The nature and role of visitor attractions

C H A P T E R• • • • 1

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to:

● introduce the variety and scope of visitor attractions,● discuss the basis for definitions and categories of visitor attractions, and● identify the range of roles that visitor attractions play in international,

national, regional and local environments.

The Nature and Role ofVisitor Attractions

Anna Leask

Introduction

There can be no doubting the crucial role that visitor attractions have in thedevelopment and success of tourism destinations. At their most basic levelthey work to attract visitors to an area, while many also operate in a muchbroader sense as agents of change, social enablers and major income genera-tors. Indeed, Boniface and Cooper (2001: 30) state that ‘attractions are the raison d’être for tourism; they generate the visit, give rise to excursion circuitsand create an industry of their own’.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the variety of visitor attractions,discuss the issues involved in establishing their definitions and identify theirvarying roles in differing destinations. This allows authors of later chapters toconcentrate on the specific management issues as they relate to visitor attrac-tions, without each needing to discuss the broad context within which they oper-ate. While no fixed definition of visitor attractions is to be used for this book, thefollowing discussion will allow for this multi-faceted sector to be explored, thussetting the broad parameters and international context of this area of interest.The chapter starts with an explanation of the huge variety of visitor attractions

Copyrighted material - Taylor & Francis www.routledge.com/cw/page

that exists around the world, followed by a brief discussion of the key workingdefinitions currently in use. The chapter finishes with an assessment of the rolesthat visitor attractions may have within a range of tourism destinations.

The variety and scope of visitor attractions

Visitor attraction categorization

There have been many attempts to explain the multitude of forms in whichvisitor attractions may manifest themselves (Cooper et al., 2005; Holloway,1998; Smith, 1998), with classification generally being on the basis of the nat-ural or built character of the resource. However, this appears to be a rathernarrow, one-dimensional view of a sector which often has multiple stake-holder involvement in individual properties and consequently an extensiverange of often-conflicting management objectives. Figure 1.1 attempts to out-line the various approaches that could be considered in the classification ofthis dynamic sector of the tourism industry.

At the centre of Figure 1.1 is the core product offered by the visitor attrac-tion, which focuses mainly on the resource that attracts the visitors to visit in

Introduction: The Role and Nature of Visitor Attractions

4● ● ●

Local market

Regional market

Natio

nal

Intern

ation

alOwnership PrivatePublic

ProductResource, catering,

interpretation,retailing, events,

conferences,activities

Free

Paid

VoluntaryCharity

Built

Natural

Figure 1.1Classification of visitor attractions


the first instance. The increasing need to generate alternative revenue streamshas led to expansion of the core activities in many new and existing attrac-tions, with very few now opening without some element of retail or catering,and many others also investing in conference rooms for hire, various off-siteactivities to boost income or associated product development such as cookeryschools to attract additional markets, such as at Glenturret Distillery inScotland. As Bland (2001: 14) states, ‘funding visitor attractions in the 21stCentury is not an insoluble problem, but most will involve packaging withother less risky cash flows or with the generation of indirect benefits forinvestors’. It could be argued that the interpretation of the resource should,however, remain the key feature of the attraction visit, with increasing focuson meeting the needs of broader markets or more specific niche markets,since this is often the main motivation for the visit. The use of technology toenhance the presentation of the resource is currently a popular approach,with the development of hands-on interactive exhibits, virtual–reality showsand the development of augmented-reality systems, such as those in theARCHEOGUIDE system in place at Olympia, Greece (Buhalis et al., 2006).While these developments may well cater for specific markets, often children,they are costly both to install and to maintain, and they may serve to excludeother markets that are not impressed with or predisposed to use this style ofpresentation. New trends in visitor attraction products have shown innova-tive uses of existing resources, which are developed into products accessibleto visitors, for example the use of forests in the UK for ‘Go Ape’, high-ropeadventure courses that offer the visitor the opportunity to access the treecanopy 60 feet (18 metres) up. New-built developments continue to focus onestablished themes but tend to be located within a broader leisure arena, forexample Dickens World in Kent. It would appear that some of the policiesoutlined in visitor attraction reports a decade or more ago (CBI, 1998; ETC,2000; Scottish Enterprise, 1997) have been put in place, with fewer new sitesopening while existing sites are being redeveloped and revitalized.

