Urban Tourism in Developing Countries: A case of ...

Urban Tourism in Developing Countries: A case of Malaysia

Hairul Ismail, Tom Baum & Jithendran Kokranikkal The Scottish Hotel School University of Strathclyde Abstract: This paper examines and analyses the dynamics of cities in developing countries that have led to an increase in their tourism profile through a review of trends in urban tourism such as product development and tourist demand. This is seen as a significant sector by authorities to generate economic growth. It has also led to an increase in planning for tourism in cities based on existing resources and re-creating new products as well as providing a challenge to the application of the concept of urban tourism in a sustainable manner. Therefore, this paper reviews an emerging phenomenon of urban tourism in developing countries with a focus in Malaysia in relation to two key frameworks. The first (1) is related to tourism infrastructure and product development in the city in order to cater for demand from international and domestic tourists. Secondly, (2) the growth of urban tourism in developing countries and how it can be compared to that indeveloped countries. Based on existing developments in the cities of developing countries, the differing directions that urban tourism has taken as a significant economic strategy will be the focus for discussion. Regarding this, cities in developing countries are generally in an expansion phase and tourism is used as a catalyst for its development. At the same time, there need to invest in tourism resources such as heritage/historical attractions and infrastructure in order to enhance tourism activities. Meanwhile, in developed countries, generally urban centres are in a decline phase including population and face employment opportunity shortages. Therefore, tourism is seen as a regeneration strategy and forces heritage/historical resources towards preservation tactics in order to support tourism activities for the benefit of the cities. Both of these frameworks will be addressed in the context of implications related to the roles of urban tourism in developing countries that have been adopted to support the growth of cities. Here, with specific focus on Malaysia, two general stages of urban tourism development can be determined. Firstly, (1) development in the city after independence or after the postcolonial era, which in the case of Malaysia is after 1957. Secondly, (2) the development of tourism in the city after 1990, when tourism begins to be established as a sector that significantly contributes to generate and expand the economy of the city that consists of tourism resources such as historic and cultural

heritage. Therefore, the question on how the concept of urban tourism applies to the cities of developing countries through it function can be considered. INTRODUCTION The emergence of urban tourism The emergence of urban tourism through a process when tourism was seen as a danger in 1970 is described by Ashworth (1989) as a defensive approach to tourism in the city. However, the economic conditions after the 1970’s were the most significant phenomenon in the city, which allowed tourism to a placed as an important urban function. The economic decline of the cities in the UK, Western Europe and Northern America in the late 1970’s highlighted the role of tourism as a catalyst to boost urban economies. Therefore, tourism is suggested as a mean to manage the change and transition of city functions, and then is expanded to become the principal sector in the city economies. In parallel with this, tourism and urban regeneration started to become important activities and received greater attention in the 1980’s related to the problems that exist in the city (Ashworth, 1989; Law, 1991). Related on this, Ashworth (1992) names two conditions how as to the concepts urban and tourism join together, which shows the complexity of relationship between urban features and tourism functions in creating urban tourism. Firstly, (1) the characteristics intrinsic of cities as a settlement type are an instrument in shaping tourism or leisure activities where the roles of urban tourism emerge. On the other hand, (2) the function of tourism or leisure also becomes the instrument in shaping important aspects of cities. Moreover, cities are places where various major facilities such as transport, hotel facilities and event facilities are located. Based on this, Blank (1994) identifies five major factors that characterise cities as tourism destinations, which are: • Location of high populations, which attract high numbers of tourists who are visiting friends and relatives. • Major travel nodes that serve as gateways or transfer points to other destinations. • Focal points for commerce, industry and finance. • Harbour concentrations of people services such as education, government/administration centre, health and others. • Places that offer a wide variety of cultural, artistic and recreational experiences. From a more comprehensive view, the complexity of urban tourism can be addressed through three elements that involve (1) the tourist, (2) the tourism industry, and (3) the city (Fainstein and Judd, 1999). These elements interact and produce a complex ecological system, where each of them is unique but is strongly related. In the simplest way, Fainstein and Judd (1999) refer to this relationship as (1) the need of taste and desires of tourists, which (2) requires cities to transform the environment for tourists to inhabit, and therefore (3) requires the constant transformation of urban landscapes for the tourism industry as a ‘must’ feature for the political economy of the cities.

