TOURISM in PARIS Studies at the Microscale

TOURISM IN PARIS Studies at the Microscale

Douglas G. Pearce University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Abstract: Selected examples of such attractions in Paris as churches, grands magasins and the sewers are examined systematically in the light of the literature on tourist spaces and tourist attractions to illustrate issues which arise in urban tourism at the microscale. Particular attention is focused on issues of place identity and spatial management such as the display of specialized markers and the setting aside of areas for specific functions. Combinations of these measures are used, both as a reaction to visitor pressure and to foster tourist patronage and use. The study concludes that tourists make identifiable and distinctive demands on places and merit greater attention as users of space. Keywords: urban tourism, Paris, spatial management, attractions, markers, churches, shops, sewers. Þ 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Resume: Le tourisme aÁ Paris: etudes aÁ la micro-echelle. On examine divers endroits touristiques de Paris*les eglises, les grands magasins et les egouts*d|une manieÁre systematique et avec reference aux etudes conceptuelles des attraits et des espaces touristiques, ce afin d|illustrer certains probleÁmes qui se presentent aÁ la micro-echelle dans le tourisme urbain. On se concentre sur la question de l|identite des lieux et sur celle de la gestion des espaces en examinant les diverses mesures mises en place comme reaction aÁ la pression touristique ou pour encourager les visites. On conclut que les touristes ont des besoins clairs et particuliers et que leur usage de l|espace merite une plus grande attention. Mots-cles: tourisme urbain, Paris, gestion de l|espace, attraits, signaux, magasins, eglises, egouts. Þ 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Geographical studies of the spatial structure of tourism have essentially ignored processes and phenomena at very localized scales. Much of the research so far undertaken has concerned analyses of dis- tributions and flows at the international, national and regional levels (Pearce 1995). Certainly there is a plethora of local case studies but these frequently focus on patterns of demand, processes of development and varied impacts rather than on the way in which tourism is arranged in space. The spatial studies carried out at the local scale have tended to examine the morphologies of specialized resorts, especially coastal resorts, and the distribution of facilities in urban areas, particularly hotels. A few have attempted to analyze intra- urban tourist movements. Studies of tourism in urban areas, the subject of this article, recognize and demonstrate that various forms of zones exist (accommodation, historic sites, entertainment, attrac-

Douglas Pearce is Associate Professor of Geography at the University of Canterbury (PB 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email ð[email protected]Ł). He has published widely on many aspects of tourism, including three books entitled Tourist Development, Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis, and Tourist Organizations and two co-edited volumes entitled Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges and Change in Tourism: People, Places, Processes.

77 78 TOURISM IN PARIS tions, etc.) in which different services and features used and visited by tourists are located, often in a linear or clustered fashion (Burtenshaw, Bateman and Ashworth 1981; Jansen-Verbeke 1986; Chazaud 1994; Judd 1995; Pearce 1995; van den Berg, van der Borg and van der Meer 1995). There is rarely any attempt to go beneath this level and to look at the structure and functioning of individual components of any of these zones. Yet these individual features constitute the basic building blocks on which urban tourism is founded and understanding what happens at this scale (the site-specific or microscale) is surely essential for a fuller comprehension of tourism in the city as a whole. More than two decades ago, sociologist McCannell drew attention to some of the key elements of small scale tourism features when he wrote: The current structural development of industrial society is marked by the appearance everywhere of touristic space. This space can be called a stage set, a tourist setting, or simply a set depending on how purposely worked up for tourists the display is. (1973:597). Despite being widely cited in the subsequent literature on tourism, MacCannell|s concepts have scarcely been elaborated on nor tested empirically. Indeed MacCannell himself does not illustrate his ideas with in-depth treatment of specific examples. What is needed now is both a more precise conceptualization of microscale tourism and empirical research using more innovative field work than that com- monly found in citywide studies. It is in this context that this article seeks to make a contribution to the geography of urban tourism through a systematic analysis of the structure and functioning of selected microscale tourism spaces in Paris. As a leading international destination, attracting some 20 million visitors a year, Paris provides scholars with many stimulating research opportunities, the scale and scope of which cannot be readily captured in a single journal length article, for as Jules-Rosette observes: Paris, an international city with multiple guises layered under its complex history, offers a variety of touristic experiences. Everyone feels that Paris is theirs. This characteristic of Paris as a city of plural cultures, neigh- bourhoods, and networks makes it an especially interesting subject for research on tourism. (1994:679). Jules-Rosette|s concern was with the sights and experiences which constitute Black Paris, with understanding {{how a tourist attraction is created within a community in the absence of an obvious sight or spectacle|| (1994:680). Other writers, especially geographers, have adopted various spatial perspectives on tourism in Paris, notably through citywide unidimensional analyses, particularly of hotels (APUR 1995; Chemla 1990; Pearce 1995) but also occasionally of such other sectors as restaurants (Ortoli-Denoix 1990) and red-light districts (Ashworth, White and Winchester 1988). A more general conceptual overview is offered by Lozato-Giotart (1990) who proposes the notion of a polarized geographic model of tourism in Paris, but the multipolarity briefly outlined links the city with outlying regional nodes such as Versailles and Chartres rather than focusing on any DOUGLAS PEARCE 79 internal differentiation. The structure of tourism in France|s capital has also been the focus of planners| attention, both at the citywide scale, as in Paris| first tourism plan (Paris Promotion, Pauchant and BarreÁre 1992), and in district plans and redevelopments, such as of Montmartre (Mairie de Paris 1996) and of the Champs Elysees (Pogn- ant 1993). Planning and architectural studies have also been prepared for individual projects or sites experiencing heavy visitor pressure, for example the Grand Louvre (Pei and Biasini 1989), Notre Dame (CAFE/Argos 1991), and the Conciergerie Sainte-Chapelle (Atelier de l|Ile, Brard and Frenak 1995). These studies, however, are solely concerned with the individual site in question, concentrating on resolving practical problems of the particular building or complex. There is no attempt to identify broader issues nor to situate individual cases in any wider context, especially the structure and functioning of tourism at the microscale. It is this gap that this article seeks to fill by systematically drawing on selected examples to arrive at a more general understanding of this phenomenon. As such, it complements related research which adopted a similar approach at a larger scale to examine three tourism districts in Paris: the Ile de la Cite, Montmartre, and the Opera quarter (Pearce 1998). This article is based on research undertaken in the city in 1995 and 1996, research which is characterized by the use of multiple sources and approaches: observation (including participant observation), interviews with key personnel, recording and reading of diverse signs, analysis of documents, secondary data sources, and reference to previous studies. Before outlining and examining the empirical examples in detail, however, consideration needs to be given to the broader conceptual basis of tourist spaces and attractions.