The next stage in classification usually focuses on the nature of the resourceitself, be it natural or built (Millar, 1999). The main reasons for this categoriz-ation result from the different approaches required for their management,with natural sites usually requiring fewer staff, incurring lower fixed costsand having a more open attitude towards access than in the case of builtproperties. This is not to say that natural sites require no management, butthat the objectives of site management often focus on conservation issues andthe management of visitors, rather than increasing visitor spend and enter-tainment. Built sites may also be subdivided into those built for the purposesof tourism, such as the Ngong Ping Cultural Village at the Skyrail on LantauIsland, Hong Kong, and those converted from other uses, such as RobbenIsland, the former prison of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. The significanceof this is apparent when looking at the design and operation of these differ-ing properties, where the conversions often have to compromise on oper-ational issues in order to meet building conservation legislation. Additionally,the converted buildings often carry higher fixed costs, have fixed capacity

The Nature and Role of Visitor Attractions

5 ● ● ●


and need to consider the needs of existing users, for example in religiousbuildings such as Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland, where worshippers stand nextto increasingly large numbers of tourists attracted as a result of publicationsand movie involvement and promotion.

Visitor attraction classification

The other main approach to classification often centres on the pricing policyfor access to the visitor attraction, that is, whether it is paid admission, freeaccess or a combination in the form of free access to some areas, with a chargelevied for temporary exhibits or specific areas or events. While governmentpolicy on this varies internationally, there is usually some provision for keynational sites to offer free access to visitors on either a permanent or specific-day basis. This often overcomes the perception of local residents that theattractions are purely there for use by tourists, and meets the broader educa-tional and social inclusion aims of many institutions. Additionally, some sites,such as Pompeii, offer free access to the under-18 age group for citizens of theEuropean Union. There is some evidence to show sites varying their pricingthroughout the year to encourage off-peak visitors and meet broader educa-tional objectives, for example at Versailles, France, where prices vary by day and month of the year. In addition there has been development of pricingtargeting local residents, such as the Florida Resident ‘After 4’ Pass thatencourages visits at non-peak times of the day.

The management objectives of the managing body usually determine theadmission-charging policy for the visitor attraction. One example of this isHistoric Scotland, the executive agency responsible for many of Scotland’shistoric monuments, which charges admission at approximately 70 of their330 sites in order that money raised at the revenue-generating sites can beused to support conservation work at less-visited sites. Additionally theyoffer free education visits in the shoulder months to help meet their broadereducational objectives.

The ownership category and differing objectives of the visitor attractions willnaturally impact on the management and operations of each site. Figure 1.1 sep-arates these into private, public, charity and voluntary/trust categories. Whilethe last two categories may seem similar, there is a distinction to be made herebetween large-scale operators, such as Edinburgh Zoo or the Glasgow ScienceCentre, which have charitable status, and National Trust or voluntary organiza-tions, such as the Scottish Railway Preservation Society, that operate on a differ-ent basis in terms of staffing, use of funds and membership priorities. Quitedifferent approaches to management issues such as pricing, visitor access, inter-pretation and marketing can be seen across the ownership categories across theworld (Deloitte & Touche, 1997; Garrod et al., 2007), though an increasingly com-petitive market is encouraging more common approaches to be adopted, mostnoticeably in the areas of revenue generation, the use of technology for manage-ment purposes and associated product development.


6● ● ●


The final point shown in Figure 1.1 is that the operating environment forvisitor attractions will vary depending on the market or markets in which itexists. Some may cater mainly for the local market and require facilities thatallow this, for example flexible use of space to allow community use, whileothers may cater more significantly for the international market, acting as keyflagship attractions within a destination. The target market for an attractionmay well determine the nature and management of the product offering, par-ticularly in terms of pricing, visitor spend and interpretation. One evidentimplication of the market within which an attraction operates is the potentialpool of visitors that might be attracted. Very few visitor attractions attractlarge numbers of visitors on an annual basis, while most, particularly in ruralareas, rely on much smaller visitor throughput. This can be clearly seen in UK, where, for example, only 10 per cent of visitor attractions respondingto a recent English annual attractions survey recorded visitor numbers above 200 000, while 50 per cent attracted fewer than 20 000 per annum(VisitBritain, 2006). Attempts to broaden an attraction’s visitor appeal mayentail increased collaboration and training, as will be discussed in Chapter 20.

