The tourist space
The notion of space is often used to delineate, characterise, and distinguish the places where tourism practices and players are located. It is also used to analyse the “spatial” distribution of tourism. However, since the development of tourism studies, researchers have sought to conceptualise and model what the tourist space actually is. While there is no simple answer to this question, various ways of considering tourist spaces have been summarised: real space (environment and region), functional space (flows and networks), and perceived space (cognition and perception) (Mansfeld, 1980). The interest lies in the identification, comparison and relationship between the various scientific representations. Current tourism studies identify four key things to take into account regarding the tourist space (figure 1), which we will look at in this article.

Figure 1: Four representations of the tourist space
The emitting and receiving tourist space
This is the largest space, encompassing emitting, transit, and receiving spaces for the tourism system’s tourists and players, professionals and volunteers: stakeholders from the local institutional world, as well as those from the “entrepreneurial world”, operating in networks (Violier, 1999).
Above all, it is the observation of tourist flows that initially led to the perception of this tourist space in the broadest sense and how it works. Françoise Cribier (1969) highlighted the connection between the emitting and receiving spaces for tourists, referred to as “urban dwellers” and “holidaymakers”, thus emphasising the relationship which exists between these two spaces. “Holiday areas” are considered from the point of origin to destination and, conversely, “recruitment areas” for urban holidaymakers are considered from destination to the point of origin. By seeking to understand holiday and leisure areas (or, conversely, recruitment area) from multiple origin cities within a same region, several areas converge within the same geographical scope (Wackermann, 1973).
The geographical analysis of the relationships between areas of origin and destination continued by focusing on the characterisation of areas based on type of movement (day trips, short stays, holidays), as well as on “migration patterns” (Potier and Terrier, 2007) expressed here in the context of tourism. This enables a spatial observation of the contiguous spaces between origin and destination, or conversely, those organised with an intermediate, transit space. Both scenarios raise questions about the point at which entry into the tourist receiving space takes place. The criterion of an unfamiliar environment has been used to conceptualise this entry into the tourist space. The unfamiliarity of the places where people stay and visit, based on tourists’ personal perceptions, can serve as a criterion for identifying the quality of the tourist space (Govers, van Hecke & Cabus, 2008).
For several decades, real spaces and flows between places of origin and destinations have been analysed, alongside the development of more general theories. A tourist space model has been proposed (Miossec, 1977) and reveals two complementary, and indeed contradictory, spatial phenomena in the relationship between “emitting hubs” and destinations (figure 2, 1976): on the one hand, the deployment of tourism “belts” in a regular concentric pattern from these hubs, with a decreasing flow as the distance from origin increases, and, on the other hand, “spatial deformation” caused by tropisms or, conversely, blind spots in tourism numbers influenced by planning, political, economic, and cultural orientations with regard to these flows.
While the plan-based model is interesting, cross-sectional modelling has provided further interesting insights for locating spaces with the highest tourism numbers in relation to the emitting urban space. Three theoretical cases have emerged: (1) a peak in numbers relatively close to the emitting space, followed by a decline as the distance increases; (2) a “plateau” of significant traffic extending over a significant peripheral space followed by a decline; (3) the combination of a peak relatively near the city, followed by a second, weaker peak located further away (McKercher & Lew, 2003, pp. 160-161). However, when considering different leisure and tourism practices (urban leisure, suburban excursions, short stays, holidays) from the emitting space, multiple peaks in tourist numbers can be identified for each of these practices following a general curve that reflects an overall decrease in numbers towards more remote spaces.
These various studies have revealed phenomena but do not account for long-term spatial dynamics. Lundgren (1974, p. 129) tried to model these dynamics by focusing on population levels between a central city and its countryside based on seasonal residence. Urban and peri-urban growth can absorb a previously separate belt of cottages from the urban space and suburbs, leading to the emergence of a new residential and holiday belt further away, thus renewing the spatial separation and distance between the everyday urban environment and the tourist space. This analysis is relevant only for combined spatial systems between a city and a residential countryside that depends on it.
