[Redefining boundaries of tourism destinations: a consumer- based approach] Autores y e-mail de la persona de contacto: Sra. Isabel Paulino ([email protected]) Departamento: Departament d’Organizació d’empreses i disseny de producte Universidad: Universitat de Girona Área Temática: Desarrollo regional y turismo Resumen: Tourism destinations are generally delimited on the basis of the different administrative boundaries of the territory involved, whether at local, regional, national or international level. However, these are probably not the most suitable for the destination’s management purposes and interests. We wonder whether the actual tourist activity (as consumers, transient population or other criteria) corresponds to the space bounded by administrative limits. It is probably a better effective solution to delimit destinations from the perspective of its management and planning. This study challenges the conventional way of delimiting tourism destinations, mainly based on administrative boundaries. The research introduces a spatial analysis model which points to an alternative territorialisation of destinations, arguably more useful for management purposes. In this sense it represents a methodological exercise (based on a combination of methods such as spatial clustering) which frames the formal geography of destination areas in the actual spatial patterns of consumption defined by tourists’ activity. It is argued that the definition of new administrative areas based on such criteria will reflect more closely the needs of tourists, defined by the spatial relation between attractions and accommodation hubs. Palabras Clave: Consumption Patterns, rural areas, boundaries, tourism clusters, destination planning. Clasificación JEL: R 1- Introduction Tourism destinations are regarded as bounded geographical areas which attract a certain number of tourists based on a homogeneous system of attractions that characterises them (Leiper, 1995). The geographical delimitation of destinations is generally defined by administrations, normally coinciding with the boundaries of the administration which has the competence for tourism management in that area. On the other hand, Tourism activity does not stop at political borders, whereby there is no sense in defining tourism destination based on administrative criterion. Tourist Landscapes are those created by and for the tourists. They are visible structures that result from tourism attachment to place, as well as the images, or myths of place that are produced, contested and enforced by various agents (residents, promoters, and governments) (Timothy, 2002). In the literature it could be found many attempts to define this Tourist Landscapes, most of which are done from the offer point of view following the idea of industrial districts (Tourism Districts in this case), but fewer cases from the consumer perspective. Prioritizing the tourist gaze, some authors advocated the Functional Regions as the Tourist Landscape with an optimal management scale (Blasco Franch, 2014; Krajnović, Bosna, & Jašić, 2013; Shih, 2006). Here the distance represents an essential moderating factor for one’s travel motivation and choice of attractions. This study intends to assess the inconsistencies of a purely administrative destination delimitation method at a local or regional scale and proceeds to define an alternative method which is arguably more suitable for management and marketing purposes. Basing our study on an already existent destination which is transversed by regional, provincial and municipal boundaries; the aim is to find out if there is an effective strategy for the development of tourism destinations that permeates the current administrative structures, prioritizing the tourist perspective criteria. It is well known that most of the tourism consumption patterns in destinations are affected by the spatial distribution of resources, which includes distance between attractions, their intensity and their specificity. The most common tourism spatial patterns within destinations are the hub-and-spoke or base-camp models (Chancellor & Cole, 2008; McKercher & Lau, 2008), particularly in rural regions where car-based movements are predominant (Connell & Page, 2008). The attractions are the basic elements on which tourism is developed (Lew, 1987). Thus, this study is going to 1 provide an innovative solution for delimiting tourism destinations for management purposes based on the spatial distribution of the attractions and the consumption pattern of the visitors to such attractions, beyond the administrative geographies of the territory involved. This method combines geographical information, based on time-distances between attractions, and a hierarchical cluster analysis technique. Furthermore, the study acknowledges that locations which provide infrastructure for visitors are more likely to attract a greater number of visitors than those without (Chhetri & Arrowsmith, 2008). Therefore, the determination of the destination base-camp will take into account the accommodation base-camps (as a simplification of tourism infrastructure). Finally this paper produces a conjunct spatial analysis of the distribution of such clusters and the tourism attractions contained in them to evaluate the new proposed zones and their predominant categories of attraction, which could offer tourism managers a basis for an optimised marketing and management strategy. 2- Theoretical framework Due to its decisive influence on the sustainable development of the tourism region, there is an important discussion about tourism destinations: the concept of real and psychological space, by tourists on one hand and by the organizers of the destination on the other. This study focuses on the literature about destination regions dominated by pleasure tourism, rather than travel motivated by other reasons. In this area it is important to mention Dredge’s (1999) work, as she provided the tourism academy with an holistic perception of the tourism destinations planning. Her work gathered relevant literature on the topic, integrating conceptual basis for a comprehensive understanding of the spatial characteristics of destination regions. Fagence (1995) acknowledges that the main contributions of the existing models about destinations planning lie in establishing the relevance of certain geographical concepts, such as spatial interaction between components, distance decay from origins to destinations, nodal hierarchies, tour circuits, and specialization between destinations and nodal interdependency. Dredge (1999), referring to the land use planning as a previous identification for spatial development, says that it should also be carried out at the local or regional level, as opposed to market-oriented tourism which is most commonly carried out at the regional level or above. Despite this, the operational objectives of regional tourism organizations, their organizational skill sets, funding structures and processes have often 2 been geared towards marketing, with little or no attention given to tourism planning or sustainable tourism (Lovelock, 2011). Another difficulty to manage regional destinations is that is hard to define its boundaries. Depending on regarded perspective (the tourists use, tourism companies distribution, cultural ties of the local people and other market actors), the destinations may appear totally different in terms of shape, content and relationships. Recently, there is an evolution from a pure supply-side or production oriented definition to a more demand-side or customer oriented perspectives to define a destination. Lew & McKercher (2006) define the local destination as the area containing the products and activities that could normally be consumed in a daytrip from the heart of the destination and that are normally promoted by the destination as part of its overall suite of products. According to Dredge (1999), destination’s regions boundaries should be tied to travel patterns and characteristics. Depending upon this travel patterns and characteristics of the visit (e.g., mode or distance travelled), destination regions may be large or small and may or may not overlap. Planners must be aware that these regions exist at different scales in one location and that the use of administrative boundaries, commonly adopted in land-use planning, may limit proper conceptualization and planning of the destination region. Other study-cases have put into doubt the traditional tourism management. Blasco, Guia & Prats (2010, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c) analyzed some international destinations managed by different countries and regions. The conclusions of those study-cases were that another type of management and tourism zoning could be beneficial for the destination. When analyzing the Pyrenees destination, (Blasco et al., 2010, 2014a, 2014c), the geographical region was considered by visitors as a unique entity, although is administratively divided by three countries and their internal regions and counties. Ioannides, Nielsen, & Billing (2006), studied the transboundary collaboration in the Bothnian Arc Project, a cross-border collaborative effort between Sweden and Finland. They focused their study on the development and marketing of this cross-border region as a single destination. In some regions of the world (as Europe), international boundaries became just political and administrative lines, without physical impediments, similar to non-international boundaries. At the Regional and local government, largely through resourcing