Wolfgang Framke

The destination1: A problematic concept

Abstract: One of the most used words in the field of tourism is destination used in marketing, planning and development, and general research. One can find it in tourist guides, brochures and homepages, and, of course, in all kinds of textbooks and readers in tourism. So it is obvious that one should be suspicious. How can one word contain so many of tourisms aspects? Investigating the use of the word shows various ways of using it. The word has no unique content, its meaning depends on ones purpose, be it describing, communicating or analysing tourism. By taking a geographic perspective one will evidently recognise the differences: destinations can be found in various dimensions and on various regional levels: there exist static destinations in connection to ones stay at a certain location; and there exist dynamic destinations, where movement is the motive for a vacation; you can find destinations connected to networks and other relations in the industry, and so on. The paper looks into and dicuss the conceptual abiguity of the destination taking a departure in the various uses of the word and in theoretical work and in some empirical work.

Introduction One of the most frequently used words in tourism is destination, but it is used very differently by different actors. This raises the question if it is at all meaningful to continue working with it, because the word spreads confusion rather than brings clearness because there seemingly is some systematically self-contradictions in the use of the word. Such as the destination as a narrative or as an attraction or as a geographical unit or as an empirical relationship or as a marketing object or as a place where tourism happens, orand so on. The intention with this paper is to document the use of the word destination, to analyse it, to discuss it and to present some empirical findings indicating how several actors in tourism industry understand it and how they act at a destination. The conclusion gives some advice on further use of this word. This article is only dealing with leisure tourism. This paper has the character of a discussion paper. It is the preliminary result of almost 2 years of research in a destination project called Destination construction and Development Representations, networks and strategies (Brenholdt et.al, 1999). The projects starting point was to combine three approaches in tourism research the humanistic, the sociological and the economic. From the authors
2 earlier work on the constitution of the destination from a business perspective there

were some doubts whether the conventional business related economic definition (for instance Burkart&Medlik 1974, Murphy 1985, Mill&Morrison 1992, Cooper et.al 1993) could be accepted as the definition, because several theoretical and empirical exceptions could be identyfied. The work of sociological writers as MacCannell (1976), Urry (1990, 1995) Lash&Urry (1994) and Rojek&Urry (1997) and others gave the impression, that their understanding of the destination was fundamentally different from the economists understanding.

In my own comments I consequently write destination to underpin my scepticism about the use often uncritical or non-reflected of this word 2 Framke, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001

In the literature destinations seem to be established and described as images, as narratives but do they have clear physical boundaries too? And are physical boundaries or the absence of such relevant when talking about destinations? Destinations seem to be described through their content of attractions, facilities and services but is there any agreement about which factors are most important? At destinations interactions may take place: between the tourists and the businesses, mutually in the tourist industry, and between the single establishment and the tourist organisations and the authorities but which importance have these relations (described as social practice, network, contacts) in literature and the empirical reality? And a destination is nothing without tourists. How is the tourist seen by the writers and how can s/he be identified at a destination? These four questions lead to an analysis of the use of the word destination(and its definition as a term) in 4 directions: 1. How are the geographical physical boundaries of a destinations described? 2. How are the content of a destinations described? 3. How are the existence of or the need for co-operation at a destination described?, and 4. How is the tourists behaviour understood? If the assumption about actors different views of destination is right that will have some serious consequences for the future use or non use of this word. In tourism research as in all research one has to work with clear notions to get sufficient results! The method of that investigation is rather simple: The starting point is a presentation of some destination definitions used in various textbooks, where the choice of textbooks covers a historical period of about 30 years, but was otherwise selected rather by chance than systematically, and which describe, how several authors handle a destination. Two types of destination descriptions will be presented, firstly a kind of classical or conventional description by researchers working in a business inspired paradigm, secondly how sociologists think about it. The last part of the paper presents some findings from some preliminary empirical work done in a research project - one of 14 research projects undertaken by the 3

Tourism Research Centre of Denmark. Three Danish destinations were investigated with focus on 1. How they are represented by the tourists 2. How the tourists, dwelling at a destination, act during their vacation, and 3. How the tourist industry and some municipal departments understand the destination and act in it. This empirical material helps to throw light on the 4 dimensions of the destination described and discussed in part 1 and part 2 of this paper. The conclusions on the word destination will be based on this discussion.

