some of these to form a
smaller late consideration or evoked set.
3. Selection of a final destination from this set.
Other researchers adopt a more detailed
and comprehensive approach to tourists’
decision making and in several cases apply
methodologies that address some of the
concerns raised by Smallman and Moore
(2010). Dellaert et al. (1998) offer a concep-
tual framework stressing that tourists make
multifaceted travel decisions relating not
only to the choice of destination but also to
the selection of their accommodation, mode
of transport, travel companions, departure
dates and trip duration. In contrast to other
decisions that are frequently made on the
trip itself (e.g. choices of special attractions
to visit or rest and food-stop locations),
these decisions are generally made before
the trip being taken, are interrelated,
may involve different planning horizons
and may be subject to different types of
constraints – such as temporal and budget-
ary limitations.
Woodside and King (2001) emphasize
the interrelatedness of the purchase deci-
sions involved in leisure travel, both in
terms of the stages at which decisions are
made and the connections between the
different choices (Fig. 7.10). Their frame-
work is conceptualized in terms of a pur-
chase–consumption system (PCS), defined
(p. 4) as ‘the sequence of mental and observ-
able steps a consumer undertakes to buy
and use several inter-related products for
which some of the products purchased lead
to a purchase sequence involving other
products’. They also refer to this framework
as a ‘process behavioural model’.
Figure 7.10 is structured around three
boxes depicting different sets of influ-
ences and decisions. Box 1 contains the
eight variables that influence thinking and
planning actions before and during travel;
the variables in Box 2 relate to specific
decisions/actions that comprise a trip,
while Box 3 depicts evaluations and cona-
tions occurring at near the end of or after
the trip. Of particular interest here is the
proposition that purchase decisions are
interactive, that prior purchases of prod-
ucts may trigger later decisions but that
the process is not necessarily linear. Thus,
in Box 2, three levels of decision making
 Process Frameworks 119

Box 1 Box 2 Box 3

Level 1: Level 2: Level 3:

1.Demographics,
4. Problem/ 17. Evaluation of
psychological 14. Self-gifts
opportunity 9. experiences
factors; personal and other
values; previous framing Destination durable
purchases of choices/ and
product (travel) options 12. nondurable
and brand 5. Search/ Accom- purchases
(e.g. specifc receive modations 18. Satisfaction/
destinations) information choices dissatisfaction
with specfic events
15. and experiences
10. overall
6. Using, Dining
Activity
2. Family, interpreting out
choices
friends, and evaluating choices
group information 13.
influences Mode/route
to
destinations 16. Mode/ 19. Intentions+ (to return
7. Using heuristics and experience again
in forming routes
11. in and and do additional
intentions experiences related
3. Marketing Attractions around
influences choices destination to products discovered
choices but not yet
8. Intentions experienced)

Note: The three levels are displayed to indicate the sequence proposition that level 1 decisions usually occur before and trigger level 2
decisions, and level 2 decisions usually occur before and trigger level 3 decisions; see discussion in text.

Fig. 7.10. A framework of the purchase–consumption system applied to leisure travel behaviour. Source:
Woodside, G. and King, R.I. (2001) An updated model of travel and tourism purchase–consumption
systems, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 10, 3–27. Reprinted by permission of the publisher
(Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).

are proposed: those in Level 2 follow Level
1 choices, while Level 3 decisions are
influenced by those at Level 2. For exam-
ple, decisions about gift buying and dining
out are often made only once the visitor is
at the destination, and are influenced by
the choice and location of accommodation,
that decision being an outcome of earlier
ones relating to destination and activity
choices. At any level, some interaction
may occur; decisions about accommoda-
tion, for instance, may be made in conjunc-
tion with those relating to mode or route
choice. The framework also contains a
feedback loop whereby post-trip evalua-
tions and conations influence most of the
variables in Box 1. Woodside and King use
this framework to develop four proposi-
tions, which are then examined using qual-
itative information on visitors to the Big
Island of Hawaii.
Gyimothy (1999, p. 70) takes a holistic
perspective to tourist trips, arguing that it is
the overall holiday experience that is
important as ‘visitors do not possess an
implicit concept of any provider defined
service elements, as these are dissolved in
the meta-product of experiences’. Drawing
on a grounded theory approach, Gyimothy
proposes a preliminary model of the
customers’ holiday experience as the reali-
zation process of journey ideals structured
into three phases: pre-holiday, holiday and
post-holiday.
Additional insights are provided by
Stewart and Vogt (1999), who draw on case-
based planning theory to explore the mech-
anisms of travel planning. This theory
predicts that all plans will be subject to
change as they are actuated, that such
changes are expected and this is taken into
account as plans are developed, and that
experienced travellers such as repeat visi-
tors will be more efficient at planning and
less likely to change their plans. Stewart
and Vogt explore these ideas, notably the
differences between trip elements planned
and actuated, with reference to a three-
phase model: pre-trip, trip and post-trip
(Fig. 7.11) (cf. Gyimothy, 1999). They found
120
Plan Plan Plan
Storage Retrieval Elaboration
Pretrip
Fig. 7.11. A conceptual model of case-based vacation planning. Source: Stewart, S.I. and Vogt, C.A.
(1999) A case-based approach to understanding vacation planning. Leisure Sciences 21(2), 79–95.
Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).
partial support for their hypotheses in an
empirical study involving pre-trip surveys
and trip diaries. Jun et al. (2007) present a
modified version of Stewart and Vogt’s con-
ceptual framework in which they distin-
guish between information search, travel
purchase and trip-specific behaviour. Their
empirical results – focusing on online and
offline usage in the pre-trip phase – lent
support to the theory and showed the appli-
cability of the framework.
Recent studies draw attention to the
need to move beyond generic vacation
frameworks and consider the characteristics
of particular types of vacations. Pearce and
Schott (2011, pp. 124–125), for example,
found significant differences in the booking
and channel choice behaviour of New
Zealand domestic and outbound travellers,
and concluded that: ‘Quite simply, the
nature and extent of booking and purchase
prior to departure or at the destination will
depend on where that destination is and
what types of trip are being undertaken,
fundamental points that have often been
overlooked in previous studies’. Based on
empirical research on visitors to Dublin,
Dunne et al. (2011) develop a city break
decision-making model that is flatter than
many of the earlier generic models because
it consists of just three stages: need recogni-
tion; information search, evaluation of alter-
natives and purchase; and post-purchase
evaluation. Need recognition for city break
Chapter 7
Plan Plan
Actuation Storage
Plan Plan
Revision Failure
Trip Post-trip
trips is characterized as stemming from
specific situational factors, a desire to
escape and the importance of the generic
decision to go away, with city breaks being
seen as more discretionary than the annual
vacation. The second stage, often facilitated
by use of the Internet, is shown to be a much
more compressed one in which searching,
evaluation and purchase are carried out in a
more rapid and frequently unsystematic
fashion by the city breakers.
Various managerial applications of
these decision-making process models have
also been put forward. Lane (2007) extends
Clawson and Knetsch’s (1966) notion of the
total recreation experience and of putting
the visitor first by proposing the concept of
the Visitor Journey © as a planning tool for
tourism organizations. As the name sug-
gests, this framework is structured around a
similar sequence of stages in the individu-
al’s journey, but with each stage being
matched by management opportunities to
add to the visitor experience, for example
managing the booking process or access to
the destination. A similar idea is advanced
by Piccoli et al. (2004) with more specific
reference to a particular firm’s relationship
with its customers rather than to the trip as
a whole. These authors suggest thinking
about customers’ use of a product or service
as a cycle and, using their four-phase
12-step Customer-service Life-cycle Model,
identify opportunities to offer better service
 Process Frameworks
and create stronger relationships using the
Internet and information technology (IT)
each step along the way. In a like manner,
Chathoth (2007) proposes that the use of IT
and its impact on hotel operations and trans-
action costs in full-service hotel firms might
be researched with regard to a ‘Guest Cycle’
involving the pre-arrival, arrival, stay/occu-
pancy and departure phases of customer-
firm exchanges. He presents a series of
propositions relating to these phases, which
he then brings together in the form of a more
generalized conceptual framework.
Channels and Chains
Distribution channels, value chains, supply
chains and commodity chains are all simi-
lar frameworks used with respect to supply-
side processes. They share many common
features, but vary in their origin, usage and
terminology depending upon the perspec-
tive being taken, to the extent that Erkuş-
Öztürk and Terhost (2010, p. 226) suggest
that ‘a distribution channel is similar to a
GVC [global value chain]. Yet, the literature
on tourism distribution channels seems to
be a world apart from the literature on GVC.’
Similarly, Smith and Xiao (2008, p. 291)
state: ‘the term distribution channel is a
supply chain in a different guise. Whether
one considers a link between two businesses
to be part of a supply chain or a distribution
channel depends on the direction one is
facing. Looking upstream, at suppliers,
means one is looking at a supply chain;
looking downstream, at customers, means
one is looking at a distribution channel.’
As frameworks, distribution channels tend
to be used primarily in research on market-
ing (Bannwarth, 2010; Pearce, 2010b), sup-
ply or value chains in management (Yilmaz
and Bititci, 2006; Smith and Xiao, 2008;
Zhang et al., 2009), while tourism applica-
tions of commodity chains are found most
commonly in development studies (Clancy,
1998, 2002; Mosedale, 2006).
As the following definitions show, what
these frameworks have in common is that
they all depict processes whereby a tourism
121
product or service is produced and made
available to consumers through a sequence
of actions involving a series of linked actors
or organizations. In one of the seminal
papers in the broader distribution literature,
Lewis (1968, p. 2) argues that ‘the purpose
of a . . .“channel of distribution” . . . is to
bridge the gap between the producer of a
product and the user of it’. According to
Stern and El-Ansary (1992, p. 2) marketing
channels are: ‘sets of interdependent organ-
izations involved in the process of making a
product or service available for use or con-
sumption . . . not only do marketing chan-
nels satisfy demand by supplying goods and
services at the right place, quantity, quality
and price, but they also stimulate demand’.
Supply chain management has been defined
as ‘a philosophy of management that
involves the management and integration of
selected key business processes from end
user through original suppliers, that pro-
vides products, services and information
that add value for customers and other
stakeholders through the collaborative
efforts of supply chain members’ (Ho et al.,
2002 cited by Schwartz et al., 2008, p. 299).
For Mitchell and Faal (2007, pp. 446–447):
‘Value chain analysis is a tool that enables
the identification of stakeholders along a
chain of transactions from production to
consumption. It helps researchers structure
their ideas according to key processes and
agents working in and outside the chain and
recipients of the benefits.’ This is an exten-
sion of Porter’s (1985) original use of the
term value chain, which he used at the level
of the firm or its business units – Porter
referred to the larger stream of activities
within which a firm’s value chain is embed-
ded as the value system. Lapeyre (2011),
like most other tourism researchers working
with commodity chains, draws on the work
of Gereffi (1999), who defines a global com-
modity chain as ‘the whole range of activi-
ties involved in the design, production and
marketing of a product’ (p. 38). Lapeyre
continues (p. 195): ‘the concept focuses on
economic patterns governing strategies by
different actors that participate sequentially
or geographically to the finished commod-
ity’. In each case, these frameworks were
122 Chapter 7

originally developed with regard to manu- distribution, or as a supply or value chain,

facturing or agriculture, and subsequently
applied or adapted to tourism, with the
caveat that in this sector the product is a less
tangible one that is consumed locally, that
the good or service is usually assembled by
arrangement rather than physically manu-
factured and that much of the distribution or
supply is ‘virtual’. In some cases, these dif-
ferences have proved challenging in trans-
ferring the framework to tourism, as Clancy
(1998) found with commodity chains.
Many of these points are illustrated by
Fig. 7.12, which provides a schematic rep-
resentation of the functions involved in the
distribution of packaged tours to interna-
tional tourists, in this case the distribution
of an all-inclusive package tour (Pearce,
2008a). In developing the framework, the
various functions of distribution had been
identified as the key mechanisms of the
process and are used to make explicit the
ways in which the diverse channel members
are linked sequentially and the roles they
play. Whether Fig. 7.12 is seen in terms of
depends on the perspective of the channel
member being considered. Consumers are
buying, suppliers are selling and the inter-
mediaries are both sourcing (being sup-
plied with) and distributing products. This
involves a series of functions: providing
and obtaining information and advice; nego-
tiation; sorting; bundling; booking and pay-
ment; and transfer of title. These functions
are carried out in varying degrees between
different channel members in different parts
of the channel. Information and advice, for
example, flows both ways: bookings and
payment are made in one direction, transfer
of title occurs in the other; sorting is carried
out by the intermediaries. The relationships
depicted also illustrate how efficiencies
are achieved and value is added as the
distribution channels bridge supply and
demand. Demand is progressively concen-
trated throughout the market by the travel
agents and wholesalers, and is then dis-
persed through the multiplicity of suppli-
ers. Conversely, the product is progressively

Market

Coachline
Destination

Consumers Intermediaries Suppliers

Accommodation
Sourcing Product
Suppliers

Buying Selling
Distributing Product

Info Info
Info
advice negotiation
advice
Attraction

booking booking
booking
Dest 3

payment payment
TA

payment
title title
title
sorting
Airline

Information
advice
negotiation
IBO
WS
TA

Dest 2

booking
KEY: TA-Travel Agent WS-Wholesaler IBO-Inbound Operatar

payment
sorting transfer of title sorting
bundling bundling
Intermediaries
TA

Airlines Coachlines

Info
Dest 1

advice
booking
payment
title

Concentration of Demand Concentration of Product

Dispersal of Product Dispersal of Demand

Fig. 7.12. Representation of distribution functions for packaged tours. Source: Reprinted from Annals of
Tourism Research 35, Pearce, D.G. (2008a) A needs–functions model of tourism distribution, pp. 148–168.
Copyright (2008) with permission from Elsevier.

concentrated by the actions of the inbound
operators and wholesalers until an all-
inclusive package is available for sale in a
suburban travel agency to an individual
consumer. From a supply chain perspec-
tive, Fig. 7.12 could also be extended to
include the inputs into the providers shown,
that is, who supplies what to the accommo-
dation, transport and attraction providers.
While much of the literature in this
field refers to package tourism, there is also
a growing body of research that deals with
other products and segments, such as inde-
pendent leisure travel, business travel or
convention travel (Pearce, 2010b). This has
led to research that stresses the importance
of multiple distribution channels in tourism
and schematic depictions of these as parallel
channels of varying depth (Fig. 7.13). Figure
7.13 depicts the diversity of channels used
by independent leisure travellers staying in
chain hotels in Wellington, New Zealand
(Pearce et al., 2004). Most of the domestic
leisure demand there is handled by direct
sales; indirect channels are mainly used to
reach the smaller number of international
travellers. The indirect channels vary in
CRO
Third party
web site
Independent leisure traveller
Travel agent
Travel agent
Travel agent
Travel agent
Direct seller
Fig. 7.13. Distribution channels for chain hotels in Wellington, New Zealand: independent leisure travellers.
CRO, chain’s central reservation office; GDS, global distribution system. Source: Pearce et al. (2004).
Process Frameworks 123
type and depth, with up to five tiers of
intermediaries being identified from the
perspective of the individual property.
The range of channels reflects technologi-
cal developments whereby the more con-
ventional travel agent–wholesaler–inbound
operator has been complemented or bypassed
by a series of electronic intermediaries,
including global distribution systems (GDS),
the chain’s central reservation office (CRO)
and third party web sites. Other sets of
channels are used by corporate travellers,
conference delegates and inbound tour
groups.
Much of the research on tourism distri-
bution has focused on these structural ele-
ments, identifying on a tier-by-tier basis the
specific sets of channels for particular desti-
nations or sectors, especially hotels and
airlines, and the marketing implications of
these (Pearce, 2009c, 2010b). Kracht and
Wang (2010) provide a general overview of
the evolution and transformation of tourism
distribution channels from the pre-World
Wide Web era (before 1993) through to 2009,
showing the changes in the process brought
about by the advent of the Web, and the
Switch
company
Wholesaler
Inbound
Individual property
operator
Third party
web site Switch
company
CRO
Switch
GDS
company
Switch Hotel rep
GDS CRO
company company
CRO
Inbound
operator
124 Chapter 7
emergence of online travel agents, meta-
search engines and other innovations.
Distribution channels have also been used
as a framework to examine behavioural
issues and buyer–seller relationships. These
studies have tended to focus on particular
pairs of channel members, for example, tour
operators and hotels, and take either an
adversarial or cooperative approach (Pearce,
2009c). It is only relatively recently that the
distribution behaviour of tourists has been
set in the context of distribution (Pearce
and Schott, 2005); much of the related work
has been viewed from the perspective of
information search and consumer behav-
iour using the decision-making frameworks
discussed in the previous section. The
multi-member, multiple channel process of
tourism distribution also creates challenges
for developing tourism strategies and for
evaluating the performance of these (Pearce
and Taniguchi, 2008; Pearce, 2009b). While
much of the distribution channels work
such as this has dealt with research prob-
lems within or along the channels, distribu-
tion channels can also be used as a
framework to structure studies on other
issues. Pearce (2002b), for example,
employed such a framework to prepare a
national market report on New Zealand
holiday travel to Samoa, which identified
and highlighted differences in the percep-
tion of the destination among tourists,
carriers and intermediaries.
Researchers taking a value or supply
chain as their framework have used such
frameworks to address different sorts of
management issues. Weiermair (2005), for
example, uses a value chain framework to
analyse the potential for innovation by
tourism stakeholders, arguing (p. 64) that
‘the big advantage of the tourism value
chain is the fact that while “manufactur-
ing” or “staging” a tourism product which
is holistically perceived and consumed by
the tourist, it helps to analyse in detail the
various steps of a tourism product includ-
ing, all service providers’. In a similar fash-
ion, Yilmaz and Bititci (2006) suggest that
the framework might be used to take a more
comprehensive approach to measuring per-
formance from the win order stage to the
post-delivery support phase of the chain,
while Schwartz et al. (2008) propose a
sustainable supply chain management
framework for tour operators. Zhang et al.
(2009) develop a theoretical framework for
tourism supply chain management and,
after reviewing the critical management
issues, outline a research agenda including
such matters as decision variables, perform-
ance measurement and methodological
issues. In their preliminary analysis of
culinary supply chains for farmers’ mar-
kets, festivals and restaurants, Smith and
Xiao (2008) provide an interesting empiri-
cal example of the breadth of enterprises
involved when suppliers’ suppliers are
included in the supply chain.
Studies employing commodity chains
as a framework to examine the role of tour-
ism in the development of Third World
countries have tended to focus on issues of
asymmetries of power, governance and the
economic benefits accruing in different
parts of the chain and, in so doing, to ques-
tion the contribution that global chains
dominated by tour operators, airlines and
international hotel consortia make to the
development of the destinations in question
(Clancy, 1998; Mosedale, 2006; Lapeyre,
2011). Lapeyre (2011), for example, elabo-
rates on the inequality of power relations
between international tour operators and
local operators in Namibia by analysing the
distribution of economic surplus along the
commodity chain. However, as Mitchell
and Faal (2007, p. 453) point out in the case
of Gambia: ‘Without international tour oper-
ators and airline companies, there would be
no value chain’. In the case of tourism from
Holland [the Netherlands] to Turkey, Erkuş-
Öztürk and Terhos (2010) propose a more
nuanced categorization of tourism value
chains in which they recognize six different
modes of governance ranging from ‘power
player’ to ‘personal networker’. Earlier, four
different types of sex tourism commodity
chains in Cuba had been identified by
Clancy (2002). Whatever perspective they
are adopting, these researchers all take the
view that their problem can best be under-
stood by looking across the chain as a whole
to better understand the process involved.
 Process Frameworks
Clancy (2002, p. 83), for example, concluded
that: ‘Sex tourism to Cuba is best under-
stood not in isolation, but as part of a larger
global process. Commodity chain analysis
aids in understanding the links between the
activity in Cuba with that larger process.’
Rather than decry the dominance of external
enterprises, recent research on commodity
chains is also being used more pro-actively
as a framework to identify opportunities for
local suppliers to participate in tourism
development.
Cycles
The process frameworks outlined above are
based on a series of successive stages. Some
of these frameworks have an implicit or
explicit cyclical element, which may be
expressed in different ways. The concept of
a life cycle with a beginning, several evolu-
tionary stages and an end point has been
variously applied to tourist areas (Butler,
1980) and customer service (Piccoli et al.,
2004). Several of the tourist decision-
making frameworks based on Clawson and
Knetsch’s (1966) total experience model are
inherently cyclic in nature as tourists com-
plete their journey and return to their home
area, from which they may make subsequent
trips. The feedback loops in some of the
planning frameworks also indicate the itera-
tive nature of this activity (Fig. 7.6). In other
instances, more explicit cycles are proposed
that depict the recurring nature of the
sequence of phases being considered, that
is, the process may be continuous and
ongoing.
These differences can be seen in the
stream of literature that has begun to emerge
dealing with crisis and disaster manage-
ment in tourism. Several of the early papers
drew on the wider literature to propose
tourism crisis/disaster management frame-
works structured around various phases in
the crisis/disaster process and the correspond-
ing management responses (Faulkner, 2001;
Ritchie, 2004). The last of these phases is
variously depicted as review or resolution,
evaluation and feedback, whereby lessons
125
learned are fed back into the initial preven-
tion phase. Ritchie (2004) suggests that the
amount of learning that occurs depends on
the extent to which this learning is single or
double loop, with the latter involving a par-
adigmatic shift in organizational culture
and the incorporation of new understand-
ing into prevention and planning. These
are effectively stepwise process frameworks
with a feedback loop. Based on an empiri-
cal longitudinal study of management
responses to a forest fire disaster, Hystad
and Keller (2008) presented a destination
tourism disaster management cycle that
portrays a more explicit cyclic process
(Fig. 7.14). Figure 7.14 considers the emer-
gency preparedness of various stakeholders
– tourism organizations, tourism businesses
and emergency organizations – before a
disaster, their responses during the disas-
ter, actions after the disaster has occurred,
and review and revision of disaster man-
agement plans, which enables experiences
to be shared so as to improve preparedness
for future disasters. The effectiveness of
incorporating any new preparatory and
preventive measures cannot really be
assessed until disaster strikes again and the
cycle resumes. One of the research chal-
lenges here is the length of the cycles in
question and the unpredictable nature of
disasters.
Policy making is another domain in
which a cyclical framework has been
applied to simplify the process and
explain its dynamics (Pforr, 2001, 2005).
The policy-making process is commonly
divided into five phases: from agenda
setting through formulation, decision
making and implementation to evaluation
and review (Fig. 7.15). While the process
may end after the evaluation, this fifth
phase often leads to another round of
agenda setting or to reformulation as a
new policy cycle begins. As with other
process models, the boundaries between
the five phases in the real world may over-
lap rather than be clear-cut and the model
has been criticised for lacking ‘efficient
power to explain what factors drive the
policy process from one phase to the next’
(Pforr, 2005, p. 333).
126 Chapter 7

DISASTER
Primary: Emergency Organizations (EO)
- Emergency responses.
- Communicate with TO and TB.
- Establish media response center.
Secondary Tourism Organizations (TO)
Support: - Communicate with EO.
- Communicate and update TB.
- Support media communications.
- Create tourists information line.
Tertiary Tourism Businesses (TB)
Support: -Implement individual disaster plans.
- Update tourists on situation.
- Communicate with TO and EO.

PRE-DISASTER POST-DISASTER
Primary: Emergency Organizations (EO) Primary: Tourism Organizations (TO)
- Develop and communicate disaster strategy. -Fine tune marketing response.
- Develop warning systems. -Establish recovery marketing.
- Coordinate plan with TO (and TB?). -Communicate with TB.
Secondary Tourism Organizations (TO) -Continue tourist info line (?).
Support: - Develop media and marketing strategy. Tourism Businesses (TB)
Secondary
- Coordinate planning with TB. -Communicate issues with TO.
- Facilitate communications between EO and TB. Support:
-Stay in contact with clientele.
Tertiary Tourism Businesses (TB)
-Conduct individual recovery marketing.
Support: - Develop individual plans.
- Communicate plan with employees. Tertiary Emergency Organizations (EO)
- Communicate with TO (and EO?). Support: -Situation review.

RESOLUTION

TO

SHARE
EXPERIENCES
EO TB

Review and Revision of Disaster

Management Plans

Fig. 7.14. Stakeholder roles within a destination tourism disaster management cycle as reported by tourism
businesses 2½ years following a major forest fire disaster. Source: Reprinted from Tourism Management 29,
Hystad, P.W. and Keller, P.C. (2008) Towards a destination tourism disaster management framework: Long-term
lessons from a forest fire disaster, pp. 151–162. Copyright (2008) with permission from Elsevier.

Also, of course, much of this book has Other Processes

been structured with reference to the cyclical
nature of the research process outlined in
Chapter 1 (Fig. 1.3). While subsequent chap-
ters and examples have shown variations in
the general process and some blurring of the
transition from one phase to another, what
is particularly important in the early and
latter stages of the research cycle is the way
in which research moves forward more
readily and the cumulative body of knowl-
edge is built up more effectively by the use
of theoretical, conceptual and integrative
frameworks, which enable individual stud-
ies to be linked explicitly to earlier work
and which generate more directed questions
for future study.
Process frameworks are not, of course,
restricted to the five main themes discussed
above, but are also to be found in other
spheres of tourism research, where the
dominant research question relates to how
something unfolds or develops or what
stage something has reached. Examples
from two vastly different domains illustrate
this point. Taking a different approach from
the distribution frameworks discussed
above, Larson and Ankomah (2004) adopted
the extended Model of Internet Commerce
Adoption Model (eMICA) to evaluate the
degree of sophistication of selected US
state/territory tourism organization web
 Process Frameworks 127

Formulation

Agenda setting Decision making

Policy
cycle

Evaluation Implementation
& review

Fig. 7.15. The policy cycle. Source: Pforr, C. (2001) Tourism policy in Australia’s Northern Territory – a policy
process analysis of its Tourism Development Masterplan. Current Issues in Tourism 4, 275–307. Reprinted
by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).

sites. The eMICA framework proposes three
stages in the development of commercial
web site complexity – promotion, provision
of information and processing – whereby
organizations go from having a mere pres-
ence on the Web to offering a fully fledged
interactive site providing a range of transac-
tion functions. Larson and Ankomah
focused not on how the web sites evolved,
but rather on what stage had been reached
across the organizations examined – all had
reached Stage 2 (provision of information)
but Stage 3 (processing) was less evident as
the states and territories focus primarily on
promotion and information provision rather
than on selling.
In contrast, Hottola (2004) took a
grounded theory approach to examining the
process of intercultural adaptation among
backpackers. He begins by discussing the
limitations of the use of Oberg’s (1960)
U-curve of culture shock in sojourner stud-
ies. According to the U-curve hypothesis,
intercultural adaptation involves five stages:
euphoria, disillusionment, hostility (the
nadir of the U), adaptation and assimilation.
Hottola suggested that although widely
cited, there was little empirical support for the
U-curve hypothesis, and that in the context
of international tourism, other courses of
events were possible, indeed more likely.
He argued that the concept of culture shock
and the associated emphasis on depression
was inappropriate, preferring instead the
notion of intercultural adaptation with a
main focus on learning. Hottola presents a
two part ‘culture confusion framework’. In
the ‘initial culture confusion’ stage confu-
sion is represented as the overlap between
the euphoria and disillusionment that
occurs when tourists first experience a new
cultural environment. Once they have
acquired some basic knowledge of this new
environment, they experience a phase of
‘adaptation and opposition’. Confusion may
still occur, but tourists may respond more
positively and adapt and integrate, or react
negatively and leave; commonly, they will
experience both success and failure in the
learning process. Other elements are also
built into the framework, notably ‘meta-
worlds’, places of ‘restricted realities’,
familiar enclaves to which visitors may
retreat to relax before returning to the ‘real’
world. Hottola (2004, p. 459), reports
‘according to the grounded field analysis,
there are no gradual stages but a continuum
of developments’.
128 Chapter 7
Discussion and Conclusions
The widespread use of process frameworks
in tourism research reflects their general
utility in helping us to understand the
dynamics of tourism and the changes that
are occurring, whether in terms of destina-
tion development, planning, tourist deci-
sion making, distribution or institutional
policy making. In the examples that have
been presented in this chapter, the frame-
works have been used in various ways and
perform different functions at various
phases of the research cycle (Fig. 1.3). While
some of the studies cited begin to apply par-
ticular theories – such as chaos and trans-
formation theory – to tourism (McKercher,
1999; Russell and Faulkner, 1999; Cole,
2009; McLennan et al., 2010), and some
of the frameworks, for example that in
Fig. 7.10, are embedded in lower level theory,
few of the frameworks presented here are
theoretical in the sense discussed in Chapter 2.
More commonly, these process frameworks
serve as conceptual and analytical frame-
works, shaping the way in which the
research is being designed and carried out
(e.g. Figs 7.1, 7.9, 7.14). Numerous studies
of destination development have been struc-
tured around the TALC (Butler, 2006). As an
established framework, the TALC is gener-
ally presented early on in the studies as a
structure to guide investigation into how
particular areas have developed, and to see
whether the cases conform to the model or
to suggest variations on it. Pforr (2001, p. 280)
employs the policy cycle depicted in
Fig. 7.15 ‘as an analytical tool which not
only reduces the complex nature of tourism
policy making but also reflects the dynam-
ics of the TDMP [Tourism Development
Masterplan]’. Many of the planning frame-
works are used to order the sequence of
research and other activities associated with
formulating and implementing tourism plans
(see Figs 7.6–7.8); the decision-making
models often focus attention on which part
of the decision-making process is to be
examined, and commodity chains are used
to structure research on broader develop-
ment issues. Other conceptual frameworks
are the outcome of empirical work and are
being used to communicate generalized
processes, such as Lewis’s (1998) model of
rural tourism development (presented in
Fig. 7.3), Pearce’s (2008a) schematic repre-
sentation of the distribution functions for
packaged tourism (portrayed in Fig. 7.12)
and Hystad and Keller’s (2008) tourism
disaster management cycle (Fig 7.14).
Frameworks may also indicate directions
for further research (Zhang et al., 2009).
Hottola (2004, p. 461) concludes his pres-
entation and discussion of the culture
confusion framework by observing that:
‘A framework such as this is, after all, just
a starting point for deeper analysis, a basic
premise to be established before exploring
the multitude of cases’. The juxtaposition
of these different frameworks also sug-
gests that there is scope for considering
connections between them, for instance
between the demand-oriented tourist
decision-making frameworks and the pre-
dominantly supply-focused distribution
frameworks.
Despite their general application, these
process frameworks should not be used
uncritically, and care needs to be taken with
the way in which they are structured and
interpreted. The different approaches to
and interpretation of the pattern of develop-
ment on the Gold Coast of Australia, for
instance, is a function of the different frame-
works used (Russell and Faulkner, 1999;
Prideaux, 2000). Much of the debate regard-
ing development frameworks, and the TALC
in particular, concerns whether they are
simply descriptive models of what has hap-
pened, whether there is only a single trajec-
tory of development and what predictive
value they may have for planners (Weaver,
2000; Butler, 2006). In terms of addressing
issues of unilinearity, scope exists for cross-
fertilization among these various applica-
tions of process frameworks. Stewart and
Vogt’s (1999) ideas about plan actuation and
expecting change with travellers’ plans, for
example, might be extended into destina-
tion planning and development. As demon-
strated by the explicit transitional
components in Fig. 7.3, Pforr’s (2005) obser-
vations on the policy cycle, and the intro-
duction to Fig. 1.3, there is a growing
 Process Frameworks
recognition that progression from one stage
to the next is not always clear-cut and that
these frameworks are being used to give
structure to understanding what can often
be a messy and complicated world.
More generally, the seven elements out-
lined by Johnston (2006) at the beginning of
this chapter provide a useful checklist of
points for refining and strengthening proc-
ess frameworks. Particular attention might
be focused on the various dimensions of
change, that is, on the internal characteris-
tics that are changing (or, indeed, remaining
stable), the mechanisms that are driving
change and the macrostructural conditions
129
under which change occurs. Development
process frameworks in particular would
benefit from more explicit recognition of
macrostructural conditions and external
forces, features which are notably absent
from most TALC studies. With more knowl-
edge about these elements, we will not only
have a better understanding of what is
changing but also why the process occurs.
This, in turn, may provide us with a better
theoretical understanding of these proc-
esses as well give us more direction in terms
of which interventions may be needed or
prove to be more effective if modifications
to the process are to be sought.
 8
Systems, Networks and Composite
Frameworks
Systems and networks constitute a further
set of frameworks, one characterized by the
configuration and interrelationships of a
greater number of elements or variables
than are usually found with matrices and
process frameworks. The concern here is
generally with developing a more compre-
hensive approach to the study of tourism, or
researching particular problems by empha-
sizing interdependencies and the intercon-
nectedness of multiple elements, and by
focusing on overall structures and behav-
iour. In particular, the use of systems has
considerable appeal as a means of repre-
senting and structuring the multiple parts
and multifaceted nature of tourism. Indeed,
P.L. Pearce (2005, p. 4) suggests that ‘for
most tourism researchers, a working path-
way through this definitional maze [of how
to define tourism] has been to subscribe to a
basic or core systems model of tourism’.
Systems are perhaps more diverse in char-
acter than many of the frameworks dis-
cussed in Chapters 6 and 7, but three broad
categories might be identified: demand
and supply systems, spatial systems and
complex systems. This chapter begins by
discussing the nature and use of these
systems, before attention turns to networks,
and then to composite frameworks – which
combine two or more of the basic configura-
tions discussed in earlier chapters.
130 © Douglas G. Pearce 2012. Frameworks for Tourism Research (D.G. Pearce)
Systems
The term system is used with varying
degrees of rigour but might be defined as ‘a
group of inter-related, interdependent and
interacting elements that together form a
single functional structure’ (Weaver and
Oppermann, 2000, p. 23). Following von
Bertalanffy’s general systems theory, the
emphasis here is on examining the inter-
connectedness or linkages between the ele-
ments to arrive at a greater understanding of
the structure as a whole, rather than focus-
ing on its specific elements. As Leiper (2000,
p. 570) notes: ‘The distinctive purpose of
general systems theory is to deal with any-
thing or any idea that seems complex. The
aim is to reduce complexity. . . . The strategy
for achieving this is, broadly, breaking down
a whole (thing or idea) into its elements,
and then identifying the crucial elements to
see how they are connected.’ Given this
interconnectedness, a change in one part of
the system might be expected to induce
changes elsewhere and have an impact on
the structure as a whole. Or, as Mill and
Morrison (1985) put it: ‘The system is like a
spider’s web – touch one part of it and rever-
berations will be felt throughout’.
Complexity is a term that is often used
in a general sense in relation to phenomena
made up of multiple and interrelated
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks
components. For systems, it also has a
more precise meaning. According to Baggio
(2008, pp. 3–4):
Complexity is the study of the structures
that depend only in part on the nature of
their constituents and whose global
behaviours and characteristics cannot be
deduced from the knowledge of their
elementary building blocks. Complexity
concerns the unforeseen adaptive capacities
and the emergence of new properties in
systems that arise as the quantity and quality
of the connections among individuals and
organizations increase.
A system is considered complex if its parts
interact in a nonlinear manner. . . . This
non-linearity of the interactions among the
components is a major originator of a series
of properties that are frequently used to
characterize the complex behaviour of a
system . . .
. . . a complex system can be understood only by
considering it as a whole, almost independently
by the number of parts composing it.
While the attributes of the elements con-
stituting a system are important, particular
consideration needs to be given to the nature
of the linkages or relationships involved and
the overall functioning of the system. Issues
to consider here include how these relation-
ships are expressed, how strong they are and
whether they are unidirectional or recipro-
cal, direct or indirect. Systems may be hier-
archical in nature, being composed of a set of
subsystems. They may also be regarded as
open or closed depending on whether
account is taken of the environments within
which the system is embedded – Liu (1994)
distinguishes between internal, operating
and macro environments. Consequently,
considerable variation can occur in terms of
the elements included, the ways the systems
are configured, the relationships that are
depicted and how the system as a whole is
seen to function.
Demand and supply systems
At one level, there are broad textbook
depictions of tourism systems, usually fairly
131
general in nature, which set out the funda-
mental components of tourism and the way
that these are interrelated. Mill and Morrison
(2009), for example, structure their text
around the model shown in Fig. 8.1, which
depicts a tourism system in which the sup-
ply (the destination and associated activi-
ties involved in planning, developing and
controlling tourism there) and demand (the
factors influencing the market) components
are linked by marketing activities and travel.
These components and linkages are then
elaborated in subsequent chapters, the
framework being used to contextualize
where each fits into the bigger picture. The
section on marketing includes discussion of
the role of distribution channels. Other gen-
eral demand and supply based tourism sys-
tems are reviewed by Burns and Holden
(1995). As shown in Chapter 3, these sys-
tems have also been used to conceptualize
particular forms of tourism, for example as
portrayed in Fig. 3.5 for mountain tourism.
In the context of planning, Gunn and
Var (2002, p. 34) stress that ‘every part of
tourism is related to every other part’. They
present a tourism functioning system con-
sisting of two major interrelated parts,
demand and supply, with the supply side
broken into five interdependent compo-
nents: attractions, transportation, services,
information and promotion. Gunn and Var
subsequently acknowledge a set of external
influences on the system, such as govern-
mental policies, competition and labour,
but these are not incorporated into a single
framework with the demand and supply
side components.
Briassoulis’s (2000) ‘integrated impact
analysis model’ is a variation on a supply
and demand system, one that consists of
a set of interlinked modules or subsystems
(Fig. 8.2). Briassoulis developed her model
in response to the call for a holistic approach
to the assessment of environmental impacts
and to the associated characteristics of tour-
ism, notably the complexity of the activity
and the spatially and temporally diffuse
nature of the impacts that it generates, the
fact that environmental resources are both
attractions and receptors of residuals, the
dynamic nature of the industry and the way
132 Chapter 8

