Analysing Drawings of Tourism
Images are a central element of tourism. Tourism marketers spend much time and effort choosing destination images in order to entice potential visitors. Potential visitors spend much time and effort perusing destination images in order to choose a travel destination. Actual visitors spend time and effort finding and/or creating visual images to take home as personal souvenirs or symbols of achievement and status. At a more abstract level, images of tourism are at the core of government policies, business plans and community perceptions. Although the concept of ‘image’ has been explicitly used in the areas of destination choice and tourism marketing and is recognised in critical analyses of the representations of tourism destinations and their residents, its potential role in other aspects of tourism is less clearly presented and discussed. This chapter will report on an exploratory qualitative analysis of images of tourism based on drawings of tourism completed by advanced tourism management students. More specifically, it will argue that social representations theory offers some useful directions for improving our understanding of the role of images in tourism.
An examination of the tourism literature reveals the existence of two main themes in research on visual depictions or images. The first of these is the critical analysis of images used in postcards, guidebooks, brochures and maps with an emphasis on understanding their role in the social and cultural construction of various tourism representations. Typically this work is conducted within the areas of anthropology, sociology, geography and cultural studies. The second theme can be found in marketing research, often based implicitly on concepts from consumer psychology, into destination attractiveness, choice and evaluation. In this latter theme, the research focuses on individuals and their perceptions of visual images.
Visual Images and Tourism Representations
This first theme in tourism research into visual images is centred on understanding the role that visual images play in the production and reinforcement of representations of tourist places and the people that inhabit them. These analyses are driven by critical analyses derived from semiotics, discursive analysis or some combination of both these approaches (Albers and James, 1988; Hall, 1997; Jenkins, 2003). In this tradition representations are seen as frameworks that combine narratives, concepts, ideologies and shared meanings about a destination or group of people. These shared meanings allow for communication within cultural and social groups (Hall, 1997). Representations direct tourist attention and behaviour, and reflect and reinforce existing power structures and dominant ideologies (Albers and James, 1988; Jenkins, 2003). The role of research is to deconstruct these representations and place them in their social, cultural, political and temporal context (Jenkins, 2003). In this tradition there have been studies of the images of various places and cultural groups as portrayed in postcards (Albers and James, 1988; Markwick, 2001; Mellinger, 1994), destination brochures (Ateljevic and Doorne, 2002; Echtner, 2002; Jenkins, 2003), guidebooks (Bhattacharyya, 1997) and maps (Hanna and Del Casino, 2003). These studies have concentrated their attention on how various ideologies and existing representations are presented in visual materials developed by destination marketers. These representations of destination communities have implications not just for the behaviour of tourists but also for how residents see themselves and how they perceive tourism and its social and cultural impacts (Ashworth, 2003; Moscardo and Pearce, 2003; Walsh et al., 2001).
These studies have all relied upon analyses of visual images selected by the researchers. More recent research has begun to explore the choices of visual images made by the tourists themselves with the use of a technique called visitor employed photography (VEP) (MacKay and Couldwell, 2004). VEP studies examine how tourists use, create and reproduce existing representations in their own travel photography (Jenkins, 2003; Markwell, 1997; Russell and Ankenman, 1996).
This type of research highlights the link between individuals and their social context and the shared negotiations that underpin the process of creating representations (Albers and James, 1988). Jenkins (2003) describes the circle of representation that is often cited in studies of tourist photography. In this circle marketers create destination images, visitors then seek the icons and contents of these images; once found the visitors photograph these icons, recreating the marketing images or representations and completing the circle. Jenkins goes on to argue that it is important not to forget the role that individuals can play in changing and developing these representations. In essence she argues that the circle of representation is more like a spiral where individual tourists anchor layers of additional symbolism based on their experiences to the existing central stereotypes or icons. In a similar fashion Markwick (2001) suggests that representations of destinations change partly as result of changing political and social circumstances at the destination, and partly in response to changes in tourists’ expectations and motivations. Although research into tourism representations is primarily focused on the social level of analysis, there is recognition of the importance of a link between individuals and this social context.
