ABSTRACT

Rural tourism has been a subject of studysince the early days of tourism scholarship.Most of tourism’s deleterious impacts wereidentified from studies conducted in ruralsettings. It is only recently, however, thatrural tourism has become a special focus ofstudy, dissimilar enough from urbantourism, to be a study subject unto itself.

This paper reviews some of the history ofrural tourism development in NorthAmerica with most of the attention paid tothe USA’s experience, with some examplesfrom Canada. The reason for this is thehuge economic difference between the twocountries with respect to tourism flows andimpacts. In reviewing the history of ruraldevelopment in the USA, the argument ismade that most developments areunplanned and result from market andeconomic forces that have greatlytransformed the American rural landscape.A review of these transformational forces isprovided. It is also shown that ruraldestinations are used, primarily, by localtourists and do not, with few exceptions,cater to an international clientele.

After the historical perspective ispresented an argument is made that currentrural tourism development practices rely onan old paradigm, which is to use localattributes as the primary basis fordevelopment and marketing strategies. Thishas led, in recent years, to a great deal ofdevelopment attention being paid to the

cultural/heritage attributes of a place. Usingresearch conducted in the state ofMinnesota on highway travellers andtourists to rural destinations, a new way tolook at actual and potential visitors isoffered. Instead of an attribute-specificdevelopment approach, a benefits-basedmodel is suggested as a different way toposition rural tourism destinations.Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 12 August 2003; Revised 20 November 2003;Accepted 1 December 2003

Keywords: rural tourism; ruraltransformation; benefit-based marketing;culture and heritage; attribute-based tourismdevelopment.

INTRODUCTION

This article addresses rural tourism issuesfrom a USA perspective, with some ref-erences to Canada. Originally the focus

was on all of North America but the failure tocover such a large area is due more to the lackof insightful knowledge, coupled with lack ofsignificant literature, to address the broadergeographical issue. There is also the questionof dominance. Mexico has a population ofapproximately 100 million with an averageannual income per capita (adjusted for pur-chasing power equity) of US$9100. By contrast,Canada with a population of only 31.5 millionhas a per capita income of US$24800. When it comes to tourism’s economic impacts theUSA, with a population of approximately 283million and per capita income of US$36200

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jtr.481

Rural Tourism Development in the USAWilliam C. Gartner*University of Minnesota, 1994 Buford Avenue, 248B Cla Off Building, St Paul, MN 55108-6040, USA

*Correspondence to: W. C. Gartner, University of Minnesota, 1994 Buford Avenue, 248B Cla Off Building, St Paul, MN 55108-6040, USA.Email: wcg@umn.edu

152 W. C. Gartner

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

is the big gorilla (Siakhenn.tripod.com/percapita.htm).

Rural tourism in North America is a story of domestic tourism. Aramberri (2003) inanalysing the importance and extent oftourism’s influence, argues that tourism is notas widespread as many claim but instead ispersonal activity and economic developmentprimarily for those living in developednations. He also argues that internationaltourism is much less economically importantto a developed nation’s economy when com-pared with domestic tourism.

As will be detailed below, tourism develop-ment in rural America began with ‘home-grown’ demand and continues to grow fromthis source. Mexico and, to a lesser extent,Canada are both heavily dependent on inter-national tourists, primarily from the USA, tosupport their tourism economies but in manyparts of the USA international visitors areuncommon. According to the U.S. Departmentof Commerce (1997) international visitors tothe USA visit on average only 1.6 statesalthough they stay an average of 15 days in thecountry on each trip. Most of the internationalvisitors do not move far from urban areas orwhat are being termed consumption centres(Gartner and Lime, 2000). For example, exten-sive visitor profile analysis in the State of Minnesota revealed that most visitors to ruraltourism destinations were from the State ofMinnesota (Gartner et al., 2001). Internationalvisitors were in the state primarily to visitfriends and relatives or attend conventions inthe larger urban cities. Similar visitor profilestudies in Michigan (Holecek et al., 2000)essentially reveal the same picture. This is notjust a Midwestern phenomenon as the U.S.Travel Survey reveals that over half of all trips,100 miles or more, originated and ended in thesame state (U.S. Department of Transportation,2002). Canada mimics the results in the USAwith the intra/interprovince same day travelratio at 22 :1 and the overnight at 3.9 :1(Canada Tourism, 2002).

Rural tourism in North America can beviewed from the perspective of the interna-tional tourist. Accessing rural tourism areasanywhere in North America is not an inexpen-sive proposition. Mexico is not known for itstransportation access through rural areas.

Roads are of poor quality and numerous travelbulletins have been issued about the dangersof driving in many parts of rural Mexico.Canada is a very large country with the major-ity of its population located in the easternthird. Many of the significant rural tourismproducts developed in central and westernCanada began as stops along the railway.Others, in the eastern third were heavilydependent on the domestic population as wellas the large number of USA citizens livingclose to the border. From personal experience,seasonal home development along Lake Erie,next to and in close proximity to Point PeleProvincial Park, Canada, was dominatedthrough the 1960s and 1970s by residents ofsoutheastern Michigan.

Travelling through the USA is not inexpen-sive either as accessing much of rural Americarequires an automobile. Rural domestictourism in the USA is heavily tied to highwayinfrastructure. It is estimated that USA domes-tic tourism is a multiple of nine or ten times thelevel of international tourism, accounting foralmost 500 million trips in 1999. The highwaysystem in the USA, with the development ofthe interstate network occurring shortly afterthe end of World War II and still expandingtoday, coupled with an extensive system of secondary roads, has made almost every ruralarea in the lower 48 states plus Hawaii easilyaccessible. The lack of an extensive rail systemand the vast distances between places makehighways the only viable transportation linkfor many rural communities. By contrast,much of Europe is easily accessible by train.Economic theory of demand, and supportedby numerous studies based on travel costmethodology, reveal that tourism is a normalgood with a downward sloping demandcurve. As costs of access to rural destinationsincrease, more and more people will be eco-nomically prevented from visiting. Thus, theresults from visitor profile research thattourists are primarily home grown and fromnearby populations centres is supported byeconomic theory. Therefore, a strong ruraltourism economy must be linked to somenearby population center(s). Further supportfor using private motor vehicles for accessingrural America is provided by Mallet andMcGuckin (not dated). They point out that

many of the factors leading to increases in trav-elling by automobile for recreation purposesare on the rise.

