Journal of Travel Research

Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.com/

Sense of Place: The Importance for Destination Branding

Adriana Campelo, Robert Aitken, Maree Thyne and Juergen Gnoth Journal of Travel Research published online 18 July 2013 DOI: 10.1177/0047287513496474 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/17/0047287513496474 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 18, 2013 What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Cardiff University on August 7, 2013

496474 research-article2013

JTRXXX10.1177/0047287513496474Journal of Travel ResearchCampelo et al.

Article

Sense of Place: The Importance for Destination Branding

Journal of Travel Research XX(X) 1–13 © 2013 SAGE Publications Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0047287513496474 jtr.sagepub.com

Adriana Campelo1, Robert Aitken2, Maree Thyne2, and Juergen Gnoth2

Abstract Given that brand meanings are socially constructed and culturally dependent, we advocate that a destination branding strategy should begin by understanding what constitutes sense of place as experienced by local residents. The constructs of time, ancestry, landscape, and community were identified as determinants for the sense of place by inhabitants of the Chatham Islands of New Zealand. These constructs comprise meanings that influence the habitus and define sense of place. This article contributes to our understanding of place by providing a sense of place model to support scholarship in destination and place branding. Destination branding activity ought to be significantly influenced by an in-depth appreciation of the sense of place for those whose place it is. Our emergent model emphasizes the importance of understanding sense of place and positioning the people of the place at the centre of a branding strategy for the development of an effective destination brand. Keywords sense of place, destination brand, place brand, habitus

Introduction A destination is both a geographical place and a metaphysical space determined by a network of meanings and values that are attached to it. Given the economic, social, and environmental impacts that tourism creates, destinations require sensitive understanding and careful guidance in the development and management of the brands that represent them. Brands help determine a destination’s future in that they make promises to the tourists who visit as well as to the inhabitants who belong (Blain, Levy, and Ritchie 2005; Gover and Go 2011). Yet, it is often their environment and its natural features, their social and cultural capital, that embody the values and attributes that represent the appeal of the place for the destination brand. Destinations are embedded in places. Consequently, destination branding should be guided by the theory of place and sense of place so as to benefit from and contribute to the place’s natural, cultural, social, and economic wealth (Hankinson 2007; Gnoth 2007). A growing number of studies have theorized that destination brand should portray a distinctive and attractive image highlighting a place’s core competences, identity, and culture (Cai 2002; Blain, Levy, and Ritchie 2005; Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2005). The strategies for branding destinations systematically adopt corporate branding techniques and models and adapt them to places (Trueman, Klemm, and Giroud 2004; Hankinson 2007; Dinnie 2008). Frequently, residents are left aside in the branding process leading to brands that communicate only tacit connections to and

simplistic understanding of the sense of the place to be promoted. There is a void in understanding sense of place as it is experienced by local residents and its implications for an effective destination brand. To address this gap, the present study examines the habitus of a place and models locals’ lived sense of place that forms the basis and context of experiencing a destination brand. What constitutes a sense of place is primarily determined by the meanings given to it by those whose place it is. While this presents a challenge of representation and inclusivity for branding, its greater authenticity is more likely to lead to a stronger sense of brand ownership. As an essential first step towards providing the basis for a shared and effective brand, we researched inhabitants’ own understanding of their sense of place. This article contributes to prior studies by identifying the constructs that influence and determine sense of place, and its implications for branding destinations. The managerial contribution is to provide a model to help marketers in developing destination brands that represent the intentional, targeted use of a selected set of place attributes derived from

1

Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, United Kingdom Otago Business School, University of Otago, New Zealand

2

Corresponding Author: Adriana Campelo, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Aberconway Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff, CF103EU, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected]


2

Journal of Travel Research XX(X)

sense of place as reflected by communal meanings and shared habitus.

Theoretical Framework Destination Branding The strategic use of branding techniques for places is designed to create distinctive approaches that enhance their social and economic development (Kotler and Gertner 2002; Anholt 2005); to reframe their image and, at best, to foster a spirit of cultural renaissance that can invigorate a sense of pride and strengthened identity among their residents (Gilmore 2002). For tourism purposes, destination branding identifies, delineates, and differentiates a destination and communicates its image as part of its appeal to tourists to experience those features and characteristics that make it a distinctive and attractive destination (Hall 1999; Blain, Levy, and Ritchie 2005). One of the most significant challenges when creating a distinctive destination brand is the need to understand the nature of a place’s identity and to recognize the core attributes that define its character. These are very much related to its culture and core values (Cai 2002; Marzano and Scott 2009). What also needs to be considered is how the culture and core values of the place will determine the nature of the service exchanges and relationships that are an integral and inseparable part of the tourism experience (Daniels 2007). Destination branding involves a combination of services created and provided in cooperation with local stakeholders (Beritelli 2011; Haugland et al. 2011) which contribute significantly to the quality of the experience (Perdue and Pitegoff 1990). The terms destination branding and place branding have been used interchangeably by many authors (Gnoth 2007; Hankinson 2007). Indeed, the application of both terms occurs, even when the discussion refers to a destination specifically, because it is not possible to separate the destination from the place. The destination is part of the place strategically positioned to be visited and consumed (Hultman and Hall 2012). That said, we argue that the sequence is nevertheless determined by the fact that destinations are embedded in places; it is the place with all of its networks, relationships and shared experiences that determines the nature of the destination. Unlike branding in traditional product and service marketing where the brand is created as an artifice to represent tangible or intangible associations, places already have their brand essence albeit in a generic or raw and as yet un-managed state (Papadopoulos and Heslop 2002). For destination branding, this essence of the sense of place requires purposeful selection and sensitive transformation to represent authentically the functional, experiential, and symbolic nature of its character (Aaker 2004; Hakala, Laetti, and Sandberg 2011). Identifying and understanding the constituents of this character of a sense of place and recognizing the motivations of tourists provides destination managers with a

framework for the development of a brand strategy that is representative of its people and cognizant of their place. Fundamental for a destination branding strategy is to recognize the cultural characteristics of the place, understand the people who live in that place, and to appreciate how a shared sense of place is constituted and experienced. Sense of place is based on and creates the uniqueness of place experience (Ryan 2002). From a strategic perspective, sense of place provides the basis of how places are defined and how destination brands are articulated. Beyond merely representing the atmosphere of a place, sense of place deals with local habitudes and communal practices that color the tourism experience (Casey 1996, 2001a; Hillier and Rooksby 2002). Sense of place morphs and turns purposive when it becomes a medium, particularly in commercial exchange activity, which can include tourism.