As a new subject for the political economy of the cities, this complexity of urban and tourism relationships has been increasingly discussed from various perspectives and backgrounds such as geography, urban planning and tourism disciplines (JansenVerbeke, 1987, 1992; Ashworth, 1989,1992; Law, 1991; Page, 1995; van den Berg, van der Borg, and van der Meer, 1995; Judd, 1995). This is part of the attempt to clarify the existence of urban tourism and the elements of that go to make it up that led to a more comprehensive review in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s (Judd and Fainstein, 1999, Pearce, 2001; Law, 2002; Shaw and William, 2002; Hall and Page, 2002; Page and Hall, 2003). At the same time, these works were followed by many others urban tourism researchers, contributing to further specific exploration of the tourism nature of the city. It exists in many ways, either in a broad context/theme of tourism, or specific to elements in urban tourism development. However, one important point, which should be addressed here, is that the existence of these works mostly inclines to be refer to and examine the phenomenon in the Western countries such as UK, Western Europe and Northern America. In the literature, understanding of the urban tourism phenomenon outside Western countries in developing countries has received less attention and requires more exploration. Therefore, it is important to see different points of view on how urban tourism actually emerges in developing countries compare to developed countries and this is the objective of this paper. Urban tourism in developing countries Maybe the first question ought to address is the main features of urban tourism development in developing countries. It might be difficult to be answer without more studies since urban tourism or even overall systems of tourism in developing countries still receive limited attention (Oppermann, Din and Amri, 1996; Oppermann and Chon, 1997). Moreover, Oppermann and Chon (1997:62) noted that in developing countries ‘compared to seaside resorts, city tourism and urban models have attracted less attention’. However, there are some attempts by a few tourism and urban/geography researchers that directly try to examine more detail related to (1) how the urban tourism concept should be applied (Singh, 1992), and (2) the evolution of urban tourism space (Weaver, 1993) with specific reference to case studies in developing countries. According to Singh (1992), in the case of cities such Lucknow in India, tourism should exist in the city as part of a concern to secure its heritage assets. In addition, the increasing population and migration to the city has forced those responsible to takes tourism as the means to (Sigh, 1992): Secure open spaces and buildings from illegal construction through the creation of greenbelts or buffer zones for leisure activities. Battle against pollution by reinforcing the effort to increases the quality of the urban landscape especially in the highly populated downtown area. At the same time, Weaver (1993) introduced models of urban tourism space in Carribean Islands, which also reflect an example of developing countries. It focuses on (1) the

evolution of small island space in providing tourism activities, and (2) how it then influences the urbanisation from port or dock areas, which can be compared to larger cities especially in geographic or spatial structure, size and different size of population. At least, one can be determine from here that tourism has strong influences in the process of urbanisation beginning in the port or dock area. Firstly, (1) as a node of tourist development area that changes and influences the urbanization of the whole island especially in creating tourist sites, which consist of individual attraction features and tourist business district (TBD). Secondly, (2) it played a role at a regional level as a gateway or hub that allowed tourism activities to exist and then distribute tourists to the whole area of the Caribbean island. Mullins (1999:246) notes that most of the largest cities in developing countries in Southeast Asia have realised that they could take tourism as a way to ‘expand consumption opportunities’ and therefore, contribute to the growth of their economies. Related on this, three characteristic that influence urban tourism and tourism urbanisation in Southeast Asia can be seen, which are (Mullins, 1999): Tourist as demand for tourism product. Economic supplier as those who manufacture, market and sell good and services to tourist. These involve (1) transnational corporations as leader in the tourism industry, and (2) local producers and merchants that sell goods and services directly to tourist. Political actors that use ‘political means’ in projecting urban development. Moreover, international tourism is the central development for this region and for growing cities in Southeast Asia especially principal countries of tourism destination in the middle 1990’s such as Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand (Mullins, 1999). In addition, Mullins (1999:250) found that in Southeast Asia, ‘the more dynamic and capitalist the economy, the more urbanized the country and the greater the likelihood of having the infrastructure and facilities to cater to international tourists’. URBAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA Location background Malaysia is located in Southeast Asia and consists of the (1) South-eastern Asia peninsula (Malay Peninsular), and (2) northern one-third of the island of Borneo, bordering Indonesia and the South China Sea. It was originally formed as Malaya (what is now Peninsular Malaysia) in 31 August 1957 and the Federation of Malaysia was only formed in 9 July 1963 through a merging of the former British colonies of Malaya and Singapore, including the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak on the northern coast of Borneo. However, Singapore left the federation on 9 August 1965 as independent country. Malaysia also neighbours and shares it boundaries with other Southeast Asia countries such as Thailand, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia and Philippines in a strategic location along the Strait of Malacca and the southern South China Sea.

