Urban villages and urban tourism : unidirectional relation or scene of changing dynamics in tourist destinations : differences between Chinese and foreign tourists through analyzing tangible and intangible destination c

(1)

(2)

(3)

Colophon

Master thesis

Graduate Degree Human Geography

Title

Urban Villages and Urban Tourism: unidirectional relation or scene of changing dynamics in tourist destinations

Differences between Chinese and foreign tourists through analyzing tangible and intangible destination characteristics: A case study of Baishizhou Village, Shenzhen, China

Supervisor dr. M.A. Bontje Co Tutor C.W. Yang MSc Second Reader dr. ir. C.J.M. Karsten Student Douwe Bruinsma UvA ID:10271112 Douwe.l.bruinsma@gmail.com Date August 2016

(4)

Abstract

In merely thirty-seven years the administrative population of Shenzhen has grown from approximately 30,000 inhabitants to, according to some sources, a population of more than 20 million (O’Donnell, 2016; Sala, 2016; Zhen, 2016). A significant part of this growth in population size can be attributed to the massive rural-urban migration in China. In Shenzhen, most of these migrants settle in urban villages; former villages that, in the course of time, are encapsulated by the ever-growing city. Most of these urban villages are extremely dense, thus providing relatively cheap housing for migrants, and now accommodate more than half of the total population of Shenzhen. Urban villages are clearly distinctive from neighboring areas and differ from their surrounding environment because of their physical and socioeconomic characteristics. At the same time a relatively new form of urban tourism is emerging, by Western scholars referred to as backstage tourism or new urban tourism. Instead of visiting iconic sites and top-down promoted landmarks, these city visitors rather move beyond these touristy destinations and experience daily life in an authentic setting. This particular form of urban tourism is often found in places that are distinctive and uncontrived, not planned as tourism zones. As (international) tourism is an increasing industry in Shenzhen, urban villages could possibly function as a place that can meet the needs of the new urban tourist. Urban Villages might already be a scene of emerging new urban tourism for they come very close to the needs and characteristics of new urban tourism. This thesis aims to connect the complex academic field of new urban tourism with urban villages as potential tourist destinations. More specifically, by taking the urban village of Baishizhou as a case, this study will explore the likeliness of urban villages to be or become places of interest for the new urban tourist. The results of this thesis could possibly influence the way urban villages are regarded from a top-down perspective with as ultimate consequence preservation from demolition, as tourist destinations can contribute to the fulfillment of the economic and cultural goals set by the Shenzhen government.

Key words: Tourism, Urban Tourism, New Urban Tourism, Location attributes, Tangible Destination Characteristics, Intangible Destination Characteristics, Pull Factors, Urban Village, Baishizhou

(5)

Acknowledgements

From the first Shenzhen thesis meeting in December 2015 until the deadline in August 2016, this thesis project, as part of the Human Geography master’s programme at the University of Amsterdam, slowly but steadily took shape. In the thesis that lies in front of you, tourism and urban geography as my areas of interest have come together in the city of Shenzhen, China. For over three years I am joyfully engaged in Amsterdam tourism in the function of hotel concierge alongside my studies, and to me it seemed as a magnificent opportunity to combine this thesis project with the field of tourism together with the desire to fulfill this very last assignment abroad. So why Shenzhen? Although 9 weeks of residence in a city could be considered as a sufficient amount of time to grasp the essence of the place, Shenzhen proved the contrary. The continuous stream of new developments and the ‘the more you know, the more you know you don’t know’ mechanism resulted in that it sometimes seemed as if the city was getting harder to understand as I stayed longer. As a New Town, Shenzhen is working hard to catch-up in many areas in order to reach (and surpass) Western levels of prosperity and to position itself in the frontline of new global cross-sector developments. Although China in some areas, such as tourist destination preferences, still ‘lags behind’ if one regards the West as trendsetter because China only relatively recently gained the financial resources that tourism demands, the scale, pace and ideals behind these developments are unprecedented. Therefore, I wondered how a particularly in the Western context explained concept as new urban tourism could be applied to a Chinese city. Shenzhen, in many ways a pioneering city in China and with the ambition to develop international tourism in addition to the solid base of domestic tourism, proved to be a good choice.

Before, during and after the fieldwork in Shenzhen, several people and institutions have been of help during the process of writing this thesis, and words of appreciation are no less than justified. Foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to the students of the Shenzhen University, in particular Killian and Zoë. Their translations during interviews and surveys were indispensable for this thesis. The help of Jimmy, one of the expats living in Baishizhou, Shenzhen, was also valuable as he showed me around in Baishizhou and translated the survey into Chinese. Appreciated are the tourists who completed the survey and the interviewees who made time to share their knowledge. In addition, I would like to thank the University of Amsterdam and the Graduate School of Social Sciences for offering the opportunity to conduct fieldwork in such a special environment. Furthermore, I appreciate the supervision of M. Bontje and C.W. Yang. I thank INTI for not only taking care of practical matters such as the visa application documentation, but also for providing our group with a solid introduction program that helped us to gain deeper knowledge about Shenzhen as well as to establish helpful local contacts for the actual fieldwork phase. Finally, my girlfriend Inez deserves a big thank you for caring, supporting and motivating me whenever it was needed.

It was a truly special experience to live and learn in Shenzhen. I genuinely hope that this research will be able to captivate your interest and that you will enjoy reading it.

(6)

“I thought back to my first encounter with Baishizhou, when I was so excited to have finally found a city in Shenzhen — a real city, with all of its chaos and contradictions, its layers of human activity — and not just a series of master-planned parcels. For six yuan, I bought a bottle of beer and played pool on a lumpy outdoor table, passersby looking amusedly at my atrocious skills at billiards. Leaving the village, I got lost in some narrow lanes before emerging, unexpectedly, on a tree-lined street filled with hawkers. The Eiffel Tower loomed in the distance, illuminated by the flash and burst of the nightly fireworks show”.

