Efectos del enriquecimiento en modelos murinos de enfermedades

By combining all the aforementioned postmodern society characteristics, one can understand why the territory acquires a significant role in the development of society. As a consequence of the technological development that has made mobility practices more accessible, the value of the stability of a fixed residence changes, along with the value of the place itself.

Furthermore, many changes related to this shift in paradigm are directly related to the evolution of the way in which contemporary society experiences the territory. Globalization has made the world accessible: individuals can have access to and consume products from different cultures and societies. Nomadic practices promote mobility through countries at the same time as communication with any other state is possible at the speed of a click.

Surprisingly, the value of the local and autochthonous appears to be more relevant than ever, as individuals and social groups are reclaiming their unique identity. Moreover, the new role of consumption as tightly related to the acquisition and differentiation of identities has also turned territories, nations, cities, regions, and destinations into commodities and symbolism to consume.

2.1.2.1. The new role of the territory

In this postmodern society context where symbolic consumption has become a critical component of individual and social identity construction and tourism activity has also gained relevance. More specifically, there are three key factors to understand the role of a place’s activity in actuality. These are the globalized context that defends the value of particularity and authenticity; the commercialization of symbols, where everything has become goods to be consumed (Castells, 2003); and a society that tends towards nomadism and increasingly values mobility (Bauman, 2000).

These factors have favored the emergence of an identitarian value of places, and a change of role of the geographical territory now full of symbolism to be consumed (Sack, 1988). On the one hand, the land becomes the context where individuals and socials groups develop themselves, and thus contributes to the creation of their narratives. As Sack (1992) notes, the overall consumption activity is, in itself, a promoter of the symbolic role of places.

23

Moreover, de San Eugenio (2011) explains how products and goods are located in space and how, as a result of the advertising and communication activity, the territory is impregnated with their symbolism. Otherwise, the singularity of the place of origin adds to the products’

meaning. Thus, in a globalized context that tends towards homogenization, the value of “the local” brings differentiation to goods (Lash & Urry, 1994). Thus, places have become new products that awaken consumers’ interest. The territory is no longer only a contingent of all the goods that can be consumed within it: the place itself offers symbolism desired by consumers; “it becomes a commodity” (Nogué & Vicente, 2001, p.15). In other words, as new products to be consumed, territories are associated with signs, symbols, and narratives, transmitted from person to person, social group to social group, and even managed from communication, advertising, and marketing fields.

From the 1990s on, marketing took the lead in planning and managing territory strategies.

Marketing techniques were found useful in strengthening places’ economy and positioning them in a global market (Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993), and became one of the pillars of place management. However, marketers started to identify some difficulties in transferring commercial brands’ strategies to territories, and some criticism was raised concerning the challenge of implanting the traditional marketing paradigm based on the 4P’s (Kavaratzis, 2004; Pike & Page, 2014). For example, marketers cannot influence the product or distribution in destination marketing the way they can in the retail industry. Differently, promotion has thus become their main focus of action.

Therefore, at the beginning of the 21^st century, new voices proposed branding as a different approach more suitable to place management (Kavaratzis, 2004). In line with the new economy of symbols tendency, with this new approach concepts such as image, identity, and communication became more relevant for place management and positioning. These disciplines invest significant effort in creating strong brands capable of binding together all these meanings. Brands not only represent the architectonical legacy, autochthonous products, and museums, among others, but also values, citizens’ attitudes, and the place’s personality. Furthermore, recent advances in this field point to the importance of collaborative place branding: an approach that considers the different stakeholders' voices to strengthen the place brand (Warnaby, Ashworth, & Kavaratzis, 2015).

In addition, another difficulty faced by territory brands is the need to compete in different markets simultaneously. The messages and narratives related to the territory frequently

24

pursue different objectives. Places are not represented by linear narratives but can build different messages for different purposes, all linked to a single brand. As Anholt (2004) highlights, six different types of communications contribute to building strong place brands, depending on their main focus: exportations, tourism, foreign and domestic policy, people, investment and immigration, and culture and heritage. This complexity in place branding messages usually brings contradictions and even conflicts between the narratives offered by the place, especially between place and destination brands.

In this regard, it is interesting to raise the issue indicated by Nogué and Albet (2007) concerning the authenticity crisis. Nowadays, the sustainability of places is a major concern, especially touristic territories where tourism narratives threaten the survival of the local ones but the former cannot be sustained without the latter. As the authors discuss, there is a substantial difference between reality and its representation, and one must be aware of the risks of what they call “the celebration of the inauthenticity” (Nogué & Albet, 2007, p.205).

For example, the historian and anthropologist Davis and Marvin (2004) explore this problematic in Venice. They note that “Venetian culture has become like Venetian space, available for appropriation by foreigners.” The authors continue their analysis by pointing to some concrete examples such as that of the gondola: the original and singular means of transportation of the local population, it has now turned into an expensive tourist attraction, and “most locals now find it alienating and somehow embarrassing” (op. cit. p.238). For this reason, and with regard to the tourism facet of places, it is imperative to connect and stay in touch with the residents of the place as the main stakeholders of a destination (Morrison, 2013; Pike, 2005).

Although this discussion remains highly relevant to the sustainability of places and their future, the aim of this study is not to go further into this debate. Nevertheless, this conflict evinces the significant role and importance of place consumption. In the contemporary context, territory narratives and symbolism are more highly valued than the factual reality of a place.

2.1.2.2. Places as tourism destinations

Similar to the new value attributed to territories, places as tourism destinations have also shifted from mere leisure activities to consumption activities highly relevant for identity construction. As de San Eugenio's (2011) notes, the tourism revolution has moved from the

25

typical “sun, sand and sex” value to an aesthetic tourism surrounded by myths and symbols associated with the destination.

