Visitor cycles

VISITOR CYCLES Outlook for Tourism in L a n c a s t e r County Gary R. H o v i n e n D e p a r t m e n t of Geography Millerville State College. USA

ABSTRACT Various writers have suggested that tourist areas undergo a cycle of evolution ending eventually in decline. This article suggests a five-stage evolutionary sequence appropriate to Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, one of the leading tourist destinations in the United States. Elements of the County's physical and psychological carrying capacity are considered in ascertaining w h e t h e r Lancaster County will undergo a significant p e r m a n e n t decline in tourist activity. The m a g n i t u d e of possible future decline is influenced by relative location, diversity of the tourist base, and effectiveness of planning. Diversity and relative location clearly favor Lancaster County in comparison with competing tourist areas and will help to prevent significant long-term decline in n u m b e r of visitors. Keywords: cycle of evolution, decline, carrying capacity, relative location, diversity, planning.

Gary H o v i n e n is Associate Professor of G e o g r a p h y at Millersville State College, P e n n s y l v a n i a His r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s a n d p u b l i c a t i o n s have t h u s far c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h e topics of t o u r i s m a n d s u b u r b a n i z a t i o n . Dr. Hovinen is also involved in local land use p l a n n i n g activities,

Annals qfTourism Research. Vol. 9. pp. 565-583, 1982 Printed in the USA. All rights reserx'ed.

565

0160-7383/82/000565-1983.00/0 '~ 1982 J. Jafari and Pergamon Press Lid

VISITORCYCLES RI~SUMI~ Cycles de visiteurs: Perspective d'avenir p o u r le t o u r i s m e d a n s le Comt~ de Lancaster. P l u s i e u r s c h e r c h e u r s o n t sugg~r~ que les rdgions t o u r i s t i q u e s s u b i s s e n t u n cycle d'~volution qui m~ne f i n a l e m e n t a u n d~clin. Cet article propose u n e s~quence e v o l u t i o n n a i r e en cinq etapes qui convient au Comt~ de Lancaster, en Pennsylvanie, une des d e s t i n a t i o n s t o u r i s t i q u e s les plus i m p o r t a n t e s d a n s les Etats-Unis. On consid~re des aspects de la capacit~ physique et psyehologique de cette r~gion p o u r ~tablir si le Comt~ de L a n c a s t e r s u b i r a u n d~clin significatif et perm a n e n t d a n s l'activit~ touristique. L ' i m p o r t a n c e d ' u n ddclin ~ventuel tt l'avenir est influenc~e p a r la s i t u a t i o n g~og r a p h i q u e relative, par la diversite de la base touristique et par l'efficacit~ de la planification. La diversitd et la situation relative favorisent n e t t e m e n t le Comtd de Lancaster par rapport aux a u t r e s rdgions t o u r i s t i q u e s en concurrence et a i d e r o n a tt e m p e c h e r u n d~clin significatif et long terme d a n s le n o m b r e de visiteurs. M o t s Clef: cycle d'~volution, declin, capacitd, s i t u a t i o n g~ographique relative, diversitY, planification.

INTRODUCTION Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, one of the top 10 tourist centers in the U.S. (Pennsylvania D u t c h Visitors Bureau), exemplifies the c o n t r a d i c t i o n between e c o n o m i c success a n d decline in environmental quality. As visitor facilities have e x p a n d e d d u r i n g recent decades a n d the n u m b e r of visitors h a s g r o w n to more t h a n 5 million a n n u a l l y by 1978, c o n c e r n h a s g r o w n t h a t the physical e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d cultural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t originally made that c o u n t y a tourist a t t r a c t i o n are being t h r e a t e n e d . One possible f u t u r e result is t h a t Lancaster C o u n t y m a y become increasingly unattractive to visitors a n d therefore experience a decline in n u m b e r of tourists. The premise t h a t t o u r i s t areas u n d e r g o a recognizable cycle of evolution, e n d i n g eventually in decline, h a s been p r e s e n t e d by both Plog (1974) a n d Butler (1980). Plog a t t r i b u t e s the o n s e t of decline to a shift in visitor types from the a l l o c e n t r i c / m i d c e n t r i c to the midcentric/psychocentric end of a psychological c o n t i n u u m . Psychocentrics, Plog suggests, travel less, s p e n d less on a per capita daily basis, a n d prefer nearby d e s t i n a t i o n s t h a t they can get to easily by 566

1982 ANNALSOF TOURISM RESEARCH

GARYR. HOVINEN automobile. A l t h o u g h Plog a s s e r t s t h a t d e s t i n a t i o n s a p p r o a c h i n g the psychocentric e n d of the c o n t i n u u m will have a struggle in the future, he also a r g u e s t h a t efforts c a n be m a d e to develop new activities appealing to a b r o a d e r s e g m e n t of travelers. Effective p l a n n i n g to c o m b a t problems can, he feels, help to m a i n t a i n the economic s t r e n g t h of t o u r i s t a r e a s (Plog, 1974:55ff.). Butler, r a t h e r t h a n e m p h a s i z i n g psychological categories, suggests t h a t the decline of a n area as a t o u r i s t d e s t i n a t i o n is related to the n u m b e r of visitors exceeding t h e area's c a r r y i n g capacity. He proposes six stages in the cycle of evolution: exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, s t a g n a t i o n , a n d decline. Butler also suggests t h a t rejuvenation m a y occur after the decline stage, b u t asserts t h a t this will not be r e a c h e d w i t h o u t a complete change in the a t t r a c t i o n s on w h i c h t o u r i s m is based. (Butler, 1980:6-9). A l t h o u g h some of Plog's a n d Butler's ideas can be usefully applied to L a n c a s t e r County, n e i t h e r c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n adequately explains the rise a n d potential fall of t o u r i s m in the county. This a u t h o r h a s previously used L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y as a test case of Butler's hypothetical cycle of evolution a n d h a s s h o w n t h a t the c o u n t y departs significantly from p a r t s of his h y p o t h e s i z e d cycle (Hovinen 1981). Nevertheless, the idea of a cycle of evolution of tourist d e s t i n a t i o n s r e m a i n s useful. This article is not i n t e n d e d to be a detailed critical evaluation of previous c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s of visitor cycles nor a n a t t e m p t to propose a completely new conceptual framework. It is a n empirical case s t u d y of a cycle of t o u r i s m b a s e d on investigation of the L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y t o u r i s t experience. Some of Plog's a n d Butler's conceptual ideas are incorporated w h e n deemed useful, b u t divergent ideas arising from the L a n c a s t e r case s t u d y are also suggested. Prospects for f u t u r e decline of t o u r i s m in Lancaster C o u n t y are considered. The article's p r e m i s e is t h a t the m a g n i t u d e of a n y possible decline is influenced by three interrelated factors: relative location, diversity of the t o u r i s t base, a n d the effectiveness of plann i n g to alleviate p r o b l e m s t h a t arise. A l t h o u g h the effectiveness of f u t u r e p l a n n i n g is a m a t t e r for speculation, it is hypothesized t h a t Lancaster C o u n t y is currently in a s t r o n g e r position t h a n m a n y other t o u r i s t a r e a s owing to its good relative location a n d to the diversity of its t o u r i s t base. Sources for t h i s investigation of Lancaster C o u n t y ' s cycle of t o u r i s t evolution include tourist b r o c h u r e s a n d o t h e r travel literature, n e w s p a p e r articles, interviews, a n d field observation. 1982 ANNALSOF TOURISM RESEARCH

567

VISITOR C Y C L E S

Figure 1 Location of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania tOCAT'O"

OF LA.©'ST,,

COY.T, I

LI, .,,

OR

s/ 2--,-

!~,.r

_I

J'

"..

