Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
Progress in Tourism Management
Progress in visitor attraction research: Towards more effective management
Anna Leask
School of Marketing, Tourism and Languages, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, EH14 1DJ, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 23 February 2009
Accepted 16 September 2009
Visitor attractions (VAs) play a crucial role in the success of a tourism destination, where they act as key
motivators for visits and as resources for local communities. The range of stakeholders involved means
their effective management is of key importance in the destination and in the overall success of
a country’s tourism product, yet they are an under-researched sector of the tourism system. This Progress
in Tourism Management paper reviews and reflects on research publications in relation to this sector.
It sets the wider research context and identifies the key management issues experienced at VAs. The
paper identifies the limitations of current work in this field and establishes how factors such as
ownership and visitor volume help to explain the complexities encountered in managing VAs. The paper
then covers a set of themes to structure discussion of previous research activity and offers a model of
factors involved in the effective management of VAs. The paper concludes with the development of
a research agenda for VA researchers.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Visitor attraction
Tourist attraction
Effective management
Research agenda
1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to review existing research publications in relation to the effective management of visitor attractions (VAs). A visitor attraction is defined as ‘a permanent resource,
either natural or human-made, which is developed and managed
for the primary purpose of attracting visitors’ (Hu & Wall,
2005:619) or as a ‘permanently established excursion destination,
a primary purpose of which is to allow public access for entertainment, interest or education.open to the public for published
periods each year, and should be capable of attracting tourists or
day visitors as well as local residents’ (English Tourism Council,
2000:11). The term VA is used in this paper in preference to tourist
attraction, as this emphasises the role of the day visitor market in
the successful operation of attractions, rather than simply focussing
on the overnight tourist.
The paper sets the visitor attraction research context and
establishes why visitor attraction research is important. A review of
existing research publications is used to develop the main themes
of previous visitor attraction research. The themes identified are
deliberately selective, focussing on the key management issues
rather than all associated research. These themes are used to
identify the key factors that influence management practice and to
explore the use of management tools to improve the management
of VAs. The paper then establishes why the effective management
E-mail address: a.leask@napier.ac.uk
0261-5177/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.09.004
of attractions is crucial for their survival in an increasingly
competitive marketplace. Effective management is deemed to be
the successful achievement of management plans and objectives as
set by stakeholders involved in the management of the VA, the
consequences of ineffective management ultimately being the
closure of a site or irrecoverable damage to a resource.
The paper synthesises the findings of existing publications to
establish the drivers and measures of effectiveness that stakeholders use and the management tools that enable site managers to
achieve their varying objectives. A model of factors in the effective
management of VAs has been developed on the basis of the
combined findings of the publications reviewed. The paper
concludes with the development of a future research agenda for VA
researchers.
2. Visitor attractions – why are they important?
2.1. Definitions and classifications
Even the matter of arriving at a universally accepted definition
for visitor attractions is a challenge and is indicative of the variety
of issues influencing the management of VAs. Those offered above
in Section 1 are in common use and combine the key features of
others purported by visitor attraction researchers in relation to the
permanence of the attraction, the elements of the product and its
primary purpose (Gunn, 1972; Hede & Hall, 2006; Leiper, 1990; Lew,
1987; Pearce, 1998). Identification of the relevant definition is
important in research projects due to the variety of terminology
156
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
internationally. For example in Canada, golf resorts and marinas are
included in definitions of VAs, while casinos also feature in other
countries, but not usually within UK or European categories.
As a result researchers have considered aspects such as the
primary purpose of a site as determining its status as a VA, for
example the inclusion of outlet shopping malls (Timothy & Butler,
1994), street markets (Kikuchi & Ryan, 2007) and establishments
such as Harrods in London. Associated issues with this aspect
include the many VAs where the site has been changed from its
original use or shares use with a potentially conflicting use, for
example places of worship such as Notre Dame, Paris. The permanence of an experience and visitor motivations have also been used
to define sites. Middleton and Clarke (2001) refer to attractions as
being permanent resources managed for visitor enjoyment, entertainment and education. However, where would dark tourism sites
that might include sites of major disasters, individual death-related
sites and prisons fit into this definition (Henderson, 2007; Stone &
Sharpley, 2008)? One definition that does overcome this is from
Pearce (1991:46), who states that an attraction is a ‘named site with
a specific human or natural feature which is the focus of visitor and
management attention’.
Issues such as ‘the size, the aesthetic appeal, the management
regime, the popularity, the shape and the commercial emphasis of
the feature of interest have all been seen as important in defining
what are and what are not tourist attractions (Pearce, 1998:1)’. Wall
(1997:242) proposed a classification of tourism attractions into
‘points, lines and areas’, encouraging consideration of the specific
attributes of the resource, visitors’ behaviour and spatial distributions, the potential for commercial exploitation, and associated
planning and management strategies’. As originally commented on
by Lew (1987) it is still difficult to differentiate between what are
classed as attractions and non-attractions, with some definitions
encompassing sites that others might consider out with their reach,
for example predominantly retail or sporting ventures or events
associated with designations such as European Capital of Culture.
Benckendorff and Pearce (2003) determined not to include
festivals, wineries and retail establishments in their study of
Australian sites, due to their temporary and sporadic nature, in
common with similar decisions taken by Garrod, Leask, and Fyall
(2007). McKercher, Mei, and Tse (2006) researched this debate in
relation to cultural festivals in Hong Kong, recognising that they
possess attributes that make them appealing to tourists and
assessing their role in attracting non-local international visitors.
The conclusions drawn state that in these cases, the festivals did not
perform as attractions in that they did not attract significant
numbers of international visitors.
The debate continues with regards to the inclusion or otherwise
of events as visitor attractions. The focus of this paper is on those
sites with permanence and a primary focus on attracting visitors,
though it is acknowledged that the boundaries of the definitions
remain blurred.
Continued global development of VAs will entail further debate
in relation to sites that could potentially be classed as VAs, for
example the seemingly ubiquitous development of observation
wheels such as the Singapore Flyer, casino developments within
theme parks such as Vertigo Theme Park in Colombia, street
markets (Kikuchi & Ryan, 2007) and gaming zones such as Magiquest at Lagunasia, Japan.
A further factor is the distinction between heritage and general
VAs, significant when researching the differing issues and
management practices entailed in their management objectives,
management skills and ability to adopt new practices (Leask, Fyall,
& Garrod, 2002). Heritage VAs account for the majority of the whole
VA supply (Boyd, 2000) and are defined for the purposes of this
paper as those containing an aspect of historical interpretation. The
majority of these heritage attractions are museums and galleries,
mainly in the public sector and operated on a not-for-profit basis
(Lennon & Graham, 2001; Smith, 1998; Watson, McCracken, &
Hughes, 2004). It should be recognised that many museum and
gallery sites are significant also in their intrinsic value and societal
role, for example the clear statement from the Greek authorities in
the form of the new museum at the Acropolis, clearly in anticipation and readiness for their desired return of the Elgin Marbles.
There has also been discussion in relation to the differentiation
between visitor attractions and destinations, with Swarbrooke
(2002:9) stating that ‘attractions are generally single units.easily
delimited geographical areas based on a single key feature. Destinations are larger areas that include a number of individual
attractions together with the support services required by tourists’.
Leask (2008) developed a classification of VAs that identifies the
principal features of attractions and the diversity of their product
internationally, demonstrating the breadth of resource, visitor
markets and objectives involved. It is an inclusive classification, one
that acknowledges the nature of the resource on which the
attraction is based, the type of ownership, market features and
resultant products. This model is often used as the standard context
setting for VA discussion (Cooper, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert, & Wanhill,
2006; Hemmington, Bowen, Wickens, & Paraskevas, 2005; Holloway & Taylor, 2006; Sharpley, 2007).
The classification attempts to highlight the aspects that make
each VA site or resource distinctive. For example, the category of
ownership will dictate often conflicting management objectives.
Many museums do not consider themselves to be VAs at all, rather
that their primary concern is academic research. However,
changing political and economic conditions have resulted in a need
to re-evaluate these positions. Similarly distinctions between free
and paid admission sites are becoming blurred, with many ‘free’
sites now actively charging for temporary exhibitions or encouraging substantial donations at point of entry.
The classification also raises the sphere of visitor influence that
an attraction creates in targeting and meeting the needs of local,
day, domestic and international visitors. While this paper focuses
on the management aspects in relation to VAs, it is essential to
consider these in light of visitor experience and satisfaction
(McBoyle & McBoyle, 2008; Milman, 2001; Richards, 2002).
Several authors have sought to classify VAs on the basis of the
resource itself, with Sternberg (1997) suggesting them as either
natural, historical, popular culture or fantasy environments. Pearce
(1998) suggested categories of natural environment feature;
cultural or historical feature; or commercial feature. This type of
classification is also popular in consultant (Keynote, 2001) and
public sector (VisitScotland, 2006) studies where standard categories are based on resource/product type, for example castles,
places of worship and gardens.
