See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281905622

Where in the World? A Geographic Analysis of a Decade

of RESEARCH in Tourism, Hospitality, and Leisure
Journals

Article  in  Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research · December 2014

DOI: 10.1177/1096348014563394

CITATIONS READS

8 476

6 authors, including:

Ye (Sandy) Shen Alastair M Morrison

University of Guelph Purdue University
6 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS    280 PUBLICATIONS   7,427 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bihu Wu Jinah Park

Peking University Shenzhen Tourism College of Jinan University
32 PUBLICATIONS   711 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Routledge Taylor & Francis View project

China Architectural & Building Press View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ye (Sandy) Shen on 19 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

563394
research-article2014
JHTXXX10.1177/1096348014563394Journal of Hospitality & Tourism ResearchShen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research

Where in the World?

A Geographic Analysis
of a Decade of RESEARCH
in Tourism, Hospitality, and
Leisure Journals

Ye Shen
Peking University
Alastair M. Morrison
Purdue University
Bihu Wu
Jinah Park
Cong Li
Mengjiao Li
Peking University

This study examined research focus countries and regions in 4,654 articles published
in 32 tourism, hospitality, and leisure academic journals from 2002 to 2011 inclusive.
Applying a variety of analysis methods, the research showed the spatial distribution,
co-occurrence relationships among countries, and the most popular topics of research
focus and types of tourism by countries. There was a broad geographic focus of the
research in tourism, hospitality, and leisure journals in the decade from 2002 to 2011
spanning 126 countries. It was found that a significant number (70) of countries were
not covered in this 10-year snapshot of the academic journal research and require more
attention from scholars in the future. Some major countries were underrepresented
including France, Germany, and Russia. However, the predominance of the research
focus on the Asia-Pacific region and particularly on China was a major finding in this
analysis, as was the sparse coverage of South and Central America.

Keywords: academic journals; bibliometrics; co-occurrence relationships;

NetDraw; spatial distribution analysis; tourism system

Introduction

Since 1946, English-language journals have played a significant role in

expanding tourism academic scholarship (Xiao & Smith, 2006). As the major

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2014, 1­–30
DOI: 10.1177/1096348014563394
© 2014 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education

1
2   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

platform for academic research communications, journals not only include indi-
vidual articles by a variety of scholars but also reflect the range and relative
popularity of topics of tourism research during specific time periods and for
certain geographic areas. Van Doren, Koh, and McCahill (1994) suggested that
“research journals are considered to be the major showcase of research in the
field” (p. 308). The characteristics and trends of tourism research can be deter-
mined by analyzing tourism academic journals (Dai, Tang, & Du, 2011).
There have been many previous studies examining selected journals to
describe particular characteristics of tourism research. Many of these studies
have focused on the productivity of individual tourism scholars and their insti-
tutional affiliations (Jogaratnam, McCleary, Mena, & Yoo, 2005; Park, Phillips,
Canter, & Abbott, 2011; Ryan, 2005). While there are now 70-plus tourism jour-
nals being published in English, most previous studies have been based on three
major journals: Tourism Management, Annals of Tourism Research, and Journal
of Travel Research. These journals are among the highest ranked in Social
Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and they were all launched from 1968 to 1974,
so they carry a long and rich history of research publication in tourism.
Most of the past research on tourism journals is based on the analysis of key-
words. Author-selected keywords reflect the major topics in articles and they
draw concise and precise pictures of the research (Banville & Landry, 1989).
Moreover, keywords summarize the most important information in articles and
highlight research situations, disciplines, trends, and increasingly popular topics
(Yin, Zhang, & Li, 2009). The quantitative analysis of keywords displays the
disciplinary characteristics of tourism research and previous scholars have
attached great importance to the overall features of tourism research.
Region, country, city, attraction, site, and other place names included in arti-
cle keywords, titles, and bodies can be analyzed to show where tourism research
is being conducted and which parts of the world are receiving the greatest and
least attention from tourism scholars. Despite the importance of geographic
information in characterizing tourism research, it has largely been neglected in
previous studies. These analyses can help direct future researchers on where to
geographically focus their inquiries to make unique contributions to the tourism,
hospitality, and leisure literature and practice. Further insights can be gained by
measuring the research topics and types of tourism that have been addressed by
country and region. There have been several studies examining the collaboration
among tourism scholars (e.g., Leung, Leung, Bai, & Law, 2011; Ye, Li, & Law,
2013); however, little attention has been given to combinations of countries and
regions in tourism research. In addition, research focus countries and regions
analysis can also demonstrate the most popular geographic comparisons by
measuring co-occurrence relationships. To fill the identified gap in previous
studies, four specific research objectives were identified:

1. What are the spatial distributions of published research studies in academic jour-
nals according to focus countries and regions?
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  3

2. What are the co-occurrence relationships among research focus countries?

3. What are the most popular research topics for research focus countries?
4. Which types of tourism are covered for research focus countries?

Literature Review

Prior Studies on Tourism Academic Journal Research

Prior studies on tourism academic journal research have generally concen-

trated on two aspects. The first concentration has been the overall evaluation of
journals to produce rankings or ratings of individual academics, journals, and
university programs, and perceptions of journal quality (Cheng, Li, Petrick, &
O’Leary, 2011; Frechtling, 2004; Hall, 2011; Jamal, Smith, & Watson, 2008;
McKercher, 2005; McKercher, Law, & Lam, 2006; Murphy & Law, 2008;
Palmer, Sesé, & Montaño, 2005; Pechlaner, Zehrer, Matzler, & Abfalter, 2004;
Ryan, 2005; Schmidgall & Woods, 1993; Sheldon, 1990; Tribe & Xiao, 2011).
The second concentration has been on statistically analyzing journal contents to
find the most popular topics in tourism research, as well as ranking authors and
their affiliations (Hu & Racherla, 2008; Jogaratnam, Chon, McCleary, Mena, &
Yoo, 2005; Lee & Law, 2011; Park et al., 2011; Racherla & Hu, 2010; Samenfink
& Rutherford, 2002; Severt, Tesone, Bottorff, & Carpenter, 2009; Sheldon,
1991).
Tourism journal studies are published covering a wide assortment of topics.
These topics have included citations (Kim, Savage, Howey, & Van Hoof, 2009;
Xiao & Smith, 2008); tourism knowledge domains (Ballantyne, Packer, &
Axelsen, 2009; Wu, Xiao, Dong, Wang, & Xue, 2012; Xiao & Smith, 2005),
keyword frequency and research “hot-spots” (Dai et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2012),
analysis methods (Crawford-Welch & McCleary, 1992; Dann, Nash, & Pearce,
1988; Faulkner & Ryan, 1999; Palmer et al., 2005; Rivera & Upchurch, 2008;
Wu et al., 2012), contributions of authors and affiliations (Jogaratnam, Chon,
et al., 2005; Jogaratnam, McCleary, et al., 2005; Park et al., 2011; Ryan, 2005;
Sheldon, 1991; Xiao, Li & Lin, 2011), tourism research collaborations (Racherla
& Hu, 2010; Ye et al., 2013), and distribution of authors’ affiliations (Jogaratnam,
McCleary, et al., 2005; Park et al., 2011; Sheldon, 1991). In addition, scholars
have investigated doctoral dissertation topics and research fields (Botterill,
Haven, & Gale, 2002; Crichton, 1978; Jafari & Aaser, 1988; Meyer-Arendt &
Justice, 2002).
Most of the scholars conducted their research using the databases of Tourism
Management, Annals of Tourism Research, and Journal of Travel Research
(Jogaratnam, McCleary, et al., 2005; Reid & Andereck, 1989; Sheldon, 1991;
Wu et al., 2012). Their databases were generally composed of 1,000 to 3,000
articles (Jogaratnam, McCleary, 2005; Palmer et al., 2005; Sheldon, 1991; Wu
et al., 2012). However, some other scholars have carried out analyses using more
than three journals. Crawford-Welch and McCleary (1992) analyzed five lead-
ing hospitality-related journals; Pechlaner et al. (2004) considered 22 tourism
4   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

and hospitality journals; Palmer et al. (2005) reviewed 12 tourism journals pub-
lished from 1998 to 2002; Ryan (2005) assessed 16 tourism journals; Jogaratnam,
McCleary, et al. (2005) examined 11 leading hospitality and tourism journals;
and Svensson, Svaeri, and Einarsen (2009), Ye et al. (2013), and Park et al.
(2011) each looked at 6 tourism and hospitality journals.