Making Sense of Sense of Place Human engagement within a place connects materiality to meaning (Harvey 1996), in an open and ongoing process (Sack 1988), that brings together social, cultural, and natural dimensions of place. The experience of engagement and interaction requires presence (being in) and action (being with), always influenced by physical, historical, social, and cultural aspects that, together, contribute to creating a shared sense of place. Sense of place is constructed from particular interactions and mutual articulations of social experiences embedded within subjective and emotional attachments (Sack 1988; Agnew 1993; Massey 2006). Tuan (1975) asserts that a sense of place is acquired by an experience or a set of experiences in a place, constructed through the use of all our senses and developed over time. To Relph (1976), sense of place is based on relationships between people in a setting created through a variety of experiences. Both concepts embrace embodiment and time passing to create a sense of place experience. Related concepts such as place attachment and place identity are reported in the literature as part of the phenomenon of sense of place (Williams et al. 1992; Manzo 2003). To others, sense of place is broader than place attachment (Hummon 1992; Butz and Eyles 1997; Hay 1998). Jackson (1994), for example, uses the Latin term genius loci, translated as “the genius of a place” to explain how, in classical times, the genius loci was believed to be the spirit of a locality where “a whole community derived much of its unique quality” (p. 24). Our understanding of sense of place takes into account the genius loci, the atmosphere of place, as a shared sense of the spirit of the place and relates it to its representation and expression as habitus. This shared spirit includes place attachment, human-place bonding (Low and Altman 1992), and social context in relation to community ties and ancestral connections (Hay 1998). Stokowski (2002) emphasizes the socially constructed nature of sense of place as it is mediated by and reproduced


3

Campelo et al. and sustained through conversation with others. Narratives perpetuate meanings and reinforce habitus (Kyle and Chick 2007) by confirming and validating symbolic meanings, refreshing memories, renewing rituals, and reinforcing myths and traditions (Hay 1998; Stokowski 2002). The affective aspect of habitus as part of sense of place is explored by Pile (2002), who suggests that we should be open to feelings and emotions to understand social sense of place. Bourdieu (2002, p. 29) suggests that habitus is “the best example of the unity of human behavior” as it reveals and expresses manners and ways of doing things in terms of the practicalities of life, in terms of affective engagements, and in terms of expression and communication. Embedded within social exchanges, habitus is “a set of acquired characteristics which are the product of social conditions” that makes social values explicit (Bourdieu 2002, p. 29). Casey (2001a, p. 686) explains that habitus ties self to place, working as “the mediatrix of place and self” as “a figure of between: above all, between nature and culture, but also between consciousness and body, self and other.” Bourdieu defines habitus as “a system of dispositions, that is, of permanent manners of being, seeing, acting and thinking, or a system of long-lasting (rather than permanent) schemes or schemata or structures of perception, conception and action” (2002, p. 27). Beyond a system that produces practices, habitus also produces representations that are communally owned, collectively elaborated, and continually developed. The above suggests sense of place as a combination of social constructions interacting with physical settings. While geographic location and physical landscape are tangible, the meanings they engender, though often less tangible, are equally significant in terms of personal and collective experiences, social interactions, and affective engagements. Indeed, separating these elements fails to recognize that together they create the habitus of the place, sometimes intangible in terms of emotional bonds, but very tangible when expressed by the ways things are done. As Bender (2002, p. 106) suggests, “different people, differently placed, engage with the world in different ways.” It makes the idea of sense of place changeable, fluid, and unique for each place (Stokowski 2002). Any guidance or principled approach to place and destination branding would therefore always have to be mindful that, if common core constructs exist—as we suggest in this article—the analysis of these constructs must recognize unique sets of permutations that reveal particular expressions of a place. These expressions, we believe, are understood, experienced, and represented as habitus. The destination branding literature suggests that places are strategically marketed and deliberately positioned through carefully orchestrated branding practices as attractive destinations (Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2005; Gnoth 2007). Presented as tourism products, this provides the opportunity to experience the peculiarities and distinctiveness of places that are different from those at home. Yet, there is only

limited insight into how to integrate place’s habitus and sense of place into destination brands. This research aims to identify the core constructs that determine the sense of place; to understand how these constructs influence the habitus of the place; and to recognize their implications for place and destination branding. Given the objectives and purpose of destination branding, we believe that a brand that truly represents the place requires concomitant representation within socially agreed constructions that then deliver insights into the place’s habitus to the brand’s target audience.

Research Design and Setting We adopted a hermeneutic phenomenological methodology that positions the researchers as being in and with the context to create knowledge with the research participants through shared experiences (Pernecky and Jamal 2010). We created a hermeneutic circle through studying the historical, cultural, and social background of the research setting, by co-constituting the research process and data collection with participants and by establishing iterative criteria to validate our findings with them (Holbrook and O’Shaughnessy 1988; Laverty 2003). The research method was multisited ethnography (Marcus 1995; Ekstrom 2006; Davies 2008). The research context is the Chatham Islands in New Zealand, also known as the Chathams. The archipelago of ten islands and an area of 966 km², located 800 km east of Christchurch, has a population of 609 people (Chatham Islands Annual Report 2011/2012), with an economy that depends on pastoral farming, fishing, and an incipient tourism industry. Two reasons are fundamental for selecting this setting. First, the Chathams’ isolation from the New Zealand mainland due to their geographic location, the cultural schism, the lack of transportation often affected by the climatic conditions, and the small population provide the features of an extreme case. According to Flyvbjerg (2006), an atypical or extreme case reveals thicker and deeper information because they can activate basic mechanisms in the situation studied and because they have the potential to engage with more actors. We interviewed 9.4% of the total population of the Islands. For our research problem, a context with a controlled, more visible, and explicit series of external influences seemed ideal. This helps by magnifying and making explicit factors that account for particular outcomes (Pondy 1979). Second, the two indigenous groups Māori and Moriori, the Tourism Development Centre, and the Chatham Island Trust (the Economic Development Agency) were interested in developing a brand to add value to their economy. At the same time, the community was concerned with preserving their cultural identity and lifestyle.

