Contemporary tourism heritage as heritage tourism

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 249–267, 2011 0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.08.007

CONTEMPORARY TOURISM HERITAGE AS HERITAGE TOURISM Evidence from Las Vegas and Gold Coast David B. Weaver Griffith University, Australia

Abstract: Four categories of contemporary tourism heritage were identified in this exploratory study of Las Vegas (Nevada, USA) and Gold Coast (Queensland, Australia) based on location, originality and scale: (1) in situ representations that memorialize tourism and related phenomena through plaques, statues and/or festivals, (2) ex situ original items displayed and interpreted in museums, (3) in situ original nodes represented by preserved hotels and other facilities, and (4) in situ original corridors represented by preserved tourism strips. All are only partially articulated as heritage tourism, though potential for elaboration derives from its authenticity within tourism cities, its serious and interesting character, possibilities for accurate presentation due to artefact survival and personal experience, and the potential for current examples as foundations. Keywords: heritage tourism, industrial heritage, sustainable tourism, Gold Coast, Las Vegas. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Heritage tourism is a burgeoning area of research that was initially construed in simple supply-side terms as visited spaces deemed, usually by experts, to constitute or contain the heritage of a destination. This heritage, moreover, was associated with the more distant past, implicating castles, plantation great homes, battlefields, old churches and similar historical phenomena as significant cultural inheritances worthy of protection and presentation (Yale, 1991). Recent discourses, in tandem with the postmodernist zeitgeist, are painting a more complex picture, emphasizing the subjectivities, vested interests and contestations inherent in the identification, presentation and interpretation of ‘heritage’ by multiple stakeholders (Apostolakis, 2003). Chronis (2005), for example, argues that sites such as the Gettysburg battlefield are evolving ‘storyscapes’ co-constructed by marketers as well as consumers, often with the intent of achieving specific social or personal goals (Poria & Ashworth, 2009). The desire of visitors to be emotionally

Dr. David Weaver (Dept. of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, Qld. Australia 4222. Tel.: +61 7 5552 9290. Email ) is a Professor of Tourism Research specializing in sustainable tourism, ecotourism, indigenous tourism, destination life cycle dynamics, peri-urban tourism, small islands and tourism cities. 249

250

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

connected with their own personal heritage as part of such co-constructions is being increasingly recognized (Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2003; Poria, Reichel, & Biran, 2006), stimulating interest in ‘hot interpretation’ that is emotive as well as cognitive, and also potentially personalized (Uzzell & Ballantyne, 2008). In the postmodern imagination, heritage therefore is essentially whatever the visitor perceives as heritage (Poria et al., 2006; Timothy & Boyd, 2003). One implication is the increased operational expansion and diversification of ‘heritage’ (Fowler, 1989; Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996), its eroding temporal boundaries indicated in apparent oxymora such as ‘contemporary archaeology’, ‘future heritage’ (Fairclough, 2008), and ‘heritage of the recent past’ (Walton, 2009). These eroding boundaries of time and context greatly increase the potential for phenomena related to such ‘non-traditional’ areas as sport (Ramshaw & Gammon, 2005), industrial production (Edwards & Llurde´s i Coit, 1996; Xie, 2006)—and tourism—to be recognized as heritage tourism attractions. Already achieving limited recognition in the literature are tourism sites old enough to situate within conventional parameters of heritage. Certain seaside resorts, according to Walton (2009) have established their own industrial archaeology worthy of preservation and presentation. Historic seaside resorts and theme parks are both recognized by Prentice (1994) as legitimate heritage attractions, while Timothy and Boyd (2003), without elaboration, situate ‘historic theme parks’ at the built urban extreme of a heritage tourism continuum. Indeed, local heritage inventories would be expected to include such sites in their site coverage. Concerted academic investigation of these phenomena from a heritage tourism perspective, however, is confined to American boardwalks (Lilliefors, 2006) and the English seaside resort of Blackpool (Walton & Wood, 2009), though other resorts, historic piers, spas, casinos and hotels also qualify for such investigation. The second and more contestable dimension that more literally adheres to the notion of the heritage of the recent past is the investigation of post-World War Two phenomena, distinguished as they are by their association with popular contemporary culture as well as broadly possessed living memory and personal histories. Relevant literature is similarly lacking, with touristic studies of historic Route 66 in the USA by Repp (1999) and Caton and Santos (2007) being perhaps the only examples. No investigations to date have systematically considered either manifestation of tourism heritage (i.e., pre- or post-World War Two) from the perspective of specialized tourism cities that have experienced most of their growth in tourism and resident population since the mid-20th century. Using Las Vegas (USA) and the Gold Coast of Australia as comparative case studies, this paper considers the extent to which the local tourism heritage is recognized and protected, and subsequently developed and marketed as heritage tourism. The case for and against both levels of engagement is also presented, toward the broader consideration and recognition of tourism heritage as a legitimate form of heritage tourism.

