Annals rf Tourism Research, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 261-283, 1996
CopyrIght 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights resewed 0160.7383/96 $l5.00+0.00
Pergamon
0160-7383(95)00063-l
PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF EUROPEAN CULTURAL TOURISM Greg Richards Tilburg University, The Netherlands Abstract: A transnational
study of European cultural tourism demand and supply indicates a rapid increase in both the production and consumption of heritage attractions. Although heritage tourism demand has been fueled by rising income and education levels, there has also been a significant supply-induced element of demand. In particular, those engaged in cultural production play a key role in exploiting the cultural capital concentrated in the major historic centers of Europe. Spatially localized production of heritage is intimately linked with socially limited consumption of heritage tourism by groups within the “new middle class”, rendering attempts to spread tourism consumption through heritage promotion difficult. Keywords: cultural tourism, heritage, Europe, consumption.
R&urn& Production
et consommation du tourisme culture1 europten. Une ttude de I’offre et la demande du tourisme culture1 europCen indique une augmentation rapide dans la production et consommation des attractions patrimoniales. Quoique la demande pour le tourisme patrimonial soit aliment& par des niveaux montants de revenus et d’instruction, il y a un Cltment signiiicatif de la demande qui est provoqut par I’offre. En particulier, ceux qui sent engages dans la production culturelle jouent un r81e cl& dans I’exploitation de la capitale culturelle concentree dans les grandes villes europCennes. Le patrimoine IocalisC est ttroitement IiC 2 la consommation socialement IimitCe du tourisme patrimonial par la ~mouvelle classe moyenne,,, cc qui rend difflcile des tentatives pour augmenter la consommation du tourisme par la promotion du patrimoine. Mot.+cl&: tourisme culturel, patrimoine, Europe, consommation.
INTRODUCTION A cursory reading of tourism policy documents produced by national and regional governments across Europe in the last 15 years would soon convince the reader that heritage tourism is a major “new” area of tourism demand, which almost all policy-makers are now aware of and anxious to develop. Heritage tourism, as a part of the broader category of “cultural tourism”, is now a major pillar of the nascent tourism strategy of the European Commission (1992). The assumptions that all these cultural tourism strategies have in common are that this is a major growth area, that it can be used to boost local culture, and that it can aid the seasonal and geographic spread of tourism (Richards 1994). Many policies also make the assumption that tourists are interested in a generalized cultural or heritage product and that the cultural heritage of one region is just as good as the next for the purposes of developing tourism. There Greg Richards is lecturer in Leisure Studies at Tilburg University Department of Leisure Studies (PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. email
[email protected]). He is Coordinator of the European Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS) and has participated in transnational projects on cultural tourism, sustainable tourism and tourism and leisure education. 261
262
EUROPEAN CULTURAL
TOURISM
is increasing evidence to suggest, however, that cultural tourists are in fact highly selective in their consumption of heritage resources and that “traditional” heritage areas still have a considerable advantage over “new” heritage areas because of the accumulated symbolic and aesthetic value accruing to the former. The emergence of heritage tourism has spawned a veritable plethora of studies dedicated to the analysis of the heritage phenomenon and the reasons for its spectacular growth (Hewison 1987; Prentice 1993; Rojek 1993; Shaw 1991; Urry 1990). The explanations advanced for the popularity of heritage tourism are varied, but they tend to agree that tourists want more cultural and heritage experiences, whether these be meaningful and “authentic” (MacCannell 1976) or a vacuous, shallow form of entertainment packaged as “pseudo-events” (Boorstin 1964) or an opportunity for people to produce and structure their own meanings from the tourism experience (Urry 1990). Even though it is often argued that heritage tourism is a manifestation of the commodilication of culture (Hewison 1987), f ew attempts have been made to place its development in the context of the growing body of work that analyzes the role of commodities and their consumption in modern life (Bocock 1993; Bourdieu 1984). Such a broad perspective is necessitated by the increasingly farreaching consequences of cultural and heritage tourism development. Many authors have identified the collapse of boundaries between the “cultural” and the “economic” as a key feature of postmodernity (Harvey 1989; Jameson 1984; MacCannell 1993). The consumption of culture is increasingly used as a means of economic regeneration, and the creation of cultural facilities is an important weapon in the competitive struggle to attract inward investment to European cities (Bianchini 1990). In place of cultural provision being driven by the development of the productive base, therefore, postmodernity is marked by consumption-driven cultural production. The need to attract capital and middle-class spending power dictates that tourism is an essential ingredient of the creation of consumption growth poles, or “cultural capital-driven development complexes” (Britton 1991:470). In considering the growth of cultural and heritage tourism, therefore, it is not sufficient to look only at the development of heritage attractions. The question of who consumes these attractions, and the manner in which they are consumed will also have an important influence on the production, form and location of these attractions. A number of authors have attempted to analyze either the consumption or production of heritage attractions (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990; Prentice 1993), and rather fewer have explored the link between heritage consumption and production in detail (MacCannell 1976; Odermatt 1994; Urry 1990). One weakness common to many of these previous studies is the limited spatial context of the examples drawn upon. Most studies are limited to a single city, or at best, a number of isolated case studies drawn from different areas. This article attempts to take a wider, European perspective to the tourism development. Utilizing data on the issue of heritage
GREG RICHARDS
263
consumption and production of heritage tourism in Europe, an analysis is made of the form and causes of its growth. It is argued that cultural and heritage tourism not only results from the expansion of the “new middle classes”, who are the predominant consumers of heritage, but it also reflects the role of these same consumers in shaping the production of heritage commodities. COMMODIFICATION
AND TOURISM
CONSUMPTION
Watson and Kopachevsky have argued that “modern tourism is best understood in the context of the cornmodification process and contemporary consumer culture” (1994:657). In fact, much of the recent argument surrounding the nature of tourism has centered on the nature of tourism consumption and the commodities that tourists consume. For example, Boorstin deplored the rise of mass tourism as an example of the transformation of “real” experiences into shallow “pseudo events”. The ultimate example of the empty commodities offered to tourists was: The relatively recent phenomenon of the tourist attraction is pure and simple. It often has no purpose but to attract the interest of the owner or of the nation. As we might expect, the use of the word
“attraction” as “a thing or feature which ‘draws’ people; especially any interesting or amusing exhibition” dates only from about 1862. It is a new species: the most attenuated form of a nation’s culture. All over the world now we find these “attractions” - of little significance for the inward life of a people, but wonderfully saleable as a tourist commodity (1964: 103).