Data Collection We relied on several data sources such as phenomenological interviews, group interviews, and participant observation


4


Table 1. Research Stages. Research Stage Data collection Stage 1 Data collection Stage 2: Fieldtrip 1 Data collection Stage 3: Fieldtrip 2

Analysis 1 Data collection Stage 4: Fieldtrip 3

Location

Data Collection Technique

Dunedin The Chatham Islands Period: 7 days The Chatham Islands Period: 23 days

The Chatham Islands Period: 16 days

Desk research 5 interviews Participant observation Researchers’ diary 42 interviews with residents 5 group interviews 12 interviews with tourists Participant observation Workshop with participants Participant observation Participants’ diaries

Analysis 2

over a period of three years. Data collection spanned four stages as illustrated in Table 1. The fieldwork comprised three trips of 7, 23, and 16 days, respectively. Overall, 42 interviews were conducted with residents and 12 with tourists (Appendix A). Data collection stage 1. We first developed our understanding of the place by gathering archival data from external sources. Desk research included books, historical documents, newspapers, and reports from the Department of Conservation of New Zealand. To supplement the limited amount of published information, researchers identified five informants in Dunedin who had lived in or had close working connections with the Chathams. They provided us with descriptions of habitus, lifestyle, local stories, and helped to draw a sociocultural picture of the place. This practice of researching the field outside the field continued throughout the data analysis, with two research participants assisting in a recursive and iterative analysis. Data collection stage 2 (fieldtrip 1). In this stage, we focused on perceiving and gathering information about the lifestyle and habitus. Formulating a sense or an impression of the place, in accordance with the phenomenological ethnography developed by Merleau-Ponty ([1945] 2002), emphasized the role of perception as an action of being-in-the-world. We collected data, both real-time perceptions and retrospective information, via participant observation during activities that included visiting public venues to talk to residents and joining a group of tourists for guided activities. Combining emic and etic perceptions about the place, we enriched our own sense of being-at-the-place. The initial perceptions about the Chathams were recorded in a research diary. The richest information in ethnographic research is collected via informal and casual talks between researchers and participants and by a reflexive ongoing process experienced by researchers during fieldwork (Elliott

and Jankel-Elliott 2003). The research diary provided an opportunity to provoke a personal ongoing conversation about the experience and an important tool to enable reflexivity throughout the many phases of the research (Nadin and Cassell 2006). Entries in the diary were made frequently and were motivated by observations, thoughts, and experiences that might inform subsequent discussion. Data collection stage 3 (fieldtrip 2). During the weeks on the Chathams, we conducted 42 interviews, five of which were group interviews, given that between three and four (see Appendix A) people engaged in the conversation. The group interviews were prompted by our hostess during our visits to their houses. All the interviews assumed a phenomenological approach as participants could choose the time and the venue that seemed most convenient for them. Mostly, the interviews took place in their homes or places that they wanted to go, and were frequently combined with some other kind of activity or shared experience. For example, going for a walk around the lagoon to hunt for fossilized shark teeth; going on a food gathering trip to collect paua; having a picnic on a historical site; going on a scenic drive and even visiting an interviewee’s great grandfather’s grave. In this context, the interviews were phenomenological because they “developed their own momentum” and the experiences were led by participants who decided not only their duration but what they wanted to share with us (Thompson, Locander, and Pollio 1989, p. 139). Albeit following a phenomenological approach, we had a Protocol of Research (Appendix B) where questions are organized under six topics: Overall perceptions, Natural, Cultural, Social, Economic, and Image. Even though our philosophical stance was seeking to give voices to participants, this approach also required “carving out unacknowledged pieces of narrative” (Fine 2002, p. 218). Instead of assuming a question and answer dialogue, we (participants and researchers) established a conversation, illustrated with


5

Campelo et al.

Figure 1. Analysis continuum.

stories and personal perceptions, feelings, and thoughts. Questions were framed as interventions, such as “Tell us about your lifestyle; What do you think is special in this landscape?” We also employed participant observation to collect data in this stage. Observation involves being in a situation to gain impressions of what takes place, where the researcher is actually the primary instrument (Jones and Somekh 2005). In our encounters with residents, we observed habits and practices and with tourists to observe their reactions to local customs and engagement with surrounded environment. The interviews with tourists followed the same framework as the Protocol of Research but focused primarily on their perspectives. These took place in social venues and the data were recorded using field notes. Although this study focuses on an in-depth appreciation of sense of place as experienced by residents, the insights gained from tourists’ perception helped to complement and corroborate etic accounts. These observations helped us to move backward and forward in our reflexive attempts to better understand the experiences in the field. Analysis 1. We adopted thematic analysis as a “constructionist method, which examines the ways in which events, realities, meanings, experiences and so on are the effects of a range of discourses operating within society” (Braun and Clarke 2006, p. 81). Considering that we intended to understand meanings embedded in the way of doing things, and the attributes that determine the sense of place, we opted for a latent or interpretative level of analysis. Interpretive and latent levels of analysis look to identify the “underlying ideas, assumptions, and conceptualizations that are theorized as shaping or informing the semantic content of the data” to reveal meaningful themes (Braun and Clarke 2006, p. 84). The process was recursive and iterative and led to the establishment of 39 emergent codes (Figure 1). The codes were collated within seven nodes (landscape, habitus, culture, unique, identity, social, images) based on connecting points. The nodes collapsed according to similarity and overlap into four dimensions: Landscape, Human, Temporal, and Representation. Analyzing these dimensions, the themes started to emerge. Themes stand for a chain or a pattern of responses and meanings across the data set. Following Braun and Clarke (2006), our emergent themes become abstract constructs because they represent a set of shared meanings. As a statement that holds a variety of meanings, a construct

makes it possible for people to refer to this structure of intertwined meanings (Zaltman 2003). Data collection stage 4 (fieldtrip 3). Aiming to validate our analysis, we first organized a workshop with residents to present our findings. Among the 12 people who attended the workshop, 9 had been interviewed in stage 3 of this research. The findings were accepted, confirmed, and validated with no exemptions. Second, we distributed and discussed a research report with participants who were not at the workshop but were previously interviewed. Third, four people were asked to write a diary about their sense of place. Participants kept the diaries for 10 days, and only two participants returned it. They were analyzed following the same framework explained in the above paragraph and they further informed our data as sources of corroboration rather than offering novel insights. Last, during these two weeks we were immersed again in the field, observing and having informal conversations that confirmed our previous perceptions. Analysis 2. The aims of the second round of analysis were to confirm and/or disconfirm previous findings, and to enrich our understanding of the four themes. We compared the data collected at stage 3 against our set of findings from the first round of analysis. The analysis adopted a more deductive approach confirming previous findings and clarifying the data to generate deeper insights. We examined the participants’ diaries searching for evidences of the themes already identified. This analysis also reflects the knowledge gained in the field through participant observation as a hallmark of interpretive depth in ethnographic research (Kozinets et al. 2010).

