- Email: [email protected]
On world trends in tourism and recreation
218
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
wealthy, urban tourists, and their local hosts. These are often reflected in displays of arrogance and insensitivity on the part of hotel guests toward staff. Among locals, there is a popular perception of hotels as centers of wasteful extravagance or immoral activities, as places where people spend time and money frivolously (rather than upon work, family, and kin) or where married men take girlfriends or engage the services of prostitutes (Adu-Febiri 1988). Unless such attitudes and behaviors change, domestic tourism is unlikely to erode social barriers. Two, given the asymmetrical relationship between hosts and guests in Ghana, the acculturation process generated by domestic tourism may be quite one-sided, with the metropolitan culture coming to dominate tourist centers. This is acknowledged by Jafari in the case of metropolitan language spread and there seems no reason to suppose that other elements of metropolitan culture would not also gain strength in areas regularly visited by wealthy local tourists. Cultural homogenization, rather than familiarization and adaptation, could be the end result. 0 0 tween
Robert Wyllie: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fmser BC, Canada.
University, Bumaby
REFERENCES Adu-Febiri, F. 1988 Leisure Travel among Affluent Urban Ghanaians: An Exploratory Sociological Study of Incipient Domestic Tourism. M.A. Thesis in Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University, Canada. Britton, S. G. 1987 Tourism in Pacific Island States: Constraints and Opportunities. In Ambiguous Alternative: Tourism in Small Developing Countries, S. Britton and H. C. Clarke, eds. Suva, University of the South Pacific. Pearce, D. 1989 Tourist Development. London, Longman. Teye, V. B. 1988 Coups D’Etat and African Tourism: A Study of Ghana. Annals of Tourism Research 15:329-356. Submitted 14 January 1992 Resubmitted 27 March 1992 Accepted 23 April 1992
On World Trends in Tourism and Recreation Z. Ted Mieczkowski University of Manitoba, Canada
This writer, the author of World Trends in Tourism and Recreation, is concerned about Stephen Smith’s review published in Annals (18:671-674, 1991). One has to agree with his criticism pertaining to the editorial work. The
reason for this technical shortcoming was the misunderstanding between the author and the publisher as to who was responsible for editing. Thus, no argument can be made on this matter. However, the other critical remarks contained in the review are unfounded. One cannot fail to find a number of
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
219
similarities between this review and the one published by Smith in 1982 in Ontario Geography, together with the reply of the author of the book (Coffey 1982). The most important of those similarities is the use of incorrect factual information about the books under review. Smith’s reviews attribute to the book authors certain statements that are not contained in their work and blame the authors for failing to treat certain topics, even though they are in fact contained in their writings. This author would like to start with the formal aspects of the reviewer’s criticism. Smith writes: “A number of tables are not labeled, and most do not contain any reference to source” (p. 673). But there is not a single table in the book without its title and source. As for figures presented in the book, the author followed the general rule that lack of reference indicates that the figure represents the author’s ideas, computations, estimates, etc., which is an accepted practice in original scientific contributions. The second formal criticism pertains to too much space allocated to the first three introductory chapters. The reviewer contends that they “comprise half of the book” (p. 672). In fact, the first three chapters contain 73 out of the total text of 348 pages (less than 21%). Chapters 4-6 constitute the core of the book. Other issues discussed in the review will be addressed in the sequence in which they were raised. One, the reviewer claims that the author “explains that the book is not based on research in these 101 countries nor is it a review or critique of the literature” (p. 671). There is no statement in the book confirming the first part of the reviewer’s assertion. The author explains that the book is focusing on trends (and not impacts), and that the materials are based on research generalizations of this author and other authors, published in five languages. The author did not conduct research in all 101 countries visited, but “only” in the preponderant majority of them. However, the author’s observations from all countries were used, where applicable. His task was to find out trends (i.e., general tendencies of tourism development) and to use but not to review the literature. Indeed, a critical review of the literature was beyond the scope of the book. Second, Smith does not agree with the author’s statement that many readers will use this book as reference (p. 671). Indeed, the majority of nonfiction books are read from “cover to cover” only by beginners. Advanced readers use them for reference or for reading of individual sections, depending on their interests. The book belongs to this category, and for most readers this would not be a drawback. As a matter of fact, the points made by Smith indicate that perhaps he himself did not read the book “from cover to cover.” Why does he expect all other readers to do so? Third, indeed, the book focuses on the developed countries because the major part of world tourism is concentrated there. There is nothing wrong with such a focus. The lessdeveloped countries (Smith prefers the awkward term “lesser developed”) in many ways follow the general trends, but have also their own peculiarities, for which there was no space in the book. Nevertheless, these countries are covered (e.g., in the section dealing with trends in transportation, and are specifically referred to (on pages 106, 107, 108, 111, 119, 140-141, etc.). Japan, a relative newcomer in the field of tourism, is included and referred to dozens of times, (pp. 79, 89, 104, 106, etc.), while the reviewer found only one such reference. There are some developed countries which are not mentioned at all in the book. But the book is not a country by country description; it is an endeavor to establish general trends, mutatis mutandis characteristic, for most, if not all developed countries. Four, the reviewer states that the book does not deal with trends. The fact is that in front of almost every chapter or section title, starting with Chapter
