The Functions

and Planning of
Visitor Centres
Abstract
Visitor centres are distinctive
in Regional
purpose-built tourist facilities
and their multiple functions
are important in fostering
sustainable regional tourism.
Tourism
The key attributes which define
a visitor centre are specified.
The analysis then proceeds by
articulating a “Four Plus”
model of visitor centre
functioning, and suggests ways
to enhance visitor centre
Philip L. Pearce
functioning among and within
centres. The possibilities for
research addressing community
participation and acceptance,
as well as longitudinal studies
on visitor centre effectiveness Introduction
including responses to
refurbishment are identified. The values of any specific society can be interpreted from the
functions of the physical infrastructure it develops. Cultures which
are sports oriented will support massive stadiums, those with
spiritual concerns maintain great cathedrals, mosques and shrines,
and those with environmental concerns create physical structures to
celebrate and protect the places they value. In the world of tourism, it
can be argued that visitor centres are a new multi-functional item
expressing the values in physical infrastructure of societies trying to
use and manage tourist attraction resources. Unlike hotels, highways
and transport nodes, the visitor centre is typically purpose built or at
least refurbished just for tourism (Knudson, Cable & Beck, 1999).
There are numerous centres in the United States, Canada, the United
Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia and they appear to be emerging
in many European and Asian destinations (Asia Travel Guide, 2004;
Tan-Collis, 1999). Importantly visitor centres along highways and in
smaller towns and communities are often a major focus for regional
tourism promotion and management (Fesenmaier & Vogt, 1993a,b;
Hobbin, 1999). This paper will direct attention to providing a
framework for undertaking visitor centre function in regional tourism
and further, attempt to outline some desirable practices to fulfil these
functions.

The meaning of the term visitor centre needs to be defined

carefully in any international context or forum. The kind of facility
which is being referred to in this paper can be defined here as:

Dr Philip Pearce is Professor of A clearly labelled, publicly accessible, physical space

Tourism, School of Business, James with personnel providing pre-dominantly free of charge
Cook University, Australia. information to facilitate travellers’ experiences.