Findings The constructs that emerged from the analysis represent a pattern of responses and meanings across the data set. They are not only intrinsically related to social reproductions but also inherently to broader structures of meanings (Braun and Clarke 2006). The constructs of Time, Landscape, Ancestry, and Community are determined by the interactions between the physical and social environments and characterize the participants’ attitudes and their habitus. The habitus influences and is influenced by these interactions that shape culture and its manifestations, systems of beliefs


6


and practices, community organization, and the value and utilization of resources. The constructs are discussed below, but while they are presented separately for ease of explanation, it should be noted that they overlap and are interlinked.

Time Marking our experience of being in a place, time is influenced by social and natural factors. Heidegger ([1924] 1992) examined time related to past, present, and future in terms of the how-of-being-in-the-world. Accordingly, the how is stated as a result of social interactions conceptualized and experienced differently by different societies (Lévi-Strauss 1963; Harvey 1990). The experience of peculiar and localized concepts of time, together with natural influences (e.g., weather), determine the rhythm and pace of each place. The concept of time on the Islands drives the rhythm of life, impacting the behavior, attitudes, and expectations of the people. Time has two dimensions for the Islanders: the weather and the presence of the past in their lives. Because of weather conditions, the Islands are often isolated for days and, in fact, it is the determinant for time frames: Life circulates around the weather, around the ship, which is obviously weather dependent. . . . The lifestyle is all about working around the weather. It doesn’t depend on the clock. It depends on the weather. (Donna)

The importance of the past influencing how-of-being-inthe-world creates the second dimension of time. The presence of ancestry and history inform the present “how” in their lives, promoting a direct link to the past: You can feel the past so strongly here. In other places it’s like it’s kind of obliterated or, the connections are broken. But here you can go outside, just for a walk down the beach and you can see evidence just there. It’s in front of your eyes. I can feel the past people living here. . . . Also, just in terms of how people live here today and everything, it all goes back to the history of what’s happened. (Amanda)

While the influence of the weather remains a conscious factor in life, making people more adaptable and flexible in their day-to-day behavior, the presence of the past is perceived in their habitus through the ways of doing things passed from generation to generation. The connections with the past inform the how-of-being-in the world in terms of practices and social responsibilities. Interviewees pointed to funerals as a particular experience and series of interactions that represent their habitus. For example, certain families have specific duties and responsibilities at funerals that have passed from one generation to the next. Everyone knows which family is responsible for providing each type of support and contribution, their duties, and what is expected of them: When you have a funeral on the Chatham Islands, you see a lot of ritual that has grown up, that has come down the generations.

For a start, the family will be supported by another family, they might be related or not, but they will be supported by another group who will undertake all the preparation. . . . There are some roles in the community for some families and they are doing these for generations. (Boris)

The experience represented by funerals illustrates how the roles, responsibilities, and rituals established in the past are continued today. It also demonstrates how the concept of time based on the Heideggerian being becomes embedded in the habitus. The past, is not a “what,” but a “how” (of doing things) that informs the present, and, by extension, the future “how” (Heidegger [1924] 1992). The influence of the construct of time on the habitus of the Islanders includes both the Heideggerian notion of how-being-in-the-world and the concept of time as event-driven (Bender 2002). The account of time on the Chatham Islands is a construct of time-reckoning governed by natural as well as cultural constraints. The collective understanding of this construct reinforces the local culture and the shared sense of place.

Ancestry Ancestry is critical for the Islanders and creates a powerful connection with history, land, rights, ownership, and belonging. The lines of descendants and paths of genealogy are clear and vital for the people of the Chathams, the majority of whom are related to Moriori, Maori, or European settlers. While these ethnicities have interwoven overtime, the stories and memories of how and when this patchwork began are well preserved and continuously perpetuated among the community. Knowledge about their genealogy is considered of high importance in the community to determine the sense of self and family identity, and to establish the right to and the ownership of the land: I know my ancestors are there or looking upon me, . . . there is sense that is associated with being home with your whanau (family). For those who have been, for those who are yet to come. That’s how I feel about being a Chatham Islander, the inter connection, that history. (Diva)

Efforts to maintain active links with the past and with their ancestors are demonstrated in their habitus and the meanings that influence people’s engagement with each other and with the surrounding environment: I belong to the Chatham Islands, because of ties of the generations that um have lived here previous to me, going back to that, 13th-14th century. I inherited some land, and it is my life. (Anthony)

Ancestry defines history, constrains values, and imbues culture with social capital. On the Chatham Islands, it provides what Bourdieu (1986) called a “credential” for belonging to a particular community. Ancestry informs people’s behavior in the reproduction of social relations, in


7

Campelo et al. political and organizational affairs. It affects the sense of self and family identity, and the sense of belonging to the place. The combination of how-being-in-the-world is informed by the past and enshrined in the present. It demonstrates that ancestry is not only related to ownership, but embraces inherited roles and responsibilities that continue connecting the community. Even in relation to ownership, the ties that bind are spiritual and obligatory: I can only suggest that it could be the forebears that lived here have never sold a place out or given it away to somebody else; it has always been passed down. I inherited 300 acres from my mother; what am I going to do with it? Am I going to sell it and clear out? . . . It is just something that you can’t do that with the land here and the people that’s given it to, has given their stuff to you. (Gary)

The attachment to the land reinforces the links with their ancestors, and provides the land and the landscape with cultural significance. The presence of and inspiration from their ancestors in their habitus is perceived through the recognition, acceptance, and perpetuation of communal roles and responsibilities. This inspiration not only creates new perspectives for the future but reaffirms the connection to the past. The habitus carries the history of the place and, inextricably, links the past to the present. We do things according our tikanga (our way of doing things). Tikanga encompasses the spiritual aspects of life, myths, legends, and it’s a cultural thing. It is really our way of doing, of practicing what we believe. We practice our tikanga all the time without realizing it. (Brigit)