Part I: The classical/conventional understanding of the destination during the past 30 years The first example is Peter Murphys Tourism. A Community Approach. This textbook is from 1985, but the definition used in it is formulated in 1970 by N. Georgulas: Tourism as an industry occurs at destination areas areas with different natural and/or man-made features, which attract non local visitors (or tourists) for [a variety of] activities. (p.7) and he combines it with Cohens (1974) and Plogs (1974) tourist typologies stating that certain kinds of tourists, having certain demands, are structuring the destination. Given the tourist types show a historical change in demand the destinations will develop in the same way answering with new types of different products and supply. That means changing demands are changing supply and attractions at the destination, thus creating dynamics over time. Murphy discusses several issues in relationship to tourism, among them the structure and shifting content of the destination, the conditions for the development of tourist destinations and how to manage and plan destination development. Murphy does not discuss any geographical limitations of the destination, neither is he interested in the factual content of it. He points to the importance of some cooperation in the industry and with the authorities, but his interest is upon the 4

strategies that uses the non-local visitors demand and changes in demand to develop tourist resorts, that both will meet the needs of tourism and integrate them into the general planning process of western nations . (p. XV) as he states in the preface. Therefore Murphy understands the tourists seen as a distinct type and their changing demand as the dynamic force in the development of destinations, a development that should be planned strategically. Burkart and Medliks Tourism. Past, Present and Future was first published in 1974. They define the destination as follows: This geographical unit visited by a tourist may be a self contained centre, a village or a town or a city, a district or a region, an island, a country or a continent. This geographical unit may be described as the tourist destination.The tourist destination, however defined geographically, provides a convenient focus for the examination of the tourist movement and of its manifold impact and significance. How important any geographical unit is as a tourist destination, or how it is potentially, is determined by three prime factors: attractions, accessibility and amenities which may be termed the tourist qualities of a destination. (p. 46) The authors supplement this definition stating that tourist organisations are needed to maximise the destinations possibilities from tourism. About destinations the authors state changes in the structure of the destinations in the last 150 years from very specific spa-resorts to differentiated mass resorts. The dynamic in this shift raise from the demand side caused by developing welfare and transport technology but always based on some important attractions. To be a modern resort demands the development of functionality in respect to accessibility and service supply. Burkart and Medlik refuse to define the destination through geographical borders. They observe destinations in a geographical hierarchy from a self-contained centre to a county or a continent. Attractions, amenities, transport, infrastructure and tourist organisations must be found. The authors does not discuss co-operation in the industry in a destination context, but they do so talking about travelling and agencies. Apart 5

from the two introductory chapters the book does not discuss the tourist as an actor only in a historical context, they describe the shifting demand as a main factor in changing resorts and destinations. Mill and Morrison (1992) deal with the destination as a part of the tourism system . Their definition says: At a destination there is a mix of interdependent elements. The elements are interdependent, because in order to produce a satisfying vacation experience, all elements must be present. The destination is composed of: Attractions Facilities Infrastructure Transportation Hospitality. (p.263)

In this analytical context, the authors only focus on the content, the elements in a destination. They say nothing about geographical borders, nor of co-operation within the destination or about the tourist acting at the destination. Indirectly talking about supply and the mix of independent elements at a destination where all elements must be present in order to produce a satisfying vacation experience for the visitor the demand tasks to the destination can be seen. But talking about a mix of elements mean that co-operation between the elements not is seen as essential in constituting a destination. Another highly influential textbook is Cooper et als Tourism. Principles and Practice, first published in 1993. In part 2,they state (The tourist destination): The destination represents the raison dtre for tourism; it is the reason for travelling, and the attractions at the destination generate the visit. (p. 77) In fact, the authors do not provide a new story, we have heard it all before: Attractions in a geographical place make tourists desire to visit it, and there demands part 1 of their textbook generates supply and changing destination elements or supplies, if the demand is changing. This changes a destinations character and structure too, and this change is an objective for development planning.

At last in this first part of the paper i want to present two Danish examples of the conventional understanding of the destination. Jensen, Hansen and Metz (1993) definition is very close to that we have learned earlier: The definition of a tourist destination is a geographical area, which contains landscape and cultural characteristics and which as in the position to offer a tourism product, which means a broad wave of facilities in transport accommodation food and at least one outstanding activity or experience. (p. 42)(the authors translation) Again a focus on a geographical place with attractions, which makes tourist segments visit it, and where the place develops a mix of supply elements which satisfy the tourists demand. Although the authors state a hierarchy of geographical destinations, too, they stress two items: firstly, that the destination is the smallest unit which can be identified by a target segment; secondly, that the destination is the smallest meaningful unit in a professional tourism context. Professional means that there must exist some organisational conditions that make it possible for the destination to develop as a centre for product owners and other groups interested in tourism at such a place. The textbook deals with the actors in the tourist industry, but not in a destination context. Therefore you can learn a lot about the service product and the internal and external conditions of individual firms, but nothing about the production chain or condition in the industry apart from the co-ordination work of tour agents. The tourist is seen as a consumer only. 8 years later (2001) one of the above mentioned authors Christjan Fussing Jensen developed the concept of destination. His aim was to investigate the tourists demand in depths as a reason for changes at the destination and thereby to develop the concept of a dynamic destination. His conclusion about the destination is the following: It is characteristic for the tourism sector that firms creating economic and job effects are part of a bigger totality, where it is not the service offer of the single firms but all service offers together, that are the sale argument [] This totality is in the literature