The different ways of classifying visitor attractions suggested in Figure 1.1are not exhaustive but serve to indicate the main features of classificationused in various settings. Each national tourist board or attraction governingbody has its own classification mechanisms appropriate to its own context.What it does do, however, is demonstrate the great diversity of visitor attrac-tions that exists and offer some explanation of how this diversity has evolvedover time. The variety of visitor attractions on offer around the world hasdeveloped significantly in the past 20 years (Scottish Enterprise, 2004;Stevens, 2000), no doubt influenced by the increased ability and propensity totravel. While more traditional museums and galleries have long attractedlocal markets, they can now also look to international audiences both inattracting actual visitors to their properties and in providing remote accessvia the use of advanced technology. Changes in funding structures ofteninfluence the available stock of facilities within a country, seen significantlysince the introduction of National Lottery funding in the UK in the 1990s andthe availability of European Union structural funding in countries previouslyunable to access these sources. Similarly, changes in access to public financefor ongoing revenue support or to capital funding priorities by enterprisecompanies can make vast differences in the development of and reinvestmentin the visitor attraction product. Current trends indicate an increasing needfor attractions to appeal to broader audiences and to generate increasing lev-els of external income, resulting in an increased mix of product offering andchoice for the visitor. Changing patterns of leisure time and discretionaryincome are influencing the form of the attractions wanted by consumers, call-ing for products that meet their needs and quality expectations (CBI, 1998;Cooper et al., 2005; Phelps, 2002), rather than a decision taken by the attrac-tion operators on the basis of what they feel the visitor wants. According toStevens (2000: 64) ‘attraction designers will innovate to create a new generationof all-inclusive, multi-faceted destination attractions capable of year-round


7 ● ● ●


operation, appealing to different markets and providing sound returns onlarge-scale investments’.

Defining visitor attractions

There is a temptation to aim to define visitor attractions for research and man-agement purposes, although views on how they should best be defined andcategorized vary around the world. This variety frustrates efforts to comparemanagement concepts and management practices, but the question can beposed: is acceptance of a common definition necessary or even desirable?

Visitor attraction sectors around the world are often typified by a very largenumber of small, geographically fragmented, resource-poor members, tryingto meet a multitude of objectives for a diverse range of owners. Althoughagreement of definitions can sometimes cause unnecessary delay in aresearch study, a universal definition of attractions is considered desirable inorder to ‘record, map and monitor attractions for information and statisticalpurposes’ (ETC, 2000: 24). This having been said, once a definition is set andused for certain purposes, for example, annual visitor surveys, it is con-sidered inadvisable to change it because doing so would compromise thecomparability of results over time. This recognition has resulted in the contin-ued use of basically the same definition for visitor attractions in the UK for anumber of years, although this has been slightly amended from time to time.The current definition is:

an attraction where it is feasible to charge admission for the sole purpose of sight-seeing. The attraction must be a permanently established excursion destination, aprimary purpose of which is to allow access for entertainment, interest, or education;rather than being primarily a retail outlet or a venue for sporting, theatrical, or filmperformances. It must be open to the public, without prior booking, for publishedperiods each year, and should be capable of attracting day visitors or tourists aswell as local residents. In addition, the attraction must be a single business, undera single management, so that it is capable of answering the economic questions onrevenue, employment etc. (VisitBritain, 2006: 13)

