691

Tourism Analysis, Vol. 17, pp. 691–704 1083-5423/12 $60.00 + .00Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/108354212X13531051127104Copyright © 2012 Cognizant Comm. Corp. E-ISSN 1943-3999 www.cognizantcommunication.com

RuRal touRism pRoduction and the expeRience-scape

JEAN-ChrIStOPhE DISSArt* AND DAVID W. MArCOUIllEr†

*Ur DtM, Irstea, Saint-Martin-d’hères, France†Department of Urban and regional Planning, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

Careful investigations of the supply-side components of tourism are critical to the creation of informed public policy that addresses amenity production, regional change, and integrative tourism planning. In this article we develop a conceptual basis of the rural tourism experience from a supply perspective that includes latent inputs, joint productivity, and the experience-scape within a capabil-ity framework. these tourism building blocks allow for alternative compatibility and sustainability outcomes resulting from rural tourism development. the analysis suggests implications for planning and policy analysis that span economic, social, and environmental issues central to rural regions and their communities.

Key words: Amenities; Capability approach; Experience; rural development; tourism planning

Address correspondence to Jean-Christophe Dissart, Irstea Grenoble, Ur DtM, Domaine universitaire, 2 rue de la Papeterie, BP 76, 38402 Saint-Martin-d’hères Cedex, France. E-mail: jean-christophe.dissart@irstea.fr

Introduction

tourism sector assessments are filled with defi-nitional confusion and analytical complexity that highlight a general lack of theoretical foundations. Yet, careful investigations of the supply compo-nents and production aspects of tourism are critical to the creation of informed public policy that addresses resource management, regional eco-nomic change, and integrative tourism planning. While much is known about the demand for tour-ism resources that lead to advertising and market-ing initiatives, much less is known about the inputs required to produce tourism itself (Ioannides & Debbage, 1998; Marcouiller, 1998). Understanding these inputs is necessary if we wish to address

management of publicly provided amenity resources that create a primary motivating element behind tourist travel (Mossberg, 2007; Power, 1996) in a manner that is generally considered as sustainable (Getz & Jamal, 1994).

Understanding the regional supply of tourism and the resources upon which tourism is built is an increasingly important need, from both planning practice and academic inquiry perspectives (Green, Deller, & Marcouiller, 2005; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 1994, 1996, 1999). From a planning practice per-spective, mass tourism, in its roughly 60 years of existence, has blossomed into what some hoist for-ward as the world’s single largest service sector. the theory of tourism planning has evolved but

692 DISSArt AND MArCOUIllEr

aspects of tourism planning as practiced throughout the globe remain mired in a boosterism approach that glosses over key attributes of development and moves straight into marketing and demand stimula-tion (hall, 2008; Marcouiller, 2007; Murphy, 1985).

From an academic perspective, the need to develop a more generalized theoretical basis for tourism supply has been identified as a key fun-damental shortcoming (Deller & lledo, 2007; Isserman, 2000; Marcouiller & Prey, 2005). Numerous empirical studies tend to show that the presence of tourism retail and service sectors is positively correlated with regional economic out-put and its growth (e.g., English, Marcouiller, & Cordell, 2000; Kim, Marcouiller, & Deller, 2005; reeder & Brown, 2005) and that regional endow-ments of natural amenities exist as a central deter-minant of these regional economic transitions (Deller, tsai, Marcouiller, & English, 2001; Gottlieb, 1994; McGranahan, 1999). Yet these empirical stud-ies are neither causal nor driven by theories related to the factor resources upon which tourism is pro-duced and regional economic output is generated.

the complexity of understanding tourism supply is further exacerbated by the inherently intercon-nected nature of tourism supply and tourism demand. Indeed, the notion that consumers are inte-grated into the production process is central to the experience industry concept of tourism (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). Producing “experiences” (rossman & Schlatter, 2008) through development of “expe-rience-scapes” (Andersson, 2007; Mossberg, 2007; O’Dell & Billing, 2005) has long been seen as cen-tral to the tourism destination “product” (Melián-González & Garcīa-Falcón, 2003; Murphy, Pritchard, & Smith, 2000) and increasingly serves as a pri-mary motivation behind demand assessments of tourism (hall & Page, 2006). this perspective appears generally contrary to production-oriented microeconomic analysis where firms produce (sup-ply) on the basis of a well-defined cost structure (i.e., market price aligned with marginal costs of production) and elements of demand are analyzed separately from supply. Consequently, there are supply inconsistencies that arise from the fact that producing tourism implicitly involves creating experiences for tourists. Moreover, the incorpora-tion of these experiential demand elements within a comparative supply framework of tourism resources

is not well understood (hall & Page, 2006; Marcouiller & Clendenning, 2005; Smith, 1993).

In an attempt to tackle the difficulties of an inter-twined supply/demand framework, we focus on multifunctional rural landscapes, the regional nature of natural resources, and their link with regional development (Dissart, 2007). Our research questions are conceptual in nature: to what extent can we distinguish components of rural tourism into elements relevant to development planning? how does the production of alternative outputs within multifunctional landscapes incorporate amenities as inputs? how can we characterize rural amenities and the tourist experience within a devel-opment framework? how does the use of inputs in producing rural tourism create development oppor-tunities within communities?