Table 1 offers a summary of the generally accepted categories of
VAs.
It is important to establish the purpose and planned use for the
definition and classification categories selected, whether it is for
statistical purposes to allow for comparable analysis of trends, for
marketing and promotional drivers or academic study. This
significance is important since key management objectives vary
significantly and can include education, conservation, profit
generation and entertainment, often determined by the ownership
category of private, public or voluntary body (Benckendorff &
Pearce, 2003; Timothy & Boyd, 2003).
2.2. The importance of VAs
The importance of visitor attractions can be viewed from several
perspectives – those of individual visitors, individual resources and
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
157
Table 1
Summary of VA categories.
Theme parks/amusement parks
Water parks, amusements, themes
Dubailand, UAE
Nickelodeon Universe, USA
Mayan Adventure, Mexico
Transformers, Universal Studios, Singapore
Museums & Galleries
Art, cultural, historical, collection-based, virtual,
open air museums
Guggenheim, Bilbao, Spain
Athens Acropolis Museum
Tellus Science Museum, Georgia
Natural
Gardens, national parks, forests
Karori Sanctuary Experience, Wellington, New Zealand
Grand Canyon WHS, USA
Go Ape, UK
Eden Project, Cornwall, UK
Animal
Safari, farms, zoos, aquariums
Longleat Safari Park, England
Atlanta Aquarium, USA
Agricultural Tour, Argentina
Visitor Centres
Cultural, industrial, transport
Heineken Experience, The Netherlands
Three Gorges Dam, China
Ngong Ping Cultural Village, Hong Kong
Religious Sites
Rosslyn Chapel, Scotland
Notre Dame, France
Angkor, Cambodia
Heritage
Castles, forts, historic houses, visitor centres
monuments, industrial, dark, archaeological,
military, music
Sovereign Hill, Australia
Hearst Castle, USA
San Francisco Literary Tour, USA
Culloden Battlefield, Scotland
Mystic Seaport, USA
in regards to their role in destination development. Individuals may
visit for a variety of motivations including nostalgia, entertainment
and education. The decision to develop a visitor attraction may
depend on the desire by an individual or group to conserve and
provide public access to a resource. Support for the development of
visitor attractions may link closely to tourism destination development or economic regeneration of an area or community
(Connell & Page, 2009; Darnell & Johnston, 2001; Henderson, 1999;
Sternberg, 1997; Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009; Winter, 2009).
Prideaux (2008) discusses this in relation to the development of
VAs in peripheral areas, where the creation of supporting tourism
product infrastructure is argued to be a requirement in the long
term viability of a VA.
As Sharpley (2009:145) states:
‘it is recognised that a wide variety of factors underpin the
successful development of tourism destinations, an essential
ingredient remains the provision of what are collectively
referred to as visitor attractions. As an integral element of the
tourism product and experience, visitor attractions are the focus
of tourism activity, not only as reasons for tourists to travel and
stay in destinations but also as generators of income, employment and wider destinational or regional development.’
The role of VAs and tourism within the development of a destination and the influence of policy can be seen in the example of the
UK, where the sector came into the public gaze in the late 1990s
due to the failure of some high profile projects (Hemmington et al.,
2005), the advent of the National Lottery and changing government
policies (Johnson & Thomas, 1998; Stewart & Walsh, 1992; Walsh,
1994). The management revolution taking place in the public
services had implications for the operation of VAs, with a significant number being owned or managed by the public sector (Cutler
& Waine, 2000; Silbergh & Falconer, 2004; Walsh, 1994; Wilson &
Boyle, 2004). New Labour policies included the introduction of free
admission to national museums, introduction of new concepts such
as best value, performance management and commercialisation,
and sites became under increased pressure to move towards the
corporate management of cultural products as commodities (Foley
& McPherson, 2000; Wilson & Boyle, 2004). This shift took place in
the context of declining visitor numbers and in an environment of
growing supply and reduced public funding sources (Baxter, 2004;
Lennon, 2004). The impact of policy can be seen in the decisions to
place outreach museums across the UK, such as Tate St Ives and the
Royal Armouries in Leeds, continued support for annual national
VA surveys and the free admission to national museums policy.
Winter (2009) makes the call for Asian tourism stakeholders to
recognise the need for protection, presentation and interpretation
of Asian heritage resources through nuance, differentiation and
sensitivity.
3. Visitor attractions in the research literature
3.1. Research context – the development of visitor attraction
management research
Early writings in the area of attractions identify ‘tourist
attractions as the first power. the real energiser of tourism in
a region’ and that ‘without attractions, both inferred and developed, there would be no need for other tourism services (Gunn,
1972: 24)’. Gunn goes on to identify three zones in relation to
the spatial layout of an attraction, including the central nucleus
with the core attraction, the zone of closure with the ancillary
services associated with the attraction and the inviolate belt that
separates the core attraction from the commercial aspects of the
zone of closure. This early discussion was within a planning
context, supported later by Pigram (1983), establishing their
central role by stating that without attractions tourism would not
exist. MacCannell (1976) also identified three elements that
comprise an attraction – a tourist, a sight and a marker – the
latter being the information that stimulates the consumer’s
decision to visit the attraction. As discussed by Page and Connell
(2006) the focus of MacCannell’s work is on the site or nucleus
of the attraction, while Leiper (1990) proposed the notion that
the attractions form part of a system and related the product of
158
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
the attraction more to the motivation of visitors than to the draw
of an attraction feature. The research identified that at least one
of the three types of markers (generating, contiguous and transit)
influences the tourists to be ‘pushed by their own motivation
towards places where they expect their needs will be satisfied’
(Leiper, 1990: 380).
Lew (1987) set out the typologies of how tourist attractions had
been researched, determining that previous research fell into one
or more of three categories – the ideographic listing, the organisation or the tourist cognition of attractions. He used this framework to discuss and evaluate previous research. While recognising
the individuality of attractions and the need for typologies to reflect
these, he reveals a high level of consistency in the general categorisation of attractions and proposes a framework for their further
discussion.
Pearce (1998:1) observes that the study of tourist attractions has
‘not received the same prominence as other suppliers and that is
deserves multidisciplinary research effort’. This is followed up in
Benckendorff and Pearce (2003), who identify the ‘early stage’ of
tourist attraction research and in Richards (2002), observing the
lack of study in the VA area, further echoed by Leask and Fyall
(2006). Xiao and Smith (2006) observe that the tourism research
field has experienced rapid changes in research focus and methodological sophistication. However, in Ballantyne, Packer, and
Axelsen (2009) VA do not feature as a separate category in their
overview of tourism research, while events and destinations do.
This, despite the growth in academic literature and a growing
research community in the sector, as demonstrated in the following
literature review.
A review of the literature demonstrates that papers are often in
relation to categories such as location, product type, management
issue or visitor experience. Academic debate focuses on issues of
defining VAs (Leiper, 1990; Prentice, 1993), managing visitors and
the resource (Boyd, 2000; Moscardo, 1996), exploring visitor
characteristics (Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2006), tourist experience
(Nowacki, 2009; Okello, 2005; Pearce, Benckendorff, & Johnstone,
2000; VittersØ, Vorkinn, Vistad, & Vaagland, 2000) and human
resource management aspects (Milman, 2003; Watson et al., 2004).
Milman (2001) comments on there having been no major empirical
study in relation to the management perspective at attractions,
with most work focussing on the visitor viewpoint, a view
supported by Gilmore and Rentschler (2002) and Richards (2002).
That said, VA management research into some sub-sectors of VAs
has been published in relation to categories such as zoos (Ryan &
Savard, 2004; Turley, 1999, 2001); gardens (Connell, 2004; Fox &
Edwards, 2008); sacred sites (Andriotis, 2009; Nolan & Nolan,
1992); theme parks (Braun & Soskin, 2008; Johns & Gyimothy,
2002; Keng, 1993; Mayer, 2002; Milman, 2001); industrial (Coles,
2004; Wanhill, 2000; Xie, 2006).
Hall and Piggin (2002) and Johnson (1999) consider the relevance of taking a service operations view in the management of
VAs. Several authors have viewed VAs from a more consumer
oriented perspective (Connell, 2004; Hemmington et al., 2005;
Turley, 1999). Austin (2002) and Poria et al. (2006) argue that
visiting attractions is such a social phenomena that it requires
further research on visitor behaviour, though it could be argued
that it is also necessary to consider the management perspective in
relation to visitor management and site attributes, a view supported by Benckendorff and Pearce (2003) and Timothy and Boyd
(2006).
Academic tourism research has paid little attention to the
organisational characteristics of attractions (Benckendorff & Pearce,
2003) and what does exist is mostly on a site basis, limiting the
opportunities for broader comparison and conclusions (Coles,
2006; Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2004). Walsh-Heron and Stevens
(1990) noted that attractions are prime motivators for visitors to
a destination, highlighting the importance of the role of this sector
in destination development and, while this work raised the
prominence of work in the attractions field, it focussed on the
nature and purpose of attractions, with relatively little work
published on what makes attractions successful (McKercher & Ho,
2006).