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

251

TOURISM CITIES AND TOURISM HERITAGE Tourism urbanization, according to Mullins, is a process whereby ‘. . .urban areas, particularly large cities, are specially developed for the production, sale, and consumption of goods and services providing pleasure.’ (1992, p. 188). Industrial-era seaside resorts such as Brighton and Blackpool demonstrate that tourism urbanization is not confined to the post-World War Two period (Towner, 1996). However, it is the latter which spawned the large-scale ‘tourism cities’ that can emerge from this process (Mullins, 1991, 1992). Widespread recognition of this spatial form is reflected in the proliferation of synonymous terms, including the ‘leisureopolis’ (Stansfield, 1983), ‘entertainment city’ (Symes, 1994), ‘fantasy city’ (Hannigan, 1998), ‘tourist metropolis’ (Gladstone, 1998) and ‘resort city’ (Fainstein & Judd, 1999a). However labelled, these cities are essentially postmodern in character (Mullins, 1991) and are associated with the so-called pleasure periphery that emerged during the post-war era of mass 3S (sea, sand, sun) tourism growth (Turner & Ash, 1975). Examples include Las Vegas and Orlando (US Sunbelt sub-region), Cancu´n (Caribbean basin), Nice and Calvia´ (Mediterranean basin), Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast (Australian east coast), Pattaya and Sanya (Southeast Asia), and Acapulco (Mexican Pacific coast). In all of these places, other forms of economic activity were dominant before the advent of mass tourism. However, it is the latter that now forms the basis of their primary identity and hence the logical focus of its emerging contemporary heritage awareness. Las Vegas and Gold Coast Several factors underlie the selection of Las Vegas (henceforth LV) and Gold Coast (GC) as case studies for exploring the extent to which local tourism heritage is cultivated and then pursued as heritage tourism by tourism cities. First, mass tourism vaulted each city into the position of dominant tourism city within their respective countries during the late 1900s (Davidson & Spearritt, 2000; Douglass & Raento, 2004). Early arrival statistics are lacking for both destinations, but can be inferred from the stock of hotels and other accommodation. Tourism in LV was limited prior to World War Two by the small number of mainly downtown hotels, and facilitated after that by the opening of the first true resorts on the Strip (Parker, 1999). About 12 million visitors arrived per year in the early 80s (Lee, 1984), increasing to 26 million in 1994 (Parker, 1999) and 37 million in 2000 (Douglass & Raento, 2004), reflecting an increase in hotel rooms from 36,500 in 1990 to 72,300 in 2000 (Gu, 2003). An early indication of GC volume was the sale of over 80,000 low price excursion tickets from Brisbane in 1911 (Hajdu, 1993). The two million overnight visitors recorded in 1985 doubled by 2000 (Faulkner, 2003) and remained at that level by 2009, increasing to 10 million if day-only excursionists are included (Gold Coast City Council, 2009).

252

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

Second, growth in arrivals and accommodation stock is paralleled by rapid increase in residential population. From about 1,000 residents in 1910, LV increased to 10,000 in 1940, 25,000 in 1950 (Douglass & Raento, 2004), 270,000 in 1967, 740,000 in 1990, 1.4 million in 2000 (Rothman, 2002), and almost 2 million by 2010. GC displays a similar pattern of sustained exponential growth albeit on a smaller scale, expanding from about 2,000 residents in 1900 to 9,000 in 1947, 33,000 in 1961 (Stimson & Minnery, 1998), 150,000 in 1981 (Hofmeister, 1988), 270,000 in 1991, and about 600,000 in 2010. A high proportion of population in each case is ‘invested’ in local tourism by merit of employment, personal experience with local attractions, and/or the amenity motivation of the migration decision. Local residents, therefore, have considerable potential as both tourism heritage makers (i.e., through their employment and/or recreational participation in tourism) and markets (i.e., through their spatial proximity to this heritage and their potential interest in re-experiencing this tourism participation from a heritage perspective) within these two tourism cities. A third consideration is discernable historical phases that span the pre- and post-war dimensions of tourism history and enrich the local tourism heritage tableau. LV in the early 1900s was a railway town (Douglass & Raento, 2004) while GC was forestry-dominated (Jones, 1986). Thriving hotel and bar cultures associated with both industries served as precursors to tourism (Hajdu, 1993; Spanier, 1992). The opening of the first true tourist hotels in the late 1800s at Coolangatta on the New South Wales border and the construction of a rail link to Brisbane in 1903 (Russell, 1995) heralded a period of regional domestic holiday visitation in GC that lasted until the late 50s. Toponymic identification with tourism was already evident in this phase with the naming of ‘Surfers Paradise’ in 1933 and the more general ‘Gold Coast’ municipal appellation in 1958. The construction of the first high-rise hotels in the late 50s at Surfers Paradise (the Chevron in 1958 and the Kinkabool in 1959) marked a new era of resort and investment sustained by the larger eastern Australia market and lasting until the mid-80s, when the focus shifted to markets in the broader western Pacific basin and investment from entrepreneurs in countries such as Japan (Hajdu, 1993, 1999). Accelerated intensification and the consolidation of Surfers Paradise as the dominant recreational business district is illustrated by the recent construction of the Q1 and Soul buildings, each exceeding 75 storeys and claiming to be among the world’s tallest residential structures. The first true tourism phase in LV commenced with the legalization of gambling in 1931 and was stimulated by the subsequent introduction of commercial air service and the improvement of the regional highway network which attracted gamblers to the expanding downtown ‘glitter gulch’ district of casinos and bars along Fremont Street (Lee, 1984). From the mid-40s to the mid-60s, organized crime interests were strongly implicated in the development of casino-resorts such as the Flamingo, Sands, Desert Inn and Dunes on the southern peripheral Strip, capitalizing on the post-war consumer automobile culture

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

253

(Parker, 1999), and presenting a desert theme that contrasted with the ‘wild west’ atmosphere of ‘glitter gulch’ three kilometers to the north (Douglass & Raento, 2004). The ‘gangster era’ was followed by a corporate era which legitimized gambling and spawned an unprecedented sequence of increasingly massive casino-resorts such as the 5000-unit MGM Grand that have experimented periodically with family-friendly, gastronomic and other themes to augment the resorts’ core gaming constituencies and prevent product stagnation (Parker, 1999). A related consideration is the interesting and unique nature of both histories, suggesting their attractiveness as potential heritage tourism resources. The outsized scale of recent construction prompted Douglass and Raento to describe LV as ‘this most exceptional of American urban places’ (2004, p. 8), Spanier (1992) to characterize LV as a city of vitality, and Symes to situate GC in the ‘realm of the hyperbole’ (1995, p. 1). The GC epitomizes Australian contemporary beach culture and associated icons such as the surf life-saving guard (Davidson & Spearritt, 2000). Colorful entrepreneurs and ‘chaos makers’ such as Bugsy Siegel, Howard Hughes, Kerk Kerkorian and Steve Wynn are inextricably linked to innovation in LV (Spanier, 1992; Wiley & Gottlieb, 1982), while a similar role pertains to GC personalities such as Keith Williams, Jim Cavill, Bruce Small and Stanley Korman (Jones, 1986; Russell & Faulkner, 2004). All exhibit an open capitalist ethos crucial to understanding evolving resort landscapes (Parker, 1999; Spearritt, 2009). That such histories are well documented further influenced the selection of these two cities. It deserves mention that both share a somewhat negative image within popular culture, the GC often being cited as an example of what other beach resorts do not aspire to (Davidson & Spearritt, 2000), and LV marketers deliberately cultivating an edgy image in the recent campaign slogan ‘What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas’ (Wood, 2005). Finally, important differences between LV and GC enrich the comparative case study approach. Fundamentally, the former is an inland gaming haven augmented by the convention sector, while the latter is a linear beach resort augmented by theme parks. Both have warm climates typical of the pleasure periphery, though LV experiences a warm dry climate (BWh under the Ko¨ppen classification scheme), while the GC has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa). Morphologically, LV developed as a single urban area which spawned both a peripheral and downtown recreational business district, while the GC emerged as a fusion of separate and historically competitive coastal resorts such as Surfers Paradise, Coolangatta, Burleigh Heads and Southport. The remote location of LV relative even to major regional markets such as Los Angeles and Phoenix inhibits the formation of a major day-only excursionist market, while the latter is extremely important to the GC due to its proximity to greater Brisbane and its 1.5 million residents. Indeed, the GC amalgamating with greater Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast to form a coastal conurbation 200 kilometers long (Spearritt, 2009). Given these differences, it is more likely that the two case studies, collectively, will better reveal the diversity of tourism heritage options.

