Neo/Post-Fordist Perspective of European Countries’ Official Tourism Websites: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jason Zhu and Version 1 by Sotiroula Liasidou.

It is generally believed, with ample evidence, that there has been a change in demographics and people’s behaviour. The change of demographics has been described as a shift to a postmodern society with a flexible form of production and consumption, characterised as the neo/post-Fordist era. Neo/post-Fordist calls of destinations’ production are illustrated in the content of the websites and call upon the new practices that destinations use to attract the interest of potential travellers. An activity-based approach is apparent in all websites that is directly related to the retrieval of dynamic experiences. The content is culturally and naturally driven, with products associated with nature, ethnic and heritage characteristics. Online positioning associates with words that give a personal touch, urging the websites’ lookers to visit and explore the destinations. Nature has a prominent stance in the website content with places and activities. Neo/post-Fordist tourists are looking to immerse themselves in the destination and ‘create their stories or tales’. 

  • EU28
  • official tourism websites
  • neo/post-Fordism

1. Introduction

Currently, official national tourism bodies such as Destination Management Organisations (DMOs) must create a unique image, constructed with various characteristics, in order to differentiate a country from other destinations [1]. These characteristics are presented to postulate a pre-imagined image during pre-travelling in the way that a destination can be experienced during travelling [2]. Dann’s (1996) [3] argument is that, before visiting a destination, travellers construct the experience in their imaginations according to what they know and what they have seen from various sources (magazines, brochures, TV). Thus, the perceived or the pre-travel imagined visualisation of experience is the most important criterion by which to determine tourism movement and of course the choice of destination [4,5][4][5].
At present, tourism content is retrieved with information and images through the internet, with national websites offering the first impression for the potential visitors [6,7,8][6][7][8]. Official tourism governmental organisations’ websites have entered into the market dynamically and have been established as destination management systems (DMS) [9] that act as retailers in selling the destination [10,11,12][10][11][12]. Consumers are engaging in new technologies with enthusiasm in order to make their tourism experiences more dynamic [13,14][13][14]. The tourism process via the web involves browsing and booking holidays, retrieving information, watching travel videos, posting comments, reviews and photographs [15] travel websites constitute an important source of information with frequent visits by potential travellers [16,17,18][16][17][18].

2. Conceptual Framework: Profile of the EU28 in Tourism

Historically, Europe was a distinctive continent for tourism [74][19] with the period of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries being the era of the Grand Tour. The end of World War II (WWII) transformed Europe from a battlefield into an important tourism destination. On November 1, 1993, the European Union was established through the Maastricht Treaty. Since the early beginnings of the foundation of the European Union, tourism has become an important aspect of development that aims to bring together all the countries and ensure economic viability and social stability. Today in the European Union, tourism represents an important economic sector that sets the base for further advancement of the member states [75,76][20][21]. The 28 (i.e., including the United Kingdom) countries of the EU present a mosaic of rich history, along with the natural beauty of each country. In 2019, the European continent received 710 million tourists (51 percent of the total), with tourism receipts reaching US$ 451 bn (36 per cent of the total) [77][22]. Tourism is an important priority for the member countries of the European Union, with growth from 153 million tourist arrivals in 1980 to 433 million in 2013 [78][23]. The EU acknowledges tourism’s contribution as the third largest economic activity. European countries have a rich cultural and historical heritage, a plethora of natural assets and diversity of scenery, with quality services [79][24]. Additionally, there is a good connectivity transportation network (rail, road, airports). France received 89.4 million tourists, followed by Spain at 82.8 million, then Italy at 45.8 million, Germany at 38.9, the UK at 36.3, Austria at 30.8 and Greece at 30.1 million [77][22]. The importance of tourism was highlighted in the Treaty of Maastricht (1992) and subsequently fully incorporated into the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) (Estol and Font 2016: 231) [7]. The unified body of the European Union concerning tourism is the European Travel Commission (ETC), which was created in 1948 (ETC 2017 [76][21]). The aim of the ETC is:
to promote Europe as a tourist destination to the long-haul markets outside of Europe, originally in the USA and later in Canada, Latin America and Asia. It currently has 32 member NTOs, including eight from outside the European Union [76][21]
