Heritage, Tourism, and the Commodification of Religion

TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH VOL. 28(3), 2003: 99-104 Research Note Heritage, Tourism, and the Commodification of Religion Daniel H. Olsen PhD Candid...
2 downloads 2 Views 179KB Size
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH VOL. 28(3), 2003: 99-104

Research Note

Heritage, Tourism, and the Commodification of Religion Daniel H. Olsen PhD Candidate at the Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Ontario, Canada. email: [email protected]

Heritage has long been a prime lure for tourists (Lowenthal 1996). However, there has been much debate in recent years over what exactly constitutes heritage, as it has become a broad and interdisciplinary word. While most people equate heritage with an individual’s inheritance from a deceased ancestor, the term has been expanded in recent decades to include definitions ranging from a synonym for any relic of the past to all cultural and artistic productivity produced in the past or present; from a major commercial activity that is based on selling goods and services with a heritage component to an ideological tool adopted by political extremists to disguise ethnic or racial exclusivism (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996: 1-3). This implies that almost any aspect of the past can become “heritage.” As Timothy and Boyd (2003) note, heritage encompasses a wide spectrum of landscapes and settings ranging from the natural to the urban, and from the built to the artificial. Different views of what constitutes heritage exist because the term is applied to two different sorts of phenomena. According to Merriman (1991: 8), the first is that heritage is seen as a positive way of passing cultural mores and landscapes on to future generations. The recognition and preservation of buildings, natural landscapes, battlefields, monuments, festivals, cities and villages, daily cultural traditions, customs, and lifestyles have long been used to uphold and express community identity and belonging. Second, heritage is viewed negatively because it is associated with ‘the conscious manipulation of history designed to create something which people will consider worth visiting and spending money on’ (Hubbard and Lilley 2000). Many tourism researchers have characterized heritage as trivial, sterile, superficial, simplified or bogus history, elitist, and commercially debasing (e.g., Hewison 1987; Lowenthal 1998; Watson 2000). Rather than viewing heritage as playing a role of maintaining individual and collective memory and identity, heritage is seen as an economic, social, and political resource to ‘legitimate contemporary personal, social, and political circumstances’ (Norkunas 1993: 6).

©2003 Tourism Recreation Research

Many government officials and tourism agencies view tourism as a way to save struggling economies. In order to maximize the potential international capital available through tourism, countries, regions, and localities are pressured into commodifying their unique architecture, culture, histories, and natural environments to attract tourists and satisfy their demands for both new and unfamiliar experiences (Britton 1991; Young 1999). Heritage is one of the resources that is regularly transformed for tourism purposes, because of its flexible nature and its ability to be multi-sold and carry multiple-messages to different markets simultaneously. While heritage sets localities and countries apart from others, the commodification of heritage can also lead to the ‘globalization of the local’ (cf. Vásquez and Marquandt 2000), where heritage is replicated, generalized, and themed to give the tourist a sense of familiarity and security while travelling. In this process, culture and heritage is exploited, and identity and heritage is disembedded from the localities to which they belong (Edensor 1998) as outside interests expropriate, commoditize, and market that heritage without the consent of the host community (Cohen 1988: 372), trivializing ethnic, cultural, and religious groups and their cultural or ritual practices (Robinson 2001). From a tourism perspective religion is considered a component of heritage. Pilgrimage to sacred sites is considered a form of tourism, and religious sites, both natural and built, ceremonies and festivals are seen as cultural or heritage attractions (Timothy and Boyd 2003). Because of the economic potential of religious tourism and the “hard” cultural and historical resources (Richards 2000), ritual events, and symbolic and collective cultural values they possess as physical embodiments and carriers of the past (Harvey 2001), religious sites are being transformed into tourist sites by the marketing efforts of promotional agencies. This process changes the meaning of sacred sites from that of worship and contemplation to that of leisure, in turn encouraging leisure- and education-oriented visitors and activities. This creates a ‘convergence of a duality of place where religion and tourism overlap and commingle