~

-I~l

" \\

,~ .....

"v"

EXPLORATION (Pre-World War II) Exploration, the initial stage in t he cycle of evolution, is a d o p t e d from Butler's (1980) hypot het i cal framework, a l t h o u g h m o d i f i c a t i o n s are m a d e to m a ke his g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a b o u t visitor facilities a n d p u r p o s e of visits b e t t e r fit t he L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y case. T h e e x p l o r a t i o n stage is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a small n u m b e r of visitors w ho initially a c q u a i n t t he m s e l ve s with the physical a n d c u l t u r a l a t t r a c t i o n s of the area. T h e y m a y p u r p o s e f u l l y select t h e a r e a as a leisure d e s t i n a t i o n b e c a u s e t hey have h e a r d of t he a t t r a c t i o n s , or t h e y m a y b e c o m e aw are of t he a t t r a c t i o n s on b u s i n e s s trips or by p a s s i n g t h r o u g h t he a r e a en r o u t e to o t h e r d e s t i n a t i o n s . No o r g a n i z e d t o u r i s t i n d u s t r y exi st s during this stage, a n d specific visitor facilities are e i t h e r few, as in a m ore accessible a r e a like L a n c a s t e r County, or n o n e x i s t e n t , as in less accessible areas. Plog's c o n c e p t of an allocentric vi si t or type w ho prefers a " n o n t o u r i s t i c " ar e a a n d delights in new e x p e r i e n c e s before m a n y o t h e r s have visited the place can possibly be applied to this stage. L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y ' s highly accessible l ocat i on a c c o u n t e d for m ost of its visitors in the per i od before World War II. R a t h e r t h a n bei ng a d e s t i n a t i o n in itself, the c o u n t y m a i n l y a t t r a c t e d visitors w h o were p a s s i n g t h r o u g h along U.S. 30, one of t h e c o u n t r y ' s earliest highways, on t h e i r way to s u c h d e s t i n a t i o n s as the New J e r s e y seashore, hi s t or i c Philadelphia, or t he G e t t y s b u r g battlefield (Figure 1). S o m e 568

1 9 8 2 ANNALS O F T O U R I S M R E S E A R C H

GARY R. HOV1NEN

visitors stayed overnight in cottages s u c h as the Willows, d a t i n g from 1932, on U.S. 30, east of Lancaster; o t h e r s f o u n d rooms in tourist h o m e s or slept in campgrounds. Early visitors to the c o u n t y were briefly exposed to the "'plain people," who included Amish, Mennonite, a n d B r e t h r e n religious groups. These plain people h a d chosen to r e m a i n culturally a n d socially separate from the rest of society. As the larger American society changed, they chose to p e r p e t u a t e their way of life based on their religious beliefs a n d traditions. The plain people believed t h a t old c u s t o m s could best be preserved by r e m a i n i n g in a rural a g r i c u l t u r a l setting. Their t r a d i t i o n a l a n d a u t h o r i t a r i a n social structure, i n c l u d i n g a s t r o n g e m p h a s i s on the extended family a n d u l t i m a t e control of deviation t h r o u g h e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n from the c o m m u n i t y , facilitated cultural and social separation (Redekop a n d Hostetler 1977:267). The d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of the Amish a n d other plain people h a d grown sufficiently by the 1930s that some outside observers f o u n d t h e m "odd" or " q u a i n t " (Aurand 1938:3). As the plain people's distinctiveness became more k n o w n o u t s i d e Lancaster County, the Pennsylvania D e p a r t m e n t of Commerce began receiving inquiries (Lancaster Automobile Club 1940). But World War II, w i t h its gasoline rationing, intervened. INVOLVEMENT ( 1946-ca. 1960) The involvement stage, as defined by Butler (1980), is characterized by local people investing heavily in tourist facilities a n d a formal t o u r i s t o r g a n i z a t i o n becoming established. Promotion by the new t o u r i s t i n d u s t r y leads to rapidly i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r s of visitors. A tourist landscape begins to emerge. In L a n c a s t e r County. local people began organizing t o u r s a n d establishing facilities such as r e s t a u r a n t s a n d motels for visitors d u r i n g the period after World War II. Newspaper advertising for t o u r s began in s u c h major nearby m a r k e t s as New York a n d Philadelphia. Eventually, a formal Tourist B u r e a u (later to be called the Visitor's Bureau) was organized before the s u m m e r season of 1958 a n d began, in cooperation with state government, to promote the attractions of L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y via b r o c h u r e s a n d o t h e r means. D u r i n g this involvement stage, the n u m b e r of visitors increased gradually at first a n d then. w i t h the tourist b u r e a u ' s vigorous p r o m o t i o n a n d i n v e s t m e n t by local people in more facilities, m u c h more rapidly. Local n e w s p a p e r s e s t i m a t e d the n u m b e r of visitors as 25,000 in 1954, triple t h a t n u m b e r by 1958, a n d a b o u t one million by 1961 1982 ANNALSOF TOURISM RESEARCH