Part 1. Destination:
Planning, Developing, and
Controlling Tourism
An identification of the procedures Link 4 -
m Product that destination areas follow to set The
uris policies, plan, control, develop and
Sh
e To

ap
cater to tourism, with an emphasis
h

eo
-T

on sustainable tourism

f Tr
1
Link

avel
Part 2. Marketing:
Strategy, Planning, Promotion
and Distribution Part 4. Travel:
An examination of the process by The Characteristics of Travel
which destination areas and tourism A description of major travel
businesses market services and facilities segments, travel flows and
to potential customers with an emphasis modes of transportation used
on the effective use of promotion and
distribution channels
Lin k 2 - T

h ase
Part 3. Demand:
The Factors Influencing the Market

u rc
A consumer behaviour approach to market

lP
e
h

demand emphasizing the internal and

ve
Pr a
om external influences on travellers, including Tr
o ti o n he
of Travel needs, motivation and perception, the T
alternatives to travel, the marketing by Link 3 -
tourism organizations and the process
by which travellers make buying decisions

Fig. 8.1. The tourism system model. Source: Mill, R.C. and Morrison, A.M. (2009) The Tourism System, 6th
edition. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Reproduced with permission from the publisher.

SOCIETAL MODULE

REGIONAL PROFILE TOURIST PROFILE

• Demographic • Volume EXOGENOUS INFORMATION
• Social • Origin
• Policy • Age/sex profile

ECONOMIC MODULE INTER-

FACING ENVIRONMENTAL
MODULE MODULE
Tourism-related
sectors
Resources Regional
utilization resources
Other Inter-industry model inventory
sectors model

Residuals Resources Residuals

Induced impact impact
development generation
model model model

Fig. 8.2. The integrated impact analysis model. Source: Briassoulis, H. (2000) Environmental impacts of tourism:
a framework for analysis and evaluation. Figure 3, in H. Briassoulis (ed.) Tourism and the Environment:
Regional, Economic, Cultural and Policy Issues. Copyright (2000) Kluwer Academic Publishers, with kind
permission from Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks 133

in which it may induce further develop- modelling the environmental impacts of

ment. In developing a conceptual frame-
work, Briassoulis draws on the materials
balance model, which postulates that the
economic system interacts with the envi-
ronment by using environmental resources
as inputs to production and consumption,
and by disposing of residuals into the envi-
ronment. Two of the modules in Fig. 8.2, the
societal and the economic, are basically
demand subsystems that interact with
each other to create, via the interfacing
module, demand for regional resources from
the environmental or supply module. The
function of the interfacing module is to
‘translate the output of the economic mod-
ule into (1) demand for resources of various
types by means of a resources utilisation
model, and (2) quantities of residuals gener-
ated, by means of a residuals generation
model’ (Briassoulis, 2000, p. 28). Finally,
exogenous information is fed from the
fifth (external) subsystem into the societal,
economic and environmental modules.
While stressing the advantages of such a
systematic and comprehensive approach to
tourism, Briassoulis also acknowledged
challenges with the framework she pro-
poses; these include access to appropriate
data, identifying the source of multiple
impacts and being able to attribute these to
tourism or other activities.
In contrast to Briassoulis (2000), who
did not take her framework beyond the con-
ceptual stage, Boers and Cottrell (2007) offer
a demand and supply system of tourism in
protected areas (PAs), which they opera-
tionalized as part of a three-phase tourism
infrastructure planning exercise in Sri
Lanka. They argue (p. 4) that ‘the advantage
of using a system approach to tourism plan-
ning is that it allows all elements to be
defined, analysed, planned and managed in
a coherent way, while accounting for the
dynamics within the system’. Given the
focus of their problem, sustainable tourism
in protected areas, Boers and Cottrell’s sys-
tem is centred on the natural, cultural and
economic resource base, which sits between
the demand and supply side elements
(Fig. 8.3). Management is identified (p. 4) as

Demand

7 9
8

Natural, cultural,
External 5 PA
and economic 6
Factors Management
resource base

4 4 4

Transportation Attraction Service

Supply Supply Supply

3 3
2 2 2

Fig. 8.3. A sustainable tourism system. PA, protected area. Source: Boers, B. and Cottrell, S. (2007) Sustainable
tourism infrastructure planning: a GIS-supported approach. Tourism Geographies 9, 1–21. Reprinted by
permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).
134 Chapter 8
‘the control point in the system responsible to
monitor change in supply, demand, external
factors and the resource base, while managing –
based on feedback and evaluation from
monitoring – both supply and demand’.
Moreover, Fig. 8.3 shows an open system in
which external factors are incorporated.
One of the more notable features of this fig-
ure is that Boers and Cotterell elaborate on
the nature of the reciprocal interlinkages
between the elements of the system in a set
of accompanying footnotes, though no detail
is provided on how to measure these empir-
ically. However, Boers and Cottrell do go on
to demonstrate how the system depicted in
Fig. 8.2 might be operationalized. Supported
by GIS, their empirical study included the
segmentation of demand into ‘nature’ and
‘culture’ visitors; zoning of the resource
base using carrying-capacity indicators; and
transportation network planning involving
trails directing visitors to zones that provide
a satisfying visitor experience and meet
other managerial objectives.
Strickland-Munro et al. (2010) also pro-
pose a systems approach to investigate the
impacts of PA tourism on communities. In
contrast to many assessment frameworks,
which focus on the current state, Strickland-
Moore et al. stress the interdependencies
and dynamics of systems, that is, rather
than viewing many systems as being in bal-
ance, they are conceptualized (p. 505) ‘as
being far from equilibrium where small
changes in any one factor may cause the
system to cross a threshold or tipping point’.
As a result, Strickland-Moore et al. under-
line the need to take account of the way in
which systems are continually adapting in
response to drivers and disturbances. They
advocate the use of resilience thinking as an
approach to do this and put forward a con-
ceptual framework involving a four-phase
resilience assessment process.
A completely different set of relation-
ships is represented in McGehee’s (2007)
agritourism systems model (Fig. 8.4). This
portrays a system incorporating three sets of
stakeholders: agritourists (demand), agritour-
ism providers (supply) and DMOs (destina-
tion marketing organizations), who act as
distributors. McGehee draws on Weber’s
theory of formal and substantive rationality
to suggest that the three stakeholder groups
will have different needs and motivations
and that a successful agritourism system will
require different types of relationships.
Formal rationality involves achieving goals
through efficiency, for example farmers off-
setting falling agricultural income by taking
in visitors to earn additional revenue.
Substantive rationality, in contrast, ‘describes
choices motivated by a particular philosoph-
ical bent, sense of morality, or simply a vision
for societal change’ (McGehee, 2007, p. 113).
Examples include agritourists taking farm
stays to spend time with their families or
farmers wanting to educate the public about
agriculture. Obstacles to participation are
also identified and the need for effective
communication between parties is stressed.
McGehee (p. 118) argues that ‘if an under-
standing is reached between and amongst
the three primary stakeholder groups
that each has different rationality of par-
ticipation in the model, communication
amongst the stakeholders could be greatly
increased’. While the framework is not
operationalized, McGehee uses it to develop
research questions.
Spatial systems
Other tourism systems, particularly those
developed by geographers, are more explic-
itly spatial in structure. These take two main
forms: one set develops the concept of tour-
ism as a form of spatial interaction depicted
by means of an origin–linkage–destination
system; the second takes a scalar perspec-
tive and considers tourism at a range of
interconnected scales. These categories are
not mutually exclusive – some origin–linkage–
destination systems include a multi-scale
dimension.
Origin–linkage–destination systems
Studies depicting tourism as an origin–
linkage–destination system were among
the earliest attempts by geographers to
model the structure of tourism (Pearce,
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks 135

Stakeholder Successful Agritourism System

OBSTACLES TO PARTICIPATING IN AGRITOURISM SYSTEM

Groups Stakeholders communicating
and engaging in mutually
Agritourists beneficial relationships
Needs
Agritourists Communication
Motivations
Characteristics obstacles
Formal–Substantive
Mix Relationship

Communication
Agritourism obstacles
providers Agritourism
Needs providers
Motivations Substantive
Relationship

Formally-Rational
Relationship

DMOs Communication
Needs DMOs obstacles
Best Practices

Research question 1: Research question 2: Research question 3:

What are the needs and
motivations of each agri-
tourism stakeholder group?
How is their rationality
formal, substantive, or both?
What obstacles does each stake- What obstacles weaken communication
holder group face in fulfilling its role among agritourism stakeholder groups? How
in the successful agritourism can these obstacles be reduced or
system? How can these obstacles eliminated? How might the recognition of the
be reduced or eliminated? rationality of each relationship (formal,
substantive, or a mix of both) improve
communication amongst the groups?

Fig. 8.4. An agritourism systems model. DMOs, destination marketing organizations. Source: McGehee,
N.G. (2007) An agritourism systems model: A Weberian perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15,
111–124. Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).

1995b). These models appear to have been components. Leiper’s (1979) model is
largely developed independently of one one of the more widely known of the
another and the various writers have given flow models. It takes a whole systems
emphasis to different parts of the system. approach and shows generating regions
Three basic groups of these models might be linked by flows of departing and
identified: returning tourists who visit destination
regions via transit routes. Overlaid on
• Models emphasizing the linkage com- this is the tourist industry, depicted
ponent expressed in terms of flows of graphically in very general terms in the
tourists or different route configura- model, but elaborated in the accompa-
tions (Campbell, 1967; Mariot, 1969; nying text as comprising six sectors:
Leiper, 1979; Zurick, 1992; McKercher marketing, carriers, accommodation,
and Lew, 2004). In their overview, attractions, miscellaneous services and
McKercher and Lew (2004) identify regulation. Leiper’s model also shows
four dominant itinerary types and three the tourism system as operating within
sets of transit and destination touring a broader set of environments.
136 Chapter 8

• Origin–destination models in which to some resort enclave. Movement may

places are seen to have both a generating occur between such enclaves, but only
and a receiving function; that is, places, limited travel occurs to other areas.
in varying degrees, are both origins and Writing from a dependency theory
destinations, and consequently sets of perspective, Britton emphasizes the
places experience reciprocal flows of structural weaknesses inherited from
visitors (e.g. Miossec, 1976; Lundgren, colonial times that enable multina-
1982). tional companies to impose themselves
• Structural models in which origins and on dependent destinations. In particu-
destinations are linked not only by visi- lar, he stresses the dominant role of
tor flows but also by the underlying metropolitan-based air carriers, which
industry sectors (airlines, tour opera- can effectively and selectively control
tors, multinational hotel chains) that the links between the market and the
make such flows possible, indeed, may destination. Multinational corporations
even control them (Hills and Lundgren, may also provide many of the facilities
1977; Britton, 1980; Cazes, 1980). In within the destinations in the form of
Britton’s model (Fig. 8.5), the market is purpose-built resort enclaves, which
concentrated upwards through the fulfil most of the package tourist’s
local–regional–national hierarchy, with wants and remove the need for further
the international transfer occurring interaction with the local society and
between the national urban centres in environment. Some of the commodity
the generating and receiving countries. chain studies discussed in Chapter 7
Dispersal within the peripheral desti- might also be considered as coming
nation is more restricted, with tourists into this category because they stress
moving from their point of arrival out the spatiality of the processes in a

Tourist Tourist
National industry industry National
urban national national urban
centres offices offices centres

Urban
areas
Advertising

Regional Tourist Tourist

urban industry industry Resort Resort Resort
regional regional enclave enclave enclave
centres offices offices

Tourist
attraction

Tourist Tourist
attraction attraction

Suburb Rural Market

Town s
Tourist
attraction

L oc al s
T o u ris t I n d u s tr y A g e n c i e Rural
areas

Market Product
Metropole Periphery nation

Fig. 8.5. An enclave model of tourism in a peripheral economy. Source: Redrawn from Britton (1980).
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks 137

development context (Clancy 1998, 2002; administrative divisions (Pearce, 1992b;

Mosedale 2006). Judd (2006, p. 130) Lovelock and Boyd, 2006), but are best
suggests that a geographical focus could considered as constructs, as ways of con-
be used to study ‘where and why com- ceptualizing society or space. Frequently,
modity chains “touch down”’. however, these constructs are taken for
granted; there is little conceptualization of
Some general features do emerge from
scale nor much explicit discussion or defi-
these disparate frameworks (Pearce, 1995b).
nition of where the break points in the scales
First, the basic geographic concept of
occur, for example, of where the bounds of
distance decay, whereby the volume of tour-
the local lie. Various facets of scale have
ist traffic decreases with distance away from
been recognized by geographers: scale as
the generating area, is embedded in several
size; scale as level in a hierarchy; scale as a
of the models. Secondly, reciprocity is another
network independent of territory; and scale
important systemic feature, with areas
as relation (Howitt, 1998; Gutiérrez Puebla,
having, in varying degrees, both generating
2001).
and receiving functions, and thus two-way
Scale as level is used primarily as an
linkages. Thirdly, the notion of a spatial
ordering device. Pearce’s (1995b) book on
hierarchy is also central to the structure and
the geography of tourism is organized in
functioning of many of these models.
terms of spatial scale: patterns of interna-
Conceptualizations of these geographi-
tional travel are considered before intrana-
cal systems of tourism have been criticized
tional and domestic flows are analysed; the
for insufficiently incorporating industry ele-
analysis of the spatial structure of tourism at
ments and for not providing an adequate
national and regional levels precedes exami-
account of the commercial or theoretical
nation of that for islands, resorts and urban
functioning of the systems depicted (Britton,
areas. Different methods and sources of data
1991; Stabler, 1991). They have, however,
are used at each scale. From a marketing
provided a useful basis for empirical analyses
perspective, Buhalis and Cooper (1998)
of tourist flows and for exploring the multi-
argue that small and medium tourism enter-
ple functions of tourism nodes (Flognfeldt,
prises (SMTEs) often take a very myopic
1999; Lew and McKercher, 2002; Lohmann
approach to competition and that they need
and Pearce, 2010). By revealing more clearly
to recognize that their competition comes at
the various functions that different places
a range of spatial scales and in a variety of
play for different travel segments and in
forms, not just from other local tourism pro-
different itineraries, such studies are starting
viders. To illustrate the need to take account
to put more emphasis on aspects of the
of the wider competitive environment,
linkage dimension and to show some of the
Buhalis and Cooper present a ‘competition
conceptual and practical limitations in gener-
pyramid’ centred on the SMTEs and show-
ically treating all places visited by tourists as
ing five levels of competition:
‘destinations’, and ignoring more specific
functions associated with gateways, hubs and Level 1. Competition from similar products
stopover locations. and service providers at a destination
Level 2. Competition from similar or undif-
ferentiated destinations
Scalar systems Level 3. Competition from differentiated
destinations
A second set of spatial systems is structured
Level 4. Competition in the distribution
according to scale. Such frameworks vary
channel
in terms of the number and type of scales or
Level 5. Competition with alternative leisure
levels of analysis. Geographical research is
activities
commonly structured in terms of local
areas, regions, nations and world regions. In a rather different context, James and
These scales may reflect realities, for exam- Wild (2007) develop a multi-scale tourism
ple, organizational structures or existing thematic interpretation framework that
138 Chapter 8
identifies key themes from the national to
the site-specific, and show how this might
be used to link site-specific stories to more
generic themes.
In terms of spatial systems, it is the
relational dimension of scale that is critical.
Two types of relational approaches struc-
tured around scale might be identified. In
the first, the object of analysis and/or the
way it is studied is seen to vary from one
scale to another in a nested or hierarchical
fashion that provides a framework for better
understanding the phenomenon as a whole
or some aspect of it. As Howitt (1998, p. 55)
observes: ‘in a geographical totality, many
elements will remain consistent in a geo-
graphical analysis that spans across differ-
ent geographical scales. What changes in
such analysis is not the elements themselves
(the features of a landscape, the sites
involved in a production process . . .), but
the relationships that we perceive between
them and the ways in which we might
emphasize specific elements for analytical
attention.’ Gutiérrez Puebla (2001) illus-
trates this point for tourism in Mallorca.
He suggests that at a European or even at a
global level, air transport is the dominant
concern. At the local scale, attention might
be given to other themes, such as the impact
of tourism on employment or on the envi-
ronment. At this smaller scale, air transport
might be treated as an externality. Lovelock
and Boyd (2006) used a macro–meso–micro
framework to assess the influence of central,
regional and local government policies and
agencies on collaboration in destination
management across local authority bounda-
ries in a small peripheral New Zealand des-
tination, the Catlins. Their study showed
that policy, resources and legislative imped-
iments at different levels, together with a
lack of local consensus over what consti-
tutes ‘the Catlins’ and disagreement over
ownership of the attractions, limited the
effectiveness of cross-border planning and
management.
A second and more common relational
approach is to explicitly investigate and
explain the linkages between phenomena at
different scales, with a focus on the strength,
direction (top down, bottom up) and nature
(power, resources, mandate . . .) of these
relationships. Aspects of this approach have
already been raised for Figs 5.1 (which rep-
resents an integrative framework for urban
tourism research) and 8.5, and in the
discussion of globalization in Chapter 2.
Writers emphasizing the global–local nexus
recognize not only the scope to examine
problems at different scales, but also the
need to explore the interconnections
between these. Milne and Ateljevic (2001,
pp. 371–372) argue that ‘tourism, in simple
terms, must be viewed as a transaction proc-
ess which is at once driven by the global
priorities of multi-national corporations,
geo-political forces and broader forces of
economic change, and the complexities of
the local – where residents, visitors, work-
ers, governments and entrepreneurs interact
at the industry “coal-face”’. They advance
their ideas regarding tourism and economic
development with reference to a hierarchi-
cal framework that incorporates explicit
inter-scale interactions (Fig. 8.6).
In an similar manner, Agarwal (2005)
re-conceptualizes changes in English coastal
resorts as an outcome of global–local inter-
actions expressed in a scalar framework
that, she asserts, enables a more detailed
assessment of the factors influencing resort
change. This includes consideration of the
mutual constitution of the global and the
local, and recognition of the importance of
place characteristics, the relevance of differ-
ent forms of local assertion and the nature
of local action. In particular, in contrast to
some of the more inwardly focused resort
development frameworks discussed earlier,
such as Butler’s (1980) TALC model,
Agarwal’s approach explicitly incorporates
the interdependencies between the global
and the local, and the ways in which local
assertion may be expressed (local govern-
ance and collective action).
Other aspects of using relational geo-
graphy as a theoretical framework applied
to tourism are reviewed by Mosedale and
Albrecht (2011), who note (p. 243): ‘Such
relational thinking is particularly important
for tourism regulation as hierarchically
organized institutions (at national, regional
and local scales) aim to regulate relational,
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks 139

globalisation, NGOs, MNCs,

Global global governance

cultural traits, resource-use,

National economic regulations

regional govt, regional

Regional networks, ecosystems

local govt, tourists, workers,

Local households, firms, quality of life

Technology,
Demographics . . .

Fig. 8.6. Tourism and the global–local nexus. MNCs, multinational corporations; NGOs, non-governmental
organizations. Source: Milne, S. and Ateljevic, I. (2001) Tourism, economic development and the global–local
nexus: theory embracing complexity. Tourism Geographies 3, 369–393. Reprinted by permission of the
publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).

non-scalar processes’. In particular, draw- • There are loops in the interactions.

ing on Healey (2004), these authors offer an
interesting comparison of essentialist (tradi-
tional) and relational views of spatial scales,
though the tourism applications of this
might have been developed further.
Complex systems
Few of the systems developed in tourism
research are truly complex systems of the
sort discussed by Baggio (2008), particularly
those classified as complex adaptive sys-
tems. Following Cilliers (1998), Baggio
(p. 5) lists the characteristic properties of
these systems as:
• A large number of elements form the
system.
• Interactions among the elements are
non-linear and usually have a somewhat
short range.
• Complex systems have a history, the
‘future’ behaviour depends on the past
one.
• Each element is unaware of the behav-
iour of the system as a whole; it reacts
only to information that is available to
it locally.
Baggio suggests that, by their nature,
tourism destinations can indeed be seen as
complex systems, and goes on to discuss
their distinctive characteristics in terms of
self-organization and self-similarity, robust-
ness and resilience, and ‘edge of chaos’
behaviour. Using different examples, he then
illustrates quantitatively how these might be
analysed and measured before drawing out
at a conceptual level some of the implica-
tions for destination management.
To date, however, few attempts have
been made to model or analyse complexity in
specific tourism systems. These demonstrate
140 Chapter 8
both the challenges involved in modelling
complexity and the potential these approaches
hold for tourism planning and development,
and for increasing our understanding of tour-
ism in general if the challenges can be over-
come. One of the first such studies was that
by Walker et al. (1999, p. 60) who developed
their framework, referred to as a Tourism
Futures Simulator (TFS), to deal with the
complexity of sustainable tourism manage-
ment: ‘if we view tourism as a complex sys-
tem, it seems more likely that a large range of
activities and factors have to be managed
simultaneously for regional tourism to be
successful and sustainable in the long-term’.
They adopted a systems thinking approach,
viewed as ‘an approach to defining and for-
mulating and testing potential solutions. It
focuses on identifying the underlying causes
of problems and, through the use of computer
simulation, evaluating the consequences of
management responses and other scenarios’
(Walker et al., 1999, p. 60). After setting their
study in the context of several of the broader
systems and frameworks discussed earlier
(Butler, 1980; Mill and Morrison, 1985),
Walker et al. then discuss the seven steps
involved in building the Tourism Futures
Simulator, namely:
• understanding the stakeholder views;
• developing the concept;
• developing a simulation model;
• data integration – more than 60 factors
were included;
• building a model interface;
• establishing causal tracing; and
• developing a learning environment.
Moving from step 1 above (the mental mod-
els of the stakeholders) to step 3 (develop-
ment of the simulation model) required a
high level of abstraction to develop the basic
concept (step 2). Communication of this
concept was aided by the development of a
systems diagram which outlined the key fac-
tors, relationships and positive and negative
feedback loops that demonstrate how the
number of visitors depends on the natural
attractiveness of the focal region (Fig. 8.7).
A similar approach is taken by Jamal et al.
(2004), who report on a student exercise of
systems-based modelling for participatory
tourism planning and destination manage-
ment using the STELLA software package.
More recently, Johnson and Sieber
(2010, p. 519) have asserted that ‘the success
or failure of destinations can be considered
as a pattern that emerges from the multi-
scaled interactions of tourists, destinations
and communities. To study how these pat-
terns are formed requires an approach that is
individually based, spatial and temporal, in
that it can support the study of emergent
multiscaled patterns of impact.’ To meet
these requirements, Johnson and Sieber
developed an individual-based framework
that incorporated the generation of patterns
of impact by tourist/industry/community
interactions across a range of scales from the
local to the global, and a corresponding set
of feedback processes. They take an ABM
(agent-based modelling) approach to opera-
tionalize their framework, an approach in
which simplification of a real world system
is pursued by ‘defining simple rules to repli-
cate or explain macro level patterns and
phenomena’ (p. 521). Johnson and Sieber
acknowledge the conceptual, technological
and data challenges and limitations that this
approach presents before developing their
ABM, in which tourism is represented as a
demand and supply relationship based on
matching the accommodation and activity
preferences of the individual tourist agent
against the supply found in various destina-
tions in Nova Scotia. Other variables
included trip characteristics and tourist
awareness of a given destination. Two differ-
ent scenarios were then generated: one
investigated increased awareness of a rural
destination and revealed the impact that this
would have not only on the focal destina-
tion but also on other places; the other
increased the possible travel range of each
tourist entering the model and showed the
diffusion of visitation that might result.
Farsari et al. (2011) used cognitive map-
ping to examine complexity in policy mak-
ing for sustainable tourism in Greece. They
systematically interpreted the cognitive
maps of policy makers at four different lev-
els from the municipal to the national in
terms of the characteristic properties of
complex systems. Their analysis revealed
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks 141

biodiversity
+

visual amenity of Shire

undisturbed environment
-
land available
for other uses +
- - +

land required for tourism attractiveness of region

+ +
-
other + -
tourism infrastructure
infrastructure
+ crowding
+ +
investment
+
development related +
employment
number of visitors

+ + employment
+ visitor
destination product expenditure
marketing marketing

Fig. 8.7. Concept of the Tourism Futures Simulator. Source: Reprinted from Environmental Modelling and
Software 14, Walker, P.A. et al. (1999) The Tourism Futures Simulator: a systems thinking approach, pp. 59–67.
Copyright (1999) with permission from Elsevier.

that the situation in Greece could indeed
be interpreted as a complex one, one that
was characterized, for example, by a large
number of non-linear relationships indicat-
ing a lack of unified purpose in the system,
and by the interaction of tourism with other
policies, as would be expected in an open
system. In terms of sustainable tourism
policy, Farsari et al. concluded (p. 21) that
‘there is not an ultimate recipe, an absolute
path to sustainable tourism, nor is there a
unified, overarching purpose guiding poli-
cies. On the contrary, there are several, often
divergent perceptions, complex relation-
ships within the systems and with its
broader environment, interrelatedness of
policy issues, and multiple goals.’
Networks
Over the past decade, tourism researchers
have also turned to networks as frameworks
for examining a range of problems where
the analysis of the interconnectedness
among tourism firms and actors is increas-
ingly seen as a way of understanding such
problems as the growth of small and medium
enterprises (SMEs), innovation, distribu-
tion, planning and policy development
(Tinsley and Lynch, 2001; Pforr, 2002; Dale,
2003; Dredge, 2006; Sundbo et al., 2007;
Scott et al., 2008a). This research tends to
draw on the more established use of net-
work theory and analytical techniques from
such fields as mathematics, social network
analysis, policy network analysis and
management.
Usage and definitions of the term net-
work vary from a loose reference to social
connections to a more precise mathematical
meaning where, in graph theory, a network
consists of ‘a finite set of points linked, or
partly linked, by a set of lines (called arcs) . . .
called a net, there being no restriction on
the number of lines linking any pair of
points or on the direction of those lines’
142 Chapter 8
(Mitchell, 1969, p. 2–3, in Scott et al.,
2008a). According to Rocks et al. (2005,
p. 82): ‘The basic components of a network
are nodes and connections’. In a social sci-
ence context, nodes are replaced with actors
and connections with social ties and bonds
(Davern, 1997). Therefore, a network con-
sists of a series of different and indirect ties
from one actor to a collection of others. The
central actor can be either an individual
person or an aggregation of individuals, and
a network tie is a relation or bond between
the two. Sundbo et al. (2007, p. 92) empha-
size the connections between firms suggest-
ing that: ‘Networks consist of formal and
informal relations among firms involved in
the transfer of material and/or immaterial
resources’. Others, such as Tinsley and
Lynch (2001), quote Knoke and Kuklinski
(1983), who define a network more gener-
ally as a ‘specific type of relation linking a
set of persons, objects or events’. Three fun-
damental types of network are commonly
recognized: exchange networks involving
trading and commercial transactions, com-
munication networks including the sharing
of information and social networks com-
prising individuals and their personal con-
nections (Szarka, 1990). The latter two have
received the most attention to date in tour-
ism research, even though considerable
scope exists to examine the first – exchange
networks (Pearce, 2009a).
As with the use of systems theory,
network analysis is a way of addressing
the composite character of tourism and the
multiple and diverse links between the
complementary and competing firms and
actors that are involved in the sector. von
Friedrichs Grängsjö and Gummesson (2006,
p. 61) observe: ‘The product “tourist desti-
nation” is a spatially fixed place, where a
large number of enterprises offer bundles of
services for tourists. In such a context value
is the outcome of co-creation involving cus-
tomers and suppliers in an interactive,
experiential and relational form.’ Likewise,
Timur and Getz (2008, p. 447) note: ‘The
goal of adapting the network perspective to
tourism and hospitality industry stems from
the recognition that a destination is a sys-
tem which consists of relations that are
likely to influence destination stakeholders’
opportunities, constraints, behaviour or
values’.
The concern of network theory is with
the collective, rather than the individualis-
tic or dyadic nature of organizational action,
behaviour and constraints (Pavlovich,
2003). For Rocks et al. (2005), ‘networking
refers to the actual process of liaison with
contacts within the network and it is about
individuals and companies working along-
side each other and cooperating through the
exchange and sharing of ideas, knowledge
and technology’. In the context of relation-
ships between public and private sector
organizations involved in tourism market-
ing, Palmer (1996, p. 52) asserts that: ‘The
network rationale is that a single organiza-
tion is unable, or unwilling, to handle the
complexity and risks of its environment and
similarly unable to meet the skill and
resource demands essential for competing in
global markets. . . . Partners exchange their
core competence for those that they do not
have available internally. Core competences
can include access to markets, public infra-
structure and skilled personnel.’ O’Farrell
and Wood (1999) claim that, owing to their
resource constraints, SMEs have less choice
between internalizing and externalizing
functions and must, therefore, be embedded
in a network of external contacts on both
the supply side and the demand side if they
are to compete and survive.
Using networks as a framework of analy-
sis thus puts emphasis on the relations or
ties between the actors or nodes rather than
on their attributes and enables the results to
be depicted diagrammatically. This requires
defining the set of actors or nodes that con-
stitute the network and examining the rela-
tionships or ties between them (Szarka,
1990; Pforr, 2002). To this, Scott et al.
(2008b) add a third group of factors, the
resources that are exchanged within the net-
work, for example knowledge or money.
The relationships can be studied from three
different perspectives (O’Farrell and Wood,
1999): that of the single actor or node and
how it fits into the network (Pearce, 2009a),
that of the relationships between nodes
(Pforr, 2006) and that of the structure of the
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks
total network (Scott et al., 2008b). ‘This
connectedness perspective’, according to
Pforr (2002, p. 135) ‘allows for the structural
description of actors, an investigation of
sub-networks, so-called blocks of actors,
which are characterized by a higher degree
of cohesiveness, as well as an analysis of the
overall network structure, its density and
level of centrality’. Scott el al. (2008a) pro-
vide a good account of the mathematical
aspects of measuring cohesiveness, density
and centrality. Citing Haythornthwaite
(1996), they list other principles of network
analysis as structural equivalence (grouping
actors with similar relationships), promi-
nence (who is in charge), range (the extent
of an actor’s network) and brokerage (bridg-
ing connections to other networks). Key
structural dimensions of marketing networks
derived from the literature by Rocks et al.
(2005) include network size, level of formal-
ity, level of density, level of stability and
level of flexibility.
Good examples of the application of
network analysis in tourism research that
show how these relationships and struc-
tures can be analysed quantitatively are
provided by Pforr (2006) and Scott et al.
(2008b). Pforr (2006) takes a policy network
approach to examine how public, private
and non-profit actors shaped the develop-
ment of policy relating to the formulation
of a tourism master plan in Australia. In
particular, he focused on the influence/
reputation, cooperation and communica-
tion networks involved in the policy-making
process, seeking to identify the key actors
and the nature and extent of their interac-
tion. The set of actors was compiled by
analysing the master plan files and conduct-
ing informal interviews. The ‘relational
configurations’ were established by a sur-
vey that collected data relating to influ-
ence reputation, cooperation activity and
information exchange. In terms of influence
reputation, for instance, respondents were
asked to identify influential organizations,
after which a chooser-to-chosen matrix was
created as a means of ranking all actors on
this measure. Unidirectional or bidirec-
tional information exchange was estab-
lished by questions relating to which and
143
from which organizations the respondents’
own organizations had received information
during the course of the master plan proc-
ess. Figure 8.8 depicts the 16 actors regarded
as the most influential in this process. The
diameter of the nodes reflects their reputa-
tion scores, while the arrows, single- or
double-headed, represent the information
flows among these leading actors. Two-
way communication was most common, a
point confirmed by calculating and com-
paring the underlying undirected and
directed communications networks. Differ-
ences were found between the level of influ-
ence perception and actual communications
activity.
Whereas Pforr focused on the actors in
a policy network and their relationships,
Scott et al. (2008b) use a variety of measures
to give greater attention to the overall struc-
ture and cohesiveness of destinations in
their comparative examination of four
regional networks in Australia (Fig. 8.9). Of
the two Victorian networks – Great Ocean
Road, and Legends Wine and High County –
the former has a very structured network
centred around its regional tourism organ-
ization, while the latter is much more dif-
fuse. Similarly, in the two Queensland
examples, the Gold Coast network is more
centralized than the diffuse and less cohe-
sive Southern Downs network, though in
contrast to the Great Ocean Road network,
the Gold Coast network is based around sev-
eral key organizations rather than on a sin-
gle one. Elsewhere, Baggio and Corigliano
(2007) use a similar approach to compare
the network graphs of the island of Elba and
of Fiji, which are formed by links between
the web sites of the core tourism operators
in each destination. Both of the networks
have a specific, non-random structure in
which the general connectivity is very low
and clustering is quite limited.
Pavlovich (2003) draws on a similar
network literature to these quantitative
researchers and employs similar constructs
(centrality, density, strong and weak ties),
but takes a very qualitative approach in
her case study of the evolution of a small
New Zealand destination. She used a mix of
interviews, archival data and personal
144 Chapter 8

