Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 249–267, 20110160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.08.007www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

CONTEMPORARY TOURISMHERITAGE AS HERITAGE TOURISMEvidence from Las Vegas and Gold Coast

David B. WeaverGriffith University, Australia

Abstract: Four categories of contemporary tourism heritage were identified in this explor-atory study of Las Vegas (Nevada, USA) and Gold Coast (Queensland, Australia) based onlocation, originality and scale: (1) in situ representations that memorialize tourism andrelated phenomena through plaques, statues and/or festivals, (2) ex situ original items dis-played and interpreted in museums, (3) in situ original nodes represented by preservedhotels and other facilities, and (4) in situ original corridors represented by preserved tourismstrips. All are only partially articulated as heritage tourism, though potential for elaborationderives from its authenticity within tourism cities, its serious and interesting character, possi-bilities for accurate presentation due to artefact survival and personal experience, and thepotential for current examples as foundations. Keywords: heritage tourism, industrial heri-tage, sustainable tourism, Gold Coast, Las Vegas. � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Heritage tourism is a burgeoning area of research that was initiallyconstrued in simple supply-side terms as visited spaces deemed, usuallyby experts, to constitute or contain the heritage of a destination. Thisheritage, moreover, was associated with the more distant past, implicat-ing castles, plantation great homes, battlefields, old churches and sim-ilar historical phenomena as significant cultural inheritances worthy ofprotection and presentation (Yale, 1991). Recent discourses, in tan-dem with the postmodernist zeitgeist, are painting a more complex pic-ture, emphasizing the subjectivities, vested interests and contestationsinherent in the identification, presentation and interpretation of ‘her-itage’ by multiple stakeholders (Apostolakis, 2003). Chronis (2005), forexample, argues that sites such as the Gettysburg battlefield are evolv-ing ‘storyscapes’ co-constructed by marketers as well as consumers,often with the intent of achieving specific social or personal goals(Poria & Ashworth, 2009). The desire of visitors to be emotionally

Dr. David Weaver (Dept. of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management, GriffithUniversity, Parklands Drive, Southport, Qld. Australia 4222. Tel.: +61 7 5552 9290. Email<d.weaver@griffith.edu.au>) is a Professor of Tourism Research specializing in sustainabletourism, ecotourism, indigenous tourism, destination life cycle dynamics, peri-urban tourism,small islands and tourism cities.

249

250 D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

connected with their own personal heritage as part of such co-construc-tions is being increasingly recognized (Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2003;Poria, Reichel, & Biran, 2006), stimulating interest in ‘hot interpreta-tion’ that is emotive as well as cognitive, and also potentially personal-ized (Uzzell & Ballantyne, 2008).

In the postmodern imagination, heritage therefore is essentiallywhatever the visitor perceives as heritage (Poria et al., 2006; Timothy& Boyd, 2003). One implication is the increased operational expan-sion and diversification of ‘heritage’ (Fowler, 1989; Tunbridge & Ash-worth, 1996), its eroding temporal boundaries indicated in apparentoxymora such as ‘contemporary archaeology’, ‘future heritage’ (Fairc-lough, 2008), and ‘heritage of the recent past’ (Walton, 2009). Theseeroding boundaries of time and context greatly increase the potentialfor phenomena related to such ‘non-traditional’ areas as sport (Ram-shaw & Gammon, 2005), industrial production (Edwards & Llurdes iCoit, 1996; Xie, 2006)—and tourism—to be recognized as heritagetourism attractions. Already achieving limited recognition in the liter-ature are tourism sites old enough to situate within conventionalparameters of heritage. Certain seaside resorts, according to Walton(2009) have established their own industrial archaeology worthy ofpreservation and presentation. Historic seaside resorts and themeparks are both recognized by Prentice (1994) as legitimate heritageattractions, while Timothy and Boyd (2003), without elaboration, sit-uate ‘historic theme parks’ at the built urban extreme of a heritagetourism continuum. Indeed, local heritage inventories would be ex-pected to include such sites in their site coverage. Concerted aca-demic investigation of these phenomena from a heritage tourismperspective, however, is confined to American boardwalks (Lilliefors,2006) and the English seaside resort of Blackpool (Walton & Wood,2009), though other resorts, historic piers, spas, casinos and hotelsalso qualify for such investigation.

The second and more contestable dimension that more literally ad-heres to the notion of the heritage of the recent past is the investiga-tion of post-World War Two phenomena, distinguished as they are bytheir association with popular contemporary culture as well as broadlypossessed living memory and personal histories. Relevant literature issimilarly lacking, with touristic studies of historic Route 66 in theUSA by Repp (1999) and Caton and Santos (2007) being perhapsthe only examples. No investigations to date have systematically consid-ered either manifestation of tourism heritage (i.e., pre- or post-WorldWar Two) from the perspective of specialized tourism cities that haveexperienced most of their growth in tourism and resident populationsince the mid-20th century. Using Las Vegas (USA) and the Gold Coastof Australia as comparative case studies, this paper considers the extentto which the local tourism heritage is recognized and protected, andsubsequently developed and marketed as heritage tourism. The casefor and against both levels of engagement is also presented, towardthe broader consideration and recognition of tourism heritage as alegitimate form of heritage tourism.

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267 251

TOURISM CITIES AND TOURISM HERITAGE

Tourism urbanization, according to Mullins, is a process whereby‘. . .urban areas, particularly large cities, are specially developed forthe production, sale, and consumption of goods and services provid-ing pleasure.’ (1992, p. 188). Industrial-era seaside resorts such asBrighton and Blackpool demonstrate that tourism urbanization isnot confined to the post-World War Two period (Towner, 1996). How-ever, it is the latter which spawned the large-scale ‘tourism cities’ thatcan emerge from this process (Mullins, 1991, 1992). Widespread rec-ognition of this spatial form is reflected in the proliferation of synon-ymous terms, including the ‘leisureopolis’ (Stansfield, 1983),‘entertainment city’ (Symes, 1994), ‘fantasy city’ (Hannigan, 1998),‘tourist metropolis’ (Gladstone, 1998) and ‘resort city’ (Fainstein &Judd, 1999a).

However labelled, these cities are essentially postmodern in charac-ter (Mullins, 1991) and are associated with the so-called pleasureperiphery that emerged during the post-war era of mass 3S (sea, sand,sun) tourism growth (Turner & Ash, 1975). Examples include Las Ve-gas and Orlando (US Sunbelt sub-region), Cancun (Caribbean basin),Nice and Calvia (Mediterranean basin), Gold Coast and SunshineCoast (Australian east coast), Pattaya and Sanya (Southeast Asia),and Acapulco (Mexican Pacific coast). In all of these places, otherforms of economic activity were dominant before the advent of masstourism. However, it is the latter that now forms the basis of their pri-mary identity and hence the logical focus of its emerging contempo-rary heritage awareness.