Research Note

with one another’ (Bremer 2001a: 3), raising questions pertaining to the management, maintenance, interpretation and meaning of sacred sites, particularly where they have become multi-use sites, acting as places of recreation, education, and leisure rather than strictly for religious purposes. The question asked here is if heritage is a selective attempt to re-create or re-interpret the past—or, in other words, using the past for present purposes—what are the implications for religious heritage? This raises a number of additional questions, such as, how are religious heritage sites used for present economic, political and social purposes? How is religion commodified? Do religious groups commodify their history or beliefs? Who controls how religious heritage sites are interpreted and portrayed to potential visitors? What is being left out of the official histories that are presented to visitors of these sites when tourism marketers sanitize religious history? While there have been many instances of religion and religious sites being used to promote various socio-political agendas (Klieger 1992; Guth 1995; Philp and Mercer 1999), of interest here is the commodification of religion—more specifically built religious heritage sites—for tourism consumption both by tourism entrepreneurs and agencies and by religious groups. Tourism as a Commodifying Agent The commodification of religion and religious built heritage occurs in at least two ways. The first is through tourism pressures on sacred sites and customs. Numerous scholars and religious commentators have noted the negative influence of tourism on both the religiosity of local people and on religious ceremonies and rituals (e.g., de Sousa 1988, 1993; Holden 1988; Kirton 1990; Crain 1992, 1996; Fish and Fish 1993; Cohen 1998; Gupta 1999; Shackley 1998, 1999). While tourism does help to preserve religious ceremonies and rituals, in many instances more tourists than pilgrims visit religious heritage sites, which in turn raises concerns not only over the preservation and conservation of these sites, but about the potential for large numbers of tourists to take away from them the ‘sense of place’ (Shackley 2002), disturbing those who have come to worship. Cohen (1998: 7) suggests that tourism negatively influences the religiosity of people at tourist destinations, noting that tourism can lead to ‘a weakening of the local adherence to religion and of the beliefs in the sacredness and efficacy of holy places, rituals, and customs.’ Robinson (2001: 43) notes that in many instances, ‘religious rites, festivals, and ethnic traditions are often shaped to meet tourist expectations to the point where the host culture loses the deeper meanings and social function of such practices; 100

or to where tensions develop within the community, as some seek preservation of cultural practices while others are happy to provide what the tourists want.’ Some enterprising entrepreneurs take items of religious significance and transform them into religious souvenirs or kitsch, changing the original meaning of religious items or inventing new meanings for them. In some instances, tourism development may disrupt religious landscapes that are tied closely to the cosmology of a particular religious group. For example, in India, where sacred space includes not only the presence of natural and cultural symbolic images but where the positioning of those images on the sacred landscape plays an important role in the ordering of the cosmos on a geometric level, the introduction of hotels and other tourism structures threatens the geometric composition of the sacred landscape. This has created conflict between urban planners and those in the religious sector (Singh 1997). While religious structures, such as cathedrals, temples, and mosques dominate the local landscapes and have come to symbolize ethnic, cultural, and political identity and cohesion in many places around the world, the commodification of religious sites for tourist consumption has led to new forms of religious tourism attractions. In addition to components of the natural environment which are seen as sacred, Nolan and Nolan (1992) have identified three different types of religious tourism attractions: pilgrimage shrines that are the focus of religiouslymotivated journeys; religious tourist attractions, usually revolving around built religious structures which have historical or artistic significance; and religious festivals and ceremonies. Shackley (2003: 161) suggests a fourth type of religious attraction: sites that are built around a religious theme. These ‘purpose-built’ religious tourism attractions, according to Shackley, ‘instead of being based around a traditional sacred site are devised to create a visitor environment with a religious theme, but without any authentically sacred elements. ‘These sites are developed strictly to attract tourists for profit, emphasizing style over substance (McIntosh and Prentice 1999) and commercial profit over authenticity (AlSayyad 2001)—in essence creating a form of staged authenticity. Shoval (2000: 256-259) and Shackley (2003: 161-162) present several examples of ‘purpose-built’ religious tourism attractions that are not inherently sacred. For instance, in Nazareth, Protestant groups are attempting to reconstruct a first-century-C.E. village (‘Nazareth Village’), complete with a ‘Parable Walk’ and first person narrative in an attempt to meet the image the pre-conceived images that many Protestant pilgrims have when envisioning preTourism Recreation Research Vol. 28, No. 3, 2003