The Federation of Malaysia consists of 13 states (Negeri) and federal territories (three territories, which are Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya). Therefore, the Federation of Malaysia consist 14 capital cities of which Kuala Lumpur became the capital city of Malaysia. The location of these main cities in Malaysia can be seen in Figure 1. Perspectives on tourism development in the cities of Malaysia Generally, urban tourism development in Malaysia can be viewed in two stages. Firstly, (1) development in the city after independence or after the postcolonial era that began in the 1957. Secondly, (2) the development of tourism in the city after 1990, when tourism begins to be established as a sector that significantly contributes to generating and

Shah Alam

INDONESIA

PAHANG

KELANTAN

SOUTH CHINA SEA

SINGAPORE

JOHOR Johor Bahru

Kuantan

TERENGGANU

Kuala Terengganu

Kota Bharu

Kuala Lumpur NEGERI SEMBILAN Seremban Bandar Melaka MALACCA

SELANGOR

Ipoh

PERAK

Alor Star KEDAH

Strait of Malacca

PENANG

Langkawi Island

PERLIS Kangar

THAILAND

VIETNAM

Kuching

INDONESIA

SARAWAK

Kota Kinabalu

BRUNEI

Figure 1: Location of capital city in Malaysia (Federal and State)

SABAH

PHILIPPINES

expanding the economy of the city and consists of tourism resources such as historical and cultural heritage. Both of these stages reflect (1) the efforts of government in urban and regional development, and (2) the trend or influences in the tourism at international and domestic market, which then places tourism as one of the important urban functions. Based on this stages, the discussion will examines further the nature of tourism in the city of Malaysia from the perspective of demand, resources and product development as seen in the next section. The first stage (after independence – 1957) The existence of urban tourism can be traced back in the beginning of the tourism industry in developing countries. Here, the cities actually play important roles in structuring the evolution of the tourism industry (Oppermann, 1993; Oppermann and Chon, 1997). In explaining the development of tourist space in developing countries, Oppermann (1993) identified that the first phase of tourism development actually began and expanded from the largest or capital cities especially at national level. Based on this, Oppermann and Chon (1997) asserted that: Capital cities play a dominant role as ‘pre-touristic structures’ for the tourism industry in the early development phases of international mass tourism. The dominant function of capital cities in tourism development is the ‘gateway effect’ since international airports are developed and located close to it. The roles of the capital city to play both above functions for a long period until an increasing number of tourism destinations or resorts around the country begin to be established. In Malaysia, development after independence or the post-colonial era shows that attention was given to infrastructure, concentrating in the new capital cities especially Kuala Lumpur as capital city of the Federation. This involved the development of a major airport for the country and accommodation such as a large proportion of hotels to cater international arrivals. Related on this, three early characteristics of urban-based tourism in Malaysia can be seen: The cities as gateway for international tourists (Oppermann, 1992; Oppermann and Chon, 1993; Mullins, 1999). Cities as point of distribution or connectivity to tourism destination around the country (Oppermann, 1992). Cities as bearer of the national symbol, company and government headquarters and therefore as a place for business and diplomatic interact on meeting and communication (Oppermann, Din and Amri, 1996; Oppermann and Chon, 1997). In many ways, these characteristics at the early stage of urban tourism development in Malaysia are similar to other countries in Southeast Asia. In parallel with the growth of tourism activities world wide in the early 1970’s, governments in Southeast Asian began to introduce and strengthen policies that could maximise the opportunities from tourism (Mullins, 1999). As mentioned before, the first step to be taken was the initiative of government to develop large-scale tourism infrastructure especially airports, internal systems of transportation and accommodation. According to Oppermann (1993), most