Based on a summary of extant knowledge, our approach consists of extending concepts found in the published literature and combining them with theory building to develop a conceptual basis of rural tourism supply that includes three primary components. First, we recognize the importance of latent (e.g., environmental) inputs that typically exist as unpriced public goods and tie this to alter-native land use outcomes. Second, we incorporate joint production and the indirect role played by those who, through their commodity production, have a direct effect on the quality of the multifunc-tional landscape. Finally, we apply a capability framework to capture the essence of “functionings” that are central to producing rural tourism experi-ences. the contributions of this article include, first, a framework that presents how tourism activi-ties are produced and impact both tourist experi-ence and tourism-based local development; and second, an outline of policy implications and fur-ther research needs. We thereby extend previous contributions on the challenges of tourist experi-ence research (e.g., ritchie & hudson, 2009).

the rural tourism Product, latent Inputs, and Joint Production

the tourism product is unique from other prod-ucts in its complexity. this has been long recog-nized by those who have developed an economic understanding of leisure and tourism. In their clas-sic Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Clawson

rUrAl tOUrISM EXPErIENCE 693

and Knetsch (1966) outlined the core problem asso-ciated with the tourism product from a recreation resource perspective:

there is nothing in the physical landscape or fea-tures of any particular piece of land or body of water that makes it a recreation resource; it is the combination of the natural qualities and the ability and desire of man [sic] to use them that makes a resource out of what might otherwise be a more or less meaningless combination of rocks, soil and trees. (p. 7)

like recreation resources, the tourism product and its regional supply attributes involve a complex combination of amenities, publicly owned recre-ation sites, and privately offered hospitality services that provide opportunities for leisure experiences to satisfy the needs and desires of travelers (Kreutzwiser, 1989; Sánchez, Callarisa, ridriguez, & Miliner, 2006; Smith, 1994). the value of natu-ral amenity endowments (e.g., forest, water, wild-life, geologic resources, etc.) is clearly seen as integral to the rural tourism product (Driver, Brown, & Peterson, 1991; Driver & Bruns, 1999; Stein, Clark, & rickards, 2003). Indeed, recreational sites and traditionally defined tourism sites are often developed to provide access to these regional natu-ral amenity endowments, an idea that has been con-firmed by recent empirical assessment (Dissart, 2005; Marcouiller & Prey, 2005). thus, meaning-ful metrics of supply must extend beyond recre-ational sites themselves and include regional metrics of the natural resource base.

this is not a new argument. the ongoing Smith–leiper debate touches on this for the broader tour-ism phenomenon with the late Neil leiper (1990, 1999, 2008) arguing against a strictly firm-level approach, and Smith (1988, 1998) arguing that these firm-level assessments serve as a first approxima-tion of tourism supply. For rural tourism, the natural amenity base can be considered as a latent input into the tourism product and represents ecological and physical factors jointly produced by a variety of public and private entities (Power, 2005; Vail & hulkrantz, 2000). In Figure 1, we present an adapta-tion of Mossberg (2007) that focuses on rural multi-functionality and the tourism product and extends the concept of the rural tourism experience beyond the traditionally defined sectors of the “tourism

industry,” most often including trans portation, lodg-ing, eating/drinking, and travel intermediaries.

Indeed, rural-specific tourism services include rural amusements (ski areas, golf courses, etc.), recreational equipment providers, guides, and instructors. they also comprise interpretation trails, rural-specific purchasing opportunities in terms of agricultural produce or local craft, and specific rec-reational sites. Note that tourist attractions may have three different geometries: 1) a point (an iso-lated attraction such as a riding stable); 2) a line (a scenic road or rail road, but also a canal, river, or coastline); and 3) an area (e.g., a rural region as defined by a set of rural municipalities or a regional park). these three geometries are also present in cit-ies, but given the inherent density of the built environ-ment, it is likely that points, shorter lines, or smaller areas will be more prevalent there than in rural regions. here we focus on rural areas, which allow for diversity of attraction geometries while reflecting our specific concern with (natural) amenities.

Also included in this model are indirect (or joint) producers of the rural tourism product. Often over-looked, these producers are nonetheless central to the production of a multifunctional landscape because they affect the natural world within which rural tourism takes place. Indeed, the notion of a bucolic rural landscape is directly impacted by working farms and/or ranches and the people who work within these settings. last, recreational use of multifunctional landscapes is increasingly seen as critical for governance structures and land use plan-ning in rural regions (Nijnik, Zahvoyska, Nijnik, & Ode, 2009). here we may distinguish tangible from intangible governance. tangible governance refers to local units of government and government ser-vices that rely on locally elected officials and state representatives; decisions are implemented via public policies and programs, licenses, and regula-tions. Intangible governance refers to civil society and social capital that act to foster local, “bottom-up,” collective action and the ability of local gov-ernance to make sound decisions about local development projects. this is not to say that the two forms of governance do not interact; in fact, local development initiatives probably best take shape when government and nongovernment stake-holders share their common interests and initiate collaborative arrangements.

694 DISSArt AND MArCOUIllEr

Indirect producers and jointly produced outputs are a central issue of the rural tourism product that requires further explanation. Both Wiggering et al. (2006) and Marcouiller (1998) provide a theoreti-cal basis for the role of jointly produced outputs that contribute to the quantity and quality of both commodity and amenity (noncommodity) outputs. Wiggering et al. (2006) and Bonnieux and rainelli (2000) further describe social optima in the context of positive and negative externalities that reflect society’s choice in terms of tradeoff between com-modity and noncommodity production. Figure 2 presents an adaptation of this perspective, where tradeoffs in the joint production process are charac-terized along a curve denoted as joint production possibilities (or PPF for Production Possibilities Frontier). Fundamentally an output-based concep-tualization, this set of tradeoffs can be reflected along the curve by its tangency, labeled as the mar-ginal rate of transformation. When the PPF is

tangent to some defined social indifference curve, it can be said to reflect a point of welfare optimum (i.e., the maximum amount of joint production given this defined level of social indifference).

this depiction suggests that amenities are an out-put with different rates (or levels) of competitive interaction (compatibility) resulting in differing levels of commodity and noncommodity outputs. though useful for an array of commodity tradeoff types, we suggest that this conceptualization is overly limiting when assessing unpriced and latent amenity resources used as inputs to tourism pro-duction. Instead of viewing them as an output, it would be more appropriate to characterize natural amenities as an input to the production of market-based sectors involved in tourism (i.e., the sectors listed in Fig. 1) for three reasons.