Tourist Spaces and Attractions As with many other areas of tourism research, the study of urban tourism spaces is not underpinned by an extensive theoretical base (Pearce 1995) and it is also necessary to draw from other areas, notably the conceptualization of attractions. A limited amount of work in the urban literature has been concerned with a fairly descriptive citywide examination or basic modeling of the distribution of tourism services and facilities (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990; Cazes and Poitier 1996; Getz 1994; Page 1995; Pearce 1995). Jansen-Verbeke portrayed the inner-city environment as a product in which {{The leisure function in general, and the touristic function especially, are based on a spatial concentration of a wide variety of facilities as well as characteristic features of the environment. The attraction is thus both as an {activity place| and a {leisure setting|||(1986:85). Judd also emphasizes the agglomerative nature of the components {{making up a tourist space|| (1995:179) but scarcely elaborates on its structure. What is missing in all these cases is an explicit questioning of or statement on what constitutes a tourism space. The emphasis is on the location and distribution of visible, identifiable services, and facilities 80 TOURISM IN PARIS which are thought to have a predominant, but not necessarily exclusive, tourism orientation. In contrast, Philip Pearce, a social psychol- ogist, adopts a tourist-centered approach, arguing that since tourists may be defined in experiential terms {{any environment which fosters the feeling of being a tourist is a tourist environment||. He continues: {{In general terms tourist environments will have high transient populations, a number of physical modifications to facilitate the inspection of the locale, and an inherent structure to control visitor accessibility. Such settings will create the transitory, insulated from danger, voy- euristic, occasionally exploitative souvenir mentality identified earlier as characterizing the tourist experience||. Pearce contends that most places can act as a setting for tourism experiences and that a hier- archical scale of tourism areas exists, ranging from whole countries and continents down to a more specific level which {{consists of the interiors of buildings, scenic vantage points and other small-scale areas with high tourist usage||(1982:98Ð99). Pearce dismissed as piecemeal geographical approaches to classifying destination features, favoring instead sociologist Cohen|s (1979) four-category model of tourism environments based on authenticity and perceptions of stag- ing. From the perspective of the tour guide, Schmidt (1979) proposes a similar four-category classification of sites based on two variables: whether the site exists purely to serve tourists or whether it has some ongoing (non-tourist) purpose in itself and whether the setting is internally highly structurally differentiated, or whether it is mostly comprised of public space, with little structural differentiation. Several of the key elements discussed by Pearce, Cohen and Schmidt appeared in MacCannell|s (1973) seminal article and his subsequent book (1976). MacCannell argued that {{all tourist experiences are cultural experiences|| (1976:23), and that {{Touristic consciousness is motivated by its desire for authentic experiences|| (1973:597) and in this context developed the interest in touristic space cited above. Building on Goffman|s (1959) front-back dichotomy of social space, MacCannell contends touristic space exists as a continuum along which six stages or regions might be identified depending on the modifications made expressly for tourists. Although MacCannell acknowledged that {{distinct empirical indicators may be somewhat difficult to discover|| (1973:597), and although subsequent research has put in question the search for authenticity as being a tourist|s sole motivation, the basic notion of a continuum of regions adapted to varying degrees for such purposes remains a fruitful avenue for research on tourism spaces. Issues to be asked here include who is doing the modification, how, why and with what results? So too is his concept of an attraction as {{an empirical relationship between a tourist,asight and a marker (a piece of information about a sight [e.g., guidebooks, slideshows])||. He proceeds to elaborate in more general terms on societal changes with regard to sightseeing:

Modern society, originally quite closed up, is rapidly restructuring or insti- tutionalizing the rights of outsiders (that is, of individuals not functionally connected to the operation) to look into its diverse aspects . . . Under normal conditions of touristic development, no social establishment ultimately DOUGLAS PEARCE 81

