http://www.diva-portal.org
This is the published version of a chapter published in Tourism destination evolution.
Citation for the original published chapter:
Brouder, P., Clavé, S A., Gill, A., Ioannides, D. (2016)
Why is tourism not an evolutionary science?: Understanding the past, present and future of destination evolution.
In: Patrick Brouder, Salvador Anton Clavé, Alison Gill and Dimitri Ioannides (ed.), Tourism
destination evolution (pp. 1-18). RoutledgeNew directions in tourism analysis
N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published chapter.
Permanent link to this version:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-29855
xii
ForewordThe present volume is a testimony to the usefulness of EEG approaches in the study of tourism, but it also points to many open avenues for future research efforts, encouraging others to contribute to this exciting and highly relevant line ofinquiry.
Dieter F. Kogler Dublin, 22 December 2015
1 Why is tourism not an evolutionary science?
Understanding the past, present and future of destination evolution
Patrick Brouder, Salvador Anton Clave, Alison Gill and Dimitri Ioannides
Introduction
More !han a century ago, Thorstein Veblen (1898) famously asked 'Why is eco
nomics not an evolutionary science?'. At its core, Veblen's paper of the same name questioned the dominant thinking of the day that economic systems tended
towards equilibrium, arguing instead that economies evolve over time. Thus,
itis
not enough to merely describe the economy, but rather conceptualize it in terms of long-term change processes and development (Boulton 2010). While the study of economic systems has slowly opened up to account for Veblen's ground-breaking thinking, there is no denying !hat the epistemological parameters of classical economics still dominate scholarship on economic systems well over 100 years later.
Evolutionary economics has emerged as an important part of economic studies in recent decades (Dosi and Nelson 1994), anä its natura! progression to economic geography was heralded as recently as 1999 in Boschma and Lambooy 's crossover paper 'Evolutionary economics and economic geography' (Boschma and Lambooy 1999). In the ;decade which followed, many geographers presented the case for a distinct sub-discipline of 'Evolutionary Economic Geography' (EEG}, where 'we start from the definition of economic geography as dealing with the uneven distri
bution of economic activity across space. An evolutionary approach specifically focusses on the historical processes !hat produce !hese pattems' (Boschma and Frenken 2011: 286).
EEG has had a marked influence on economic geographers, prompting cer
tain observers to ask whether this amounts to 'yet another tum' in the subject's progression, following so-called tums such as the critical tum and relational tum (Grabher 2009). Empirical research has delivered results in studies of industrial dusters and regions with historical legacies in manufacturing ( e.g. Klepper 2007), clearly focusing on the regional leve! ( e.g. Neffke et al. 2011 ). The Handbook oj Evolutionary Economic Geography was published in 2010 (Boschma and Martin 2010a) and the sub-field continues to be adopted by geographers working in var
ious regional environments. Tourism appears to lend itself particularly well to an EEG empirical approach, especially within localities that depend heavily on this sector for their economic revival and diversification (Brouder 2014a).
'
2 Brouder, Anton C/ave, Gill and Ioannides
Has tourism research been limited by a lack of an evolutionary perspective?
Many tourism researchers have long been interested in the development of destinations over time, though they have resisted the temptation for simplistic modelling of destination development with early calls for multilineal models of tourism development (Cohen 1979). The mos! influential mode! for the evolution of tourism destinations was put forward by Butler (1980) in the Tourist Area Life Cycle (TALC) Mode!. The primary concem ofthe TALC mode! was understand
ing resource management under conditions of increasing visitor numbers, but the stages of the mode! from exploration (in the early stage) to consolidation ( during the peak stage) and beyond certainly implied ongoing evolutionary processes at work. EEG is one approach for helping academics understand change processes at the destination leve! and, as such, tourism geographers have become increasingly eager to utilize an EEG !ens in their empirical studies.
This volume brings together a group of scholars who have been conducting research on tourism destinations using evolutionary approaches and, in particular, EEG perspectives. This introductory chapter offers an overview ofEEG and tour
ism research to date and presents the empirical chapters that follow.
Evolutionary economic geography
Boschma and Martin (2010b) argue that EEG is a distinct sub-discipline in economic geography and not a subset of either neoclassical or institutional approaches. EEG research pays attention to the long-term processes of change in the spatial economy, with an empirical focus on individuals and finns at the regional leve!. EEG theorists have been inspired by Schumpeter (1934) and emphasize novelty and irmovation through human creativity as the main drivers of economic evolution. Thus, there is a focus on knowledge creation and dissemina
tion throughout firms and within regions. While knowledge creation is inherently a dynamic process, EEG theory also deals with long-term change and the barriers to dynarnic knowledge creation are just as important as the aids.
EEG has three antecedent theoretical pillars on which it has developed: path dependence, complexity theory, and Generalized Darwinism (Boschma and Martin 2010b). Path dependence is an established area of research within eco
nomic geography (Arthur 1994; David 1997). It implies that history matters and that feedback loops in, for exarnple, a region's economy become self-reinforc
ing over tirne. This can lead to increased product and market development for a particular sector and can result in increasing sectoral productivity and regional prosperity over lime. However, path-dependent regional economic evolution also tends towards regional 'lock-in', whereby the processes of knowledge creation and sharing, regional institutions and political support for the dominant path tend to reinforce that path over lime. Lock-in can prove successful for decades, but behind the overt success is a hidden change in the exposure of the regional economy - by placing all of the regional 'eggs in one basket'. This classic pattem of success followed by collapse is mos! notable in the former industrial regions
Why is tourism not an evolutionary science? 3 ofEurope and the 'rustbelt' ofNorth America. Much ofthe research on EEG has been inspired by the 'industrial ruination' (Mah 2012), which has affected for
merly prosperous regions, with scholars hoping to understand ways to break away from regional path-dependence before ruination occurs. As tourism has reached maturity in many destinations, the same worries relating to the negative outcomes of path dependence have become concems of researchers but also locals. In many
mass tourism destinations, tourism's status as a single-sector economy thus raises
the spectre of future regional ruination.Martin and Sunley (2015:10) argue that 'local and regional economies are complex, multilayered systems, both connected to and in part also constitutive of their ( competitive) enviromnents, and that to understand fully their evolutionary development over time requires analysis oftheir multi-scalar and interdependent
character'.
