Attracting a tourist or bringing them back? A tourism geography perspective

By: Qaljanbaev Aqilbek

Geography suggests that the answer depends on where the tourist comes from. Attracting a visitor means overcoming space, in the form of distance, cost and unfamiliarity, while bringing a visitor back means keeping a place worth returning to. For nearby markets, return visits are the easier task. For distant markets, the first visit is often the only one a destination can realistically expect.

The tourism system: where attraction and return take place

Tourism geographers describe travel as a system rather than a single event. Leiper (1979) divided it into a generating region where tourists live, a transit route and a destination region. Attraction is a task of the first two parts: a destination must be known and reachable from the place the tourist leaves. Return depends mostly on the third: what the tourist found on arrival. Push and pull factors work together in this system (Dann, 1977). Push factors, such as the wish to escape routine, arise in the generating region. Pull factors are the qualities of the destination. Lew (1987) showed that attractions are not just sites but a combination of the place itself, how it is presented and how it is perceived by the visitor. Because perception is shaped before travel, attraction is largely a battle for image across space.

Why attraction is harder with distance

The best-documented spatial pattern in tourism is distance decay: the number of visitors falls as the distance from the origin rises. McKercher and Lew (2003) found that most travel flows are concentrated near their origin, and that the effect varies with the cost, time and accessibility of travel. Every additional kilometre therefore increases the cost of attracting a tourist, which is why distant markets are the most expensive to win. The tourist’s own character matters as well. Plog (1974) proposed that travellers range from psychocentric, who prefer the familiar, to allocentric, who seek the unfamiliar. Although the model has been criticised, it shows that a new destination first draws adventurous visitors and only later reaches more cautious ones. Cohen (1972) likewise described tourists as balancing novelty against familiarity. Distant, unfamiliar places must therefore persuade visitors who accept more uncertainty.

Why returning is a different geographical problem

A return visit is not a repeat of the first decision. Gitelson and Crompton (1984) found that many travellers return to a place they know because it lowers risk and carries emotional meaning. Later studies link satisfaction to loyalty (Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Chi and Qu, 2008), while Oppermann (2000) showed that loyalty differs strongly between tourist groups. Space again plays a role. A short trip costs less and fits more easily into a calendar, so people living near a destination can visit repeatedly. A long-haul traveller faces the same high cost each time, and the motive of discovering the world often pushes them toward a new place. A destination should therefore expect a high rate of return from its domestic and regional markets and a low one from remote markets, which is a generalisation that individual cases can contradict. Repeat visitors also use space differently. Lau and McKercher (2004) compared first-time and repeat visitors to Hong Kong and found that first-timers explored more widely, while repeaters concentrated on a narrower set of familiar places. For planners this means that loyal visitors support a few well-known sites, whereas new visitors spread benefits across the wider destination.

The destination life cycle

Butler (1980) described a destination’s evolution in stages: exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation, and then decline or rejuvenation. The balance between new and returning visitors shifts along this curve. Early on, a destination depends on adventurous newcomers. Later, a large part of its demand may come from loyal repeaters, and if the offer stops changing, the destination risks stagnation. Rejuvenation usually requires both new attractions for returning visitors and new markets for first-time ones.

What this means for destination planning

1. Match the goal to the market zone.

   Focus on retention in near and regional markets, and on awareness and accessibility in distant ones.

2. Improve access.

   Direct transport links and visa simplification reduce the friction that distance imposes on first visits.

3. Keep the offer changing.

   New routes, events and seasons give returning visitors a reason to come back.

4. Plan for two spatial patterns.

   First-time visitors need information that leads them beyond the main sites, while repeaters need depth in a few places.

5. Monitor the life cycle.

   Track the share of first-time and repeat visitors by origin, not only the total number of arrivals.

Conclusion

From the standpoint of tourism geography, attraction and return are two stages of one spatial process. The first is limited by distance, perception and access, and the second by experience and renewal. Nearby tourists are easier to bring back, distant ones are harder to attract and harder to see again. A durable destination therefore uses a different strategy for each market zone, and treats a satisfying first visit as the common foundation of both.

Qaljanbaev Aqilbek

2nd-year student at the Faculty of Geography and Natural Resources, Berdakh Karakalpak State University.

The post Attracting a tourist or bringing them back? A tourism geography perspective appeared first on The Mt Kenya Times.