220
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
3, the word “trend” could be properly inserted (e.g., “trends in transportation”, “trends in supply”, “trends in seasonality”, etc.). The main focus of the book is on directions in which tourism is movingthat is, trends. Five, of course, Chapter 2, “Terminology,” has an introductory character and does not deal with trends. This upsets Smith (p. 672) w h o, instead of comparing the chapter with the available literature, dismisses it as dealing in semantics. However, in the opinion of the author, the young scholarly field of tourism and recreation suffers from lack of firmly established terminology. Confusion reigns in this respect. This situation limits the comparability of statistics and causes other problems. Therefore, the author regarded it as indispensable to open the book with the discussion of terminology, hoping that the reader will appreciate the originality and usefulness of his interpretations. Six, there is no inconsistency between Figures 2.5 and 2.8. The first one and 2.6 represent the author’s ideas on the relationship between tourism and travel, sen.~ large and sensu stricto. Figure 2.8 illustrates the ideas of other authors, and this is clearly indicated. Seven, the next criticism also pertains to disproportionate allocation of space: only 4 pages given to trends in incomes as compared to 40 pages devoted to transportation. This time the reviewer is correct on the number of pages. In the opinion of the author, four pages is enough to emphasize the rapid increase of incomes in the developed countries in the period up to about early 197Os, and the modest development since. Tourism is dependent on the growth of discretionary incomes, and this fact is made abundantly clear on those few pages. Providing more details would be tangential in view of the book’s stated purpose. However, the trends in the development of transportation since 1950 deserve, from a geographer’s point of view, much more attention. Hence, more space is allotted to that topic. Transportation lies more properly within the sphere of geography than does a detailed analysis of incomes, which belongs to the realm of economics. One does not need to reach too far for supporting arguments: the rebuttal by Coffey to Smith is the example, where the latter is reminded that, among (Coffey other things, geographers are focusing on “spatial relationships” 1982). Eight, “The taste for travel” (Smith has problems with what he calls “semanhe probably means “propensity for tics” and the author calls “terminology”: travel”) is definitely an element of demand. The reviewer thinks, however, that it is a prerequisite. One may find in the literature some suggestions as to other possible prerequisites, but never this one. Nine, there is nothing wrong with compiling statistics from various sources. Of course, the same methodology of collecting data must be used. Ten, the reviewer finds only the optimistic data on the shortening work week, but does not seem to notice the more pessimistic picture presented on pages 85ff. One is back to “cover to cover” syndrome. Eleven, the author is free to use any sources, including newspapers and magazines if social science literature does not provide adequate and/or up-to-date coverage. Twelve, the criticism of Chapter 5 (Demand) pertains to too much space allotted to the issue of market segmentation. According to the reviewer, market segmentation is not a part of demand research. Indeed, it is used today as one of the principal tools of market (demand) research aimed at targeting various submarkets for publicity and advertising, and this interest extends also to the field of economics, where segmentation of the market on the demand side is responded to by producers on the supply side. This section of the book constitutes one of the few instances where the author’s input is limited to compilation. The reviewer is correct in stating that the literature used to cover this specific topic does not reach beyond 1970s. This is so for a good reason, stated in the book. The more recent systems of the market
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
221
segmentation, particularly lifestyle segmentation, constitute only variations of the pioneering systems of 1960s and 1970s. As emphasized above, the book does not provide a critical review of literature, but concentrates on the description of trends in tourism. A review of lifestyle market segmentation literature would invariably have to stress the parallelism of various segmentation systems. Many of them differ practically only in the application of Latin or Greek terms. The author found it strange that some of the North American researchers are unaware, probably because of language barriers, that in several cases their market segmentation systems are almost identical with the systems developed in continental Europe. Such an analysis of literature would have been very interesting, but it was clearly beyond the scope of the book. Further, contrary to the reviewer’s opinion, worldwide generalizations, at least for the developed countries, are not only possible, but also useful because they reflect the modern global trends in demand. Finally, with respect to the section on “Some Trends in Demand”, the reviewer writes that “it is merely observed that business travel is of growing importance, and then the reasons are summarized” (p. 673). A careful reader will have no problems finding out that this observation is not supported by the book (pp. 199-201). In short, Smith’s review fails not only in detail but also in the general evaluation of the book. q q Z. Ted Mieczkowski: Canada.