569

V I S I T O R CYCLES

(Lancaster New Era 1955, 1961; L a n c a s t e r InteUigencer J o u r n a l 1958). The n u m b e r of motels i n c r e a s e d from I in 1951 to more t h a n 30 a decade later (Pennsylvania D u t c h T o u r i s t B u r e a u , 1961 ). T h e s e were almost all small, locally owned a n d o p e r a t e d e s t a b l i s h m e n t s . The m o s t i m p o r t a n t early p r o m o t e r of t o u r i s m in L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y was Paul Heine, m a n a g e r of the old B r u n s w i c k Hotel in d o w n t o w n Lancaster, w h o b e g a n o r g a n i z i n g t o u r s in 1946. The t o u r s of the A m i s h a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s c a p e a n d of varied historical a t t r a c t i o n s were low-key a n d e d u c a t i o n a l a n d were led by g u i d e s t r a i n e d in the c u l t u r e of t h e G e r m a n - d e s c e n d e d i n h a b i t a n t s . Heine was concerned t h a t t o u r i s t s n o t violate the privacy of t h e Amish a n d t h a t they respect A m i s h t r a d i t i o n s . The t r a i n e d t o u r g u i d e s did not seek to m a k e a spectacle of t h e Amish. I n s t e a d t h e y d i s c u s s e d s u c h factors as the Amish a g r i c u l t u r a l s y s t e m a n d A m i s h religious beliefs. Interest in L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y grew f u r t h e r as a result of t h e musical "Plain a n d Fancy," w h i c h s t a r t e d its r u n on Broadway in 1955 a n d t h e n appeared in o t h e r cities as well. C o n d i t i o n s were t h u s ripe for more local people to become involved in t o u r i s m a n d for the t o u r i s t b u r e a u to be organized. The tourist b u r e a u ' s early p r o m o t i o n a l efforts i n c l u d e d a 96-page guidebook (Pennsylvania D u t c h T o u r i s t B u r e a u 1959) and a color m o t i o n picture film. Paul Heine became the B u r e a u ' s first p r e s i d e n t a n d expressed concern a b o u t a n t a g o n i z i n g the Amish: he especially e m p h a s i z e d the need to i n f o r m visitors a b o u t A m i s h n o r m s proh i b i t i n g p h o t o g r a p h s . The early c o n c e r n of Heine a n d o t h e r t o u r i s t b u r e a u directors a b o u t exploitation was exemplified by the b u r e a u ' s p r o h i b i t i n g its m e m b e r s from selling a n illustrated book entitled "The Plain People" b e c a u s e it was j u d g e d far too g a u d y (Lancaster Intelligencer J o u r n a l 1958). DEVELOPMENT ( 1960-1975) The development stage, as defined by B u t l e r (1980), is characterized by considerable capital i n v e s t m e n t in t o u r i s t facilities by external organizations. The p e r c e n t a g e g r o w t h of visitors c o n t i n u e s to be rapid, a n d a b s o l u t e i n c r e m e n t s from y e a r to y e a r are especially notable. Some local r e s i d e n t s express i n c r e a s i n g c o n c e r n a b o u t w h a t they perceive to be d e t e r i o r a t i o n in e n v i r o n m e n t a l quality caused by the g r o w t h in the n u m b e r of visitors a n d the m a n - m a d e tourist landscape. The rapidly growing p o p u l a r i t y of L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y d u r i n g t h i s stage is reflected in t o u r i s t b u r e a u e s t i m a t e s of n u m b e r s of visitors. Numbers increased to 2 million by 1965, 3 million by 1969, 4 million 570

1982 ANNALS O F T O U R I S M R E S E A R C H

GARY R. HOVINEN

by 1973, and more t h a n 5 million by 1975. These large n u m b e r s are even more m e a n i n g f u l w h e n compared with the 1980 C o u n t y population of j u s t over 360,000 a n d a c o u n t y area of only 604,000 acres (Lancaster C o u n t y P l a n n i n g Commission). External o r g a n i z a t i o n s invested considerable capital in motels and r e s t a u r a n t s in the c o u n t y d u r i n g the development stage, including vacation resorts with varied recreational facilities. Routes 30 and 340, east of L a n c a s t e r city (Figure 1 ), increasingly took on the form of tourist strips as motels, r e s t a u r a n t s , gift shops, a n d establ i s h m e n t s p u r p o r t i n g to show Amish or o t h e r aspects of Pennsylvania G e r m a n life appeared. The popularity of L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y first began to a t t r a c t c h a i n e s t a b l i s h m e n t s a n d large a m o u n t s of external capital d u r i n g the early 1960s. The first c h a i n was Howard J o h n s o n ' s , w h i c h established a motel at the t u r n p i k e i n t e r c h a n g e a n d a r e s t a u r a n t along U.S. 30 (east of Lancaster) in 196 I, followed by Holiday Inn in 1965. E n t r e p r e n e u r s from Wilkes-Barre completed c o n s t r u c t i o n of the 200-room Host Motel-Resort (now Host Town) n e a r the L a n c a s t e r railway s t a t i o n in 1962 a n d d u r i n g t h e mid-1960s established the Host F a r m a n d Host Corral resorts along U.S. 30 East. The latter provided varied recreational facilities i n c l u d i n g golf, tennis, bicycling, pony riding, ice skating, a n d skiing for the entire family. Visitors from New York or Philadelphia could, if they so desired, ignore the Amish a n d o t h e r local a t t r a c t i o n s in favor of relaxing for a few days at these resorts. The rapid t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of Routes 30 a n d 340 into a t o u r i s t landscape g e n e r a t e d concern a n d even o u t r i g h t opposition from some local residents, who perceived the c h a n g e s to be a deterioration in e n v i r o n m e n t a l quality. The L a n c a s t e r Advertising Club complained that these roads were being t u r n e d into a "neon d u m p h e a p " (Lancaster New Era 1972). The new director of the tourist bureau, a former Brunswick t o u r guide, deplored synthetic a t t r a c t i o n s as a "spreading disease" (Lancaster New Era 1963). The creation d u r i n g the early 1960s of D u t c h Wonderland, a n a m u s e m e n t park along U.S. 30 East, generated local protest w h e n plans were a n n o u n c e d to demolish the R u n n i n g P u m p Inn, d a t i n g from 1798, because it obstructed the view of the castle-like development from o n c o m i n g cars. As a result of the protest, the old stone i n n was instead moved across the highway, where it now sits, looking very m u c h o u t of place, beside the h u g e Host Farm Resort. At the time of the controversy, a local n e w s p a p e r editorial a r g u e d t h a t the Lancaster C o u n t y heritage could be " s h a r e d with visitors w i t h o u t being c h e a p e n e d by p h o n y castles, gadgets, a n d gimmicks" a n d t h a t there was a need to 1982 ANNALS OF T O U R I S M R E S E A R C H