This paper will examine some of the historyof the rural tourism development movement in North America. It will not delve into manyof the problems experienced by communityresidents as a result of tourism development;instead, the reader is referred to Van der Stoep(2000), Gartner (1996) and Stokowski (1996,2000) for more depth on this subject. An argu-ment will be offered that rural tourism devel-opment was opportunistic and not plannedthrough much of its history. Glennon (2003)states that Americans favour leaving the freemarket to operate until it fails. Only then doescorrective action take place. That is a fairlyaccurate depiction of rural tourism develop-ment in the USA over the years.

Today, given the economic realities of ruralAmerica and, to a lesser extent, Canada, plan-ning for tourism development is being con-ducted. Much of the credit for that change,apart from economic forces, goes to the highereducation system in both the USA and Canadawhere efforts have been underway for years to produce self-help guidebooks and manualsfor community rural tourism development. Apoint that will be made is that much of theearly development work is based on a desti-nation, attribute-specific approach. In otherwords, single activity/attraction options (e.g.skiing, rafting, golfing) constituted the basisfor tourism development and were the mainfeatures of subsequent marketing and promo-tion programmes. That mentality continuestoday even though recent research argues for amore holistic, benefit-based approach to mar-keting rural tourism destinations.

TOURISM IN RURAL AREAS

Tourism in peripheral areas has been a focus of study for a number of years; the same,however, cannot be said about urban tourism(Suh and Gartner, 2004). Early tourism studiesdid not try and differentiate between rural andurban tourism, although one could argue, bylooking at impacts identified, that most of thisresearch must have been conducted in ruralsettings. The origins of the early academic

work regarding tourism can be traced to thelate 1960s and early 1970s. Jafari (1988) refersto this period as the Advocacy platform.During this time, most of the published workson tourism were supportive of the activity,often touting its beneficial (mostly economic)impacts. In the mid-1970s, a spate of studiesappeared that countered many of thefavourable benefits of tourism development.This period has been labelled the Cautionaryplatform (Jafari, 1988). It is during this timethat rural-based community studies began toassess some of the environmental and socio-cultural impacts resulting from unplanned orpoorly planned tourism development. As aresult of the criticisms brought by contributorsto the Cautionary platform, new communitydevelopment models began to appear. Termssuch as eco-tourism, cultural tourism andgreen tourism began to appear, which in somecases became major selling themes for thetourist trade. Studies proposing new models oftourism development were categorised as partof the Adaptancy platform (Jafari, 1988). Mostof the new models called for less intrusivetypes of development, more sensitivity to localneeds and a greater reliance on local capital fordevelopment. As urban areas were alreadyphysically transformed, most of the attentionfor these new types of tourism developmentwas centred on rural or peripheral areas.

Demand for touristic use of rural areas hasaccelerated in recent years. Qualities inherentin a rural setting, such as personal contact,authenticity, heritage and individualism, res-onate with an increasingly urban-based popu-lation (Long and Lane, 2000). Media attentionon the ‘authenticity’ of rural areas and, espe-cially in the USA, a rural life that some seethreatened by the expansion of large retailers(e.g. Walmart) and global food service chains(e.g. McDonalds) and loss of the traditionalrural economic base (i.e. agriculture) has led tothe search for the ‘unspoiled’ rural community.Unfortunately it is exactly the unspoilednature of the experience that results in rapidtransformation of the resource base to accom-modate increasing numbers of visitors. Under-standing and exploiting tourism for ruralcommunities while trying to maintain a tradi-tional lifestyle is a difficult process (Perry et al.,1986; OECD, 1994).

Rural Tourism in the USA 153

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

WHAT IS RURAL?

Defining rural may seem to be an elementaryexercise. Countries are fairly good at keepingaccurate numbers of where people are livingand using a standard definition of the amountof people residing in a particular area is onecriterion fairly commonly used to categorisecommunities as urban or rural. In the USA, theEconomic Research Service (ERS) classifies anycommunity with less than 2500 permanent residents as rural. Communities with 2500 to19999 permanent residents are classified asless urbanized with any community over 20000 classified as urban. The U.S. CensusBureau defines rural areas as all non-urbanareas, with urban defined as a community ofover 50000 permanent residents. Other federalagencies use other definitions for what is rural.For a more in-depth review of the various classification schemes currently used to definerural in the USA the reader is referred to Floraet al. (1992).

Canada, a country with approximately 10%of the population of the USA, has defined, re-defined, and defined again, through the years,what constitutes rural. The latest definitionused by Statistics Canada to define rural areasis: ‘persons living in sparsely populated landslying outside urban areas (i.e. persons livingoutside places of 1000 or more inhabitants oroutside places with population densities of 400 or more people per square kilometer)’ (duPlessis et al., 2002). There is obviously a vastdifference between the definitions used byeach country when trying to define ‘rural’.

From a tourist’s point of view, travel to areasthat have not been extensively developed fortourism can be considered rural. Conversely,areas that have been heavily transformed fortourism development but have low levels ofyear-round residents can also be consideredrural. Using the above USA definitions Reho-beth Beach, Delaware, with a year-round pop-ulation of approximately 1500 people, wouldbe classified as rural even when the summerpopulation approaches multiples of 100 ormore of its year-round population. Similarly,areas in the author’s home state of Minnesotathat have become tourism magnets, such as theBrainerd Lakes area with its up-scale resortsand world class golf courses, are considered

rural even though during the high use summermonths the population density exceeds whatone would normally encounter in a suburbancommunity.

Long (1998) proposes a definition of ruralthat reflects lifestyles one is likely to encounterin a visit to a ‘rural’ community; ‘Rural can be perceived as a place of safety, with solidvalues, surrounded by open space and naturalbeauty, where one is treated respectfully andfriendly’. In a functional sense, rural can beconsidered a place where small-scale enter-prises dominate the economic scene, openspace is abundant, contact with nature or ‘tra-ditional societies’ is offered, development isslow growing using local capital and the typesof touristic activity offered varies but reflectslocal resource capabilities (Lane, 1994). Getzand Page (1997) argue that even local enter-prises are capable of growing quickly and ruraltourism is still a possibility even with rapidtransformation of the physical plant. The levelof physical plant transformation, issues ofauthenticity and maintenance of traditionallifestyles are relevant as they relate to productssought by the ‘rural tourist’.

