ARTICLE

10.1177/0047287504265501
AUGUST
JOURNAL
2004
OF TRAVEL RESEARCH

Factions and Enclaves: Small Towns and

Socially Unsustainable Tourism Development
JEFFREY SASHA DAVIS AND DUARTE B. MORAIS

Pressured by the decline of extractive industries and agriculture, many small towns are trying to acquire a share of
the tourism industry. While some communities decide to develop tourism from within their towns, often rural places turn
to large-scale privately owned tourism enterprises to act as
engines of economic development. While many studies have
examined how tourism can have negative social impacts in
rural communities, few studies detail how rural communities attitudes toward tourism can suffer when locals feel
alienated from planning/development decisions. In this
study, the authors examined data from participant observation and semistructured interviews in Williams, Arizona, to
determine whether changes in community attitudes toward
tourism followed patterns suggested by the established theoretical models of social carrying capacity and community
adaptation to a social disruption. We found that Williams is a
case where the fast pace of tourism development causes
community attitudes toward tourism to decline over time.
Keywords: rural tourism; community attitudes; sustainable development; Arizona; Grand
Canyon
Tourism is considered an important tool for economic
development in rural America, and many small towns are
trying to acquire a share of this growing industry (Galston
and Baehler 1995). Rural areas look to tourism as a means of
community development and economic diversification.
While some community leaders in small towns may often
focus on the positive aspects of tourism development, many
authors stress that both positive and negative consequences
are involved with increased tourism activity and dependence
(Allen et al. 1993; Lankford 1994; Long and Nuckolls 1992;
Long, Perdue, and Allen 1990; Matsuoka 1991; Rothman
1998).
Many approaches can be taken by small towns to develop
their tourist industries. Frequently, towns seek to increase
visitation by developing existing heritage resources. This is
exemplified by the many towns that have taken advantage of
the National Main Street Program to restore historic buildings in aging downtowns (Francaviglia 1996; Skelcher
1991). The impetus for this kind of tourism development
often comes from within the community. Conversely, a town
may choose to develop tourism in partnership with an outside company. Ski resorts, theme parks, casinos, golf resorts,
and tourist railroads all fall into the category of corporateowned attractions located in and around rural towns. In this
article, we will examine the impact of this kind of tourism
development on rural towns. These corporate tourism

enterprises differ from locally created ones in important

ways. First, they often have more capital resources than can
be marshaled by community groups. Second, the decisionmaking process regarding the development may not be easily
influenced by people in the community (Rothman 1998).
Most of the important decisions may be made at an office
that may be located in a distant metropolitan area. This can
seriously compromise tourism development strategies that
are based on community involvement.
For some observers, tourism in rural areas is seen as a
clean industry that can help towns recover from economic
depression. Some authors have stressed, however, that the
economic development aspects of tourism in rural areas
needs to be balanced against the social and environmental
impacts that can also arise (Holden 2000; Long and Lane
2000). Still other studies have shown that attitudes toward
rural tourism development differ depending on whether the
people are business owners, planners, politicians, developers, workers, residents, or members of certain ethnic groups
(Allen et al. 1993; King, Pizam, and Milman 1993; Lankford
1994; Lew 1989; Matsuoka 1991; Pearce 1994).
A particular focus of tourism researchers has been measuring attitudes toward tourism based on the level of tourism
activity in the town. Two general theories have developed
concerning community acceptance of tourism development
in rural towns. The first centers on Butlers (1980) idea of the
resort cycle. This perspective posits that tourism development starts off slowly in a community and builds through
time. The quality of life in the community is said to decrease
as tourism development increases past the communitys tolerance level. Others have shown how community members
acceptance of tourism activity drops sharply when the negative consequences of tourism development (crime, parking
problems, traffic, loss of a local sense of place) engulf a
community overwhelmed with tourists. Like biological systems, communities are said to have a social carrying capacity for tourist activities above which irritation occurs
(Doxey 1976; Long, Perdue, and Allen 1990).
The second theory is concerned with the effects of
boomtown tourism (Perdue, Long, and Kang 1999). This
Jeffrey Sasha Davis is an assistant professor in the Department
of Geography at the University of Vermont in Burlington. Duarte B.
Morais is an assistant professor in the School of Hotel, Restaurant,
and Recreation Management, Pennsylvania State University in
University Park.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, August 2004, 3-10
DOI: 10.1177/0047287504265501
2004 Sage Publications