Destination Marketing Research
By way of contrast, the second theme of tourism research based on visual images is almost exclusively concerned with the individual tourists and how they use and interpret visual images to develop their own destination images and make destination choices. In this research area, photographs are often used as the stimuli in studies designed to determine preferences for, and evaluations of, destinations (Fairweather and Swaffield, 2001; MacKay and Couldwell, 2004; MacKay and Fesenmaier, 1997; Naoi et al., 2006). The aim here is to improve the effectiveness of marketing efforts (Day et al., 2002). Although there has been debate over how to define destination images (Pike, 2002), most definitions suggest that these destination images are a type of attitude. In social psychology attitudes can be defined as cognitive representations or frameworks that organise information about a topic and contain an evaluative dimension and directions for behaviour (Olson and Zanna, 1993).
Several authors have called for a broadening of research approaches to destination images (Kim and Richardson, 2003; Pike, 2002; Selby and Morgan, 1996) and others have suggested that the two traditions of research into visual images could be brought closer together by focusing on the interaction between the individual and social levels of analysis (Jenkins, 2003). One theoretical approach that may be able to achieve this connection between the social and the individual level of analysis of images is social representations theory. Social representations can be defined as
mental constructs which guide us [and] define reality. The world is organized, understood and mediated through these basic cognitive units. Social representations consist of both concrete images and abstract concepts, organized around figurative nuclei which are a complex of images.
(based on Moscovici, as cited in Halfacree, 1993, p. 29)
Social representations share many characteristics with both the concepts of tourism representations and destination images as attitudes. Specifically, social representations provide a framework for understanding and making sense of experiences and guiding behaviour (Fredline and Faulkner, 2000). According to Andriotis and Vaughan (2003, p. 173) social representations are a means for ‘constructing and understanding social reality’. Social representations theory also shares common ground with critical analyses of tourism representations through the argument that representations are created through social interaction with the aim of assisting in social communication (Moscovici, 2001).
Two critical features distinguish social representations from the concepts of destination images and tourism representations. The first is that visual imagery is specifically placed as the central component of social representations, and not seen solely as a manifestation of a representation (Philogene and Deaux, 2001). The second feature is that much more detailed attention is given in social representations theory to the link between the individual and the social levels of analysis (ibid.).
Central Role of Visual Imagery
According to Moscovici (2001) two important processes are central to the construction and operation of social representations: anchoring and objectification. Anchoring allows individuals and social groups to make sense of new and unfamiliar concepts by comparing them to existing categories and knowledge. In particular a new situation or concept is compared against existing prototypes or exemplars of a category (De Paolis, 1990). This process is then complemented by the operation of the second process — objectification. Through objectification an abstract and unfamiliar concept is made ordinary, simple and concrete by associating it with a visual image (Moscovici, 2001). In these two processes, then, visual depictions are central to the social representations.
Linking Individual and Social Levels of Analysis
A core part of social representations theory is the link between the individual and the social or collective. Social representations are generated from social interaction and then exist in their own right, repeated in media and in further social interactions between group members who share them. In turn social representations are adapted and incorporated into individual cognitive systems to assist in building social identities and to guide individual and group behaviour (Moscovici, 2001). Social groups vary in their cohesion and so Moscovici suggests that there are three levels or types of social representation:
Social representations have been used in a wide variety of other areas including:
In tourism, social representations theory has already been used to analyse community attitudes towards and responses to tourism development (Andriotis and Vaughan, 2003; Fredline and Faulkner, 2000; Pearce et al., 1996; Yuksel et al., 1999). There is a link between community perceptions of tourism and the representations of destinations and their residents chosen and promoted by tourism marketers (Pritchard and Morgan, 2001). Figure 15.1 summarises the actual and potential roles of social representations theory in the analysis of how the three main groups of tourism participants make sense of, and respond to, tourism.