Long’s (1998) definition of rural, onceaccepted, changes the focus from a statistical,easy to measure, parameter to one that is moreambiguous and benefit based. For the purposeof this paper, the basic elements of Long’s def-inition is accepted as a new way to look at ruraltourism development. This will become clearerafter a review of the transformational historyof rural areas is addressed.

TRANSFORMATION

Rural development in the USA and Canada isa story of major and continuing transforma-tion. The first rural tourism destinations weredeveloped by the railroads. Railroad compa-nies were partially paid in land allocationsalong the routes they built. Lodges at Yellow-stone and Yosemite National Parks in the USAand Banff National Park in Canada were con-structed by rail companies to serve, initially, as housing for workers and, subsequently, asresorts for early nature lovers. Rail access wasalso important for many other rural develop-ments, such as fishing lodges and camps, in thenorthern USA and Canada.

154 W. C. Gartner

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

Much early rural tourism development inthe USA was directly tied to the provision ofpublic lands for recreation purposes. Underthe Roosevelt administration of the early 1900sthe National Park System in the USA wascreated. Large tracts of some of the best exam-ples of scenic and wild land were set aside forthe dual purposes of preservation and recre-ational use. Another important federal landmanagement agency, the U.S. Forest Service,was created around the same time (1905).However, it was not until after World War IIthat major rural tourism development wasassociated with recreational use on publiclands. Siehl (2000) examines the history ofrecreation policies in the USA after World War II and argues that the modern downhill(alpine) ski industry enjoyed today, with muchof the activity taking place on public lands,essentially came into being from demand gen-erated by returning ski troops from the war.Vail in Colorado, Sugarbush in Vermont andCrystal Mountain in Washington are examplesof major rural tourism destinations tied to thisdemand-driven increase in downhill skiing(Burton, 1971; cited in Siehl, 2000). Similarly,the white water rafting industry started withthe use of surplus rubber rafts left over from the War. The growth of this industry waspredicted by Wandless (cited in Siehl, 2000) in1943. There are other examples (i.e. jeeps usedfor off-road touring) but the common threadbetween these new forms of recreation was anexcess supply of new technology and equip-ment left over from the war and an increas-ingly wealthy population that turned itsattention to travelling and enjoying the greatoutdoors. Arguably, the greatest boost to ruraltourism development came into being sometime after the War with the development of the interstate highway network that quicklyformed major transportation routes fortourists. As road access developed, gatewaycommunities began to form around impor-tant tourist destination areas. Early examplesof this type of rural tourism developmentconform nicely to the model offered by Gunn(1979). In Gunn’s model there are three com-ponents needed for successful development: a gateway where basic services (e.g. lodging,food) are found; attractions that exert the pull(Dann, 1977) or reason for visitation; and trans-

portation linkages that connect service centresto attractions and gateways to markets.

The demand for outdoor recreation activitiesfrom returning troops, combined with increas-ing prosperity, personal mobility and childrenat home were the primary factors fueling thepush into more and more travel into andthrough rural America. Supply in the first fewyears after World War II was adequate but as use of federal recreation areas increasedrapidly and steadily during the late 1940s andthrough the 1950s there appeared a wideninggap between the provision of land for recre-ation and the demand for outdoor recreation.USA policy during this period ignored thesupply concern as other interests (i.e. KoreanWar) resulted in sharply lower budgets foragencies charged with managing use onfederal lands (Everhart, 1983). Yet it wasduring this time that many gateway commu-nities, providing services for users of publiclands, developed or changed from onesdealing with extractive industries (e.g. mining,forestry) to ones dealing with tourists. One cansafely argue that one of the major catalysts forrural tourism development in the USA was theset-aside of large tracts of land for public usewith utilisation of these lands largely driven bydemand factors that came into being as a resultof World War II.

It was not until the late 1950s and throughthe 1960s that public land policies tiltedheavily in favour of recreational use, with legislation passed on a number of occasions to increase the supply of public land and tomanage it for special non-industrial uses. Thelast significant piece of federal legislation in the USA that transformed thinking of howresources were to be used was the WildernessAct of 1964. Siehl (2000) refers to this period(1958–1968) as the golden era of recreation.

One cannot discount the importance offederal land policy to rural tourism develop-ment. Crompton (1990) argues that annual visitation to the Disney properties, the premiertheme parks in the USA, only equals about13% of total annual visits to U.S. NationalParks, which comprise only a small part of thefederal land estate. Many rural tourism desti-nations today owe their existence to the federallands that they border. Yet these early destina-tions did not really have a good idea of what

Rural Tourism in the USA 155

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

constituted a ‘quality’ destination. In keepingwith the USA tradition of free market devel-opment, many gateway communities devel-oped haphazardly and some would argue inan unsustainable manner. Concern over howsome of the gateways developed was ex-pressed by Rosenow and Pulshiper (1979) inone of the first books to address rural tourismdevelopment issues.

In the 1960s and continuing unabated today,another form of transformation began to affectrural America and Canada. Much of ruralNorth America, up until that time, had beenrelegated to farming, ranching and otherresource extraction activities. Early immigra-tion strategies offered promises of freedomand great wealth to those willing to ventureinto the frontier and homestead on govern-ment provided land. Although Powell (1879)cautioned against settling the arid westernUSA using land policies effective in the easternpart of the USA his cautions went unheeded,resulting in the institutionalised creation ofmassive western ranches at the expense ofhomesteaders (Stegner, 1992). For decades,resource extraction industries ruled the rurallandscape of America and were the reasonmany rural towns developed. Today, many ofthe significant rural villages, built by timber,agriculture or mineral wealth have becometourist towns often relying on that earlywealth, as exhibited through classic Victorianperiod architecture, to provide a unique senseof place.

Eventually extractive mineral industriesdeclined in importance as primary productprices fell and agricultural research resulted inhigher yielding crops and more intensive andprofitable agricultural practices. Both of thesechanges meant fewer people living in ruralareas and an increasingly urbanised society.Rural America’s towns and villages began toshrink and the income divide between ruraland urban America significantly widened. Itwas during the late 1970s and early 1980s thattourism was ‘discovered’ as an economic devel-opment tool for rural America. Also during thelate 1960s and early 1970s a new form of ruraltourism began to increase exponentially. Therush to ‘own’ a piece of rural America was on.Seasonal home development, especially inamenity-rich (e.g. lakes) areas began to rapidly

accelerate during this period (Ragatz, 1969).Apart from a few slow periods the desire toown land in rural areas has steadily increasedand has led to inflated land values in primelocations (Gartner et al., 1996).

