Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
meaning and identity such that these spaces become centres of felt value and security (Tuan,
1977). Experiences, personal encounters and signifi cant events are important in bestowing
places with meaning.
The relationship between tourism and place is often understood from contrasting perspec-
tives depending on the perceived effects of tourism and the position of the researcher. When
elite travellers fi rst 'discover' a place and its tourism industry is jump-started, a case is often
made of how 'tourism creates places'. Visiting a new destination often conveys distinction for
travellers, which in turn attracts a larger number of people and businesses over time. A tipping
point soon occurs when the carrying capacity of a site is exceeded, leading to environmental
despoliation, social backlash and cultural degradation. It is at this point that tourism is seen as
'unmaking places'.
Writing in the context of urban tourism, Paradis (2004) captures the contested terrains of
place by contrasting the role of tourism across scales. Across the global-local divide, the local-
ising tendencies in tourism often focus on heritage theming and place identity formation,
while the globalising impulses are preoccupied with enterprise and profi t-making. In urban
destinations, building up local arts and heritage is seen as a way to develop creative cities and
foster a sense of community spirit. Its diametric opposite is when cultures are commercialised
and spaces are created specifi cally for global tourists, alienating local communities in the
process. The simultaneity of making and unmaking places thus occurs across contending
global-local processes.
A more nuanced view urges for a middle-ground perspective that recognises the contin-
gencies of place, and the possibilities for careful calibration in policy planning and site
management. Rather than a paradox, a framework prescribing a global-local nexus recog-
nises that while ethnic/cultural theming can create harmful effects (e.g. Sorkin, 1992;
Hannigan, 1998; Gottdiener, 1997), the opposite can also be true. Paradis (2004: 202) details
cases of small American towns where selective place theming has led to increased 'local sense
of place and community identity' as well as greater participation by inhabitants as they rally
together to make a success of
their
cultural plans (see also Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2004;
Chang and Huang, 2008).
However, the view that tourism unmakes places is usually more strident than its converse,
a consequence of two research inclinations. The fi rst is the cultural turn in geographic
research in the 1980s, particularly in economic geography, which acknowledges the social
and cultural repercussions of capitalist advancement. The outcome has been to focus, often
too minutely, on the harsh effects of political economy on social, cultural and community
lives ( Johnston
et al.
, 2000). These critical discourses continue to resonate in many tourism
debates, especially around the themes of place marketing and the cultural economies of
travel.
The second reason for 'tourism unmaking places' is the use of polarising frameworks as a
heuristic research device. By accentuating the confl icts between the global and local, and
pitting the economic against the social/cultural, contending perspectives are highlighted.
Similarly, frameworks that pit the tourist against the resident are common, painting a divisive
portrait of guest/host relations. While such frameworks offer a holistic view, their dichoto-
mous approaches obscure the possibility that tourism can unify people and places, rather than
divide and destroy. Towards this end, Ashworth and Tunbridge (2004) offer a helpful tripar-
tite 'case for . . .' in which they argue that tourism may be constitutive of
both
local and global
forces, national and vernacular values, as well as tourist/resident interests. Rather than
competing, they make a persuasive case for tourism's dualistic tendencies to meet the needs of
multiple scalar stakeholders and partisan demands.