The three main groups of participants presented in Figure 15.1 are the tourists, the host communities and the organisations and individuals involved in the marketing and promotion of tourism. The intersection between each of the pairs of these groups creates an area for potential social representations. The intersection between marketers and tourists is where the current marketing research into destination images lies; the intersection between tourists and communities is where the research into tourism representations of destination and hosts is located; and the intersection between communities and marketers offers a new area of focus on social representations of tourism. It is important to distinguish between social representations of tourism and representations of destinations and hosts developed and perpetuated through tourism. Several of the critical analyses of tourism representations refer to Urry’s (1990) concept of the ‘tourist gaze’ on destinations and hosts (Jenkins, 2003; MacKay and Couldwell, 2004). The model set out in Figure 15.1 suggests that this idea could be extended to include a marketing gaze on tourists and communities, and a community gaze on tourism itself.
Figure 15.1 A preliminary social representations framework for tourism images
The previous discussion can be summarised by highlighting three key points. Firstly, there is widespread agreement that visual images are important in tourism. Secondly, the existing research has focused almost entirely on destination images and photographic images. Thirdly, social representations theory could be a useful guide to understanding the role of visual images in tourism in a broader sense than just destination images. The present study is based on these three points and has involved the use of drawings of tourism as a method for exploring social representations of tourism. The aim of this exploratory study is to demonstrate the method of analysing drawings, and to begin to examine the possible content of social representations of tourism.
Only one tourism-related study could be found that analysed drawings. This study by Gamradt (1995) analysed drawings of tourists made by Jamaican school students. The aim was to provide an avenue for local voices to present their perspectives on tourism and its consequences for this destination. Gamradt content-analysed the drawings and found three dominant themes: the presentation of commercial activities as associated with tourism; the use of planes and ships to represent long distance travel; and that students generally saw tourists in a positive light. The present study offers a similar analysis of drawings of tourism made by three groups of university students.
The Sample
A total of 80 drawings were completed by three groups of students including 16 Italian students enrolled in an international tourism Master’s programme conducted in Italy, 47 Australian students enrolled in a third-year-level tourism policy and planning subject as part of a tourism management degree in a regional Australian university, and 17 students from a variety of different countries participating in a tourism research seminar at the same regional Australian university. This latter group was made up of 12 male and 5 female participants, and included students from China, Africa, India, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Peru, Mexico, the United States and Norway who were enrolled in a variety of post-graduate courses in business and tourism management. All of the students who participated in the tourism research seminar were either on leave from a tourism management position or had held a tourism management position prior to coming to Australia; they had an age range of 25–40. The Italian students, who were evenly split into 8 males and 8 females, were enrolled in a programme with the specific aim of training senior government and private sector managers to contribute to tourism development in the Mediterranean region. Their age range was 25–30 and they had no prior formal education in tourism. The Australians were the youngest group with an age range of 18–22 and made up of 12 male and 35 female students. Students graduating from this Australian course typically find employment in government departments related to tourism, in regional tour operations or in tourism marketing organisations. Overall the sample is one of current and future tourism managers and policy advisers with varying levels of experience with, and education about, tourism.
The Method
In each case the participants were asked at the beginning of either the seminar or subject to draw their image of tourism. Those who sought more detail about the task were told to imagine that they had met someone who didn’t speak the same language and they had to describe tourism to that person without words. The aim of the exercise was to encourage the participants to think about the assumptions that they made about tourism and to identify the elements that they considered to be important in tourism. According to Potter (1996) social representations are developed from a combination of direct personal experiences, information shared in social interaction, and information from media and other sources such as art and formal education. What distinguishes a social representation from an individual attitude are shared visual images or symbols. Thus we can argue that a social representation exists within a group of people if they as individuals identify a commonly shared visual image. In the present study the aim of the analysis of the drawings was to explore the existence of these shared visual images. In responding to the request to draw an image of tourism, the individual respondents could draw upon any combination of their own experiences as tourists, as hosts, as service personnel, and as destination managers as well as information shared amongst themselves and from the media and other sources. If no social representation existed within this group and each respondent drew an image based only on their own personal experiences as a host or a guest or a manager, then we would expect to find in a group from so many different places, a range of idiosyncratic and widely varying images with little or no commonality.
