Keywords

1 Introduction

As a place-based activity, tourism is highly dependent on territorial characteristics shaping the potential destination attractiveness and also other socio-economic, cultural or institutional features influencing tourism dynamics. Thus, different types of contributions from regional science emerged as useful tools for the analysis of tourism activities in a wide spectrum of perspectives, since the analysis of the most physical geographical attributes (like climate, geology, natural landscapes, etc.) to the most immaterial territorial aspects influencing socio-economic performance (innovation capabilities, agglomeration effects, regional governance models, etc.). These theoretical, conceptual or methodological influences may focus on infrastructure planning, mobility networks, transport services, resource management, human resource development, product development, destination management or strategic planning. Certainly, a diverse array of methodologies can used for the analysis of spatial effects at different territorial levels, both including quantitative and qualitative approaches. However, defining the scope of research in tourism and regional science has not been an easy or consensual task in the last decades.

The multidisciplinary character of research in regional science may be seen as an obstacle to provide a precise definition, as pointed out by Haynes and Qian (2010): “regional science uses diverse combinations of analytical and empirical research to study social problems with regional or spatial dimensions. (…) Due to this multidisciplinary feature, regional scientists have experienced difficulties in delivering a widely accepted definition of regional science”. Similarly, there are also historical discussions about the definition of aims and scope of tourism as a body of knowledge, as testified by Cooper et al. (1996), when discussing if it should be considered as a discipline or as field of research. In fact, tourism is also seen as a multidisciplinary field integrating contributions from different disciplines—and even from other sources of knowledge, not necessarily scientific, as pointed out by Tribe (1997).

With an extensive work in the broad field of regional science and on more specific applications in tourism studies, Peter Nijkamp has largely contributed for the symbiotic interactions between these fields of research over the last decades. This perspective article focuses on the scientific production of Peter Nijkamp and his extensive global network of collaborators, identifying how different disciplines may be used to address different problems, supported by diverse conceptual frameworks and methodologies. The main results are discussed taking into consideration possible developments for further research and intensification of those interdisciplinary fluxes and interactions. Moreover, this analysis also offers a brief discussion of the institutional context influencing the creation and development of these networks of collaboration.

2 Spaces of Convergence Between Regional Science and Tourism Studies

The work developed by Walter Isard since mid-twentieth century would be crucial for the emergence of regional science as a scientific discipline. His book “Methods of Regional Analysis: an Introduction to Regional Science” (Isard 1960) would provide the most significant contribution for the clarification of its aims, scope and methodologies. At the same time, Isard devoted significant efforts to organizational and institutional aspects, by stimulating and supporting the creation of national and international associations, which would be crucial for the consolidation of the discipline through the creation of strong and very active international networks.

However, 15 years after the publication of Methods of Regional Analysis”, Isard would still provide a relatively vague definition of the discipline. In spite of suggesting that “regional science concerns the careful and patient study of social problems with regional or spatial dimensions, employing diverse combinations of analytical and empirical research”, Isard (1975) also claims that “it is clear from the diversity of definitions that no single one can be considered the best or most complete. Each researcher and student will need to develop or synthesize his own definition after having read this book and other studies”. In this sense, the broad scope of the work developed by Peter Nijkamp, applying in diverse fields of study tools and methods from regional science, clearly contributed to question the limits and to redefine the scope of the discipline over time.

Bailly and Gibson (2017) would also emphasize the multidisciplinary character of regional science (and related problems) assumed by Haynes and Qian (2010), by claiming that “regional science should continue to track developments in other disciplines and adopt them as appropriate”. Pointing out that economics and geography were the main influences in the early stages of development or regional science, aspects related to management, geographic information systems or human ecology may be seen as the most important fields of knowledge currently contributing for the contemporary evolution of the discipline. This classification will be used for the analysis of Peter Nijkamp’s works.