In contrast to Boorstin, MacCannell (1976) viewed the tourism attraction as being imbued with meaning precisely through its consumption by the tourist. Modern society, constructed on denial of tradition, forces people to create their own traditions. One of the most powerful modern traditions is tourism, with attractions acting as key cultural experiences, in which meaning is created through consumption, rather than the productive processes central to previous eras. The search for authenticity and meaning described by MacCannell may well encounter barriers of cornmodification. However, as Watson and Kopachevsky point out, the tourism consumption described by MacCannell: . , . force one to recognize that people now live in a world in which tourism and tourist experience are major components. Such a world is one in which image, advertising and consumerism - as framed by style, taste, travel, “designerism” and leisure - take primacy over production per se (1994:647). The disappearance of traditional divisions between the realms of production and consumption and between the cultural and the economic are examples of what MacCannell (1993) has identified as the collapse of the distinction between means and production. Former production spaces have now been given over to consumption,
264
EUROPEAN CXJI,TURAI, TOURISM
as in the case of former coal mines turned into museums and visitor centers. For MacCannell, therefore, all tourism is a cultural experience. Urry (1990) takes this argument one step further by arguing that tourism is culture. In the new culture of tourism, specially created consumption areas have been developed, which are designed to aid tourists in their search for authenticity and meaning. Labeling these “escape areas”, Rojek (1993:136) divides them into four categories: “black spots”, “heritage attractions”, “literary landscapes” and “theme parks”. It is no accident that at least two of these categories of escape area have heritage connections. Rojek argues that in an era of postmodern consumption, spectacle has become so ubiquitous that the spectacular is no longer a sufficient basis for a tourism attraction. The added value provided by heritage attractions and theme parks alike is that they provide a reassuring link to the past for postmodern tourists who, in Rojek’s (1993) view, are “emigres from the present”. Similar arguments are presented by Britton (1991), who points out that the multiplication of tourism commodities causes a “waning effect” (Jameson 1984), where tourism attractions must be recreated with increasing frequency in order to sustain the novelty value of consumption. This is achieved, Britton argues, by utilizing the cultural and symbolic capital attached to specific places to create new attractions, events and spectacles. Cultural and heritage attractions have, therefore, become an essential part of the consumption practices that order the contemporary landscape of production. Culture and Heritage A major problem in analyzing cultural consumption is the vast scope of meanings implied by the term “culture”. Tomlinson notes that hundreds of definitions of culture exist, “which would suggest that either there is a considerable amount of confusion . . . or that ‘culture’ is so large and all-embracing a concept that it can accommodate all these definitions” (1991:4). There is a sense of culture as a complex whole, which provides an organizing concept for the to define culture in a single widely varied “ways of life”. Trying broadly acceptable definition produces a level of generalization that renders the act of definition useless. The solution proposed by Tomlinson and others (van Maanen and Laurent 1993) is not to seek an all-embracing definition of what culture is, but rather to concentrate on the way in which the term is actually used. Williams (1983) identifies three broad categories of modern usage of the term: as a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development; as indicative of a particular “way of life”; and as the works and practices of intellectual and artistic activity. A glance at the history of tourism consumption shows that the emphasis of usage has shifted over time, away from the process of cultivation exemplified by the Grand Tour (Towner 1985) towards the last two categories. Van Maanen and Laurent (1993) characterize these remaining two basic uses of the term culture in the
GREG RICHARDS
265
academic literature in terms of “culture as process” and “culture as product”. Culture as process is an approach derived from anthropology and sociology, which regards it mainly as codes of conduct embedded in a specific social group. The culture as product approach derives particularly from literary criticism. Culture is regarded as the product of individual or group activities to which certain meanings are attached. In general, the two meanings of culture are closely intertwined. In recent years, however, there has been growing concern expressed about the commodification of culture. Tourism in particular has been identified as a major force for commodification. The transformation of culture as process into culture as product and its resulting cornmodification is the phenomenon deplored by Hewison (1987:139): that history has become a commodity called heritage. Hewison criticizes the emergence of the heritage industry, not only for the production of empty commodities, but also because the cornmodified history so generated can be shaped to meet political and economic rather than cultural ends. There is no doubt that the presence of tourists often leads to the creation of cultural manifestations specilically for tourism consumption (Cohen 1988). In these circumstances, culture as process is transformed through tourism (as well as other social mechanisms) into culture as product. Many would disagree with Hewison, however, about the extent to which the “heritage industry” has produced commodities empty of meaning. Cohen (1988:379) argues that some cultural products developed for tourists may exhibit “emergent authenticity”, and be accepted as “authentic” by both tourists and cultural producers alike. MacCannelI (197625) refers to “cultural productions”, a term that refers not only to the process of culture, but also to the products that result from that process. MacCannell identified tourism as the ideal arena in which to investigate the nature of such cultural production, which in essence expresses the concept of commodi~cation applied to tourism. Depending on the point of view, therefore, the consumers of heritage tourism are either the witless dupes of a commodity production system or they are the originators of authentic modern cultural products. In order to shed some light on these opposing views, it is important to establish who the consumers of heritage tourism actually are. Heritage
and Postmodern
tourism
consumption
Cultural and heritage tourism have been identified in numerous studies as important new areas of consumer demand in Europe and elsewhere (Berroll 1981; Bywater 1993; Thorburn 1986). In spite of the fact that “cultural tourists” have been common in Europe for hundreds of years, it is only in the last two decades that cultural and heritage tourism have been identified as specific tourism markets. This recent upsurge is underlined by the assertion of one German writer that the appearance of the term kulturtourismus (cultural tourism) stems from the reunification of Germany in 1990 (Nahrstedt 199325). Heritage tourism has thus become a
266
EUROPEAN CULTURAL
TOURISM
tourism marketing and development “bandwagon” in Europe in recent years. Heritage tourism has been closely associated by many authors with the rise of postmodern forms of tourism (Rojek 1993; Urry 1994). Postmodern tourism is closely associated with a concern for image, for authenticity, with differentiated markets and post-fordist, flexible patterns of production. The commodities produced for the postmodern tourist include a wide range of convenient heritage products. The consumption of heritage by postmodern tourists is also closely associated with certain social groups and in particular the “new middle class”, which Munt characterizes as the “producers and consumers of postmodernism par excellence” ( 1994: 106). Much of the analysis of the emergence of postmodern consumption is based on the work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu that social classes struggle to distinguish (1984). He argues themselves from each other through education, occupation and consumption of commodities, which also includes tourism consumption (Munt 1994). The combination of accumulated social, educational and cultural capital of particular social groups forms a distinctive “habitus” or class culture. On the basis of such an analyis able to identify different factions within the sis, Bourdieu expanded middle class. The “new bourgeoisie” is high on economic and cultural capital and consumes exclusive travel products and ecotourism. In contrast, the “new petit bourgeoisie” or “new cultural are lower on economic capital, and therefore must intermediaries”, professionalize tourism consumption practices in order to create employment opportunities for themselves. Munt argues that struggles for cultural and class superiority between these factions are responsible for many of the cultural and structural features of modern tourism consumption, such as the distinction between “traveler” and “tourist” and the spatial differentiation exemplified in tourism development “off the beaten track”. In tourism, as in there is a constant search for new other areas of consumption, experiences and sources of stimulation that help to distinguish particular social groups: The sense of good investment outmoded, or simply devalued,
which dictates
a withdrawal from
objects, places or practices and a move into ever newer objects in an endless drive for novelty, and which operates in every area, sport and cooking, holiday resorts and restaurants, is guided by countless indices and indications (Bourdieu 1984: 249).