The main pillars of development were set against economic decline and unemployment. However, the full potential of tourism has not been exploited because of the number of challenges that EU members face. The recent strategy takes into consideration the link between China and the EU and sets strategies for promoting tourism. In June 2010, the European Commission agreed on the aim to establish Europe as the world’s number-one tourist destination in its ‘New political framework for tourism in Europe’ and introduced a communication paper [79][24]. The aims of the communication paper are: (a) to stimulate competitiveness in the European tourism sector; (b) to promote the development of sustainable, responsible and high-quality tourism; (c) to consolidate Europe’s image as a collection of sustainable, high quality tourism destinations; and (d) to maximise the potential of EU financial policies for developing tourism. Postmodern tourism instigates new trends in tourism consumption, with alternative forms of activity that are increasingly specific to the human and natural characteristics of the particular country. According to Hall (2004: 41) [80][25], ‘the conjunction of European economic and political convergence, and the leisure search for new experiences and products, provides a potentially wide range of contexts for the interweaving of national imaginary and the promotion of tourism’. Thus, it can be argued that the EU vision of a unified approach with the free movement of people facilitates the new trend in tourism, with tourists seeking uniqueness in exploring various destinations. The proximity of the EU countries offers the opportunity of experiencing various cultures and sceneries with ease. Assorted studies present European tourism with several themes—for instance, tourism development [81,82,83[26][27][28][29][30],84,85], policy and sustainability [86[31][32],87], electronic tourism [12]. The theme of this particular research is a review of the online content as retrieved from the 28 EU member states’ DMOs’ websites. EElectronic tourism has gained notable acceptance among the EU member states, and EU citizens trust information on official travel websites [87][32]. Each EU country has a separate official tourism website.

3. Current Work

Tourism development and planning are evidently guided by tourist behaviour; therefore, a thorough examination is needed to understand and decode that behaviour [20][33]. Prominent researchers [21,22,23,24][34][35][36][37] have studied tourism consumption and provided a rich literature with useful conclusions. Urry, in his seminal works (1990, 1992, 1995) [25,26[38][39][40],27], argued that tourism consumption is directly related to changes in society. Additionally, many notable researchers have depicted society’s changes and the way life is consumed [25,28,29,30,31][38][41][42][43][44]. Classification of tourism lifestyles, beliefs and norms is essential for the tourism domain because of the heterogeneous and multidimensional position of tourism destinations in relation to the variety of human perceptions relating to the tourism experience [32,33][45][46]. Over recent years there has been a significant switch in consumer behaviour and consumption patterns within the tourism context [34][47]. New products have emerged to satisfy the emotional, social and natural needs of the current customers. Thus, new tourism packages are developed to address and satisfy the well-educated, independent and high self-esteem tourists of the twenty-first century. Boorstin (1964) [28][41] cleverly discussed life consumption through ‘pseudo-events’, in the sense of media publicity and advertising exaggerations. Ritzer (1983) [35][48] added to Boorstin’s (1964) [28][41] theory about the ‘McDonaldisation’ and ‘Disneyfication’ of society, meaning that we all consume the same products with a lack of human identity. Mass tourism is associated with the notion of ‘Disneyfication’, with all tourists spending their holidays in the same way and acquiring the same or similar experiences [36][49]. Urry (1990, 1992, 1995) [25,26,27][38][39][40] defined ‘the tourist gaze’ as the way tourism is experienced in the different phases of tourism development, with the consumer wanting to escape from similar consumption and become more experienced [37][50]. According to Tung and Brent (2011) [38][51], an important aspect of tourism consumption that is circumscribed in neo/post Fordism is the construction of tourism experiences as memories and recollections of the time spent in a destination. In 1999, Pine and Gilmore [39][52] argued that the ‘experience’ is the core characteristic of holidaymaking. An experience can be gauged against human behaviour, beliefs, socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics [40,41,42,43,44,45][53][54][55][56][57][58]. Storytelling is a way of expressing experiences which are dynamic and memorable [38][51]. This is further supported by Larsen (2007: 16) [46][59], who positions experiences as a ‘psychological approach … underlining expectations, events and memories’. Additionally, experiences are subjective constructions where tourism policy makers develop destinations through customised activities that are dynamic and fulfilling [40][53]. This provides an interacting and participatory approach that is akin to the characteristics of the neo/post-Fordism tourists [45][58]. Thus, the nucleus point of experience is to create transferable memories in terms of remembering the destination favourably [38][51]. D’Urso et al. (2016: 298) [47][60] argued that current production parameters deal with consumers who ‘enjoy multiple experiences embracing different, sometimes contrasting, life values’. Consumers’ characteristics in tourism have been described according to the post-Fordist and neo-Fordist spectrum [48][61], with consumers becoming the new (neo) tourists as defined by Poon (1993) [49][62]. Tourists are critical, experienced and educated, looking for immersive and active tourism experiences [50][63]. MacCannell’s [23,51][36][64] argument around authenticity is related to the new way of tourism consumption, with authenticity setting the first barrier to mass tourism, referring to living the reality and being engaged in authentic tourism activities. Other researchers have drawn attention to the importance of sustainable tourism, underpinning the concept of ethical tourism production and consumption as an important priority in tourism development [52][65]. The alteration in tourism behaviour towards a more ‘tangible’ tourism experience has had a great impact on the tourism package. The next section considers the Fordist paradigm in tourism. In considering the evolution of tourists’ behaviour, scholars have borrowed the concept of the Fordist spectrum of production and consumption, adapting it to the tourism industry [37,53,54,55,56][50][66][67][68][69]). Fordist tourists are mass tourists [49,57,58,59,60][62][70][71][72][73] who are described as people looking for the same tourism activities in popular destinations [61][74]. In particular, the Fordist era instigates:
mass production—a system based on the production of long runs of standardized commodities for stable ‘mass’ markets and involving the progressive erosion of craft skills and the growing demand for unskilled or semi-skilled operatives (Tomaney 1994: 159) [61][74].
In contrast, the realm of post-Fordism refers to a transition and a transfer to a new period, which is characterised by high involvement of technological advances and the creation of customised goods and services that focus on human needs [53,62][66][75]. Post-Fordism is characterised by a trend of differentiation and a focus on specific markets that converge to the same human preference to move away from mass amorphous production [61,63][74][76]. Changing human needs and the new era of ‘post-modernism’ or ‘post-Fordism’, and many other buzzwords with the addition of the prefixes ‘post’ [5,63,64][5][76][77] depict the reform that characterises the transition of a new pace of life and a new dimension of influence of the contemporary world that declares ‘the emerging age of new capitalism’ (Amin 1994: 1) [64][77]. This is further elaborated by Piore and Charles (1984: 206) [65][78] argument that the new pace of production has an enterprising ‘flexible specialisation’ in the sense that there is still specialisation in certain products and goods, but the emergence of flexibility in production is referred to as tailor-made to ‘meet the needs of particular consumer groups’. Neo-Fordism provides a slight focus on ‘individualization’ with each consumer to have specific needs that lead to flexible specialization, niche market segmentation and mass customization [56][69]. However, there is no essential difference among neo- and post-Fordism, and for the purpose of this paper the terms are used interchangeably. Table 1 illustrates the main changes of society under the Fordist classification, and the way tourism is evolving. Thus, the difference between the transformation period and past economic approaches is the alteration in the fragmentation of the business management behaviour, with new strategies, driven by contemporary technological forces that are adjustable and focus on specific market segments, satisfying specific human needs [66][79]. The new age of the ‘neo/post’ prefixes are extended to all aspects of the economic and social domain by revealing an alteration in production and consumption patterns to include the diffusion of information and the enriched perceptions and preferences of the consumers, ‘including aesthetics, art, leisure, recreation and pleasure’ (Amin 1994: 2) [65][78]. In tourism, the neo/post-Fordisms coexist and reveal the need for individual consumption of tourism. Travellers are looking for authentic activities associated with culture and nature as core parameters of a destination authenticity that characterised postmodern society [67][80]. Additionally, cultural characteristics consist of a priority in the strand of neo/post Fordism examination of their preferences (Everett 2019 [68][81]), along with the seeking of nature-related tourism and activities that are niche and individualised. The journey of contemporary travellers is characterised as digital, where all information is retrieved online [69][82]. Information is diffused and business transactions are completed via ICT [7]. ICT adequately fulfils the needs of the neo/post-Fordist tourists because they can basically tailor their holidays and compose travel itineraries on their own [8]. The main challenge is for travel websites to provide this facility, with the most important aspect being the way destinations are promoted in order to attract the interests of travellers. Web communication is an easy and fast way of reaching potential travellers, thus the content must be attractive to catch their interest that will leading in booking their holidays in the destination. Additionally, proffering online information for particular destinations and activities, travellers take the role of the producer with the development of their customised travel itineraries [67][80]. ThisIt is the first study that considers the content of the European tourism websites and examine the content based on neo/post-Fordism tourists characteristics. In particular, studies on website examinations are using more technical methods to identify optimization tools [70][83]. Other studies concentrate on website evaluation of tourism suppliers (airlines, car rentals) to increase sales [71][84]. There are also studies that examine the content of regional and national tourism websites in relation to authenticity [72,73][85][86]. The next section considers tourism in the EU28.