TF
Infra
Cab
DCM
ConsCom

DTrans

CM
TM

TCBoard

KRTA

DCC

TCRTA
NTTC
DRTA
CATIA

ASpTC

Fig. 8.8. An influence reputation elite network. The diagram depicts the 16 most influential actors (public,
private and non-profit) in the formulation of a tourism master plan in Northern Territory (NT), Australia. The
diameter of the nodes reflects the actors’ influence reputation scores and the arrows represent the
information flows between them. ASpTC, Alice Springs Town Council; Cab, Cabinet; CATIA, Central
Australian Tourism Industry Association; CM, Chief Minister; ConsCom, NT Conservation Commission;
DCC, Darwin City Council; DCM, Department of the Chief Minister; DRTA, Darwin Region Tourism
Association; DTrans, Department of Transport and Works; Infra, Infrastructure and Development Sub-Committee;
KRTA, Katherine Region Tourist Association; NTTC, NT Tourist Commission; TCBoard, NT Tourist
Commission Board; TCRTA, Tennant Creek Regional Tourist Association; TF, NT Tourism Development
Masterplan Task Force; TM, Tourism Minister. Source: Reprinted from Annals of Tourism Research 33,
Pforr, C. (2006) Tourism policy in the making: an Australian network study, pp. 87–108. Copyright (2006)
with permission from Elsevier.

observations to trace the changing network
architecture and relationships as Waitomo
evolved from a small destination dominated
by a single organization that controlled vis-
its to the limestone caves, to a larger and
more interconnected network of small busi-
nesses which emerged as adventure tourism
that catered largely to independent travel-
lers developed. The changing pattern of
relations over a 100 year period was mapped
and then discussed in the accompanying
text. In contrast to the quantitative studies
discussed above, where the network dia-
grams are supported by tables indicating the
strength of the various measures used,
Pavlovich’s diagrams are accompanied by
richly descriptive narrative interpreted in
terms of network theory. For instance, she
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks
Great Ocean
Road
Southern Downs
Fig. 8.9. Social networks in Australian case studies. Source: Reprinted from Annals of Tourism Research 35,
Scott, N., Cooper, C. and Baggio, R. (2008) Destination networks: four Australian cases, pp. 169–188. Copyright
(2008) with permission from Elsevier.
outlines the redistribution of ‘centrality’
and argues (p. 213): ‘This more complex
network structure [in 2000] with multiple
nodes enables a structural choice that limits
the extent of constraint an individual organ-
ization may proffer within the network.
This gives the network flexibility in its
operating conditions.’ A complementary
diagram summarizes weak links between the
destination and external organizations that
give the destination independent access to
multiple sources of information. Collabora-
tive activities that have developed include
enhanced land management practices,
adventure risk management and collective
marketing. ‘These collaborative activities’,
Pavlovich asserts (p. 214) ‘build on the . . .
contributions of destination distinctiveness,
strong ties exchange mechanisms and weak-
tie informational opportunities which
together have assisted in developing
networked-based capabilities, formed by
mutual interdependence’.
145
Legends Wine
and High
Country
Gold Coast
Analyses of the exchange networks of
tourism firms have been less common, in
part because of the difficulties of obtaining
commercially sensitive transaction data, in
part because of the more common usage of a
tier-by-tier approach to studying distribu-
tion channels as processes (Chapter 7,
Figs 7.12 and 7.13). Figure 8.10 depicts
the exchange or distribution networks of
two contrasting providers in New Zealand;
one a small attractions operator (Fig. 8.10a),
the other a backpacker hostel that forms
part of a nationwide chain (Fig. 8.10b)
(Pearce, 2009a). The other nodes represent
the number and type of intermediaries
(e.g. wholesalers, inbound operators, infor-
mation offices, other accommodation pro-
viders . . .) in each network with whom the
focal organizations transact business
directly. The strength of their relationships
with the focal organization is measured
by the percentage of sales generated
through each node. The diagrams represent
146 Chapter 8

focal networks in which the linkages from (a)

the provider are limited to a first tier of net-
inbound operator
work members. For example, the wholesal- wholesalers
ers with whom an inbound operator might
be connected are not included, nor are rela-
tionships among the other nodes in the focal 45%
organization’s network shown, for example DIRECT
possible linkages between the different
attractions information centres
accommodation providers in Fig. 8.10b.
Comparison of Fig. 8.10a and b high-
lights major differences between the two accommodation
cases. Both distribution networks are char-
acterized by a significant proportion of KEY

direct sales complemented by a multiplicity destination nodes

of relationships with relatively small nodes. SCALE: % of sales revenue
information centres
29.2
The attractions operator relies heavily on ‘at 0 5

destination’ distribution through partners

in other sectors, especially a local informa- (b)
tion centre, together with a set of travel-
trade intermediaries (the wholesalers and other
inbound operators) who provide access
through to the markets. In contrast, neither
the destination nor travel-trade nodes are
oth

ts
er

very important to the hostel, whose network

en
ho

ag
largely consists of nodes within the same
ste

ites
ve

(accommodation) sector, particularly those

ls

s
web
tra

forming part of its own chain. As a result, ty

par
there is little commonality in the actual associate 3rd
hostels 61%
nodes in each network: one case generates
DIRECT
business for the other and they are both
linked to one of the local information information centres
chain hostels
centres.
Whether the approach is quantitative or
qualitative, the use of networks as a frame-
work for analysis needs to go beyond just
examining structure to address some broader
KEY
issue that is illuminated by the structural
characteristics identified. The patterns destination nodes
shown in Fig. 8.10, for example, raise ques-
tions about the efficiency of distribution SCALE: % of room revenue

and issues of channel width, given the mul- 0 5 CRO

tiplicity of nodes in the networks and the
costs of working with these (Pearce, 2009a).
Questions of centrality and dependency
have been shown to have a bearing on tour-
ism policy formulation (Pforr, 2006; Timur
and Getz, 2008), while network connected-
ness and cohesiveness have been found
to assist destinations in the production
of integrated tourism experiences (Scott
et al., 2008b) and in knowledge creation
(Pavlovich, 2003). von Friedrichs Grängsjö
and Gummesson (2006) focused on rela-
10.8
Fig. 8.10. Distribution networks of (a) a small
attractions operator and (b) a chain backpacker
hostel. Source: Pearce, D.G. (2009) Beyond tiers: a
network approach to tourism distribution. Tourism
Analysis 13, 517–530. Reproduced with permission
from the publisher.
tional rather than structural issues by exam-
ining the mechanics of a small hotel network
in Sweden. In their qualitative study, they
sought to identify the conditions by which
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks
small, competing individual hotels could
cooperate to improve their collective com-
petitive position; the research revealed the
importance of building social capital to bal-
ance collective and individual interests,
cooperation and competition, and intent
and action.
In a nuanced analysis of social net-
works in the province of Malaga, Sørensen
(2007) found local networks to be loose
and dense and non-local ones to be strong
and sparse, with the different types of net-
works providing access to varied informa-
tion benefits supporting innovation.
Similarly, Sundbo et al. (2007, p. 101)
concluded from their comparative study
of tourism firms in Spain and Denmark
that: ‘All in all (and contrary to general
assumptions of agglomeration literature),
tourism firms possess loose local networks
that mainly sustain dynamism and the
transfer of general information, whereas
stronger networks that sustain the transfer
of “deeper” specialist knowledge are a
non-local network phenomenon’. In the
light of his findings, Sørensen (2007, p.
44) provides a timely caution that ‘analy-
sis of networks constitutes just one little
piece of the puzzle to understand the
innovative behaviour of tourism firms’, a
view supported by Sundbo et al. (2007),
who also point to other factors such as
large firm size, professionalism and degree
of entrepreneurship.
Composite Frameworks
Some frameworks may be considered com-
posite, as their structure incorporates fea-
tures of two or more of the basic
configurations discussed earlier. This is
done so as to explicitly add further dimen-
sions to the analysis and explore additional
relationships. Researchers, for instance,
may add a dynamic element to see how the
relationships they are interested in change
or evolve over time.
Some of the users of matrices (discussed
in Chapter 6) refer to change but do so in
discussion of their matrix or by modifying
the matrix. For example, Dann et al. (1988)
147
suggest that advances in tourism research
might be seen in terms of a progressive con-
centration of activity in Quadrant 4 of their
matrix (Fig. 6.1a) rather than in Quadrants 1
and 2. Henshall and Roberts (1985) adapted
the basic growth/share matrix to show how
a market’s position may change over time.
McKercher (1995) offered a Destination-
Market Matrix, which emphasizes a dynamic
element – markets change over time – but
took a more qualitative approach, asserting
many relevant factors cannot be readily
quantified. In particular, the Destination-
Market Matrix positions markets in terms of
their current life cycle stage and likely
future performance.
In other instances, additional struc-
tural elements are combined with a matrix
to give a more explicit depiction of the
evolution of the relationships being exam-
ined. Weaver (2010, p. 45) proposed ‘an
ideal type that models the evolution of
tourism as it pertains to indigenous com-
munities’. This builds on Hinch and
Butler’s (1996) framework of indigenous
tourism – consisting of a matrix in which
the horizontal axis represents the range of
control that indigenous people have over a
given tourism activity and the vertical axis
depicts the degree to which an attraction
is based upon an indigenous theme.
Weaver argues that both of these dimen-
sions (control and theme) can be assumed
to be potentially mobile over time and
space (i.e. products and control may be
manifested outside the destination). He
then goes on to suggest six stages in the
evolution of indigenous tourism based on
a review of the experiences of four New
World countries, and overlays these stages
on the matrix (Fig. 8.11). In this way, the
stages are depicted much more explicitly
in terms of the variables on which they are
based than they are in many of the process
models discussed above.
Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004, p.
279) use two successive frameworks as a
means of fundamentally re-conceptualizing
tourism, the second of which is a composite
framework of a cycle overlying a back-
ground matrix. Recognizing the complexity
of tourism and the dynamic and non-linear
world in which we live, they argue that a
148 Chapter 8

Indigenous control
Low High

2- in situ 1- in situ
exposure control
5- in situ
4- in situ quasi-empowerment
Present 3- ex situ exhibitionism & exploitation
exhibitionism
& exploitation

Indigenous
theme

Absent 6- in situ
quasi-empowerment

Volume of visitation represented by curve width

Dark colour = in situ visitation
Light colour = ex situ visitation

Fig. 8.11. Stages of indigenous tourism. Source: Weaver, D. (2010) Indigenous tourism stages and their
implications for sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18, 43–60. Reprinted by permission
of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Group, http://www.tandfonline.com).

broader systems approach to tourism is periods of disturbance and disorder asso-

essential: one that goes beyond tourism’s
‘industrial core’ to encompass a series of
system levels ‘from the core to the global
or Earth System, all inter-related, open
and hierarchical’. First, they present
(p. 279) a ‘tourism panarchy’: ‘The hier-
archical nesting of one system level with-
in another, where founding components
structure the system from the bottom up’.
In contrast to Machlis and Burch (1983),
who had earlier suggested an adaptive
cycle of tourism based on a sociological
perspective, Farrell and Twining-Ward
draw on concepts from ecology, and dis-
cuss how the notion of an adaptive cycle
might provide greater insight into manag-
ing tourism in a sustainable manner. Here
‘stability is now believed to be offset by
ciated with the cyclic life of ecosys-
tems. . . . Based on their degree of maturity,
systems are also now thought to cycle
though different dynamic states, in a non-
constant, episodic manner with extended
varying periods of stability followed by
periods of turbulence’ (Farrell and
Twining-Ward, 2004, p. 279). The adap-
tive cycle is depicted as a continuous
loop set against a matrix whose two
dimensions are stored capital and con-
nectedness (Fig. 8.12). Understanding of
these two dimensions appears to be taken
for granted as they are not elaborated on
in the text, a limitation for readers not
familiar with ecological systems. Rather,
the emphasis is on explaining the evolu-
tion of the cycle and how after phases of
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks
Much
organization
Re
Stored Capital
Ex
pl o it a ti o n
Little
Weak
Connectedness
Fig. 8.12. The adaptive cycle. Source: Reprinted from Annals of Tourism Research 31, Farrell, B.H. and
Twining-Ward, L. (2004) Reconceptualizing tourism, pp. 274–295. Copyright (2004) with permission from
Elsevier.
exploitation and conservation ‘surprise’
the release of accumulated capital can
lead to a flipping of the stability state and
(p. 282) ‘the beginning of the fast moving
back-loop from “release” to “reorganiza-
tion”’. Reorganization leads not to the
restoration of the previous system but to a
new form with unpredictable parts and
relationships. Moreover, ‘the trajectory
shown leading away from the cycle . . .
suggests how part of the system’s poten-
tial could leak away and where a flip into
a less productive system is likely’.
A conceptual framework for the inter-
organizational analysis of tourist organiza-
tions which combines several of the
structural features discussed in this chapter
is depicted in Fig. 8.13. It was developed by
integrating ideas and theories from the
organizational literature, with the features
and characteristics of tourism drawn from
previous studies and grounded in research
on the tourist organizations in six countries
for which it was to serve as a comparative
framework (Pearce, 1992a). The primary
interest in developing the framework was to
elucidate what tourist organizations actu-
ally do, hence the focus on their goals and
functions.
149
Conservation
R ele a s e
Strong
Figure 8.13 is an open-systems model,
which emphasizes not only the links within
the specific field of study for which it was
developed – the inter-organizational net-
work of tourist organizations – but also the
setting of this network in the broader envi-
ronment, a sub-environment of which is
the tourism environment, with which a
variety of exchanges occur. Moreover, there
is explicit recognition of both scalar and
temporal dimensions: consideration is
given to tourist organizations and their
environments from local to international
scales, and to the dynamic nature of the
networks and changes in the environments
within which they operate (the cross sec-
tions at different times T1, T2, T3 . . .). The
impact of environmental conditions was
well established in the organizational liter-
ature, for example as a source of resources,
power and authority and as a performance
context. Other organizations were also seen
to be part of an organization’s environment.
In addition, the framework highlights the
need to take account of the tourism sub-
environment, including such features as
the scale and economic significance of tour-
ism, the nature and composition of the sec-
tor and patterns of growth. Taking a scalar
150 Chapter 8

T3

E
M
ENVIRONMENT

TI
T2
ENVIRONMENT
T1
ENVIRONMENT
TOURISM INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT NETWORKS
Goals and functions
OOs ITOs

NATIONAL NTO
SCALE

REGIONAL Exchange RTO RTO

LTO LTO LTO LTO

LOCAL

OO Overseas Office
ITO International Tourist Organization
NTO National Tourist Organization
RTO Regional Tourist Organization
LTO Local Tourist Organization

Fig. 8.13. A conceptual framework for the inter-organizational analysis of tourist organizations. Source:
Pearce, D.G. (1992) Tourist Organizations. Longman, Harlow, UK and Wiley, New York. Reproduced with
permission from Pearson Education.

or hierarchical perspective to the inter- being able to be explained in terms of concepts