First, since our objective is to analyze tourism, not landscape or land use, this perspective falls short in representing tourism itself. rather, natural

Figure 1. Coproduction of the rural tourism product. Source: Adapted from Mossberg (2007).

rUrAl tOUrISM EXPErIENCE 695

and cultural amenities act as latent (i.e., nonmar-keted) inputs and provide key regional factors to producing tourism output. the most obvious mar-ketable outputs include travel (tourism, daily visits) and second-home development, and amenities are clearly a driver of hedonic value that acts as an input to producing these respective outputs. Differ-ing types of natural amenities can be considered to result from alternative forms of agriculture and/or forestry production and exist as a service (or exter-nality) of commodity production, and tourism needs to be reflected relative to agriculture and for-estry output.

Second, the joint PPF in Figure 2 represents the occurrence of only competitive tradeoffs; use inter-actions depict a case of competition where the only way to get one additional unit of amenity/service is to give up one unit of commodity: the PPF cannot move outward. (An exception exists as commodity production approaches zero where there is indeed complementarity between commodity and non-commodity outputs; however this corresponds to a situation where commodity output reduction is associated with the production of wasteland and the loss of landscape quality.) Overall, this perspective neglects the positive sum outcomes attainable through the use of proactive recreation manage-ment planning (hammitt, 1988; Manning, 1999; Marcouiller, Scott, & Prey, 2008; Vaske, Donnelly,

& Shelby, 1990) and additivity concepts of envi-ronmental economics (Grossman & Krueger, 1995; van Kooten, 1993; Weitzman, 1992).

third, as presented, the key useful region that represents complementarity of the two uses is unat-tainable given the fact that “well-behaved” social indifference curves (Varian, 1993) are monotonic and strictly convex to the origin (i.e., more is better and averages are preferred to extremes). thus, any social indifference curve that is tangent to this range of the production function will never be an optimal choice because the PPF will always be able to intersect a higher social indifference curve. We believe amenities should be considered an input because of the need to capture positive sum (supra-additive) outcomes, which is embodied in the notion of multifunctional landscapes. Policies that act to improve environmental quality serve as supra-additive inputs to the tourism product.

last, at the bottom of Figure 1 the experience-scape adds key elements that provide latent inputs. these include the multifunctional rural landscape itself and the presence of other rural tourists. Andersson (2007) argues that the tourist plays an important role in the final link of the production chain (i.e., that of realizing a consumption project by putting together resources in a consumption set that are needed to produce a tourism experience). the rural landscape itself (comprising both natural

Figure 2. Production tradeoffs between extractive and amenity uses (neoclas-sical perspective). Source: Adapted from Bonnieux and rainelli (2000).

696 DISSArt AND MArCOUIllEr

and built amenities) is an inherently anthropocen-tric tourism input because it results from the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors (European landscape Convention [ElC], 2000). heritage is an important component of the tourism experience whether it refers to the architecture of buildings or more generally to the collective mem-ory, with a different meaning depending on per-sonal background and everyday environment. Due to the uniqueness of rural character, we add an ele-ment that reflects generally lower population densi-ties and less crowded conditions that distinguish rural tourism experiences from their urban counter-parts. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the localized existence of mass tourism in rural areas as illus-trated by winter ski resorts or coastal developments.

From Meaningless Features to rural tourism Experience: A Capability Perspective

rural tourism may be classically viewed as an activity that builds upon amenities produced by multifunctional agriculture and forestry. As described in the previous section, tourism is ultimately about experience (Otto & ritchie, 1996; Yeoman, 2008). In this section, we want to explain more formally how tourism experience is produced using a theo-retical framework that has been (mostly) used to analyze poverty situations in less developed coun-tries: the capability approach.

As tourism is about experience, the basic issue is to relate tourism activity and experience to ameni-ties (and more generally resources). In a microeco-nomic perspective, the tourist tries to maximize his/her “good” experience (i.e., his/her utility) subject to a number of constraints including income. In this (classic) perspective, tourists’ budget sets are defined by their ability to purchase goods or services, and the optimal choice lies where their utility curve is tangent to their budget line. Due to their nonmar-keted nature, amenities are purchased indirectly via market goods or services (e.g., renting an apart-ment with a scenic view). the difficulty of valuing amenities is compounded by their quasipublic, multiattribute character. Environmental valuation techniques (e.g., hedonic pricing, travel cost) can put a value on such resources, be they natural or built, but such values are not captured in regional economies. therefore, the neoclassical approach

provides a framework for analyzing choice, but it does not address the overall question of how resources contribute to tourist utility.

