Tourism and migration: new relationships between production and consumption edited by C. M. Hall and...

Tourism and migration: new relationships betweenproduction and consumption

Allan M. WilliamsDepartment of Geography, University of Exeter, UK

C. Michael HallCentre for Tourism, University of Otago, New Zealand

Abstract

There is weak conceptualization of the differentiation between migration andtourism, which has contributed to relative neglect of the relationships betweenthese. This paper examines some of the major in�uences on these relationships,dividing them into two general but inter-linked categories: broad economic andsocial trajectories, and tourism factors. A number of speci�c forms of tourism-related migration are then examined in the context of these social and economictrajectories. The paper explores labour migration, return migration, entrepreneurialmigration, retirement migration, and the special feature of second homes. Itconcludes by emphasizing the need to place studies of the links between tourismand migration more �rmly into wider social science debates, and by setting outsome fruitful lines of future research.

Keywords: tourism, migration, entrepreneurship, second homes

Introduction

Mobility, which is one of the central preoccupations of contemporarygeography, takes many different forms including tourism and migration.This paper has two principal concerns – the overlaps between tourism

1461–6688 © Taylor & Francis 2000 Tourism Geographies 2(1), 2000, 5–27

and migration, and the relationships between them. There are alsode�nitional overlaps between these two social phenomena, not least asboth have been subject to chaotic conceptualization (Boyer 1997); de�n-itions provide the starting point for this paper.

Migration is ‘usually de�ned spatially as movement across the boundaryof an areal unit’ (Boyle et al. 1998: 34), and ‘it is generally agreed thatthere will be some permanence to a move described as a migration’ (Boyleet al. 1998: 35). The �rst of these is an arbitrary criterion given thediversity of processes which have produced boundaries. Internationalboundaries have some meaning given their territorial delimitation ofspheres of national government but, even if we dismiss some of theproblems raised by contested theories of globalization (see Hudson andWilliams 1998), there are still vast differences between migration within,for example, the United States or Australia and the many micro- andintermediate-scale states that constitute Europe. The second criterion isequally problematic, for there is no theoretically grounded de�nition of‘permanence’. Consequently, the migration literature resorts to such termsas temporary migrants, seasonal workers and nomads for particular formsof non-permanent migration (e.g. Skeldon 1997; Boyle et al. 1998), whilesome of the early academic tourism literature equated tourism to migra-tion (e.g. Wolfe 1967, 1982).

The de�nition of tourism presents another set of dif�culties. Burkart andMedlik (1981) provide a useful starting point for the discussion of how to conceptualize tourism, and this is further explored in Hall and Page(1999: 58–9). We can take three main features of tourism from this: itoccurs outside the normal place of residence, is of a ‘temporary short termcharacter, with the intention of returning home within a few days, weeksor months’, and ‘destinations are visited for purposes other than taking uppermanent residence or employment remunerated from within the placesvisited’. In short, this gives us a de�nition of tourism as an activity whichinvolves a stay of at least one night but of no more than a ‘few months’(see also World Tourism Organization 1991, 1996; United Nations 1994).Perhaps of greater value is the emphasis on the intention of returning home,and the purpose of not taking up permanent residence. However, this stillraises problems of arbitrary time limits, as well as of de�ning ‘permanence’:this can be set out in terms of motivation, legalistic residential requirements,or ad hoc time limits, all of which provide different data sets and analysesof tourism. Another aspect of the de�nition causes further dif�culties: the exclusion of ‘taking up employment remunerated from within the places visited’ serves to differentiate tourism from non-permanent labourmigration, but leaves a chaotic collection of other motivations related to the overnight stay. It also does not address the phenomenon of ‘migrant tourist workers’, who combine leisure, discovery and labourmarket participation, as epitomized by young backpacker tourists.

6 Will iams and Hall

This brief review underlines one of the starting points for this paper: the largely discrete literatures on tourism and migration have, atbest, marked out the core areas of their research concerns. The failure toconceptualize adequately and de�ne their �elds of enquiry has left asigni�cant area of overlap where there are blurred motivations, types ofmobility and duration of stay. It is a zone which is epitomized by thesemi-retired, consumption-orientated migrant who leads a peripatetic lifestyle, shifting between two or more homes. This form of mobility consti-tutes ‘circulation’ as opposed to migration. To date, there has beenrelatively little research on these groups, with the exception of theburgeoning literatures on counter-urbanization (e.g. Champion 1989;Halseth 1993; Sant and Simons 1993; Buller and Hoggart 1994; Halsethand Rosenberg 1995) and retirement migration (e.g. Murphy 1981;Mullins 1984, 1990; Hall 1990; Rogers et al. 1992; King et al. 1998;Williams et al. 1997). However, there has been a singular lack of atten-tion paid to the role of tourism in these new forms of migration, withsome exceptions (e.g., Monk and Alexander 1986; Myklebost 1989;Williams and Patterson 1998; Williams et al. 2000) and very few attemptsto disentangle the changing relationships between tourism and migrationwhich are inherent in the life courses of such individuals. Not only is this a potentially fruitful interface between different research traditions,but it also represents an increasingly important component of the newforms of mobility.

Tourism and migration: causal relationships

The second area of concern in this paper is the need to investigate broadsymbiotic relationships between tourism and migration. Many forms ofmigration generate tourism �ows, in particular through the geographicalextension of friendship and kinship networks. Migrants may become poles of tourist �ows, while they themselves become tourists in returningto visit friends and relations in their areas of origin. These ebbs and �ows of tourism are structured by the life course of the migrants, with eachtemporary or permanent round of migration creating a new spatial arrange-ment of friendship and kinship networks, which potentially represent vis-iting friends’ and relations’ tourism �ows (Jackson 1990; Dwyer et al. 1993;King 1994; Navarro and Turco 1994; Paci 1994; Braunlich and Nadkarni1995; King and Gamage 1995; Meis et al. 1995; Morrison et al. 1995;Morrison and O’Leary 1995; Seaton 1994; Seaton and Tagg 1995; Yuanet al. 1995). The extent to which these are activated depends both on net-work characteristics (their intensity, reciprocity and utilization of differentforms of sustaining contacts) and the particularities of place. There is in effect a motivational continuum with family/friend-centred goals and

Tourism and migrat ion relat ions hips 7

activities at one extreme, and place-orientated activities (with thefamily/friends effectively acting as providers of accommodation services) atthe other extreme.

Tourism may also generate migration �ows. Most obviously this isthrough the demand generated for labour which, if it cannot be met locally, will stimulate labour migration (Monk and Alexander 1986). Suchlabour mobility may be differentiated by nationality, gender, ethnicity andskills, depending on the particular features of the tourism industry, and the local labour market (King 1995). In addition, tourism maycontribute to de�ning the search spaces of migrants (Brown and Moore1970), whether these are labour, life style or retirement migrants(Snepenger et al. 1995).