References

  1. Estêvão, J.P.; Carneiro, M.J.; Teixeira, L. Destination management systems’ adoption and management model: Proposal of a framework. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 2020, 30, 89–110.
  2. Volo, S. Official Tourism Websites: A Discourse Analysis Perspective. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 24, 498–500.
  3. Dann, D. Tourists’ Images of a Destination-an Alternative Analysis. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 1996, 5, 41–55.
  4. Wu, G. Official websites as a tourism marketing medium: A contrastive analysis from the perspective of appraisal theory. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 10, 164–171.
  5. Øian, H.; Aas, Ø.; Skår, M.; Andersen, O.; Stensland, S. Rhetoric and hegemony in consumptive wildlife tourism: Polarizing sustainability discourses among angling tourism stakeholders. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 1547–1562.
  6. Benevolo, C.; Spinelli, R. The use of websites by Mediterranean tourist ports. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2019, 10, 190–204.
  7. Mele, E.; Sutinen, E. Cultural Calibration: Technology Design for Tourism Websites. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability DUXU 2017: Design, User Experience, and Usability: Understanding Users and Contexts, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 9–14 July 2017; pp. 501–513.
  8. Pirolli, B. Travel information online: Navigating correspondents, consensus, and conversation. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 21, 1337–1343.
  9. Pike, S. Tourism destination branding complexity. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2005, 14, 258–259.
  10. Mele, E.; Ascaniis, S.D.; Cantoni, L. Localization of three european national tourism offices’ websites. In An Exploratory Analysis, Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 295–307.
  11. Moura, T.F.; Gnoth, J.; Deans, K.R. Localizing cultural values on tourism destination Websites: The effects on users’ willingness to travel and destination image. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 528–542.
  12. Law, C.H.R.; Buhalis, D.; Cobanoglu, C. Progress on information and communication technologies in hospitality and tourism. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 26, 727–750.
  13. Bonner, F.; Hoog, R. Travel websites: Changing visits, evaluations and posts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 57, 94–112.
  14. Yoo, K.H.; Gretzel, U. The role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in marketing tourism experiences. In The Handbook of Managing and Marketing Tourism Experiences; Sotiriadis, M., Gursoy, D., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2016; pp. 409–428.
  15. Chuang, T.C.; Liu, J.S.; Lu, L.Y.Y.; Tseng, F.-M.; Lee, Y.; Chang, C.-T. The main paths of eTourism: Trends of managing tourism through Internet. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 22, 213–231.
  16. Ukpadi, D.; Karjaluoto, H. Consumers’ acceptance of information and communications technology in tourism: A review. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 618–644.
  17. Pierre, J.; Taye, T. Website Translation and Destination Image Marketing: A Case Study of Reunion Island. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2016, 40, 611–633.
  18. Chiou, W.-C.; Lin, C.-C.; Perng, C. A strategic website evaluation of online travel agencies. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1463–1473.
  19. Estol, J.; Font, X. European tourism policy: Its evolution and structure. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 230–241.
  20. European Travel Commission. About Us. 2017. Available online: http://www.etc-corporate.org/ (accessed on 3 March 2017).
  21. UNWTO. Tourism Highlights; 2019 Edition; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2019.
  22. UNWTO. International Tourism Trends in EU-28 Member States Current Situation and Forecasts for 2020–2025–2030. 2013. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/16845/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native (accessed on 13 July 2020).
  23. European Travel Commission. Lifestyle Trends and Tourism. 2016. Available online: https://etc-corporate.org/reports/lifestyle-trends-tourism/ (accessed on 30 July 2020).
  24. European Commission. Overview of the European Policy. 2010. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/policy-overview_en (accessed on 3 March 2020).
