{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027071754199712732, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014894148504340224, 'mean_word_length': 5.237000973709835, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 6, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Core and Peripheral Experiences: Incidental, Accidental or Intentional

Recent tourism research identified some challenges for the future of the sector. Of principal concern was the increasing importance of collaboration and especially coopetition not only within a tourism destination but also among destinations to ensure growth and survival within the sector within regions (Mariani, Buhalis, Longhi, & Vitouladiti, 2014). This paper aims to update this discussion by elaborating the definition and meaning of core and peripheral tourism destinations to inform the design of the user experience in destination management, the marketing communications of tourism destinations and the collaboration and coopetition in destination management. Redefining the tourism product and better understanding the customer‟s perceptions of core and peripheral experiences, how they choose and bundle them can inform how the collaboration of providers at destinations can contribute to overcoming challenges and create regional opportunity and growth and promote destination choice. This paper examined in depth the ethnography of twenty-one travellers based in Brisbane (Qld. Australia). Each participant was interviewed to gain their responses to questions about their demographic profile, their destination choice, travel group type, what they enjoyed at the destination, their motivation for choosing their destination and the experience sought together with how they obtained their information.


Introduction
In the year ending March 2017 Brisbane saw strong growth in domestic overnight visitations which was up 9.3% to a record 6.2 million visitors. Domestic overnight visitor expenditure (OVE) was up 11.5% totalling $3.7 billion with visitors spending on average 7.4% more per night, averaging $205 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017). In relation to domestic overnight visitation to Brisbane it was split 60% intrastate and 40% interstate with both growing during the year. Intrastate was up 13.1% to 3.7 million visitors and interstate up 4.2% to 2.5 million visitors (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017).
During this same time period the international visitors to Brisbane increased by 4.9% to 1.2 million. The international market represents 16% of total overnight visitations to Brisbane and 37% of total overnight visitor expenditure in the region (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017).
2 Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 6(2), December 2018 Based on the extensive competition at a country economic level and local destination and operator levels between core and more fringe or peripheral aspects it is an important area to research. Locally in many destinations, tourism is the only economic tool that can bring vitality to the region (Scheyvens & Russell, 2012). Research has shown that business at all levels and scales of operation can contribute to tourism development which can deliver opportunity, empowerment and security in the region. Positive contributions to revenue generation, community development and job creation will generate the opportunity for local involvement and for labour conditions to improve (Scheyvens & Russell, 2012).

Tourist typologies
Early research portrays tourists as a unitary type (MacCannell, 1976), but tourist typology research in the late 1970s and 1980s shifted research to developing subgroups (Cohen, 1972;Krippendorf, 1987;Plog, 1974). Cohen"s 1972 typology is based on tourists" desire for novel rather than familiar experiences. These novel experiences include branching outside the normal popular attractions and seeking more exciting and nuanced attractions. Cohen identified four different tourist types as the organized mass tourist, the individual mass tourist, the explorer and finally the drifter. Interestingly, the explorer and drifter have always been most likely to seek out exciting and different attractions as found with peripheral attractions and destinations. However, more recently and with the use of social media, this is seen with all tourist types. Others have advanced on Cohen"s (1972) seminal research into typologies and developed other segmentations, classifications and profiling or cluster methods (Decorp & Snelders, 2005). Typologising tourists and then investigating their behaviour in different contexts assists tourism marketers to better develop targeting and positioning strategies (Schlegelmilch, 2016). With respect to core and peripheral destinations establishing a better understanding of the user desired experiences, motivations to consumer and expectations will elaborate and inform the promotion and management. Many destination communities rely heavily on peripheral destinations and experiences for economic prosperity and employment.