AUGUST 2004

perspective is concerned with large tourism developments,

such as casinos, coming rather suddenly into rural communities. This theory posits that community acceptance of tourism activity starts off low because of the initial social disruption caused by the appearance of a large-scale tourism
operation. Therefore, as opposed to models based on Butlers (1980) development cycle, the community adapts to the
tourism operations existence, and through time, residents
attitudes toward tourism become more positive. This social
disruption perspective assumes that after the establishment
of the large tourism operation that the surrounding
community is able to adapt.
These two theories are not necessarily antithetical as
much as they are applicable under different tourism development situations. The case study of Williams, Arizona, and
the Grand Canyon Railway described in this article represents yet another scenario of tourism development. In Williams, neither the model of social carrying capacity nor the
model of community adaptation to a social disruption
applies. As we will describe in more detail, Williams is the
site of a boomtown-style tourism development where in a
very short period of time a large corporate tourism operation
transformed the town. Unlike the casino communities examined by Perdue, Long, and Kang (1999), however, Williams
has not been able to adapt to the situation, and community
attitudes toward tourism have sharply decreased through
time. This is due to the fact that the community in Williams
has not been able to adapt to the tourism development
because it has been a growing, rather than static, operation.
We argue that the rate at which the large tourism enterprise
has expanded has exceeded the threshold of what could be
considered socially sustainable development.
Efforts by people in the town of Williams to adapt to the
growth of the tourism operation and share in the economic
benefits of the tourists visiting the town have been largely
unsuccessful. While it is important not to conflate residents
acceptance of tourism with a towns ability (or inability) to
tap into the streams of tourist revenue, the case of Williams
shows that the perceived lack of benefits to the town from
tourism has produced a tremendous amount of animosity
toward the tourism enterprise. There are two primary reasons
why the town has been unable to adapt to the growth of the
tourism operation. First, the expanding tourism company has
managed to form an enclave that restricts tourist interaction
between its property and the town. Second, the rivalry
between factions in the community has hindered the ability
of townspeople to successfully undertake projects that would
enable the town to adapt to the growing tourism operation. In
this article, we will detail the ways in which both of these
processes can cause towns to fail to adapt to, and benefit
from, large-scale tourism development.

BACKGROUND: WILLIAMS, ARIZONA, AND

THE GRAND CANYON RAILWAY
Williams, Arizona (population 2,529), is a typical small
town that over the past hundred years has experienced the
rise and fall of resource extraction industries such as logging,
ranching, and mining as well as the ebbs and flows of the
tourist trade (City of Williams 1998; Fuchs 1953; Richmond
1995). As of 1989, Williams has been host to the Grand Canyon Railway. This tourist railroad serves as a prime example

of a tourism enterprise situated in a rural host community.

Over the past decade, the town has seen the gala of the Railways inauguration in 1989, the growth of its popularity, the
removal of its business offices from town, and the Railways
expansion of its depot into a full resort destination.
Williams is situated along Interstate 40 in northern Arizonas Coconino County (see Figure 1). Flagstaff is Williamss nearest neighbor and historically its biggest rival in
the tourist trade. As a city of 50,000 people, Flagstaff has
often overshadowed Williams. The closest large metropolitan area to Williams is Phoenix, Arizona, 170 miles by interstate freeway to the south. Williamss climate and vegetation
are integral parts of its appeal to tourists. Williamss elevation of 6,770 feet is responsible for the towns cool climate.
Snow is frequent in the winter, and high temperatures on
summer days rarely reach 32 degrees Celsius (90 degrees
Fahrenheit). Tall Ponderosa pines circle Williams as part of
the Kaibab National Forest. In the summer, the main tourist
season in Williams, many of Williamss weekend tourists are
escapees from Phoenixs scorching temperatures. It is not
uncommon for temperatures in Phoenix to be 15 degrees
Celsius (26 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than those in
Williams.
The downtown of Williams is laid out on a grid aligned
with the railroad tracks of the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe
(see Figure 1). While most of the trains on the line run on
tracks that bypass the center of Williams, some trains bound
for southern destinations still rumble through downtown.
Route 66 parallels the tracks one block to the south. As a consequence of both the railroad and Route 66, the commercial
area of downtown Williams is stretched linearly. Businesses
line Route 66 through the entire town. More recently, development has moved out toward the freeway interchanges.
As the historically important resource extraction industries have waned in recent decades, Williams has become
ever more dependent on tourism. Currently, 53% of the
workforce is employed serving tourists, and it is estimated
that an average of 15,000 vehicles go through Williams each
day (Arizona Department of Commerce 1998). Williamss
registered trademark of Gateway to the Grand Canyon
exemplifies the areas emphasis on tourism. In particular, the
slogan shows the reliance of Williams on tourists bound for
somewhere else. While Williams is starting to promote itself
as a tourist destination with its own ski resort, golf course,
fishing lakes, and forest trails, it is still primarily a gateway
community (City of Williams 1998). Williamss proactive
attitude to promotion dates back to the beginning of the century when, in 1907, a Board of Trade was established to promote the town as a health destination and to dispel the towns
image of being lethargic (Fuchs 1953). Located 60 miles
south of the Grand Canyon, however, it has always been
overshadowed as a tourist attraction in itself by the nearby
national park.
In the past 50 years, one of the most crippling blows to
the towns economy was the bypass of Route 66, which runs
through the downtown by Interstate 40. The bypass did not
occur until 1984 (the town was the last section of Route 66 to
be bypassed in the United States and has the last street light
between Los Angeles and Chicago in a local museum). The
mere announcement of the bypass in 1957, however, was the
real trigger for economic depression in Williams. A longtime
resident and businessperson claimed that the town was redlined after the announcement. Banks refused to lend for

