Axis

AXIS 1: TOURISM AND CIRCULATION OF IMAGES AND IMAGINARY

The concept of tourism imaginaries is analysed in detail by Gravari-Barbas and Graburn (2016) and in some other recent studies (Sanoussi, 2018; Gravari-Barbas, Graburn, 2016; Lu, Gravari-Barbas, Debelle, 2016; Piñeros, 2015; Cousin, 2014;Zhou, 2014; Gravari-Barbas, Graburn, 2012; Salazar, 2012; Chronis, 2012). Gravari-Barbas and Graburn, in particular, emphasised that “imaginaries of peoples, places, destinations, and travel are increasingly produced and consumed by diverse populations around the globe through expanding forms of media and opportunities for travel” (Gravari-Barbas and Graburn, 2016, p.12). Different approaches are used to study tourism imaginaries including, for instance, anthropological methods (Salazar, 2010; Skinner & Theodossopoulos, 2011, Regnault, 2016). As Graburn and Gravari-Barbas (2016) observed, the word ‘imaginary’ range from cliché, culture, dream, fantasy, fiction, idea, identity, narratives, reification, stereotype, to symbols and stories. Salazar (2012, p. 865) analysed the relation between mobility and imaginaries, saying that ‘in a global market characterised by rapidly changing trends, the products and packages on sale vary widely, but the image-making machinery behind them shares well-established strategies and scripts”. Indeed, Regnault (2016) added that “tourism imaginary has the power to summarise the complexity of a place in only one or a few clichés”. 

But where do such imaginaries exactly originate, and how and why are they circulated across the globe? What kind of impact do they have on tourist destinations and people’s lives? Can the critical analysis of imaginaries help us deconstruct ideological, political, and sociocultural stereotypes and clichés? 

AXIS 2: CIRCULATION OF TOURIST OBJECTS: BETWEEN TRADITION AND INVENTION

Globalization and the advent of mass tourism have allowed the intensification of traffic including tourist objects. Born with Kopytoff (1986), the cultural biography of objects has encouraged new research focussing on the circulation of tourist objects (McCannell, 1973, 1976; Appadurai, 1986; RB Phillips and BC. Steiner, 1999; Bonnot, 2002, 2014; Bromberger and Chevallier, 1999; Gell, 1998 Nash, 1996; Michaud, 2001, Cousin, 2003; Condevaux, 2009, 2010; Cousin and Bertrand, 2010...) notably through different value systems (Krauskopff, 2016).

The objective of this axis is to review the different processes through which risk objects may be “manufactured”, the inking and appropriation of their identity, sometimes different or new, and the different forms through which such objects can be enhanced across space and time. The study also examines the complex nature of the value attributed to objects and the multiplicity of social meanings they can carry: use, exchange, economic (Appadurai, 1986). Indeed, according to the same author, many types of objects can reach the "commodity situation" at different times in their social life; demand and consumption would then be an aspect of the economic policy of societies (Baudrillart, 1972). Thus, from the point of view of sociology and anthropology, concepts such as the authenticity of objects are addressed. Graburn (1979, 1983) distinguishes between functional or traditional art, commercial art and sometimes invented and hybrid memories that can cloud the imagination. However, these can have negative impacts on the local community and the history of the site, as is the case with the Dogon mask, analyzed by Doquet (2002). Nevertheless, in today's post-modern tourism era, tourists are no longer just looking for authenticity, but rather for experiences.

To what extent do the "objects" still contribute to the experience, satisfaction, memory or willingness of tourists to return? How do the new tourism modalities affect the way in which tourist objects are designed, produced and sold?

AXIS 4: TOURISM, TRAFFIC AND ‘DIGITAL TRACES’: THE POTENTIAL AND CHALLENGES OF DIGITAL MEDIA TO RE-SHAPE AND STUDY TOURISMbEXPERIENCES

Nowadays, advances in the Internet and social media are changing the many ways through information about travel and its experiences are disseminated (Munar & Jacobsen, 2013; Tussyadiah & Fesenmaier, 2009). In the context of tourism, consumers use social media for a wide spectrum of purposes, e.g. to share their travel-related experiences, to engage with others, to connect with people from different destinations or to buy travel-related products and services (Buhalis & Law, 2008; Neuhofer et al., 2012; Munar & Jacobsen,2014; Zeng & Gerritsen, 2014; Gohil, 2015; Eleftherios Varkaris & Neuhofer, 2017). Digital technologies have thus generated new circulation modalities of people, objects, concepts and imaginaries. They have also allowed people to embark in two new types of trips: imaginary trips and virtual trips (Urry, 2000). Digital technologies are thus contributing to deeply re-shape the tourism experience, playing a major role in all its stages (Lo, McKercher, Lo, Cheung, and Law, 2011).