Different authors offered systematic analyses of the evolution of research in tourism, which may be useful to frame the discussion of its interrelations with regional science. Jafari (2001) proposes a chronological approach, considering four “platforms”: “advocacy”, “cautionary”, “adaptancy” and “knowledge-based”, suggesting the existence of a path from a more normative approach (generally until the 1980s) to a more sophisticated empirical analysis (broadly starting during the 1990s). Differently, Butler (2015) proposes three major historical periods, including a stage of “factual” analysis (mostly descriptive), followed by an “early theoretical era” (the first models and theories, appearing in the 1950s) and by a “theoretical explosion” (starting in the 1970s). It is noteworthy that the contributions of Peter Nijkamp to the body of knowledge of tourism studies can be clearly classified as “knowledge-based” and framed within the “theoretical explosion” phase.

As it is observed for regional science, tourism studies also have a multidisciplinary character. In fact, as Tribe and Liburd (2016) suggest, “tourism is not just a multi-disciplinary field of enquiry but a multi-extra-disciplinary one too”. In their comprehensive and systematic approach to the production of tourism studies, they also consider “extra-disciplinary” forms of knowledge (problem-centred, value-based, web 2.0 co-creation processes and indigenous knowledge), along with disciplinary forms, where Peter Nijkamp’s work can be framed. These authors consider that the disciplinary component of the production of tourism knowledge comprises four broad areas (social science, business studies, science and humanities and arts), along with a high potential for interdisciplinary contributions.

Interestingly, Peter Nijkamp’s research over the last three decades covers all these four disciplinary fields, revealing his broad approach to scientific production, and in particular to tourism-related aspects (which constitutes a relatively small part of his scientific production). Still adopting the formulations proposed by Tribe and Liburd (2016), this impressive and eclectic research performance can be seen as a result of personal characteristics (an extreme curiosity for many problems and phenomena, a solid theoretical background or an intense dedication to his work); his position in the knowledge production system (being an important contributor for the implementation and development of a spatial economics department [from now on refereed as “SED”] at the Faculty of Economics and Management of VU-Amsterdam, which would obtain a significant international recognition, hosting a large number of high quality researchers from different continents); his involvement, active promotion and leadership in active global networks of spatial-related research issues (mostly those with a broad approach to regional science, like RSAI or ERSA, but also others, with more specific foci, like NECTAR or The Regional Science Academy).

As a result, Peter Nijkamp developed an extremely large number of collaborations with co-authors all over the world, which is reflected in the quantity of publications (2,000 references identified in scholar.google, with more than 65,000 citations by mid April 2020) and the diversity of topics under analysis. In this analysis, Nijkamp’s contributions for tourism studies are framed within this context. For this purpose, 55 publications specifically addressing questions related to tourism were identified in the list provided by scholar.google, not considering works where tourism is mentioned but not being the core aspect of the study (e.g., publications on general aspects of urban planning or regional development). Journal articles and book chapters are included, but working papers are not considered. The full list of publications under analysis is presented in appendix.

3 Peter Nijkamp’s Fields and Networks in Tourism Studies

In order to identify potential intersections and interconnections between regionals science and tourism studies, we take into account the multidisciplinary character of both fields of research, while considering the systematizations proposed by Bailly and Gibson (2017) [from now on designated as “BG”] for the main disciplines contributing to regional science (economics and geography in the early stages; management, geographic information systems or human ecology in contemporary approaches); and by Tribe and Liburd (2016) [from now on mentioned as “TL”]for the main fields of knowledge contributing for tourism studies (business studies, social science, science and arts and humanities, along with multidisciplinary or extra-disciplinary approaches). As it will be observed, Peter Nijkamp’s work covers all these topics, involving collaborations with a large number of co-authors. This diversity contributes to emphasize the importance of personal characteristics, positions and networks for knowledge production.

