-
240 RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
Table 2. Differences in Novelty Motive by Gender and Age
Profile Sample Mean SD t 4f p
Gender: Male 180 4.44 0.51 4.67 323 0.000 Female 152 4.19
0.49
Age: Young 266 4.35 0.50 2.1 331 0.034 Old 67 4.20 0.56
and age cohorts (Table 2). As in the original study, desire for
novelty was significantly stronger among the younger than the older
age cohort, and among males compared to females. This replication
study suggests that the Lee and Crompton scale is robust. It
appeared to be equally reliable and valid for measuring novelty in
the different culture of Korea and in the different context of
theme park visitors as it was on the original sample of US
residents and longer-stay vacations. 0 0
Soon-Ok Jeong: Department of Tourism and Recreation, Kyonggi
University, Kyonggi-Do 440- 760, South Korea.
REFERENCE
Lee, T. H., and J. L. Crompton 1992 Measuring Novelty Seeking in
Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
19:732-751.
Submitted 21 December 1995 Revised 6 February 1996 Accepted 9
February 1996 PII: SOlSO-7383(96)0002S-0
Tourism Attractions: Points, Lines, and Areas
Geoffrey Wall University of Waterloo, Canada
Tourism attractions are all those elements of a non-home place
that draw discretionary travelers away from their homes (Lew
1987:554). Accord- ing to MacCannell (1976:109), tourism
attractions consist of three com- ponents: tourists, a site to be
viewed, and a marker or image which makes the site significant.
MacCannells views have been built upon by Leiper (1990), who
discussed the nature of tourism attraction systems.
Tourism attractions may be classified in many ways. Examples of
such classifications include: natural, human-modified, and
human-made; natural and built; resource-oriented, intermediate, and
user-oriented (often reflect- ing their distance from centers of
demand); international, national, regional, and local (reflecting
their ability to draw visitors from a variety of distances); indoor
and outdoor; public or private (reflecting the attributes of the
auth- ority responsible for their operation); permanent, seasonal,
or occasional
-
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS 241
(reflecting the temporal characteristics of their availability);
and more. Lew (1987) has presented a number of typologies of
attractions grouped into three broad categories: ideographic,
organizational, and cognitive. The first stresses environmental
characteristics, the second emphasizes spatial charac- teristics
and carrying capacity (although not in the form presented below),
whereas the third concentrates upon visitor perceptions and
experiences. Each of these typologies has utility and may be more
or less relevant depend- ing upon the purposes for which
classification and inventory are required.
The purpose of this research note is not to present an
exhaustive list of tourism attraction classifications nor to
evaluate their respective merits. Rather, it is to suggest an
additional classification which may have utility, alongside other
classifications, particularly in an applied context where the
commercial potential and vulnerability of resources to excessive
visitor pres- sures may be of concern. It is suggested here that
attractions can be divided into three types based on their spatial
characteristics: points, lines, and areas. Each type has different
implications for visitor behavior, different potential for
commercial developments, and contrasting requirements in planning
and management strategies if a balance is to be achieved between
resource protection and commercial exploitation.
Point attractions require large numbers ofvisitors to
concentrate in a small area, for if the point is not visited then
the attraction is not experienced. Examples of such sites include
waterfalls, spas, temples, monuments, historic and archeological
sites, museums, galleries, theaters, and many sporting events.
Concentration results in opportunities for commercial exploitation
of visitors, for when many people are in close proximity they can
be catered for efficiently and the minimum thresholds of successful
business operation are most likely to be exceeded. However, there
are associated dangers of congestion, over-commercialization,
reduction in the quality ofvisitor experi- ences, and occasional
destruction of the resource. This problem can be seen at Tanah Lot
in Bali, Indonesia, where the sanctity of an important temple is
threatened by the construction of tourism accommodation in close
prox- imity to a religious site which is, simultaneously, an
attraction (Cohen 1993). Similarly, in the last century, commercial
developments were so numerous at Niagara Falls that a view of the
falls could not be obtained without paying and visitors were
continually hustled by huxters attempting to sell their wares
(Seibel 1985). In the case of Niagara Falls, Ontario, commercial
activi- ties were displaced to Clifton Hill, at some distance from
the Horseshoe Falls, and Queen Victoria Park was created in 1885
adjacent to the falls in an attempt to provide a setting more
conducive to contemplation and appreciation of one of the worlds
greatest natural wonders. Similar strategies would be worthy of
consideration in the case of Tanah Lot. Such examples indicate that
point resources may easily be over-commercialized by private-
sector enterprises and that strong actions may be required by the
public sector to protect the resource and associated visitor
experiences. One way to do this is to give careful consideration to
the setting in which the point resource is located and, possibly,
to discourage the development of com- mercial enterprises
immediately adjacent to the site.