Research Note

modern Nazareth. In Orlando, Florida, a 15-acre Holy Land theme park (‘Holy Land Experience’) has been developed by Zion’s Hope, a Christian ministry. The park attempts to recreate Jerusalem, complete with ‘camel prints in the cement, Goliath burgers and strolling Middle Eastern minstrels’ (Shackley 2003: 162). Shackley (2003) also notes other American examples, including Heritage Village, a religious theme park in South Carolina (cf. O’Guinn and Belk 1989), ‘Marianland’ in south Texas, and ‘The Holy Lands’ theme park in Mesquite, Nevada. Shoval (2000) gives additional examples of hotels and restaurants in Israel that have taken on religious themes in order to attract tourists. Religious Groups Commodifying Agent The second way religion and religious built heritage are commodified is where religious groups commodify their doctrines, customs, and beliefs for economic gain. Shoval (2000) suggests that the theming and commodification of religion by governments and elements of the tourism industry discussed above, have long been done by religious groups at their religious sites. For example, in the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church became a huge economic organization through the selling of religious artefacts and indulgences. Today it is difficult to find a religious site that does not have some sort of shop for purchasing souvenirs or devotional items. Because of the increasing interest in travel to religious sites, many religious faiths are charging entrance fees to profit from potential tourist receipts. In addition, many religious faiths have developed ritual economies of exchange, which is associated with the practice of charitable donations to both the poor and to the managers of sacred sites on behalf of a saint or divinity in exchange for some sort of divine compensation, whether it be for health, vow fulfillment, or other earthly or heavenly request (Koskansky 2002). But while some religious sites managers take advantage of tourism for economic purposes, other sites have divested themselves of any trace of commercialization on site. For example, in Lourdes, France, there are no shops at the shrine, as site authorities have distanced themselves from the commercialization aspect of pilgrimage. However, this has caused an intensification of souvenir shops and restaurants along the roads leading from the commercialized part of town to the pilgrimage areas (Rinschede 1986; Gesler 1996). Another example can be seen in Salt Lake City, where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints does not charge an entrance fee and does not have a souvenir shop on-site. This is in part because, as noted by Bremer (2001b; cf. Koskansky 2002), many religious sites deal with indirect economies of exchange, where instead of money being passed between parties, Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 28, No. 3, 2003

religious teachings and feelings are exchanged. Messages of hope and peace are presented to the pilgrims and tourists who visit, and sometimes conversion takes place. Regardless of whether conversion takes place, those who visit, if their religious expectations are met, will present the religious sites in a favourable light to their acquaintances, who may wish to visit the same location or other similar religious sites. One reason religions commodify and theme themselves has to do with issues of religious authenticity. Mol (1983) Jurkovich and Gesler (1997: 449) contend that religion reinforces identity by creating community through loyalty and through commitment; by distinguishing one’s self and one’s community from others; through rituals; and through the creation of myths. To gain and retain adherents, religious faiths must be seen as authentic or ‘true religion.’ As Bremer (2001a: 4) notes, “the question of authentic religious experience has been a constant theme in claims to religious authority. To some extent, all of these debates over ‘true religion’ and authentic experience participate in discourses on authenticity that provide standards for and authorize their claims.” While commodification is usually understood in an economic sense, Waitt (2000) suggests that commodification is a mechanism with which authorities can limit the range of interpretation. This means by extension that religious authorities not only limit the range of interpretations given at a religious site, but also can promote certain interpretations. Depending on the mission and goals of a particular faith, they may cater to specific markets depending on how they view the role of tourism at their sacred sites. For example, if religious faiths view visitors as potential converts, the messages portrayed at the site might revolve around differentiating between different faiths, promoting one above the other as ‘true’ or ‘more authentic’ than another. Religious faiths that are more concerned about outreach may focus more on creating a ‘spiritual’ atmosphere through aesthetics and the encouragement to pray. Therefore, the form of commodification or packaging of religion at particular religious sites will depend on the visitor market a religious group wants to target. However, in limiting the interpretations of religious sites to preserve and maintain religious authenticity, religious groups that share the same religious history or practices but are not part of the preservation or interpretation of their religious heritage are disinherited (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). This can be manifested in two ways (cf. Olsen 2000; Timothy and Boyd 2003). First, situations may arise where there are two or more groups claiming a particular religious heritage. The most obvious example is in the Middle East, where three major religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) for centuries have 101