For these purposes, Peter Nijkamp’s publications were divided into five groups, comprising aspects related to economics or transport-related studies (with a strong incorporation of knowledge coming from physics or geography). These approaches correspond to the disciplines offering the most important contributions to regional science in its early stages of development, as defined in the “BG” approach (in some cases also including aspects to geographic information systems, a novel contribution), while corresponding to the broad fields of science or social science, as defined within the TL conceptualization. Another group of works relates to marketing and management (included in the business studies according to TL and mentioned as one of the significant contemporary inputs for regional science by BG). Two smaller groups of works relate to the links between migrations, cultural studies and tourism dynamics or to processes of territorial planning and management, revealing the potential multidisciplinary approaches to tourism (TL) and also the influence of aspects related to human ecology (another contemporary influence pointed out by BG).

Completing the group of scientific fields that contribute for the study of tourism, as defined by TL, it is also worth to observe the existence of two works focused on non-business aspects of tourism activities, supported by disciplines related to arts and humanities. In this case, the analyses are strongly based on philosophical approaches to culture and communication, as a result of a partnership with Zerva (Zerva and Nijkamp 2015; Zerva et al. 2016). However, cultural aspects are also present in the multidisciplinary studies linking tourism flows, migration dynamics and cultural similarities and differences, along with their economic effects (Poel et al. 2006; Gheasi et al. 2011; Tubadji and Nijkamp 2018; Song et al. 2019). In general these authors were members or visitors of SED.

Other examples of multidisciplinary studies in the field of tourism can be found in articles published by Peter Nijkamp in the last 25 years. The concept of sustainable development (at that time becoming also adopted and generalized in tourism studies) would be applied in the context of tourism planning in Greek Islands (Nijkamp and Verdonkschot 1995; Janssen et al. 1995). In a broader context of regional development, Nijkamp (2000) integrates aspects related to tourism, telecommunications and marketing. The potential of digital communications on local tourism development would be addressed later on by Stratigea et al. (2006). By using visual tools and digital technologies, Neuts and Nijkamp (2012) address aspects related to crowding in the urban destination of Amsterdam, in order to support planning processes.

Moreover, different “clusters” of publications would emerge from collaborations with diverse researchers temporarily working with Nijkamp at SED. With De Montis, several papers focused on the utilization of multi-criteria analysis in planning processes (De Montis and Nijkamp 2006, 2008; De Montis et al. 2007). With Vaz, the integration of sensitive ecosystems into strategies for tourism and regional development in the South of Portugal was addressed, including the utilization of geographic information systems (Vaz et al. 2011, 2013). More recently, Romão et al. (2017, 2018b) addressed issues related to planning and management of wellness tourism destinations, with a particular focus on rural areas of Japan.

A significant group of publications—also revealing the importance of networks of collaborative research and production—relates to transportation studies, a very important field within regional science and also extremely relevant in terms of tourism activities. By integrating contributions from geography or physics (e.g., gravity models or network analysis), this is a field with high integration of knowledge from “hard sciences” and also a high level of mathematical formalization. In this case, a first group of works (between 2001 and 2009, with different partners, but frequently involving Rietveld) focuses on air transport and related infrastructures (Nijkamp et al. 2001; Schipper et al. 2001; Nijkamp and Yim 2001; Lijesen et al. 2002; Pels et al. 2003; and Reggiani et al. 2009). More recently, a collaboration with Chen would lead to a detailed analysis of contemporary cruise tourism, including aspects related to infrastructures, marketing or the particular dynamics of specific segments (Chen et al. 2016a, b, c, d). Like in the previous cases, these authors were, in general, permanent or visitor researchers at SED.

As it could be expected, considering his background as an economist and his long-term affiliation in a Faculty of Economics and Business, these are the disciplines with the largest contribution to Peter Nijkamp’s works in tourism. In the field of economics (a social science, according to TL, and one of the early contributors to regional science, as proposed by BG), 12 publications were identified, starting in 2006 with an analysis of multipliers for the assessment of tourism economic impacts (Van Leeuwen et al. 2006). Other four “clusters” of publications can be framed within this group, focusing on different economic aspects of the macro-environment shaping the dynamics of tourism destinations—and surely dependent on the interests, motivations and skills of the partners involved (visiting researchers hosted or supervised by Peter Nijkamp at SED).