international tourism is highly concentrated in the capital city and then disperses to other places around the country. In addition, Oppermann (1993) also asserted that since additional supply is provided in the capital city, the formal tourism sector starts to establish itself in the city, while new places around the country are explored, especially by the drifter and explorer. This nature of the city can be seen clearly in Kuala Lumpur and Penang where the major airports for Malaysia are located. Both of these cities, especially Kuala Lumpur, as the largest city of Malaysia, play a role as main channels to tourism destinations around the Malay Peninsular especially to coastal and rainforest areas (Oppermann, 1992). Moreover, the development of the North-South highway in Malaysia that begin in the 1980’s (where Kuala Lumpur is located in the centre of this highway) increases the rapid movement of tourists within another area of Peninsular especially between cities. This feature according to Mullins (1999:252), ‘make the city a major international tourist destination in its own right’. Meanwhile, the function as gateway and distribution or connectivity encouraged a large proportion of hotel development in this type of city. Based on the spatial-temporal development of hotel location in Kuala Lumpur between 1957-1990, the increase in hotel constructions directly influences the transformation of its urban form (Oppermann, Din and Amri, 1996; Oppermann and Chon, 1997). Due to the nature of Kuala Lumpur this consists of (1) airport and railway station, and (2) Central Business District (CBD), the location of hotels began to evolve in these areas. According to Oppermann, Din & Amri (1996) and Oppermann and Chon (1997), this form of tourism development as shown in urban hotel location in Kuala Lumpur (1) is seemly more coincidental than well planned, and (2) there is no explicit policy for tourism development except calling for more construction of luxury hotels as noted in the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan of 1984. At least for Oppermann and Chon (1997:72), even the study of ‘hotel development reveals only one facet of the overall tourism development, it illustrates the pace of development and it may stand as symbol for other associated changes’. In this case, it give early and valuable evidence of the existence of urban tourism development in Malaysia. At the same time, from the perspective of the Southeast Asia region, Mullins (1999) highlights that urban tourism and tourism urbanization are strongly related to the network of cities and towns, which link Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. In this case, for example, countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore became main entry point (or gateways) and therefore as hub for international tourists in this region, which also have links through transportation systems such as the highway/roadway and the railway line. These large cities are also involved with the competition to build up the image and infrastructure for urban-based tourism through their mega mall/shopping malls, theme parks and emphasis on event tourism and MICE. This effort is also part of their initiative to diversify the tourism product where the infrastructure or facilities and market for tourism already exist. In addition, with reference to the cities in Southeast Asia, Page (2001) noted that ‘the evolution of gateways and hubs is increasingly being recognised as a powerful spatial entity that may influence the nature of the production system that is

going to shape the regionalisation of tourism patterns and activities within Southeast Asia’. The second stage (after tourism came of age – after 1990) In the late 1980’s and the early 1990’s, tourism began to be accepted and became established as one of the important industries in the world. Many countries in developing countries have taken this as an opportunity and depend on the tourism sector to generate its economy especially the countries with strong tourism resources. For Malaysia, tourism has been taken seriously and this can be seen through the initiative to promote ‘Visit Malaysia Year 1990’. This effort gave significant momentum for further development of tourism based on existing resources or established product and new tourism product throughout the nation (MOCAT, 1991). Related to this, the intention for urban tourism development also began to be recognised, which were strongly influenced by two main factors. These are: The awareness of urban conservation especially by those responsible in the city, local population and non-government organisations. The effort to diversify tourism product and search for identity or image for tourism in Malaysia. In parallel with the new phenomenon of urban conservation and heritage tourism in the early 1990’s, urban conservation concepts began to be accepted and implemented. Meanwhile, the endorsement of acts between 1976 and 1988 related to urban conservation in Malaysia, indirectly provided and supported the initiative to preserve historic and cultural heritage. Based on this, according to Ahmad (1998), it’s potential for tourism increasingly received attention in order to function as one of the resources that can generate economic benefit for the city. At the same time, this effort was supported by (1) the initiative to diversify tourism product in Malaysia, and (2) the search for identity/image and focus for favourable tourism destinations in Southeast Asia (MOCAT, 1991; Ahmad, 1998). The influence of these two main factors can clearly be seen in the cities of Melaka and Penang, which consist of elements of heritage, urban conservation and strong image of the city. As noted by Ahmad (1998:6), these cities have become the icon or host for historic colonial buildings, and therefore ‘portray a distinct image and identity for these cities’ compared to other cities in Malaysia. In addition, they also have advantages in term of: Offering the product and infrastructure such as MICE tourism related to their function as capital cities of the state, and therefore the capability to attract tourists with a variety of tourism products. Being already in the market of international and domestic tourists as destinations for historical and cultural heritage. Related to the above, it can be concluded that the focus on urban-based tourism has given in cities such as Kuala Lumpur (which is traditionally known as a gateway with event and MICE tourism) the opportunity tourism to cities that offer more of a historic image. However, this does not stop the roles that have been play by Kuala Lumpur, functioning as a gateway and point of distribution or connectivity. In addition, in term of tourism