Bourdieu’s work is not only useful in understanding the structure of tourism consumption, but has been more widely applied in the Bourdieu argues that cultural analysis of cultural consumption. capital, which acts as a form of distinction, also provides the basic competencies necessary to interpret and consume cultural products. that Bourdieu’s work has also been It is not surprising, therefore, applied specifically in the field of heritage consumption, for example by Merriman (1991) and Walsh (1991). The work of Merriman, for
GREG RICHARDS
267
example, shows that frequent museum visitors in the United Kingdom predominantly come from higher-status groups and tend to be well-educated. Museums are visited mainly by those who possess the cultural capital necessary to decode them, a division which Merriman sees as a cultural reflection of real class divisions. On the basis of such evidence, Walsh (1991) argues that heritage tourism is closely linked with the rise of “the new middle class” or the “service class”. However, it is not simply the consumption of heritage that is determined by the rise of the new middle class, but also the production of heritage.
Heritage and “Real” Cultural Capital The sociological analyses of tourism consumption that are inspired by Bourdieu’s work can play an important role in understanding the changing nature of tourism demand. However, some authors have argued that the emphasis laid on consumption has tended to obscure the relationship between patterns of consumption and production, and in so doing often fails to capture the dynamics of change in consumption patterns (Zukin 1990). Zukin argues that “much of the experience of consumption today is highly mediated by new producers” (1991:45, emphasis in original). The search for authenticity, for example, relies on a constant flow of reliable, authoritative information (e.g. alternative travel guides, TV programs, etc.). As the complexity of products and services on offer increases, furthermore, so the amount of knowledge or self investment required also grows. These “new producers” identified by Zukin belong to the same group as the “new cultural intermediaries” of Bourdieu. This group seeks to maintain its high level of cultural capital and to compensate for low levels of economic capital through the pursuit of authenticity in tourism. Through mediating authenticity, this group not only secures its own position intellectually but also economically through the creation of new employment opportunities, for example in ecotourism (Munt 1994). Recent studies by Harvey (1989), Zukin (1991), Britton (1991), and Munt (1994) emphasize that cultural capital is not only a means of personal distinction, but can also be an attribute of place. In order to attract investment capital and the spending power of the middle class, regions now differentiate themselves by emphasizing the aesthetic qualities of material commodities and services that represent symbolic capital. Examples of this can be found in the use of museums, monuments and other heritage attractions in regional economic development strategies. Zukin (1991:28) argues that culture as “a general way of life” is an “unalienable product of place”, and that the cultural products of place are a physical form of cultural capital (“real cultural capital”), which she contends is just as important as symbolic forms of cultural capital. Strategies of cultural consumption rely on effective demand among new demographic and social actors. But just as they are
embedded
in reflexive -
or highly mediated
and intellectualized
EUROPEAN CULTURAL TOURISM
268
- consumption, so they reinforce self-conscious production. On the supply side, cultural consumption creates employment for a self-conscious critical infrastructure . .. and is in turn created by its labor. Cultural consumption contributes to capital accumulation, moreover, by enhancing profits on entrepreneurial investment in production and distribution (1991:260). Therefore, cultural consumption affects not only symbolic values, but also real values of capital accumulation and real estate development. For Zukin, “cultural goods and services truly constitute real capital-so long as they are integrated as commodities in the market-based circulation of capital” (199 1:260). This close linkage between cultural and economic values is reflected in phenomena such as gentrification, where economic values attached to property are protected and enhanced by the designation of conservation zones, adding cultural value to economic value. This process is closely bound up with the development of heritage tourism, particularly in historic city centers (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990). The issue addressed in this article is the extent to which the new relationships between consumption and production identified by Zukin and others can also be identified in the demand for and the production of heritage tourism in Europe. In place of the fragmented, nationally based approaches adopted in much previous research, this article is based on a transnational analysis of cultural and heritage tourism. Such an app,roach allows a fuller evaluation to be made of the significance of heritage consumption and production in relation to wider social and economic change.