Moreover, digital technologies have increasingly become a means to identify (tourism-related) circulations, via their digital traces. In this respect, so-called ‘Digital Humanities’ is related to the new ways research is being developed at the cross-road of social sciences/humanities and new technological means, with important applications to the tourism field. Social media data (e.g. coming from Flickr, Panoramio, Instagram, TripAdvisor, Airbnb, Hotel.com), for instance, have been analysed through an exploratory approach and in other cases studied in relation to more specific issues, for instance, to trace tourism practices (e.g. a comment as a proxy of visit) or studying emotions related to tourism experiences (notably, through sentiment analysis). I think there is no need to indicate this sentence.

This axis aims to explore both the methodological and ethical issues related to such emerging research approaches, and the overall paradigm change in tourism brought about by digital technologies (e.g. Buhalis, Law, 2008). For instance, how are digital technologies reshaping the industry of imaginaries and trips, or amplifying tourism experiences? Which methods are to be used to study, in meaningful and (possibly) representative ways, the huge amounts of data constantly produced in the Digital World? What do digital traces reveal from both a societal and epistemological viewpoint? And, last but not least, what are the ethical and political implications as regards the production and use of these data?

Recently, the relation between tourism and World Heritage Sites is treated by a growing literature and research papers (Bourdeau, Gravari-Barbas, Robinson, 2017; Anatole-Gabriele, 2016; Bourdeau, Gravari-Barbas, Robinson, 2015; Gfeller, 2015; Bourdeau, Gravari-Barbas, Robinson, 2012; Gravari-Barbas, Jacquot, 2013; Labadi, 2013). In order to attract international tourists, many countries may devote their efforts to developing travel sites with distinguishing features. In this strategy, tourist sites which are listed as World Heritage (WHL) Sites by UNESCO are treated as catholicons in promoting the tourism industry and can be considered as a tool to attract more international tourist (Arezki, Cherif, and Piotrowski, 2009; Yang, Lin, and Han, 2010; Yang & Lin, 2011), so these touristic attractions can create jobs and earn foreign exchange, thus serving as a major driving force for further growth in many countries (Wager, 1995; Herbert, 2001). Conversely, visitation increases the threat of damage of the environmental and cultural integrity of the WHLs due to excess number of tourists (Leask and Fyall, 2006; Huang Tsaur, and Yang, 2012).

 Gravari-Barbas, Cominelli, Condevaux, Jacquot & Conti (2018) emphasized that ‘enthusiasm for inscription on the World Heritage List reflects the pride that such recognition may bring and the hope of being able to reap the benefits conferred by the label: greater media coverage, the prestige gained through association with UNESCO and the other prestigious properties already inscribed, and the hope of economic and local development via the future development of international tourism’. In fact, it is evident that this label is related to tourism. Gravari-Barbas, Bordeau & Robinson (2015, p.2) point the relationship between mobility and World Heritage Sites because ‘¬Tour operators devise their routes and itineraries to include World Heritage Sites as “highlights” and there are operators that specialize in packaging World Heritage centred itineraries’. 

Moreover, in addition to tourists, World Heritage sites attract more and more foreign investors and mobilize more and more local and international actors contributing to the circulation and application of certain regulations and standards established by UNESCO for all of its sites.

How do these standards circulate in the various World Heritage sites? What strategies do they adopt to differentiate themselves from competition while meeting the demands of international tourists and the needs of the local population? And how can World Heritage sites be protected from the negative effects of tourism activities?

AXIS 6: TOURISM CIRCULATIONS VIS-À-VIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CULTURE-RELATED REVENUES ISSUES

Tourism internationalisation implies an increasing circulation of culture-related laws and standards that may apply to cultural heritage but also to the corollary notions of creative industries and intellectual property rights. In fact, the emergence of heritage policies has led to a redefinition of artistic practices not only as “heritage” but also as economic resources potentially usable in the context of “cultural industries” or “creative industries”.

Intellectual property (IP) refers to “creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, as well as symbols, names and images used in commerce” (OMPI, 2010). The importance of intellectual property was first recognized in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886). Since 2014, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has initiated a project entitled "Intellectual Property, Tourism and Culture" (Comité de Desarrollo y Propiedad Intelectual, CDIP, 2015). Nowadays, the tools of the intellectual property system are amply applicable in this sector (Kono, 2009; Idris, 2003; Lis-Gutiérrez, Gaitán-Angulo, Moros, Lis-Gutiérrez, and Viloria, 2016). These tools can encourage the promotion of tourism, knowledge, traditions and national culture (tangible and intangible assets), in order to foster economic growth; Increase the value added; increase productivity, competitiveness and innovation capacity; foster social development and reduce inequality (Borissova, 2017).

In tourism literature, they are different analyses that indicated the relationship between tourism sustainable development and IP (Wang, Chai & Subramanian A., 2015), what does this relationship consist of? One of the most important aspects in previous studies is the link between cultural heritage and cultural industries, which explained the economic interaction between cultural heritage and IP (Wanda George, 2010). What is the relationship between cultural heritage and intellectual property? How can cultural values be preserved in these conditions? Who are the legitimate users and « owners » of cultural goods and practices and, therefore, the legitimate beneficiaries of possible economic benefits?