1.2.1 Background
It is acknowledged that tourism has characteristics that set it apart from other economic activities and therefore pose particular analytical problems. Even as a service sector, it is distinct in that it is usually purchased without inspection, consisting of a range of goods and services which are purchased and/or used, often in sequence, such as reservation agencies, financial services, acquisition of specialized clothing and equipment, transportation, accommodation, food and human-made and natural attractions. Because the last two components are a substantial proportion of total inputs, it is the set of markets giving rise to the non-priced features, referred to above, that create analytical difficulties. It is, thus, the unusual composite nature of tourism, frequently taking place internationally and therefore involving generating and destination countries, which requires specific analysis relating to spatial and temporal factors, very much within the purview of geography, but to which spatial economics, concerned with urban and regional issues, is able to contribute.
This composite nature of the sector and the many-faceted components that constitute what can be referred to as the ātourism productā supplied through many markets have given rise to a long-standing and occasionally acrimonious debate in the wider literature, echoed in economics, on the nature of tourism. Those studying the phenomenon need to agree on this in order that it is certain that research approaches are consistent, the definition of it is unequivocal and its boundaries are clearly delineated. However, before the current position on its conceptualization can be established, it is instructive to examine briefly the complex nature of tourism studies and how it is bedevilled by controversy because of the many approaches that exist.
With very few exceptions, notably Gray (1966), there was little analysis of tourism until the 1970s and even then much research tended to be uncritically descriptive, employing inadequately defined goals and an agreed approach. No attempt is made here to conduct a comprehensive review of the development of studies since the 1970s as this has been carried out elsewhere in the tourism literature (for example, Sheldon, 1990; Eadington and Redman, 1991; Sinclair, 1991a; Van Doren et al., 1994; Wahab and Cooper, 2001; Shaw and Williams, 2002; Lew and Hall, 2004; Hall and Page, 2006), some of which has offered views on its content and scope. There is, however, a measure of agreement with Pearce and Butler (1993) when they state that the many disciplines that have studied tourism bring with them all their conceptual and methodological baggage.
A considerable number of disciplines have made contributions to the subject, the principal ones being anthropology, ecology, economics, environmental studies, ethics, geography, political economy, politics, social psychology and sociology. The main themes which have been studied are the cultural, economic, environmental and social effects of tourism, travel patterns and modes between origins and destinations, tourismās relationship with economic development, touristsā motivations and behaviour, forecasting trends and practical aspects of planning, management and marketing. More recently attention has been paid to tourism and sustainability, the balance between economic, environmental and social goals (what is known as the triple bottom line), social intra-generational inequity and the relationship of tourism with poverty in destinations, and responsible tourism that is sensitive to the conservation of natural and fragile environments.
As pointed out by those who have long worked in the wider field of tourism studies, a number of aspects of the subject suffer from a poor or even the absence of a theoretical framework through a lack of appropriate research (Sessa, 1984). However, the lack of a theory of tourism is understandable, given its characteristics, identified above. Similarly, concern has been expressed that much writing on the subject has no firm sense of direction and is methodologically unsophisticated (Pearce and Butler, 1993), which can have detrimental consequences for the operation of the sector and policies concerning its development and growth. Nevertheless, there has been a steady flow of contributions over the last two decades to the debate on the need for a theory, emphasizing the difficulties of deriving one, and a definition of tourism and its conceptualization see, for example, Ritchie et al. (2005). It is the definition of tourism that has become the focus of attention recently because of the perception that it is necessary to define it, in order to establish what the scope and content of tourism activity is, to facilitate the pursuit of sustainable tourism operations and development. The link between sustainability and the need to conceptualize tourism is examined in Chapter 8, therefore it is not considered at this point.
Unlike the study of tourism in other disciplines, the economic study of it is set within an established academic one, possessing a formal structure in educational establishments with vehicles for the dissemination of research in a firm theoretical foundation, with clear principles and well-tested methodologies. Its approach to the study and analysis of the sector is described below. This notwithstanding, the subject has similar concerns as to the exact nature and structure of tourism that has identified conceptualization issues, most notably whether or not it is an industry or a system or merely a collection of markets. Thus, an outline of the current state of the attempts to agree on exactly what tourism consists of and the construction of a theoretical framework is now examined.
1.2.2 The conceptualization of tourism in the wider literature
In the wider academic study of tourism there have been many publications on the reasons why it is necessary to define it as a sector and its concomitant conceptualization. The issues can be encapsulated by outlining what Lew et al. (2004), from a largely geographical perspective, assert is the need to define it, and why, by arguing that it is essential, in an empirical context, to do so to identify the nature of its impacts, especially economic, and the associated policy implications. They consider that the supply and demand sides should be distinguished in what they perceive is a system, rather than an industry. The supply side is deemed to be an aggregation of all the businesses that directly provide goods and services involving distribution, commodification and a lifestyle in an interaction with the demand side, consisting of the leisure, recreational and tourism pursuits of those away from home; Lew et al. (2004) recognized that the relationship between tourists and suppliers gives rise to economic, environmental, political and sociocultural effects. They also acknowledged that the mobility, space and time dimensions of tourism are important determinants of demand, very often underpinning constraints such as cultural and social structures, institutions, occupation, work patterns, wealth, income, gender, age and class. Overall, their conclusions are that, rather than a single disciplinary approach, analysis should include the perspectives of many disciplines, or involve cooperation between them. However, they express concern that an obstacle to this development is that currently there appears to be increased disciplinary specialization within academic journals, notwithstanding the incredible growth in their number.
In the wider literature, the study of tourism is mainly through case studies, emanating from the newer universities and colleges rather than the more prestigious older universities, that concentrate on quite a narrow range of topics that are supported by government departments, non-governmental organizations, tourism bodies and businesses. The social sciences, particularly sociology, predominate in research that focuses on issues such as cultural identities and threats to them, ecotourism, ethnicity, heritage, history, gender roles, post-modernity, poverty, sustainability, tourism development and growth and its impact, especially on natural, human-made and human environments (issues considered from an economic perspective are identified in the next section).
However, the crucial issue of the lack of a theory of tourism, which is perceived as vital for progress to be made in overcoming the shortcomings of research into it, identified earlier in this section on the state of analysis, is that there is an increasing imperative to conceptualize the subject. Related to this is the assertion that the study of tourism should transcend disciplinary boundaries. Most of the key references on the debate have appeared in journal articles. The position is confusing, as there is no clear consensus either on what the disciplinary framework to be adopted should be, or its conceptualization.
Before these two issues are discussed, it is instructive to examine what has been stated about the nature of tourism that, it is argued, should inform the way in which it is analysed and perceived. Parry and Drost (1995), in a relatively early paper on management related to marketing, and Faulkner and Russell (1997) strongly argued for an alternative approach to the study of tourism founded in complexity and chaos theory, which Lorenz (1963) first propounded as a result of his dissatisfaction with the models then used in meteorological forecasting. His observations of uniformity, emerging from what appeared to be ostensibly random occurrences f...