240

RESEARCH

NOTES

AND REPORTS

Table 2. Differences in Novelty Motive by Gender and Age

Profile
Gender:
Age:

Sample

Mean

SD

4f

180
152
266
67

4.44
4.19
4.35
4.20

0.51
0.49
0.50
0.56

4.67

323

0.000

2.1

331

0.034

Male
Female
Young
Old

and age cohorts

(Table 2). As in the original study, desire for novelty was
significantly
stronger among the younger than the older age cohort, and
among males compared to females. This replication study suggests that the
Lee and Crompton scale is robust. It appeared to be equally reliable and
valid for measuring
novelty in the different culture of Korea and in the
different context of theme park visitors as it was on the original sample of
US residents and longer-stay vacations. 0 0
Soon-Ok Jeong: Department of Tourism and Recreation, Kyonggi University, Kyonggi-Do 440760, South Korea.

REFERENCE
Lee, T. H., and J. L. Crompton
1992 Measuring
Novelty Seeking
19:732-751.
Submitted 21 December 1995
Revised 6 February 1996
Accepted 9 February 1996

in Tourism.

Annals

of Tourism

Research

PII: SOlSO-7383(96)0002S-0

Tourism Attractions: Points, Lines, and Areas

GeoffreyWall
University of Waterloo, Canada
Tourism attractions
are all those elements of a non-home place that
draw discretionary travelers away from their homes (Lew 1987:554). According to MacCannell
(1976:109),
tourism attractions
consist of three components: tourists, a site to be viewed, and a marker or image which makes
the site significant.
MacCannells
views have been built upon by Leiper
(1990), who discussed the nature of tourism attraction systems.
Tourism attractions
may be classified in many ways. Examples of such
classifications
include: natural, human-modified,
and human-made;
natural
and built; resource-oriented,
intermediate,
and user-oriented
(often reflecting their distance from centers of demand); international,
national, regional,
and local (reflecting their ability to draw visitors from a variety of distances);
indoor and outdoor; public or private (reflecting the attributes of the authority responsible
for their operation);
permanent,
seasonal, or occasional

RESEARCH

NOTES

AND REPORTS

241

(reflecting
the temporal
characteristics
of their availability);
and more. Lew
(1987) has presented
a number
of typologies
of attractions
grouped
into
three broad categories:
ideographic,
organizational,
and cognitive.
The first
stresses environmental
characteristics,
the second emphasizes
spatial characteristics
and carrying
capacity
(although
not in the form presented
below),
whereas
the third concentrates
upon visitor perceptions
and experiences.
Each of these typologies
has utility and may be more or less relevant
depending upon the purposes
for which classification
and inventory
are required.
The purpose
of this research
note is not to present
an exhaustive
list of
tourism
attraction
classifications
nor to evaluate
their respective
merits.
Rather,
it is to suggest
an additional
classification
which may have utility,
alongside
other classifications,
particularly
in an applied context
where the
commercial
potential
and vulnerability
of resources
to excessive visitor pressures may be of concern.
It is suggested
here that attractions
can be divided
into three
types based on their spatial
characteristics:
points,
lines, and
areas. Each type has different
implications
for visitor behavior,
different
potential
for commercial
developments,
and contrasting
requirements
in
planning
and management
strategies
if a balance is to be achieved
between
resource
protection
and commercial
exploitation.
Point attractions
require large numbers
ofvisitors
to concentrate
in a small
area, for if the point is not visited then the attraction
is not experienced.
Examples
of such sites include waterfalls,
spas, temples,
monuments,
historic
and archeological
sites, museums,
galleries,
theaters,
and many sporting
events. Concentration
results in opportunities
for commercial
exploitation
of visitors, for when many people are in close proximity
they can be catered
for efficiently
and the minimum
thresholds
of successful
business
operation
are most likely to be exceeded.
However,
there are associated
dangers
of
congestion,
over-commercialization,
reduction
in the quality ofvisitor
experiences, and occasional
destruction
of the resource.
This problem
can be seen
at Tanah Lot in Bali, Indonesia,
where the sanctity
of an important
temple
is threatened
by the construction
of tourism
accommodation
in close proximity to a religious site which is, simultaneously,
an attraction
(Cohen 1993).
Similarly,
in the last century,
commercial
developments
were so numerous
at Niagara Falls that a view of the falls could not be obtained
without paying
and visitors
were continually
hustled
by huxters
attempting
to sell their
wares (Seibel 1985). In the case of Niagara Falls, Ontario,
commercial
activities were displaced
to Clifton
Hill, at some distance
from the Horseshoe
Falls, and Queen
Victoria
Park was created
in 1885 adjacent
to the falls
in an attempt
to provide
a setting
more conducive
to contemplation
and
appreciation
of one of the worlds greatest
natural wonders. Similar strategies
would be worthy of consideration
in the case of Tanah Lot. Such examples
indicate
that point resources
may easily be over-commercialized
by privatesector enterprises
and that strong actions
may be required
by the public
sector to protect
the resource
and associated
visitor experiences.
One way to
do this is to give careful
consideration
to the setting
in which the point
resource
is located
and, possibly,
to discourage
the development
of commercial enterprises
immediately
adjacent
to the site.
Linear resources
include
coastlines,
lakeshores,
rivers, scenic routes and
trails, and landforms
such as the Niagara
Escarpment
in Ontario.
Some of
these resources
are attractions
with linear
properties;
others
are routes
which channel visitors along particular
paths. In both case, large numbers
of
visitors
are concentrated
along a narrow
strip of land or a transportation
corridor.
Linear resources
tend to concentrate
visitors but not to the same
extent as point resources,
because
a line is two-dimensional
and, as opposed
to a point, encourages
some dispersal.
The concentration
of visitors may still
be sufficiently
great to attract
considerable
commercial
development
which