Frameworks and Typologies of Tourism Research

A variety of different approaches have been adopted to classify previous tour-

ism research studies into categories. Pearce (2012) identified seven alternative
frameworks for tourism research including theoretical; conceptual; analytical;
integrative; process; systems, networks, and composite; and multipurpose matri-
ces. He suggests that, “Frameworks are the foundation of good scholarship.
They structure, organize and communicate research, underpin individual studies
and shape the field of study as a whole” (Pearce, 2012, back cover). From
Pearce’s work, it can be concluded that there are alternative ways to categorize
the research articles that are published in tourism, hospitality, and leisure
journals.
Several previous studies have attempted to classify published academic arti-
cles in tourism. For example, Xiao and Smith (2006) analyzed the comprehen-
sive subject index of Annals of Tourism Research over a 30-year period
(1973-2003). They found two meta-categories of tourism knowledge domains:
methodology and theoretical constructs, and development and impacts. Wu et al.
(2012), using keyword analysis in Annals of Tourism Research (from 1978 to
2009), Journal of Travel Research (from 2003 to 2009), and Tourism Management
(from 1982 to 2009), set out to identify tourism knowledge domains. They iden-
tified 200 top keywords appearing more than seven times each and then classi-
fied these into geographical areas (28), subject areas (42), theories and methods
(18), and knowledge domains (112). Ten “gene words” were found that were
tourism, tourist, development, market/marketing, destination, cultural/culture,
impact, economics/economic/economy, management, and social/society.
There have also been many previous attempts to create typologies in an
assortment of component fields and topics within tourism. For example, these
have included agritourism (Philip, Hunter, & Blackstock, 2010), backpacking
experiences (Uriely, Yonay, & Simchai, 2002), cultural tourism (McKercher &
du Cros, 2003), dark tourism (Stone, 2006), special interest tourism (Trauer,
2006), tourist attractions (Lew, 1987), as well as many recommended typologies
of tourists. Groupings of tourism research topics are also found in research
reviews, frameworks, and agendas including, for example, for urban tourism
(Ashworth & Page, 2011; Edwards, Griffin, & Hayllar, 2008; Pearce, 2001).
It is noteworthy from the review of these studies, that there has been an
absence of attempts to characterize tourism research across different countries or
world regions. The main focus has been on the journals, specific tourism topics,
and the research productivity of individual scholars and academic institutions.
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  5

Systems Framework Approaches and the Tourism System

As suggested by Pearce (2012), a systems approach can be used as a frame-

work for describing tourism research. In this respect, the tourism system as an
academic concept appears to be accepted by scholars, although there is no con-
sensus on its definition, composition, structure, function, and characteristics.
Scholars began to discuss the tourism system in the 1970s and several types of
tourism system models have been proposed. Gunn (1972) first proposed a tour-
ism system including supply and demand from the view of “structure-function.”
In 2002, this model was modified and an emphasis was placed on the relation-
ship between supply and demand. In the new tourism system model, there were
a demand-side component (population) and four supply-side components (infor-
mation-promotion, transportation, attractions, and services; Gunn & Var, 2002).
Leiper (1979) put forward another tourism system model based on the rela-
tionship of tourists and destinations. The tourism system model included tour-
ists, the tourism industry, and tourist-generating regions, travel channels, and
destinations. Unlike Gunn’s model, Leiper highlighted spatial elements, includ-
ing tourist-generating regions, travel channels, and destinations.
Mill and Morrison (1985) introduced another model in the textbook, The
Tourism System. Mill and Morrison’s (2012) tourism system consists of four
parts (destination, marketing, demand, and travel) and four links (the tourism
product, the promotion of travel, the travel purchase, and the shape of travel).
This model was more comprehensive and complete than previous models since
it introduced other concepts including marketing and consumer behavior, and
sustainable tourism development, while also acknowledging the open-system
nature of tourism and the major impacts of externalities. Benckendorff and
Zehrer (2013, p. 137) found this textbook to be the most highly cited from 1996
to 2010 in Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research, and
Tourism Management. The Tourism System Model provides in-depth coverage
of many research subject areas and therefore can fully support a subject area
categorization framework.

Method

Journal Selection

At the time of this research there were approximately 75 major English-

language tourism, hospitality, and leisure journals. A preliminary journal list
was developed based on a review of the literature (Crawford-Welch & McCleary,
1992; Hall, 2011; Jogaratnam, Chon, et al., 2005; Palmer et al., 2005; Park et al.,
2011; Svensson et al., 2009; Ye et al., 2013). The list included the tourism jour-
nals documented by Morrison (2004) as cited by McKercher et al. (2006). The
final list of 32 journals was composed of 16 SSCI journals and 16 non-SSCI
journals which were frequently mentioned in the previous research (Table 1).
The equal number of SSCI and non-SSCI journals was to give a balanced
6   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 1
List of Tourism, Hospitality, and Leisure Journals in Database

No. Journal Title Impact Factor Year Established

SSCI journals
 1 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 1.892 1960
 2 Journal of Travel Research 1.899 1968
 3 Annals of Tourism Research 3.683 1973
 4 Tourism Management 2.571 1974
 5 Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 0.820 1976
 6 Leisure Sciences 1.018 1977
 7 International Journal of Hospitality Management 1.692 1982
 8 International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 1.266 1989
Management
 9 Journal of Leisure Research 0.870 1989
 10 Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 0.835a 1992
 11 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3.000 1993
 12 Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 0.359 1996
 13 Current Issues in Tourism 1.307 1998
 14 International Journal of Tourism Research 0.861 1999
 15 Tourism Geographies 0.731 1999
 16 Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism 0.113 2002
Education
Non-SSCI journals
 1 Tourism Review 1946
 2 Tourism Recreation Research 1976
 3 Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 1992
(1992-2008); Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management (2009-now)
 4 Journal of Vacation Marketing 1994
 5 Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and 1996
Hospitality Research
 6 International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism 1997
 7 Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and 2000
Tourism
 8 International Journal of Tourism Sciences 2001
 9 Tourist Studies 2001
 10 Tourism and Hospitality Research 2004
 11 Journal of Heritage Tourism 2006
 12 Tourism Analysis 2006
 13 International Journal of Culture, Tourism and 2007
Hospitality Research
 14 Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 2009
 15 International Journal of Event and Festival 2010
Management
 16 Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 2010

Note: SSCI = Social Sciences Citation Index. The impact factor of journals is from 2012 Journal
Citations Report published by Thomson Reuters.
a. The impact factor of Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing is from 2010 Journal Citations Report
published by Thomson Reuters.
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  7

coverage of both journal types. The first group included all the SSCI-listed jour-
nals at the time of conducting the research.

Research Article Classification

To explore the relationships of academic journal article topics and research

focus countries, author-selected keywords were coded and double-checked by
six researchers. Fifty-three subcategories were derived from Mill and Morrison’s
The Tourism System and the Encyclopedia of Tourism (Jafari, 2000; Jafari &
Xiao, 2015). The 53 subcategories were placed into 4 categories based on their
most salient attributes. The specific rule of only classifying each keyword into
one subcategory was set for the all researchers to consistently follow. For exam-
ple, satisfaction levels and customer loyalty were classified into demand instead
of marketing because these were judged to be closer to customers’ perceptions
rather than marketing or promotion. A generic category was added to the frame-
work to collect keywords that applied to more than one or all the system parts
such as tourism and tourists, as well as real names (Figure 1).

Identification of Research Focus Countries

A research article database was created consisting of 9,514 articles span-

ning the 10 years from 2002 to 2011. Geographic references were extracted
from the keywords, titles, and body text of articles to create databases of
research focus countries and regions. To explore the spatial characteristics and
co-occurrence relationships of research focus countries, the 9,514 articles
were reviewed and an initial database including 2,531 articles with geographic
keywords (region, country, city, and place names) was created. Articles with
geographic information in titles but without geographic keywords were also
included in an augmented database comprising 3,896 articles. Another 1,123
articles (20%) were selected randomly from the remaining 5,618 articles with-
out geographic references in both keywords and article titles. The body text of
these 1,123 articles was reviewed to abstract geographic references.
Approximately one third of the sampled articles included geographic refer-
ences: 294 out of 869 SSCI and 79 out of 254 non-SSCI journal articles. Most
of the articles without geographic references were theoretical studies or pro-
duced general results; for example, a model construction article (Sun, 2007)
and research on information asymmetry in customers’ booking decisions
(Chen & Schwartz, 2006).
The 373 articles with geographic references out of 1,123 were added to the
augmented database comprising 4,269 articles. In total, the analysis covered
5,019 journal articles. The remaining 4,495 articles without geographic key-
words and titles in the 32 journals were not reviewed. If the 33% ratio was to
remain true for these remaining articles, there were potentially another 1,483
articles with geographic references that were not included in this analysis.
8   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Figure 1
Modified Tourism System Model for Research Article Classification

Regional names included Europe/European Union/Mediterranean, Asia,

Pacific, North America, South America, Caribbean, and Antarctic. The cities
and places listed by authors as keywords and in titles were classified into their
respective countries. In total, 126 research focus countries were identified. There
were approximately 4,500 country references in the final country database, so
the average frequency per country was approximately 36. Some articles included
both place, city and country names, but in these cases the country was counted
only once. There were a large number of articles with country references of
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  9

China and its component territories. Hong Kong and Macau were coded as
China; the keywords of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland were
coded as the United Kingdom (UK).
To gain insights into differences of research focus countries and regions in 16
SSCI journals and 16 non-SSCI journals, the database was classified into two
groups and compared.