The impetus for rural tourism development,this time, did not come from the federal gov-ernment providing supply of land, excessequipment, or appropriate policy. Nor did itcome through a fresh rush of new customerswith the exception of seasonal home or absen-tee land owners. Demand for rural experienceswas on an upward slope but that alone doesnot explain the ‘new look economy’ of ruralAmerica. What best explains the transforma-tion occurring during this time was simplysurvival, as almost all other economic growthoptions, with the exception of tourism, weredeclining in importance or growing too slowlyto offset weakening economies in other indus-tries. Van der Stoep (2000) points to the declineof the Atlantic commercial fishing industry inCanada as a major reason for the appearanceof newly redefined tourism communities.

Tourism is not like other industrial activitiesand its status as an industry is question-able (Smith, 2003). Distribution channels areinverted, production and consumption occursimultaneously, inventory does not exist, and human resource requirements are heavilyfocused on service. These differences, andothers, between tourism and other industrialactivities means it is not easy to simply switchfrom a traditional enterprise such as farminginto one that is heavily dependent on tourists.

Assistance with developing rural tourismdid not come, as mentioned, from the FederalGovernment. Federal policy directly tied totourism, when there has been any, has beenfocused on external (i.e. international) market-ing. The only significant U.S. Federal legisla-tion to address tourism directly was theNational Tourism Act of 1973 that establishedthe National Tourism Administration. Ruraltourism policy was not mentioned in this act.Even when a national study identified a needfor rural tourism policy (Edgell, 1999) neitherCongress, nor the President, offered one. WhenCongress created the National Rural TourismFoundation in 1992 it failed to authorisefunding for the organisation, which has strug-gled since its inception to meet its mandate.

156 W. C. Gartner

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

Yet, as mentioned above, it is domestic tourismthat makes rural tourism work. In the absenceof any federal guidance policy, assistance wasprovided by the states. One of the most signif-icant forms of policy transformation was taxlegislation that allowed local municipalities to institute new taxes directed at users of, predominantly, tourist businesses. The mostwidespread of these taxes have been assessedagainst users of commercial lodging establish-ments. These so-called bed taxes, transientroom taxes, etc., are in force in the majority ofthe states (Loyancono, 1991). The widespreadadoption of accommodations taxes has beenthe most significant policy to affect ruraltourism development in the USA to date.Whereas previous to this change only largecities, with convention centres, had enoughpublic and revenue based funding to create aConvention and Visitors Bureau (CVB), nowalmost every community with commerciallodging, and the authority to impose addi-tional taxes on the users of those facilities, has the equivalent of a CVB. Not surprisingly,most of these small town CVBs view their role as helping those businesses that collect the tax. In other words, putting ‘heads on beds’ is the main focus of CVB activity, notdealing with issues that arise from tourismdevelopment.

Other significant state policy effortsinvolved the creation of tourism agencies, divisions, or departments within state agen-cies. Using various funding schemes, with themost prevalent being general state tax rev-enues, every state in the USA has an officedealing with tourism marketing. By contrast,the Federal government abolished the U.S.Travel and Tourism Administration in 1996.Canada did likewise with its federal tourismagency but replaced it with one (CanadianTourism Commission) based on a partnershiprequiring a private sector match to the moneyprovided by government. That policy hasproven to be highly effective in raising mar-keting capital as private sector contributionsnow exceed the match requirement.

Other assistance in the transformation ofrural North America to one more heavilydependent on tourism came from the highereducation establishment in the USA andCanada. Through the Cooperative Extension

Service, arising from the Morrill Act of 1862that established the land grant system for stateuniversities in the USA, have come manuals,workbooks and other resources to help com-munities understand and manage tourism fortheir benefit. Rural tourism development hasbeen a common theme of these publications.Brown (2000) has identified many of thosesources in a U.S. Department of Agriculturepublication. One of the earliest publicationsdealing with rural tourism development issuesis Tourism USA: Guidelines for Tourism Develop-ment (University of Missouri, 1978).

Canadian universities have also producedsome excellent materials dealing with ruraltourism issues, such as the video Keys to Successful Tourism Development: Lessons fromNiagara (Reid et al., 1997). Canada has also ini-tiated a major effort, beginning in the last yearsof the twentieth century, to move rural issuesmuch more into mainstream discussion.Although tourism is one of those rural issues,the location of the ‘Rural Secretariat’ withinAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada continuesthe long tradition in Canada, and the USA, as seeing the issues of rural North Americathrough the eyes of natural resource industrialinterests.

TODAY’S RURAL TOURISM

Transformation of the rural tourism product is ongoing. Early developments, as describedabove, were tied to resource availability withdemand initiated from exogenous forces suchas World War II, increased disposable incomeand the development of efficient transporta-tion systems. Through the 1970s, the ruraltourism development model proposed byGunn (1979) seemed to fit most rural tourismdestinations. Lately, there has been a move toturn service centres (i.e. gateway communities)into attractions. The transformation of ruralcommunities such as Orlando, Florida (homeof Disney World) into urban consumptioncentres has been well documented. Las Vegas,at one time a rural gambling oasis in a rela-tively institutionalised gambling free society,has been transformed into an urban area ofover 2 million permanent residents with gam-bling as its primary attraction augmented bymany other attractions catering to more of a

Rural Tourism in the USA 157

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

family market. Both Orlando and Las Vegasgrew from destinations almost exclusivelydependent on domestic tourists to primarystops for the international market. On a lesserscale Branson, Missouri has transformed into aconsumption centre based on the performingarts, heavily dependent on music, and still pri-marily catering to the domestic market. Areassuch as Brainerd, Minnesota, in the heart ofone of the state’s major lake areas, has trans-formed into much more of an urban area pri-marily because of the very large percentage ofits visitors owning seasonal homes. The busi-nesses that have developed in the area cater toseasonal home owners and are in fact the samebrand name establishments that service homeowners in the urban cities from which the sea-sonal home owners originate.

