Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
dollar'. Nevertheless, the predictive capabilities ascribed to the model by its author and others
(e.g. Moss et al. , 2003) do serve to invite these trenchant views, even if we might not always
agree with them.
Suffi ce to say, spuriously scientifi c approaches in the social sciences are a hallmark of struc-
turalism. So, too, are the following assumptions pertaining to the TALC:
￿ The model assumes that stakeholders in a destination - whether tourists or businesses -
behave rationally, investing when the 'sun shines' (quite literally) and pulling out when the
going gets tough. In reality, decision-making is rarely based on reason alone. It is governed
by emotion, too.
￿ No provision is made for human agency; at least not until the stagnation stage has run its
course. At this point, the bifurcation of the life cycle acknowledges that destinations - or,
rather, people and organisations that have a stake in them - possess the ability to contest
their development trajectories (however, it seems odd that these powers would not be
exercised sooner.)
￿ A reduction in arrivals is equated with failure or crisis - a typically 'economic' reaction
that does not allow for some destinations purposively withdrawing from tourism (see
Baum, 1998).
The logic of the life cycle has been repeated so often as to take on a reality of its own, yet
beautiful patterns such as 'S' shaped curves and the like do not really exist in open and unpre-
dictable systems such as society (Gale and Botterill, 2005). Thus, this particular pattern (or
structure) may well be the by-product of human action, but it does not determine it.
In contrast to the TALC, Dietvorst and Ashworth's (1995) Model of Tourism
Transformations - through integrating 'post-modern' concepts such as acceleration and visu-
alisation - suggests that change in destinations is a revolutionary, not evolutionary, process
(see Figure 4.1) . It shows how producers and consumers, either intentionally or unconsciously,
alter the material and symbolic properties of the 'tourist-recreation resource' (e.g. a town-
scape, country park or individual attraction, or constituent elements such as land, water, fl ora
and fauna, human labour, souvenirs, the built environment, local customs, etc). Specifi cally,
four separate but interrelated transformations - defi ned as changes to 'the shape, appearance,
quality or nature of something' (Dietvorst and Ashworth, 1995: 2) - are noted:
1. Material transformations by producers . The construction and demolition of tourism facilities,
the provision of transport systems, land use planning and environmental enhancement are
but a few examples of producer intervention in the development of the tourist-recreation
resource. Under the category of 'producers' are the suppliers of services to tourists, but also
the local state, other organisations (e.g. public agencies, NGOs) and the host community.
2. Symbolic transformations by producers . Those producers who consciously promote a destina-
tion to visitors will depict elements of the tourist-recreation resource known to appeal to
them in such as way as to create the desired place-image (e.g. as an 'attractive', 'enter-
taining', 'exciting', historic', 'romantic' or 'unique' place to stay, or any combination
thereof ). Thus, destinations become symbolically purged of anything that might deter the
would-be visitor, and reduced to a series of favoured sights and clichés - as in the Eiffel
Tower signifying Paris. Intermediaries (tour operators and travel agents) are worth
mentioning at this juncture, for they do much to develop and sustain an image of a given
place through promoting and selling package tours and ancillary services (although they
have little direct infl uence over its material characteristics).
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search