254

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

Tourism Heritage Information for this research was obtained in part from the Internet, which offered an extensive array of relevant sources, and also from non-electronic sources both academic and non-academic. It must be noted however that any systematic academic investigation of tourism heritage in either city, or any other tourism city, appears to be non-existent. In addition, field investigations to the tourism districts of both cities were undertaken during 2008 and 2009. The information search focused on evidence for the existence of recognized tourism heritage, its presentation as heritage tourism, and underlying patterns of engagement related to degrees of articulation, stakeholders and markets. As a result, four categories of tourism heritage were identified, ranging from in situ representations to ex situ original objects, in situ original nodes, and in situ original corridors and areas. The first category, in situ representations, focuses on tourism commemoration and memorialization. It is positioned here as the most basic type of articulation since it can potentially capture any ‘lost’ material heritage, and often at minimal cost. The simplest manifestation is the in situ representational commemorative plaque, several of which mark the site of long-demolished historic hotels in both cities. One prominent GC example is a bronze plaque embedded by the Gold Coast City Council in a high traffic Surfers Paradise walkway on the site of the demolished Surfers Paradise Hotel, which was erected in 1925. A variant is the informative billboard, such as the small photo display erected by the private site management company in GC’s Oasis shopping complex in the seaside suburb of Broadbeach which describes and depicts a pre-World War Two hotel that previously occupied the site. A second manifestation is the in situ three-dimensional statue or relief. The brass relief of the entertainers Seigfried and Roy and one of their performing tigers at the entry of the Mirage casino, where most of their 5,750 animal act shows were held, is a prominent LV example. It also illustrates how the potential for memorialization extends beyond buildings to encompass episodic or unique events, potentially also involving other Las Vegas legends such as Liberace (see below), Frank Sinatra and Wayne Newton. It was erected by Mirage management to recognize the close association of the act with that particular casino. The brass relief of female dancers at the main entrance to the Riviera Hotel where the dancers were based is another local illustration. The best example of a statue honors Peter Lacey, a renowned GC surf life-saver and business personality. Symbolizing the surf life-saving movement more generally, it was erected in 1997 in a high profile Surfers Paradise beachfront location by Gold Coast City Council and an ad hoc Memorial Committee of business and surfing associates of Lacey. In 2010, a bronze statue of the chair and cap used by Al Baldwin, a Surfers Paradise personality who sprayed beachgoers with suntan oil over a 34-year period in the late 1900s, was poured, with the statue’s erection anticipated in mid-2011 at the beachfront location where he used to sit (Hicks, 2010). The final manifestation is the commemorative festival. The only identified example was the Wintersun Festival in the Coolangatta

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

255

neighbourhood of GC, a nostalgia/retro-themed annual event featuring vintage cars (over 1,500 expected in 2010) and classic rock n’ roll music (over 100 bands and performers expected in 2010). Wintersun originated as a local community festival but was re-themed in 1988 to complement Coolangatta’s strong historical identification with tourism, including its reputation as Australia’s ‘honeymoon capital’ during the 50s and 60s (Mules, 2004). According to Mackellar, ‘the festival aims to recreate the ambience of winter holidays in the sun’ (2009, p. 90). The festival as of 2010 was owned by The Wintersun Festival Association Incorporated, a non-profit entity supported by Gold Coast City Council, the Southern Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce and the Gold Coast Tourism Bureau, among other bodies that reflect the festival’s growing profile. Notably, one of the objectives of the festival is to establish a year round tourism nostalgia theme for Coolangatta (Wintersun, 2009). The second category, ex situ original objects, consists of tourism-related museums. Museums are repositories of original (and sometimes restored or reproduced) objects deemed worthy of acquisition from other locations and preservation as well as contextual display and interpretation, usually for a public audience (Kotler & Kotler, 1998). As such, these objects are equated by museum operators and visitors with the heritage of a particular place (Smith, 2008). Although no museums devoted specifically to the general theme of tourism were identified, LV and GC both have facilities that display specific aspects of local tourism heritage. Befitting the beach-based GC culture, Surf World Gold Coast was opened in 2009 near the beachfront largely through the efforts of the local surfing community and certain GC Councillors. Its stated mission is to ‘celebrate the history and culture of surfing and to preserve this for future generations’. Periodic surfing-related events, including talks by prominent surfers of the past, are an important supplement to the permanent displays of vintage surfboards (over 100 were displayed in mid-2010) and related memorabilia, as are visits by local school groups (Surf World, 2010). LV hosts the non-profit Liberace Museum, a facility of the Liberace Foundation which features memorabilia associated with the pianist and showman who opened the eponymous museum in 1979. Its main purposes are to preserve the Liberace legacy and to raise revenue for the Foundation’s program of funding fine arts student scholarships. As with Surf World, periodic themed events are a major attraction supporting the displays (Liberace Foundation and Museum, 2010). The case for its inclusion as tourism heritage is based on Liberace’s longstanding status as a Las Vegas icon, unlike celebrities such as Elvis Presley and the Beatles who are associated with Memphis and Liverpool respectively for their origins and for musical place associations. One other existing themed LV facility is the non-profit Neon Museum, established in 1996 when a major manufacturer of neon signage turned over its collection of ‘retired’ signs to the Allied Arts Council, a local cultural heritage group. The Museum includes firstly a free outdoor gallery of eleven restored neon signs (as of late 2009) along Fremont Street representing historic casinos and hotels. Many are accom-