Las Vegas and Gold Coast

Several factors underlie the selection of Las Vegas (henceforth LV)and Gold Coast (GC) as case studies for exploring the extent to whichlocal tourism heritage is cultivated and then pursued as heritage tour-ism by tourism cities. First, mass tourism vaulted each city into the po-sition of dominant tourism city within their respective countries duringthe late 1900s (Davidson & Spearritt, 2000; Douglass & Raento, 2004).Early arrival statistics are lacking for both destinations, but can be in-ferred from the stock of hotels and other accommodation. Tourismin LV was limited prior to World War Two by the small number ofmainly downtown hotels, and facilitated after that by the opening ofthe first true resorts on the Strip (Parker, 1999). About 12 million vis-itors arrived per year in the early 80s (Lee, 1984), increasing to 26 mil-lion in 1994 (Parker, 1999) and 37 million in 2000 (Douglass & Raento,2004), reflecting an increase in hotel rooms from 36,500 in 1990 to72,300 in 2000 (Gu, 2003). An early indication of GC volume was thesale of over 80,000 low price excursion tickets from Brisbane in 1911(Hajdu, 1993). The two million overnight visitors recorded in 1985doubled by 2000 (Faulkner, 2003) and remained at that level by2009, increasing to 10 million if day-only excursionists are included(Gold Coast City Council, 2009).

252 D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

Second, growth in arrivals and accommodation stock is paralleled byrapid increase in residential population. From about 1,000 residents in1910, LV increased to 10,000 in 1940, 25,000 in 1950 (Douglass &Raento, 2004), 270,000 in 1967, 740,000 in 1990, 1.4 million in 2000(Rothman, 2002), and almost 2 million by 2010. GC displays a similarpattern of sustained exponential growth albeit on a smaller scale,expanding from about 2,000 residents in 1900 to 9,000 in 1947,33,000 in 1961 (Stimson & Minnery, 1998), 150,000 in 1981 (Hofmei-ster, 1988), 270,000 in 1991, and about 600,000 in 2010. A high pro-portion of population in each case is ‘invested’ in local tourism bymerit of employment, personal experience with local attractions,and/or the amenity motivation of the migration decision. Local resi-dents, therefore, have considerable potential as both tourism heritagemakers (i.e., through their employment and/or recreational participa-tion in tourism) and markets (i.e., through their spatial proximity tothis heritage and their potential interest in re-experiencing this tour-ism participation from a heritage perspective) within these two tourismcities.

A third consideration is discernable historical phases that span thepre- and post-war dimensions of tourism history and enrich the localtourism heritage tableau. LV in the early 1900s was a railway town(Douglass & Raento, 2004) while GC was forestry-dominated (Jones,1986). Thriving hotel and bar cultures associated with both industriesserved as precursors to tourism (Hajdu, 1993; Spanier, 1992). Theopening of the first true tourist hotels in the late 1800s at Coolangattaon the New South Wales border and the construction of a rail link toBrisbane in 1903 (Russell, 1995) heralded a period of regional domes-tic holiday visitation in GC that lasted until the late 50s. Toponymicidentification with tourism was already evident in this phase with thenaming of ‘Surfers Paradise’ in 1933 and the more general ‘GoldCoast’ municipal appellation in 1958. The construction of the firsthigh-rise hotels in the late 50s at Surfers Paradise (the Chevron in1958 and the Kinkabool in 1959) marked a new era of resort andinvestment sustained by the larger eastern Australia market and lastinguntil the mid-80s, when the focus shifted to markets in the broader wes-tern Pacific basin and investment from entrepreneurs in countriessuch as Japan (Hajdu, 1993, 1999). Accelerated intensification andthe consolidation of Surfers Paradise as the dominant recreationalbusiness district is illustrated by the recent construction of the Q1and Soul buildings, each exceeding 75 storeys and claiming to beamong the world’s tallest residential structures.

The first true tourism phase in LV commenced with the legalizationof gambling in 1931 and was stimulated by the subsequent introduc-tion of commercial air service and the improvement of the regionalhighway network which attracted gamblers to the expanding downtown‘glitter gulch’ district of casinos and bars along Fremont Street (Lee,1984). From the mid-40s to the mid-60s, organized crime interests werestrongly implicated in the development of casino-resorts such as theFlamingo, Sands, Desert Inn and Dunes on the southern peripheralStrip, capitalizing on the post-war consumer automobile culture

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267 253

(Parker, 1999), and presenting a desert theme that contrasted with the‘wild west’ atmosphere of ‘glitter gulch’ three kilometers to the north(Douglass & Raento, 2004). The ‘gangster era’ was followed by a corpo-rate era which legitimized gambling and spawned an unprecedentedsequence of increasingly massive casino-resorts such as the 5000-unitMGM Grand that have experimented periodically with family-friendly,gastronomic and other themes to augment the resorts’ core gamingconstituencies and prevent product stagnation (Parker, 1999).

A related consideration is the interesting and unique nature of bothhistories, suggesting their attractiveness as potential heritage tourismresources. The outsized scale of recent construction prompted Dou-glass and Raento to describe LV as ‘this most exceptional of Americanurban places’ (2004, p. 8), Spanier (1992) to characterize LV as a cityof vitality, and Symes to situate GC in the ‘realm of the hyperbole’(1995, p. 1). The GC epitomizes Australian contemporary beach cul-ture and associated icons such as the surf life-saving guard (Davidson& Spearritt, 2000). Colorful entrepreneurs and ‘chaos makers’ suchas Bugsy Siegel, Howard Hughes, Kerk Kerkorian and Steve Wynnare inextricably linked to innovation in LV (Spanier, 1992; Wiley &Gottlieb, 1982), while a similar role pertains to GC personalities suchas Keith Williams, Jim Cavill, Bruce Small and Stanley Korman (Jones,1986; Russell & Faulkner, 2004). All exhibit an open capitalist ethoscrucial to understanding evolving resort landscapes (Parker, 1999;Spearritt, 2009). That such histories are well documented further influ-enced the selection of these two cities. It deserves mention that bothshare a somewhat negative image within popular culture, the GC oftenbeing cited as an example of what other beach resorts do not aspire to(Davidson & Spearritt, 2000), and LV marketers deliberately cultivatingan edgy image in the recent campaign slogan ‘What happens in Vegasstays in Vegas’ (Wood, 2005).