Content Analysing the Images
Some authors draw a distinction between content and semiotic analysis (Albers and James, 1988; Jenkins, 2003). According to these authors, in studies of photographs content analysis is concerned with classifying and counting concrete or specific visual elements, while semiotic analysis seeks to identify the underlying messages that are symbolised by the combinations or compositions of these elements. Unlike studies examining photographic images, the drawings in the present study were made up of pictograms or symbols. For example, in the drawings three different symbols were included to represent money: a simple $ sign, drawings of paper notes with a $ in the centre, or a bag with a $ sign on the outside. These were all coded as symbols for cash or money. In essence the elements in the drawings were symbols blurring the distinction between a content and semiotic analysis. Each drawing was examined and the graphic symbols included in the image were listed. This resulted in a simple classification scheme similar to those typically used in content analyses, but of symbols rather than photographic elements. For each drawing the occurrence of a symbol was counted only once regardless of the number of times it was repeated in a drawing. The drawings varied in terms of the number of symbols included, with the Italian group generally including a larger number of elements in their drawings. For the Australian group the range was 2–12 symbols with a mean number of 5.6 symbols per drawing, while for the Italian students the range was 5–14 with a mean of 8.8, and for the International group the range was 1–12 with a mean of 5.5 symbols included in a drawing.
Once all the drawings had been coded the first step in the analysis was to examine the relative frequency of occurrence of the elements. Table 15.1 provides an overall summary of this step with frequency distributions for all three groups and the total sample. The table has been split into three sections with the first section containing those elements that appear to be relatively common in all three groups, suggesting some core elements of a hegemonic social representation of tourism as essentially consisting of international travel by happy people to sunny, coastal destinations. These were labelled the core elements and were similar to the main themes noted by Gamradt (1995).
Table 15.1 Frequency of occurrence of symbolic elements
The second section of the table contains elements that were relatively frequent within a group but not necessarily across all three groups of participants. These were labelled the group membership elements. For example, there appeared to be a second set of elements in the images drawn by the Italian students consisting mainly of built attractions and non-coastal settings. In a similar fashion, the Australian students more frequently incorporated symbols of money, the earth, high-rise hotels and beach activities into their images. It is likely that these reflect emancipated social representations of tourism. No clear pattern could be discerned for the International group, which is not surprising given their wide range of cultural backgrounds and levels and types of tourism experience. The third section of the table contains a series of symbolic elements included by only a few of the participants reflecting a range of individual experiences and perceptions. These were labelled the idiosyncratic elements.
The presentation of simple frequencies can obscure important patterns within the data as it gives only minimal information about the co-occurrence of symbols. The second step of the analysis therefore examined the co-occurrence of symbols. The results of a preliminary analysis of the co-occurrence of elements within the three sets is given in Table 15.2. As can be seen from Table 15.2, in each group nearly all of the respondents incorporated at least one core element. Further, for more than 50 per cent of the participants in each group, core elements made up at least half of all the elements included in the drawings. By way of contrast, nearly half of both the Australian (44 per cent) and the International (47 per cent) groups include none of the idiosyncratic elements.
Table 15.2 Summary of patterns of co-occurrence of symbolic elements in drawings
The pattern of results suggest that most drawings were made up of a selection of core symbols, accompanied by some symbols related to the group membership and supplemented by some individual idiosyncratic elements. Further examination of these patterns of co-occurrence of elements suggested the existence of three main social representations. There appear to be two variations of a hegemonic social representation. Both of these used many of the core elements but were characterised by the choice of either undeveloped beaches or developed beaches.