Changing leisure patterns and product development have meant that theabove definition, currently used by the UK national tourism bodies, has beenbrought into question. Although ostensibly inclusive, there are a number ofweaknesses, both domestically and internationally, in using the VisitBritaindefinition for research purposes. The main reason for developing a definitionis to allow national and international comparison between attractions andbetween comparable periods of performance, but with a new generation of‘destination’ attractions emerging wherein consumers are offered a compre-hensive range of services and facilities for entertainment, shopping, eatingand drinking, and other aspects of leisure (Stevens, 2000), the above defin-ition does not cater for these developments. Although not a permanent attrac-tion, the much-derided Millennium Dome in London was typical of such


8● ● ●


developments. The ever-changing, dynamic market context in which visitorattractions operate thus makes a succinct definition both elusive and, it can beargued, increasingly irrelevant. This issue of definition is highly pertinent, asnumerous retail and sporting attractions that are included in studies con-ducted in other countries, such as Canada, would be excluded if one were to adopt the VisitBritain definition. Likewise, the condition that to be considered an attraction for sightseeing purposes it should be possible (butnot compulsory) to charge an admission fee for access would exclude many monuments and historic battlefields. One part of the definition thatVisitBritain proposes changing is the element of the definition which relatesto ‘without prior booking’, though no change has been implemented in thisregard as yet.

Related to the question of definition are the issues of comparability andequivalence. In particular, such issues relate to the means by which visitorattractions are categorized in each country. As with any changes to the defin-ition of an attraction between countries, data available for each category mustbe manageable, meaningful and usable. The incorporation of all attractionsacross all countries into standard visitor attraction categories would provehighly complex and not necessarily advantageous. For example, the NationalHistoric Site category used in Canada does not correspond with any categoryused in other countries. From a marketing standpoint, the use of Wilderness,Thrill Zone, Heartland, Kiwi Spirit and Chill Out categorization of attractionsin New Zealand in the early 2000s was highly pertinent and facilitated con-sumer choice. However, they served as obstacles to the researcher trying toachieve comparability and equivalence in international studies at that time(Garrod et al., 2002). Although the broad classification of attractions as eithernatural or built, whether for tourism-specific reasons such as a museum or forother reasons such as a castle, does alleviate the problem, it does so somewhatartificially, as many sites will contain aspects of both. Perhaps even morechallenging is the means by which the researcher classifies visitor attractionsby ownership and whether or not a charge is levied on entry. In previousstudies conducted on Scottish visitor attractions (Garrod et al., 2007; Leask et al., 2000), ownership category proved to be a key dependent variable withregard to determining the entire approach to attraction management. This isparticularly the case for managing revenue and overall yield, visitor manage-ment strategies and the management of environmental impacts at attractions.Although there are similarities across many of the ownership categories usedinternationally, the use of the terms ‘public’, ‘charity’, ‘trust’ and ‘society’ onoccasion makes for spurious accuracy of comparison. Equally challenging isthe means by which the researcher defines an attraction which charges, ordoes not charge, for visitor entry. Although there is a large number whichclearly charge for admission, there is a significant proportion of visitor attrac-tions which rely on voluntary donations and alternative ‘pricing’ mecha-nisms. For example, many churches, historic properties and gardens inScotland rely heavily on visitor donations, while in New Zealand the enor-mous number of wineries do not charge for visitor admission but set token


9 ● ● ●


prices for wine tasting. In this instance, the New Zealand winery is similar tothe Scottish whisky distillery in that it serves both tourism and non-tourismobjectives such as building brands and brand loyalty. Further anomalies existin the number of ‘free’ access sites charging for temporary exhibitions orevents, plus those which do not charge for admission but do levy a car-park-ing charge at the point of entry.

Thus, it is difficult to determine an internationally recognized definition forvisitor attractions, mainly due to the variety of product offerings and scope asdiscussed above. For the purposes of this book, authors were invited to deter-mine their own definitions and definitional parameters, within the generallyaccepted categories as discussed.

Researching visitor attractions

One of the challenges in researching visitor attractions is the lack of availabledata and material on which to base a project. Much of the data available toattraction operators is sourced via voluntary self-completion questionnairesand consultancy reports that often rely on a very small sample size, while aca-demic research may focus specifically on one issue of interest or locality. Thisresults in a limited pool of data for attraction operators and decision-makersto access, with serious questions being raised with regard to the reliabilityand comparability of the results. The very appeal of many attractions, theirindividuality or distinguishing features, results in issues of comparability, notleast in defining and allocating them to categories of classifications (Leaskand Fyall, 2006).