organizational network was a departure
from much of the extant organizational
literature – which had been more con-
cerned with the ‘sequential interdepend-
ence’ of organizations within a given area
or community (Hall et al., 1977).
The framework portrayed in Fig. 8.13
proved to be very useful for ordering and ana-
lysing networks of tourist organizations and
identifying commonalities and differences in
the goals and functions across the six cases
examined, which comprised a variety of
political systems: three unitary or central-
ized, two federal and one intermediate case.
The scalar dimension, for example, brought
out common patterns which varied from the
national (international marketing) to the local
(visitor servicing). Inclusion of the environ-
mental factors helped to explain various net-
work features, such as the dominance of
administrative boundaries in shaping organ-
izational structures and inter-organizational
linkages. The networks were seen to evolve
over time, with periods of change or stability
drawn from the organization literature, such
as domain consensus and inter-organizational
conflict. Later applications of the frame-
work included a more specific concern with
the impact of major political changes on
tourism networks, notably the decentraliza-
tion of responsibility for tourism to the
autonomous communities in post-Franco
Spain (Pearce, 1997b) and the restructuring
and decapitation of the network that
accompanied the evolution of Belgium from
a centralized to a federal state (Pearce,
1996). These latter two cases vividly illus-
trate the interaction of environmental, sca-
lar and temporal factors in shaping the roles,
functions and interrelationships of tourist
organizations over time.
Discussion and Conclusions
In attempting to address the multifaceted
nature of tourism through the use of systems,
 Systems, Networks and Composite Frameworks
networks and composite frameworks, research-
ers face many challenges. Many of the sys-
tems proposed provide useful conceptual
frameworks that present a more comprehen-
sive picture of tourism and the functioning of
its component parts. In this way, these sys-
tems may act as useful ordering devices (Fig.
8.1), help us to generate research questions
(Fig. 8.4) and, by setting out a bigger picture,
challenge us not to be reductionist in our
approach to particular problems (Figs 8.2 and
8.3). However, by attempting to be all-embrac-
ing, or at least more comprehensive, many of
the systems frameworks present severe prob-
lems of operationalization and have yet to be
implemented in whole or in part. In contrast,
many of the networks discussed (e.g. Figs 8.8,
8.9 and 8.10) represent the results of empiri-
cal research; that is, while many systems
remain conceptual, networks have been more
readily applied to frame the analysis of a vari-
ety of tourism problems.
Several factors account for this. The data
needs for examining systems may be more
demanding than those for network analysis.
Briassoulis’s (2000) environmental frame-
work (Fig. 8.2), for instance, not only requires
different types of data (social, economic and
environmental) but multiple categories of
each type from within and outside the tour-
ism sector. Boers and Cottrell (2007) were
able to implement aspects of their framework
(Fig. 8.3), but this required the use and inte-
gration of several forms of data collection
and analysis. Some of the spatial systems
models have also been implemented, for
example those of Lew and McKercher (2002)
and Agarwal (2005), but comprehensive origin–
linkage–destination systems or detailed sca-
lar systems require data to be collected in or
on more than one locale. Networks, by their
very nature, include multiple nodes (Figs
8.8, 8.9 and 8.10), but the linkages between
them have frequently been explored with
regard to a limited number of variables, com-
monly those representing social ties or infor-
mation flows, and using techniques which
have been well developed in other areas.
Although network stability is recognized
as an issue in the broader field of network
analysis (Rocks et al., 2005), and Pavlovich
(2003) examined the evolution of destination
151
networks at several points in time, the major-
ity of the network studies reviewed here
have analysed existing network structures
and given little or no attention to network
change or dynamics. In contrast, systems,
especially complex systems, are inherently
dynamic and characterized by numerous
feedback loops (Fig. 8.7). Reference may be
made to von Bertalanffy’s general systems
theory, but tourism researchers have been
slow to apply general methods of systems
analysis or develop other approaches to
operationalize the feedback loops and ana-
lyse the multiple interactions that their
frameworks depict, and so realize the poten-
tial that they appear to offer (Walker et al.,
1999; Jamal et al., 2004; Johnson and Sieber,
2010; Farsari et al., 2011).
In some cases, the way forward may be
to carry out studies that individually are less
ambitious in scope but are, nevertheless,
cumulative in nature. That is, we recognize
the complexities that the broader conceptu-
alizations of the systems frameworks suggest,
but rather than initially attempt to tackle sys-
tems in their entirety, begin by focusing on
subsystems whose operationalization may
be more readily achieved and so progres-
sively build up our understanding of the sys-
tem as a whole. Addressing wide-ranging
tasks such as those required to implement
such frameworks as that in Fig. 8.2 also
calls for more interdisciplinary studies. The
network research reviewed demonstrates
the complementary nature of the different
approaches to using networks as analytical
frameworks. Quantitative studies enable the
identification of the structural characteristics
of the larger and more complicated networks,
while the more qualitative research provides
greater insight into how networks behave
and function. Greater use of mixed-method
approaches combining the strengths of each
would advance network analysis. Finally,
the development of composite frameworks
(Figs 8.11, 8.12 and 8.13) shows we should
not be constrained to limiting ourselves to a
single configuration, but might creatively
consider frameworks that embody features of
multiple types so that a more comprehensive
and integrated approach to particular prob-
lems might be attempted.
 9
Selecting and Developing Frameworks
Tourism researchers are faced with a wide
variety of potential frameworks that they
might use. The systematic treatment in
Chapters 1–8 of the different functions that
tourism frameworks may perform and the
different forms that they may take has
shown how different frameworks provide
alternative ways of looking at the world, of
focusing on particular problems, of collect-
ing, analysing and presenting data, and of
communicating and interpreting results.
Chapter 2, for example, showed how the
use of different theoretical frameworks
leads to researchers providing different
interpretations of the same or similar
issues. It also illustrated how contrasting
approaches might be underpinned by a
common theoretical framework. Other
chapters have demonstrated how particular
frameworks, such as matrices (Chapter 6),
have been used in different ways to address
a diversity of problems, both conceptually
and empirically. Conversely, particular
themes such as distribution have been
addressed using a range of frameworks (e.g.
Figs 4.3, 7.12, 7.13 and 8.10). Moreover, as
the preceding chapters have shown, views
differ considerably in terms of what is
appropriate, depending on the ontological
and epistemological perspective taken.
Clearly there is no single best framework
that can be universally applied.
152 © Douglas G. Pearce 2012. Frameworks for Tourism Research (D.G. Pearce)
It is in this context that Chapter 9
systematically raises and addresses a series
of questions to assist readers to select,
develop and use frameworks in their own
research and to foster a critical apprecia-
tion of the use of frameworks by others.
What makes a good framework? Which is
the most appropriate framework to be
used in addressing a particular problem?
Should an existing framework be adopted
or adapted, or does a new one need to be
developed? Is a tourism-specific framework
needed or might those from other fields of
study be applied? What is the basis on
which these decisions might be made? How
does one go about developing a frame-
work of one’s own? These are all important
questions because the choice and use of an
appropriate framework or frameworks is
fundamental to the design and execution of
a research project. They are not, however,
questions that have been widely debated in
the literature. While the merits or short-
comings of specific frameworks have often
been outlined or discussed in depth – for
example those of the TALC, networks, IPA
and BCG matrices, and social exchange
theory – there has rarely been any discus-
sion of these broader questions nor much
indication in individual studies that
researchers are considering a wide range of
possible frameworks.
 Selecting and Developing Frameworks
What is a Good Framework?
Before addressing the selection and develop-
ment of frameworks it is useful to consider in
general terms just what makes a good frame-
work. There has been little discussion of this
issue in the literature, although attention has
been given to what constitutes a good theory,
both in general (Bacharach, 1989; Anfara and
Mertz, 2006) and with regard to specific
aspects of tourism (P.L. Pearce, 1993b). These
studies provide some very useful criteria,
such as simplicity, parsimony, ease of com-
munication, cogency, utility and falsifi-
ability, which might also be applied to
frameworks. Harrison (2007, p. 71) suggests
that ‘for a conceptual framework to be useful
in analysing tourism’s impacts it should
be flexible and applicable across a wide
variety of tourism-related contexts, where
similar questions can be asked of the data
being supplied, irrespective of the scale of
the studies’. For Harrington (2005, p. 374)
‘a model of the strategy-making process must
be parsimonious, yet make use of multiple
indicators, which are grounded in theory
and represent the most salient aspects of the
process’. Forsberg et al. (2005, p. 11) argue
that: ‘A useful model will be simple, but it
must retain the essence of the situation to be
managed’. Drawing on this work, and in par-
ticular on the range of frameworks reviewed
in the preceding chapters (and those not
included as they were poor examples), a set
of general points might be made by which to
evaluate frameworks.
Good frameworks may be expressed
solely in narrative form; many, however, will
benefit from being depicted schematically.
Such depictions will rarely stand alone but
will need to be supported by accompanying
text. As discussed in Chapter 1, the general
purpose of frameworks is to help us organize
and communicate our research. On this basis,
a good framework is one that provides a clear
and explicit structure for the problem being
considered; its purpose is evident; the con-
structs, concepts and variables used are
soundly selected and clearly defined and con-
ceptualized; and the relationships between
them are logical, cogent and expressed in a
comprehensible manner. All these features
153
will facilitate ease of communication, which,
in turn, will enhance the uptake and accept-
ance of the ideas and/or findings being put
forward. A good framework will portray the
essential without reducing the problem to an
uncluttered but meaningless minimum of
concepts and relationships. The balance
between parsimony and reductionism may at
times be a delicate one and one that needs to
be carefully weighed.
Good frameworks will be useful. At one
level, their utility will depend on the specific
purpose for which they have been devel-
oped. Some, especially those developed for
applied projects or individual analytical
frameworks, may serve their prime purpose
well even if they cannot be used more widely.
On another level, their utility will be
enhanced if they can be applied across a
range of situations and contexts, and in that
way stimulate further research and contrib-
ute to building up a cumulative body of
knowledge on a particular topic. This
requires the problem to be framed systemati-
cally rather than ideographically, and favours
the use of accepted concepts and terms or
the generation of novel concepts/terms that
are not case specific but potentially have
wider application. The use of such concepts
and terms will also enable new understand-
ing to be linked more readily to the existing
body of knowledge or to build a platform for
future research. Utility will also depend
on the ease with which frameworks can
be operationalized. The development of a
theoretical or conceptual framework may be
an important first step in improving our
understanding of a problem, but subsequent
validation is needed through empirical
research. Are valid data available? Can they be
collected and analysed using appropriate tech-
niques? Unless and until frameworks can be
operationalized, their utility will be limited.
Selecting Frameworks
What does the framework need to do?
A primary consideration in developing one’s
research is to consider whether appropriate
154 Chapter 9
frameworks are available or whether a new
one is needed. How does one go about
selecting the most appropriate framework
or frameworks from the many possibilities
that exist? A useful starting point is to con-
sider what the framework is being asked to
do. In some studies, this is spelled out in
terms of a particular type of framework and
the topic area in question. Hvenegaard
(1994), for instance, argued that an adequate
conceptual framework of ecotourism was
required in order to understand the scope
and implications of this form of tourism.
Such a framework, he asserted, should per-
form four essential tasks:
• organize main actors over space and
time;
• illustrate potential relationships;
• predict possible progressions over time;
and
• indicate a mode of thinking and analysis.
In terms of heritage tourism, Jamal and
Kim (2005, p. 73) state that:
An integrated framework should help
identify specific topics, issues, concepts,
interdisciplinary theoretical/methodological
contributions, and also applied categories
related to sustainability, historical/heritage
preservation and environmental/biodiversity
conservation. It would also illustrate the
diverse research propositions, theories and
perspectives pertinent to integrating the
micro–macro divide and other binary
fragmentations.
In a similar vein, McGehee (2007, p. 118)
notes:
Ideally, a successful agritourism systems
model is one that emerges from a theoretical
foundation and reduces, eliminates or
overcomes each stakeholder group’s obstacles
while meeting each group’s needs.
Addressing the complexities of analysing
tourism policy in Scotland, Kerr (2003, p. 44)
asserts:
the most suitable theory, framework or
approach … has to be one that can be
synthesized, and can give a plausible
explanation of policy formulation and
implementation pertinent to this research,
while taking into account the emergence of
governance, the advent of devolution and
the polarisation of expectations of the
various sectors of the industry. In effect
a heterogeneous approach.
More generally, framework selection
might be considered in the light of the types
and functions of the frameworks summarized
in Fig. 1.3 and developed in subsequent
chapters. A key question here is what the
major emphasis of the paper or project is, as
this will determine whether what is needed
is a theoretical, conceptual, analytical or
integrative framework, or some combina-
tion of these. While the functions performed
by all four types of framework may need to
be undertaken to complete the research
process, the thrust of many individual studies,
as the preceding chapters have shown, is
often on particular aspects of research, call-
ing for a particular type of framework, for
example, theoretical or analytical. In other
instances, such as PhD theses, other large
multi-year projects and research on com-
plex topics, several interrelated frameworks
will often be required (Cohen, 1993; Farrell
and Twining-Ward, 2004; Pforr, 2005;
Sørensen, 2007; Schänzel, 2010). The empha-
sis of the paper or project will therefore
influence the type of the framework(s) to be
used and the functions to be carried out.
As noted earlier, the two key functions
of frameworks are to organize and to commu-
nicate. What needs to be organized and
communicated will vary according to the
thrust of the paper, but will include: the
existing state of knowledge expressed as
key themes or findings; the key theoretical
principles that underlie the problem; the
relevant constructs or variables; the means
of analysis; the presentation of the findings;
the meaning given to the results. . . . Other
more specific functions outlined with refer-
ence to Fig. 1.3 and discussed more fully in
subsequent chapters include: generating
research questions; bounding the research
problem; shaping the research design;
ordering the data analysis; communicating
and interpreting the results; linking the
study to other work; and building up
the cumulative body of knowledge. Again,
the relative importance of these will vary
according to the nature and scale of
the problem. Much of the emphasis in the
 Selecting and Developing Frameworks
forms of tourism literature, for example, is
on identifying and bounding the topic area
(Chapter 3), in importance–performance
studies the thrust is on analysis and mana-
gerial implications (Chapter 6), while those
papers with a stronger theoretical basis
tend to stress interpretation of the results
and the development of cumulative knowl-
edge (Chapter 2). While most of the func-
tions reviewed in Chapter 1 will normally
have to be carried out and discussed to
some degree, the selection of an appropri-
ate framework or frameworks will depend
on which particular functions are most
important in any study. Thus we begin the
selection and development process by ask-
ing the question: what does my framework
need to do?
Is a new framework needed or will
an existing framework suffice?
A second step in the framework selection
process is to consider whether an existing
framework is adequate or whether a new
one is needed. In addition to having a clear
idea of what our framework needs to do, we
need to be aware of the potential range of
frameworks that might serve our purpose.
A major issue here is how we see our study,
how we identify the domain in which our
research is located (Fig. 3.1) and how spe-
cific or general we perceive the problem to
be. Do we see our research as essentially
being within the field of tourism studies, as
situated in another field of study (e.g. cli-
mate change), as based in an established
discipline such as geography – or is it a
topic located within two or more overlap-
ping fields or disciplines? Is our problem
unique to tourism or is the tourism case an
example of a larger issue; for example, are
questions of sustainable tourism or the
motivations of tourists specific to tourism
or do they constitute particular instances of
sustainability and motivations respectively?
Where and how widely we cast our net in
the search for appropriate frameworks will
determine what we find and what we might
potentially draw upon. This will depend on
155
particular studies and on the perspectives
of individual scholars, but in general the
issue for those researching tourism is: do we
limit ourselves to tourism studies or our
parent discipline or do we also draw on
other domains and disciplines, and, if so,
which ones?
Both approaches are to be found, but
as the field of tourism studies has grown
and as specialized journals, conferences
and other outlets have multiplied in recent
decades, there is a growing tendency for
much tourism research to be distanced
from, or not well integrated with, work in
related areas (Pearce and Butler, 2010b).
Jafari (2005, p. 5) speaks of the ‘inbreeding
and walling in of tourism itself’. This ten-
dency is in part simply a function of the
sheer volume of research now being done
and of a consequent practical need to focus
literature searches, but it is also fostered
by the belief that tourism is unique and
consequently that tourism-specific frame-
works are needed. As discussed below,
there is much merit to this argument, but
there are also some dangers and limita-
tions. In their review of tourism SMEs, for
instance, Shaw and Williams (2010, p. 89)
observe that:
Research themes that stressed the
‘uniqueness’ of tourism SMEs, particularly
as exemplified by the work on ‘lifestyle
entrepreneurship’ . . . in part led to a
dislocation of the research on tourism
SMEs from wider SME studies. In turn this
rather marginalized the effort of tourism
researchers in relation both to the rapidly
moving frontier of social science research
in these areas, as well as in related policy
areas.
Other writers also stress the need for
closer links with the social sciences and
highlight the mutual benefits that the
application of broader frameworks can
bring. Bemoaning the lack of rigour in
tourism studies, Harrison (2007, p. 65)
claimed: ‘A conceptual framework for
analysing tourism’s sociocultural role in
society must be based on existing social
theory’ (emphasis added); Fig. 2.1 illus-
trates the way in which he developed this
position. Writing from the perspective of
156 Chapter 9
cross-cultural psychology, Berno and Ward
(2005, p. 594) assert:
The increasing application of acculturation
theories, which can provide broad conceptual
frameworks for the study of tourism, ben-
efits both psychologists and tourism
researchers. For psychologists, tourism
offers a living lab and a range of natural
field-based settings for theory development
and refinement. . . . There is also widespread
recognition that extending psychological
theory to tourism research has practical
benefits for the enhancement of the tourist
experience, the planning and development
of the industry, and even the promotion of
increased intercultural understanding. Yet
there remains a paucity of psychological
research on tourism. [emphasis added]
Interestingly, in one of the few empiri-
cal studies of acculturation in tourism,
Hottola (2004) found that one of the more
commonly cited psychological frameworks,
Oberg’s (1960) U-curve of culture shock,
had major limitations and subsequently
developed his own.
Frameworks should, of course, not be
adopted uncritically, especially from out-
side one’s own field of study or discipline;
ranging widely and borrowing indiscrimi-
nately has its perils. Many of the points
made by Buckley and Lessard (2005, p. 596)
in their review of the development of
research on international business also have
their parallels in tourism research: ‘The
danger is that a “mix and match” approach
to theories from outside the domain of
international business will be superficially
understood, badly applied, and inappropri-
ately interpreted’. Buckley and Lessard
were tracing the changing balance of issue-
driven and theory-driven research, and the
interaction between the two, that gave rise
to the development of international busi-
ness theory.
To date, it might be argued, the bulk of
tourism research has been issue driven. We
have been concerned with developing and
marketing tourism, with assessing its
impacts, describing its organization, analys-
ing patterns of tourism travel or, more
recently, concerned with the effects of terror-
ism, climate change or the global financial
crisis on tourism. There is little truly indige-
nous tourism theory. As earlier chapters have
illustrated (see especially Chapters 2 and 3),
where theoretical frameworks have been
employed or where conceptual and integra-
tive frameworks have been theoretically
based, they are essentially embedded in the-
ories drawn from diverse disciplines, for
example, social exchange theory, resource
theory, the culture economy framework,
globalization theories, systems theory, regu-
lation theory, consumer behaviour theory,
etc. Often, a particular theoretical framework
is adopted and its principles and tenets are
presented and applied without reference to
alternatives. In other instances, the relative
merits of competing theories are discussed,
with the perceived lack of understanding
provided by one framework leading to the
selection of another (Morais et al., 2004;
Woosnam et al., 2009). Jennings (2007)
provides a useful systematic overview of
seven paradigms that might inform tourism
economics and management research:
positivism/post-positivism, critical realism,
social constructivism, feminist perspectives,
postmodernism and the participatory para-
digm. She then goes on to show how a
research agenda focused on the Bali bombing
incident of 12 October 2002 might be devel-
oped, with each of these paradigms highlight-
ing different facets of the incident and
approaches to their study.
The extent to which existing frameworks
may be adequate or whether new ones will
be needed also depends in large part on the
type of framework in question. Whereas the
theoretical frameworks, by their nature, draw
essentially on broader theories that are
applied to tourism, and the frameworks used
reflect this, the conceptual and analytical
frameworks reviewed in earlier chapters are
much more varied in terms of whether they
incorporate constructs, variables and config-
urations specific to tourism or ones that are
used in other domains. Where these frame-
works are developed with reference to a par-
ticular theory or to a broader set of constructs
or variables, more general frameworks are
adopted and applied to tourism. Thus, for
example, Casteñeda et al. (2009) draw on
Davis’s (1989) Technology Acceptance Model
 Selecting and Developing Frameworks
and their framework includes generic use
and attitude variables (Fig. 3.7); Pforr (2001)
adopts the policy cycle framework (Fig. 7.15);
and Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004) develop
the notion of the adaptive cycle drawn from
ecology (Fig. 8.12). Maulet (2006) borrows
directly from the industrial districts litera-
ture to identify the features for her frame-
work of a localized tourism system. In many
of the analytical frameworks, a common con-
figuration or more widely used technique is
employed and is applied to tourism by using
variables or attributes specific to that sector,
as in the case of importance–performance
analysis and various other applications of
matrices discussed in Chapter 6 (e.g. scenario
planning, grid-group analysis, impact assess-
ment) or network analysis (Chapter 8).
In other cases, conceptual frameworks will
explicitly reflect particular characteristics of
tourism, such as those involving forms of
tourism (e.g. Figs 3.2–3.5), and many of the
process and systems frameworks (e.g. Figs
7.2, 7.3 and 8.1).
Two sets of characteristics commonly
come into play in these tourism-specific
frameworks. First, there are the diverse
factors representing the multifaceted struc-
ture of tourism (accommodation, attrac-
tions, transport, distribution intermediaries,
supporting services) and its multiple stake-
holders (tourists, private sector businesses,
government agencies, non-governmental
organizations, hosts . . .). Of particular
importance here is the concept of the total
holiday experience, which generates the
demand for multiple, interrelated needs
and thus frameworks incorporating all or
many of these. A second set of distinguish-
ing characteristics reflects the multi-site,
multi-scale geography of the sector, which
consists of multiple origins, destinations
and their associated linkages, and the fact
that the production and consumption of
many goods and services occur in situ.
The need to take these characteristics
into account is especially evident in the
structure and detail of the tourist decision-
making frameworks (e.g. Fig. 7.10) and
in the various tourism systems models
(e.g. Figs 8.3 and 8.5). Figure 4.3 highlights
the importance of taking the analysis of
157
distribution beyond tourism distribution in
general to consider possible differences
between the distribution of transport,
accommodation and attractions (Pearce and
Schott, 2005). Later, Pearce and Schott (2011)
not only extended their analysis to differen-
tiate between transport to and at the destina-
tion, but they also incorporated a spatial
element by distinguishing between distribu-
tion decisions made in advance at the origin
and those made at the destination.
As the diversity of frameworks pre-
sented in Chapter 5 shows, there is not yet a
common approach to developing and con-
figuring integrative frameworks that
might be used as a template for addressing
topic areas that have not been covered by
existing studies. As a result, there is plenty
of scope for creativity in bringing together
themes, theories and methods on new top-
ics, whether these are newly emerging areas
of research yet to be bounded and defined,
more established but still fragmented areas
lacking in order and structure, or topics
spanning two or more areas of interest
that have yet to converge.
Limitations
Decisions about whether to adopt an exist-
ing framework or not will also hinge upon
consideration of the merits of those already
in use (e.g. Hinch and Higham, 2001;
Hottola, 2004; Morais et al., 2004; Woosnam
et al., 2009). The strengths and weaknesses
of particular frameworks have been dis-
cussed in previous chapters, such as Chapter
6 where the flexibility and relative ease
with which matrices can be used and inter-
preted was set against the limitations of
taking a two-dimensional approach to par-
ticular problems. Perhaps the most common
limitation encountered is the degree of
coverage – thematic, theoretical or method-
ological – provided by existing frameworks.
The incompleteness of existing frameworks
has led the drive to extend frameworks or to
formulate more comprehensive ones. This
is seen in the development of the various
conceptual frameworks of forms of tourism,
which have gone from dichotomous depic-
tions of polar opposites through the use of
158 Chapter 9
continua to more systems-oriented frame-
works (Chapter 3). In other cases, research-
ers have extended existing theoretical
frameworks: Kneafsey (2001) complemented
the concept of cultural economy with a
consideration of the historical trajectories of
social relations; Weaver (2005) expanded
on the McDonaldization thesis by adding
dimensions of risk and post-Fordist custom-
ization, and Cohen (1979) proposed a matrix
to elaborate on the notions of staged authen-
ticity and tourist space. This drive for com-
pleteness is also seen in the more general
use of systems, networks and composite
frameworks – which have been developed
in an endeavour to capture the complexity
of tourism, its dynamic nature and the inter-
connectedness of its diverse components by
incorporating a more comprehensive set of
constructs, and setting out the functional,
temporal and spatial relationships between
them (Chapter 8). It is especially evident in
the various integrative frameworks that
have been developed in response to a belief
that no single theory or method can explain
or is sufficient to analyse particular prob-
lems (Chapter 5).
At the same time, this drive to extend
coverage and be more comprehensive has
produced many operational challenges that
have restricted the implementation and
widespread adoption of many of these more
complicated and complex frameworks.
Thus, a further key point for consideration,
not just of these but of any framework, is:
can the framework be operationalized?
Many examples have been given throughout
the book of where frameworks have not
been taken beyond the conceptual stage, for
instance in Chapters 3, 6, 7 and 8. This may
be because the authors have moved on to
other topics before validating their concep-
tual frameworks through empirical research,
but often it also appears to reflect opera-
tional constraints brought about by demands
for a diversity of data, the use of multiple
methods and ways of integrating these into
a manageable project. Such operational con-
straints may suggest that new, more practi-
cal frameworks are needed or that more
than one framework is required to address a
problem.
Where an existing framework is to be
used or tested, care must be taken that it is
applied appropriately. Many of the issues
associated with replication and with apply-
ing and testing existing frameworks are
illustrated in the exchanges that have fol-
lowed attempts to apply Plog’s allocentrism/
pyschocentrism or destination development
model outlined in Chapter 7 (Plog, 1973,
1990, 2006; Smith, 1990a,b, 1991; Litvin,
2006). In applying Plog’s framework in new
situations, both Smith and Litvin obtained
results that did not support the patterns
of behaviour indicated by Plog. In the sub-
sequent exchanges, Plog attributed this to a
range of methodological issues, particularly
those of measurement and classification.
In short, he argued, support for his frame-
work could not be expected to be found if
the wrong variables, classification system
and sample were used. In replying to Litvin,
Plog (2006) also identified some areas
of partial agreement, for instance the impact
of situational factors and the complexity of
human behaviour, showing how follow-up
studies can develop a topic further. At the
same time, it is interesting to note that these
exchanges primarily focused on the allocen-
trism/pyschocentrism classification system
rather than on the bigger question that
Plog’s initial paper was addressing, that is,
why do destinations rise and fall in popu-
larity? The purpose for which a given frame-
work was originally developed must be
borne in mind when considering its appro-
priateness in other research.
Context
The role and importance of contextual or
environmental factors must also be taken
into account in considering whether exist-
ing frameworks can be applied or whether
new ones are needed. Part of the purpose in
testing Plog’s (1973, 1990, 2006) framework
lay in seeing whether it had some more
general applicability beyond the North
American context in which it was devel-
oped. Is it appropriate to apply frameworks
formulated in developed countries to devel-
oping ones, or frameworks of urban tourism
to rural areas? Are new frameworks needed
 Selecting and Developing Frameworks
to account for technological developments
and political change, or are these but the
most recent manifestations of more funda-
mental ongoing processes that might
be understood using existing models? At
issue here is how we view the world:
whether we recognize the universality of
‘laws’ applying to tourism and other human
behaviour that might be tested systemati-
cally using more general, abstract frame-
works and predominantly quantitative
techniques; or whether we acknowledge the
role of contextual factors and individual
characteristics in moulding our research
and shaping particular outcomes and opt to
adopt a qualitative approach (Phillimore
and Goodson, 2004; Buckley and Lessard,
2005; Jennings, 2007).
The examples in earlier chapters reflect
the plurality of approaches being used
within tourism research, but much of the
work being done is issues driven and case
based. More attention needs to be directed
at establishing the balance between the gen-
eral and the specific. On the one hand, for
instance, the proliferation of studies on par-
ticular forms of tourism, while not without
its merit, may be obscuring more fundamen-
tal issues because the focus is concentrated
on an ever increasing number of more
specialized forms or segments (Chapter 3).
On the other hand, the examples in Chapter
7 suggest that there is a need to move beyond
generic vacation decision-making frame-
works to examine the particularities of types
of trips and different destinations (Dunne
et al., 2011; Pearce and Schott, 2011). Of
particular importance here are the various
studies and frameworks that explicitly take
account of environmental, contextual or
place-based factors. By building such fac-
tors into the conceptualization and analysis
of problems these studies/frameworks
constitute an intermediate stage or bridge
between the general and the specific. This
takes several forms. The explicit recogni-
tion of these factors is clearly evident in the
adoption of an open systems approach
which emphasizes the impact of the envi-
ronment and place characteristics (Chapter 8).
It is also critical in the frameworks that
embrace or incorporate industrial organization
159
theory and stress the influence of the
external environment or of macro and micro
factors on organizational and individual
behaviour (e.g. Figs 3.9, 4.8, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.7
and 6.2). As the discussion in Chapter 4
showed, comparative research has as one of
its general objectives the role of identifying
the influence of contextual factors in distin-
guishing the general from the specific. In
contrast, many of the development process
models do not incorporate place-specific
features even though the macrostructural
conditions under which a process occurs
was one of the features of processes high-
lighted by Johnston (2006). In particular, as
contextual factors are not built into the
TALC model (Fig. 7.1), it is difficult to com-
pare systematically the applications and
resultant findings of the many studies using
this framework in a range of settings and at
a range of scales (Butler, 2006).
Developing Frameworks
Having considered what our framework
needs to do, what type of framework is
required and, after wide reading, having
decided that none of the existing frame-
works is adequate or meets our needs, how
do we go about elaborating a new frame-
work? Many specific examples of how this
has been done have been referred to in earl-
ier chapters. This section considers the issue
in more general terms.
A useful starting point is to build on
Chorley and Haggett’s (1967, p. 22) state-
ment that: ‘A model [or framework] is . . . a
simplified structuring of reality which
presents supposedly significant features or
relationships in a generalized form’. This
requires three basic and interrelated steps:
• Identification and evaluation of the ‘sup-
posedly significant features’. Whether
expressed as constructs, concepts or
variables, these features constitute the
building blocks of any framework.
The challenge here is to identify the sig-
nificant features – which ones, why are
they significant and how many will be
included?
160 Chapter 9
• Establishment of the relationships and
linkages between these features. What
sorts of relationships are they – causal
or relational, unidirectional or bidirec-
tional, horizontal or vertical, weak or
strong, positive or negative, process or
response …? Are the relationships to be
expressed formally by way of a set of
propositions and hypotheses?
• Presentation and configuration of these
features and relationships in a general-
ized form. Will the framework be elab-
orated in purely textual terms or
depicted schematically? If the latter,
which of the various configurations
discussed in this book is most appro-
priate: a matrix, a process, a system, a
network, a composite framework or
some other configuration?
How each of these steps is carried out depends
in large part on the broader approach being
taken, whether the framework is being
developed deductively in the early phases
of the research cycle or presented in the
latter stages as an outcome emerging from
an inductive approach. It also depends on
the nature of the problem being addressed
and on the degree to which the frameworks
being developed build on the literature or
are based on an accepted configuration, that
is, the basic structure or configuration of the
framework may exist but the details have to
be added by specifying the features.
‘Supposedly significant features’
Bacharach’s (1989, p. 501) comments on the
evaluation of theories might be equally
applied to much framework development:
‘Because constructs and variables are the
building blocks of hypotheses and proposi-
tions, theorists must first evaluate them
before analysing the relational properties of
theories. If they are working with inappro-
priate constructs and variables, how these
constructs and variables are assembled into
hypotheses and propositions is irrelevant.’
Many frameworks, of course, are not devel-
oped to test hypotheses, and interpretivist
and other researchers will be less concerned
with the falsifiability of variables than
Bacharach, but the identification and evalu-
ation of ‘supposedly significant features’
requires careful consideration before they
are brought together.
The most common path to identifying
the significant features to be included in the
development of a framework is through a
thorough reading of the relevant literature
or literatures to establish what is already
known about a given problem and to isolate
the key constructs, concepts and variables,
and establish the linkages between them.
Good examples of how conceptual frame-
works have been built up in this way include
the studies by Evans and Ilbery (1989),
Gallarza et al. (2002), Riley and Szivas
(2003), Cho (2005), Trauer (2006), Mulvaney
et al. (2007) and Kumar et al. (2008). The
development of integrative frameworks
synthesizing diverse literatures has been
reviewed in Chapter 5.
Evans and Ilbery (1989) combine a
political economy approach with insights
from studies of human agency to develop
their conceptual framework of farm-based
accommodation and tourism in Britain.
Their framework is structured in terms of
the interaction between external and inter-
nal farm environments. According to Evans
and Ilbery (1989, p. 260): ‘The identifica-
tion of external and internal farm environ-
ments allows the isolation of critical
components before complex interactions
are appraised’. The external components
are land, labour and capital; the internal
components are land, labour, capital and
entrepreneurial ability. The interaction
between the two sets of components is
expressed in terms of interaction, response
and modification.
In a completely different area of research,
Cho (2005) elaborates the development of
new frameworks for operations strategy and
service system design in electronic com-
merce, including an application to travel
services. Drawing on and extending the
literature in the field of operations strategy
and operation system design with reference
to a product/service matrix for electronic
commerce, Cho progressively identifies and
builds up a set of product characteristics in
 Selecting and Developing Frameworks 161

which the critical variables are classified being retained for intangible services:
into three categories: online, assisted by offline and assisting
offline. The relationships between the prod-
• degree of standardization and product
uct and service characteristics are then
volume;
depicted by way of a matrix, with the fit
• online substitution for services; and
between the two occurring along the diago-
• need of online/offline interaction and
nal (Fig. 9.1a). Opportunities to expand
customization in electronic commerce.
market scope and improve customer serv-
The service process dimension reflects the ices through greater customer accessibility
service channel delivery options, with three can also be identified. Frameworks developed

(a) Characteristics of product

low interaction and customization high
high substitution into online low
high substitution (volume) low

Online Online Highly

standardized interactive customized
services services services
multiple delivery channel single
Characteristics of delivery process

Challengeable
high off-line interaction low

Mass market
Online (off-site) market

Assisted by Extended market

offline (on- and off-site)

Assisting Customized market

Mismatched (on-site)
offline
or traditional market

(b) Online standardized Online interactive Highly customized

services services services
(to mass market) (to extended market) (to customized market)
multiple delivery channel single
Characteristics of delivery process
high off-line interaction low

Online Online information Challengeable

Reservation services market
Ticket sales Tour package sales
Special package sales
Assisted by Market expansion
offline Customer services
Customized group
tours
Consulting
Assisting Mismatched
offline or traditional market

Fig. 9.1. (a) Product/delivery process matrix of intangible services. (b) Summary of the results of a travel services
case study. Source: Cho, S.-E. (2005) Developing new frameworks for operations strategy and service system
design in electronic commerce. International Journal of Service Industry Management 16, 294–314.
162 Chapter 9
in this way (another was created for tan-
gible services) were then validated by
empirical research in which the questions
were derived from the product/delivery
process characteristics; the results for the
travel services case study are depicted in
Fig. 9.1b.
Other researchers combine a literature
search for significant features and relation-
ships with those resulting from their own
experience, thoughts or research. Some
authors acknowledge this but are not very
explicit about the process, as in the develop-
ment of frameworks for tourism and pov-
erty reduction by Meyer (2007) and Zhao
and Ritchie (2007). Crouch and Ritchie’s
(1999, p. 145) creation of a conceptual
model of destination competitiveness ‘arose
out of a coalescence of several research
activities and ideas’. They identify the fol-
lowing steps in this process over a 4 year
period, namely: separate research by the
authors on the determinants of international
tourism demand, tourism policy and plan-
ning, and destination image; joint preparation
of a keynote address on the competitiveness
of long-haul destinations; two focus group
discussions on destination competitiveness
among participants of an executive devel-
opment programme; interviews on this
topic with CEOs and managers of selected
tourism bureaus and organizations; data
drawn from a special session at a confer-
ence; and feedback, debate and introspec-
tion stemming from papers presented at
several conferences. Singh and Hu (2008)
report on the development of a conceptual
framework for the strategic alignment of
destination marketing and organizing the
Olympic Games, which resulted from the
identification of issues that arose from
their focal research into implicit knowledge
associated with mega-event organization,
namely the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens.
After they had completed and analysed
their interviews relating to implicit knowl-
edge with members of the Greek National
Tourism Organization and the Athens
Olympic Games Committee, the authors
found that many problems that had arisen
could have been avoided by careful coor-
dination between the two organizations.
This led them to explore this issue further
by proposing a conceptual framework
adapted from a strategic alignment frame-
work developed in the IT field.
In other instances, the relevance and
viability of the variables drawn from the
literature is determined by a panel of
experts, focus groups and pilot studies, or
is otherwise field tested, as in the selec-
tion of attributes used in the IPA frame-
works discussed in Chapter 6 (e.g. Zhang
and Chow, 2004; O’Leary and Deegan,
2005), or in the derivation of the frame-
work for food tourism by du Rand and
Heath (2006). In the case of scenario plan-
ning, the selection of the dimensions is
usually done empirically (Yeoman, 2005;
Daconto and Sherpa, 2010).
Concepts and variables may also be iso-
lated and identified from the data. Examples
where the features identified are grounded
in empirical research and where the frame-
works are emergent in nature have been dis-
cussed in earlier chapters, such as the
section in Chapter 2 dealing with grounded
theory (e.g. Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2006),
that in Chapter 3 relating to qualitative con-
ceptual frameworks (e.g. Moscardo, 2007)
and the discussion of qualitative data analy-
sis in Chapter 4 (e.g. Figs 4.9 and 4.10).
In these cases, the key constructs and con-
cepts emerge from coding and categoriza-
tion of the findings with increasing levels of
abstraction, and from varying, usually itera-
tive, connections with the literature. The
increasing levels of abstraction used in
these emergent approaches contrast with
the need in the deductive studies to express
the significant features in more tangible
terms, that is, to go from the more abstract
constructs and concepts to measurable
variables so that the framework can be
operationalized and relationships tested
(Brotherton, 2008). Yu et al. (2001) provide
a useful discussion of measurement issues
in their conceptual framework for analysing
the intercultural competence of Chinese
tour guides. They note that there is a lack of
consensus in the literature on how best to
conceptualize and measure this construct,
and outline a multidimensional approach to
doing this.
 Selecting and Developing Frameworks
Relationships and configurations
Two broad approaches to establishing and
analysing the relationships to be explored
and the ways in which frameworks are to be
configured to depict these relationships
might be identified: the specific application
of a broader configuration such as a matrix,
process or system, and the deductive or
inductive development of more individual-
ized frameworks commonly configured as a
more general network.
Broad configurations
Chapters 6–8 have shown how various
frameworks classified in terms of their broad
configurations have been used by research-
ers to address a wide range of problems and
to show the relationships, both conceptually
and empirically, between numerous and
diverse concepts and variables. In these
cases, the basic structure of the selected
framework is deemed to be appropriate to
address the problem in question, the con-
cepts and variables are specified and,
depending on the degree of adherence to the
basic framework, a particular configuration
is developed that sets out the relationships
examined.
Chapter 6 reviewed the various types of
matrices that have been adopted by research-
ers focusing on the relationships between
two sets of variables across two dimensions,
the basic assumption being that two dimen-
sions are sufficient. In IPA, for example, the
relationship being explored is that between
the importance and performance of a set of
attributes as displayed on a quadrant matrix
(Fig. 6.3). Some debate has occurred about
the merits of the two dimensions in this
type of matrix and alternatives have been
proposed, but a quadrant matrix remains
the basic configuration and the key step in
the development of this framework is gener-
ally the selection of the specific attributes to
be included. In other instances, more novel
applications of quadrant matrices have been
developed, as in Hudson and Miller’s (2005)
model of responsible marketing (Fig. 6.6),
which classifies businesses in terms of
the relationship between environmentally
163
responsible actions and environmental
communications; the authors have desig-
nated the dimensions and outlined how
these might be measured in order that the
relationships might be examined empiri-
cally. Likewise, tabular matrices have also
been developed and applied to diverse
problems. Again, a common structure of an
array of rows and columns is used; varia-
tions on the basic model (Figs 6.7, 6.8 and
6.9) involve decisions about how many and
which variables to include and whether the
relationships between these are to be ana-
lysed by reading the matrix vertically or
horizontally, or by looking for best fit along
the diagonal.
Figure 9.2 is a tabular matrix that was
developed in the later stages of a large
multi-year project on tourism distribution
channels in New Zealand to synthesize this
work and provide a systematic basis on
which practical guidelines for the industry
might be built (Pearce, 2008a). The devel-
opment of this generalized model of tour-
ism distribution was grounded in a rich
and robust set of comparable empirical
findings, which were restructured and
reinterpreted on a more theoretical basis by
reference to the broader distribution litera-
ture. According to Stern and El-Ansary
(1992, p. 2) ‘channels should be viewed as
an orchestrated network that creates value
for the user or consumer through the gen-
eration of form, possession, time and place
utilities’. Moreover, as Kotler et al. (1996,
p. 473) note: ‘Designing the distribution
channel starts with determining the services
that consumers in various target segments
want’. The needs–functions dimensions of
the matrix were developed on this basis.
First, the users, in this case international
leisure travellers, were segmented into three
classes according to the way in which they
make their travel arrangements: independ-
ent, customized and package tourists. They
require four major categories of services:
travel to and at the destination, accommo-
dation, and attractions and activities.
Second, the associated notions of time and
place utility discussed by Stern and
El-Ansary (1992) might be translated into
when and where the various services are
164 Chapter 9

Time, Place, Form and Possession Utilities

Timing and Location of Services Required
In market En route At destination

Booking and

Booking and

Booking and
Assortment

Assortment

Assortment
Information

Information

Information
provision

provision

provision
purchase

purchase

purchase
Bundling

Bundling

Bundling
Segment

Independent
Spec

trans
Key
Full

Transport to
Few transactions
Transport at

Little or none

Little or none
some sorting
Sector

General and

General and

transactions

transactions
None

Full range /
Specific

Multiple
specific

specific
Some

Some

Some
Accommodation

Attractions

Customized
Customized bundling of
Wider assortment Full

Transport to
major products

Single transaction

Few transactions

Few trans
Transport at

Little or none
Little or none

some sorting
Sector

General and

General and

Full range /
Specific
specific

specific

Some

Accommodation

Some
trans
Attractions

Package
Range of standardized

Transport to
Single transaction
General and

All inclusive
packages

Transport at
specific
Sector

Accommodation
Optional
Possibly
optional
Limited/
Some

Attractions

Fig. 9.2. A needs–functions model of tourism distribution. Source: Reprinted from Annals of Tourism
Research 35, Pearce, D.G. (2008) A needs–functions model of tourism distribution, pp. 148–168. Copyright
(2008) with permission from Elsevier.

required and need to be delivered: in the dled together are critical. Possession utility
market ahead of travel; at the destination; can be seen in terms of booking and pay-
or en route between the two. Form utility is ment: when and where does the tourist
related to assortment and sorting, that is, need to pay for which services; which serv-
bridging the discrepancy between the ices require reservations and prepayment;
assortment or range and quantity of serv- how are the transactions to be completed
ices provided by suppliers and those and by whom?
demanded by tourists. Here, the multipli- The matrix thus provides a framework
city of services needed throughout a trip and within which the distributions needs of the
the way and extent to which they are bun- tourists can be matched against or related to
 Selecting and Developing Frameworks
the functions required to meet those needs.
Figure 9.2 highlights the differences that
occur among segments, sectors and the
amount of distribution activity that occurs
in the market, at the destination or some-
where in-between. In terms of time and
place utilities, the most pronounced differ-
ences are found at the extremes of the diago-
nals, that is, between the in-market and
at-destination needs of the independent and
package tourists. The customized tourists
constitute an intermediate case. Form and
possession utilities among the three segments
are also marked: the customized tourists
exhibit particular characteristics that pre-
viously had largely been neglected in the
distribution literature in favour of package
tourists and, to a lesser extent, independent
tourists. Customized tourists are distin-
guished from independent tourists by the
extent of pre-purchase from an intermedi-
ary (usually in market) and from package
tourists by the fact that the combination of
products they are seeking and paying for in
a single transaction before departure is tailor-
made to meet their requirements rather than
already bundled into a package or series
tour. Providers need to take account of these
differences among the segments they are
targeting if they are to design effective dis-
tribution channel strategies that carry out
the right functions in the appropriate places
(Pearce, 2009b).
As Chapter 7 showed, process frame-
works are developed to examine or depict
problems where a set of relationships is
believed to occur in a sequential or evolu-
tionary fashion such that discernible and
meaningful stages can be identified and the
progression from one stage to the next can
be explained. Development of these frame-
works involves the selection of the charac-
teristics to be examined, determination of
the number of and labelling of the stages,
and analysis of the mechanisms driving
change. Different sorts of relationships are
explored and depicted depending on the
research focus and the type of framework
developed. The TALC (Fig. 7.1), for exam-
ple, is depicted in terms of the relationship
between tourist numbers and time, though
as noted, the accompanying text also
165
involves changes in the type of tourists,
products and agents of development.
Prideaux’s (2000) model incorporates price/
capacity relationships as well as tourist
numbers and time (Fig. 7.4). The decision-
making frameworks are structured around
a set of steps that relate various types of
decisions or behaviour to those that precede
or follow others and that consider the
different factors which influence these
decisions and actions (e.g. Figs 7.9 and
7.10). While some of the decision-making
relationships may be analysed quantita-
tively, these process frameworks are often
qualitative in nature. Process frameworks
are configured as a set of stages and the
links between these; variations occur with
regard to the number of stages, the way
these are linked, and the level of internal
detail of the characteristics considered.
Particular challenges in developing process
frameworks relate to identifying the factors
and relationships that lead to a stage change
and thus to the number and type of stages
in the framework.
Researchers adopting a systems or net-
work approach emphasize relationships
across the system or network as a whole.
They follow the assumptions and use the
techniques applied more generally in
these fields, but develop their frameworks to
express the relationships that reflect the par-
ticular characteristics of tourism. As seen in
Chapter 8, the systems frameworks used
by tourism researchers commonly explore
demand/supply relationships across the
sector, between origins and destinations
and/or from one scale to another (Figs 8.1–
8.6). The particular emphasis of the research
is reflected in the resultant configurations:
demand/supply systems differ in the level
of disaggregation of sectors and segments,
and the relationships between these; the
origin/destination frameworks stress spatial
structure and linkages of different types and
degrees of reciprocity; and the scalar frame-
works take on a hierarchical structure with
a concern for the direction of the exchange
(top down, bottom up or both). The com-
plexity of many systems is increasingly
being recognized, but major challenges have
yet to be overcome in order to analyse the
166 Chapter 9
multiple, interconnected and diverse types
of relationships that make up these systems
(Fig. 8.7). Three types of network relation-
ships are commonly examined, but usually
not in the same study: social, information
and exchange. Thus, a key development
decision concerns the type of network rela-
tionship to be analysed. The specific net-
work configurations will generally emerge
from the analysis (Figs 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10)
and their structure will be analysed and
depicted using the various properties and
techniques discussed in Chapter 8. In other
cases, the research focus is on some aspect
of an established network and the concern
is less with its structure than with how it
functions or how the members of the net-
work behave (von Friedrichs Grängsjö and
Gummesson, 2006).
Composite frameworks may also be
developed by building on and adding to con-
ventional configurations in order to explore
further relationships, such as incorporating a
dynamic dimension into a matrix (Figs 8.11
and 8.12). Conversely, where the underlying
framework emphasizes change, as with pro-
cess frameworks, considerable scope exists
to develop these by making the environmen-
tal factors under which change occurs more
explicit. Figure 9.3 depicts the conceptual
framework on which the preparation of the
Second Tourism Master Plan for Sarawak
was based. Developed by the author at the
outset of the project, the framework com-
bines temporal and scalar dimensions with
the elements covered in the plan, all of which
reflect the context in which the plan was pre-
pared and the applied nature of the exercise
(Pearce, 1995a). Figure 9.3 is not a process
framework of the sort discussed in Chapter 7
which outlines the stages involved in prepa-
ration of the plan; rather, it conceptualizes
the nature and scope of the plan – the ‘big
picture’ that served to integrate the different
aspects of the plan, to coordinate the efforts
of the multidisciplinary planning team and
to communicate the project to diverse
stakeholders.
Three fundamental principles were
recognized as being important in develop-
ing the framework for a comprehensive
long-term master plan:
1. Tourism is a multifaceted phenomenon
involving the provision of a range of inter-
related goods and services by the public and
private sectors. Identifying and understand-
ing the interplay and interrelationships
between these different elements is essential
for successful tourism planning. Many of
the elements were defined in direct response
to the planning team’s terms of reference, for
example markets, transport, accommodation
and impacts. Others were included in order
to facilitate implementation of the plan’s
recommendations, notably who was doing
the marketing and who the agents of devel-
opment were (Fig. 6.7).
2. Preparation of a long-term plan must take
account of the dynamic nature of tourism
and the factors that influence its develop-
ment. Hence, emphasis was given to deter-
mining trends for each of the elements, that
is, the analyses and evaluations were not
confined to the current year in which the
plan was being prepared (1992/3) but exam-
ined what had been occurring and what
might happen in the future. The starting
point for the temporal analysis was 1981,
the year in which the first tourism master
plan for Sarawak was completed and for
which good baseline data existed. The end
point was 2010, the last year to be covered
by the second master plan.
3. Preparation of a state master plan involves
planning at an intermediate scale. This
involved setting the state of Sarawak in the
national (Malaysian) and broader regional
(ASEAN) context, while at the same time
coordinating and integrating activities at the
local level, especially in terms of designated
key areas within the state.
In short, the need to draw together a
larger number of elements over time and
space called for an ‘integrated, dynamic,
multi-scale’ approach as embodied in Fig. 9.3.
In this way. the various interrelated ele-
ments for each scale were examined over
time, and the implications of the resultant
trends identified were brought together in a
series of recommended actions. In practice,
Fig. 9.3 served as an introduction to the
plan document, with subsequent chapters
on the different elements being organized in
 Selecting and Developing Frameworks 167