Data Analysis

Four analytical methods were applied in this research. First, bibliometric

analysis was used to count the frequency of keywords. Bibliometric analysis
was put forward by Pritchard (1969) as “the quantitative study of physical pub-
lished units, or of bibliographic units, or of the surrogates for either” (Broadus,
1987, p. 376). It has been widely applied in tourism studies (Hall, 2011). Because
the number of keywords in the database was beyond threshold value of some
software (e.g., CATPAC), Microsoft Excel was used to analyze the data. Spatial
distribution analysis was applied to visualize the research focus countries and a
diagrammatic spatial distribution map was drawn. NetDraw analysis (Borgatti,
2002) explored the co-occurrence relationships of research focus countries.
Cross-tabulations were prepared to compare the most popular research topics
across the research focus countries with the highest frequencies of keywords.

Research Results and Findings

Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Research Focus Countries and

Regions

Research focus countries were analyzed based on the database including

4,296 articles with geographic references. There were 126 research focus coun-
tries in total. There being 196 independent entities in the world (U.S. Department
of State, 2014), it can be stated that 70 were not the focus on any research in the
32 journals from 2002 to 2011. Other geographic entities with articles were
Antarctica and Palestine.
There were some differences between the SSCI and non-SSCI journals in
terms of research focus countries. The 16 SSCI journals had 121 research focus
countries with an average frequency of 26 per country, whereas the 16 non-SSCI
journals had 102 focus countries with an average frequency of 13 (Table 2). The
SSCI journals covered a wider set of countries and these countries had more in-
depth coverage compared with the non-SSCI journals.
For the SSCI journal database, China and the United States were the two
research focus countries with the highest frequencies at 509 and 411, respec-
tively; the United Kingdom (273) and Australia (245) were third and fourth.
Taiwan (138), Spain (131), Canada (104), New Zealand (96), South Korea (95),
and Turkey (76) ranked fifth to tenth for the SSCI journals. At the lower end,
there were 80 countries with frequencies between 1 and 10 and 21 countries had
10
Table 2
Frequencies of Tourism Research Focus Countries in SSCI Journals and non-SSCI Journals

SSCI Non-SSCI SSCI Non-SSCI

Countries Frequencies Ranking Frequencies Ranking Countries Frequencies Ranking Frequencies Ranking

China 509 1 147 1 Mexico 28 19 9 30

USA 411 2 138 2 Kenya 26 23 12 27
UK 273 3 111 4 France 25 24 12 27
Australia 245 4 118 3 Portugal 25 24 25 14
Taiwan 138 5 41 6 Ireland 23 26 9 30
Spain 131 6 39 7 Norway 21 27 13 24
Canada 104 7 22 16 Germany 17 28 14 22
New Zealand 96 8 29 12 Sweden 17 28 4 47
South Korea 95 9 37 8 Cuba 16 30 2 62
Turkey 76 10 79 5 Poland 16 30 4 47
Thailand 49 11 34 10 Austria 15 32 15 21
India 48 12 33 11 Finland 15 32 13 24
Japan 48 12 36 9 Netherlands 15 32 5 41
Greece 42 14 24 15 Brazil 14 35 9 30
Indonesia 36 15 6 39 Vietnam 14 35 7 37
Israel 36 15 9 30 Switzerland 12 37 22 16
Singapore 35 17 18 20 Costa Rica 11 38 5 41
South Africa 32 18 13 24 Egypt 11 38 20 19
Cyprus 28 19 22 16 Nepal 11 38 3 52
Italy 28 19 27 13 Tanzania 11 38 3 52
Malaysia 28 19 14 22 Botswana 10 42 4 47
Denmark 10 42 7 37 Romania 4 63 2 62
Jamaica 10 42 6 39 Tunisia 4 63 3 52
Mauritius 10 42 8 36 United Arab Emirates 4 63 9 30
Barbados 9 46 5 41 Belgium 3 72 0 103
Hungary 9 46 1 80 Bulgaria 3 72 0 103

(continued)
 Table 2  (continued)

SSCI Non-SSCI SSCI Non-SSCI

Countries Frequencies Ranking Frequencies Ranking Countries Frequencies Ranking Frequencies Ranking

Croatia 8 48 3 52 Chile 3 72 1 80
Ghana 8 48 5 41 Czech Republic 3 72 3 52
Iran 8 48 9 30 Guyana 3 72 1 80
Russia 8 48 1 80 Iraq 3 72 0 103
Iceland 7 52 0 103 Jordan 3 72 5 41
Nigeria 7 52 10 29 Laos 3 72 1 80
Belize 6 54 0 103 Lithuania 3 72 2 62
Fiji 6 54 3 52 Maldives 3 72 1 80
North Korea 6 54 3 52 Malta 3 72 3 52
Saudi Arabia 6 54 4 47 Morocco 3 72 0 103
Estonia 5 58 0 103 Oman 3 72 2 62
Peru 5 58 3 52 Samoa 3 72 1 80
Slovenia 5 58 4 47 Saint Lucia 3 72 1 80
Philippines 5 58 2 62 Trinidad and Tobago 3 72 1 80
Uganda 5 58 1 80 Albania 2 88 1 80
Cambodia 4 63 2 62 Antigua and Barbuda 2 88 0 103
Ecuador 4 63 2 62 The Bahamas 2 88 1 80
Kyrgyzstan 4 63 2 62 Bhutan 2 88 0 103
Madagascar 4 63 1 80 Bolivia 2 88 1 80
Mongolia 4 63 0 103 Dominican Republic 2 88 2 62
Namibia 4 63 2 62 Mozambique 2 88 0 103
Nicaragua 2 88 1 80 Uzbekistan 1 101 2 62
Papua New Guinea 2 88 2 62 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 122 1 80
Sri Lanka 2 88 2 62 Haiti 0 122 1 80
The Gambia 2 88 1 80 Pakistan 0 122 1 80
Vanuatu 2 88 0 103 Suriname 0 122 1 80

(continued)

11
12
Table 2  (continued)

SSCI Non-SSCI SSCI Non-SSCI

Countries Frequencies Ranking Frequencies Ranking Countries Frequencies Ranking Frequencies Ranking

Zimbabwe 2 88 5 41 Ukraine 0 122 2 62

Afghanistan 1 101 0 103 Total 3,115 1,365  
Angola 1 101 0 103  
Argentina 1 101 3 52 Other
Armenia 1 101 0 103  Antarcticaa 6 2  
Bahrain 1 101 1 80  Arubab 2 0  
Burkina Faso 1 101 0 103   Hong Kongc 166 24  
Cameroon 1 101 2 62  Macauc 23 12  
Colombia 1 101 2 62   New Caledoniad 2 0  
Ethiopia 1 101 1 80   North Cypruse 14 14  
Grenada 1 101 0 103  Palestinea 15 3  
Kazakhstan 1 101 2 62   Turks and Caicos Islandsf 0 1  
Lebanon 1 101 1 80  
Libya 1 101 0 103  
Monaco 1 101 0 103  
Montenegro 1 101 0 103  
Myanmar 1 101 0 103  
Rwanda 1 101 0 103  
Slovakia 1 101 0 103  
Sudan 1 101 0 103  
Turkmenistan 1 101 2 62  

Note: SSCI = Social Sciences Citation Index.

a. Not included in data set.
b. Included in the Netherlands.
c. Included in China.
d. Included in France.
e. Included in Cyprus.
f. Included in the United Kingdom.
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  13