Where studies do exist on an annual basis, usually when commissioned bynational tourism organizations, these tend to be volume and value based,with little investigation of factors that operators would like to know moreabout, for example motivations for visits and non-visitors. It is interesting tonote that the flurry of research activity towards the end of the 1990s and early2000s (CBI, 1998; Deloitte & Touche, 1997; ETC, 2000; Scottish Enterprise,1997, 2004) in relation to the UK and European attractions has now stopped,with virtually no new reports other than a recent report by Keynote (2005).This may be the result of structural and priority changes in the public sector,where the UK visitor attraction monitors are no longer combined and are notavailable in any one UK-wide source and the remit of visitor attraction devel-opment falls into broader product development roles. These circumstancesmake it even more important that further research activity is directed towardsthis vital sector of tourism activity, to allow full recognition of the role of visitor attractions and their development opportunities.

The purpose and role of visitor attractions

As stated by Swarbrooke (2000: 267), ‘visitor attractions are at the heart of thetourism industry, they are motivators that make people want to take a trip in


10● ● ●


the first place’. Richards (2001: 4) points out that while it can be argued thatattractions do not always literally ‘attract’ visitors, they ‘certainly do providea focus for much tourist activity, and are an essential weapon in the arsenal oftourism destinations engaged in a competitive struggle for tourist business’.

The role of visitor attractions within a destination forms only one part of acomplex network of tourism service providers within the broader tourismproduct. However, they are often used as key products in marketing activi-ties. Examples of this are the use of images of iconic sites such as Uluru whenmarketing Australia or those of the British Airways London Eye in publica-tions promoting England. The main interrelationships and interdependenciesbetween visitor attractions and the wider tourism industry appear to focus onstandard areas of mutual benefit, with an increasing move to develop moreformal partnerships and collaboration being seen in recent years (Fyall et al.,2001). Fluctuating visitor numbers in an environment of decreasing publiccapital and revenue funding have encouraged visitor attractions to expandtheir revenue streams into areas such as conference venues, events, newproduct developments and off-site activities. These all require attractions towork effectively with other tourism operators within a destination, such asaccommodation providers, food and beverage suppliers, destination man-agement companies and transport operators. One example of this is NewZealand Leading Attractions which is a group of independently owned oper-ators working in collaboration with locations across New Zealand and inpartnership with BP Connect Stores, Regency Tax and Duty Free and Air New Zealand.

The value of specific visitor attractions within a destination is that they canalso be a key motivator in attracting business to the destination. Therefore, thequality and success of these interrelationships depends not only on the visitorattraction itself, but also on its contribution to the development of the criticalmass of the destination product offering. Within the business tourism context,visitor attractions may also be an important part in the decision to return to adestination for a leisure visit, thus attracting those elusive repeat visitors. Theability of visitor attractions to respond quickly to visitor needs and widerexternal factors is also crucial within the destination context, as evidenced bythe actions of Madame Tussauds in London immediately following the July2005 terrorist bombings, where their management strategies and promptactions helped to manage the immediate drop in visitor numbers to CentralLondon (due to families and visitors not wanting to travel to central Londonfor fear of further attacks), and how working in collaboration with other hos-pitality providers and government bodies aided relative business recovery. AEuropean attractions report (Keynote, 2005: 1) asserts that ‘attractions tourismwill continue to grow despite disruptions by the types of terrorism and envi-ronmental disaster that occurred during 2005’ and notes that there is evidenceto suggest that tourists are ‘becoming more resilient to threats and returning topopular destinations more quickly than they did in the 1990s’.

Visitor attractions may also play a crucial role in the revitalization of anarea or destination, one example of this being the Guggenheim in Bilbao.


