Research Methodology Trends in Tourism Photography

Photographic Tourism Research: Literature Review

First Author

Inderpal Virdee

Lecturer at Prince of Songkla University, Phuket Campus, Thailand

Tel: +66 7627 6012

Fax: +66 7627 6002

Email: iv.psu.research [at] gmail.com

Copyright

The author reserves full copyright of this manuscript. Any reference to this research should be referenced as follows.

Virdee, I. (2017). Photographic Tourism Research: Literature Review. Unpublished manuscript.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Tourist perceptions, tourist behaviour and destination image are the most researched.
• Literature material was preferred over tourist samples.
• North American countries prefer qualitative while Asian favour quantitative methods.
• The main photographic data collection method was researcher-found imagery.

ABSTRACT

This study reviews the current photographic tourism literature to identify what fields within tourism have been studied by researchers, the contexts, the samples used, the sampling methods employed, the photographic methods and supporting methods used, the data analysis techniques applied and the countries studied. A set of 115 relevant academic articles were selected and assessed using content analysis. The findings showed that overall publications in the field of photographic tourism increased after 1997, with a notable rise in tourism management research in this area. Tourist perceptions, tourist behaviours and destination image were the most frequently researched topics. Literature material was generally preferred over tourist samples. Purposive sampling was the most common sampling method. The main photographic data collection method was researcher-found imagery. Many studies used interviews as an accompanying method. Critical analysis was more common in North American research while statistical approaches were employed more often in Asian studies.

Keywords

Photographic Tourism, Research Methodology Trends, Tourism Research Trends, Tourism Qualitative Methods, Quantitative Photographic Analysis, Tourism Literature, International Research Perspective

INTRODUCTION

Photography in tourism research has played a critical role in understanding the perception of a destination and the behaviour in it. There is no doubt that over the last forty years, the use of photography techniques as a data collection method in tourism research has increased significantly due to technological innovations (Feighey, 2003; Larsen, 2001; Van House, 2011), the mass transportation of tourists (Larsen, 2001; WTO, 2016), and instant global communication (Mak 2017; Lo, McKercher, Lo, Cheung, & Law, 2011).

The summations of photography-focused tourism studies have added new perspectives to the tourism literature landscape in areas such as tourist perception (Garrod, 2008; MacKay & Couldwell, 2004; Urry, 1992), behaviour (Markwell, 1997; Noy, 2014), and experiences (Cederholm, 2004; Fung & Jim, 2015), including destination image (Mak, 2017; Stepchenkova & Zhan, 2013), tourism development (Brickell, 2012; Haywood, 1990) and management (Garrod, 2007; Lo & McKercher, 2015). As a result, the use of photography in scientific research has expanded to encompass a range of emerging areas of interest, such as the ethnographic effects of tourism (Neumann, 1992; Scarles, 2010), marine tourism (Bryson, Duce, Harris, Webster, Thompson, Vila-Concejo, & Williams, 2016; Prideaux & Coghlan, 2010), land development for tourism (Voulvouli, 2012; Hudak & Wessman, 1998), analysing cultural heritage photography using computer aided design (Styliadis, 2008; Styliadis & Sechidis, 2011), virtual tourism in gaming (Poremba, 2007), travel fashion (Pritchard & Morgan, 2005) and food tourism (Liu, Norman, & Pennington-Gray, 2013). Therefore, this research defines photographic tourism literature as a study that applies any photography technique as a data collection method with tourism perspective.

However, no study has yet attempted to investigate the global development of published tourism research with integrated photographic methods over time. For example, little is known about the tourism fields (for instance, management, history, geography or culture) and contexts (such as perception, motivation, experience or destination image) in which photography has been applied as a data collection method. Similarly, the samples (like; literature material, tourists, residences, students or online images) and sampling methods (in the case of; purposive, convenience or random sampling) used by scholars in photographic tourism literature remains largely unexamined. Moreover, even less is understood about the way researchers collect visual data (whether by; researcher found imagery from books, postcards or magazines, online photography or respondent-employed photography) and the supporting methods (like; interviews, observation, questionnaires or diaries) they employ with photographic techniques. Lastly, an insufficient amount is known about the range of qualitative and quantitative methods and tests used by authors in photographic tourism research.

Thus, a study examining the trends of tourism research with integrated photographic methods subject matters, contexts, qualitative and quantitative approaches, and methods of analysis would potentially offer great benefits to scholars overall understanding of the photographic tourism literature landscape and provide a foundation for future studies. As a result, this will create more focused research and methodological development. For example, in the areas of tourist’s gaze and experience (Urry, 1992; Larsen, 2008). Whereas, the practical implications would lead further investigations advancing destination image organisers and managers understanding in areas such official marketing imagery verses tourist’s photography (Stepchenkova & Zhan, 2013; Scott, Green, & Fairley, 2016) or how a destination is consumed using geotagged tourist photography and official statistics (Kádár, 2014). Government bodies could also profit by incorporating various photographic methods into local or national studies thus quicken their research processes (Loughlin, 2013).

Research Objectives

The purpose of this study is to provide a contemporary overview of the photographic tourism literature landscape. The research questions of this study are to identify:

What are the specific tourism fields of the studies?

What are the contexts of the studies?

What are samples used in the studies?

What are the sampling methods used in the studies?

What are the photographic methods used in the studies?

What are the accompanying procedures used in the studies?

What are the qualitative data analyses methods used in the studies?

What are the quantitative data analyses techniques used in the studies?

What countries are conducting photographic tourism research?

LITERATURE REVIEW

A worldwide search of published academic literature on photographic tourism revealed 115 unique publications dating from 1979 to 2017. The findings are summarised and presented in chronological order in Table 1, which gives, for each study, the author(s), the year of publication, the tourism category, the context of the study, the sample (people or objects) used, the sampling frame, the photographic methods, the accompanying data collection methods, the data analysis techniques and tests used, and finally the country in which the primary research was conducted.