Figure 15.2 contains an example of a drawing based on an undeveloped beach from each of the three groups. The first is from the International group, the second from the Australian group, and the third from the Italian group. As can be seen the image is remarkably similar across all three groups. The first two images are simpler with fewer symbols and this is repeated with an overall pattern of more symbols included in all drawings by the Italian group. Further, the Italian example includes some low-rise buildings on the beach and this was also a pattern repeated across the group with only one beach in the Italian sample that had no built elements. These two patterns are consistent with Moscovici’s (2001) processes of anchoring and objectification. Anchoring involves choosing a prototype of something to act as the core of the social representation. In this case the prototype for the social representation of tourism appears to be a beach — either undeveloped or developed. For the Italian group the prototype includes some buildings and it seems likely that this reflects their personal experiences of Mediterranean beaches. This process of anchoring is also evident in the existence of a second common pattern, or emancipated representation, in the Italian drawings that consisted of a set of built attractions such as churches, castles and ruins. Here it seems that the prototype for some Italian students was based on a different exemplar of tourism, common in Europe, based on cultural heritage attractions.
The process of objectification involves the simplification of a concept and in the present study the simplest drawings came from the groups with the most experience of the phenomenon. The two groups with greater experience of tourism tended to have simpler social representations.
Figure 15.3 provides a similar set of examples of drawings, this time based on a developed beach and presented in the same order as in Figure 15.2. Again the three examples share many of the same features despite the differences in drawing style. All three include people, boats, palm trees and high-rise buildings. Again the Italian example is more complex and includes more abstract symbols, such as arrows to indicate movement. Symbols for money can also be seen in two of these examples. High-rise buildings not at a beach and money were particularly common in the Australian drawings and this is an example of how different groups can develop different social representations reflecting their shared experiences and ongoing communication. Students in this group are enrolled in a tourism programme within a business degree and it is possible that this context highlights the economic and business aspects of tourism.
Figure 15.2 Social representations based on an undeveloped beach
Figure 15.3 Social representations based on a developed beach
Finally, a third, less common social representation appeared to be based around the central element of a globe or symbol for the Planet Earth. This type of drawing appeared in all three groups, again in a similar format, although less frequently than the developed and undeveloped beach option. Figure 15.4 provides three examples of this globe-based image. It is possible that this is an emerging social representation that may reflect participation in tourism management education with its emphasis on the international and systemic nature of tourism, as it was most common in the Australian group, which had the most experience of tertiary tourism management education.
Moscovici (2001) argues that it is important to search for what is common in people’s perceptions in order to understand the core elements of social representations. In the present study the core elements of long-distance transport, sunny beaches and happy people seem to be the anchors for a hegemonic social representation of tourism. These patterns were similar across several different geographic locations for the data collection and across multiple cultural groups included in the study. In addition the themes are similar to those reported by Gamradt (1995) from Jamaican school children’s images of tourists and consistent with the findings of a New Zealand study that asked residents to choose from several different definitions of tourists (Lea et al., 1994). In this study it was found that the concept of a tourist was likely to be associated with international and leisure travel.
It is also interesting to note the elements that were included only rarely in the drawings, such as negative environmental impacts, and contact between hosts and guests. It is important to note that some students did recognise more negative aspects of tourism. Figure 15.5, for example, presents an image with the core hegemonic elements of long-distance transport and a developed beach. But this is accompanied by pollution and a somewhat sinister political figure in the foreground. Figure 15.6 provides a gentler image, again with the core hegemonic elements, but this time it is interesting to note that the ship of tourism is named the Titanic. Overall, though, it appears that the social representations presented in these drawings were mostly positive images of tourism. More research is needed to determine if these drawings reflect hopes and ambitions or are simply descriptions of tourism.