Marketing the Experiences
Other fields of product and service marketing recognise the premise of core and peripheral attributes as consumption motivators (Qu, Kim & Im, 2011). Applied in tourism core and peripheral factors suggest the notion of a core or main experience at a destination such as a major attraction or major event with a peripheral experience suggested as an augmentation such as local unique cultural phenomena, local produce, culture and arts and local attractions. The contribution of these peripheral experiences that are isolated from the core, have on the overall tourism choice, visitation patterns and economic wellbeing of tourism is unknown and seldom researched. Moreover, the promotional emphasis, marketing funding and success of any campaigns for these peripheral experiences by tourism marketing and operators is little known. These peripheral experiences may offer exciting and unique aspects desired by tourists while not being the primary motivator of destination choice initially, may in fact motivate repeat visitation.
A number of studies have been undertaken into the development or core and peripheral destination and tourism in Australia (Schmallegger & Carson, 2010) and in the islands (Cassidy, 2012). In many areas, tourism development in third world countries has come about on an ad hoc basis with little thought given to local society or the expectations of the traveller.
The complexity of destinations, their development, planning, marketing and management is an issue that has intrigued researchers for some time and significant literature has emerged that examines elements of destinations. For example, destination planning and development of facilities has been examined by Ness, Aarstad, Haughland and Gronseth (2013) who explored the content of network connections between destinations, referred to as bridge ties, and how such ties facilitate destination development. Other researchers have examined aspects of destination marketing in the digital age (Mariani, Di Felice & Mura, 2016).
The tourism industry is being influenced by the continually changing business environment created by the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). These technologies impact on the travel and tourism industry by considerable development, improvements and transformations (Sigala, Christou & Gretzel, 2012). A challenge and opportunity for the tourism industry is the increase of Social Media (SM) and networking platforms (e.g. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, TripAdvisor and Instagram). These all allow travellers to share their ideas and experiences with unrestricted communities (Harrigan, Evers, Miles & Daly, 2017). The benefits of using the Internet as a marketing tool in the tourism industry have been well recognised (Elliott & Boshoff, 2009;Gana, Thomas & Hussain, 2016;Matikiti, Kruger & Saayman, 2016). Social media (SM) is profoundly changing the way travellers search, read and in some instances trust, as well as jointly producing information about all aspects of their journey and experiences (Sigala et al., 2012). By using SM the travellers design and share information and knowledge namely user-generated content (UGC). This then allows the traveller to become co-designers, co-marketers, co-producers and co-consumers of travel and tourism experiences. Individual channels of communication exist when two or more people communicate directly with each other (Kotler & Armstrong, 2008), using numerous forms: i.e. the phone, through e-mail, internet "chat" person to person, or eWOM, to name a few. These advances have implications for digital marketing and for creating awareness for the little known and peripheral destinations (Munar & Jacobsen, 2014).
It could be argued that destination marketers need to move away from promoting just destinations to developing and promotion of experiences (King, 2002;Cong, Wu, Morrison, Shu & Wang, 2014). With emphasis on moving focus from the known and traditional attractions to more cultural, community and fringe activities and places Tourism destinations and organisations are beginning to understand that ICTs and SM have forever changed the travellers" consumption conduct. Understanding the current travellers and more importantly, deciding how to reach them will critically impact on how destinations and tourism businesses develop, market and distribute their services and products (Moutinho, Ballantyne & Rate, 2011). Peripheral destinations are often little known and only found locally using local knowledge. Social media and local area marketing is essential to capitalise on the traits and choice practice of these consumers. However, before this can be captured fully, understanding the motivations and nature of peripheral tourism and how it differs from core or mainstream destinations is essential.