METHODS

One hundred fifteen photographic tourism articles from online academic journals were identified using two database search resources - Science Direct (www.sciencedirect.com) and Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.co.th) - with the keywords “Photography + Tourism” during the spring of 2017. The papers were examined using content analysis and the data was entered into a custom-made Excel spreadsheet and coded into themes (Saldana, 2009). The category and context codes in Table 1 were generated by evaluating the published article title, the academic journal title and the content of the study as guide. The sample population or objects were extracted from each study. Photographic tourism literature reviews that did not state their sampling method were identified as using a purposive sampling method due to the images or data being selected in relation to its research objective. The sample size was initially collected; however, some studies not did use any samples, other articles did not specify the sample amount, and some research used several different samples sizes. Therefore, the sample size was not examined in this study. The photographic methods were separated from the accompanying research methods of the study. The data analyses and tests of each study were initially collated and coded with specific scientific technology such as “Real Time Kinematic DGPS” (Bryson, Duce, Harris, Webster, Thompson, Vila-Concejo, & Williams, 2016) and specific researchers' tests like “Yates's correction” (Balomenou, & Garrod, 2014) being clustered. Then the data analyses and tests codes were grouped by their use of a qualitative or quantitative approach, and analysed separately. After that, those articles that purely examined the tourism literature without defining a specific country of reference, that did not use an identifiable photographic method, or were focused on 3D modelling for virtual tourism, were given a “not applicable” (NA) country code. Finally, the coded results were analysed by frequency along the article publication timeline, and presented as figures.

RESULTS

Overall

The overall results from the 115 photographic tourism articles from academic journals (Fig. 1) revealed a low number of publications from 1979 to 1991. However, from 1997 onwards there was a continual increase in photographic tourism publications, with the highest number of eleven articles being published in 2012.

Tourism Categories

The different fields studied in tourism with photography (Fig. 2) showed that most tourism studies (T=54) were general in nature. Two-thirds of studies had investigated the specific aspects of tourist behaviour and tourist perception. A little over a third (37.7%) of these articles used respondent-based photography such as tourist- or visitor-sourced photography and researcher-sourced photography. Online photography was first used in 2006 and had increased in frequency since. 26.4% of these articles relied on the use of literature without using any other accompanying method to collect data.

Tourism management (TM=25) focused research was done in native English speaking countries (Canada, USA, UK, New Zealand, Australia) until 2010. After that Asian and European countries started to explore tourism management issues with photography. Thirty-six percent of these studies examined destination image. Forty-eighty percent of tourism management articles preferred the use of statistical analysis and employed the use of technological methods, such as online photography, researcher-found (online) images and eye-tracking to collect data.

The analysis of historical tourism studies (TH=12) using photography showed that a third of these papers were conducted in the USA and another third in Europe. All of the articles used qualitative methods, for example critical, content and thematic analysis, with seventy-five percent of these studies using found imagery as their data collection method.

Tourism geography (TG=9) research using geographical imagery and data was first noted in 1998 and accelerated in occurrence thereafter with the Asian region publishing more than half of all these articles while using online photography, aerial photography and geo-tagging. Just over half (55.55%) of these studies used specific technology with statistical analysis.

Cultural tourism (CT=8) research using photographic methods emerged after 1990. Half of all these studies examined tourist perception. Fifty percent of cultural tourism research incorporated the use of interviews as an accompanying data collection method. All these studies used qualitative analysis methods.

Most visual science (VS=4) studies used a combination of photography methods and literature reviews. Finally, 3D modelling (3D=3) was the least used method in photographic tourism studies.

Tourism Contexts

The analysis of the various tourism contexts (Fig. 3) using photography exposed the fact that tourist perception (TP=33) was the most documented. Tourist perception research was focused in USA and Europe from 1979 to 2004. After that Asian studies begun to investigate tourist perception using photographic methods. Online photography was first used in 2008 and has been used most in Asian studies with quantitative analysis methods. The combination of multiple data collection methods, such as interviews, questionnaires/surveys and observations were incorporated after the year 2000.

Tourist behaviour (TB=32) studies were first noted in 1983 and used no photographic methods, until 1995 where studies using researcher photography and tourist-employed photography were first published. Subsequently, from 2011 there was a rapid transition to using online photography. Meanwhile, qualitative analysis methods like thematic analysis were mostly used until 2008. A distinct change to quantitative analysis techniques was evident from 2010 onwards.

Destination image (DI=25) research using photography found that thirty-two percent of studies were in the tourism management sector. The use of online photography was first used in 2006 and had increased in use since. Thirty-eight percent of these papers used content analysis, whereas twenty-eight percent of articles used a variety of quantitative analysis techniques. Lastly, twenty-four percent of destination image studies were done in North America.

Tourist experience (TE=11) research using photography was first carried out in 1992. 45.45% of these studies used researcher- and tourist-based photography. However, the use of interviews (36.36%), diaries (27.27%) and observation (27.27%) were integrated into data gathering procedures after 2010.

Tourism development (TD=7) articles were first noted in 1990 and saw the single use of volunteer-employed photography, resident-employed photography, aerial photography and the use of interviews for data collection.

Local and tourist perception (LTP=5) has been studied the longest, but excluded the use of photographic methods until 2006, after which various photographic methods were used. Finally, tourist motivation (TM=2) has been relatively unexplored using photographic methods.

Samples

The samples used in photographic tourism studies (Fig. 4) found that literature (L=43) material was the most used from 1979. Twenty-one percent of these studies were historically focused.

Tourists (T=33) were first sampled in 1985, and have been used in research more frequently since. 24.24% of the articles studied explored tourism management issues with tourist samples. Tourist- and visitor-employed photography was used from 1987 and became common practice until 2010. Thereafter, tourists’ online photography was predominantly used to study tourist behaviour with statistical tests.

The use of residents and tourists (RT=13) as sample populations in a single study was first seen in 1991 and this approach has increased in frequency since. The major contexts researched with dual samples were tourism management (38.46%) and cultural tourism (23.07%). More than half of this group (53.84%) examined tourist perception. 38.46% used respondent-employed photography. The additional data gathering methods used were interviews (61.53%), observation (38.46%) and diaries (30.76%). Thematic analysis was used about half (53.84%) the time to analyse the data.

