Memoria constructiva

Over the years, different forms of tourism and knowledge have evolved. This has resulted in a variety of tourist typologies being defined. This variety recognises that tourists are not a homogenous group. As the tourism phenomenon is shaped by the individuals perpetuating it, it is valuable to understand them and the diversity of tourist types. Investigating tourist motivations and values can provide an insight into the different forms of tourism arising and create a better understanding of development.

One of the simplest methods of classifying tourists is to identify the reason for the trip, such as for business, leisure, or visiting friends and family (Jafari, 2003). This is commonly seen in statistical surveys, which often categorise tourists based on such aforementioned reasons. These can provide an insight into trip characteristics and choices that the tourist will make. For example, business travel might be characterised by last minute bookings, with cities as the destination rather than resorts. Furthermore, business tourists are more likely to visit during weekdays and travel during non-business hours such as evenings or early mornings. They are more likely to be the target of associated tourism businesses, as this group is usually educated and wealthy (Jafari, 2003). As can be seen, this simple method of tourist classification can help provide a range of valuable information about tourists and their habits.

Cohen put forward two sets of tourist classifications (as cited in McMinn & Cater, 1998). The first was a four-fold classification consisting of two non- institutionalised typologies - the drifter and the explorer - and two institutionalised typologies: the individual mass tourist and the organised mass tourist. These classifications identify tourist behaviour and the probable subsequent impacts associated with them. However, use in identifying other characteristics, such as tourist movements and values, are limited. Cohen later proposed a new way to classify tourists by learning about their ‘centre’ (1979) . A tourist’s ‘centre’ is based on the individual’s feelings about their home country and perceptions. This influences the types of experience that the tourist will pursue.

32 These experiences are grouped under the following types: recreational, diversionary, experiential, experimental and existential. For example the experiential tourist typology can be applied to a person who feels alienated in their own home country. This individual will therefore seek out different and new cultures to learn about and experience (Cohen, 1979). The classification categories are useful in identifying the types of experiences a tourist may be interested, but their definitions may be obscure or difficult to apply.

Smith (as cited in Jafari, 2003) uses a different approach by using the following factors to classify tourists based on destination interests: ethnic, cultural, historical, environmental and recreational. This approach takes into account what the destination has to offer, linking it with tourist interests. Smith also proposed other typologies; in particular, one typology is useful for determining the level of interaction between the tourist and the host community, and the subsequent changes in behaviour from this interaction. As cited in Jafari (2003), Smith considers the adaptability of the tourist, using the example of how an ‘explorer’ type tourist would be able to adapt and acclimatise to the host’s culture, but a mass tourist would not be able to adjust to the host’s lifestyle. Similarly, the host community’s behaviour can be influenced through interactions with tourist culture with the level of change being determined by their adaptability.

The role that motivations and destination play in classifying tourists has been highlighted by multiple authors. Acott, Trobe and Howard (1998) note that it is plausible that tourist types have motivations that don’t match up with the destination that they’re visiting. For example, a business traveller might visit a resort, while an ecotourist might visit a non-ecotourist destination, such as an urban centre. As such, distinguishing tourists in these situations would require an investigation into their values and motivations. Observing behaviours at the destination would offer further clarification, as tourist actions would conform to their values. Furthermore, a single destination can be heterogeneous in the tourists visiting it, giving rise to a combination of typologies specific to the site. This can be seen in studies by McMinn and Cater (1998) and Wickens (2002). Both

33 destinations have different characteristics and histories and therefore have different types of tourists visiting the area.

These observations support the idea that creating tourist typologies is complicated. The prioritisation of different characteristics can result in different classifications and as such, requires multiple aspects to be considered before tourists are grouped into a typology. Furthermore, the aforementioned typologies should not be used to limit and bias categorisation of tourists by fitting them into the proposed genres. Instead they should be viewed as options which provide methods or criteria that can be used to classify and characterise tourists. However, recent literature on creating and characterising tourists is sparse, which may be attributed to a move toward site-specific studies. Therefore, typologies will not accurately capture the diversity of tourists at the destination without considering the study site.