Finally, important differences between LV and GC enrich the com-parative case study approach. Fundamentally, the former is an inlandgaming haven augmented by the convention sector, while the latteris a linear beach resort augmented by theme parks. Both have warm cli-mates typical of the pleasure periphery, though LV experiences a warmdry climate (BWh under the Koppen classification scheme), while theGC has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa). Morphologically, LV devel-oped as a single urban area which spawned both a peripheral anddowntown recreational business district, while the GC emerged as a fu-sion of separate and historically competitive coastal resorts such asSurfers Paradise, Coolangatta, Burleigh Heads and Southport. The re-mote location of LV relative even to major regional markets such as LosAngeles and Phoenix inhibits the formation of a major day-only excur-sionist market, while the latter is extremely important to the GC due toits proximity to greater Brisbane and its 1.5 million residents. Indeed,the GC amalgamating with greater Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast toform a coastal conurbation 200 kilometers long (Spearritt, 2009).Given these differences, it is more likely that the two case studies, col-lectively, will better reveal the diversity of tourism heritage options.

254 D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

Tourism Heritage

Information for this research was obtained in part from the Internet,which offered an extensive array of relevant sources, and also fromnon-electronic sources both academic and non-academic. It must benoted however that any systematic academic investigation of tourismheritage in either city, or any other tourism city, appears to be non-exis-tent. In addition, field investigations to the tourism districts of both cit-ies were undertaken during 2008 and 2009. The information searchfocused on evidence for the existence of recognized tourism heritage,its presentation as heritage tourism, and underlying patterns ofengagement related to degrees of articulation, stakeholders and mar-kets. As a result, four categories of tourism heritage were identified,ranging from in situ representations to ex situ original objects, in situoriginal nodes, and in situ original corridors and areas.

The first category, in situ representations, focuses on tourism commem-oration and memorialization. It is positioned here as the most basic typeof articulation since it can potentially capture any ‘lost’ material heri-tage, and often at minimal cost. The simplest manifestation is thein situ representational commemorative plaque, several of which markthe site of long-demolished historic hotels in both cities. One promi-nent GC example is a bronze plaque embedded by the Gold Coast CityCouncil in a high traffic Surfers Paradise walkway on the site of thedemolished Surfers Paradise Hotel, which was erected in 1925. A vari-ant is the informative billboard, such as the small photo display erectedby the private site management company in GC’s Oasis shopping com-plex in the seaside suburb of Broadbeach which describes and depicts apre-World War Two hotel that previously occupied the site.

A second manifestation is the in situ three-dimensional statue or re-lief. The brass relief of the entertainers Seigfried and Roy and one oftheir performing tigers at the entry of the Mirage casino, where mostof their 5,750 animal act shows were held, is a prominent LV example.It also illustrates how the potential for memorialization extends beyondbuildings to encompass episodic or unique events, potentially alsoinvolving other Las Vegas legends such as Liberace (see below), FrankSinatra and Wayne Newton. It was erected by Mirage management torecognize the close association of the act with that particular casino.The brass relief of female dancers at the main entrance to the RivieraHotel where the dancers were based is another local illustration. Thebest example of a statue honors Peter Lacey, a renowned GC surf life-sa-ver and business personality. Symbolizing the surf life-saving movementmore generally, it was erected in 1997 in a high profile Surfers Paradisebeachfront location by Gold Coast City Council and an ad hoc MemorialCommittee of business and surfing associates of Lacey. In 2010, a bronzestatue of the chair and cap used by Al Baldwin, a Surfers Paradise per-sonality who sprayed beachgoers with suntan oil over a 34-year periodin the late 1900s, was poured, with the statue’s erection anticipated inmid-2011 at the beachfront location where he used to sit (Hicks, 2010).

The final manifestation is the commemorative festival. The onlyidentified example was the Wintersun Festival in the Coolangatta

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267 255

neighbourhood of GC, a nostalgia/retro-themed annual event featur-ing vintage cars (over 1,500 expected in 2010) and classic rock n’ rollmusic (over 100 bands and performers expected in 2010). Wintersunoriginated as a local community festival but was re-themed in 1988 tocomplement Coolangatta’s strong historical identification with tour-ism, including its reputation as Australia’s ‘honeymoon capital’ duringthe 50s and 60s (Mules, 2004). According to Mackellar, ‘the festivalaims to recreate the ambience of winter holidays in the sun’ (2009,p. 90). The festival as of 2010 was owned by The Wintersun FestivalAssociation Incorporated, a non-profit entity supported by Gold CoastCity Council, the Southern Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce and theGold Coast Tourism Bureau, among other bodies that reflect the festi-val’s growing profile. Notably, one of the objectives of the festival is toestablish a year round tourism nostalgia theme for Coolangatta (Win-tersun, 2009).

The second category, ex situ original objects, consists of tourism-relatedmuseums. Museums are repositories of original (and sometimes re-stored or reproduced) objects deemed worthy of acquisition fromother locations and preservation as well as contextual display and inter-pretation, usually for a public audience (Kotler & Kotler, 1998). Assuch, these objects are equated by museum operators and visitors withthe heritage of a particular place (Smith, 2008). Although no museumsdevoted specifically to the general theme of tourism were identified,LV and GC both have facilities that display specific aspects of local tour-ism heritage. Befitting the beach-based GC culture, Surf World GoldCoast was opened in 2009 near the beachfront largely through the ef-forts of the local surfing community and certain GC Councillors. Its sta-ted mission is to ‘celebrate the history and culture of surfing and topreserve this for future generations’. Periodic surfing-related events,including talks by prominent surfers of the past, are an important sup-plement to the permanent displays of vintage surfboards (over 100were displayed in mid-2010) and related memorabilia, as are visits bylocal school groups (Surf World, 2010).

LV hosts the non-profit Liberace Museum, a facility of the LiberaceFoundation which features memorabilia associated with the pianist andshowman who opened the eponymous museum in 1979. Its main pur-poses are to preserve the Liberace legacy and to raise revenue for theFoundation’s program of funding fine arts student scholarships. Aswith Surf World, periodic themed events are a major attraction sup-porting the displays (Liberace Foundation and Museum, 2010). Thecase for its inclusion as tourism heritage is based on Liberace’s long-standing status as a Las Vegas icon, unlike celebrities such as Elvis Pres-ley and the Beatles who are associated with Memphis and Liverpoolrespectively for their origins and for musical place associations.