Landscape The importance of the physical environment was highlighted as a unique element of the Chathams. Landscape becomes a meaningful social construction connecting and mediating relations between people, land, and nature. These relations are demonstrated through the strong connection with nature, the cultural importance of the land, and its role as a communal larder. Interviewees revealed a strong connection with nature as an important bond in their lives and a durable tie to their community. This bond becomes stronger in extreme places where people need to rely more on natural resources, and where the harshness of the climate or roughness of the terrain form the modus operandi of the people: “I wouldn’t say that the environment shapes the people; it would be more that the people become one with the environment” (Diva). And, even more explicitly: I have strong feelings to the place. I feel like I’m part of it, and it is part of me. . . . In the 10 years that I was married and living away from here, I had nine miscarriages, and I put that down to being unsettled, not happy because I wasn’t here. Then I returned home and everything has gone full circle again. I now

have two beautiful grown up children. So the place becomes part of you and you become part of the place. (Tess)

The cultural importance of the land includes natural, familial, and social history transforming the landscape into a repository that links past to present, personal history to ancestral, and to place history. It is through the landscape that people experience the history of the place and their place in the history. Some narratives demonstrate how the constructs of landscape and ancestry interweave and overlap: I think what I love, and many Chatham Islanders will probably say the same thing: I like to walk on ground where my great, great, great grandfather walked. (Ben).

Community The experience of shared cultural and social relations creates a communal sense of belonging, and the mutual understanding of these relations provides the characteristics of a community. Collectively, humans develop a capacity to produce and consume meanings of a place (Cresswell 2004) and it is these meanings that underpin people’s attitudes towards and interactions between each other that transform groups of individuals into a community. The narratives that describe the community emphasize the idea of a “big family, close knit” (George), which is independent, self-sufficient, and self-reliant to the extent that they strongly share the sentiment that although they are constitutionally part of New Zealand they do not feel that emotionally or practically they belong to it. The isolation, combined with the harshness of the climate and their unique cultural diversity, has developed a sense of independence, resilience, and difference that defines how they perceive themselves: We are self-sufficient. Tolerant. You have to be tolerant. Because there is just no point in getting annoyed that there are no lettuces or fruits in the shop, you just have to go out and find something else. Find some watercress or go and do a trade with someone. You have just got to get around it. (Diana )

While the isolation creates a need to be independent and self-sufficient, it also reinforces the ties within the community with a clear understanding of the necessity to support and accept, within clearly understood limitations, each other’s differences: People have to be strong here. You can’t afford to take things for granted. The community is small. We understand everyone is different, and take everyone has different views. We have to rely in everybody to make your life enjoyable and comfortable. We might have different opinions in everything, on everything probably. But we are compromised to work together. It is what makes us survive. (Sue)

The construct of community reflects the communal engagement with and understanding of the meanings


8


portrayed by the constructs of time, ancestry, and landscape. It is important to note that beyond the set of meanings held by each construct that influences the construct of community, it is the how of each set of meanings that matters most. The how of social reproductions produces peculiarities of habitus for each community and reveals the taste, flavor, and sense of each place.

Discussion Local Sense of Place and Destination Branding The social, cultural, and natural attributes of the place coalesce to influence its habitus (Bourdieu 1989; Casey 2001a, 2001b) and its uniqueness. On the Chatham Islands, the habitus, as a system of disposition that entails a communal sense of place, was revealed by understanding how being-inthe-world was experienced and represented in the constructs that determined their sense of place. Sense of place is in a permanent state of cocreation through the social constructions and social reproductions of life in a physical setting. These social reproductions are influenced by cultural and historical ties, and by everyday experiences. The four constructs of time, ancestry, landscape, and community that define sense of place are recognized in all other places, but what matters is how their permutations define sense of place based on contextual and culturally bounded significance. The meanings for each construct depend on how they are socially created and shared based on the particular interactions experienced by a group of people living at a particular site. The set of meanings of each construct is based on a communal understanding of how-being-in-the-world (Heidegger [1924] 1992). The how leads to particular ways of doing things in that place, which is linked to the reasons they are done in that particular way, and moreover, why they have cultural significance. To understand what the constructs are, how they work, and why they are experienced and performed in that way is to understand the habitus of the place (Bourdieu 1986). The following model, presented in Figure 2, provides an illustration of how the attributes from the physical environment interact with attributes from the social environment to create constructs that determine the sense of place. The habitus is created by the interactions identified in the model and these are expressed by the ways of doing things in terms of the practicalities of life (Hillier and Rooksby 2002). Their significance and the meanings they represent create the sense of place. The sense of place model, presented in Figure 2, provides a basis to begin an investigation into the set of meanings held by each of these constructs in other places. It is important to make clear that it is not the presence of the four constructs that shape the sense of place, but the significance and meanings of each construct that determines the sense of place. The application of this model to other places should help to appreciate local social reproductions and to understand better their cultural significance.

Figure 2. Sense of place model.

Understanding the constructs that determine sense of place has important implications for the development of destination and place branding. Recognizing the presence and permutations of these constructs and how they determine the sense of place provides an understanding of the layers of meanings upon which the uniqueness of each place is generated. Such understanding matters for developing an effective and consistent destination brand that is both culturally cognizant and socially informed. While the purpose of destination branding is to strategically position places to be visited and consumed, the development of this strategy requires a deeper understanding of the peculiarities and distinctiveness of the place to better represent its complexity. Sense of place is peculiar and unique to each place. Consequently, it matters in terms of defining brand meanings and representations, and also in terms of establishing managerial practices that encapsulate a place’s habitudes. Therefore, the importance of sense of place for destination branding is twofold. First, the constructs that determine sense of place reveal the habitus of the place in terms of the symbols, meanings, and attributes that shape its identity and the behaviour that represents its experience. Destination branding is a mode of communication involving representations of this identity as informed by a place’s culture, economy, history, and people (Papadopoulos and Heslop 2002; Kotler and Gertner 2002; Gilmore 2002). Given that brand meanings are socially constructed (Askegaard 2006) and culturally dependent (Schroeder 2009), understanding the constructs that determine the sense of place helps to not only understand what should be portrayed but also how it should be portrayed. Brand meanings influence the fulfilment of expectations for tourism experiences and impact the sustainability of brand appeal. Second, sense of place is related to habitus. According to Bourdieu (1989, p. 19), habitus entails a “sense of one’s


9

Campelo et al. place” but also a “sense of the place of others” providing a way of understanding different behaviors in similar places. The constructs identified in this research reveal habitus in terms of meaningful practices and particular ways of doing things. As such, these practices should inform decisions in terms of networking, brand management, and governance to develop cooperation with local stakeholders who contribute to the destination brand experience. The omission of sense of place from destination brand would deprive the brand of significant social and cultural meaning resulting in a brand image inconsistent with place identity. Leaving residents aside in the branding process would lead to a lack of recognition, acceptance, and commitment by the local community affecting the quality of the tourism experience. Ultimately, a farsighted strategic plan for a destination and place brand should build on the day-today practices of a place.