There is nothing new in the existence of these symbiotic links betweentourism and migration. They can be traced back through time, on eventhe international scale, to at least the Grand Tour, when aristocratic visits from northern to southern Europe, provided the economic basis for attracting immigrants from the countries of origin to provide special-ized services for these niche national markets (Hamilton 1982). Similarly,Gerald Brennan’s long sojourn in Andalusia in the 1920s was punctuatedby a stream of visitors from England (see the account in Brennan 1987). However, a number of structural changes in consumption andproduction have led to intensi�cation and extensi�cation of these inter-relationships. Not only have the links between tourism and migrationbecome more important in determining mobility, but they are increasinglyexpressed on the international as opposed to the intra-national scale(Dwyer et al. 1993). The constraints of space mean that we can do nomore than provide a brief review of the determinants of these changes.Some of the more signi�cant changes in production and consumption are outlined below.

Broader economic and social trajectories

Increasingly volatile labour markets

The increasing uncertainty of growth in the developed world from the1970s, combined with shorter product cycles and more rapid technolog-ical change, has led to markedly greater labour market volatility. Careershave more discontinuities, and job changes have become more frequent.This has two important consequences. First, it contributes to the tendencytowards early retirement, thereby changing the scope for retirement migra-tion. Second, there has been increased labour mobility, both sectorally andspatially, that has contributed to the geographical dispersion of friendshipand family networks.


Globalization of labour markets

Economic globalization involves not only capital (Dicken 1998) but alsolabour (Aislabie et al. 1994; Dawkins et al. 1995). This encompasses bothunskilled and skilled workers (Castles and Miller 1993; Findlay andGarrick 1990) and has two main consequences. International labour migra-tion, especially of skilled workers (for reasons related to the elasticity ofdemand), has internationalized the potential tourism networks of visitingfriends and families. In addition, there are increasing numbers with expe-rience of working and living abroad, which both increases their searchspaces at retirement and removes the barrier of lack of familiarity withliving abroad.

The ageing of developed societies

Increased life expectancy and declining birth rates have led to a ‘greying’of the populations of the developed countries. For example, currently one in �ve Europeans is 60 years or older (United Nations, Division forSocial Policy 1998). The signi�cance of this is reinforced by changes inworking lives and retirement practices, and in income streams, which arediscussed below.

Changes in working lives and retirement

The combination of increasing life expectancy and shorter working careershave led to a marked increase in the numbers of people surviving to retire-ment, and the length of active retirement (Warnes 1993). This has increasedthe potential pool of retirement migrants as well as the size and spendingpower of the older age tourism market segment (Economist IntelligenceUnit 1993).

Changing national and regional identities

Migration �ows have also contributed to the continuous formation andreconstruction of national identities whether it be in terms of emigration(e.g. Ireland) or immigration (e.g. Argentina, Australia, Canada, NewZealand and the United States). Given the interrelationship of identity,image and place promotion, it should therefore not be surprising to seethe location of different ethnic and cultural groups in a particular placeas the subject of tourism promotion, whether it be with respect to theavailability of national and regional cuisines (e.g. Arce and Marsden 1993;


Cook and Crang 1996; Bessiére 1998; Hall and Mitchell 1998) or thecommodi�cation of entire locales, such as Chinatown. For example,Julesrosette (1994) argued with respect to Afro-Antillian Paris, that thetransformation of the locales of everyday life into tourist sights connectedwith the identity of a particular foreign ethnic population is part of theprocess of postmodern simulation in tourism.

Changing income streams

The post-war period of growth, combined with a once and for allredistribution of incomes in the 1950s in the ‘Golden Age of Welfare’ inEurope (Esping Andersen 1990), has greatly increased the disposableincome available for leisure purposes. This has contributed to the growthof, and the internationalization of, mass tourism (discussed below), whichin turn has created opportunities for labour migration. In addition, thespread of various forms of pension schemes (state, occupational andpersonal), together with capital accumulation through the property market(commonly house ownership or inherited property) has increased thewealth and income available in the retirement phase of the life course,facilitating various forms of tourism or tourism-related migration.

The re-evaluation of valued living and working environments

In most developed societies there has been a shift in fundamental valuesthat is sometimes argued to be associated with postmodernism. Amongst,others, there has been a rei�cation of nature, a nostalgia for real or imaginedpast lifestyles and landscapes, and environmentalism. This has contributedto the growth of new forms of tourism, some of which have centred onparticular types of rural destinations, such as the Dordogne and Tuscany.This, in turn, has in�uenced life style migration, of both the economicallyactive and the retired, to these bucolic rural regions which has led to formsof ‘rural gentri�cation’ (Phillips 1993; Riebsame et al. 1996). The searchfor valued rural environments, was epitomized by Robert Graves whostated that he had come to live in Mallorca in the 1920s because here the‘town was still town; and country, country; and where the horse ploughwas not yet an anachronism’ (Burns 1994). The �ight from modernity wasalso identi�ed by Buller and Hoggart (1994) as one of the key in�uenceson the international migration from the United Kingdom to France.Hoggart and Buller (1995) also noted that many French owners who wishedto sell their properties relied on France being seen as an extension of ‘British’rural housing markets, whereby purchasers could acquire a rural ‘dream’home that is not only unaffordable but also unattainable in Britain.


Transport and communications changes

The revolution in transport and communications in the second half of thetwentieth century has greatly shrunk the spaces of both production andconsumption. Even though we may not agree with Ohmae’ s (1995) viewof the borderless world, the barriers of space for mobility have been signif-icantly lowered. This has consequences for tourism in terms of facilitatingthe globalization of business and pleasure trips, and the enacting of visitingfriends and relatives networks. It also has implications for migration,particularly in enabling temporary migration and peripatetic life styles,and in the expansion of teleworking, with the latter tending to involvemigration to regions of valued landscapes, which are also attractive to(and partly de�ned by) tourism.

Tourism-related trajectories

Mass tourism

The remarkable expansion of mass tourism in the twentieth century hastwo important implications for migration. First, the scale and speed ofdestination and resort growth has implications for the dependence onmigrant as opposed to local labour. Second, it widened the search spacesof the �rst and subsequent generations of mass tourist as they progressedthrough the different stages of the life course. The subsequent shift tomore individualized and �exible forms of tourism consumption haschanged the nature of these search spaces, and led to the decline ofparticular tourist resorts, without as yet causing any marked change inwhat we may term large volume production of tourism services (i.e. large-scale production but not necessarily in the form of the traditional masstourism resort).

Internationalization of tourism markets

The mass tourism boom has been internationalized; this process wascontingent on place and time, but in Europe took place from the 1960s,at �rst supplementing but later challenging domestic mass tourism (Shawand Williams 1994). This effectively internationalized the two masstourism effects noted above. First the emergence of a series of new centresof mass tourism consumption, many of them rooted in areas of lowpopulation density but with the required attractions; these are epitomizedby, but are not limited to, the Spanish costas. This generated not onlygeneralized labour migration, but also segmented entrepreneurial and


labour �ows destined to serve particular national market segments. Second,it extended across international boundaries the potential search spaces oflarge segments of the populations of the more developed countries.