571

VISITOR CYCLES

stir o u t s p o k e n public s e n t i m e n t a g a i n s t t o u r i s t t r a p s (Lancaster Intelligencer J o u r n a l 1963). By 1970, the New York Times (1970) h a d picked up the t h e m e of e n v i r o n m e n t a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n a n d in a n article suggested t h a t "success m a y t h r e a t e n the very qualities t h a t originally m a d e the site a tourist attraction." A n o t h e r source of controversy was the i m p a c t of the growing n u m b e r of t o u r i s t s on the few t h o u s a n d Amish, who were the c h i e f reason for the popularity of the c o u n t y as a t o u r i s t d e s t i n a t i o n . The Amish, who prefer to r e m a i n as s e p a r a t e as possible from the rest of society, complained m a i n l y a m o n g themselves a b o u t t o u r i s t s invading their privacy, On rare occasions, individual A m i s h expressed their views of t o u r i s t s to n e w s p a p e r reporters. A l t h o u g h s o m e said they enjoyed e x c h a n g i n g i n f o r m a t i o n with visitors, they strongly objected to c a m e r a s being aimed at them, to being treated as oddities, a n d to r u d e q u e s t i o n s a b o u t their beliefs a n d way of life (Lancaster New Era 1962). In one t o w n s h i p w h e r e A m i s h constit u t e d a majority of the population, A m i s h a t t e n d e d a t o w n s h i p meeting to voice their opposition to a proposed z o n i n g c h a n g e which they felt would e n c o u r a g e additional t o u r i s t development (Lancaster Intelligencer J o u r n a l 1972). In 1970, the New York T i m e s (1970) q u o t e d J o h n F. Beiler, a m i n i s t e r of the Old O r d e r Amish, as saying "the t o u r i s t s aren't driving the A m i s h o u t as yet, b u t a n u m b e r of people in the c h u r c h feel t h i n g s are going in t h a t direction." A n o t h e r possibility, according to the Times (1970) in citing a local professor of philosophy, was t h a t the A m i s h would r e t r e a t still f u r t h e r into h i d i n g if t o u r i s m c o n t i n u e d unchecked. The T i m e s s u g g e s t e d t h a t "if the A m i s h c o n t i n u e d to m a k e themselves scarce a n d t o u r i s t s keep colliding with each o t h e r a n d with a n increasingly u n a t t r a c t i v e commercialism, too, the t o u r i s t s m a y well stop coming, or at least dwindle significantly.'" Scholars from outside the Amish c o m u n i t y also expressed concern. In 1966, J o h n Hostetler, a u t h o r of the scholarly A m i s h Society (1968), a n d Roy Buck, a sociologist who h a s s t u d i e d t o u r i s m in the county, asserted t h a t t o u r i s m was destroying A m i s h culture. Hostetler, a former m e m b e r of t h e Amish c o m m u n i t y , a r g u e d t h a t the t o u r i s t trade h a d become destructive a n d exploitive of t h e A m i s h a n d t h a t it was d e s t r o y i n g t h e i r self-respect. He c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t offensive use of s t a t u e s of the Amish, visible even today along Route 30 (Lancaster New Era 1966). Although the Amish were clearly the chief t o u r i s t attraction, L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y ' s development stage also saw a diversification of tourism. In a d d i t i o n to the vacation resorts m e n t i o n e d above, m a n y historic buildings were restored a n d o t h e r a t t r a c t i o n s created. The 572

1982 ANNALS O F TOURISM R E S E A R C H

GARYR. HOVINEN g e n u i n e a n d s y n t h e t i c m a n - m a d e attractions, together with the b e a u t y of the rural landscape, c o n t r i b u t e d to Lancaster C o u n t y ' s attractiveness as a t o u r i s t area. MATURITY (1975-present) The m a t u r i t y stage is proposed as a n alternative to Butler's (1980) two s t a g e s o f consolidation a n d s t a g n a t i o n , w h i c h do not fit the empirical evidence in Lancaster County. The m a t u r i t y stage begins w h e n rapid g r o w t h in n u m b e r of visitors h a s ended. A g r a d u a l t r a n s i t i o n to slower growth m a y occur, as Butler hypothesizes for his consolidation stage, or an a b r u p t c h a n g e from rapid to virtually no growth m a y be experienced, as in Lancaster County. Year-by-year f l u c t u a t i o n s in n u m b e r of visitors m a y also be a p p a r e n t as circums t a n c e s cause t e m p o r a r y increases or declines. External organizations r e m a i n firmly e n t r e n c h e d in the area, a l t h o u g h they are less i n t e r e s t e d in b u i l d i n g new facilities. Some local residents still perceive e n v i r o n m e n t a l problems c a u s e d by the tourist industry, a l t h o u g h the period of o u t s p o k e n opposition to new tourist facilities is largely over since few new i n v e s t m e n t s are being made. In L a n c a s t e r County, the second half of the 1970s, in c o n t r a s t to the first half, b r o u g h t no significant increase in n u m b e r s of visitors. In 1978, the n u m b e r of visitors peaked at 5,160,000, or an increase of j u s t 30,000 from 1975 (Pennsylvania Dutch Visitors Bureau). S u c h s h o r t - t e r m evidence clearly indicates an a b r u p t t r a n s i t i o n from t h e rapid g r o w t h of the early 1970s to virtually no growth. Then, in 1979, only 2,180,000 visitors came to the c o u n t y (Pennsylvania D u t c h Visitors Bureau). S u c h a m a r k e d decline from 1975 is a t t r i b u t e d to publicity a b o u t a polio o u t b r e a k a m o n g the Amish, the T h r e e Mile Island n u c l e a r a c c i d e n t nearby, a n d difficulty of o b t a i n i n g gasoline d u r i n g the s u m m e r tourist season, a n d t h u s may not i n d i c a t e the s t a r t of a p e r m a n e n t decline. In 1980, the e s t i m a t e d n u m b e r of visitors r e b o u n d e d to 3,890,000 (Pennsylvania D u t c h Visitors Bureau), still far s h o r t of 1978's peak. The Visitor's B u r e a u actively p r o m o t e s Lancaster C o u n t y in prim a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y m a r k e t areas. Based on 1979 a n d 1980 visitor surveys, the p r i m a r y m a r k e t is considered to be New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, a n d Washington, DC. The secondary m a r k e t includes o t h e r areas w i t h i n a 200- to 300-mile r a d i u s of Lancaster County. The Visitor's B u r e a u advertises w h a t it considers the c o u n t y ' s s t r e n g t h s , based on j u d g m e n t s m a d e from the visitor surveys, n e w s p a p e r travel sections, selected magazines, a n d occasionally radio in t h e s e p r i m a r y a n d secondary m a r k e t areas. In 1982 ANNALSOF TOURISM RESEARCH