Residents (R=9) were initially sampled in 2001 and have grown in number since, while the contexts of these studies have equally addressed destination image, tourism development, tourist behaviour and tourist perception. Overall, one third of these papers used resident-employed photography. Interestingly, all tourism development studies in this data set used resident-employed photography. 88.88% of researchers used interviewing methods while 37.5% triangulated their results by using qualitative methods.

Student (S=6) samples were first used in papers published in 1997, with two-thirds of these studies conducted in Asia investigating aspects of cultural behaviour and perception.

The use of Flickr images (F=4) was first noted in 2006 and has been used to research destination image predominantly through quantitative analysis methods such as chi-square and geo-referencing.

The least used sample sources were other photographers (P=3), land (LND=2) imaging by aerial photography, stock photographs (SP=1) and objects (O=1).

Sampling Methods

The sampling methods used in photographic tourism research (Fig. 5) revealed that purposive sampling (P=77) had been used longest with just over fifty percent (50.6%) using researcher-found images. Purposive sampling was mostly used in the areas of tourist perception and destination image.

Convenience sampling (C=18) was first used in 1997 and had increased in popularity since to investigate tourist behaviour and tourist perception with a very strong reliance on respondent based photography. The favoured data collection when using convenience sampling were interviews and observations.

Random sampling (R=9) on the other hand was used first in 2002. More than half of random sampling was in the field of tourism management. Overall, random sampling studies have displayed a tendency to use quantitative analysis and testing methods such as chi-square.

Seventy-five percent of dual sampling methods such as purposive sampling and convenience sampling (PC=4) have been used in Asian studies.

Accidental sampling (A=2) was used in 2014 and 2017. While cluster sampling (CL=1) was used once in 2004. Other sampling methods, such as cross-sectional representation (CS=1), multistage sampling (1), systematic random sampling (SR=1) and various sampling methods (V=1) have only been used once each in this data set, all between 2011 and 2015.

Photographic Methods

The most used photography methods in this set of tourism research (Fig. 6) was researcher found imagery (RF=28) with half of all research exploring tourist perception. In total, a quarter of studies examined the historical aspects of tourism in The United States and Europe, with 71.42% of those studies focusing on tourist perception. Whereas, another twenty-five percent investigated tourism management perspectives with 42.85% concentrating on aspects of destination image. Overall, the accompanying methods showed that literature (60.71%) material was used the most, after that interviews (21.42%) and then visual analysis (17.85%). Critical analysis (39.28%) and content analysis (28.57%) were the highest used forms of data analysis.

Research that did not use any photographic methods (~NA=24) were mostly located in the area of general tourism (62.5%). Overall 45.83% of these studies examined tourist behaviour. The main data gathering devices were literature reviews (45.83%), observations (33.3%) and interviews (33.3). Critical analysis was used in half of the articles and thematic analysis in 20.83% of research.

The use of online photography (OP=16) within tourism was first published in 2006 and has quickly accelerated in use since. Fifty percent of all these publications have been in the field of tourism management. 43.75% of these articles have specifically inspected a destination’s image. Questionnaires and surveys (35.71%) were the preferred data collection methods and were first used in 2011. Finally, 43.75% of studies using online photography in tourism research have been carried out in Asia.

Overall respondent-based photography like tourist and visitor-employed photography, researchers’ photography, resident-employed photography and volunteer-employed photography mostly used interviews, observations and diaries to accumulate data. Additionally, qualitative methods such as thematic analysis and content analysis were common methods of data evaluation. Further details follow on each of these groups.

Tourist- and visitor-employed photography (TVP=13) was generally conducted in the field of tourism. 46.15% of these papers researched tourist behaviour. 61.53% used interviews and 23.07% used diaries as accompanying methods. Content analysis (46.15%) was the most used technique.

Researchers’ photography (RP=8): It was found that 37.5% of these studies had explored tourist experiences. Half of all these studies were in Asia. 62.5% documented their observations and 50% used interviews to gather data. 62.5% used thematic analysis to interpret their results.

Resident-employed photography (REP=3) was first applied in 2004. Two-thirds of these studies were in the field of tourism development in Asia, whereas all the studies used interviews with the residents and 66.6% used content analysis as their decryption method.

Volunteer-employed photography (VOEP=3) was introduced in 2014. 66.6% of this research was in the area of tourism development. Similarly, two-thirds of these studies used interviews and 66.6% used critical analysis to evaluate their findings.

Other single photographic methods such as gaming photography (GP=1) and aerial photography (AP=2) had been used since 1997. However, from 2006 the use of multiple photography data collection methods have arisen, such as: Online photography and geotagged (OPGT=2); online photography & researcher-found images (OPRF=2); eye-tracking and researcher-found images (EYRF=2); researcher-found images and computer aided design or CAD (RFCD=2); researcher-found images and online photography (RFOP=2); researcher photography, online photography and researcher-found images (ROR=1); researcher photography and researcher-found images (RPRF=1); researcher photography and student photography (RPSP=1); researcher photography, tourist photography and researcher-found images (RTR=1); tourist photography and researcher-found images (TPRF=1) and visitor employed photography and researcher-found images (VPRF=1) with increasing sophistication in quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques over time.

Accompanying Methods

Interviews (INT=44) were the most frequent accompanying methods used in this set of photographic tourism research (Fig.7). Interviewing techniques were first used in 1985 and increased in usage after the year 2000. 22.72% of these studies were in the domain of tourism management. 31.81% of these articles had researched tourist behaviour. 27.27% had used tourist- and visitor-employed photography from 1990 to 2010. Thereafter online photography was used several times since. Lastly, thematic analysis was used in 43.18% of these studies.

Literature (LR=41) material was used over the longest period of time with 41.46% using researcher-found images in their studies. 19.51% of these articles focused on tourism history. 43.9% investigated tourist perception, followed by 26.82% destination imagery. 65.85% used a critical analysis perspective.