Context Trends Implications Action

Markets Key Areas

le
a
Sc

Marketing

Transport

Attractions

Accommodation

Supporting
Services
Agents of
Development
Elements

Impacts

Human Resources
Sarawak

Malaysia

ASEAN

1981 1992 2010

Recent Changes Current Situation Trends & Future Developments
Time

FIG. 9.3. A conceptual framework for the preparation of the Second Tourism Master Plan for Sarawak.
Source: Figure 12.2 from Pearce, D.G. (1995) Planning for tourism in the 1990s; an integrated, dynamic
multiscale approach, pp. 229–244 in Butler, R.W. and Pearce, D. (eds) Change in Tourism: People, Places,
Processes, Routledge. Reprinted with permission.

terms of scale and changes over time. Thus,
for example, the market analysis began with
an examination of recent patterns and trends
and of competing destinations in the wider
ASEAN region and Malaysia in order to set
the context for the more detailed analysis of
demand to and within Sarawak (Pearce,
1997a,c).
General networks
Other frameworks might also be thought of
as networks, not in the narrower sense used
in Chapter 8 but rather in the way the term
is used more generally by Miles and
Huberman (1994, p. 94) to refer to ‘a collec-
tion of “nodes” or points connected by lines
“links” ’. These networks are commonly
portrayed by boxes and arrows with varying
amounts of accompanying narrative. In con-
trast to the networks discussed in Chapter 8,
where the nodes usually represent a set of
organizations or actors linked by a common
set of relationships, the nodes or boxes in
these more general networks may represent
a range of variables in different parts of the
network, as well as different types of rela-
tionships among them. These frameworks
tend be much more specific to the problems
being addressed, and fewer commonalities
in their structure are evident. They may
be developed either deductively or induc-
tively, or from some combination of these
approaches, and be used with both quanti-
tative and qualitative data. Many, but not
all, general networks are associated with
setting out a set of propositions and hypoth-
eses to be explored and tested or otherwise
establishing relationships between concepts
and variables. Crouch and Ritchie (1999),
for example, state that the purpose of their
framework on destination competitiveness
is not predictive or causal; rather, its role is
to explain in the sense of making something
clear or describing it in a way that illus-
trates it and makes it intelligible. Many of
168
the frameworks in Chapter 3 are of this sort
(e.g. Figs 3.2, 3.5 and 3.6).
In more general networks, differences
also occur in the way in which the relation-
ships are established and the framework is
built up. As discussed in Chapter 3, the research
design for much quantitative research is
based upon conceptual frameworks setting
out a series of propositions or hypotheses
that postulate the relationships between
concepts or variables (Brotherton, 2008).
In terms of hypothesis testing, this requires:
the identification of the variables; determi-
nation (where possible) of whether they are
dependent, independent, intervening or
moderating variables; and formal specifica-
tion of the relationships among these, set-
ting out the conditions under which they
occur – for example, the propensity to take
an overseas holiday depends on levels of
income and education or a positive attitude
towards a new tourism project results from
the perceived economic benefits that the
project will bring.
For many topics, however, the issue is
not just that of specifying the relationships
between the pairs of concepts or variables
but also of setting out how multiple propo-
sitions or hypotheses might be connected.
In most cases, both types of relationships
are generated from the literature, being
derived from a particular theoretical frame-
work or the synthesis of several (Chapters 3,
4 and 5). They might also reflect the
researchers’ own logical reckoning or be
developed inductively and grounded in
some prior empirical research (Hyde, 2000;
Stokes, 2008). The conceptual framework
may take the form of a set of principles,
propositions or hypotheses set out and/or
elaborated on in a narrative fashion (Hyde,
2000; Riley and Szivas, 2003). In other
cases, the propositions or hypotheses will
also be portrayed schematically in order to
depict the relationships between them more
clearly (Figs 3.7 and 5.8) or dealt with
sequentially with reference to a schematic
conceptual framework (Fig. 3.8).
Frameworks structuring propositions
and hypotheses are basically concerned
with the identification of antecedents, with
issues of influence and with questions of
Chapter 9
dependence, that is, which factors depend
on or influence which other factors? By
focusing on what is to be explained and
which factors contribute to this explana-
tion, a logical interconnected set of causal
relationships is progressively built up into a
larger framework, as demonstrated by
Casteñeda et al. (2009) with reference to
Internet acceptance and use (Fig. 3.7), and
Gursoy and McCleary (2004) in terms of
information search behaviour (Fig. 5.7).
These frameworks thus order the hypothe-
ses to be tested and structure the analysis to
be carried out.
Networks developed from inductive,
qualitative research in general follow the
opposite process, that is, the frameworks are
an outcome of the analysis and result from
the structuring of the relationships estab-
lished between the concepts and variables
identified. Varying levels of connection with
the literature may also occur in this process.
Some researchers are more explicit than oth-
ers about how their frameworks have been
developed in this way and what steps have
been taken to identify the factors and deter-
mine the relationships between them
(Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2006; Moscardo,
2007). Frequently, however, conceptual
frameworks presented as the outcome of
qualitative research are depicted in summary
form and in a black box fashion, with even
less explanation of the relationships shown
and the configuration depicted than there is
discussion of the selection or derivation of
the concepts and variables included.
Although often passed over lightly in many
tourism studies, this aspect of the develop-
ment of a framework is critical to its credibil-
ity and validity, and needs to be treated
explicitly and in some detail.
The ways in which relationships are
individually and collectively identified in
qualitative data analysis are discussed in
some depth in more general methodological
texts (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Kitchin
and Tate, 2000). The discussion by Miles and
Huberman is particularly comprehensive
and useful. As with the deductive approach,
two basic issues underlie this exercise: first,
we need to recognize that different sorts of
relationships exist; secondly, we need to
 Selecting and Developing Frameworks
establish which types of relationships occur
between which concepts or variables and
how several of these nodes might be inter-
connected. Broadly, we can distinguish
between association and causality, between
relational and causal links. With association,
separate events occur together or covary; for
example, both A and B are high or low at the
same time, or when A is high B is low. With
causality, a change in one variable is attrib-
uted to the impact or influence of another,
for example an increase in A (the independ-
ent variable) results in a corresponding
increase in B (the dependent variable).
Some feel for possible relationships
will be obtained during the coding and
categorization process for identifying the
variables. The data then need to be analysed
more systematically to draw out and link
these relationships by searching for regu-
larities or patterns in their occurrence.
Various strategies for doing this are sug-
gested by Miles and Huberman (1994).
These include:
• looking for temporal associations in the
data: for example, do certain variables
regularly occur before, after or at the
same time as others;
• thinking about the mechanisms that are
involved and that might bring about
changes in the associated variables;
• checking for causal linkages suggested
or claimed by respondents; and
• considering what the literature says
about possible causal connections.
Where multiple cases are involved, such
analysis is needed both within and between
cases. Miles and Huberman (1994) and Kitchin
and Tate (2000) advocate the use of matrices,
for example, time-ordered or antecedents
matrices, as a practical way of identifying
links. Concepts derived from qualitative data
may also be linked using various computer
packages such as NVivo, NUD.IST and CatPac
(Kitchin and Tate, 2000; Jennings, 2007; Parag
and Ryan 2011). While being used increas-
ingly to analyse destination image, there
appears to have been little application so far
of this approach in developing frameworks
for tourism (Pan et al., 2007; Parag and Ryan,
2011; Wong et al., 2011).
169
The relationships between variables
established in these ways can then be pro-
gressively built up into a larger framework
using various strategies. Miles and Huberman
(1994) show how a causal network can be
developed by focusing first on smaller ‘causal
fragments’ and then mapping these together.
They also discuss (p. 260) building up a logi-
cal chain of evidence through ‘more pain-
staking verification at each step’. In building
up these larger frameworks, attention needs
to be paid to the possible existence of inter-
vening variables when relationships between
two seemingly conceptually connected vari-
ables are not strong or clear or when two
variables seem to go together but why they
do so is not readily apparent.
Scope, configuration and presentation
Consideration needs to be given to the over-
all scope and configuration of the framework
and how it is presented. Bounding frame-
works is an issue that is rarely addressed
explicitly, and one that deserves much
more attention if the value and utility of
frameworks are to be fully understood and the
connections between new frameworks and
the existing literature are to be appreciated.
Where do the boundaries of the framework
lie and how have these been determined –
by definition of the scope of the problem in
question, by coverage of all the functions
required of it, by exhaustion of the theoreti-
cal or logical connections between the set of
propositions or hypotheses, by analytical
saturation whereby no further concepts or
relationships emerge, or in some other way?
Fundamental factors here are what the
framework sets out to do and what the foun-
dation is – theoretical and/or empirical – on
which the framework is built.
Likewise, considerable scope exists in
many cases, especially with general net-
works, to be much more explicit about how
the framework has been configured, why
the particular configuration chosen is most
appropriate and how this structure best
communicates the problem being addressed.
Developing an effective configuration is not
170 Chapter 9

something that is usually achieved at the planning. It is centred on the dominant

first attempt: rather, it tends to be a process stakeholder, the local council, and
of thinking through, sequencing and shows the strength of information flows
resequencing key ideas; of ordering and between the council and the other
reordering propositions and hypotheses; stakeholders. . .
of arranging and rearranging the concepts
With the overall structure outlined, more
and variables and considering the best way
detail can then be provided on specific fea-
of depicting the relationships between
tures or relationships.
them. A large sheet of paper or whiteboard
In addition to textual explanations of
comes in handy here. Is there a hierarchy of
structure and relationships, added clarity and
concepts and relationships? What is the
meaning can be given to schematic frame-
nature and structure of dependence – what
works by being more explicit about what is
depends on what? What is at the heart of
depicted. In particular, what do the arrows
the problem being addressed? What is more
linking our boxes represent? In many cases,
peripheral? Testing the logic and clarity
these go unlabelled and the nature of the rela-
of the framework with peers or intended
tionships they are supposed to represent may
users, whether academics or practitioners,
often be assumed or determined only by care-
will do much to enhance its effectiveness.
ful reading of the text. This has been the case,
A concise but informative title will also aid
for example, in the growing body of research
comprehension.
on tourism distribution, where structural dia-
Miles and Huberman (1994) emphasize
grams of distribution systems have commonly
the importance of the narrative or discussion
been portrayed by way of layers of channel
that accompanies the schematic depiction of
members – tourists, various types of interme-
networks and matrices, a point underlined
diaries and suppliers – connected by a set of
in earlier chapters with reference to frame-
arrows, usually unidirectional, and without
works in general. In introducing a frame-
any explicit sense of the nature of the link-
work, it is useful to provide a clear, concise
ages. Some of our own early work in this field
and explicit account of the overall structure
was also of this sort (Fig. 7.13). However,
of the framework, to outline and name its
towards the end of the large multi-year project
major features and how they are related, and
referred to earlier (Pearce, 2008a), it had
to indicate how the framework should be
become clear that such an approach did not
read or used. For example:
adequately represent the processes being
examined and, as a result, a more explicit
• The two axes of the matrix represent
depiction of the distribution functions repre-
the perceived level of environmental
sented was developed (Fig. 7.12). In Fig. 7.12,
impact and resident attitudes towards
an attempt is also made to be more informa-
foreign-owned tourism development
tive with the boxes: on the supply side, the
projects. . .
variety of suppliers who contribute product to
• The five stages of the framework repre-
packages in multiple destinations is shown;
sent the process by which the decision
on the demand side, the fragmented nature of
was taken to begin promotion in emerg-
demand is represented by dots that illustrate
ing markets. Each stage shows the
the multiplicity of consumers. Care should
nature of the decision taken, who made
also be taken to ensure consistent terminology
it and when it was made. . .
is used both in the text and in the schematic
• The framework is hierarchical in nature
framework.
and reads from top to bottom, begin-
ning with the attitudes of the CEOs of
the national tourism organization and
ending with the views of front-line Conclusions
workers in local information offices. . .
• Figure X depicts the eight sets of stake- Finally, it is important to bear in mind that
holders involved in local level resort frameworks are selected and/or developed
 Selecting and Developing Frameworks
for particular purposes. While some frame-
works may be an outcome of research and
provide a foundation for future work, more
generally, the purpose of selecting and/or
developing a framework is to assist with
various aspects of the research process in a
current project; that is, a framework is a
means to an end and not an end in itself.
Once a framework has been selected or
developed, this should be used accord-
ingly. Theoretical or conceptual frame-
works are not there simply to demonstrate
that the literature has been read and that
the work is being set in a broader context.
They are there to help formulate the
research problem, guide the research
design and, later, to assist with interpreta-
tion and presentation. This is a point that
often appears to be overlooked in some
171
theses, where an elaborate theoretical or
conceptual framework is developed and
presented early on, but there is little subse-
quent evidence that it is being used to
inform the research process. Many articles
would also benefit from referral back to the
initial framework in the later sections of
the paper so that the interpretation of the
findings can be strengthened and they can
be linked into the wider literature, thereby
demonstrating more effectively the contri-
bution that has been made. Likewise, ana-
lytical frameworks are also developed for a
purpose, but in some theses and larger
projects they appear to be abandoned or
later ignored so that the analysis loses
structure and direction and becomes diffi-
cult to follow. Choose it and use it is the
message with frameworks.
 10
Frameworks and Future Directions
in Tourism Research
This book has endeavoured to assist
researchers to choose, develop and use
frameworks that might both enhance their
own research and foster a more critical
appreciation of the use of frameworks by
others, by setting out and systematically
addressing issues relating to the selection,
development and use of frameworks for
tourism research. By way of conclusion,
this final chapter offers some more general
observations on frameworks and on future
directions in tourism research. These obser-
vations stem from the wide-ranging review
of frameworks in earlier chapters, together
with the experience of co-editing the 20th
Anniversary volume of the International
Academy for the Study of Tourism, a volume
comprising a series of state-of-the-art
critiques of tourism research by leading
international scholars from a range of disci-
plines (Pearce and Butler, 2010b).
In our overview of research in the
Academy volume (Pearce and Butler, 2010a),
we identified five major and interrelated
trends:
• substantial growth in the volume of
tourism studies accompanied by an
increasingly wide range of topics being
researched;
• a general picture of continuity and
incremental change, with ongoing calls
for greater theorization;
172 © Douglas G. Pearce 2012. Frameworks for Tourism Research (D.G. Pearce)
• little common purpose, no great sense
of direction and a resultant fragmenta-
tion – tourism research ‘appears not to
have been driven by the pursuit of core
questions under the umbrella of any uni-
fying set of theories leading to a struc-
tured cumulative body of knowledge’;
• increasing dissemination in specialized
tourism journals, books and conferences
so that much tourism research is not
well linked to work in other areas; and
• the ‘walling in’ of research by language
barriers.
Running through these trends is the need for
greater structure and the scope for better
communication, two challenges that
might be met by the more effective use of
different forms of frameworks. Integrative
frameworks, in particular, can play a very
useful role here. As shown in Chapter 5,
integrative frameworks can be used to draw
together themes, theories and methods in
both emerging and more established areas of
research, synthesizing what is already
known and highlighting critical areas for
future research. These frameworks might
also be used to break down language barriers
and bridge divides between tourism research
and that in related sectors or fields of study.
While there is little doubt that the larg-
est volume of tourism research has been and
 Frameworks and Future Directions in Tourism Research
continues to be published in English, there
are well-established tourism literatures in
languages such as French and German
(Kreisel, 2004; Lazzarotti, 2004, 2010), and
a rapidly increasing amount of work being
done in parts of the world where tourism
has experienced significant growth in recent
decades, such as China and Latin America
(Hsu et al., 2010; Schlüter and Bertoncello,
2010). Some of this work is being published
in English language outlets and new jour-
nals such as the Journal of China Tourism
Research are making research in these
places more accessible, but much remains
to be done. It is not yet clear what, if any,
distinctive characteristics tourism research
in Latin America, China and other parts of
Asia are developing, but if the pattern else-
where is followed – in which particular
national or regional schools have emerged
(Pearce, 1999; Kreisel, 2004; Lazzarotti,
2004, 2010) – then the literature as a whole
will be poorer if new findings, concepts and
methods developed there and in other
regions are not widely disseminated and
incorporated into more general discourses.
Given the monolingual backgrounds of many
researchers, particularly Anglo–American
scholars, there are clearly difficulties with
wholesale access to and comprehension of
individual studies in a second language. In
this context, integrative frameworks drawn
from a particular language could synthesize
key works and findings and serve as a bridge
to other languages; then only the framework
papers would need to be translated and dis-
seminated, not the many individual pieces
of research that they bring together. In this
way, a much more universal understanding
of particular issues – be they questions of
development and impact, of motivation and
behaviour, or of organization and business
practice – might be developed, and commo-
nalities and differences better appreciated.
In a similar fashion, integrative frame-
works might be used to draw together more
effectively work on related themes across
diverse disciplines. Various key tourism
themes (e.g. demand, development and
impacts) are now being tackled by studies
that have become specialized to the point
that mutual comprehension is being lost,
173
and what might be common ground is
increasingly difficult to find. Marketing
experts, for example, employ various
approaches to promote or direct the demand
for tourism, economists use sophisticated
quantitative methodologies to measure and
analyse this demand, sociologists and social
psychologists advance a variety of theories
to explain the patterns of behaviour under-
lying it, while geographers examine the
resultant spatial travel patterns. This spe-
cialization may be advancing our under-
standing of particular aspects of tourism
demand, but our cumulative knowledge of
this phenomenon is perhaps less than the
sum of the individual parts due to fragmen-
tation and a lack of cross-fertilization from
one discipline to another. This is not a mat-
ter that can be easily resolved, but the devel-
opment of integrative frameworks prepared
with the purpose of enhancing linkages
across research on demand, paying atten-
tion to communicating concepts and find-
ings to a broader audience, would be one
way forward.
Integrative frameworks might also be
used more widely to provide greater shape
to emerging research areas. The growing
body of work on tourism and climate
change, for example, is a major topic that,
by its nature, deserves and is attracting
attention from researchers examining a
range of different aspects – from the science
of the physical processes, through an analy-
sis of policy matters to understanding the
behaviour and responses of tourism organ-
izations, businesses and tourists themselves
(Schott, 2010). The complexity and inter-
connectedness of the issues involved with
climate change are recognized and are being
addressed on a range of fronts using various
conceptual frameworks: Richardson and
Witkowski (2010) have proposed a concep-
tual framework for the assessment of
economic vulnerability to climate change;
Jopp et al. (2010) have developed one for
regional destination adaptation. Again, an
integrative framework bringing these differ-
ent facets together would be mutually ben-
eficial and would also enable work on
tourism to be linked more readily to that on
climate change more generally.
174 Chapter 10
Scope exists too for tourism researchers
to underpin their studies by greater recourse
to theoretical frameworks. Smith and Lee’s
(2010) analysis of the use of the term
‘theory’, and its variants in articles in three
leading tourism journals, showed the
proportion of articles mentioning the term
had increased over the periods studied
(1989–1993, 2004–2008), but it had still
reached only 7.9% in the second lustrum.
How critical this lack of theorization is has
been subject to some debate. Franklin and
Crang (2001, p. 6) argued that ‘most research-
ers have become dependent on a relatively
small core of “theorists” whose work has
tended to become petrified in standardized
explanations, accepted analyses and foun-
dational ideas’, and called for the theoreti-
cal net ‘to be cast much wider so that tourist
studies are constantly renewed by develop-
ments in social and cultural theory and
theory from other disciplines’. In contrast,
P.L. Pearce (2005, p. 14) asserted that:
Tourism study . . . is not on the way to
‘growing up’ into a science with theories
and tight paradigms of operation. It is the
study of a phenomenon with a range of
diverse contributions and some conceptual
schemes. It may develop some theories but,
given the rich contextual changing nature
of the core phenomenon under analysis, it
is more likely to retain a strong interplay
between observations, data, and tightly-
fashioned and sometimes localised conceptual
schemes and explanatory systems. . .
As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, theo-
retical frameworks play a very valuable role
in directing our attention to critical and sig-
nificant issues and relationships, thereby
aiding the formulation of relevant research
questions and an appropriate research
design. Theoretical frameworks also assist
the interpretation of our findings, enable us
to set these more clearly in the wider litera-
ture and indicate their generality. As the
examples discussed have shown, the topics
studied by tourism researchers lend them-
selves to examination through a range of
theoretical lenses, and various and multiple
theoretical frameworks might be applied.
Even without a single or small set of over-
arching theories, the wider use of theoretical
frameworks would contribute to a greater
sense of direction, bring some unity to a
rather fragmented field, foster understand-
ing through the greater explanatory founda-
tion they provide and enhance the prospects
of a step change in the quality of tourism
research being done.
Many of these theoretical frameworks
will continue to be drawn from other areas
and broader disciplines, but more con-
certed efforts might be directed at deriving
theory from the plethora of tourism studies
being done. There already exists a large and
diverse collection of conceptual frame-
works that might serve as the foundation
for such theory building activity. However,
these frameworks need to be taken further
and developed in greater depth. Many con-
ceptual frameworks have been proposed,
but with little attempt to validate them
through empirical research, to test the
generality of the relationships proposed
through application in other settings, to
draw out theoretical implications or to
explore relationships with other frame-
works. Rather, frameworks are frequently
being put forward by researchers who then
move on to other topics and problems,
apparently seeing the publication of a con-
ceptual framework in itself as a sufficient
contribution. Greater depth through more
sustained effort on a lesser range of fronts
rather than the ever-burgeoning, often
superficial treatment of a vast range of top-
ics may yield greater understanding and
advance our knowledge of tourism more
effectively. Guidance into just what these
fronts might be could be derived from the
issues and priorities identified by the wider
use of integrative frameworks.
Validation through empirical research
will also require greater effort to operation-
alize conceptual frameworks, many of which
would benefit from complementary analyti-
cal frameworks to assist the data analysis.
Those developing, but not implementing,
conceptual frameworks might do well to
look more closely at successful analytical
frameworks. In other cases, especially with
much qualitative research, there is scope for
the analysis undertaken to be presented
with reference to a more explicit analytical
 Frameworks and Future Directions in Tourism Research
framework so that the validity and robustness
of the findings might be evaluated more
fully. Conversely, scope often exists for a
fuller conceptualization and a sounder the-
oretical basis for the analytical frameworks
currently in use.
In conclusion, frameworks have the
potential not only to shape and guide the
conduct of individual pieces of tourism
research but also to influence the nature
and direction of research in the field as a
whole. Their development and use therefore
175
warrant much closer attention and wider
debate. In systematically and explicitly
examining a wide range of frameworks, this
book has taken a first step in setting out
many of the issues, opportunities and chal-
lenges that arise, and has shown a way
forward. It is hoped that this will both assist
individual researchers in their own work
and also encourage and stimulate more
explicit and active discussion and debate
over the nature and role of frameworks in
tourism research.
This page intentionally left blank
 References

Abler, R., Janelle, D., Philbrick, A. and Sommer, J. (1975) Human Geography in a Shrinking World. Duxbury
Press, North Scituate, Massachusetts.
Agarwal, S. (2005) Global–local interactions in English coastal resorts: theoretical perspectives. Tourism
Geographies 7, 351–372.
Ãguas, P., Rita, P. and Costa, J. (2000) A tourist market portfolio for Portugal. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 12, 394–400.
Ajzen, I. (1988) Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.
Alfasi, N. and Fenster, T. (2009) Between the “global” and the “local”: on global locality and local globality.
Urban Geography 30, 543–566.
Amin, A. (1994) Post-Fordism: A Reader. Blackwell, Oxford and Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Anderson, B., Prideaux, B. and Brown, G. (2007) Responding to the crises of 2001: the Australian experience.
In: Laws, E., Prideaux, B. and Chon, K. (eds) Crisis Management in Tourism. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK, pp. 267–285.
Anderson, J.R. (1983) The Architecture of Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Anfara, V.A. and Mertz, N.T. (eds) (2006) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand
Oaks, California.
Ansoff, I. (1987) Corporate Strategy, rev. ed. Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Armitage, D. (1995) An integrative methodological framework of sustainable planning and management.
Environmental Management 19, 469–479.
Arnegger, J., Woltering, M. and Job, H. (2010) Toward a product-based typology of nature tourism: a conceptual
framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18, 915–928.
Ashworth, G.J. (1992) Is there an urban tourism? Tourism Recreation Research 17, 3–8.
Asprogerakas, E. (2007) City competition and urban marketing: the case of tourism industry in Athens.
Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism 2, 89–114.
Assael, H. (1984) Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, 2nd edn. Kent Publishing, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Bacharach, S.B. (1989) Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management
Review 14, 496–515.
Bacon, D.R. (2003) A comparison of approaches to importance–performance analysis. International Journal
of Market Research 45, 55–71.
Baggio, R. (2008) Symptoms of complexity in a tourism system. Tourism Analysis 13, 1–20.
Baggio, R. and Corigliano, M.A. (2007) Tourism destinations: a network analysis of the Web space. In: Andreu, L.,
Gnoth, J. and Kozak, M. (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 Advances in Tourism Marketing Conference,

177
178 References

Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain, 10–12 September, 2007. Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat
de València, Valencia, Spain.
Bannwarth, C. (2010) Il était une fois … la distribution touristique. Cahiers Espaces 107, 8–14.
Barrado Timón, D.A. (2001) Gran ciudad y turismo en la transición postindustrial: nuevos y viejos procesos,
nuevas y viejas teorías. El ejemplo del área metropolitana de Madrid. Scripta Nova Revista Electrónica
de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales 14, No. 317. Available at: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-317.htm
(accessed 7 December 2011).
Beaumont, N. and Dredge, D. (2010) Local tourism governance: a comparison of three network approaches.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18, 7–28.
Bécherel, L. (2001) A framework for human resources development strategy at the macro-level: a situational
analysis of tourism human resources in Bahia, Brazil. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Administration 1, 73–97.
Belhassen, Y., Alameida Santos, C. and Uriely, N. (2007) Cannabis usage in tourism: a sociological perspective.
Leisure Studies 23, 303–319.
Beritelli, P., Bieger, T. and Laesser, C. (2007) Destination governance: using corporate governance theories as
a foundation for effective destination management. Journal of Travel Research 46, 96–107.
Berkowitz, L. (1993) Towards a general theory of anger and emotional aggression: implications of the cognitive-
neoassociationistic perspective for the analysis of anger and other emotions. In: Wyer, R.S. and Srull, T.K.
(eds) Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. 6. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp 1–46.
Berno, T. and Ward, C. (2005) Innocence abroad: a pocket guide to psychological research on tourism.
American Psychologist 60, 593–600.
Bieger, T. and Laesser, C. (2004) Information sources for travel decisions: toward a source process model.
Journal of Travel Research 42, 357–371.
Bishop, M.L. (2010) Tourism as a small-state development strategy: pier pressure in the Eastern Caribbean?
Progress in Development Studies 10, 99–114.
Blackman, A., Foster, F., Hyvonen, T., Bronwyn, J., Kuilboer, A. and Moscardo, G. (2004) Factors contributing
to successful tourism development in peripheral regions. Journal of Tourism Studies 15, 59–70.
Boers, B. and Cottrell, S. (2007) Sustainable tourism infrastructure planning: a GIS-supported approach.
Tourism Geographies 9, 1–21.
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge and Keegan Paul, London.
Bramwell, B. and Sharman, A. (1999) Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research
26, 392–415.
Brandth, B. and Haugen, M.S. (2010) Doing farm tourism: the intertwining practices of gender and work.
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 35, 425–445.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology
3, 77–101.
Briassoulis, H. (2000) Environmental impacts of tourism: a framework for analysis and evaluation. In: Briassoulis,
H. (ed.) Tourism and the Environment: Regional, Economic, Cultural and Policy Issues. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 1–22.
Britton, S.G. (1980) A conceptual model of tourism in a political economy. In: Pearce, D.G. (ed.) Tourism in the
South Pacific: The Contribution of Research to Development and Planning. NZ National Commission for
UNESCO/Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 351–358.
Britton, S.G. (1991) Tourism, capital and place: towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 9, 451–478.
Brotherton, B. (2008) Researching Hospitality and Tourism: A Student Guide. Sage, London.
Bruyere, B.L., Rodriguez, D.A. and Vaske, J.J. (2002) Enhancing importance–performance analysis through
segmentation. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 12, 81–95.
Bryman, A. (1999) The Disneyization of society. The Sociological Review 47, 25–47.
Bryman, A. (2003) McDonald’s as a Disneyized institution. American Behavioural Scientist 47, 154–167.
Buckley, P.J. and Lessard, D.R. (2005) Regaining the edge for international business research. Journal of
International Business Studies 36, 595–599.
Buhalis, D. and Cooper, C. (1998) Competition or co-operation? Small and medium sized tourism enterprises
at the destination. In: Laws, E., Faulkner, B. and Moscardo, G. (eds) Embracing and Managing Change in
Tourism: International Case Studies. Routledge, London, pp. 324–346.
Burns, P.M. (2004) Tourism planning: a third way? Annals of Tourism Research 31, 24–43.
Burns, P.M. and Holden, A. (1995) Tourism: A New Perspective. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK.
 References 179