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 5

FIGURE 1
MAP OF WILLIAMS, ARIZONA

building in the town, even to a McDonalds restaurant that

intended to build at an interstate freeway interchange. Many
of the people interviewed in Williams stated that in the late
1980s, the town was dying. Statistically, Williamss population and tax income were holding steady in the late 1980s.
Whether the town was dying can be debated, but it certainly
appeared to be stagnating.
The Grand Canyon Railway stepped into this situation in
1989. The company, owned by wealthy Arizonan Max
Biegert, bought the right-of-way, tracks, and depots of the
defunct railway line that had run from Williams to the Grand
Canyon. The railroad was originally built in 1901 as a spur to
the east-west trunk line of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa
Fe Railway. The railway was used to ferry tourists north to
the Grand Canyon from the junction at Williams. It also took
cattle, timber, and ore from the area south of the Grand Canyon to the trunk line of railroad. As the harvestable timber
decreased, the ore was mined out, and the completion of a
highway from Williams to the Grand Canyon became the
major artery of tourist traffic, the railroad ceased operation in
the early 1970s.
In 1989, the Grand Canyon Railway first bought the resources of the old railroad to scrap the tracks and salvage the
metal. Soon, Max Biegert was convinced by Williamss merchants and town government to turn the railway into a tourism attraction. The idea of resurrecting the railway as a tourist railroad had been discussed by many in Williams as a
vehicle for economic development since the early 1980s.
When Max Biegert decided to go forward with turning the
railway into a tourist attraction, the pace of development was
swift, and the local newspaper was singing the praises of a
town saved. When the railroad was ready to be reborn,
phrases like the ones below appeared in the September 14,
1989, issue of the Williams News:

Laying a straight track to economic prosperity.

We can now see the economic light at the end of the
tunnel.
Cant you hear the whistle blowing? Prosperity here
we come!
Making tracks to the yesteryear of tomorrow.
No more chug, chug, chug, its full steam ahead for
Williams. (Rees 1989)
In January 1989, the Grand Canyon Railway announced
its intentions of beginning operation in September of that
same year. In those 9 months, the railway managed to renovate the abandoned depots at both ends of the line; fix the
tracks, bridges, and rail bed along the 60-mile route; rebuild
an antiquated steam engine and 1920s-era Pullman cars; and
build a facility for the engine and cars. The speed of development was incredible, and the amount of resources poured in
to Williams in those 9 months surpassed even the dreams of
the towns business people. The company spent more money
in Williams in 1989 than the net worth of the town that year.
The opening of the Grand Canyon Railway was seen by
many as a sign of Williamss economic salvation. Banks
started lending for development, and most of the downtown
property changed hands. In the next 10 years, more touristoriented shops opened downtown, and 19 new hotels were
opened. The town governments general fund rose from $1.5
million in 1989 to $3.4 million in 1999. Property owners
benefited as the assessed value of property in Williams doubled in the year following the railways start of business.
Another indicator of growth is that the Bed, Board and Booze
(BBB) tax revenues increased from $45,000 to $280,000
from 1991 to 1998.
There has also been an increase in the number of businesses operating in Williams. Over the entire time period from
1987 to 1998, the number of businesses in Williams increased
by 48. This is an impressive number given the gloomy forecasts that were made when the interstate bypass of the town
was announced in 1957. There were large increases in the
number of hotels, restaurants, craft shops, and other businesses. While some of this increase was due to new businesses
downtown, a large number of the new businesses were located
at the new freeway interchanges. The most dramatic change in
new business development was the addition of 19 new hotels
in the community after the railway opened.
The railway has also done well in the first 10 years of its
operation. It has been drawing 150,000 tourists a year to Williams and has negotiated an Amtrak stop in Williams for a
rails-to-rails package. The railway has also started its own
air service, Farwest Airlines, to fly passengers from Phoenix,
Arizona, and Southern California to take the train. This
effectively has made the Grand Canyon a possible day-trip
from those regions. Furthermore, the railway-owned Fray
Marcus Hotel adjacent to the train depot has been expanded
to accommodate more tourists.
While all of this sounds like a success story of tourism
development, there have been some important negative consequences. First, not everybody in the community has been
impacted positively by the railways operation. The property
speculation and development has driven up rents, while
wages hover around the minimum wage. None of the wage
earners we spoke with indicated they were better off in 1999
than in 1989. Most workers indicated the low wages of tourism jobs coupled with high rents and food costs (not to