the capability approach developed by Sen (1999a) provides additional insights. rooted in welfare eco-nomics and the assessment of personal well-being and advantage, this approach focuses on the capa-bility to function (i.e., what a person can do or be, against the more standard concentration on utility). the latter is seen as inexact in terms of content because several meanings have been assigned to the umbrella term “utility” (e.g., happiness vs. desire vs. motivation). this simplification, it is argued, translates into a narrow view of human beings thereby impoverishing the scope of eco-nomic theory. Microeconomic in focus, the capa-bility approach is ultimately about equating individual freedom and collective development (Sen, 1999b). In short, people have access to endowments (i.e., various types of capital such as financial or natural capital) and opportunities (brought up by both markets and public policies) which, combined with personal characteristics, are converted into a set of capabilities (i.e., what the person may do or be), some of which are chosen and become achieved functionings (a subset of capabilities; capabilities thus comprise potential and achieved functionings). In Sen’s perspective, achieved functionings stand for achieved happi-ness; in this article, achieved functionings stand for tourist experience.

this analytical framework may be used to under-stand how resources contribute to tourism experi-ence. Assume tourism is ultimately about experience; the tourist has access to a number of commodities (regardless of their nature), which are seen in terms of their various desirable properties (lancaster, 1966). For example, access to a mountain area pro-vides access to the properties of the mountain, which can be a scenic vista, a perception of remote-ness, or a climbing/skiing opportunity depending on the season; access to a medieval village provides access to the properties of the village, which can be the architecture of the buildings, the perception of traveling back in time or a farmers’ market. Clearly what the tourist experiences is dependent upon, among others, his/her physical condition or his/her knowledge to “read” the (natural and/or built) land-scape: the utilization function. then the tourist

rUrAl tOUrISM EXPErIENCE 697

chooses from the set of characteristics of those commodities to achieve tourism functionings: what the tourist experiences by doing (i.e., performing an activity) or by being (i.e., having a feeling). In other words, a tourism functioning is a tourism experience. More formally, the experience e of tourist i, ei, is described by equation (1) (adapted from Sen, 1999a):

ei = vi{ fi[c(xi)]} (1)

where:

xi is the vector of commodities accessed by tourist i,c(⋅) is the function (a mathematical relationship)

that converts a commodity vector into a vector of characteristics of those commodities,

fi[⋅] is a personal utilization function of i reflecting one pattern of use of commodities that i can actu-ally make (in generating a functioning vector out of a characteristic vector of commodities accessed),

vi{⋅} is the valuation function of tourist i related to the functionings achieved by i (and how i values those achieved functionings).

In terms of tourism experience capabilities, Fi is the set of choice functions fi, any one of which tour-ist i can in fact choose: his/her set of capabilities (conversion of characteristics into potential func-tionings). (Note that the term “function” refers to a strictly mathematical relationship while the term “achieved functionings” refers to a subset of capa-bilities; the latter relates specifically to the tourism product.) the conversion is contingent upon indi-vidual heterogeneity, or uniqueness (e.g., physical or mental features) and environmental characteris-tics (e.g., climatic features, public services, norms, and social relations). On the other hand, Vi is the set of valuation functions vi which reflects tourist i’s choice of differently valued tourism functionings. this analytical perspective details the process by which ones goes from undifferentiated features to resources (due to the conversion function) to tour-ism experience possibilities (due to the utilization function) to actual tourism experiences (due to the valuation function).

this approach also leads to analyzing the role of public policy in bringing about commodities or converting those commodities into a set of usable

(desirable) characteristics for tourists or catering to the needs of various clientele segments (what tour-ists have reason to value). Moving back to Clawson and Knetsch (1966), equation (1) describes how mere “rocks, soil, and trees” are translated into tourism experiences. By extension, we can aggre-gate individual tourism functionings to the total number of tourists j in region r to obtain the regional value of tourism functioning (experience) as out-lined in equation (2).

e Ei ri r

j m

r,,

,

= =∑ =1 1

(2)

where ei,r is tourist i’s experience in region r, and Er is aggregate tourist experience in region r.

the sum of ei,r from 1 to j to attain Er represents the value of regional tourism experiences and is specific to a given region. Indeed, as amenities are (by definition) locally specific and enhance places, the capability perspective on tourism production provides extensions to regional considerations: Are there not endowments of amenities that act to char-acterize regions and increase their attractiveness for tourism purposes? Different regional endow-ments of amenities (though unpriced) provide a comparative advantage in the production of tour-ism thus contributing to positive overall regional economic change. Also, as we have several regions (from 1 to m), this allows for comparison of tourist experiences across different regional or local set-tings (from a “macro” destination like coastal areas in general to specific “site” destinations like a given winter sport resort). the market value of this should equal the product of total tourists by the average total expenditure of tourists in region r, which, in equilibrium, is equal to the total output of experi-ences in region r, thus setting the stage for integrat-ing rural tourism product with experience.

Integrating the rural tourism Product With Experience

In an effort to integrate the functionings element of the regional tourism experience within a tradi-tional view of the tourism sector, we must recog-nize that production is multifaceted and rests upon a foundation of primary factor inputs. these are outlined in equation (3).

698 DISSArt AND MArCOUIllEr

Er = Yr = γ · z (Lg, Kg, Sg, Gg, Ar) (3)

where:

Er is region r’s total experience output,Yr is region r’s total tourism output,z is the function (a mathematical relationship) that

converts various tourism inputs into tourism output,γ is a coefficient that describes the interaction

between tourism inputs and tourism output,Lg is labor used in tourism,Kg is financial capital used in tourism,Sg is land used for tourism,Gg is government spending on tourism,Ar is region r’s endowment of amenities used in

tourism.