573

VISITOR CYCLES a ddi t i on, t he Visitor's B u r e a u p r o m o t e s t h e c o u n t y in travel shows, d i s t r i b u t e s b r o c h u r e s , a n d is c o n t e m p l a t i n g TV advertising. A recent n e w s p a p e r a d v e r t i s i n g c a m p a i g n b e g u n in April 1981 t o u t e d the diversity of a t t r a c t i o n s in L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y a n d used the slogan "You'll r u n o u t of v a c a t i o n b e f o r e y o u r u n o u t of t h i n g s to see a n d do." N e w s p a p e r r e a d e r s were invited to s e n d for a n i n f o r m a t i o n p a c k e t t h a t i ncl uded a 72-page " P e n n s y l v a n i a D u t c h C o u n t r y Sampler." T he 1980 visitors survey, c o n d u c t e d d u r i n g t he peak s u m m e r season, revealed s o m e of t he d o m i n a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t o u r i s t s a n d t h u s provided a b a s i s for a p r o m o t i o n a l effort g e a r e d to t h e s e groups, Of 200 t o u r i s t s r a n d o m l y surveyed at n i n e a r e a a t t r a c t i o n s , 55% were over 40 y e a r s of age, 65.5% had recieved h i g h e r education, a n d 59.5% e a r n e d S20, 000 or more. Almost 90% arrived by automobile, a n d t he average g r o u p c o n s i s t e d of 3.6 p e r s o n s . P r o m o t i o n a l efforts have therefore b e e n g e a r e d to g r o u p s that, in c o m p a r a t i v e terms, are older, b e t t e r e d u c a t e d , a n d wealthier, a n d to f a m i l y g r o u p s t h a t i ncl ude children. By c o n t r a s t , p r o m o t i o n a l efforts d u r i n g o t h e r s e a s o n s ar e o r i e n t e d m o r e to people w i t h o u t children, since a 1979 visitors s u r v e y i n d i c a t e d t h i s t o u r i s t type d o m i n a t e s d u r i n g t he s p r i n g a n d fall seasons. Visitor s ur veys also pr ovi de evi dence t h a t is used to d e t e r m i n e the c o n t e n t of a d v e r t i s e m e n t s i n t e n d e d to a t t r a c t f u t u r e visitors. T h e 1980 s ur vey revealed t h a t t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s for visiting t h e c o u n t y were to see A m i s h (56% of r e s p o n d e n t s ) , to enjoy t he scenic c o u n t r y s i d e (53%), to eat local food (32%), to t ake a d v a n t a g e of L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y ' s c o n v e n i e n t l ocat i on (23%), to revisit a n a r e a t h a t t he y previously f o u n d enjoyable (23%). Of t h e s e responses, the first p r o b a b l y leaves g r e a t e s t d o u b t as to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Do m o s t visitors actually c o m e to see A m i s h people a n d t h e i r culture, or are t h e y basically c o n t e n t , in a d d i t i o n to t h e i r o t h e r activities, to visit commercial e s t a b l i s h m e n t s p u r p o r t i n g to s h o w or to sell A m i s h c u l t u r e ? Si nce t h e 1980 s u r v e y revealed t h a t 92% of t he s a m p l e visitors w a n t e d to r e t u r n in t he f u t u r e a n d t h a t m o s t h a d al ready visited L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y before, o n e c a n i n t e r p r e t t h e i r r e s p o n s e as a superficial i n t e r e s t in t he A m i s h w h o t h e y c o n s i d e r a symbol of the county. Buck, in a p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n s t u d y of tourists, f o u n d t h a t t o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n s a n d services effectively s e p a r a t e d visitors from the day-to-day life of t he Old O r d e r A m i sh c o m m u n i t y . Visitors are e n c o u r a g e d to e x p e r i e n c e st aged a t t r a c t i o n s at facilities s u c h as t he A m i s h H o m e s t e a d or to b r o w s e at K i t c h e n Kettle's c o m m u n i t y of s h o p s r a t h e r t h a n to see g e n u i n e A m i sh o n t h e i r own (Buck 1978: 232-233). An i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t he r e s p o n s e i n d i c a t i n g the c o n t i n u ing p o p u l a r i t y of t he Amish, therefore, is t h a t the g r e a t m a j o r i t y of 574

1982 ANNALSOF TOURISM RESEARCH

GARY R. HOVINEN

visitors are c o n t e n t to catch fleeting glimpses of actual Amish people in the m i d s t of t h e i r varied activities in the county. Repeat visitors, who have already experienced some of the staged a t t r a c t i o n s on earlier visits, are p e r h a p s even less likely t h a n first-time visitors to be motivated mainly by a desire to "see Amish." T o u r i s m is clearly a major p a r t of the area's economy. In the peak year 1978, visitors spent $233.5 million (including retail purchasesl, while t o u r i s m employed 10,300 people w h o earned $48.5 million in wages a n d salaries (Pennsylvania Dutch Visitors Bureau). The Lancaster C o u n t y P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n considers t o u r i s m to be one of the three most i m p o r t a n t "'basic" s e g m e n t s of the economy, r a n k i n g behind only m a n u f a c t u r i n g a n d agriculture in bringing m o n e y into the county. During the m a t u r i t y stage, Lancaster C o u n t y has experienced a slowdown in new c o n s t r u c t i o n of t o u r i s t facilities. Although major hotel a n d r e s t a u r a n t franchises a n d c h a i n s are well represented, they have made few investments in completely new facilities in recent years. However, their c o n t i n u e d interest in the area is signified by some examples of expensive renovations or expansions of existing facilities. Despite limited tourist growth since 1975, t o u r i s m c o n t i n u e s to cause e n v i r o n m e n t a l and social problems for C o u n t y residents. Traffic congestion created by peak-season t o u r i s m causes dissatisfaction a m o n g residents and tourists alike. The potential c o n t i n u e s for additional small-scale t o u r i s t development, a n d s u c h developm e n t m a y combine with the C o u n t y ' s population growth (up more t h a n 10% d u r i n g the 1970sl to i n t r u d e u p o n g e n u i n e rural a n d cultural landscapes. Tourism c o n t i n u e s to exploit unwilling Amish residents of the county, who n u m b e r e d about 10,000 in 1980. Nevertheless, b o t h Amish a n d non-Amish residents have become increasingly a c c u s t o m e d to the e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d social disadvantages of tourism. The shock of the t o u r i s t boom of the 1960-1975 period h a s passed. DECLINE Various a u t h o r s have noted t h a t successful tourist areas eventually decline in popularity a n d experience a significant d o w n t u r n in n u m b e r of visitors (Plog 1974:55ff.: Stansfield 1978:238-251: Kaiser a n d Helber 1978:5-10: Butler 1980:5-12). Several factors may intera c t to c a u s e this decline, including the a m o u n t of tourist activity exceeding elements of an area's carrying capacity. The carrying capacity may be defined as the m a x i m u m n u m b e r of visitors t h a t 1982 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH

575

VISITOR CYCLES

can be a c c o m m o d a t e d w i t h o u t c a u s i n g excessive e n v i r o n m e n t a l deterioration a n d w i t h o u t l e a d i n g to a decline in visitor satisfaction. Will Lancaster C o u n t y experience s i g n i f i c a n t decline as Atlantic City a n d other tourist areas have before it? Are there a n y factors t h a t m a y discourage significant decline in L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y ? The concept of carrying capacity, a l t h o u g h potentially useful, is difficult to define in q u a n t i t a t i v e terms, as different researchers have noted (Lime a n d S t a n k e y 1971:175; Odell 1975:22-28; Heberlein 1977:67). An area's c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y c o n s i s t s of different elements, each of w h i c h m a y have its own p o p u l a t i o n limit. For p u r p o s e s of analysis, investigators have s u b d i v i d e d carrying capacity into various categories: biophysical a n d behavioral (Mitchell 1979: 179-192); physical a n d psychological ( J o r d a n 1980:51): physical, ecological, facilities, a n d social (Heberlein 1977:68-70); a n d physical, biological, a n d managerial ( G u n n 1979:311-312). In this investigation, the most useful d i s t i n c t i o n to m a k e is between, on the one hand, a n area's physical space, ecology, a n d m a n - m a d e facilities (such as motels a n d p a r k i n g lots) and, on the other, the area's behavioral or psychological capacity, or the t h r e s h o l d at w h i c h visitors as well as residents feel displeasure. The psychological threshold may be lower t h a n the physical c a r r y i n g capacity of the countryside. The n o t i o n of psychological c r o w d i n g in o u t d o o r recreation as related to research on c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y was s u g g e s t e d almost 2 decades ago by Clawson a n d K n e t s c h (1963:262). Since then, m a n y s t u d i e s of recreational perceptions a n d s a t i s f a c t i o n s have been u n d e r t a k e n , i n c l u d i n g different r e s e a r c h methodologies to d e t e r m i n e psychological capacities (see, for example, O'Riordan 1969:39-58: a n d Fisher a n d Krutilla 1972:417-444). One particular difficulty in d e t e r m i n i n g a n area's carrying capacity, especially the psychological/behavioral c o m p o n e n t , is t h a t different individuals a n d g r o u p s are affected by congestion in various ways. Visitors have different e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d perceptions: what satisfies one person will not satisfy s o m e o n e else (Mitchell 1979:196). Visitors' tolerance for i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r s m a y also become greater over time as e x p e c t a t i o n s are altered as a result of c h a n g i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s or s h i f t s in visitor type (Heberlein 1977:72, 75). Defining the psychological threshold, a n d even the physical capacity, is of necessity a n a r b i t r a r y decision b a s e d in part on a value j u d g m e n t (Heberlein 1977:68; Mitchell 1979:199). In applying the concept of c a r r y i n g capacity to L a n c a s t e r County, the Amish perception of t o u r i s t s provides a n i n t e r e s t i n g example of psychological carrying capacity. The A m i s h do not often reveal their perceptions to outsiders, b u t occasionally i n d i v i d u a l A m i s h m e n 576