11 ● ● ●


The creativity shown in the nature of the architecture of a building to house akey development may in itself elevate the role of the attraction to flagshipproportions. Another classic example of this would be the success of theNational Museum of New Zealand and its contribution to the developmentof Wellington as a destination. Flagship attractions can be used to pull visitorsin, meet the needs of local residents and develop stronger tourism activitieswithin the destination. While a destination rarely survives long term on thebasis of one attraction, it can be the key ‘pump-primer’ in the sustainabledevelopment of a destination, for example the increased business opportun-ities now available within Cornwall that developed from one of the key object-ives of the Eden Project – economic regeneration. Where possible, Eden buysfrom local suppliers, supports local businesses and farmers and has con-tributed £700 million (€1 billion) to the local economy to date (Smale, 2006).

The role of visitor attractions in this manner should form part of a generalstrategic tourism plan that may identify such opportunities to ‘use’ the attrac-tion as a management tool within the destination, rather than leaving it tooperate in isolation. Examples of this might include the location of some ofthe UK’s most recently opened visitor attractions, such as the Royal YachtBritannia in the Ocean Terminal complex in Leith, Edinburgh, the SpinnakerTower in Portsmouth, and the Science Centre on Glasgow’s abandonedwaterfront. These ventures all offer continued opportunities to tackle man-agement issues such as seasonality, economic benefit and the development ofcivic pride. One of the next such developments currently in the planningprocess is the Titanic Signature Project, Belfast, Northern Ireland. This £1.5billion (€2 billion) waterfront development includes an ‘iconic’ tourist attrac-tion aiming to attract in the region of 500 000 visitors per annum, hotels,restaurants, apartments and marina. Based on a brownfield site, it is due forcompletion in time for the centenary events in 2012 and aims to establish theTitanic Quarter as a major leisure and tourism destination.

In considering the role of visitor attractions within a destination, it isimportant to consider not just the views of visitors and how they might beattracted and catered for. The needs of the local population must also be metand may indeed play a more significant role in the success of an attraction,particularly in rural settings where their support for repeat visits, staffing,recommendation and participation may be vital. There is also the issue ofsocial inclusion to be considered, to encourage cultural awareness within thelocal population and meet educational objectives. The maintenance of spe-cific cultural identities and practices can often only be achieved through theinvolvement of those from the local population. This aspect rarely features inthe key performance indicators for visitor attractions, which tend to focus onvisitor numbers, but could form the basis of the measurement of success in amove to broaden the criteria to include aspects such as engagement with thelocal community through usage, membership and participation, or supportand links with local businesses.

The multiplicity of stakeholders involved in the operation and use of visitor attractions can create difficulties in identifying the future practices of a


12● ● ●


development. Objectives may include revenue generation, enterprise, conser-vation, cultural issues or simply entertainment. The market might be local,national or international, resulting in differing needs and product offerings. Itis unlikely that any one attraction can be compared directly to another in termsof its role and purpose within a setting, as these will vary considerablybetween destinations. However, certain policies can be set in place to encour-age successful management of the visitor attractions that exist. While individ-ual attractions may achieve certain levels of success according to their own setof objective criteria, it usually falls to national bodies and organizations todetermine the parameters and structure for long-term success. It is importantthat these structures, be they strategic policies, funding principles or qualitystandards, take account of the variety of purposes that visitor attractions mayhave within their particular contexts. What might be considered appropriatein one area or country may not be in another. Much of this can be attributed tothe fact that the focus of existing schemes can often reflect the organizer’s par-ticular interest or background, or the need to meet institutional administrativerequirements. As with all issues pertaining to the definition of visitor attrac-tions, there is also the need for a cross-sectoral benchmarking scheme that con-centrates on visitor, marketing, commercial and quality aspects, and perhapsmost importantly is in a format suitable to both large and small attractions(ETC, 2000). International benchmarking initiatives may well offer opportuni-ties in this area and there is some evidence of their increased use in this sectorin recent years (Scottish Enterprise, 2004). Continued international researchwork based on identifying and disseminating best practice is also required.