A partnership with Cracolici lead to the publication of studies focused on Italian provinces, analysing the relation between efficiency in the utilization of resources and tourism competitiveness (Cracolici and Nijkamp 2006; Cracolici et al. 2008), also considering aspects of sustainability (Cracolici et al. 2009) or the implications of the characteristics of places on the expenditures of tourists (Bernini et al. 2017). Later on, a partnership with Ridderstaat led to the analysis of different economic characteristics of island destinations in the American continent, such as the vulnerability to exogenous shocks, the impacts of tourism on the quality of life of residents, or the effects of market concentration (Ridderstaat et al. 2013, 2016; Ridderstaat and Nijkamp 2016). More recently—with similar purposes and in both cases using spatial econometric methods—partnerships with Liu (in China) and Romão (in Europe) addressed the relations between tourism and economic growth (Liu et al. 2017; Romão and Nijkamp 2018) or between tourism and innovation dynamics (Liu and Nijkamp 2019; Romão and Nijkamp 2019), integrating concepts related to proximity, knowledge externalities or agglomeration economies, commonly used in regional science.

A final group of publications can be framed within management studies, one of the core disciplines contributing for the contemporary development of regional science, according to the BG approach. It is defined within the TL framework as business studies, one of the four major disciplines contributing for research in tourism. Peter Nijkamp’s publications in this field started relatively late, with only one publication until 2010 (Masurel et al. 2008). However other 13 publications are listed after that date, involving collaborations with members of SED (Van Leeuwen and Kourtit) or visiting researchers (Neuts, Romão, Shikida and Patuelli). These works combine inputs from marketing studies (differentiation approaches or segmentation techniques, as exemplified by Katsoni et al. 2013) with spatial analysis. Different aspects of tourism dynamics (natural or cultural resources, material and immaterial heritage, or information and digital technologies) are addressed in diverse types of destinations and activities. This set of works broadly classified as management studies would become the largest group of Peter Nijkamp’s publications observed in this study, confirming the importance achieved by this field within regional science, as proposed by the BG analysis.

The particular impacts of the utilization of digital technologies, communication processes and cultural aspects have high importance within this group of publications, starting with a general approach proposed by Kourtit et al. (2011). Different studies would be implemented in the city of Amsterdam, also adding aspects related to satisfaction with trips and loyalty to the destination (Van Leeuwen et al. 2013; Neuts et al. 2013a; Romão et al. 2015a) or involving also the city of Leipzig (Neuts et al. 2013b; Romão et al. 2015b). Similar conceptual approaches would be later on applied to the study of preferences, motivations, information, satisfaction and loyalty of ecotourists visiting a natural World Heritage Site in Japan (Neuts et al. 2014, 2016; Romão et al. 2014). Also, a meta-analysis specifically focused on the travel motivations of seniors was performed by Patuelli and Nijkamp (2016). Finally, a broad international analysis of determinants of urban tourism attractiveness would be performed by Romão et al. (2018a, b), while aspects related to user-generated data would be considered for the assessment of urban cultural heritage (Kourtit et al. 2019), clearly reflecting the willingness and ability to integrate new sources of information and knowledge into contemporary scientific production.

4 Concluding Remarks: An Actor or a Network?

This analysis of Peter Nijkamp’s publications specifically oriented to tourism activities offers a clear illustration of the diversity of topics addressed during his career, along with the main disciplines contributing to his research. The analyses also reveal the diversity of partners involved and the importance of processes of collaboration. It should be noticed, however, that tourism-related works represent only a relatively small fraction of his scientific production, which has a much broader scope. Considering all the other topics and research fields covered by Peter Nijkamp during his career would surely offer important insights about the multidisciplinary character of regional science, the importance of different disciplines shaping its development in different historical moments or how the integration into different networks impacts research activities. His extensive and diversified work may constitute a relevant sample for such a study, which can be object of further analysis, eventually including institutional aspects with relevance for research policies and management.