New attempts to create consumption centresand support rural tourism development havebeen assisted by the growth of festival andevents. Getz (2000), citing Janiskee (1994),claims that the number of events has beengrowing at an annual rate of approximately4.6% since 1931. Almost 40% of that growth,however, was recorded in the 1980s alone.There is concern expressed about the sustain-ability of this growth (Walle, 1994; from Getz,2000). What is clear is that some communitiesare heavily dependent on the brand they havecreated through their annual event. Gilroy,California claims to be the world’s garliccapital and almost all of its marketing ties intodeveloping this brand image. On a smallerscale Seymour, Wisconsin is the proud home of‘Burger Fest’ with a world record hamburgergrilled outside in 2001 and claims to be wherethe first hamburger sandwich was first offeredfor sale.

There are number of market trends that indicate positive signs for rural tourism development:

(1) growing interest in heritage, tradition,authenticity and rural life;

(2) taking multiple holidays per year with adesire to take a second short break in arural area;

(3) increasing health consciousness giving apositive appeal to rural lifestyles andvalues such as fresh air, activity opportu-nities and stress-free situations;

(4) market interest in high performance outdoor equipment from clothing to allterrain bikes and high-tech climbing equipment;

(5) search for solitude and relaxation in a quietnatural place;

(6) an ageing but active population retiringearlier but living and travelling far into oldage (Long and Lane, 2000)

As a result of these trends there have beennumerous attempts to create additionaltourism products, including a heavy emphasison heritage and culture, the development ofniche markets such as birding tours, golf andmore emphasis on agri-tourism. These are allsingular attribute-specific approaches and arebased on old models for how rural tourismdestinations have developed historically. Thenext section will briefly discuss some attribute-specific approaches with respect to consumerinterest.

ATTRIBUTE ORIENTATION

Most early rural tourism destinations devel-oped to satisfy a singular market interest.Fishing resorts in the upper Mid-west, down-hill skiing in New England and the West; whitewater rafting in both eastern and western states, service centres for visitors to NationalParks and so on. Recently this attribute-specific approach has been extended to includeheritage and cultural attractions and agri-tourism. Heritage and cultural developmentreceived a large boost at the 1995 White Houseconference on tourism where the message thatany community can develop heritage and cultural tourism was delivered. Hollinshead(1996) reported that heritage tourism was oneof the fastest growing segments of tourism. It would appear that sometime in the 1990stourists started to discover heritage and cultural attractions. Or did they? At least devel-opers and marketing specialists began to discover culture. Loverseed (1998) andZukowski (1994) (both from Zeppel, 2002)report that in British Columbia in 1994 therewere 182 native tourism businesses with mostof that growth occurring since 1983. Richards(2000) argues that it is not so much an increas-ing interest in cultural/heritage tourism that is

158 W. C. Gartner

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

responsible for the growth in this sector butrather the constantly expanding definition ofcultural. Richards goes on to say that the marketfor culture/heritage products may actually besaturated. This would make future ruraltourism development efforts focused on cul-tural/heritage attributes a risky proposition.

Agri-tourism grew out of a need to redirectnon-government money to farmers who werestruggling to deal with the forces of a globaleconomy. There were also examples operatingfor years, primarily through Europe, thatseemed to indicate agri-tourism had potentialfor growth (Long and Lane, 2000).

As we look to the future of rural tourism inNorth America the question is asked whethera singular attribute-specific approach is stillthe right path to follow. Although tourism is allabout experiences, destinations and their mar-keting efforts have first and foremost tried tosell product attributes (i.e. fishing, nationalparks, white water rafting, etc.), the assump-tion being that attributes are what pullssomeone into an area with the experiences tobe gained from visiting unique to the individ-ual. Researchers from the natural resourcemanagement agencies were some of the first tolook at experiences gained from engaging indifferent types of recreation. They generallyfound that even within a single product (e.g.hiking) numerous experiences were available.Further they were able to categorise users ofthese products by the types of experiencessought. Initial efforts in this area were led byDriver and Toucher (1970), Driver and Brown(1975), Potter et al. (1973) and Hendee (1974).

Tourism-specific research, conversely, didnot adopt an experience-based approach untilmuch later. The first destination image studies(Hunt, 1971; Mayo, 1973) asked survey respon-dents to provide their perception of a destina-tion’s activities and/or attractions. For manyyears after this initial work much image workfollowed the same line of reasoning, whichwas to see how people perceive the physicalfeatures of what a destination had, or could,offer. A notable exception to the attribute-specific approach to assessing and marketingdestinations came from Plog (1974). His workon allocentrics/psychocentris, now termedventurers/dependables (Plog, 2002), arguesthat people can be grouped by how they

choose to travel and therefore the general typesof experiences they seek from the overall travelexperience. Still, Plog’s approach is not trulybenefit-based as the characteristics used todefine market segments are based on product-specific consumption patterns. In the area ofimage, experience-based research began toappear in 1991 when Echtner and Richie suggested images could be aligned on threecontinuums providing more of a holisticassessment of an individual’s perceptions.Their work has spawned further efforts (Suhand Gartner, in press; Chandler and Costello,2002) that have moved away from attribute-specific image assessments to ones that encom-pass a more experiential view of what touristsseek from their holidays. There is little evidence, however, based on a convenienceassessment of rural marketing literature, thatany major shifts have been made in how ruralareas present themselves to potential cus-tomers. It is still very much an attribute-spe-cific approach, with experiences to be gainedimplied from how the advertisment copy readsor looks. Dann (1996) has reviewed how adver-tisment copy language conveys certain mes-sages about the benefits to be gained fromvisiting a particular destination. Still, there isno body of evidence that suggests benefits por-trayed in advertising copy are based on bene-fits sought by targeted, potential tourists.

To emphasise the point that rural tourismdevelopment tied to experiential products sup-ported by marketing that emphasises experi-ences over specific physical attributes deservesincreased attention, two recently completedstudies will be referenced. Only the sectionsthat deal with cultural/heritage and agri-tourism, the two newest specific attributesreceiving increased development and market-ing attention, are highlighted.

The first study dealt with the attributes andamenities sought by highway users in the stateof Minnesota (Gartner et al., 2002). The secondreport was a visitor profile study of tourists infive Minnesota communities (Gartner et al.,2001). For the sake of brevity the researchdesign will not be fully detailed in this article.Instead the reader is referred to the website ofthe University of Minnesota, Tourism Center(www.tourism.umn.edu/research) for a com-plete description of methods used and results.