The tourism receiving space
The receiving space has often been conceptualised through the idea of a polarised region, with several hubs forming networks. In particular, this perception was developed by Clare Gunn (1965), who believed that similar, nearby attractions within a given space were grouped together to form one and the same space, while different attractions were deemed incompatible, theoretically resulting in spatial dissimilarity and discontinuity. A more advanced and complementary approach is to consider that there are smaller networks of tourism sites that are delimited in terms of space but which are interconnected (through a process that can be replicated at various levels, thus being fractal in nature) by “gateways” that enable the transition from one network to another to form what is referred to as a “chained destination region” (Dredge, 1999, p. 783). With these general principles established, the analysis of network forms can proceed by identifying different types of networks (see figure 3, Piriou, 2012, p. 510) still within the context of a reticular space.

Source: Piriou, Jérôme, 2012, Enquête sur la région touristique. Une recherche sur les pratiques spatiales de dimension régionale des acteurs du tourisme, University of Angers, Doctoral thesis in Geography, 575 p.
Many analyses, illustrated through diagrams, have used emitting and transit spaces to represent the various boundaries and forms of tourist space within the receiving space: tourists leave their homes to explore a receiving environment composed of different types of networks, often influenced by the central nature of a tourist hub; single-destination model or, conversely, plurality of destinations for stays and visits in the frame of an itinerant trip; multiple and complex destination models (Oppermann, 1995, p. 59; Lau & McKercher, 2007, p. 41). Five specific models have been identified: single-destination; attractions along the transit space; attractive satellites emanating from a “base camp”; regional circuit within the receiving space; loop from and to the emitting space without transit space (Lue, Crompton & Fesenmaier, 1993, p. 294).
Understanding the receiving space also involves considering an area formed by an environment, landscape, or network. Pierre Defert in particular established that the tourist space is delineated and developed differently according to the “permeability” of a given environment (1966, p. 98). While the capacities provided by facilities are taken into account, accessibility varies according to topography, within a strictly terrestrial approach that does not account for the effects of dealing with the difficulties of terrain (tunnels or air transport). From a destination perspective, Lew and McKercher (2006, p. 414) proposed four territorial models based on the extent of the centrifugal movements from a destination: absence of movement; convenience movements; concentric exploratory movements; and unrestricted movements. Thus, with the exclusion of tourism enclaves, the receiving space lacks clear boundaries and when taking account of tourism practices, it comprises not only an approach space for tourist sites but also a space where the surroundings can be admired from the destinations (Michel, 2003).
Finally, the tourism receiving space has been studied in terms of its temporary and fluctuating occupation in space and time. Valérie Delignières highlighted the notion of a reservoir (1996, p. 33): based on its reception capacity, each destination site (accommodation, parking space, visitor site, etc.) fills and empties, oscillating between a storage and clearing space. With digital observation and analysis tools, research on the temporary occupation of space has developed. Studies on beaches have led to work on the concept of being together in order to identify gatherings of people and, conversely, occurrences of distancing, which facilitate micro-geographic analyses (Figure 4, Guyonnard, 2017).

Source: Guyonnard, Valentin, 2017, Dimensions cachées et attentes spatiales dans un espace de pratique de tourisme et loisir : une analyse géographique de la plage en Charente-Maritime (France), University of La Rochelle, Doctoral thesis in Geography, p. 173.
These digital approaches in tourism studies have also revived the analysis of journey spaces, developing a micro-geography of movements. Following the work promoted in particular by Noam Shoval on the tracking of tourists at destinations (Shoval & Ahas, 2016), Beritelli et al. (2020, p. 5) highlight that tourists occupy and move within visiting “corridors” framed by boundaries (barriers, obstacles, building facades, etc.). Their positions and movements are individually distributed within a defined space formed by these corridor boundaries, yet this distribution is not random; it is structured by “trajectories’ arising from the formation of collective “visitor flows” involving an amassing of people in motion connecting various areas of attraction.
The space for tourists and workers in the receiving space
While a vast networked space of tourism players has been identified, the tourist space has been analysed in particular as a combination of workers, residents, and tourists within the receiving spaces, especially through critical approaches to tourism. Dean MacCannell (1973, p. 598) distinguishes six stages of social tourist space based on possible oscillations between what is exposed of the receiving space (front region) and what remains behind the scenes (back region). The term “region” denotes the space of a site or a destination at a micro-local level. This analysis adapts the work of Erving Goffman (1956) to local tourist spaces. Goffman himself developed an example relating to tourism, specifically a hotel on the Shetland Islands, where differing behaviours were observed between the kitchen space, a indicative of the surrounding rural culture, and the spaces where guests were present, where hotel staff were required to adopt more suitable behaviour (Goffman, 1956, p. 72). MacCannell furthered and structured this distinction between front and back spaces, with six stages ranging from spaces that are closed and invisible to tourists, to open, visible, and developed spaces that potentially affect their authenticity.