AUGUST 2004

mention a 3% sales tax on food in the town) made living in

Williams extremely difficult. Merchants in the downtown
area have experienced some increased tourist spending, but
that has been offset by increased rent. One problem for merchants is that while the railway brings around 150,000 tourists per year, the tourists are on the train or at the Grand Canyon the majority of the day. The tourists are only at the depot
between 8:00 and 9:30 a.m. and then after the train returns at
5:30 p.m. It is a long day on the train and walking around
Grand Canyon Village. The window of opportunity for
capturing a tourists dollars in Williams is short.
In 1989, the railway had forecasted 800 new jobs in Williams within 10 years. The merchants and newspaper were
predicting thousands of tourists dropping millions of dollars
into local businesses (Williams News 1989). Neither of these
things, however, has come to pass. The railway does supply
approximately 200 jobs directly in Williams, less during the
winter. What is lacking is the predicted creation of jobs in the
community due to the spending of tourists in the town. Many
merchants claim the tourists taking the train do not come
downtown. This seems odd given that the Grand Canyon
Railways Williams Depot is 100 meters from downtown.
Many people in the community expressed animosity toward the railroad during our interviews in Williams. Many
residents claimed that the Grand Canyon Railway was monopolizing tourist spending. It was claimed that the railway was actively creating a tourism enclave that restricted
interaction between itself and the downtown shops. While
respondents generally felt that the Grand Canyon Railway was entitled to keep much of the spending tourists
brought in, they also felt that more interaction between the
railroad and town was desirable. One merchant downtown
reported,
They do take a major portion of our business away
from us. But you really cannot blame them, because
they are in business to make money. Whatever they
are doing they are doing it right. So they are getting
the tourists. They are making the money. It is just that
they are not willing to share it by sending people out
by saying, Two blocks away is a wonderful little
town. Go shop in the shops. They are not going to do
that because they want all of the money over there.
But that is business, you know. I dont like it, but you
cannot blame them.

METHOD
First, we collected quantitative data from the town government on the economic impacts of the tourist resort. Then
an inventory was done to determine the numbers and locations of businesses that opened and closed from 1999 to
2000. We also examined all issues of the local newspaper,
Williams News, dating back to 1988the year prior to the
announcement of the Grand Canyon Railway. We also had
an opportunity to ride the train to the Grand Canyon to get an
understanding of the experience.
Another part of the study entailed participant observation. This method was used to record the movement of tourists in and around the depot to determine what the tourists
were doing and where they were going before they boarded
the train. Observations were done on a Monday, Wednesday,

Friday, Saturday, and Sunday during the summer (peak tourism season). Since the railway station and its parking lot lay
opposite a group of railroad tracks from downtown, we
observed how many pedestrians crossed the tracks in the
hour and a half prior to the trains departure from Williams
(8:00 to 9:30 a.m.) and the hour following its return (5:30 to
6:30 p.m.). This was compared against the total numbers of
passengers on the train that day. The ticket count was
obtained from the company for each day of observation.
On a different Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday, we counted the number of people at specific
locations at the station every 15 minutes during the hour and
a half prior to the departure of the train (8:00 to 9:30 a.m.).
Observations were made at different locations around the
station: the ticket windows, the gift shop, the Wild West
Show, the museum, the restaurant, the front of the depot, the
platform, and the front of the train. To control for variations
in the total number of people at the station each day, the
count of people at the specific locations was divided by the
total ticket count for the day. The object of this piece of the
research project was to map the flow of tourists around the
station through time.
We also performed semistructured interviews to gauge
community attitudes toward the tourism resort as well as to
ascertain what the community has done to try to take more
advantage of the tourism development in Williams. Respondents were selected based on their availability to contribute
to the questions posed by this study. We strove to find what
Creswell (1998, 119) referred to as information-rich cases
that manifest the phenomenon intensely. Sampling of this
kind is used in qualitative research to find cases most illustrative of the research topic. Long, in-depth interviews were
conducted with 22 people. The interviewees were Grand
Canyon Railway officials, merchants in downtown Williams, wage earners working in Williams (both for the railway and for other tourism-oriented businesses), and local
government officials. Interviewees were approached in person, and we either set up appointments for a later interview or
occasionally interviewed them on the spot if it was convenient for them. Some of the particularly informative interviewees were contacted again for follow-up interviews. All
the interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. The
responses were then coded according to various research
interests (e.g., attitudes toward railway, cooperation
between city and merchants, etc.) and grouped into common themes. These various methods, used in concert, gave a
detailed description of the relationship between Williams
and the Grand Canyon Railway.

DISCUSSION
Downtown Merchants and the Railway
Most of the businesses in downtown Williams could be
labeled as tourist-oriented. While there are a few businesses that cater to local residents, the downtown is currently
dominated by small gift shops, tourist-oriented restaurants,
and motels. Most of the merchants reported that their businesses depended on tourist spending. The merchants noted
that much of their business comes in the evening from tourists traveling by car to the Grand Canyon or other destinations along Interstate 40. They are also eager to entice more