Observational (OS=22) techniques were mostly used when assessing tourist behaviour (40.9%), while over a third (36.36%) of authors used their own photography. A high proportion of these studies (72.72%) used various interviewing methods with observations, whereas diaries (31.81%) were used on occasion for data collection.

Questionnaires and surveys (Q=15) were first used in 1985 and were used more frequently from 2009 onwards. 46.66% of tourism management studies have used questionnaires or surveys. Sixty percent of studies on tourist behaviour used questionnaires and surveys. One-third of these studies used online imagery as a photography method. Meanwhile, forty percent of these papers used interviews as an assisting method. Lastly, 46.66% of reports using questionnaires and surveys originated in Asia.

An ethnographic approach (EA=12) was first applied in 1985 and remained dormant until 2007 after which it was used several times in general tourism research. 41.66% of these studies investigated tourist perceptions, while one-third of the studies used the researchers’ photography as the main photographic method. Overall 58.33% used interviews, while 58.33% applied observation as an accompanying method. Lastly, 41.66% of these studies were conducted in Asia.

Diaries (D=11) have been used since 1981 with photographic tourism research. 36.36% have been used to record tourist behaviour. 36.36% used dairies with tourist/visitor employed photography, while another 36.36% used researcher photography. 72.72% of these studies used thematic analysis to examine their dairies. Lastly, 36.36% used diaries in Asian countries.

Visual analysis (VA=11) was used most often in the tourism management (36.36%) research according to this data set. 36.36% of these articles examined destination imagery. 45.45% used researcher-found images. While 36.36% of these studies were conducted in Asia. However, a balance of quantitative and qualitative data analysis was used overall.

Anthropological inquiries (AL=4) were conducted between 1983 and 1986 and once more in 2012. Maps (M=4) and global positioning systems (GPS=2) were hardly used after 1998. In contrast, photographic collections (PC=4), experiments (EX=3) and focus groups (FG=3) were first used in 1997, but have seen little use since. Online groups (OG) were first used in 2012, and have been used three times so far.

Other methods that have been used rarely, include; government statistics (GS=3), Computer Image Analysis (CIA=2), field visits (FL=2), reflexive approach (RA=2), cognitive approach (CA=1), gratification theory (GC=1), grounded theory, (GD=1), Mise-en-scène analysis (MSA=1), phenomenological approach (PHA=1), photo ranking (PR=1), Q methodology (QM=1), Snapshot approach (SA=1), tourist text (TX=1) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAL=1).

Qualitative Data Analyses & Tests

Critical analysis (CRI=37) was used the most, over the longest period of time in qualitative investigations of photographic tourism research (Fig. 8). 27.02% of studies inspected tourist perception using critical analysis. 32.43% critically analysed data with researcher-found images. The greatest use of critical analysis was seen in North American reports (21.62%).

Content analysis (CTA=34) was used in 23.52% of tourism management studies. The most common fields that used content analysis were tourist perception (38.23%) and destination image (26.47%). Content analysis of online photography was first used in 2008 and has grown in use since. European studies (35.29%) used content analysis the most followed by Asian research (20.58%).

Thematic analysis (TA=23) was most prevalent in cultural tourism research (17.39%). Overall, thematic analysis was used to explain tourist behaviour in 34.78% of the studies. 26.08% of tourist/visitor-employed photography and 34.78% of diaries were decoded using thematic analysis. The highest usage of thematic analysis in photographic tourism research was seen in South American studies (34.78%).

Semiotic analysis (SEA=9) was first noted in 1984 and has been in use periodically since. An equal proportion of studies have looked at tourist perception, tourist behaviour and destination imagery.

Discourse analysis (DA=6) was first used in 2004 and was used in fifty percent of the studies to examine tourist perception. Likewise, half of researcher-found images had been assessed using discourse analysis. In contrast, a third of ethnographic analysis studies (EA=6) had been used to explain the authors’ observations, while a third of ethnographic analysis studies were from Asia.

Qualitative triangulation (TRI=4) has been used since 2012, whereas visual elicitation (VE=4) was first used in 2004. Seldom-used analyses included textual analysis (TXA=3), inter-coder reliability (ICR=2), argument analysis (AA=1), descriptive analysis (DPA=1), Foucauldian analysis (FUA=1), genre analysis (GNA=1), metaphor analysis (MA=1), non-representational approach (NRA=1), power analysis (PWA=1), repertory grid (RG=1), respondent validation (RV=1) and sociological analysis (SA=1).

Quantitative Data Analyses & Tests

The quantitative data analyses and tests used in photographic tourism research (Fig. 9) were first used in 1995, surprisingly.

Chi-square (CHQ=9) was first used in 2009 and has been used the most out of all of the quantitative tests. 77.7% of its applications were in tourism management research. Chi-square has been used to analyse 44.4% of tourist photography and a third of online photography.

Geo-reference (GEO=6) was first used in 1998 and has in increased in usage since, with half of the studies exploring tourist behaviour with online photography in Asia.

Analysis of variance (AOV=6) techniques such as ANOVA were first used in 1995. Half of all ANOVA methods were used in tourism management research. While another fifty percent evaluated tourist behaviour. Two-thirds of the studies used analysis of variance with questionnaires and surveys and one-third with online photography. 33.3% of the Asian studies used statistical variance methods on researcher-found images and eye-tracking data.

Factor analysis (FA=6) was first used in 1995 and had been used intermittently thereafter. Half of all factor analysis tests were in tourism management articles. Factor analysis was used in a third of tourist experience studies and an another third in destination image research. Two-thirds of researcher-found images were numerically evaluated using factor analysis.

Mapping analysis (MAP=5) has been used since 2012 with eighty percent of researchers employing technological devices such as eye-tracking and aerial photography. Sixty percent of mapping analysis was administered in tourism management studies. Forty percent used a questionnaire survey as an accompanying method. Eighty percent of research using mapping analysis was conducted in Asia.

Frequency analysis (FQA=4) was used a few times after 1995. A quarter of tourism management studies used frequency analysis. Three-quarters of the examination were in the field of tourist behaviour. Seventy-five percent of papers used frequency analysis to assess questionnaires and surveys. Half of all frequency analysis was conducted in Asian studies.

Correlation coefficients (CRR=3), regression analysis (RA=3) and triangulation (TRI=3) have been used a little since 1997. While 3D virtual reconstruction (3DR=2), Cronbach's alpha (CBA=2), cluster analysis (CLU=2), eye movement analysis (EMA=2), mean (M=2), Root Mean Square (RMS=2), Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC =2), ratio (RTO=2), t-tests (TT=2), varimax rotation (VR=2), Eigenvalues (EGV=1), kernel-based approach (KBA=1), least-square cross validation (SCV=1), presence of skew (PSK=1), Standard Deviation (SD=1) and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM=1) have been rarely employed after 2006.

Countries

Finally, the analysis of the countries being studied with this data set using photography in tourism research (Fig. 10) exposed that pure literature reviews (~NA=26) were the longest and most researched focusing on general tourism. However, the area of tourist perception (34.61%) had been investigated the most with two-thirds using researcher-found images, while 46.15% did not refer to any images in their studies.

The United States (USA=13) has been using photography in tourism research the longest. One-third of this research discussed tourism history. Tourist perceptions (30.76%), tourist behaviour (30.76%) and destination imagery (30.76%) were studied equally. 53.84% of articles used researcher-found images. 38.46% applied interviewing methods, 30.77% used observation and 30.77% sourced literature material, whereas 46.15% used critical analysis in their studies.

The United Kingdom (UK=10) used photography in tourism research initially in 1995. Sixty percent of the research from the UK was in general tourism. Half of all studies investigated tourist perception. Fifty percent used respondent-based photography such as tourist/visitor-employed photography and volunteer-employed photography. Qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques methods were applied equally. Sixty percent of studies used content analysis.

Studies collecting data from various countries (~V~=8) were first noted in 1992 and have increased in frequency from 2007 with 37.5% focusing on tourism management.

Australia (AUS=7) first used photography in tourism in 2003. 42.85% of the studies have been in the tourism management sector, while 57.14% of studies were in the field of tourist behaviour. 57.14% used questionnaires or surveys. However, 57.14% preferred the use of statistical analysis techniques.

Canada (CAN=5) initially published photographic tourism research in 1990. Most studies have been in general tourism (80%). Twenty percent of these articles examined destination image. Sixty percent used respondent-based photography like tourist/visitor-employed photography and volunteer-employed photography. Another sixty percent used interviewing methods.

Mexico’s (MEX=4) earliest study was conducted in 1987. Half of the Mexican studies address cultural tourism viewpoints. Fifty percent of studies have examined tourist behaviour and the other half tourist perceptions. Half of the articles used tourist photography. However, all of the authors have used interview techniques with fifty percent using an additional questionnaire or survey to gather data. Seventy-five percent of these papers had used thematic analysis to interpret their data.

Researchers from Hong Kong (HKG=4) and China (CHN=3) first used photography in tourism after 2004 and have demonstrated a strong preference for online photography. These researchers have tended to integrate their research with more technological innovations such as eye-tracking and geo-referencing. In addition, qualitative methods such as ethnographic approaches and the advanced use of statistical analysis and testing have been used most, with less than half discussing tourism destination management issues.

Spain (ESP=3), Greece (GRC=3), India (IND=3) and Peru (PER=3) have all published a few times between 200 and 2014. Two studies have been done at sea (~S~=2), two in Indonesia (IDN=2), two in Japan (JPN=2), and two in Norway. There are several countries from which a single study in the group originated, namely Switzerland (CHE=1), Germany (DEU=1), Denmark (DNK=1), Ecuador (ECU=1), Italy (ITA=1), South Korea (KOR=1), Malta (MLT=1), Malaysia (MYS=1), Namibia (NAM=1), New Zealand (NZL=1), Sweden (SWE=1), Turkey (TUR=1), Taiwan (TWN=1), Vietnam (VNM=1) and South Africa (ZAF=1).

CONCLUSIONS

This study’s aims were to review the current photographic tourism literature landscape to identify what contexts within tourism had been studied by researchers, the specific fields, the samples used, the sampling methods employed, the photographic methods and accompanying procedures employed, the data analysis techniques used and the countries where the studies were conducted.

The findings have highlighted the increasing frequency of photographic tourism research from 1997, with a specific rise in the number of tourism management studies from 2010 in Asian and European countries. In addition, the use of geographical characteristics to study tourism has also emerged recently. This is because of the growing access to large amounts of digital data, such as government statistics, geographical referencing and online photography. Also, the push for sustainable tourism practices has resulted in scholars adopting multidisciplinary approaches to address environmental concerns. Specific fields such as tourist perception, tourist behaviour and destination image are currently the preferred domains of photographic tourism research that use literature and tourist samples by purposive sampling. Researcher-found imagery is used as frequently as no imagery. However, the emergence of online photography continues especially in the area of tourism management. Established methods such as tourist/visitor-employed photography and researchers’ photography are seen more in the general tourism domain. The dominant accompanying methods are interviews, literature reviews and observations, while questionnaires/surveys ethnographic approaches, diaries and visual analysis are also sometimes used. The traditional qualitative data analysis methods, such as critical analysis, still rule the tourism landscape, particularly in North America. However, following the recent appearance of quantitative analysis techniques from 1995 onwards, Chi-square and geo-referencing among others, have been employed with increasing frequency, mostly in Asian studies. This is possibly due to technological advancements, the access to large amounts of digital data, such as government statistics, geographical referencing, online databases and the easy access to sophisticated statistical analysis software. Thus, the use of statistical testing with numerous data sets will continue according to this review. European articles, however, have tended to use a mixture of textual and empirical devices, but with a slight preference towards qualitative analysis.

Photography-based studies in emerging fields in tourism research, such as 3D modelling in virtual tourism, have only been used a few times since 2006. Similarly, tourist motivation remains largely unexplored in studies focused on photography.

This study has thus been able to assess the current body of photographic tourism research within peer-reviewed academic journals. The results highlight that the continual development and evolution of both qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection and analysis is likely to continue to expand the tourism scholar’s toolbox, with the additional value of enhancing the overall comprehension of results, increasing the validity and reliability of research, and broadening its practical applications. Moreover, it is clear that there is a wide space for future research in this area to continue to expand and deepen the available tourism literature involving photography. Finally, it is the vision of this study to provide a sense of perspective for future researchers in order to assist them in further development and innovation within the realm of photographic tourism research.

REFERENCES

Albers, P. C., & James, W. R. (1983). Tourism and the changing photographic image of the Great Lakes Indians. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(1), 123-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(83)90119-6

Albers, P. C., & James, W. R. (1988). Travel photography: A methodological approach. Annals of tourism research, 15(1), 134-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90076-X

Andriotis, K., & Mavrič, M. (2013). Postcard mobility: Going beyond image and text. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 18-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.07.004

Ateljevic, I., & Doorne, S. (2002). Representing New Zealand: tourism imagery and ideology. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 648-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00077-9

Balomenou, N., & Garrod, B. (2014). Using volunteer-employed photography to inform tourism planning decisions: A study of St David's Peninsula, Wales. Tourism Management, 44, 126-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.02.015

Bandyopadhyay, R. (2011). A photo ethnography of tourism as neo-colonialism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 714-718. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.11.002

Becker, H. S. (1995). Visual sociology, documentary photography, and photojournalism: It's (almost) all a matter of context. Visual Studies, 10(1-2), 5-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14725869508583745

Belk, R., & Hsiu-yen Yeh, J. (2011). Tourist photographs: signs of self. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(4), 345-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111174628

Bertella, G. (2013). Photography and northern lights tourism in Tromsø, Norway. Northern Review, (37). http://journals.sfu.ca/nr/index.php/nr/article/view/277

Bhattacharyya, D. P. (1997). Mediating India: An analysis of a guidebook. Annals of Tourism research, 24(2), 371-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)80007-2

Boley, B. B., Magnini, V. P., & Tuten, T. L. (2013). Social media picture posting and souvenir purchasing behavior: Some initial findings. Tourism Management, 37, 27-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.020

Botterill, T. D., & Crompton, J. L. (1987). Personal constructions of holiday snapshots. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1), 152-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(87)90059-4

Brickell, K. (2012). Visual critiques of tourist development: host-employed photography in Vietnam. Tourism Geographies, 14(1), 98-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2011.593187

Bryson, M., Duce, S., Harris, D., Webster, J. M., Thompson, A., Vila-Concejo, A., & Williams, S. B. (2016). Geomorphic changes of a coral shingle cay measured using kite aerial photography. Geomorphology, 270, 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.06.018

Burns, K. (1997). Topographies of Tourism:" Documentary" Photography and" The Stones of Venice". Assemblage, (32), 23-44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171405

Buzinde, C. N., & Manuel-Navarrete, D. (2013). The social production of space in tourism enclaves: Mayan children’s perceptions of tourism boundaries. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 482-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.06.003

Cahyanto, I., Pennington-Gray, L., & Thapa, B. (2009). Reflections from utilizing reflexive photography to develop rural tourism in Indonesia. Tourism Analysis, 14(6), 721-736. doi:10.3727/108354210X12645141401061

Cano, L. M., & Mysyk, A. (2004). Cultural tourism, the state, and day of the dead. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 879-898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.03.003

Caton, K., & Santos, C. A. (2008). Closing the hermeneutic circle? Photographic encounters with the other. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 7-26. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.03.014

Cederholm, E. A. (2004). The Use of Photo elicitation in Tourism Research–Framing the Backpacker Experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3), 225-241. doi:10.1080/15022250410003870

Chalfen, R. M. (1979). Photograph's role in tourism: Some unexplored relationships. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 435-447. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(79)90006-9

Cohen, E., Nir, Y., & Almagor, U. (1992). Stranger-local interaction in photography. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90078-4

Cole, S. (2007). Beyond authenticity and commodification. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 943-960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.05.004

Crouch, D., & Desforges, L. (2003). The sensuous in the tourist encounter: Introduction: The power of the body in tourist studies. Tourist studies, 3(1), 5-22. doi:10.1177/1468797603040528

Dann, G., Nash, D., & Pearce, P. (1988). Methodology in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90068-0

Dewar, K., Li, W. M., & Davis, C. H. (2007). Photographic images, culture, and perception in tourism advertising: AQ methodology study of Canadian and Chinese university students. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22(2), 35-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v22n02_03

Digance, J. (2003). Pilgrimage at contested sites. Annals of tourism research, 30(1), 143-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00028-2

Dinhopl, A., & Gretzel, U. (2016). Selfie-taking as touristic looking. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 126-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.12.015

Dominici, S., & Maitland, R. (2016). The PTA: Promoting Swiss tours, 1888–1939. Annals of Tourism Research, 60, 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.05.010

Donaire, J. A., Camprubí, R., & Galí, N. (2014). Tourist clusters from Flickr travel photography. Tourism Management Perspectives, 11, 26-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.02.003

Edensor, T. (2000). Staging tourism: Tourists as performers. Annals of tourism Research, 27(2), 322-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00082-1

Fawcett, C., & Cormack, P. (2001). Guarding authenticity at literary tourism sites. Annals of tourism research, 28(3), 686-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00062-1

Feighery, W. (2009). Tourism, stock photography and surveillance: a Foucauldian interpretation. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 7(3), 161-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766820903259485

Feighey, W. (2003). Negative image? Developing the visual in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(1), 76-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667945

Foster, G. M. (1986). South seas cruise a case study of a short-lived society. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2), 215-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(86)90038-1

Fotsch, P. M. (2004). Tourism’s uneven impact: history on Cannery Row. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 779-800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.02.004

Fung, C. K., & Jim, C. Y. (2015). Unraveling Hong Kong Geopark experience with visitor-employed photography method. Applied Geography, 62, 301-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.05.014

Garlick, S. (2002). Revealing the unseen: Tourism, art and photography. Cultural Studies, 16(2), 289-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09502380110107599

Garrod, B. (2007). A snapshot into the past: The utility of volunteer-employed photography in planning and managing heritage tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(1), 14-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/jht018.0

Garrod, B. (2008). Exploring place perception a photo-based analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 381-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.09.004

Garrod, B. (2009). Understanding the relationship between tourism destination imagery and tourist photography. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 346-358. doi:10.1177/0047287508322785

Gillespie, A. (2006). Tourist photography and the reverse gaze. Ethos, 34(3), 343-366.

Gordon, B. M. (1998). Warfare and tourism paris in World War II. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 616-638. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00009-7

Graburn, N. H. (1983). The anthropology of tourism. Annals of tourism research, 10(1), 9-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(83)90113-5

Grimwood, B. S., Yudina, O., Muldoon, M., & Qiu, J. (2015). Responsibility in tourism: A discursive analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 22-38. doi:10.1525/eth.2006.34.3.343

Hammond, J. D. (2001). Photography, tourism and the Kodak hula show. Visual Anthropology, 14(1), 1-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2001.9966814

Haywood, K. M. (1990). Visitor-employed photography: An urban visit assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 29(1), 25-29. doi:10.1177/004728759002900106

Hudak, A. T., & Wessman, C. A. (1998). Textural analysis of historical aerial photography to characterize woody plant encroachment in South African savanna. Remote sensing of environment, 66(3), 317-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00078-9

Human, B. (1999). Kodachrome icons: photography, place and the theft of identity. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(2/3), 80-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596119910250733

Hunter, W. C. (2008). A typology of photographic representations for tourism: Depictions of groomed spaces. Tourism Management, 29(2), 354-365. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.008

Jakle, J. A. (1981). Touring by automobile in 1932 The American West as stereotype. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(4), 534-549. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(81)90040-2

Jenkins, O. (2003). Photography and travel brochures: The circle of representation. Tourism Geographies, 5(3), 305-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680309715

Jóhannesson, G. T., & Lund, K. A. (2017). Aurora Borealis: Choreographies of darkness and light. Annals of Tourism Research, 63, 183-190. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.02.001

Johns, N., & Clarke, V. (2001). Mythological analysis of boating tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 334-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00063-3

Kádár, B. (2014). Measuring tourist activities in cities using geotagged photography. Tourism Geographies, 16(1), 88-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2013.868029

Karlsson, L., Kemperman, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2017). May I sleep in your bed? Getting permission to book. Annals of Tourism Research, 62, 1-12.

Larsen, J. (2001). Tourism mobilities and the travel glance: experiences of being on the move. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(2), 80-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/150222501317244010

Larsen, J. (2005). Families seen sightseeing: Performativity of tourist photography. Space and culture, 8(4), 416-434. doi:10.1177/1206331205279354

Larsen, J. (2008). Practices and flows of digital photography: An ethnographic framework. Mobilities, 3(1), 141-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450100701797398

Laxson, J. D. (1991). How “we” see “them” tourism and Native Americans. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(3), 365-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(91)90047-F

Li, C., Zhao, Y., Sun, X., Su, X., Zheng, S., Dong, R., & Shi, L. (2011). Photography-based analysis of tourists’ temporal–spatial behaviour in the Old Town of Lijiang. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(6), 523-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.601471

Li, Q., Huang, Z. J., & Christianson, K. (2016). Visual attention toward tourism photographs with text: An eye-tracking study. Tourism Management, 54, 243-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.11.017

Little, J. I. (2009). Scenic tourism on the northeastern borderland: Lake Memphremagog's steamboat excursions and resort hotels, 1850–1900. Journal of Historical Geography, 35(4), 716-742. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.10.001

Liu, I., Norman, W. C., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2013). A flash of culinary tourism: Understanding the influences of online food photography on people's travel planning process on flickr. Tourism Culture & Communication, 13(1), 5-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/109830413X13769180530567

Lo, I. S., & McKercher, B. (2015). Ideal image in process: Online tourist photography and impression management. Annals of Tourism Research, 52, 104-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.02.019

Lo, I. S., McKercher, B., Lo, A., Cheung, C., & Law, R. (2011). Tourism and online photography. Tourism Management, 32(4), 725-731. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.06.001

Loughlin, J. (2013). How photography as field notes helps in understanding the building the education revolution. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40(5), 535-548. doi:10.1007/s13384-013-0112-1

Lyu, S. O. (2016). Travel selfies on social media as objectified self-presentation. Tourism Management, 54, 185-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.11.001

MacKay, K. J., & Couldwell, C. M. (2004). Using visitor-employed photography to investigate destination image. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 390-396. doi:10.1177/0047287504263035

MacKay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1997). Pictorial element of destination in image formation. Annals of tourism research, 24(3), 537-565. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00011-X

Mahn, C. (2014). The virtual tourist gaze in Greece, 1897–1905. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 193-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.06.001

Mak, A. H. (2017). Online destination image: Comparing national tourism organisation's and tourists' perspectives. Tourism Management, 60, 280-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.012

Markwell, K. W. (1997). Dimensions of photography in a nature-based tour. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 131-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(96)00053-9

Markwick, M. (2001). Postcards from Malta: Image, consumption, context. Annals of tourism research, 28(2), 417-438. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00049-9

Matteucci, X. (2013). Photo elicitation: Exploring tourist experiences with researcher-found images. Tourism Management, 35, 190-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.07.002

Meisch, L. A. (1995). Gringas and Otavalenos: Changing tourist relations. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2), 441-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)00085-9

Mellinger, W. M. (1994). Toward a critical analysis of tourism representations. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 756-779.