1982 ANNALS O F TOURISM R E S E A R C H

GARY R. HOVlNEN

have e x p r e s s e d t h e i r r e a c t i o n s to n e w s p a p e r writers or o t h e r outsiders. B u t it is n o t possible to probe t h e m i n d s of the e n t i r e A m i sh c o m m u n i t y . E v i d e n c e n e e d e d to m a k e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a b o u t A m i s h p e r c e p t i o n s a n d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s m u s t necessarily be b a s e d on w r i t t e n r e p o r t s of o c c a s i o n a l c o m m e n t s m ade by individual Amishmen, as noted e a r l i e r in t h i s article. S u c h adm i t t edl y f r a g m e n t a r y evi dence would s u g g e s t t h a t t h e Amish. w ho c o n s t i t u t e the c o u n t y ' s m a i n t o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n at least in a symbolic sense, long ago r e g a r d e d the n u m b e r of t o u r i s t s as excessive; t h e i r psychological t h r e s h o l d may be defined as low. Both n o n - A m i s h r e s i d e n t s of the c o u n t y and t he c o u n t y ' s visitors may be a s s u m e d to have m u c h h i g h e r psychological thresholds. Most of t he n o n - A m i s h r e s i d e n t s are less b o t h e r e d by t o u r i s t s t h a n are t he Amish. R e s i d e n t p e r c e p t i o n s of negative i m p a c t s of t ouri sm , s u c h a s traffic c o n g e s t i o n or d e v e l o p m e n t s t h a t are u n a e s t h e t i c or lack g e n u i n e n e s s , vary f r o m o n e i n d i v i d u a l to a n o t h e r owing to differences in p e r s o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s as well as values. T he visitors themselves, w h o unl i ke m o s t n a t i v e s generally have no b a s i s of c o m p a r i s o n with t he period before t h e t o u r i s t boom, have a h i g h e r psychological t h r e s h o l d t h a n do resi dent s, again keeping in m i n d individual differences. T h u s , despite e m i r o n m e n t a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n in the c o u n t ~ ' s i d e , m a n y vi s i t ors m a y still have pl easurabl e e x p e r i e n c e and m a y be e n c o u r a g e d to r e t u r n . T h e 1980 visitor survey i ndi cat es the c u r r e n t abiliq¢ of the t o u r i s t i n d u s t r y to a t t r a c t repeat visitors, Over h a l f of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s have m a d e two or more visits to L a n c a s t e r C o u n t ~ a n d 16% h a d b e e n in the c o u n t y for 10 or m o r e visits. Since, as n o t e d above, o n e difficulty of defining a psychological c a r r y i n g capaci~- for v a r i o u s g r o u p s is t h a t a g r o u p ' s p e r c e p t i o n a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s m a y c h a n g e over time, it is possible t h a t b o t h t o u r i s t s a n d t h e Amish m a y r e a c h a h i g h e r t h r e s h o l d of tolerance: t he psychological c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y is not necessarily c o n s t a n t . Visitors in t he f u t u r e m a y be satisfied w i t h c o n d i t i o n s t h a t past visitors would have d e e m e d intolerable. A m i s h m e n w h o initially felt e x t r e m e disp l e a s u r e a b o u t h o r d e s of t o u r i s t s m a y increasingly adj ust to t he large n u m b e r s . Two i nves t i ga t or s have s u g g e s t e d t h a t c h a n g e s in t o u r i s m itself may already have helped to preserve /Mlaish cul t ure a n d social organization. E ar l i e r visitors h a d little alternative b u t to seek direct c o n t a c t with A m i s h m e n . Now staged t o u r i s t attractions, packaged tours, a n d scores of o t h e r c o m m e r c i a l t o u r i s t e s t a b l i s h m e n t s dominat e local t o u r i s m . T o u r i s t e n t e r p r i s e in the Amish area is highly c o n c e n t r a t e d al ong r o u t e s 30 a n d 340, t h u s helping to s e p a r a t e 1982 ANNALS OF T O U R I S M R E S E A R C H

577

VISITOR CYCLES

m o s t t o u r i s t s from the A m i s h nearby. M a n y visitors keep to the m a i n t o u r i s t strips where t h e y either s t a y at complete vacation resort motels or satisfy t h e i r curiosity by visiting s u c h commercial e s t a b l i s h m e n t s as the A m i s h Farm a n d House a n d the Amish Homestead. T o u r i s t s a n d A m i s h m e n are aware of each other's presence in close proximity, b u t n e i t h e r t o u r i s t e n t r e p r e n e u r s , in their search for profit, n o r A m i s h m e n who desire s e p a r a t i o n encourage i n t e r a c t i o n deliberately. Thus, the two investigators contend t h a t local Amish c u l t u r e a n d social organization, r a t h e r t h a n gradually being destroyed by the tourist industry, r e m a i n s vigorous in part because of the s t r u c t u r a l c h a n g e s u n d e r g o n e by t o u r i s m (Buck a n d Alleman 1979:19-20). A n o t h e r factor t h a t m a y help the A m i s h reach a higher psychological threshold after an initial period of difficult a d j u s t m e n t is the n a t u r e of Amish c u l t u r e itself. Buck h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t Old Order Amish culture, with its discipline a n d religious view, m a y help to protect the Amish from the potentially disintegrative a n d assimilative i m p a c t of t o u r i s t s a n d t h e i r a c c o m p a n y i n g services. The Amish may perceive t o u r i s m as p e r s e c u t i o n in m o d e r n form, so t o u r i s m may actually serve to reinforce collective solidarity a n d s t r e n g t h e n individual c h a r a c t e r (Buck 1979:11 ). Definition of the physical e l e m e n t s of L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y ' s carrying capacity, including physical space, ecological or n a t u r a l resources, a n d m a n - m a d e facilities, is m a d e more complicated by the spatial a n d temporal variation in n u m b e r of visitors. The Pennsylvania D u t c h Visitor's B u r e a u seeks to p r o m o t e t o u r i s t visits to the entire county, not j u s t in the Amish-occupied territory. Yet the major c o n c e n t r a t i o n of t o u r i s t s a n d facilities is in the A m i s h c o u n t r y or its i m m e d i a t e proximity. Some p a r t s of the c o u n t y could absorb more visitors to see varied historic a n d other attractions. Even the Amish agricultural areas, a small p o r t i o n of the county, could conceivably absorb additional visitors d u r i n g the n o n s u m m e r period. The greater the diversity of an area's t o u r i s t base, the more difficult the task of d e f i n i n g carrying capacity becomes. Even in the case where t o u r i s m is less diverse a n d is essentially based on n a t u r a l resources, s u c h as a s e a s h o r e or m o u n t a i n s , definition of the carrying capacity involves value j u d g m e n t s a n d arbitrary decisions a b o u t how m a n y visitors a n d facilities are enough. The greater diversity of Lancaster C o u n t y ' s tourist base, c o n s i s t i n g of a variety of cultural as well as n a t u r a l elements, m a k e s the application of value j u d g m e n t s potentially more difficult as well as m a k i n g it impossible to define a single threshold of carrying capacity. The m a g n i t u d e of possible f u t u r e decline of t o u r i s m in Lancaster 578