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 7

of the tourists taking the Grand Canyon Railway into the

downtown area. As we noted, many people in Williams, particularly downtown merchants, felt that tourist spending was
being monopolized by the Grand Canyon Railway. Even
though the downtown is a mere 100 meters from the railroad
depot, many respondents claimed that very few tourists taking the train ventured into downtown to spend money in the
local shops.
From our observations of tourists, we found that only an
average of 4.2% (SD = 0.9%) of the ticket count for the day
visited downtown in the hour and a half before the morning
departure of the train. In the evening, an average of 7.7%
(SD = 2.6%) of railway passengers ventured downtown in
the hour after arrival. Since the average number of passengers per day during this busy time of the year was 730, on a
given day approximately 30 passengers would go downtown
in the morning and 56 at night. Informal observations during
the winter showed far less interaction. While this is certainly better than no tourists at all, it is a surprisingly small
trickle given the small distance separating the depot and
downtown.
Residents complained that the resort was becoming a
tourist enclave in the middle of town. One merchant commented that the railway depot was becoming its own city.
There are examples of tourism enclaves sealed off from surrounding communities to greater extent than Williams
(Freitag 1994; Hernandez, Cohen, and Garcia 1996). Our
observations in Williams, however, do indicate that there is
much less interaction than one would expect to find between
an attraction and its surroundings. While the close proximity
of the downtown and depot would indicate a greater interaction between them, the shape of landscapes can have a powerful effect on how people move through an area (Goss 1993;
Gottdiener 1997).
There are three principal ways that the landscape has
been manipulated to produce this effect. First, the position of
the buildings and other structures on the depot property disparages interaction with downtown Williams. For instance,
the restaurant constructed on the depot property in 2000
effectively blocks any view of downtown from the parking
area. Also, the recent rebuilding of the predeparture Wild
West Show stage on the opposite end of the depot property
from downtown serves to draw people away from access
points to downtown. Second, the services provided by the
railway aim to fulfill the desires of tourists without their
needing to leave the property. The depot has recently added
large gift shops, a 300-seat restaurant, a coffee stand, and a
small museum. Last, the railway has developed a coherent
image theme for the depot that the surrounding town has not
effectively duplicated. In other words, the depot is like a
theme park that attracts tourists seeking a certain experience
that exists only within the bounds of its property.
Company officials were quite frank with us about their
plans for the Williams Depot. They envisioned a complete
tourist destination that had everything tourists would need
without having to leave the property. A company representative described what the ideal tourist would do:
Stay in the Fray Marcus hotel [which is run by the
Railway and on the depot property]. We are adding
onto that. We are basically doubling that in size. We
have a restaurant. It seats 300 people, so thats pretty
large. Take a look at the museum. You could spend at

least an hour in the area looking at the pictures, looking at the exhibits, and reading about the history of the
Railway. There are three gift shops out there and all of
them are pretty expansive in what they have. Buy
yourself a little something to remember the trip by, a
video, or whatever. Go out and make the Wild West
show [also on the property]. That starts every morning at 9:00. Then I would, after the show, just make
sure that you get on the train in time.
This view conflicts with the desires of most merchants in the
downtown, who view the railway as an engine of economic
development for the town. This image was one that the railway itself had made considerable mention of when the company was first coming into the community. Some respondents reported that the company received many concessions
and deals from the town and that they have not helped the
community enough in return. One merchant said,
[The Railway] will continue to further divide the railroad operation visually, and accessibility wise [from
the downtown] to keep the hotel guests away from the
community. In every step theyve made, every conscious decision theyve made, is to block that off.
The key goal for operators of tourism-oriented businesses in
downtown Williams has been to get the tourists who are already in Williams into the downtown area. In particular, the
merchants were looking for ways to attract tourists from
across the tracks at the train depot. The strategies that have
been attempted fall into two general categories: attractive activities and landscape changes.
The attractive activities are few but are successful. One
business sends its employees in a 1950s-era car, with the
name of the diner prominently painted on the side, to greet
the train as it returns to Williams in the evening. A largerscale undertaking is the arrangement of a brass band leading
tourists to gunfights in the downtown streets of Williams
in the early evenings in the summer. A group of local high
school students dress in Civil Warera uniforms, greet the
trains arrival, and then in a pied piperlike manner march
into the downtown hoping to bring tourists with them to hear
them play and to watch the gunfights.
To perform the gunfights, the city closes Route 66 to traffic for about 30 minutes while a troupe of cowboy-dressed
performers shoot it out and tell jokes. It is truly a postmodern
experience. Tourists getting off a 1920s-themed train stand
in 21st-century Williams, on Route 66, in front of a blackand-white-checkered 1950s-themed diner, watching 1880sthemed cowboys perform a staged gunfight while a 1860s
Civil War band stands ready to play once it is over. It is also a
very successful event. Approximately 300 people come to
view the gunfight, and at its conclusion they can be seen diffusing into the nearby stores. While some of these tourists are
from the railway, the vast majority of them are automobile
tourists stopping in Williams for the evening before heading
to the Grand Canyon or destinations along Interstate 40. The
gunfight is arranged, and paid for, by the local chamber of
commerce in Williams.
The chamber of commerce may be successful at putting
on the gunfights, but the efforts of the chamber and other
downtown organizations in Williams are an excellent case
study of how towns can squander opportunities to take