Importance for Destination Branding Strategy The constructs of time, ancestry, landscape, and community stand for a set of communal meanings that are imbued with a particular “way of doing things” determined by historical, physical, and natural factors. The constructs interact with each other directly and indirectly, creating and re-creating meaning. The meanings reside in the way personal and social interactions are practiced, reinforced, and recreated in everyday life, thus reinforcing the habitus of the community and the ethos of the place. The sense of place model contributes to destination branding strategies as a guide to investigate the set of meanings within each of these four constructs in other places and as a basis for the identification of new ones. Destination and brand marketers should investigate the layers of meaning of each construct to understand how, individually and collectively, they contribute to the creation and perception of sense of place. The model provides practical guidance for marketers in assisting them with a tool that helps to identify which elements might be considered in developing a brand, and, more importantly, in understanding how and why these elements have cultural significance. Time, for instance, differs qualitatively among different societies (Harvey 1990). What is important is to understand how cultural constraints determine each permutation of a place’s sense of time (and vice-versa), and to recognize how it impacts the social reproductions of place. Time as a construct is locally created and understood in relation to local cultural constraints (Bender 2002). This connection determines the frames of time and, consequently, establishes the rhythm of a place. The implications for destination branding would be related to how time impacts the lifestyle of the place (traditional, modern, slow-pace, busy) and its significance in the processes of social reproduction, communal and collective practices, and behavior. Ancestry is an important construct in terms of how genealogy, tradition, and historical facts influence and inform the

contemporary practices of everyday life. For destination branding, it relates to the notion of brands as sociocultural entities (Cayla and Arnould 2008), culturally relative and contextually and historically embedded. Destination marketers should investigate ancestry not only to understand contemporary practices but to comprehend symbols and the images that exist in the repertoire of place’s culture. The construct of landscape influences sense of place by providing a pictorial reference for place. It holds a set of meanings very particular to and reflective of a group of people who engage with that landscape in terms of emotional bonds that permeate social and cultural meanings and activities. Mediating between people and place, landscape reflects the way we deal with our external, tangible, and visible world (Massey 1993) and forms part of our ongoing social exchange. The interactions with landscape lead to practices that link culture to particular locations and create meanings that are both responses to the present and reflections of the past. It matters for destination marketers to understand the possible interactions between people and landscape, and consequently how it can be related to tourism experiences beyond its role in providing iconic or representative images. The above constructs overlap influencing one another and are represented in the habitus of a community. By exploring these constructs, marketers would recognize the meanings and characteristics of social interactions and social reproductions of a community. Our recommendation for destination marketers is to apply the model presented in this article to understand what constitutes sense of place as an antecedent to developing a destination brand strategy. Also, the model should help to reveal narratives, descriptions, images, and symbols that can be used to design the brand communication. We believe this understanding is a stepping stone for a consistent destination brand because it positions the community at the heart of the branding strategy. Conversely, a lack of connection between destination brand and local sense of place threatens brand sustainability and its authenticity.

Conclusion This article discusses how destination branding should begin by understanding sense of place as experienced by local residents, and the importance of positioning their voices at the heart of the branding strategy. The research was focused, therefore, on those who are represented by the brand and for whom its success is critical. This research was conducted in a small community with a particular cultural background and distinct historical and genealogical characteristics. While the constructs identified in this research may well have more general applicability, they need to be confirmed in different communities in terms of size and cultural context. The theoretical contribution of this article is to identify the constructs that influence and determine the sense of


10


place, and how they interact to create the sense of place. The constructs of time, ancestry, landscape, and community stand for a set of communal meanings that are imbued with a particular habitude determined by historical, physical and natural factors. The constructs interact with each other directly and indirectly, creating and re-creating meaning. The meanings reside in the way personal and social interactions are practiced, reinforced and recreated in everyday life, thus reinforcing the habitus of the community and the ethos of the place. The managerial contribution is to provide a sense of place model as a strategic guide to investigate the set of meanings within each of these four constructs and their importance in other places. The application of this model should help marketers to understand attributes of social and cultural significance in tourism destinations. While it may be expected that those directly involved in the tourism sector might routinely interact with their customers positively, the same may not be

said for those who are outside it. For local residents, it may be that a brand which represents their habitus will encourage a more constructive attitude towards their engagement with tourists and enhance the quality of the tourist’s experience. We believe that positioning the sense of place, as it is constituted and experienced by residents, at the centre of the brand strategy create an inclusive, collaborative, and effective branding process. Therefore, it seems appropriate to give the final words to our participants: We are Chatham Islanders and we are quite proud to be that. We think we are different. Not badly different. We are the seventh generation in these Islands. . . . We have our own culture. Our products are different, and they are more valuable because they are from here. . . . We have something special and I definitely want to see this in a brand . . . something that belongs to here. (Douglas)

Appendix A Participants Profile: Residents/Islanders Interview 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Name Richard Boris Sue Ben Bonnie Gilbert Diva Beth Brigit Sandy Gregory Tess Danielle Tina Dora Ron Kate Rowena Neil Donna Dart Anthony Peter Oscar Amanda Martha Gary George

Age 57 65 32 65 32 50 48 30 40 42 45 62 41 37 62 54 53 42 25 45 58 51 69 56 47 38 68 66

Participants Profile: Residents/Islanders

Occupation

Status

Farmer Judge of peace Conservation ward Fishing industry manager Housewife Manager Council officer Artist Farmer Community worker Fishing industry manager Artist Councillor Administrative officer Cafe owner Shop owner Teacher Council officer Farmer Farmer Fishing industry worker Deputy mayor Mayor Council manager Tourist guide Retailer Farmer Carpenter

Resident Resident Resident Islander Islander Resident Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Resident Islander Islander Resident Resident Islander Islander Islander

Interview

Name

29 Victor 30 Lisa 31 Valentin 32 Kameron 33 Julie 34 Nadia 35 Petra 36 Ellen 37 Rita 38 Paul Group interview 1 Douglas Bernard Diana Felix 2 Bernie Tim Chris John 3 Stella Lewis Dave 4 Pauline Maria Joanna 5 Jonas Sophie Lena

(continued)