Table 3
Articles Frequencies for Research Focus Regions

SSCI Non-SSCI Total

Regions Articles Percent Articles Percent Articles Percent

Asia-Pacific 1,448 44.76 561 39.53 2,009 43.17

Europe 880 27.20 490 34.53 1,370 29.44
North America 543 16.79 166 11.70 709 15.23
Africa 150 4.64 93 6.55 243 5.22
Middle East 84 2.60 48 3.38 132 2.84
South-Central America 74 2.29 36 2.54 110 2.36
Caribbean 50 1.55 23 1.62 73 1.57
Antarctica 6 0.19 2 0.14 8 0.17
Total 3,235 100.00 1,419 100.00 4,654 100.00

Note: SSCI = Social Sciences Citation Index. χ2 = 50.491, df = 7, p < .01.

only one geographic reference in the SSCI journal database. Five countries cov-
ered in the non-SSCI database were not included in the SSCI database.
In terms of non-SSCI database, China (147), United States (138), Australia
(118), and United Kingdom (111) had the highest frequencies. The top 10 fre-
quencies for non-SSCI journals were similar, but Japan and Thailand were
included and Canada and New Zealand were not.
Table 3 indicates that tourism research on Asia, Europe, Oceania, and North
America was the most frequent, while there were much fewer articles with a
focus on South and Central America, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and the
Antarctic. Asia-Pacific was the top research focus region for both SSCI and non-
SSCI journals with percentages of 44.8% and 39.5%, respectively. The percent-
age for Europe was higher in non-SSCI journals (34.5%) compared with SSCI
journals (27%). North America was the focus for 16.8% of the articles in the
SSCI database, whereas the percentage for non-SSCI was 11.7%.
The SSCI journals and non-SSCI journals database were combined to explore
general characteristics of research focus regions and countries in the 32 journals.
The diagrammatic spatial distribution map of the frequencies for research focus
countries is shown in Figure 2. This map visually demonstrates that tourism
research has a worldwide focus and is not limited to the countries with the stron-
gest economies or most abundant and well-known tourism attractions and
resources. However, it also shows certain world regions were underrepresented
or had no tourism research focus in academic journals from 2002 to 2011. These
included parts of Central-Northern Africa and South-Central America, the
Central Asian republics, some Eastern European countries, and the Caucasus.
For Asia, China (656), Taiwan (179), and South Korea (132) had the highest
frequencies. Other Asian destinations with significant frequencies were Japan
(84), Thailand (83), India (81), Singapore (53), Malaysia (42), and Indonesia
14   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Figure 2
The Diagrammatic Spatial Distribution Map of Research Focus Countries

(42). Australia (363) and New Zealand (125) had strong representation in the
data set. For other countries in Oceania such as Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Samoa,
and Vanuatu, the frequencies were below 10.
According to U.N. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO; 2014a) statistics,
the Asia and the Pacific region is gaining market share in tourism worldwide,
whereas Europe’s market share is declining. International tourist arrivals to the
Asia and the Pacific region grew by 6.2% to reach 248.1 million in 2013. The
international tourism receipts for China, Macau, Thailand, and Hong Kong
ranked among the top 10 in the world in 2013. China has also attained the first
rank position in tourism expenditures abroad by its residents (UNWTO, 2014b).
Given these recent trends, it is understandable why more tourism research has
recently focused on the Asia-Pacific region. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei,
Pakistan, and Timor-Leste were the only Asian countries not covered in these
journals from 2002 to 2011, in addition to several of the Central Asian republics
(Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan).
The United Kingdom (384) and Spain (170) had the highest frequencies
among European countries, followed by Turkey (155), Greece (66), Italy (55),
Cyprus (50), and Portugal (50; Figure 3). According to UNWTO statistics, Spain
and the United Kingdom are among the world’s top 10 countries in terms of
tourist arrivals and receipts (UNWTO, 2014b). Belarus, Luxembourg, Latvia,
and Serbia were among the European countries with no geographic keywords or
titles in the 32 journals. Some countries in the Caucasus were also not repre-
sented including Azerbaijan and Georgia. France (37), Germany (31), and
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  15

Figure 3
The Diagrammatic Spatial Distribution of Research Focus Countries in Europe

Russia (9) appeared to be underrepresented in this database especially given

their tourism attractions and resources, large population bases, sizes of tourist
markets, and advanced economic development status. It is suspected that lan-
guage may be one of the reasons for this finding.
The strong research focus on China is a remarkable finding of this research.
Overall, the Asia-Pacific region predominated in this database accounting for
around 43.2% (2,009) of the articles (Table 3). Europe was in second place with
approximately 29.4% or 1,370 articles. North America accounted for 15.2%
with a combined frequency of 712 articles on the United States (549), Canada
(126), and Mexico (37). For this research, the Caribbean was counted separately
and Central America was combined with South America.
Africa was in fourth place with 5.2% of the articles and the combined frequency
for the African countries was 243. South Africa (45), Kenya (38), Egypt (31),
Mauritius (18), and Nigeria (17) had the highest counts among African countries.
However, only 23 of the 55 countries in Africa were included in this database.
16   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

The Middle East with a combined frequency of 132 articles took the fifth
place. Israel (45) and Palestine (18) ranked top 2 in terms of article frequency
among 10 Middle Eastern areas.
There were slightly fewer articles (110) on the South and Central America
than on the Middle East. Brazil (23), Costa Rica (16), and Peru (8) accounted for
more than half of geographic references for South and Central America.
Honduras, Panama, and Uruguay had no keywords.
Several Caribbean island nations had geographic references including
Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
Grenada, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago. Cuba (18), Jamaica (16),
and Barbados (14) had the highest frequencies. Obviously there were several
Caribbean island countries missing in the database. The region with the lowest
share of the articles was Antarctica.
These research findings are perhaps as important as that of the predominance
of the Asia-Pacific region, in suggesting that some important world regions are
being neglected by tourism scholars. Discovering the reasons for this underrep-
resentation will be a worthwhile future research endeavor.

The Co-Occurrence Relationships Among Research Focus Countries

A certain proportion of these tourism research articles contained more than

one research focus country. These studies, for example, explored the perception
of tourists toward destinations (Truong, 2005), cross-cultural tourism (Getz,
Andersson, & Carlsen, 2010), tourism and immigration (Stodolska & Santos,
2007), and the comparative study of countries (Kozak, 2002). If two country refer-
ences appeared in the same article, it meant the countries had a co-occurrence
relationship. Overall, 368 research articles in the database had more than one
geographic references in a single article. This research analyzed the co-occur-
rence of 86 focus countries forming 240 pairs of co-occurrence relationship. A
NetDraw relationship map was drawn and is shown in Figure 4. The line widths
demonstrate the strength of the co-occurrence relationships between pairs of
countries and the number indicates how many articles included these pairs of
countries. The layout of this map is based on principal components and it can be
seen that the United States is the country with the most intensive co-occurrence
network, having 34 relationship lines. It is followed by Australia, the United
Kingdom, and China with 23 lines, respectively. The third highest grouping is
composed of Spain (18), India (16), Japan (16), South Korea (16), New Zealand
(16), France (15), Germany (15), Canada (13), and Hong Kong (12). Some 25
countries only had one relationship line with other countries and most were
countries located in Asia and Europe.
Based on the NetDraw analysis, the top four focus countries China, United
States, United Kingdom, and Australia were also the most intensive nodes in the
relationship network map, demonstrated by the layout where they are on the far
left with intensive lines around them. China, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong,
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  17

Figure 4
Co-Occurrence Relationships Among Research Focus Countries

and some other Asian countries were closer to each other at the top of the map
whereas the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Germany, and other European
countries gathered at the bottom of the map. This suggested that georelation-
ships are important in tourism research and the closer geographically are the
countries and the more interconnected are their cultures and histories, the greater
is the tourism research conducted among them.
The co-occurrences of the United States and China (26), China and Hong
Kong (22), China and Australia (20), the United States and Canada (18), the
United States and Japan (16), Australia and the United Kingdom (11), the United
Kingdom and Turkey (11), and China and Canada (10), were particularly strong.
Several research articles took the United States and other countries as a com-
bined focus. Apart from the stronger relationships with China, Canada and
Japan, these co-occurrences were only of moderate strength less than 10. The
United Kingdom had relationships with most of the European countries as well
as with more distant countries. However, with the exception of the stronger rela-
tionships with Australia and Turkey, the United Kingdom had relatively weak
co-occurrence relationships with China, New Zealand, and the United States.