Destinations and experiences
Crouch, Huyber and Oppewall (2016) note that tourists make two basic decisions when they travel: where to go (the destination) and what to do (the experience). The literature shows a plethora of research which has examined the destination choice decision. Some examples include Wong, Law and Zhao (2016) who found that in-state market is not cannibalistic to other markets regardless of the economic situation. However, the out-of-state domestic market and the international markets have a great potential to cannibalize each other. Mussalam and Tajeddini (2016) found that destination choice for both short and long haul travel were similar. Respondents looked at destination attractiveness and rated "Price", "Safety and Security of the Destination", "Quality of Food", "Value for Money" and "Culture" as reasons to choose a destination. Ashwell (2015) researched into the continual decline in visitor numbers for Aboriginal tourism experiences in remote or peripheral destinations and suggested marketing strategies should be developed to entice the international visitor. The Binary Regression model provided an insight into issues influencing choice. The results highlighted that targeting tourists who partook in any Aboriginal tourism activity may result in inaccurate estimates of demand in peripheral Aboriginal enterprises. However, relatively few studies have examined tourism experience choice behavior. Some examples of such research include Tung, Lin, Shang and Zhao (2017 pp. 846) who examined insights from mindfulness, positive affect and quality of conscious experience to understand how tourists encode information. While the frame work was instructive, "it was limited as tourist behavior, experiences and memories can change over time, potentially reconstructing or distorting memories." Other fields of product and service marketing recognize the idea of core and peripheral attributes as consumption motivators (Cassidy, 2016;Byon, Zhang & Baker 2013;Hume & Mort 2010). Applied in tourism core and peripheral factors suggest the notion of a core or main experience to a destination such as a major attraction or a major event with a peripheral experience suggested as an extension, such as local unique cultural phenomena, local produce, culture and arts and local attractions. The contribution of these peripheral experiences that are isolated from the core have on the overall tourism choice, visitation patterns and economic wellbeing of tourism is unknown and seldom researched (Wakefield & Blodgett, 2016). Moreover, the promotional emphasis, marketing funding and the success of any campaign for these peripheral experiences by tourism marketing and operators are obscure. These peripheral experiences may offer exciting and unique aspects desired by tourists while not being the primary motivator of destination choice initially may, in fact, motivate repeat visitation.
It is noted that some studies have been undertaken into the development of core and peripheral destinations and tourism in Australia (Schmallegger & Carson, 2010) and in the islands (Cassidy, 2012). In many areas, tourism development in less developed countries (LDC"s) has come about on an ad hoc basis with scant thought given to local society or the expectations of the traveller.
The complexity of destinations, their development, planning, marketing and management is an issue that has fascinated researchers for some time and substantial literature has emerged that examines elements of destinations (Bowen, Zubair & Altinay, 2017). For example, destination planning and development of facilities has been researched by Ness, Aarstad, Haughland and Gronseth (2013) who explored the content of network connections between destinations, (referred to as bridge ties), and how such ties assist destination development. Other researchers have examined aspects of destination marketing in the digital age (Mariani, Di Felice & Mura, 2016).
It could be argued that destination marketers need to move away from promoting just destinations to developing and promotion of experiences (Cong, Wu, Morrison, Shu & Wang, 2014). With emphasis on moving focus from the known and traditional attractions to more cultural, community and fringe activities and places. Sorensen and Jensen (2015 pp.336) suggest that: "if tourism service encounters are changed into "experience encounters" by integrating them into the tourism experience to which they are related, this will create added experiential value for tourists and heighten the creation of knowledge about users."

Core destinations
The Macquarie dictionary defines core as the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything. In this study, it relates to the central economic hub of a destination. Seminal work by Papatheodorou (2004) introduced the notion of core offering and infrastructure. Fashionable wanderlust and sunlust core resorts and attractions emphasized the development of infrastructure (airports, roads, and accommodation) and facilities (banks, hospitals, cafes) within a compactly built environment and destinations. These resorts concentrated on being easily accessible and offering experiences progressing major market potential. They also ensured regular or timetabled services offered by recognized airlines and their subsidiaries to also support market development (Papatheodorou, 2004). The resort was seen as the core and the other factors peripherals.

Peripheral destinations
The understanding of what constitutes peripherality and a peripheral destination has changed overtime. Initially, the term referred to spatial peripherality, lack of accessibility and the geographical distance from a center/core. It is now considered to comprise political, social and economic dimensions that often result in a lack of power of stakeholders in a peripheral area (Albrecht 2017). Obstacles to tourism management in peripheral regions may include a lack of control over possible tourism impacts, lack of finances and political support and an intensified probability of conflict within the peripheral community (Chapman & Bramwell, 2013).