image in Malaysia, until now Kuala Lumpur still led as the most popular destination for tourism activities such as shopping, MICE tourism and mega events. Moreover, Kuala Lumpur (or Klang Valley) is the highest population area and therefore offers market or demand for the largest and the best theme park in Malaysia. At the same time, when tourism are of age (after 1990), the development of new shopping complexes was integrated and in the same area as the location of hotels (Oppermann, Din and Amri, 1996; Oppermann and Chon, 1997). Oppermann, Din & Amri (1996:62) note that the Kuala Lumpur economy today is dominated by tertiary activities including tourism as ‘modern’ tertiary activity, which is ‘an integral part of today’s CBD’. This characteristic is commonly found in developing countries especially in Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, development of urban tourism especially in cities such as Melaka (Malacca) is most likely similar to the phenomenon that exists in many European countries where historic buildings have been restored and converted into tourism product such as museums, art galleries, restaurants and tourist centres (Ahmad, 1998). From the perspective of historical background, Melaka is the oldest city in Malaysia and functioned as a centre for trading a port and an administrative centre of the Malays Sultanate, and then during the colonial era, beginning with Portuguse (1515-1641), followed by Dutch (1641-1795), British (1795-1941), Japan (1941-1942) and then back to British in 1942, until independence when it became part of the Federation of Malaysia in 1957. In addition, the cities of Melaka and Penang were part of the three states of the British Strait Settlement during 19th century together with Singapore. Malacca was declared as Historical City on 15th April 1989 to boost and establish its image as a core historic tourism destination in Malaysia. This initiative clearly can be seen as an effort to designate the zoning of land specific ally for tourism and urban conservation. Hamzah (2002), argues that tourism development in the cities of Malaysia has its own features but also exhibits the same characteristics as the other cities in the world. From this perspective, these characteristics refer to three main points: Heavy investment by the local authority in providing infrastructure for tourism facilities, including through ‘boosterist’ approaches that also cause controversial projects within unprepared planning programmes. The increase of urban resorts or complexes for pleasure and entertainment. These can be seen clearly in urban areas of the Klang Valley through the development of theme parks such as Sunway Lagoon and Mine World. The existence of a distinct resident population of old residents, newcomers, second homeowners, tenants and temporary workers. For example this can be seen in Malacca where most of the residents are ‘missing resident as they are either tenants or Singaporean holiday-home owners’ (Hamzah, 2002:3). In many ways, in the recent development of urban tourism in Malaysia, most cities begin to depend on the historic urban core especially buildings from the colonial era as their main physical attraction (as seen in places such as Malacca and Penang). Here, Hamzah (2002) argues that cities should realise their historic value for domestic tourists, Malaysian cities cannot be compared with historic cities in Western countries since buildings constructed during Malays Sultanate (before the colonial era) were made from