EUROPEAN
CULTURAL
TOURISM
The data presented in this article are derived from the European Cultural Tourism Project established by the European Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS). This project was established in 1991 with funding from the European Commission to establish a transnational database on cultural tourism. Details of the project and the detailed research findings have been published elsewhere (Bonink and Richards 1992; Richards 1993, 1994). The data collected for the ATLAS project consist of two major elements: a survey of cultural visitor characteristics and numbers (demand), and a survey of cultural attractions (supply). The demand data were collected through a questionnaire survey conducted in the summer of 1992 at 26 cultural attractions in nine European Union (EU) member states: France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom. The summer period was deliberately chosen as the peak tourism season, which would yield a reasonable sample of international and domestic tourists. A standard questionnaire covering visitor characteristics, purpose of visit, length of stay and previous cultural tourism consumption was drawn up by a multinational research team and translated into eight different languages. This allowed international and domestic tourists to be surveyed at all locations. The choice of locations was based on
GREG RICHARDS
269
the need to obtain a reasonable spread of different types of attractions, while maintaining some comparability among different countries. In eight of the nine countries, at least one major site of national or international importance was chosen alongside a smaller, regional attraction. At each site a minimum of 200 visitor interviews were collected, and the survey as a whole yielded over 6,400 completed interviews. Baseline data on attendance levels at cultural and heritage attractions were collected from official sources in 11 of the 12 EU member states. Although different collection methods and definitions make direct comparison of these data difficult, the data within each country are reasonably consistent, which makes it possible to compare trends in visitor numbers. Data on the supply of attractions on a European basis were derived from a study conducted for the 1988), and European Commission in 1988 (Irish Tourist Board trends for each country were derived from the visitor attraction data used to compile visitor statistics. In each country, a case study of a cultural heritage attraction was developed, analyzing the development of an attraction and its consumption by tourists (e.g. Foley 1994). The extent and complexity of the European heritage tourism market mean that it is impossible to evaluate it fully from a single survey. However, by combining survey data with longitudinal data on attraction attendance, it was possible to obtain an aggregate view of supplemented by information on the heritage trends in Europe, composition of visitors to a sample of attractions. This sample should not be viewed in any way as representative of the heritage tourism market in Europe as a whole, but it does provide a snapshot on which can be made. Not only can visitor transnational comparisons patterns within a certain destination be examined, but the behavior of heritage visitors from a particular origin country can be compared (e.g. British tourists in France, Italy, Spain, etc.). This technique also lends itself to regular updating for monitoring purposes. Cultural
and Heritage
Tourism Consumption
In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in heritage visits across Europe as a whole. Figures from the ATLAS database, for example, indicate that heritage visits in Europe rose by 100% between 1970 and 1991 (Figure 1). The pattern of growth in heritage demand does show considerable variation from one country to another, ranging from over 200% in the UK between 1970 and 1991, through 130% in France, to only 18% in Italy. The low increase for Italy can arguably be explained by the lack of heritage management in a country that has Europe’s largest potential supply of heritage attractions (Irish Tourist Board 1988). The fact that a significant growth in heritage consumption is evident in all Western European countries, and to a lesser extent in Eastern Europe as well, seems to confirm the contention that the demand for heritage attractions has risen as a result of the expansion of the “new middle class” or (Walsh 1991:125). “service class” during the last three decades
EUROPEAN CULTURAL TOURISM
270
70
75
80
85
90
Year l CulturalVisits QCultural Attractions Figure
1. Cultural
Supply and Demand:
European
Indices
(1985 = 100)
During this period, European heritage attendance has also grown faster than arts attendance (e.g. theatre, ballet, opera). This is an indication that the expansion of the “new middle class” audience for heritage has outstripped the demand from the traditional upper class consumers of the “high arts” (Hughes 1987). Comparison of the survey evidence of recent years with surveys conducted in the early 1960s (Bourdieu and Darbel 1991) indicates that the socioeconomic profile of visitors to museums and other heritage attractions has hardly changed in the last 30 years. The growth in demand is, therefore, arguably based on quantitative growth in membership of a class faction, rather than a qualitative shift in the composition of heritage visitors. The ATLAS cultural visitor research in 1992 to a large extent confirmed the established picture of cultural tourists as comprising predominantly well-educated members of higher socioeconomic groups. Over 80% of respondents had some form of tertiary education, and almost a quarter had been educated to postgraduate level. The visitor surveys also confirmed the importance of tourists as consumers of heritage. Of the 6,400 survey respondents, 57% could be classified as international tourists, traveling from outside the country in which the survey was being conducted. A further 28% of tourists, traveling within their own respondents were domestic country but staying away from home for at least one night. The high level of tourist activity at these sites could in part be attributed to the survey period coinciding with the peak summer season, and in part to the fact that many of the sites surveyed were major international tourism attractions. Of course, not all tourists visiting cultural or heritage attractions can automatically be classified as cultural tourists. Many consume cultural attractions as part of a wider tourism experience (such as a beach holiday), and these tourists are not driven by any particular
GREG RICHARDS
271
cultural motives. The survey identilied tourists who had traveled specifically to visit the cultural attraction, and who said that the attraction was “important” or “very important” as a motivation for their choice of destination (Bonink and Richards 1992). IJsing this definition, 9% of all tourists could be identified as “specific cultural tourists”. This group of tourists corresponds to the “specific cultural tourists” identified by the Irish Tourist Board (1988) study and the “culturally motivated tourist” identified by Bywater f 1994). According to Bywater, this group only accounts for about 5% of the total European cultural tourism market, although no empirical evidence is provided to support this assertion, A large proportion of the other cultural visitors could broadly be categorized as “general cultural tourists”, who did not have a strong cultural motive for their visit. The specific cultural tourists were found to be not only more frequent consumers of heritage attractions than other groups, but they had a high level of total tourism consumption, particularly in terms of short holiday trips. Over 40% of specific cultural tourists had taken at least one short holiday (three nights or less) in the previous 12 months, compared with 22% of all cultural visitors. A high frequency of short break holiday participation is considered by many to be one of the hallmarks of the cultural tourist @ache 1994; Gratton,l990). The general cultural tourists tended to take less holidays, particularly short breaks, and were generally older. The cultural tourism consumption patterns of the two groups, in terms of visits to heritage attractions during their stay, was, however, very similar. Cultural tourism consumption by the respondents seems to be characterized by a high degree of continuity