The results of the present study suggest that participants’ drawings may be a fruitful type of visual depiction for further study of social representations of tourism, destination images and tourism representations of destinations and hosts. The results also suggest that there may exist several social representations of tourism as a phenomenon. While it would be possible to suggest simply that more research into social representations would be useful, it may be more valuable to highlight some specific areas where the study of social representations may be of particular value. To that end three areas have been identified, corresponding to each of the overlaps identified in the framework presented in Figure 15.1.
Figure 15.4 Social representations based on a globe
Figure 15.5 A negative representation of tourism (Australian student)
Figure 15.6 An International student drawing of tourism
Community Preparedness for Tourism
The first area lies within the study of the social representations of tourism held by various destination communities and the social groups within them. Social representations of tourism are important in that they provide a way to share meaning and communicate and they direct attention and behaviour. Put simply, communities, governments and businesses will make decisions about tourism development and control based on the social representations of tourism that they hold. Moscardo’s (2005) analysis of case studies of tourism development in rural and peripheral regions highlighted ten main themes that influenced the outcomes of tourism development:
In addition, Moscardo organises these themes into a three-stage approach to tourism development:
It is argued here that the first stage is about understanding community preparedness for tourism, and an important aspect of this preparedness is analysing just what communities understand about tourism and its likely consequences. In other words, studies of social representations of tourism may provide some insight in the expectations, fears and hopes of communities who seek, or are subjected to, tourism as a development strategy.
Destination Branding
The second research area is essentially related to the overlap in Figure 15.1 labelled destination images, but also connects to the intersection between destination images and tourism representations of destinations. Destination branding has become a major catchphrase in the tourism marketing and promotion literature (Morgan et al., 2003). The central element of destination branding is the creation of a brand personality (Ekinci, 2003). Essentially brand personality refers to the attribution of human personality traits such as sophistication, friendliness, sincerity and confidence to a product or service brand (Aaker, 1997). The argument is that consumers will associate personality characteristics with the brand and with people they believe are typical consumers of the brand. But tourism destinations are more than consumption experiences, they are also places where people live. In the case of tourism destination brands then, three possible sets of associated personalities exist:
Although destination branding is an emerging area in tourism research and practice, it does not seem that destination communities have been given much of a role in the development of destination brand personalities. Indeed it is possible that in many destinations residents are unaware of the personality that is being promoted to visitors. Community reactions to destination brand personalities is therefore an area where analysing the social representations that communities hold of themselves and their homes as a tourist destination could be of benefit in suggesting ways communities can retain greater control over tourism processes.
Sources of Information for Tourists’ Representations of Destinations and Hosts
The third area is an extension of the critical analysis of representations of destinations and hosts. In this aspect of tourism, two trends are of note: the rising use of the Internet for tourism promotion and the dissemination of tourism information, and increasing calls for more interpretation of destination and host communities as a component of sustainable tourism. The Internet provides tourists with a wide range of images, both verbal and visual, and arguably tourism marketers have less control than ever over the information that tourists can use to develop their own individual destination images (Money and Crotts, 2003). The Internet incorporates a number of different sources within one. It includes web pages from tour operators and destination marketing organisations, information from government agencies, and testimonials from other travellers. The Internet also offers the potential to communicate with similar others and share travel and destination experiences and it includes visual images, both static and moving, and real-time images, as well as a variety of text in a range of formats. The Internet therefore offers an excellent opportunity to study the development of more complex destination images or social representations.
Finally, there is the area of interpretation or the structured presentation of information about a destination to visitors. Guides, interpretive centres and museums all provide information to visitors about destinations and their residents, and interpretation is often seen as an important element of sustainable tourism (Newsome et al., 2002). Much of the research into interpretation in tourism settings has been focused on understanding the effectiveness of different techniques of interpretation. Only in the world of heritage and museums has attention been focused on the content of interpretation and its contributions to the representations of places and peoples that visitors have (Richter, 1999; Uzzell, 1996). Interpretive products and services therefore offer another area for the exploration of tourism representations and the images that tourists have of destinations.