Christopher deWolf (Journalist, writing for The Wall Street Journal, the South China Morning Post and numerous websites)

(7)

H1: Introduction

In recent decades, global tourism has become one of the fastest growing economic sectors on earth. The travel and tourism industry not only has experienced continuous growth, but also deepening diversification. While some countries are just opening up to tourism, other countries already have a long history of outbound and inbound tourism, and created a vast range of facilities catering to tourism. Recent figures show that over 1.1 billion international tourists travelled the world in 2014. Recent statistics show that global tourism accounts for approximately ten percent of today’s total global Gross Domestic Product, thereby surpassing oil exportation or the automobile industry. In addition, the United Nations World Tourism Organization refers to modern tourism as “a key driver for socioeconomic progress” (UNWTO, 2015) as it represents one of the main income sources for a significant amount of developing countries.

One of the countries that relatively recently opened up to tourism is China. Despite this, China is already one the leading countries in primarily outbound tourism, as disposable incomes rose, restrictions on foreign travel have been eased and travel facilitation has improved. These factors tremendously impacted the domestic tourism market as well. Opposed to outbound tourism, China as a tourist receiving country is also among the highest ranked countries in the world. Besides domestic tourism, China received 56.9 million international overnight tourists in 2014 (UNWTO, 2015). Within China, the Shenzhen government promotes itself as “one of the most important and profitable tourist cities in China” (Shenzhen Government Online, 2013). In 2013, 99.2 million people visited Shenzhen, up 8.9% from the previous year. Overnight overseas visitors totaled 12.2 million, leading the nation's main tourist cities and representing an increase of 0.7% from 2012 (Shenzhen Government Online, 2013). Simultaneously, the Shenzhen Government formulated Shenzhen tourism development objectives in the 11th five year plan, stating that Shenzhen needs to be built into an international tourist city with high reputation in the international area, distinct seaside tourism and international business travel features. In addition, the tourism industry needs to be developed into a core industry. In 2010, Shenzhen was named one of the 31 tour destinations that global tourists must travel to by the New York Times (Chen, 2010). In line with their ambitions to increase tourism and especially international tourism, Shenzhen will start allowing a 72 hour visa free entry for foreigners within the first half of 2016 (Sasin, 2016).

Although not recognized as such by local and national authorities, the urban villages in Shenzhen could possibly fulfill an important role in the ambitions formulated above. These traditional villages that originally formed Shenzhen four decades ago were not demolished during the process of urbanization but were instead ‘swallowed’ by the emerging urban structure, and therefore were enclosed in it partly or completely intact as an extraordinary element of the city. Each village in the city is an intricate and delicate niche that both accommodate a large migrant population as well as a vibrant economy (Hao et al., 2012). While the villages changed tremendously as becoming part of the city, the extraordinary nature of the urban village nevertheless seems to show a noteworthy overlap with the interests of the new urban tourist. As an emerging form of urban tourism, new urban tourism comprises an increasingly significant part of tourism (Maitland & Newman, 2004; Huning & Novy, 2006; Maitland, 2010; Novy, 2011; Maitland, 2013; Füller & Michel, 2014). These tourists are orientated towards an urban experience of ‘ordinary’ and lively areas to consume ‘authentic’ local amenities (Füller & Michel, 2014).

(11)

To investigate the likeliness of an urban village to be or become a site for tourists to spend their time, this thesis tries to delve deeper in the topic of urban villages and new urban tourism through empirical data gathering in and around the urban village of Baishizhou. The following question will guide the search and reviewing of relevant literature as well as the research I will conduct in Shenzhen and the resulting thesis:

To what extent is the concept of New Urban Tourism applicable to the urban village of Baishizhou in the context of Shenzhen as both a domestic and international tourist destination?

1.1. Scientific relevance

The body of literature on tourism, destinations and urban tourism is extensive and many studies elaborate on different forms and trajectories of urban tourism (Ashworth & Page, 2011). Deriving from the field of urban tourism, academic work on the concept of new urban tourism is also expanding, particularly in recent years (Maitland & Newman, 2004; Huning & Novy, 2006; Maitland, 2010; Novy, 2011; Maitland, 2013; Füller & Michel, 2014). Although these scholarly works provide fundamental understanding about recent dynamics in the field of urban tourism, they are generally embedded in a Western context. Literature about new urban tourism or similar phenomena can hardly be found in the context of Asian countries. The work of Kim and Prideaux (2005) underscores this gap in knowledge by stating that because most of the tourism studies of the past were conducted in Australia, Europe or the US there remains both a lack of empirical findings relating to Asia regions and a lack of multinational studies that include both Western and Asian tourists.

Furthermore, scientific articles about tourism in China are also widely available, but seem to neglect new forms of urban tourism. Literature on the historical hutongs in Beijing in combination with tourism (Gu & Ryan, 2008) seems to display the most resemblances with the above mentioned phenomenon of new urban tourism. However, as China is rapidly changing from a developing country into a developed country, the way tourism is interpreted and facilitated by Chinese governments is very likely to change as well. This gap in knowledge regarding manifestations of new forms of urban tourism in non-Western societies needs to be addressed, as Asia, and China in particular, is becoming one of the key drivers behind global tourism. This thesis aims to redirect the scope of the academic debate within the framework of new urban tourism by shedding light on tourism dynamics in the urban village of Baishizhou in Shenzhen, China, thus adding broader understanding of the complex field of urban tourism.

1.2. Social relevance

Government officials and parts of Chinese society think of the urban villages as problematic and undesirable, hence a problem for urban governance (Hao et al., 2012). Nevertheless, they fulfill an important role for migrants as these urban areas provide relatively affordable housing along with countless facilities such as markets, shops and schools. Urban villages offer a place where migrants and/or less fortunate people can get foot on the ground in an urban environment where people of lower socio-economical class seem to be overlooked. Despite this crucial function, demolition awaits most urban villages, followed by the construction of more expensive middle and high-class housing. However, as tourism is an increasing industry in Shenzhen, and literature suggests that tourists nowadays behave differently and prefer an authentic experience away from the beaten track, urban villages might fill in this niche as they seem to represent Chinese daily life in a vibrant multiethnic

(12)

setting. As Meng Yan (2008) argues: “the unique and distinct social and architectural condition of urban villages results in vibrant activities; it is a 24-hour mini-city, an urban enclave within the city fabric. Compared to ‘well-designed’ upper middle-class gated residential compounds that become isolated islands in the city ignoring the original urban fabric, urban villages form an alternative open structure containing small-scale shopping streets, intimate public places and, above all, opportunities for small businesses. In contrast with the surrounding globalized city, they still retain traces of indigenous creation through the enthusiasm of original villagers and migrants, and demonstrate an extraordinary social vitality and typological diversity in spatial configuration. From an urban point of view, the Village in the City should not be bulldozed” (Yan, 2008, p. 59).