There is little published work involving international comparison of management issues, management techniques and best
practice (Hu & Wall, 2005). In spite of their theoretical and practical
importance, academics have commented on the lack of theory and
depth evident in research within this sector (Benckendorff &
Pearce, 2003; Lennon, 2004; Richards, 2002; Swarbrooke, 2001),
remarkable given the importance of the sector for economic
regeneration and destination appeal.
3.2. Visitor attraction benchmarking research
When compared to the wider tourism literature, little has been
written specifically in relation to visitor attraction research, though
this paper demonstrates the range of publications written and
research projects undertaken. While case study approaches offer
deep insights into the individual nature of a site, a clear contribution of larger scale international research projects is in the provision of empirical data from a management perspective and in the
investigation of the use of benchmarking1 as a research tool.
In the 1990s an academic debate took place in relation to the use
of benchmarking as an approach to realising business goals by
looking out with the immediate environment, identifying best
practice and enabling the exchange of information between the
public and private sectors (Dorsch & Yasin, 1998; Spendolini, 1992).
Originally used to identify performance gaps and to then improve
operational performance it was also seen to provide the opportunity to set critical performance factors and allow for their
measurement. Benchmarking is increasingly used by national
tourism organisations as a means of situational analysis though it is
now moving to involve the measurement of key areas, adoption of
best practice and the identification of critical success factors
(Lennon, 2006). The public sector agencies saw benchmarking as an
appropriate method of improving performance at VAs, as seen by
the commissioning of several consultancy run reports (English
Tourism Council, 2000; Scottish Enterprise, 1997; Scottish Enterprise, 2004). One point to note here is the distinction between the
knowledge generated by analysts and knowledge fitting the needs
of managers (Pearce & Benckendorff, 2006).
Historically the success of VAs has been predominantly
measured in simple volume and value terms, but this does not take
account of their individuality and broad range of objectives, which
naturally impact on their management and performance (see Table 2).
Benchmarking can do this by highlighting examples of best practice
from organisations sharing similar operating environments. It is
important that the research process should create mechanisms to
use the identification of best practice to allow for an appropriate set
of performance indicators to be formed for a visitor attraction
(Mayer, 2002; Reichel & Haber, 2005). Benchmarking would appear
to be an appropriate mechanism for researching VAs as it facilitates
the setting of standards to allow for the individuality of the VAs to
be considered, whilst enabling comparison.
That said, while international benchmarking does afford
insights into management practices, the duplication of general,
1
Benchmarking is a ‘continuous process for evaluating products, services and
work processes of an organisation that are recognised as representing best practices
for the purpose of organisational improvement’ (Spendolini, 1992).
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
159
Table 2
Model of factors in the effective management of visitor attractions.
international best practice might be suitable in other sectors but
not necessarily in VAs. This is due to their very individuality in
terms of resources, management skills and fluctuating patterns of
demand. Also observed by Pearce and Benckendorff (2006), the
diversity of VAs creates challenges in the selection of comparable
properties, particularly for international study. However, what it
does allow for is the ability to engage with a fragmented supply
situation and provide baseline data with which to establish the key
priorities within a broader perspective and of mutual benefit to the
attractions. Therefore benchmarking is an appropriate form of
research for VAs, but results need to be used as appropriate to the
individual sites, determining operational factors such as ownership
and the operating environment, rather than adopted across the
spectrum. It is particularly useful in overcoming issues of
commercial sensitivity, though it is important to select suitable
comparison organisations. Another aspect of relevance here relates
to the ethical issues in public agencies and academics using this
mechanism to offer high quality, freely accessible information that
private companies can easily use for commercial gain. Pearce and
Benckendorff (2006) identify a need for codes of behaviour to be
developed to overcome this issue. In general though, there are few
empirical grounds for rejecting the exchange of successful
management practices between private and public organisations,
and therefore this mechanism is suited to aiding the more effective
management of VAs.
Phillips and Louvieris (2005) state that tourism practitioners are
sceptical about the value of best practice benchmarking from
outside the UK due to the nuances of the tourism infrastructure and
markets within the UK. However, research by Leask and Fyall
(2006) shows that the opportunity to broaden the scope of
comparative sites, plus the individual nature of the resources,
means that the opportunity to access international businesses is
worthwhile, not because they are international per se but because
they offer the opportunity to learn from competitors and tailor to
visitor needs. As suggested by Pemberton (2005), the profit in the
future will not be from growing numbers but from working assets.
Academics have concluded that benchmarking does have the
potential to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness for both public
and private businesses and have called for further research to
balance academic and practitioner needs (Boyne, 2002; Dorsch &
Yasin, 1998; Longbottom, 2000).
3.3. International visitor attraction management practice research
3.3.1. VA characteristics – location, size and type
In common with other tourism research, the international
dimension and perspective of researchers is critical in determining
the value of the output. Authors differ in their conclusions on how
management practice research can be used to improve visitor
attraction performance. Garrod, Fyall, and Leask (2006) argue that
management practice does vary across the different destinations
but that the nature of it is not based on the characteristics of the
destination as a whole, rather on the visitor volume, turnover and
ownership factors of the individual site itself. They go on to argue
that it is not a case of any one country employing ‘better’
management practice than another, more that individual sites had
identified management tools appropriate to the individual resource
and context relative to the site. One recommendation would be for
VAs to adopt an internally focussed, quality-orientated strategy to
counter the future challenges that they face. This approach is in
contrast to Stevens (2000, 2003) who suggests an outward focus
with the development of major new assets that can compete head
on with other leisure activities.
Competition within the VA and broader leisure sector has been
the focus of several papers in relation to theme parks (Braun &
Soskin, 1999; Braun & Soskin, 2008; Milman, 2001) and with other
sub-sectors, such as zoos (Turley, 1999, 2001). Findings, in relation
to management practice, appear to suggest an increased need to
160
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
focus on meeting visitor expectations through recognising visitor
motivations (Connell, 2004; Milman, 2001; Richards, 2002),
product development (McBoyle & McBoyle, 2008; Whitfield, 2009)
and collaboration with other VAs and tourism bodies (Fyall, 2008;
Hede & Hall, 2006; Jaffe & Pasternak, 2004).
In relation to visitor management practice, Fyall, Garrod, and
Leask (2002) argue for managers to concentrate on getting each
visitor to consider their behaviour in relation to the resource rather
than on the overall control of visitor numbers. This is substantiated
by Phelps (2002:199) who comments that in the struggle to
maintain numbers, ‘improving the experience of existing visitors
may act to hold them within the audience but will not necessarily
help to reclaim visitors already lost to other activities’. The critical
role of visitor volume and turnover in management practice at sites
is noted in papers by Benckendorff and Pearce (2003), Boyd (2000)
and Lewis (1998).
3.3.2. Visitor management
Management plans for VAs rarely contain guidance on visitors
let alone the use of management tools such as pricing, visitor
impacts or mechanisms for management. This may be attributed to
the individual nature of VA resources and sites, which inhibits the
uniform adoption of visitor management techniques. Research has
also identified the extent of the gap between use and awareness of
specific management tools. Mason (2005:181) states that the
‘conventional approach to visitor management is largely about
minimising negative impacts with little research undertaken
regarding the visitor experience’, a view which highlights the need
to identify appropriate techniques such as revenue management, in
conjunction with other aspects such as education and interpretation. These views are also seen in other research (Hall & McArthur,
1996; Shackley, 2001) where it is argued that there are ways to
manage visitors other than controlling numbers and modifying
resources, these being primarily by determining basic market and
general information on visitors, and by then developing appropriate marketing, promotion, revenue management and codes of
conduct to suit.
Both Richards (2002) and Shoval and Raveh (2004) identify the
significance of information available to visitors prior to their visit to
a destination, noting that many decisions are taken pre-visit.
Therefore the role of the VA within the destination (Dredge, 1999)
and participation in collaborative activities to communicate their
resource and visitor experience, becomes vital in managing visitor
demand and expectations (Hede & Hall, 2006; Howley & Van
Westering, 2008). This is the case at destination level, for example
in Singapore with the search for balance in the development of
wartime heritage within the wider destination product (Henderson, 2007). It is also seen at site level, where visitor data in relation
to characteristics, perceptions of value and experience can be used
to aid visitor satisfaction (Andriotis, Agiomirgianakis, & Mihiotis,
2008).
Lawson (2006) investigated the use of computer simulation as
a tool for planning and management, though established that there
was potential for it to help but only if forecasting was done for
individual sites, a condition that could be considered necessary for
the implementation of other visitor management practices. Buhalis,
Owen, and Pletinckx (2006) consider how technology can assist in
heritage management, linking aspects such as interpretation and
reservation systems to the overall management approach, or in
overcoming challenges experienced in providing equal access for all
to heritage sites (Poria, Reichel, & Brandt, 2009).