resists conversion into an attraction, not even domestic establishments (1976:41, 49, 52). MacCannell|s ideas on the structure of an attraction are developed by Leiper who adopts a systems approach in which he stresses the functions of the markers which {{act as the catalytic element, linking the human and nuclear elements of an attraction system|| (1990:187). Leiper distinguishes between generating, transit, and contiguous markers which act to inform tourists in various ways including fostering initial motivation, destination selection, itinerary planning, and nucleus identification. His emphasis is on the functions of markers with little attention being given to their meaning, to the messages conveyed by the information provided. However, if attractions are to be understood as touristic places then the messages of the markers become critical. How are these places being presented? What are they being presented as? This is essentially the approach taken by Jules- Rosette (1994) in her interpretation of Black Paris which, drawing on MacCannell|s ideas, is largely based on the critical reading and ethnographic description of two guidebooks. Philip Pearce defines an attraction as {{a named site with a specific human or natural feature which is the focus of visitor and management attention|| (1991:46). He then explores the nature of such attractions and devises a set of principles which incorporate the visitors| and managers| perspectives, both being important if the functioning of these attractions/places is to be understood. Pearce develops Canter|s (1975) work on sense of place and argues: the physical attributes of a setting, the activities one performs in a setting and the conceptions people bring to a setting are all required if one is to fully understand and experience the unique sense of a specific location . . . A good tourist attraction . . . is one in which the public has clear conceptions of what the place is about . . . (1991:51). Four main ways of managing visitor flows in urban areas, according to Cazes and Potier (1996), are: spatial measures (zoning, policies favoring concentration, or dispersion); time management (for example through offering incentives to spread the load thoughout the day, week, or year); limitation of entry (by such means as total or partial closure, pricing, reservations and controlling infrastructural capacit- ies) and provision of information and enhancing visitor awareness. Cazes and Potier cite as an example of such management practices those recently put in place at Versailles (extended opening hours, providing additional access, separation of groups and individuals, and defining visitor itineraries) and at the Louvre (obligatory group reservations, variable pricing at different hours, and opening new rooms). Establishing the nature of the attraction, being clear on what the place is all about, and managing it appropriately are especially critical in urban areas which are characterized by their multifunctionality. While purpose-built facilities, including attractions, are found in urban areas, the urban tourist will frequently, even predominantly, use goods, services, and spaces provided in the first instance for local residents and having functions other than those of serving the needs 82 TOURISM IN PARIS of the visitor (Pearce 1989, 1995). In the urban context, the type and degree of adaptation and management of these spaces for visitors outlined by MacCannell, Schmidt, Cazes and Potier, and others thus becomes very important. Although tourists are not of course unique in having to share spaces with others or have special places created for them; cities and other places have long been constructed and/or divided on the basis of their use by different groups, identified in the past by such variables as class and ethnicity and, more recently, by others such as gender (Massey 1994; Mitchell 1996). Commenting on Massey|s work in the context of urban design, Madanipour observes: {{Conceptualization of place as contested space with multiple identities offers a dynamism in our understanding of places. It allows us to grasp the diversity and difference of particular spaces within themselves and in relation to their contexts|| (1996:348). Considerable scope exists for exploring the ways in which tourists contest space, and tourism adds another layer to the identity of places. The work on touristic spaces and attractions reviewed here provides a useful basis for further research even if the spatial element has not always been to the fore and basic concepts have yet to be fully developed empirically. In particular, two inter-related sets of questions arise from the preceding review: One, what are the issues of place identity which arise? How can one know these are tourist places? What identity is given to them and by whom? What images and identities are given or created by the markers? Two, how is space at the microscale modified and managed for tourism, by whom and with what results? Is modification and management reactive, that is a response to tourism pressures, or proactive, that is a deliberate strat- egy to foster visitation?

TOURISM IN PARIS AT THE MICROSCALE Given the size of Paris, the magnitude and hetereogeneity of tourism there, and the level of analysis adopted, a very large range of potential examples exists with which to explore the questions and issues raised in the above review. An exhaustive coverage of tourism in the city at this scale is beyond the scope and aims of this article which is more of an exploratory study into the structure and functioning of tourism at the microscale than a comprehensive analysis of it in Paris. Consequently, a selection of cases is made for more detailed treatment and subsequent comparison. The focus is on places which might be thought of as attractions. Although other sites such as transport nodes or modes of accommodation are also critical sectors, attractions constitute the raison d|¼etre for visiting a destination and further understanding of these is particularly important in this context. Those examined here*churches, grands magasins, and the city|s sewers*are a diverse but important and representative selection of Paris|s attractions (Pearce 1997) which will enable the issues outlined previously to be explored and common features to be dis- tinguished from ones specific to particular places. In addition, they also share the characteristic feature of many urban attractions of having other original and more dominant functions. DOUGLAS PEARCE 83

Visits to religious sites are one of the most popular forms of cultural tourism in Paris and other parts of France (Aucourt 1994; Colardelle and Montferrand 1994; Pearce 1997). In the early 90s Notre Dame cathedral was estimated to receive about 12 million visitors a year and the Sacre-Coeur basilica about half that number (CAFE/Argos 1991; Fournier 1993; Terrien 1995). Even if these figures are only estimates, there can be little doubt that they are among the most visited sites in Paris (Pearce 1997). In comparison, the Louvre recorded 4.7 million visits in 1996 and the Eiffel Tower, 5.5 million. Other churches renowned for their history and/or architecture, such as St Germain-des-Pres and St Eustache, as well as many smaller ones, also attract a significant number of visitors each year, though few exact figures are available. In order to examine a range of experiences, five examples have been selected: Notre Dame, Sacre-Coeur, St Germain-des-Pres, St Eustache and St Pierre. Some further indi- cation of their touristic importance is given by the rankings accorded by the Michelin guide for Paris (Michelin 1992): Notre Dame cathedral ranks three stars, the next three merit two stars each, and the smallerł Eglise St Pierre, located between Sacre-Coeur and the artists| square (Place du Tertre) in Montmartre, a single star. If visiting churches represents one face of tourism in Paris, the historical and cultural, shopping constitutes another, the modern and commerical. Shopping ranked in the top half dozen activities undertaken by a sample of international leisure visitors in 1991 (Paris et al. 1992) and accounted for about a fifth of all expenditure by foreign, individual hotel guests (two, three, four stars and de luxe) staying in the Ile de France in 1987 (Aidi 1991). Marked differences are found on this item, the Japanese being the most prolific shoppers while the British spend the least. The effect of foreign visitor shopping is pronounced in some retail sectors of the city. In addition to sup- porting a large number of souvenir and gift shops, for example along the Rue de Rivoli or adjacent to Notre Dame (Pearce 1998), tourists may constitute a significant proportion of the clientele in other retail stores. Customers from outside France, for instance, generate 18% of the turnover of Printemps Hausmann, one of the two leading prestige grands magasins (department stores) in Paris (Printemps nd). As a result, general retailers may develop particular policies, including spatial strategies, to cater for visiting shoppers. This article explores the ways in which two of the grands magasins (Printemps and Galeries Lafayette, both on the Boulevard Haussmann) foster touristic pur- chases in the context of their more traditional retail functions and manipulate and manage space to facilitate this. The third example chosen, the city|s sewers, is unique to Paris but at the same time representative of a broader phenomenon. Mac- Cannell cites the sewers of Paris as an example of attractions extend- ing to public works and as an illustration of {{ {alienated leisure| because such visits represent a perversion of the aim of leisure; they are a return to the work place|| (1976:57). They are, he asserts {{The presentation of the inner workings of society|s nether side . . . (1976:55)|| Similarly, Philip Pearce (1982) lists, without enlargement, the sewers of Paris as a touristic environment. Despite their fas- 84 TOURISM IN PARIS cination for academic writers, it is important, however, to keep some perspective on the sewers in terms of the attractions the city has to offer. Although they have been opened to visitors since the end of the 19th century, today they attract only around 100,000 visitors a year, of whom approximately 40% are foreign tourists, 30% are school field trips, and the remaining 30% Parisians and visitors from other parts of France. Thus while a novel attraction, a visit to the sewers is clearly a very secondary one, accounting for somewhat less than 1% of all foreign visitors to Paris each year. Nevertheless, in the context of this article, the sewer visit provides further insights into how spaces are organized and managed for tourists and others.