timber and do not exist anymore except as examples or replicas. However, this does not contradict the intangible value of the structures from the colonial era as the most significant element in Malaysia history. Moreover, this historic value creates interest among international tourists to look back into their history outside of Europe and therefore, makes urban tourism development more appropriate for the economy of the city and the image of Malaysia at international level. Since the early 2000’s, the nature of urban-based tourism development in Malaysia can be summarised as: The significance of heritage and cultural for tourism to the economy of the cities such as Melaka and Penang, which have been restored and promoted in the heart of the city and as primary or fundamental attractions for urban tourism (Ahmad, 1998; Hamzah, 2002). The promotion of the cultural heritage such as the Peranakan community in Malacca, which is increasingly significant for its nomination into World Heritage List together with Georgetown, Penang (Hamzah, 2002). Shopping element as a challenging element for cities to attract tourism market. However, this form of tourism is difficult for any others city in Malaysia except Kuala Lumpur as the main shopping haven (Hamzah, 2002). The city as destination for leisure activities such theme parks, shopping and entertainment, event tourism and MICE tourism especially in large or capital cities such as Kuala Lumpur. A direct response to the potential of tourism by those responsible in the city bring to the fore issues about the planning and management of urban tourism in order to provide a complete tourism product. Here, Hamzah (2002) highlights and identifies two main issues. Firstly, (1) city planners are inclined to over focus on particular assets of tourism in the city such as the historic core compared to other urban tourism resources and necessary supporting elements. Therefore, the integration of the complete tourism product such as services, and the actual needs related to the nature of tourist demand are difficult to determine and manage. Secondly, (2) the recent urban tourism development in Malaysia could not avoid four types of follies listed by Osbasli (2000), which is: The early response that incline to re-create or invent history. ‘Facadism and pastiche’ related to the recreation of streetscape. Over promoted history and the life of the town. Theming the area for tourists. According to Hamzah (2002), these can be referred to as the re-adaptive use of historical buildings that result in sameness in the form of the built environment such as cafes and ethnic souvenir shops. It consequently makes the historic streets in places such as Malacca and Penang share the same identity with less uniqueness compared to each other. Moreover, in these places, theming becomes the trend as objects of tourist consumption and increases the possibility that this form of development will change (1) the existing built environment, and (2) socio-economic profile and therefore, transform the city into a heritage theme park (Hamzah, 2002).

With the rapid intention on potential of tourism for Malaysia economy, it is also should be realise that there are areas in Malaysia, which have been identified to be developed specifically for tourism destinations within specific boundary of administration or geography. This can be seen in terms of the island of Langkawi in Kedah. As a peripheral area with various tourism resources, it received major attention from government to invest and promote as a complete tourism product. Massive development has taken place in this island and therefore a process of urbanisation occurs. In term of space development it has similarity to what happened in Caribbean Islands as mentioned by Weaver (1993). Moreover, a lot of facilities that exist in the capital city can be found in this island such as an airport and good internal roadway system. This type of tourism development is unique where urban tourism emerges originally from the increasing manipulation of attractions that can be referred to as resorts or seaside tourism development. The availability of infrastructure that exists in this area has arisen as a result of attention from the Prime Minister of Malaysia. IMPLICATIONS OF URBAN TOURISM IN MALAYSIA Based on the discussion above, several main implication of tourism in the city can be identified: Each of the cities in Malaysia developed and has their own place in the history that in many ways influences how tourism should be promoted and managed. Intensive development of infrastructure in Kuala Lumpur as capital city of Malaysia has provided the city with advantages that fit with new modern tourism such as MICE tourism, mega event tourism, shopping and theme parks. At the same time, the dominant economic role of a city such as Kuala Lumpur for tertiary activities (services) including tourism as ‘modern’ tertiary activity has placed this city in a position that is difficult to challenge by other cities in Malaysia. Meanwhile, the existence of significant tourism resources in the city especially in term of historic and cultural heritage such as Melaka and Penang helped them to be established as popular tourism destinations. In addition, the influences of tourism demand from international and domestic tourists give opportunities for these cities to offer different forms of tourism product or image, at least compared to that in a city such as Kuala Lumpur. Both of these types of city have been drive by the potential of tourism to expand the growth of the city. In some cases the role of tourism in changing the form of urban structures is coincidental. A unique relationship exists between cities in Malaysia in providing different ranges of product and facilities for tourism. It gives some kind of symbiotic relationship that each of them requires and has their own role in the tourism system in order to produce the complete tourism product. Moreover, these cities have been connected with good transportation systems and acceptable time distance. For example, the function played by the city of Kuala Lumpur as gateway and point of distribution (or connectivity) is essential for a city that promotes itself as a tourist historic town such as Melaka especially at international level (except from Singapore). On the other hand, Melaka provides the primary product (urban historic core), which is significant and important as a