Burns, R.B. (1997) Introduction to Research Methods. Addison Wesley Longman, South Melbourne, Australia.
Butler, R. (1980) The concept of a tourist area life cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources.
Canadian Geographer 24, 5–12.
Butler, R.W. (ed.) (2006) The Tourism Area Life Cycle. Channel View, Clevedon, UK.
Butler, R.W. and Hinch, T. (eds) (1996) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. International Thompson Business
Press, London.
Calantone, J. and Mazanec, J.A. (1991) Marketing management and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18,
101–109.
Cameron, D. (2001) Chefs and occupational culture in a hotel chain: a grid-group analysis. Tourism and
Hospitality Research 3, 103–114.
Campbell, C.K. (1967) An approach to research in recreational geography. B.C. Occasional Papers No. 7,
Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 85–90.
Carmichael, B.A. (2000) A matrix model for resident attitudes and behaviours in a rapidly changing tourist
area. Tourism Management 21, 601–611.
Casteñeda, J.A., Frías, D.M. and Rodríguez, M.A. (2009) Antecedents of Internet acceptance and use as an
information source by tourists. Online Information Review 33, 548–567.
Catibog-Sinha, C. (2008) Visitor impact and biodiversity: a monitoring framework for protected areas in
Southern Highlands, New South Wales, Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 13, 245–263.
Cazes, G. (1980) Les avances pionnières du tourisme international dans le Tiers Monde: réflexions sur un
système décisionnel multinational en cours de constitution. Travaux de l’Institut de Géographie de Reims
43–44, 15–26.
Chang, T.C. and Huang, S. (2004) Urban tourism: between the global and the local. In: Lew, A.A., Hall, C.M.
and Williams, A.M (eds) A Companion to Tourism. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 223–234.
Chathoth, P.K. (2007) The impact of information technology on hotel operations, service management and
transaction costs: a conceptual framework for full-service hotel firms. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 26, 395–408.
Cho, S.-E. (2005) Developing new frameworks for operations strategy and service system design in electronic
commerce. International Journal of Service Industry Management 16, 294–314.
Chorley, R.J. and Haggett, P. (eds) (1967) Models in Geography. Methuen, London.
Chu, R.K.S. and Choi, T. (2000) An importance–performance analysis of hotel selection factors in the Hong
Kong hotel industry: a comparison of business and leisure travellers. Tourism Management 21,
363–377.
Cilliers, P. (1998) Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge, London.
Clancy, M. (1998) Commodity chains, services and development: theory and preliminary evidence from the
tourism industry. Review of International Political Economy 5, 122–148.
Clancy, M. (2002) The globalization of sex tourism and Cuba: a commodity chains approach. Studies in
Comparative International Development 36, 63–88.
Clarke, J. (1997) A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
5, 224–233.
Clawson, M. and Knetsch, J.L. (1966) Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Published for Resources for the
Future by Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Coëffé, V. (2010) Le tourisme, fabrique d’urbanité: matériaux pour une théorie de l’urbain. Mondes du
Tourisme 2, 57–69.
Cohen, E. (1979) Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 6, 18–35.
Cohen, E. (1993) The study of touristic images of native people: mitigating the stereotype of a stereotype.
In: Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges. Routledge, London
and New York, pp. 36–69.
Cohen, E., Ghiselli, R. and Schwartz, Z. (2006) The effect of loss leader pricing on restaurant menus’ product
portfolio analysis. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 9, 21–38.
Cole, S. (2009) A logistic tourism model: resort cycles, globalization, and chaos. Annals of Tourism Research
36, 689–714.
Collins-Kreiner, N. and Wall, G. (2007) Evaluating tourism potential: a SWOT analysis of the Western Negev,
Israel. Tourism 55, 51–63.
Cornelis, P.C.M. (2010) Achieving attraction accountability through an attraction response matrix. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing 27, 361–382.
Cottrell, S. and Cutumisu, N. (2006) Sustainable tourism development strategy in WWF pan parks: case of a
Swedish and Romanian national park. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 6, 150–167.
180 References

Cresswell, J.W. (2003) Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, California.
Crompton, J. (1992) Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism Research 19, 420–434.
Crompton, J.L. and Duray, N.A. (1985) An investigation of the relative efficacy of four alternative approaches
to importance–performance analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences 13, 69–80.
Crotts, J.C., Muldrow, R.C. and Rudd, H.F. (2002) Organisational needs and priorities of heritage areas in the
USA. International Journal of Heritage Studies 8, 337–348.
Crouch, G.I. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1999) Tourism, competitiveness and societal prosperity. Journal of Business
Research 44, 137–152.
Currie, R.R. (1997) A pleasure-tourism behaviors framework. Annals of Tourism Research 24, 884–897.
Currie, R. and Gagnon, M. (2000) When do individuals become pleasure travellers? An exploratory study
into the relationship between the fulfilment of primary expectations and the limnoidal state. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing 8, 115–128.
Daconto, G. and Sherpa, L.N. (2010) Applying scenario planning to park and tourism management in
Sagarmatha National Park, Khumbu, Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 30, 103–112.
Dale, C. (2003) The competitive networks of tourism e-mediaries: new strategies, new advantages. Journal of
Vacation Marketing 9, 109–118.
Dann, G. and Cohen, E. (1996) Sociology and tourism. In: Apostolopoulus, Y., Leivadi, S. and Yiannakis, A. (eds)
The Sociology of Tourism: Theoretical and empirical Investigations. Routledge, London, pp. 301–314.
Dann, G., Nash, D. and Pearce, P. (1988) Methodology in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research 15,
1–28.
Davern, M. (1997) Social networks and economic sociology: a proposed research agenda for a more complete
social science. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 11, 13–25.
Davies, B. (2003) The role of quantitative and qualitative research in industrial studies of tourism. International
Journal of Tourism Research 5, 97–111.
Davis, F.D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.
MIS Quarterly 41, 379–384.
Dellaert, B., Ettema, D.F. and Lindh, C. (1998) Multi-faceted tourist travel decisions: a constraint-based
conceptual framework to describe tourists’ sequential choices of travel components. Tourism Management
19, 313–320.
Deng, J., Arano, K.G., Pierskalla, C. and McNeel, J. (2010) Linking urban forests and urban tourism: a case of
Savannah, Georgia. Tourism Analysis 15, 167–181.
Deng, W. (2007) Using a revised importance–performance analysis approach: the case of Taiwanese hot
springs tourism. Tourism Management 28, 1274–1284.
Dernoi, L.A. (1981) Alternative tourism: towards a new style in North–South relations. Tourism Management
2, 253–264.
Desforges, L. (2001) Tourism consumption and the imagination of money. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 26, 353–364.
Dmitrovic, T., Kneževic Cvelbar, L., Kolar, T., Makovec Brencic, M., Ograjenšek and Žabkar, V. (2009)
Conceptualizing tourist satisfaction at the destination level. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research 3, 116–126.
Dolnicar, S. and Grün, B. (2008) Challenging ‘factor-cluster segmentation’. Journal of Travel Research 43, 63–71.
Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H. (1994) Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward improved
understanding and modelling. Academy of Management Review 19, 230–251.
Downward, P. and Mearman, A. (2004) On tourism and hospitality management research: a critical realist
approach. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development 1, 107–122.
Dredge, D. (2006) Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14,
562–581.
Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (2007) Tourism Planning and Policy. Wiley, Milton, Australia.
Drews, H. (2008) Abschied vom Marktwachstums-Marktanteils-Portfolio nach uber 35 Jahren Einstatz? Eine
kritische Uberprufing der BCG-Matrix. Zeitschrift für Plannung und Unternehmenssteurung 19, 39–57.
du Cros, H. (2001) A new model to assist in planning for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. International
Journal of Tourism Research 3, 165–170.
du Rand, G.E. and Heath, E. (2006) Towards a framework for food tourism as an element of destination
marketing. Current Issues in Tourism 9, 206–234.
Duffus, D.A. and Dearden, P. (1990) Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: a conceptual framework.
Biological Conservation 53, 213–231.
 References 181

Duke, C.R. and Persia, M.A. (1996) Performance–importance analysis of escorted tour evaluations. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing 5, 207–233.
Dunne, G., Flanagan, S. and Buckley, J. (2011) Towards a decision making model for city break travel.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 5, 158–172.
Durkheim, E. (1915/1995) The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. The Free Press, New York.
Duval, D. (2006) Grid/group theory and its applicability to tourism and migration. Tourism Geographies
8, 1–14.
Dwyer, L. and Edwards, D. (2000) Nature-based tourism on the edge of urban development. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 8, 267–287.
Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Mistilis, N. and Mules, T. (2000) A framework for assessing tangible and intangible
impacts of events and conventions. Event Management 6, 175–180.
Edgell, D.L. Sr, Ruf, K.M. and Agarwal, A. (1999) Strategic marketing planning for the tourism industry. Journal
of Travel and Tourism Marketing 8, 111–120.
Edward, M. and George, B.P. (2008) Tourism development in the state of Kerala, India: a study of destination
attractiveness. European Journal of Tourism Research 1, 16–38.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review
14, 532–550.
El-Ansary, A.I. (2006) Marketing strategy: taxonomy and frameworks. European Business Review 18, 266–293.
Enright, M.J. and Newton, J. (2004) Tourism destination competitiveness: a quantitative approach. Tourism
Management 25, 777–788.
Erkuş-Öztürk, H. and Terhost, P. (2010) Variety of modes of governance of a global value chain: the case of
tourism from Holland to Turkey. Tourism Geographies 12, 217–245.
Evans, N.J. and Ilbery, B.W. (1989) A conceptual framework for investigating farm-based accommodation and
tourism in Britain. Journal of Rural Studies 5, 257–266.
Fall, L.T. (2000) An exploratory study of the relationship between human values and information sources
within a tourism framework. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 7, 3–28.
Farnum, J.O. and Hall, T.E. (2007) Exploring the utility of importance performance analysis using confidence
interval and market segmentation strategies. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 25, 64–83.
Farrell, B.H. and Twining-Ward, L. (2004) Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31,
274–295.
Farsari, I., Butler, R.W. and Szivas, E. (2011) Complexity in tourism policies: a cognitive mapping approach.
Annals of Tourism Research 38, 1110–1134.
Faulkner, B. (1998) Some parameters for exploring progress in tourism and hospitality research. In: Faulkner, B.,
Tidswell, C. and Weaver, D. (eds) Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research: Proceedings of the
Eighth Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, Centre for Tourism and Hospitality
Conference, Gold Coast. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra, pp. 4–8.
Faulkner, B. (2001) Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management 22, 135–147.
Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: An Introduction. Routledge, London and New York.
Fennell, D.A. and Butler, R.W. (2003) A human ecological approach to tourism interactions. International
Journal of Tourism Research 5, 197–210.
Fennell, D.A. and Eagles, P.F.J. (1996) Ecotourism in Costa Rica: a conceptual framework. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration 8, 23–34.
Finn, M., Elliott-White, M. and Walton, M. (2000) Tourism and Leisure Research Methods. Pearson Education,
Harlow, UK.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and
Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Flagestad, A. and Hope, C.A. (2001) Strategic success in winter sports destinations: a sustainable value creation
perspective. Tourism Management 22, 445–461.
Flinders, D.J. (1993) From theory and concepts to educational connoisseurship. In: Flinders, D.J. and Mills,
G.E. (eds) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. Teachers College
Press, Columbia University, New York, Chapter 7.
Flinders, D.J. and Mills, G.E. (eds) (1993) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the
Field. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York and London.
Flognfeldt, T. (1999) Traveller geographic origin and market segmentation: the multitrips destination case.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 8, 111–124.
Folger, R. and Cropanzo, R. (1998) Fairness theory: justice as accountability. In: Greenberg, J. and Cropanzo, R.
(eds) Advances in Organizational Justice. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Connecticut, pp. 1–55.
182 References

Ford, D. (2002) Distribution, internationalisation and networks. Solving old problems, learning new things
and forgetting most of them. International Marketing Review 19, 225–235.
Formica, S. (2002) Measuring destination attractiveness: a proposed framework. The Journal of American
Academy of Business 1, 350–355.
Formica, S. and Uysal, M. (2006) Destination attractiveness based on supply and demand evaluations: an
analytical framework. Journal of Travel Research 44, 418–430.
Forsberg, K., Mooz, H. and Cottermand, H. (2005) Visualizing Project Management: Models and Frameworks
for Mastering Complex Systems. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Franklin, A. and Crang, M. (2001) The trouble with tourism and travel theory. Tourist Studies 1, 5–22.
Frauman, E. and Banks, S. (2011) Gateway community resident perceptions of tourism development: incorporating
importance–performance analysis into a Limits of Acceptable Change framework. Tourism Management
32, 128–140.
Frazier, G.L. (1999) Organizing and managing channels of distribution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 27, 226–240.
Frechtling, D. and Smeral, E. (2010) Measuring and interpreting the economic impact of tourism: 20-20 hindsight
and foresight. In: Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism Research: A 20-20 Vision. Goodfellow,
Woodeaton, Oxford, pp. 67–79.
Fridgen, J.D. (1984) Environmental psychology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 11, 19–39.
Friedmann, J. (1980) An alternative development, and communalistic society: some principles for a
possible future. In: Friedmann, J., Wheelwright, E. and Connell, J. (eds) Development Strategies in
the Eighties. Development Studies Colloquium, Monograph No 1, University of Sydney, Australia,
pp. 12–42.
Fyall, A. and Garrod, B. (2005) Tourism Marketing: A Collaborative Approach. Channel View, Clevedon, UK.
Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G. and García, H.C. (2002) Destination image: towards a conceptual framework.
Annals of Tourism Research 29, 56–78.
Garcia-Ramon, M.D., Canovers, G. and Valdovinos, N. (1995) Farm tourism, gender and the environment in
Spain. Annals of Tourism Research 22, 267–282.
Gereffi, G. (1999) International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity chain. Journal of
International Economics 48, 37–70.
Getz, D. (1986) Models in tourism planning: towards integration of theory and practice. Tourism Management
7, 21–32.
Getz, D. (2008) Event tourism: definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management 29, 403–428.
Gibson, C. (2008) Locating geographies of tourism. Progress in Human Geography 32, 407–422.
Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Ginsberg, H. (1984) Operationalizing organization strategy: toward an integrative framework. Academy of
Management Review 9, 548–557.
Gladstone, D.L. and Fainstein, S.S. (2001) Tourism in US global cities: a comparison of New York and Los
Angeles. Journal of Urban Affairs 23, 23–40.
Glaser, B. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity. The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, California.
Gormsen, E. (1981) The spatio-temporal development of international tourism: attempt at a centre-periphery
model. La Consommation d’Espace par le Tourisme et sa Préservation. Centre de Hautes Etudes
Touristiques, Aix-en-Provence, France.
Gottlieb, A. (1982) Americans’ vacations. Annals of Tourism Research 9, 165–187.
Grønflaten, O. (2009) The tourist information matrix – differentiating between sources and channels in the
assessment of travellers’ information search. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 9,
39–64.
Grönross, C. (1995) Relationship marketing: the strategic continuum. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 23, 252–254.
Gunn, C.A. and Var, T. (2002) Tourism Planning. Routledge, London and New York.
Gursoy, D. and McCleary, K.W. (2004) An integrative model of tourists’ information search behavior. Annals
of Tourism Research 31, 353–374.
Gutiérrez Puebla, J. (2001) Escalas espaciales, escalas temporales. Estudios Geográficos 62, 89–104.
Gyimothy, S. (1999) Visitors’ perceptions of holiday experiences and service providers: an exploratory study.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 8, 57–74.
Hall, P. (1970) Theory and Practice of Regional Planning. Pemberton Books, London.
Hall, R.H., Clark, J.P., Giordano, P.C., Johnson, P.V. and Roekel, M. (1977) Patterns of interorganizational
relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly 22, 457–472.
 References 183

Harrington, R.J. (2005) The how and who of strategy making: models and appropriateness for firms in hospitality
and tourism industries. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 29, 372–395.
Harrison, D. (2007) Towards developing a framework for analysing tourism phenomena: a discussion. Current
Issues in Tourism 10, 61–86.
Harrison, D. (2010) Tourism and development: looking back and looking forward: more of the same? In:
Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism Research: A 20-20 Vision. Goodfellow, Woodeaton, Oxford,
pp. 40–52.
Hart, S. (1992) An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. Academy of Management Review 11,
327–351.
Hasslacher, P. (1984) Virgental: Sanfter Tourismus. Oesterreichischer Alpenverein, Innsbruck, Austria.
Hattendorf, M. (2002) Knowledge supply chain matrix approach for balanced knowledge management: an
airline industry firm case. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 3, 61–73.
Haythornthwaite, C. (1996) Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the study of information
exchange. Library and Information Science Research 18, 323–342.
Healey, R.A. (2004) The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28, 45–67.
Heath, E. and Wall, G. (1992) Marketing Tourism Destinations: A Strategic Planning Approach. Wiley,
Toronto.
Heicks, H. (2010) Scenario planning: China’s airline industry in 2019. Tourism and Hospitality Research 10,
71–77.
Henshall, B.D. and Roberts, R. (1985) Comparative assessment of tourist generating markets for New Zealand.
Annals of Tourism Research 12, 219–238.
Hernandez, S.A., Cohen, J. and Garcia, H.L. (1996) Residents’ attitudes towards an instant resort enclave.
Annals of Tourism Research 23, 755–799.
Herold, E., Garcia, R. and Demoya, T. (2001) Female tourists and beach boys: romance or sex tourism? Annals
of Tourism Research 28, 978–997.
Hill, K.L. (2001) Frameworks for Sport Psychologists. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinois.
Hill, R. and Hansen, D.A. (1960) The identification of conceptual frameworks utilized in family study. Marriage
and Family Living 22, 299–311.
Hills, T. and Lundgren, J. (1977) The impact of tourism in the Caribbean: a methodological study. Annals of
Tourism Research 4, 248–267.
Hinch, T. and Butler, R. (1996) Indigenous tourism: a common ground for discussion. In: Butler, R. and Hinch, T.
(eds) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 3–19.
Hinch, T.D. and Higham, J.E.S. (2001) Sport tourism: a framework for research. International Journal of Tourism
Research 3, 45–58.
Hinch, T.D. and Jackson, E.L. (2000) Leisure constraints research: its value as a framework for understanding
tourism seasonability. Current Issues in Tourism 3, 87–106.
Ho, D.C., Au, K.F. and Newton, E. (2002) Empirical research on supply chain management: a critical review
and recommendations. International Journal of Production Research 40, 60–64.
Hoc, J. (1988) The Cognitive Psychology of Planning. Academic Press, New York.
Hottola, P. (2004) Culture confusion: intercultural adaptation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31, 447–466.
Howitt, R. (1998) Scale as relation: musical metaphors of geographical scale. Area 30, 49–58.
Hsu, C.H.C., Huang, J. and Huang, S. (2010) Tourism and hospitality research in mainland China: trends from
2000–2008. In: Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism Research: A 20/20 Vision. Goodfellow,
Woodeaton, Oxford, pp. 147–160.
Huan, T.C., Beaman, J. and Shelby, L.B. (2002) Using action-grids in tourism management. Tourism
Management 23, 255–264.
Hudson, S. and Miller, G.A. (2005) The responsible marketing of tourism: the case of Canadian mountain holidays.
Tourism Management 26, 133–142.
Hudson, S., Shephard, G.W.H. and Shephard, G.W.H. (1998) Measuring service quality at tourist destinations:
an application of importance–performance analysis to an alpine ski resort. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 7, 61–77.
Hudson, S., Hudson, P. and Miller, G.A. (2004) The measurement of service quality in the tour operating
sector: a methodological comparison. Journal of Travel Research 42, 305–312.
Hughey, K.F.D., Ward, J.C., Crawford, K.A., McConnell, L., Phillips, J.G. and Washbourne, R. (2004)
A classification framework and management approach for the sustainable use of natural assets used
for tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 6, 349–363.
184 References

Hunter, C.J. (1995) On the need to re-conceptualise sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 3, 155–165.
Hvenegaard, G.T. (1994) Ecotourism: a status report and conceptual framework. Journal of Tourism Studies
5, 24–35.
Hyde, K.F. (2000) Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research:
An International Journal 3, 82–90.
Hyde, K.F. (2007) Contemporary information search strategies of destination-naive international vacationers.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 21, 63–76.
Hystad, P.W. and Keller, P.C. (2008) Towards a destination tourism disaster management framework: long-term
lessons from a forest fire disaster. Tourism Management 29, 151–162.
Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1982) Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: a rejoinder. Annals of
Tourism Research 9, 45–56.
Jafari, J. (2005) Bridging out, nesting a field: powering a new platform. Journal of Tourism Studies 16, 1–5.
Jamal, T. and Kim, H. (2005) Bridging the interdisciplinary divide: towards an integrated framework for heritage
tourism research. Tourist Studies 5, 55–83.
Jamal, T. and Lee, J.H. (2003) Integrating micro and macro approaches to tourist motivations: toward an
interdisciplinary theory. Tourism Analysis 8, 47–59.
Jamal, T., Borges, M. and Figuereido, R. (2004) Systems-modelling for participatory tourism planning and
destination management. Tourism Analysis 9, 77–89.
James, J.E. and Wild, C.N. (2007) The bigger they are, the harder they fall! Sustainable tourism planning at
Naracoorte Caves World Heritage Site, Australia. Journal of Heritage Tourism 2, 196–210.
Janes, P.L. and Wisnom, M.S. (2003) The use of importance performance analysis in the hospitality industry:
a comparison of practices. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 4, 23–45.
Jemison, D.B. (1984) The importance of an integrative approach to strategic management research. Academy
of Management Review 6, 601–608.
Jennings, G. (2001) Tourism Research. Wiley, Milton, Australia.
Jennings, G.R. (2007) Advances in tourism research; theoretical paradigms and accountability. In: Matias, A.,
Nijkamp, P. and Neto, P. (eds) Advances in Modern Tourism Research: Economic Perspectives. Physica
Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 9–35.
Jeong, M. (2002) Evaluating value-added lodging web sites from customers’ perspectives. International Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 3, 49–60.
Jobbins, G. (2003) The effects of stakeholder interactions on capacity for integrated coastal governance in
Morocco and Tunisia. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 6, 455–464.
Johnson, P.A. and Sieber, R.E. (2010) An individual-based approach to modelling tourism dynamics. Tourism
Analysis 15, 517–530.
Johnston, C.S. (2006) The ontological foundation of the TALC. In: Butler, R.W. (ed.) The Tourism Area Life
Cycle. Channel View, Clevedon, UK, pp. 7–28.
Jones, D.L. and Baloglu, S. (2006) What hotel sales and marketing executives should know before investing
dollars in sales technology. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism 8, 31–44.
Jopp, R., Delacy, T. and Mair, J. (2010) Developing a framework for regional destination adaptation to climate
change. Current Issues in Tourism 13, 591–605.
Judd, D.R. (2006) Commentary: tracing the commodity chain of global tourism. Tourism Geographies 8,
323–336.
Jun, S.H., Vogt, C.A. and Mackay, K.J. (2007) Relationships between travel information search and travel product
purchase in pretrip contexts. Journal of Travel Research 45, 266–274.
Kahle, L.R. (1983) Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America. Praeger Publishers,
New York.
Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahasi, F. and Tsuji, S. (1984) Miryoku-teki Hinshitu to Atarimae Hinshitu (Attractive qual-
ity and must-be quality). Hinshitu (Quality, The Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control) 14, 39–48.
Kao, M., Patterson, I., Scott, N. and Li, C.K. (2008) Motivations and satisfactions of Taiwanese tourists who
visit Australia: an exploratory study. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 24, 17–33.
Kerr, W.R. (2003) Tourism Public Policy and the Strategic Management of Failure. Pergamon, Oxford.
Kinnaird, V. and Hall, D. (1996) Understanding tourism processes: a gender-aware framework. Tourism
Management 17, 95–102.
Kinnaird, V., Kothari, U. and Hall, D.R. (1994) Tourism: gender perspectives. In: Kinnaird, V. (ed.) Tourism:
A Gender Analysis. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 1–34.
Kitchin, R. and Tate, N.J. (2000) Conducting Research into Human Geography. Prentice Hall, Harlow, UK.
 References 185

Kneafsey, M. (2001) Rural cultural economy: tourism and social relations. Annals of Tourism Research 28,
762–783.
Knoke, D. and Kuklinski, J.H. (1983) Network Analysis. Sage, Beverly Hills, California.
Koh, S., Yoo, J.J.-K. and Boger, C.A.J. (2010) Importance–performance analysis with benefit segmentation of
spa goers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22, 718–735.
Kohlberg, L. (1980) Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. In: Munsey, B. (ed.) Moral
Development, Moral Education and Kohlberg: Basic Issues in Philosophy, Psychology, Religion and
Education. Religious Education Press, Birmingham, Alabama.
Kooiman, J. (2000) Societal governance: levels, models, and orders of socio-political interaction. In: Pierre, J.
(ed.) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J. and Makens, J. (1996) Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
Kracht, J. and Wang, Y. (2010) Examining the tourism distribution channel: evolution and transformation.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22, 736–757.
Kreisel, L. (2004) Geography of leisure and tourism-research in the German-speaking world: three pillars of
progress. Tourism Geographies 6, 163–185.
Kumar, U., Kumar, V. and de Grosbois, D. (2008) Development of technological capability by Cuban hospitality
organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27, 12–22.
Lane, M. (2007) The visitor journey: the new road to success. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 19, 248–254.
Lapeyre, R. (2011) For what stands the ‘B’ in the CBT concept: community-based or community-biased tourism?
Some insights from Namibia. Tourism Analysis 16, 187–202.
Larson, T. and Ankomah, P. (2004) Evaluating tourism web site complexity: the case of international tourism
in the U.S. Services Marketing Quarterly 26, 23–37.
Lashley, C. (1998) Matching the management of human resources to service operations. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10, 24–33.
Lawrence, T.B., Wickins, D. and Phillips, N. (1997) Managing legitimacy in ecotourism. Tourism Management
18, 307–316.
Lazzarotti, O. (2004) French tourism geographies: a review. Tourism Geographies 4, 135–147.
Lazzarotti, O. (2010) Le tourisme, matière à penser de la science géographique. Mondes du Tourisme 1, 7–16.
Lee, C.-F. and King, B. (2006) Assessing destination competitiveness: an application to the hot springs tourism
sector. Tourism and Hospitality: Planning and Development 3, 179–197.
Lee, G. and Lee, C.K. (2009) Cross-cultural comparison of the image of Guam perceived by Korean and
Japanese leisure travelers: importance–performance analysis. Tourism Management 30, 922–931.
Lee, G., Morrison, A.M. and O’Leary, J.T. (2006) The economic value portfolio matrix: a target market selection
tool for destination marketing organizations. Tourism Management 27, 576–588.
Lee, T.J., Riley, M. and Hampton, M.P. (2009) Conflict and progress: tourism development in Korea. Annals of
Tourism Research 37, 355–376.
Leibenstein, H. (1976) Beyond Economic Man. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Leiper, N. (1979) The framework of tourism: towards a definition of tourism, tourist, and the tourist industry.
Annals of Tourism Research 6, 390–407.
Leiper, N. (2000) Systems theory. In: Jafari, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Tourism. Routledge, London and New York,
pp. 507–571.
Leiper, N., Stear, L., Hing, N. and Firth, T. (2008) Partial industrialisation in tourism: a new model. Current
Issues in Tourism 11, 207–235.
Leong, C.-C. (2008) An importance–performance analysis to evaluate airline service quality: the case study of
a budget airline in Asia. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 8, 39–59.
Leopold, L.B. (1971) A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact. US Geological Survey Circular 645,
US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Lew, A.A. and McKercher, B. (2002) Trip destinations, gateways and itineraries: the example of Hong Kong.
Tourism Management 23, 609–621.
Lewis, E. (1968) Marketing Channels: Structure and Strategy. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Lewis, J.B. (1998) A rural tourism development model. Tourism Analysis 2, 91–105.
Li, M. and Cai, L.A. (2008) Souvenir shopping attitudes and behavior among Chinese domestic tourists: an
exploratory study. Journal of China Tourism Research 4, 189–204.
Li, Y. and Lo, R.L.B. (2004) Applicability of the market appeal–robusticity matrix: a case study of heritage tourism.
Tourism Management 25, 789–800.
186 References

Litvin, S.W. (2006) Revisiting Plog’s model of allocentricity and pyschocentricity … one more time. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 47, 245–253.
Liu, A. and Wall, G.R. (2006) Planning tourism employment: a developing country perspective. Tourism
Management 27, 159–170.
Liu, Y.-D. (2010) A revised importance–performance analysis for assessing image: the case of cultural tourism
in Britain. Tourism Analysis 15, 673–687.
Liu, Z.-H. (1994 ) Tourism development – a systems analysis. In: Seaton, A.V., Jenkins, C.L., Wood, R.C.,
Dieke, P.U.C., Bennett, M.M., Maclennan, L.R. and Smith, R. (eds) Tourism: The State of the Art. Wiley,
Milton, Australia, pp. 20–30.
Lohmann, G. and Pearce, D.G. (2010) Conceptualizing and operationalizing nodal tourism functions. Journal
of Transport Geography 18, 266–275.
Long, J. (2007) Researching Leisure, Sport and Tourism: The Essential Guide. Sage, London.
Loukissas, P.J. (1982) Tourism’s regional development impacts: a comparative analysis of the Greek Islands.
Annals of Tourism Research 9, 523–524.
Lovelock, B. and Boyd, S. (2006) Impediments to a cross-border collaborative model of destination management
in the Catlins, New Zealand. Tourism Geographies 8, 143–161.
Lundgren, J. (1982) The tourist frontier of Nouveau Quebec: functions and linkages. Tourist Review 37,
10–16.
MacCannell, D. (1973) Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal
of Sociology 79, 589–603.
Machlis, G.E. and Burch, W.R. Jr (1983) Relations between strangers: cycles of structure and meaning in tourist
systems. Sociological Review 31, 666–692.
Mair, J. and Jago, L. (2010) The development of a conceptual model of greening in the business events tourism
sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18, 77–94.
Malloy, D.C. and Fennell, D.A. (1998) Codes of ethics and tourism: an exploratory content analysis. Tourism
Management 19, 453–461.
March, R. (2000) The Japanese travel life cycle. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 9, 185–200.
March, R. and Wilkinson, I. (2009) Conceptual tools for evaluating tourism partnerships. Tourism Management
30, 455–462.
Mariot, P. (1969) Priestorové aspekty cestovenélio rechu a otázky gravitacného zázemia návstevnych miest.
Geografick’y Casopis 21, 287–312.
Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977) Importance–performance analysis. Journal of Marketing 51, 77–79.
Matarrita-Cascante, D. (2010) Beyond growth. Reaching tourism-led development. Annals of Tourism Research
37, 1141–1163.
Maulet, G. (2006) A framework to identify a localised tourism system. In: Lazzeretti, L. and Petrillo, C.S. (eds)
Tourism Local Systems and Networking. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 43–55.
Mbaiwa, J.E., Toteng, E.N. and Moswete, N. (2007) Problems and prospects for the development of urban
tourism in Gaborone and Maun, Botswana. Development Southern Africa 24, 725–740.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Beverley, A.S. (2003) Application of fairness theory to service failures and service
recovery. Journal of Service Research 5, 251–266.
McDowall, S. and Choi, Y. (2010) A comparative analysis of Thailand residents’ perception of tourism’s
impacts. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 11, 36–55.
McGehee, N.G. (2007) An agritourism systems model: a Weberian perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
15, 111–124.
McKercher, B. (1995) The destination–market matrix: a tourism market portfolio analysis model. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing 4, 23–40.
McKercher, B. (1999) A chaos approach to tourism. Tourism Management 20, 425–434.
McKercher, B. and Lew, A.L. (2004) Tourist flows and the spatial distribution of tourists. In: Lew, A.L., Hall,
C.M. and Williams, A.M. (eds) A Companion to Tourism. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 36–48.
McLennan, C., Ruhanen, L., Ritchie, B.W. and Pham, T. (2010) Dynamics of destination development:
investigating the application of transformation theory. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research.
Mehmetoglu, M. and Altinay, L. (2006) Examination of grounded theory analysis with an application to
hospitality research. International Journal of Hospitality Management 25, 12–33.
Merriam, S.B. (2001) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, California.
Meyer, D. (2007) Pro-poor tourism: from leakages to linkages. A conceptual framework for creating linkages
between the accommodation sector and ‘poor’ neighbouring communities. Current Issues in Tourism 10,
558–583.
 References 187

Mieczkowski, Z.T. (1981) Some notes on the geography of tourism: a comment. Canadian Geographer 25,
186–191.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage, Thousand
Oaks, California.
Mill, R.C. and Morrison, A.M. (1985) The Tourism System: An Introductory Text [1st edn]. Prentice-Hall
International, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Mill, R.C. and Morrison, A.M. (2009) The Tourism System: An Introductory Text, [6th edn]. Kendall Hunt
Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Milne, S. and Ateljevic, I. (2001) Tourism, economic development and the global–local nexus: theory embracing
complexity. Tourism Geographies 3, 369–393.
Miossec, J.-M. (1976) Éléments pour une théorie de l’espace touristique. Les Cahiers du Tourisme. Centre de
Hautes Etudes Touristiques, Aix-en-Provence, France.
Mitchell, J.C. (1969) The concept and use of social networks. In: Mitchell, J.C. (ed.) Social Networks in Urban
Situations. University of Manchester Press, Manchester, UK, pp. 1–50.
Mitchell, J.C. and Faal, J. (2007) Holiday package tourism and the poor in Gambia. Development Southern
Africa 24, 445–464.
Mitchell, L.S. (1979) The geography of tourism. An introduction. Annals of Tourism Research 6, 235–244.
Moliner, M.A., Sanchez, J., Rodriguez, R.M. and Callarisa, L. (2007) Perceived relationship quality and
post-purchase perceived value: an integrative framework. European Journal of Marketing 41, 1392–1422.
Morais, D.B., Dorsal, M.J. and Backman, S.J. (2004) Can tourism providers buy their customers’ loyalty? Examining
the influence of customer-provider investments on loyalty. Journal of Travel Research 42, 235–243.
Moscardo, G. (2005) Peripheral tourism development; challenges, issues and success factors. Tourism
Recreation Research 30, 27–44.
Moscardo, G. (2007) Analysing the role of festivals and events in regional development. Event Management
11, 23–32.
Mosedale, J. (2006) Tourism commodity chains: market entry and its effects on St Lucia. Current Issues in
Tourism 9, 436–458.
Mosedale, J. and Albrecht, J.N. (2011) Tourism regulation and relational geography: the global, local and
everything in between. In: Mosedale, J. (ed.) Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective.
Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 243–255.
Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J. and Newton, D. (2005) Frameworks
for Thinking: A Handbook for Teaching and Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mount, D. J. (2005) An empirical application of Quantitative Derived Importance–Performance Analysis
(QDIPA) for employee satisfaction. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 6, 65–76.
Mulvaney, R.H., O’Neill, J.W., Cleveland, J.N. and Crouter, A.C. (2007) A model of work–family dynamics of
hotel managers. Annals of Tourism Research 34, 66–87.
Murphy, C. and Boyle, E. (2006) Testing a conceptual model of cultural tourism development in the
post-industrial city: a case study of Glasgow. Tourism and Hospitality Research 6, 111–128.
Nepal, S.J. and Chipeniuk, R.H. (2005) Mountain tourism: toward a conceptual framework. Tourism
Geographies 7, 313–333.
Nunkoo, R. and Ramkisson, H. (2010) Modelling community support for a proposed integrated resort project.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18, 257–277.
Nye, F.I. and Berado, F.M. (eds) (1981) Emerging Conceptual Frameworks in Family Analysis. Praeger, New York.
O’Farrell, P.N. and Wood, P.A. (1999) Formation of strategic alliances in business services: towards a new
client-oriented conceptual framework. Service Industries Journal 19, 133–151.
O’Leary, S. and Deegan, J. (2005) Ireland’s image as a tourism destination in France: attribute importance and
performance. Journal of Travel Research 43, 247–256.
Oberg, K. (1960) Culture shock: adjustment to new cultural environment. Practical Anthropology 7, 177–182.
Oh, H. (2001) Revisiting importance–performance analysis. Tourism Management 22, 617–627.
Oppermann, M. (1996) Convention destination images: analysis of association meeting planners’ perceptions.
Tourism Management 17, 175–182.
Oral, J. and Whitfield, J. (2010) The North Cyprus conference sector: establishing a competitive advantage.
Tourism Analysis 15, 411–424.
Pacquet, G. (1993) Capital cities as symbolic resources. In: Taylor, J., Lengellé, J. and Andrew, C. (eds) Capital
Cities: International Perspectives. Carleton University Press, Ottawa, pp. 271–285.
Page, S.J., Yeoman, I., Connell, J. and Greenwood, C. (2010) Scenario planning as a tool to understand
uncertainty in tourism: the example of transport and tourism in Scotland in 2025. Current Issues in
Tourism 13, 99–137.
188 References