Consequently, within a given region r, total tour-ist achieved functioning, Er, is equal to total tour-ism output, Yr. Classically, output is a function of land, labor, and financial capital; but we add gov-ernment and an amenity component. As argued before, amenities are unpriced inputs to tourism production. But government also plays a critical role via public service provision (such as transport infrastructure, water servicing, or waste manage-ment) and more specific tourism-related programs and policies (such as signage, cultural events, park management, or historic building rehabilitation). In this perspective, government taxation and public spending play a significant role in shaping and enhancing tourism destinations.

the integration of experience with tourism pro-duction yields insights into three specific rural tour-ism situations: winter sport resorts, daily leisure activities in periurban areas, and tourism in a tradi-tional rural setting. In the case of winter sport resorts, tourism production requires high inputs in terms of labor (ski lift operators, waiters and maids in the lodging and eating industries), financial capi-tal (various buildings and ski lift facilities), land (the area that may be used for skiing), and ameni-ties (vertical drop, snow cover, length of ski sea-son, etc.). the corresponding experience inputs consist in significant disposable income and time to travel, access to mountain areas and their facilities, and result in extreme sensations, with relatively little interest in local heritage.

In the case of daily leisure activities in periurban areas, tourism production basically relies on agri-cultural or forestry production externalities with

limited input from local units of government (except, e.g., the design and support of hiking or bike trails). Contrary to the winter sport resort case, the corre-sponding experience inputs in terms of time and money are much more limited and continuous (as opposed to a discrete amount that is required to spend a week in, say, the French Alps or Colorado), and may result in various experiences (from a quiet walk to a more demanding biking activity).

last, in the case of tourism in a traditional rural setting (i.e., low population density, farm land-scape), and in contrast to the previous situations, the amount of inputs needed is somewhat interme-diate: provision of landscape, trails, interpretation facilities, and guiding activities. Government ser-vices and local associations may coordinate joint efforts for landscape maintenance or tourism ser-vices. In the case of a week spent in the country-side, the amount of time provided by households is significant, but the amount of money is more uncer-tain depending on whether the household stays in a hotel or at a friend’s home. the corresponding experiences may vary significantly, from enjoying traditional cuisine in local restaurant to riding a bike over hilly trails to not doing anything at all.

these three examples, while somewhat amount-ing to caricatures, aim simply to underline the extent to which 1) the various inputs to tourism production and the corresponding experiences are highly dependent on the context, hence 2) the great diversity of tourism in rural settings, and 3) the importance of the regional amenity context and the role that governance and public policy may play in those different tourism contexts. Given how vari-ous tourism components interact, coefficient γ in equation (3) describes the impact on tourism expe-rience and output in a given region. thus, 1) γ > 1 describes a supra-additive relationship: there are complementary uses of tourism resources that result in higher-than-normal output and tourism experience; 2) γ = 1 is an additive relationship: tourism resources interact in a supplemental way; and 3) γ < 1 describe a subadditive relationship: there are antagonistic (competitive) uses of tourism resources that result in lower-than-normal output and tourism experience.

to describe these three types of relationships, we focus on the case of supra-additivity, an example of which may be found in the French southern region

rUrAl tOUrISM EXPErIENCE 699

of the Baronnies. In order to explain location- specific external economies that translate into regional development, Pecqueur (2001) suggested the concept of a basket of goods: regional stake-holders may set up a strategy of production that is both varied (i.e., combining several goods and ser-vices) and located (i.e., related to a specific area, its culture and history). the basket of goods approach allows for various combinations of the goods that make up the package so that combined goods pre-sent characteristics that are different from the sum of characteristics for each of these goods.

this model rests on three major components (hirczak et al., 2008). First, a specific supply of private goods and services over a given area: prod-ucts of the basket are complementary (e.g., olive oil and herbs) with a common geographic origin and a consistent image of quality. Production is specific because it is tied to a territory and characterized by a specific know-how and limited reproducibility. Second, an inelastic demand of the “shopping” type (i.e., clients go to suppliers and choose the basket by themselves): to consumers of the basket, the area acts as a vector of joint purchase of products and services. Via experiences as diverse as farm-ers’ markets or cultural visits, preferences that are expressed directly for local products or services also indicate an indirect preference for the area itself, thus rendering demand little price inelastic. the third component of the model is public goods: the regional context is critical to the basket, so much so that public goods (landscapes and biodi-versity, but also architecture, history, and tradi-tions) act as a sort of “case” (écrin) and “staging” (mise en scène) for the products. Consequently, the basket is truly a combination of public and private goods and services.

By internalizing external effects due to specific resources, a rent of territorial quality is created (via price differentials observed, in this example, for olive oil) and adds value to a territory’s features and its associated goods and services (Mollard, 2001). Such a rent, which benefits public and private stakeholders alike (lacroix, Mollard, & Pecqueur, 2000; Mollard, 2003), reflects their capacity to create institutional processes that cap-ture the consumers’ willingness to pay associated with the environment (in a broad sense) of the product. thus, the potential for creating a rent of

territorial quality (i.e., γ > 1) depends on the extent to which a specific set of amenities meets a specific demand for this set. If so, and if adequate institu-tional arrangements are in place, then there is potential for an enhanced tourism experience that allows producers to charge higher prices (i.e., potential for an increased, higher-than-normal job and income creation, and therefore increased poten-tial for regional development).