Churches In view of the high transient populations recorded at religious sites in Paris, it is not surprising that the Church and others have had to address many of the issues outlined earlier in terms of multiple identities and management responses. These issues have been confronted both collectively, for example through the Pastorale du Tourisme et des Loisirs (PRTL), established in 1962 (de Brion 1993), and by individual churches (Fournier 1993; Terrien 1995). PeÁre Aucourt, former national delegate of the PRTL, acknowledges that {{Our churches have become tourist products|| (1994:153) and contends that for many French people they have become lieux de memoire (places of nostalgia). Speaking of religious sites in general, Bauer argues churches have traditionally attracted visits from mem- bers of two different cults (using this term in a very broad sense), one which worships {{the beauty, balance, means of construction and its different relationships; the other, God in his house|| (1993:24). To these two cults he adds a third, more recent and less passionate group of visitors, the tourists. Other writers also distinguish between the cultuel (religious) and the culturel (cultural), between a site|s religious vocation and its tourist role (CAFE/Argos 1991; Javary, Tinard and de Senneville 1993). Within these categories further distinctions can be made from one site to another. Notre Dame, for example, is not a place of pilgrimage like the Sacre-Coeur which is dedicated to the worship of the Sacred Heart, but as the cathedral of Paris it plays a leading national role. As PeÁre Fournier of Notre Dame notes, a cathedral is not like other churches; it is {{the festive place of prayer for the Christian crowds|| rather than a place of silent personal medi- tation (1993:137). Moreover, cathedrals have always had multiple roles*space in Notre Dame in the past was given over to medieval guilds to hold meetings and {{History shows that . . . [it] was never isolated and indifferent to the upheavals of the times|| (Javary et al. 1993:147). The cultural significance will also vary from one site to another depending on its history, art, architecture, literary conno- tations, and physical setting. Many tourists will come on a short general sightseeing visit or perhaps for a view of the city, for instance from the forecourt of Sacre-Coeur or the towers of Notre Dame; others may have a specialist interest in flying buttresses, stained glass DOUGLAS PEARCE 85 windows, or paintings and devote their visit primarily or exclusively to such features. The spiritual and the cultural are of course inter- related; church art and architecture are replete with meaning, the buildings themselves being constructed to honor the Lord as well as to provide a place of worship. Thus, those who visit religious sites, in addition to the local faithful, do so for different reasons, come with a variety of beliefs and understanding, and are likely to act in different ways. Insights into these different identities can be gleaned from the different markers which now appear in many churches and cathedrals. The mere existence of such markers is testimony to their being recog- nized as touristic places while the messages they convey highlight some of the issues which multiple use may generate. The on-site markers in these five churches can be divided into two main types: printed or electronic signs and small publications. Both types of marker are found at the entrance, some signs may be distributed throughout, and in the larger buildings more substantial publications may also be on sale. Two basic and inter-related messages are conveyed by the entrance signs: some statement of identity (conveying simply what the place is) and instruction on how to behave appropriately in such a place. Variations on these themes occur from church to church, but the key message is that this place of prayer is to be respected by silence (Table 1). Except St Germain-des-Pres, other signs reserve certain sections for silent prayer or indicate no entry to parts of the church when services are being held. In Notre Dame and Sacre-Coeur arrows also indicate the one-way direction to be taken in an attempt to manage visitor flows. Other more specific signs are also found inside particular churches. Thus, one in Notre Dame advises that {{The Church is the House of God on Earth|| and elaborates on how art and architecture are used to convey this message. St Germain-des-Pres has a more elaborate display of 11 panels illustrating the history of the construction of the church and concludes with this message in French: {{Here, through fourteen centuries of shadow and light, men have prayed in Faith and Hope. Passersby, friends, we have recounted this history for you. It invites us all to pursue it||. The Sacre-Coeur, in contrast, has a more immediate building fund appeal, indicating that the basilica was originally built by private subscription, now needs maintenance and advises {{Foreign currency welcomed||, perhaps the most universal of all tourism signs. It is, however, in the texts made available at the entrance that more specific effort may be made to evangelize, the emphasis given to this and the directness or sublety of the message to visitors varying among the five churches. At St Germain-des-Pres, a simple handout gives a short history and architectural plan of it. That for St Eustache sends a strong message of welcome, outlines its history, its services, and parish activities, and concludes, for those entering the church {{who may wonder perhaps to whom the prayers of the builders were addressed||, with the parable of the Prodigal Son. At Notre Dame, texts are distributed giving the theme of the mass, details about services, and advice to non-believers (in English, French, and Japanese), not to join 86 TOURISM IN PARIS

Table 1. Entrance Signs in Selected Paris Churches

Notre Dame*** {{Welcome to Notre Dame. Place of Prayer. Silence|| (electronic sign in multiple languages)

Sacre-Coeur** {{Silence|| (in French, English, German, Italian and Spanish)

St Germain-des-Pres** No signs but poster advising of guided visits on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons

St Eustache** {{Welcome to Saint Eustache. Place of Prayer and Peace. Please don|t walk about during service|| (in French, English, German)

E glise St Pierre* {{This Church is not a museum. Do not go to the altar and do not cross the Church during the offices. THANK YOU|| (in French, English, Italian and Spanish) and {{This is God|s house. It is a place of prayer and of silence. Please no shorts or extravagant informal clothes. Men please take off your hats.|| Plus graphic signs indicating no smoking, drinks, food, dogs.