256

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

panied by descriptive plaques. The second component, nicknamed ‘the neon boneyard’, consists of two fenced lots containing about 150 derelict neon signs (Swenson, 2010). The Museum’s mission is to ‘collect, preserve, study and exhibit neon signs and associated artifacts to inspire educational and cultural enrichment for diverse members of our international community.’ (Neon Museum, 2010). Expected to open in 2011 is the Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement (a.k.a. the Mob Museum), a $42 million project funded by state, local and federal grants as part of efforts to revitalise the central business district as a tourist district. The relationship to tourism heritage focuses on the close involvement of organized crime in the tourism industry of LV during the mid-20th century (Mob Museum, 2010). The third category, in situ original nodes, includes specific tourism facilities or substantial portions thereof that have been deliberately preserved or restored, usually by their private sector owners, and sometimes with the assistance of government grants. LV examples emphasize hotels such as the Golden Gate Casino (built in 1906 and exterior-restored in 1990), Lincoln Hotel (built in 1910 and placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1987), and El Cortez (1941), which features ‘vintage’ suites. An ex situ variant is the lobby of La Concha Motel, erected in the 1960s futuristic Googie style of architecture but recently relocated to the boneyard to house the future Neon Museum visitor center. The only current GC hotel example is the 27 meter (14 storey) Kinkabool apartment building, built in 1959 as one of the first highrise tourism facilities, and added in 2009 to the Queensland Heritage Register as ‘a place of significant cultural importance’ by the Queensland Heritage Council. This protects the facility from development but does not prohibit renovations or upgrades (Ja, 2009). Notwithstanding ongoing reconstruction, the building, according to the Council, reflects and represents significant changes in post-World War Two Australian society. These include the widespread demand for and availability of the package beach holiday (indicated by the location, high density construction, and mode of holiday arrangement), greater prosperity (indicated by the relatively high rental cost compared with camping and other types of accommodation, and the provision of on-site services for additional cost), private car ownership (indicated by the early innovation of on-site parking facilities), and the changing status of women from producers of domestic labour (even on holidays) to consumers of leisure (reflected in the additional early innovation of on-site room service options). Other Queensland heritage listed GC tourism facilities are the Main Beach Pavilion (1934)—a change room—and Southport Surf Livesaving Club (1936). The main non-building node is the iconic Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas highway median sign which was designed in 1956, erected in 1959, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2009, having survived a demolition proposal in 1993. The application document states that ‘the ‘‘Welcome’’ sign remains unchanged as a symbol of one of the more dynamic stories in the history of entertainment and tourism in the nation’ (National Park Service,

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

257

2009). Perhaps the only GC example is the neon Pink Poodle sign which was erected in 1967 to designate a motel of that name, and retained to designate a nightclub in a resort that was built on the site after the motel was demolished in the early 2000s. A historical example from LV is the Moulin Rouge hotel opened in 1955 as the city’s first racially integrated tourism facility and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992. Nevertheless, it was abandoned since the 60s and was eventually declared a ‘public nuisance’, finally succumbing to fire in 2009. Its neon sign was saved, having been relocated earlier to the boneyard (Historic Moulin Rouge Burns, 2009). The fourth and final category, in situ original corridors and areas, consists of tourism strips and districts. Potential for such development is based on the tendency of tourism activity in tourism cities to be concentrated in one or more specialized areal or linear recreational business districts (Stansfield & Rickert, 1970). However, this is currently evident only in LV, where a superficial semblance of Fremont Street’s 50s neon atmosphere has been deliberately maintained. The Strip is also illustrative, having been designated in 2000 as an All-American Road under the federal National Scenic Byway program. This designation is warranted when a National Scenic Byway is regarded as exceptional because it is considered to be an important tourist attraction in its own right, contains features that are not found elsewhere in the USA, and merits a corridor management plan for maintaining and enhancing its intrinsic qualities. As with every other example cited, no description of the Strip as ‘tourism heritage’ was identified. Heritage Tourism Assessments of the extent to which this tourism heritage is developed as heritage tourism must consider its development and marketing as such, and also its actual interface with tourists. In situ representations such as plaques and statues are freely accessed and often located in areas of high pedestrian traffic, resulting in high levels of potential interception. However, translation into visitation is inhibited by size (at least in the case of plaques) and their association with government bodies (municipal, state or federal) or non-profit organizations more concerned with heritage preservation per se than tourism development or promotion. They are therefore incidental attractions that intercept a few pedestrians mostly by chance, and only for a brief time, as indicated by extended author observation of several sites on a convenient, non-systematic basis. During a summer long weekend in early 2010, a one-hour period during mid-day yielded 37 individuals who paused for at least five seconds in front of the Surf Life-Saver statue in Surfers Paradise. The embedded Surfers Paradise Hotel plaque, however, yielded no pauses over a similar one-hour period on the same day. In early 2009, one hour’s observation of the Seigfried and Roy relief produced visits by 15 individuals, 10 of whom took photographs. In contrast, the Wintersun festival is heavily promoted by its nonprofit managing association with support from local tourism bureaus