Department
of Geography,
Universiiy
of Manitoba,
Winnipeg R3T
2N2,
REFERENCE Coffey, W. J. 1982 Of the Drawbacks of not Having a General Geographic Framework and of the Deplorable Tendency to Bluff at Science: A Reply to Smith. Ontario Geography 20:89-93. Submitted 17 February 1992 Resubmitted 26 May 1992 Accepted 9 July 1992
Industrial Entropy in Tourism Systems Neil Leiper University
of New England,
Australia
Certain points in Stephen Smith’s reply (Annals 18:312-318,1991) to my comments on industrialization and definitions (Annals 17 :600-605,199O) can be debated, and new perspectives can be offered. First, Smith tried to suggest that my term, “A [sic] definition,” represented a goal of a single, widelyaccepted concept. My choice of term should have indicated clearly that I had no such intent: “A” rather than “The” was used recognizing how “the use of the indefinite article encapsulates all the ambiguities that surround the undiscovered” (Ballard 1991:61). Smith continues to assert that his approach is supply-side. Certainly his definition is expressed in that mode, a point I have not disputed. However,
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
wealthy, urban tourists, and their local hosts. These are often reflected in displays of arrogance and insensitivity on the part of hotel guests toward staff. Among locals, there is a popular perception of hotels as centers of wasteful extravagance or immoral activities, as places where people spend time and money frivolously (rather than upon work, family, and kin) or where married men take girlfriends or engage the services of prostitutes (Adu-Febiri 1988). Unless such attitudes and behaviors change, domestic tourism is unlikely to erode social barriers. Two, given the asymmetrical relationship between hosts and guests in Ghana, the acculturation process generated by domestic tourism may be quite one-sided, with the metropolitan culture coming to dominate tourist centers. This is acknowledged by Jafari in the case of metropolitan language spread and there seems no reason to suppose that other elements of metropolitan culture would not also gain strength in areas regularly visited by wealthy local tourists. Cultural homogenization, rather than familiarization and adaptation, could be the end result. 0 0 tween
Robert Wyllie: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fmser BC, Canada.