Entrepreneurs and labour operate in complex, multiple enviromnents ( e.g.
social, cultural, technological, institutional, industrial), and these enviromnents are interdependent and marked by reciprocal causality (Martin and Sunley 2015).
N either is any one sector self-contained and there is interaction between sectors as well as within sectors. While this point is obvious, it is important to remember since most empirical studies, and this is certainly the case in tourism studies, tend
ta be reduced ta single-sector examinations.
Anevolutionary perspective opens
up for broader conceptualizations, which may be incorporated into empirical studies. For example, the concept of co-evolution is utilized in EEG studies and shows that new paths may emerge endogenously and grow independently of the dominant path (or paths) while still interacting with those paths due to the complex enviromnent at the regional leve!. Co-evolution within the region or between sectors thus negotiates the tension between the interdependent enviromnents and the indiyidual agencies.
The terminology of generalized Darwinism is the mos! obvious marker ofEEG studies. Generalized Darwinism includes the concepts of novelty and continuity, vanety, selection and retention. It is promulgated as a universal, multi-leve!
approach to studies in social and economic evolution (Hodgson and Knudsen 2010). In EEG it is the widely used terminology for understanding how knowledge 1s constantly produced and reproduced in a given region. Some scholars argue that institutions are an important part of a generalized Darwinian frarnework of eco
nomic evolution (Essletzbichler 2009; Hodgson and Knudsen 2010), while others argue that the evolutionary project in economic geography carmot supplant insti
tutional geography (MacKinnon et al. 2009). An irnportant distinction in EEG (in
comparison with other regional development frameworks, e.g. innovation systems
and agglomeration economies) is that regions are not seen as units of selection,but rather as selection environments upon which evolutionary processes operate
(Boschma and Martin 201 Ob ). An important focus in generalized Darwinism is thedesire for variety, in contrast to diversification per se, as a driver of regional inno
vation and growth. The distinction between variety and diversification centres on
the idea that it is related variety, which is sirnilar enough to other things going on4 Brouder, Anton Clave, Gill and Ioannides
in the region that it is complementary without being in direct competition. This would lead to a situation which is optimal for regional development. This idea is readily applicable at the destination leve! since tourism is a sector made up of a number ofrelated industries.
Destination evolution
Since the emergence of interest in studying tourism as an activity that creates and develops productive spaces, a range of significant studies on destination evolution has appeared (Saarinen 2004; see also Table I.I). Pioneer approaches such as those ofGilbert (1939) were followed by further endeavours through the 1950s, which combined empirical and theoretical considerations within the frame of dif
ferent regional academic traditions of tourism geography ( especially the French, German and Anglo-American approaches). These analyses mainly focused on the role of tourism demand as the main driver of economic and spatial change (Wolfe 1952; Christaller 1964). Several models (e.g. Plog 1973; Doxey 1975;
Miossec 1977; Stansfield 1978; Cohen 1979) revealed that the impacts oftourism are linked to specific stages of destination development. These frameworks also provided the ability to build in acceptance that destinations can experience pro
cesses ofrejuvenation if they are able to adapt themselves to the changing habits and preferences ofthe visitors (see Pearce 1989). Parallel to this is a long tradition of empirical research, mainly focused on the analysis of the specific history of each destination. Usually these studies portray destination evolution as a process mainly caused by the growth in the number of tourists and by changes in the pro
vision of services, facilities and infrastructure for tourists ( see Brey el al. 2007 for a complete review).
lnspired by the aforementioned literature and, especially, the concept of the Product Life Cycle (Vernon 1966; Cox 1967), Butler's TALC mode! (Butler 1980) appeared as a fundamental framework for analysing the evolution of des
tinations. The TALC mode! has been used to study a myriad of destination cases and has also been a source of inspiration for further conceptual work on destina
tion development. For instance, Haywood (2006) has called for an adjustment of approach to how tourism schalars utilize the TALC, by arguing for the necessity to move away from the nation of changed stages or states and instead to focus on the actual processes of change. Others have sought to validate it ( see Butler 2006a, 2006b) and to modify and extend it (Hovinen 1981; Haywood 1986; Cooper 1992;
Getz 1992; Ioannides 1992; Benedetto and Bojanic 1992; Meyer-Arendt 1993;
Agarwal 1997; Baum 1998; Priestley and Mundet 1998; Faulkner 2002; Russell and Faulkner 2004). The TALC has generated the mast relevant destination evolution research stream. It is even more relevant than historical studies related to specific destinations (see, for instance, Walton 2000; Cirer 2009; and Battilani and Faure 2011 ).
Nevertheless, parallel to the adoption of the TALC mode! as a convenient the
oretical framework, other longitudinal models have also been proposed since the 1980s. For example, the French analyst Chadefaud (1987) built a useful
Table 1.1 Selected papers on destination evolution with approaches other than Evolution
ary Economic Geography.
Authors Gilbert Wolfe
Chris tall er Plog Doxey Miossec Stansfield Cohen Butler Gormsen
Chadefaud Smith
Gill Agarwal EquipeMIT
Main contribution
Changes and growth ofthe built-up area in seaside health resorts acting as residential population attractors with a spatial development perspective.
Year 1939
lnterest on the processes of change oftourism destinations and 1952 its potential effects with special interest in second-home
areas.
Tourist flows and patterns explaining the spatial distribution 1964 oftourist places from a demand perspective.
Changes in the tourist market are related to subsequent 1973 changes in the destinations visited. Destinations decline is
predictable and inevitable.
Model suggesting that communities pass through a sequence 1975 of reactions as the impacts of tourism in a destination
become more pronounced.
Destination evolution is driven by the continuous adaptation 1977 of demand and supply with 5 phases from a pioneering
stage to a congestion stage.
Seminal case-study about rejuvenation oftourism 1978 destinations. Rejuvenation is possible if destination
emphasises its (unique) locational advantages.
Discussion of the need to conceive multilineal mo dels of 1979 tourism development illustrate� by an elaboration of
MacCannell's fundamental concepts.
Seminal mode! -Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC)- startingca 1980 long trend ofresearch on the evolution oftourist-area demand.
Defines pattern and stages in the tourist area's evolution.
Spatio-temporal model explaining common factors in the 1981, development of destinations over increasingly peripheral 1997 zones of the world.