258

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

and chambers of commerce. Attendance accordingly has increased from estimates of 500 in 1988 to 10,000 in 1998, 50,000 in 2004 (Mackellar, 2009), and 60,000 in 2009 (Wintersun, 2009), or almost four per cent per year during the 2005–09 period. Significantly, while ‘targeting people from all walks of life’, the association is ‘also targeting people who have previously had pleasant experiences of Coolangatta during its heyday as the weekend/long term holiday destination in Australia or alternately enjoyed their honeymoon there’ (Wintersun, 2009). This is the most explicit link between tourism heritage and heritage tourism encountered in this research. Preliminary visitation for the Surf World Gold Coast museum was estimated at 1200 during the first three months of operation in 2009, much of which was accounted for by the ongoing series of special surf-related events (personal communication with museum director). Web site development and coordination with GC tourism bodies was ongoing at the time of publication. Access to the Neon Museum boneyard as of late 2009 was by appointment only, with the tour schedule and group size limits indicating a maximum visitation level of 7500 during 2009. Notably, the actual location of the boneyard is suppressed in the museum’s promotional material. Liberace Museum visitor numbers, in contrast, were estimated at 50,000 in 2008, down from about 250,000 in 1997 but still positioning the facility as a major non-casino tourist attraction (Abowitz, 2009). The substantial decline in visitation may owe to generational shifts in which younger visitors lack awareness of or fan loyalty to the featured personality, whose Las Vegas career spanned from the 50s to the 70s. To compensate for its peripheral location three kilometers from the Strip, the museum runs a regular free shuttle bus service that stops at most of the major casinos. The development of in situ original buildings and other buildings as heritage tourism attractions is both impeded and assisted by their continuing functionality, either as originally intended or otherwise. The former scenario is the most desirable because of its continuity with tourism and the presence of tourists. However, functionality can also serve as a distraction, especially if it does not evoke the original purpose. In either case, there is little evidence of structural modifications, services, interpretation or other markers at such sites to indicate their development as heritage tourism products. The 1959 GC highrise ‘Kinkabool’, for example, carried as of May 2010 no plaque or other physical recognition of its 2009 inclusion on the Queensland Heritage Register. One major exception is the Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas sign, which is now accompanied by a small parking lot to accommodate the cars and buses used by the ‘hundreds of thousands’ of annual visitors, most of whom use the site as a photo background (National Park Service, 2009). The ubiquity of the image, arising from its lack of copyright protection, undoubtedly contributes to its iconic status. Among the nascent in situ corridors, the Strip is best positioned for heritage tourism articulation because of its status as an All-American Road, the management protocols of which require attention to devel-

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

259

oping its potential as an attraction in its own right. As of late 2009, however, signage or other modifications to this effect were not evident during field investigations. In any case, enormous volumes of almost continuous pedestrian traffic attest to the Strip’s existing draw as an iconic attraction that both unites and transcends its constituent nodal elements. Fremont Street similarly attracts substantial pedestrian traffic, although the construction of the Fremont Street Experience, a four-block barrel vault canopy above the streetscape featuring regular light and sound show projections, has diminished the impact of the neon signage even though it was, ironically, introduced to stimulate flagging downtown visitor levels. It is worth reiterating the similar intended role of the pending Mob Museum as a stimulant to the revitalization of the central business district, indicating the possibility of symbiotic relationships between the latter, Fremont Street and the Neon Museum as multiple attraction poles. The Case for Further Articulation The question remains whether efforts in tourism cities to more formally and fully articulate this contemporary tourism heritage—and subsequently develop and market it as a viable heritage tourism product—are warranted. This entails a two-fold challenge in that any so-called ‘heritage’ has to be first perceived as such and then valued enough so that resources are invested to develop and present it to visitors (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). Notwithstanding increasing acceptance of the idea of ‘recent heritage’, recognition of contemporary consumer-driven mass tourism and hospitality as legitimate and/or commercially viable heritage is still minimal. Fainstein and Judd, for example, allege that tourism cities such as Cancu´n and Las Vegas ‘lack a marketable historic past’ (1999b, p. 7). Sedmak and Mihalicˇ (2008), investigating the importance of authenticity in mature seaside resorts, similarly appear to preclude the possibility that any structures or phenomena associated with modern mass tourism can be worthy of heritage designation. Such attitudes complement the many academics who deride contemporary mass tourism as some variant of ‘McDisneyization’ (Ritzer & Liska, 1997). Thus, there looms the question of whether there are aspects of tourism history which should be neither recognized nor commodified as heritage. Postmodernism tolerates the recognition of any history as heritage, but possible market sensitivities to the trivial (e.g., people sunbathing) or controversial (e.g., undocumented hospitality workers in LV, negative perceptions of some Asian tourists in GC) might dictate the omission of such phenomena from product development and marketing strategies. Possible incompatibilities between tourism and heritage, moreover, are mooted by Nuryanti (1996), who describes the latter as a construct of tradition and the former as a construct of modernity. The success of heritage tourism suggests reconciliation through the accommodation of tradition within a framework of modernity, but given the lack of recognition of recent tourism heritage, not

260

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

yet reciprocally through the accommodation of modernity within a framework of tradition. Mining and other conventional industrial heritage is more likely to be recognized as heritage and commodified as heritage tourism perhaps because the featured activity itself is of ancient vintage (compared with the contemporary nature of mass tourism) and is regarded as such by entire societies or cultures (Edwards & Llurde´s i Coit, 1996). Contemporary mass tourism, it appears, is worthy for its support of heritage, but for many not worthy as heritage itself, perhaps also in light of the threat it might pose in terms of resource allocation and consumer attention to the ‘worthier’ heritage of the more distant past. By the time such recognition is given, the constructiondominated economy of the tourism city and its traditions of free enterprise and continual re-invention (Douglass & Raento, 2004) will likely ensure that there is little or no tourism heritage left to protect, recreational business districts being a prime focus for serial re-development. Against such opposition, the appropriateness of tourism heritage for tourism cities deserves to be emphasized. Tourism has been their primary economic activity for most of their recent history and subsequently warrants recognition, protection, development and celebration as symbolic heritage. Notwithstanding the critics, it may further be construed as authentic industrial and cultural heritage, recognizing in postmodern discourses that authenticity, like heritage, is negotiable (Apostolakis, 2003; Moscardo, 2000; Paradis, 2004). Tourism heritage, as such, is a critical facet of local cultural sustainability that legitimizes each of these cities as a unique and exceptional place. Existing mass tourist markets increase the probability of commercial success and thus contribute to economic sustainability, as per Timothy and Boyd (2003). There is the banal possibility that the mere proximity of promoted tourism heritage will attract bored and curious visitors, but more likely these ‘tourists can use their intellect to interpret authenticity as they want, closer to their [own] standards and understandings’ (Apostokalis, 2003, p. 804). Contemporary tourism heritage, therefore, is neither trivial nor uninteresting. Personal narratives of heritage tourists visiting Route 66, for example, reveal perceptions of a challenging experience, and one that was more facilitation of personal growth than nostalgic yearning for a simpler idealized past (Caton & Santos, 2007). Iconoclastically, Venturi, Scott Brown, and Izenour (1977) and more recently Cass (2004) argue that LV has spawned inspirational and innovative architecture worthy of scrutiny because and not in spite of its playfulness. Hajdu describes Japanese-inspired GC tourism architecture, freed from the stringent aesthetics of Japan, as ‘a postmodernist’s delight and a semioticist’s logical construct waiting to be deconstructed.’ (1999, p. 544). Bradley et al. (2008) more generally advocate serious engagement with landscapes of the late 20th century for their themes of escape, change, technology, prosperity, and optimism. In both cities, these landscapes bridge the gap between the modern and postmodern eras, providing research opportunities to understand the transition.