In this process of turning destinations into symbolic goods, brands are key components.

Communication and marketing practices exalt the most differentiating characteristics of the territory, such as historical heritage (Nogué & Albet, 2007), binding them together under the same brand. Specifically selected images about the destination are produced and, from them, the reality of the territory as a destination is reconstructed. This new paradigm goes beyond traditional touristic promotion and enhances the persuasive and emotional tone of communications (Daye, 2010). Contemporary destination brands must evoke the imagery and possible worlds shared with the tourists (de San Eugenio Vela, 2011, p.92). Further, destinations must strategically manage their brands to match, to some extent, tourists’

interests. In the era of symbolism, consumers are exposed to a vast amount of messages and, in their process of assimilation, they select and simplify only those perceived as more relevant to their interests and coherent with their identity path (Pike, 2012).

Therefore, to promote destinations in the postmodern context, a new style of communication based on intangibles increasingly represents places as tourist destinations in the media (de San Eugenio Vela, 2011). According to Sonnenburg and Wee (2016, p.325), “the production and consumption of tourist commodities are not only implicated in the transfer of capital but also in the transfer of meanings, emotions, experiences and sensibilities attributed to these commodities.” These new practices encourage tourism by attributing a symbolic/identity-related benefit to it, making this activity more relevant for individuals every day. As a consequence of this increasing value of destination consumption, Chias (2005) describes the emergence of a new trend, represented by the expressions “have you visited?” and “you have to go”, among others, typifying destinations as if they were fashion accessories. All in all, the popularization of destinations consumption has increased exponentially in recent years.

As a consequence, the international tourism market has become increasingly competitive (Morrison, 2013; Pike, 2012), as destinations need to differentiate themselves from competitors. Furthermore, Chias (2005) identifies three tendencies of postmodern tourism:

 The trend of the market towards more specialized tourism.

 The importance of strengthening what he calls the three E’s: entertainment, excitement, and education.

26

 The polarization of tourists’ preferences: on the one hand, those seeking pleasure and comfort, and on the other, those searching for adventure and culture.

Related to the last point, Pike (2012) also highlights the changes in tourists’ interests. In his study, the author proposes a double-axis framework to describe visitors' interests. One end of the axis represents exploring the world, and the opposite end, engaging it. This is closely related to what Chias (2005) refers to as comfort and adventure. Furthermore, Pike (2012) identifies a second axis describing tourists' personal focus: outward and inward experiences.

Altogether, the author personifies travel motivations into six different tourist profiles, as can be seen in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2. Contemporary tourist motivations

Source: Pike (2012, p.158)

Therefore, contemporary destination constructions still need to represent the traditional natural paradises and pleasure image, but also enthusiasm, excitement, leisure, and entertainment in a fictitious way: a reality created ad hoc for tourists to experience it (Sack, 1992). Destination brand managers must propose narratives that the tourists are willing to consume, narratives adjusted to different tourist profiles.

2.1.2.3. Tourists’ active role in destination branding

In the process of creating the destination’s narrative, tourists are not mere observers anymore, but active players, decoders of the symbolism linked to that destination (de San

27

Eugenio Vela, 2011). Furthermore, Sonnenburg and Wee (2016) argue that tourists consume in a “conscious, reflexive, and productive way,” so they not only decode messages but also co-create them. Thus, postmodern tourists have the power to co-create and disseminate new meanings.

At this point, it is interesting to recover some of Bauman's (2000) contributions. To fully understand touristic postmodern consumption, the importance of technological improvements must be noted. On the one hand, new means of transportation have made international destinations accessible to all kinds of publics. Nowadays, mobility is more readily available in economic terms as well as in terms of space and time (Bauman, 2000). On the other hand, technologies have also revolutionized communication media. Spreading a message across the world is easier than ever, which has favored the creation and visibility of destination brands full of symbolism.

For tourists, the world becomes smaller every day: they can reach the corners of the world thanks to present-day means of transportation, and they can access their symbolic messages with a single click. Thus, tourists are independent and lead the decision-making process thanks to technology. As Chias (2005) notes, they can obtain all the information they need to create a customized experience. Moreover, Torkington (2012) indicates that users expect to find the most characteristic aspects of brand identities projected in brand discourse and, further, in their informational search. In particular, several authors point to the indispensability of the Internet in postmodern tourism practices (Chias, 2005; Law et al., 2010; Luna-Nevarez &

Hyman, 2012; Park & Gretzel, 2007; Standing et al., 2014).

The role of tourists in co-creating these messages makes destination brand management more challenging, and this becomes even more complicated if one considers the diversity of tourist profiles and interests. Socio-demographic segmentation is not accurate enough to describe tourist profiles so, in the last decade, psychographic segmentation has become the first choice when it comes to analyzing the relationship between tourists and destinations (Valls et al., 2014). Reconsidering Figure 2.2, at least six different core motivations move travelers to search for, consider, and select destinations. It is imperative for destination brands’

management not to ignore the heterogeneity of their target, since this could mislead the strategy and condition tourists’ behavior (Castro, Martín Armario, & Martín Ruiz, 2007).

28

In summary, postmodern tourism is understood here as a set of artificially created narratives associated with a territory, co-created with tourists themselves. This symbolic tourism has the ultimate goal of differentiating a destination from competitors in a globalized context, and to reconstruct the identity of the destination by means of recovering the uniqueness and value of

“the local” (de San Eugenio Vela, 2011).