Showing that urban villages could be valuable as a generator for further increase in tourism, might lead to a certain extent of governmental approval with respect to urban villages, thereby replacing the desire of demolition. For now, urban villages seem to solely deliver human resources for the tourism sector outside the urban village. The results of this thesis could possibly influence the way urban villages are regarded from a top-down perspective with as ultimate consequence preservation from demolition, thereby maintaining the most essential current entrance in the Chinese housing market for rural-urban migrants and low income people. while tourist destinations can contribute to the fulfillment of the economic and cultural goals set by the Shenzhen government (Shenzhen Government Online, 2013). Finally, the results of this thesis also shed light on the possible downside of tourism in the urban village of Baishizhou. The way the urban village might change or is already experiencing change due to tourism and the relation between the host community and potential tourism is further investigated.

This thesis is divided into six chapters. In addition to the introductory chapter as discussed above, chapter two presents and discusses scientific work with respect to several aspects of urban tourism. Chapter three elaborates on the research design, including the main research question and methodology. Chapter four is concerned with the research area of Baishizhou an places it in the context of urbanization in China and Shenzhen. Chapter five presents the findings for each of the five sub-questions, which shall be intertwined and discussed in chapter six. Furthermore, chapter six will include recommendations for future research and a personal reflection on the whole process of establishing this thesis.

(13)

H2: Theoretical framework

The literature that is related to the research question is concentrated around the overarching theme of this thesis: tourism. The first section will elaborate on definitions with respect to tourism and tries to identify mechanisms at the very basis of tourism. A form of tourism is urban tourism, which will be discussed in section two. In direct relation with section two, section three addresses a new form of urban tourism. This so-called ‘new urban tourism’ is crucial for this particular thesis. To embed the general literature of tourism in a more local context, section four focusses on tourism in China, whereas section five looks into the impacts of tourism on local communities. Eventually, all parts will be combined and discussed so that this research is grounded in and based on scientific theory next to empirical findings. Literature on urbanization in China and one of its outcomes in the form of urban villages will, due to its descriptive nature, be discussed in chapter four Research area.

2.1. Tourism

As stated in the introduction, tourism is becoming one of the fastest growing economic sectors in the world. Before discussing tourism and some of its facets, one first needs to provide a workable definition with respect to tourism. This review discusses three different but highly interrelated definitions of tourism, which show the comprehensive nature of tourism as a concept. The first definition of the United Nations World Tourism Organization is the most commonly used definition and states that: “Tourism comprises the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited” (UNWTO, 2012). For this definition, ‘other purposes’ include for example visiting friends and religious reasons such as pilgrimages. In addition, Mathieson & Wall also emphasize the facilities which relate to tourism: “The temporary movement of people to destinations outside their normal places of work and residence, the activities undertaken during their stay in those destinations, and the facilities created to cater to their needs” (Mathieson & Wall, 1982, p.1). Finally, the most abstract definition of tourism of Macintosh & Goeldner, primarily focuses on the web of actors linked with tourism: “The sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the interaction of tourists, business suppliers, host governments and host communities in the process of attracting and hosting these tourists and other visitors (Macintosh & Goeldner, 1995, p.10).

Although it seems difficult to provide an inclusive definition of tourism, it is clear that tourism in its broadest sense takes place in an environment which is away from ‘home’ and includes a huge set of relations within physical, social, cultural and economic dimensions linked with this voluntary trip. Goeldner & Ritchie (2003) define visitors as all types of travelers engaged in tourism. They subdivide visitors into two categories: same-day visitors who do not stay overnight at the visited destination and tourists (visitors who stay in the country/destination for at least one night). In both cases, a visitor is a person on “a trip between two or more countries or between two or more localities within the country of usual residence" (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003, p. 8). In addition, they further define international visitors as persons who travel for a period of less than 12 months to a different country than their own and domestic visitors as persons who travel to a destination within their own country within a timespan of less than a year.

Besides studies that try to define what tourism exactly is and includes, other studies in the field of tourism aim to reveal why people behave as tourists in the first place. To answer questions about

(14)

travel motivations, Dann's (1977) push and pull framework represents an accurate way to research travel behaviors. It is widely acknowledged that push factors comprise psychological forces such as social interaction, the desire for escape, adventure, relaxation, and self-exploration. On the other hand, pull factors consist of tangible and intangible characteristics of a specific destination that ‘drive' travelers to realize their needs from a particular travel experience, such as natural attractions, food and people. Thus, in this framework, the push factors drive people to travel whereas the pull factors influence their choice to prefer one destination over another. Klenosky (2002) further condensed the framework, by referring to push factors as “whether to go” and the pull factors as “where to go.” Kim and Lee (2002) viewed push and pull factors as demand and supply dimensions in the decision making process.

2.1.1. Pull factors: destination attributes

In literature related to tourism, one of the most frequently used concepts is destination. However, different actors in the tourism industry and among tourism researchers use it very differently (Framke, 2002). Traditionally, destinations are regarded as well-defined geographical areas, such as country, an island or a town (Buhalis, 2000). However, the perception of Buhalis is rather static and neglects the dynamic and highly personal nature of a destination. Framke distinguishes two major forms of interpreting the destination, namely the conventional business oriented understanding of destinations and the sociological understanding, which is particularly opposed to Buhalis (2000). To illustrate the conventional point of view, Framke cites the work of Jensen, Hansen and Metz (1993): “a tourist destination is defined as a geographical area which exhibits landscape and cultural characteristics and which is in a position to offer a tourism product, which means a wide range of facilities in transport, accommodation and food, and at least one outstanding activity or experience” (p. 42). Opposed to this concrete perspective on tourism destinations, Framke describes the abstract sociological perspective as result of social practice; every activity happens at a place, and such activities form the place. This means that a destination is not a physical agglomeration of facilities and businesses but a process which at any specific moment can reshape the place as seen through the eyes of the actors involved in this process. Framke concludes that “the sum of interests, activities, facilities, infrastructure and attractions create the identity of a place – the destination. It has a static dimension – the place – and a dynamic dimension – the mix and agglomeration of agents and products/services, varying with the tourists’ historically changing demand (p. 105). A point of strength of Framke lies in the fact that she is able to distinguish between the static and dynamic dimensions of a destination before intertwining them. Leiper (2000) adds to the debate by underscoring that destinations should be regarded as places towards which people travel and where they choose to reside for some time in order to experience specific features or characteristics of a perceived attraction of some sort.