One other existing themed LV facility is the non-profit Neon Mu-seum, established in 1996 when a major manufacturer of neon signageturned over its collection of ‘retired’ signs to the Allied Arts Council, alocal cultural heritage group. The Museum includes firstly a freeoutdoor gallery of eleven restored neon signs (as of late 2009) along Fre-mont Street representing historic casinos and hotels. Many are accom-

256 D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

panied by descriptive plaques. The second component, nicknamed ‘theneon boneyard’, consists of two fenced lots containing about 150 dere-lict neon signs (Swenson, 2010). The Museum’s mission is to ‘collect,preserve, study and exhibit neon signs and associated artifacts to inspireeducational and cultural enrichment for diverse members of our inter-national community.’ (Neon Museum, 2010). Expected to open in 2011is the Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement(a.k.a. the Mob Museum), a $42 million project funded by state, localand federal grants as part of efforts to revitalise the central business dis-trict as a tourist district. The relationship to tourism heritage focuses onthe close involvement of organized crime in the tourism industry of LVduring the mid-20th century (Mob Museum, 2010).

The third category, in situ original nodes, includes specific tourismfacilities or substantial portions thereof that have been deliberately pre-served or restored, usually by their private sector owners, and some-times with the assistance of government grants. LV examplesemphasize hotels such as the Golden Gate Casino (built in 1906 andexterior-restored in 1990), Lincoln Hotel (built in 1910 and placedon the National Register of Historic Places in 1987), and El Cortez(1941), which features ‘vintage’ suites. An ex situ variant is the lobbyof La Concha Motel, erected in the 1960s futuristic Googie style ofarchitecture but recently relocated to the boneyard to house the futureNeon Museum visitor center.

The only current GC hotel example is the 27 meter (14 storey)Kinkabool apartment building, built in 1959 as one of the first high-rise tourism facilities, and added in 2009 to the Queensland HeritageRegister as ‘a place of significant cultural importance’ by the Queens-land Heritage Council. This protects the facility from development butdoes not prohibit renovations or upgrades (Ja, 2009). Notwithstandingongoing reconstruction, the building, according to the Council, re-flects and represents significant changes in post-World War Two Aus-tralian society. These include the widespread demand for andavailability of the package beach holiday (indicated by the location,high density construction, and mode of holiday arrangement), greaterprosperity (indicated by the relatively high rental cost compared withcamping and other types of accommodation, and the provision ofon-site services for additional cost), private car ownership (indicatedby the early innovation of on-site parking facilities), and the changingstatus of women from producers of domestic labour (even on holidays)to consumers of leisure (reflected in the additional early innovation ofon-site room service options).

Other Queensland heritage listed GC tourism facilities are the MainBeach Pavilion (1934)—a change room—and Southport Surf Livesav-ing Club (1936). The main non-building node is the iconic Welcometo Fabulous Las Vegas highway median sign which was designed in1956, erected in 1959, and listed on the National Register of HistoricPlaces in 2009, having survived a demolition proposal in 1993. Theapplication document states that ‘the ‘‘Welcome’’ sign remains un-changed as a symbol of one of the more dynamic stories in the historyof entertainment and tourism in the nation’ (National Park Service,

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267 257

2009). Perhaps the only GC example is the neon Pink Poodle signwhich was erected in 1967 to designate a motel of that name, and re-tained to designate a nightclub in a resort that was built on the siteafter the motel was demolished in the early 2000s. A historical examplefrom LV is the Moulin Rouge hotel opened in 1955 as the city’s firstracially integrated tourism facility and listed on the National Registerof Historic Places in 1992. Nevertheless, it was abandoned since the60s and was eventually declared a ‘public nuisance’, finally succumbingto fire in 2009. Its neon sign was saved, having been relocated earlier tothe boneyard (Historic Moulin Rouge Burns, 2009).

The fourth and final category, in situ original corridors and areas,consists of tourism strips and districts. Potential for such developmentis based on the tendency of tourism activity in tourism cities to be con-centrated in one or more specialized areal or linear recreational busi-ness districts (Stansfield & Rickert, 1970). However, this is currentlyevident only in LV, where a superficial semblance of Fremont Street’s50s neon atmosphere has been deliberately maintained. The Strip isalso illustrative, having been designated in 2000 as an All-AmericanRoad under the federal National Scenic Byway program. This designa-tion is warranted when a National Scenic Byway is regarded as excep-tional because it is considered to be an important tourist attractionin its own right, contains features that are not found elsewhere inthe USA, and merits a corridor management plan for maintainingand enhancing its intrinsic qualities. As with every other example cited,no description of the Strip as ‘tourism heritage’ was identified.

Heritage Tourism

Assessments of the extent to which this tourism heritage is developedas heritage tourism must consider its development and marketing assuch, and also its actual interface with tourists. In situ representationssuch as plaques and statues are freely accessed and often located inareas of high pedestrian traffic, resulting in high levels of potentialinterception. However, translation into visitation is inhibited by size(at least in the case of plaques) and their association with governmentbodies (municipal, state or federal) or non-profit organizations moreconcerned with heritage preservation per se than tourism developmentor promotion. They are therefore incidental attractions that intercept afew pedestrians mostly by chance, and only for a brief time, as indi-cated by extended author observation of several sites on a convenient,non-systematic basis. During a summer long weekend in early 2010, aone-hour period during mid-day yielded 37 individuals who pausedfor at least five seconds in front of the Surf Life-Saver statue in SurfersParadise. The embedded Surfers Paradise Hotel plaque, however,yielded no pauses over a similar one-hour period on the same day.In early 2009, one hour’s observation of the Seigfried and Roy reliefproduced visits by 15 individuals, 10 of whom took photographs.

In contrast, the Wintersun festival is heavily promoted by its non-profit managing association with support from local tourism bureaus

258 D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

and chambers of commerce. Attendance accordingly has increasedfrom estimates of 500 in 1988 to 10,000 in 1998, 50,000 in 2004 (Mac-kellar, 2009), and 60,000 in 2009 (Wintersun, 2009), or almost four percent per year during the 2005–09 period. Significantly, while ‘targetingpeople from all walks of life’, the association is ‘also targeting peoplewho have previously had pleasant experiences of Coolangatta duringits heyday as the weekend/long term holiday destination in Australiaor alternately enjoyed their honeymoon there’ (Wintersun, 2009). Thisis the most explicit link between tourism heritage and heritage tourismencountered in this research.

Preliminary visitation for the Surf World Gold Coast museum wasestimated at 1200 during the first three months of operation in2009, much of which was accounted for by the ongoing series of spe-cial surf-related events (personal communication with museum direc-tor). Web site development and coordination with GC tourism bodieswas ongoing at the time of publication. Access to the Neon Museumboneyard as of late 2009 was by appointment only, with the tour sche-dule and group size limits indicating a maximum visitation level of7500 during 2009. Notably, the actual location of the boneyard is sup-pressed in the museum’s promotional material. Liberace Museum vis-itor numbers, in contrast, were estimated at 50,000 in 2008, downfrom about 250,000 in 1997 but still positioning the facility as a majornon-casino tourist attraction (Abowitz, 2009). The substantial declinein visitation may owe to generational shifts in which younger visitorslack awareness of or fan loyalty to the featured personality, whose LasVegas career spanned from the 50s to the 70s. To compensate for itsperipheral location three kilometers from the Strip, the museum runsa regular free shuttle bus service that stops at most of the majorcasinos.