Aaker, J. (1997) ‘Dimensions of brand personality’. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–56
Albers, P. C. and James, W. R. (1988) ‘Travel photography: A methodological approach’. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(1), 134–58
Andriotis, K. and Vaughan, R. D. (2003) ‘Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: The case of Crete’. Journal of Travel Research, 42(2), 172–85
Ashworth, G. J. (2003) ‘Heritage, identity and places: For tourist and host communities’. In S. Singh, D. J. Timothy and R. K. Dowling (eds) Tourism in destination communities. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, pp. 79–98
Ateljevic, I. and Doorne, S. (2002) ‘Representing New Zealand: Tourism imagery and ideology’. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 648–67
Bhattacharyya, D. P. (1997) ‘Mediating India: An analysis of a guidebook’. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 371–89
Campbell, A. and Muncer, S. (1994) ‘Sex differences in aggression: Social representations and social roles’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(2), 233–40
Day, J., Skidmore, S. and Koller, T. (2002) ‘Image selection in destination positioning: A new approach’. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(2), 177–86
De Paolis, P. (1990) ‘Prototypes of the psychologist and professionalisation: Diverging social representations of a developmental process’. In G. Duveen and B. Lloyd (eds) Social representations and the development of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 144–63
Echtner, C. M. (2002) ‘The content of Third World tourism marketing: A 4A approach’. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(6), 413–34
Ekinci, Y. (2003) ‘From destination image to destination branding: An emerging area of research’. e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), 1(2), Retrieved 2 November 2011, from http://www.ertr.tamu.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:volume-1-issue-2-august-2003-commentaries-1-&catid=100:volume-1-issue-1–4-2003-&Itemid=54
Fairweather, J. R. and Swaffield, S. R. (2001) ‘Visitor experiences of Kaikoura, New Zealand: An interpretative study using photographs of landscapes and Q method’. Tourism Management, 22(3), 219–28
Fredline, E. and Faulkner, B. (2000) ‘Host community reactions: A cluster analysis’. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 763–84
Gamradt, J. (1995) ‘Jamaican children’s representations of tourism’. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 735–62
Halfacree, K. H. (1993) ‘Locality and social representation: Space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural’. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(1), 23–37
Hall, S. (1997) ‘The work of representation’. In S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage, pp. 13–74
Hanna, S. P. and Del Casino, V. J., Jr. (2003) ‘Introduction: Tourism spaces, mapped representations, and the practices of identity’. In S. P. Hanna and V. J. Del Casino Jr. (eds) Mapping tourism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 1–27
Jenkins, O. H. (2003) ‘Photography and travel brochures: The circle of representation’. Tourism Geographies, 5(3), 305–28
Joffe, H. (2003) ‘Risk: From perception to social representation’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 55–73
Kim, H. and Richardson, S. L. (2003) ‘Motion picture impacts on destination images’. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 216–37
Lea, S. E. G., Kemp, S. and Willetts, K. (1994) ‘Residents’ concepts of tourism’. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(2), 406–10
Lee, D. and Pearce, P. L. (2002) ‘Community attitudes to the acceptability of user fees in natural settings’. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(2), 158–74
Lunt, P. K. and Livingstone, S. M. (1992) Mass consumption and personal identity. Buckingham: Open University Press
MacKay, K. J. and Couldwell, C. M. (2004) ‘Using visitor-employed photography to investigate destination image’. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 390–96
MacKay, K. J. and Fesenmaier, D. R. (1997) ‘Pictorial element of destination in image formation’. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 537–65
Mahalingam, R. (2003) ‘Essentialism, culture, and power: Representations of social class’. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 733–50
Markwell, K. (1997) ‘Dimensions of photography in a nature-based tour’. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 131–55
