Cultural Tourism: A review of recent research and trends
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Volume 36, September 2018, Pages 12-21
Please refer to final version of the printed text in the journal:
This review article traces the development of cultural tourism as a field of research over the
past decade, identifying major trends and research areas. Cultural tourism has recently been
re-affirmed by the UNWTO as a major element of international tourism consumption,
accounting for over 39% of tourism arrivals. Cultural tourism research has also grown rapidly,
particularly in fields such as cultural consumption, cultural motivations, heritage conservation,
cultural tourism economics, anthropology and the relationship with the creative economy.
Major research trends include the shift from tangible to intangible heritage, more attention for
indigenous and other minority groups and a geographical expansion in the coverage of cultural
tourism research. The field also reflects a number of ‘turns’ in social science, including the
mobilities turn, the performance turn and the creative turn. The paper concludes with a
number of suggestions for future research directions, such as the development of trans-
modern cultures and the impacts of new technologies.
Cultural tourism, tangible heritage, intangible heritage, indigenous tourism, cultural
Culture and tourism have always been inextricably linked. Cultural sights, attractions and
events provide an important motivation for travel, and travel in itself generates culture. But it
is only in recent decades that the link between culture and tourism has been more explicitly
identified as a specific form of consumption: cultural tourism.
The emergence of cultural tourism as a social phenomenon and as an object of academic study
can be traced back to the surge in post-World War 2 leisure travel. In Europe, travel helped to
increase cultural understanding as well as rebuild shattered economies. As incomes and
consumption continued to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, so did international travel, and the
consumption of culture. By the 1980s the flow of international tourists to major sites and
attractions began to attract enough attention for the label ‘cultural tourism’ to be attached to
an emerging niche market. Early academic studies of cultural tourism also surfaced at this
time, and the World Tourism Organisation (WTO, as it was then) produced its first definition of
the phenomenon. In the early 1990s the first estimate of the size of this ‘new’ market also
emerged (at 37% of all international tourism) and were attributed to the WTO, even though
Bywater (1993) comments that it was not clear how this estimate was derived.
Interest in cultural tourism continued to grow throughout the 1980s and 1990s, driven by the
‘heritage boom’ (Hewison, 1987), the growth of international and domestic travel and the
identification of cultural tourism as a ‘good’ form of tourism that would stimulate the economy
and help conserve culture (Richards, 2001). The beginning of the 1990s indicates a period of
transformation of cultural tourism which, unlike the original orientation towards elite clientele,
found a new opportunity for development in the orientation towards the mass market.
Cultural tourism became a well-established phenomenon in many tourism destinations, and
was increasingly the target of academic research. The first textbooks on cultural tourism began
to emerge (Smith, 2003; Ivanovic, 2008) and a growing range of research papers appeared,
linked to many different theoretical and methodological approaches (Richards and Munsters,
2010, Smith and Richards, 2013).
Growth in cultural tourism was also marked by fragmentation into a number of emerging
niches, such as heritage tourism, arts tourism, gastronomic tourism., film tourism and creative
tourism. Just as an expanding notion of culture had helped to stimulate the growth of cultural
tourism in the 1990s, so the fragmentation of the cultural tourism concept itself helped to
produce a surge in the proportion of publications dedicated to the field. Growth also brought
its own challenges, and by 2013 Boniface was already signalling problems with the
overcrowding of World Heritage Sites, a phenomenon that is now being linked with the idea of
‘overtourism’. The problems being encountered with the conservation of tangible heritage and
the growing desire of tourists for new experiences also helped to focus attention on the role of
intangible heritage in tourism (du Cros, 2012).
The changing nature of cultural tourism was recently brought into focus by a UNWTO Report
on Tourism and Culture Synergies (2018), which included online surveys covering 43% of
UNWTO Member States as well as 61 international experts and academics in the field. This
study confirmed the importance of the cultural tourism, with 89% of national tourism
administrations indicating that cultural tourism was part of their tourism policy. The
respondents also indicated that they expected further growth in cultural tourism in the
following five years. The research also for the first time provided empirical support for the
original estimates of the size of the cultural tourism market. This was estimated to account for
over 39% of all international tourism arrivals, or the equivalent of around 516 million
international trips in 2017. This provides an apparent vindication of the long quoted, but
largely unsubstantiated estimate that cultural tourism accounts for 40% of global tourism
(Bywater, 1993). The crucial point, however, is how cultural tourism is defined – a debate that
has raged for a long time (Richards, 1996; du Cros and McKercher, 2014; Allen, Rhoden,
Sakharchuk, Ilkevich, Sharafanova, & Pecheritsa, 2015).
Cultural tourism was also one of the types of tourism that received a new operational
definition from the UNWTO at the 22nd Session of the General Assembly held in Chengdu,
China (UNWTO, 2017: 18):
Cultural tourism is a type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s essential motivation
is to learn, discover, experience and consume the tangible and intangible cultural
attractions/products in a tourism destination.
These attractions/products relate to a set of distinctive material, intellectual, spiritual
and emotional features of a society that encompasses arts and architecture, historical
and cultural heritage, culinary heritage, literature, music, creative industries and the
living cultures with their lifestyles, value systems, beliefs and traditions.
This new definition confirms the much broader nature of contemporary cultural tourism,
which relates not just to sites and monuments, but to ways of life, creativity and ‘everyday
culture’. As the UNWTO (2018) report emphasises, the field of cultural tourism has moved
away from the previous emphasis on classic western tangible heritage towards a much
broader and inclusive field of diverse cultural practices in all corners of the world. In this sense
the new definition mirrors the development of the production and consumption of cultural
tourism, as well as the development of academic research on cultural tourism. It is impossible
in such a brief review to do justice to the increasing breadth and diversity of cultural tourism
research, but it is hoped that at least some of the main themes can be traced.
2 Major themes in the Literature
The growing body of cultural tourism scholarship is confirmed by a literature search on the
term “cultural tourism” on Google Scholar. As Figure 1 indicates, cultural tourism sources have
risen from less than 100 in 1990 to over 6000 in 2016. Growth was particularly sharp between
2005 and 2015, and cultural tourism publications have risen as a proportion of all tourism
publications, to reach nearly 5% by 2017. This growth has also been supported by a number of
flourishing sub-themes in the field. These also tend to relate to some major academic
disciplines, such as sociology, economics, anthropology and psychology. The current review
covers first some of the major research areas related to these fields, before summarising some
of the major emerging research trends. Because of the vast scope of the literature most
attention has been paid to research articles published since 2010. Other sources can provide
overviews of the literature up to this date (e.g. Smith and Richards, 2013; du Cros and
McKercher, 2014). A search of the literature reveals, however, that the current review is the
first to cover the cultural tourism field as a whole. Some of the major research themes that
emerge from our review of publications listed in Google Scholar and Scopus include cultural
tourism as a form of cultural consumption, motivations for cultural tourism, the economic
aspects of cultural tourism, the relationship between tourism and cultural heritage, the
growth of the creative economy, and the links between anthropology and cultural tourism.