called a destination.. (2001, p. 7)(the authors translation) and The Dynamic Destination can thus be described as a system consisting of three resource bases: The attraction base, the facility base, and the market base(1997, p. 9). Fussings resource-based approach gives a better understanding of those processes that change the total supply of a destination, in case of change in demand and/or the character of the attraction. In other words: the dynamic is the result of the tourists demand for the resource-based possibilities, and the strategies, that either can answer the new demand trends or can attract new tourist segments because the industry is able to develop new attractive products. In relation to the destinations limitation Fussing clearly experiences some problems. He is not using a geographical definition, because it is not the place which constitutes a destination, but the elements and the change of elements, which determine the destination area. Therefore the content (or elements in relation to the changing tourist demand) is crucial for a destination. Fussing has a main focus on innovation in tourism business, and on the total product as a result of a destinations effort to answer the tourists changing demand this double focus postulates co-operation in the industry in optimising a changing total service product at that place activating the resource bases in the single firm but he does not discuss geographical consequences, because he can not identify geographical limitations of the destination. Though Fussings understanding of the tourism system is based on economic theories his model of a dynamic destination touches somehow upon more sociological understandings of tourism space. Especially, the interaction between the tree bases and one of them is the market base describing the tourists demand shows an implicit understanding of the production of places, as will be shown in the papers next part. Conclusion on part I: What characterises the conventional understanding of the destination in general? This will be answered in short by using the 4 key-words presented in the introduction: Geographical limitation content - co-operation - tourists. Geographical limitation: There exists no agreement about this among the cited authors - some talk about destinations on several geographic levels, others about the 8

destination as the smallest meaningful place with regard to the tourists demand. Most of the authors refuse to discuss geographical borders, others have difficulties with accepting the geographical dimension as a meaningful concept at all, arguing that it is the content, the elements, and their changing pattern that constitute the destination. But all agree on the term destination as important. Content: Most authors described the destination as an agglomeration of attractions and services like accommodation, beverage and information offices, and they differentiated between core and periphery services. They agree mostly on a kind of causality starting with attractions, followed up by core services in connection to overnight stays, and periphery services like information service or retail trade. Some even include the transport sector. Some more depth has the description of the dynamic destination which describes the interaction between tourists, resources and elements, showing that the content of a destination is the result of this particular interaction. Co-operation: Several authors have a somewhat implicit understanding of what cooperation means for the production of a destination. That has to do with the authors analytical approach and the destination where the focus lies on, for instance, the attractions, the accommodation sector or the restaurants, but not how those types of businesses between them produce the experience which a tourist asks for when coming to that place. Only in the discussion of terms like total product or vacation experience one can find some remarks about the necessity of co-operation. But there is no discussion about the co-operations significance for the constitution of a destination. With Swarbrooke (pp. 165-166) it could be argued that literature about destination management could have added some understanding of processes at a destination, but as long as destination management only deals with planning, development, control and marketing in general without caring about the single firm this approach will not create knowledge about interorganisational relations. Tourists are without exception seen as consumers that are satisfying their demands by using a destinations supply of services. Changing demands make the destinations change structure over time. Other tourist activities, their behaviour in general, are understood as part of a group, a type or a segment, where special interests have some 9

consequences for the structure of the destination. Only the resource based model takes a more different view on the tourists importance for structuring the destination.

Part II: The sociological understanding of the destination during the past 30 years

One can say that modern sociological discussion on tourism started with Dean MacCannells The Tourist A new Theory of the leisure class from 1976. Therefore this part begins with his destination understanding. First to observe is that MacCannel does not use the term at all. In Chapter 2 (which is most relevant for my investigation), he is dealing with relationships between the tourist, the attraction, and space, and step by step he integrates them into a kind of system. This process can be shown by some quotations: I have defined a tourist attraction as an empirical relationship between a tourist, a sight and a marker. (p. 41) Sights exist, but they only have a meaning for the tourist if they are communicated as something interesting to the tourist, i.e. if they get a distinct meaning promoted by the marker (all kind of communications and communicators). And further, about its organisation and the content: The touristic value of a modern community lies in the way it organises social, historical, cultural and natural elements into a stream of impressions (p. 48), and further: Distinctive local attractions contain (just behind, beside or embedded in the parts presented to the tourists) working offices, shops, services and facilities: often an entire urban structure is operating behind its touristic front (p. 50). And further again:

10

Functioning establishments figure prominently as tourist attractions. Commercial, industrial and business establishments are also basic features of social regions, or they are first among the elements from which regions are composed. (p. 51) Taken together the reader here gets something like the place called destination. But he has no clear answer to the 4 questions asked in the beginning. He does not identify geographical boundaries. The content of this place is described as an attraction where all functions have some connections to one another, some are strong, others are week; together these connections organise social elements of experiences or impressions. They generate tourist regions (or, as he calls them, touristic districts) too. It is the tourist who is essential in this system because s/he looks for attractions, and in using them starts a social and a spatial process. This process is described as being structuralistic, determined by society, not as a result of the tourists individual behaviour. 20 years later Tim Edensor, in his Tourists at the Taj (1998, in chapter 1), deals extensively with the construction of the tourist space and so, indirectly, touches the destination problem. He says: Similarly, heritage centres, hotel landscapes, resorts, interpretative and information facilities, conference centres, souvenir and craft emporia, hi-tech transportation and communication, and a host of supplementary amenities, along with the aforementioned malls and supermarkets, are the typical ingredients of a serially produced tourist space. (p. 12) and Through place-marketing and the construction of tourist attractions, potted historical narratives are produced, only certain features of attractions and tourist space are highlighted, and the movement and time of tourists must fit in with this packaging. The author very clearly describes a typical content of a destination, and as MacCannell, but less structuralistic in his approach he stresses, that it is necessary to communicate the value of the attractions to make them relevant for the tourist, the consumer. Somewhat later he stresses with Rodman (1992): 11

places come into being through practice, not just narratives (p.642). These practical tourist networks constitute an assemblage of objects, places and people that are bound into a relationship . (p. 20) As a kind of conclusion on this argument he writes: An identification of these various spatial networks through which places become diversely constituted advances a progressive notion where places are conceived as processes rather than essences. Places have multiple identities, are situated points at which a variety of activities occur and a diverse range of people pass through on different routes. (p. 20) What Edensor really is saying here is that destinations as limited geographical features do not exist. They are tourist spaces produced by the social practice of the tourist, which comprise various attractions and businesses, though with differentiation from one local place to another. He does not talk about co-operation in these spaces, the term social relations is used for all kind of relationship between the tourists, the industry, the organisations and the attractions, but without specifying them. It is the tourist and the other agents who construct through their interactions or social relationships the place in space. The most recent example illustrating the sociological perspective is Kevin Meethans Tourism in Global Society. Place, Culture, Consumption from this year. As Edensor before, he does not define a destination, but says: Yet the important point here is not so much the physical patterns or typologies of spatial development that can be identified, that is treating space as an abstract and neutral category, but the way in which these spatial patterns interrelate with sociocultural values and perceptions. (p. 16) And later on:

12

The resort areas developed as a consequence of modernity, and are linked to the process of urbanisation and industrialisation, and the creation of both mass markets and mass consumption. (p. 17) Like Edensor, he sees the tourist space as a social production. The destination, as a tourism space is a space for consumption, which contains all attractions and services related to tourists demands. It is a dynamic space where images and values change together with the consumer/tourist and changes in, for example, transport and infrastructure. Such value changes could be a new perception of history (recycling of both the past and other cultures (p. 28)), and a destination development process (though he doesnt use these words) including image development and economic development as a global process is starting. Therefore Meethan together with MacCannell and Edensor (and others) - refuse to talk aboutdestination boundaries in a physical sense. Co-operation for Meethan is the co-ordination of people across space and time (p. 31), where the tourist industry plays an important role using and producing representations of the tourist space. So the tourist is indeed very central in this process. He is on search for images (or attractions), and in searching and finding and using images the tourist produces space, or with a traditional word, a destination. As a conclusion on part II the following statement: Geographical definition: None of the authors give a clear geographical definition on the destination. Tourism has something to do with a geographical place or a geographical space, but this place or space has no defined boundaries. The sociological authors indeed have problems in attacing the destination, that place where tourism happens. Such places are dynamic, they develop in a continuos process where all actors but especially the tourist constitute the space by acting socially together. Content: Therefore the content of the destination in general is undefined, too, because it depends on various social contacts. Central in this dynamic are the relations between the tourists and the attractions. The relations form an image, and the image again attracts tourists and others producing tourism space. But it is somewhat unclear what attraction means in this context, some mention single attractions like traditional 13

nature, man made attractions and culture and events, others mention the tourism space including all attractions and services. Co-operation: The closest definition of co-operation are two terms used, the one called connections, the other social practice which probably include commercial contacts. Tourists: The tourist is perceived as a consumer, and mass consumption constitutes tourism resort areas. The most central figure in this system is the tourist. His demands, his social practice constitute the tourism space, the resort, the destination and thus all the actors in it.