  25. Hall, D. (Ed.) Tourism and Transition, Governance, Transformation and Development; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2004.
  26. Jacobsen, J.K. The Tourist Bubble and the Europeanisation of Holiday Travel. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2003, 1, 71–87.
  27. Banaszkiewicz, M.; Graburn, N.; Owsianowska, S. Tourism in (Post)socialist Eastern Europe. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2016, 15, 109–121.
  28. Estol, J.; Camilleri, M.A.; Font, X. European Union tourism policy: An institutional theory critical discourse analysis. Tour. Rev. 2018, 73, 421–431.
  29. Aykin, S.M. A common tourism policy for the European Union: A historical perspective. In Controversies in Tourism; Burns, P.E., Ed.; CABI: Cambridge, UK, 2012; Volume 23, p. 226.
  30. Halkier, H. EU and tourism development: Bark or bite? Scand. J. Tour. Hosp. 2010, 10, 92–106.
  31. Anastasiadou, C. Tourism Interest Groups in the EU Policy Arena: Characteristics, Relationships and Challenges. Curr. Issues Tour. 2008, 11, 24–62.
  32. Anastasiadou, C. Promoting sustainability from above: Reflections on the influence of the European Union on tourism governance. Policy Q. 2011, 7, 27–33.
  33. Rojek, C.; Urry, R. Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory; Routledge: London, UK, 1997.
  34. Cohen, E. Towards a sociology of international tourism. Soc. Res. 1972, 39, 164–182.
  35. Cohen, E. Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1979, 6, 18–35.
  36. MacCannell, D. Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourism settings. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 79, 589–603.
  37. Plog, S. Why destinations rise and fall in popularity. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1994, 94, 55–58.
  38. Urry, J. The Tourist Gaze; Sage: London, UK, 1990.
  39. Urry, J. The tourist gaze revisited. Am. Behav. Sci. 1992, 36, 172–186.
  40. Urry, J. Consuming Places; Routledge: London, UK, 1995.
  41. Boorstin, D.J. The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
  42. Kripendorf, J. The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Butterworth-Heinemann; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1992.
  43. Richards, G. Cultural Tourism in Europe; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 1996.
  44. Cohen, E. Contemporary tourism, In Diversity and Change; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2004.
  45. Kozak, M. Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations. Tour. Manag. 2002, 23, 221–232.
  46. Segreto, L.; Manera, C.; Pohl, M. Europe at the Seaside the Economic History of Mass Tourism in the Mediterranean; Berghahn Books: London, UK, 2009.
  47. Zhang, B.; Hui, Z. Theoretical Exploration of Tourism, Postmodernity and Reason –With the Discussion of the Tourism Appeal to Neo-Rationalism. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2016, 9, 83–91.
  48. Ritzer, G. The “McDonaldization” of Society; Sage: London, UK, 1983; Volume 6, pp. 100–107.
  49. Ritzer, G.; Liska, A. ‘McDisneyization’ and ‘post-tourism’: Complementary perspectives on contemporary tourism. In Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory; Rojek, C., Urry, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 96–109.
  50. Urry, J.; Larsen, J. The Tourist Gaze 3.0; Sage: London, UK, 2011.
  51. Tung, W.V.S.; Brent, J.R.B. Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 1367–1386.
  52. Pine, J.; Gilmore, J. The Experience Economy; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1999.
  53. Elam, M. Puzzling out the Post-Fordist Debate: Technology, Markets and Institutions. In Post–Fordism; Ash, A., Ed.; Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1994; pp. 44–70.
  54. Ryan, C. The Tourism Experience: A New Introduction; Cassell: London, UK, 1997.
  55. Cohen, E. A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. In The Sociology of Tourism: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations; Apostolopoulos, Y., Leivadi, S., Yiannakis, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2002.
  56. Uriely, N. Theories of modern and postmodern tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997, 24, 982–985.
  57. Uriely, N. The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 199–216.
  58. Munawar, F.; Munawar, R.; Tarmidi, D. The Impact of Perceived Coolness, Destination Uniqueness and Tourist Experience on Revisit Intention: A Geographical Study on Cultural Tourism in Indonesia. Rev. Int. Geogr. Educ. 2021, 11, 400–411.
  59. Larsen, S. Aspects of a Psychology of the Tourist Experience. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2007, 7, 7–18.