For the particular case of the interactions between the fields of knowledge analysed in this work, the conceptual approaches proposed for regional science by Bailly and Gibson (2017) and for tourism studies by Tribe and Liburd (2016) clearly constitute useful tools in order to classify and to systematize Peter Nijkamp’s contributions (and probably any others, which may be confirmed by further research). By defining the main disciplinary contributions for each of these fields of research, those frameworks helped to identify the main influences and also the main contributions in Nijkamp’s work, along with the differences and the evolution observed over the last 25 years (both in regional science and tourism studies). As this work was focused exclusively on the research topics and disciplines involved, further developments can also include the analysis of methodological tools and how they reinforce the dialogue between different disciplines when converging to regional studies and tourism.

It is also noteworthy that the systematization of the system of scientific production in tourism studies proposed by Tribe and Liburd (2016) constitutes a useful tool to understand the focus, impacts and evolution of scientific work, potentially being adopted (or adapted) to other fields. This conceptual approach includes personal characteristics, institutional aspects or the relevance of networks (actor-network analysis). Within this frame, it is possible to understand the important role of the Spatial Economics Department implemented and developed at VU-Amsterdam with a very relevant contribution from Peter Nijkamp. This institutional framework is crucial to understand the quantity and diversity of issues and co-authors involved in his work. Moreover, the analysis of the impacts of different institutional arrangements and professional relations maybe also an interesting research question for which the analysis of Peter Nijkamp’s career may offer substantial contributions. In this sense, the Actor-Network theoretical approach can be a useful tool for further empirical analyses.

In fact, it is also visible that Peter Nijkamp developed very intense and productive relations with researchers with different types of institutional ties (department members, visiting researchers or PhD students, among others), often persisting for long time, much beyond the conclusion of those formal institutional relations. This aspect also reveals how personal characteristics influence the creation and consolidation of networks, thus shaping scientific production: curiosity for a broad range of topics, solid theoretical background in different fields, a permanent curiosity for diverse aspects of contemporary economies and societies, a systematic willingness to support and to stimulate the ideas and efforts of other researchers, surely contributed for the creation, development and consolidation of a very broad set of national international collaborations. In this sense, Peter Nijkamp tends to dilute the distinction between an actor and a network: working regularly with him also generates opportunities to interact with researchers in all parts of the world or to get involved in a broad set of relevant international organizations and their scientific activities.

I would like to conclude, if I’m allowed by the editors of the book, with a more personal note. I had the opportunity to be a visiting researcher at SED between 2010 and 2013, when working on my PhD project in tourism studies. Peter Nijkamp did not hear about me before my request, he was not my supervisor and we had no formal relation. However, he hosted me at the Department and offered unconditional support and encouragement to my work. 7 years after my departure (in April 2020), we are still working together in a significant number of projects, including several publications, the edition of special issues or coordinating the NECTAR cluster on tourism, leisure and recreation. In average, we have two publications per year between 2013 and 2019, along with editorial work and organization of academic events. When systematizing his work on tourism for this publication, I also looked back at my 10 years of academic activity. I observe with surprise (and surely a big honour) that my name is the most frequently cited as Nijkamp’s co-author within the set of tourism-related publications considered for this work. I also realize that my contributions cover a significant variety of topics in very diverse geographical areas and framed within different disciplinary contributions. This is much beyond my expectations when my PhD work started and surely it would not be possible without Peter’s presence, inspiration and guidance in my academic life. With this publication I also want to express my deep gratitude and admiration to Peter Nijkamp.