1982 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH

GARY R. HOVINEN

Table 1

Proximity to Major Metropolitan Markets Metropolitan Area

Driving Time to Lancaster County

New York Philadelphia Baltimore Washington. DC

4-5 1.5 1.5 2.5

Hours Hours Hours Hours

County is influenced not only by the physical a n d psychological carrying capacity b u t also b y at least t h r e e other factors. First is the effectiveness of p l a n n i n g to alleviate perceived p r o b l e m s that m a y cause growing dissatisfactions. The need for effective p l a n n i n g to c o m b a t p r o b l e m s a n d / o r p r e v e n t decline has recently b e e n presented by various investigators of t o u r i s m (for example, Plog 1974: 55ff.: Kaiser a n d Helber 1978:8-10; H u d m a n 1978:122-124). S e c o n d is L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y ' s good relative location. Third is the diversity of its tourist base. T h e s e last two factors c u r r e n t l y provide the c o u n t y with a competitive a d v a n t a g e that m a y help to prevent significant long-term decline. Proximity to m a j o r m e t r o p o l i t a n m a r k e t s s u c h as New York a n d Washington, D.C. (Table 1) helps to generate m a n y visitors to Lancaster C o u n t y a n d h a s t h e potential of c o n t i n u i n g as an imp o r t a n t factor for p r o m o t i o n of t o u r i s t activity in the future. In an age of increasingly expensive gasoline, Lancaster C o u n t y m a y remain m o r e competitive t h a n tourist a r e a s with less accessible locations, thereby preventing a significant decline in tourist activity. But L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y ' s ability to c o n t i n u e attracting millions of tourists from a 2 0 0 - to 300-mile r a d i u s for a visit lasting 1-3 days clearly d e p e n d s on the i m p o r t a n c e of repeat visitations. One-time visitors c a n n o t s u s t a i n the c u r r e n t level of t o u r i s m in the county, b u t large n u m b e r s of repeat visitors can. Although repeat visitations may increasingly involve day trippers from Philadelphia a n d Baltimore. the more d i s t a n t New York m a r k e t may c o n t i n u e to generate s u b s t a n t i a l s u p p o r t for overnight a c c o m m o d a t i o n s . But the possibility of repeat visitations m a y d e p e n d not only on the c o u n t y ' s good relative location b u t also on effective planning to minimize negative i m p a c t s a n d the diversity of the county's tourist base. The three factors to prevent significant decline are clearly interrelated. The m o s t i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t of L a n c a s t e r County's diverse tourist base. the m o s t recent visitor survey suggests, is the Amish comm u n i t y together with the staged tourist attractions that claim to 1982 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH

579

V I S I T O R CYCLES

represent their lifestyle. The d i s a p p e a r a n c e of A m i s h culture t h r o u g h m i g r a t i o n or a s s i m i l a t i o n would u n d e r m i n e t o u r i s m , b u t the A m i s h are s h o w i n g no clear signs of w a n t i n g to a b a n d o n either the c o u n t y or their lifestyle. Hostetler a n d Buck, who earlier expressed c o n c e r n t h a t t o u r i s m was destroying A m i s h culture, n o w have a renewed faith in the r e s i s t a n c e of the A m i s h c o m m u n i t y to p r e s s u r e s from t o u r i s m on the larger society (Hostetler 1977:356-361: Buck a n d Alleman 1979:19-20). M a n y visitors who come initially to L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y to view A m i s h culture, w h e t h e r g e n u i n e or staged, r e t u r n because they become interested in o t h e r a t t r a c t i o n s t h a t are p a r t of the c o u n t y ' s diverse t o u r i s t base. Resort complexes, with t h e i r varied indoor a n d o u t d o o r recreational activities, entice overnight visitors from n e a r b y Philadelphia as well as from more d i s t a n t New York. The c o u n t y a b o u n d s in historic b u i l d i n g s from the 1700s a n d 1800s for those visitors interested in history. M a n y r e s t a u r a n t s t h a t serve Pennsylvania D u t c h food a t t r a c t r e p e a t visitors. The p l e a s a n t rural countryside in p a r t s of n o r t h e r n , s o u t h e r n , a n d w e s t e r n L a n c a s t e r County, not occupied b y A m i s h , are a n a d d e d a t t r a c t i o n to u r b a n r e s i d e n t s of Megalopolis a n d m a y e n c o u r a g e visitors to r e t u r n once t h e y have h a d t h e i r first exposure to the county. Assorted a m u s e m e n t facilities a n d shops, s u c h as those selling antiques, add still more to the variety of t o u r i s m in L a n c a s t e r County. CONCLUSION L a n c a s t e r County, like o t h e r t o u r i s t areas, is u n d e r g o i n g an evolution of tourist development t h a t involves different identifiable stages. This article h a s p r o p o s e d a five-stage s e q u e n c e based in part on Butler's previous h y p o t h e s i z e d cycle (Butler 1980:5-12). Two of Butler's h y p o t h e s i z e d stages, consolidation a n d stagnation, have been c o m b i n e d into a m a t u r i t y stage, since his a s s u m p t i o n of a g r a d u a l decline in rate of i n c r e a s e of n u m b e r of visitors before r e a c h i n g a peak is not c o r r o b o r a t e d by evidence in L a n c a s t e r County. The five-stage s e q u e n c e identified for L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y is based on historical evidence as well as a s s u m p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g probable f u t u r e developments. The article's p r e m i s e is t h a t decline, the final h y p o t h e s i z e d stage, will be less significant in L a n c a s t e r C o u n t y t h a n in m a n y o t h e r t o u r i s t areas because of t h e c o u n t y ' s highly accessible relative location in an era of increasingly expensive gasoline a n d its diversified t o u r i s t base. Although t o u r i s m h a s had negative i m p a c t s on b o t h the physical a n d c u l t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t , these i m p a c t s need not 580