Motivations to attend an event
There are many types of events such as, special events, mega events, hallmark events, major events, local events, cultural events, sporting events and community events (Weaver & Lawton, 2012).
McDonnell, Allen and Toole, (1999) consider a special event to usually be one-off or infrequent by nature. The special event could then be considered as a mega or hallmark event. Getz (2005, pp. 6) notes that "mega events, by way of their size or significance, are those that yield extraordinarily high levels of tourism, media coverage, prestige, or economic impact for the host community, venue or organization." Ritchie (1984) suggests that a hallmark event is a major one-time or recurring event of limited duration. It is developed primarily as a way to create awareness, appeal and financial gain for the destination in the short or long term. Whereas major events, are events which attract significant visitor numbers, economic benefits and media coverage (Weaver and Lawton 2012). Many sport events fall into this category e.g. Hyundai Hopman Cup in Perth and the Telstra Rally Australia.
The event industry understands the importance of sport events and that it is a growing sector (Standeven & De Knop, 1999;Ritchie & Adair, 2002;Lim & Lee, 2006). The tradition of sport events can be dated back to the ancient Greek Olympics and perhaps beyond. Sport events undoubtedly attract tourists, media coverage and, if well executed, economic benefits. Sports events can also range in size from local events to mega events but regardless of the size or prominence of the event, all sport events attract both spectators and participants (Gibson, 1998;Standeven & De Knop 1999;Hinch & Higham 2001;Ritchie & Adair, 2002;Jackson & Weed, 2003).
Whichever the type of event, it is important to understand what motivates people to attend. Getz (1997) takes the general approach that people attend events to satisfy various personal needs. However, McDonnell et al. (1999) suggest that there are several groups of motives which draw people to these events. The four main groups of motivations to attend are: social motives, organisational motives, physiological motives and personal motives.
Social motives may include the opportunity to experience social interaction with others or of being part of the community spirit which takes place during an event. The event attendee may feel so moved by their social motives that they want to partake of good deeds and may become a volunteer at the event. This display of spontaneous behaviour is an example of intrinsic motivation to participate in an activity for the inherent satisfaction rather than for various consequences (Ryan & Dec, 2000).
Organisational motives generally include the need for status or recognition that they have been part of the event. For example, there is status and/or prestige connected with attending an event such as the Olympic Games. Organisational motives also include sponsorship or community support. Physiological motives include the need for relaxation and/or exercise depending on the type of event. The attendee of the event expects to eat, drink and to be entertained as part of the event process.
Finally, personal motives can be different for each attendee. Some of the personal motives could include the need to seek new experiences from the everyday. It could be to fulfil an ambition to achieve something which the attendee has always wanted to do, for example, attend the Passion Play in Oberammergau, Germany. It should be noted that attending an event may be the result of many motives from the various groups, not just one motive from one group. These are issues which sport event marketers or promoters should be very aware of.

Methodology
Participants in this study were twenty-one Australians over the age of 18 years. Each participant was interviewed to gain their responses to questions about their demographic profile, their destination choice, travel group type, what they enjoyed at the destination, their motivation for choosing their destination and the experience sought together with how they obtained their information. In depth discussion ensued whether these experiences were core or peripheral. The respondents were further questioned as to, did the destination drive the experiences or was the experience the motivator for destination choice.

Demographic profile
Participants of the study were asked questions in relation to their demographic profile. The findings are shown in Table 1.  Table 1 shows that all six participants were aged between 19-24 years of age and 55-64 years of age. Whilst another five respondents were between the ages of 45 -54 and three between 65-74 years of age and only one respondent was over 75 years of age. There were six respondents in each of the categories of University student and self-employed and four noted in the professional category, three in Manager/Executive category and one each in the semi-retired and retired categories.

Destinations
Participants were asked to report on a recent tourism destination they had visited. As seen in Table 2 there are a variety of responses with destinations being both domestic (7) and international (13). Note that respondent one was specific that they traveled to Port Vila which is the capital city in Vanuatu. Not saying peripheral islands or other destinations in Vanuatu. Respondent three was specific in mentioning Sabah and not the capital city of Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. This respondent added that they "traveled to Sabah which is a peripheral destination in Malaysia." Respondent four noted they traveled to Sydney and then as an afterthought said, "actually Manly was my destination so I guess it"s peripheral." Two respondents were specific where they went in the U.S.A. i.e. Hawaii and California where as a third respondent who travelled to the U.S.A. didn"t give specifics of the destination.