Source: Fieldwork. in at communion time. Greater emphasis is given to the evangelical message at Sacre-Coeur where more than two million small multilingual texts are distributed each year stressing the origins and purpose of the basilica and offering three short prayers for non- Christians, non-Catholic Christians, and Catholics, {{negligent perhaps||.AsPeÁre Terrien, a former chaplain, notes, the basilica|s authorities, {{far from being content with a simple coexistence between the visitors and worshippers, have discovered an incomparable possi- bility for dialogue . . . A high place of prayer, certainly, the Sacre- Coeur is also trying to become a high place for meeting|| (1995:56). However, the authorities there do not appear to see Sacre-Coeur as a tourism destination because when the author tried to phone for an appointment explaining the nature of this research, he was firmly told {{We are a church, Monsieur, and have nothing to do with tourism||.In contrast, an appointment was readily obtained at Notre Dame. Other markers, or sources of information, may lay greater emphasis on different characteristics of these places. The Michelin guide, for instance, stresses history and architecture, and gives much more space to descriptions of Notre Dame, St Germain-des-Pres, and St Eustache than to Sacre-Coeur and St Pierre in Montmartre (Michelin 1992). No study of the message given by group guides has been attempted DOUGLAS PEARCE 87 here; but these would similarly appear to stress art, architecture, and history rather than more religious matters, though this may vary considerably from group to group and guide to guide (CAFE/Argos 1991). PeÁre Terrien (1995) suggests few tourist guides make allusion to Sacre-Coeur being a work of faith. Some Montmartre guides, on the contrary, stress the explicit symbolism and citywide dominance of the basilica arising out of conservative Catholic reaction to the Commune along the lines recounted by Harvey (1979); though as with all history, there are different interpretations of the origins and construction of Sacre-Coeur (Jonas 1995). For all the churches, the messages conveyed by the markers are statements of place identity and attempts to manage the {{cohabitation|| of the different users of this space. This involves trying to maintain respect, limiting the disruption of prayer and church services by keeping noise down, direct- ing the flow of visitors, and excluding non-worshippers from certain spaces. Signage may also be accompanied by other management measures, such as the use of physical barriers to restrict the movement of groups and regular contact with guiding associations (advising them of particular events and new developments and generally fostering understanding of the needs of different church users) (Fournier 1995). In the case of Notre Dame, a major review of the Cathedral was commissioned in 1991(CAFE/Argos 1991) by the Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques et des Sites (CNMHS), an agency of the Ministry of Culture. In this regard it is important to remember that in France virtually all churches are the property of the State (Sacre- Coeur is one exception), which maintains the buildings while the Church is responsible for their daily running (lighting, heating, and cleaning). In the case of Notre Dame, visits to the towers are organized by the CNMHS while the church is responsible for those to the tre- asury within the cathedral. The multiple identities of the cathedral are set out in the introduction to the review: {{Notre Dame de Paris has the difficult privilege of being at one and the same time one of the most visited tourist monuments in France, the capital|s cathedral and the parish of the diocese|| (CAFE/Argos 1991:3). Major problem areas within Notre Dame identified in the review are shown in Figure 1 which highlights difficulties arising from visitor flows and congestion (over 30,000 visitors on peak days). While some of the measures outlined above have alleviated some of the problems, other proposals such as that to reduce pressure inside by developing a separate reception center on the parvis has not eventuated. Other problems noted in the study include lighting and pollution from the increasing number of candles being burned and the sheer volume of visitors. Moreover, the exhortations to silence and respectful behavior are by no means universally followed here or in other churches; guides continue to raise their voices to make themselves heard by their groups, tourists persist in trying to capture the interior beauty of the buildings by using their flashes. Some of the issues regarding multiple identities and contested places were brought home to the researcher as participant observer when taking part in a 90 minute guided visit of the artwork in the chapels of Notre Dame, the {{mais||, led by a guide from the CNMHS. 88 TOURISM IN PARIS Figure 1. Inventory of Problems at Notre Dame. Note: Redrawn from CAFE/Argos (1991) DOUGLAS PEARCE 89

To appreciate the art better, and to be heard above the other visitors, the party of a dozen was often encouraged into the chapels themselves, something the author as an individual visitor would not have con- templated. While this was apparently acceptable in certain areas, the party was also discreetly led into one at the far end of the cathedral in an area, according to the sign, reserved for prayer. Moreover, the guide was indignant rather than chastened when one of the worshippers, at another spot, tried to hush the guide by reminding her that the party were in a church*to which the guide observed rather caustically {{that it is sometimes difficult for the history of art and prayer to live together||. The guide also related how the poor lighting of some of the pieces was a function of the difficulties which the split responsibility of the state and church sometimes brought, one being responsible for the fittings on the walls, the other for lighting costs. When these incidents were later related to one of the clergy, he nodded in recognition, saying without irony {{Some of these guides [from the CNMHS] think they own the place||.