between everyday leisure consumption and consumption patterns while on holiday. The vast majority of cultural visitors indicated that visits to cultural attractions on holiday were a reflection of cultural visits made in their home country or region. In an earlier study of cultural tourism, Hughes had noted that “it is not clear that those within the socioeconomic and demographic groups most likely to participate in the high arts are also those most likely to participate in the high arts on tourist trips” (1987:211). Th e evidence collected in the ATLAS research suggests that across Europe as a whole, high levels of cultural consumption at home are likely to be reflected in high levels of cultural consumption on holiday. More important still is the fact that cultural consumption is also likely to be related to employment in the cultural industries. Table 1 indicates that about 22% of all cultural visitors were employed in heritage or the performing or visual arts. For specific cultural tourists, the proportion having an occupational link with the cultural industries rose to 29%. This is more than double the level of cultural employment among general cultural tourists who did not make a trip to the destination for cultural reasons (13%). There was also a clear link between the sector of employment within the cultural industries and the tourism consumption of respondents. Those with a job in “heritage”, for example, were
EUROPEAN
272
Table
1. Proportion
of Cultural
CULTURAL
Visitors
TOURISM
Employed
in the Cultural
Industries
% Visitors All Visitors Employment
Related
to
Heritage/Museums Performing Arts Visual Arts Any of the Above* “Kespondents
could indicate
General Cultural Tourists
I3 11 14 18
9 7 10 13
Specific Cultural Tourists 18 12 17 29
more than ~nc category
more likely than other respondents to visit museums and heritage centers on holiday, and employment in the visual or performing arts was also correlated with a higher level of visits to visual or performing arts attractions on holiday. The level of cultural industry employees from all countries engaging in cultural tourism appears to be far higher than the general level of employment in cultural occupations. For example, direct cultural industries employment in the UK in 1993 was estimated to be less than 1% of the working population (Policy Studies Institute 1993), and even if indirect employment is included, the proportion only rises to about 2.4% (Shaw 1991). The picture that emerges of the specific cultural tourists in the sample is that of highly educated individuals from higher socioeconomic groups who are far more likely than other cultural visitors to be employed in the cultural industries and who choose to consume cultural attractions related to their economic activities. This matches fairly closely the description of the “new cultural intermediaries” identified by Bourdieu (1984:91). The specific cultural tourists are also younger and far more likely than other visitors to be self-employed, strengthening the picture of an entrepreneurial class faction. Survey evidence from the Netherlands also suggests that these groups are characterized by young urban professionals, predominantly living in the center of major cities, close to a wide range of cultural facilities and possessing a high level of cultural capital (Roetman 1994; Verhoeff 1994). What separates the specific and general cultural tourists is not so much their patterns of heritage consumption, but rather their level of involvement in cultural production. Therefore, participation in heritage tourism is not simply a search for new experiences, but also a search for distinction based on a complete lifestyle, as Bourdieu has argued for cultural consumption in general. This has consequences for the spatial organization of consumption and production. Munt (1994) has suggested that the new middle class seek distinction in tourism consumption mainly through travel to peripheral locations, as evidenced in the growth in demand for adventure holidays and ecotourism. The research conducted here indicates, however, that in the case of cultural and
GREG RICHARDS
273
heritage tourism the major urban centers of Europe have become a crucial setting for the battle for distinction between different class factions. This results from one of the key processes of contemporary change identified by Urrythat of “resistance through localization”. Urry argues that this leads to people “visiting places that in particular are full of time, that draw people to them because they are rich with time” (1994:236). The Production of Heritage Attractions Although the “heritage industry” is arguably a relatively recent phenomenon, cultural tourism consumption, based on heritage and artistic attractions, has a much longer history in Europe (Thorburn 1986). Before the late 18th century, collections of art and other cultural products were basically the private property of princes and nobles (Negrin 1993). As a result of the French Revolution, however, art collections belonging to the royal family and the church were confiscated. The conquests of Napoleon later ensured that works from royal collections throughout Europe joined the French works already assembled in the Louvre, the first national museum in Europe. The Louvre was soon joined by other national museums such as the Prado in Madrid and the Altes in Berlin. Whereas private collections were based largely on the personal taste of the owner, these new public museums were designed to provide comprehensive collections spanning all epochs and cultures. “Underlying this comprehensive assemblage of cultural artefacts was the notion of world culture. European culture in the 19th century saw itself as a universal culture, valid for all times and peoples” (Negrin 1993: 100). This modernist concept of the expanded relevance of the past, and the desire to assemble collections that underlined the inevitable progress of history towards the superiority of the present (Horne 1984:29), was responsible for the first wave of expansion in cultural production. The same forces of modernism that led to the creation of the museum led later to the increasing designation of “historic monuments” across Europe. Modernism implied a vast expansion of the past that was considered relevant to the present (Negrin 1993), and structures and buildings from all ages acquired relevance at the same time, particularly in the service of the new nation states being formed in Europe during the 19th century. A second wave of expanded cultural production was created from the 1960s onwards through the recycling and recombination of cultural forms that marked the transition from modernism to postmodernism. Postmodernism not only recycled the past, it also expanded the range of time periods that were considered to form part of our historic heritage. Thus, periods as recent as the 1950s or the 1960s can now be regarded as “heritage”, whereas museums had formerly looked towards the Renaissance or antiquity for their historic justification. In addition to the burgeoning cultural production stimulated by recycling the past and historifying the recent past, postmodernism has also been marked by the emergence of new interest groups and specialized markets. Museums can, therefore,
EUROPEAN
274
Table
Year 1860 1880 1887 1963 1984 1989
2. Growth
Total Number
CULTURAL
of Museums
of Museums
90 180 217 876 2,131 2,500
TOURISM
in the UK,
1860-1989
% Increase
%/Annum
+100 +21 +303 +143 +17
5.0 3.0 4.0 6.8 3.4
Adapted from Law (1993) and Walsh (1991).