Scientists are rightfully increasingly consentient in recognizing that a destination can also be an intuitive, subjective concept, which can be interpreted different by consumers and future visitors, depending on their cultural background, educational background, past experiences and their travel itinerary (Buhalis, 2000). Buhalis also argues that “Destinations are amalgams of individually produced tourism amenities and services (accommodation, transportation, catering, entertainment, etc.) and a wide range of public goods (such as landscape, scenery, sea, lakes, socio-cultural surroundings, atmosphere, etc.). All these elements are branded together under the name of the destination” (Buhalis, 2000, p.102). Thus, the concept of destination is hard to define in an absolute

(15)

way, as the comprehensiveness of the destination concept effectively means that the tourism product for each future traveler is very subjective and depends heavily on his/her expectations and image of the place.

Building on the previous part, one could state that both tangible and intangible destination characteristics create an overall image of a destination. Benur & Bramwell (2015) argue that while tourism products in destinations are often related to a complex set of physical, environmental and socio-cultural attributes and infrastructure, the product images and their meanings are also highly important. Thus, the set of tangible characteristics of a destination is of great importance to the way a visitors experiences a destination (intangible). Qian (2008) states that the spirit of a place can be regarded through both tangible and intangible elements of a place, from the architecture, the natural settings, to daily activities, as well as the traditions and customs, and the way of life, of the owning community.

Hu and Ritchie (1993) conceptualized the tourist destination as `a package of tourism facilities and services, which like any other consumer product, is composed of a number of multi-dimensional attributes. Murphy et al. (2000) discuss multiple attributes. Physical attributes of the destination possibly include aspects like a site or facility, natural resources such as scenic landscape, animals or forests, or meteorological conditions such as the weather. In addition, social factors like the kindness of local residents, the language spoken at the destination, occupations, urban layout and population density, are also features of the destination. Furthermore, infrastructure is also a visible feature of developed and under-developed tourism products that can influence the visitors' trip experience. The economic and cultural conditions that characterize a destination, such as currency exchange, pricing, authentic local culture, its history, institutions and customs can provide a “rich experiential tapestry for the visiting tourist” (Murphy et al, 2000, p.48). Finally, the political dimension is another significant factor that adds to the character of the destination product. The political stability or foreign policy on issues such as human rights or democratic elections can influence tourist perceptions and behavior (Murphy et al., 2000).

Pull factors are affiliated with the attractiveness of a certain destination and tangible characteristics such as beaches, accommodation and recreation facilities and cultural and historical resources according to Uysal & Hagan (1993). These authors argue that the destination choice process might therefore be related to tourists’ assessments of destination characteristics and their perceived utility values. Possible influential factors include climate, ecology, culture, architecture, hotels, catering, transport, entertainment, cost etc. Attributes based on a destination could be among many and differ from one destination to another. However, McKercher & Lew (2004) argue that the choice of a destination is foremost influenced by convenience and time-budget. When one has to choose between similar destinations, the tourist will generally choose the more convenient one as reaching this destination consumes less time. Proximate destinations have a competitive advantage over less proximate ones. In addition, they state that accessibility of a destination has a thorough effect on destination choice, due to its influence on visitor traffic and in terms of influencing the market mix of rivaling destinations. Destinations with strong market access have two major competitive advantages. Not only they are attractive to people who want to reduce travel time and optimize time spent at a destination, but also because destinations with strong market access have the potential to benefit from the passing stream of people in their way to more distant destinations,

(16)

thus creating secondary destination opportunities (McKercher & Lew, 2004). The arguments of these scholars speak in favor of Baishizhou if one considers the urban village as a (secondary) destination, because Baishizhou enjoys a central location in Shenzhen, amidst massive tourist flows generated by the surrounding tourist destinations.

2.1.2. Push factors: motivations

Opposed to the academic debate around the topic of pull factors, one can find the field of motivational research. The former is nevertheless inseparable connected with the latter. Whereas pull factors offer a variety of products and services to attract visitors, different factors may have an influence on destination choice, such as age, income, personality, cost, distance, risk and motivation. Prior the phase of choosing a location, the future tourist consciously or unconsciously possesses motivations that provide a reason to undertake a trip. Tourism literature emphasizes on the importance of both push and pull factors in shaping tourist motivations and in choosing vacation destinations. Push factors are origin-related and refer to the intrinsic desires of the individual traveler, such as the desire for escape, rest and relaxation, adventure, health or prestige (Leiper, 2000). A vast amount of academic work, cutting through several scientific disciplines such as psychology, sociology and human geography, is focused on why people intend to travel from an intrinsic point of view. While this thesis will emphasize on Baishizhou through analyzing the pull factors of this destination, the choice of a destination or the consideration to visit a destination tell something about the intrinsic desires of a tourist. Therefore, if tourists consider to visit Baishizhou, it says something about their internal desire that motivated them to travel in the first place.

Dann (1977) argues that motivational factors can be classified as ‘anomie’ and ‘ego-enhancement’. In this proposal, anomie refers to the desire to transcend the feeling of isolation unavoidably linked to everyday life and to simply ‘get away from it all’ while ego-enhancement is derived from the need for recognition and where status is obtained through traveling. Crompton (1979) on the other hand, identified seven socio-psychological and two ‘alternate cultural’ motives guiding visitors’ choice of a holiday destination. Crompton mentions escape from a perceived mundane environment, exploration and evaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression (handling impulses less like an adult as context of daily life falls away), enhancement of kinship relationships, facilitation of social interaction, novelty, and education (Crompton, 1979). More recent work of Kim et al. (2003) identified seven broad domains of push factors. These push factors included being with family, study, enjoying natural resources, health, escaping from everyday routine, adventure and building friendships. These studies provide some general push factors such as escape, novelty, social interaction, and prestige. These factors need to be considered in order to answer the question why tourists choose a place over another, what type of experiences they seek and the type of activities they want.