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

261

Fremont Street and Coolangatta evoke the earlier era, while the Strip and Surfers Paradise project the more contemporary inclinations of tourism. The possibilities for providing educational benefits and intellectual challenging experiences for local residents as well as visitors appear, therefore, to be considerable (Timothy & Boyd, 2003), and already evident in attempts by Surf World Gold Coast to incorporate tourism heritage into curricula of local schools. Paradoxically, the more recent the heritage (and hence the more contentious in qualifying as such for some), the more likely it is to be extant and accessible, and thus accurately presented, thereby enhancing the credibility of these educational opportunities. For many older visitors to Wintersun and the Liberace Museum, the experience evokes Timothy’s (1997) notion of personal heritage in a literal sense and provides compelling personal benefits related to the re-creation of pleasant memories (Chen, 1998). Reciprocal benefits for the development of the heritage product are provided by the recollection of these same memories. Being of more recent vintage, this heritage is better suited to the avoidance of distortion associated with place invention, relative authenticity, ethnic intrusion (outsiders playing roles), sanitized and idealized pasts, and the unknown past (impossibility of accurately re-creating all facets of the heritage site), all issues which call into question the ‘authenticity’ of conventional historical heritage (Timothy & Boyd, 2003). Fidelity to the past is also provided by the potential availability of residents as experiential interpreters who like many visitors retain vivid memories and other mementos of their early tourism experiences. Such participation could also serve as a basis for a high level of community involvement and empowerment, thereby contributing further to cultural, economic and social sustainability outcomes. As mentioned above, the artefacts of contemporary tourism heritage are more likely to be lost because they concern the recent (and often less valued) past and are vulnerable to capricious free market forces. However, this same ephemerality is also an important facet of its authenticity. This paradox is not problematic for the Queensland Heritage Council (2009), which states that ‘Rather than detracting from its significance, the great disparity in scale and appointment between Kinkabool and buildings like the 80-storey Q1 tower, demonstrates dramatically how tourist preferences, architectural design and construction technologies have evolved on the Gold Coast since the 50s.’ Lessons for the continuing recognition and memorialization of lost heritage may be derived from the idea of attraction residuality, or the maintenance of attractions after they have been destroyed (Weaver & Lawton, 2007). This can be achieved through simple means such as plaques and museums, but also through virtual reality re-creations (Prideaux, 2005), thereby suggesting a platform for technological innovation. Finally, existing examples of articulation, however piecemeal or partial, provide a basis for subsequent, higher level efforts. For example, Wintersun, already aiming to re-create the ambience of past holidays, can readily incorporate other facets of tourism heritage, such as the

262

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

nearby surfing museum. Coolangatta, moreover, is an appropriate location for a broadly conceived tourism museum, which could link to the festival and serve as a repository for items associated with recent tourism construction likely to be redeveloped at some point. It is worth reiterating the role of the Neon Museum in saving the neon sign of the historic Moulin Rouge hotel, though the establishment of a broader tourism museum for LV is a logical strategy for that city as well, serving also as a focus for research and for the development of virtual reality presentations. Ultimately, visitation numbers at several of these sites (e.g., Wintersun, The Strip, Welcome to Las Vegas sign), and the pending addition of new sites (e.g., the Mob Museum and the Suntan Man statue) perhaps already answer the question affirmatively, indicating strong demand for tourism heritage and the willingness of destination stakeholders to invest in rejuvenating new products both largeand small-scale. CONCLUSION This exploratory paper acknowledges the legitimacy of contemporary tourism as heritage—represented in the coining of the term ‘tourism heritage’—and demonstrates the realities of and possibilities for its articulation as heritage tourism. As such, it may also be the first academic paper to explicitly and systematically examine contemporary tourism as, somewhat paradoxically, a tourist attraction. Empirical evidence from Las Vegas and Gold Coast facilitate subsequent analysis and development by identifying four types of tourism heritage differentiated by scale, location and originality, all of which are only partially articulated at present. The most basic category of in situ representation, as heritage tourism, is best illustrated in volume terms by the GC’s nostalgia/retro Wintersun festival, although direct manifestations of and links to the relevant tourism heritage are lacking. The clearest illustration of ex situ original items is LV’s Liberace Museum, which similarly focuses on a specific tourism event-related theme rather than its attendant historical tourism context. The ‘Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas’ sign is the best and by far most frequently visited example of in situ tourism facilities, while the Strip itself best exemplifies in situ tourism corridors or districts, though neither have achieved the level of collective product articulation found in conventional heritage contexts, such as the French Quarter of New Orleans which preserves the original French settlement area of the city and serves as the focus for annual Mardi Gras festivities. Factors that militate against strategies to articulate contemporary tourism as commercially viable heritage tourism include perceptions that it is not marketable, attractive or interesting, and too recent to be construed as ‘heritage’. Also pertinent are its rapid destruction and replacement by even newer structures as well as its diversion of resources from ‘legitimate’ heritage interests. Countervailing factors that support the case for articulation in the context of tourism cities in-