Most Popular Research Topics of Research Focus Countries

This analysis also investigated the most popular research topics according
to research focus countries. It was recognized that if the keyword frequencies
were too low, this would adversely influence the research results and their
interpretation. Therefore, only the top 10 countries ranked by frequencies were
18   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 4
Research Focus Countries and Topic Cross-Tabulations

Frequencies and
Countries Percentages Destination Demand Marketing Travel Total

China Frequency 376 171 160 28 735

  Percent 51.16 23.27 21.77 3.81 100.00
USA Frequency 215 142 175 38 570
  Percent 37.72 24.91 30.70 6.67 100.00
UK Frequency 168 83 110 47 408
  Percent 41.18 20.34 26.96 11.52 100.00
Australia Frequency 141 101 117 15 374
  Percent 37.70 27.01 31.28 4.01 100.00
Taiwan Frequency 77 81 32 6 196
  Percent 39.29 41.33 16.33 3.06 100.00
Spain Frequency 79 55 44 8 186
  Percent 42.47 29.57 23.66 4.30 100.00
Turkey Frequency 90 47 36 3 176
  Percent 51.14 26.70 20.45 1.70 100.00
South Korea Frequency 81 46 22 5 154
  Percent 52.60 29.87 14.29 3.25 100.00
Canada Frequency 58 31 39 26 154
  Percent 39.10 39.10 18.80 2.90 100.00
New Zealand Frequency 45 40 41 7 133
  Percent 33.83 30.08 30.83 5.26 100.00
Total Frequency 1,330 797 776 183 3,086
  Percent 43.10 25.83 25.15 5.93 100.00

selected for this analysis. A separate database was created including all the
research articles for these countries and their keywords were analyzed accord-
ing to the modified tourism system. Each article was coded into one of 53
subcategories based on a review of its title and keywords. If an article had
broader coverage and could not be sorted into only one subcategory, it was
coded into more than one subcategory to prevent information loss. Table 4
shows the relative popularity of research topics for the 10 research focus coun-
tries with the highest frequencies.
Overall among the top 10 highest frequency countries, the highest proportion
(43.4%) of the research articles in the database were in the destination topic
category, followed by demand (25.7%) and marketing (25%). China (58.2%),
Turkey (51.1%), and South Korea (52.6%) had more of a research focus on des-
tinations. For the demand topic category, the destinations with the highest pro-
portions were Taiwan (41.3%) and Canada (39.1%), and the United States
(30.7%) and Australia (31.3%) had the highest proportions for the marketing
topic category. There could be many reasons for these differences, including
variations in the stages of tourism development.
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  19

Table 5
Research Focus Countries and Topic Subcategories

Research Focus Countries Subcategories With Highest Frequencies

China Market segmentation; tourism development

USA Marketing mix; images and perceptions
UK Tourism management; marketing strategy and plans
Australia Market segmentation; images and perceptions
Taiwan Tourism impacts/impacts; motivation and needs
Spain Tourism impacts/impacts; marketing strategy and plans
Turkey Human resources; images and perceptions
South Korea Motivation and needs; policy and government
Canada Market segmentation; tourist behavior
New Zealand Images and perceptions; tourism management

At the earliest stages, a research focus on the physical tourism resources in

destinations might be expected especially. In later stages and particularly in
developed countries, it may be anticipated that the research focus would move
more toward demand and marketing. As tourism destinations mature, more
research is conducted on tourists’ images and perceptions, satisfaction levels,
and other aspects of tourist behavior. Additionally, with the rapid development
of the Internet and social media, an increased emphasis on research related to
marketing and distribution channels can be expected. This progression of tour-
ism research cannot be conclusively confirmed from this study’s findings and
there certainly are other factors, including the disciplinary backgrounds and
research interests of scholars, which influence these wide variations in the popu-
larity of research topics for different geographic areas.
Table 5 identifies the two subcategories of research topics with the highest
frequencies for the 10 countries. Tourism development research was popular in
articles focused on China. Images and perceptions was a popular subcategory
for the research on Australia and Turkey while market segmentation was popular
for Australia, Canada, and China; and tourism impacts/impacts were popular for
Spain and Taiwan. Marketing-related subcategories were particularly popular
for research in the United States (marketing mix), United Kingdom (marketing
strategy and plans), Spain (marketing strategy and plans), and Hong Kong (dis-
tribution channels).
Some focus countries had a distinctive concentration on individual subcate-
gories of research including the United Kingdom (tourism management), Turkey
(human resources), and South Korea (policy and government). The impact of
certain prolific scholars on these results is acknowledged for some countries.
The relationships of types of tourism and research focus countries were also
investigated and the results are shown in Table 6. Overall, the types of tourism
most addressed in this database were sustainable tourism, ecotourism, heritage
tourism, rural tourism, and casino. It was also noteworthy that the research articles
20   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 6
Types of Tourism and Research Focus Countries

Types of Tourism Research Focus Countries

Sustainable Australia (10), UK (6), Kenya (6), USA (5), Thailand (5), China (6),
tourism (115) New Zealand (5), Canada (4), Taiwan (4), Spain (4), Romania
(3), Greece (3), Botswana (3), Indonesia (3), Egypt (3), Northern
Cyprus (2), Maldives (2), Turkey (2), Japan (2), Palestine (2), The
Philippines (2), Guyana (2), Vietnam (1), Suriname (1), Jordan (1),
Finland (1), Fiji (1), Cuba (1), Croatia (1), Costa Rica (1), Austria
(1), Papua New Guinea (1), Tanzania (1), St. Lucia (1), Samoa (1),
Norway (1), The Netherlands (1), Mexico (1), Italy (1), Indonesia
(1), India (1), Barbados (1), Portugal (1), Peru (1), Malta (1), Brazil
(1), Bolivia (1), Denmark (1), Pakistan (1), Cyprus (1), India (1),
South Korea (1), Lithuania (1)
Ecotourism (105) New Zealand (8), Thailand (8), Australia (8), China (7), USA (5),
Kenya (5), Taiwan (4), Costa Rica (4), Canada (4), Belize (3), Cuba
(3), Ecuador (3), Greece (3), Indonesia (3), UK (3), South Korea
(2), Malaysia (2), Saudi Arabia (1), Russia (1), Poland (1), Norway
(1), Nepal (1), Japan (1), Israel (1), Gambia (1), Fiji (1), Egypt (1),
Bulgaria (1), Brazil (1), Bolivia (1), Papua New Guinea (1), Uganda
(1), Portugal (1), Namibia (1), India (1), Colombia (1), Trinidad and
Tobago (1), South Africa (1), Nigeria (1), Mongolia (1), Peru (1),
Mexico (1), The Dominican Republic (1), Cameroon (1), Botswana
(1), Romania (1), Lithuania (1)
Heritage tourism China (17), USA (9), Australia (8), UK (7), Ghana (4), India (3), Italy
(83) (2), Egypt (2), Taiwan (2), South Korea (2), New Zealand (2), Spain
(1), Kyrgyzstan (1), Kenya (1), Jordan (1), Japan (1), Israel (2),
Greece (1), Belize (1), St. Lucia (1), South Korea (1), Indonesia
(1), Turkey (1), Tunisia (1), Czech Republic (1), Turks and Caicos
Islands (1), Sri Lanka (1), Denmark (1), United Arab Emirates
(1), The Philippines (1), Saudi Arabia (1), Nepal (1), Mexico (1),
Cyprus (1), Palestine (1)
Rural tourism (77) Spain (15), China (8), USA (7), UK (7), Canada (5), Portugal (4),
Australia (4), Ireland (4), Malaysia (2), Japan (2), South Africa
(2), Romania (1), Norway (1), Nepal (1), France (1), Denmark (1),
Cyprus (1), Poland (1), South Korea (1), New Zealand (1), India
(1), Austria (1), Indonesia (1), Turkey (1), Spain (1), Greece (1),
Israel (1), Chile (1)
Cultural tourism China (13), Australia (7), Italy (6), Spain (5), New Zealand (5), UK
(69) (4), Canada (4), India (3), Turkey (3), South Korea (2), Taiwan (2),
Kenya (2), Romania (1), Mexico (1), Indonesia (1), Botswana (1),
Belize (1), USA (1), Thailand (1), Norway (1), Japan (1), France (1),
Finland (1), Cuba (1), Sweden (1)
Casino (66) USA (31), China (12), South Korea (10), Canada (4), Japan (2), Taiwan
(2), Northern Cyprus (2), Australia (1), New Zealand (1), Cyprus (1)
Sport tourism Australia (6), USA (5), South Korea (4), Japan (3), UK (2), Germany (2),
(events; 40) France (2), Canada (2), Singapore (2), Barbados (1), New Zealand
(1), Portugal (1), China (1), Kenya (1), Greece (1), Croatia (1), Austria
(1), Slovenia (1), Sweden (1), Guyana (1), South Africa (1)