3.3.3. Management and staff skills
In practice much of the published work on visitor attraction
management originates from the museums sector, a feature
perhaps of its response to changing government attitudes, policies
and legislation (Baxter, 2004; Gilmore & Rentschler, 2002). The
need for major change in viewing cultural services as predominantly economic, as opposed to social entities, was significant in
recognising their need to extend their appeal beyond traditional
markets in order to respond to this new dynamism. The growing
role of the consultant was seen in the commissioning of several UK
and international VA surveys (Deloitte Touche, 1998; Keynote,
2001; Scottish Enterprise, 1997), though these are based on very
small sample sizes and their value is questionable (Lennon, 2004;
Pearce & Benckendorff, 2006).
With specific regard to the Scottish VA environment, which has
been the focus of several key publications, the public sector
enterprise company recognised the need to support VAs. This
resulted in several consultancy research projects often critical of
management practices within destinations and attractions, instead
stating the need to look overseas to identify best practice (Scottish
Enterprise, 2004). The Scottish VA sector has nearly 900 sites
generating over 42 million visitors per annum (VisitScotland,
2009). Patterns of demand are highly seasonal and indicate a heavy
reliance on the overseas visitor market. According to VisitScotland
(2006: 5), ‘what remains clear is that management information
systems remain at an early stage of development for many attraction operators’, with 38 per cent still relying on manual counting
methods for visitor analysis. This fact alone demonstrates how
challenging it can be for many sites to adopt management tools,
such as revenue management which requires detailed operating
data for implementation.
Public sector research into the management of VAs has been
limited in recent years, though government concern to maintain
international tourism numbers necessitates the continued support
for existing sites. In the UK, a House of Commons Select Committee
(2006) recorded the serious shortfall in funds and the imbalance in
funding available to private operators, who generally cannot access
Lottery or public funding sources. New attractions (Wilson,
2004:178) are not a priority for funding so need to ‘revitalise to
survive and need to build quality management frameworks, service
delivery and enable attractions to be better prepared for vagaries of
market environment or face closures’, but it is debatable as to
whether or not the sector has sufficient reliable data on which to
base their decisions (Fyall et al., 2002; Leask & Hood, 2000).
The use of information technology in the management of visitor
attractions is rarely discussed unless in relation to interpretation.
However, Watson and McCracken (2002) found that key informants
viewed the development of IT skills as critical, while VAs managers
thought it only moderately important. This is one example where
skills development could be critical in enabling the use of more
sophisticated operations management. Research into the associated issue of the use of volunteers in heritage attractions was
undertaken by Deery, Jago, and Shaw (1997), Holmes (2003) and
Rhoden, Ineson, and Ralston (2009).
The size and type of the VA impact on the management practice
and ability to plan strategically; notably one of the issues highlighted is the low level of access to and use of computers, which
naturally impacts on attractions’ ability to analyse visitor data and
revenue management (Benckendorff & Pearce, 2003; Garrod et al.,
2006). Best practice performance measurement presents significant opportunities for SMEs, particularly when an international
dimension can be added to offer alternative approaches (Phillips &
Louvieris, 2005). The nature of attractions, for example restricted
staff and financial resources, make it difficult for SMEs to simply
implement management tools. However, there is potential for them
to adopt practices from larger organisations due to their more
adaptable business environment and relative lack of bureaucratic
management.
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
The category of ownership of a VA is significant in the
management style and practices in place on site (Fyall et al., 2002),
where this may depend on what can be negotiated with stakeholders including trustees, volunteers, public sector organisations,
curators, archaeologists, members, private owners and other
interested parties such as the visitor.
3.3.4. Yield management and pricing
Yield management2 practice at VAs has been one theme of
recent research, in exploring the application of the concept of yield
management within VAs. Historically, academic research into the
use of yield management in tourism has focussed on its use in the
airline and hotel sectors (Chiang, Chen, & Xu, 2007; Kimes, 1997).
That said, a 1995 European Commission report stated that ‘developing these tools and skills would benefit [SME] businesses in
many ways’ though many currently lacked the ‘prerequisite informational tools and analytical skills to conduct yield management
(Andersen, 1997:16)’.
It has been established that developing knowledge management and exploiting secondary spend opportunities are becoming
increasingly important in the VA context. Leask and Yeoman (1999)
concluded that heritage VAs do, to some extent, meet the core
necessary conditions identified by Kimes (1997) and argued that
they could therefore implement revenue maximising techniques.
Hoseason (2004) states that the highly seasonal nature of the
market necessitates revenue management techniques being
applied to main season activities, with more specialised activities
being introduced during low or out of season periods for the
maximisation of revenue.
One point to note is the distinction between revenue and yield
management, where revenue management relates to the gross
figures achieved, while yield management relates to the net figures
following the deduction of marginal costs. In contrast to the
potential obstacles to the adoption of yield management in this
sector, identified by the CBI (1998) report, Leask and Yeoman (1999)
argue that the use of yield management depends on demand
variables, capacity and conservation aspects particular to the VA
site. The lack of sector specific data and manager reluctance act as
inhibitors to revenue management practice (Lennon, 2004),
however it could be argued that while sophisticated customer
forecasting may be beyond the scope of some sites at present, the
use of basic revenue management systems are not (Leask, Fyall, &
Goulding, 2000).
It has been seen that visitors are willing to pay more to access
greater quality of information and experience, so the opportunities
for product developments in conjunction with promotional or
variable pricing are plentiful (Apostolakis & Jaffry, 2005; Bigne,
Andreu, & Gnoth, 2005; Hede & Hall, 2006; Pearce, 1998). The clear
link between marketing and yield management highlights the
importance of looking at visitor spend rather than numbers and the
need for further investigation of the opportunities afforded by yield
management in the VA sector (Chiang et al., 2007; Swarbrooke,
2001). Research has shown that visitors to heritage sites have been
found to be willing to contribute financially, via admission charges
and donations, towards the development of quality visitor experiences (Aas, Ladkin, & Fletcher, 2005; Apostolakis & Jaffry, 2005;
McBoyle & McBoyle, 2008; Reynisdottir, Song, & Agrusa, 2008).
Opportunities for further research into pricing might look to other
tourism sectors, such as airlines, in the development of premium
2
‘Yield management uses information about customer purchasing behaviour and
product sales to develop pricing and inventory controls that produce greater
revenues and deliver products that are better matched to the customers’ needs’.
(Lieberman, 1993: 34).
161
experiences available at a premium price, or to instigate admission
charges at public sites, as often exist for other leisure services, in
order to alleviate congestion, meet funding shortfalls and tackle
pricing imbalances within the sector.
3.3.5. Marketing – collaboration and designations
Marketing theory states that effective marketing management
assists the achievement of VA objectives (Rentschler, Hede, &
White, 2007). The issue with VAs and particularly heritage is in
determining what marketing activity is appropriate for the
resource. It has been argued that the leisure and tourism industries
exploit heritage sites, turning them into attractions for commercial
gain and contributing to the process of commodification (Henderson, 2007; Misiura, 2006; Stone & Sharpley, 2008). However, the
benefits of this engagement with tourism activity have also
benefited the sector as a whole, by establishing a network of
attractions with lobbying power to push for policy support and
through increased access to central funding sources previously out
with the reach of heritage due to their lack of audience development (Fyall, Leask, & Garrod, 2001).
In recent years there has been an increasing academic and
practitioner discussion in relation to the benefits of collaboration.
Authors such as Costa and Buhalis (2005), Richards (2002) and
Sautter and Leisen (1999), state that collaboration among key
players is a fundamental ingredient in a sustained development
effort, although they note that participants can be reticent to share
sensitive management information. Fyall et al. (2001) explored the
concept of collaboration and investigated the opportunities for VAs,
determining that operators welcomed the possibility of greater
inter-organisational collaboration, particularly regarding joint
marketing and overcoming industry fragmentation. Based on
a series of principles identified by Kanter (1994), including the
shared convergence of strategic goals while competitive ones
diverge and a balance of market power and size between partners,
it was seen that effective collaboration could be an appropriate
management tool for VAs.
Just as destinations often compete in a saturated marketplace,
so do VAs, entailing the need to identify and develop unique
characteristics (Hassan, 2000). Designations and awards are often
perceived as offering attractive marketing opportunities. Research
has been conducted into the impacts of UNESCO World Heritage
Site (WHS) designation, though the main focus appears to be on the
marketing opportunities afforded by this international accolade
(Boyd & Timothy, 2006; Buckley, 2004; Hall & Piggin, 2002; Winter,
2002). These clearly establish that while conservation of the
resource is at the heart of WHS nominations, designation entails
a need to effectively manage the tourism activity on site. This status
has significant implications for the effective management of a site
not least as designation often results in increased visitor numbers
and increased focus on site management, with clear opportunities
afforded by management tools such as the identification of individuality or competitive advantage.