Age

Occupation

Status

37 62 65 58 60 42 38 49 43 50

Hotel owner Hotel owner Hotel owner Conservation manager Cook Housewife Hairdresser Farmer Farm stay owner Farm stay owner

Islander Islander Islander Resident Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Resident

37 40 63 68 70 72 32

Fish man Builder/tourist guide Housewife Farmer Farmer Farmer Housewife Fishman Farmer Farmer Student Backpacker owner Teacher Farmer/housewife Fish man Conservation officer Conservation officer

Islander Islander Resident Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Islander Resident

42 45 21 46 49 70 47 38 36

11

Campelo et al. Participants Profile: Tourists Interview

Name

Age

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Melina John Romeo Juliet Patrick Ronald Clare Brent Francis Allan Ross Laura

60 53 65 60 62 58 57 58 39 50 52 50

Research protocol Occupation

Biologist Teacher Historian State agent Manager IT consultant Teacher Accountant Surveyor Property developer Car dealer representative State agent

Appendix B Research protocol Purpose: Identify and understand the attributes that contribute to determine a sense of place. Overall Natural Tell me about the Chatham Can you name your 3 favourite Islands places here? Why are they special? What is the lifestyle here? What do you think is special in this landscape? What is the CI’s community? What is different and/or special in CI’s flora? What are the benefits of Which elements are more living here? representative for CI? Why do you like living here? What do you think about the relationship between human and nature here? What do you dislike here? Why do you chose live here/ or stay here? What do you think is special or unique here? Cultural Social Can you tell me any What do you think about people particular story related to here? Are they friendly? Care the culture of the Islands? about others? Creative? Easygoing? What do you think is the How do you think the families special heritage of the CI? interact with each other? Do you know any particular Can you say an attribute or myths or beliefs? quality about the families here and the community? What you can say about the Which values are associated ancient heritage? Can you with CI families, people, and recognize the different community? kinds of heritage? What do you think the mixture of races contribute to the identity of CI people today? (continued)

Economic Can you tell the difficulties of selling your products (overseas/ mainland)? Can you tell me about your work process?

Image What is your image of CI? And about their people?

How do you think CI and their people are perceived on the mainland? What do you think about the What image of CI do you want level of professionalism of to have projected? your employees? How do you improve the What would be your ideal image quality of your products? of CI in the eyes of NZs? How is the collaboration Can you choose from the between business people elements here (birds, sea life, here? Tell me about the landscape, weather . . .), which quality of this interaction. one most represents the island? Why? Which attributes you recognize as import in this element? In your field/industry, is there If you can choose a color for the strong competition? How is island, which one do you think this competition expressed? would match most with CI? Why? What image do you believe you are projecting on the mainland? What kind of image do you want to project? What is missing from the image projected today for the desirable one?

Acknowledgment The authors thank Professors Constantine Andriopoulos, Søren Askegaard, and Jonathan Schroeder for their insightful comments and the editor and reviewers for their helpful feedback.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Aaker, David A. (2004). Brand Portfolio Strategy: Creating Relevance, Differentiation, Energy, Leverage and Clarity. New York: Free Press. Agnew, J. (1993). “Representing Space: Space, Scale and Culture in Social Science.” In Place, Culture, Representation, edited by J. Duncan and D. Ley. London: Routledge, pp. 251-71. Anholt, Simon. (2005). Brand New Justice: How Branding Places and Products Can Help the Developing World. Oxford: Elsevier.


12


Askegaard, Soren. (2006). “Brands as a Global Ideoscape.” In Brand Culture, edited by Jonathan Schroeder and M. SalzerMorling. London: Routledge, pp. 91-102. Bender, Barbara. (2002). “Time and Landscape.” Current Anthropology, 43 (Suppl 4): S103-S12. Beritelli, P. (2011). “Cooperation among Prominent Actors in a Tourist Destination.” Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (2): 607-29. Blain, Carmen, Stuart E. Levy, and J. R. Brent Ritchie. (2005). “Destination Branding: Insights and Practices from Destination Management Organizations.” Journal of Travel Research, 43 (4): 328-38. Bourdieu, Pierre. (1986). “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. Richardson. New York: Greenwood, pp. 241-58. Bourdieu, Pierre. (1989). “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Theory, 7 (1): 14-25. Bourdieu, Pierre. (2002). “Habitus.” In Habitus: A Sense of Place, edited by J. Hillier and E. Rooksby. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 27-34. Braun, V., and V. Clarke. (2006). “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2): 77-101. Butz, D., and J. Eyles. (1997). “Reconceptualizing Senses of Place: Social Relations, Ideology and Ecology.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 79 (1): 1-25. Cai, L. (2002). “Cooperative Branding for Rural Destinations.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29: 720-42. Casey, Edward S. (1996). “How to Get from Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time: Phenomenological Prolegomena.” In Senses of Place, edited by S. Feld and K. Basso. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, pp. 13-52. Casey, Edward S. (2001a). “Between Geography and Philosophy: What Does It Mean to Be in the Place-World?” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91 (4): 683-93. Casey, Edward S. (2001b). “On Habitus and Place: Responding to My Critics.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91 (4): 716-23. Cayla, J., and E. Arnould. (2008). “A Cultural Approach to Branding in the Global Marketplace.” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4): 86-112. Chatham Islands Council. (2011). “Chatham Islands Annual Report 2011/2012.” http://www.cic.govt.nz/documents/2012/11/annualreport-20112012.pdf (accessed March 15, 2013). Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A Short Introduction. Bodmin: Blackwell. Daniels, M. J. (2007). “Central Place Theory and Sport Tourism Impacts.” Annals of Tourism Research, 34 (2): 332-47. Davies, C. (2008). Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others. London: Routledge. Dinnie, K. (2008). Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, Practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Ekstrom, K. M. (2006). “The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography in Anthropology and Marketing.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing, edited by Russell Belk. Cheltenham-Northampton: Edward Elgar, pp. 497-508. Elliott, R., and N. Jankel-Elliott. (2003). “Using Ethnography in Strategic Consumer Research.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6 (4): 215-23.