Internationalization of tourism capital

The growth of transnational tourism capital, although highly unevenbetween sectors and across space (Williams 1995), has created greater needfor skilled international migration, especially of senior management. Thisoperates both in terms of intra-company transfers, and inter-company careermoves. But the net effect in each case is similar in terms of generatingtourism-led skilled labour migration. Most unskilled labour recruitment isin�uenced by the generalized growth of tourism labour demand, rather thanby the recruitment/transfers effected by speci�c tourism capitals.

The above discussion only introduces some of the complex processeswhich have shaped tourism–migration relationships. The key to theirevolution lies in the interfacing of these broader societal changes withthose speci�c to the tourism sector. These are explored further in thefollowing section, by focusing on a number of particular forms of the relationship. Our comments are, of necessity, generalized, and furtheranalyses need to be sensitive to the contingencies of time and place.

Speci�c forms of tourism–migration relationships

In this section we focus on particular forms of tourism–migration rela-tionships, with two objectives in mind: �rst, to explore further some of theinterdependencies that have been identi�ed; and second, to demonstrate the limited research activity in this �eld. The relationships that are exam-ined here are: tourism and labour migration, tourism and entrepreneurialmigration, tourism and return migration, and tourism and retirementmigration. Tourism and retirement migration is a special sub-set of per-manent migration, where it involves long term migration with no intentionof returning. It is, however, a particularly interesting form of consumption-led migration as it exhibits various forms of permanent and temporarymigration, as well as dual residence (see Williams et al. 2000). A fulleraccount of some of the different forms of permanent migration, includingthose of working age, into tourism destinations can be found elsewhere (seeBuller and Hoggart 1994; Champion 1989; Salvà Tomàs 1996). Their linkswith tourism are in many ways similar to those for retirement migrants:de�nition of search spaces by tourism experiences, amenity seeking, andreliance on tourism infrastructures. Such migration has been increasing


in recent years and has been grounded on changes in value systems, and facilitated by teleworking. In many cases the differences betweenpermanent and labour migrants lies only in their initial goals: some labourmigrants decide not to return ‘home’ and so become permanent migrants,while some ‘permanent’ migrants eventually do decide to return. There are also �ner distinctions related to legal residence, citizenship, and thecreation of new forms of identities, but these rarely follow any simple rules, and invariably differ between destinations as well as differentnationalities. Some of the observations in the following discussion of labour migration therefore partly apply to permanent migrants.

Tourism and labour migration

Tourism employment has particular characteristics stemming from thespatial and temporal �xity of tourism consumption (Shaw and Williams1994). Tourism services have to be experienced in situ, and (in mostsenses) they are not spatially transferable and cannot be deferred (Urry1987). This implies that the tourism labour force has to be assembled insitu at the point of consumption and, moreover, is available at particulartime periods. The nature of demand is such that a labour force is requiredwith suf�cient �exibility to meet daily, weekly and seasonal �uctuations.While visitor management strategies and technology can be used to reducethe variance in demand, labour forces have to be assembled at particularpoints in space and time.

The extent to which these production and consumption conditionsgenerate migration �ows, rather than reliance on local labour, is contin-gent on a number of factors, both intrinsic to the tourism developmentand to the locality. Two prime considerations are the scale of demand,and the speed of tourism development; the latter conditions the extent towhich labour can be transferred from other sectors of the localeconomy/society. In addition, the degree of enclavism or spatial polari-zation is important, with dependency on migration likely to be positivelycorrelated with this. For example, Barker (1982) demonstrates how skifacilities are more likely to be integrated into existing settlements in the eastern than the western Alps, with the consequence that there isgreater reliance on indigenous labour. Over time the spatial form oftourism consumption and production is in constant �ux. There is generalagreement that there has been a shift in recent decades from mass to moreindividualized and �exible forms of consumption, related to changes inparticular market segments and products (Williams and Montanari 1995).Even though this tendency is often exaggerated, it tends to produce amore dispersed spatial pattern of consumption, and the potential to relymore on local than on migrant labour (Williams and Gillmor 1995).


In addition, local demographic, social and economic structures conditionthe availability of local labour and the requirement for in-migration.Comparative wage differences, levels of education and training, workingconditions and job status in tourism and other sectors all in�uence theavailability of workers, as also does the overall level of unemployment.For example, the availability of better paid and higher status jobs in othersectors has conditioned the requirement for immigrant labour in the Swisstourist industry (King 1995). Similarly, in Australia the rapid developmentof international visitor arrivals in the 1980s, combined with low levels of local trained and skilled staff, led to a labour shortage that was met through permanent immigration and temporary work-permits forappropriately skilled foreign staff. In the 1980s net immigrationcontributed some 30–40% of skilled chefs and cooks and some 20–25%of catering managers in hotels and clubs (Industries Assistance Commission1989). The dif�culty in securing the services of teachers of tourism andhospitality also led to many Australian educational institutions recruitingstaff from overseas (Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism 1985).However, the often heated immigration debate in Australia, union oppo-sition to the import of overseas personnel, and the argument for a policyof self-suf�ciency in tourism resources (Department of Employment,Education and Training 1988; Department of Tourism 1992), meant thatgovernment and industry attention increasingly focused on the develop-ment of tourism training and the creation of a domestic labour pool(Industry Commission 1995).

Finally, the degree of temporal polarization is also signi�cant, for thedemands for in-migration are likely to be greatest in large-scale, single-peak seasonal destinations. All else being equal, the lack of alternativejobs, outside the peak period, will either result in seasonal unemploymentin the local labour market or reliance on seasonal labour migrants.Valenzuela’s (1998) work on Spain, for example, demonstrates sharpregional differences in the temporal polarization of demand, although thereis a lack of empirical evidence on how this relates to migration. Overtime, there has been a general increase in the relative importance of inter-national tourism-led labour migration, at least within Europe (King 1995).In part this is due to the relative stagnation of labour demand in othersectors of the economy since the 1970s, but it also re�ects the status oftourism as one of the few consistent growth sectors of the late twentiethcentury. Tourism labour migrants also tend to be found in the informalsector and to be female.