abandon the modernist project of universality in favor of market segmentation and themeing. The result has been a second “museums boom” in Europe. The development of museum supply in the UK is illustrated in Table 2. Even though the first expansion of museum supply in the second half of the 19th century was fairly rapid, the museums boom of the last 25 years produced an unprecedented increase in museum supply from an already high base. Data collected by ATLAS show that this trend was present throughout Europe from the 1970s to the present. Figure 1 shows that the number of museums and monuments in six European countries increased by 113% between 1970 and 1991. A comparison of the patterns of heritage demand and supply indicates an almost parallel growth of consumption and production until the late 198Os, when the increase in new heritage attractions began to outstrip the growth in heritage tourism visits. The growth of specialized museums alongside the general collections enshrined in the national museums and galleries has been one of the major forces behind the expansion of museum supply in recent years. The number of museums in the Netherlands grew by 30% between 1985 and 1990 (CBS 1993), and the supply of museums in Germany rose by 33% between 1986 and 1990. The new museums are smaller than their forebears and are more commercially orientated. Examples of new specialist museums can be found in London (Museum of the Moving Image, Theatre Museum, Design Museum), in Amsterdam (Sex Museum, Cannibis Museum) and many other cities across Europe (Urry 1990). The rapid growth in the number of museums has opened a new debate about precisely what type of institutions ought to be considered as museums. In the UK, the Museums and Galleries Commission has introduced a new registration system with strict qualifying criteria. The effect of this is likely to be a reduction in the number of museums in the UK from about 2,500 to around 2,000 officially registered establishments (Eckstein 1993). In the Netherlands, the Director of the Dutch Museums Association (NW) suggested in 1993 that new criteria should be established to stop “ego-tripping collectors” from setting up “silly museums” with no professional basis. He cited the establishment of the MataHari Museum and the Cigarette Lighter Museum as examples. This underlines the point that the diversity and provenance of
GREG RICHARDS
275
museums have changed rapidly in recent years, as new market opportunities have been identified and new interpretations of the role of museums have begun to compete with the old (NRIT 1993:5). A second force behind the heritage production boom in recent years has been the development of attractions related to regional and local cultures. Just as the rise of nationalism was an important stimulus for heritage development in the 19th century, so regionalism is proving an important spur to heritage production today. The disintegration of the notion of a universal European culture, together with the decline of uniform national cultures, have increased the range of regional and local cultures that can be “In the Europe of the regions, a continent presented as heritage. that is undeniably becoming more fragmented, there is particular attention being paid to the geographic origin of artists and their cultural identity. Differences are increasingly being emphasized” (Depondt 1994:l). In the UK, for example, the notion that one national museum for a particular subject is sufficient is now being challenged with the creation of regional versions of the Tate Gallery and the Science Museum. In the Netherlands, individual provinces are now drawing up plans for the development of cultural-historic tourism, which include regional versions of the European “City of Culture” event (Munsters 1994). In spite of the development of the postmodern heritage industry and the resurgence of regionalism in Europe, heritage consumption seems to remain firmly rooted in the traditional urban tourism centers. This owes much to the history of capital accumulation in these centers. Capital tends to seek out geographic locations that maximize the rate of return (Harvey 1989), and wealthy regions have always created material displays of their wealth and power through the construction of impressive buildings or monuments. In the Renaissance, however, political leaders discovered the advantages of using the high cultural forms associated with antiquity to justify their own position. The artistic and architectural creativity of the north Italian cities in the 16th century, Claval (1993) argues, was in part stimulated by Italian princes anxious to secure power in an’ uncertain political climate. Claval also contrasts the monumental capitals of Baroque cities with the cities of more spartan capitals of Calvinist countries. Amsterdam, the archetypal Calvinist city, today suffers from a lack of major monuments to attract tourists in comparison with Paris, London or the Italian cities (see Table 3). The spatial distribution of major cultural tourism resources indicates the continuing importance of mediaeval and renaissance cities in the European heritage tourism industry. Concentrations of cultural attractions are found mainly in capital cities and important cities dating from the 14-16th centuries. Thus, Flanders accounts for four of the live Belgian cities with more than 10 attractions in the inventory, and northern Italy has six cities with more than 10 attractions. In the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Portugal, only the capital cities can muster more than 10 listed
EUROPEAN
276
CULTURAL
TOURISM
Table 3. Cities with More than 10 Cultural Attractions Listed in the European Community Inventory of Cultural Tourism Resources Location
International
Belgium Antwerp Bruges Brussels Ghent Leuven Denmark Copenhagen France Paris Rouen Greece Athens Ireland Dublin Italy Bologna Florence Milan Naples Palermo Perugia Ravenna Rome Siena Netherlands Amsterdam Portugal Lisbon Spain Barcelona Madrid Seville Toledo United Kingdom Cambridge London Oxford York West Germany Berlin Bonn Dusseldorf Hamburg Maim Munich Stuttgart Source:
Irish Tourist
National
Regional
8
Total
9 10 9 5
15 19 21 15 10
2
13
9
24
9 -
47 7
28 3
84 10
4
10
2
16
4
8
11
23
1 13 6 1 1 0 1
7
22 2
2 11 5 3 2 1 2 30 3
3 6 13 7 10 I 51 8
10 27 17 17 10 11 10 101 13
3
7
3
13
2
8
12
20
16 12 11 16
4 _
_ 1 4
Board
(1988).
6 20 4 6
6 16 2 3
14 44 I1 10
8 2 3 2 4 12 6
20 13 9 9 5 8 7
32 15 12 11 10 24 13
GREG RICHARDS
277
attractions. As van der Borg (1994:832) notes, “classic” cultural tourism destinations in Europe overwhelmingly consist of capital cities. All the indications are that the areas that accumulated considerable “real cultural capital” during the Renaissance and the formation of modern nation-states have continued to benefit from this position, as heritage centers “rich with time” (Urry 1994:236). In the UK, for example, even though there has been a significant increase in heritage attraction supply outside London, the bulk of all heritage-related investment has been concentrated in the capital. Figures from the English Tourist Board (1991) indicate, for example, that a doubling in the value of heritage attraction investment between 1986 and 1991 was accompanied by a growing concentration of investment in London and Southeast England, from 69% of all reported heritage investment in 1986 to 75% in 1991. These two regions also accounted for over half of the visits to cultural tourism attractions in England in 1992 (ETB 1993). Similar patterns are found in other European countries. In the Netherlands, for example, Amsterdam has about 5% of the Dutch population but houses 26% of all designated historic monuments and accounts for 24% of all museum visits (CBS 1993). The “new” heritage attractions do not seem to have been successful in replacing the traditional centers of heritage tourism production. As Townsend concludes for the UK: The growth of new kinds of urban tourism and museums has been relatively unsuccessful. What this British study shows is that beneath the promotion and propaganda, the most successful urban sites are the pre-industrial ones; that is even in a European country which had the earliest Industrial Revolution and a more modest pattern of earlier historical architecture (1992:p32). The important advantage that the pre-industrial sites have is the presence of sedimented real cultural capital. It is this cultural capital that is unlocked and exploited by the “new producers” (Zukin 1991) or the “new cultural intermediaries” (Bourdieu 1984). This key group of cultural producers and consumers is strongly represented in the centers of old cities, close to the sites of cultural consumption and real cultural capital production (Verhoeff 1994). The classificatory struggles between different factions of the middle class that are played out in contemporary tourism consumption are, therefore, not purely restricted to exclusive, spatially remote peripheral locations, as suggested by Munt (1994). Exclusivity can also be generated through symbolically distinctive consumption, even in central locations. The requirement to possess a certain level of cultural capital in order to participate in heritage consumption (Walsh 199 1) ensures that heritage consumption is socially as well as spatially constrained.