Insert Figure 1: Cultural tourism publications 1990-2016 (source: Google scholar)
2.1 Cultural consumption
Cultural tourism as a form of cultural consumption has been a particularly important topic for
sociological studies in the field. Much of this research has sought to understand the cultural
tourism audience and in particular the variation and stratification within it. Early discussions of
cultural tourism also developed a division between ‘general’ and ‘specific’ cultural tourists,
with the former consuming culture as part of a general holiday experience, and the latter
travelling purposefully to engage in some aspect of the culture of the destination (Richards
1996). This simple dichotomy was later extended to cover different typologies of cultural
tourists, based on features such as the depth and purposefulness of cultural motivation (Du
Cros and McKercher, 2014), visits to attractions and events (Pulido-Fernández and Sánchez-
Rivero, 2010), or the degree of mixing or ‘omnivorousness’ in cultural tourism behaviour
(Barbieri & Mahoney, 2010). Most such studies were designed to identify specific groups or
segments within the cultural tourism audience who might be attracted to particular types of
cultural experiences. Stylianou-Lambert (2011) undertook a qualitative study of the different
‘gazes’ in cultural tourism, showing that tourists visiting art museums perceive them in
different ways, using different types of ‘perceptual ﬁlters’ that inﬂuence their gaze. This
indicates the fairly complex nature of cultural tourism participation, which arguably requires
multi-disciplinary and multidimensional approaches to capture such complexity. Richards and
van der Ark (2013), for example, used multiple correspondence analysis to identify dimensions
of cultural consumption in cultural tourism. This indicated that holiday type and attraction
setting had a strong influence on the type of culture consumed, which suggests an important
effect of the physical context on cultural tourism behaviour. This is also in line with recent
research in the field of visitor attractions (Falk, 2011), which argues that visitor experience is
produced through a combination of visitor-related and context-related factors. Richards and
van der Ark (2013) also suggested that cultural tourists may develop a cultural ‘travel career’,
as younger visitors tend to consume more contemporary art, creativity and modern
architecture, whereas older visitors are more prevalent at more traditional monuments and
Many studies seek to understand why people engage in cultural tourism through studies of
motivation and related factors such as satisfaction and loyalty. Many of these studies are
undertaken from a marketing perspective, but there are also close links with psychology and
Motivation was an important issue in early studies of cultural tourism, which was defined in
terms of cultural motivation, most clearly related to learning (Richards, 1996). The original
division made between general and specific cultural motivations are still evident in recent
motivational studies. For example Galí-Espelt (2012) identifies two broad groups of cultural
tourist: tourists whose main motivation is to consume culture and those for whom culture is a
secondary motivation. She proposed categorising motivations in terms of the degree of
‘culturedness’: a combination of length of visit and a high to low cultural experience
dimension. This mirrors to some extent the categorisation of motivations suggested by du Cros
and McKercher (2014) on the basis of the ‘depth’ of desired cultural experience.
These divisions reflect the difference between formal and more informal modes of learning.
Falk, Ballantyne, Packer and Benckendorff (2012) highlight the importance of learning in
cultural tourism experiences. Extending on these findings, Ballantyne and Packer (2011)
argued that the tourism industry has the responsibility to engage visitors in powerful and
transformative learning experiences, both during and after their visit. They suggested that the
long-term impact of a tourism experience can be significantly increased by using technology
and social networking to maintain contact with visitors after they leave the site.
A cluster analysis conducted by Özel and Kozak (2012) identified five distinct cultural tourism
motivation groups, labelled: “Relaxation Seekers,” “Sports Seekers,” “Family Oriented,”
“Escapists,” and “Achievement and Autonomy Seekers.” The division between those seeking
culture and those using it as a form of escape is also evident in the work of Correia, Kozak and
Ferradeira (2013). They identified push and pull satisfaction factors in visits to Lisbon, including
the intrinsic desire to learn about particular aspects of culture (such as Fado music) and a
search for novelty.
Motivations of cultural tourists are often linked to factors such as satisfaction and intention to
return. Chang, Backman and Chih Huang (2013) studied creative tourism sites in Taiwan, and
found that on-site tourism experience was the most influential antecedent of revisit intention.
Also in Taiwan, Lee and Hsu (2013) found that the motivation for visits to Aboriginal festivals
significantly affected satisfaction, and that that satisfaction is also the most important
predictor of loyalty (measured through intention to return).
Motivation is also increasingly linked with questions of identity. Bond and Falk (2013)
presented a theoretical model of identity-related tourism motivation, combining aspects of
both structure and agency theory. They point out that how tourists see themselves is
important in motivating cultural visits. As the relationship between the host and the tourist
culture is often crucial in cultural tourism cultural tourism motivations are also related to the
extent that people self-identify as ‘cultural tourists’ (which is often surprisingly little -
2.3 Economic aspects of cultural tourism
Cultural tourism has long had an important economic dimension, particularly because the
income derived from tourism is argued to help support the preservation of cultural heritage. In
many cases, however, debates have emerged about the extent to which income streams
derived from tourism have reached the cultural amenities that help to attract tourists
(Richards, 2001, Russo, 2002). Many discussions of cultural tourism, particularly in emerging
economies, also revolve around the need to spread tourism geographically (e.g. Ivanovic &
Growing interest in the relationship between cultural tourism and economics is marked by a
recent special issue of the Journal of Cultural Economics (2017). This includes a number of
papers reflecting on issues such as the spending habits of cultural tourists in Amsterdam
(Rouwendal & van Loon, 2017) and the impact of cultural participation in destinations in
attracting cultural tourists (Guccio, Lisi, Martorana & Mignosa, 2017). In their introduction to
the special issue on “The Economics of Cultural Tourism” Noonan and Rizzo (2017) admit that
little theoretical advancement has been made. The editors identify new areas of application,
such as drug tourism, language tourism, and film festivals, as well as the potential for work in
new areas—such as online ‘crowdsourcing’ and cultural conventions.
At its heart, the distinction between cultural tourism and tourism generally may be a
false distinction…. Moving in the direction of developing more distinctly cultural
economic theories of tourism presents an important challenge to the field (p. 104).
The availability of time-series data is now making it possible to start estimating the economic
effects of cultural tourism more accurately in some destinations. Spain is a leading example, as
the surveys carried out consistently with domestic and international tourists now provide a
wealth of data to be mined. Artal-Tur, Briones-Peñalver and Villena-Navarro (2018) show the
leading role that cultural activities play in attracting long-haul and first time visitors to Spain.
These cultural tourists also tend to spend more than other international tourists, and play a
major role in supporting Spanish Museums (Ponferrada, 2015). Cisneros-Martínez and
Fernández-Morales (2015) also demonstrate the role of cultural tourism in reducing
seasonality in Andalucía. In Italy, Guccio, Lisi, Mignosa and Rizzo (2018) assess the impact of
the monetary value of cultural heritage on tourism. They find that a million euros worth of
cultural heritage generates about 1000 more cultural visitors, which underlines the strong
relationship between the regional performance of the tourism sector and cultural visitors.
Di Lascio, Giannerini, Scorcu and Candela (2011) also looked at the attractiveness of art
exhibitions for tourists in Italy. They found a positive 1-year lagged effect of modern art
exhibitions on tourism and a positive mild effect of contemporary art exhibitions on tourist
flows. They conclude that “temporary art exhibitions contribute to increase tourist flows if
they are part of a structural characteristic of a destination” (p. 239).
2.4 Cultural heritage
Heritage, particularly built and tangible heritage has long been one of the fundaments of
cultural tourism. As Timothy (2011) suggests, the definition of heritage is almost as fraught as
the discussion about cultural tourism. He sees heritage as a broad range of resources including
built patrimony, living lifestyles, ancient artefacts and modern art and culture – in other words
there is little distinction between cultural tourism and heritage tourism. However, much of the
research on cultural heritage has tended to concentrate on specific aspects of heritage, such as
the destination of ‘World Heritage Sites’ (WHS), or debates surrounding ‘contested heritage’
consumed by tourists and others (Yankholmes & McKercher, 2015).