Thus far we have referred to tourism labour migration as a homoge-neous process, but it is in fact highly segmented. King (1995) identi�es ahierarchy of labour migrants in respect to tourism. In the �rst rank areskilled managerial posts, typically found in the upper enclaves of majorinternational hotels, and local branches of leading airlines. It can be


hypothesized that there will be greater reliance on immigrants to �ll suchposts in less developed economies where there are speci�c shortages ofhuman capital (Hall and Page 1997). The second rank is composed ofintermediate posts such as tour guides and agency representatives, wherethe ability to speak the language of international tourists, and even toshare their nationality (if only for the purpose of consumer reassurance)is considered critical. Finally, the third level of the hierarchy constitutesunskilled labour which is relatively common, given low entry thresholdsto most tourist jobs (Williams and Shaw 1988). The pay and workingconditions of each of these three ranks in the hierarchy is likely to bevaried, as also are the national origins of the streams of migrants. Forexample, although research is limited, there is evidence that in the Paci�cislands, core positions are often taken by expatriate workers while ‘peri-pheral’ positions are taken by indigenous employees (Minerbi 1992; Halland Page 1997). This represents a double-edged sword for Paci�c islandcommunities. On one side there is the possibility of resentment developingbetween core and peripheral workers, and the dif�culties associated with underemployment and seasonal unemployment. On the other side,opportunities are created for local people, and women in particular, toobtain paid labour while maintaining traditional roles (Auger-Andrews1995).

Tourism-related labour migration streams are also differentiated by gen-der, although as King (1995) notes there are consistent differences in thisrespect in relation to nationality and country of destination. Many tourismjobs are socially constructed as ‘men’s’ or ‘women’s work’, and this is duepartly to wider systems of gendered inequalities in the labour market andin the home, as well as to tourism-speci�c factors (Burrell et al. 1997).There is both horizontal and vertical segregation in labour markets, andmany immigrant women workers face the dual obstacles of their gender and their migrant status in seeking to improve their labour marketposition.

The signi�cance of migration in tourism labour markets stems fromthree main features. First, it serves to �ll absolute shortages of labour.This function is likely to be greatest in areas of rapid tourism expansionor where tourism is highly spatially polarized. However, the �rst two levelsof the migration hierarchy may also function to �ll particular employ-ment niches, even where there are no generalized labour shortages. Second,the availability of migrant labour reduces labour market pressures, and consequently wage in�ation pressures. Third, labour migration cancontribute to labour market segmentation, and especially where the divi-sions are along racial/ethnic or legal/illegal lines this can serve to reducethe costs of labour to �rms (Venturini 1992; Montanari and Cortese 1993).In short, labour migration serves to ensure that the process of tourismcapital accumulation is not undermined.


Labour migration also serves two other functions with respect totourism. The �rst of these is the generation of visits to friends and visitors,with the potential for �ows in both directions. These are likely to be ofmore signi�cance for the two upper ranks of the migration hierarchy,given the limited effective demand of unskilled tourism workers as a resultof their low incomes. Second, labour migration experiences help to de�nethe search spaces of both retirement migrants, as King et al. (1998) haveshown with respect to retirement from the UK to southern Europe, andof life-style seeking labour migrants, as Champion (1989) demonstratesin a review of counter-urbanization tendencies.

Tourism and return migration

Labour migration is part of a cycle of emigration (King 1984), and manymigrants are involved in one or more cycles of emigration and return.This type of �uidity is facilitated by changes in transport technology which have contributed to the ‘ shrinking of space’. Whereas the earlytwentieth century transatlantic emigrant from southern Europe was likelyto be a lifetime migrant, perhaps never returning to his or her homeland,the early twenty-�rst century migrant is likely to be a frequent returnvisitor, as is evidenced by the annual swelling of population numbers andthe presence of foreign cars at village festivals during the summer (Cavaco1993). This in itself is an important source of tourism, particularly giventhe remote and relatively impoverished nature of many of the regions oforigin of the emigrants (King 1984).

In addition, however, there are ‘permanent’ return �ows to many coun-tries of origin. According to Cerase’s (1974) widely quoted study of Italianemigrants to North America, the motivations for return are diverse, andencompass ‘retirement’, ‘success’ and ‘failure’. There are also at least twospatially differentiated streams of return: the return to origin, and a ruralurban drift amongst those seeking a wider range of employment and indi-vidual and collective consumption opportunities (Lewis and Williams1986). These motivational and spatial differences are signi�cant in medi-ating the impact of return migrants on the tourism sector.

In general, (unskilled) return migrants, irrespective of the sector that they worked in abroad, tend to acquire few industrial skills, but they may return with �nancial capital (savings) and human capital (foreign language skills). They generally prefer employment or investmentin the service sector and being self-employed or small-scale business owners (King 1984). As King (1986: 21) comments, ‘going to Germanyseems to convert peasants into petty traders’. Low entry barriers andcultural factors (life style aspirations) attract many returnees to the tourismsector.


There is surprisingly little research on this topic, but three studies canbe noted. First, King et al. (1984) showed that most tourism enterprisesin Amantea in Calabria had been established by return migrants. Second,Mendonsa (1982) demonstrated that return migrants in Nazaré in Portugalhad higher incomes than non-migrants, because they used their accumu-lated capital to purchase houses and rooms to rent to tourists. And third,Kenna (1993) identi�ed the key role played by return migrants in devel-oping the tourism industry in Ana� in the Cyclades; they had access tocapital, some foreign language skills, and used local networks to secureboth supplies and political favours.

Tourism and entrepreneurial migration

In some ways tourism entrepreneurial migration constitutes a special caseof both life-style seeking migration and of labour migration. It may assumeone of three different forms. First, entrepreneurial migration may servedistinctive national tourist groups or resident communities in foreigndestinations. Eaton (1995), for example, has analysed the role of Britishentrepreneurial migrants in restaurants and bars serving (mainly) Britishtourists in the Costa del Sol. Madden (1999) has also analysed British-and Irish-owned businesses in the Costa del Sol; she proposes a �ve-foldclassi�cation based on legality of the business, ‘visibility’ of the businessand the legality of the migration. The migration decisions of the vastmajority of the business owners had been motivated by life style or socialreasons, and ‘good business prospects’ in�uences only 8% of respondents.Entrepreneurial migration is not, of course, restricted to the Costa delSol, and there are large numbers of British and other foreign entrepre-neurs in most major tourism destinations in southern Europe, serving notonly the tourists but also the resident expatriate communities. Similarly,Korean migration to Australia and New Zealand in recent years has coin-cided with the entrepreneurial opportunities provided by a substantialincreases in Korean travel to those countries. In both cases, while someentrepreneurs have privileged access to particular (familiar) goods andservices demanded by tourists and residents, their main comparative advan-tage is a shared language and, to some extent, a shared culturalbackground.

Second, major (mass) tourist markets provide opportunities for anytourist entrepreneurs, irrespective of nationality. These �ows operate atboth the national and the international level. For example, Williams et al. (1989) demonstrate the importance of tourism (both in de�ningsearch spaces and creating opportunities) for tourism entrepreneurs inCornwall, England; only a third had been born in the county and morethan a third had been attracted to the area by its attractions as an arena


for consumption. A different example is provided by the Senegalese streettraders who line the tourist circuits in most of the major tourist destina-tions in Italian cities (King 1995).

A third group of entrepreneurial migrants are the amenity-seekers, whoare attracted to live in tourist areas but not speci�cally to be tourismentrepreneurs. Snepenger et al. (1995) provide a case study of such entre-preneurial migration in the Greater Yellowstone district in Montana. Theyconsidered recreational, community and natural environment factors tobe more important than business factors as ‘business location values’.