Fine, G. A. (2002). “The Storied Group: Social Movements as ‘Bundles of Narratives.’” In Stories of Change: Narrative and Social Movements, edited by J. E. Davis. Albany: SUNY, pp. 229-45. Flyvbjerg, Bent. (2006). “Five Misunderstandings about CaseStudy Research.” Qualitative Inquiry, 12: 219-45. Gilmore, F. (2002). “A Country—Can It Be Repositioned? Spain— The Success Story of Country Branding.” Journal of Brand Management, 9 (4/5): 281-94. Gnoth, Juergen. (2007). “The Structure of Destination Brands: Leveraging Values.” Tourism Analysis, 12 (5/6): 345-58. Gover, R., and F. Go. (2011). Place Branding Year Book: Managing Reputational Risk. New York: Palgrave McMillan. Hakala, U., S. Laetti, and B. Sandberg. (2011). “Operationalising Brand Heritage and Cultural Heritage.” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20 (6): 447-56. Hall, D. (1999). “Destination Branding, Niche Marketing and National Image Projection in Central and Eastern Europe.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5 (3): 227-37. Hankinson, G. (2007). “The Management of Destination Brands: Five Guiding Principles Based on Recent Developments in Corporate Branding Theory.” Journal of Brand Management, 14 (3): 240-54. Hillier, J., and E. Rooksby. (2002). “Introduction.” In Habitus: A Sense of Place, edited by J. Hillier and E. Rooksby. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 3-25. Harvey, David. (1990). “Between Space and Time: Reflections on the Geographical Imagination.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 80 (3): 418-34. Harvey, David. (1996). Justice, Nature and the Geography of the Difference. London: Blackwell. Haugland, S. A., H. Ness, B. Grønseth, and J. Aarstad. (2011). “Development of Tourism Destinations: An Integrated Multilevel Perspective.” Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (1): 268-90. Hay, R. (1998). “Sense of Place in Developmental Context.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18 (1): 5-29. Heidegger, M. ([1924] 1992). The Concept of Time. Oxford: Blackwell. Holbrook, M., and J. O’Shaughnessy. (1988). “On the Scientific Status of Consumer Research and the Need for an Interpretive Approach to Studying Consumption Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3): 398-402. Hultman, J., and M. C. Hall. (2012). “Tourism Place-making: Governance of Locality in Sweden.” Annals of Tourism Research, 39 (2): 547-70. Hummon, D. (1992). “Community Attachment: Local Sentiment and Sense of Place.” In Place Attachment, edited by I. Altman and S. Low. New York: Plenum, pp. 253-78. Jackson, J. (1994). A Sense of Place, a Sense of Time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jones, L., and B. Somekh. (2005). “Observation.” In Research Methods in the Social Sciences, edited by B. Somekh and C. Lewin. London: Sage. Kavaratzis, M., and G. J. Ashworth. (2005). “City Branding: An Effective Assertion of Identity or a Transitory Marketing Trick?” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96 (5): 506-14. Kotler, Philip, and David Gertner. (2002). “Country as Brand, Product, and Beyond: A Place Marketing and Brand


13

Campelo et al. Management Perspective.” Journal of Brand Management, 9 (4/5): 249-61. Kozinets, Robert, Kristine de Valck, Andrea Wojnicki, and Sarah Wilner. (2010). “Networked Narratives: Understanding Wordof-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities.” Journal of Marketing, 74 (2): 71-89. Kyle, G., and G. Chick. (2007). “The Social Construction of a Sense of Place.” Leisure Sciences, 29 (3): 209-25. Laverty, S. (2003). “Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A Comparison of Historical and Methodological Considerations.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (3): 1. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. (1963). Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Low, S., and I. Altman. (1992). Place Attachment. New York: Plenum. Manzo, L. (2003). “Beyond House and Haven: Toward a Revisioning of Emotional Relationships with Places.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (1): 47-61. Marcus, G. (1995). “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography.” Annual Review of Anthropology, 24 (1): 95-117. Marzano, G., and N. Scott. (2009). “Power in Destination Branding.” Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (2): 247-67. Massey, D. (1993). “Power-Geometry and a Progressive Sense of Place.” In Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change, edited by J. Bird et al. London: Routledge, pp. 59-70. Massey, D. (2006). “Landscape as a Provocation: Reflections on Moving Mountains.” Journal of Material Culture, 11 (1-2): 33-48. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002[1945]). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge. Nadin, Sara, and Catherine Cassell. (2006). “The Use of a Research Diary as a Tool for Reflexive Practice: Some Reflections from Management Research.” Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 3 (3): 208-17. Papadopoulos, N., and L. Heslop. (2002). “Country Equity and Country Branding: Problems and Prospects.” Journal of Brand Management, 9 (4/5): 294-315. Perdue, R. R., and B. E. Pitegoff. (1990). “Methods of Accountability Research for Destination Marketing.” Journal of Travel Research, 28 (4): 45-49. Pernecky, T., and T. Jamal. (2010). “(Hermeneutic) Phenomenology in Tourism Studies.” Annals of Tourism Research, 37 (4): 1055-75. Pile, S. (2002). “Spectral Cities: Where the Repressed Returns and Other Short Stories.” In Habitus: A Sense of Place, edited by J. Hillier and E. Rooksby. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 235-57.

Pondy, L. R. (1979). “Theories of Extreme Cases.” Working paper, College of Commerce, University of Illinois, Champaign. Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. London: Pion. Ryan, C. (2002). The Tourist Experience. London: Continuum. Sack, R. (1988). “The Consumer’s World: Place as Context.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78 (4): 642–64. Schroeder, J. E. (2009). “The Cultural Codes of Branding.” Marketing Theory, 9 (1): 123–26. Stokowski, P. (2002). “Languages of Place and Discourses of Power: Constructing New Senses of Place.” Journal of Leisure Research, 34 (4): 368. Thompson, C. J., Locander, W. B., and Pollio, H. R. (1989). “Putting Consumer Experience Back into Consumer Research: The Philosophy and Method of Existential-Phenomenology.” The Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2): 133-146. Trueman, M., M. Klemm, and A. Giroud. (2004). “Can a City Communicate? Bradford as a Corporate Brand.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9 (4): 317-30. Tuan, Y. (1975). “Place: An Experiential Perspective.” Geographical Review, 65 (2): 151-65. Williams, D., M. Patterson, J. Roggenbuck, and A. Watson. (1992). “Beyond the Commodity Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place.” Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14 (1): 29-46. Zaltman, G. (2003). How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Author Biographies Adriana Campelo is a lecturer at Cardiff Business School at Cardiff University, UK. Her main research interests are branding, place marketing and marketing communications. Robert Aitken, is an Associate Professor at University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. His research interests include place marketing, branding and advertising. Maree Thyne is an Associate Professor at University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Her research interests include tourism marketing and consumer behavior. Juergen Gnoth is a Professor at University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. His research interests include tourism services marketing and place marketing.