Rural Tourism in the USA 159

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

One of the questions highway users of 11 dif-ferent road segments in the state of Minnesotawere asked was: ‘Below is a list of experiencesyou may have had while traveling today onthis road segment. Please indicate how impor-tant this experience was to you in traveling thisroad segment today. Then indicate how muchyou were able to attain that experience on thisroad segment.’ The list of experiences relatedto culture included: experience the localculture; experience local cultural events; learnabout the cultural history of the area. Respon-dents were asked to answer using a seven-point scale from Very Unimportant (1) to VeryImportant (7). For attainment of the experiencethe respondent was offered a four-point scaleranging from ‘Did not attain (1)’ to ‘Totallyattained (4). The list of experiences alsoincluded one related to agri-tourism, whichwas: ‘experience local agricultural practices’.

The roads chosen for analysis were locatedthroughout the state and included designatedscenic highways, interstate highways andcounty maintained roads. The highwayswound through forested land, agricultureareas, small towns and the fringes of the metroarea. Road segments studied were kept rela-tively short (15–60 miles) in order to limit thenumber of different landscapes the respondenttravelled through, thereby reducing undesir-able data ‘noise’.

Almost without exception, the highwayusers that indicated they were interested incultural experiences or agricultural practicesrecorded the lowest levels of experienceseekers in the study. Even more disturbing isthose who said they selected the road to gaincultural experiences or experience local agri-cultural practices recorded very low scores onthe attainment scale. Even cultural experienceseekers on road segments that included signifi-cant cultural attractions, such as a state parkwith Indian burial mounds, indicated theywere unable to attain their desired culturalexperiences. This finding supports Richards(2000) contention that the definition of culturehas become so diluted over the years that it isalmost impossible to pin down. For the fewtravellers interested in experiencing local cultural practices, the finding that they were unable to attain it was even more inter-esting as the study took place during the

summer months when agricultural activitywas high.

Other findings were more revealing withrespect to attribute-specific approaches to ruraltourism development. When factor analysiswas conducted to reveal the different types ofuser groups found along the highways asegment, named ‘Learners and Doers’, wasrevealed. This segment’s size ranged from alow of 11% to a high of 31% of the users foundalong a particular highway. Members of thissegment were interested in learning newthings from driving through rural areas andvisiting small towns. They were also morelikely than any of the other identified segmentsto stop spontaneously and do things whiletravelling, such as bird watching or hiking.

A study (Gartner et al., 2001) of visitors torural destinations in the State of Minnesota waseven more revealing. Again using factor analy-sis, it was shown that certain visitors tended tocluster into specific activity segments. Activi-ties such as fishing, golfing, and boating tendedto form separate segments, whereas activitiessuch as hiking, visiting small towns, birdwatching, driving for pleasure and enjoyingautumn colours tended to cluster together.When activity usage is analysed it appears thatthose that are expensive to access and time con-suming form their own segments. This wouldhelp explain the success of attribute-specificapproaches to rural tourism development.Fishing and golf resorts are common in theupper Midwest of the USA and were some ofthe early forms of resort development. On theother hand, user segments that are undifferen-tiated by product but tied together by the easeof which one can access or exit the activity with-out significant money or time costs have beengenerally ignored in rural tourism development.

The attribute-specific approach to ruraltourism development still dominates today asevidenced by a recent newsletter from theTravel Industry Association of America thatannounces an educational seminar dedicatedto providing a ‘Blueprint for Heritage TourismDevelopment’ (TIA, 2003). Although attribute-specific development approaches may be usedas a base for tourism development they remainexamples of the historical pattern of ruraltourism development in North America. Somedestinations have been able to capitalise on

160 W. C. Gartner

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

their heritage as a base for development whileusing an attribute-specific approach to bring intourists. For example, Deadwood, SouthDakota has preserved its historic downtownby allowing casinos to operate within its juris-diction. The proceeds from gaming supporthistoric preservation activities. In this casethere were few options to gaming as touristvisitation without gaming was not enough tomaintain, enhance or even preserve the his-toric character of the town (Long et al. 1994).

The use of heritage to promote and marketdestinations continues the attribute-specificapproach to development that has been thebasis for rural tourism development in NorthAmerica. Kerstetter et al. (2001) argue that eventhough many sources claim Americans aremore interested in travelling to heritage sites,little is known about the people who do visitthese sites. MacKay et al. (2002) looked at nichemarkets tied to cultural activities at USA andCanadian destinations. Niche markets, theyargued, are not yet viewed as large or impor-tant enough to qualify as market segments.What they found with respect to activity pat-terns was surprisingly similar to the resultsreported above for the State of Minnesota. Easyentry, easy access types of activities, what theauthors call passive forms of activity, tended tocluster together for select groups of travellers.Cultural activities were frequently groupedwith other types of ‘passive’ activities such asbird watching and hiking. Their findingssuggest attribute-specific approaches to devel-opment do not necessarily work for all trav-ellers. They also argue that attribute-specificapproaches to tourism development, whatMacKay et al. (2002) refer to as special interesttourism, creates arbitrary distinctions betweengroups where no conceptual or practical dif-ferences between users exist. It may make iteasy for marketers to think in terms of specificattributes to attract user segments, but touriststhemselves may not be thinking this way.Further support for these findings is alsofound in Taylor et al. (1993).

CONCLUSION

Rural tourism development in North Americais a story of opportunity brought about by

world events, with the most significant ofthose being World War II. Shortly after WorldWar II, prosperity in the USA and Canada,coupled with excess supply of new, to recre-ation, equipment led to significant growth incommunities catering primarily to tourists.This was the boom time for rural areas, as agri-culture was still the dominant rural economicengine with small manufacturing beginning todiscover rural areas as places to locate. Addingtourism to the mix only enhanced the eco-nomic outlook for rural areas.

That all began to change in the late 1960s and1970s as the seeds of globalisation began tosprout, technological advances reduced theneed for agricultural labour, small manufac-turers began to consider offshore sites andrural populations picked up and moved tourban areas. It was during the 1970s and 1980sthat much of rural USA and Canada looked totourism for relief from the economic malaise in which it found itself. Escalating levels ofwealth increased the supply of tourists andrural areas began to experience success withtourism development using, for the most part,a supply side or attribute-specific approach todevelopment. However, increased levels ofwealth also brought new pressures on landprices, initiating another wave of transforma-tion. Many rural destinations became muchmore urban in character and, by definition, inreality as populations increased to handle allthe new consumers. Land prices in naturalresource amenity rich areas forced small operators to sell or become large operators.Universities began to awaken to the size andeconomic importance of tourism and devotedmore resources to helping rural residentsdevelop the skills needed to develop their ownbrand of tourism.