8 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 15, No. 1, MAY ‘04

In this designation, a visitor
centre is different to a travel
agency because of the dominant
commercial emphasis of the
latter. Additionally a visitor
centre is not to be equated with a
regional or district museum
where the emphasis is on the
display and presentation of
artefacts rather than the
travellers’ experiences. Further,
a visitor centre requires a human
presence, so an information kiosk
or booth, even those rich in
interactive computer facilities,
will not be considered in the
ambit of the present paper.
Nevertheless the reach of the
present interest is extensive.
According to one’s national
context and the core purpose of
the facility, the terms used to
describe the centres vary and
include: welcome centre, tourist
information centre, interpretive
centre, and visitor resource centre
(Fesenmaier & Vogt, 1993a,
1993b; Moscardo & Hughes, 1991;
Stewart, Fesenmaier & Anderson,
1993). The facilities may have a
commercial component or they
may be largely driven by
community and civic imperatives.
In the latter case the symbolic
value of the visitor centre as a
community signal that the area is
serious about tourism may be of
considerable importance.
Visitor centres are not just
central city or downtown
phenomena but appear in
transport nodes such as airports
and railway stations, in or on the
outskirts of small towns and near
major attractions and
environmental sites. It is
especially the regionally based
visitor centres, their purposes
and planning which are the focus
of the present concern.
The emphasis in this discussion is
on the goals of the centres rather
than financial and human
resource management issues.
The latter topics are important
and structure the scale and
operating circumstances, but not
the functions of the centres
considered here (Barrow, 1996;
Bath, 1996).
The “Four Plus” model of
visitor centre functioning
In an effort to bring a systematic
understanding to the topic of
visitor centres and problems, the
goals or objectives of such
facilities and the people who
ser ve in them need to be
considered. In earlier work
Pearce (1991) and Moscardo
(1999) identified four interlocking
features of visitor centres. The
analysis presented in this paper
extends the earlier work with the
newly entitled “Four Plus” model
of visitor centre functioning. The
extended model (the plus
function) draws in particular on
the work of Fallon and Kriwoken
(2003) and Simpson (2001) who
emphasised the community
functions and acceptance of the
visitor centre. The important
components and features of this
model are considered in turn.
Multiple overlapping
functions
It is proposed that all visitor
centres have multiple functions,
undertaken to differing degrees.
The functions are promotion of
the area, orientation to and
enhancement of the area’s
attractions, control and filtering
of visitor flows and substitution
for on-site visits. Additionally,
visitor centres should be
considered as having additional
functions; the ‘plus’ in the Four
Plus model title. These
additional functions do not serve
visitors but instead represent the
goals of visitor centres in such
directions as providing a
community centre, displaying the
pride and political achievements
of the area and serving as the
administrative and research
home for local tourism
management.
Broad proposals for the
functioning and planning of
component parts of the tourism
system require commentators to
consider the issue of the true
generalisability or applicable
range of the ideas being proposed.
It has already been suggested
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 15, No. 1, MAY ‘04
that visitor centres as defined
earlier in this paper are prevalent
in a number of western countries.
It can be suggested that the “Four
Plus” model being proposed here
is most applicable to these
developed tourism destinations
and their promotional and
managerial systems. The wider
applicability of the proposed Four
Plus model to other contexts will
be considered in the closing
sections of this paper.
The main visitor linked functions
of the centres can now be spelled
out in more detail.
The Promotion Function
This role refers to the active
promotion of the city, area or
region. It involves a forceful
agenda of what to do in the area
and where to stay. Essentially
this role is about stimulating
tourist demand and often seeks to
increase visitor expenditure in a
defined area (Gitelson & Perdue,
1987). Commercial activities
associated with this function are
common and include the
provision of booking services and
local retail o f the region’s
products. Following Gartner
(1993) this function can be seen
as providing an overt, induced
information source which is
trustworthy and not excessively
self-serving. The efforts towards
accrediting visitor centres and
guaranteeing the quality of their
services is essential to maintain
the assurance of unbiased
representation of the information
provided (Fodness & Murphy,
1999; Hobbin, 1999).
Orientation and Enhancement
Function
The second function of a visitor
centre sees a concentration on the
quality of the experience for the
visitor. It attempts to provide
displays, suggest new locations
and generally inform visitors
about features of the region to
promote responsible behaviour.
It is about more than simply
stimulating demand and involves
shaping that demand towards
9
 sensitive appreciation according
to sustainable tourist behaviour Large “Gateway to a City” Visitor Centre
principles. It is a common theme
Function 1 Promotion
in those centres with a natural
environment emphasis but can
exist in all types of centres. This 2 Enhancement
function is consistent with basic
planning principles for 3 Filtering
interpretive practice (Benson &
Baird, 1979; Carter, 1997; 4 Substitution
Hobbin, 1999).
Plus Community Integration
Control and Filtering
Function
Smaller Visitor Centre along a Scenic Highway
In this role, visitor centres seek
to control the flow of visitors so
Function 1 Promotion
that resources and settings come
under less pressure. Typically
such centres act as gateways and 2 Enhancement
central points for visitor use of an
area. This function may include 3 Filtering
suggestions for times of the day
to visit set locations, alternative 4 Substitution
loc ations for less crowded
experiences and the partial use of Plus Community Integration
the centre in conjunction with
other activities such as guided
tours or films to concentrate Visitor Centre at Fragile Cultural/Historical Site
visitor numbers away from
fragile sites or viewing areas.
Visitor centre staff working in a Function 1 Promotion
cent re where this function is
dominant will often have a strong 2 Enhancement
stewardship role in relation to
the resource. On this occasion 3 Filtering
visitor centre design and staff
behaviour are adopting a more 4 Substitution
powerful and potentially
controversial role in limiting Plus Community Integration
public behaviour (Hardy &
Beeton, 2001; Sugden &
Figure 1: Different functions of visitor centres according to location
Saunders, 1991).