The development of in situ original buildings and other buildingsas heritage tourism attractions is both impeded and assisted by theircontinuing functionality, either as originally intended or otherwise.The former scenario is the most desirable because of its continuitywith tourism and the presence of tourists. However, functionalitycan also serve as a distraction, especially if it does not evoke the ori-ginal purpose. In either case, there is little evidence of structuralmodifications, services, interpretation or other markers at such sitesto indicate their development as heritage tourism products. The1959 GC highrise ‘Kinkabool’, for example, carried as of May 2010no plaque or other physical recognition of its 2009 inclusion onthe Queensland Heritage Register. One major exception is the Wel-come to Fabulous Las Vegas sign, which is now accompanied by asmall parking lot to accommodate the cars and buses used by the‘hundreds of thousands’ of annual visitors, most of whom use the siteas a photo background (National Park Service, 2009). The ubiquity ofthe image, arising from its lack of copyright protection, undoubtedlycontributes to its iconic status.

Among the nascent in situ corridors, the Strip is best positioned forheritage tourism articulation because of its status as an All-AmericanRoad, the management protocols of which require attention to devel-

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267 259

oping its potential as an attraction in its own right. As of late 2009,however, signage or other modifications to this effect were not evi-dent during field investigations. In any case, enormous volumes of al-most continuous pedestrian traffic attest to the Strip’s existing drawas an iconic attraction that both unites and transcends its constituentnodal elements. Fremont Street similarly attracts substantial pedes-trian traffic, although the construction of the Fremont Street Experi-ence, a four-block barrel vault canopy above the streetscape featuringregular light and sound show projections, has diminished the impactof the neon signage even though it was, ironically, introduced to stim-ulate flagging downtown visitor levels. It is worth reiterating the sim-ilar intended role of the pending Mob Museum as a stimulant to therevitalization of the central business district, indicating the possibilityof symbiotic relationships between the latter, Fremont Street and theNeon Museum as multiple attraction poles.

The Case for Further Articulation

The question remains whether efforts in tourism cities to more for-mally and fully articulate this contemporary tourism heritage—andsubsequently develop and market it as a viable heritage tourism prod-uct—are warranted. This entails a two-fold challenge in that anyso-called ‘heritage’ has to be first perceived as such and then valued en-ough so that resources are invested to develop and present it to visitors(Timothy & Boyd, 2003). Notwithstanding increasing acceptance of theidea of ‘recent heritage’, recognition of contemporary consumer-dri-ven mass tourism and hospitality as legitimate and/or commerciallyviable heritage is still minimal. Fainstein and Judd, for example, allegethat tourism cities such as Cancun and Las Vegas ‘lack a marketablehistoric past’ (1999b, p. 7). Sedmak and Mihalic (2008), investigatingthe importance of authenticity in mature seaside resorts, similarlyappear to preclude the possibility that any structures or phenomenaassociated with modern mass tourism can be worthy of heritage desig-nation. Such attitudes complement the many academics who deridecontemporary mass tourism as some variant of ‘McDisneyization’(Ritzer & Liska, 1997).

Thus, there looms the question of whether there are aspects of tour-ism history which should be neither recognized nor commodified asheritage. Postmodernism tolerates the recognition of any history asheritage, but possible market sensitivities to the trivial (e.g., peoplesunbathing) or controversial (e.g., undocumented hospitality workersin LV, negative perceptions of some Asian tourists in GC) might dictatethe omission of such phenomena from product development and mar-keting strategies. Possible incompatibilities between tourism and heri-tage, moreover, are mooted by Nuryanti (1996), who describes thelatter as a construct of tradition and the former as a construct ofmodernity. The success of heritage tourism suggests reconciliationthrough the accommodation of tradition within a framework of moder-nity, but given the lack of recognition of recent tourism heritage, not

260 D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

yet reciprocally through the accommodation of modernity within aframework of tradition. Mining and other conventional industrialheritage is more likely to be recognized as heritage and commodifiedas heritage tourism perhaps because the featured activity itself is of an-cient vintage (compared with the contemporary nature of mass tour-ism) and is regarded as such by entire societies or cultures (Edwards& Llurdes i Coit, 1996).

Contemporary mass tourism, it appears, is worthy for its supportof heritage, but for many not worthy as heritage itself, perhaps alsoin light of the threat it might pose in terms of resource allocationand consumer attention to the ‘worthier’ heritage of the more dis-tant past. By the time such recognition is given, the construction-dominated economy of the tourism city and its traditions of freeenterprise and continual re-invention (Douglass & Raento, 2004) willlikely ensure that there is little or no tourism heritage left to pro-tect, recreational business districts being a prime focus for serialre-development.

Against such opposition, the appropriateness of tourism heritage fortourism cities deserves to be emphasized. Tourism has been theirprimary economic activity for most of their recent history and subse-quently warrants recognition, protection, development and celebra-tion as symbolic heritage. Notwithstanding the critics, it may furtherbe construed as authentic industrial and cultural heritage, recognizingin postmodern discourses that authenticity, like heritage, is negotiable(Apostolakis, 2003; Moscardo, 2000; Paradis, 2004). Tourism heritage,as such, is a critical facet of local cultural sustainability that legitimizeseach of these cities as a unique and exceptional place. Existing masstourist markets increase the probability of commercial success and thuscontribute to economic sustainability, as per Timothy and Boyd (2003).There is the banal possibility that the mere proximity of promotedtourism heritage will attract bored and curious visitors, but more likelythese ‘tourists can use their intellect to interpret authenticity as theywant, closer to their [own] standards and understandings’ (Apostoka-lis, 2003, p. 804).

Contemporary tourism heritage, therefore, is neither trivial noruninteresting. Personal narratives of heritage tourists visiting Route66, for example, reveal perceptions of a challenging experience, andone that was more facilitation of personal growth than nostalgic yearn-ing for a simpler idealized past (Caton & Santos, 2007). Iconoclasti-cally, Venturi, Scott Brown, and Izenour (1977) and more recentlyCass (2004) argue that LV has spawned inspirational and innovativearchitecture worthy of scrutiny because and not in spite of its playful-ness. Hajdu describes Japanese-inspired GC tourism architecture, freedfrom the stringent aesthetics of Japan, as ‘a postmodernist’s delightand a semioticist’s logical construct waiting to be deconstructed.’(1999, p. 544). Bradley et al. (2008) more generally advocate seriousengagement with landscapes of the late 20th century for their themesof escape, change, technology, prosperity, and optimism. In both cities,these landscapes bridge the gap between the modern and postmoderneras, providing research opportunities to understand the transition.