Frey and Steiner (2011) for example, ask whether the World Heritage List makes sense? They
argue that a World Heritage designation is beneficial only where “heritage sites are
undetected, disregarded by national decision‐makers, not commercially exploitable, and
where national financial resources, political control, and technical knowledge for conservation
are inadequate” (p. 555). The sense-making of designations also extends to the question
whether a WHS designation actually generates more tourism. Addressing this question in
terms of Italian domestic tourism, Patuelli, Mussoni and Candela (2013) conclude that a
designation does appear to influence domestic arrivals to tourism destinations in Italy, but that
spatial competition may reduce the positive effect by increasing competition among
Alberts and Hazen (2010) argue that to be considered for listing as a World Heritage site,
properties must meet the conditions of “integrity” and/or “authenticity” and be of
“outstanding universal value”. However, as they note, these concepts are diﬃcult to deﬁne
and are open to varying interpretations in diﬀerent cultural settings. Jimura (2011) examines
impacts on local communities around the World Heritage Site in Ogimachi, Japan. This study
identified both positive and negative changes after WHS listing, including extensive and rapid
tourism development after WHS inscription; the high level of appeal of a WHS status for
domestic tourists; and improvements in local people's attitudes towards conservation of the
cultural environment and WHS status.
Shin (2010) also looks at cultural heritage issues in Gwangju, Korea. It was found that the
majority of residents around the site were aware of the importance of cultural tourism and
that they argued that it could contribute to urban development. Some older residents were
unhappy with rapid growth caused by cultural tourism, whereas others saw positive effects
from the improved image of the city and strengthened community pride and ethnic identity.
Vong and Ung (2012) found that tourists experiencing heritage places in Macau were able to
learn about Macau's history and culture through on-site heritage interpretation. They
emphasise the importance of packaging heritage tourism products from a service-oriented,
Much recent research has traced the widening concept of cultural heritage from tangible to
intangible heritage. Zhu (2012) analyses the marriage ceremony in the Naxi Wedding
Courtyard in Lijiang, China. This ritual arguably gives rise to a performative experience of
authenticity and offers a deep understanding of the link between memory, habitus and
embodied practice. Zhu puts forward the notion of “performative authenticity” to illustrate
this transitional and transformative process of authentication. The production of such
performative authenticity also involves an increasing amount of emotional labour from those
involved with heritage resources (Van Dijk & Kirk, 2007).
With the increasing inclusion of tangible and intangible heritage into the tourism system, more
concerns are emerging about the sustainability of heritage. Loulanski and Loulanski (2011)
undertook a meta-analysis of the literature and identified 15 factors deemed critical for the
sustainable integration of heritage and tourism, including local involvement, education and
training, authenticity and interpretation, sustainability-centered tourism management, and
2.5 Creative economy
The ‘creative economy’ is just one of a range of terms that have been applied to the increasing
role of creative processes and knowledge generation in the economy as a whole (Richards,
2018). The expansion of cultural tourism in the direction of intangible heritage and
contemporary culture has created more attention for the increasing integration between
tourism and the creative economy. As the OECD (2014) report on this relationship emphasised,
creative economy approaches to tourism offer the potential to add value through developing
engaging creative content and experiences, supporting innovation and helping to make places
more distinctive and attractive.
The creative industries were defined in this report as:
knowledge-based creative activities that link producers, consumers and places by
utilising technology, talent or skill to generate meaningful intangible cultural products,
creative content and experiences. They comprise many different sectors, including
advertising, animation, architecture, design, film, gaming, gastronomy, music,
performing arts, software and interactive games, and television and radio (p. 7).
There is a growing raft of studies of the relationship between tourism and the creative
economy, covering the development of creative economy policies, specific creative sectors and
activities, the role of knowledge and networks in tourism and the growth of specific ‘creative
tourism’ experiences (Gretzel & Jamal, 2009; Richards, 2011; Fernandes, 2011; Stolarick,
Denstedt, Donald & Spencer, 2011; Wattanacharoensil & Schuckert, 2016; Fahmi, McCann &
Koster, 2017). The convergence of tourism and the creative economy has in many areas
occurred naturally through the growth of the creative industries, creative clusters and the
creative class (Gretzel & Jamal, 2009). But as Fahmi et al. (2017) note in the case of Indonesia,
the creative economy has also been “forcibly connected to other development agendas”, such
as tourism and cultural preservation, poverty alleviation and city branding.
The Bilbao Guggenheim and other iconic buildings by ‘starchitects’ have also become a major
part of global urban competition strategy (Ponzini, Fotev & Mavaracchio, 2016). Tourists can
also stay in ‘design hotels’ (Strannegård & Strannegård, 2012) or visit the World Design Capital
(Booyens, 2012). Destinations try to attract the mobile ‘creative class’ as a new breed of
cultural tourist particularly interested in the creative atmosphere and ‘buzz’ of places. Such
locations are increasingly identified and packaged as ‘creative clusters’ of which there are
growing numbers around the world (Marques & Richards, 2014). Many of these formally
designated clusters are now major tourist destinations in different countries (Richards, 2014;
Booyens & Rogerson, 2015), and there are also growing numbers of visitors to informal
creative areas in cities such as London (Pappalepore, Maitland, & Smith, 2014).
The media also has an important influence on cultural tourism flows, as the many case studies
on the impact of films such as The Lord of Rings or the Chinese blockbuster Lost in Thailand
show (Connell, 2012; UNWTO, 2018). Lost in Thailand arguably induced more than four million
Chinese tourists to visit Thailand in 2013, underlining that film tourism can also play a role in
rearticulating geopolitical imaginaries (Mostafanezhad & Promburom, 2018) as well as
supporting particular place images and stereotypes.
Creative experiences such as artistic creation, dance, cookery, are now also being used to
frame destination culture. Aoyama (2009) examines the growing flamenco tourism industry in
Seville, which is increasingly integrating creative production (flamenco schools, local cultural
groups) with consumption (performances for tourists, creative tourism flamenco courses for
visitors). Destinations are also now having to deal with the challenge of embedding relatively
mobile creative processes and ideas in place to attract visitors. This inevitably raises questions
about the possibility and desirability of copyrighting or protecting intangible cultural heritage
(Wanda George, 2010). Ownership is already a fraught issue with tangible heritage, but
cultural globalisation makes embedding of intangible culture a major challenge.
In the field of gastronomy, a lot of work has been done in protecting food local products,
including the development of labels and certification of origin (Ren, 2010). Such labels can not
only help to protect food products, but they also serve as markers for cultural tourism
visitation (Benkhard & Halmai, 2017). Cultural tourism can also be stimulated through the
development of cultural routes linked to food and wine brands, including olive oil routes
(Arjona-Fuentes & Amador-Hidalgo, 2017), cheese routes (Folgado-Fernández, Palos-Sánchez,
Campón-Cerro & Hernández-Mogollón, 2017) and wine routes (Castro, de Oliveira Santos,
Gimenes-Minasse & Giraldi, 2017).
The mobility of creative skills and knowledge has also shed light on the importance of
networks as conduits of knowledge flows and a means to generate creative experiences.
Hjalager (2009) analyses the development of a complex range of public private collaborations
to support the development of cultural and creativity in the small Danish city of Roskilde.