The Substitution Function component points (such as (Ballantyne, 1995; Scheyvens,

A fourth function of visitor
centres is to be a substitute for
the tourist attraction or at least
to be a substantial attraction in
its own right. Visitors centres
emphasising this function are
often called interpretive centres
or more simply are labelled as
tourist attractions such as a
Wildlife Centre. They occur in
settings where the resource is
inaccessible for many visitors
(marine and demanding
terrestrial environments) or
where the resource is scattered
and hard to appreciate from its
agricultural activities or
historical battle sites).
Substitution functions are
particularly important when a
large number of visitors are frail,
are ill equipped physically or are
lacking knowledge to access and
understand the resource. The
style and content of the
interpretive material and
displays in the substitution
function of visitor centres
attracts considerable debate.
There are key values expressed
in the choices made to describe
places, their history and the
people who live and work there
1999; Simpson, 2001; Stewart,
Hayward, Devlin, & Kirby, 1998;
Uzzell & Ballantyne, 1998).
The Plus Functions
In earlier appraisals of visitor
centre functions the non visitor
services components were not
included. Yet, visitor centres can
act as community facilities for a
range of local cultural and social
events, particularly where the
space contains a theatre or
meeting room. Further, it can be
argued that the more symbolic
function of a visitor centre to

10 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 15, No. 1, MAY ‘04

signal the importance and
significance of a town or site for
tourism is a major reason for the
existence of many centres. When
the physical appearance of the
visitor centre is challenging and
unconventional, and its displays
make powerful political points,
there can be a community
backlash (Fallon & Kriwoken,
2003; Flan agan, 1996).
Extensive efforts to incorporate
pre-construction community
views are a clear imperative to
manage the substitution
elements and the plus function of
visitor centres (c.f. Bramwell &
Lane, 2000; de Araujo &
Bramwell, 2000; Jamal & Getz,
1999; Robinson, 2000). Certainly,
the plus function cannot be
ignored in trying to improve
visitor centre functioning since it
constitutes a powerful political
force influencing how centres
may be changed or reshaped. It
is about designing the centre to
achieve administrative and civic
goals for the whole community
(c.f. Fallon & Kriwoken, 2003;
Simpson, 2001).
It is important to stress that the
Four Plus model enables visitor
centres to be described as varying
in the emphasis they place on the
functions. In Figure 1, three
examples of visitor centres in
different locations with varying
roles are depicted.
The analysis of visitor centre
functioning in the Four Plus
model serves to introduce and
structure a sequence of actions
required to enhance visitor centre
functioning in a region. The core
argument of this paper is that
the best practice principles for
visitor centre planning design
and management can be
understood within the framework
of the Four Plus model.
Importantly, the framework and
the principles taken together
could guide the evaluation and
redesign of existing centres. It
can be suggested that in newer
destinations where there are few
visitor centres all steps in this
approach could be implemented.
For situations where multiple
STAGE 1 PLANNING
• Set out a regional overview of visitor centre functions
• Match the mix of functions for a specific centre to the
regional overview
• Decide or adjust the specific centre’s functions
• Establish a signage and promotion plan
STAGE 2 BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
• Ensure easy access
• Identify all users and their uses
• Design for the future
• Be a model for ecological sustainability
STAGE 3 INTERPRETIVE AND INTERIOR DISPLAY DESIGN
• Have a good physical orientation system
• Design for variety
• Use themes
• Make personal connections to visitors
• Allow for different visitor needs and interests
STAGE 4 MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
• Develop service quality orientation among staff
• Manage to embrace change and novelty in centre
• Develop effective reporting to stakeholders
• Facilitate volunteer and community input
Figure 2: Stages in the design and use of visitor centres
centres already exist, a substantial existing research
reconsideration of the existing evidence to support the under-
network within the framework lying suggestions for this good
outlined may be appropriate. It practice (Blahna & Roggenbuck,
is regional and state level 1979; Field & Wagner, 1973;
tourism bodies which must forge Knudson et al., 1999; Mack &
the actions and take the Thompson, 1991; Moscardo, 1998,
initiative in these assess-ments 1999; Roggenbuck, 1992; Serrell,
because only such organizations 1996; Tilden, 1977). Figure 2
can provide the external view to outlines the four stages which
see each of the visitor centres in can be see n as a sequence of
context. Nevertheless, once the planned action.
initiative is taken collaborative
efforts to make the centres work The central points itemised in
in harmony are pivotal secondary Figure 2 can be expanded as
steps involving the full input of follows.
the centre managers and
stakeholders. Setting out a regional over-
view, determine functions
Enhancing visitor centre
functioning Figure 3 represents a regional
plan for the location of several
Four stages can be considered in centres.
the design and use of visitor
centres. There are principles of A regional plan drawn up by
good prac tice and sometimes state or provincial level bodies
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 15, No. 1, MAY ‘04 11
 a typology of trip patterns which
ENTRY TO REGION could underpin centre design and
functions. Such functional
REGIONAL BOUNDARY
overviews may be difficult to
achieve and implement. They
remain a worthy goal and
Low pressure individual centre managers can
on resource FIRST VISITOR CENTRE
at least consider their regional
position even if a full scale
Marketing overview and provincial system is
Enhancement not yet in place.
Control
Substitution Establish a signage plan and
Community Integration ensure easy access