278
EUROPEAN CULTURAL TOURISM
CONCLUSIONS The analysis of heritage market demand in Europe seems to indicate that heritage tourism, in common with other areas of cultural participation, has been stimulated largely by increasing levels of income and education levels signaled by the emergence of the new middle class. Even though a significant expansion in heritage consumption has taken place since the 1970s the socioeconomic and educational profiles of heritage visitors seem to have changed relatively little. Access to heritage is still controlled to a large extent by the availability of cultural capital or the competence required to consume cultural goods. There is arguably, however, a key difference in the welfare-related cultural expansion of the 1960s and 1970s and the market-driven expansion of the 1980s (Bianchini and Parkinson 1993). In spite of the “heritage boom” of the 198Os, attendance growth was actually slower than in the previous decade (Figure 1). The supply of cultural attractions, however, grew much more strongly in the 1980s with the result that average attendance per heritage attraction actually fell in some countries during this period (Richards 1994). In the “heritage boom” of the 198Os, therefore, it was the emergence of smaller, more commercial attractions that distinguished this period from the “cultural boom” of the earlier post-war period (Toffler 1964). There are signs, also, of differential patterns of heritage attraction consumption emerging among heritage tourists. A relatively small group of “specific cultural tourists” are among the heaviest consumers of heritage attractions, both in the home environments and on holiday. The specific cultural tourists are also able to rationalize their motives for cultural consumption much more clearly than other cultural visitors, and they tend to have a much higher level of cultural capital (Roetman 1994). Even more significant is the strong link between the high level of employment in the cultural industries among this group and the specific choice of heritage attractions linked to their employment. This indicates that the tourism consumption engaged in by these specific cultural tourists is part of a lifestyle in which the boundaries between work and leisure, production and consumption, are becoming increasingly blurred. The temporal continuity of consumption between leisure and work time is also reflected in a spatial continuity between the location of work and leisure. Although some have identified class factions whose leisure consumption is based on an escape from urban areas into rural environments (Urry 1994), the specific cultural tourist seems firmly anchored to major urban centers. These urban centers are the same as those in which the new cultural intermediaries live and work (Verhoeff 1994; Wy nne 1992). MacCannell (1993) suggests that, in postmodernity, urban centers are now the major locations of difference, a resource on which tourism thrives. Those with the cultural capital to appreciate and exploit these differences can create new opportunities for themselves through the development of tourism (Odermatt 1994).
GREG RICHARDS
279
In order to capitalize on their productive activities, the new cultural intermediaries must have a sufficiently large pool of consumers. Munt suggests that Bourdieu’s “new bourgeoisie” fulfills this function in tourism, being “firmly located in the service sector with finance, marketing and purchasing as occupational exemplars, a class faction high on both economic capital (finance) and cultural capital. It is with the new bourgeoisie that taste and travel unite and are celebrated” (1994:107). These are the tourists who would seem to conform most closely to the traditional image of the cultural tourist as older, wealthier and well educated (Berroll 1981), and who fit the profile of the “general cultural tourist” identified in the survey research (Richards 1994). I n contrast, the “specific cultural tourists” are more likely to be young, self-employed and with an occupation related to culture, a profile closer to that of the “new cultural intermediaries” (Bourdieu 1984). The growing competition between “cities” for cultural tourism in Europe (Bianchini and Parkinson 1993; van der Borg 1994) can thus also be seen as the struggle for social position being played out on a transnational scale. As state subsidies are removed from cultural institutions and the potential for increased domestic cultural consumption through the expansion of education declines, so more visitors are needed to sustain the cultural infrastructure. Attracting more visitors requires even more effective use of the “real cultural capital” attached to an area and a greater emphasis on local difference. It is the new cultural intermediaries who possess the necessary skills and cultural competence to manufacture commodities for consumption by the new bourgeoisie. In such a system of “organized culture” (Bevers 1993:163), much of the cultural, social and economic benefit attached to cultural tourism development is retained by those who work and invest in cultural production. In some cases, the development of cultural tourism forms almost a closed circuit, with events and attractions provided for the professional culture consumer by the professional culture producer, with little reference to the local population. This was arguably the case in the Glasgow “European City of Culture” event in 1990, which staged a series of high culture events with little reference to the rich local culture of Glasgow itself (Boyle and Hughes 1991). The event aimed to attract wealthy tourists from London and the Southeast, who would generate the most income for the city and provide the most jobs (Myerscough 199 1). Glasgow 1990, therefore, became a means of developing the “real cultural capital” of the city, which is engaged in a fierce battle with Edinburgh for cultural supremacy (and tourism business) in Scotland. This competitive struggle is played out not so much between the two cities as between particular class factions located in those cities. The recent battle between Glasgow and Edinburgh over the location of the new National Gallery for Scotland is further evidence of how the power of the traditional bourgeoisie (represented by the financial and legal power of Edinburgh) is being challenged by the new cultural intermediaries (located in the former manufacturing powerhouse, Glasgow).
280
EUROPEAN
CULTURAL
TOURISM
As Zukin (1991) suggests, therefore, cultural consumption creates employment for, and reinforces the cultural capital of the “selfconscious critical infrastructure”. The need for such producers to “at the crossroads of cultural production, occupy spatial locations state and market” (Bevers 1993:168) in urban centers in turn dictates the location of production and consumption. The form of culture produced and consumed also changes, as evidenced by the relative to the rise of heritage. stagnation of arts attendance Heritage consumption, utilizing as it does the accumulated real cultural capital of particular locations, effectively unlocks the value of past production stored in important buildings and key locations. Arts production, based often on costly human labor, is unlikely to generate such a significant or rapid increase in the value of capital. The growth in arts consumption has come mainly through the media, rather than live performance (Hodgson 1992). The evidence presented here suggests that heritage tourism in Europe is neither a new market trend nor a simple function of concentrations of heritage resources. Rather, the consumption of heritage resources by specific groups helps to convert the “real cultural capital” represented by heritage resources into a source of social distinction. The dialectic relationship between heritage production and consumption means that attempts to spread tourism consumption socially and geographically through the development of heritage tourism are facing an uphill battle. 0 0 REFERENCES Ashworth, G. J., and J. E. Tunbridge 1990 The Tourist-Historic City. London: Belhaven. Bianchini, F. 1990 Cultural Policy and Urban Social Movements: The Response of the “New Left” in Rome (1976-85) and London (1981-86). In Leisure and Urban Processes, P. Bramham, I. Henry, H. Mommaas, and H. van der Poel, eds., pp. 18-46. London: Routledee. Bianchini, F., and M. Parkinson, cds. 1993 Cultural Policv and Urban Regeneration: The West Euronean Exneriencc. I Manchester: Manchester Universsy Press. Berroll, E. 1981 Culture and the Arts as Motives for American Travel. Proceedings ‘MRA Conference, pp. 199-200. Salt Lake City: Travel and Tourism Research Association. Bevers, T. 1993 Georganiseerd Cultuur. Bussum: Dick Coutinho. Bocock, R. ” 1993 Consumption. London: Routledge. Bonink. C.. and G. Richards 1992’Cuhural Tourism in Europe. ATLAS Research Report. London: University of North London. Boorstin, D. 1964 The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper and Row. van der Borg, J 1994 Demand for Citv Tourism in Eurooe. Annals of Tourism Research 21:832-833. Bourdieu, P. 1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London: Routledge.
