Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
1995; P.L.Pearce 2005), the evaluation of the tourist product and potential tourist
resources (e.g. Ferrario 1979a, 1979b; Gartner 1986; S.L.J. Smith 1995), the intended and
unintended use of tourist brochures (e.g. Dilley 1986), the utility of market segmentation
for specific targeting of potential consumers (e.g. Murphy and Staples 1979; S.L.J.Smith
1995) and tourist and recreationist satisfaction. In the latter area, geographers have done a
substantial amount of work in the outdoor recreation and back-country use field,
particularly with respect to the effects of crowding on visitor satisfaction (e.g. Shelby et
al. 1989; see also Chapter 7).
Marketing research acts as a link between eco nomic and psychological analysis of
tourism (Van Raaij 1986) and gives notice of the need for a wider understanding of the
social impact of tourism on visitor and host populations. Research on the social
psychology of tourism has run parallel with the research of behavioural geographers in
the area, with there being increased interchange between the two fields in recent years
(e.g. Jenkins and Walmesley 1993; see also Walmesley and Lewis 1993).
Interestingly, the development of a more radical critique of behaviour in geography
also has parallels in the social psychology of tourism as well (P.L. Pearce 2005). For
example, the research of Uzzell (1984) on the psychology of tourism marketing from a
structuralist perspective offered a major departure from traditional social psychology.
Uzzell's (1984) alternative formulation of the role of social psychology in the study of
tourism has been reflected in much of the research conducted in anthropological,
geographical (e.g. Britton 1991) and sociological approaches to the social impacts of
tourism (e.g. Urry 1990, 1991).
The early work of Forster (1964), Cohen (1972, 1974, 1979a, 1979b), M.Smith and
Turner (1973) and MacCannell (1973, 1976) along with the more recent contribution by
Urry (1990) have provided the basis for formulating a sociology of tourism, while
V.L.Smith (1977) and Graburn (1983) have provided a useful overview of
anthropology's contributions to the study of tourism. The research of geographers such as
G.Young (1973), Butler (1974, 1975, 1980), D.G.Pearce (1979, 1981), Mathieson and
Wall (1982) and Murphy (1985) has also yielded significant early insights into tourism's
social impacts.
Many studies of the social impacts of tourism have focused on the impact of tourism
on developing countries (Unesco 1976). This research is no doubt necessary, yet caution
must be used in applying research findings from one culture to another. Nevertheless,
problems of cultural change and anxiety, social stress in the host community, and social
dislocation resulting from changes to the pattern of economic production, may be
identified in a wide number of studies undertaken in a variety of cultures and social
settings (e.g. Farrell 1978; Mathieson and Wall 1982; Clary 1984b; Oglethorpe 1984;
Meleghy et al. 1985; Lea 1988; Getz 1993c; Shaw and Williams 1994; Hall and Page
1996; D.Nash 1996; Mowforth and Munt 1997, 2003; Weaver 1998; Mason 2003; Reid
2003).
The social costs of tourism to the host community will vary according to the
characteristics of both visitor and host (Pizam 1978). However, tourism does undoubtedly
cause changes in the social character of the destination (J.A.Long 1984; Mason 2003).
These changes may be related to the seasonality of tourism (Hartmann 1984), the nature
of the tourist (Harmston 1980), the influence of a foreign culture (Mathieson and Wall
1982) and/or to the disruption of community leisure space (O'Leary 1976). An