AUGUST 2004

advantage of tourism. While some scholars have theorized

that local businesses will develop coalitions, or growth
machines, to further their economic interests (Logan and
Molotch 1987; Paradis 2000), the experience of Williams
demonstrates that the theory may not be as universal as previously thought. As others have shown, tourism development can fracture a community into groups that support or
resist tourism development (Dogan 1989; Doxey 1976). In
Williams, however, there are divisions between groups that
all support tourism. The divisions in the community are
based on schisms other than for or against tourism, but
they have a severe impact on how tourism development
occurs.
These divisions in the community can be seen clearly
during attempts to change the landscape of Williams to capture more tourism spending downtown. In particular, downtown merchants have been trying to undertake two projects.
One is to restore buildings in the downtown and theme the
town in the Old West imagery used by the railway. The other
is to develop an attractive linkage across the railroad tracks
between the downtown and depot. As for theming Williams
in an Old West style, there are conflicts within the town. In
particular, there are two competing themes in Williams. One
is the Old West theme while the other is a 1950s-era cruising Route 66 theme. The town is a mixture of restored turnof-the-century buildings and Route 66 memorabilia stores
and diners. There is great resistance in the town to match the
railways theme or to restore all the downtown buildings to a
common historical era.
The idea of fixing the crossing area into a more attractive
walkway had been discussed since the railway came to town.
Architects from the Main Street Program came into Williams
and developed plans for an attractive crossing in 1991
(Spieler 1991). It took more than 10 years, however, to actually complete the project. One merchant noted,
For city planning, and for anything else, there are
wonderful pictures drawn, weve got a ton. We have
had more money spent on studies in this town by every organization that is supposed to help a depressed
community. A lot of it is ridiculous, but most of it
based on sound, good planning sense. But you have to
have the wherewithal to be able to do that. And you
have to have the will to follow through. That is the
problem. But there really is no leadership in this community. It is a diverse community.

number of years as a rival of the chamber of commerce. The

Main Street Program has existed off and on but has been hindered by relations with other groups. The effect of all of these
groups is that they often counter each other. One merchant
reported,
Main Street could have done a lot of good, but they
did not get the cooperation from the Chamber and
they definitely did not get the cooperation from the
city. All they wanted to do was kill Main Street, and
they did. The entire Main Street board quit on the
same day and then they put new people in and they
have not cooperated with them either. And Main
Street could do wonders for this town!
This lack of cooperation among downtown business people
has effectively hindered the ability of Williams to benefit
from the flow of tourists that the Grand Canyon Railway
brings to Williams.

Local Government and the Railway

The local government of Williams has experienced many
of the same problems that the merchants have experienced.
While clearly they have had a large boost in tax income, they
have been unable to take full advantage of the tourism development. First, they have had a difficult time accommodating
many of the decisions made by the railway. Second, the city
government has been unable to develop a coherent strategy
to take advantage of tourism because it cannot form effective
coalitions with others in the community.
In some respects, the town government has been pushed
around by the new tourism development in the same way
that many merchants feel they have been. While the merchants have felt powerless to stop the enclaving of the tourism enterprise, the city has had its own problems with the operations of the railway. A city official said of the relationship
between the tourism enterprise and city government,
I am getting the impression that it has always been a
strained relationship. They are a privately owned corporation. They have a different method of running
their business; the city has a different way of running
the city. They sometimes become very impatient. . . .
It is just that we are slower. And we are slower because of the city statutes, city ordinances and things
that we are required to operate under.

In terms of why there is no leadership in the community, another merchant said,

A former employee of the city was more specific about the

relationship:

I think politics is a big part of it. As I said, perhaps

there is fear of anybody doing anything for the welfare of the community. Maybe they are afraid that
someone else is going to look good. If you are not on a
certain clique in a small town then they do not want to
give you a credit for what you do.

It was adversarial to start with. I was at the council

meetings when Max [Max Biegert, the owner of the
Railway] was saying, If we are going to invest millions of dollars in this town we do not want to be constrained by the community. We have this big project
with a lot of things to do. Dont stand in our way.
The community development guidelines, the parking
restrictions, the traffic planning, all the rest of that
stuff [was ignored]. . . . It was a nightmare to have
them show up to build the roundhouse, a huge structure. They bring in a piece of paper with a rectangle
drawn on it and railroad tracks going in and out and
saying, This is going to be our building. We want to

There have been several competing organizations

over the past decade trying to direct Williamss tourism policy. The local chamber of commerce, which is partially
funded by the city government, has been the principal organization. There have been many other groups too. A group
specifically devoted to tourism development existed for a