Taking the motivational arguments into consideration, Leiper (2000), argues that:

“There is no evidence that any destination ever attracted, in a literal sense, any tourists. [. . .] The main causal factors of tourist flows are not located in destinations but in traveler generating regions, in places where trips begin, where the forces that stimulate tourists’ motivations are located and where marker systems directing tourists to nuclear elements of attractions begin” (p. 366).

(17)

Differences in travel motivations seem to differ in an endless variety from person to person. However, Kim and Prideaux (2005) investigated the international leisure tourism market in South-Korea and discovered that there are significant differences between nationalities regarding motivations for choosing South-Korea as a destination. Japanese tourists showed more interest on the prestige/status and the family togetherness motivation domains compared to Anglo-American tourists. Conversely, Anglo-American tourists placed more importance on the novelty seeking domain compared to Japanese respondents. The study concluded that the difference of travel motivation is likely to result from a gap between Anglo-American and Japanese cultures. That is, Japanese tourists tend to show more collectivistic characteristics in seeking travel motivation, while American tourists tend to show more individualistic characteristics.

Kim and Prideaux (2005) demonstrated that tourists with different cultural backgrounds may show differences in their motivations, preferred tourism resources, and behavioral characteristics. It is interesting to note that the responses of Western tourists (Americans and Australian) were markedly different to the responses of Asian tourists in most aspects of their study. American and Australian respondents revealed relatively high levels of motivation for ‘culture and history’, compared to the motivations for travel by Asian national groups. Chinese (mainland) tourists showed a high tendency for preferring leisure facilities and gaming (Kim & Prideaux, 2005). This resembles the findings of a newspaper article as they found that the number of Chinese (mainland) tourists visiting Korea who want to participate in casino gambling and amusement theme parks is gradually increasing (Chosun Daily Newspaper, 2002). The findings from this study indicate that despite the technological revolution and the influence of globalization, differing cultural backgrounds still lead to different image perceptions (Bonn et al., 2005).

The outcome of the combination of both push and pull factors in relation to tourism is roughly captured in figure 1. The principal factors effecting destination choice are grouped into categories. The choice of a destination is build up from internal and external forces, as is represented by level 2. The internal forces, regarded as push factors, consist of 4 factors (psychological, physical, social interaction, and seeking/exploration). These four levels can in turn be split up and comprise a total of 11 items. The external force or pull force can be divided in tangible and intangible destination attributes. The tangible factors include 9 items, and intangible factors include 2 items (Hsu et al., 2009). This provides a workable tool with respect to tourist destination research because it decomposes the complex destination selection process in more easily measurable elements. However, as for this thesis the emphasizes will be put on the external force, as Hsu et al. (2009) call it, level 4 of the tangible and intangible factors is not exhaustive. Bearing in mind that the number of factors that determine the choice of a destination is subjective and therefore endless, tangible destination characteristics for example also include architecture and the availability of restaurants and bars.

(18)

Figure 1: the hierarchy of destination selection (Source: Hsu et al., 2009)

2.2. Urban tourism

Scholarly attention for a long time rather focused on urban tourism as a part of leisure studies and approached urban tourism as a marginal and trivial activity of recreation (Ashworth & Page, 2011). Cities were linked with tasks of labor, trade and administration, while recreation had to take place in nature, either in rural areas or urban parks. In line with the increasingly urbanizing world population dominated by urban growth in low and middle income countries especially in Asia, urban tourism became a more prominent research topic in the 1990s and therefore had significant implications on tourism in general. Although urban tourism is a form of tourism and is therefore likely to be defined more easily, the article of Asworth & Page(2011) proves the contrary. Simply adding the word urban to tourism only locates an activity in a spatial context but does not define that activity. Novy (2011) does however argue that urban tourism distinguishes itself from rural tourism because of the density and variety of this particular spatial context in combination with the variety of reasons to visit an urban area. Urban tourism differs from tourism in general because of huge varieties in facilities, suppliers, products, markets, experiences in line with the complex nature of cities (Novy, 2011). Both authors agree on the assumption that tourism in urban environments not only differs from tourism in other environments, but that there are different forms of urban tourism, suggesting that different definitions might be suitable for different places of investigation.

Law (2002) argues that urban areas need to possess some key attributes as tourist destinations. Urban areas need to have naturally large populations which in turn might lead to attracting visiting friends and relatives. They attract visitors to their attractions because these attractions are often more developed than in other kinds of destinations and they are easily accessible through for instance airports. Finally, urban destinations appeal to a range of different tourist sectors as they offer communications, transport, services and facilities which meet tourist needs.

Due to the growing importance of urban areas with respect to tourism, Maitland (2013) notes that urban economies have sought to develop tourism and creating distinct places by commodifying their heritage, assembling different places and investing in iconic constructions. The inevitable paradox is

(19)

that “the search for differentiation has led to standardization and construction of ‘placeless’ environments that might be anywhere. The eventual results could reduce the cities’ attractiveness to some increasingly sophisticated tourists” (Maitland, 2013, p. 13).

Partly in line with the work of Murphy et al. (2000), Law (2002) describes primary, secondary and additional elements that determine the attractiveness of an urban destination for visitors. Primary elements represent the key motivations for why tourists visit cities. Secondary elements such as markets and accommodation are also considered to be important for the success of urban tourism, although they are not the main pull factor for visitors. The additional elements are less important during the selection of an urban tourist destination, but come into play when the tourist arrived at the destination. Law underscores the importance of historic attributes like buildings, neighborhoods, and special landmarks as they emphasize the local character of an area. The model of Law (2002) is an elaborate version of a part of the model of Hsu et al (2009). Figure 2 focuses on the tangible aspects of pull factors or external forces as described by Hsu et al. The scheme of Law breaks down the tangible destination attributes into primary elements, secondary elements and additional elements.

Figure 2: Tangible pull forces. (Source: Law, 2002).