Research Note

claimed the land of Israel, and more specifically Jerusalem, as sacred space. Though politics, economics, and nationalist tendencies have played a significant role in stopping these three religions from becoming a homogeneous society of equals, religion has been the principal barrier to cooperation (Davidson 1954: 844), especially because of the spatial proximity and overlap of these religions in the holy land. Second, contestation over religious commodification and interpretation can occur within a particular religious tradition between different groups and share the same religious heritage. For example, Olsen and Timothy (2002) have examined the contested religious heritage between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS; now known as the Community of Christ). Both religious movements claim the same founder, Joseph Smith, and come under the generic label of Mormonism. With Smith’s death the Mormon movement experienced a severe schism, and split into many factions, each claiming its historical roots in Mormonism. The LDS and RLDS churches are the two most prominent churches surviving from this schism. Today the two churches own heritage properties adjacent to each other and interpret their heritage differently based on each church’s respective theologies and views of ‘faithful’ history. A variation on the way that religion commodifies itself is where religion is commodified through the appropriation of spiritual ideas, traditions, and practices for economic gain. The best example is the New Age Movement, which involves adopting and commodifying the spiritual ideas and practices from other religious traditions, both past and present. York (2001: 367) argues that the New Age Movement is ‘a spiritualized counterpart of capitalism’ which seeks new markets and expanding profits. The appropriation of culture, traditional healing practices, spirituality, religious items, and sacred space by the New Age Movement, as Attix (2002: 55) notes, has raised

‘concerns about commercialization, intellectual and cultural property rights, and access to crucial sites for the traditional native communities who claim stewardship and derive their identities from these sources,’ ranging from the selling of religious items ranging from Buddha statues to animal totems to dream catchers that are traditionally used in the religious practices of other faiths to the use of sites sacred to other religious belief systems, such as Mount Shasta in California and Uluru in Australia, which are sacred to the aboriginal people in those countries (Huntsinger and Fernández-Giménez 2000; Digance 2003), and Glastonbury, which has a Christian religious heritage (Bowman 1993; Digance and Cusack 2002). Discussion While there have been case studies documenting the secularization of religion and the negative influence of tourism on the commodification of religious culture, little has been done on how religious groups commodify themselves both take advantage of the tourist dollar and to market authentic images of themselves as a way of maintaining legitimacy in the eyes of its adherents and secular society in general. The commodification of religious sites, however, can lead to contestation in terms of disinheritance and interpretation between secular and religious authorities, and also between religious groups. With the appropriation of religious customs, symbols and spaces by the New Age Movement, ‘whose religion?’ is an appropriate question to ask, in the same vein that scholars have asked the question, ‘whose heritage?’ (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). While there have been instances where religious groups have co-operated with secular authorities and other religious groups in interpreting religious heritage sites, because of the nature of religious commodification McBryde (1995: 9) may be correct when he says that ‘there are situations where the sharing of knowledge, belief systems, and the values inherent with that knowledge may be neither culturally appropriate nor possible.

References ALSAYYAD, N. (2001). Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism: Manufacturing Heritage, Consuming Tradition. In AlSayyad, N. (ed.), Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage. New York. Routledge: 1-33. ATTIX, S. A. (2002). New-Age Oriented Special Interest Travel: An Exploratory Study. Tourism Recreation Research 27(2): 51-58. BOWMAN, M. (1993). Drawn to Glastonbury. In Reader, I. and Walter, T. (eds.), Pilgrimage in Popular Culture. London. MacMillian: 29-62. BREMER, T. S. (2001a). Religion on Display: Tourists, Sacred Place, and Identity at the San Antonio Missions. Princeton University, Princeton. New Jersey. BREMER, T. S. (2001b). Tourists and Religion at Temple Square and Mission San Juan Capistrano. Journal of American Folklore 113: 422-435. BRITTON, S. (1991). Tourism, Capital, and Place: Towards a Critical Geography of Tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9: 451-478. COHEN, E. (1988). Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15(3): 371-386. COHEN, E. (1998). Tourism and Religion: A Comparative Perspective. Pacific Tourism Review 2: 1-10. CRAIN, M. M. (1992). Pilgrims, ‘Yuppies’, and Media Men: The Transformation of an Andalusian Pilgrimage. In Boissevain, J. (ed.), Revitalizing European