The 'collective myth' - the mental representations of 1987 demand - as the driver of the tourism product's evolution.
Focus on development from a spatial perspective. Tourism 1991, development linked to urbanization process. Comparative 1992 spatial evolutionary model for contemporary beach resorts.
Uses growth theories to highlight importance of social and 2000 political processes in the evolution of resort destinations.
Exploration ofthe theoretical relationship between Butler's 2002 TALC and the restructuring thesis.
Distinction between types of spaces created by tourism and 2002, types of spaces transformed by tourism and exploration of 2005,
links between them. 2011
( Continued)
6 Brouder, Anton C/aw!, Gill and Ioannides Table 1.1 (Continued)
Authors Main contribution Year
Papatheodorou Theoretical mode I of tourism evolutionary pattems from an 2004 economic geography perspective, illustrating the interaction ofmarket and spatial forces in destination evolution and development
Prideaux Multidimensional model - Resort Development Spectrum - 2004 based on the long-tenn evolution of demand in a
destination.
Andriotis Identification of the principal characteristics detennining 2006 morphological change of coastal resorts in·a predictable
sequence of stages.
Agarwal Relevance ofrelational spatiality for spatial planning in 2012 coastal resort restructuring.
Anton Clave Categorization of different types of mature Mediterranean 2012 mass coastal destinations according to the (re) development strategies implemented by decision-makers.
Weaver Paper positioning sus!ainable mass tourism as the desired 2012 outcome for most destinations. It defines three distinctive
paths: the market-driven organic, the regulation-driven incremental, and the hybrid induced.
Pavlovich Critique ofthe linear modets of destination evolution based 2013 upon the concept ofnetworks as rhizomic. Change as anti
hierarchical, self-organised and locally inspired.
Clivaz et al. Development of the concept of 'touristic capital' of res orts in 2014 order to analyse their specific trajectories over time.
diachronic mode[ to analyse the evolution of destinations/products based on the relationship between the dominant and dominated classes' mental representations (see Suchet 2015). The spatio-temporal mode! of Gormsen (1981, 1997) defined stages in temporal development oftourism in seaside resorts according to the fol
lowing aspects, taking an evolutionary, global scope: availability of specific tour
ist services; source of capita! for development; origin of supplies (local, regional or further afield); effects of tourist traffic; and the enviromnental stress imposed upon the coastal area. Additionally, Smith (1992) identified coastal-area tourism development as a process ofurbanization that could be clearly defined in terms of physical expansion, functional diversification and environmental impacts.
Following in this vein, the new millennium has seen the appearance ofseveral new contributions. For example, Agarwal (2002) framed the analysis ofthe des
tination evolution processes within the concept of restructuring, and Gill (2000) examined social and political dynamics in the evolution of a new mountain-resort destination. Building a comprehensive general theory of tourism development, the Equipe MIT (2002, 2005, 2011) in France strongly argued how tourism has the capacity to allow places to emerge with new systems of actors and new social and
Why is tourism not an evolutionary science? 7 urban practices (see also Stock 2003). Parallel to this, Prideaux's (2004) Resor!
Development Spectrurn (RDS) related the evolution of destination resorts to long
term changes in demand, while Papatheodorou (2004) theoretically explored the evolutionary patterns of destinations linking markets and spatial evolution. Addi
tionally, Andriotis (2006) returned to the domain of morphological studies such as those of Meyer-Arendt (1993) and Smith (1992) and defined the morphological transformation ofMediterranean coastal destinations through a number of devel
opment stages. Beyond the specific value of each of these separate constructs, their most important contribution was their ability to introduce new perspectives to the issue of the evolution of destinations and to continue the debate about the utility, the !imitations and the findings obtained from the well-established TALC mode!.
More recently, other approaches have appeared, reflecting that the evolution of destinations is highly dependent on enacting human agency. Anton Clave (2012a) categorized different types of mature Mediterranean mass coastal destinations according to the redevelopment strategies implemented by decision-makers.
Clivaz el al. (2014) used the concept of lourisl capita/ of resorls to discuss how collective agency could generate a metamorphic dynamic able to facilitate the conversion ofresorts into urban places. Pavlovich (2014) adopted the Deleuzian concept of networks as rhizomic, in the sense that they are anti-hierarchical and change can occur in an unexpected manner in any direction, and thus, through col
laboration, network connections are fundamental in destination change. In notable contrast with other previous approaches, these contributions focus the analysis on the evolution of destinations as places instead of analysing changes oftourism in places. Also during this period, Weaver (2012) differentiated between organic, incremental and induced paths in mass tourism, and Agarwal (2012) went back to the restructuring approach. In her 2012 paper she utilizes Healey's (2004) con
ceptualizations of space and place and explores the role of relational spatiality in destination restructuring.
All of the t:ited papers were produced with a general evolutionary (but non
dependency) interest and they illustra te how the study of destination development
d
ynamics has been a relevant issue in tourism studies. Nevertheless, much has
to be done to synthesize the diversity of concepts used by these authors in order to develop a coherent approach. However, taken together, they indicate the existence of certain key issues other than the evolution of demand, facilities and ser
vices that should be discussed when analysing destination evolution. Obviously, these approaches could also be linked to other tourism analysis perspectives, such as resilience (Tyrell and Johnston 2008; Calgaroa el al. 2014; Lew 2014), the well-established research on sustainability development (Bramwell and Lane 2012) and tourism geography relational approaches (Pastras and Bramwell 2013), including, in this last case, the aforementioned research on destination regenera
tion as viewed from a relational perspective (Agarwal 2012).
In contrast with early frameworks focused on the role of demand in destination evolution, the most recent understanding of destination change includes the role ofthe social, economic and political context in enabling and constraining change processes. Both Haywood (2006) and Butler (2004) state that analysis needs to be
8
Brouder, Anton Clave, Gill and Ioannidescontext specific to fully identify causes and effects of tourism destination evolu
tion. Moreover, Agarwal (2005) points out that resor! changes have to be exam
ined in a global context, linking resor! development with global change, local govemance and collective action. Nevertbeless, mos! medels focus overwhehn
ingly on the evolution of tourism activities and in so doing they offer inadequate explanation of change dynamics at the destination leve! (Agarwal 1994). Thus, tourism destinations, like other places, evolve by means of dynamic processes, including the necessary mobility of people (not only tourists), of capita!, of goods and of information (Jackson and Murphy 2002). Currently, most analyses acknowledge that it is not possible to study the evolution of destinations with
out also including social, cultural, economic, and environmental changes and challenges (Amin 2002). So, analyses of destination evolution need further con
ceptual development of the local and global contextual forces inducing change (Butler 2004; Agarwal 2005; Dodds 2007), and research must encompass the idea that destinations are complex places with residential, productive and social functions extending beyond tourism with co-evolving trajectories (Equipe MIT 2002).