Effective interpretive centres are

Moderate
pressure on SECOND
resource VISITOR
CENTRE
Marketing
Enhancement
Control
Substitution
Community Integration
Intense
pressure on
resource
Marketing
Enhancement
Control
Substitution
Community Integration
Figure 3: Regional planning of visitor centres
can be useful to avoid
unnecessary repetition of content,
ensure all the important topics
are covered, build up a coherent
message, and provide a diversity
of experiences for visitors. Such
an overview should take into
account the features of the region
to be interpreted and the current
and anticipated flow of visitors
through the region (Pearce,
1991). Importantly a mechanism
for collaborating with community
stakeholders should be
established in this first planning
phase (Jamal & Getz, 1999;
Robinson, 2000). This will guide
decisions on both the best
Sub-region
of interest
Sub-region
of interest
THIRD
VISITOR
CENTRE
functions for centres and the mix
of objectives for each interpretive
centre within its local and
regional context. The further
possibility exists that continuing
research and planning in this
specific area could link the visitor
centre functions to the work on
dominant destinations in a
region. For example Lue,
Crompton and Fesenmaier (1993)
outline en-route, base camp
regional tour and trip chaining
patterns which could form the
basis of integrated regional
visitor planning. Similarly
Parolin (2001) working in the
region south of Sydney developed
easy for visitors to find and
access (Fodness & Murphy,
1999). One of the ways to ensure
visitors can find and use a centre
is to have a signage plan (Serrell,
1996). Signs on the roads visitors
use to access the centre, signs
near the entrances to the centre
and signs at other access points
that might be used such as bus
and train stations should all be
incorporated in the plan (Moscardo
& Hughes, 1991). Ensuring easy
access means considering the
inclusion of turning lanes on
adjacent roads, large enough car
parking areas with clear
entrances, space and ramps for
visitors with physical disabilities,
and spaces for buses and caravans.
Identify all users and their
uses
A consideration of the needs of all
users is pivotal to good visitor
centre design (Bitgood, Benefield,
Patterson & Nabors, 1986). An
inventory of all possible uses can
then guide decisions about what
to include in the centre and how
to d esign it for maximum
effectiveness (Blahna & Roggen-
buck, 1979; Knudson, Cable &
Beck, 1999). Three typical
groups of users to consider are:
1. Visitors
Who are the likely visitors to
the centre? What kinds of
market segments have to be
considered?
Will visitors require access to
information or facilities out of
hours?