Grands Magasins Printemps Haussmann, the chain|s main Paris complex, began adapting to the growth in demand from foreign tourists in the early 70s. Initial efforts, like those at nearby Galeries Lafayette, consisted of establishing a welcome desk with multilingual hostesses, and dis- tributing maps of the city, two practices which continue to the present day. In 1985 Printemps began to develop this market more actively, promoting itself abroad with the assistance of the national tourism office, the Maison de la France, taking part in travel marts, working with tour operators, arranging familiarization trips, and so forth. Special services offered to foreigners today include the welcome desk, specialized shopping facilities, a multilingual guide to the different departments in the store, a 10% discount card (on top of the VAT refund), foreign exchange desks, and special fashion parades. Now about a fifth of the customers are foreign, including both individual general tourists and those on group tours, predominantly from Asia, who have come to Paris especially for the shopping. Printemps promotes itself as the {{The most Parisian department store||, a claim which its neighbouring rival, Galeries Lafayette, would perhaps dispute, but one which tries to appropriate for itself the city|s long established tradition of elegance and fine living. Interestingly, the Printemps Haussmann, is also an architecturally significant building and a classified monument, giving rise to the claim that {{With more than 80,000 visitors a day . . . [it] attracts more visitors than any other historic monument in France|| (Printemps nd:10). While some visitors may admire in passing the ornate facades, sculpted dec- orations and stained class cupola, they nevertheless come primarily to shop. Both Printemps and the Galeries Lafayette adopt specific spatial strategies in attempting to attract visitors and provide for them in a space that is predominantly given over to Parisian shoppers. Both use a widely distributed city map as their prime informational 90 TOURISM IN PARIS tool, especially for individual visitors. In addition to highlighting the major historical attractions of the city, the maps act as very specific markers, showing the location of each chain|s branches in Paris, though obviously not those of its rival. Their prime purpose is clearly to assist visitors to find their way to the right store. Once at the store, the multilingual informational leaflets available at the welcome desk provide more detailed information about the layout of each store and the location of the various departments which, in the case of Printemps Haussmann, are spread over a surface area of five hectares in three adjoining buildings. Specific provision in both cases is made for foreign groups whose requirements include nearby bus parking (no easy matter along the Boulevard Haussmann), easy access to the goods they want to pur- chase (Schmidt|s (1979) heterogeneous environment factor), and foreign language assistance. The management response to this has been to create specialized retail spaces catering especially for this market with maximum discretion and minimum disruption to the stores| more traditional clientele, defined by Printemps Hausmann as {{an intelligent middle class with high purchasing power|| (Printemps nd:26). In terms of bus parking, the Printemps Haussmann is more favorably placed than its rival, there being some 20 spaces for coaches along the Rue de Provence. From here, group tourists, mainly Asian, have what is effectively backdoor entrance to the Express Duty Free boutique where they are served by specialist hostesses/interpreters. More than 3,500 such groups were handled in 1992. In addition, the ground floor of the Printemps de la Mode, houses a well known Japanese partner, the Takashimaya boutique, specializing in sales of luxury and travel goods. This exclusive retail space staffed by some 20 Japanese sales assistants, {{prospects for and looks after its com- patriots|| (Printemps nd:29). Similar arrangements exist at the Haussmann branch of the Galeries Lafayette where, at ground level on the Rue de la Chauseed|Antin side of the store, an Espace Lafayette International has been created to service foreign group tourists. Here brand name perfumes, scarves, accessories, and other Parisian items are displayed for sale by Japanese, Chinese and other foreign language staff, together with the foreign exchange and discount services. In the case of the Galeries Lafayette, no special bus parking areas are available but some space capable of taking three to four buses along the curbside of the Rue de la Chausseed|Antin adjacent to the Espace Lafayette International was observed to be appropriated by the place- ment of traffic cones which were judiciously removed and replaced by a concierge when buses or limousines arrived and departed. At Printemps Haussmann, the other area reserved specifically for foreigners is that under the store|s cupola where a 45 minute fashion parade is held every Tuesday morning and on Fridays from March to October. These have proved very popular (attracting over 20,000 foreigners in 1990) by providing visitors with the opportunity to experience what is a distinctively Parisian occasion. In MacCannell|s terms, the fashion parades clearly take place in what is very much a staged setting, the parades being directed exclusively at foreigners. It is also a fairly sophisticated marketing ploy, the models presenting DOUGLAS PEARCE 91 quality ready-to-wear garments rather than exclusive haute couture, the prices being detailed in the catalogue handed out on arrival. The majority of Paris| more exclusive fashion shows take place today in the multi-purpose rooms of the large new Carrousel commercial complex developed in association with and adjacent to the Hall Napo- leon of the redeveloped Grand Louvre, which now draws more than six million visitors a year, over half of whom are foreigners. In contrast to the preceding examples where particular provision is now being made for international shoppers, specific attention is being paid in the case of the Carrousel to provide retail outlets of high quality and ensure that {{this new space can become an attractive place for Parisians who can find there restaurants, bookshops, boutiques selling objets d|art, records, fashion etc . . .|| (Musee du Louvre 1993:85).

The Sewers Significant changes in location and organization of the visits to the sewers have occurred over the past century. Postcards on sale today depicting earlier visits show that in 1892 the public entrance was at the Place du Chatelet and that by 1920 it had been moved to the Place de la Madeleine. In both cases short visits were made by a combination of electric rail-cars and boats drawn by the egoutiers (sewerage work- ers). Such visits were made on one or two days a month during the summer, attracting a few hundred visitors each month. In 1973 the public visits were shifted to their present location adjacent to the Seine beneath the Place de la Resistance. As a node in the city|s extremely large and varied sewerage system, this site provides ready access to a variety of different system components: primary and secondary galleries and conduits, sand filtering basins, overflow outlets, regulatory reservoirs, and more. The visit began in an exhibition hall displaying various documents relating to the history and workings of the sewer, followed by a short slide show and then a walk through some 200 meters of the sewers. For reasons of security and hygiene the boat trips had by then been abandoned. Significant refurbishing of the sewer visit took place in 1989 with the opening of the new museum, improvements to the lighting and display of the visitor circuit (Figure 2) and the construction of an above ground ticket office. These latest developments were not undertaken primarily to enhance the sewer visit for tourists. Rather, the goal was to educate Parisians, particularly school children, about what the city council is doing in the fields of sewage and waste water treatment, and to show ratepayers what was involved in the council|s large expenditure in this field (one billion francs over five years from 1991). The new museum was to be the showcase for the work of the division of the city council concerned, the Direction de la Protection de l|Environnement, Section de l|Assainissement de Paris. The sewer visits are staffed by a dozen egoutiers (of a total of 600), from this section, with the current site providing ample opportunity to display and discuss the various technical aspects of the sewers. While an image of Jean Valjean, from 92 TOURISM IN PARIS

Figure 2. Lay-out of the Visit to the Sewers of Paris Note: Redrawn from Visitor Leaflet