  60. D’Urso, P.; Disegna, M.; Massari, R.; Osti, L. Fuzzy segmentation of postmodern tourists. Tour. Manag. 2016, 55, 297–308.
  61. Angermuller, J.; Maingueneau, D.; Wodak, R. (Eds.) The Discourse Studies Reader. Main Currents in Theory and Analysis; John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014.
  62. Poon, A. Tourism, Technology, and Competitive Strategies; Cab Intern: Wallingford, UK, 1993.
  63. Lapointe, D.; O’Neil, C.; Myraö, J. Experience for Sale: An Exploration of Biopolitics in Tourism, Critical Tourism Studies Proceedings: (43). 2019. Available online: https://digitalcommons.library.tru.ca/cts-proceedings/vol2019/iss1/43 (accessed on 10 June 2020).
  64. MacCannell, D. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class; Schocken: New York, NY, USA, 1976.
  65. Hanna, P.; Johnson, K.; Stenner, P.; Adams, M. Foucault, sustainable tourism, and relationships with the environment (human and nonhuman). GeoJournal 2014, 80, 301–314.
  66. Kagermeier, A. Challenges in achieving leadership structures for repositioning the destination Cyprus. Tour. Rev. 2014, 69, 158–170.
  67. Torres, R. Cancun’s tourism development from a Fordist spectrum of analysis. Tour. Stud. 2002, 21, 87–116.
  68. Mowforth, M.; Munt, I. Tourism and Sustainability–Development and New Tourism in the Third World, Routledge: London, UK, 1998.
  69. Ioannides, D.; Debbage, K.G. Neo-fordism and flexible specialization in the travel industry: Dissecting the polyglot. In The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry. A Supply-Side Analysis; Ioannides, D., Debbage, K.G., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 99–122.
  70. Pons, P.; Salamanca, O.R. Tourism capitalism and island urbanization: Tourist accommodation diffusion in the Balearics, 1936–2010. Isl. Stud. J. 2014, 9, 239–258.
  71. Shaw, G.; Williams, A.M. Tourism and Tourism Spaces; SSGR Publications: London, UK, 2004.
  72. Shaw, G.; Williams, A.M. Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2002.
  73. Vanhove, N. Mass tourism: Benefits and costs. In Tourism, Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability; Wahab, S., Pigram, J.J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 50–77.
  74. Tomaney, J. A New Paradigm of Work Organization and Technology? In Postfordism: A reader; Amin, A., Ed.; Blackwell Publishers Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 1994; pp. 157–194.
  75. Patiño, M.; Medina, X. Arillaö, J. New trends in tourism? From globalization to postmodernism. Int. J. Sci. Manag. Tour. 2016, 2, 417–433.
  76. Jessop, B. Fordism and Post-Fordism: A Critical Reformulation 2013. Available online: https://bobjessop.org/2013/11/05/fordism-and-post-fordism-a-critical-reformulation/ (accessed on 2 July 2020).
  77. Amin, A. Post-Fordism; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1994.
  78. Piore, M.J.; Charles, F.S. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1984.
  79. Szopiński, T.; Staniewski, M.W. Socio-economic factors determining the way e-tourism is used in European Union member states. Internet Res. 2016, 26, 2–21.
  80. Canavan, B.; McCamley, C. Negotiating authenticity: Three modernities. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 88, 103185.
  81. Everett, S. Theoretical turns through tourism taste-scapes: The evolution of food tourism research. Res. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 9, 3–12.
  82. Cuomo, M.T.; Tortora, D.; Foroudi, P.; Giordano, A.; Festa, G.; Metallo, G. Digital transformation and tourist experience co-design: Big social data for planning cultural tourism. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 162, 120345.
  83. Vyas, C. Evaluating state tourism websites using Search Engine Optimization tools. Tour. Manag. 2019, 73, 64–70.
  84. Küster, I. Relational content of travel and tourism websites. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2006, 11, 119–133.
  85. Bernardi, C. Authenticity as a compromise: A critical discourse analysis of Sámi tourism websites. J. Herit. Tour. 2019, 14, 249–262.
  86. Ueli, G. The History of Tourism: Structures on the Path to Modernity. 2010. Available online: http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/europe-on-the-road/the-history-of-tourism (accessed on 3 March 2019).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback