For references see original article
Cohen, E. & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in Tourism: Attraction and Impediment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 755-778.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.02.003
Food in Tourism: attraction and impediment
NB. The examples in this article apply to countries in South and Southeast Asia
Food in tourism is long ignored in tourism studies. The studies that do exist in this
subject only talk about the attraction of it. The purpose of this article consists of two
elements. The first is presenting two facets of ‘local food’ in destinations: attraction and
impediment, suggesting that the problem of producing nutritious, hygienic, accessible
and culturally acceptable food to tourists is more complicated than what might be
assumed from promotional brochures or magazines. The second is how this problem is
dealt with by local culinary establishments.
The focus of studies of tourism has been mainly on tourists as “sightseers”. The main
object is then visual sense, while in food the taste is also important. When on a trip one
cannot avoid eating and drinking. Consuming food, aka “eating”, has a bigger potential
risk than consuming sights, aka “looking”, especially when it is strange and foreign food.
Therefore, looking at the impediments of food in tourism is important in tourism
studies.
Tradition and novelty in food
Strangeness and familiarity are general categories of interpretation in the world, as well
as in tourism. Cohen argued that tourists want strangeness and novelty but that they
also need familiarity to enjoy it. Fischler distinguished between the terms neophobic
and neophylic to describe people who respectively avoid novelty and embrace it. This is
engendered within people by both biological and cultural influences. The differences
between and within cultures and social classes also influence one’s tendency towards
strangeness or familiarity. The authors write: “people could be classified in terms of the
relative predominance of their neophobic as against neophylic tendencies in food”. The
classification how Fischler described it is important in food in tourism. Often there is
not a clear border between the two.
When a tourist considers eating strange food as riskful, the neophobic tendencies
become more prominent. Especially in Third World countries that are perceived as
mysterious and dangerous. When a tourist wants new experiences and therefore, wants
to try new and strange food, he has more neophylic tendencies. But even these tourists
might be reluctant to eat in a local culinary establishment.
Therefore, it is important to analyze the local culinary situation and examine the
impediments which it imposes on the tourists.
Food as a prospective tourist attraction and actual impediment
Tourists going on a trip are often excited about the unfamiliar destination, but might
become anxious about the practical aspects, like eating. Habitual attachment to
accustomed foods and cuisine appears to be a general human tendency. We do let
Cohen, E. & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in Tourism: Attraction and Impediment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 755-778.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.02.003
Food in Tourism: attraction and impediment
NB. The examples in this article apply to countries in South and Southeast Asia
Food in tourism is long ignored in tourism studies. The studies that do exist in this
subject only talk about the attraction of it. The purpose of this article consists of two
elements. The first is presenting two facets of ‘local food’ in destinations: attraction and
impediment, suggesting that the problem of producing nutritious, hygienic, accessible
and culturally acceptable food to tourists is more complicated than what might be
assumed from promotional brochures or magazines. The second is how this problem is
dealt with by local culinary establishments.
The focus of studies of tourism has been mainly on tourists as “sightseers”. The main
object is then visual sense, while in food the taste is also important. When on a trip one
cannot avoid eating and drinking. Consuming food, aka “eating”, has a bigger potential
risk than consuming sights, aka “looking”, especially when it is strange and foreign food.
Therefore, looking at the impediments of food in tourism is important in tourism
studies.
Tradition and novelty in food
Strangeness and familiarity are general categories of interpretation in the world, as well
as in tourism. Cohen argued that tourists want strangeness and novelty but that they
also need familiarity to enjoy it. Fischler distinguished between the terms neophobic
and neophylic to describe people who respectively avoid novelty and embrace it. This is
engendered within people by both biological and cultural influences. The differences
between and within cultures and social classes also influence one’s tendency towards
strangeness or familiarity. The authors write: “people could be classified in terms of the
relative predominance of their neophobic as against neophylic tendencies in food”. The
classification how Fischler described it is important in food in tourism. Often there is
not a clear border between the two.
When a tourist considers eating strange food as riskful, the neophobic tendencies
become more prominent. Especially in Third World countries that are perceived as
mysterious and dangerous. When a tourist wants new experiences and therefore, wants
to try new and strange food, he has more neophylic tendencies. But even these tourists
might be reluctant to eat in a local culinary establishment.
Therefore, it is important to analyze the local culinary situation and examine the
impediments which it imposes on the tourists.
Food as a prospective tourist attraction and actual impediment
Tourists going on a trip are often excited about the unfamiliar destination, but might
become anxious about the practical aspects, like eating. Habitual attachment to
accustomed foods and cuisine appears to be a general human tendency. We do let