Victor Hugo|s Les Miserables, is featured on the cover of the visit brochure, the literary and cinematic romanticism of the sewers is all but absent during the course of the visit. Rather, the environmental education dimension is stressed in the museum display which traces the history of the city in terms of four inter-related themes: the evolution of Paris (growth in population, manufacturing, and associated needs); provision of drinking and industrial water; sewage treatment techniques and waste water disposal; and environmental impacts. These themes are presented in a color-coordinated fashion in a set of well-illustrated panels in the Belgrand Gallery. In what is clearly an authentic setting, the panels are displayed on a grid beneath which rush the waters from a filtering reservoir. Elsewhere along the circuit various bits of arcane equipment associated with the maintenance of the sewers are displayed and the functions of the different galleries explained. As the director of the visits acknowledged, {{Tourism is not the goal, it|s not the business||. Entrance fees are relatively modest (25 francs or about $4 in 1995) and the aim is to cover costs and not be a charge on the ratepayer, not to run as a commercial operation. Little DOUGLAS PEARCE 93 promotion is undertaken, but details of the sewer visits and opening hours are given in various city guides and leaflets. One informational leaflet is put out by the city council under the slogan {{Come and discover an unusual Paris|| and advertises {{A guided visit by egoutiers in the heart of the sanitation network, a museum, an audio-visual show||. In the Michelin guide the sewers rate a third of a page but no star. Nevertheless, the management are conscious of the need to take account of demand, have undertaken visitor surveys to gauge satisfaction, and subsequently have made changes to some aspects of the visit, such as upgrading the audio-visual presentation. In particular, in response to visitor demand for a more authentic experience, one in which they would gain an impression of really being in the sewers and perhaps feel a little bit afraid, a very short stretch of an artificial sewer has been incorporated into the visitor circuit (Figure 2). This replicates some of the many kilometers of smaller narrow canals which make up much of the network but are otherwise not available at this site. Thus, while the bigger galleries beneath the Place de la Resist- ance facilitate the visit of large groups, it has been felt necessary to recreate a smaller, more confined passage which responds to the visitors| image of what a sewer is or should be.

CONCLUSION Closer examination of microscale areas frequented by tourists in Paris has revealed a number of features which hitherto have attracted little attention in the literature on urban tourism and which begin to flesh out empirically some of the notions of attractions raised by other researchers. It has been possible to pursue the notion of what constitutes a touristic place by exploring issues of place identity and the development of spatial management techniques in attempts either to manage the pressure generated by visitors or to foster and facilitate such visits. Following Philip Pearce (1982), at one level places can be defined in terms of the presence of transient populations, some of whom are tourists in the sense of being non-resident visitors, the number and characteristics of whom can be determined by surveys, entrance figures, or in a more general sense through simple observation. In many urban settings, tourists constitute but one network of users of any space and it is through the gradual emergence of different markers that more tangible manifestations of tourism|s presence appear. Because of the networks of different users who have different needs and behavior, the use of space may become contested in the manner outlined in more general terms by Massey (1994). Ironically, in many such instances places can then be identified by being labeled with a non-touristic function as, in response to visitor pressures, markers may seek to reaffirm the original vocation of the place. This is most evident in the {{place of prayer|| markers now found in many Parisian churches visited by tourists. In other instances, special places are set aside specifically for international visitors and are so labeled, such as the Espace Lafayette International. In the case of the sewers, the museum in the Belgrand Gallery makes it clear that this is the 94 TOURISM IN PARIS site of a large and innovative system. While cohabitation between different networks may be difficult, as in the case of the worshippers and sightseeing tourists, in other instances the differences will be less pronounced and co-existence will pose few problems, as with visits by school field trips or foreign tourists to the sewers. The managers of these sites have become increasingly aware of their multiple identities and have developed strategies to deal with the issues which have arisen. Of the four major visitor strategies discussed by Cazes and Potier (1996), those involving the enhance- ment of visitor awareness and spatial measures appear the most common. In each case varying degrees of information are provided: to inform and encourage correct behavior in the churches, to facilitate shopping, and to increase understanding of the sewers. Many strategies put in place to deal with tourists have an explicit spatial dimension. In the case of the churches, where the stance is effectively a reactive one, efforts may be made to direct the flow of visitors and to exclude them from certain spaces within, either morally through signage or physically, for example roping off certain areas or installing wooden barriers. Such measures may become more restrictive during services, one of the few instances with these examples of time management. On the other hand, the grands magasins have fostered this new demand by discreetly creating specialized retail spaces which facilitate shopping by foreign customers and do so in such a way that they do not detract from the experience of their more traditional clientele. In the case of the sewers, the city authorities have opened up a very small part of an extremely extensive network to the public. Originally a response to demand from the curious few, the site has recently been developed primarily in terms of environmental education rather than for tourism, but through the creation of the artificial sewer even this space has been manipulated to respond to visitor expectations. Management of places of multiple-use frequented by tourists is clearly important for tourism because these are the attractions, the reasons why tourists have traveled often quite long distances to visit the city. Therefore greater attention needs to be given to these microscale considerations for it is at this level that many of the visitors| experiences are played out and their levels of satisfaction determined. At the same time, their interaction with the other networks of users must be taken into account as these same places may also constitute significant parts of the daily spaces of the city|s residents. The visitor management responses which are emerging, whether reactive or proactive, are increasingly affecting the ways in which others may make use of different urban spaces and thus are becoming progressively more important in understanding how parts of modern cities function. While tourists in many cities may not yet constitute such numerous groups as those defined in more traditional terms such as class, race, or gender, these examples from Paris do show that they do make identifiable and distinctive demands on places and that they merit greater analysis as users of space. The focus here has been on place identification through the reading of signs and the management of touristic spaces. Considerable scope DOUGLAS PEARCE 95 exists to increase the range or examples examined in Paris and in other cities and to give greater weight to the user|s perspective and individual behavior in these contexts, whether tourist, local wor- shipper, or resident shopper. These microscale studies also need to be kept in perspective by carrying out other research which examines the linkages between specific sites and how these fit into their neigh- borhood, tourism zones, and the city as a whole. Q

Acknowledgments*This article is based on research undertaken during study leave from the University of Canterbury while the author was a professeur associe at the UFR de Geographie, Universite de Paris IV (Paris-Sorbonne). Personal thanks are extended to Jean-Robert Pitte whose assistance made this stay possible.