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267 261

Fremont Street and Coolangatta evoke the earlier era, while the Stripand Surfers Paradise project the more contemporary inclinationsof tourism. The possibilities for providing educational benefits andintellectual challenging experiences for local residents as well as visi-tors appear, therefore, to be considerable (Timothy & Boyd, 2003),and already evident in attempts by Surf World Gold Coast to incorpo-rate tourism heritage into curricula of local schools.

Paradoxically, the more recent the heritage (and hence the morecontentious in qualifying as such for some), the more likely it is tobe extant and accessible, and thus accurately presented, therebyenhancing the credibility of these educational opportunities. Formany older visitors to Wintersun and the Liberace Museum, the expe-rience evokes Timothy’s (1997) notion of personal heritage in a lit-eral sense and provides compelling personal benefits related to there-creation of pleasant memories (Chen, 1998). Reciprocal benefitsfor the development of the heritage product are provided by the rec-ollection of these same memories. Being of more recent vintage, thisheritage is better suited to the avoidance of distortion associated withplace invention, relative authenticity, ethnic intrusion (outsiders play-ing roles), sanitized and idealized pasts, and the unknown past(impossibility of accurately re-creating all facets of the heritage site),all issues which call into question the ‘authenticity’ of conventionalhistorical heritage (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). Fidelity to the past is alsoprovided by the potential availability of residents as experiential inter-preters who like many visitors retain vivid memories and othermementos of their early tourism experiences. Such participationcould also serve as a basis for a high level of community involvementand empowerment, thereby contributing further to cultural, eco-nomic and social sustainability outcomes.

As mentioned above, the artefacts of contemporary tourism heritageare more likely to be lost because they concern the recent (and oftenless valued) past and are vulnerable to capricious free market forces.However, this same ephemerality is also an important facet of itsauthenticity. This paradox is not problematic for the Queensland Her-itage Council (2009), which states that ‘Rather than detracting from itssignificance, the great disparity in scale and appointment betweenKinkabool and buildings like the 80-storey Q1 tower, demonstrates dra-matically how tourist preferences, architectural design and construc-tion technologies have evolved on the Gold Coast since the 50s.’Lessons for the continuing recognition and memorialization of lostheritage may be derived from the idea of attraction residuality, orthe maintenance of attractions after they have been destroyed (Weaver& Lawton, 2007). This can be achieved through simple means such asplaques and museums, but also through virtual reality re-creations(Prideaux, 2005), thereby suggesting a platform for technologicalinnovation.

Finally, existing examples of articulation, however piecemeal or par-tial, provide a basis for subsequent, higher level efforts. For example,Wintersun, already aiming to re-create the ambience of past holidays,can readily incorporate other facets of tourism heritage, such as the

262 D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

nearby surfing museum. Coolangatta, moreover, is an appropriate loca-tion for a broadly conceived tourism museum, which could link to thefestival and serve as a repository for items associated with recent tour-ism construction likely to be redeveloped at some point. It is worthreiterating the role of the Neon Museum in saving the neon sign ofthe historic Moulin Rouge hotel, though the establishment of a broad-er tourism museum for LV is a logical strategy for that city as well, serv-ing also as a focus for research and for the development of virtualreality presentations. Ultimately, visitation numbers at several of thesesites (e.g., Wintersun, The Strip, Welcome to Las Vegas sign), and thepending addition of new sites (e.g., the Mob Museum and the SuntanMan statue) perhaps already answer the question affirmatively, indicat-ing strong demand for tourism heritage and the willingness of destina-tion stakeholders to invest in rejuvenating new products both large-and small-scale.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory paper acknowledges the legitimacy of contempo-rary tourism as heritage—represented in the coining of the term‘tourism heritage’—and demonstrates the realities of and possibilitiesfor its articulation as heritage tourism. As such, it may also be the firstacademic paper to explicitly and systematically examine contempo-rary tourism as, somewhat paradoxically, a tourist attraction. Empiri-cal evidence from Las Vegas and Gold Coast facilitate subsequentanalysis and development by identifying four types of tourism heri-tage differentiated by scale, location and originality, all of whichare only partially articulated at present. The most basic category ofin situ representation, as heritage tourism, is best illustrated in vol-ume terms by the GC’s nostalgia/retro Wintersun festival, althoughdirect manifestations of and links to the relevant tourism heritageare lacking. The clearest illustration of ex situ original items is LV’sLiberace Museum, which similarly focuses on a specific tourismevent-related theme rather than its attendant historical tourism con-text. The ‘Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas’ sign is the best and byfar most frequently visited example of in situ tourism facilities, whilethe Strip itself best exemplifies in situ tourism corridors or districts,though neither have achieved the level of collective product articula-tion found in conventional heritage contexts, such as the FrenchQuarter of New Orleans which preserves the original French settle-ment area of the city and serves as the focus for annual Mardi Grasfestivities.

Factors that militate against strategies to articulate contemporarytourism as commercially viable heritage tourism include perceptionsthat it is not marketable, attractive or interesting, and too recent tobe construed as ‘heritage’. Also pertinent are its rapid destructionand replacement by even newer structures as well as its diversion of re-sources from ‘legitimate’ heritage interests. Countervailing factors thatsupport the case for articulation in the context of tourism cities in-

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267 263

clude its authentic character (which incorporates the reality of ephem-erality) and existing mass tourist markets that include individuals at-tracted by their own past personal experience with thesephenomena. Many aspects of the latter are neither trivial nor uninter-esting, and their articulation may provide educational benefits and asense of pride for the local community. Their recent character, more-over, reduces distortion of presentation and interpretation, while ex-tant examples such as those described here indicate marketreceptiveness and provide a convenient foundation for a concertedproduct development strategy.

However compelling these pro-articulation factors, the presentstudy is constrained by its exploratory nature and by the concomitantlack of systematic empirical input from stakeholder groups such asresidents, tourists, entrepreneurs and planners. To the extent thatsuch information is provided, it is anecdotal or speculative, and servesto frame the attendant typology and indicate its degree of articula-tion. Whether therefore a substantial portion of residents in thetwo tourism cities will embrace the local tourism heritage as part oftheir personal heritage, and concurrently support and participate inits development as a tourism product, remain for now open questionsrequiring follow-up investigation. Equally important is to understandwhich contemporary tourism heritage products are attractive to whichactual and potential tourist segments and how they can best be pre-sented and interpreted to maximize this attraction effect. Specialattention perhaps is required to identify the extent to which in siturepresentations such as plaques and statues incidentally or systemati-cally attract visitors.