In contrast, when γ = 1, there is average tourism output and experience. Uses of the land interact in a supplemental way (i.e., they neither enhance nor are detrimental to each other from a tourism pro-duction perspective). this situation is best described by a juxtaposition of land uses where no particular effort is made to enhance local resources, which results in average job and income creation. last, when γ < 1, local resources work in antagonistic ways and result in lower tourism experience output. Such is the case when tourists are poorly received by local hosts, prices are significantly higher than tourist expectations for a given quality of service, landfills are located next to supposedly scenic vis-tas, or public policies are detrimental to amenity production (e.g., corn production subsidies are higher than wetland maintenance subsidies). the poor combination of tourism resources results in lower-than-normal job and income creation.

Overall, as summarized in Figure 3, resources (amenities) arise out of the conversion of commod-ities. Combined with land, financial capital, labor, government spending, and personal features via the utilization function, they become tourist capabili-ties; those that are preferred become actual tourist experiences (functionings). Aggregated over all tourists in a given region, tourist experiences amount to total tourism output. here we should acknowledge both the quality (i.e., value) and the quantity (i.e., number) of experiences; in other words, the scale of tourism demand significantly impacts total tourism output.

By far though, tourism contribution to regional development is not guaranteed. First, depending on the quality of the combination of tourism resources [i.e., the value of γ in equation (3)], tourism output and experience may range from lower to higher than normal. Second, tourism activity may actually have negative economic, social, and environmental impacts as illustrated by poorly paid seasonal jobs,

700 DISSArt AND MArCOUIllEr

pollution, or overcrowding. In other words, disa-menities of tourism development may arise. Note that tourism output and experience may be at odds with tourism impacts; that is, tourism may be expe-rienced as great from the tourist perspective (i.e., γ > 1), whereas tourism impact is negative. A case in point would be Dubai’s ski resort from an envi-ronmental perspective. third, there may be dis-equilibrium situations between actual experiences and availability of the rural tourism product when, for example, limited access to protect amenities rations availability and consequently precludes many tourist experiences. last, the process is likely to be not linear, with feedback mechanisms trans-forming resources positively and negatively, thus further enhancing or damaging tourism experience and output.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

this contribution aimed at linking tourism pro-duction and tourist experience, focusing on the sit-uation of rural sites and using a well-known theoretical approach in development economics: the capability approach. A number of the issues we addressed and the concepts we used could also be useful to analyzing urban tourist destinations (e.g., heritage districts in cities). Nonetheless, we would argue that tourism impacts on local economies and communities, as well as managing natural ameni-ties and multifunctional landscapes take a specific importance and meaning in less populated areas. More generally, in addressing the inconsistencies of the rural tourism production function, we have outlined key components of the rural tourism

Figure 3. From commodities to tourism regional impacts.

rUrAl tOUrISM EXPErIENCE 701

product and forwarded elements that serve as inputs to the tourism experience production process.

From a supply perspective, we suggest that the rural tourism product is unique in that it is tightly intertwined within an experience context that requires an assessment of alternative use interac-tions among jointly produced outputs. Our initial attempt at incorporating the experience attributes of the tourism product used the capability approach to develop the concept of tourism functionings and their alternative interaction types as a key indicator of tourism output and its impact on regional devel-opment. From an integrative tourism planning con-text, this broader foundational base allows direct focus on four policy issues that provide important implications for tourism-based development strate-gies: governance, territorial marketing, landscape management, and equity.

From a governance perspective, coordination between private and public stakeholders is critical at three levels (hirczak et al., 2008): first, between private stakeholders, whose complementary prod-ucts and services should keep the rent sustainable in the face of competition; second, between public policies, whose consistency and level of funding should ensure appropriate policies regarding prod-uct quality, public service provision, environmental protection, and marketing effort; and third, balance and consistency must be found between private and public action in order to organize nonmarket ser-vices and to strengthen the links between products, services, and the region. Examples of institutional arrangements that contribute to the rent of territo-rial quality include collective governance of the lead product (via, e.g., producer groups) or public funding and technical support.

From a territorial marketing perspective, the issue is to identify and promote regional assets. Indeed, the issue of regional comparative advan-tage (supply) is qualitative in nature and must be appreciated on a case-by-case basis. the more spe-cific the territorial resources, the more likely the creation of positive externalities, and the more likely their combined supply will become a basis for a price differential (Mollard, 2003). In other words, the challenge for local leaders, be they elected officials, development practitioners, or tourism professionals, is to take a step back and

acknowledge what makes their community unique in terms of both tangible and intangible assets and, if warranted, build a specific tourism development strategy. Examples of institutional initiatives that may forward territorial marketing efforts include product differentiation via official signs of quality, web marketing, educational programs about the ter-ritory and its associated products, or cultural events.

From a landscape management perspective, this work suggests the need for sensitivity on the part of traditional commodity producers to maximize pro-duction in a manner consistent with the joint pro-duction elements that rural tourism uses as inputs. For example, Aznar, Marsat, and rambonilaza (2007) suggest that local public actors lead strate-gies of integration between landscape and tourism by encouraging private land management activities that are sensitive to joint commodity and tourism production. With respect to regulations, implemen-tation of planning tools that discourage competitive and antagonistic (subadditive) land use interactions would likewise reflect this joint set of attributes. Examples of initiatives that may enhance the local landscape (in addition to farmer and forest manager individual efforts) include landscaping, discovery routes, and drawing up a charter (as in French regional nature parks).

last, from an equity perspective, it is important for public policy to recognize the tangible benefits to private firms associated with high-quality ame-nities that are jointly produced by private landown-ers. Indeed, as suggested by English and Bergstrom (1994), expenditures of tourists that serve as central elements of regional economic development are directly determined by the quality of recreational sites and regional amenities. Further, it would be reasonable to expect that these firms be willing and able to compensate those responsible for providing amenity inputs. Public policy could assist this mechanism for the transfer of amenity costs, which could be accomplished via the development of regional amenity markets or tourism taxation poli-cies to support the provision of regional amenities of interest to tourism.