2.3. New urban tourism

In reaction to the foregoing, new urban tourism is a relatively new phenomenon of urban tourism, but nevertheless comprises an increasingly significant part of tourism (Maitland & Newman, 2004; Huning & Novy, 2006; Maitland, 2010; Novy, 2011; Maitland, 2013; Füller & Michel, 2014). Maitland & Newman (2004) pioneered in the field of new urban tourism through a case-study exploration of a London area which attracts tourists while in the meantime lacking widely acknowledged distinctive heritage or large attractions. This contradicts for instance the work of Law (2002), who argues that an urban destination needs key attributes to become a tourist destination. Maitland (2010) states

(20)

that some city-visitors consider the opportunity to experience and feel a part of daily life as an important element with respect to the appeal of the city. Earlier research of Molotch et al. (2000), emphasizes on why places become distinctive and elaborates on intangible aspects such as the ‘atmosphere’ of a place. In stressing the importance of a ‘mix’ of economic, social, physical characteristics and aspects such as atmosphere and vibrancy, they show that the distinctive character of a place lays in the connections between the above mentioned elements instead of the dominant force of one specific element. The characteristics and expectations of visitors are of great importance to the mix of tangible and intangible elements of a place. Richards & Wilson (2007) recognize a shift from ‘having’ a holiday through ‘doing’ a holiday to ‘becoming’ and thus argue that city tourism is changing from a tangible resources based type to intangible resources like lifestyle, image and creativity. This statement, however, is perhaps too short-sighted as city tourism is not one type of tourism and is ‘practiced’ by many different actors, as well as it differs from one city to another.

In order to understand new urban tourism areas one needs to understand both the visitors as well as the characteristics of a destination (Maitland & Newman, 2004). Their research found that visitors to this area differed from London visitors in general, mainly due to a higher age, more travel experience in London and more likeliness to visit friends or relations. Particularly repeat visitors avoid recognized tourist destinations because they have already visited the main attractions during their first visit and now look for low profile and ‘real’ neighborhoods. These ‘new tourists’ are drawn to this particular area not because of major individual attractions, but the broader qualities of the place: its distinctive physical appearance in the form of architecture, streetscape and buildings, socio-cultural environment visitors perceived and the atmosphere of urban ‘grit’, a sense that the place is not touristy but rather unpolished, which resembles with the ‘lash-up’ of place elements Molotch et al. (2000) describe. Built environment and sense of place are important. The morphology of the districts, with traditional and intricate street patterns and buildings of varied age, type and style is seen as appealing and distinctive (Maitland, 2010). Observing everyday life is interesting to new urban tourists, but it might be more crucial as a marker that the area is beyond the beaten track and that “not simply a show it put on for visitors”(Maitland 2010, p. 180). Especially for visitors who live in cities and with extensive travel experience, the sense of being in an unbranded, real district can be a sought after experience. Gentrifying neighborhoods that are close to historical city centers and to traditional attractions are likely to offer a mix of cultural difference and consumption possibilities and are likely to offer the new urban tourist a chance to experience everyday life (Maitland, 2010). It is therefore that new urban tourists are attracted to gentrifying areas, as these changing areas offer the widest variety of facilities, in line with the shifting population structure. After a certain point however, the population stratification becomes more homogeneous resulting in less diverse facilities.

A few years later, Maitland (2013) adds that leisure tourism is just one of many different mobilities that bring people to cities such as business visitors and visiting friends and relatives. As the difference between tourism and other mobilities blurs, so does the difference between touristic and non-touristic behaviors. The boundaries between tourism and other mobilities and between tourists and host communities are blurring and dissolving. The built environment is at the heart of how cities have adapted themselves to encourage tourism, but whilst sometimes visitors do want to experience the city as monumental spectacle and set of iconic attractions, often they seek places

(21)

that are distinctive and uncontrived, not planned as tourism zones. The presence of local people is a key marker and signifier of this ‘real city’. Interaction with local people is also important to experience a destination as authentic. In his article, Maitland (2013) argues that visitors commented enthusiastically about “the pleasure of seeing people going about their tasks, observing ordinary Londoners just doing their thing, and people going about their day, as they would. Everyday work routines take on new significance” (Maitland 2013, p. 14). Visiting local supermarkets is also a characteristic of how a new urban tourist tries to grasp ordinary life. Maitland argues that this can be found in areas that are distinctive, hard to reproduce and rooted in the city’s history and culture where visitors have the opportunity to experience everyday life. His 2010 article does however argue that real and everyday experiences are somewhat elusive concepts, as his findings mainly included gentrified and middle-class neighborhoods. Visitors in his research, like residents, avoided unattractive social housing although this was never explicitly stated in interviews.

Huning & Novy (2006) contribute to these findings by approaching the topic of new urban tourism through the lens of neighborhood regeneration in relation with social capital in Kreuzberg, Berlin and Harlem, New York. They identify ethnic immigrant enclaves with vibrant community life and other areas where people on the lower end of urban class stratification reside and work, which become part of an increasing number of tourists’ travel schedules. The case of Harlem however, proves that ‘off the beaten track tourism’ does not automatically improve the life of low income residents in line with the pace of neighborhood regeneration, because rents increased tremendously while residents were being excluded from the profits that tourism generated. In contrast with the Harlem case, Kreuzberg is not yet as commodified as Harlem because visitors blend in relatively well into its social fabric in terms of lifestyle and residents form an organized community. It is hard to measure the economic impact of these visitors because they are difficult to distinguish from local residents. Huning & Novy state that if the formation of an organized community who is capable of representing their interests to external actors succeeds, tourism is able to make a contribution to the regeneration of deprived neighborhoods and their integration into mainstream society. The research of Füller & Michel (2014) is in line with the research above, as they too found that the new urban tourist is orientated towards an urban experience of ‘ordinary’ and lively areas to consume ‘authentic’ local amenities. The impact of this type of tourism is less visible as it takes place at a much smaller and subtler scale. However, the paradox of new urban tourism is that it can perish due to its own success, because the presence of too many tourists will negatively affect the sense of ordinary and authenticity. The balance between attracting visitors but preserving the authentic local atmosphere is fragile.

Based on the previous literature, new urban tourists aim to go beyond front stage tourism destinations by focusing on off the beaten track destinations within cities. These destinations are usually ethnically diverse, vibrant low class areas without major landmarks and top-down branded tourism activities, although the selectivity among new urban tourists regarding these destinations can be debated (Maitland, 2010). New urban tourists try to behave as locals, thereby approaching authentic life in a setting which is not their home environment as close as possible. Although it is a commendable aim to blend in with the local community, it should be noted that some destinations involve limitations with respect to this aim. Especially in countries such as China and in areas such as Baishizhou, it will prove difficult to blend in as a Westerner, not least due to the difference in ethnicity. Therefore, an important remark has to be made: the vast majority of literature investigating new forms of urban tourism is based on case studies conducted in the Western world;

(22)

hence it is uncertain if new urban tourism, with the same characteristics as in Europe and other Western areas, occur in other parts of the world as well.

