La isla de los muertos

The processes of tourism development and change in destination areas have been treated theoretically in various ways in tourism studies. Studies in tourism development have adopted various frameworks to understand tourism development processes, such as the Miossec (1976) model, the Leiper (1979) framework, the Butler (1980) model, and the development spectrum framework advanced by Prideux (2000). In this subsection the relationships between two models of tourism development as well as their applicability in coastal tourism development studies are described. The models selected are Miossec’s tourism development model and the destination life cycle model.

1.4.6.1 Miossec’s tourism development model

The Miossec model, published in France in 1976 (see Figure 1.11), examines the interactions of four key elements in the resort development process during different phases of tourism destination’s evolution through time and space (Miossec 1976). It explains the destination itself and its characteristics, the role of transport, tourist behaviour patterns, and attitudes of the decision makers and residents of the destination (Howie 2003).

Pearce (1989) describes the model as follows. In the early phase (0 and 1) of development, the area scarcely merits the term destination – only occasional visitors are present and residents and decision makers hold no particular attitude toward them. In phase 2, once an area is discovered by tourists, a ‘pioneer’ resort may be distinguished. Attitudes toward the development change both positively and negatively. As the destination develops, an increasingly complex hierarchical system of resorts and transport networks evolves, while changes in local attitudes may lead to the acceptance of tourism. The development pattern arrived at through conscious decision making reflects the desires of all stakeholders (phases 3 and 4). Meanwhile, the tourists have become more aware of what the region has to offer with some spatial specialization occurring, while some tourists change their behaviour and move on to other areas.

Source: Pearce (1989: 17)

Figure 1.11 Miossec’s model of tourist development

Miossec’s model is notable for incorporating coordination between the local authorities and private developers in combining their objectives. In this regard Howie (2003: 59) notes that

“[t]he sometimes conflicting nature of these objectives has led in recent years to an increasing desire for ‘public-private partnerships’ for action and development in an effort to derive more complementarity between objectives.” According to Pearce (1989), the Miossec model remains the clearest and most explicit conceptualization of the process of tourism development. Notably, the model can be used for site-scale, destination-scale and

regional-phase

territory transit isolation lack of interest and knowledge

multiplication of resorts increase of transport links between resorts

progress in perception

of places and itineraries infrastructure policy servicing of resorts

saturation connectivity maximum forms of substitution saturation and crisis

scale cases to understand tourism development and spatial transformations. Apparently the model has not attracted much attention from researchers. In South Africa, Ferreira & Hanekon (1995) used Miossec’s model as a framework at a regional level to analyse the emergence of Warmbaths as a tourism region.

Pearce (1989: 18) points out two features of the model that make it useful as a tourism development framework. First, it incorporates a dynamic element: “the development of the region through time and space” is very important in analysing past progress and in planning development. Second, it provides an overview of this evolution by examining changes in tourist behaviour, attitudes of hosts and decision makers as elements directly involved in tourism development and the expansion of transport networks.

The model is suitable for understanding the evolution and dynamics of tourism development in the ICZ because it is possible to analyse the whole zone by looking at each tourism node as a tourist destination and because the model can be combined with the destination life cycle model.

1.4.6.2 Destination life cycle model

Butler (1980) created a model of resort development which led to the tourism area life cycle (TALC) derived from the product life cycle concept in marketing. It is a useful model concerned with the hypothetical evolution of a tourist area. In this model the number of tourists replaces the number of products sold. The model is based on knowledge of the development of a range of established tourist destinations that predate the contemporary period where increasing attention is given to planning and sustainable development (Agarwal 1997; Howie 2003).

According to Agarwal (1997) the destination life cycle model identifies six main stages:

exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation, and rejuvenation or decline (see Figure 1.12). After the discovery of the destination, the first stage – exploration – is characterized by a small number of visits to the place. There is no tourism development in the destination and the environmental quality is high. In the second stage, involvement, the local communities and authorities decide whether they wish to encourage tourism development by providing facilities assumed to be desired by tourists. Appropriate tourism organizations may be set up in the destination. The development stage sees growth of tourism in the destination

Source: Meyer-Arendt (1993: 128)

Figure 1.12 The tourist area cycle of evolution

while decision-making power may move from local authorities to institutions. Psychocentric² tourists become the majority of the visitors, while the allocentrics³ move on in search of new places (Meyer-Arendt 1993; Agarwal 1997).

The consolidation stage is characterized by a decline in the rate of visits, although total numbers are still increasing, and the destination has begun to experience economic, social and environmental problems. In the stagnation stage the destination has failed to retain a fashionable status and environmental quality may be declining through a failure to invest.

Social and economic problems may arise through a loss of income and negative consequences emerge. The rejuvenation or decline stage depends on how the destination is managed.

Decline is the consequence of inadequate or inappropriate destination management.

According to the adopted measures in destination management, the situation may change positively or the destination continues to decline. Rejuvenation is the outcome of successful strategies arising from a period of introspection and of drawing inspiration and lessons from other destinations (Howie 2003).

Butler’s model, like any useful theoretical model, has been applied, criticized, and modified over the years (Bennett 1995; Agarwal 1997; Johnston 2001; Hovinen 2002; Bennett &

2Psychocentric tourists are inclined to travel to more familiar destinations enjoying commonplace activities and staying in typical accommodation. They tend to be conservative in their travel patterns, preferring specific destinations and often taking many return trips (Mynhardt 1995; Cooper et al. 2008).

3 Allocentric tourists are characterized by a sense of adventure, self-confidence and willingness to see and do new things and discover new destinations. They rarely return to the same place twice (Mynhardt 1995; Cooper et al. 2008).

Stydom 2005; Rodriguez, Lopez & Estevez 2008). However, the model is useful as a portrayal of resort development, though it is more descriptive than normative (Johnston 2001). Although Butler (2004) admits that the model does not always fit reality, he maintains that it can be used to test its validity in a particular destination. Moreover, the model is still being used to describe and interpret destination development, thereby showing that TALC remains relevant. For example, Agarwal (1997) discusses the applicability and validity of the model by analysing seaside tourism; Oppermann (1998), Weaver (2000) and Hovinen (2002) have revised the destination life cycle model; and Johnston (2001) and Prideaux (2004) have proposed other models based on TALC. The many case studies based on Butler’s model which refer to mature destinations, are perhaps a desire to avoid the fatalistic path shown by the model (Rodriguez, Lopez & Estevez 2008).

The TALC model is adaptable for site-scale, destination-scale and for regional-scale situations in order to better understand tourism development and spatial transformations. The life cycle model works well for resorts where tourism is the principal activity, but less so in more complex places (Howie 2003). The contribution of the life cycle and Miossec’s models appears to be appropriate for gaining an understanding of the evolution of beach tourism nodes in the ICZ since 1992.