Molz, J. G. (2013). Social networking technologies and the moral economy of alternative tourism: The case of couchsurfing. org. Annals of tourism research, 43, 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.08.001

Moore, A. (1985). Rosanzerusu is Los Angeles an anthropological inquiry of Japanese tourists. Annals of tourism research, 12(4), 619-643. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(85)90081-7

Mordue, T. (2013). Travels into nature and society with rod and line. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 100-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.04.003

Neumann, M. (1992). The Traveling Eye Photography, Tourism and Ethnography. Visual Studies, 7(2), 22-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14725869208583701

Nicolau, J. L. (2011). Monetary and non-monetary efforts for leisure activities. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 801-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.12.002

Nicoletta, R., & Servidio, R. (2012). Tourists' opinions and their selection of tourism destination images: An affective and motivational evaluation. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 19-27. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2012.04.004

Noy, C. (2014). Staging portraits: Tourism’s panoptic photo-industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 47, 48-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.04.004

Ong, C. E., & du Cros, H. (2012). The post-Mao gazes: Chinese backpackers in Macau. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 735-754. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.08.004

Page, S. J., Steele, W., & Connell, J. (2006). Analysing the promotion of adventure tourism: a case study of Scotland. Journal of sport & tourism, 11(1), 51-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14775080600985358

Pizam, A., & Sussmann, S. (1995). Does nationality affect tourist behavior?. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 901-917. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00023-5

Poremba, C. (2007). Point and shoot: Remediating photography in gamespace. Games and Culture, 2(1), 49-58. doi:10.1177/1555412006295397

Prideaux, B., & Coghlan, A. (2010). Digital cameras and photo taking behaviour on the Great Barrier Reef—marketing opportunities for Reef tour operators. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(3), 171-183. doi:10.1177/1356766710372244

Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. J. (2000). Privileging the male gaze: Gendered tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 884-905. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00113-9

Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2005). ‘On location’ Re(viewing) bodies of fashion and places of desire. Tourist Studies, 5(3), 283-302. doi:10.1177/1468797605070338

Rakić, T., & Chambers, D. (2012). Rethinking the consumption of places. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1612-1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.12.003

Rickly-Boyd, J. M. (2012). Authenticity & aura: A Benjaminian approach to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 269-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.003

Salazar, N. B. (2012). Tourism imaginaries: A conceptual approach. Annals of Tourism research, 39(2), 863-882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.10.004

Saldana, J. (2009). An introduction to codes and coding. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 1-31.

Scarles, C. (2010). Where words fail, visuals ignite: Opportunities for visual autoethnography in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 905-926. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2010.02.001

Scarles, C. (2012). The photographed other: Interplays of agency in tourist photography in Cusco, Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 928-950. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.11.014

Scott, N., Green, C., & Fairley, S. (2016). Investigation of the use of eye tracking to examine tourism advertising effectiveness. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(7), 634-642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.1003797

Siegenthaler, P. (2002). Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese guidebooks. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4), 1111-1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00027-0

Silver, I. (1993). Marketing authenticity in third world countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(2), 302-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(93)90057-A

Snavely, N., Seitz, S. M., & Szeliski, R. (2006, July). Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3D. In ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) 25(3), 835-846. http://phototour.cs.washington.edu/Photo_Tourism.pdf

Snow, R. (2012). Snapshots by the way: Individuality and convention in tourists’ photographs from the United States, 1880-1940. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2013-2050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.05.002

Stedman, R., Beckley, T., Wallace, S., & Ambard, M. (2004). A picture and 1000 words: Using resident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 580. http://staff.washington.edu/kwolf/Archive/Classes/ESRM304_SocSci/304%20Soc%20Sci%20Lab%20Articles/Stedman_2004.pdf

Steen Jacobsen, J. K. (2007). Use of landscape perception methods in tourism studies: A review of photo-based research approaches. Tourism Geographies, 9(3), 234-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680701422871

Stepchenkova, S., & Zhan, F. (2013). Visual destination images of Peru: Comparative content analysis of DMO and user-generated photography. Tourism Management, 36, 590-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.08.006

Styliadis, A. D. (2008). Historical photography-based computer-aided architectural design: Demolished buildings information modeling with reverse engineering functionality. Automation in construction, 18(1), 51-69. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2008.04.010

Styliadis, A. D., & Sechidis, L. A. (2011). Photography-based façade recovery & 3-d modeling: A CAD application in Cultural Heritage. Journal of cultural heritage, 12(3), 243-252. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2010.12.008

Stylianou-Lambert, T. (2012). Tourists with cameras:: Reproducing or Producing?. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 1817-1838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.05.004

Thompson, F., Hannam, K., & Petrie, K. (2012). Producing ceramic art works through tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 336-360. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.06.006

Tribe, J. (2008). The art of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(4), 924-944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2008.07.003

Urry, J. (1992). The tourist gaze “revisited”. American Behavioral Scientist, 36(2), 172-186. doi:10.1177/0002764292036002005

Uzzell, D. (1984). An alternative structuralist approach to the psychology of tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(1), 79-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(84)90097-5

Van den Berghe, P. L. (1992). Tourism and the ethnic division of labor. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 234-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90079-5

Van House, N. A. (2011). Personal photography, digital technologies and the uses of the visual. Visual Studies, 26(2), 125-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2011.571888

Voulvouli, A. (2012). The Cultural Construction of Landscape Through Photography: Tourism Photography In Namibia. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 7(2), 459-479. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aimilia_Voulvouli/publication/273577442_The_cultural_construction_of_landscape_through_photography_Tourism_photography_in_Namibia/links/5506960d0cf2d60c0e6d01d1.pdf?inViewer=0&pdfJsDownload=0&origin=publication_detail

WTO. (2016). UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2016 Edition. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145

Yoshimura, N., & Hiura, T. (2017). Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido. Ecosystem Services, 24, 68-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.009

Photographic Tourism Research: Literature Review

(PDF Download Available). Available from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319271391_Photographic_Tourism_Research_Literature_Review