(continued)
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  21

Table 6  (continued)

Types of Tourism Research Focus Countries

Nature-based Australia (5), Iceland (4), Taiwan (2), China (2), USA (2), South
tourism (35) Africa (2), Kenya (2), UK (2), Portugal (2), Cameroon (1), Peru (1),
Norway (1), Nepal (1), Finland (1), Taiwan (1), Fiji (1), Tunisia (1),
Malaysia (1), Canada (1), Greece (1), Finland (1)
Wine tourism (32) Canada (5), New Zealand (5), Australia (4), USA (3), UK (3), Spain
(3), Malaysia (1), France (2), South Africa (2), Israel (1), Austria (1),
Italy (1), India (1)
Festival tourism UK (7), Australia (7), USA (3), China (2), Taiwan (2), Taiwan (1),
(31) Ireland (1), Brazil (1), Norway (1), Sweden (1), United Arab
Emirates (1), France (1), Singapore (1), Canada (1), Cyprus (1)
Backpackers (31) Australia (8), Israel (8), Thailand (3), UK (2), India (2), Denmark (1),
Vietnam (1), Italy (1), Turkey (1), Samoa (1), New Zealand (1),
Norway (1), Mexico (1)
Urban tourism (30) UK (7), New Zealand (4), South Korea (3), China (3), Canada (2),
Palestine (2), USA (1), Switzerland (1), Malaysia (1), Spain (1),
Israel (1), Ireland (1), Germany (1), Australia (1), Taiwan (1)
Wildlife tourism Australia (10), Canada (3), USA (3), Kenya (3), UK (2), New Zealand
(30) (2), Thailand (1), Sweden (1), Japan (1), the Dominican Republic
(1), Tanzania (1), Namibia (1), Nigeria (1)
Mountain tourism USA (3), Canada (3), New Zealand (3), France (3), UK (2), Norway
(25) (2), Sweden (2), Spain (1), Italy (1), China (1), Australia (1), South
Africa (1), Japan (1), Nepal (1),
Pilgrimage (23) India (5), USA (3), Palestine (3), Spain (2), Saudi Arabia (1), Israel
(1), Belgium (1), Australia (1), Taiwan (1), Turkey (1), Japan (1),
Thailand (1), Nepal (1), Greece (1)
Adventure tourism New Zealand (5), UK (3), Australia (3), Israel (2), France (2), Brazil
(21) (1), Norway (1), Nepal (1), Costa Rica (1), Mauritius (1), Chile (1)
Film-induced UK (4), South Korea (4), Australia (2), USA (2), Thailand (1), Italy (1),
tourism (18) Taiwan (1), New Zealand (1), Greece (1), Egypt (1)
Cruise (15) USA (4), UK (3), Taiwan (2), Costa Rica (2), Mexico (1), Australia (1),
Barbados (1), Kenya (1)
Dark tourism (14) USA (2), UK (2), South Korea (1), Japan (1), New Zealand (1),
Lithuania (1), China (1), Thailand (1), Palestine (1), Ghana (1),
Cambodia (1), Ukraine (1)
Food tourism (12) UK (2), Canada (2), South Africa (2), Taiwan (1), China (1), Norway
(1), Italy (1), Zimbabwe (1), South Korea (1)
Medical tourism USA (2), China (4), South Korea (2), UK (1), Iran (1), Costa Rica (1),
(12) India (1)
Theme park (12) USA (2), UK (2), the Netherlands (2), China (1), Spain (1), Taiwan
(1), South Korea (1), Norway (1), Japan (1)
Ethnic tourism (12) China (8), UK (1), Brazil (1), Malaysia (1), Thailand (1)
Community Kenya (3), China (2), Palestine (2), Australia (1), New Zealand (1),
tourism (11) Botswana (1), Uganda (1)
Volunteer tourism Thailand (2), China (2), Australia (1), UK (1), Singapore (1), Costa
(11) Rica (1), Mexico (1), Kenya (1), South Africa (1)

(continued)
22   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 6  (continued)

Types of Tourism Research Focus Countries

Pro-poor tourism Costa Rica (1), China (1), Laos (1), Ghana (1), Thailand (1), Tanzania
(11) (1), Malaysia (1), Madagascar (1), Namibia (1), Nicaragua (1),
Nigeria (1)
Coastal tourism (9) Greece (2), Northern Cyprus (1), Thailand (1), Japan (1), Croatia (1),
Turkey (1), The Philippines (1), New Zealand (1)
Health tourism (12) Singapore (2), China (2), USA (1), Australia (1), Turkey (1), Poland
(1), Greece (1), Switzerland (1), Spain (1), Slovenia (1)

on these types of tourism and especially on sustainable tourism and ecotourism

were from many countries. The research articles with a focus on China tended to
cover types of tourism related to its cultural-heritage resources including cultural
tourism, heritage tourism, ethnic tourism, and rural tourism. The types of tourism
in the Australia-based research were more focused on its natural resources. Festival
tourism was most popular in the research on the United Kingdom and Australia.
Pro-poor tourism as would be expected had the most research emphasis for the
developing countries.

Conclusions and Discussion

There was a broad geographic focus of the research in tourism, hospitality,

and leisure journals in the decade from 2002 to 2011 spanning 134 different ter-
ritories. It was also found that a significant number of nations were not covered
in this 10-year snapshot of the academic journal research and require more atten-
tion from scholars in the future. Some major countries seemed to be underrepre-
sented including France, Germany, and Russia. However, the predominance of
the research focus on the Asia-Pacific region and particularly on China was a
major finding in this analysis. The sparse coverage of research on African coun-
tries was another major result.
The remarkable prominence of China in this decade’s worth of research war-
rants further discussion and potential explanations, especially since Mainland
China is not English-speaking. Partly this can be attributed to the rapid growth
in the domestic, outbound, and inbound tourist markets for Mainland China.
This has undoubtedly piqued the interest in China-based research among schol-
ars worldwide. In particular, the scale and spending power of the outbound tour-
ist market from China is affecting many countries. The rapid tourism development
within China combined with its massive domestic market and growing interna-
tional tourist arrivals presents a set of unique lures for academic researchers. The
“export” of several prominent Chinese-born scholars to other countries is
another partial explanation, as several of them made major contributions to this
research literature in 2002-2011. Moreover, the strong collaborative behavior of
Chinese scholars within and outside China with international colleagues has
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  23

been a catalyst for research on China. Many of the articles including China in
their keywords had Chinese first authors followed by second and successive
authors from other countries. Even when living and working abroad, most
Chinese scholars maintained their research attachment with the country of their
birth and location of their initial rounds of higher education.
The high frequency levels for Hong Kong and Macau were notable side-by-side
the large number of articles about Mainland China. Again these findings are wor-
thy of more investigation. In addition to being a major tourism destination, Hong
Kong has several highly productive research scholars whose rates of output flour-
ished during 2002-2011. The “Macau miracle” of fast-paced tourism investment
and market growth mainly fueled by casino development has attracted the atten-
tion of local and foreign scholars. Taken together, approximately 15% of all the
articles in the database featured Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau.
The research focus countries were composed of both developed and develop-
ing nations. However, there was unbalanced coverage according to major geo-
graphic regions of the world. Approximately 88% of the articles were from just
three regions, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, and North America. The other parts of the
world including Africa, the Middle East, and South and Central America appeared
to be underserved by academic research in 2002-2011. There are several potential
reasons for this phenomenon including lesser amounts of collaborative research
partnerships between scholars from these regions and their counterparts abroad.
Language may be another limiting factor as well as perceived lesser attractiveness
of the regions for conducting research among foreign scholars.
It was concluded that the frequencies of research articles for certain countries
were significantly lower than would be expected. This was especially so for
France, Germany, and Russia, and to some extent also for Italy. France is the top
tourism destination in the world in terms of total tourist arrivals and ranks third
in international tourism receipts (UNWTO, 2014b). France also has a long and
rich history of tourism scholarship. However, a review of this database showed
that the authors of English articles were seldom French or based in France. The
research team conducted follow-up interviews with some French scholars and
found their major challenge was in using English in academic journal articles.
The French scholars found it more convenient to publish articles in local jour-
nals rather than in English-language journals. Moreover, there was less encour-
agement and incentives from their universities to publish in English-language
journals. Through experience and observation, there are relatively fewer French
scholars studying tourism, hospitality, and leisure abroad and this is another
constraint to collaboration with English-speaking scholars.
Based on NetDraw analysis, United States, China, United Kingdom, and
Australia were the most intensive nodes of co-occurrence relationship networks.
The results demonstrated that georelationships were important in patterns of
coverage of individual countries in tourism research. Geographic proximity and
the strength of historic and cultural ties appeared to be influential factors for
influencing co-occurrence relationships.
24   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Another conclusion was that there is a relationship between geography and

the most popular topics in tourism research. Developing countries in the earlier
stages of tourism development tended to have more research articles related to
destinations. This seems understandable given the presence of subcategories
within destinations such as tourism impacts/impacts, resource management, and
various aspects of tourism products. More mature tourism countries had more
research focused on demand and marketing including images and perceptions
and market segmentation.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this research that need to be acknowledged.