Tourism and retirement migration

Retirement migration constitutes a special case of the more general cate-gory of consumption-led migration. In common with life-style-seekinglabour migrants, they are part of a generalized counter-urbanizationtendency which has been a major feature of demographic shifts in themore developed countries. Unlike most labour migrants (teleworkers arean exception) they are not however dependent on employment opportu-nities and local economic structures.

This group poses some of the greatest de�nitional challenges in respectof differentiating tourists from migrants. One approach is to use the criteriaof property rights and length of residence to de�ne a typology of retire-ment migrants/tourists (King et al. 2000). The critical length of residenceis that which invokes legal requirements of registration, and associatedrights and responsibilities; this is usually, but not invariably, a period ofsix months for foreigners resident in western European countries. In prac-tice, there is evidence of widespread evasion of such requirements.However, a four-fold classi�cation can be proposed on the basis of thesecriteria (King et al. 2000: chapter two): seasonal (long stay) tourists, whousually rent accommodation; second home owners (mostly short stays);seasonal migration which is relatively long and may or may not requirelegal registration; and permanent migration which usually involves prop-erty ownership and legal registration.

O’Reilly (1995) provides an alternative �ve-fold typology based on senseof commitment and relative orientation to host and origin country,including the distribution of time between these. Her �ve categories are:expatriates (permanent, identify with host country); residents (in terms oforientation and legal status, but seasonally visit the country of origin for2–5 months); seasonal visitors (orientated to the country of origin, andspend 2–6 months at the destination each year); returners (usually secondhome owners, who visit irregularly); and tourists (identify with the area as a holiday destination). The different typologies have their relativemerits, but perhaps the key point which they emphasize is the complexity


of de�ning retirement migrants, and of differentiating them from othervisitors or migrants.

The reasons for the rapid growth of international retirement migrationfrom northern Europe to southern Europe, and from Canada and the USAto selected Caribbean islands (and from the former to Florida) are reviewedelsewhere (Longino 1992; Williams et al. 1997; Rodríguez et al. 1998).In brief, they include an ageing population, extension of active old age,increased but polarized disposable income, changing working and retire-ment patterns, and increased familiarity with the ‘ global’ through workand leisure. There are also far more extensive patterns of intra-nationalretirement migration (Law and Warnes 1976; Rogers et al. 1992; Neylandand Kendig 1996). The three main motivations (after Cribier 1993) forretirement migration are family re-uni�cation, a return to roots (areas oforigin) and the seeking out of leisure spaces (search spaces informed bytourism experiences).

Second homes

There is signi�cant conceptual blurring of the boundaries between thedifferent forms of migration at both the international and domestic levelwith respect to the second home, one of the most researched interfacesbetween tourism and migration (Wolfe 1951, 1952, 1970; Bell 1977;Coppock 1977; Whyte 1978; Dingsdale 1986). Life-style choice has beenrecognized as being a signi�cant factor in migration and residential relo-cation behaviour, especially at particular stages in the household orindividual life-cycles (Nijkamp et al. 1993; Shelley and Koven 1993).Migration to rural areas (Davis et al. 1994; Riebsame et al. 1996) or therural hinterland of urban areas (e.g. Gober et al. 1993; Halseth 1993) istypically associated with a desire of migrants to satisfy life-style choicesoften related to recreation and leisure amenity values, including amenitylandscapes.

Such behaviour may have signi�cant implications for existing agricul-tural activity which may be in con�ict with the idealized perceptions ofrurality held by both permanent life-style migrants and non-permanentsecond home owners. For example, the price of agricultural land may bein�ated by high demand from ‘life-stylers’ migrating from urban centres,while rural gentri�cation may lead to fragmented land ownership andincreased human presence and disturbance of local ecosystems (Riebsameet al. 1996). In such situations, local populations and migrants (secondhome, temporary and permanent) may occupy a ‘shared but separate’geographic space with substantial implications for local community insti-tutions (Halseth 1993; Lowe et al. 1993; Phillips 1993), includingenvironmental and political issues (Halseth and Rosenberg 1995; Ward


et al. 1995) and longer-term sustainability (Flynn and Marsden 1995).For example, viticultural practices (including the use of bird-scarers andhelicopters) may not be welcome by second home owners who are attractedby tranquil images of vineyards in pleasant rural areas. In New Zealandthe noise from such activities has come to be opposed by a number ofresidents (including second home owners) in some grape-growing areas,leading to attempts to control the use of helicopters (Hall and Johnson1998). Second homes, perhaps more than most forms of tourism migra-tion/settlement, therefore tend to be the focus of contested space issues.

Conclusions

Tourism–migration relationships are important for understanding not onlythis nexus, but also the two separate processes in their own right.Furthermore, the focus on tourism–migration relationships emphasizes theneed to set our analyses in the context of contemporary global economicand political processes, and the circulation of capital and labour.

With the exception of second home development, the relationshipbetween tourism and migration has been relatively neglected in tourismstudies, and this applies especially to the grey zone of the complex formsof mobility which lie on a continuum between permanent migration andtourism. But it applies also to the determinants and consequences of labourand entrepreneurial migration, and to the impact of retirement and secondhome growth on resort destination. Although Foster and Murphy (1991)have examined the modi�cation of the resort cycle by second home devel-opment, there is a need for a long-term comparative study of thisphenomenon. For example, in a number of New Zealand rural centres,second homes have gradually become transformed into permanent retire-ment settlements and have also served as the base for the developmentof more substantial tourism resorts (Kearsley 1998). In the same way thatmass tourism destinations have entered a period of decline, questions needto be asked of the potential transformations of second home and retire-ment settlements as populations undergo substantial demographic andlife-style change.

One of the important consequences of the analysis of the relationshipbetween tourism and migration is that it provides an opportunity fortourism researchers to relate to and contribute to the work of other socialscientists. A number of important inter-disciplinary themes can be identi-�ed for research which will require that these broader theoretical andmethodological links are explored. Some of the more fruitful of these,include: the relationship between the life course and migration pathwaysof individuals, and their travel careers; the role of family and friendshipnetworks in VFR tourism (but see Williams et al. 2000); the role of


government and governance in in�uencing tourism and migration, andhow some migrants can exploit gaps in the regulation of tourism; thedistribution and mutual interaction of the cultural/economic/environmentalimpacts of both tourism and tourism-related migration; the role of tourismand migration in creating and recreating identities, and personal and placeimages.

The complex links between tourism and migration are likely to becomeeven more intricate in the future as changes occur in the nature of work,leisure and family organization. Space is being used in new and moreimaginative ways for both production and consumption, and this ofteninvolves transborder movements and transactions which exploit placedifferences. In another context – the ownership and control of transna-tional capital – Reich (1989) has argued that it is increasingly dif�cult tosay ‘who is us’. New trends in tourism and migration similarly make itdif�cult to determine ‘where is home, what is our identity and why arewe here?’.