Also, when analysing the evolution of destinations, researchers increasingly consider tourism development as a socially constructed process. According · to Verbole (2003: 152), tourism development might be 'seen as a dynamic, on-going socially constructed and negotiated process that involves many social actors (indi
viduals, groups and institutions) who continuously reshape and transform it to fit it to their perceptions, needs, values and agendas'. In this sense, as widely evidenced, research on destination evolution must focus on analysing the impact of stakeholders' decisions and interventions in response to either externa! or inter
na[ influences (Haywood 1986, 2006; Cooper and Jackson 1989; Ioannides 1992;
Anton Clave 2012b; Pavlovich 2014; Clivaz el al. 2014).
Furthermore, current approaches to tourism destination evolution tend to avoid the implicit determinism outlined by many initial demand-oriented evolution medels. This determinism has been linked to the existence of a carrying-capacity threshold for a destination that, when reached, forces it to regenerate in order to survive. There are well-known cases of mature destinations that have been able to overcome declining paths and increase their ability to attract markets (Rus
sell and Faulkner 2004; Aguil6 el al. 2005; Ivars el al. 2013). A central lesson from these destinations is that renewed success and survival are the result of a shared strategic vision and the deep involvement of key stakeholders in the con
struction of an atmosphere of political, entrepreneurial and social consensus for new development. Forgetting this lesson could lead to incorrect forecasts abou(
irreversible tendencies towards decline as has been the case in some of the best
known second-generation Mediterranean destinations (Knowles and Curtis 1999).
From a critical analysis approach, Stock (2003) furtber questions the existence of deterministic dem and growth thresholds since the determining ( and deterministic) impacts leading to decline are more of an ideological a priori than actual scientific observation. Stock claims that such a priori positioning comes from the frontal rejection ofmass tourism, which many authors adept (Stock 2003).
Why is tourism not an evolutionary science? 9 All in all, current developments point out the strong need to explore and discuss how these different perspectives are contributing to a deeper understanding of destination evolution and how research can move from the 'what' to the 'how' and 'why' (Brouder 20 l 4b ). Within tourism geography, Brouder and Eriksson (2013a) and Ma and Hassink (2013) have started to deal with the synergies between the TALC and EEG, while other authors have begun adopting certain EEG concepts as a way to better understand the specific mechanisms behind the evolution of destinations as places (e.g. Gill and Williams 2011, 2014).
EEG, which has been used to analyse the evolution of other specialized places and regions (Boschma and Frenken 2006; Boschma and Martin 2010a), is now
emerging as a promising framework of tourism research in order to enhance understanding of 'how' and
'why'tourism destinations evolve over time (Ioan
nides el al. 2015). As is discussed in the following chapters ofthis volume, EEG has released within tourism studies the potential of powerful economic geog
raphy notions such as branching (Brouder and Eriksson 2013b), co-evolution (Brouder and Fullerton 2015; Garcia-Cabrera and Durån-Herrera 2014; Ma and Hassink 2013; Larsson and Lindström 2014; Randelli el al. 2014), path creation (Gill and Williams 2011, 2014), path dependence (Bramwell and Cox 2009; Chen and Bao 2014; Ma and Hassink 2013; Williams 2013), path plasticity (Halkier and Therkelsen 2013) and survival (Brouder and Eriksson 2013b). Additionally, bridges between conventional EEG research development and other economic geography approaches are also in the works, for exam
ple, with relational economic geography (Sanz-lbåfiez and Anton Clave 2014) and, in attempts to determine the role of coupling between global and local stakeholders in destination evolution, with Global Production Network analysis (Niewiadomski 2014; Sanz-lbåilez and Anton Clave 2016). Moreover, specific research approaches to single types of tourism destinations have also been pro
posed, for example the dynamic and contested state of urban tourism (Brouder and Ioannides 2014).
To sum up, EEG concepts are creating a new frarnework. to aid not only in understanding how destinations evolve over time, but also in interpreting the role oftourism as a way of accumulating capita[ in destinations and its implications in terms of the dynamics of economic variety, environmental (in)equity and social justice. EEG also highlights how transformations of destinations as places help them survive as communities. All in all, it can be argued !hat by incorporating an EEG len.sin tourism research we can begin to respond to Britton's (1991: 466) critical perspective about the geography oftourism when he stated that 'by treat
ing tourism almost solely as a discrete economic subsystem, many revealing links have been missed between tourism and other politically and theoretically import
ant geographic issues which demonstrate the wider role and position of tourism in capitalist accumulation'. The eighteen papers already published on tourism and EEG (see Table 1.2) and the eight empirical chapters included in this volume are an initial attempt by tourism scholars to engage with EEG and, as shall be seen, a lot of important work has been done and has opened the door to furtber avenues of enquiry.
Table 1.2 Tourism papers incorporating Evolutionary Economic Geography theory.