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

263

clude its authentic character (which incorporates the reality of ephemerality) and existing mass tourist markets that include individuals attracted by their own past personal experience with these phenomena. Many aspects of the latter are neither trivial nor uninteresting, and their articulation may provide educational benefits and a sense of pride for the local community. Their recent character, moreover, reduces distortion of presentation and interpretation, while extant examples such as those described here indicate market receptiveness and provide a convenient foundation for a concerted product development strategy. However compelling these pro-articulation factors, the present study is constrained by its exploratory nature and by the concomitant lack of systematic empirical input from stakeholder groups such as residents, tourists, entrepreneurs and planners. To the extent that such information is provided, it is anecdotal or speculative, and serves to frame the attendant typology and indicate its degree of articulation. Whether therefore a substantial portion of residents in the two tourism cities will embrace the local tourism heritage as part of their personal heritage, and concurrently support and participate in its development as a tourism product, remain for now open questions requiring follow-up investigation. Equally important is to understand which contemporary tourism heritage products are attractive to which actual and potential tourist segments and how they can best be presented and interpreted to maximize this attraction effect. Special attention perhaps is required to identify the extent to which in situ representations such as plaques and statues incidentally or systematically attract visitors. The results of such proposed research directives, more than theoretical pro-articulation arguments, may compel tourism leaders in Las Vegas and Gold Coast to embark on a concerted strategy to develop their contemporary tourism heritage and then realize its potential as heritage tourism (something that currently does not exist in either city, perhaps in part because of the diffuse and diverse character of product stakeholders). However, in the meanwhile it is worth considering again the successful experience of two other types of once improbable heritage attraction. First, sporting activity, with leisure, temporal and participatory parameters similar to tourism, is well developed as heritage tourism in many destinations, as evidenced by halls of fame, Olympic sites, iconic stadiums or arenas, and historic golf courses such as St. Andrew’s. These demonstrate that the accommodation of modernity within a framework of tradition is feasible. Second, the demonization of simulacra and other features of the modern tourism city echoes the contempt once directed toward the bleak factory-scapes of the Industrial Revolution. Those same landscapes are now the object of reverential gazing in cities such as Lowell and Leeds where industrial heritage is proudly projected. Advocates of contemporary tourism heritage, therefore, have opportunities to learn from and be encouraged by both sectors.

264

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

REFERENCES Abowitz, R. (2009). Memories fading on Vegas icon Liberace. Retrieved October 26, 2009 from . Apostolakis, A. (2003). The convergence process in heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30, 795–812. Bradley, A., Buchli, V., Fairclough, G., Hicks, D., Miller, J., & Schofield, J. (2008). Change and creation: Historic landscape character 1950–2000. In G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. Jameson, & J. Schofield (Eds.), The heritage reader (pp. 559–566). New York: Routledge. Cass, J. (2004). Egypt on steroids: Luxor Las Vegas and postmodern orientalism. In D. Lasansky & B. McLaren (Eds.), Architecture and tourism: Perception, performance and place (pp. 241–263). Oxford: Berg. Caton, K., & Santos, C. (2007). Heritage tourism on Route 66: Deconstructing nostalgia. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 371–386. Chen, J. (1998). Travel motivation of heritage tourists. Tourism Analysis, 2, 213–215. Chronis, A. (2005). Coconstructing heritage at the Gettysburg storyscape. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 386–406. Davidson, J., & Spearritt, P. (2000). Holiday business: Tourism in Australia since 1870. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Douglass, W., & Raento, P. (2004). The tradition of invention: Conceiving Las Vegas. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 7–23. Edwards, J., & Llurde´s i Coit, J. (1996). Mines and quarries. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 341–363. Fainstein, S., & Judd, D. (1999a). Cities as places to play. In D. Judd & S. Fainstein (Eds.), The tourist city (pp. 261–272). London: Yale University Press. Fainstein, S., & Judd, D. (1999b). Global forces, local strategies, and urban tourism. In D. Judd & S. Fainstein (Eds.), The tourist city (pp. 1–17). London: Yale University Press. Fairclough, G. (2008). New heritage, an introductory essay – People, landscape and change. In G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. Jameson, & J. Schofield (Eds.), The heritage reader (pp. 297–312). New York: Routledge. Faulkner, B. (2003). Rejuvenating a maturing tourist destination: The case of the Gold Coast. In L. Fredline, L. Jago, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Progressing tourism research – Bill Faulkner (pp. 34–86). Clevedon, UK: Channel View. Fowler, P. (1989). Heritage: A post-modernist perspective. In D. Uzzell (Ed.), Heritage interpretation volume 1: The natural and built environment (pp. 57–63). London: Belhaven. Gladstone, D. (1998). Tourism urbanization in the United States. Urban Affairs Review, 34, 3–27. Gold Coast City Council (2009). Business GC. Retrieved October 21, 2009 from . Gu, Z. (2003). Analysis of Las Vegas Strip casino hotel capacity: An inventory model for optimization. Tourism Management, 24, 309–314. Hajdu, J. (1993). The Gold Coast, Australia: Spatial model of its development and the impact of the cycle of foreign investment in property during the late 1980s. Erdkunde, 47, 40–51. Hajdu, J. (1999). The Japanese idea of image and luxury as seen in their major Gold Coast projects. In J. Kesby, et al. (Eds.), Geodiversity: Readings in Australian geography at the close of the 20th century (pp. 537–545). Canberra: Institute of Australian Geographers. Hannigan, J. (1998). Fantasy city: Pleasure and profit in the postmodern metropolis. London: Routledge. Hicks, S. (2010). Al the suntan man’ immortalised in bronze. Retrieved May 8, 2010 from ABC News website for April 9, 2010 . Historic Moulin Rouge Burns (2009). Retrieved October 7, 2009 from LasVegasNow Eyewitness News website for May 8, 2009 . Hofmeister, B. (1988). Australia and its urban centres. Berlin: Gebru¨der Borntraeger.