Palmer, A. (1996) Linking external and internal relationship building in networks of public and private sector
organizations: a case study. International Journal of Public Sector Management 9, 51–60.
Pan, B., Maclaurin, T. and Crotts, J.C. (2007) Travel blogs and the implications for destination marketing.
Journal of Travel Research 46, 35–45.
Pan, B., Li, X.R., Zhang, L.G. and Smith, W.W. (2008) An exploratory study on the satisfaction and barriers of
online trip planning to China: American college students’experience. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing 16, 203–226.
Pansiri, J. (2005) Pragmatism: a methodological approach to research strategic alliances in tourism. Tourism
and Hospitality Planning and Development 2, 191–206.
Pansiri, J. (2006) Doing tourism research using the pragmatism paradigm: an empirical example. Tourism and
Hospitality Planning and Development 3, 223–240.
Papp, D.S. (1991) Contemporary International Relations: Frameworks for Understanding. Macmillan, Toronto
and New York.
Parag, G. and Ryan, C. (2011) The relationship between the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors of a tourist destination:
the role of nationality – an analytical qualitative approach. Current Issues in Tourism 14, 121–143.
Park, S. and Kim, D.Y. (2010) A comparison of different approaches to segment information search behaviour
of spring break travellers in the USA: experience, knowledge, involvement and specialisation concept.
International Journal of Tourism Research 12, 49–64.
Pavlovich, K. (2003) The evolution and transformation of a tourism destination network: the Waitomo Caves,
New Zealand. Tourism Management 24, 203–216.
Pearce, D.G. (1980a) Tourism and regional development: a genetic approach. Annals of Tourism Research 7,
69–82.
Pearce, D.G. (1980b) Tourism and the environment: frameworks for research and development. In: Pearce,
D.G. (ed.) Tourism in the South Pacific: The Contribution of Research to Development and Planning.
Proceedings of UNESCO Tourism Workshop, Rarotonga, 10–13 June 1980. Department of Geography,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 115–124.
Pearce, D.G. (1987) Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis. Longman, Harlow, UK and John Wiley,
New York.
Pearce, D.G. (1989) Tourist Development. Longman, Harlow, UK.
Pearce, D.G. (1992a) Tourist Organizations. Longman, Harlow, UK and and Wiley, New York.
Pearce, D.G. (1992b) Alternative tourism: concepts, classifications and questions. In: Smith, V.L. and Eadington,
W.R. (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism. University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 15–30.
Pearce, D.G. (1993a) Comparative studies in tourism research. In: Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism
Research: Critiques and Challenges. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 15–35.
Pearce, D.G. (1995a) Planning for tourism in the 1990s: an integrated, dynamic, multiscale approach. In:
Butler, R.W. and Pearce, D. (eds) Change in Tourism: People, Places, Processes. Routledge, London, pp.
229–244.
Pearce, D.G. (1995b) Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis, 2nd edn. Longman, Harlow, UK.
Pearce, D.G. (1996) Federalism and the organization of tourism in Belgium. European Urban and Regional
Studies 3, 189–204.
Pearce, D.G. (1997a) Competitive destination analysis in Southeast Asia. Journal of Travel Research 35(4),
16–24.
Pearce, D.G. (1997b) Tourism and the autonomous communities in Spain. Annals of Tourism Research 21,
156–177.
Pearce, D.G. (1997c) Tourism markets and marketing in Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 6, 85–102.
Pearce, D.G. (1999) Towards a geography of the geography of tourism: issues and examples from New
Zealand. Tourism Geographies 1, 406–424.
Pearce, D.G. (2000) Tourism plan reviews: methodological considerations and issues from Samoa. Tourism
Management 21, 191–203.
Pearce, D.G. (2001) An integrative framework for urban tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research 28,
926–946.
Pearce, D.G. (2002a) Current and future directions in tourism research. Japanese Journal of Tourism Studies 1,
9–19.
Pearce, D.G. (2002b) New Zealand holiday travel to Samoa: a distribution channels approach. Journal of
Travel Research 41, 197–205.
 References 189

Pearce, D.G. (2008a) A needs–functions model of tourism distribution. Annals of Tourism Research 35,
148–168.
Pearce, D.G. (2008b) Tourism planning in small tropical islands: methodological considerations and development
issues in Samoa. Études Caribéennes 9/10, 337–355.
Pearce, D.G. (2009a) Beyond tiers: a network approach to tourism distribution. Tourism Analysis 13,
517–530.
Pearce, D.G. (2009b) Channel design for effective tourism distribution strategies. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 26, 507–521.
Pearce, D.G. (2009c) Tourism distribution: from structure to strategy. In: Ateljevic, J. and Page, S.J. (eds)
Tourism and Entrepreneurship: International Perspectives. Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier), Oxford,
pp. 311–332.
Pearce, D.G. (2010a) Introduction: looking back, moving forward. In: Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds)
Tourism Research: A 20-20 Vision. Goodfellow, Woodeaton, Oxford, pp. 1–12.
Pearce, D.G. (2010b) Tourism distribution: a review and strategic research agenda. In: Pearce, D.G. and Butler,
R.W. (eds) Tourism Research: A 20-20 Vision. Goodfellow, Woodeaton, Oxford, pp. 94–107.
Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (2010a) Conclusions: trends and advances in tourism research. In: Pearce, D.G.
and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism Research: A 20-20 Vision. Goodfellow, Woodeaton, Oxford,
pp. 229–237.
Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) (2010b) Tourism Research: A 20-20 Vision. Goodfellow, Woodeaton,
Oxford.
Pearce, D.G. and Schott, C. (2005) Tourism distribution channels: the visitors’ perspective. Journal of Travel
Research 44, 148–168.
Pearce, D.G. and Schott, C. (2011) Domestic vs outbound booking and channel choice behaviour: evidence
from New Zealand. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 5, 112–127.
Pearce, D.G. and Tan, R. (2004) Distribution channels for heritage and cultural tourism in New Zealand. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 9, 225–237.
Pearce, D.G. and Taniguchi, M. (2008) Channel performance in multi-channel tourism distribution systems.
Journal of Travel Research 46, 256–267.
Pearce, D.G., Tan, R. and Schott, C. (2004) Tourism distribution channels in Wellington, New Zealand.
International Journal of Tourism Research 6, 397–410.
Pearce, D.G., Tan, R. and Schott, C. (2007) Distribution channels in international markets: a comparative
analysis of the distribution of New Zealand tourism in Australia, Great Britain and the USA. Current
Issues in Tourism 10, 33–60.
Pearce, P.L. (1993b) Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In: Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism
Research: Critiques and Challenges. Routledge, London.
Pearce, P.L. (2005) Tourist Behaviour – Themes and Conceptual Schemes. Channel View, Clevedon, UK.
Perdue, R.R. (1996) Target market selection and marketing strategy: the Colorado downhill skiing industry.
Journal of Travel Research 34(4), 39–46.
Petrick, J.F. (2005) Reoperationalising the loyalty framework. Tourism and Hospitality Research 5, 199–212.
Pforr, C. (2001) Tourism policy in Australia’s Northern Territory – a policy process analysis of its Tourism
Development Masterplan. Current Issues in Tourism 4, 275–307.
Pforr, C. (2002) The ‘makers and shakers’ of tourism policy in the Northern Territory of Australia: a policy
network analysis of actors and their relational constellations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management 9, 134–151.
Pforr, C. (2005) Three lenses of analysis for the study of tourism public policy: a case from Northern Australia.
Current Issues in Tourism 8, 323–343.
Pforr, C. (2006) Tourism policy in the making: an Australian network study. Annals of Tourism Research 33,
87–108.
Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (2004) Progress in qualitative research: epistemology, ontology and methodology.
In: Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (eds) Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and
Methodologies. Routledge, London, pp. 3–29.
Phillips, P.A. (1999) Performance measurement systems and hotels: a new conceptual framework. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 18, 171–182.
Picazo, J.-M. (1998) Un espace de qualité, garant de l’avenir du tourisme. Méditerranée 2, 75–80.
Piccoli, G., Anglada, L.D. and Watson, R.T. (2004) Using information technology to improve customer service:
evaluating the impact of strategic opportunities. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism
5, 3–26.
190 References

Pizam, A. (1991) Planning a tourism research investigation. In: Ritchie, J.R.B. and Goeldener, C.R. (eds)
Travel, Tourism and Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York,
pp. 91–104.
Plog, S.C. (1973) Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 13–16.
Plog, S.C. (1990) A carpenter’s tools: an answer to Stephen L.J. Smith’s review of pyschocentrism/allocentrism.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 28, 43–45.
Plog, S.C. (2001) Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: an update of a Cornell Quarterly classic.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42, 13–24.
Plog, S.C. (2006) “Once Mo’, Once”: a commentary on the Litvin paper on the Plog psychographic system.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 47, 254–259.
Pomfret, G. (2006) Mountaineering adventure tourists: a conceptual framework for research. Tourism
Management 27, 113–123.
Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2003) Revisiting Mieczkowski’s conceptualization of tourism. Tourism
Geographies 5, 26–38.
Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and Competitors. The Free Press,
New York.
Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. The Free Press,
New York.
Prasad, K. and Dev, C.S. (2000) Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric framework for assessing
performance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41, 22–31.
Prideaux, B. (2000) The resort development spectrum – a new approach to modelling resort development.
Tourism Management 21, 225–240.
Pritchard, M.P. and Havitz, M.E. (2006) Destination appraisal: an analysis of critical incidents. Annals of
Tourism Research 33, 25–46.
Przeworski, A. and Teune, H. (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Puckzkó, L. and Rátz, T. (2000) Tourist and resident perceptions of the physical impacts of tourism at Lake
Balaton, Hungary: issues for sustainable tourism management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8,
458–478.
Rao, A., Anderson, M.B. and Overbolt, C.A. (eds) (1991) Gender Analysis in Development Planning:
A Casebook. Kumarian, West Hartford, Connecticut.
Ray, C. (1998) Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 38, 3–19.
Ray, C. (1999) Towards a meta-framework of endogenous development repertoires, paths, democracy and
rights. Sociologia Ruralis 39, 521–531.
Reed, M.G. (1997) Power relations and community-based tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 24,
566–591.
Reynolds, P.C. and Braithwaite, D. (2001) Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism. Tourism
Management 22, 31–42.
Richardson, O. and Dennis, C. (2003) UK vineyards sector case study: analysis of retail activities using exemplar
strategic marketing tools. British Food Journal 105, 634–652.
Richardson, R.B. and Witkowski, K. (2010) Economic vulnerability to climate change for tourism-dependent
nations. Tourism Analysis 15, 315–330.
Riley, M. and Szivas, E. (2003) Pay determination: a socioeconomic framework. Annals of Tourism Research
30, 446–464.
Riley, R.W. and Love, L.L. (2000) The state of qualitative tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research 27,
164–187.
Ritchie, B.W. (1998) Bicycle tourism in the South Island of New Zealand: planning and management issues.
Tourism Management 19, 567–582.
Ritchie, B.W. (2004) Chaos, crises and disasters: a strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism
industry. Tourism Management 25, 669–683.
Ritzer, G. (1993) The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of
Contemporary Social Life. Pine Forge Press, Newbury Park, California.
Ritzer, G. (1998) The McDonaldization Thesis: Explorations and Extensions. Sage, London.
Robbins, D., Dickinson, J. and Calver, S. (2007) Planning transport for special events: a conceptual framework
and future agenda for research. International Journal of Tourism Research 9, 303–314.
Robertson, M., Rogers, R. and Leask, A. (2009) Progressing socio-cultural impact evaluation for festivals.
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 1, 156–169.
 References 191

Robinson, R.N.S. and Barron, P.E. (2007) Developing a framework for understanding the impact of deskilling
and standardisation on the turnover and attrition of chefs. International Journal of Hospitality Management
26, 913–926.
Rocks, S., Gilmore, G. and Carson, S. (2005) Developing strategic marketing through the use of marketing
networks. Journal of Strategic Marketing 13, 81–92.
Rodríguez-Díaz, M. and Espino-Rodríguez, T.F. (2008) A model of strategic evaluation of a tourism destination
based on internal and relational capabilities. Journal of Travel Research 46, 368–380.
Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. The Free Press, New York.
Russell, J.A. and Ward, I.A. (1982) Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 33, 651–688.
Russell, R. and Faulkner, B. (1999) Movers and shakers: chaos makers in tourism development. Tourism
Management 20, 411–423.
Rutin, J. (2010) Coastal tourism: a comparative study between Croatia and Tunisia. Tourism Geographies 12,
264–277.
Saleem, N. (1992) Monitoring and evaluation of area based tourism initiatives. Tourism Management 13,
71–77.
Sandell, K. (2005) Access, tourism and democracy: a conceptual framework and the non-establishment of a
proposed national park in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 5, 63–75.
Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999) Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism
Research 26, 312–328.
Schänzel, H.A. (2010) Whole-family research: towards a methodology in tourism for encompassing generation,
gender, and group dynamics. Tourism Analysis 15, 555–569.
Schlüter, R. and Bertoncello, R. (2010) Tourism research in Latin America: past and future challenges. In:
Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism Research: A 20/20 Vision. Goodfellow, Woodeaton, Oxford,
pp. 135–146.
Schott, C. (2007) Selling adventure tourism: a distribution channels perspective. International Journal of
Tourism Research 9, 257–274.
Schott, C. (ed.) (2010) Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions. Emerald, Bingley,
UK.
Schwandt, T.A. (1993) Theory for the moral sciences: crisis of identity and purpose. In: Flinders, D.J. and Mills,
G.E. (eds) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. Teachers College
Press, Columbia University, New York, Chapter 1.
Schwartz, K., Tapper, R. and Font, X. (2008) A sustainable supply chain management framework for tour
operators. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16, 298–314.
Schwartz, P. (1998) The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. Wiley,
New York.
Scott, N., Baggio, R. and Cooper, C. (2008a) Network Analysis and Tourism: From Theory to Practice. Channel
View, Clevedon, UK.
Scott, N., Cooper, C. and Baggio, R. (2008b) Destination networks: four Australian cases. Annals of Tourism
Research 35, 169–188.
Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. (2010) Tourism SMEs; changing research agendas and missed opportunities. In:
Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism Research: A 20-20 Vision. Goodfellow, Woodeaton, Oxford,
pp. 80–93.
Shields, P.M. and Tajalli, H. (2006) Intermediate theory – the missing link to successful student scholarship.
Journal of Public Affairs Education 12, 313–334.
Siguaw, J.A., Kimes, S.E. and Gassenheimer, J.B. (2003) B2B sales force productivity: applications of revenue
management strategies to sales management. Industrial Marketing Management 32, 539–551.
Singh, N. and Hu, C. (2008) Understanding strategic alignment for destination marketing and the 2004
Athens Olympic Games: implications from extracted tacit knowledge. Tourism Management 29,
929–939.
Smallman, C. and Moore, K. (2010) Process studies of tourists’ decision-making. Annals of Tourism Research
37, 397–422.
Smith, K.A. (2007) Distribution channels for events: supply and demand-side perspectives. Journal of Vacation
Marketing 13, 321–338.
Smith, K.A. and Garnham, R. (2006) Distribution channels for convention tourism: association conventions in
Wellington, New Zealand. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism 8, 1–30.
Smith, S. and Costello, C. (2009) Culinary tourism: satisfaction with a culinary event utilizing importance–
performance grid analysis. Journal of Vacation Marketing 15, 99–110.
192 References

Smith, S. and Lee, H. (2010) A typology of ‘theory’ in tourism. In: Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R.W. (eds) Tourism
Research: A 20-20 Vision. Goodfellow, Woodeaton, Oxford, pp. 28–39.
Smith, S.L.J. (1990a) A test of Plog’s allocentric/pyschocentric model: evidence from seven nations. Journal of
Travel Research 28(4), 40–43.
Smith, S.L.J. (1990b) Another look at the carpenter’s tools: a reply to Plog. Journal of Travel Research 29(2),
50–51.
Smith, S.L.J. (1991) A carpenter’s tools re-visited: measuring allocentrism and pyscho-centrism properly … the
first time. Journal of Travel Research 29(4), 51–52.
Smith, S.L.J. and Xiao, H. (2008) Culinary tourism supply chains: a preliminary examination. Journal of Travel
Research 46, 289–299.
Snepenger, D., King, J., Marshall, E. and Uysal, M. (2006) Modeling Iso-Ahola’s motivation theory in the tour-
ism context. Journal of Travel Research 45, 140–149.
Sørensen, F. (2007) The geographies of social networks and innovation in tourism. Tourism Geographies 9,
22–48.
Stabler, M.J. (1991) Modelling the tourism industry: a new approach. In: Sinclair, M.T. and Stabler, M.J. (eds)
The Tourism Industry: An International Analysis. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 15–43.
Stanford, D. (2006) Responsible tourism, responsible tourists: what makes a responsible tourist in New
Zealand? PhD thesis. Victoria Management School, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Stern, L.W. and El-Ansary, A.I. (1992) Marketing Channels. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Stewart, S.I. and Vogt, C.A. (1999) A case-based approach to understanding vacation planning. Leisure
Sciences 21, 79–95.
Stock, M. (2010) Vers une théorisation de l’approche géographique du tourisme. Mondes du Tourisme 2,
19–23.
Stohlgren, T.J. and Parsons, D.J. (1992) Evaluating wilderness recreational opportunities: application of an
impact matrix. Environmental Management 16, 397–403.
Stokes, R. (2004) A framework for the analysis of event-tourism knowledge networks. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management 11, 108–122.
Stokes, R. (2008) Tourism strategy making: insights to the events tourism domain. Tourism Management 29,
252–262.
Stone, P.R. (2006) A dark tourism spectrum: towards a typology of death and macabre related tourist sites,
attractions and exhibitions. Tourism 54, 145–160.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994) Grounded theory methodology. In: Denzin, K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds)
Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Beverly Hills, California, pp. 273–285.
Strickland-Munro, J.K., Allison, H.E. and Moore, S.A. (2010) Using resilience concepts to investigate the
impacts of protected area tourism on communities. Annals of Tourism Research 37, 499–519.
Sundbo, J., Orfila-Sintes, F. and Sørensen, F. (2007) The innovative behaviour of tourism firms – comparative
studies of Denmark and Spain. Research Policy 36, 88–106.
Swain, M.B. (ed.) (1995a) Special issue: Gender in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 22(2), 247–499.
Swain, M.B. (1995b) Gender in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 22, 247–266.
Szarka, J. (1990) Networking and small firms. International Small Business Journal 8, 10–21.
Tao, W., Zhong, W.H. and Hong, Y. (2005) Urban tourism research methodology – a case study of Guangdong–
Hong Kong–Macao area. Chinese Geographical Science 15, 173–178.
Taylor, G.D. (1980) How to match plant with demand: a matrix for marketing. International Journal of Tourism
Management 1, 56–60.
Teo, P. and Li, L.H. (2003) Global and local interactions in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 30,
287–306.
Therkelsen, A. and Halkier, H. (2008) Contemplating place branding umbrellas. The case of coordinated
national tourism and business promotion in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
8, 159–175.
Thomas, K. (2004) The research process as a journey: from positivist traditions into the realms of qualitative
inquiry. In: Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (eds) Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies,
Epistemologies and Methodologies. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 197–214.
Thorns, D.C. (1997) The global meets the local: tourism and representations of the New Zealand city. Urban
Affairs Review 33, 189–208.
Thurot, J.M. (1973) Le Tourisme balnéaire: le modèle caraíbe et ses extensions. PhD thesis, Centre d’Etudes
du Tourisme, Aix-en-Provence, France.
 References 193

Tideswell, C., Mules, T. and Faulkner, B. (2001) An integrative approach to tourism forecasting: a glance in the
rearview mirror. Journal of Travel Research 40, 162–171.
Timur, T. and Getz, D. (2008) A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban tourism.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20, 445–461.
Tinsley, R. and Lynch, P. (2001) Small tourism business networks and destination development. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 20, 367–378.
Tonge, J. and Moore, S.A. (2007) Importance–satisfaction analysis for marine-park hinterlands: a Western
Australian case study. Tourism Management 28, 768–776.
Tourism Resource Consultants (2002) Samoa Tourism Development Plan 2002–2006. Produced by Tourism
Resource Consultants, Wellington, for Government of Samoa, Apia.
Trauer, B. (2006) Conceptualizing special interest tourism – frameworks for analysis. Tourism Management
27, 183–200.
Tribe, J. (2006) The truth about tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 33, 360–381.
Tribe, J. and Snaith, T. (1998) From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: holiday satisfaction in Varadero, Cuba. Tourism
Management 19, 25–34.
Truong, T.H. (2005) Assessing holiday satisfaction of Australian travellers in Vietnam: an application of the
HOLSAT model. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 10, 227–246.
Turner, V. (1974) Liminal to limnoid, play, flow and ritual: an essay in comparative symbology. Rice University
Studies 60, 53–92.
Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze. Sage, London.
van Gennep, A. (1906) The Rites of Passage. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
van Limburg, B. (1997) Overnight tourism in Amsterdam 1982–1993 – a forecasting approach. Tourism
Management 18, 465–468.
van Raaij, W.F. and Francken, D.A. (1984) Vacation decisions, activities, and satisfactions. Annals of Tourism
Research 11, 101–112.
Van Scotter, J.R. and Culligan, P.E. (2003) The value of theoretical and applied research for the hospitality
industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44, 14–27.
Vaske, J.J., Beaman, J., Stanley, R. and Grenier, M. (1996) Importance–performance and segmentation: where
do we go from here? Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 5, 225–240.
Veal, A.J. (2006) Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide. Pearson Education, Harlow,
UK.
Veblen, T. (1994) The Theory of the Leisure Class. Penguin Books, New York.
Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2003) Organizational learning and knowledge management: toward an integrative
framework. In: Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (eds) The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational
Learning and Knowledge Management. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts, pp. 122–141.
Vogt, C.A. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (1998) Expanding the functional information search model. Annals of Tourism
Research 25, 551–578.
von Friedrichs Grängsjö, Y. and Gummesson, E. (2006) Hotel networks and social capital in destination
marketing. International Journal of Service Industry Management 17, 58–75.
Wade, D.J. and Eagles, P.F.J. (2003) The use of importance–performance analysis and market segmentation for
tourism management in parks and protected areas: an application to Tanzania’s national parks. Journal
of Ecotourism 2, 196–212.
Wagner, J.E. (1997) Estimating the economic impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24, 592–608.
Walker, P.A., Greiner, R., McDonald, D. and Lyne, V. (1999) The Tourism Futures Simulator: a systems thinking
approach. Environmental Modelling and Software 14, 59–67.
Wang, Y. and Xiang, Z. (2007) Toward a theoretical framework of collaborative destination marketing. Journal
of Travel Research 46, 75–85.
Warwick, D.P. and Osherson, S. (1973) Comparative Research Methods. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Weaver, A. (2005) The McDonaldization thesis and cruise tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 32, 346–366.
Weaver, A. (2006) The Disneyization of cruise travel. In: Dowling, R. (ed.) Cruise Ship Tourism. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 389–396.
Weaver, D. (2000) A broad context model of destination development scenarios. Tourism Management 21,
217–224.
Weaver, D. (2010) Indigenous tourism stages and their implications for sustainability. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 18, 43–60.
Weaver, D. and Oppermann, M. (2000) Tourism Management. Wiley, Brisbane, Australia.
194 References

Webber, M.J. (1991) The contemporary transition. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9, 165–182.
Weiermair, K. (2005) Prospects for innovation in tourism: analysing the tourism value chain. Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 6, 59–72.
White, B. (1991) Studying Women and Rural Non-farm Activities. Institute for Social Studies, The Hague.
Wight, P.A. (1993) Sustainable ecotourism: balancing economic, environmental and social goals within an
ethical framework. Journal of Tourism Studies 4, 54–66.
Wilkinson, P.F. and Pratiwi, W. (1995) Gender and tourism in an Indonesian village. Annals of Tourism
Research 22, 283–299.
Williams, P.W. (1987) Evaluating environmental impact and physical carrying capacity in tourism. In: Ritchie,
J.R. and Goeldner, C.R. (eds) Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research. A Handbook for Managers and
Researchers. Wiley, New York, pp. 425–436.
Williams, P.W. and Dossa, K.B. (2003) Non-resident wine tourist markets: implications for British Columbia’s
emerging wine tourism industry. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 14, 1–34.
Willis, J. (2007) Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Sage, Thousand
Oaks, California.
Wong, E.P.Y., Mistilis, N. and Dwyer, L. (2011) A framework for analysing intergovernmental collaboration –
the case of ASEAN tourism. Tourism Management 32, 367–376.
Wood, R.E. (2006) Cruise tourism: a paradigmatic case of globalization. In: Dowling, R. (ed.) Cruise Ship
Tourism. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 397–406.
Woodside, G. and King, R.I. (2001) An updated model of travel and tourism purchase–consumption systems.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 10, 3–27.
Woosnam, K.M., Norman, K.M. and Ying, T. (2009) Exploring the theoretical framework of emotional solidar-
ity between residents and tourists. Journal of Travel Research 48, 245–258.
Workman, J.P., Homburg, C. and Gruner, K. (1998) Marketing organization: an integrative framework of
dimensions and determinants. Journal of Marketing 62, 21–41.
Wu, A. and Weber, K. (2005) Convention center facilities, attributes and services: the delegates’ perspective.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 10, 399–410.
Wu, B. and Cai, L. A. (2006) Spatial modeling: suburban leisure in Shanghai. Annals of Tourism Research 33,
179–198.
Xu, J.B. and Chan, A. (2010) A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customer-based brand equity:
some research questions and implications. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
22, 174–193.
Yeoman, I. (2005) Scottish tourism: scenarios and vision. Journal of Vacation Marketing 11, 71–87.
Yeoman, I., Galt, M. and McMahon-Beattie, U. (2005) A case study of how VisitScotland prepared for war.
Journal of Travel Research 44, 6–20.
Yilmaz, Y. and Bititci, U.S. (2006) Performance measurement in tourism: a value chain model. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18, 341.
Yu, X., Weiler, B. and Ham, S. (2001) Intercultural communication and mediation: a framework for analysing
the intercultural competence of Chinese tour guides. Journal of Vacation Marketing 8, 75–87.
Zahra, S.H. and Pearce, J.A. (1989) Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: a review and
integrative model. Journal of Management 15, 291–334.
Zhang, H.Q. and Chow, I. (2004) Application of importance–performance model in tour guides’ performance:
evidence from mainland Chinese outbound visitors in Hong Kong. Tourism Management 25, 81–91.
Zhang, X., Song, H. and Huang, G.Q. (2009) Tourism supply chain management: a new research agenda.
Tourism Management 30, 345–358.
Zhao, W. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2007) Tourism and poverty alleviation: an integrative research framework.
Current Issues in Tourism 10, 119–143.
Zhou, Y. and Ap, J. (2009) Residents’ perceptions towards the impacts of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
Journal of Travel Research 48, 78–91.
Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M. (2010) Business Research Methods. South-Western
Cengage Learning, Mason, Ohio.
Zins, A.H. (1999) Destination portfolios using a European vacation style typology. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 8, 1–22.
Zurick, D.N. (1992) Adventure travel and sustainable tourism in the peripheral economy of Nepal. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 82, 608–628.
 Author Index

Note: page numbers in italics refer to figures and tables

Abler, R. 84 Brandth, B. 25
Agarwal, S. 138, 151 Braun, V. 63
Ãguas, P. 58 Briassoulis, H. 131, 132, 133, 151
Ajzen, I. 51 Britton, S.G. 136, 136, 137
Alfasi, N. 67 Brotherton, B. 9, 28, 162, 168
Amin, A. 23 Bruyere, B.L. 88, 90, 91
Anderson, B. 61 Bryman, A. 22
Anderson, J.R. 12 Buckley, P.J. 156, 159
Anfara, V.A. 5, 6, 7, 15, 28, 153 Buhalis, D. 137
Ansoff, I. 82 Burns, P.M. 115, 131
Armitage, D. 14 Burns, R.B. 9
Arnegger, J. 33 Butler, R. 1, 6, 32, 104, 105, 112, 125,
Ashworth, G.J. 66 128, 138, 140, 159, 167
Asprogerakas, E. 20, 21, 26
Assael, H. 117
Calantone, J. 57, 57, 58
Cameron, D. 93, 94
Bacharach, S.B. 7, 8, 29, 153, 160 Campbell, C.K. 135
Bacon, D.R. 91 Carmichael, B.A. 84
Baggio, R. 131, 139, 143 Casteñeda, J.A. 40, 40, 156, 168
Bannwarth, C. 121 Catibog-Sinha, C. 115, 116
Barrado Timón, D.A. 67 Cazes, G. 136
Beaumont, N. 60 Chang, T.C. 67
Bécherel, L. 113 Chathoth, P.K. 121
Belhassen, Y. 25 Cho, S.-E. 160, 161
Beritelli, P. 26, 71 Chorley, R.J. 9, 159
Berkowitz, L. 75 Chu, R.K.S. 89
Berno, T. 156 Cilliers, P. 139
Bieger, T. 117 Clancy, M. 121, 122, 124, 125, 137
Bishop, M.L. 59 Clarke, J. 32, 34, 48
Blackman, A. 113 Clawson, M. 117, 120, 125
Boers, B. 133, 133, 134, 151 Coëffé, V. 37, 49
Bourdieu, P. 70 Cohen, E. 14, 57, 82, 83, 101, 154, 158
Bramwell, B. 61, 62 Cole, S. 111, 128

195
196 Author Index

Collins-Kreiner, N. 102 Franklin, A. 174

Cornelis, P.C.M. 99 Frauman, E. 88, 90, 91
Cottrell, S. 58 Frazier, G.L. 31
Cresswell, J.W. 75 Frechtling, D. 50
Crompton, J. 90, 117 Fridgen, J.D. 117
Crouch, G.I. 162, 167 Friedmann, J. 104
Currie, R.R. 38, 39 Fyall, A. 58

Daconto, G. 91, 92, 92, 101, 162 Gallarza, M.G. 65, 160
Dale, C. 141 Garcia-Ramon, M.D. 25
Dann, G. 12, 78, 80, 81, 101, 147 Gereffi, G. 121
Davern, M. 142 Getz, D. 9, 68, 68, 69, 146
Davies, B. 14, 76 Gibson, C. 31
Davis, F.D. 40, 156 Giddens, A. 116
Dellaert, B. 118 Ginsberg, H. 14
Deng, J. 67, 88 Gladstone, D.L. 23
Dernoi, L.A. 32, 34 Glaser, B. 105, 106, 111
Desforges, L. 24 Gormsen, E. 110
Dmitrovic, T. 40 Gottlieb, A. 38
Dolnicar, S. 31, 102 Grønflaten, O. 99
Doty, D.H. 7, 8 Grönross, C. 82
Downward, P. 75, 76 Gunn, C.A. 112, 113, 115, 131
Dredge, D. 112, 141 Gursoy, D. 14, 73, 75, 78, 168
Drews, H. 58 Gutiérrez Puebla, J. 137, 138
du Cros, H. 97, 101 Gyimothy, S. 119
du Rand, G.E. 115, 162
Duffus, D.A. 35, 36
Duke, C.R. 88 Hall, P. 112
Dunne, G. 120, 159 Hall, R.H. 150
Durkheim, E. 19, 20, 26 Harrington, R.J. 82, 83, 101, 153
Duval, D. 93 Harrison, D. 17, 18, 107,
Dwyer, L. 97 153, 155
Hart, S. 14
Hasslacher, P. 32, 34
Edgell, D.L. Sr 113, 114 Hattendorf, M. 99
Eisenhardt, K.M. 42 Haythornthwaite, C. 143
El-Ansary, A.I. 14 Healey, R.A. 139
Enright, M.J. 88, 89, 90, 91 Heath, E. 58
Erkuş-Öztürk, H. 121, 124 Heicks, H. 91, 93
Evans, N.J. 160 Henshall, B.D. 58, 147
Hernandez, S.A. 25, 27
Herold, E. 25
Fall, L.T. 20, 26 Hill, K.L. 5, 6, 15
Farnum, J.O. 84, 89, 90, 91 Hill, R. 6
Farrell, B.H. 154, 157 Hills, T. 136
Farsari, I. 140, 141, 151 Hinch, T. 13, 102, 147, 157
Faulkner, B. 30, 31, 125 Ho, D.C. 121
Fennell, D.A. 33, 34, 36, 97 Hoc, J. 112
Finn, M. 9 Hottola, P. 127, 128, 156, 157
Fishbein, M. 73 Howitt, R. 137, 138
Flagestad, A. 71, 72 Hsu, C.H.C. 173
Flinders, D.J. 7, 8, 15, 17 Huan, T.C. 89, 91
Flognfeldt, T. 137 Hudson, S. 90, 93, 95, 163
Folger, R. 20 Hughey, K.F.D. 97
Formica, S. 52, 113 Hunter, C.J. 34, 48
Forsberg, K. 5, 8, 153 Hvenegaard, G.T. 28, 36, 36, 154
 Author Index 197