Authors Description Publication Pub/is hed'
Gill & Williams Case study of path Journal of Sustainable 2011 dependence in Whistler Tourism
Resort, Canada
Brouder & Eriksson Regional Branching Tourism Geographies 2012 towards tourism
in north Sweden 's resource-based regions
Ma&Hassink Case study of path Annats o/Tourism 2012 dependence and Research
ca-evolution in Gold Coast, Australia
Halkier & Path dependence and Zeitschrift fiir 2013 Therkelsen 'path plasticity' in Wirtschaftsgeographie
Denmark's coastal tourism regions
Larsson & Ca-evolution of new European Plllnning 2013 Lindström tourism with tr�ditional Studies
boat-building in Sweden
Brouder & Eriksson Conceptual overview of Annats o/Tourism 2013 the nexus ofEEG and Research
tourism studies
Williams Understanding of Journal oj Sustainable 2013 tourism mobilities Tourism
as path-depending or path-creating
Randelli el al. Path creation and regional Land Use Policy 2014 lock-in within rural
tourism in Italy
Brouder Review of 'EEG and Tourism Geographies 2014 Tourism' sessions at
AAG Meeting 2013
Garcia-Cabrera & Ca-evolution of tourism Annals o/Tourism 2014 Durån-Herrera finns and institutional Research
change in a crisis context
Chen&Bao Path dependence in the Tourism Geographies 2014 evolution of res ort
governance models in China
Brouder Review ofEEG and Tourism Geographies 2014 tourism papers to
date and list of future research paths
( Continued)
Why is tourism not an evolutionary science? 11 Table 1.2 (Continued)
Authors Description Publication Publisheda
Gill & Williams Path Creation through Tourism Geographies 2014 'Mindful Deviation' of
stakeholders in Whistler
Ma&Hassink Path dependence and Tourism Geographies 2014 regional lock-in within
tourism in Guilin, China
Sanz-Ibåfiez & Conceptual paper Tourism Geographies 2014 Anton-Clave linking tourism
destination evolution to agglomerations and relational economic . geography
Brouder& Urban tourism through an Urban Forum 2014
Ioannides EEGlens
Niewiadomski Framework for analysing Tourism Geographies 2015 hotel industry using
EEG and Global Production Network theory
Brouder & Fullerton Co-evolution ofmultiple Scandinavian Journal oj 2015 tourism paths across Hospitality and Tourism the Niagara Region,
Canada
Sanz-Ibåflez & Analysis ofhow local- Annats o/Tourism 2015 Anton-Clave global coupling among Research
stakeholders hints at destination upgrading
Note:a Publishe� date is when the paper was first available online, volume and issue date is available in the references.
Summary of this volume
The theoretical pillars on which EEG is built - path dependence, complexity and generalized Darwinism (Boschma and Martin 20 !Ob) - also inform each of the studies in the present volume to a greater or lesser extent. Several chapters focus on path dependency in various contexts. From the Danish coast (Chapter 2) to the Whistler resor! municipality in Canada (Chapter 3) to a selection of remote communities in Australia (Chapter 6), the chapters highlight institutional lock-in in particular. Tracing attempts to break from existing paths to creating new paths,
!hese three chapters, taken together, point to the need for long-term perspectives in understanding destination evolution. For example, Gill and Williams' work (Chapter 3) is based on decades of research in Whistler and reinforces the aca- demic necessity of long-term engagement with communities, in particular for
'
i I
12 Brouder, Anton Clave, Gill and Joannides
qualitative studies of destination evolution. Gill and Williams (Chapter 3) cite Hall's (2011) work on why a lack of policy learning restricts the development of sustainable tourism governance over the long term. This central evolution
ary question oflearning in regions is also in focus in Carson and Carson's study (Chapter 6), where institutional lock-in has limited the development of sustam
able tonrism. Carson and Carson acknowledge the inter-sectoral pressnres ofinsti
tutions in resonrce-dependent commnnities, but they also go deeper to show how intra-sectoral failnres in tourism seem to be repeated over time as a lack oflearn
ing from the past limits the future. Thus, !hese three chapters show !hat learning is key for sustainable governance in tonrism destinations and !hat only localized strategic learning leads to contextualized strategic action. Complexity theory is also a major element of several of the chapters m th1. . s volume. Halkier and James (Chapter 2) and Meekes, Parra and de Roo (Chapter 9) choose to utilize a complex adaptive systems (CAS) approach in their studies.
In Chapter 9 the authors attempt to merge nations of CAS with EEG concepts and to captnre the CAS for tonrism and recreation. in one region of the Neth
erlands. While the study is more of a snapshot in time rather than a longitudi
nal study, the authors highlight the usefulness of evolutionary concepts such as self-organization and emergence in nnderstanding complex change. At the same time, Halkier and James (Chapter 2) tie the extant studies on CAS in tonrism ( e:g.
Farrell and Twining-Ward 2004) to the emerging use ofresilience approaches in tourism geography (Lew 2014). Halkier and Jarnes's use of Boschma's (2014) nations of adaptation and adaptability in regional resilience is of particular inter
est in nnderstanding how complex change includes both short-term adjustrnent to circumstance and long-term strategic plarming.
In Chapter 5, Sanz-Ibåflez, Wilson and Anton Clave focus on key 'moments' in destination evolution, arguing that at certain points in time there is a clear and marked shift in a destination's path trajectory and that analysing such shifts along
side and in addition to the general development trajectory over time will lead to a more nuanced nnderstanding of human agency in destination evolution. Niewi
adomski's study (Chapter 7) exarnines the regional development implications of one key moment in Central and Eastern Enrope - the post-communist opening of markets and the resultant influx of international hotel chains. By focusing on knowl
edge transfer, Niewiadomski shows how EEG concepts are nseful in nnderstanding how externa! knowledge helps to create new paths dnring hotel operations and, ulti
mately, how post-communist regions 'de-lock' themselves from their nnproductive past.
Related to the concept of complexity discussed above, ca-evolution features as an important theme of several chapters in this volume. In Chapter 4, Hassink and Ma present a research frarnework for ca-evolution in tonrism areas. They see ca-evolution as a coguate concept to the TALC (Butler 1980), arguing !hat an nnderstanding of ca-evolution is not just necessary but, in fäet, well suited to tonrism-area analyses since such areas are marked by a myriad of products, sec
tors and institutions operating at various levels in a destination. Moreover, Hassink and Ma argue !hat ca-evolution strengthens work on tonrism regional irmovation
Why is tourism not an evolutionary science? 13 systems and so adds to the depth of understanding in tonrism geography. Brouder and Fullerton (Chapter 8) use the concept of ca-evolution to interrogate the assumed nnilineal development of tonrism in the Niagara region of Canada. They argue !hat even within tonrism in one small region there are multiple, co-evolving paths and that !hese distinct, albeit inter-related, paths have their own nuanced institutional environment. This intra-regional disjnncture means that sustainable tonrism development is not optimized. While these studies do not engage deeply with
generalized Darwinism, the presence of ca-evolution
inthe empirical cases
means there is scope for deeper engagement going forward.In summary, we believe !hat the contributions to this volume are timely as can
cerns about the sustainability of maturing tourism destinations increase and as tourism development continues to expand to ever more communities and regions
across the globalizing world. In the following chapters, the reader will find a set ofresearch papers which explore long-term change in a diverse set of tonrism des tinations, with all studies drawing inspiration from EEG. The concluding chapter by Ioannides and Brouder reflects on the evolution of tourism research over time and the central place EEG will have in the direction of future research.References
Agarwal, S. (1994). 'The resort cycle revisited: Irnplications for resorts'. In C.P. Cooper andA. Lockwood (eds) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management.