Worldwide, demand for products such asfound in a rural setting are said to be on theincrease. Using attribute-specific arguments itis not uncommon to read in trade magazinesthat cultural, nature and adventure basedtourism demand is expected to increase by arate of 10–30% in the next five years. However,when one reviews the definitions for what con-stitutes, for example, a culturally based trip itis not clear how much of the increase is due todemand or simply confusion over what com-prises culture (Richards, 2000). Home stays

Rural Tourism in the USA 161

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

and visits to museums, essentially differentproducts, are both included in the currentpopular definition of cultural tourism.

The twenty-first century continues the tradi-tion of an attribute specific approach to ruraltourism development even though there aresigns of market saturation for numeroustourism products. Demand-side research gen-erally has been ignored in the practice of devel-oping tourism products unless demand can betied to specific attributes.

There are trends that indicate the demandfor rural based tourism will continue toincrease. There are also trends that suggesttourism growth will remain sluggish eventhough economic pressure is forcing morerural destinations to consider further tourismdevelopment thereby increasing the supply ofrural tourism products and competition foravailable tourists. As was suggested in the lastsection of this article, new approaches toproduct development and marketing of ruraltourism products should be considered. Thereis a substantial research base that addressesexperiential outcomes from recreation andrecently from tourism. Yet there is no wide-spread adoption of this research into the mar-keting approaches used by rural destinationpromoters.

Rural tourism development in NorthAmerica is a story of domestic tourism andtransformation of the physical plant broughton by exogenous forces through the years. International visitors, although wel-comed, will have very little impact on howrural tourism in the USA and to a lesser extent, Canada, develops. It is the interests ofpeople who drive to the destination, and pri-marily live within a days drive, that mattermost. Through the years rural tourism prod-ucts have been developed with the primaryinterests of those visitors in mind. Althoughthis approach has worked well for over 100years there are some signs that a new para-digm is in order. As Aldous Huxley penned in‘Along the Road’ (1925) ‘We read and travelnot to broaden our minds but that we maypleasantly forget they exist’. How to make thishappen is the challenge facing not only thoseworking to bring tourists into a rural area butalso those seeking the ‘true’ rural tourismexperience.

REFERENCES

Aremberri J. 2004. How global is tourism. In TourismDevelopment: Issues for a Vulnerable Industry,Aremberri J, Butler D (eds). InternationalAcademy for the Study of Tourism, ChannelView: Clevedon (in press).

Brown D. Rural Tourism: an Annotated Bibliography.www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ricpubs/rural_tourism.html

Burton H. 1971. The Ski Troops. New York: Simonand Shuster.

Canada Tourism. 2002. Tourism Statistics/Latest Domestic Travel Statistics. http://www.canadatourism.com/en/ctc/ctx/ctx-ind_watch/tourism_stats/index.cfm

Chandler J, Costello C. 2002. A profile of visitors atheritage tourism destinations in East Tennesseeaccording to Plog’s Lifestyle and Activity LevelPreferences model. Journal of Travel Research 41(2):161–166.

Crompton J. 1990. Tourism research: redirection forthe 1990s. In Proceedings of the National OutdoorRecreation Trends Symposium III, Indianapolis,Indiana, 29–31 March.

Dann G. 1977. Anomie, ego-enhancement andtourism. Annals of Tourism Research 4: 184–194.

Dann G. 1996. The Language of Tourism. CABI:Wallingford.

Driver B, Brown P. 1975. A Socio-psychological Definition of Recreation Demand, with Implicationsfor Recreation Resource Planning. AssessingDemand for Outdoor Recreation. NationalAcademy of Sciences: Washington, DC; 62–88.

Driver B, Toucher R. 1970. Toward a behavioralinterpretation of recreational engagements withimplications for planning. In Elements of OutdoorRecreation Planning, Driver B (ed.). University ofMichigan: Ann Arbor; 9–31.

Du Plessis V, Beshiri R, Bollman R. 2002. Definitionsof Rural. Agriculture and Working Paper Series,Working Paper 61, Statistics Canada: Ottawa,Ontario.

Echtner C, Ritchie J. 1991. The meaning and mea-surement of destination image. Journal of TourismStudies 2(2): 2–12.

Edgell D. 1999. Tourism Policy: the Next Millennium.Sagamore Publishing: Illinois.

Everhart W. 1983. The National Park Service. West-view Press: Boulder, CO.

Flora J, Spears L, Flora L, Weinberg M. 1992. RuralCommunities: Legacy and Change. Westview Press:Boulder, CO.

Gartner W. 1996. Tourism Development: Principles,Processes and Policies. Wiley: New York.

162 W. C. Gartner

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

Gartner W, Lime D. 2000. The big picture. In Trendsin Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism, Gartner W,Lime D (eds). CABI: Wallingford; 1–14.

Gartner W, Chappelle D, Girard T. 1996. Naturalresource characteristics’ influence on propertyvalue. Journal of Travel Research 35(1): 64–71.

Gartner W, Love L, Erkkila D. 2001. Study of CurrentArea Tourists. Tourism Center, University of Minnesota: St Paul.

Gartner W, Love L, Erkkila D. 2002. Attributes andAmenities of Minnesota’s Highway System that areImportant to Tourists. Tourism Center, Universityof Minnesota: St Paul.

Getz D. 2000. Festivals and special events: life cycleand saturation issues. In Trends in Recreation,Leisure, and Tourism, Gartner W, Lime D (eds).CABI: Wallingford; 175–186.

Getz D, Page S. 1997. Conclusions and implicationsfor rural business development. In The Business ofRural Tourism: International Perspectives, Page S,Getz D (eds). International Thompson BusinessPress: London.

Glennon M. 2003. Why the Security Council failed.Foreign Affairs 82(3): 16–35.

Gunn C. (1979) Tourism Planning. Crane Russak:New York.

Hendee J. 1974. A multiple satisfaction approach togame management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2:104–113.

Holecek D, Spencer D, Williams J, Herbowicz T.2000. Michigan Travel Market Survey. MichiganAgricultural Experiment Station, Special Report108, Michigan State University: East Lansing.