University, Bumaby
REFERENCES Adu-Febiri, F. 1988 Leisure Travel among Affluent Urban Ghanaians: An Exploratory Sociological Study of Incipient Domestic Tourism. M.A. Thesis in Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University, Canada. Britton, S. G. 1987 Tourism in Pacific Island States: Constraints and Opportunities. In Ambiguous Alternative: Tourism in Small Developing Countries, S. Britton and H. C. Clarke, eds. Suva, University of the South Pacific. Pearce, D. 1989 Tourist Development. London, Longman. Teye, V. B. 1988 Coups D’Etat and African Tourism: A Study of Ghana. Annals of Tourism Research 15:329-356. Submitted 14 January 1992 Resubmitted 27 March 1992 Accepted 23 April 1992
On World Trends in Tourism and Recreation Z. Ted Mieczkowski University of Manitoba, Canada
This writer, the author of World Trends in Tourism and Recreation, is concerned about Stephen Smith’s review published in Annals (18:671-674, 1991). One has to agree with his criticism pertaining to the editorial work. The
reason for this technical shortcoming was the misunderstanding between the author and the publisher as to who was responsible for editing. Thus, no argument can be made on this matter. However, the other critical remarks contained in the review are unfounded. One cannot fail to find a number of
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
219
similarities between this review and the one published by Smith in 1982 in Ontario Geography, together with the reply of the author of the book (Coffey 1982). The most important of those similarities is the use of incorrect factual information about the books under review. Smith’s reviews attribute to the book authors certain statements that are not contained in their work and blame the authors for failing to treat certain topics, even though they are in fact contained in their writings. This author would like to start with the formal aspects of the reviewer’s criticism. Smith writes: “A number of tables are not labeled, and most do not contain any reference to source” (p. 673). But there is not a single table in the book without its title and source. As for figures presented in the book, the author followed the general rule that lack of reference indicates that the figure represents the author’s ideas, computations, estimates, etc., which is an accepted practice in original scientific contributions. The second formal criticism pertains to too much space allocated to the first three introductory chapters. The reviewer contends that they “comprise half of the book” (p. 672). In fact, the first three chapters contain 73 out of the total text of 348 pages (less than 21%). Chapters 4-6 constitute the core of the book. Other issues discussed in the review will be addressed in the sequence in which they were raised. One, the reviewer claims that the author “explains that the book is not based on research in these 101 countries nor is it a review or critique of the literature” (p. 671). There is no statement in the book confirming the first part of the reviewer’s assertion. The author explains that the book is focusing on trends (and not impacts), and that the materials are based on research generalizations of this author and other authors, published in five languages. The author did not conduct research in all 101 countries visited, but “only” in the preponderant majority of them. However, the author’s observations from all countries were used, where applicable. His task was to find out trends (i.e., general tendencies of tourism development) and to use but not to review the literature. Indeed, a critical review of the literature was beyond the scope of the book. Second, Smith does not agree with the author’s statement that many readers will use this book as reference (p. 671). Indeed, the majority of nonfiction books are read from “cover to cover” only by beginners. Advanced readers use them for reference or for reading of individual sections, depending on their interests. The book belongs to this category, and for most readers this would not be a drawback. As a matter of fact, the points made by Smith indicate that perhaps he himself did not read the book “from cover to cover.” Why does he expect all other readers to do so? Third, indeed, the book focuses on the developed countries because the major part of world tourism is concentrated there. There is nothing wrong with such a focus. The lessdeveloped countries (Smith prefers the awkward term “lesser developed”) in many ways follow the general trends, but have also their own peculiarities, for which there was no space in the book. Nevertheless, these countries are covered (e.g., in the section dealing with trends in transportation, and are specifically referred to (on pages 106, 107, 108, 111, 119, 140-141, etc.). Japan, a relative newcomer in the field of tourism, is included and referred to dozens of times, (pp. 79, 89, 104, 106, etc.), while the reviewer found only one such reference. There are some developed countries which are not mentioned at all in the book. But the book is not a country by country description; it is an endeavor to establish general trends, mutatis mutandis characteristic, for most, if not all developed countries. Four, the reviewer states that the book does not deal with trends. The fact is that in front of almost every chapter or section title, starting with Chapter
220
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