1 9 8 2 ANNALS O F T O U R I S M R E S E A R C H

GARY R. HOVINEN

inevitably cause significant long-term decline. Many visitors may ignore, downplay, or be unaware of environmental c h a n g e s and problems and become repeat visitors. A third factor that may prevent significant long-term decline is effective planning to m i n i m i z e negative impacts. Such planning must entail more than building new facilities and infrastructure, since by increasing that element of the county's carrying capacity, other elements of the carrying capacity, including physical space, natural resources, and even visitors" degree of satisfaction as related to ~isitor numbers, may be negatively affected. Effective planning must be based on a constant a s s e s s m e n t of problems as perceived by resource specialists, visitors, and residents alike. Effective planning to improve the quality of environment and to meet the needs of a variety of groups can help to improve c h a n c e s that Lancaster County will not undergo a major permanent decline in tourist activity as other successful tourist areas have. The h y p o t h e s i s that Lancaster County is n o w and will in the future be in a stronger position to attract tourists than many competing tourist areas of lower accessibility and less diversity cannot be fully tested w i t h o u t comparing the county to s u c h areas. Further investigations of a variety of tourist areas are needed to substantiate the hypothesis. D []

REFERENCES Aurand. Jr.. A.M. 1938 Little Known Facts About the Amish and the Mennonites: A S t u d y of the Social C u s t o m s and Habits of Pennsvh'ania's "Plain People." Harrisburg, PA: Aurand Press. Buck. R,C. 1978 B o u n d a r y M a i n t e n a n c e Revisited: Tourist Experience in an Old Order A m i s h Community. Rural Sociology XLIII(2):221-234. 1979 Bloodless Theatre: Images of the Old Order Amish in Tourism Literature. Pennsylvania Mennonite Heritage 11(3):2-I I. Buck. R.C. a n d T. Alleman 1979 Tourist Enterprise Concentration and Old Order Amish Survival: Explorat i o n s in Productive Coexistence. Journal of Travel Research XVIII( I ): 15-20. Butler, R.W. 1980 The Concept of a Tourism Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. The Canadian Geographer XXIV( I ):5-12. Clawson. M, and J.L. Knetsch 1963 Outdoor Recreation Research: Some Concepts and Suggested Areas of Study. Natural Resources Journal III:250-275. Fisher, A. and J.V. Krutilla 1972 Determination of Optimal Capacity of Resource-based Recreation Facilities. Natural Resources Journal XIV:417-444.

1982 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH

581

VISITOR CYCLES

G u n n , C.A. 1979 T o u r i s m Planning. New York: Crane, R u s s a k & Company. Heberlein, T~.. 1977 Density, C r o w d i n g a n d Satisfaction: Sociological S t u d i e s for D e t e r m i n i n g C a r r y i n g Capacities. Proceedings: River Recreation M a n a g e m e n t a n d Research S y m p o s i u m , pp. 67-76. Minneapolis, M i n n e s o t a : North Central Forest Experim e n t Station, Forest Service, U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture. Hostetler, J.A. 1968 A m i s h Society. Baltimore: T h e J o h n s H o p k i n s Press. 1977 Old Order A m i s h Survival. T h e M e n n o n i t e Quarterly Review LI(4):352-361 Hovinen, G.R. 1981 T o u r i s t Cycles in L a n c a s t e r County, Pennsylvania. T h e C a n a d i a n Geographer XXV(3):283-286. H u d m a n , L.E. 1978 T o u r i s t Impacts: The Need for Regional Planning. A n n a l s of T o u r i s m Research 5(I):112-125. J o r d a n , J.W. 1980 T h e S u m m e r People a n d t h e Natives: S o m e Effects of T o u r i s m in a Vermont Vacation Village. A n n a l s of T o u r i s m Research 7( l ):34-55 Kaiser, C. a n d Helber, L.E. 1978 Tourism, P l a n n i n g a n d Development. Boston: C.B.I. P u b l i s h i n g Company. L a n c a s t e r Automobile Club 1940 L a n c a s t e r Motorist (February). Lancaster: LAC L a n c a s t e r Intelligencer J o u r n a l 1958 S e p t e m b e r l, Lancaster: L a n c a s t e r Intelligenger J o u r n a l . 1958 October 21. Lancaster: L a n c a s t e r Intelligencer J o u r n a l . 1963 J a n u a r y 17. Lancaster: L a n c a s t e r Intelligencer J o u r n a l . 1972 M a r c h 16. Lancaster: L a n c a s t e r Intelligencer J o u r n a l . L a n c a s t e r New Era 1955 May 14. Lancaster: L a n c a s t e r New Era 1961 J u l y 18. Lancaster: L a n c a s t e r New Era 1962 May 23. Lancaster: L a n c a s t e r New Era 1963 J a n u a r y 16. Lancaster: L a n c a s t e r New E r a 1966 October 6. Lancaster: L a n c a s t e r New E r a 1972 J a n u a r y 6. Lancaster: L a n c a s t e r New Era Lime, D.W. a n d G.H. S t a n k e y 1971 C a r r y i n g Capacity: M a i n t a i n i n g O u t d o o r Recreation Quality. Recreation S y m p o s i u m Proceedings, pp. 174-184. Upper Darby. Pennsylvania: N o r t h e a s t e r n Forest E x p e r i m e n t Station, Forest Service, U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture. Mitchell, B. 1979 Geography a n d Resource Analysis. New York: Longman. New York Times 1970 October 1 i. New York: New York Times. Odell, R. 1975 C a r r y i n g Capacity Analysis: Useful But Limited. M a n a g e m e n t a n d Control of Growth, Vol. Ill. W a s h i n g t o n , DC: The U r b a n Land Institute. O'Riordan, T. 1969 P l a n n i n g to Improve E n v i r o n m e n t a l Capacity: A Cast S t u d y in Broadland. Town P l a n n i n g Review XL:39-58. P e n n s y l v a n i a D u t c h Tourist B u r e a u 1959 Official P e n n s y l v a n i a D u t c h Guide Book. P e n n s y l v a n i a D u t c h Tourist Bureau. 1961 Pennsylvania D u t c h T o u r i s t Map. 582

1982 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARC H

GARY R. HOVINEN

Plog. S.C. 1974 W h y D e s t i n a t i o n Areas Rise a n d Fall in Popularity. The Cornell Hotel a n d R e s t a u r a n t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y XIV{4):55ff. Redekop, C. a n d J.A. Hostefler 1977 T h e Plain People: A n I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e M e n n o n i t e Quarterly Review LI (4):266-277.

S u b m i t t e d 20 November 1980 Re~sed v e r s i o n s u b m i t t e d 28 May 1981 Accepted 12 October 1981 Refereed a n o n y m o u s l y

1982 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH

583