A review on overseas and Chinese studies on tourismification.

With the arrival of the era of "Mass Consumption of Pleasure", the tourismification phenomenon gradually gained the attention of researchers. So far, the studies conducted by Chinese researchers and their international counterparts in relation to tourismification have been significant. However, little systematic review on tourismification studies has been done. In this paper, I intend to fill this research gap by reviewing major studies done by western and Chinese researchers, respectively. First, studies conducted by western researchers were reviewed. I find that the concept of tourismification is generally understood as "a process in which things are changed by tourism". Studies of tourismification in the western paradigm are reviewed from three perspectives: (1) studies on the tourismification of cultural resources and heritage, including those of Jansen-Verbeke (1998; 2007; 2009), Bhandari (2008) and Naef (2011) are discussed. The above mentioned researchers were early explorers of the tourismification phenomenon, and they put forward some note worthy questions. (2) Some other researchers argue that tourismification should be considered in relation to the background of globalization and localization, and the study of tourismification should not be restricted to its use of cultural resources. With this in mind, Salazar (2009) and Seng (2005) studied tourismification involving the Maasai and Singapore, respectively. (3) Franklin (2004, 2008) criticizes these afore mentioned studies as under-theorized and being incapable of distinguishing between "what actually happens and how it actually happens". Franklin (2004, 2008) borrowed ideas from the sociology of ordering, seeing tourism as an ordering, and accordingly tourismification as an ordering effect. This conceptualization of tourismification is different from other studies because it tries to give an ontological explanation of tourismification instead of merely concentrating on the superficial phenomena. It also regards tourismification as a result rather than a process. My second goal with this paper is to review corresponding studies by Chinese researchers. Having a different approach to their Western colleagues, Chinese researchers began to attach value to tourismification as a development strategy, instead of a locational or cultural phenomenon. Particularly, many Chinese researchers believe that tourismification is an effective way to protect intangible cultural heritage. Some Chinese researchers, however, regard tourismification in a similar way to their Western colleagues. Wang (2000) was among this group. Wang extended the narrow research angle of Jansen-Verbeke and considered tourismification as a socioeconomic and sociocultural process by which society and its environment have been turned into spectacles, attractions, playgrounds, and consumption sites. Wang (2000) also pointed out that tourismification emerges from globalization and is an integral part of globalization. However, other Chinese researchers did not follow this research direction immediately, thus tourismification as a phenomenon has only recently become a focus of research interest. Moreover, some researchers claim that tourismification is an extremely sophisticated phenomenon; hence studies of tourismification based on series of indicators are necessary. Finally in this paper, I draw the conclusion that research on tourismification is far from being a mature field. However, by analyzing its theoretical and practical background, the paper concludes that we should be confident in its future.