2.4. Impact of tourism on local communities

Tourism implies a set of relations through different dimensions with the destination that is visited. Hence, tourist always has to a certain extent impact on primarily the people living at these destinations. These impacts can be positive or negative, and relate to for example economic, social and cultural relationships between host communities and visitors. Ryan (2003, pp. 152–158) suggests multiple variables that should be considered when economic impacts of tourism are discussed: “tourism development of the destination area, the level of economic development of the destination area, the nature of the tourist facilities and their attractiveness, the degree of foreign or out-of-region ownership of hotels and tourism infrastructure, the employment of non-indigenous labour, the infrastructure provided by government, tourist types, and their association with other parts of economy”. Robinson (1999) provides four dimensions in which cultural tensions could manifest themselves: “tourism industry–host conflicts, tourist–host conflicts, tourism–tourist conflicts, and host–host conflict”. Possible influential factors within a conflict between tourism and a host community are the nature and the extent of the commodification of the host culture, the utilization of natural resources and its cultural resources and the level of economic dependency of the host community on tourism.

Luo et al. (2015) argue that backpackers are a special group among tourists as they seek authentic experiences and have more contact with the host community than institutionalized tourists. They state that backpackers are: “Adventurous, authenticity-seeking, Responsible, Budget-minded and Independent” (p. 300) . In addition, they found that hosts generally perceive backpackers and their impact in a positive way. Scholars found that, to a large degree, hosts considered backpackers' impacts to be beneficial for the development of the local society in a Chinese context (Luo et al., 2015).

The article of Liang and Hui (2016) looked for indicators why local residents support tourism in their living area. One of the results implies that the probability of residents supporting future tourism development depends on how they view their community: as a place to work or as a place to live. If people consider their community as a place to earn money, they care about whether they can benefit from employment in their community and endure the perceived negative outcomes of tourism. Those who regard their community primarily as a place to live are more concerned about order, the environment, activities, facilities, and sense of belonging, but they are sensitive to the effects of tourism because tourists intervene in their daily lives.

2.5. Tourism in China & Shenzhen

Li (2002) elaborates on tourism in China, by briefly mentioning the lack of domestic tourism before the reform era and the political orientation of state supervised inbound tourism. After 1986, the Chinese tourism industry became an economic activity, fueled by the Chinese government that made tourism one of its key industrial policies. After the reform era, domestic tourism increased enormously. Since tourism around 2000 was still in its early phase of development in China, sightseeing was the general form of tourist activity, mostly taking national parks as destinations. Theme parks, sports/leisure services, arts performance and cultural entertainment industries in cities have gradually been identified as a new trend of development, stimulated by domestic tourism

(23)

and real estate development. The construction of entertainment parks was booming during the turn of the century (Wu et al., 2000).

However, to attract future inbound tourists to China as well as meeting the constantly changing needs of the domestic Chinese tourist, destinations need to be varied by not only offering traditional Chinese culture and iconic world heritage sites, but also by presenting modern lifestyle and its ordinary places. To cater to both domestic and international tourists, destinations at various levels and attractions of different types should anticipate such changes and embed differences in the motivation and needs of future tourist markets (Xiao, 2013). With respect to the aforementioned, the work of Ding (2012) is interesting because it explores the field of slum tourism (place of urban poverty) in the Chinese context as a form of niche tourism (opposed to the conventional modes of mass tourism). Although controversial, he argues that the urban form in China that is most comparable to the universal criteria of identifying a slum is the urban village, despite the unique modes of housing construction and land ownership status in these areas. Ding argues that poverty or slums have never been a principle tourist attraction in China for domestic and international tourists, unlike the favelas in Brazil and townships in South-Arica have been for their tourism markets. In contrary, studies on Chinese tourism promotion revealed that conventional attractions in China are: ”ruins, religious sites, palaces, monuments and city gateways. Instead of exploration and discovery, China is a destination to admire and meditate upon” (Ding, 2012, p.197). Nevertheless, urban villages are sometimes involved in the tourism debate and do not seem irrelevant to China. According to Ding, some urban policy makers within the Shenzhen government have become interested in the role of urban villages within tourism planning as to promote creative industry developments. He mentions that within policy of spatially, economically and culturally integrating the urban villages in the surrounding urban area, urban villages is given special support to encourage “the diversification of its functions so that it can catch up with urban development and eventually attract investors and tourists from China and abroad” (Ding, 2012, p 198). Besides the cultural capital of the urban villages in the form of remnants of the rural past or new attractions resulting from its location in the city, in the eyes of Ding this process of diversification can be art-led as he explains by describing three different urban villages with both small and large scale art projects (including Dafen village in Shenzhen, chapter 5.1.2.). In addition to these projects, the slum might be seen as attractive because it appears to be the counterpart of modernity and internationalization. The slum tourism vision of Ding is worthwhile to take into account as it shows some similarities with the concept of new urban tourism. Bot new urban tourism and slum tourism are opposed to mainstream tourism by operating in a niche and both kinds of tourism rely on already existing elements that make the destination unique. However, Ding argues from the assumption that the urban village is a slum, whereas for this thesis Baishizhou is not considered to be a slum.

Ding mentions several studies that prove that local residents are either neutral to the arrival of tourists, or positive as the tourists he finalizes y stating that: “Due to this engaging power, slum tourism has the potential to act as the stimulating agency for a more inclusive urban policy” (Ding, 2012, p.202). Li (2002) also studied the effects of tourism on local communities in Shenzhen. He describes how Shenzhen, in line with their ambition to develop cultural tourism, invested in theme parks, mainly targeting tourists from Hong Kong and the domestic market. Respondents in his research primarily saw economic benefits enhancing living standards and enhancing community life by offering better facilities. The related downside comprises local inflation because of wealthy visitors, making products more expensive as well as local real estate. The article of Liang & Bao

(24)

(2015) investigates this phenomenon of tourism gentrification in Shenzhen, which seems opposed to tourism that is attracted by gentrification (chapter 2.3.). While building on existing U.S. based theories regarding tourism induced gentrification, these scholars conclude that tourism gentrification in China comes from different causes and leads to different socio-spatial outcomes, at least in the case of the OCT area in Shenzhen. The Shenzhen OCT community used to be a farm. Over the past two decades, it has become a mixed gentrified community with upper-class and low-income residents. Theme parks and other tourist facilities now dominate much of the area. As the tourism development boosted the value of commercial space and led to rising prices, the small-scale displacement of working-class residents started in this period as well. This phase of tourism gentrification in the OCT community has the characteristics of new-build gentrification. Thus, the authors argue that tourism gentrification in China is more likely to evolve from new-build gentrification than from a middle-class neighborhood as is the case in most Western societies and that tourism gentrification in China leads to a mixed community of both high income residents as well as low income residents. On the basis of this research, they conclude that this mix, visible on at least the district level, leads to an extensive range of cultural and consumption preferences. Liang & Bao (2015, p. 478) state that “Tourism gentrification is one part of a broader transformation of social space from lower-class to upper-class spaces. In the progress of which, tourism becomes the main driving force in economic, social, cultural, and lifestyle transformations”.