this work provides an outline for a significant future research agenda. Questions that need to be addressed include empirical issues related to the regional presence of rural amenities (e.g., spatial

702 DISSArt AND MArCOUIllEr

typologies, explanatory models). Economic devel-opment questions may focus on how we might regionalize our production concepts to rural tour-ism based on comparative advantage of relevant factor endowments. Further, to what extent can we generalize the temporal components of rural tour-ism that build from the original Butler (1980) con-cept of the tourism destination life cycle in a manner that integrates the presence and temporal change of a regional amenity base? Finally, how does the use of inputs in producing rural tourism create other development opportunities within communities: for example, by increasing social capital and stimulating local initiatives? Overall, there is a central need for integrative tourism plan-ning and policy analysis that relates to both the consumption and production of tourism activities.

Acknowledgment

the authors wish to thank Irstea for funding support.

references

Andersson, t. (2007). the tourist in the experience econ-omy. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 46–58.

Aznar, O., Marsat, J.-B., & rambonilaza, M. (2007). tourism and landscapes within multifunctional rural areas: the French case. In Ü. Mander, h. Wiggering, & K. helming (Eds.), Multifunctional land use: Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services (pp. 293–303). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Bonnieux, F., & rainelli, P. (2000). Aménités agricoles et tourisme rural. Revue d’Economie Régionale et Urbaine, 5, 803–820.

Butler, r. W. (1980). the concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5–12.

Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. l. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore, MD: John hopkins Press.

Deller, S. C., & lledo, V. (2007). Amenities and rural Appalachian growth. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 36(1), 107–132.

Deller, S. C., tsai, t.-h., Marcouiller, D. W., & English, D. B. K. (2001). the role of amenities and quality of life in rural economic growth. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(2), 352–365.

Dissart, J.-C. (2005). Installations récréatives extérieures et développement économique regional: le cas des zones rurales isolées aux Etats-Unis. Revue d’Economie Regionale et Urbaine, 2, 217–248.

Dissart, J.-C. (2007). landscapes and regional development: What are the links? Cahiers d’Economie et Sociologie Rurales, 84–85, 61–91.

Driver, B., Brown, P., & Peterson, G. (Eds.). (1991). Benefits of leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Driver, B. l., & Bruns, D.h. (1999). Concepts and uses of the benefit approach to leisure. In E. l. Jackson & t. l. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 349–369). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

English, D. B. K., & Bergstrom, J. C. (1994). the concep-tual links between recreation site development and regional economic impacts. Journal of Regional Science, 34(4), 599–611.

English, D. B. K., Marcouiller, D. W., & Cordell, h. K. (2000). tourism dependence in rural America: Estimates and effects. Society and Natural Resources, 13(3), 185– 202.

European landscape Convention. (2000). The European Landscape Convention. retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/landscape/default_ en.asp

Getz, D., & Jamal, t. (1994). the environment-community symbiosis: A case for collaborative tourism planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(3), 152–173.

Gottlieb, P. D. (1994). Amenities as an economic develop-ment tool: Is there enough evidence? Economic Development Quarterly, 8(3), 270–285.

Green, G. P., Deller, S. C., & Marcouiller, D. W. (Eds.). (2005). Amenities and rural development: Theory, methods, and public policy. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. l. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 353–377.

hall, C. M. (2008). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and relationships (2nd ed.). harlow, UK: Pearson.

hall, C. M., & Page, S. (2006). The geography of tourism and recreation: Environment, place and space (3rd ed.). london: routledge.

hammitt, W. E. (1988). the spectrum of conflict in outdoor recreation. In A. h. Watson (Comp.), Outdoor recre-ation benchmark: 1988 proceedings of the national out-door recreation forum (pp. 439–450). tampa, Fl: USDA Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experimental Station.

hirczak, M., Moalla, M., Mollard, A., Pecqueur, B., rambonilaza, M., & Vollet, D. (2008). From the basket of goods to a more general model of territorialized com-plex goods: Concepts, analysis grid and questions. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 31(2), 241–260.

Ioannides, D., & Debbage, K. (Eds.). (1998). The economic geography of the tourist industry: A supply-side analy-sis. london, UK: routledge.

Isserman, A. M. (2000). the competitive advantages of rural America in the next century. International Regional Science Review, 24(1), 35–58.

Kim, K. K., Marcouiller, D. W., & Deller, S. C. (2005). Natural amenities and rural development: Understanding spatial and distributional attributes. Growth and Change, 36(2), 273–297.

Kreutzwiser, r. (1989). Supply. In G. Wall (Ed.), Outdoor recreation in Canada. toronto, Canada: Wiley.

rUrAl tOUrISM EXPErIENCE 703

lacroix, A., Mollard, A., & Pecqueur, B. (2000). Origine et produits de qualité territoriale: Du signal à l’attribut? Revue d’Economie Régionale et Urbaine, 4, 683–706.

lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.

leiper, N. (1990). Partial industrialization of tourism sys-tems. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 600–605.

leiper, N. (1999). A conceptual analysis of tourism- supported employment which reduces the incidence of exaggerated, misleading statistics about jobs. Tourism Management, 20(5), 605–613.

leiper, N. (2008). Why ‘the tourism industry’ is misleading as a generic expression: the case for the plural variation, ‘tourism industries.’ Tourism Management, 29(2), 237– 251.