Part III: Empirical findings

The third part of this paper shortly presents some empirical findings from ongoing research about destination representation and construction in Denmark, findings which throw some light on the 4 questions outlined at the beginning. The empirical cases were a part of north-western Jutland (Destination Jammerbugt), the city of Roskilde near Copenhagen, and the island of Bornholm. Among other issues, the researchers had an interest in three groups of actors the tourist, the formal organisations representing the destination (authorities and local/regional tourist organisations), and the commercial actors. They were asked how they imagine and define the destination in words and in action or practice. In this part of the paper the answers to the 4 questions will be integrated in the discussion of the mentioned three groups of actors. Tourists: Most of the conventional literature about destinations stress that tourism is a temporary trip from a permanent place of living to an other place, where the tourist is staying a shorter period having a good time with experiences and recreation transport between these places can be seen as a necessary evil. On the other hand, the more sociological literature stressed that the tourist not necessaryly stay at one place they often visit several places or are travelling around having satisfactory experiences by travelling. Here the tourist gaze plays a very important role as a source of this

14

experience, stressed by Urry (1990), Osborne (2000) and others. Jonas Larsen (2001) is doing profound research about the tourist glance of the tourist in motion. Although the mobile practice of the tourist challenge the concepts of destination the travellers are not travelling all the time they have to stop for eating and sleeping, and they will stop at places with interesting views and some relevant facilities and services. These stopping places can be called nodes on the travelling line where the tourist gets into contact with persons and establishments, and consequently constitute a tourist place if those stops happen. Though tourists come to a distinct place to sleep, to eat and so on for a period. This does not mean that they are staying permanently at this place, as Michael Haldrup, stresses observing that many tourists are extremely mobile despite a permanent holiday address. He says: By utilising the possibilities of motorised mobility for exploring the region, a heterogeneous tourist space is produced through a pattern of mobility that is quite indifferent to local places and national boundaries. Instead local significance are consumed in the passing (p. 11) This tourists behaviour makes a destination definition based on geographical boundaries absurd, and therefore, perhaps the sociological authors do not use the term destination but talk about tourism place, space and social practice. From the tourists point of view one can say that the destination (or what you want to call it) at any time exists at that place (in case it is visited by tourists) and where the tourists actually perform any kind of social practice. This social practice is not limited to actors in the tourism industry alone, but includes all contacts at this place. Formal organisations: How does the destination look in the eyes of authorities and tourism organisations? One of the most important attractions in Denmark is the nature the seaside, the dunes, the forests. Most of them are an object of landscape planning, preservation and nature mediation by the planning authorities, and one should believe they would think about their landscapes as tourist attractions and as destinations. But not all of them do so. A nature mediator told that she had asked the manager of the county how she was supposed to handle tourism in her work, and he answered: 15

You are not supposed to work with tourism at all. To do so we have the tourist information, they get money to sell Roskilde county to the tourists. Your job is only to guarantee god nature mediation to the citizens in Roskilde county. (Interview, the authors translation) Though Roskilde county is not a tourist region primarily based on nature experiences, this attitude is typical for the landscape planning authorities in most Danish counties planning for tourism is an object for the economic department and/or the regional tourism organisation. Another important tourist attraction is the cultural site of a city. An interview with the political leader of the leisure and culture affairs committee of Roskilde showed, that the citys responsibility for tourism does not belongs to this committee but to the committee for economics, where the mayor is the head of the committee3. Asked what the committee of the leisure and culture affairs especially planned to do for tourism, the answer was: Hitherto in this committee we did not sit down saying: now we have to do something to increase for tourism in Roskilde municipality, I must admit. We havent. (Interview, the authors translation) In a way, one can say that the relevant authorities most of all think in economic terms on tourism though they should think in attraction value and products. Sharply spoken they are only interested in the economic effects of tourism, but not in the question of destination boundaries or destination content or even the tourists. De facto they have deposited their responsibility for tourism development of their specific region or place to the tourism organisations. How do the tourism organisations handle this responsibility? The answer is not very clear and it depends in some way on their place in the administrative hierarchy, that is, whether they are working on a local, a regional or an interregional level. Most of them felt a responsibility for their sponsors, whether municipalities, a co-operation of
3

It is this committee which means the mayor who negotiates with the tourist organisation and grants the money for its activities

16

municipalities or one or several counties because they to some degree finance their activities. This responsibility means that their focus most of all lies inside the boundaries of these administrative entities. On the other hand, they distinguish between the tourists wishes everything dealing with accommodation and meals were recommended inside their municipality/destination area. Some more advanced experiences also were recommended outside the region because at the moment none of them exists inside the administrative borders (examples from western Jutland). If we accept tourist brochures as a tourist organisations representation of a destination we can see that the editors text and photos have the focus on the distinct place, while the advertisers destination description of the same place is another: an actor far away from the destination can buy space in a brochure and in this way be represented as a part of this destination (and at the same time as part of several destinations) which to some extent reflects the tourists mobility in space. Commercial actors: They are a very inhomogeneous number of businesses producing goods and services to satisfy the tourists demand. In the empirical material most of the actors are placed in the attraction and accommodation sectors, but there are actors from the restaurant and production sectors, too. Do the commercial actors have a distinct idea of the that they are a part of, and of the geographical boundaries of this place? This question is very hard to answer clearly, too. In Roskilde, a city of approximate 50.000 inhabitants near Copenhagen (a distance of about 30 kms), the focus lies on the main attractions in the city the cathedral and the Viking Ship Museum. When asked about Roskilde as an original destination some actors seem to have the opinion that Roskilde could be a part of the greater Copenhagen destination, because many of Roskilde tourists come on a day trip from Copenhagen. Others wish to give Roskilde a more independent status as a main attraction point on the destination Sealand Island (Copenhagen is not included). In Jutland Destination Jammerbugt the commercial actors do not accept a Destination Jammerbugt as a destination at all. On the other hand, they can not define any destination in the region in which they are placed, and asked about important attractions in their region they mentioned - besides the nature and the seaside - attractions all over the northern Jutland region. One explanation could be 17