main attraction and as the motive of visit for the international historic tourist. This relationship has been determined and noted in the Malaysia National Tourism Policy Study - Tourism Product Sectoral Report by MOCAT (1991), when the Kuala LumpurMalacca corridor was identified as the most complete corridor for urban tourism-based activities. Urban tourism development in Malaysia inclines to be based in the capital city as a focus of development from government through intensive infrastructure development and financial support. However, the tourism function, can be prominently seen in a capital city such as (1) Kuala Lumpur since the nature of it role as capital city of a nation allows this city to cater for international tourists and leisure activities for its high population, and (2) Melaka Town in Melaka and Georgetown in Penang that not only function as capital cities of states but also have the urban historic and cultural heritage as tourism resources. The same roles are played by almost all other capital cities of states in Malaysia for tourism and leisure but not on a scale that can be compared with these cities. The nature of urban tourism development in Malaysia as an example of developing countries raises questions or the challenge to explore more in depth the influences of urban tourism in structuring the city. For example, based on the spatial-temporal evolution of hotel location in Kuala Lumpur, Oppermann and Chon (1997:78) suggested that different factors of urban tourism development may exists and work in developing countries compared to developed countries and therefore ‘the transfer of urban tourism concepts from developed to developing countries may be inappropriate’. Meanwhile, Mullins (1999) points out in response to the question as to how international tourism influences the cities in Southeast Asia that despite it rapid economic development the same impacts of international tourism in cities of developed countries also apply to cities of developing countries. Related to the issues raised by Oppermann and Chon (1997) and Mullins (1999), it can be concluded that the different nature of urban development in developing countries such as Malaysia may locate tourism in a different place in the urban hierarchy compared to developed countries. Even though the notion of economic benefit for tourism is still the same, different approaches and aims may underpin expectation of how tourism has been accepted in urban development in developing countries. Government play vital roles in providing infrastructures and developing the products even though in the first place it may not for the purpose of tourism activities especially after independence or postcolonial era in 1957. However, when tourism came of age in 1990 where this sector began to be recognised important for the economy of the country and cities, tourism receives a major intention for any consideration in most of planning and development programmes related to overall urban development. Despite what can be seen in cities such Kuala Lumpur, Melaka and Penang, the example of tourism development in the island of Langkawi have shows the specific initiative of government in tourism development that increase the function of the island itself in overall hierarchy of urban development in Malaysia.