12 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 15, No. 1, MAY ‘04

 Would a café be a viable/useful
addition? Or is this an option
for local business or the local
council?
2. Staff
Staff need space for non public
duties.
Interpretive displays and
activities need space for
preparation and storage.
In some places staff may need
areas for emergency
coordination.
3. Local Communities
The functional use of the
centre by community groups as
well as its symbolic and
semiotic value both need to be
considered.
Design for the future
Visitor centres are often
substantial buildings which are
used over extended periods of
time. Extending and upgrading
centres to cope with increased
visitor numbers and changing
user needs and/or interpretive
objectives can be very difficult. A
consideration of options to alter
the space available for users will
be much appreciated by those
responsible for the centre in the
future years. Some options to
consider include easily moved
internal divisions, outdoor areas
than can be easily enclosed,
landscaping that can be easily
changed, and leaving a band of
space or inviolate zone around a
centre (Gunn, 1994; Poon, 1993).
Be a model for ecological
sustainability
Good centres fit into the setting
and they have an architectural
style that either fits with the local
area or ensures that they blend
easily into the landscape.
Additionally good centres make
the most of the setting
incorporating key features of the
environment such as views or
access to special sites. They also
have efficient energy use and
waste disposal systems, use local
materials and services wherever
possible, and stimulate local com-
munity employment and pride
(Lane, 1991; Moscardo, 1998).
Have a good physical
orientation system
Several features can assist
visitors to find their way around a
centre easily (Bitgood, Patterson
& Benefield, 1988). A clear path-
way through the centre, the
placement of text panels so that
the flow of reading from one panel
to next is from left to right, a
pathway that does not require
backtracking, an introductory
panel or display that sets out an
overview of the centre, visual
barriers that prevent visitors
from seeing too much of the
display ahead so that they are not
distracted or overloaded, direc-
tional signs or arrows at key
points, and clear entrances and
exits are all useful orientation
devices.
Design for variety
The easiest way to lose visitor
attention is to bore them with
repetition. E ffective inter-
pretation offers a variety of
experiences. Variety can be built
into an interpretive display in a
number of ways:
1. Use a wide range of media
such as text, graphics, static
mod el s, dyn a mi c mo del s,
audio visual, interactive and
computer based displays
(Serrell, 1996). In particular
it is des ir ab le t o av o id a
heavy dependence on text.
2. Encourage visitors to use all
t hei r se n ses th rou gh
dif f er ent pa rti cip at o ry
activities.
3. Use a range of colours and
lighting effects to create
different moods in different
areas.
4. Cover as wide a range of topics
as appropriate to the centre
and its objectives.
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 15, No. 1, MAY ‘04
Use themes
The use of a single theme as the
linking concept or one large idea
which connects a set of facts,
topics or examples was first
proposed by Tilden (1977). A
theme is a single message that
can be described in an active
sentence:
Example 1: the topic is octopi,
the theme is “Octopi are not what
you think” and the display uses
text and graphics to demonstrate
how a number of stereotypes
about octopi are inaccurate.
Example 2: the topic is worms,
the theme is “A healthy worm
community provides many
surprising benefits to humans”
and the displays demonstrate all
the soil based functions of a worm
colony.
Example 3: the topic is ant
ecology, the theme is “An ant
colony is like a large city” and the
information and examples are a
series of analogies matching the
roles of ants and their work to the
interactions in a city.
Make personal connections to
the visitors
Personal experience often shapes
and directs visitor attention
(Moscardo, 1999). There are a
number of ways in which
interpreters can make personal
connections to visitors. It is
possible to use examples which
are connected to the everyday
lives of visitors. Additionally,
using a conversational style in
the text and using similes to
explain facts in everyday terms
adds a human dimension to the
interpretation. For longer lasting
effects practices such as
introducing historical or local
figures, and including suggested
at home actions may generate
lasting impressions and have
consequences (Moscardo, 1998).
Allow for different visitor
needs and interests
Designing for variety and making
13
 personal connections can
encourage visitors to find ways to
match the interpretation with
their needs and interests (Blahna
& Roggenbuck, 1979;
Christiansen, 1994).
The other major option available
is to use layering in the
interpretive displays. Layering
means having several levels of
detail within each topic, panel or
display area. The panels or
layers might promote new actions
or suggest the time needed to
participate. A core message
(related to the theme) is the first
layer and visitors with limited
time and interest can easily
browse the display picking up
only these messages. A second
layer which expands on this core
message can then be added for
visitors with higher levels of
interest and/or more time. A
third layer of quite detailed
information is also often included
and visitors with special interests
can access these. The key is to
remember that layers should offer
more detail, not more difficulty
(Mack & Thompson, 1991).
Management and
maintenance
A final but enduring challenge in
visitor centre functioning is the
management of the facility,
including both its staff and its
physical condition. There are
important and substantial human
resource issues in managing staff,
creating rewards for volunteers
and maintaining the services (c.f.
Deery & Iverson, 1996). A critical
component of this management
includes securing budgets for
maintaining the quality and
appeal of the external and
internal qualities of the facility as
well as being able to renovate and
repair damaged sections. Fur-
ther, training staff to maintain
high levels of attentiveness to
customers is a consistent need in
all service sectors. In the visitor
centre, marketing of the centre’s
services may also be needed to
influence funding sources and
local political stakeholders
(Kandampully, 2002).
14 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 15, No. 1, MAY ‘04
The detailed principles and
suggesti ons for good pr actice
reviewed in the preceding
discussion can be developed into a
regional self-assessment system
for tourism managers. Such a
procedure could involve the
following steps. Identify and
consider each of the important
market segments using the
centre. This could be senior self-
drive travellers or the local school
children. Next identify the
relative importance of the Four
Plus functions for this market.
For seniors, for example, the
promotion function may be most
important, say 60%, but the
substitution function may also be
of interest (25%). Then consider
how well the full array of centre
facilities from access to signage,
to text and interpretive activities
meets these functions for this
market. A systematic appraisal
for all mark ets using these
functions may identify important
gaps for refurbishment or
management action. The
particular value of the Four Plus
model in this context is that it
explicitly recognises that a centre
cannot be all things to all people
but that its performance is linked
to a well defined set of priorities
and functions for specific
markets.
Further considerations for
regional tourism
The core assumption underlying
the previous discussion is that
visitor information centres are
likely to play an increasingly
important r ole in regional
tourism. This statement can be
substantiated in three ways.
First, it appears that there are
cohorts of travellers who are
becoming more independent and
more likely to seek direct
personal contact opportunities
with their hosts and likely
environments (Poon, 2000).
Visitor centres provide an
immediate, credible personal
information source to support the
information seeking relevant to
independent and repeat travel
behaviour (Fodness & Murphy,
1999). Second , many of the
management trends in higher
density tourism environments
will be followed in newer
destinations and recent trends in
attraction management in
regional parts of Asia reinforce
this theme of imitation (Lew, Yu,
Ap & Guangrui, 2003; Teo,
Chang, & Ho, 2001). A third force
shaping the potential develop-
ment or enhancement of visitor
centres is directly from the visitor
– many of the studies already
cited in this paper report high
satisfaction from visitors who use
such facilities. As the number of
visitors who have experienced
such centres in well developed
settings increases, and further as
they begin to travel more in
regional areas, it is likely that the
demand for such facilities will
also grow.
The research to inform better
practice and the smart use of
resources in visitor centre needs
to grow as visitor centres grow.
Several kinds of research effort
can be envisaged. A topic of
leading concern is the docu-
mentation of the effectiveness of
processes to link communities to
their visitor centres (cf. Simpson,
2001). What kinds of cooperative
planning inputs produce mutually
satisfactory outcomes? Both
success stories and accounts of
conflict could be described in case
study research with the
possibility that inductively
derived generalisations could
emerge in a grounded theory
treatment of the examples.
Alternatively more empirical
treatment of community and
stakeholder attitudes could be
devised from within an existing
theoretical structure such as
social representation theory
(Pearce, Moscardo & Ross, 1996).
In this approach stakeholders
could be asked to rate and assess
visitor centre functions and
sp ecifics accord ing to such
principles as preferred roles,
appearance and the treatment of
topics. Such an approach would
abandon the view that visitor
centres are like pieces of art,
statements of creative achieve-
ment for the architects and
replace this with the newer
appraisal that they are functional
community and visitor serving
buildings (Flanagan, 1996;
Grenier, Kaae, Miller & Mobley,
1993).
A range of more pragmatic yet
regionally important research
assessments can also be
suggested. Few studies report
how visitor centres work in
concert and whether visitors
notice and or are annoyed by the
repetition of themes and
information. Additionally, longi-
tudinal studies assessing pre-
visitor centre behaviour and post-
construction travel patterns and
attitudes are missing. As visitor
centres age, there is undoubtedly
a need for refurbishment.
Assessments of refreshed centres
could be the source of productive
research based advice.
The recommendations for visitor
centre planning, management
and research made in this paper
are, hopefully, timely so that the
construction and use of these
uniquely tourist-o riented
facilities can fulfil their multiple
functions effectively.