It should be noted here that there may be other areas of
academic study in relation to visitor attractions that are not covered
in this paper, as the focus of this paper is to review the visitor
attraction research in connection to management practice and the
development of effective management styles.
4. Key management challenges faced by visitor attractions
The international VA sector is known to be fragmented in
nature, partly due to the geographical location of sites and the
historical lack of collaborative activity, since exacerbated by rapid
expansion of supply, declining demand and resulting competition
(Aas et al., 2005; Carey, 2005; Leighton, 2006; Lennon, 2004).
162
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
The context of research is such that the very uniqueness of
individual resources and sites has been argued to entail a need
to develop management techniques appropriate to each location,
an aspect discussed by Leask (2006) and Shackley (1998) with
regards to UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Historically, VAs have
been predominantly product-led with a move towards recognising the merit of a more market-oriented approach only being
seen in the last decade (Baxter, 2004). The appropriateness of
a market-led approach for tourism enterprises has been questioned in relation to balancing the needs of sustainable tourism
(Font & Ahjem, 1999). The macro forces, often outside VAs’
control, shape the micro-environment dominated by small to
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The decline in public money
available to support sites has forced them to become more
commercially aware and diversify to generate alternative forms
of revenue generation (Baxter, 2004; Garrod et al., 2007; Hausmann, 2007; Lennon, 2004). This is particularly obvious with
regards to historic buildings that often carry high capital and
revenue costs. Research has also shown there is a management
skills deficit, partly due to the dominance of SMEs and the highly
seasonal nature of business resulting in high staff turnover and
a low skills base (Gilmore & Rentschler, 2002; Graham & Lennon,
2002; Leask & Fyall, 2006; Watson & McCracken, 2002). One of
the greatest dilemmas that attraction operators face is that of
balancing visitor access with conservation of the resource and its
authenticity (Carter & Grimwade, 1997; Garrod et al., 2006;
Timothy & Boyd, 2006). VAs operate in an increasingly competitive marketplace, with growing visitor expectations and
a perishable product – all within a sector that often fails to
communicate and resists opportunities to share information
(Carey, 2005; Fyall et al., 2001; Hausmann, 2007).
Through a review of existing literature, the following key challenges influencing the management of VAs have been identified:
Increasing supply within an environment of declining and
seasonal demand
Increased competition for leisure spend and changes in leisure
behaviour
Increasing visitor expectations for services and products
Lack of acknowledgement of relevance of intangible service
experience
Lack of rigorous market and management data on which to
base decisions
Fragmented nature of sector both geographically and
competitively
Decreasing sources of public funds, increasing need to evidence
‘value’ and diversify product offering
Imbalances within sector relating to funding, admission
charges and support
Changes in management priorities and the need to reconcile
curatorial and managerial values and ideologies
Limited management and staff skills with legacy of inefficient
management
Large number of stakeholders (and conflicting objectives) in
many sites
Conflict in balancing access with conservation of resources and
their authenticity
Individual nature of resources and their conservation needs
These challenges link to the model of factors in the effective
management of VAs shown in Table 2. In particular they relate to
the factors that dictate and shape the management approach at
a VA: the competitive environment, range of stakeholders and
individual nature of the resource. They also indicate the opportunities for future visitor attraction research.
5. Developing a model for the effective management of VAs
5.1. The factors involved
The above challenges have created a range of symptoms within
the sector, alongside a requirement for greater knowledge to
inform improved management. The English Tourism Council
(2000) identified the need to improve the professional development of the sector, recommending the use of benchmarking to raise
standards and tackle the growing competitive situation. Wilson
(2004: 148) comments on how ‘effective management and
marketing of VAs is crucial in order to sustain competitive advantage and to continue operating viably’.
Several publications have called for improved, successful,
efficient or effective management, though they rarely define what
is meant by each term (Graham & Lennon, 2002; Hall & Piggin,
2002; Moscardo, 1996; Watson & McCracken, 2002). The move
towards a more business-oriented approach or ‘good’ management
is typically based on the public sector making use of examples of
‘best practice’ from private enterprises or on the identification of
‘best practice’ in competitor organisations (Cutler & Waine, 2000;
Phillips & Louvieris, 2005; Stewart & Walsh, 1992). Managers are
often seen as being responsible for the achievement of performance
outcomes and therefore their perspective is important in the
research process.
Identifying the factors that contribute to the effective management of VAs depends very much on the nature of the resource on
which the product is based, the management objectives and the
consumer. While Hu and Wall (2005), McKercher and Ho (2006)
and Sharpley (2007) suggest factors such as location, distance from
visitor flows and competitive advantage are critical, the need to
manage the VA resource itself is also fundamental in the sustainable future of a site. It could be argued that concentration on the
product alone will not guarantee success and that greater attention
should be paid to the management practice in relation to the
established objectives of the stakeholders and resource in question.
The perceived impacts of VAs vary according to their audience
being measured in visitor numbers, the creation of employment or
improvements to infrastructure with wider benefits to the
community or conservation (Nash, Koyabe, & Stansbie, 2006).
While the commercial imperative dictates the measurement of
visitor volume and value, this is clearly only one form of indicator
(Fyall & Garrod, 1998; Phelps, 2002). Improving business performance has been one of the central tenets of management and
remains fundamental to organisational success (Neely, 1999) and
there is evidence to suggest that more funding and better
management are likely to lead to service improvement (Boyne,
2003). Evidence of ineffective management is seen in the decline of
VA service and resource quality through decreasing financial
support and reinvestment, damage to the resource through lack of
care, non-achievement of stakeholder objectives or closure of a site.
5.2. A model of factors in the effective management of VAs
The development of a model of the factors in the effective
management of VAs is shown in Table 2. The model shows how
existing research publications combine to offer a deeper insight
into the academic knowledge in relation to the effective management of VAs. It states that there is a range of Determining Factors
(DFs) that dictate and shape the management of VAs, a variety of
Measures of Effectiveness (MEs) set by stakeholders, and a suite of
Management Tools (MTs) that could be used to achieve the objectives. The DFs include aspects such as the category of ownership,
the range of stakeholders and the very individual nature of the
resource itself. The MEs depend on the objectives of the
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
stakeholders, for example, return-on-investment, economic
regeneration or policy decisions made on the basis of the owners.
The DFs and MEs allow operators to select the relevant MTs with
which to improve their management, for example by seeking
international designations, diversifying their product in light of
visitor expectations or simply monitoring patterns of visitor
behaviour to allow for better staff planning. As the objectives
change for each operator in light of the DFs, so do the measures
used to assess their effectiveness, thus creating the opportunity to
select appropriate MTs to support the task.
Table 2 advances knowledge in areas identified by Benckendorff
and Pearce (2003) and Hassan (2000), mainly the need to identify
tools that managers could use to enhance their ability to achieve
objectives and develop effective management practices, as appropriate to the VA resource and property. Research has shown that
large-scale VA surveys do establish relevant contextual information, but that specific case examples can offer the best mechanism
for developing quality provision and effective management at
individual sites. Collaborating with sectors other than VAs, for
example retailing, might be a way forward. This could be in addition to collaborative work within the sector to move to a more
research informed market-orientated, rather than product-led,
management approach. While it has been argued that this does not
help support sustainable tourism (Font & Ahjem, 1999), this
approach does appear to be in keeping with many of the determining factors identified above and the measures used by the
stakeholders.
Research on specific management tools such as revenue
management established that there are difficulties in transposing
revenue management strategies en masse from one category to
another and that this is particularly difficult if sites are under
different ownership, as this seems to dictate management
approaches. The individuality and lack of demand data for VAs
makes adoption and implementation of revenue management
challenging but appropriate in some categories. The process of
benchmarking to identify best practice and its applicability for VAs
has established that it is a useful mechanism but that findings need
to be applied to the individual site, rather than by destination or
sector. The lack of use of management tools and the need to
understand the often conflicting roles of resource conservation and
visitor access create a need to identify appropriate management
approaches for each individual site.
6. A future research agenda for VAs
The research context discussed earlier demonstrates that this
area of study lacks the mature research base necessary to underpin
the comparison of international best practice or to provide
a national or international benchmark of VA quality. Governments
across the globe are searching for ways to improve public services
(Boyne, 2003). The increasing need for VAs to be managed more
effectively, to ensure their survival and to meet the objectives of
their stakeholders, is of relevance to academics, policy-makers and
practitioners.
In contrast to Weed’s (2009) findings in his review of sports
tourism research, the VA research field has not yet reached maturity. The ‘early stages’ of research, observed by Benckendorff and
Pearce (2003), have, however, developed to perhaps mark a move
to consolidation in terms of definitional debate, contested areas
and an increase in the volume of papers in a range of journal fields
and subject areas. However, the field still requires further development of robust methodologies and research methods and the
development of an integrated community of scholars with sustained interest in the sector.