CONCLUSION Related on this, based on the discussion in this paper, there are actually three forms of urban-based tourism that can be identified in Malaysia as a developing country. Urban tourism development in a capital city such as Kuala Lumpur, which function as (1) gateway, (2) point of distribution (or connectivity), and places with (3) strong infrastructure for tourism activities such MICE tourism, shopping, mega event and theme park. These forms of tourism destination and tourism development in the first place has not come about with specific concerns or well planned for tourism but were more coincidental. Urban tourism development similar to that seen in the cities of developed countries, which is based on the tourist historic city such as Melaka and Penang. This form of tourism development comes with the trend of tourism development worldwide and tourist demand, which come either through well planning programmes or ‘boosterist’ plan by city government. Urban tourism emerges as a result of intensive development of tourism infrastructure and product that allows a process of urbanisation in the place originally known as a peripheral area such as the island of Langkawi. This form of tourism development comes with (1) specific plans from government at all levels, and (2) an economy that is fully generated by tourism activities. The unique characteristic and development of cities in developing countries give a different perspective on how tourism has been adopted. Therefore, these three forms of urban-based tourism require further studies related to the concept of urban tourism that applies in developing countries. It should be address in order to understand the phenomenon and the complexity of urban function, which allow tourism to been accepted. REFERENCES: Ahmad, A.G. (1998) “Urban tourism in Malaysia: heritages cities of Georgetown, Malacca and Kota Bahru.” Malacca, Malaysia; paper presented at the 2nd International Seminar on European Architecture and Town Planning Outside Europe (Dutch Period), 2-5 November 1998. Ashworth, G.J. (1989) “Urban tourism: an imbalance in intention.” in Cooper, C.P (ed.) “Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management.” London: Belhaven Press. Ashworth, G.J. (1992) “Is there urban tourism?” Tourism Recreation Research 17(2), 38. Blank, UEL (1994) “Research on urban tourism destinations.” in Ritchie, J.R. and Goeldner, C.R. (eds.) “Travel, tourism, and hospitality research (2nd ed.).” New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Fainstein, S.S. and Judd, D.R. (1999) “Global forces, local strategies, and urban tourism.” in Judd, D.R. and Fainstein, S.S. (eds.) “The tourist city.” New Haven: Yale University Press. Hall C.M. and Page S. (2002) “The geography of tourism and recreation: environment, place and space (2nd ed.).” London: Routledge. Hamzah, A. (2002) “The concept of urban tourism.” Kota Kinabalu City Hall, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia; paper presented at the Seminar of The Roles of Government Agencies on Urban Tourism, 29-30 January 2002. Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1986) “Inner-city tourism: resources, tourists and promoters.” Annals of Tourism Research 13, 79-100. Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1992) “Urban recreation and tourism: physical planning issues.” Tourism Recreation Research 17(2), 33-45. Judd, D.R. (1995) “Promoting tourism in US cities.” Tourism Management 16(3), 175187. Judd, D.R. and Fainstein, S.S. (eds.) (1999) “The tourist city.” New Haven: Yale University Press. Law, C.M. (1991) “Tourism as a focus for urban regeneration.” in Hardy, S., Hart, T. Shaw, T. “The role of tourism in the urban and regional economy.” London: Regional Studies Association. Law, C.M. (2002) “Urban tourism: the visitor economy and the growth of large city (2nd ed.).” London: Continuum. MOCAT (Ministry of culture, Arts and Tourism Malaysia) (1991) “Malaysia National Tourism Policy Study; Tourism Product Sectoral Report” prepared by KPMG Peat Marwick, Kuala Lumpur: MOCAT. Mullins, P. (1999) “International tourism and the cities of Southeast Asia.” in Judd, D.R. and Fainstein, S.S. (eds.) “The tourist city.” New Haven: Yale University Press. Oppermann, M. (1992) “Intranational tourist flows in Malaysia.” Annals of Tourism Research 19, 482-500. Oppermann, M. (1993) “Tourism space in developing countries.” Annals of Tourism Research 20, 535-556. Oppermann, M. and Chon, K-S. (1997) “Tourism in developing countries.” London: International Thomson Business Press.

Oppermann, M., Din, K. and Amri, S. (1996) “Urban hotel location and evolution in developing country: the case of Kuala Lumpur Malaysia” Tourism Recreation Research 21(1), 55-63. Osbasli, A. (2000) “Tourists in historic towns: urban conservation and heritage management.” London: E & FN Spon. Page, S. (1995) “Urban Tourism.” London: Routledge. Page, S. (2001) “Gateways, hubs and transport interconnections in Southeast Asia: implications for tourism development in the twenty-first century” in Teo, P., Chang T.C. and Ho K.C. (eds.) “Interconnected worlds: tourism in Southeast Asia.” UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Page, S. and Hall C.M. (2003) “Managing urban tourism.” London: Pearson Education Ltd. Pearce, D.G. (2001) “An integrative framework for urban tourism research”. Annals of Tourism Research 28(4), 926-946. Shaw G. and A.M. William (2002) “Critical issues in tourism: a geographic perspective (2nd ed.).” UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Singh, S. (1992) “Urban development and tourism; case of Lucknow, India.” Tourism Recreation Research 17(2), 71-78. van den Berg, L., van der Borg, J. and van der Meer, J. (1995) “Urban tourism: performance and strategies in eight European cities.” Aldershot: Avebury. Weaver, D.B. (1993) “Model of urban tourism for small Caribbean Islands.” Geographical Review 83(2), 134-140.