Acknowledgement:

Allan Williams gratefully acknowledges the support provided by the BritishAcademy in attending the 1999 AAAG conference, which provided anopportunity for the development of this paper in collaboration withMichael Hall.

References

Aislabie, C., Lee, J. and Stanton, J. 1994. Australian Cultural Diversity and ExportGrowth. Canberra: Of�ce of Multicultural Affairs.

Arce, A. and Marsden, T. 1993. The social construction of international food: anew research agenda. Economic Geography 69(3): 293–311.

Auger-Andrews, M.L. 1995. A human dimension of tourism: the impact of hoteland resort workers on the attitudes of Fijian working mothers. UnpublishedM.A. thesis. Suva: University of the South Paci�c.

Barker, M.L. 1982. Traditional landscapes and mass tourism in the Alps.Geographical Review 72: 395–415.

Bell, M. 1977. The spatial distribution of second homes: a modi�ed gravity model.Journal of Leisure Research 9(3): 225–232.

Bessiére, J. 1998. Local development and heritage: traditional food and cuisine astourist attractions in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis 38(1): 21–34.

Boyer, M. 1997. Tourism: a special epistemology. Loisir & Societe 20(2): 455–77.Boyle, P.J., Halfacree, K.H. and Robinson, V. 1998. Exploring Contemporary

Migration. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.Braunlich, C.G. and Nadkarni, N. 1995. The importance of the VFR market to

the hotel industry. Journal of Tourism Studies 6(1): 38–47.Brennan, G. 1987. The Face of Spain. Harmondsworth: Penguin.


Brown, L.A. and Moore, E.G. 1970. The intra-urban migration process: aperspective. Geogra�ska Annaler 52b: 1–13.

Buller, H. and Hoggart, K. 1994. International Counterurbanization: BritishMigrants in Rural France. Aldershot: Avebury.

Burkart, A. and Medlik, S. 1981. Tourism Past, Present and Future. London:Heinemann.

Burns, J. 1994. Spain a Literary Companion. London: John Murray.Burrell, J., Manfredi, S. and Rollin, H. 1997. Equal opportunities for women

employees in the hospitality industry: a comparison between France, Italy,Spain and the UK. International Journal of Hospitality Management 16(2):161–79.

Castles, S. and Miller, M.J. 1993. The Age of Migration. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Cavaco, C. 1993. A place in the sun: return migration and rural change in Portugal.

In Mass Migration in Europe: the Legacy and the Future, ed. R. King, pp. 174–91. London: Belhaven.

Cerase, F.P. 1974. Migration and social change: expectations and reality. A studyof return migration from the United States to Italy. International MigrationReview. 8: 245–62.

Champion, A. G. (ed.) 1989. Counterurbanization: the Changing Pace and Natureof Population Deconcentration. London: Edward Arnold.

Cook, I. and Crang, P. 1996. The world on a plate: culinary cultures, displace-ment and geographical knowledges. Journal of Material Culture 1(2): 131–53.

Coppock, J.T. (ed.) 1977. Second Homes: Curse or Blessing? Oxford: PergamonPress.

Cribier 1993. La fonction d’Accueil des Retraités Citadins en Milieu Rural et sonEvolution Probable. Paris: Université de Paris VII CNRS Equipe de GéographieSociale et Gérontologie.

Davis, T.S., Nelson, A.C. and Dueker, K.T. 1994. The new burbs: the exurbs andtheir implications for planning policy. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 60(1): 45–59.

Dawkins, P., Kemo, S. and Cabalu, H. 1995. Trade and Investment with EastAsia in Selected Service Industries: The Role of Immigrants. Canberra: Bureauof Immigration and Population.

Department of Employment, Education and Training. 1988. Training for theHospitality Sector of the Tourism Industry. Canberra: Department ofEmployment, Education and Training.

Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. 1985. Tourism Training inAustralia, Report of the Tourism Training Review Group. Canberra:Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism.

Department of Tourism 1992. Tourism Australia’s Passport to Growth: A NationalTourism Strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Tourism.

Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift (3rd edn) London: Paul Chapman. Dingsdale, A. 1986. Ideology and leisure under socialism: The geography of second

homes in Hungary. Leisure Studies 5: 35–55.Dwyer, L., Burnley, I., Forsyth, P. and Murphy, P. 1993. Tourism–Immigration

Interrelationships. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Eaton M. 1995. British expatriate service provision in Spain’s Costa del Sol.

Services Industries Journal 15: 251–66.Economist Intelligence Unit 1993. Europe’s senior travel market. Travel and

Tourism Analyst 4: 37–56, Economist Intelligence Unit, London.Esping Anderson G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge:

Polity.


Findlay, A. and Garrick, L. 1990. Scottish emigration in the 1990s: a migrationchannels approach to the study of skilled international migration. Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers 15: 177–92.

Flynn, A. and Marsden, T.K. 1995. Rural change, regulation and sustainability.Environment and Planning A 27: 1180–92.

Foster, D.M. and Murphy, P. 1991. Resort cycle revisited: the retirement connec-tion. Annals of Tourism Management 18: 553–67.

Gober, P., McHugh, K.E. and Leclerc, D. 1993. Job-rich but housing poor: thedilemma of a western amenity town. Professional Geography 45(1): 12–20.

Hall, C.M. 1990. From cottage to condominiums: tourism, recreation and regionaldevelopment in northern New South Wales. In Change and Adjustment inNorthern New South Wales, ed. J. Walmsley, pp. 85–99. Armidale:Department of Geography and Planning, University of New England.

Hall, C.M. and Johnson, G. 1998. Wine and food tourism in New Zealand: dif�-culties in the creation of sustainable tourism business networks. In RuralTourism Management: Sustainable Options, Conference Proceedings, eds. D. Hall and L. O’Hanlon. Auchenvyre: Scottish Agricultural College.

Hall, C.M. and Mitchell, R. 1998. ‘We are what we eat’: Tourism, culture andthe globalisation and localisation of cuisine. Paper presented at the ATLASConference, Crete, October.

Hall, C.M. and Page, S. (eds) 1997. Tourism in the Paci�c: Issues and Cases.London: International Thomson Business Press.

Hall. C.M. and Page, S. 1999. Geography of Tourism and Recreation:Environment, Place and Space. London: Routledge.

Halseth, G. 1993. Communities with communities: changing residential areas atCulthus Lake, British Columbia. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(2): 175–87.

Halseth, G. and Rosenberg, M.W. 1995. Cottagers in an urban �eld. ProfessionalGeographer 47(2): 148–59.

Hamilton, O. 1982. The Divine Country: the British in Tuscany 1372–1980.London: André Deutsch.

Hoggart, K. and Buller, H. 1995. British home owners and housing change inrural France. Housing Studies 10(2): 179–98.