Markwick, M. (2001) ‘Postcards from Malta: Image, consumption, context’. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 417–38
Mellinger, W. M. (1994) ‘Toward a critical analysis of tourism representations’. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 756–79
Moliner, P. (1995) ‘A two-dimensional model of social representations’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 27–40
Moloney, G. and Walker, I. (2002) ‘Talking about transplants: Social representations and the dialectical, dilemmatic nature of organ donation and transplantation’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 299–321
Money, R. B. and Crotts, J. C. (2003) ‘The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations’. Tourism Management, 24(2), 191–202
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2003) ‘Destination branding and the role of stakeholders: The case of New Zealand’. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 285–99
Moscardo, G. (2005) ‘Peripheral tourism development: Challenges, issues and success factors’. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(1), 27–43
Moscardo, G. and Pearce, P. L. (2003) ‘Presenting destinations: Marketing host communities’. In S. Singh, D. J. Timothy and R. K. Dowling (eds) Tourism in destination communities. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, pp. 253–72
Moscovici, S. (2001) ‘Why a theory of social representations?’. In K. Deaux and G. Philogene (eds) Representations. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 8–35
Naoi, T., Airey, D., Iijima, S. and Niininen, O. (2006) ‘Visitors’ evaluations of an historical district: Repertory grid analysis and laddering analysis with photographs’. Tourism Management, 27(3), 420–36
Newsome, D., Moore, S. A. and Dowling, R. K. (2002) Natural area tourism. Sydney: Channel View Publications
Olson, J. M. and Zanna, M. P. (1993) ‘Attitudes and attitude change’. Annual Review of Psychology, 44(1), 117–45
O’Rourke, E. (2000) ‘The reintroduction and reinterpretation of the wild’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 13(1), 145–65
Pearce, P. L., Moscardo, G. and Ross, G. F. (1996) Tourism community relationships. Oxford: Pergamon Press
Philogene, G. (1994) ‘“African American” as a new social representation’. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 24(2), 89–109
Philogene, G. and Deaux, K. (2001) ‘Introduction’. In K. Deaux and G. Philogene (eds) Representations Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–7
Pike, S. (2002) ‘Destination image analysis: A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000’. Tourism Management, 23(5), 541–49
Potter, J. (1996) ‘Attitudes, social representations and discursive psychology’. In M. Wetherell (ed.) Identities, groups and social issues. New York: Sage, pp. 119–73
Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. J. (2001) ‘Culture, identity and tourism representation: Marketing Cymru or Wales?’. Tourism Management, 22(2), 167–79
Richter, L. K. (1999) ‘The politics of heritage tourism development’. In D. G. Pearce and R. W. Butler (eds) Contemporary issues in tourism development. London: Routledge, pp. 108–26
Russell, C. L. and Ankenman, M. J. (1996) ‘Orang-utans as photographic collectibles: Ecotourism and the commodification of nature’. Tourism Recreation Research, 21(1), 71–8
Selby, M. and Morgan, N. J. (1996) ‘Reconstruing place image: A case study of its role in destination market research’. Tourism Management, 17(4), 287–94
Urry, J. (1990) The tourist gaze. London: Sage
Uzzell, D. (1996) ‘The hot interpretation of war and conflict’. In D. L. Uzzell (ed.) Heritage interpretation volume one. London: Belhaven Press, pp. 33–47
Verkuyten, M., Rood-Pijpers, E., Elffers, H. and Hessing, D. J. (1994) ‘Rules for breaking formal rules: Social representations and everyday rule-governed behavior’. Journal of Psychology, 128(5), 485–98
Wagner, W., Kronberger, N. and Seifert, F. (2002) ‘Collective symbolic images coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 323–54
Walsh, J. A., Jamrozy, U. and Burr, S. W. (2001) ‘Sense of place as a component of sustainable tourism marketing’. In S. F. McCool and R. N. Moisey (eds) Tourism, recreation and sustainability. Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 195–216
Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B. and Yuksel, A. (1999) ‘Stakeholder interviews and tourism planning at Pamukkale, Turkey’. Tourism Management, 20(3), 351–60