Cultural tourism there is supported by a famous rock festival, but a Viking ship museum
(Bærenholdt, 2017) and more recently the development of the RAGNAROCK Museum, which
“depicts and conveys how young people through time have moved borders and influenced
society through music and youth culture” (http://museumragnarock.dk/en/besoeg/).
Other elements of youth culture are also being recognised as important sources of cultural
tourism. Redondo-Carretero, Camarero-Izquierdo, Gutiérrez-Arranz and Rodríguez-Pinto
(2017) illustrate the importance of language tourism to the Spanish city of Valladolid.
Estimates indicate that around 850,000 international tourists visited Spain in 2014 for
academic reasons, most to learn Spanish. Research in Valladolid shows that the perceived
value of the cultural offer is important in the choice of destination for language students.
Expenditure is also significantly greater among those motivated by the cultural attractions of
Báez-Montenegro and Devesa-Fernández (2017) also suggest the existence of a wider kind of
festival tourism, focussed on a general interest in a creative sector, such as cinema. They argue
that such ‘cinema tourism’ is currently undervalued. Film festivals and other creative events
are also becoming important ‘knowledge hubs’ in global networks, with film and literary
festivals attracting a growing audience of aficionados (Podestà and Richards, 2016). Countries
such as Korea are also trying to latch onto cultural and creative tourism linked the creative
industries in general, such as the Korean initiative to develop Korean Wave or Hallyu tourism
(Richards, 2014) based on films, K-Pop and Korean TV dramas (Kim, Long & Robinson, 2009),
but increasingly opened up to wider elements of Korean pop culture. Bae, Chang, Park and Kim
(2017) demonstrate that Hallyu does have a significant positive effect on inbound tourism and
therefore the wider economy.
2.6 Emerging Identities
Anthropology has long made important contributions to the study of cultural tourism, with
seminal works such as Picard’s (1996) study of Bali and Greenwood’s (1972) analysis of cultural
events in Spain. Much recent work in this area has re-focussed attention on the role of
indigenous cultures in different parts of the world. Indigenous or aboriginal peoples are being
increasingly linked into the tourism system by internal and external actors. Korstanje (2012)
argues that indigenous tourism helps maintain neo-colonialist attitudes, and that many
indigenous cultures still face ethnocentric treatment, continuing to be ‘protected’ for tourist
consumption by outsiders who believe they know better than the natives themselves.
Korstanje asks: “Why, for example, are virtually all visits to Hopi and Navajo Indian
reservations considered ethnic tourism or cultural tourism, while most visits to Chicago, or
even rural, Anglo communities in the upper Midwest USA, are not?” (p. 182). This is an
increasingly pressing problem as travel companies increasingly bring tourists to indigenous
communities in formerly inaccessible areas such as the Amazon rainforest (Ochoa Zuluaga,
2015), the Canadian Arctic (Lynch, Duinker, Sheehan & Chute, 2011) and the wet tropics of
Australia (Pabel, Prideaux & Thompson, 2017). In the Kalahari Desert, Tomaselli (2012:5)
remarks that “cultural tourism ventures often forget or neglect the very people on whom
brands are constructed”. Similarly, Nielsen and Wilson (2012) argue that indigenous tourism is
still based on the needs and priorities of non-Indigenous people.
This is important because the increasing use of intangible heritage puts people at the heart of
cultural tourism, and questions of representation become important. As Yang (2011) shows in
the case of China, hegemony is perpetuated in representations of minority culture. Through
the representation of “otherness,” the state and capital can shape ethnic landscapes for
political and economic interests through tourism development, so that cultural tourism is
constructed not only to meet the needs of tourists, but also the demands of internal domestic
politics. Yang argues that the representation of minority culture has been strongly influenced
by the government and Han managers who act as selectors to construct an “exotic other” that
meets political and economic needs.
As Winter (2009) argues in an Asian context, there is a need to listen to more minority voices
in cultural tourism, as many are current drowned out by dominant narratives and ignored by
western analyses of the tourism system. There now seem to be more alternative voices
emerging in research on cultural tourism (e.g. d’Hauteserre, 2011; Diekmann & Smith, 2015),
but there is doubtless room for more, particularly as more minority cultures themselves start
travelling more (Peters & Higgins-Desbiolles, 2012).
3 Emerging trends and future directions in cultural tourism research
This necessarily limited review of cultural tourism research over the past decade or so reflects
many of the trends that are outlined in the UNWTO Report on Tourism and Culture Synergies
(2018). The many academics who responded to the UNWTO survey not only underlined the
growth of cultural tourism over the five years previous to the survey, but almost
overwhelmingly concluded that cultural tourism would continue to grow in future.
In some ways this is perhaps not surprising, since the growth of cultural tourism is largely
driven by increased tourism, rather than an expansion in cultural interest (Richards, 2007).
Continued growth has, however, changed the position of cultural tourism from a niche market
consisting of relatively well-educated and high income visitors, towards a mass market open to
a much wider range of people. This creates a challenge in many destinations, where the
development of ‘mass cultural tourism’ leads to overcrowding at key sites and complaints of
‘overtourism’ in some cities (García-Hernández, de la Calle-Vaquero & Yubero, 2017). The
crumbling position of cultural tourism as a desirable form of tourism is also directly related to
the decline in elitism in the cultural tourism audience. Cultural tourism used to be seen as a
kind of socially desirable filter that would help attract ‘good’ tourists. Growing numbers have
meant that it can also be seen as the thin end of the mass tourism wedge, entering to destroy
the very culture that the tourists seek. The current research evidence for such hypothesised
effects is mixed, however. For the art city of Florence, Popp (2012) found evidence of positive
and negative effects related to crowds of cultural tourists. In the case of Bruges, Belgium,
Neuts and Nijkamp (2012) also found no clear relationship between crowding and resident
attitudes. In a study of ten German cities Tokarchuk, Gabriele & Maurer (2017) find that
cultural tourism flows have significant well-being benefits for residents.
Many studies of urban cultural tourism are also often based on a shaky dichotomy between
‘tourist’ and ‘resident’ that fails to recognise the increasing porousness of these categories.
Work related to the mobilities paradigm has underlined the considerable overlap between
travellers with different motives (den Hoed & Russo, 2017), and between tourists and
residents (Richards, 2017).
The cultural object of tourism has also shifted as cultural tourism has grown. The search for
the exceptional has been joined by a quest for the everyday (Richards, 2011). Tourists
increasingly want to ‘live like a local’, whether it is to avoid being labelled as a tourist, or if it is
because the ‘local’ has become the new touchstone of authenticity (Richards & Russo, 2016).
What is the meaning of the ‘local’ for the ‘locals’ themselves, as well as the other groups who
pass through the community? This is a question that tourists struggle with, as do many
destinations, who create a new range of labels for visitors as ‘temporary citizens’ or ‘global
citizens’ or ‘global nomads’ (Kannisto, 2017).
This identification of ‘new cultural tourism’ (Jovicic, 2016) is arguably based on a number of
significant ‘turns’ that have been marked in social science in recent decades. These are the
mobilities turn, the performative turn and the creative turn (Kjaer Mansfeldt, 2015). All three
of these turns are evident in the field of cultural tourism. In particular there are increasing
challenges in defining the ‘cultural tourist’ and the object of cultural tourism as static
categories (Russo and Richards, 2016) as both the tourist and the local begin to perform
different roles relative to one another. This also opens up a space that Kjaer Mansfeldt (2015)
identifies as ‘in-betweenness’: the ways in which the untouristic begins to define tourist
experience and produce new space that belong neither to the usual reality of the tourist or the
This complexity produces new challenges in the definition of cultural tourism. In a sense, there
has been a journey from the original UNWTO definition of cultural tourism as effectively
containing all tourism experience (because all tourism implies learning), through more narrow
definitions designed to aid measurement and conceptual understanding of this emerging
phenomenon (Richards, 2001), back to the broader definition now proposed by the UNTWO
(2018), and even broader concepts that include in-betweenness and non-tourism.