References
Asia Travel Guide (2004). Travel Info Asia. Source:
http://www.asiavoyage24.com/-travel-guide/index.html.
Accessed: 31 March 2004.
Ballantyne, R. (1995). Interpreters’ conceptions of Australian
aboriginal culture and heritage: Implications for interpretive
practise. Journal of Environmental Education, 26(4), 11-17.
Barrow, G. (1996). Visitor centres: Financial planning and
management issues. Interpretation, 1(3), 20-21.
Bath, B. (1996). Centres fit for visitors. Interpretation, 1(3), 14-17.
Benson, D., & Baird, R. (1979). Park techniques: Designing good
basic visitor centres. Park, 4(3), 16-20.
Bitgood, S., Benefield, A., Patterson, D., & Nabors, A. (1986).
Understanding your visitors: Ten factors that influence their
behaviour. Technical Report No. 87.30. Psychology Institute,
Jacksonville State University.
Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit design and
visitor behavior. Environment and Behavior, 20(4), 474-491.
Blahna, D., & Roggenbuck, J.W. (1979). Planning interpretation
which is ‘in tune’ with visitor expectations. Journal of
Interpretation, 4(2), 16-19.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2000). Collaboration and partnerships in
tourism planning. In B. Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds), Tourism
collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practise and
s u s t a i n a b i l i t y (pp. 1-19). Clevedon, UK: Channel View
Publications.
Carter, J. (1997). A sense of place: An interpretive planning
handbook. Scotland, UK: Tourism and Environment Initiative.
Christiansen, J. (1994). Capture your entire audience. Legacy, 5(4),
17-19.
de Araujo, L.M., & Bramwell, B. (2000). Stakeholder assessment and
collaborative tourism planning: The case of Brazil’s Costa
Dourada Project. In B. Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds), Tourism
collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practise and
s u s t a i n a b i l i t y (pp. 272-294). Clevedon, UK: Channel View
Publications.
Deery, M., & Iverson, R. (1996). Enhancing productivity:
Intervention strategies for employee turnover. In N. Johns
(Ed.), Productivity management in hospitality and tourism (pp.
68-95). London: Cassell.