Hollinshead K. 1996. Historical tourism in the ageof historical amnesia. World’s Eye View on Hospi-tality Trends 5(2): 15–19.

Hunt J. 1971. Image—a factor in tourism. Unpub-lished Doctoral Dissertation, Colorado State Uni-versity: Fort Collins, CO.

Jafari J. 1988. Retrospective and prospective views ontourism as a field of study. Paper presented at the1988 Meeting of the Academy of Leisure Sciences,Indianapolis, Indiana.

Janiskee R. 1994. Some macroscale growth trends inAmericas community festival industry. FestivalManagement and Event Tourism: an InternationalJournal 2(1): 10–14.

Kerstetter D, Confer J, Graefe A. 2001. An explo-ration of the specialization concept within thecontext of heritage tourism. Journal of TravelResearch 39(3): 267–274.

Lane B. 1994. What is rural tourism?, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2(1 + 2): 7–21.

Lew A. 1989. Authenticity and sense of place in thetourism development experience of older retaildistricts. Journal of Travel Research 27(4): 22.

Long P. 1998. Rural Tourism Foundation InformationPiece. University of Colorado: Boulder.

Long P, Lane B. 2000. Rural tourism development. InTrends in Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism, GartnerW, Lime D (eds). CABI: Wallingford; 299-308.

Long P, Clark J, Liston D. 1994. Win, Lose or Draw?Gambling with America’s Small Towns. The AspenInstitute: Washington, DC.

Loyancono L. 1991. Travel and Tourism: a Legislator’sGuide. National Council of State Legislators:Washington, DC.

Loverseed H. 1998. Aboriginal tourism in North America. Travel and Tourism Analyst 6:42–61.

MacKay K, Andereck K, Vogt C. 2002. Understand-ing vacationing motorist niche markets. Journal ofTravel Research 40(4): 356–363.

Mayo E. 1973. Regional images and regional travelbehavior. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual TravelResearch Association Conference, Salt Lake City,Utah; 211–217.

Mallet W, McGuckin N. Driving to Distractions:Recreational Trips in Private Vehicles. Bureau ofTransportation Statistics: Washington, DC.www.gov/nhts/docs/rectripspv.pdf

OECD. 1994. Tourism strategies and rural develop-ment. In Tourism Policy and International Tourism.Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment: Paris.

Perry R, Dean K, Brown B. 1986. Counterurbaniza-tion: International Case Studies. Geo Books: Connecticut.

Plog S. 1974. Why destination areas rise and fall inpopularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Adminis-tration Quarterly 14: 55–58.

Plog S. 2002. The power of psychographics and theconcept of venturesomeness. Journal of TravelResearch 40(3): 244–251.

Potter D, Hendee J, Clark R. 1973. Hunting Satisfac-tion: Game, Guns, or Nature. Human Dimensionsin Wildlife Programs, The Wildlife ManagementInstitute: Washington, DC; 62–71.

Powell J. 1879. Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, 2nd edn. GovernmentPrinting Office: Washington, DC.

Ragatz R. 1969. Vacation Homes: an Analysis of theMarket for Seasonal–Recreational Housing. CornellUniversity: Ithica.

Reid L, Smith S, Murphy B. 1997. Keys to SuccessfulTourism Development: Lessons from Niagara. PacificProductions International: Ontariao.

Richards G. 2000. Cultural tourism: challenges formanagement and marketing. In Trends in Recre-ation, Leisure, and Tourism, Gartner W, Lime D(eds). CABI: Wallingford; 187–196.

Rural Tourism in the USA 163

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)

Rosenow J, Pulsipher G. 1979. Tourism: the Good, theBad, the Ugly. Century Three Press: Nebraska.

Siehl G. 2000. U.S. recreation policies since WorldWar II. In Trends in Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism,Gartner W, Lime D (eds). CABI: Wallingford;11–102.

Smith S. 2003. The geographical structure of cana-dian tourism. In Tourism Development: Issues for aVulnerable Industry, International Academy for theStudy of Tourism, Aremberri J, Butler D (eds).Channel View: Clevedon.

Stegner W. 1992. Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: JohnWesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West.Penguin Press: London.

Stokowski P. 1996. Riches and Regrets: Betting onGambling in Two Colorado Mountain Towns. University Press of Colorado: Niwot, CO.

Stowkowski P. 2000. Assessing social impacts ofresource-based recreation and tourism. In Trendsin Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism, Gartner W,Lime D (eds). CABI: Wallingford.

Suh K, Gartner W. 2004. Perceptions in internationalurban tourism: a correspondence analysis of travelers to Seoul, Korea. Tourism Management25(1): 127–137.

Suh K, Gartner W. In press. Perceptions in interna-tional urban tourism: an analysis of travelers toSeoul, Korea. Journal of Travel Research.

Taylor D, Fletcher S, Claybaugh T. 1993. A compari-son of characteristics, regional expenditures, andeconomic impact of visitors to historical sites withother recreational visitors. Journal of TravelResearch 31(1): 30–35.

TIA. 2003. ESTO to Feature Blueprint for HeritageTourism Development, Travel Industry Associatione-newsletter. www.tia.org/pubs/enl_061803_nostyles.asp

University of Missouri. 1978. Tourism USA. UnitedStates Department of Commerce; United StatesTravel and Tourism Administration; EconomicDevelopment Administration.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1997. In-flightSurvey of International Air Travelers, Overseas Travelers to the United States. International Trade Administration: Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2002. AmericanTravel Survey. Conducted by the U.S. CensusBureau: Washington, DC.

Van der Stoep G. 2000. Community tourism development. In Trends in Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism, Gartner W, Lime D (eds). CABI:Wallingford.

Walle A. 1994. The festival life cycle and tourismstrategies: the case of the Cowboy Poet Gather-ing. Festival Management and Event Tourism: anInternational Journal 2(2): 85–94.

Wandless E. 1943. The Story of the Rubber Life Raft.New York Rubber Corporation: New York.

Zeppel H. 2002. Cultural tourism at the CowichanNative Village, British Columbia. Journal of TravelResearch 41(1): 92–100.

Zukowski H. 1994. Masters of ceremony: inside themystical world of the First Nations. Westworld20(2): 44–50.

164 W. C. Gartner

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 6, 151–164 (2004)