GREG
RICHARDS
281
Bourdieu, P, and A. Darbel 1991 The Love of Art: European Art Museums and Their Public. Cambridge: Polity. Boyle, M., and G. Hughes 1991 The Politics of “the Real”: Discourses from the Left on Glasgow’s Role as European City of Culture 1990. Area 23(3):217-228. Britton, S. 1991 Tourism, Capital and Place: Towards a Critical Geography of Tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9:451-478. Bywater, M. 1993 The Market for Cultural Tourism in Europe. Travel and Tourism Analyst 6:30-46. CBS 1993 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek: Cultureel Jaarboek. The Netherlands: Den Haag. Claval, P. 1993 The Cultural Dimension in Restructuring Metropolises: The Amsterdam Example. In Understanding Amsterdam, L. Deben, W. Heinemeijer and D. van der Vaart, eds., pp. 111-139. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis. Cohen, E. 1988 Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15:371-386. Depondt, P. 1994 Internationalisatie doodt de Kunst. de Volkskrant (24 March):l. Eckstein, J. 1993 Funding the Cultural Sector in the UK. Boekmancahier 18:449-467. ETB 1991 Investment in Tourism. London: English Tourist Board. 1993 Sightseeing in 1992. London: English Tourist Board. European Commission 1992 Community Action Plan to Assist Tourism. Official Journal of the European Community L23 1:26-32. Fache, W. 1994 Short Break Holidays. In Tourism: The State of the Art. V. Seaton et al, eds., pp. 459-467. London: Wiley. Foley, M. Services at Edinburgh Castle. In 1994 Managing the Tourist Gaze: Visitor Tourism: The State of the Art, V. Seaton et al, eds., pp. 792-798. London: Wiley. Gratton, C. 1990 Consumer Behaviour in Tourism: A Psycho-Economic Approach. Paper presented at the Tourism Research into the 1990s Conference, Durham, England. Harvey, D. 1989 The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hewison, R. 1987 The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London: Methuen. Hodgson, P. 1992 Is the Growing Popularity of Opera in Britain Just Another Nineties Media Myth? Market Research Provides the Answer. Journal of the Market Research Society 34:405-418. Horne, D. 1984 The Great Museum. London: Pluto Press. Hughes, H. 1987 Culture as a Tourist Resource: A Theoretical Consideration. Tourism Management 8:205-2 16. Irish Tou&t Board 1988 Inventorv of Cultural Tourism Resources in the Member States and European Assessment of Methods Used to Promote Them. Brussels: Commission DG VII. Jameson, F. 1984 Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Capitalism. New Left Review 146:53-93. Law, C. M. 1993 Urban Tourism: Attracting Visitors to Large Cities. London: Mansell.
282
EUROPEAN
CULTURAL
TOURISM
van Maanen, J., and A. Laurent 1993 The Flow of Culture: Some Notes on Globalization and the Multinational Corporation. In Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation, S. Ghohal and D. E. Westney, eds., pp. 275-312. London: St Martin’s Press. MacCannell, D 1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. London: Macmillan. 1993 Empty Meeting Grounds. London: Routledge. Merriman, N. 1991 Beyond the Glass Case: The Past, the Heritage and The Public in Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Munsters, W. 1994 Cultuurtoerisme. Apeldoorn: Garant. Munt, I. 1994 The “Other” Postmodern Tourism: Culture Travel and the New Middle Classes. Theory, Culture & Society 1 l:lOl-123. Myerscough, J. 1991 Monitoring Glasgow. Glasgow: Glasgow City Council. Nahrstedt, W. 1993 Von der Kulturreise zur Reisekultur? FVW International l/93:25-26. Negrin, L. 1993 On the Museum’s Ruins: A Critical Appraisal. Theory, Culture, Society 10:97-125. NRIT 1993 Weg met mallotige musea. Actuell 3( 17):5. Odermatt, P. 1994 Een Hard Sardisch Gelag. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis. Policy Studies Institute 1993 Museums and Galleries. Cultural Trends 19:1-44. Prentice, R. 1993 Tourism and Heritage Attractions. London: Routledge. Richards, G. 1993 Cultural Tourism in Europe. Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management 5:99-l 15. 1994 Developments in European Cultural Tourism. In Tourism: The State of the Art. V. Seaton et al, eds., pp. 366-376. London: Wiley. Roetman, E. E. Onderzoek Naar Motivatie Voor in Retrosprctief: een 1994 Motivatie Culttuuroerisme Tijdens de Mondriaantentoonstelling te Amsterdam. Masters dissertation, Tilburg University. Rojek, C. 1993 Ways of Escape: Modern Transformations in Leisure and Travel. Basingstoke: MacMillan. Shaw, G. 1991 Growth and Employment in the UK’s Culture Industry. World Futures 33:165-180. Thorburn, A. 1986, Marketing Cultural Heritage: Does It Work Within Europe? Travel and Tourism Analyst (December):39-48. Toffler, A. 1964 The Culture Consumers: A Study of Art and Affluence in America. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Tomlinson, J. 1991 Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction. London: Pinter. Towner, J. 1985 The Grand Tour: A Key Phase in the History of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 12:297-333. Townsend, A. R. 1992 The Attractions of Urban Areas. Tourism Recreation Research 17:24-32. Urry, J. 1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. 1994 Cultural Change and Contemporary Tourism. Leisure Studies 13:1-6.
GREG
RICHARDS
283
Verhoeff, R. 1994 High Culture: The Performing Arts and its Audience in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 85:79-83. Walsh, K. 1991 The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World. London: Routledge. Watson, G. L., and J. P. Kopachevsky 1994 Interpretations of Tourism as Commodity. Annals of Tourism Research 2 1:643-660. Williams, R. 1983 Keywords. London: Fontana. Wynne, D. 1992 The Culture Industry: The Arts in Urban Regeneration. Aldershot: Avebury. Zukin, S. 1990 Socio-Spatial Prototypes of a New Organization of Consumption: The Role of Real Cultural Capital. Sociology 24:37-56. Zukin, S. 1991 Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Submitted 19 January 1994 Resubmitted 4 January 1995 Accepted 10 January 1995 Refereed anonymously