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 15, No. 1, MAY ‘04 15

 Fallon, L.D., & Kriwoken, L.K. (2003). Community involvement in
tourism infrastructure – the case of the Strahan Visitor Centre,
Tasmania. Tourism Management, 24, 289-308.
Fesenmaier, D., & Vogt, C. (1993a). Evaluating the economic impact
of travel information provided at Indiana welcome centres.
Journal of Travel Research, 31(3), 33-39.
Fesenmaier, D., & Vogt, C. (1993b). Investigating the influence of the
welcome centre on travel behaviour. Journal of Travel
Research, 31(3), 47-52.
Field, D.R., & Wagner, J.A. (1973). Visitor groups and interpretation
in parks and other outdoor leisure settings. Journal of
Environmental Education, 5(1), 12-17.
Flanagan, R. (1996). Anti-museum: The case of the Strahan Visitor
Centre. In S. Hunt (Ed.), Sites – Nailing the debate:
Archaeology and interpretation in museums (pp. 181-197).
Sydney, Australia: Historic Trust of NSW, Lyndhurst.
Fodness, D., & Murphy, B. (1999). A model of tourist information
search behaviour. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 220-230.
Gartner, W. (1993) Image formation process. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 2(2/3), 191-216.
Gitelson, R.J., & Perdue, R.R. (1987). Evaluating the role of state
welcome centres in discriminating travel related information in
North Carolina. Journal of Travel Research, 25(1), 15-19.
Grenier, D., Kaae, B., Miller, M., & Mobley, R. (1993). Ecotourism,
landscape architecture and urban planning. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 25, 1-16.
Gunn, C. (1994). Tourism planning (3rd ed.). New York: Taylor and
Francis.
Hardy, A., & Beeton, R. (2001). Sustainable tourism or maintainable
tourism: Managing resources for more than average outcomes.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(3), 168-192.
Hobbin, S. (1999). Accreditation of Queensland visitor information
centres: A consumer-based perspective. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 5(4), 387-399.
Jamal, T.B., & Getz, D. (1999). Community roundtables for tourism-
related conflicts: The dialectics of consensus and process
structures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3&4), 290-313.
Kandampully, J. (2002). Services management: The new paradigm in
hospitality. French’s Forest, NSW: Pearson Education.
Knudson, D.M., Cable, T.T., & Beck, L. (1999). Interpretation of
cultural and natural resources. Pennsylvania: Venture
Publishing.
Lane, B. (1991), Sustainable tourism: A new concept for the
interpreter. Interpretation Journal, 49, 1-4.
Lew, A.A., Yu, L., Ap, J., & Guangrui, Z. (Eds.) (2003). Tourism in
China. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press.
Lue, C., Crompton, J.L., & Fesenmaier, D. (1993). Conceptualisation
of multi-destination pleasure trips. Annals of Tourism
Research, 20(2), 289-301.
Mack, J.A., & Thompson, J.A. (1991). Visitor centre planning: Using
visitor interests and available time. In G. Moscardo & K.
Hughes (Eds.), Visitor centres: Exploring new territory.
Townsville: James Cook University of North Queensland.
Moscardo, G. (1998). Interpretation and sustainable tourism:
Functions, examples and principles. Journal of Tourism
Studies, 9(1), 2-13.
Moscardo, G. (1999). Making visitors mindful: Principles for creating
sustainable visitor experiences through effective communication.
Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing.
Moscardo, G., & Hughes, K. (Eds.) (1991). Visitor Centres: Exploring
New Territory. Proceedings of the National Conference on