REFERENCES

Aidi, A. 1991 Les Depenses des Touristesł Etrangers. Collection de l|łEconomie de Tourisme No 17. Paris: La Documentation Francžaise. APUR 1995 L|Ho¼tellerie de Tourisme aÁ Paris et en Ile de France. Evolution 1990Ð94. Paris: Atelier Parisien d|Urbanisme. Ashworth, G. J., P. E. White, and H. P. M. Winchester 1988 The Red Light District in the West European Landscape. Geoforum 1988 19:201Ð212. Ashworth, G. J. and J. E. Tunbridge 1990 The Tourist-Historic City. London: Belhaven. Atelier de l|Ile, D. Brard, and C. Frenak 1995 Conciergerie SainteÐChapelle:ł Etude de Faisibilite et de Programmation. Paris: Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques et des Sites. Bauer, M. 1993 Tourisme Religieux ou Touristes en Milieu Religieux. Esquisse d|une Typo- logie. Les Cahiers Espaces 30:24Ð37. Burtenshaw, B., M. Bateman, and G. J. Ashworth 1981 The City in West Europe. Chichester: Wiley. CAFE/Argos 1991ł Etude de Mise en Valeur de la Cathedrale Notre Dame de Paris, de sa Crypte Archeologique et de l|Ensemble de son Site. Paris: Caisse Nationale de Monuments Historiques et des Sites. Cazes, G., and Potier, F. 1996 Le Tourisme Urbain. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris. Canter, D. 1975 The Pyschology of Place. London: The Architectural Press. Chazaud, P. 1994 Quels Espaces, Quels Loisirs, Quelles Strategies Pour le Tourisme Urbain d|Agrement. Espaces 39:44Ð52. Chemla, G. 1990 Ho¼tellerie de Luxe et Tourisme d|Affaires aÁ Paris. Cahiers du CREPIF 30:79Ð 114. Fournier, J. 1993 Notre Dame de Paris, Pour Quel Tourisme? Les Cahiers Espaces 30:136Ð 139. 1995 Notre Dame de Paris. Haltes 95:25Ð26. Getz, D. 1993 Planning for Tourism Business Districts. Annals of Tourism Research 20:583Ð600. Goffman, E. 1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City NY: Doubleday. 96 TOURISM IN PARIS

Harvey, D. 1979 Monument and Myth. Annals Association of American Geographers 69:362Ð 381. Jansen-Verbeke, M. 1986 Inner-city Tourism: Resources, Tourists and Promoters. Annals of Tourism Research 13:79Ð100. Javary, C., C. de Senneville, and Y. Tinard 1993 De la Valorisation de Notre Patrimoine Monumental Religieux. L|exemple de Notre Dame de Paris. Les Cahiers Espaces 30:140Ð147. Jonas, R. 1995 Le Monument Comme Ex-voto, le Monument Comme Historiosophie: la Basilique du Sacre-Coeur. Cahiers du CREPIF 53:21Ð38. Judd, D. R. 1995 Promoting Tourism in US Cities. Tourism Management 16:175Ð187. Jules-Rosette, B. 1994 Black Paris: Touristic Simulations. Annals of Tourism Research 21:679Ð 700. Leiper, N. 1990 Tourist Attraction Systems. Annals of Tourism Research 17:367Ð384. MacCannell, D. 1973 Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. American Journal of Sociology 79:589Ð603. 1976 The Tourist: a New Theory of the Leisure Class. London: MacMillan. Madanipour, A. 1996 Urban Design and Dilemmas of Space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14:331Ð335. Mairie de Paris 1996 Proteger et Mettre en Valeur Montmartre. Paris: Mairie de Paris. Massey, D. 1994 Space, Place and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Michelin 1992 Paris. Watford: Michelin Tyre. Mitchell, D. 1996 Introduction: Public Space and the City. Urban Geography 17:127Ð131. Musee du Louvre 1993 Grand Louvre, Aile Richelieu. Dossier de presse. Paris: Musee du Louvre. Ortoli-Denoix, V. 1990 Geographie des Restaurants de Paris au Cours des Deux Derniers SieÁcles. In Les Restaurants dans le Monde et aÁ Travers les Ages, A. Huetz de Lemps et J.- R. Pitte eds., pp. 17Ð25. Glenat: Grenoble. Page, S. 1995 Urban Tourism. London: Routledge. Paris Promotion, E. Pauchant, and A.-D. BarreÁre 1992 Plan d|Amenagement du Tourisme Parisien. Paris: Paris Promotion. Pearce, D. G. 1989 Tourist Development (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman. 1995 Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman. 1997 Analysing the Demand for Urban Tourism: Issues and Examples from Paris. Tourism Analysis 1:5*18. 1998 Tourist Districts in Paris: Structure and Functions. Tourism Management 19:49Ð65. Pearce, P. L. 1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour. Oxford: Pergamon. 1991 Analysing Tourist Attractions. Journal of Tourism Studies 2:46Ð55. Pei, I. M., and E. J. Biasini 1989 Les Grands Desseins du Louvre. Paris: Hermann. Pognant, P. 1993 Le Sauvetage des Champs-Ełlysees. Paris Projet 30/31:70Ð79. Printemps (nd) Le Printemps Corporate File. Paris: Printemps. Schmidt, C. J. 1979 The Guided Tour: Insulated Adventure. Urban Life 7:441Ð467. DOUGLAS PEARCE 97

Terrien, B. 1995 Les Visiteurs de la Basilique. Cahiers du CREPIF 53: 55Ð63. van den Berg, L., van der Borg J., and van der Meer, J. 1995 Urban Tourism: Performance and Strategies in Eight European Cities. Ald- ershot: Avebury. Submitted 9 July 1997 Resubmitted 23 February 1998 Accepted 15 April 1998 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Georges Cazes