The results of such proposed research directives, more than theo-retical pro-articulation arguments, may compel tourism leaders inLas Vegas and Gold Coast to embark on a concerted strategy to devel-op their contemporary tourism heritage and then realize its potentialas heritage tourism (something that currently does not exist in eithercity, perhaps in part because of the diffuse and diverse character ofproduct stakeholders). However, in the meanwhile it is worth consid-ering again the successful experience of two other types of onceimprobable heritage attraction. First, sporting activity, with leisure,temporal and participatory parameters similar to tourism, is welldeveloped as heritage tourism in many destinations, as evidencedby halls of fame, Olympic sites, iconic stadiums or arenas, and historicgolf courses such as St. Andrew’s. These demonstrate that the accom-modation of modernity within a framework of tradition is feasible.Second, the demonization of simulacra and other features of themodern tourism city echoes the contempt once directed toward thebleak factory-scapes of the Industrial Revolution. Those same land-scapes are now the object of reverential gazing in cities such as Lowelland Leeds where industrial heritage is proudly projected. Advocatesof contemporary tourism heritage, therefore, have opportunities tolearn from and be encouraged by both sectors.

264 D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

REFERENCES

Abowitz, R. (2009). Memories fading on Vegas icon Liberace. Retrieved October 26,2009 from <http://vegasblog.latimes.com/vegas/2009/04/memories-fading-on-vegas-icon-liberace.html/>.

Apostolakis, A. (2003). The convergence process in heritage tourism. Annals ofTourism Research, 30, 795–812.

Bradley, A., Buchli, V., Fairclough, G., Hicks, D., Miller, J., & Schofield, J. (2008).Change and creation: Historic landscape character 1950–2000. In G.Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. Jameson, & J. Schofield (Eds.), The heritage reader(pp. 559–566). New York: Routledge.

Cass, J. (2004). Egypt on steroids: Luxor Las Vegas and postmodern orientalism. InD. Lasansky & B. McLaren (Eds.), Architecture and tourism: Perception,performance and place (pp. 241–263). Oxford: Berg.

Caton, K., & Santos, C. (2007). Heritage tourism on Route 66: Deconstructingnostalgia. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 371–386.

Chen, J. (1998). Travel motivation of heritage tourists. Tourism Analysis, 2, 213–215.Chronis, A. (2005). Coconstructing heritage at the Gettysburg storyscape. Annals of

Tourism Research, 32, 386–406.Davidson, J., & Spearritt, P. (2000). Holiday business: Tourism in Australia since 1870.

Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Douglass, W., & Raento, P. (2004). The tradition of invention: Conceiving Las

Vegas. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 7–23.Edwards, J., & Llurdes i Coit, J. (1996). Mines and quarries. Annals of Tourism

Research, 23(2), 341–363.Fainstein, S., & Judd, D. (1999a). Cities as places to play. In D. Judd & S. Fainstein

(Eds.), The tourist city (pp. 261–272). London: Yale University Press.Fainstein, S., & Judd, D. (1999b). Global forces, local strategies, and urban

tourism. In D. Judd & S. Fainstein (Eds.), The tourist city (pp. 1–17). London:Yale University Press.

Fairclough, G. (2008). New heritage, an introductory essay – People, landscape andchange. In G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. Jameson, & J. Schofield (Eds.), Theheritage reader (pp. 297–312). New York: Routledge.

Faulkner, B. (2003). Rejuvenating a maturing tourist destination: The case of theGold Coast. In L. Fredline, L. Jago, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Progressing tourismresearch – Bill Faulkner (pp. 34–86). Clevedon, UK: Channel View.

Fowler, P. (1989). Heritage: A post-modernist perspective. In D. Uzzell (Ed.),Heritage interpretation volume 1: The natural and built environment (pp. 57–63).London: Belhaven.

Gladstone, D. (1998). Tourism urbanization in the United States. Urban AffairsReview, 34, 3–27.

Gold Coast City Council (2009). Business GC. Retrieved October 21, 2009 from<http://businessgc.com.au/index.php?page=Tourism-Facts-and-Figures/>.

Gu, Z. (2003). Analysis of Las Vegas Strip casino hotel capacity: An inventorymodel for optimization. Tourism Management, 24, 309–314.

Hajdu, J. (1993). The Gold Coast, Australia: Spatial model of its development andthe impact of the cycle of foreign investment in property during the late1980s. Erdkunde, 47, 40–51.

Hajdu, J. (1999). The Japanese idea of image and luxury as seen in their majorGold Coast projects. In J. Kesby, et al. (Eds.), Geodiversity: Readings inAustralian geography at the close of the 20th century (pp. 537–545). Canberra:Institute of Australian Geographers.

Hannigan, J. (1998). Fantasy city: Pleasure and profit in the postmodern metropolis.London: Routledge.

Hicks, S. (2010). Al the suntan man’ immortalised in bronze. Retrieved May 8, 2010from ABC News website for April 9, 2010 <http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/04/09/2868803.htm/>.

Historic Moulin Rouge Burns (2009). Retrieved October 7, 2009 from LasVega-sNow Eyewitness News website for May 8, 2009 <http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=10314859#/>.

Hofmeister, B. (1988). Australia and its urban centres. Berlin: Gebruder Borntraeger.

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267 265

Ja, C. (2009). Gold Coast high rise heritage listed. Retrieved October 7, 2009 from9News website for February 12, 2009 <http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/751391/gold-coast-high-rise-heritage-listed/>.

Jones, M. (1986). A sunny place for shady people: The real Gold Coast story. NorthSydney: Allen & Unwin.

Kotler, N., & Kotler, P. (1998). Museum strategy and marketing: Designing missions,building audiences, generating revenue and resources. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, D. (1984). Hotel casinos: Strong odds for growth. Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, 25(2), 27–40.

Liberace Foundation and Museum (2010). Preserve the legacy! Retrieved May 9, 2010from <http://www.liberace.org/>.

Lilliefors, J. (2006). American boardwalks. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress.

Mackellar, J. (2009). An examination of serious participants at the AustralianWintersun festival. Leisure Studies, 28, 85–104.

Mob Museum (2010). Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement.Retrieved July 20, 2010 from <http://www.themobmuseum.org/>.

Moscardo, G. (2000). Cultural and heritage tourism: The great debates. In B.Faulkner, G. Moscardo, & E. Laws (Eds.), Tourism in the 21st century: Lessonsfrom experience (pp. 3–17). London: Continuum.