Hudson, R. and Williams, A.M. 1998. Re-shaping Europe: the challenge of new divi-sions within a homogenized politico-economic space. In Divided Europe: Societyand Territory, ed. R. Hudson and A.M. Williams, pp. 1–28. London: Sage.

Industries Assistance Commission. 1989. Travel and Tourism, Report No.423.Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Industry Commission. 1995. Tourism Accommmodation and Training. Melbourne:Industry Commission.

Jackson, R.T. 1990. VFR tourism: is it underestimated? Journal of Tourism Studies1(2): 10–17.

Julesrosette, B. 1994. Black Paris: touristic simulations. Annals of TourismResearch 21(4): 679–700.

Kearsley, G.W. 1998. Rural tourism in Otago and Southland, New Zealand. InTourism and Recreation in Rural Areas, ed. R. Butler, C.M. Hall and J. Jenkins, pp. 81–95. Chichester: Wiley.

Kenna, M.E. 1993. Return migrants and tourism development: an example fromthe Cyclades Journal of Modern Greek Studies 11(1): 75–95.

King, B. 1994. What is ethnic tourism? An Australian perspective. TourismManagement 15(3): 173–6.

King, B.E.M. and Gamage, M.A. 1995. Measuring the value of the ethnic connec-tion: expatriate travelers from Australia to Sri Lanka. Journal of TravelResearch 33(2): 46–50.


King, R. 1984. Population mobility: emigration, return migration and internalmigration. In Southern Europe Transformed: Political and Economic Changein Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, ed. A. M. Williams, pp. 145–78. London:Harper and Row.

King, R. 1986. Return migration and regional economic development: an overview.In Return Migration and Regional Economic Problems, ed. R. King, pp. 1–37.London: Croom Helm.

King, R. 1995. Tourism, labour and international migration. In European Tourism:Regions, Spaces and Restructuring, ed. A. Montanari and A.M. Williams, pp. 177–90. Chichester: Wiley.

King, R., Mortimer, J. and Strachan, A. 1984. Return migration and tertiarydevelopment: a Calabrian case study. Anthropological Quarterly 57: 112–24.

King, R., Warnes, A.M. and Williams A.M. 1998. International retirement migra-tion in Europe. International Journal of Population Geography 4(2): 91–112.

King, R., Warnes, A.M. and Williams A.M. 2000. Sunset Lives: British Retirementto Southern Europe. Oxford: Berg.

Law, C. and Warnes, A.M. 1976. The changing geography of the elderly in Englandand Wales. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers New Series1: 453–71.

Lewis, J.R., and Williams, A.M. 1986. The economic impact of return migrationin Central Portugal. In Return Migration and Regional Economic Problems,ed. R. King, pp. 100–28 Chichester: Wiley.

Longino, C.F. 1992. The forest and the trees: micro-level considerations in thestudy of geographic mobility in old age. In Elderly Migration and PopulationRedistribution, ed. A. Rogers, W.H. Frey, P.H. Rees, A. Speare and A.M.Warnes. pp. 23–34. London: Belhaven.

Lowe, P., Murdoch, J., Marsden, T., Munton, R. and Flynn, A. 1993. Regulatingthe new rural spaces: the uneven development of land. Journal of Rural Studies9(3): 205–22.

Madden, L. 1999. Making money in the sun: the development of British- andIrish-owned businesses in the Costa del Sol. Brighton: University of Sussex,Research Papers in Geography 36.

Meis, S., Joyal, S. and Trites, A. 1995. The US repeat and VFR visitor to Canada:come again, eh! Journal of Tourism Studies 6(1): 27–37.

Mendonsa, E. 1982. Bene�ts of migration as a personal strategy in Nazaré,Portugal. International Migration Review 16(3): 635–45.

Minerbi, L. 1992. Impacts of Tourism Development in Paci�c Islands. SanFrancisco: Greenpeace Paci�c Campaign.

Monk, J. and Alexander, C. 1986. Free port fallout: gender, employment andmigration on Margarita Island. Annals of Tourism Research 13: 393–413.

Montanari, A. and Cortese, A. 1993. Third World immigrants in Italy. MassMigrations in Europe – the Legacy and the Future. London: Belhaven.

Morrison, A.M. and O’Leary, J.T. 1995. The VFR market: desperately seekingrespect. Journal of Tourism Studies 6(1): 2–5.

Morrison, A.M., Hsieh, S. and O’Leary, J.T. 1995. Segmenting the visiting friendsand relatives market by holiday activity participation. Journal of TourismStudies 6(1): 48–63.

Mullins, P. 1984. Hedonism and real estate: resort tourism and Gold Coast devel-opment. In Con�ict and Development, ed. P. Williams, pp. 31–50. Sydney:Allen and Unwin.

Mullins, P. 1990. Tourist cities as new cities: Australia’s Gold Coast and SunshineCoast. Australian Planner 28(3): 37–41.


Murphy, P.A. 1981. Patterns of coastal retirement migration. In Towards an Older Australia, ed. A. Howe, pp. 301–14. St. Lucia: University of QueenslandPress.

Myklebost, H. 1989. Migration of elderly Norwegians. Norsk Geogra�skTijdsskrift 43: 191–213.

Navarro, R.L. and Turco, D. 1994. Segmenting of the visiting friends and rela-tives travel market. Visions in Leisure and Business 13(1): 4–16.

Neyland, B. and Kendig, H. 1996. Retirement migration to the coast. In PopulationShift: Mobility and Change in Australia, ed. P.W. Newton and M. Bell. pp. 364–77. Canberra: AGPS.

Nijkamp, P., Vanwissen, L. and Rima, A. 1993. A household life-cycle model forresidential relocation behavior. Socio-economic Planning Sciences 27(1):35–53.

Ohmae, K. 1995. The End of the Nation State. New York: Free Press.O’Reilly, K. 1995. A new trend in European migration: contemporary British

migration to Fuengirola, Costa del Sol. Geographical Viewpoint 23: 25–36.

Paci, E. 1994. Market segments: the major international VFR markets. EIU Travel& Tourism Analyst 6: 36–50.

Phillips, M. 1993. Rural gentri�cation and the processes of class colonization.Journal of Rural Studies 9(2): 123–40.

Reich, R. 1989. Roads to follow: regulating direct foreign investment. InternationalOrganization 43: 543–584.

Riebsame, W.E., Gosnell, H. and Theobold, D.M. 1996. Land use and landscapechange in the Colorado Mountains 1: theory, scale and pattern. MountainResearch and Development 16(4): 395–405.

Rodríguez, V., Fernándea-Mayoralas, G. and Rojo, F. 1998. European retirees onthe Costa del Sol: a cross national comparison. International Journal ofPopulation Geography 4(1): 183–200.

Rogers, A., Frey, W.H., Rees, P.H., Speare, A. and Warnes, A.M. (eds) 1992.Elderly Migration and Population Redistribution: A Comparative Study.London: Belhaven Press.