More recently, the analysis of social tourist spaces between tourists and tourism employees has incorporated Henri Lefebvre’s triadic conceptual framework (Buzinde and Manuel-Navarrete, 2013). Beyond (1) the practice spaces, there is (2) a representation of space shaped by policy-makers, developers, and tourism planners with maps, codes, and models that points to an official organisation of the destination, and (3) representation spaces based in particular on the perspectives of residents of the destination and its surroundings, that reveal socio-spatial relationships of appropriation, domination, and marginalisation between them and the tourist destination.
To simplify and conceptualise the understanding of these socio-spatial organisations at destinations, a binary representation has been developed that considers how tourists proceed either within an enclosed space or within a heterogeneous space (Edensor, 2000). The first type is designed for their experience, but with substantial surveillance measures aimed at excluding the local population from the tourist system and channelling tourists within the defined and permitted practice space. The second type concerns tourism experiences in spaces not or only minimally developed for tourism, where tourists enjoy greater freedom and interaction with the local environment. However, this binary distinction has its limits, particularly in downplaying the effects of hybridisation between the local and global.
The difficulty of continuing to differentiate the tourist space
The difficulty in distinguishing between tourist and non-tourist spaces currently relates to two intersecting phenomena. On the one hand, the tourist space, once perceived as unfamiliar, out of ordinary, liminal, even sacred, is increasingly recognised by tourists who have become accustomed to it. The characteristics of the many tourist destinations around the world have been replicated and have become more familiar to visitors (Edensor, 2007, 208). This phenomenon is not only studied in the light of globalisation but also through regional itinerance, such as river tourism, where everyday practices (hygiene, food, etc.) combine with tourism activities (Kaaristo & Rhoden, 2017). Moreover, the deployment of familiar perceptions is not limited to destinations, but the tourist perspective is also evident in transit spaces, such as airports (Kang, 2016), and in the various practice spaces, “wherever we are and whatever we are doing” (Franklin & Crang, 2001, 8). The analysis of the duration of the experience and the distance between origin and destination has become more complex, making it difficult to categorise the practice, and therefore the time-space experience as a tourist or non-tourist: the example of a day spent in Naples from Paris illustrates this difficulty (Knafou et al., 1997, 200).
On the other hand, everyday life is imbued with practices and signs that come from tourism. Michel Lussault highlights the presence of objects and narratives that express tourism experiences and projects within the everyday domestic space (2007, 340). To describe this phenomenon, the MIT team proposed identifying tourism-related practices in non-tourism situations (2011, 200), raising important questions about how to characterise these contemporary hybrid spaces that combine tourism and non-tourism.
Xavier Michel
Bibliography
- Beritelli Pietro, Reinhold, Stephan, Laesser, Christian, 2020, «Visitor flows, trajectories and corridors: Planning and designing places from the traveler’s point of view», Annals of Tourism Research 82, article 102936.
- Buzinde Christine N., Manuel-Navarette, David, 2013, «The social production of space in tourism enclaves: Mayan children’s perceptions of tourism boundaries», Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 43, p. 482-505.
- Cribier Françoise, 1969, La grande migration d’été des citadins en France, Paris, Editions du CNRS, 403 p.
- Defert Pierre, 1966, La localisation touristique Problèmes théoriques et pratiques, Berne, Editions Gurten, Publications de l’AIEST, vol. 7, 143 p.
- Delignières Valérie, 1996, Structures, dynamiques et fonctionnement du tourisme en espace rural Approche à deux échelles: France et Auxois-Morvan, Université de Dijon, Thèse de Doctorat en Géographie.
- Dredge Dianne, 1999, «Destination Place Planning and Design», Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, n° 4, p. 772-791.
- Edensor Tim, 2000, «Staging tourism Tourists as performers», Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 27, n° 2, p. 322-344.
- Edensor Tim, 2007, «Mundane mobilities, performances and spaces of tourism», Social and Cultural Geography, vol. 8, n° 2, p. 199-215.
- Equipe MIT, 2011, Tourismes 3 La révolution durable, Paris, Belin, 332 p.
Franklin Adrian, Crang, Mike, 2001, «The trouble with tourism and travel theory», Tourist Studies, volume 1, n° 1, p. 5-22. - Govers Robert, van Hecke, Etienne, Cabus, Peter, 2008, «Delineating tourism Defining the usual environment», Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 35, n° 4, p. 1053-1073.