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

265

Ja, C. (2009). Gold Coast high rise heritage listed. Retrieved October 7, 2009 from 9News website for February 12, 2009 . Jones, M. (1986). A sunny place for shady people: The real Gold Coast story. North Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Kotler, N., & Kotler, P. (1998). Museum strategy and marketing: Designing missions, building audiences, generating revenue and resources. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lee, D. (1984). Hotel casinos: Strong odds for growth. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 25(2), 27–40. Liberace Foundation and Museum (2010). Preserve the legacy! Retrieved May 9, 2010 from . Lilliefors, J. (2006). American boardwalks. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Mackellar, J. (2009). An examination of serious participants at the Australian Wintersun festival. Leisure Studies, 28, 85–104. Mob Museum (2010). Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement. Retrieved July 20, 2010 from . Moscardo, G. (2000). Cultural and heritage tourism: The great debates. In B. Faulkner, G. Moscardo, & E. Laws (Eds.), Tourism in the 21st century: Lessons from experience (pp. 3–17). London: Continuum. Mules, T. (2004). Evolution in event management: The Gold Coast’s Wintersun Festival. Event Management, 9, 95–101. Mullins, P. (1991). Tourism urbanization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 15, 326–342. Mullins, P. (1992). Cities for pleasure: The emergence of tourism urbanization in Australia. Built Environment, 18, 187–198. National Park Service (2009). The ‘Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas’ sign. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from . Neon Museum (2010). The Neon Museum Las Vegas: About. Retrieved July 20, 2009 from . Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 249–260. Paradis, T. (2004). Theming, tourism, and fantasy city. In A. Lew, C. Hall, & A. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 195–209). Oxford: Blackwell. Parker, R. (1999). Las Vegas: Casino gambling and local culture. In D. Judd & S. Fainstein (Eds.), The tourist city (pp. 107–123). London: Yale University Press. Poria, Y., & Ashworth, G. (2009). Heritage tourism – Current resource for conflict. Annals of Tourism Research, 36, 522–525. Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30, 238–254. Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006). Heritage site management: Motivations and expectations. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 162–178. Prentice, R. (1994). Heritage: A key sector of the ‘new’ tourism. Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, 5, 309–324. Prideaux, B. (Ed.). (2005). Special issue: Cyber-tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(3), 5–95. Queensland Heritage Council (2009). Kinkabool. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from . Ramshaw, G., & Gammon, S. (2005). More than just nostalgia? Exploring the heritage/sport tourism nexus. Journal of Sport Tourism, 10(4), 229–241. Repp, T. (1999). Route 66: The empires of amusement. Lynnwood, WA: Mock Turtle Press. Ritzer, G., & Liska, A. (1997). ‘McDisneyization’ and ‘post-tourism’. In C. Rojek & J. Urry (Eds.), Touring cultures: Transformations of travel and theory (pp. 96–109). New York: Routledge. Rothman, H. (2002). Neon metropolis: How Las Vegas started the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge.

266

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

Russell, R. (1995). Tourism development in Coolangatta: An historical perspective. Unpublished Bachelor of Business Honours thesis, Griffith University, Australia. Russell, R., & Faulkner, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship, chaos and the tourism area lifecycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 556–579. Sedmak, G., & Mihalicˇ, T. (2008). Authenticity in mature seaside resorts. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 1007–1031. Smith, L. (2008). Towards a theoretical framework for archaeological heritage management. In G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. Jameson, & J. Schofield (Eds.), The heritage reader (pp. 62–74). New York: Routledge. Spanier, D. (1992). Welcome to the pleasuredome: Inside Las Vegas. Las Vegas: University of Nevada Press. Spearritt, P. (2009). The 200 km city: Brisbane, the Gold Coast, and Sunshine Coast. Australian Economic History Review, 49, 87–106. Stansfield, C. (1983). New Jersey: A geography. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Stansfield, C., & Rickert, J. (1970). The recreational business district. Journal of Leisure Research, 2, 213–225. Stimson, R., & Minnery, J. (1998). Why people move to the ‘sun-belt’: A case study of long-distance migration to the Gold Coast, Australia. Urban Studies, 25, 193–214. Surf World (2010). Welcome to Surf World Gold Coast. Retrieved May 9, 2010 from . Swenson, K. (2010). A mid-century vernacular gets its due. Modernism Magazine. Retrieved May 9, 2010 from . Symes, C. (1994). Not learning from Las Vegas: The Gold Coast as theme park. Arena, 9(February–March), 28–31. Symes, C. (1995). Taking people for a ride: Dreamworld, Sea World and Movieworld as excursive practice. Journal of Australian Studies, 44, 1–12. Timothy, D. (1997). Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 751–754. Timothy, D., & Boyd, S. (2003). Heritage tourism. London: Prentice-Hall. Towner, J. (1996). An historical geography of recreation and tourism in the western world 1540–1940. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Tunbridge, J., & Ashworth, G. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past as a resource in conflict. New York: Wiley. Turner, L., & Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes: International tourism and the pleasure periphery. London: Constable. Uzzell, D., & Ballantyne, R. (2008). Heritage that hurts: Interpretation in a postmodern world. In G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. Jameson, & J. Schofield (Eds.), The heritage reader (pp. 502–513). New York: Routledge. Venturi, R., Scott Brown, D., & Izenour, S. (1977). Learning from Las Vegas: The forgotten symbolism of architectural form. London: MIT Press. Walton, J. (2009). Prospects in tourism history: Evolution, state of play and future developments. Tourism Management, 30, 783–793. Walton, J., & Wood, J. (2009). Reputation and regeneration: History and the heritage of the recent past in the re-making of Blackpool. In L. Gibson & J. Pendlebury (Eds.), Valuing historic environments (pp. 115–138). Aldershot: Ashgate. Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2007). ‘Just because it’s gone doesn’t mean it isn’t there anymore’: Planning for attraction residuality. Tourism Management, 28, 108–117. Wiley, P., & Gottlieb, R. (1982). Empires in the sun: The rise of the new American west. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Wintersun (2009). History. Retrieved October 26, 2009 from . Wood, A. (2005). What happens [in Vegas]’’: Performing the post-tourist flaˆneur in ‘‘New York’’ and ‘‘Paris. Text and Performance Quarterly, 25(4), 315–333.

D.B. Weaver / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 249–267

267

Xie, F. (2006). Developing industrial heritage tourism: A case study of the proposed Jeep Museum in Toledo, Ohio. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1321–1330. Yale, P. (1991). From tourist attractions to heritage tourism. Huntingdon: ELM. Submitted 2 November 2009. Resubmitted 9 May 2010. Final version 21 July 2010. Accepted 13 August 2010. Refereed anonymously.Coordinating Editor: Greg Richards.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com