2.6. Conclusion

Based on the theoretical framework it is now clear what tourism is and on the basis of which factors future destinations get chosen. A complex interplay between push and pull factors determine whether to go and where to go (Klenosky, 2002). For this thesis the ‘where to go’ factors will be investigated more in depth. These include both tangible and intangible destination attributes. For each destination, the attributes differ according to the local context of this particular place. New urban tourism, which can be regarded as a form of urban tourism, requires a specific set of tangible and therefrom resulting intangible location characteristics. These ‘new urban tourists’ are drawn to particular areas not because of major individual attractions, but the broader qualities of the place: its distinctive physical appearance in the form of architecture, streetscape and buildings, socio-cultural environment visitors perceived and the atmosphere of urban ‘grit’, a sense that the place is not touristy but rather unpolished, which resembles with the ‘lash-up’ of place elements Molotch et al. (2000) describe. Gradually, this thesis will research the phenomenon of urban villages in combination with tourism, while bearing these theories and concepts in mind. As literature showed, tourism can have an impact on local communities, which might also be the case in Baishizhou, an urban village within the tourism gentrifying area of OCT (Liang & Bao, 2015). Chapter four will more elaborately describe urban development in China, and Shenzhen in particular.

(25)

H3: Research design

This chapter will elaborate on the design of the thesis. The primary objective of this study is to investigate the likeliness of one particular urban village to be or become a tourist destination, in line with the concepts of new urban tourism. The research design of this thesis shows the most resemblances with a single-case study design as it entails a detailed and intensive analysis of the urban village of Baishizhou. However, due to the fact that urban villages to a great extent vary in stage of development and all sorts of characteristics (Hao, 2012), the thesis design has to be typified as an unique case study as the research results will not be representative for other urban villages. Another way of defining the unique case study is presented by Stake (1995), who argues that if one is interested in an unique situation, an intrinsic case study should be conducted. The intrinsic case study implies that one has an intrinsic interest in the subject of investigation and is aware that the results have limited transferability. Chapter four regarding the research area will elaborate more on the specific characteristics of Baishizhou, which serves as an unique or intrinsic case for this thesis. First, the research question will be posed, as well as the interlinked sub-questions. The conceptual model will be explained in the next section, followed by the definitions of the concepts and the consecutive operationalization. The strategy and methodology will be explained in the subsequent section, as well as the data collection, units, data analysis, ethics, and finally the limitations of this research.

3.1. Research question

The following research question is established in order to give direction to this research:

To what extent is the concept of New Urban Tourism applicable to the urban village of Baishizhou in the context of Shenzhen as both a domestic and international tourist destination?

3.2. Sub-questions

To systematically approach the research question and in order to deconstruct the research question into more concrete elements, the following sub-questions have been formulated:

1) What is the current status of Shenzhen as a tourist destination?

2) Which tangible and intangible destination attributes are important to international and domestic tourists in Shenzhen?

3) What are the tangible destination characteristics of the urban village of Baishizhou? 4) How do visitors of the urban village of Baishizhou experience Baishizhou as a destination?

5) How do experts, local residents and potential visitors perceive Baishizhou as a tourist destination? The first question addresses the context of Shenzhen as a tourist destination, thus providing an essential overview of Shenzhen’s current tourism market. By answering the second question, data will be obtained about what tourists in Shenzhen consider to be important regarding a tourist destination, thus creating a profile of Shenzhen visitors. Based on literature (Kim & Prideaux, 2005;

(26)

Bonn et al., 2005), a distinction has been made between domestic and foreign visitors in Shenzhen as their destination desires are likely to be different. Question three tries to identify the tangible destination attributes as part of the so-called pull factors of the urban village of Baishizhou. Question four delves deeper into the intangible destination characteristics of Baishizhou from the visitor’s point of view. Finally, sub-question five elaborates on the visions of respectively tourists and local stakeholders while Baishizhou is introduced as a tourist destination. The answer to this question includes the visions of tourists, experts and local residents and elaborates on the likeliness of Baishizhou as a tourist destination as well as the possible positive or negative impacts of tourism on respectively their experience as a tourist, their sector of labor or their life in Baishizhou.

3.3. Conceptual scheme

The conceptual scheme that belongs to the research question and the theoretical framework is shown below (figure 3). The conceptual scheme resembles to a great extent the hierarchy of destination choice from Hsu et al. (2009). Supported by different academic sources (chapter 2.1.), it is argued that (new) urban tourism destination choice is characterized by push and full factors. Pull factors are made up of both tangible and intangible destination characteristics. In addition, intangible destination characteristics include non-observable atmosphere related elements. A new urban tourist destination has a certain ‘feel’ or ‘atmosphere’ (Molotch & Paulsen, 2000), defined by a sense that the destination is not a touristic place, or that one can experience daily life at the particular destination (Maitland, 2010; Novy, 2011). The set of tangible and intangible destination characteristics that both compose the pull factors are located within a community, which in the case of this thesis is Baishizhou.

Figure 3: Conceptual scheme

3.3.1. Definitions

Urban tourism (chapter 2.2.): As cities are extremely complex entities, urban tourism distinguishes itself from rural tourism because of the density and variety of this particular spatial context in combination with the variety of reasons to visit an urban area. Urban tourism differs from tourism in

(New Urban) Tourist Destination Pull Factors (where to go) Tangible Destination Characteristics Intangible Destination Characteristics Push Factors (whether to go) Local Community