242

RESEARCH

NOTES AND REPORTS

can lead to destruction of the resource. For example, coastlines in parts of

the Mediterranean
and Hawaii are lined with tourism facilities and numerous
beach resorts in many parts of the world have introduced engineering
solutions in an attempt to halt beach erosion and protect dune systems. Many
highways in the United States are lined with advertising. In Bali, the official
excursion routes which were designated to facilitate the movement ofvisitors
into the interior of the island to experience the magnificent
landscape and
culture are so busy with traffic and lined with structures that it is difficult to
see the landscape which was the original reason for their promotion.
A
superior experience may now be gained by selecting non-designated
parallel
routes which are not lined with buildings.
Linear resources can easily become over-commercialized
because large
numbers of users are drawn to narrow strips of land and water. The enforcement of set-backs is often a useful strategy in coastal locations but, more
generally, the breaking up of the lines into a series of nodes and links, or
nodes and less developed or undeveloped areas, may be the appropriate
strategy to pursue. In these ways, parts of the resource are protected, visitors
are provided with access to a variety of experiences,
and visitor facilities and
commercial enterprises are concentrated
in the nodes.
Areas may attract large numbers of people but their spatial extent may
permit and even encourage the wide dispersion ofvisitors. Such places include
parks and protected areas, wilderness, and scenic landscapes. The extensive
nature of the resources and, sometimes, the nature of the experiences being
sought by visitors, which encourages
them to seek isolated or remote
locations, mean that there are few dense concentrations
of visitors and,
thus, their commercial
exploitation
may be more challenging
to potential
entrepreneurs.
In such locations it may be necessary to create visitor concentrations,
for instance at access points, at scenic overlooks, or at interpretation centers, to impart information
to visitors, to monitor them, and to
provide facilities which they may require, such as restaurants
and accommodation. It is in such locations within or, preferably, adjacent to the area
resource that commercial opportunities
are most likely to be successful. The
danger here is that, if one is not careful, the scale and nature of such
developments
may be at odds with the experiences
available elsewhere in
the area. Such claims could be made for Gatlinburg,
adjacent to the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, and to Banff town site in Banff National
Park. However, the concentration
of many visitors in a limited number of
commercial
centers may expedite their management,
allow greater access
to visitors by the business community, and leave much of the area relatively
unexploited for those in search of lower intensities of use.
The three types of attraction-points,
lines, and areas-can
be viewed as
occurring at different scales. Thus, for example, at the scale of a country,
destination
areas, such as coastal resorts or national parks, may be viewed
as a series of points. On the other hand, a single destination
area may be
viewed as a combinations
of points, lines, and areas, or as a series of nodes
and links. An attraction, such as a theme park or museum, can also be viewed
from these perspectives. Thus, the conceptualization
provides some flexibility
with respect to scale.
In summary, this note has drawn attention to a three-fold classification of
tourism attractions
into points, lines, and areas. Points may be viewed as
essentially uni-dimensional,
lines as two-dimensional,
albeit with some depth,
and areas as multi-dimensional.
These dimensions have implications for the
distribution of visitors and, consequently,
for their commercial exploitation.
While extremely
simple, this conceptualization
is a useful way of viewing
a wide range of heterogeneous
tourism attractions
because it encourages
consideration,
at the same time, of specific attributes of the resource, visitors

RESEARCH

behaviors
and spatial
tation,
and associated

NOTES

AND

REPORTS

243

distributions,
the potential
for commercial
planning
and management
strategies.
0 0

Geoj@
Wall: Department of Geography,
Email gwall@watservl.uwaterloo.ca.

University of Waterloo,

Waterloo,

Canada

exploi-

N2L 3G1.

REFERENCES
Cohen, M.
1993 God and Mammon:
Luxury Resort Triggers
Outcry Over Balis Future. Far
Eastern Economic Review 157:28-34.
Leiper, N.
1990 Tourist Attraction
Systems. Annals of Tourism Research
17:367-384.
Lew, A. A.
1987 A Framework
of Tourist Attraction
Research.
Annals of Tourism Research
14:553-575.
MacCannell,
D.
1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken Books.
Seibel, G. A.
1985 Ontarios Niagara Parks 100 Years. Niagara Falls: The Niagara Parks Commission.
Submitted
19 January
1996
Revised 12 February
1996
Accepted 25 March 1996

PII:

SOlSO-7383(96)00039-4

Conference Reports

Tourism Human Resources Development

Eduardo Fayos-Sola
World Tourism Organization, Spain
Jafar Jafari
University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA
As the twentieth century draws to a close, tourism has emerged as a
major force in the global economy, with all countries-whether
developed or
developing-having
increasing
opportunities
to participate,
as both host
and guest, in this mega socioeconomic
phenomenon.
Many strategies will
continue to influence the quality and quantity of tourism planning and
growth in the next millennium, with human resources development taking
the center stage. A conference on Human Capital in the Tourism Industry
of the Twenty-First
Century was an informed response to furthering
this
emerging
thrust in the field (Safari and Fayos-Sola
1996; Lohmann
and