This highlights the need to study cultural tourism not so much as a specific form of tourism or
as a coherent tourism market, but as a collection of cultural practices engaged in by a wide
range of actors in the destination and by tourists themselves. At a micro level the kind of
studies of tourist performance developed by Tim Edensor (2008) at the Taj Mahal in India offer
a lot of promise in uncovering the meanings of the roles and behaviours of tourists and other
actors in the system. But there is also a need to link these micro-behaviours to the level of
broader social groups. In the field of tourism there is room for the kind of analysis of ritual
undertaken by Randall Collins (2004), which enables a linkage of the actions of individuals with
the dynamics of the group and with broader social and economic drivers. Collin’s argument
that gatherings of people react at a bodily level to one another also provides a potentially
useful link to a growing range of studies in the field of crowds. There is little doubt that people
feel and behave differently in a crowded space than in an empty one, and the former is
increasingly the scenario in which most cultural tourists are found. A number of studies have
already attempted to track cultural tourists (e.g. Edwards, Dickson, Griffin & Hayllar, 2010), but
new technologies also offer the possibility of following their mood as they move from one
cultural experience to another.
It is also clear that the focus of cultural tourism research is shifting, from the previous
concentration on tangible heritage in Europe and North America towards areas where the
relationship between tourism and culture is being rapidly re-defined, notably in Asia. Many
new studies are emerging in areas such as China, Taiwan and Korea, where societies
undergoing rapid change are rediscovering their links with tangible and intangible heritage. An
interesting aspect of such developments is that they often combine heritage conservation with
applications of new technologies, strengthening content production and closer links between
tourism and the creative economy. This is very evident in Korea, where government-sponsored
programmes have supported the development of creative tourism experiences and
applications (Richards, 2018).
3.1 Future research directions
The UNWTO Report on Tourism and Culture Synergies (2018) points to a number of areas of
future cultural tourism development which may also become fruitful areas for research. The
tourism experts surveyed by the UNWTO expect cultural tourism to grow in future (93%
agree). Growth is also expected to increase the diversity of cultural tourism demand and
supply, increasing the importance of a number of niches, and stimulating a general shift
towards intangible heritage and what one respondent called “soft cultural infrastructure”.
This also poses a number of challenges for future research, particularly in terms of the
definition of “cultural tourism”. Defining cultural tourism has become a major debate in the
literature, because the notions of culture and tourism themselves are so diverse and open to
differing interpretations. As Richards (2003) noted, this has spawned a range of different
definitional approaches that cover a field delineated by two axes: the dichotomy between
meaning and measurement on the one hand, and the division between supply and demand on
the other (Figure 2).
Insert Figure 2: The definitional field of cultural tourism (Source: Richards, 2003)
The problem with such definitional approaches is that they increasingly fail to account for the
integration of supply and demand (for example the co-creation of cultural experiences by
tourists and suppliers) and the failure of most measurements of cultural tourism to capture
the meaning of the phenomenon. In the future, much more effort should be applied to
studying the practices of cultural tourism, which form a system that includes the materials that
provide the basis of the cultural tourism practice (e.g. tangible and intangible heritage,
contemporary culture and creativity), the meanings that people attach to the practice (e.g.
learning, identity, narrative and storytelling) and the competences that are developed through
the practice (e.g. ways of ‘doing’ cultural tourism, reading and interpreting cultural heritage).
The important point is that all elements of the practice are mutually dependent (Figure 3). You
cannot become a cultural tourist without cultural materials to consume, which in turn requires
a certain level of cultural capital or competence, and it must mean something to you, for
example by learning something or affirming your identity. Contemporary cultural tourism
exhibits a wide range of such practices, which may also converge at specific sites, destinations
or times, as Edensor’s work at the Taj Mahal (1998) demonstrates. In identifying the different
practices of cultural tourism, links can also be made to the growing body of work on Actor-
Network Theory (ANT) (e.g van der Duim, Ren & Thór Jóhannesson, 2013).
Insert Figure 3: The practices of cultural tourism
Taking a practice approach to cultural tourism, one entry point into the issue of definition is to
explore what cultural tourism means to the tourists themselves. The ATLAS Cultural Tourism
Project has consistently found a much smaller percentage of people who self-identify as
cultural tourists (5-10%) than the broader measures generated by counting all those who visit
cultural attractions (40%) (Richards and Munsters, 2010). This raises questions such as what is
the difference between a tourist who visits a museum, and a cultural tourist who visits a
museum? Does feeling like a cultural tourist lead to different behavior and patterns of
interaction with culture?
Another important pointer to the future of cultural tourism according to the UNWTO is
increasing synergies between tourism and culture. Cultural tourism has long been seen as
benefitting both fields, by providing support for culture and generating attractions for tourism.
But there are real questions about the extent to which such synergies are being realized, and
also whether culture and tourism can actively harm one another. The view of synergies at
present is very narrow, and links are seen more in terms of different types of tourism, rather
than between tourism and culture per se (e.g. Buultjens, Gale & White, 2010; Okumus, Avci,
Kilic & Walls, 2012). Research also tends to focus on economic issues, particularly how much of
the money generated through cultural tourism accrues to the cultural resources that support
it. This economic focus is important, because cultural tourists have consistently been shown to
spend more than most other types of tourists. However, there has been little attempt to
extend the discussion to other forms of value. There is a need to develop and/or apply new
measures of cultural, social, knowledge-based or creative value (e.g. Sacco and Blessi, 2007:
The value focus of cultural tourism also often depends on the governance style. But there has
been little research on the types of governance arrangements or ‘regimes’ that promote,
support and develop cultural tourism, how these operate and the consequences they have. For
example there are a growing number of public-private partnerships formed to develop and
promote cultural tourism, such as heritage hotels in Rajasthan, many cultural routes in Europe,
and Cultural Tourism Enterprises in Tanzania (UNWTO, 2018). But we know relatively little
about how these bodies function, or the effect that they have on tourism flows, destination
development or marketing. Many of these partnerships are also tourism-led, rather than
culture-based. This raises the question of whether such arrangements lead to the privatization
or commercialization of culture, particularly under neo-liberal governance regimes.
The application of new technologies to cultural tourism experiences is another area that will
require more research in future. Although Virtual Reality (computer-generated 3D
environments) and Augmented Reality (the projection of computer-generated images onto a
real world view) are hardly new, their potential is only now being fully realized (Wiltshier and
Clarke, 2017). More ludic applications are also now being applied, such as ‘serious games’
(Mortara, Catalano, Bellotti, Fiucci, Houry-Panchetti & Petridis, 2014). There is a particular
need for research on how visitors experience such technology, and whether it increases their
level of engagement. There are important questions about how these technologies are being
developed and applied, for example in “smart tourism” contexts (Gretzel, Koo, Sigala & Xiang,
2015). The development of new technologies also creates a need to analyse stakeholder
relationships, particularly in terms of who benefits from and who pays for the considerable
investment required (Tscheu & Buhalis, 2016).