Salvà Tomàs, P. A. 1996. The Balearic Islands: a new ‘California’ for the Europeanpeople. Paper presented to the 28th International Geographical UnionCongress, Den Haag, 4–10 August.

Sant, M. and Simons, P. 1993. Counterurbanization and coastal development inNew South Wales. Geoforum 24(3): 291–306.

Seaton, A.V. 1994. Are relatives friends? Reassessing the VFR category insegmenting tourism markets. In Tourism: The State of the Art, ed. A.V. Seaton,R. Wood, P. Dieke and C. Jenkins, pp. 316–21. Chichester: Wiley.

Seaton, A.V. and Tagg, S. 1995. Disaggregating friends and relatives in VFRtourism research: the Northern Ireland evidence 1991–1993. Journal ofTourism Studies 6(1): 6–18.

Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 1994. Critical Issues in Tourism: A GeographicalPerspective. Oxford: Blackwells.

Shelley, M.C. and Koven, S.G. 1993. Interstate migration: a test of competinginterpretations. Policy Studies Journal 21(2): 243–61.

Skeldon, R. 1997. Migration and Development: A Global Perspective. Harlow:Addison Wesley Longman.

Snepenger, D., Johnson, J.D. and Rasker, R. 1995. Travel-stimulated entrepre-neurial migration. Journal of Travel Research 34(1): 40–4

United Nations. 1994. Recommendations on Tourism Statistics. New York: UnitedNations.


United Nations, Division for Social Policy. 1998. World Population Projections to2150. New York: United Nations.

Urry, J. 1987. Some social and spatial aspects of services. Society and Space 5: 5–26.Valenzuela, M. 1998. Spain: from the phenomenon of mass tourism to the search

for a more diversi�ed model. In Tourism and Economic Development:European Experiences, ed. A.M. Williams and G. Shaw, pp. 43–74. Chichester:Wiley.

Venturini, M. 1992. Immigration et marché du travail en Italie: données récentes.Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales 8: 145–61.

Ward, N., Lowe, P., Seymour, S. and Clark, J. 1995. Rural restructuring and theregulation of farm pollution. Environment and Planning A 27: 1193–211.

Warnes, A.M. 1993. Demographic ageing: trends and policy response. In TheChanging Population of Europe, ed. D. Noin and R. Woods, pp. 82–99.Oxford: Blackwell.

Whyte, D. 1978. Have second homes gone into hibernation? New Society 45:286–8.

Williams, A.M. 1995. Capital and the transnationalisation of tourism. In EuropeanTourism: Regions, Spaces and Restructuring, ed. A. Montanari and A.M.Williams, pp. 163–76. Chichester: Wiley.

Williams, A.M. and Gillmor, D.A. 1995. In European Tourism: Regions, Spacesand Restructuring, ed. A. Montanari and A.M. Williams, pp. 67–86.Chichester: Wiley.

Williams, A.M., King. R. and Warnes, A.M. 1997. A place in the sun: internationalretirement migration from northern to southern Europe. European Urban andRegional Studies, 4: 15–34.

Williams, A.M., King, R., Warnes, A.M. and Patterson, G. 2000. Tourism and retire-ment migration: new forms of an old relationship in Southern Europe. TourismGeographies: International Journal of Place, Space and the Environment 2(1):pp. 28–49.

Williams, A.M. and Montanari, A. 1995. Introduction: tourism and economicrestructuring in Europe. In European Tourism: Regions, Spaces andRestructuring, ed. A. Montanari and A.M. Williams, pp. 1–15. Chichester:Wiley.

Williams, A.M. and Patterson, G. 1998. An empire lost but a province gained: acohort analysis of British international retirement in the Algarve. InternationalJournal of Populaiion Geography 4(2): 113–34.

Williams, A.M. and Shaw, G. 1988. Tourism: candy�oss industry or job-generator. Town Planning Review 59: 81–104.

Williams, A.M., Shaw, G. and Greenwood, J. R. 1989. From tourist to tourismentrepreneur, from consumption to production: evidence from Cornwall,England. Environment and Planning A 21: 1639–53.

Wolfe, R.J. 1951. Summer cottages in Ontario. Economic Geography 27(1): 10–32.Wolfe, R.J. 1952. Wasaga Beach: the divorce from the geographic environment.

Canadian Geographer 1(2): 57–65.Wolfe, R.J. 1967. Recreational travel: the new migration. Geographical Bulletin 9:

73–79.Wolfe, R.J. 1970. Discussion of vacation homes, environmental preferences and spa-

tial behaviour. Journal of Leisure Research 2(1): 85–7.Wolfe, R.J. 1982. Recreational travel: the new migration – revisited. Ontario

Geography 19: 103–24.World Tourism Organization (WTO). 1991. Resolutions of International

Conference on Travel and Tourism, Ottawa, Canada. Madrid: World TourismOrganization.


World Tourism Organization. 1996. International Tourism Statistics. Madrid:World Tourism Organization.

Yuan, T., Fridgen, J.D., Hsieh, S. and O’Leary, J.T. 1995. Visiting friends andrelatives travel market: the Dutch case. Journal of Tourism Studies 6(1): 19–26.

Submitted May 1999; Revised August 1999

Biographical Note

Allan M. Williams is Professor of Human Geography and European Studiesat the University of Exeter, where he is also Co-Director of the TourismResearch Group. His main tourism interests are the political economy ofdevelopment, the relationships between tourism and migration, and therestructuring of European tourism spaces. His address is: Department ofGeography, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, ExeterEX4 4NS, UK. E-mail address: [email protected]

Michael Hall is currently based at the University of Otago in New Zealand.He is also Visiting Professor in Tourism Management at Shef�eld HallamUniversity in the UK. A migrant, he has wide-ranging interests in tourism,leisure and environmental history.

Résumé: Tourisme et migration: nouveaux rapports entre production etconsommation

Il y a une conceptualisation peu convaincante de la différentiation entre migra-tion et tourisme, ce qui a contribué a une négligence relative de la relation entreles deux. Cet essai examine quelques in�uences majeures de ces relations en lesdivisant en deux catégories généraux, mais entre-liées: des trajectoires socio-économiques et des facteurs touristiques généraux. Plusieurs formes spéci�ques detourisme-migration sont examinées dans le contexte de ces trajectoires socio-économiques. L’article explore la main-d’oeuvre migrante, la migration retournant,l’émigration d’entrepreneurs, la migration de retraités, et l’aspect spécial des rési-dences secondaires. La conclusion �ni par accentuer le besoin d’y mettre en placede plus en plus des études de liens entre tourisme-immigration dans les débats dessciences sociales, et présenter quelques sujets fructueux de recherches dans l’avenir.

Mots-clés: tourisme, migration, esprit d’enterprise, résidences secondaires.


Tourism and migration: new relationships between production and consumption edited by C. M. Hall and...

Documents

Transcript of Tourism and migration: new relationships between production and consumption edited by C. M. Hall and...