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 9

start right now and the plans will follow. That was
the way it went. We are in a big hurry. Weve got to
get the train started by September the 17, 1989 to hit
the deadline. We want to go. And we want to do it.
And we dont want anyone to stand in our way. This
is lots of people going through a public transit situation and they really dont want anyone to tell them
what the building codes are. And they did have a couple of lawsuits on things that they refused to do. I was
eased away from the situation, Keep an eye on them,
work with them, and all the rest of the stuff. But if it
gets down to push comes to shove, back off.
These comments shed light on two aspects of the relationship between the railway and the community. The first is
the perception by some in Williams that the railway behaves
in a rather gruff and inconsiderate way toward the community. The railway is seen as a big entity in town that can throw
its weight around to avoid rules and procedures that other
businesses must follow. Second, it shows how communication between the community and railway is less than ideal.
Changes in the companys plans are only discovered by
those in the town when they appear in the landscape or are far
into the planning stages.
One surprise action by the railway had a tremendous impact on the attitudes of people in Williams. In 1995, it moved
its headquarters and reservation offices to Flagstaff less than
a year after publicly denying it had any intentions to do so
(Williams News 1994). The city government was unable to
persuade the railway to stay. Many of the respondents I
spoke with in Williams pointed to that event as causing the
souring of community attitudes toward the railway. A former
government employee said,
On the outside you go, I dont blame those guys.
Why get tied up with a handful of small-minded little
townspeople? On the other hand, they are such a big
player in town they really ought to have more interest
in the future of the community and the benefits to both
the community and the Railway instead of standing
off and moving their operations to Flagstaff. Part of
that was to spite the community.
The other problem the town government has had is a lack
of cooperation with other groups in the community. When
we asked a government official what the city has done to try
to bring tourists into the downtown, he flatly responded that
was not the citys job and that I should ask the chamber of
commerce. Downtown merchants complained that the city
was not cooperative with initiatives put forth by the chamber
of commerce and Main Street:
Every time we [Main Street] would go to them [the
town government] for a project they would not go for
it. The state [of Arizona] said that they were going to
give us funding for better lighting downtown, . . . and
put planters along the sidewalks to put trees in and
stuff. Just to beautify it... Everything was approved
and we went to the city for matching funds and they
said No, because there was too much emphasis on
downtown. What emphasis? What emphasis? Were
dying! Businesses are going out of business every
single year.

In many respects, the town government operates as a

clique within the community that has adversarial relations
with other groups. The impact of this is that efforts to take advantage of tourism in Williams have been hindered by infighting among groups.

CONCLUSIONS
The primary message that comes out of Williamss experience with tourism development is that when a large corporate tourism operation rapidly expands, it may create a tourism situation that is not socially sustainable. There is not only
a scale at which tourism development is not socially sustainable but also a rate of growth. Counter to the predictions
of both the tourism cycle model of social carrying capacity
and the model of community adaptation to a social disruption, attitudes toward tourism in Williams have become
more negative over time as the townspeoples efforts to adapt
to the Grand Canyon Railway have been thwarted by the
operations pace of expansion.
Specifically, people in Williams have been upset by their
inability to economically take advantage of the presence of
tourists. A main reason for this lies within the community
itself. While tourism studies have examined how communities are divided over the question of tourism (Allen et al.
1993; King, Pizam, and Milman 1993; Lankford 1994; Lew
1989; Matsuoka 1991; Pearce 1994), there has been little
research on how other divisions within the host community
can have serious effects on tourism development and community attitudes toward tourism. Apparently, these divisions
may have been overlooked by most tourism planners and
academics. They may not be between groups opposed to
tourism versus those in favor of it but between groups that
may all appear to support tourism. Other cultural schisms in
the town, such as old-timers versus newcomers or hard-todefine cliques of people, can have a substantial impact on
tourism development.
These divisions in the community may be hard to discover without the in-depth open-ended questioning used in
semi-structured interviews. One of the benefits of the qualitative methods used in this study, such as participant observation and in-depth interviews, is that they can uncover why
certain individuals in a community behave as they do toward
tourism development (Walle 1997). These feelings are
important because they are the basis for how people will act
and how successful a tourism project may be. In the case of
Williams, almost all of the quantitative data point to the conclusion that tourism development has been an unqualified
success. Tax revenue, the number of new businesses, visitation numbers, and property values have all greatly increased.
Despite these increases, almost everyone we spoke with in
Williams expressed a great deal of displeasure with the situation. While this could be a case of people not being appreciative of what is actually a good situation, most of the respondents genuinely believed that promises made in 1989 have
failed to materialize. It is important to document and understand the negative attitudes of people in the community,
whether observers view them as warranted or not, because
they can impact future tourism development initiatives in the
town and surrounding region.

10

AUGUST 2004

While much of the blame for Williamss problems with

tourism development lies with the communitys inability to
cooperate with each other, the railways policy of rapid
expansion has been instrumental in souring townspeoples
attitudes toward tourism. The speed of the railways development has allowed them to build on their property much
faster than the town has been able to respond. This has led to
the construction of an enclave that restricts tourist spending
to their domain.
A lesson that Williams can deliver to other communities
considering a large-scale tourism development is that it
would be wise for people in rural towns to be critical of early
boosterist claims of economic development. Furthermore,
people in small communities need to recognize what options
they may have after inviting a big boy private tourism
development into their town. As Britton (1991) has demonstrated, it is important to recognize that tourism enterprises
are not in the business of community development, they are
in the business of accumulating capital for themselves. People in rural towns need to recognize that a company may not
care how that pursuit of profits impacts the surrounding community. Particularly, following Williamss example, rural
communities, and the researchers that study them, need to
consider how tourist spending may be confined to the
companys domain through the creation of a tourism
enclave.
As for companies setting up tourism operations in rural
areas, they should also take note of Williamss situation. As
Andereck and Vogt (2000) have demonstrated in their study
of tourism in Arizona towns (including Williams) there is a
relationship between community attitudes toward tourism
and support for continued development.1 It is in the best
interests of tourism operations not to expand too rapidly and
cross the threshold into socially unsustainable tourism. If
they do, they risk encountering community resistance caused
by negative attitudes toward tourism.