Manning, r. E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction (2nd ed.). Corvallis, Or: Oregon State University Press.

Marcouiller, D. W. (1998). Environmental resources as latent primary factors of production in tourism: the case of forest-based commercial recreation. Tourism Economics, 4(2), 131–145.

Marcouiller, D. W. (2007). rural tourism promotion as pub-lic policy: Panacea or Pandora’s Box? Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 37(1), 28–31.

Marcouiller, D. W., & Clendenning, G. C. (2005). the sup-ply of natural amenities: Moving from empirical anec-dotes to a theoretical basis. In G. P. Green, S. C. Deller, & D. W. Marcouiller (Eds.), Amenities and rural devel-opment: Theory, methods, and public policy (pp. 6–32). New York: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Marcouiller, D. W., & Prey, J. (2005). the tourism supply linkage: recreational sites and their related natural ame-nities. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 35(1), 29–39.

Marcouiller, D. W., Scott, I., & Prey, J. (2008). Outdoor rec-reation planning: A comprehensive approach to under-standing use interaction. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 3(90), 1–12.

McGranahan, D. A. (1999). Natural amenities drive rural population change (Agricultural Economic report No. 781). Washington, DC: USDA-ErS.

Melián-González, A., & Garcīa-Falcón, J. M. (2003). Competitive potential of tourism in destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 720–740.

Mollard, A. (2001). Qualité et développement territorial: Une grille d’analyse théorique à partir de la rente. Economie rurale, 263, 16–34.

Mollard, A. (2003). Multifonctionnalité de l’agriculture et territoires: Des concepts aux politiques publiques. Cahiers d’Economie et Sociologie Rurales, 66, 27–54.

Mossberg, l. (2007). A marketing approach to the tourist experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 59–74.

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. New York: routledge.

Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). the

destination product and its impact on traveler percep-tions. Tourism Management, 21(1), 43–52.

Nijnik, M., Zahvoyska, l., Nijnik, A., & Ode, A. (2009). Public evaluation of landscape content and change: Several examples from Europe. Land Use Policy, 26(1), 77–86.

O’Dell, t., & Billing, P. (2005). Experiencescapes: Tourism, culture and economy. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1994). The contributions of amenities to rural develop-ment. Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1996). Amenities for rural development: Policy exam-ples. Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1999). Cultivating rural amenities. Paris: Author.

Otto, J. E., & ritchie, J. r. B. (1996). the service experience in tourism. Tourism Management, 17(3), 165–174.

Pecqueur, B. (2001). Qualité et développement territorial: l’hypothèse du panier de biens et de services territoriali-sés. Economie Rurale, 261, 37–49.

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. h. (1999). The experience econ-omy: Work is theatre and every business a stage. Boston, MA: harvard Business School Press.

Power, t. M. (1996). Lost landscapes and failed economies. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Power, t. M. (2005). the supply and demand for natural amenities: An overview of theories and concepts. In G. P. Green, S. C. Deller, & D. W. Marcouiller (Eds.), Amenities and rural development: Theory, methods, and public policy (pp. 63–77). New York: Edward Elgar Publishing.

reeder, r. J., & Brown, D. M. (2005). Recreation, tourism, and rural well-being (Economic research report No. 7). Washington, DC: USDA-ErS.

ritchie, J. r. B., & hudson, S. (2009). Understanding and meeting the challenges of consumer/tourist experience research. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2), 111–126.

rossman, J. r., & Schlatter, B. E. (2008). Recreation pro-gramming: Designing leisure experience (5th ed.). Champaign, Il: Sagamore Publishing.

Sánchez, J., Callarisa, l., rodriguez, r. M., & Miliner, M. A. (2006). Perceived value of the purchase of a tour-ism product. Tourism Management, 27(3), 394–409.

Sen, A. (1999a). Commodities and capabilities. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. (First publication 1987)

Sen, A. (1999b). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Smith, S. l. J. (1988). Defining tourism: A supply-side view. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(2), 179–190.

Smith, S. l. J. (1993). Recreation geography. New York: longman Group limited.

Smith, S. l. J. (1994). the tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 582–595.

Smith, S. l. J. (1998). tourism as an industry: Debates and concepts. In D. Ioannides & K. G. Debbage (Eds.), The

704 DISSArt AND MArCOUIllEr

economic geography of the tourist industry: A supply-side analysis (pp. 31–52). New York: routledge.

Stein, t. V., Clark, J. K., & rickards, J. l. (2003). Assessing nature’s role in ecotourism development in Florida: Perspectives of tourism professionals and government decision-makers. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(3), 155–172.

Vail, D., & hultkrantz, l. (2000). Property rights and sus-tainable nature tourism: Adaptation and mal-adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA). Ecological Economics, 35(2), 223–242.

van Kooten, G. C. (1993). Land resource economics and sustainable development: Economic policies and the common good. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

Varian, h. r. (1993). Intermediate microeconomics: A mod-ern approach. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., & Shelby, B. (1990). Comparing two approaches for identifying recreation activity substitutes. Leisure Sciences, 12(4), 289–302.

Weitzman, M. l. (1992). On diversity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 363–405.

Wiggering, h., Dalchow, C., Glemnitz, M., helming, K., Müller, K., Schultz, A., Stachow, U., & Zander, P. (2006). Indicators for multi-functional land use: linking socioeconomic requirements with landscape potentials. Ecological Indicators, 6(1), 238–249.

Yeoman, I. (2008). Tomorrow’s tourist: Scenarios and trends. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.