16 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 15, No. 1, MAY ‘04

 Visitor Centres, Townsville, April 28th-May 1st, 1991.
Townsville: Department of Tourism, James Cook University of
North Queensland.
Parolin, B. (2001). Structure of day trips in the Illawarra tourism
region of New South Wales. Journal of Tourism Studies, 12(1),
11-27.
Pearce, P.L. (1991). Visitor centres and their functions in the
landscape of tourism. In G. Moscardo & K. Hughes (Eds),
Visitor centres: Exploring New Territory. Townsville: James
Cook University.
Pearce, P.L., Moscardo, G., & Ross, G.F. (1996). Tourism community
relationships. Oxford: Elsevier.
Poon, A. (1993). Tourism technology and competitive strategies.
Wallingford, Oxon: CAB International.
Poon, A. (2000). How the U.K. Travel market will operate 2005.
Source: www.tourism-intelligence.com/PDF/british-TOC.pdf
Robinson, M. (2000). Collaboration and cultural consent: Refocusing
sustainable tourism. In B. Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds), Tourism
collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practice and
sustainability (pp. 295-313). Clevedon, U.K.: Channel View
Publications.
Roggenbuck, J.W. (1992). Use of persuasion to reduce resource
impacts and visitor conflicts. In M.J. Manfredo (Ed.),
Influencing human behavior (pp. 149-208. Champaign, Illinois:
Sagamore.
Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local
communities. Tourism Management, 20, 245-249.
Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. Walnut
Creek, California: Sage.
Simpson, K. (2001). Strategic planning and community involvement
as contributors to sustainable tourism development. Current
Issues in Tourism, 4(1), 3-41.
Stewart, E., Hayward, B., Devlin, P., & Kirby, V. (1998). The “place”
of interpretation: A new approach to the evaluation of
interpretation. Tourism Management, 19, 257-266.
Stewart, W., Lue, C., Feisenmaier. D., & Anderson, B. (1993). A
comparison between welcome center visitors and general
highway auto travellers. Journal of Travel Research, 31(3), 40-
45.
Sugden, F., & Saunders, R. (1991). Not just a whim: Visitor centres
as a part of strategic planning. In G. Moscardo & K. Hughes
(Eds), Visitor centres: Exploring new territory (pp. 66-77).
Townsville, Australia: James Cook University.
Tan-Collis, J. (1999, Dec. 3). Singapore: One-stop shop for
information. Travel Trade Gazette Asia, Singapore.
Teo, P., Chang, T.C., & Ho, K.C. (Eds.) (2001). Interconnected worlds:
Tourism in Southeast Asia. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.
Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
Uzzell, D., & Ballantyne, R. (1998). Contemporary issues in heritage
and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects.
London, UK: The Stationery Office.

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 15, No. 1, MAY ‘04 17