The growing circulation of content for tourists via new technologies also raises questions
about the cultural basis of cultural tourism in the future. We have been used to situations
where host cultures are presented to visitors, but the simple tourist-host binary is beginning to
fade as mobilities become more complex. In particular we now have large numbers of people
living (semi-permanently) outside their countries of origin. The growing mix of tourists, ex-
pats, refugees, third culture kids and other mobile populations is bringing the very notion of
sedentary society into question in some areas. In these situations the idea of a fixed host
culture becomes absurd. More attention is therefore being paid to more fluid concepts such as
trans-modern culture. Originating in the ideas of Rodríguez (1989, 2011) transmodernity
represents a new paradigm which transcends the crisis of modernity while taking up its
outstanding challenges (equality, justice, freedom), while maintaining postmodern criticism
(Dussel, 2012). A transmodern perspective has already been developed in the study of the
authenticity of cultural tourism experiences by Ivanovich and Saayman (2015), who argue that
transformatory experience as a transmodern phenomenon is characterized by lasting personal
transformation in opposition to the short-lived peak, temporal experiences of postmodern
tourism. Such new cultural perspectives offer the possibility of avoiding the straightjacket of
either a modern or postmodern interpretation of culture and coming to new insights that
reflect the plurality and interpenetration of the contemporary world.
A broader trans-modern view might also help tackle the problem of the hegemony of the
English language in tourism research. The power of the language has limited the horizons of
many working in the Anglo-Saxon system. Rather than embracing linguistic diversity, journals
are increasingly dominated by production in English. It seems ironic that in a field where there
are many pleas for minority voices to be heard, English is increasingly the language such pleas
have to be made in (Korstanje, 2010). Finding ways of increasing linguistic diversity in cultural
tourism research would open up the field to more diverse concepts of such basic elements
such as ‘culture’ and ‘heritage’ (which has different connotations from the French term
Patrimoine, for example).
This brief review has underlined the rapid growth in cultural tourism scholarship, which has
developed into a well-defined field encompassing multi-disciplinary perspectives. The
optimism expressed in the future growth of cultural tourism demand in the UNWTO report
(2018) makes it almost certain that this field will continue to expand. In some senses, this
growth may undermine the coherence of cultural tourism as an object of study, as lines of
enquiry continue to diverge, tracing the fragmentation and diversification of cultural tourism
demand and supply. To some extent, cultural tourism research has already spawned a number
of extremely fruitful sub-sectors, such as cultural heritage tourism, film-induced tourism and
literary tourism. This opens up new opportunities for cross-fertilisation with new academic
fields, but it may also harbour the danger of removing the study of cultural tourism from its
original social science base. The relative infrequency with which reference is now made to
some of the cornerstones of cultural sociology, such as Bourdieu’s (1984) study of the role of
taste in consumption, is one sign of this.
The vitality of the field is reflected by the many debates that have emerged about the
antecedents and effects of cultural tourism experiences, and the way in which these are
presented or staged. There still seems to be more focus on experience consumption rather
than production, which means that power relations affecting the representation of culture in
tourism are often assumed rather than analysed in detail. Questions of power also seem to be
obscured by the continuing focus on the individual cultural consumer, rather than social
groups and the dynamics between them. New technologies are now making it possible to
study the behaviour of crowds and the interactions of groups via social media to gauge their
reactions to cultural phenomena and their fellow tourists. These should offer new
opportunities in future to study group dynamics and the interactions between individual
tourists, residents and other actors.
The dynamism of cultural tourism also makes it likely that many new research avenues will
open up in future. One of the biggest challenges will be to chart the rapidly changing meanings
and interpretations of the term ‘culture’, which in turn has significant implications for the
definition of cultural tourism. The increasing application of technology in cultural tourism and
the resulting overlaps between real world and virtual experiences will no doubt be one
important area of investigation. But at a much more fundamental level there are significant
challenges in understanding how broader social changes, such as the increasing mixing and
mobility of different cultural and social groups, will impact on the production and consumption
of culture by tourists.
Alberts, H. C., & Hazen, H. D. (2010). Maintaining authenticity and integrity at cultural world
heritage sites. Geographical Review, 100(1), 56-73.
Allen, D., Rhoden, S., Sakharchuk, E., Ilkevich, S., Sharafanova, E. E., & Pecheritsa, E. (2015).
Cultural Tourism. In Dimanche, F. and Andrades, L. (eds) Tourism in Russia: A Management
Handbook, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 133-178.
Aoyama, Y. (2009). Artists, tourists, and the state: Cultural tourism and the flamenco industry
in Andalusia, Spain. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1), 80-104.
Arjona-Fuentes, J. M., & Amador-Hidalgo, L. (2017). Olive oil tourism: Promoting rural
development in Andalusia (Spain). Tourism Management Perspectives, 21, 100-108.
Artal-Tur, A., Briones-Peñalver, A. J., & Villena-Navarro, M. (2018). Tourism, cultural activities
and sustainability in the Spanish Mediterranean regions: A probit approach. Tourism &
Management Studies, 14(1), 7-18.
Bae, E. S., Chang, M., Park, E. S., & Kim, D. C. (2017). The effect of Hallyu on tourism in Korea.
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 3(1).
Baerenholdt, J.O. (2017). Moving to Meet and Make: Rethinking Creativity in Making Things
Take Place. In Hannigan, J. and Richards, G. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of New Urban Studies,
London: SAGE, pp. 330-342.
Báez-Montenegro, A., & Devesa-Fernández, M. (2017). Motivation, satisfaction and loyalty in
the case of a film festival: differences between local and non-local participants. Journal of
Cultural Economics, 41(2), 173-195.
Barbieri, C., & Mahoney, E. (2010). Cultural tourism behaviour and preferences among the live‐
performing arts audience: an application of the univorous–omnivorous framework.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(5), 481-496.
Benkhard, B., & Halmai, M. (2017). Mouthful Hungary–overview of Hungarian cuisine and
culinary tourism. Geography and Tourism, 5(1), 41-54.
Bond, N., & Falk, J. (2013). Tourism and identity‐related motivations: why am I here (and not
there)?. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(5), 430-442.
Boniface, P. (2013). Managing Quality Cultural Tourism. London: Routledge.
Booyens, I. (2012). Creative industries, inequality and social development: developments,
impacts and challenges in Cape Town. Urban Forum, 23, 43-60.
Booyens, I., & Rogerson, C. M. (2015). Creative tourism in Cape Town: an innovation
perspective. Urban Forum, 26, 405-424.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
Buultjens, J., Gale, D., & White, N. E. (2010). Synergies between Australian indigenous tourism
and ecotourism: possibilities and problems for future development. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 18(4), 497-513.
Bywater, M. (1993) The market for cultural tourism in Europe. Travel and Tourism Analyst, 6,
Castro, V. A., de Oliveira Santos, G. E., Gimenes-Minasse, M. H. S. G., & Giraldi, J. D. M. E.
(2017). Práticas de visitação nas vinícolas da Serra Gaúcha: unindo vitivinicultura e turismo no
sul do Brasil. Revista Turismo em Análise, 28(3), 380-402.
Chang, L. L., F. Backman, K., & Chih Huang, Y. (2014). Creative tourism: a preliminary
examination of creative tourists’ motivation, experience, perceived value and revisit intention.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(4), 401-419.
Cisneros-Martínez, J. D., & Fernández-Morales, A. (2015). Cultural tourism as tourist segment
for reducing seasonality in a coastal area: the case study of Andalusia. Current Issues in
Tourism, 18(8), 765-784.