Chichester: Wiley (pp. 194-208).
Agarwal, S. (1997). 'The resort cycle and seaside tourism: An assessment of its applicabil
ity and validity'. Tourism Management 18, 65-73.
Agarwal, S. (2002). 'Restructuring seaside tourisih: The resor! lifecyle'. Annals ofTourism Research 29(1), 25-55.
Agarwal, S. (2005). 'Global-local interactions in English coastal resorts: Theoretical per
spectives'. 'fourism Geographies 7( 4 ), 351-72.
Agarwal, S. (2012). 'Relational spatiality and resort restructuring'. Annats oj Tourism Research 39(1), 134-54.
Aguil6, E., Alegre, J. and Sard, M. (2005). 'The persistence of the sun and sand tourism mode!'. Tourism Management 26(2), 219-31.
Amin, A. (2002). 'Spatialities of globalisation'. Environment and Planning 34(3), 385-99.
Andriotis, K. (2006). 'Hosts, guests and politics: Coastal resorts morphological change'.
Annals ofTourism Research 33(4), 1079-98.
Anton Clave, S. (2012a). 'Rethinking mass tourism, space and place'. In J. Wilson (ed.) Routl€dge Handbook o/Tourism Geographies: New Perspectives on Space, Place and Tourism. London: Routledge (pp. 217-24).
Anton Clave, S. (ed.) (2012b). JOLessons on Tourism: The Challenge of Reinventing Des
tinations. Barcelona: Planeta.
Arthur, W.B. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.
Battilani, P. and Faure, F. (2011 ). 'The rise of a service-based economy and its transforma
tion: Seaside tourism and the case ofRimini'. Journal o/Tourism History 1(1), 27--40.
Baum, T. (1998). 'Taking the exit route: Extending the tourism area life cycle model'.
Current lssues in Tourism 1(2), 167-75.
'
14 Brouder, Anton Clave, Gill and Joannides
Benedetto, C.A. di and Bojanic, D.C. (1992). 'Tourism area lifä cycle extensions'. Annats ofTourism Research 20, 557-70.
Boschma, R. (2014). 'Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience'. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, no. 14/09. Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Boschma, R. and Frenken, K. (2006). 'Why is economic geography not an evolutionary sci
ence? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal o/Economic Geography 6, 273-302.
Boschma, R. and Frenken, K. (2011). 'The emerging empirics of evolutionary economic geography'. Journal ofEconomic Geography 11(2), 295-307.
Boschma, R. and Lambooy, J. ( 1999). 'Evolutionary economics and economic geography'.
Journal of Evolutionary Economics 9, 411-29.
Boschma, R. and Martin, R. (eds) (2010a). The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Bigar Publishing.
Boschma, R. and Martin, R. (201 Ob ). 'The aims and scope of evolutionary economic geog
raphy'. In R. Boschma and R. Martin (eds) The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Bigar Publishing (pp. 3-39).
Boulton, J. (2010). Introduction to a reprint of: 'Why is economics not an evolutionary science?'. Emergence: Complexity and Organisation 12(2), 41-69.
Bramwell, B. and Cox, V. (2009). 'Stage and path dependence approaches to the evolution of a national park tourism partnership'. Journal oj Sustainable Tourism 17(2), 191-206.
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2012). 'Towards innovation in sustainable tomism research?'.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20( 1 ), 1-7.
Brey, E.T., Morrison, A.M. and Mills, J.M. (2007). 'An examination of destination resort research'. Current Issues in Tourism 10(5), 415-42.
Britten, S. (1991). 'Tourism, capita! and place: Towards a critical geography oftourism'.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9, 451-78.
Brouder, P. (2014a). 'Evolutionary economic geography: A new path for tourisffi studies?' Tourism Geographies 16(1), 2-7.
Brouder, P. (2014b). 'Evolutionary economic geography and tourism studies: Extant stud
ies and future research directions'. Tourism Geographies 16(4), 540-5.
Brouder, P. and Eriksson, R.H. (2013a). 'Tourism evolution: On the synergies of tour
ism studies and evolutionary economic geography'. Annals of Tourism Research 43, 370-89.
Brouder, P. and Eriksson, R.H. (2013b). 'Staying power: What influences micro-firm sur
vival in tourism?'. Tourism Geographies 15(1), 124-43.
Brouder, P. and Fullerton, C. (2015). 'Exploring heterogeneous tourism development paths:
Cascade effect or co-evolution in Niagara?'. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 15(1-2), 152-66.
Brouder, P. and Ioannides, D. (2014). 'Urban tourism and evolutionary economic geogra
phy: Complexity and co-evolution in contested spaces'. Urban Forum 25(4), 419-30.
Butler, R.W. (1980). 'The concept of a tourist area life cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources'. The Canadian Geographer 24(1), 5-12.
Butler, R.W. (2004). 'The tourism area life cycle in the twenty-first century'. In A.A.
Lew, C.M. Hall and A.M. Williams (eds) A Companion to Tourism. Oxford: Blackwell (pp. 159-69).
Butler, R. (ed.) (2006a). The Tourism Area Life Cycle: Applications and Modifications.
Clevedon, UK: Chanoel View.
Butler, R. (ed.) (2006b ). The Tourism Area Life Cycle: Conceptual and Theoretical Jssues.
Clevedon, UK: Channel View.
Why is tourism not an evolutionary science? 15 Calgar�a, E., Lloyd, K. and Dominey-Howes, D. (2014). 'From vulnerability to transfor
mation: A framework for assessing the vulnerability and resilience of tourism destina
tions'. Journal ofSustainable Tourism 22(3), 341-60.