that seaside tourism here is a phenomenon spread over the area and without a major distinct node inside the area, while Roskilde with its attractions and facilities inside its agglomeration is identified as a distinct destination. Now the crucial question is: do tourism actors co-operate to produce their services and goods in order to satisfy the tourists demand for a total experience? To put it short: They do not, if the initiative to do so is supposed to be their own. If the tourist office or a tour operator ask them to do so it may happen that they become part of a package if they can see any positive economic outcome from this initiative. Very often this happens to be an ad hoc action. It is more likely that bigger actors now and then become part of a common product than small family actors. The only local cooperation can be found regarding the production of an actors single product: Almost all services in connection with maintaining the production apparatus are placed at the local site; but if the actor needs material inputs for his own production this input usually, at non-urbanised places (as in Destination Jammerbugt), will come from outside the destination. One kind of co-operation (or network) involve all actors even the minor ones : the marketing of the place in which they are situated, and the distribution of their product. Most of them realise that they do not have sufficient resources to do this job themselves successfully, therefore they have to do it together with their competitors and supplement actors. On the other hand, there are different opinions on how to do it, and on which geographical level it should be done. Members of a hotel chain often have a more horizontal chain perspective in trying to tie the tourists mobility in space to the production system of the chain, while independent actors and the tourism organisation think in a vertical destination perspective, The first mentioned try to tie tourists to several packages they have in control across many regions, the last mentioned try to tie them to their specific place, and both try to produce loyalty. Powerful actors are more interested in regional or national marketing initiatives than small enterprises, which think more in direction of local distribution than international positioning. Put in an other words: different actors place themselves on different levels in the destination hierarchy choosing different partners for marketing activities. Conclusion 18

What is the outcome of these exercises? There can be given some answers to the 4 points raised in the beginning: 1. How are the geographical physical boundaries of a destination described? Four different destination definitions can be observed: The destination as an agglomeration of actors seen from the supply side, which exist in a kind of strategically dependency. This definition can be described as a pragmatic demarcation which is analogue to marketing practice. The commercial actors (the industrys) empirical documented cooperation/network describes another space which is connected to the production chain and which differs from firm to firm. The authoritative actors (the authorities, the organisations) acting in space inside administrative boundaries given in advance. The tourists tourism space/place produced by their mobility and social practice.

The business-inspired conventional authors are convinced of the importance of the destination as a key factor in tourism, a place containing actors who produce together a total product which is the answer to the tourists expectations of a total experience. They are convinced that the actors understandings of the destination based on a variety of products satisfying the tourists demand is identical to the tourists understanding of the place they are visiting. Moreover, Swarbrooke (2001) recently gave an outstanding and pointed summary about the traditionalists understanding of the destination. But it is not evident what geographical status this destination has - if any at all. Perhaps Neil Leiper (2000) in some way means the same when sarcastically criticise the destination as raison dtre of tourism. The sociological authors, on the other hand are not very interested in the destination. They deal with tourists and their performances, their social acting in time and space, and argue that every tourist by acting socially creates his own tourism place or space. But place and space are not identical, following Haldrups interpretation of de Certeau (1988):

19

Following Michel de Certeau he draws a line between place and space in relation to tourism practices. Whereas places according to de Certeau are the stable, strategically ordered homogenous configurations (the region as it is represented symbolically through narratives, marketing material, art works etc. and embodied materially in architecture, signs and markers, and the physical lay-out) he defines space as practised place i.e. the spaces produced by agents employing a variety of tactics that rest on an ongoing and contingent process of reconstruction of practice and the mobilisation of different degrees of reflexivity. (p. 8). The empirical work showed that both the industrys, the authorities and the tourists practices only to some degree verify with the general theories on destinations most congruence exists between the tourists behaviour and the sociologists description of the tourists social practice. On the other hand, tourism places and tourism spaces exist, and both the tourists, the industry and the governments/ authorities act in concrete spatial contexts. As a general answer to the first question it can be concluded that neither the economic writers, nor the sociological writers and nor the empirical findings show any special interest in describing the destination or the tourist place/space by physical geographical borders. The destination is a narrative created by marketing: it is a place structured by processes and experienced by social actions, and it exists on various geographical levels, but it is never a place with clear boundaries. 2. How are the content of a destination described? When talking about the content of a destination, the economic authors mention three central notions: attractions, facilities, and services. But not all of them differentate between them, some take the destination as an attraction, where an attraction is defined as an agglomeration of experiences, facilities and services. Non-commercial attractions such as landscapes, townscapes, beaches etc. are mentioned, but not seriously analysed. The sociological literature is talking about images which are experienced by interaction with the tourist. Such images, for instance, are landscapes and townscapes as a part of the cultural heritage. Facilities and services are noticed, but not analysed as such. The cited empirical findings point out the same descriptions of content depending on whom has been interviewed the tourists, the commercial actors or the formal organisations. 20