Many journal articles include no geographic references as indicated in this anal-
ysis. It is not possible to determine whether authors intentionally or unintention-
ally excluded geographic references, or if they intended their works to apply
nationally, regionally, or worldwide without specifically stating their intent. It is
acknowledged that some countries may be undercounted in this analysis because
authors decided not to include geographic references, and this is thought to be
the case for some of the research applying to the United States. Moreover, it is
recognized that research articles that are attempts to derive, develop, or test the-
ories and concepts are without geographic contexts.
This research elected to use a tourism systems approach for categorizing the
research in the 32 journals. Several other classification schemes could have been
applied and this is undoubtedly a limitation of this work. Since the main focus
of this research was on the geographic scope of published academic articles, and
knowing that world regions and countries are at different stages of tourism
development, the tourism systems approach was judged appropriate for discern-
ing differences in topic coverage among countries. It is recognized that the
application of other categorization frameworks will contribute added depth and
richness to this analysis of tourism, hospitality, and leisure research journals.
The database of articles for this research was constrained to a set of journals
(n = 32) and a specific time period (2002-2011). It is acknowledged that there
are at least 40 other English-language tourism, hospitality, and leisure journals
that could have been included in this analysis. English-language academic jour-
nals have existed for 40-plus years, but this research only provided a 10-year
snapshot of the research. It is very likely that tourism, hospitality, and leisure
research has evolved over the past four or five decades, and the present portrayal
of geographic scope and topics is probably not representative of prior decades.

Contributions, Implications, and Future Research

Contributions.  The major contribution of this research was the broad scope of
the geographic analysis across a large number of tourism, hospitality, and leisure
journals. Although there has been some previous research that has categorized
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  25

keywords by regions and countries, it has been far less extensive and did not
consider country co-occurrence relationships. In addition, although prior studies
have analyzed research topics for individual countries, the current analysis did
this across 10 different countries and shed more light on variations in research
topic emphasis.
This analysis has highlighted the countries and regions on which tourism
research has focused the most in the decade from 2002 to 2011. The prominence
of the Asia-Pacific region in tourism research is consistent with the rapid growth
in the region’s tourism arrivals and tourists, and also mirrors the strong tourism
development that has taken place especially in China and parts of Southeast
Asia. According to UNWTO, the Asia and the Pacific region accounted for 23%
of the world’s total international tourist arrivals; its share of the articles in this
analysis was 43.2%. Although Europe commanded a 52% share of world tourist
arrivals in 2012, its proportion of tourism research was just 29.4% (UNWTO,
2014b).
Although it may have been surmised from knowing generally what gets pub-
lished in these journals, this research has highlighted the lack of attention to
South and Central America in the body of English-language literature. Economic
and social conditions have a great influence on tourism activities and tourism
research, so they have relevance to research focus countries. This is especially
unfortunate given the poor economic and social conditions in South and Central
America, as well as in the many African nations not found in this database.

Implications.  One of the findings of this analysis is that there is not a uniform
or even coverage of the countries in the world in tourism research. Although this
is as might be expected, it does not necessarily represent an ideal situation for
the scholarship of tourism. It will be desirable in the future if more ways can be
found to capture tourism research from the developing countries and from other
major languages, particularly French, German, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Chi-
nese, Turkish, and Thai, which are official languages of the top 10 international
tourism destinations and Portuguese which is the fastest growing European
language after English, into the English-language research literature. Unfortu-
nately, some previous attempts at bilingual journals have not been successful.
In the decades ahead, if history repeats itself, then it may be expected that
tourism scholars’ focus will be on the geographic areas in the world where
growth is expected, and these are expected to be in the Asia-Pacific, Africa, and
the Middle East.

Recommendations for Future Research. There are future opportunities to

expand on the scope of this research by analyzing more tourism, hospitality,
and leisure journals, as well as covering different time periods. Forty-plus other
English-language journals could be analyzed in the future and thought should be
given to shedding more light on the historic coverage of journals in the 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s, and comparing the results with those of this research.
26   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

A tourism systems approach was used herein to categorize the journal

research but future researchers should apply other research frameworks to enrich
the understanding of the scope of tourism research. Using theoretical, concep-
tual, and analytical (methodological) frameworks will certainly offer valuable
perspectives.
There is a need for more future research on several countries underrepre-
sented or not even identified in this research database. This is more likely to
happen if greater incentives are given to scholars to expand the geographic
scope of their research and collaborations. Greater emphasis on tourism research
by national governments in the underserved countries and more emphasis on
international research partnering by their local universities could be the catalysts
for bringing scholars and their graduate students closer together.

References
Ashworth, G., & Page, S. J. (2011). Urban tourism research: Recent progress and current
paradoxes. Tourism Management, 32, 1-15.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Axelsen, M. (2009). Trends in tourism research. Annals of
Tourism Research, 36, 149-152.
Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications
of the ACM, 32, 48-60.
Benckendorff, P., & Zehrer, A. (2013). A network analysis of tourism research. Annals
of Tourism Research, 43, 121-149.
Borgatti, S. P. (2002). NetDraw software for network visualization. Lexington, KY:
Analytic Technologies.
Botterill, D., Haven, C., & Gale, T. (2002). A survey of doctoral theses accepted by
universities in the UK and Ireland for studies related to tourism, 1990-1999. Tourist
Studies, 2, 283-311.
Broadus, R. N. (1987). Toward a definition of “bibliometrics”. Scientometrics, 12,
373-379.
Chen, C.-C., & Schwartz, Z. (2006). The importance of information asymmetry in cus-
tomers’ booking decisions: A cautionary tale from the Internet. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47, 272-285.
Cheng, C.-K., Li, X., Petrick, J. F., & O’Leary, J. T. (2011). An examination of tourism
journal development. Tourism Management, 32, 53-61.
Crawford-Welch, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1992). An identification of the subject areas
and research techniques used in five hospitality-related journals. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 11, 155-167.
Crichton, K. (1978). Dissertations on travel, recreation and leisure. Journal of Travel
Research, 17, 14-22.
Dai, B., Tang, X.-Y., & Du, X.-S. (2011). Review on China tourism research in 2010:
Based on analysis of 18 domestic tourism-related journals. In China Tourism Review.
Beijing, China: Tourism Education Press.
Dann, G., Nash, D., & Pearce, P. (1988). Methodology in tourism research. Annals of
Tourism Research, 15, 1-28.
Edwards, D., Griffin, T., & Hayllar, B. (2008). Urban tourism research: Developing an
agenda. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 1032-1052.
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  27