Cha�efaud, M. (1987?. Aux origins du tourisme dans les Pays de l'Adour. Du mythe (l l espace: un essaz de geographie historique. Pau: Departement de gfographie et d'amenagement de l'Universite de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, et Centre de Recherche sur l 'Impact Socio-spatial de l' Amenagement.
Chen, G. and Bao, J. (2014). 'Path dependence in the evolution ofresort governance mod
els in China'. Tourism Geographies 16(5), 812-25.
Christ�ller, W. (1964). 'Some considerations oftourism location in Europe: The peripheral regions - underdeveloped countries - recreation areas'. Papers in Regional Science
12(1), 95-105.
Cirer, J.C. (2009). La Invenci6 del Turisme de Masses a Mallorca. Palma: Institut Balear d'Economia.
Clivaz, C., Crevoisier, 0., Kebir, L., Nahrath, S. and Stock, M. (2014). Resor! Development and Touristic Capita! of Place. Neuchätel: Maison d'Analyse des Processus Sociaux.
Universite de Neuchätel.
Cohen, E. ( 1979). 'Rethinking the sociology of tourism'. Annals of Tourism Research 6( 1)
18-35. '
Cooper, C. (1992). 'The life cycle concept and strategic planning for coastal resorts', Built Environment 18(1), 57-66.
Cooper, C. and Jackson, S. (1989). 'Destination life cycle: The Isle ofMan case study'.
Annats ofTourism Research 16(3), 377-98.
Cox, W.E. ( 1967). 'Product life cycles as marketing models'. Journal of Business 40( 1 O)
375-84. '
David, P.A. (1997). Path Dependence and the Questfor Historical Economics: One More Chorus ofthe Ballad ofQWERTY. Oxford: Unjversity of Oxford.
Dodds, R. (2007). 'Sustainable tourism and policy implementation: Lessons from the case of Calviå, Spain'. Current Issues in Tourism 10( 4), 296-322.
Dosi, G. and Nelson, R.R. (1994). 'An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics'.
Journal off!,volutionary Economics 4(3), 153-72.
Doxey, G.V. (�975). 'A causation theory of visiter-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences'. Proceedings of the Travel Research Association 6th Annual Con
ference. San Diego: Travel Research Association (pp. 195-8).
Equipe MIT (2002). Tourismes 1. Lieux Communs. Paris: Belin.
Equipe MlT (2005). Tourismes 2. Moments de Lieux. Paris: Belin.
Equipe MIT (2011). Tourismes 3. La Rivoluction Durable. Paris: Belin.
Essletzbichler, J. (2009). 'Evolutionary economic geography, institutions, and political economy'. Economic Geography 85(2), 159-65.
Farrell, B.H. and Twining-Ward, L. (2004). 'Reconceptualizing tourism'. Annals o/Tour
ism Research 31(2), 274-95.
Faulkner, B. (2002). 'Rejuvenating a maturing tourist destination: The case of the Gold C?ast. Gold Coast Tourism Visioning Project', Current Jssues in Tourism 5(6), 472-520.
Garcia-Cabrera, A.M. and Durån-Herrera, J.J. (2014). 'Does the tourism indust1y co-evolve?' Ann als of Tourism Research 4 7, 81-3.
Getz, D. (1992). 'Tourism planning and destination life cycle'. Annals o/Tourism Research 19(4), 752-70.
Gilbert, E.W. (1939). 'The growth ofinland and seaside health resorts in England'. Scottish Geographical Magazine 55, 16-35.
'
16 Brouder, Anton Clave, Gill and Ioannides
Gill, A.M. (2000). 'From growth machine to growth management: The dynamics of resort development in Whistler, British Cohunbia'. Environment and Planning A 32, 1083-103.
Gill, A.M. and Williams, P.W. (2011). 'Rethinking resor! growth: Understanding evolving govemance strategies in Whistler, British Columbia'. Journal oj Sustainable Tourism 19(4-5), 629-48.
Gill, A.M. and Williams, P.W. (2014). 'Mindful deviation in creating a govemance path towards sustainability in resort destinations'. Tourism Geographies 16(4), 546-62.
Gonnsen, E. (1981). 'The spatio-temporal development of.Intemational tourism: attempt a centre-periphery model'. Etudes & Memoires. Centre des Hautes Etudes Touristiques d'Aix-en-Provence 55, 150-70.
Gonnsen, E. (1997). 'The impact oftonrism in coastal areas'. Geo Journal 42(1), 39-54.
Grabher, G. (2009). 'Yet another tum? The evolutionary project in economic geography'.
Economic Geography 85(2), 119-27.
Halkier, H. and Therkelsen, A. (2013). 'Exploring tourism destination path plasticity: The case of coastal tourism in North Jutland, Denmark'. Zeitschrift far Wirtschaftsgeogra
phie 57(1-2), 39-51.
Hall, C.M. (2011). 'Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism govemance:
from first- and second-order to third-order change?' Journal
OJ
Sustainable Tourism 19(4-5), 649-71.Haywood, K.M. (1986). 'Can the tourist area life-cycle be made operational?' Tourism Management 7(3), 154-67.
Haywood, K.M. (2006). 'Legitimising the TALC as a theory of development and change'.
In R.W. Butler (ed.) The Tourism Area Life Cycle: Conceptual and Theoretical lssues.
Clevedon, UK: Channel View (pp. 29-47).
Healey, P. (2004). 'The treatment of space and place in the new·strategic spatial planning in Europe'. lnternational Journal oj Urban and Regional Research 28(1 ), 45-67.
Hodgson, GM. and Knudsen, T. (2010). Darwin S Conjecture: The Searchfor General Prin
cip/es af Social and Economic Evolution. Chicago, IL.: University ofChicago Press.
Hovinen, G.R. (1981). 'A tourist cycle in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania'. The Canadian Geographer 25(3), 283-6.
Ioannides, D. (1992). 'Tourism development agents: The Cypriot resort cycle'. Annats of Tourism Research 19(4), 7ll-31.
loannides, D., Halkier, H. and Lew, A. (2015). Evolutionary economic geography and the economies oftourism destinations'. Tourism Geographies 16(4), 535-9.
Ivars Baidal, J.A., Rodriguez Sånchez, I. and Vera Rebollo, J.F. (2013). 'The evolution of mass tourism destinations: New approaches beyond deterministic mod_els in Benidorm (Spain)'. Tourism Management 34(2), 184-95.