Linear resources include coastlines, lakeshores, rivers, scenic
routes and trails, and landforms such as the Niagara Escarpment in
Ontario. Some of these resources are attractions with linear
properties; others are routes which channel visitors along
particular paths. In both case, large numbers of visitors are
concentrated along a narrow strip of land or a transportation
corridor. Linear resources tend to concentrate visitors but not to
the same extent as point resources, because a line is
two-dimensional and, as opposed to a point, encourages some
dispersal. The concentration of visitors may still be sufficiently
great to attract considerable commercial development which
-
242 RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
can lead to destruction of the resource. For example, coastlines
in parts of the Mediterranean and Hawaii are lined with tourism
facilities and numerous beach resorts in many parts of the world
have introduced engineering solu- tions in an attempt to halt beach
erosion and protect dune systems. Many highways in the United
States are lined with advertising. In Bali, the official excursion
routes which were designated to facilitate the movement ofvisitors
into the interior of the island to experience the magnificent
landscape and culture are so busy with traffic and lined with
structures that it is difficult to see the landscape which was the
original reason for their promotion. A superior experience may now
be gained by selecting non-designated parallel routes which are not
lined with buildings.
Linear resources can easily become over-commercialized because
large numbers of users are drawn to narrow strips of land and
water. The enforce- ment of set-backs is often a useful strategy in
coastal locations but, more generally, the breaking up of the lines
into a series of nodes and links, or nodes and less developed or
undeveloped areas, may be the appropriate strategy to pursue. In
these ways, parts of the resource are protected, visitors are
provided with access to a variety of experiences, and visitor
facilities and commercial enterprises are concentrated in the
nodes.
Areas may attract large numbers of people but their spatial
extent may permit and even encourage the wide dispersion
ofvisitors. Such places include parks and protected areas,
wilderness, and scenic landscapes. The extensive nature of the
resources and, sometimes, the nature of the experiences being
sought by visitors, which encourages them to seek isolated or
remote locations, mean that there are few dense concentrations of
visitors and, thus, their commercial exploitation may be more
challenging to potential entrepreneurs. In such locations it may be
necessary to create visitor con- centrations, for instance at
access points, at scenic overlooks, or at interpret- ation centers,
to impart information to visitors, to monitor them, and to provide
facilities which they may require, such as restaurants and accom-
modation. It is in such locations within or, preferably, adjacent
to the area resource that commercial opportunities are most likely
to be successful. The danger here is that, if one is not careful,
the scale and nature of such developments may be at odds with the
experiences available elsewhere in the area. Such claims could be
made for Gatlinburg, adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park, and to Banff town site in Banff National Park. However, the
concentration of many visitors in a limited number of commercial
centers may expedite their management, allow greater access to
visitors by the business community, and leave much of the area
relatively unexploited for those in search of lower intensities of
use.
The three types of attraction-points, lines, and areas-can be
viewed as occurring at different scales. Thus, for example, at the
scale of a country, destination areas, such as coastal resorts or
national parks, may be viewed as a series of points. On the other
hand, a single destination area may be viewed as a combinations of
points, lines, and areas, or as a series of nodes and links. An
attraction, such as a theme park or museum, can also be viewed from
these perspectives. Thus, the conceptualization provides some
flexibility with respect to scale.
In summary, this note has drawn attention to a three-fold
classification of tourism attractions into points, lines, and
areas. Points may be viewed as essentially uni-dimensional, lines
as two-dimensional, albeit with some depth, and areas as
multi-dimensional. These dimensions have implications for the
distribution of visitors and, consequently, for their commercial
exploitation. While extremely simple, this conceptualization is a
useful way of viewing a wide range of heterogeneous tourism
attractions because it encourages consideration, at the same time,
of specific attributes of the resource, visitors
-
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS 243
behaviors and spatial distributions, the potential for
commercial exploi- tation, and associated planning and management
strategies. 0 0
Geoj@ Wall: Department of Geography, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Canada N2L 3G1. Email [email protected].
REFERENCES
Cohen, M. 1993 God and Mammon: Luxury Resort Triggers Outcry
Over Balis Future. Far
Eastern Economic Review 157:28-34. Leiper, N.
1990 Tourist Attraction Systems. Annals of Tourism Research
17:367-384. Lew, A. A.
1987 A Framework of Tourist Attraction Research. Annals of
Tourism Research 14:553-575.
MacCannell, D. 1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure
Class. New York: Schocken Books.
Seibel, G. A. 1985 Ontarios Niagara Parks 100 Years. Niagara
Falls: The Niagara Parks Com-
mission.
Submitted 19 January 1996 Revised 12 February 1996 Accepted 25
March 1996 PII: SOlSO-7383(96)00039-4
Conference Reports
Tourism Human Resources Development
Eduardo Fayos-Sola World Tourism Organization, Spain
Jafar Jafari University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA
As the twentieth century draws to a close, tourism has emerged
as a major force in the global economy, with all countries-whether
developed or developing-having increasing opportunities to
participate, as both host and guest, in this mega socioeconomic
phenomenon. Many strategies will continue to influence the quality
and quantity of tourism planning and growth in the next millennium,
with human resources development taking the center stage. A
conference on Human Capital in the Tourism Industry of the
Twenty-First Century was an informed response to furthering this
emerging thrust in the field (Safari and Fayos-Sola 1996; Lohmann
and