Faulkner, B., & Ryan, C. (1999). Innovations in tourism management research and con-
ceptualization. Tourism Management, 20, 3-6.
Frechtling, D. C. (2004). Assessment of tourism/hospitality journals’ role in knowledge
transfer: An exploratory study. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 100-107.
Getz, D., Andersson, T., & Carlsen, J. (2010). Festival management studies: Developing
a framework and priorities for comparative and cross-cultural research. International
Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1, 29-59.
Gunn, C. A. (1972). Vacationscape: Designing tourist regions. Austin: Bureau of
Business Research, University of Texas.
Gunn, C. A., & Var, T. (2002). Tourism planning: Basics concepts cases (4th ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Hall, C. M. (2011). Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the
assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Management, 32, 26-27.
Hu, C., & Racherla, P. (2008). Visual representation of knowledge networks: A social
network analysis of hospitality research domain. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 27, 302-312.
Jafari, J. (Ed.). (2000). Encyclopedia of tourism. London, England: Routledge.
Jafari, J., & Aaser, D. (1988). Tourism as the subject of doctoral dissertations. Annals of
Tourism Research, 15, 407-429.
Jafari, J., & Xiao, H. (Eds.). (2015). Encyclopedia of tourism. New York, NY: Springer.
Jamal, T., Smith, B., & Watson, E. (2008). Ranking, rating and scoring of tourism jour-
nals: Interdisciplinary challenges and innovations. Tourism Management, 29, 66-78.
Jogaratnam, G., Chon, K., McCleary, K., Mena, M., & Yoo, J. (2005). An analysis
of institutional contributors to three major academic tourism journals: 1992-2001.
Tourism Management, 26, 641-648.
Jogaratnam, G., McCleary, K. W., Mena, M. M., & Yoo, J. J.-E. (2005). An analysis of
hospitality and tourism research: Institutional contributions. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 29, 356-371.
Kim, Y., Savage, K. S., Howey, R. M., & Van Hoof, H. B. (2009). Academic foun-
dations for hospitality and tourism research: A reexamination of citations. Tourism
Management, 30, 752-758.
Kozak, M. (2002). Measuring comparative destination performance: A study in Spain
and Turkey. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 13, 83-110.
Lee, H. A., & Law, R. (2011). Research productivity and institutional characteristics of
hospitality and tourism programs. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28, 432-450.
Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 390-407.
Leung, D., Leung, R., Bai, B., & Law, R. (2011). Asian wave in travel and tourism
research. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28, 196-209.
Lew, A. A. (1987). A framework of tourist attraction research. Annals of Tourism
Research, 14, 553-575.
McKercher, B. (2005). A case for ranking tourism journals. Tourism Management, 26,
649-651.
McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2003). Testing a cultural tourism typology. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 45-58.
McKercher, B., Law, R., & Lam, T. (2006). Rating tourism and hospitality journals.
Tourism Management, 27, 1235-1252.
Meyer-Arendt, K. J., & Justice, C. (2002). Tourism as the subject of North American
doctoral dissertations, 1987–2000. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 1171-1174.
28   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Mill, R. C., & Morrison, A. M. (1985). The tourism system. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Mill, R. C., & Morrison, A. M. (2012). The tourism system (7th ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt.
Morrison, A. M. (2004). Tourism, hospitality and leisure journals.
Murphy, J., & Law, R. (2008). Google scholar visibility and tourism journals. Annals of
Tourism Research, 35, 1078-1082.
Palmer, A. L., Sesé, A., & Montaño, J. J. (2005). Tourism and statistics: Bibliometric
study 1998-2002. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 167-178.
Park, K., Phillips, W. J., Canter, D. D., & Abbott, J. (2011). Hospitality and tourism
research rankings by author, university, and country using six major journals. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35, 381-416.
Pearce, D. G. (2001). An integrative framework for urban tourism research. Annals of
Tourism Research, 28, 926-946.
Pearce, D. G. (2012). Frameworks for tourism research. Wallingford, England:
CABI.
Pechlaner, H., Zehrer, A., Matzler, K., & Abfalter, D. (2004). A ranking of international
tourism and hospitality journals. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 328-332.
Philip, S., Hunter, C., & Blackstock, K. (2010). A typology for defining agritourism.
Tourism Management, 31, 754-758.
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation,
25, 348-349.
Racherla, P., & Hu, C. (2010). A social network perspective of tourism research collabo-
rations. Annals of Tourism Research, 37, 1012-1034.
Reid, L. J., & Andereck, K. L. (1989). Statistical analyses use in tourism research.
Journal of Travel Research, 28, 21-24.
Rivera, M. A., & Upchurch, R. (2008). The role of research in the hospitality industry:
A content analysis of the IJHM between 2000 and 2005. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 27, 632-640.
Ryan, C. (2005). The ranking and rating of academics and journals in tourism research.
Tourism Management, 26, 657-662.
Samenfink, W. H., & Rutherford, D. G. (2002). Most frequent contributors to the hos-
pitality literature: A ten-year update. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education,
14(3), 5-15.
Schmidgall, R. S., & Woods, R. H. (1993). Rating of publishing channels by hospitality
faculty. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 16, 89-103.
Severt, D. E., Tesone, D. V., Bottorff, T. J., & Carpenter, M. L. (2009). A world ranking
of the top 100 hospitality and tourism programs. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 33, 451-470.
Sheldon, P. J. (1990). Journals in tourism and hospitality: The perceptions of publishing
faculty. Journal of Tourism Studies, 1, 42-48.
Sheldon, P. J. (1991). An authorship analysis of tourism research. Annals of Tourism
Research, 18, 473-484.
Stodolska, M., & Santos, C. A. (2007). Transnationalism and leisure: Mexican temporary
migrants in the U.S. Journal of Leisure Research, 39, 143-167.
Stone, P. R. (2006). A dark tourism spectrum: Towards a typology of death and maca-
bre related tourist sites, attractions and exhibitions. Tourism: An Interdisciplinary
International Journal, 54, 145-160.
 Shen et al. / Geographic Analysis of a Decade of Research  29

Sun, Y.-Y. (2007). Adjusting input-output models for capacity utilization in service
industries. Tourism Management, 28, 1507-1517.
Svensson, G., Svaeri, S., & Einarsen, K. (2009). “Empirical characteristics” of scholarly
journals in hospitality and tourism research: An assessment. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 28, 479-483.
Trauer, B. (2006). Conceptualizing special interest tourism—Frameworks for analysis.
Tourism Management, 27, 183-200.
Tribe, J., & Xiao, H. (2011). Developments in tourism social science. Annals of Tourism
Research, 38, 7-26.
Truong, T.-H. (2005). Assessing holiday satisfaction of Australian travellers in Vietnam:
An application of the HOLSAT model. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
10, 227-246.
U.N. World Tourism Organization. (2014a, April). UNWTO world tourism barometer
(Vol. 12). Madrid, Spain: Author.
U.N. World Tourism Organization. (2014b). UNWTO tourism highlights (2014 ed.).
Madrid, Spain: Author.
Uriely, N., Yonay, Y., & Simchai, D. (2002). Backpacking experiences: A type and form
analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 519-537.
U.S. Department of State. (2014, September 12). Independent states in the world.
Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm
Van Doren, C. S., Koh, Y. K., & McCahill, A. (1994). Tourism research: A state-of-the-
art citation analysis (1971-1990). In A. V. Seaton (Ed.), Tourism: The state of the art
(pp. 308-315). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Wu, B.-H., Xiao, H.-G., Dong, X.-L., Wang, M., & Xue, L. (2012). Tourism knowl-
edge domains: A keyword analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17,
355-380.
Xiao, H., Li, M., & Lin, E. C. K. (2011). Diffusion patterns and knowledge networks:
An inductive analysis of intellectual connections in multidisciplinary tourism studies.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28, 405-422.
Xiao, H., & Smith, S. L. J. (2005). Source knowledge for tourism research. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32, 272-275.
Xiao, H., & Smith, S. L. J. (2006). The making of tourism research: Insights from a social
sciences journal. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 490-507.
Xiao, H., & Smith, S. L. J. (2008). Knowledge impact: An appraisal of tourism scholar-
ship. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 62-83.
Ye, Q., Li, T., & Law, R. (2013). A coauthorship network analysis of tourism and hospi-
tality research collaboration. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37, 51-76.
Yin, X.-X., Zhang, G.-P., & Li, X.-F. (2009). Research on research status of information
science based on keywords analysis. Journal of Intelligence, 28(11), 1-4.

Submitted November 24, 2013

Accepted August 25, 2014
Refereed Anonymously

Ye Shen (e-mail: sandyshenye@126.com) obtained her master’s degree in the Center for
Recreation and Tourism Research, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at
Peking University, Beijing, China. She is currently employed by the China Academy of
 30   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Urban Planning and Design. Alastair M. Morrison, PhD (e-mail: alastair@purdue.edu),

is Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management
at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, and President of the International Tourism
Studies Association. Bihu Wu, PhD (e-mail: tigerwu@urban.pku.edu.cn), is a professor
and director at the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences in the International
Center for Recreation and Tourism Research at Peking University, Beijing, China. Jinah
Park (e-mail: jinapark0118@gmail.com), is a PhD candidate at the International Center
for Recreation and Tourism Research in the College of Urban and Environmental
Sciences at Peking University, Beijing, China. Cong Li (e-mail: congli1980@163.com),
obtained her PhD at the International Center for Recreation and Tourism Research in the
College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at Peking University, Beijing, China.
Mengjiao Li (e-mail: mengjiao8811@126.com), obtained her master’s at the International
Center for Recreation and Tourism Research in the College of Urban and Environmental
Sciences at Peking University, Beijing, China.

View publication stats