Jackson, J. and Murphy, P. (2002). 'Tourism destinations as dusters'. Tourism and Hospi
tality 4(1), 36-52.
Klepper, S. (2007). 'Disagreements, spinoffs, and the evolution ofDetroit as the capital of the U.S. automobile industry'. Management Science 53(4), 616-31.
Knowles, T. and Curtis, S. (1999). 'The market viability ofEuropeanmass tourist destinations:
A post-stagnation life cycle analysis'. International Journal o/Tourism Research 1, 87-96.
Larsson, A. and Lindström, K. (2014). 'Bridging the knowledge-gap between the old and the new: Regional marine experience production in Orust, Västra Götaland, Sweden'.
European Planning Studies 22(8), 1551-68.
Lew, A.A. (2014). 'Scale, change and resilience in community tourism planning'. Tourism Geographies 16(1), 14-22.
Why is tourism not an evolutionary science? 17 Ma, M. and Hassink, R. (2013). 'An evolutionmy perspective on tourism area develop
ment'. Annals o/Tourism Research 41, 89-109.
MacKinnon, D., Cumbers, A., Pike, A., Birch, K. and McMaster, R. (2009). 'Evolution in economic geography: Institutions, political economy, and adaptation'. Economic Geog
raphy 85(2), 129-50.
Mah, A. (2012). Jndustrial Ruination, Community, and P/ace: Landscapes and Legacies of Urban Decline. Toronto, ON: University ofToronto Press.
Martin, R. and Sunley, P. (2015). 'Towards a developmental tum in evolutionary economic geography?'. Regional Studies 49(5), 712-32.
Meyer-Arendt, K. (1993). 'Geomorphic impacts of resort evolution along the Gulf of Mexico coast: applicability ofresort cycle models'. In P.P. Wong (ed.) Tourism vs Envi
ronment: The Case for Coastal Areas. Dordrecht: Kluwer (pp. 125-38).
Miossec, J.M. (1977). 'Un modele de l'espace touristique'. L'Espace Geographique 6(1), 41-8.
Neftke, F., Henning, M. and Boschma, R. (2011). 'How do regions diversify over time?
Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions'. Economic Geography 87(3), 237-65.
Niewiadomski, P. (2014). 'Towards an economic-geographical approach to the globalisa
tion af the hotet industry'. Tourism Geographies 16( l ), 48-67.
Papatheodorou, A. (2004). 'Exploring the evolution oftourism resorts'. Annats o/Tourism
Research 31(1), 219-37. �
Pastras, P. and Bramwell, B. (2013). 'A strategic-relational approach to tourism policy'.
Annals o/Tourism Research 43, 390-414.
Pavlovich, K. (2014). 'A rhizomic approach to tourism destination evolution and transfor
mation'. Tourism Management 41, 1-8.
Pearce, D.G. (1989). Tourist Development, 2nd edition Harlow: Longman; and New York:
Wiley.
Plog, S.C. (l 973). 'Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity'. Cornell Hotet and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 13, 6-13.
Prideaux, B. (2004). 'The resort development spectrum: The case of the Gold Coast, Australia'. Tourism Geographies 6(1), 26-58.
Priestley, G. filld Mundet, L. (1998). 'The post-stagnation phase of the resort cycle'. Annats oJTourism Research 25(1), 85-111.
Randelli, F., Romei, P. and Tortora, M. (2014). 'An evolutionary approach to the study af rural tourism'. Land Use Policy 38, 276-8 l .
Russell, R. and Faulkner, B. (2004). 'Entrepreneurship, chaos and the tourism area life cycle'. Annals oJTourism Research 31(3), 556-79.
Saarinen, J. (2004). 'Destinations in change: The transformation process oftourist destina
tions'. Tourist Studies 4(2), 161-79.
Sanz Ibåfiez, C. and Anton Clave, S. (2014). 'The evolution of destinations: Towards an evolutionary and relational economic geography approach'. Tourism Geographies 16(4), 563-79.
Sanz Ibåfiez, C. and Anton Clave, S. (2016). 'Strategic coupling evolution and destination upgrading'. Annats o/Tourism Research 56(1 ), 1-15.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capita/, Credit, Jnterest, and the Business Cycle. London: Transaction Publishers.
Smith, R.A. (1992). 'Beach resort evolution. Implications for planning'. Annals o/Tourism Research 19(2), 304-22.
18 Brouder, Anton Claw!, Gill and Ioannides
Stansfield, C.A. (1978). 'Atlantic City and the resart cycle. Background ta the legalizatian af gambling'. Annats ofTourism Research 5(2), 238-51.
Stock, M. (Coord.) (2003). Le Tourisme: Acteurs, Lieux et Etyeux. Paris: Belin.
Suchet, A. (2015). 'Pour en finir avec Butler (1980) et son modele d'evolution des desti
nations touristiques: Le cycle de vie comme un concept inadapte å l' 6tude d 'une aire g6ographique'. Loisir et Societe!Society and Leisure 38(1), 7�19.
Tyrrell, T. and Johnston, R. (2008). 'Tourism sustainability, resiliency and dynamics:
Towards a more comprehensive perspective'. TouriSm and Hospitality Research 8, 14-24.
Veblen, T. (1898). 'Why is economics not an evolutionary science?'. QuarterlyJournal oj Economics 12(4), 373-97.
Verbale, A. (2003). 'Networking and partnership building for rural tourism development'.
In D. Hall, L. Roberts and M. Mitchell (eds) New Directions in Rural Tourism. Alder
shat: Ashgate (pp. 152-68).
Vemon, R. (1966). 'Intemational investment and intemational trade in the product cycle'.
The Quarterly Journal oj Economics 8(2), 190-207.
Walton, J.K. (2000). The British Seaside: Holidays and Resorts in the Twentieth Century.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Weaver, D.B. (2012). 'Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism convergence'. Tourism Management 33(5), 1030-7.
Williams,A.M. (2013). 'Mobilities and sustainable tourism: path-creating orpath-dependent relationships?' Journal ofSustainable Tourism 21(4), 511-31.
Wolfe, R.l. (1952). 'Wasaga Beach - the divorce from the geographic environment'. The Canadian Geographer 2, 57-66.