Connell, J. (2012). Film tourism–Evolution, progress and prospects. Tourism Management,
Correia, A., Kozak, M., & Ferradeira, J. (2013). From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(4), 411-424.
d’Hauteserre, A. M. (2011). Politics of imaging New Caledonia. Annals of Tourism Research,
den Hoed, W., & Russo, A. P. (2017). Professional travellers and tourist practices. Annals of
Tourism Research, 63, 60-72.
Di Lascio, F. M. L., Giannerini, S., Scorcu, A. E., & Candela, G. (2011). Cultural tourism and
temporary art exhibitions in Italy: a panel data analysis. Statistical Methods & Applications,
Diekmann, A., & Smith, M. K. (Eds.). (2015). Ethnic and Minority Cultures as Tourist Attractions.
Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Du Cros, H., & McKercher, B. (2014). Cultural Tourism. London: Routledge.
Dussel, E. D. (2012). Transmodernity and interculturality: An interpretation from the perspective
of philosophy of liberation. Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the
Luso-Hispanic World, 1(3), 28-59.
Edensor, T. (2008). Tourists at the Taj: Performance and meaning at a symbolic site. London:
Edwards, D., Dickson, T., Griffin, T., & Hayllar, B. (2010). Tracking the urban visitor: Methods
for examining tourists' spatial behaviour and visual representations. In Richards, G. and
Munsters, W. (eds) Cultural Tourism Research Methods, Wallingford: CABI, pp. 104-114.
Fahmi, F. Z., McCann, P., & Koster, S. (2017). Creative economy policy in developing countries:
The case of Indonesia. Urban Studies, 54(6), 1367-1384.
Falk, J. H. (2011). Contextualizing Falk's identity-related visitor motivation model. Visitor
Studies, 14(2), 141-157.
Falk, J. H., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Benckendorff, P. (2012). Travel and learning: A neglected
tourism research area. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 908-927.
Fernandes, C. (2011). Cultural planning and creative tourism in an emerging tourist
destination. International Journal of Management Cases, 13(3), 629-636.
Folgado-Fernández, J. A., Palos-Sánchez, P. R., Campón-Cerro, A. M., & Hernández-Mogollón, J.
M. (2017). Gastronomic products with identity and the development of the tourism
destination. A study on cheese routes in Spain. International Journal of Scientific Management
and Tourism, 3(1), 93-109.
Frey, B. S., & Steiner, L. (2011). World Heritage List: does it make sense?. International Journal
of Cultural Policy, 17(5), 555-573.
Galí-Espelt, N. (2012). Identifying cultural tourism: a theoretical methodological proposal.
Journal of Heritage Tourism, 7(1), 45-58.
García-Hernández, M., de la Calle-Vaquero, M., & Yubero, C. (2017). Cultural heritage and
urban tourism: Historic city centres under pressure. Sustainability, 9(8), 1346.
Gelter, H. (2010). Friluftsliv as slow and peak experiences in the transmodern society.
Norwegian Journal of Friluftsliv. http://www.diva-
Greenwood, D. J. (1972). Tourism as an agent of change: A Spanish Basque case. Ethnology,
Gretzel, U., & Jamal, T. (2009). Conceptualizing the creative tourist class: Technology, mobility,
and tourism experiences. Tourism Analysis, 14(4), 471-481.
Gretzel, U., Koo, C., Sigala, M., & Xiang, Z. (2015). Special issue on smart tourism: convergence
of information technologies, experiences, and theories. Electronic Markets, 25(3), 175-177.
Guccio, C., Lisi, D., Mignosa, A., & Rizzo, I. (2018). Does cultural heritage monetary value have
an impact on visits? An assessment using official Italian data. Tourism Economics, doi:
Hewison, R. (1987). The Heritage Industry: Britain in a climate of decline. London: Methuen.
Hjalager, A. M. (2009). Cultural tourism innovation systems–the Roskilde festival. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 9(2-3), 266-287.
Ivanovic, M. (2008). Cultural Tourism. Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd.
Ivanovich, M., & Saayman, M. (2015). Authentic economy shaping transmodern tourism
experience. African Journal for Physical Health Education, Recreation and Dance,
21(Supplement 2), 24-36.
Jimura, T. (2011). The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities–A case
study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management, 32(2), 288-296.
Jovicic, D. (2016). Cultural tourism in the context of relations between mass and alternative
tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(6), 605-612.
Kim, S., Long, P., & Robinson, M. (2009). Small screen, big tourism: The role of popular Korean
television dramas in South Korean tourism. Tourism Geographies, 11(3), 308-333.
Kjær Mansfeldt, Ole. (2015) The inbetweenness of tourist experiences : Industrial PhD thesis,
Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Copenhagen.
Korstanje, M. (2010). Supremacy of English in Tourism Research, Anatolia, 21(2), 383-387.
Korstanje, M. (2012). Reconsidering cultural tourism: an anthropologist's perspective. Journal
of Heritage Tourism, 7(2), 179-184.
Lee, T. H., & Hsu, F. Y. (2013). Examining how attending motivation and satisfaction affects the
loyalty for attendees at aboriginal festivals. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1),
Loulanski, T., & Loulanski, V. (2011). The sustainable integration of cultural heritage and
tourism: a meta-study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7), 837-862.
Lynch, M. F., Duinker, P. N., Sheehan, L. R., & Chute, J. E. (2011). The demand for Mi’kmaw
cultural tourism: Tourist perspectives. Tourism Management, 32(5), 977-986.
Mortara, M., Catalano, C. E., Bellotti, F., Fiucci, G., Houry-Panchetti, M., & Petridis, P. (2014).
Learning cultural heritage by serious games. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 15(3), 318-325.
Mostafanezhad, M., & Promburom, T. (2018). ‘Lost in Thailand’: the popular geopolitics of film-
induced tourism in northern Thailand. Social & Cultural Geography, 19(1), 81-101.
Neuts, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). Tourist crowding perception and acceptability in cities: An
applied modelling study on Bruges. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2133-2153.
Nielsen, N., & Wilson, E. (2012). From invisible to indigenous-driven: A critical typology of
research in indigenous tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19, 67-75.
Noonan, D.S. and Rizzo, I. (2017) Economics of cultural tourism: issues and perspectives.
Journal of Cultural Economics, 41, 95-107.
Ochoa Zuluaga, G. I. (2015). Global tourism chains and local development in the Amazon:
Implications for community wellbeing. 's-Hertogenbosch: BOXPress BV.
Okumus, F., Avci, U., Kilic, I., & Walls, A. R. (2012). Cultural tourism in Turkey: A missed
opportunity. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21(6), 638-658.
Özdemir, C., & Yolal, M. (2017). Cross-cultural tourist behavior: An examination of tourists’
behavior in guided tours. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17(3), 314-324.
Özel, Ç. H., & Kozak, N. (2012). Motive based segmentation of the cultural tourism market: A
study of Turkish domestic tourists. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 13(3),
Pabel, A., Prideaux, B., & Thompson, M. (2017). Tourists' preferences with Indigenous tourism
experiences in the Wet Tropics of Queensland, Australia. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 31, 142-151.
Pappalepore, I., Maitland, R., & Smith, A. (2014). Prosuming creative urban areas. Evidence
from East London. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 227-240.
Patuelli, R., Mussoni, M., & Candela, G. (2013). The effects of World Heritage Sites on domestic
tourism: a spatial interaction model for Italy. Journal of Geographical Systems, 15(3), 369-402.