163
The fragmented nature of VAs is also seen in the VA research
arena, where a few individuals research extensively in the sector
while a larger number of others include it within their research
portfolio. It would therefore be helpful to identify a clear
research agenda for researchers based on a synthesis of existing
research, recognition of the potential of new approaches and likely
future priorities.
One example of this is the Balanced Scorecard Approach
(Phillips & Louvieris, 2005: 201) that appears to offer opportunities
for VA research in using a theoretical framework to ‘explore and
elicit critical success factors in performance measurement’. The
process requires the identification of categories (for example
operations and organisation), critical success factors (for example
budgetary control, stakeholder perspectives) and key performance
indicators (for example revenue per visit, cross-training staff,
mystery guests).
Some academics have stated a need for further quantitative
studies, research on the user rather than the operator and investigation into the motivations and experience of the visitor or indeed
the non-visitor (Apostolakis & Jaffry, 2005; Hu & Wall, 2005;
Phelps, 2002). Others have concluded that more specific research
questions should be addressed in relation to the opportunities
afforded by management tools such as revenue management and
revenue generation (Chiang et al., 2007; Eagles, 2002; Prideaux &
Kininmont, 1999; Timothy & Boyd, 2006).
As identified in this paper, there is a need for further academic
research into VA management, with the aim of providing sector
specific data, in addition to issue or site specific projects. Future
avenues for VA research could focus on the following areas:
To develop tools to establish and evaluate how individual VAs
can adopt appropriate management practices for their
resource, visitors, individual property and stakeholders
The use of benchmarking and the development of in-depth
case studies to feature specific management practices to inform
the wider VA community and stakeholders
To develop mechanisms for evaluating the contribution of
visitor attractions within a destination area
To identify effective means of disseminating research findings
to industry and other researchers
Researching the wider tourism and service supply side to allow
for the identification of specific management challenges and
solutions that could then be applied within the visitor attraction sector
Moving away from descriptive work towards empirical work,
leading to the development of models and theoretical knowledge applied within the attraction sector
Development of further research methodologies of relevance to
the VA sector to further the recognition of this significant area
of tourism activity, for example further development of the
Balanced Scorecard Approach adopted by Phillips and Louvieris
(2005).
Stevens (2000) painted a bleak picture stating that traditional
attractions are irrelevant to the market and that the unprecedented
growth in the years 1980–2000, in conjunction with the intense
competition from the emerging leisure product, will result in a new
geography and typology of destination attraction by 2010. Other
research concurs with some of the thoughts, that ownership
dictates much in terms of performance and management practice
and that the lack of large-scale private operators in the sector does
detract from their future opportunities. However, many of the sites
discussed are more leisure products by definition and, while in
competition with traditional attractions, these will not necessarily
lead to their demise. On the contrary it would appear (Braun &
164
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
Soskin, 2008; Fyall & Leask, 2007; Marr, 2008; McBoyle & McBoyle,
2008; Whitfield, 2009) that VAs are responding well to the challenges and significantly improving and broadening their product
offering, collaborative practices and range of revenue streams. This
blurring of boundaries between VAs, leisure and entertainment is
not aided by the continued lack of easily accessible, central data
about trends and markets, with a clear contribution required from
the public agencies to support regular and rigorous visitor attraction data.
7. Conclusion
This paper has investigated the development of research and
knowledge concerning the effective management of VAs. Based on
themes emerging from an extensive literature review, the key
challenges encountered by the sector have been identified,
including the individual nature of the resource, the supply and
demand features of the VA sector and the difficulties encountered
in balancing visitor access with conservation of the resource. The
findings emphasise the importance of the need to appreciate that
the VA sector is shaped by the challenges it faces and the need to
recognise how these impact on the choice and effectiveness of
management practices. A model of Factors in the Effective
Management of VAs has been developed on the basis of existing
publications in the sector and identifies three categories of factors:
Determining Factors; Measures of Effectiveness and Management
Tools that could be used as a framework for future research into the
effective management of VAs.
The review of publications has established that the VA sector is
capable of adopting more effective management strategies by utilising management tools as appropriate to their context. In turn
these can contribute to overcoming the challenges that the sector
faces and lead to improvements in the overall effective management of the sites. It has been established that international
benchmarking and identification of best practice research is of
limited use in determining over-arching management techniques
that can be applied across categories of attractions – but that it can
be useful when matched appropriately and used to upgrade the
quality and management practices at similar VAs. In developing
this from existing authors, it can be seen that in the future the
effectively managed attraction is not necessarily the one with large
numbers of visitors, rather the one that engages with its stakeholders and employs specific aspects of management practice as
appropriate to the site, the resource and its visitors. The challenge
now is to develop the research to support both academic study and
practitioner skills in order to appropriately recognise and develop
the effective management of visitor attractions.
References
Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage
management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28–48.
Andersen, A. (1997). Yield management in small and medium-sized enterprises in the
tourist industry. Luxembourg: European Commission: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.
Andriotis, K. (2009). Sacred site experience: a phenomenological study. Annals of
Tourism Research, 36(1), 64–84.
Andriotis, K., Agiomirgianakis, G., & Mihiotis, A. (2008). Measuring tourist satisfaction: a factor-cluster segment approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(3),
221–235.
Apostolakis, A., & Jaffry, S. (2005). A choice modelling application for Greek heritage
attractions. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 309–318.
Austin, N. (2002). Managing heritage attractions: marketing challenges as sensitive
historic sites. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(6), 447–457.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Axelsen, M. (2009). Trends in tourism research. Annals of
Tourism Research, 36(1), 149–152.
Baxter, I. (2004). From heritage to historic environment: professionalising the
experience of the past for visitors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 2(2), 1–14.
Benckendorff, P., & Pearce, P. (2003). Australian tourism attractions: the links
between organizational characteristics and planning. Journal of Travel Research,
42(1), 24–35.
Bigne, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: an analysis of
pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26(6), 833–844.
Boyd, S. (2000). ‘Heritage’ tourism in Northern Ireland: opportunity under peace.
Current Issues in Tourism, 3(2), 150–174.
Boyd, S., & Timothy, D. (2006). Marketing issues and world heritage sites. In
A. Leask, & A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing world heritage sites. Oxford: Elsevier.
Boyne, G. (2002). Public and private management: what’s the difference? Journal of
Management Services, 39(1), 97–122.
Boyne, G. (2003). Sources of public service improvement: a critical review and
research agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3),
367–394.
Braun, B., & Soskin, M. (1999). Theme park competitive strategies. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(2), 438–444.
Braun, B., & Soskin, M. (2008). Theme park pricing in a new century: the central
Florida market revisited. In A. Fyall, B. Garrod, A. Leask, & S. Wanhill (Eds.),
Managing visitor attractions (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.
Buckley, R. (2004). The effects of world heritage listing on tourism to Australian
national parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(1), 70–84.
Buhalis, D., Owen, R., & Pletinckx, D. (2006). Information communication technology applications for world heritage site management. In A. Leask, & A. Fyall
(Eds.), Managing world heritage sites. Oxford: Elsevier.
Carey, C. (2005). Research needs for developing established events and attractions.
In B. Ritchie, P. Burns, & C. Palmer (Eds.), Tourism research methods: Integrating
theory with practice. Wallingford: CAB.
Carter, B., & Grimwade, G. (1997). Balancing use and preservation in cultural heritage management. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 3(1), 45–53.
CBI. (1998). Attracting attention: Visitor attractions in the new Millennium. London:
Confederation of British Industry.
Chiang, W.-C., Chen, J., & Xu, X. (2007). An overview of research on revenue
management: current issues and future research. International Journal of
Revenue Management, 1(1), 97–128.
Coles, T. (2004). Tourism and retail transactions: lessons from the Porsche experience. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(4), 378–389.
Coles, S. (2006). Implementing and evaluating a code of conduct for visitors.
Tourism Management, 28(2), 443–451.
Connell, J. (2004). The purest of human pleasures: the characteristics and motivations of garden visitors in Great Britain. Tourism Management, 25(2),
229–247.
Connell, J., & Page, S. (2009). Visitor attractions. In S. J. Page (Ed.), Tourism
management – Managing for change (3rd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.
Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, B., & Wanhill, S. (2006). Tourism principles
and practice (4th ed.). Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.
Costa, C., & Buhalis, D. (2005). Introduction. In D. Buhalis, & C. Costa (Eds.), Tourism
management dynamics – Trends, management and tools. Oxford: Elsevier.
Cutler, T., & Waine, B. (2000). Managerialism reformed? New labour and public
sector management. Social Policy and Administration, 34(3), 318–332.
Darnell, A., & Johnston, P. (2001). Repeat visits to attractions: a preliminary
economic analysis. Tourism Management, 22(2), 119–126.
Deery, M., Jago, L., & Shaw, R. (1997). Profiling satisfied volunteers at a tourist
attraction. Journal of Tourism Studies, 8(2), 18–25.