Conclusions

There is no doubt that the international visitor attractions sector is facing achallenging time ahead. Uncertainties over the continued growth of touristmovements in the light of terrorist activity, changing patterns of leisure timeand use, the current oversupply of visitor attractions in some regions, and thepotential product developments in the field of technology in particular, all cre-ate the need for new approaches to be developed in the way visitor attractionsare managed. The multiple objectives of visitor attractions need to be clarifiedin order to determine the nature, role and resultant success of sites, but also toinvite innovation and change. Meanwhile the wide range of stakeholder inter-ests relating to an attraction, be they related to education, revenue generationor conservation, will inevitably lead to conflicting management pressures. Thepurpose of this book is to identify what the main challenges might be in thefuture and how they can be overcome to the benefit of all concerned.

References

Bland, N. (2001). Leisure Review: A Digest of Corporate Financial Activity,2nd quarter. Deloitte & Touche.


13 ● ● ●


Boniface, P. and Cooper, C. (2001). Worldwide Destinations: The Geography ofTravel and Tourism, 3rd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Buhalis, D., Owen, R. and Pletinckx, D. (2006). Information communicationtechnology applications for World Heritage Site management. In ManagingWorld Heritage Sites (A. Leask and A. Fyall, eds), pp. 125–144. Butterworth-Heinemann.

CBI (1998). Attracting Attention: Visitor Attractions in the New Millennium.Confederation of British Industry.

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D. and Wanhill, S. (2005). Tourism:Principles and Practice, 3rd edn. Pearson Education.

Deloitte & Touche. (1997). Survey of Continental European Visitor Attractions.Deloitte & Touche Consulting.

ETC (2000). Action for Attractions. English Tourism Council.Fyall, A., Leask, A. and Garrod, B. (2001). Scottish visitor attractions: a collab-

orative future? International Journal of Tourism Research, 3, 211–228.Garrod, B., Fyall, A. and Leask, A. (2002). Scottish visitor attractions: man-

aging visitor impacts. Tourism Management, 23, 265–279.Garrod, B., Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (2007). An assessment of ‘international best

practice’ in visitor attraction management: does Scotland really lag behind?International Journal of Tourism Research, 9, 21–42.

Holloway, J. C. (1998). The Business of Tourism, 5th edn. Longman.Keynote (2005). European Tourist Attractions Market Assessment 2005. Keynote

Publications.Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (2006). Researching the management of visitor attrac-

tions: international comparative study issues. Tourism Recreation Research,31, 23–32.

Leask, A., Fyall, A. and Goulding, P. (2000). Scottish visitor attractions: revenue, capacity and sustainability. In Yield Management Strategies for the Service Industries (A. Ingold, U. McMahon-Beattie and I. Yeoman, eds),2nd edn, pp. 211–232. Continuum Publications.

Millar, S. (1999). An overview of the sector. In Heritage Visitor Attractions: AnOperations Management Perspective (A. Leask and I. Yeoman, eds), pp. 1–21.Cassell.

Phelps, A. (2002). Leisure choices – is there a crisis in the market for visitorattractions in the UK? In Partnerships in Leisure, Sport, Tourism andManagement (G. Berridge and E. McFee, eds), pp. 189–199. Leisure StudiesAssociation.

Richards, G. (2001). Cultural Attractions and European Tourism. CABI.Scottish Enterprise (1997). Scottish Visitor Attractions Review, Tourism Resource

Company. Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow.Scottish Enterprise (2004). Visitor Attraction Benchmarking and Good Practice

Management. Scottish Enterprise.Smale, W. (2006). Eden Project’s regeneration work. http://news.bbc.co.uk/

1/hi/business/5216102.stm.


14● ● ●


Smith, R. (1998). Visitor attractions in Scotland. In Tourism in Scotland(R. McLellan and R. Smith, eds), pp. 187–208. International ThompsonBusiness Press.

Stevens, T. (2000). The future of visitor attractions. Travel & Tourism Analyst,1, 61–85.

Swarbrooke, J. (2000). Sustainable Tourism Management. CABI.VisitBritain (2006). Visitor Attraction Trends England 2005, VisitBritain.


15 ● ● ●


The nature and role of visitor attractions

Documents

Transcript of The nature and role of visitor attractions