destinations are compared against the framework's options then
the actual situation is usually more complex. In any destination, for
example, there may be elements of more than one of the five options
in various combinations and relationships. Often it is also
difficult to distinguish between mass and niche tourism products,
especially as niche products can begin to appeal to large tourist
numbers, and especially so when there are synergies between a
destination's products. Another complication is that some “ideal
types” indicated in Fig. 2 may tend only to be found in small
geographical areas, with a higher likelihood that more complex
tourism product diversification patterns will be found in destinations
with a larger geographical area, where there tend to be more
diverse tourism resources and more communities with differing
development needs. In addition, the numbers of tourists attracted
by a tourism product may be considered a niche market in a busy
urban tourism destination, while the same numbers might be
perceived as mass market in a remote rural destination.
There are also transitional features as primary tourism products
evolve within destinations, and thus Fig. 2 uses indicative arrows to
suggest some potential development trends between the “ideal
type” options. As time passes, for instance, it is increasingly likely
that destinations will pass thresholds in terms of tourist numbers,
business development and capital accumulation, which will then
encourage greater product diversification and complexity. Yet, it is
also possible that some products will fail to thrive, so that product
diversity in a destination can reduce over time. Such temporal
trajectories in destinations are affected by the operation of the
market and also by tourism's regulatory frameworks, such as
through the use of tourism and general development plans,
moratoria laws restricting new development, and constraints on
building height. Another complexity in relationships between the
extent of product diversification and the degree of product intensification
is that they are often interrelated dimensions. It can be
useful, therefore, to consider that these dimensions co-evolve
together over time.
Despite the complexity of primary tourism product elements
and relationships in destinations, it is contended that the simplified
“ideal type” framework can assist researchers and policy makers to
identify potential options for tourism product development and for
related destination planning and growth management. The categories
also help us to slice analytically into more contingent and
complex real world situations. Many tourists and local residents in
destinations are compared against the framework's options thenthe actual situation is usually more complex. In any destination, forexample, there may be elements of more than one of the five optionsin various combinations and relationships. Often it is alsodifficult to distinguish between mass and niche tourism products,especially as niche products can begin to appeal to large touristnumbers, and especially so when there are synergies between adestination's products. Another complication is that some “idealtypes” indicated in Fig. 2 may tend only to be found in smallgeographical areas, with a higher likelihood that more complextourism product diversification patterns will be found in destinationswith a larger geographical area, where there tend to be morediverse tourism resources and more communities with differingdevelopment needs. In addition, the numbers of tourists attractedby a tourism product may be considered a niche market in a busyurban tourism destination, while the same numbers might beperceived as mass market in a remote rural destination.There are also transitional features as primary tourism productsevolve within destinations, and thus Fig. 2 uses indicative arrows tosuggest some potential development trends between the “idealtype” options. As time passes, for instance, it is increasingly likelythat destinations will pass thresholds in terms of tourist numbers,business development and capital accumulation, which will thenencourage greater product diversification and complexity. Yet, it isalso possible that some products will fail to thrive, so that productdiversity in a destination can reduce over time. Such temporaltrajectories in destinations are affected by the operation of themarket and also by tourism's regulatory frameworks, such asthrough the use of tourism and general development plans,moratoria laws restricting new development, and constraints onbuilding height. Another complexity in relationships between theextent of product diversification and the degree of product intensificationis that they are often interrelated dimensions. It can beuseful, therefore, to consider that these dimensions co-evolvetogether over time.Despite the complexity of primary tourism product elementsand relationships in destinations, it is contended that the simplified“ideal type” framework can assist researchers and policy makers toidentify potential options for tourism product development and forrelated destination planning and growth management. The categoriesalso help us to slice analytically into more contingent andcomplex real world situations. Many tourists and local residents in
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..