102

Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 28, No. 3, 2003

Research Note Rituals. New York. Routledge: 95-112. CRAIN, M. M. (1996). Contested Territories: The Politics of Touristic Development at the Shrine of El Rocío in Southwestern Andalusia. In Boissevain, J. (ed.), Coping with Tourists: European Reactions to Mass Tourism. Providence, Berghahn: 27-55. DAVIDSON, R. H. (1954). Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth Century. American Historical Review 59: 844-864. DE SOUSA, D. (1988). Tourism as a Religious Issue: A Third World Perspective. Contours 3(5): 5-13. DE SOUSA, D. (1993). Tourism and Pilgrimage: Tourists as Pilgrims? Contours 6(2): 4-8. DIGANCE, J. (2003). Pilgrimage at Contested Sites. Annals of Tourism Research 30(1): 143-159. DIGANCE, J. and CUSACK, C. (2002). Glastonbury: A Tourist Town for All Seasons. In Dann, G. (ed.), The Tourist as a Metaphor of the Social World. Wallingford. CAB International: 263-280. EDENSOR, T. (1998). Tourists at the Taj. London. Routledge. FISH, J. M. and M. FISH (1993). International Tourism and Pilgrimage: A Discussion. The Journal of East and West Studies 22(2): 83-90. GESLER, W. (1996). Lourdes: Healing in a Place of Pilgrimage. Health & Place 2(2): 95-105. GUPTA, V. (1999). Sustainable Tourism: Learning from Indian Religious Traditions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11(2/3): 91-95. GUTH, K. (1995). Pilgrimages in Contemporary Europe: Signs of National and Universal Culture. History of European Ideas 20(4-6): 821-835. HARVEY, D. C. (2001). Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: Temporality, Meaning and the Scope of Heritage Studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 7(4): 319-338. HEWISON, R. (1987). The Heritage Industry. London. Methuen. HOLDEN, P. (1988). Tourism: An Ecumenical Concern. The Story of the Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism. Bangkok, Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism. HUBBARD, P. and K. LILLEY (2000). Selling the Past: Heritage-Tourism and Place Identity in Stratford-upon-Avon. Geography 85(3): 221-232. HUNTSINGER, L. and M. FERNÁNDEZ-GIMÉNEZ (2000). Spiritual Pilgrims at Mount Shasta, California. The Geographical Review 90(4): 536-558. JURKOVICH, J. M. and GESLER, W. M. (1997). Medjugorje: Finding Peace at the Heart of Conflict. The Geographical Review 87(4): 447-467. KIRTON, A. F. (1990). Tourism, Religion and Moral Values. Contours 4(7): 5-7. KLIEGER, P. C. (1992). Shangri-La and the Politicization of Tourism in Tibet. Annals of Tourism Research 19: 122-124. KOSKANSKY, O. (2002). Tourism, Charity, and Profit: The Movement of Money in Moroccan Jewish Pilgrimage. Cultural Anthropology 17(3): 359-400. LOWENTHAL, D. (1996). Possessed by the Past. New York. The Free Press. LOWENTHAL, D. (1998). The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. MCBRYDE, I. (1995). Dream and Impossible Dream? Shared Heritage, Shared Values, or Shared Understanding of Disparate Values? Historic Environment 11(2/3): 8-14. MCINTOSH, A. J. and R. C. PRENTICE (1999). Affirming Authenticity: Consuming Cultural Heritage. Annals of Tourism Research 26(3): 589-612. MERRIMAN, N. (1991). Beyond the Glass Case: The Past, the Heritage and the Public in Britain. Leicester. Leicester University Press. MOL, H. (1983). Meaning and Place: An Introduction to the Social Scientific Study of Religion. New York. Pilgrim Press. NOLAN, M. L. and S. NOLAN (1992). Religious Sites as Tourism Attractions in Europe. Annals of Tourism Research 19: 68-78. NORKUNAS, M. K. (1993). The Politics of Public Memory. Albany. State University of New York Press. O’GUINN, T. C. and R. W. BELK (1989). Heaven on Earth: Consumption at Heritage Village, USA. Journal of Consumer Research 16: 227-238. OLSEN, D. H. (2000). Contested Heritage, Religion, and Tourism. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green. Ohio. OLSEN, D. H. and TIMOTHY, D. J. (2002). Contested Religious Heritage: Differing Views of Mormon Heritage. Tourism Recreation Research 27(2): 7-15. PHILP, J. and MERCER, D. (1999). Commodification of Buddhism in Contemporary Burma. Annals of Tourism Research 26(1): 31-54. RICHARDS, G. (2000). Tourism and the World of Culture and Heritage. Tourism Recreation Research 25(1): 9-17. RINSCHEDE, G. (1986). The Pilgrimage Town of Lourdes. Journal of Cultural Geography 7(7): 21-34. ROBINSON, M. (2001). Tourism Encounters: Inter- and Intra-Cultural Conflicts and the World’s Largest Industry. In AlSayyad, N. (ed.), Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage. London. Routledge: 34-67. SHACKLEY, M. (1998). A Golden Calf in Sacred Space? The Future of St. Katherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai (Egypt). International Journal of Heritage Studies 4(3/4): 123-134. SHACKLEY, M. (1999). Managing the Cultural Impacts of Religious Tourism in the Himalayas, Tibet and Nepal. In Robinson, M. and Boniface, P. (eds.), Tourism & Cultural Conflicts. New York, CAB International: 95-111. SHACKLEY, M. (2002). Space, Sanctity and Service: The English Cathedral as Heterotopia. International Journal of Tourism Research 4: 345-352. SHACKLEY, M. (2003). Management Challenges for Religion-Based Attractions. In Fyall, A., Garrod, B., and Leask, A. (eds.), Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions. Oxford. Butterworth-Heinemann: 159-170. SHOVAL, N. (2000). Commodification and Theming of the Sacred: Changing Patterns of Tourists Consumption in the “Holy Land”. In Gottiener, M. (ed.), New Forms of Consumption: Consumers, Culture, and Commodification. Oxford. Rowman & Littlefield: 251-265. SINGH, R. P. B. (1997). Sacredspace and Urban Heritage in India: Contestation and Perspective. In Shaw, B. J. and Jones, R. (eds.), Contested Urban Heritage. Brookfield, VT. Ashgate: 101-131. TIMOTHY, D. J. and S. W. BOYD (2003). Heritage Tourism. Harlow. Prentice Hall. Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 28, No. 3, 2003

103

Research Note TUNBRIDGE, J. E. and G. J. ASHWORTH (1996). Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. Chichester. Wiley. VÁSQUEZ, M. A. and M. F. MARQUANDT (2000). Globalizing the Rainbow Madonna: Old Time Religion in the Present Age. Theory, Culture & Society 19: 119-142. WAITT, G. (2000). Consuming Heritage: Perceived Historical Authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research 27: 835-862. WATSON, S. (2000). Theorising Heritage Tourism: A Review. In Robinson, M., Evans, N., Long, P., Sharpley, R., and Swarbrooke, J. (eds.), Tourism and Heritage Relationships: Global, National and Local Perspectives. Sunderland. Business Education Publishers: 449-465. YORK, M. (2001). New Age Commodification and Appropriation of Spirituality. Journal of Contemporary Religion 16(3): 361-372. YOUNG, M. (1999). The Social Construction of Tourist Places. Australian Geographer 30(3): 373-389.

Submitted: September 05, 2003 Accepted: October 28, 2003

104

Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 28, No. 3, 2003

Suggest Documents