3. How are the existence of or the need for co-operation at a destination described? In business economics, co-operation and networks play an important role analysing production of goods and services. Economic authors in the field of tourism accept cooperation as a mean of production, but most of them do not analyse it in any depth. The commercial actors only have a limited co-operation and network practice which if this is a general practice in the tourist industry - perhaps explains why the authors are not particular interested in this issue. Only in marketing organisations like tourist offices co-operation seems to play an important role in telling the story of a destination. Sociological authors in general ignore the fact of co-operation in the tourism industry (with the exception of Meethan who shows a combined economic and sociologic understanding of the actors interactions at a tourist place). In stead of co-operation these authors talk about social practice as the mean which tightens tourists, attractions etc. together in a tourist space. But it is hard to see how the interaction takes place between tourists and the tourism industry, between the actors in the tourism industry, and with the authorities, and which mechanisms in this interaction create the destination. In general, the field of co-operation in tourism etc. is not extensively investigated. This should be done remembering the pivotal role this issue plays in research on the production of goods. This does not mean that co-operation necessarily should be more important in tourism it is only that we really dont know what co-operation means in tourism, and this should be clarified. 4. How is the tourist behaviour understood? To put it in short: the economic literature interprets the tourists as initiators of mass consumption. The industry answers to these demands by establishing of different supplies of services and goods. The sociological literature is more interested in the tourists behaviour in time and space, their social practice, for instance, in producing tourist places/spaces. The findings confirm both aspects as relevant for tourism research on the other hand they hardly fit together, and both are not very precise in their description of relations between tourists and a destination. Research is needed here too. Now, finally: what is a destination?

21

At least two answers can be given: 1. The authors conclusion is that the sum of interests, activities, facilities, infrastructure and attractions create the identity of a place the destination. It has a static dimension the place and a dynamic dimension the mix and agglomeration of agents and products/services, varying with the tourists historically different demand. But our understanding of the destination or the attractions attracting tourists could be wrong, as Leiper (2000) writes: There is no evidence that any destination ever attracted, in a literal sense, any tourists. [] The main causal factors of tourist flows are not located in destinations but in traveller generating regions, in places where trips begin, where the forces that stimulate tourists motivations are located and where marker systems directing tourists to nuclear elements of attractions begin. (p. 366). 2. The answers to the four questions end up with the insight that interaction, cooperation, networking and social practice are crucial activities describing a destination, its content, its relations and its tourists. Further research is necessary. The structure in the tourist industry is very different from the structure in the goods producing industry goods. But in tourism most of all produces services, not goods. It is a consumer market, but this market is very unstable and has to be re-produced all the time, and there exist many freeriders in this field. In short: does tourism research has a theory and methods to investigate this? The same relationships in other fields of production have been analysed for years by of economic sociology why do those researches only very rarely work with tourism? It is this kind of research which is needed. And what about the use of the word destination? Maybe Leipers critique mentioned in the last quote is right, so, if we are doing tourism research we only should use this word related to marketing. Marketing creates narratives, images, brands that mediate a place to the potential tourist in the traveller generating regions. When the tourist visits this place he creates his own tourist space. The industry, as a part of the tourists social action space, even create an economic space. Both spaces are differing as described earlier, but both have their origin in images promoted by the marketing mediation of a place called destination.

22

And this raises the last questions for further research: What importance has the marketing promoted destination for co-operation and networking in the industry? And which relations exist between a destination as the product of marketing and the tourists behaviour, social practice and geographical pattern of motion in his space?

