Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
However, even though more publications are now appearing in the academic literature, it
does not imply that urban tourism is recognised as a distinct and notable area of research
in tourism studies. This is due to the tendency for urban tourism research to be based on
descriptive and empirical case studies which do not contribute to a greater theoretical or
methodological understanding of urban tourism. In fact, such an approach is perpetuated
by certain disciplines which contribute to the study of tourism, where the case study
method of approach does little more than describe the situation in each instance and fails
to relate the case to wider issues to derive generalisations and to test hypotheses and
assumptions within the academic literature. In this respect, the limited understanding is a
function of the lack of methodological sophistication in tourism research noted in some
critiques of the subject (e.g. D.G. Pearce and Butler 1993). Indeed, Ashworth's (2003)
'Urban tourism: Still an imbalance in attention?' revisiting of his seminal 1989 study
concludes that
the imbalance does still exist. However, previously I found this difficult to
understand and felt it should be remedied by a more balanced approach
within tourism through the development of the study of urban tourism.
Now I accept that the imbalance is quite intrinsic to the nature of tourism
studies and the nature of cities.
(Ashworth 2003:158)
According to Ashworth (1992a), urban tourism has not emerged as a distinct research
focus: research is focused on tourism in cities and embodies Law's (1996) argument that
urban tourism exists in a recognisable form only in large cities. This strange paradox may
be explained by the failure by planners, commercial interest and residents to recognise
tourism as one of the main economic rationales for cities. Tourism is often seen as an
adjunct or necessary evil to generate additional revenue, while the main economic
activities of the locality are not perceived as tourism related. Such negative views of
urban tourism have meant that the public and private sectors have used the temporary,
seasonal and ephemeral nature of tourism to neglect serious research on this theme.
Consequently, a vicious circle exists: the absence of public and private sector research
makes access to research data difficult, and the large-scale funding for primary data
collection using social survey techniques, necessary to break the vicious circle, is rarely
available. The absence of large-scale funding for urban tourism research reflects the
prevailing consensus in the 1980s that such studies were unnecessary. However, with the
pressure posed by tourists in many European tourist cities in the 1990s (e.g. Canterbury,
London, York, Venice and Florence), this perception is changing now that the public and
private sectors are belatedly acknowledging the necessity of visitor management (for a
discussion of this issue, see English Tourist Board/Employment Department 1991;
D.Gilbert and Clark 1997; Meethan 1997; Snaith and Haley 1999) as a mechanism to
enhance, manage and improve the tourist's experience of towns and places to visit.
Nevertheless, as Ashworth (1992a) argues:
Urban tourism requires the development of a coherent body of theories,
concepts, techniques and methods of analysis which allow comparable
studies to contribute towards some common goal of understanding of
