UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences
⋄
Classification of Tourism Resources
and Impacts of Tourism:
Cape Town
Assignment 2 — Semester 2, 2026
⋄
Module Code: GGH2606
Module Name: Tourism Geography
Assignment No.: Assignment 2
Due Date: 14 September 2026
Semester: Semester 2, 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Tourism Geography
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | GGH2606 Tourism Resources & Impacts: Cape Town
Part 1: Mind Map — Classification of Tourism Resources in Cape Town
Cape Town draws millions of domestic and international visitors each year on the strength of
a resource base that ranges from an iconic natural landmark to purpose-built family entertain-
ment venues. Making sense of such a varied resource base requires a classification framework,
and the system developed by Clawson and Knetsch (1966) remains one of the most widely
applied tools in tourism geography for this purpose.
1.1 Theoretical Background to the Clawson and Knetsch Classification System
Clawson and Knetsch (1966) developed their classification system in the context of outdoor
recreation planning in the United States, but the framework has since been adopted broadly
across tourism studies because it links the type of resource directly to the way that resource
must be planned, marketed, and managed. Rather than sorting attractions by subject matter
alone, such as natural versus man-made, the system asks a more useful planning question:
what determines where the attraction is located and who its market is? Cooper et al. (2008),
cited in Tourism Essentials, describe it as one of the oldest and most useful classification ap-
proaches available to attraction managers precisely because it generates direct insight into
how a resource should be developed and operated, not merely what it is.
The main purpose of the classification is therefore management-oriented rather than purely
descriptive. By separating resources according to what drives their location and their visitor
market, planners and destination managers can anticipate the pressures each type of resource
will face. A resource-based attraction, for instance, cannot be relocated if it becomes over-
crowded, so management there must focus on visitor flow and environmental protection. A
user-oriented attraction, by contrast, can be expanded, duplicated, or relocated closer to de-
mand, so management there is concerned with capacity and customer experience. Classifying
resources in this way allows a destination such as Cape Town to apply different planning and
conservation strategies to different categories of attraction rather than a single, uniform ap-
proach.
The Three Categories Defined
User-oriented resources are attractions of highly intensive development located close to cen-
tres of population, designed specifically around a target market rather than around any unique
Page 1 of 8
College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences
⋄
Classification of Tourism Resources
and Impacts of Tourism:
Cape Town
Assignment 2 — Semester 2, 2026
⋄
Module Code: GGH2606
Module Name: Tourism Geography
Assignment No.: Assignment 2
Due Date: 14 September 2026
Semester: Semester 2, 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Tourism Geography
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | GGH2606 Tourism Resources & Impacts: Cape Town
Part 1: Mind Map — Classification of Tourism Resources in Cape Town
Cape Town draws millions of domestic and international visitors each year on the strength of
a resource base that ranges from an iconic natural landmark to purpose-built family entertain-
ment venues. Making sense of such a varied resource base requires a classification framework,
and the system developed by Clawson and Knetsch (1966) remains one of the most widely
applied tools in tourism geography for this purpose.
1.1 Theoretical Background to the Clawson and Knetsch Classification System
Clawson and Knetsch (1966) developed their classification system in the context of outdoor
recreation planning in the United States, but the framework has since been adopted broadly
across tourism studies because it links the type of resource directly to the way that resource
must be planned, marketed, and managed. Rather than sorting attractions by subject matter
alone, such as natural versus man-made, the system asks a more useful planning question:
what determines where the attraction is located and who its market is? Cooper et al. (2008),
cited in Tourism Essentials, describe it as one of the oldest and most useful classification ap-
proaches available to attraction managers precisely because it generates direct insight into
how a resource should be developed and operated, not merely what it is.
The main purpose of the classification is therefore management-oriented rather than purely
descriptive. By separating resources according to what drives their location and their visitor
market, planners and destination managers can anticipate the pressures each type of resource
will face. A resource-based attraction, for instance, cannot be relocated if it becomes over-
crowded, so management there must focus on visitor flow and environmental protection. A
user-oriented attraction, by contrast, can be expanded, duplicated, or relocated closer to de-
mand, so management there is concerned with capacity and customer experience. Classifying
resources in this way allows a destination such as Cape Town to apply different planning and
conservation strategies to different categories of attraction rather than a single, uniform ap-
proach.
The Three Categories Defined
User-oriented resources are attractions of highly intensive development located close to cen-
tres of population, designed specifically around a target market rather than around any unique
Page 1 of 8