Literature Burkart, A.J. & Medlik, S.: ( 1974): Tourism. Past, Present and Future Brenholdt, J.O, (2001): Om produktionen af destinationen for turisme. Paper, submitted to journal Brenholdt, J.O. (2000): Revised research design on the project: ): Destination construction and development Representations, networks and strategies. Paper. Roskilde University Brenholdt, J.O, Framke, W., Nilsson, P.. (1999): Destination construction and development Representations, networks and strategies. Paper.. Roskilde University de Certeau, M. (1988): The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press Christiansen. P.E., Framke, W.& Skjtt-Larsen, T. (1996): Interorganisatoriske relationer som grundlag for transportgenerering I en dansk region., Lahmann,H. & Pedersen, L.H. (eds): Trafikdage p Aalborg Universitet, Konferencerapport 2, Aalborg Universitet, 877-899 Cohen, E. (1972): Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39, 164-182 Cooper, C. et al. (1993): Tourism. Principles and Practice. London 23

Edensor, T. (1998): The Tourist at the Taj. London Framke, W. (2001): Die Destination von morgen zwischen Markenbildung und Flexibilitt (in print) Framke, W. (2001): Dnemark als Tourismusland: Entwicklung, Probleme und Strategien. Heidelberger Geographische Gesellschaft, HGG-Report (in print) Framke, W. (2000): Destinationsbegriff und interorganisatorische Beziehungen im Tourismusgewerbe neue Forschungsanstze in Dnemark .Proceedings Framke, W. (1999): Samarbejde i Turismesektoren eksempel Bornholm. Konferensrapport 7:e Nordiska forskarsymposiet I Turism 1998. ETOUR, rapportserien, Rapport R 1999:2, stersund, 119-132 Framke, W. (1998): Destinationsudvikling. Lyck, L (ed.):Turismestrategi og udvikling i Grnland. Kbenhavn, 11-37 Framke, W. (1997): Turismens produktionssystem: Aktrrelationer. Overvejelser baseret p interviews med turistvirksomheder i Trekantomrdet/Danmark. WP3/1997-PROTEUS. Kbenhavn Framke, W. (1996): Horisontale, vertikale og diagonale relationer indenfor det turismerelevante produktionssystem. WP9/-PROTEUS, Kbenhavn Framke, W. & Brenholdt, J.O. (2000): Destination Construction. Travel &Destination. Proceedings of a Conference held at Roskilde University 17.02.200. Geography Roskilde University Working Paper #152/Publication from the Tourism Research Centre of Denmark, 15-28 Geogulas, N. (1970): Tourist destination features. Journal of Town Planning Institute,56, 442-446 Haldrup, M. (2001): Tourists in time and space mobility tactics and the making of tourist spaces. Draft. Roskilde University Haldrup, M. (2001): Deconstruction Destinations? Mobility and Transport An Anthology. The Danish Transport Council, Note 01-03, 73-85 Jacobsen, J.K.S.&Viken, A. (1999): Turisme. Stedet i en bevegelig verden. Oslo Jensen, C.F., Hansen, J. & Metz, L.(1993): Turistvirksomhed. Kbenhavn Jensen, C. F. (2001): Den innovative adfrd i oplevelsesintensive virksomheder. Et strategisk perspektiv i turisme. Forskningsrapport 01:2, Center for Servicestudier, Roskilde Universitet Jensen, Chr. Fussing (1997): The Dynamic Destination. A Resource based Perspective of Tourism. Congress Paper. Edinburgh

24

Larsen, J. (2001): Tourist Mobilities and the Travel Glance: Experiences of being on the move. Draft. Lancaster University Lash, S. & Urry, J. (1994): Economies of Sign and Space. London Leiper, N. (2000): Are Destinations The Heart of Tourism? The advantages of an Alternative Description. Current Issues in Tourism, Vol.3, No.4 MacCannel, D. (1976): The Tourist. A new Theory of the Leisure Class. Berkeley Mill, R.C. & Morrison, A.M. (1992): The Tourism System. Englewood Cliffs Murphy, P. (1985): Tourism. A Community Approach. New York Nilsson, P. (2001): Tourism practices and the production of destinations. Representations, networks and strategies. Tourism Business Networking and restructuring on Bornholm. Draft, Research Centre of Bornholm Osborne, P. (2000): Travelling Light: Photography, Travel and Visual Culture. Manchester Plogh, S.C. (1974): Why destination areas fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Qarterly, 14, 4, 43-45 Ringer, G. (Ed.)(1998): Destinations. Cultural landscapes of tourism. Routledge Advances in Tourism, London Rodman, M. (1992):Empowering place: multilocality and multivocality. American Anthropologist, 94, 640-656 Rojec, C. & Urry, J. (eds.)(1997): Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory. London Saarinen, J. (1998): Tourist destinations and attractions interpretations of the spatiality of tourist motives. Nordisk Samhllsgeografisk Tidskrift, no. 26, 52-63 Swarbrooke, J. (2001): Organisation of tourism at the destination. In: Wahab, S. & Cooper, C.: Tourism in the Age of Globalisation. London, 159-182 Swarbrooke, J. & Horner, S. (1999): Consumer Behavior in Tourism. Oxford Srensen, F. (2001): Networks in production of destinations. Draft. Roskilde University Urry, J. (1991): The Tourist Gaze. London Urry, J. (1995): Consuming Places. London

25

26