NOTE
1. Andereck and Vogt (2000, p. 31) showed that residents in
Williams were particularly negative about supporting further hotel
development. They noted this is because of the glut of hotel rooms
in the city. We found in our interviews that while some of this animosity toward the overbuilding of hotels was directed at newer hotels located near the interstate, there was particular anger by hotel
owners in the downtown area over the expansion of the railways
hotel.

REFERENCES
Allen, L., H. Hafer, P. Long, and R. Perdue (1993). Rural Residents Attitudes toward Recreation and Tourism Development. Journal of
Travel Research, 32: 27-33.
Andereck, K., and C. Vogt (2000). The Relationship between Residents attitudes toward Tourism and Tourism Development Options. Journal
of Travel Research, 39: 27-36.
Arizona Department of Commerce (1998). Community Profile: Williams.
Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Commerce.

Britton, S. (1991). Tourism, Capital, and Place: Towards a Critical Geography of Tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9:
451-78.
Butler, R. (1980). The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management or Resources. Canadian Geographer, 24: 515.
City of Williams (1998). Free Visitors Guide. Williams, AZ: Author.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
among the Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dogan, H. (1989). Forms of Adjustment: Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16: 216-36.
Doxey, G. (1976). A Causation Theory of Visitor-Resident Irritants. In
Impact of Tourism: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the
Travel Research Association. San Diego, CA: Travel Research
Association.
Francaviglia, R. (1996). Main Street Revisited: Time, Space and Image in
Small-Town America. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Freitag, T. (1994). Enclave Tourism Development: For Whom the Benefits
Roll? Annals of Tourism Research, 21: 538-54.
Fuchs, J. (1953). A History of Williams, Arizona: 1876-1951. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Galston, W., and K. Baehler (1995). Rural Development in the United
States: Connecting Theory, Practice and Possibilities. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Goss, J. (1993). The Magic of the Mall: An Analysis of Form, Function
and Meaning in the Contemporary Retail Built Environment. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 83: 18-47.
Gottdiener, M. (1997). The Theming of America: Dreams, Visions, and
Commercial Spaces. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Hernandez, S., J. Cohen, and H. Garcia (1996). Residents Attitudes towards an Instant Resort Enclave. Annals of Tourism Research, 23:
775-79.
Holden, A. (2000). Environment and Tourism. New York: Routledge.
King, B., A. Pizam, and A. Milman (1993). Social Impacts of Tourism:
Host Perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20: 650-65.
Lankford, S. (1994). Attitudes and Perceptions toward Tourism and Rural
Regional Development. Journal of Travel Research, 33: 35-43.
Lew, A. (1989). Authenticity and Sense of Place in the Tourism Development Experience of Older Retail Districts. Journal of Travel Research, 28: 15-22.
Logan, J., and H. Molotch (1987). Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy
of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Long, P., and B. Lane (2000). Rural Tourism Development. In Trends in
Outdoor Recreation, Leisure and Tourism, ed. W. C. Gartner and D.
W. Lime. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 299-308.
Long, P., and J. Nuckolls (1992). Rural Tourism Development: Balancing
Benefits and Costs. Western Wildlands, 18, Fall: 9-13.
Long, P., R. Perdue, and L. Allen (1990). Rural Resident Tourism Perceptions and Attitudes by Community Level of Tourism. Journal of
Travel Research, 29: 3-9.
Matsuoka, J. (1991). Differential Perceptions of the Social Impacts of Tourism Development in a Rural Hawaiian Community. Social Development Issues, 13: 55-65.
Paradis, T. (2000). Conceptualizing Small Towns as Urban Places. Urban
Geography, 21: 61-82.
Pearce, P. (1994). Tourist-Resident Impacts: Examples, Explanations and
Emerging Solutions. In Global Tourism: The Next Decade, ed. W.
Theobald. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 103-23.
Perdue, R., P. Long, and Y. Kang (1999). Boomtown Tourism and Resident
Quality of Life: The Marketing of Gaming to Host Community Residents Journal of Business Research, 44: 165-77.
Rees, L. (1989) Ive Been Working on the RailroadNow a Reality for
Williams. Williams News, September 14, p. 5.
Richmond, A. (1995). Cowboys, Miners, Presidents, and Kings: The Story of
the Grand Canyon Railway. Flagstaff, AZ: Al Richmond.
Rothman, H. (1998). Devils Bargains: Tourism in the Twentieth-Century
American West. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Skelcher, B. (1991). Preserving Main Street in the Heartland: The Main
Street Pilot Project in Madison, Indiana. Small Town, 22, SeptemberOctober: 4-13.
Spieler, M. (1991). Quality Design Needed to Create Towns Image of Itself. Williams News, April 18, pp. 1, 11.
Walle, A. (1997). Quantitative versus Qualitative Tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research, 24: 524-36.
Williams News (1994). Grand Canyon Railways Offices to Remain in Williams. September 8, pp. 1, 11.
(1989). Economic Impact of the Railroad on Williams. January
12, p. 7.