Mules, T. (2004). Evolution in event management: The Gold Coast’s WintersunFestival. Event Management, 9, 95–101.

Mullins, P. (1991). Tourism urbanization. International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch, 15, 326–342.

Mullins, P. (1992). Cities for pleasure: The emergence of tourism urbanization inAustralia. Built Environment, 18, 187–198.

National Park Service (2009). The ‘Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas’ sign. RetrievedOctober 27, 2009 from <http://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/weekly_features/LasVegasSign.pdf/>.

Neon Museum (2010). The Neon Museum Las Vegas: About. Retrieved July 20, 2009from <http://www.neonmuseum.org/mission-history.html/>.

Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,23, 249–260.

Paradis, T. (2004). Theming, tourism, and fantasy city. In A. Lew, C. Hall, & A.Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 195–209). Oxford: Blackwell.

Parker, R. (1999). Las Vegas: Casino gambling and local culture. In D. Judd & S.Fainstein (Eds.), The tourist city (pp. 107–123). London: Yale University Press.

Poria, Y., & Ashworth, G. (2009). Heritage tourism – Current resource for conflict.Annals of Tourism Research, 36, 522–525.

Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals ofTourism Research, 30, 238–254.

Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006). Heritage site management: Motivationsand expectations. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 162–178.

Prentice, R. (1994). Heritage: A key sector of the ‘new’ tourism. Progress in Tourism,Recreation and Hospitality Management, 5, 309–324.

Prideaux, B. (Ed.). (2005). Special issue: Cyber-tourism. Tourism Recreation Research,30(3), 5–95.

Queensland Heritage Council (2009). Kinkabool. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from<http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/chims/placeDetail.html;jsessio-nid=7f00000130d7b73c662b2d344198ba02ce4e8b1330b1.e34NaN8SbNyKci0-Lc34Kc3yLc3ySe6fznA5Pp7ftolbGmkTy?siteId=16240/>.

Ramshaw, G., & Gammon, S. (2005). More than just nostalgia? Exploring theheritage/sport tourism nexus. Journal of Sport Tourism, 10(4), 229–241.

Repp, T. (1999). Route 66: The empires of amusement. Lynnwood, WA: Mock TurtlePress.

Ritzer, G., & Liska, A. (1997). ‘McDisneyization’ and ‘post-tourism’. In C. Rojek &J. Urry (Eds.), Touring cultures: Transformations of travel and theory (pp. 96–109).New York: Routledge.

Rothman, H. (2002). Neon metropolis: How Las Vegas started the twenty-first century.New York: Routledge.

266 D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

Russell, R. (1995). Tourism development in Coolangatta: An historical perspective.Unpublished Bachelor of Business Honours thesis, Griffith University,Australia.

Russell, R., & Faulkner, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship, chaos and the tourism arealifecycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 556–579.

Sedmak, G., & Mihalic, T. (2008). Authenticity in mature seaside resorts. Annals ofTourism Research, 35, 1007–1031.

Smith, L. (2008). Towards a theoretical framework for archaeological heritagemanagement. In G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. Jameson, & J. Schofield (Eds.),The heritage reader (pp. 62–74). New York: Routledge.

Spanier, D. (1992). Welcome to the pleasuredome: Inside Las Vegas. Las Vegas:University of Nevada Press.

Spearritt, P. (2009). The 200 km city: Brisbane, the Gold Coast, and SunshineCoast. Australian Economic History Review, 49, 87–106.

Stansfield, C. (1983). New Jersey: A geography. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress.

Stansfield, C., & Rickert, J. (1970). The recreational business district. Journal ofLeisure Research, 2, 213–225.

Stimson, R., & Minnery, J. (1998). Why people move to the ‘sun-belt’: A case studyof long-distance migration to the Gold Coast, Australia. Urban Studies, 25,193–214.

Surf World (2010). Welcome to Surf World Gold Coast. Retrieved May 9, 2010 from<http://surfworldgoldcoast.com/>.

Swenson, K. (2010). A mid-century vernacular gets its due. Modernism Magazine.Retrieved May 9, 2010 from <http://www.neonmuseum.org/news/news-arti-cle-modernism-mag.pdf/>.

Symes, C. (1994). Not learning from Las Vegas: The Gold Coast as theme park.Arena, 9(February–March), 28–31.

Symes, C. (1995). Taking people for a ride: Dreamworld, Sea World andMovieworld as excursive practice. Journal of Australian Studies, 44, 1–12.

Timothy, D. (1997). Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Annals ofTourism Research, 34, 751–754.

Timothy, D., & Boyd, S. (2003). Heritage tourism. London: Prentice-Hall.Towner, J. (1996). An historical geography of recreation and tourism in the western world

1540–1940. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Tunbridge, J., & Ashworth, G. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past

as a resource in conflict. New York: Wiley.Turner, L., & Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes: International tourism and the pleasure

periphery. London: Constable.Uzzell, D., & Ballantyne, R. (2008). Heritage that hurts: Interpretation in a

postmodern world. In G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. Jameson, & J. Schofield(Eds.), The heritage reader (pp. 502–513). New York: Routledge.

Venturi, R., Scott Brown, D., & Izenour, S. (1977). Learning from Las Vegas: Theforgotten symbolism of architectural form. London: MIT Press.

Walton, J. (2009). Prospects in tourism history: Evolution, state of play and futuredevelopments. Tourism Management, 30, 783–793.

Walton, J., & Wood, J. (2009). Reputation and regeneration: History and theheritage of the recent past in the re-making of Blackpool. In L. Gibson & J.Pendlebury (Eds.), Valuing historic environments (pp. 115–138). Aldershot:Ashgate.

Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2007). ‘Just because it’s gone doesn’t mean it isn’t thereanymore’: Planning for attraction residuality. Tourism Management, 28,108–117.

Wiley, P., & Gottlieb, R. (1982). Empires in the sun: The rise of the new American west.New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Wintersun (2009). History. Retrieved October 26, 2009 from <http://www.winter-sun.org.au/history.ews/>.

Wood, A. (2005). What happens [in Vegas]’’: Performing the post-tourist flaneur in‘‘New York’’ and ‘‘Paris. Text and Performance Quarterly, 25(4), 315–333.

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267 267

Xie, F. (2006). Developing industrial heritage tourism: A case study of theproposed Jeep Museum in Toledo, Ohio. Tourism Management, 27(6),1321–1330.

Yale, P. (1991). From tourist attractions to heritage tourism. Huntingdon: ELM.

Submitted 2 November 2009. Resubmitted 9 May 2010. Final version 21 July 2010. Accepted13 August 2010. Refereed anonymously.Coordinating Editor: Greg Richards.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com