3, the word “trend” could be properly inserted (e.g., “trends in transportation”, “trends in supply”, “trends in seasonality”, etc.). The main focus of the book is on directions in which tourism is movingthat is, trends. Five, of course, Chapter 2, “Terminology,” has an introductory character and does not deal with trends. This upsets Smith (p. 672) w h o, instead of comparing the chapter with the available literature, dismisses it as dealing in semantics. However, in the opinion of the author, the young scholarly field of tourism and recreation suffers from lack of firmly established terminology. Confusion reigns in this respect. This situation limits the comparability of statistics and causes other problems. Therefore, the author regarded it as indispensable to open the book with the discussion of terminology, hoping that the reader will appreciate the originality and usefulness of his interpretations. Six, there is no inconsistency between Figures 2.5 and 2.8. The first one and 2.6 represent the author’s ideas on the relationship between tourism and travel, sen.~ large and sensu stricto. Figure 2.8 illustrates the ideas of other authors, and this is clearly indicated. Seven, the next criticism also pertains to disproportionate allocation of space: only 4 pages given to trends in incomes as compared to 40 pages devoted to transportation. This time the reviewer is correct on the number of pages. In the opinion of the author, four pages is enough to emphasize the rapid increase of incomes in the developed countries in the period up to about early 197Os, and the modest development since. Tourism is dependent on the growth of discretionary incomes, and this fact is made abundantly clear on those few pages. Providing more details would be tangential in view of the book’s stated purpose. However, the trends in the development of transportation since 1950 deserve, from a geographer’s point of view, much more attention. Hence, more space is allotted to that topic. Transportation lies more properly within the sphere of geography than does a detailed analysis of incomes, which belongs to the realm of economics. One does not need to reach too far for supporting arguments: the rebuttal by Coffey to Smith is the example, where the latter is reminded that, among (Coffey other things, geographers are focusing on “spatial relationships” 1982). Eight, “The taste for travel” (Smith has problems with what he calls “semanhe probably means “propensity for tics” and the author calls “terminology”: travel”) is definitely an element of demand. The reviewer thinks, however, that it is a prerequisite. One may find in the literature some suggestions as to other possible prerequisites, but never this one. Nine, there is nothing wrong with compiling statistics from various sources. Of course, the same methodology of collecting data must be used. Ten, the reviewer finds only the optimistic data on the shortening work week, but does not seem to notice the more pessimistic picture presented on pages 85ff. One is back to “cover to cover” syndrome. Eleven, the author is free to use any sources, including newspapers and magazines if social science literature does not provide adequate and/or up-to-date coverage. Twelve, the criticism of Chapter 5 (Demand) pertains to too much space allotted to the issue of market segmentation. According to the reviewer, market segmentation is not a part of demand research. Indeed, it is used today as one of the principal tools of market (demand) research aimed at targeting various submarkets for publicity and advertising, and this interest extends also to the field of economics, where segmentation of the market on the demand side is responded to by producers on the supply side. This section of the book constitutes one of the few instances where the author’s input is limited to compilation. The reviewer is correct in stating that the literature used to cover this specific topic does not reach beyond 1970s. This is so for a good reason, stated in the book. The more recent systems of the market
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
221
segmentation, particularly lifestyle segmentation, constitute only variations of the pioneering systems of 1960s and 1970s. As emphasized above, the book does not provide a critical review of literature, but concentrates on the description of trends in tourism. A review of lifestyle market segmentation literature would invariably have to stress the parallelism of various segmentation systems. Many of them differ practically only in the application of Latin or Greek terms. The author found it strange that some of the North American researchers are unaware, probably because of language barriers, that in several cases their market segmentation systems are almost identical with the systems developed in continental Europe. Such an analysis of literature would have been very interesting, but it was clearly beyond the scope of the book. Further, contrary to the reviewer’s opinion, worldwide generalizations, at least for the developed countries, are not only possible, but also useful because they reflect the modern global trends in demand. Finally, with respect to the section on “Some Trends in Demand”, the reviewer writes that “it is merely observed that business travel is of growing importance, and then the reasons are summarized” (p. 673). A careful reader will have no problems finding out that this observation is not supported by the book (pp. 199-201). In short, Smith’s review fails not only in detail but also in the general evaluation of the book. q q Z. Ted Mieczkowski: Canada.
Department
of Geography,
Universiiy
of Manitoba,
Winnipeg R3T
2N2,
REFERENCE Coffey, W. J. 1982 Of the Drawbacks of not Having a General Geographic Framework and of the Deplorable Tendency to Bluff at Science: A Reply to Smith. Ontario Geography 20:89-93. Submitted 17 February 1992 Resubmitted 26 May 1992 Accepted 9 July 1992
Industrial Entropy in Tourism Systems Neil Leiper University
of New England,
Australia
Certain points in Stephen Smith’s reply (Annals 18:312-318,1991) to my comments on industrialization and definitions (Annals 17 :600-605,199O) can be debated, and new perspectives can be offered. First, Smith tried to suggest that my term, “A [sic] definition,” represented a goal of a single, widelyaccepted concept. My choice of term should have indicated clearly that I had no such intent: “A” rather than “The” was used recognizing how “the use of the indefinite article encapsulates all the ambiguities that surround the undiscovered” (Ballard 1991:61). Smith continues to assert that his approach is supply-side. Certainly his definition is expressed in that mode, a point I have not disputed. However,