Peters, A., & Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2012). De-marginalising tourism research: Indigenous
Australians as tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19, 76-84.
Picard, M. (1996) Bali: Cultural Tourism and Touristic Culture. Singapore: Archipelago Press.
Podestà, M. & Richards, G. (2017). Creating knowledge spillovers through knowledge based
festivals: the case of Mantua. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events,
Ponferrada, M. L. V. (2015). Evolución del turismo en España: el turismo cultural. International
Journal of Scientific Management and Tourism, 1(4), 75-95.
Ponzini, D., Fotev, S., & Mavaracchio, F. (2016). Place-making or place-faking? The paradoxical
effects of transnational circulation of architectural and urban development projects. In Russo,
A.P. and Richards, G. (eds) Reinventing the Local in Tourism: Producing, Consuming and
Negotiating Place. Bristol: Channel View, pp.153-170.
Popp, M. (2012). Positive and negative urban tourist crowding: Florence, Italy. Tourism
Geographies, 14(1), 50-72.
Ramkissoon, H., & Uysal, M. S. (2011). The effects of perceived authenticity, information
search behaviour, motivation and destination imagery on cultural behavioural intentions of
tourists. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(6), 537-562.
Redondo-Carretero, M., Camarero-Izquierdo, C., Gutiérrez-Arranz, A., & Rodríguez-Pinto, J.
(2017). Language tourism destinations: a case study of motivations, perceived value and
tourists’ expenditure. Journal of Cultural Economics, 41(2), 155-172.
Ren, C. (2010) Assembling the socio-material destination: An actor-network approach to
cultural tourism studies. In Richards, G., & Munsters, W. (Eds) Cultural Tourism Research
Methods. Wallingford: CABI, pp. 199-208.
Richards, G. & Russo, A.P. (2016). Synthesis and Conclusions: Towards a new geography of
tourism?. In Russo, A.P. and Richards, G. (eds) Reinventing the Local in Tourism: Producing,
Consuming and Negotiating Place. Bristol: Channel View, pp. 251-266.
Richards, G. (1996). Production and consumption of European cultural tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 23(2), 261-283.
Richards, G. (2001). Cultural Attractions and European Tourism. Wallingford: CABI.
Richards, G. (2003). What is Cultural Tourism? In: van Maaren, A. (ed.), Erfgoed voor Toerisme,
Weesp: Nationaal Contact Monumenten.
Richards, G. (2007). Cultural Tourism: Global and local perspectives. London: Routledge.
Richards, G. (2011). Creativity and tourism: The state of the art. Annals of Tourism Research,
Richards, G. (2014). Creativity and tourism in the city. Current issues in Tourism, 17(2), 119-
Richards, G. (2015). Evaluating the European capital of culture that never was: the case of
BrabantStad 2018. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 7(2), 118-133.
Richards, G. (2017). Tourists in their own city – considering the growth of a phenomenon.
Tourism Today, 16, 8-16.
Richards, G. (2018). The Creative Economy, Entertainment and Performance. In Chris Cooper,
Serena Volo, William C. Gartner and Noel Scott (eds) SAGE Handbook of Tourism
Management: Applications of Theories and Concepts to Tourism.
Richards, G., & Munsters, W. (2010). Cultural Tourism Research Methods. Cabi, 2010.
Richards, G., & van der Ark, L. A. (2013). Dimensions of cultural consumption among tourists:
Multiple correspondence analysis. Tourism Management, 37, 71-76.
Rodríguez Magda, R.M. (1989). La sonrisa de Saturno. Hacia una teoría transmoderna.
Barcelona: Anthropos Editorial.
Rodríguez Magda, R.M. (2011) Transmodernity: A New Paradigm. Transmodernity: Journal of
Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(1).
Russo, A.P. and Richards, G. (2016) Reinventing the Local in Tourism: Producing, Consuming
and Negotiating Place. Bristol: Channel View.
Sacco, P. & Blessi, G.T. (2007). European Culture Capitals and Local Development Strategies:
Comparing the Genoa and Lille 2004 Cases. Homo Oeconomicus, 24(1), 111–141.
Shin, Y. (2010). Residents' perceptions of the impact of cultural tourism on urban
development: The case of Gwangju, Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 15(4),
Stolarick, K. M., Denstedt, M., Donald, B., & Spencer, G. M. (2011). Creativity, tourism and
economic development in a rural context: The case of Prince Edward County. Journal of Rural
and Community Development, 5(1). http://journals.brandonu.ca/jrcd/article/view/353
Strannegård, L., & Strannegård, M. (2012). Works of art: Aesthetic ambitions in design hotels.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 1995-2012.
Stylianou-Lambert, T. (2011). Gazing from home: Cultural tourism and art museums. Annals of
Tourism Research, 38(2), 403-421.
Tokarchuk, O., Gabriele, R., & Maurer, O. (2017). Development of city tourism and well-being
of urban residents: A case of German Magic Cities. Tourism Economics, 23(2), 343-359.
Tomaselli, K. G. (Ed.). (2012). Cultural tourism and identity: Rethinking indigeneity. Leiden:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Tscheu, F., & Buhalis, D. (2016). Augmented reality at cultural heritage sites. In Inversini, A. &
Schegg, R. (eds) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016. Cham:
Springer, pp. 607-619.
UNWTO (2017) Definitions Committee on Tourism and Competitiveness (CTC).
UNWTO (2018) Report on Tourism and Culture Synergies. Madrid: UNWTO.
van der Duim, R., Ren, C., & Thór Jóhannesson, G. (2013). Ordering, materiality, and
multiplicity: Enacting Actor–Network Theory in tourism. Tourist Studies, 13(1), 3-20.
Van Dijk, P. A., & Kirk, A. (2007). Being somebody else: Emotional labour and emotional
dissonance in the context of the service experience at a heritage tourism site. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 14(2), 157-169.
Vong, L. T. N., & Ung, A. (2012). Exploring critical factors of Macau's heritage tourism: What
heritage tourists are looking for when visiting the city's iconic heritage sites. Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research, 17(3), 231-245.
Wanda George, E. (2010). Intangible cultural heritage, ownership, copyrights, and tourism.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(4), 376-388.
Wattanacharoensil, W., & Schuckert, M. (2016). Reviewing Thailand's master plans and
policies: implications for creative tourism?. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(10), 1045-1070.
Wiltshier, P., & Clarke, A. (2017). Virtual cultural tourism: Six pillars of VCT using co-creation,
value exchange and exchange value. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17(4), 372-383.
Winter, T. (2009). Asian tourism and the retreat of anglo-western centrism in tourism theory.
Current Issues in Tourism, 12(1), 21-31.
Wood, R.E. (1984) Ethnic tourism, the state and cultural change in Southeast Asia. Annals of
Tourism Research 11, 186-197.
Yang, L. (2011). Ethnic tourism and cultural representation. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2),
Yankholmes, A., & McKercher, B. (2015). Understanding visitors to slavery heritage sites in
Ghana. Tourism Management, 51, 22-32.
Zhu, Y. (2012). Performing heritage: Rethinking authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 39(3), 1495-1513.
Greg Richards is Professor of Placemaking and Events at Breda University and Professor of
Leisure Studies at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He has published widely in the fields of
cultural and creative tourism, and his recent books include the SAGE Handbook of New Urban
Studies (2017) and Small Cities with Big Dreams: Creative Placemaking and Branding Strategies
Figure 1: Cultural tourism publications 1990-2016 (source: Google scholar)
Cultural tourism publications 1990-2016