Hyde, K.F. 73, 168 Liu, Z.-H. 131

Hystad, P.W. 125, 126, 128 Lohmann, G. 55, 56, 137
Long, J. 9
Loukissas, P.J. 60
Iso-Ahola, S.E. 81, 83, 84, 101 Lovelock, B. 137, 138
Lundgren, J. 136

Jafari, J. 155
Jamal, T. 14, 69, 70, 78, MacCannell, D. 82, 83
140, 151, 154 Machlis, G.E. 69, 78, 148
James, J.E. 137 Mair, J. 42, 43
Janes, P.L. 88, 90 Malloy, D.C. 55
Jemison, D.B. 14 March, R. 57, 96
Jennings, G. 9, 156, 159, 169 Mariot, P. 135
Jeong, M. 99 Martilla, J.A. 84, 90, 91, 101
Jobbins, G. 55, 55 Matarrita-Cascante, D. 59
Johnson, P.A. 140, 151 Maulet, G. 67, 157
Johnston, C.S. 104, 105, 106, 128, 159 Mbaiwa, J.E. 67
Jopp, R. 173 McColl-Kennedy, J.R. 20, 26
Judd, D.R. 137 McDowall, S. 58
Jun, S.H. 120 McGehee, N.G. 134, 135, 154
McKercher, B. 111, 112, 128, 135, 147
McLennan, C. 112, 128
Kahle, L.R. 20 Mehmetoglu, M. 25, 26, 50, 162, 168
Kano, N. 88 Merriam, S.B. 5, 7, 12
Kerr, W.R. 154 Meyer, D. 162
Kinnaird, V. 24 Mieczkowski, Z.T. 30, 30, 31
Kitchin, R. 168, 169 Miles, M.B. 5, 7, 13, 15, 79, 167,
Kneafsey, M. 21, 22, 26, 158 168, 169, 170
Knoke, D. 142 Mill, R.C. 130, 131, 131, 140
Koh, S. 88, 89, 91 Milne, S. 138, 139
Kooiman, J. 55 Miossec, J.-M. 107, 109, 136
Kotler, P. 56, 58, 163 Mitchell, J.C. 121, 124, 142
Kracht, J. 123, 124 Mitchell, L.S. 99
Kreisel, L. 173 Moliner, M.A. 73, 78
Kumar, U. 40, 41, 160 Morais, D.B. 19, 26, 156, 157, 168
Moscardo, G. 42, 43, 44, 162
Mosedale, J. 121, 124, 137, 138
Lane, M. 120 Moseley, D. 5, 7
Lapeyre, R. 121, 124 Mulvaney, R.H. 40, 160
Larson, T. 126 Murphy, C. 42, 67
Lashley, C. 93
Lawrence, T.B. 17
Lazzarotti, O. 173 Nepal, S.J. 28, 36, 37, 37, 48
Lee, C.-F. 71, 78 Nunkoo, R. 19, 26
Lee, G. 58, 89, 91 Nye, F.I. 5, 6, 7, 13
Lee, T.J. 26
Leibenstein, H. 13, 61
Leiper, N. 80, 81, 81, 101, 130, 135 Oberg, K. 127
Leong, C.-C. 89, 90, 91 O’Farrell, P.N. 142, 147, 148, 149
Leopold, L.B. 97 Oh, H. 15, 88, 89, 90, 91
Lew, A.A. 137, 151 O’Leary, S. 89, 91, 162
Lewis, J.B. 108, 109, 110, 128
Li, Y. 97
Litvin, S.W. 158 Pacquet, G. 13, 61
Liu, A. 99 Page, S.J. 91
Liu, Y.-D. 88 Palmer, A. 142
198 Author Index

Pan, B. 73, 169 Sautter, E.T. 81, 82, 101

Pansiri, J. 75, 76, 77, 77, 78 Schänzel, H.A. 14, 62, 62, 154
Papp, D.S. 5, 6, 15 Schlüter, R. 173
Parag, G. 62, 63, 169 Schott, C. 3, 173
Park, S. 73 Schwandt, T.A. 12
Pavlovich, K. 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 151 Schwartz, K. 121, 124
Pearce, D.G. 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 14, 31, 32, 48, 51, Schwartz, P. 92
53, 58, 59, 60, 60, 65, 66, 66, 69, 95, Scott, N. 141, 142, 143, 145, 146
96, 96, 101, 104, 112, 113, 115, 115, Shaw, G. 155
120, 121, 122, 122, 123, 123, 124, 128, Shields, P.M. 28
134, 137, 142, 145, 146, 146, 149, 150, Siguaw, J.A. 81
150, 155, 157, 159, 163, 164, 165, 166, Singh, N. 162
167, 170, 172, 173 Smallman, C. 104, 106, 117, 118
Pearce, P.L. 5, 13, 130, 153, 174 Smith, K.A. 3
Perdue, R.R. 58 Smith, S. 8, 12, 17, 121, 124, 158, 174
Petrick, J.F. 102, 102 Snepenger, D. 84
Pforr, C. 125, 128, 128, 141, 142, Sørensen, F. 147, 154
143, 144, 146, 154, 157 Stabler, M.J. 137
Phillimore, J. 158 Stanford, D. 50, 52, 53
Phillips, P.A. 71 Stern, L.W. 121, 163
Picazo, J.-M. 32 Stewart, S.I. 112, 116, 119,
Piccoli, G. 120, 125 120, 120, 128
Pizam, A. 9 Stock, M. 7
Plog, S.C. 111, 112, 158 Stohlgren, T.J. 95, 97, 99
Pomfret, G. 28, 37 Stokes, R. 41, 61, 168
Poria, Y. 29, 31 Stone, P.R. 34, 35
Porter, M.E. 20, 21, 70, 121 Strauss, A. 25
Prasad, K. 88, 90 Strickland-Munro, J.K. 134
Prideaux, B. 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 128, 165 Sundbo, J. 141, 142, 147
Pritchard, M.P. 88, 89 Swain, M.B. 24, 25
Przeworski, A. 58, 59 Szarka, J. 142
Puckzkó, L. 97, 98, 99

Tao, W. 67
Rao, A. 25 Taylor, G.D. 97
Ray, C. 21, 26 Teo, P. 23, 26
Reed, M.G. 43, 45, 47, 48 Therkelsen, A. 61
Reynolds, P.C. 36 Thomas, K. 62, 63
Richardson, O. 82 Thorns, D.C. 23, 26
Richardson, R.B. 173 Thurot, J.M. 110
Riley, M. 39, 160, 168 Tideswell, C. 75
Riley, R.W. 50 Timur, T. 142, 146
Ritchie, B.W. 125 Tinsley, R. 141, 142
Ritzer, G. 21, 26 Tonge, J. 88, 89, 101
Robbins, D. 40 Trauer, B. 33, 33, 48, 160
Robertson, M. 14, 65 Tribe, J. 29, 30, 88, 89, 91, 101
Robinson, R.N.S. 65 Truong, T.H. 89, 91
Rocks, S. 142, 143, 151 Turner, V. 38
Rodríguez-Díaz, M. 99, 100, 100, 101
Rokeach, M. 20
Russell, J.A. 117 Urry, J. 23
Russell, R. 111, 128
Rutin, J. 58
van Gennep, A. 38
van Limburg, B. 57
Saleem, N. 115 van Raaij, W.F. 117
Sandell, K. 94 Van Scotter, J.R. 8
 Author Index 199

Vaske, J.J. 91 Wood, R.E. 22, 26

Veal, A.J. 9, 28 Woodside, G. 118, 119, 119
Veblen, T. 70 Woosnam, K.M. 19, 26, 156, 157
Vera, D. 14 Workman, J.P. 14
Vogt, C.A. 117, 118 Wu, B. 99
von Friedrichs Grängsjö, Y. 142, 146, 166

Xu, J.B. 40
Wade, D.J. 91
Wagner, J.E. 79
Walker, P.A. 140, 141, 151 Yeoman, I. 91, 93, 101, 162
Wang, Y. 73, 74, 78 Yilmaz, Y. 121, 124
Warwick, D.P. 58 Yu, X. 162
Weaver, A. 21, 22, 26, 83, 158
Weaver, D. 128, 130, 147, 148
Webber, M.J. 104, 106 Zahra, S.H. 14
Weiermair, K. 124 Zhang, H.Q. 85, 85, 88, 89, 121, 162
White, B. 25 Zhang, X. 124, 128
Wight, P.A. 32, 33, 34 Zhao, W. 14, 67, 67, 68, 69, 162
Wilkinson, P.F. 25 Zhou, Y. 52, 54
Williams, P.W. 95 Zikmund, W.G. 28, 29
Willis, J. 7 Zins, A.H. 57
Wong, E.P.Y. 169 Zurick, D.N. 135
This page intentionally left blank
 Subject Index
Note: page numbers in italics refer to figures and tables
accommodation, spectrum widening 110
acculturation theories 156
action grid analysis (AGA) 89
adaptive cycle 148–149, 157
adventure tourism 34
agritourism systems model 134, 135, 154
see also farm tourism
airline industry
China 93
Mallorca 138
allocentric personality type 111, 158
alternative tourism 32, 34–35
distinction from mass tourism 48
analytical frameworks 5, 9, 10, 11, 13–14,
50–64
analysis structure 51–52, 53, 54
application to tourism 157
classification 54–56
comparative studies 58–61
diagnostic tools 56–58
growth/share matrix 56–58
levels 13–14
quadrant matrices 84, 86–87, 85–94, 90
qualitative 61–63
antipoverty tourism (APT) research 67–68
Athens (Greece), urban tourism 20–21, 26
Australia
Gold Coast destination development 83,
110, 128
edge of chaos conditions 111
Gold Coast network 143, 145
inter-organizational analysis 96
local tourism governance 60
nature-based tourism 97
protected areas monitoring framework 116
regional networks 143, 145
response to crisis of 2001 61
tourism forecasting 75–76
tourism master plan 143, 144
wine tourism 96
backpackers
hostels 145–146
intercultural adaptation 127
Beijing (China), perceptions of Olympic
Games 52, 54
Belgium, decentralization of responsibility
for tourism 150
biodiversity, monitoring framework
for sustaining 116
Boston Consulting Group (BCG) matrix
see growth/share matrix
bounding 10
Brittany (France), commodification 21
business events sector, corporate greening 42, 43
business travel 123
buyer–seller relationships, distribution
channels 124
campsite impact matrix 97
Canada, community-based tourism
planning 43–44, 45–47, 48
case-based planning 120
case-based research 159
case study, comparative 59, 60
causal relationships 29, 169
201
202 Subject Index

causality, tourist decision making 106 qualitative studies 41–44, 45–47,

centrality redistribution 145 48, 49, 162
channel(s) quantitative studies 40–41, 49
marketing 121 sociocultural role of tourism 155–156
members/performance 3 theoretically based 156
process frameworks 121–125 theory building activity 174
structure analysis 3 tourism forms 32–37
width for networks 146 tourist decision making 118
see also distribution channels travel planning 120
chaos makers 111 conceptual scheme 13
chaos theory 111, 112, 128 tourist behaviour 5
China, airline industry 93 confidence intervals, importance–performance
city break decision-making model 120 analysis 91
climate change, integrative frameworks 173 configurations of frameworks 163–167
cluster analysis 52, 54 consumer information acquisition and
coastal tourism 37 processing model 117
cognitive mapping 140–141 consumer loyalty 102
commodification context, in qualitative research 8
cruise tourism 22 contextual factors, framework selection 159
rural Brittany 21 convention travel 123
commodity chains 121, 124–125, 128 core competences, exchange in networks 142
economic surplus distribution 124 corporate governance, micro-theories 71
lack of interaction with local corporate greening, business events
society 136–137 sector 42, 43
sex tourism 124–125 crisis management 125
communication function of critical realism 76
frameworks 154–155 cruise tourism 22, 26
community involvement, festivals in regional Cuba, sex tourism commodity
development 42–43, 44 chains 124–125
comparative case studies 59 cultural contact, quadrant matrix 84
comparative research 58–61 cultural economy 21–22
competition 32 cultural heritage sites, sustainable
destination 71, 99–100, 162, 167–168 development 97
small and medium tourist enterprises 137 cultural tourism 34, 42
competitive advantage building 71, 72 culture confusion framework 127, 128
competitive advantage theory 20–21, 26 culture shock, U-curve 127
complex systems 139–141 customer loyalty 19
complexity theory 111, 112 customized tourists 165
composite frameworks 147–150, 151, 166 cycles
computable general equilibrium (GCE) adaptive 148–149, 157
models 50 in process frameworks 125–126
concepts research 10, 126, 128
definitions 28–29 structural 69
linkage between 29 transaction 69
conceptual frameworks 1–2, 6, 9, 10, see also TALC (tourist area
11, 13, 28–49 life cycle) model
acculturation theories 156
case-based vacation planning 120
characteristics of tourism 157 dark tourism 34, 35
delineation 5 data
destination competitiveness 162 analysis 11
generalized processes 128 multiple cases 169
graphical representation 15 display 15
implementation 38–44, 45–47, 48 empirical 11
inter-organizational analysis 149–150 monitoring framework for
intercultural competence 162 collection 115, 116
quadrant matrices 80–84, 90, 94 needs for examining systems 151
 Subject Index
qualitative analysis 168–169
quantitative 11
decision maker attitudes in tourist
development 109
decision making by tourists 106, 117, 118
decision-making process frameworks 116–121,
128, 159
managerial applications 120–121
structure 165
demand subsystems 133
demand systems 131, 132, 133–134
demand–supply matrix 97
democratization of tourism 110
Denmark, place branding 61–62
destination(s)
adaptive capacity 112
choice process 117–118
competitiveness 71, 99–100, 162,
167–168
complex systems 139
dependent 136
evolution 111–112
governance in Swiss Alps 71
multi-scaled interactions of tourists/
destinations/communities 140
multinational company imposition 136
personality types of users 111–112
planning 128
psychographic positioning 111–112
seeds of destruction 112
strategic evaluation 99, 100
transformation 112
vacation characteristics 120
destination attraction framework 113, 115
destination attractiveness, analytical
framework 52, 54
destination development 83, 128
appeal to market segments 111–112
Gold Coast (Australia) 83, 110
edge of chaos conditions 111
model 158
destination market matrix 147
destination marketing 73
destination marketing organizations
(DMOs) 134, 135
destination networks 143–145, 151
destination tourism disaster management
cycle 125, 126
deterritorialization 22
development process frameworks 106–107,
108, 109–112, 129
disaster management 125, 126
Disneyization 22, 26
distance decay 137
distribution channels 121, 122, 163–165
behavioural issues 124
buyer–seller relationships 124
203
comparative case study 59, 60
direct 123
evolution 123–124
indirect 123
multiple 123
New Zealand tourism 163–165
transformation 123–124
visitors’ perspective 51–52, 53
distribution decisions 157
distribution frameworks 152
distribution networks 145–146
diversification
product 32
wine tourism 82
Dublin (Ireland), city breaks 120
economic surplus distribution through
commodity chains 124
Economic Value Portfolio Matrix 58
economics
impact of tabular matrices 97, 99
organizational 71
tourism impact 50
economy, cultural 21–22
ecotourism 34–35
accommodation spectrum 32–33
conceptual framework 36
dimensions 33
element-by-element comparisons 59–60
emotional solidarity theory 19, 26
enclave model of tourism 136–137
entrepreneurs 111
environment, tourism impact 3, 4
environmental communication 93–94, 95
environmental factors, framework
selection 158–159
environmental framework 132, 133, 151
environmentally responsible
actions 93–94, 95
ethics, codes of 55
events tourism 41–42, 68–69
exchange networks 145–146
expectancy-value model 73, 75
expectation 69
factor-cluster segmentation 32
fairness theory 20
family holidays, nature of 62
farm tourism
external/internal farm environment
interactions 160
gender 25
see also agritourism systems model
feminism 25
festivals, in regional development 42–43, 44
204 Subject Index

focus groups 20 cruise tourism 22, 26

qualitative data 62–63 theories 107
four-cell matrix see quadrant matrices global–local nexus 138, 139
frameworks governance
communication function 154–155 destinations in Swiss Alps 71
composite 147–150, 151 local tourism 60
comprehensive master plan 166–167 Sagarmatha National Park
configurations 163–167, 170 (Nepal) 92–93
contextual factors 158–159 socio-political theory 55
creation of new 155–159 Gran Canaria, destination
definition 7, 8 competitiveness 99–100
development 1–2, 152–153, Greece, sustainable tourism 140–141
159–170 Greek islands, quantitative and graphical
distribution 152 techniques 60
environmental factors 158–159 grid-group analysis 93, 94
forms 14–16 grounded theory 18, 25–26, 162
functions 9, 11–12, 153–155 customer’s holiday experience 119
good 153 family holiday analysis 62
hierarchical 170 process frameworks 127
hypothesis 168 growth/share matrix 56–58, 76, 79
interrelated 154 attributes 152
organization function 154–155 growth vector matrix 82
presentation 170 Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao area
propositions 168 (China) 67
qualifiers 7 Guest Cycle information technology 121
relationships 163–169
scope 169–170
selection 153–159 hard tourism 32
contextual/environmental Haw Par Villa (Singapore), global/local
factors 159 framework 23
stages 170 heritage site, Korea 71, 73
supposedly significant features 159, heritage tourism, integrated frameworks 154
160–162 hierarchical framework
theoretical 156 inter-scale interactions 138, 139
three-level for tourism studies 17, 18 thematic 62–63
use of existing 155–159 holiday experience
limitations 157–158 overall 119
utility 153 total 157
see also named framework types home behaviours, retention 38–39
Hope Valley (Peak District, UK) 61
hospitality research 31
gender, farm tourism 25 hosts, tourist relations 69
gender aware framework 24–25 hotels
general systems theory 151 distribution channels 123
geographical systems of tourism 136–137 groups
origin–linkage–destination grid-group analysis 93, 94
framework 134–137 international expansion 25
scalar systems 137–139 importance–performance analysis of
geography of tourism 31 brand performance 88–89
multi-site/multi-scale 157 multidimensional contingency model
relational 137, 138 of performance 71
Glasgow (UK), cultural tourism 42 Swedish network 146–147
global commodity chain 121–122 human resources matrix 99
global distribution systems (GDS) 123 hypothesis
global/local framework 23 establishment 9
global value chain (GVC) 121 frameworks 168
globalization 23 testing 11
 Subject Index 205

impact assessment matrices 97, 98, 99 leisure 30, 31

importance–performance leisure constraints framework 13
analysis (IPA) 84, 86–87, leisure travel, purchase decisions 118–119
85–91, 101, 157 LIP (liminoidal, inversionary and prosaic)
attributes 89, 152 behaviours framework 38–39
location 90–91 local tourism governance 60
axis placement 90 logistic tourism model 111
bidirectional scale 90 Lorenz curves, localization 60–61
comparison of approaches 90 Los Angeles (USA) 23–24
confidence intervals 91 l’urbanité concept 37, 49
population segment use 91
scale 90
of variables 89–90 macro–meso–micro framework 138
variables 88–89 Mallorca, air transport 138
independent leisure travel 123 marketing 31–32
indigenous tourism 32 alliances 73, 74
evolution 147, 148 channels 121
matrix 147 competitive environment 32
Indonesia, gender in village tourism 25 destination 73
industrial organization theory 70–71 environmental communication 93–94, 95
industrialization, partial 80, 81 environmentally responsible
industry attractiveness matrix 58 actions 93–94, 95
information exchange, networks 143 growth/share matrix 57–58
information needs of travellers 117 networks 73, 74, 143
information search behaviour 73, planning 113, 114
75, 168 quadrant matrix 93–94
information technology (IT) 121 responsible 93–94, 95
innovation potential of stakeholders 124 strategic 82
integrated impact analysis model 131, strategic planning process 113, 114
132, 133 markets
integration 14 comparative case study 59
integrative frameworks 2–3, 9, 10, position 147
11, 14, 65–78, 172–173 mass tourism 32, 48
climate change 173 materials balance model 133
explicit 75–76 matrix/matrices 15–16, 152
heritage tourism 154 composite frameworks 147
literature integration 65–69 staged authenticity 158
mixed methods 75–77 tabular 79, 94–97, 98, 99–100, 163, 164
related themes 173 three-dimensional cube 101–102
theoretically based 156 tourist space 158
theory and approach integration 69–71, variables 163
72, 73, 74, 75 see also growth/share matrix; multi-purpose
urban tourism 65–67 matrices; quadrant matrices
inter-organizational analysis 61–62 Mauritius, integrated resort project 19
conceptual frameworks 149–150 McDonaldization thesis 21–22, 26, 158
interaction 69 methodological triangulation 76
intercultural adaptation 127 micro–macro framework of tourist
intercultural competence, conceptual motivation 70
framework 162 migration, tie with tourism 93
Internet model(s) 7–9
acceptance 168 definition 9
eMICA framework 126–127 framework distinction 7–8
use 120, 121, 168 see also individual named models
Italy, tourism markets 57 Model of Internet Commerce Adoption
(eMICA) 126–127
money reconceptualization 24
Korea, heritage site 71, 73 monitoring framework 115, 116
206 Subject Index

Morocco, stakeholder interactions 55 New Zealand

motivation construct 73, 74 cities 23
see also tourist motivation comparative case study 59, 60
mountain tourism 36–37, 48 distribution channels for chain hotels 123
zones 37 exchange networks 145–146
multi-method studies 11, 43, 51, 75–77, holiday travel to Samoa 124
78, 151 networks 143–145
multi-purpose matrices 78–84, 86–87, responsible tourism 51, 52
85–97, 98, 99–103 tourism distribution channels 163–165
quadrant 79–84, 86–87, 85–94 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 139
tabular 79 Norway, farm tourism 25
multi-scale integration, urban tourism 66
multi-scale tourism thematic interpretation
framework 137–138 open-systems model 149, 150
multidimensional contingency model operations strategy 160–161
of hotel performance 71 organic/rational planning process 115
multinational companies, imposition on organization cycles 69
dependent destinations 136 organization function of frameworks 154–155
organizational economics (OE) 71
origin–linkage–destination framework 1
narrative frameworks 15 origin–linkage–destination
nature-based tourism 33, 34, 35, 36 systems 134–137
neoliberalism 22 outcome construct 73, 74
network(s) 141–147
actors 142–143, 144
causal 169 packaged tours, distribution
centrality redistribution 145 function 122–123
channel width 146 participation cycles 69
cohesiveness 146 pay determination framework 39
collaborative activities 145 personal values 20
components 142 pervasiveness of social processes 105
connectedness perspective 143, 146 place-based factors 159
definitions 141–142 planned behaviour theory 51, 53
destination 143–145, 151 planning 112–113
development 168 bipolar approach 115–116
distribution 145–146 marketing 113, 114
efficiency 146 ongoing process 115
exchange 145–146 rationalist approach 115
flexibility 145 regional 113
general 167–169 systems 131
information exchange 143 travel 116–117
marketing 73, 74, 143 planning process frameworks 112–113, 114,
nodes 142–143, 145, 115–116
146, 151, 167 feedback loops 114, 115
policy 143 monitoring 115, 116
political change impact 150 phases 113
quantitative studies 151 steps 112, 113
relationships 165–166 pleasure tourism 38
social 147 pleasure tourism behaviours
stability 151 framework 38–39
network analysis 142, 143 policy
applications 143–147 networks 143
conceptual framework for inter- Scottish tourism 154
organizational analysis 150 policy cycle 127, 128
network framework 3, 15 policy cycle framework 157
network theory 142 policy-making cyclical framework 125, 126,
New York (USA) 23–24 127, 128
 Subject Index 207

Porter’s diamond 20–21, 26 rationalist approach to planning 115

possession utility 164 rationality, formal/substantive 134
post-purchase perceived value 73, 75 reciprocity in systems 137
poverty alleviation 67–68 recreation 30, 31
power relations, community-based tourism total experience 117, 120–121
planning in Canada 43–44, recreational trip, sequence 117
45–47, 48 regional development, festivals 42–43, 44
pragmatism 76–77 regional planning process 113
precondition construct 73, 74 region–city/theme–factor matrix 67
problem formulation 9–10 relationship quality, perceived 73, 75
problem generation 10 research 48
process behavioural model 118 access to 173
process construct 73, 74 case-based 159
process frameworks 1, 2, 16, 104–129 comparative 159–161
chains 121–125 case study 59, 60
channels 121–125 cycle 10, 126, 128
cycles 125–126 deductive 9, 160, 162, 163, 167, 168
decision-making 116–121 definition 9
development 106–107, 108, 109–112 design 6, 10–11, 88–90, 128
elements 105–106, 129 integration of methodologies 14
feedback loop 125 empirical 174–175
function 165 inductive 9, 11, 18, 25, 42, 109,
grounded theory 127 160, 163, 167, 168
planning 112–113, 114, 115–116 issue-driven 156, 159
process research 9–14 language of literature 173
product/delivery process matrix of intangible problem formulation 9–10, 20, 26
services 160–162 process 9–14
product diversification 32 integration 14
proposition frameworks 168 quantitative 168
Protect Area Network (PAN) Park, comparative graphical techniques 60–61
study 58 scope 29–31
protected areas small and medium tourist
demand and supply system 133–134 enterprises 155
tourism impact on communities 134 specializations 173
psychocentric personality type 111, 158 survey 10
purchase decisions, leisure travel 118–119 teaching of methods 5
purchase–consumption system (PCS) 118–119 trends 172
see also data; focus groups; importance–
performance analysis (IPA);
quadrant matrices 79–84, 86–87, 85–94 matrix/matrices; model(s);
analytical frameworks 84, 86–87, qualitative research
85–94, 90 residents, relationship with tourists 19–20
attributes 163 resort development frameworks, TALC
conceptual frameworks 80–84, 90, 94 model 138
descriptive approaches 91–94 resort development spectrum 108, 110
importance–performance analysis 84, demand–supply equilibrium
86–87, 85–91, 101 shifts 109, 110
interpretative approaches 91–94 stage changes 110
strategy 81–82, 101 resorts
qualitative research 5, 6, 41–43, enclaves 136
61–63, 159, 168 tourist development 109
context 8 resource-based view (RBV) 70–71, 72
design 10–11 resource tours 34
theories 12 responsible tourism 51, 52
quantitative and graphical techniques 60–61 revenue management strategy 82
quantitative research 19–20, 40–41, rural development, cultural
50, 52, 168 economy 21
208 Subject Index

rural tourism development model 108, tourism 6

109–110 value chain analysis 121
transitions 109–110 stakeholder orientation matrix 80, 81
stay–spend index 58
strategic alliances 77
Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal), scenario strategic decision making 76
planning 92–93 strategic management 70–71
Samoa Tourism Development Plan 113, 115 strategic marketing planning
Sarawak process 113, 114
inter-organizational analysis 95–96 strategy
Second Tourism Master Plan 166, 167 framework 3
scalar systems 137–139 long-term 92
scale 137 quadrant matrices 81–82, 101
as organizing device 5 strategy-making processes 82, 83
scenario planning 91–93, 162 structural cycles 69
schematic frameworks 15 structural equation modelling 19, 26–27
Scotland supervision 5
tourism policy 154 supply chains 121, 122, 123
tourism scenario building 93 sustainable management framework 124
service failure 20 supply-side approach to tourism 80
service system design 160–162 supply systems 131, 132, 133–134
sex tourism commodity chains 124–125 survey research 10
Sherpa unity, Sagarmatha National Park sustainable development 29, 35
(Nepal) 92–93 cultural heritage sites 97
small and medium tourist enterprises (SMTEs) monitoring framework 116
competition 137 sustainable supply chain management
research 155 framework 124
social class, participation broadening 110 sustainable tourism 32
social exchange theory 19, 26–27, 152 conceptualization 34–35
social networks 147 Greece 140–141
social processes 105 system 133–134
social relations, money role 24 Sweden
social–psychological model of tourist non-establishment of national park 94
motivation 70, 81 small hotel network 146–147
socio-cultural role of tourism, conceptual Swiss Alps, governance of destinations 71
frameworks 155–156 SWOT analysis 102
socio-cultural tourism 34–35 symbolization 69
socio-political theory of governance 55 synthesis 10
soft tourism 32 systems 130–131, 132, 133–141
South Carolina (USA), residents’ relationship complex 139–141, 151
with tourists 19–20 complexity 130–131
Spain demand 131, 132, 133–134
decentralization of responsibility for dynamics 134
tourism 150 environmental framework 132,
farm tourism 25 133, 151
spatial hierarchy in systems 137 frameworks 151, 165–166
spatial systems 134–139 interdependency 134
models 151 origin–linkage–destination 134–137
special interest tourism (SIT) 33 perspective 20
staged authenticity 82–83 planning 131
stages of social processes 105 reciprocity 137
stakeholder(s) relationships 165–166
events tourism 42 scalar 137–139
innovation potential 124 series of levels 148
interactions in Morocco/Tunisia 55 spatial 134–139, 151
management of multiple 82 spatial hierarchy 137
protected area tourism 134 supply 131, 132, 133–134
 Subject Index 209

tabular matrices 79, 94–97, 98, tourism destination image (TDI), integrative
99–100, 163 frameworks 65
economic impacts 97, 99 Tourism Development Masterplan
flexibility 95 (TDMP) 128
tourism distribution channels 163–165 tourism distribution 3, 31
TALC (tourist area life cycle) model 104–105, Tourism Futures Simulator (TFS) 140, 141
128, 152 tourism impact matrix 97, 98, 99
absence of contextual factors 159 tourism system model 131, 132
elements 106 tourism transformation framework 112
relationships 165 tourist(s)
resort development frameworks 138 customized 165
stages 112 decision making 106, 117, 118
teaching 5 tourist area life cycle model see TALC
Technology Acceptance Model 156–157 (tourist area life cycle) model
thematic frameworks, hierarchical 62–63 tourist behaviour
thematic integration, urban tourism 66 conceptual scheme 5
thematic maps 63 distribution channels 124
theoretical frameworks 9, 10, 11, tourist development 109
12–13, 17–27 tourist development 106–107,
elaboration 15 108, 109–112
functions 12–13 characteristics 109
grounded theory 25–26 expansion 109
key principles 21–23 model 107, 109
research design 20 rural tourism model 108, 109–110
role 174 tourist gaze 23
traditional theories 19–21 tourist motivation 70
types 17–18 micro–macro framework 70
usage 174 quadrant matrix 83–84
theory of emotional solidarity 19, 26 social–psychological model 70, 81
theory/theories 7–9 tourist space 82–83
criteria 8 matrix 158
definition 8 transaction cycles 69
development 11 transformation of destinations 112
framework distinction 7–8 transformation theory 112, 128
qualitative studies 12 transport, tourist development 109
traditional 19–21 travel planning 116–117, 119–120
typology 12 trip elements 119–120
use of term 8 triangulation 76
see also hypothesis; individual Tunisia, stakeholder interactions 55
named theories
time, relationship to leisure
and recreation 31 U-curve hypothesis of culture shock 127
total holiday experience 157 Underdevelopment Theory 107
overall 119 urban tourism 2–3, 23–24
total recreation experience 117, 120–121 city breaks 120
tourism conceptualization 37
adaptive cycle of relations 69 integrative framework 65–67
forecasting 75–76 multi-scale integration 66
forms 32–37 scalar perspective 67
host relations 69 thematic integration 66
knowledge 29–30
master plan development 3, 5,
143, 144 vacations
nature of organizations 2 case-based planning 120
nodes 55–56 characteristics 120
panarchy 148 sequence 117
policy in Scotland 154 validation, empirical research 174–175
210 Subject Index

value chain(s) 121, 122, 124 websites, tourism organizations 126–127

management issues 124 Western Negev, SWOT analysis 102
value chain analysis 121 wilderness impact management 97
variability of social processes 105 wildlife recreation 35
variables, relationships 9 wildlife tourism 33, 34
Virginia (USA), destination attractiveness 52, 54 conceptual framework 36
Visitor Journey© concept 120 wine tourism 82