- Gunn Clare A., 1965, «Giving vacationers a break: A new concept for designing the «Vacationscape», Landscape Architecture Magazine, volume 56, n° 1, p. 35-37.
- Guyonnard Valentin, 2017, Dimensions cachées et attentes spatiales dans un espace de pratique de tourisme et loisir: une analyse géographique de la plage en Charente-Maritime (France), Université de La Rochelle, Thèse de Doctorat en Géographie, 393 p.
- Kang Sanghoon, 2016, «Associations between space-time constraints and spatial patterns of travels», Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 61, p. 127-141.
- Kaaristo Maarja, Rhoden Steven, 2017, «Everyday life and water tourism mobilities: mundane aspects of canal travel», Tourism Geographies, volume 19, n° 1, p. 78-95.
- Knafou Rémy et al., 1997, «Une approche géographique du tourisme», L’Espace géographique, tome 26, n° 3, p. 193-204.
- Hall Colin Michael, 2005, «Space-time accessibility and the tourist area cycle of evolution: The role of geographies spatial interaction and mobility in contributing to an improved understanding of tourism», in Butler, Richard (ed.) The Tourism Life Cycle: Conceptual and Theoretical Issues. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. En ligne.
- Lundgren J.O.J., 1974, «On access to recreational lands in dynamic metropolitan hinterlands», Tourist Review, volume 29, n° 4, p. 124-131.
- Lau Gigi, McKercher Bob, 2007, «Understanding tourist movement patterns in a destination: A GIS approach», Tourism and Hospitality Research, vol. 7, n° 1, 2007, p. 39-49.
- Lew Alan, McKercher Bob, 2006, «Modeling tourist movements A local destination analysis», Annals of Tourism Research, volume 33, n° 2, p. 403-423.
- Lue Chi-Chuan, Crompton John, Fesenmaier, Daniel R., 1993, «Conceptualization of multi-destination pleasure trips», Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 20, p. 289-301.
Lussault Michel, 2007, «Le tourisme, un genre commun», Duhamel, Philippe, Knafou, Rémy (dir.), Mondes urbains du tourisme, Paris, Belin, p. 333-349. - Mac Cannell Dean, 1973, «Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings», American Journal of Sociology, vol. 79, n° 3, p. 589-603.
- Mansfeld Yoel, 1990, « Spatial patterns of international tourist flows: towards a theoretical framework », Progress in Human Geography, vol. 14, n° 3, 1990, p. 372-390.
- McKercher Bob, Lew Alan, 2003, «Distance decay and the impact of effective tourism exclusion zones on international travel flows», Journal of Travel Research, vol. 42, n° 2, p. 159-165.
- Michel Xavier, 2003, «Les sites d’excursion et leurs abords: fonctions, usages et représentations des espaces d’approche et de contemplation des sites touristiques», Mosella, tome XXVIII, n° 3-4, p. 259-269.
- Miossec Jean-Marie, 1976, «Eléments pour une théorie de l’espace touristique», Les Cahiers du Tourisme, Série C, n° 36, 62 p.
- Miossec Jean-Marie, 1977, « Un modèle de l’espace touristique », L’Espace géographique, vol. 6, n° 1, p. 41-48.
- Oppermann Martin, 1995, «A model of travel itineraries», Journal of Travel Research, p. 57-61.
- Piriou Jérôme, 2012, Enquête sur la région touristique Une recherche sur les pratiques spatiales de dimension régionale des acteurs du tourisme, Université d’Angers, Thèse de Doctorat en Géographie, 575 p.
- Potier, Françoise, Terrier, Christophe, 2007, Atlas des mobilités touristiques en France métropolitaine, Paris, Autrement, 112 p.
- Shoval, Noam, Ahas, Rein (2016). «The use of tracking technologies in tourism research: the first decade», Tourism Geographies, volume 18, n° 5, p. 587-606.
- Violier Philippe, 1999, «Les acteurs du système touristique et leurs logiques spatiales», in L’espace local et les acteurs du tourisme, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, p. 57-67.
- Wackermann Gabriel, 1973, Les loisirs dans l’espace rhénan. De la région zurichoise à la frontière germano-néerlandaise Une analyse géographique dans un espace multinational, Université Louis Pasteur, 673 p.