Deloitte Touche. (1998). United Kingdom visitor attraction survey. London: Deloitte
Touche Publications.
Dorsch, J., & Yasin, M. (1998). A framework for benchmarking in the public sector.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(2/3), 91–115.
Dredge, D. (1999). Destination place, planning and design. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(4), 772–791.
Eagles, P. (2002). Trends in park tourism: economic, financial and management.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(1), 132–153.
English Tourism Council. (2000). Action for attractions. London: English Tourism
Council.
Foley, M., & McPherson, G. (2000). Museums as leisure. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 6(2), 161–174.
Font, X., & Ahjem, T. (1999). Searching for balance in tourism development strategies.
International Journal Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(2/3), 73–77.
Fox, D., & Edwards, J. (2008). Managing gardens. In A. Fyall, B. Garrod, A. Leask, &
S. Wanhill (Eds.), Managing visitor attractions (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.
Fyall, A. (2008). Marketing visitor attractions: a collaborative approach. In A. Fyall,
B. Garrod, A. Leask, & S. Wanhill (Eds.), Managing visitor attractions (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Fyall, A., & Garrod, B. (1998). Heritage tourism at what price? Managing Leisure, 3(4),
213–226.
Fyall, A., Garrod, B., & Leask, A. (2002). Scottish visitor attractions: managing visitor
impacts. Tourism Management, 23(3), 265–279.
Fyall, A., & Leask, A. (2007). Destination marketing: future issues – strategic challenges. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(1), 50–63.
Fyall, A., Leask, A., & Garrod, B. (2001). Scottish visitor attractions – a collaborative
future? International Journal Tourism Research, 3(4), 211–228.
Garrod, B., Fyall, A., & Leask, A. (2006). Managing visitor impacts at visitor attractions: an international assessment. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(2), 125–151.
Garrod, B., Leask, A., & Fyall, A. (2007). An assessment of ‘international best practice’
in visitor attraction management: does Scotland really lag behind? International
Journal of Tourism Research, 9(1), 21–42.
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
Gilmore, A., & Rentschler, R. (2002). Changes in museum management. Journal of
Management Development, 21(10), 754–760.
Graham, M., & Lennon, J. (2002). The dilemma of operating a strategic approach to
human resource management in the Scottish visitor attraction sector. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 1(4/5), 213–220.
Gunn, C. (1972). Vacationscape: Designing tourist regions. Austin: Bureau of Business
Research, University of Texas.
Hall, C. M., & McArthur, S. (1996). Heritage tourism in New Zealand and Australia: The
human dimension. Melbourne: Oxford University Press Australia.
Hall, C. M., & Piggin, R. (2002). Tourism business knowledge of world heritage sites:
a New Zealand case. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(5), 401–411.
Hassan, S. (2000). Determination of market competitiveness in an environmentally
sustainable tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 239–245.
Hausmann, A. (2007). Cultural tourism: marketing challenges and opportunities for
German cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 13(2), 170–184.
Hede, A.-M., & Hall, J. (2006). Leisure experiences in tourist attractions: exploring
the motivations of local residents. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 13(1), 10–22.
Hemmington, N., Bowen, D., Wickens, E., & Paraskevas, A. (2005). Satisfying the
basics: reflections from a consumer perspective of attractions management at the
Millennium Dome, London. International Journal of Tourism Research, 7(1), 1–10.
Henderson, J. (1999). Managing the Asian financial crisis: tourist attractions in
Singapore. Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 177–181.
Henderson, J. (2007). Remembering the second world war in Singapore: wartime
heritage as a visitor attraction. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(1), 36–52.
Holloway, C., & Taylor, N. (2006). The business of tourism (7th ed.). Harlow: PrenticeHall.
Holmes, K. (2003). Volunteers in the heritage sector: a neglected audience. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 9(4), 341–355.
Hoseason, J. (2004). Revenue management in visitor attractions: a case study of the
EcoTech Centre, Swaffham, Norfolk. In I. Yeoman, & U. McMahon-Beattie (Eds.),
Revenue management and pricing case studies and applications. London:
Thomson.
House of Commons. (2006). Third report of select committee on culture, Media and
sport http://www.publications.parliamentuk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmcumeds/
912/91203 Accessed 12.10.07.
Howley, M., & Van Westering, J. (2008). Developing wine tourism: a case study of
the attitude of English wine producers to wine tourism. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 14(1), 87–95.
Hu, W., & Wall, G. (2005). Environmental management, environmental image and
the competitive tourist attraction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), 617–635.
Jaffe, E., & Pasternak, H. (2004). Developing wine trails as a tourist attraction in
Israel. International Journal Tourism Research, 6(4), 237–249.
Johns, N., & Gyimothy, S. (2002). Mythologies of a theme park: an icon of modern
family life. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(4), 320–331.
Johnson, R. (1999). Service operations management: return to roots. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(2), 104–124.
Johnson, P., & Thomas, B. (1998). The economics of museums: a research perspective. Journal of Cultural Economics, 22, 75–85.
Kanter, R. (1994). Collaborative advantage. Harvard Business Review96–108, (July–
August).
Keng, K. A. (1993). Evaluating the attractiveness of a new tourism plan: a crosscultural comparison. Tourism Management, 14(3), 202–210.
Keynote. (2001). Tourist attractions. London: Keynote Publications.
Kikuchi, A., & Ryan, C. (2007). Street markets as tourist attractions, Victoria market,
Auckland, New Zealand. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(4), 297–300.
Kimes, S. (1997). Yield management: an overview. In I. Yeoman, & A. Ingold (Eds.),
Yield management strategies for the service industries. London: Cassell.
Lawson, S. (2006). Computer simulation as a tool for planning and management of
visitor use in protected natural areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,14(6), 600–617.
Leask, A. (2006). World heritage site designation. In A. Leask, & A. Fyall (Eds.),
Managing world heritage sites. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Leask, A. (2008). Nature & purpose of visitor attractions. In A. Fyall, B. Garrod,
A. Leask, & S. Wanhill (Eds.), Managing visitor attractions (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Elsevier.
Leask, A., & Fyall, A. (2006). Researching the management of visitor attractions:
international comparative study issues. Tourism Recreation Research, 31(2), 23–32.
Leask, A., Fyall, A., & Garrod, B. (2002). Heritage visitor attractions: managing
revenue in the new Millennium. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8(3),
247–265.
Leask, A., Fyall, A., & Goulding, P. (2000). Yield management in Scottish visitor
attractions. In A. Ingold, U. McMahon-Beattie, & I. Yeoman (Eds.), Yield
management: Strategies for the service industries (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Leask, A., & Hood, G.-L. (2000). Unusual venues as conference facilities. Journal of
Convention and Exhibition Management, 2(4), 37–63.
Leask, A., & Yeoman, I. (1999). The development of core concepts of yield
management. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 5(2), 96–110, Summer.
Leighton, D. (2006). Step back in time and live the legend: experiential marketing
and the heritage sector. International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 12(2), 117–125.
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourist attraction systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(2),
367–384.
Lennon, J. (2004). Revenue management and customer forecasts: a bridge too far
for the UK visitor attraction sector? Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management,
2(4), 338–352.
165
Lennon, J. (2006). Benchmarking national tourism organisations and agencies:
Understanding best performance. Oxford: Elsevier.
Lennon, J., & Graham, M. (2001). Commercial development and competitive environment: the museum sector in Scotland. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 3(4), 265–281.
Lew, A. (1987). A framework of tourist attraction research. Annals of Tourism
Research, 14(4), 553–575.
Lewis, J. (1998). A rural tourism development model. Tourism Analysis, 2(2), 91–106.
Lieberman, W. (1993). Debunking the myths of yield management. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 34–41.
Longbottom, D. (2000). Benchmarking in the UK: an empirical study of practitioners
and academics. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 7(2), 98–117.
McBoyle, G., & McBoyle, E. (2008). Distillery marketing and the visitor experience:
a case of Scottish Malt Whisky Distilleries. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 10(1), 71–80.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. London:
Macmillan.
McKercher, B., & Ho, P. (2006). Assessing the tourism potential of smaller cultural
and heritage attractions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 473–488.
McKercher, B., Mei, S. W., & Tse, T. (2006). Are short duration cultural festivals
tourist attractions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(1), 55–66.
Marr, S. (2008). Work process knowledge in Scottish visitor attractions. Managing
Leisure, 13(3/4), 227–241.
Mason, P. (2005). Visitor management in protected areas: from ‘Hard’ to ‘Soft’
approaches. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(2&3), 181–194.
Mayer, K. (2002). Human resource practices and service quality at theme parks.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14(4), 169–175.
Middleton, V., & Clarke, J. (2001). Marketing in travel and tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Milman, A. (2001). The future of the theme park and attraction industry:
a management perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 139–147.
Milman, A. (2003). Hourly employee retention in small and medium attractions: the
Central Florida example. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22(1),
17–35.
Misiura, S. (2006). Heritage marketing. Oxford: Elsevier.
Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors: heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 23(2), 376–397.
Nash, R., Koyabe, D., & Stansbie, P. (2006). The impact of European funding on
tourism in the Grampian region. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8(4),
247–261.
Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution: why now and what
next? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(2),
205–228.
Nolan, M., & Nolan, S. (1992). Religious sites as tourist attractions in Europe. Annals
of Tourism Research, 19(1), 68–78.
Nowacki, M. (2009). Quality of visitor attractions, satisfaction, benefits and
behavioural intentions of visitors: verification of a model. International Journal
of Tourism Research, 11(3), 297–309.
Okello, M. (2005). A survey of tourist expectations and economic potential for
a proposed wildlife Sanctuary in a Maasai group ranch near Amboseli, Kenya.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), 566–589.
Page, S., & Connell, J. (2006). Tourism a modern synthesis (2nd ed.). London:
Thomson.
Pearce, P. (1991). Analysing tourist attractions. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(1), 46–55.
Pearce, P. (1998). Marketing and management trends at tourist attractions. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 3(1), 1–8.
Pearce, P., & Benckendorff, P. (2006). Benchmarking, usable knowledge and tourist
attractions. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1/2), 29–53.
Pearce, P., Benckendorff, P., & Johnstone, S. (2000). Tourist attractions: evolution,
analysis and prospects. In B. Faulkner, M. Moscardo, & E. Laws (Eds.), Tourism in
the 21st century: Lessons from experience. London: Continuum.
Pemberton, M. (2005). English heritage. Attractions management quarter 1. London:
The Leisure Media Company.
Phelps, A. (2002). Leisure choices – is there a crisis in the market for visitor
attractions in the UK. In G. Berridge, & E. McFee (Eds.), Partnerships in leisure;
sports, tourism and management. Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association.
Phillips, P., & Louvieris, P. (2005). Performance measurement systems in tourism,
hospitality and leisure small medium-sized enterprises: a balanced scorecard
perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 44(2), 201–211.
Pigram, J. (1983). In J. Walsh-Heron, & T. Stevens (Eds.), The management of visitor
attractions and events. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. (1990).
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2004). Links between tourists, heritage, and reasons
for visiting heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 19–28.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2006). Tourist perceptions of heritage exhibits:
a comparative study from Israel. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 51–72.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2009). People with disabilities visit art museums:
an exploratory study of obstacles and difficulties. Journal of Heritage Tourism,
4(2), 117–129.
Prentice, R. (1993). Tourism and heritage attractions. London: Routledge.
Prideaux, B. (2008). The role of visitor attractions in peripheral areas. In A. Fyall,
B. Garrod, A. Leask, & S. Wanhill (Eds.), Managing visitor attractions (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Prideaux, B., & Kininmont. (1999). Tourism and heritage are not strangers: a study
of opportunities for rural heritage museums to maximise tourism visits. Journal
of Travel Research, 37(3), 299–303.
166
A. Leask / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 155–166
Reichel, A., & Haber, S. (2005). A three-sector comparison of the business performance of small tourism enterprises – an exploratory study. Tourism Management, 26(5), 681–690.
Rentschler, R., Hede, A.-M., & White, T. (2007). Museum pricing: challenges to
theory development and practice. International Journal of Non-profit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(2), 163–173.
Reynisdottir, M., Song, H., & Agrusa, J. (2008). Willingness to pay entrance fees to
natural attractions: an Icelandic study. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1076–1083.
Rhoden, S., Ineson, E., & Ralston, R. (2009). Volunteer motivation in heritage railways: a study of West Somerset railway. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 4(1), 19–36.
Richards, G. (2002). Tourism attraction systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4),
1048–1064.
Ryan, C., & Savard, J. (2004). The zoo as an ecotourism attraction – visitor reactions,
perceptions and management implications: the case of Hamilton zoo, New
Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(3), 245–266.
Sautter, E., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312–328.
Scottish Enterprise. (1997). Scottish visitor attractions review, tourism resource
company. Glasgow: Scottish Enterprise.
Scottish Enterprise. (2004). Visitor attractions international benchmarking study – A
guide to management best practice. Glasgow: Scottish Enterprise.
Shackley, M. (1998). Visitor management: Case studies from world heritage sites.
Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Shackley, M. (2001). Managing sacred sites: Service provision and visitor experience.
London: Continuum.
Sharpley, R. (2007). Flagship attractions and sustainable rural development: the
case of Alnwick gardens, England. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 125–143.
Sharpley R. (2009) Book review. In A. Fyall, B. Garrod, A. Leask, & S. Wanhill, (2008).
Managing visitor attractions. Tourism management: Vol. 30 (1) pp. 145–146.
Shoval, N., & Raveh, A. (2004). Categorization of tourist attractions and the
modelling of tourist cities: based on the co-plot method of multi-variate
analysis. Tourism Management, 25(6), 741–750.
Silbergh, D., & Falconer, P. (2004). Heritage assets and policy tensions: managing for
tourism and social inclusion. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 2(2), 91–104.
Smith, R. (1998). Visitor attractions in Scotland. In R. MacLellan, & R. Smith (Eds.),
Tourism in Scotland. London: Thomson Business Press.
Spendolini. (1992). In J. Lennon, H. Smith, N. Cockerell, & J. Trew (Eds.), Benchmarking national tourism organisations and agencies understanding best practice.
Advances in tourism research series. Oxford: Elsevier. (2006).
Sternberg, E. (1997). The iconography of the tourism experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(4), 951–969.
Stevens, T. (2000). The future of visitor attractions. Travel and Tourism Analysis, 1,
61–85.
Stevens, T. (2003). The future of visitor attractions. In A. Fyall, B. Garrod, & A. Leask
(Eds.), Managing visitor attractions: New directions. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
Stewart, J., & Walsh, K. (1992). Change in the management of public services. Public
Administration, 70(4), 499–518.
Stone, P., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Consuming dark tourism: a thanatological
perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 574–595.
Swarbrooke, J. (2001). Key challenges for visitor attraction managers in the UK.
Journal of Leisure Property, 1(4), 318–336.
Swarbrooke, J. (2002). The development and management of visitor. Attractions (2nd
ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Timothy, D., & Boyd, S. (2003). Heritage tourism. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Timothy, D., & Boyd, S. (2006). Heritage tourism in the 21st century: valued
traditions and new perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 1–16.
Timothy, D., & Butler, R. (1994). Cross-border shopping: a North American
perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 16–34.
Timothy, D., & Nyaupane, G. (2009). Cultural heritage and tourism in the developing
world: A regional perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.
Turley, S. (1999). Exploring the future of the traditional UK zoo. Journal of Vacation
Management, 5(4), 340–355.
Turley, S. (2001). Children and the demand for recreational experiences: the case of
zoos. Leisure Studies, 20, 1–18.
VisitScotland. (2006). The 2005 visitor attraction monitor. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University.
VisitScotland. (2009). The 2008 visitor attraction monitor. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University.
VittersØ, J., Vorkinn, M., Vistad, O., & Vaagland, J. (2000). Tourist experiences at
attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 432–448.
Wall, G. (1997). Tourist attractions: points, lines and areas. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(1), 240–243.
Walsh, K. (1994). Marketing and public sector management. European Journal of
Marketing, 28(3), 63–71.
Walsh-Heron, J., & Stevens, T. (1990). The management of visitor attractions and
events. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wanhill, S. (August 2000). Mines: a tourist attraction. Coal mining in industrial
South Wales. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 60–69.
Watson, S., & McCracken, M. (2002). No attraction in strategic thinking: perceptions
on current and future skills needs for visitor attraction managers. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 4(5), 367–378.
Watson, S., McCracken, M., & Hughes, M. (2004). Scottish visitor attractions:
managerial competence requirements. Journal of European Training, 28(1),
39–66.
Weed, M. (2009). Progress in sports tourism research? A meta-review and exploration of futures. Tourism Management, 30(5), 615–628.
Whitfield, J. (2009). Why and how visitor attractions diversify their product to offer
conference and event facilities. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 10,
72–88.
Wilson, L.-A. (2004). Visitor attractions in Northern Ireland: the relationship
between visitor number performance and ownership type, 1990–2002. Current
Issues in Tourism, 7(2), 146–180.
Wilson, L.-A., & Boyle, E. (2004). Explaining the performance of a new public service
visitor attraction shop. International Journal Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(5), 299–308.
Winter. (2002). Angkor meets Tomb Raiders: setting the scene. International Journal
of Heritage Studies, 8(4), 323–336.
Winter, T. (2009). The modernities of heritage and tourism: interpretations of an
Asian future. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 4(2), 105–115.
Xiao, H., & Smith, S. (2006). The making of tourism research: insights from a social
sciences journal. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 490–507.
Xie, P. (2006). Developing industrial heritage tourism: a case study of the proposed
Jeep museum in Toledo, Ohio. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1321–1330.