Travel Group
Question nine related to the travel group type and these findings are listed in Table 3.  2,3,6,8,9,12,13,21 Immediate Family 4,5,7,10,11,14,15,16,17,19,20 Solo traveller 18 Table 3 shows that the majority of respondents travelled with their immediate family (11) followed by couple/partner (9) and only one respondent travelled alone or solo. Respondents were also asked whether the travel group played any role in the destination selection and experiences sought. Respondents four and five both acknowledge that they "discussed the destination choice and experiences sought as a family. With everyone having input." Respondent six stated that they "Go to Cabarita all the time because we just love the area and the sunshine."

Motivations at destination and enjoyed destinations
Questions two and three sought the response to what they enjoyed at their destination and what motivated them to choose that particular destination. The findings to these questions are listed in Table 4. Friend advised The morning tour was great and felt part of the country. 20.
Asia I hadn"t been for 20 years. Cheap destination, cultural experiences and food.

21.
Always wanted to go but it was too expensive. Inheritance shouted me.
Different culture, Iguassu Falls Galapagos Islands, nature, landscape, food, friendly and colourful lifestyle.
As seen in Table 4 there are a variety of responses as to what they enjoyed at their destinations from relaxing to wildlife, beaches to remoteness. Where as in relation to what motivated them to travel to their destination two respondents indicated it related to cost while another three had been to their destination previously and must have enjoyed it to return.

Information search
Respondents were asked in question four where they obtained their information from and the results are shown in Table 5.

Respondent
Information obtained from 1.
Prior knowledge, repeat visitor.

2.
Prior knowledge been there 20 times.

3.
Through work and Google 4.
Information from Sister, Travel agent and Google. 8.
Travel agent and Google. 9.
Family decision so we all researched. 12.
Google Things To Do. 15.
Internet but purchased through a Travel agent. 16.
Repeat visitor so had prior knowledge. 17.
Internet, brochures and a friend who had just returned. 18.
In the Netherlands, internet and educational agency.
Travel agent and internet. 21.
Google and Travel agent. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 6(2), December 2018 There were several respondents who were repeat visitors to the destination and did not search for information. The responses indicate that there are various information sources consulted and often with the combination of a Travel agent and using online information.

Will respondents return to destination and what they liked about the destination?
Respondents were asked if they would return to their destination and what was it that appealed to them so much at the destination. These results are shown in Table 6. Overwhelming, the majority of respondents said that they would return to their chosen destination with only two saying no for their stated reasons and one a maybe. The reasons why they would return are varied as would be expected from the respondents. From relaxing, good resorts and friendly people to cultural experiences and the environment.

Events questions
Respondents were asked questions in relation to attending an event. For example, if the respondent was travelling to Rio de Janeiro in Brail for the 2016 Olympic Games did they consider the Olympic Games the core/main reason for visiting the destination. It was followed by another question. Would you consider visiting the Botanical Gardens in Rio de Janeiro as a peripheral experience? The results to these questions are found in Table 7.  4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. 1. Too far to travel just to watch the games. 2. 3. 50/50 chance 6.
By far the majority of respondents said that they would consider the Olympic Games as the core motivation and all respondents unanimously stated that they would participate in peripheral experiences.

Core Experiences
The majority of participants wanted experiences as advertised, restaurants with a variety of nationalities together with local cuisine. They wanted a wide variety and choice available. If the destination had a clean beach they would go swimming and they would visit bars. The majority also felt they would go shopping for souvenirs and clothes and that they would use a supermarket. They also felt that there should be cinemas, swimming pools, golf, tennis, cultural displays, museums, art gallery, night clubs, fishing trips available and national parks and zoos. They want to be able to experience purchasing local handicrafts and go on a boat cruise. The majority did not show an interest in a casino, kids club or gym being available. In relation to accommodation at a core destination the majority wanted between 4-5 star available. The in-depth interviews revealed that each participant had varied requirements in relation to their accommodation but again the majority wanted working air-conditioning, television, clean rooms, WI-FI, comfortable bed and helpful staff, coffee, tea and fridge. On respondent said they, "Would expect a higher standard of accommodation at core destinations and provide quality of service."

Peripheral experiences
The majority of participants would like some form of restaurant or café which is family friendly and serves some local cuisine. If it is a beach destination and the beach is clean then they will go swimming. They would also like to have a bar or pub available. They would go shopping for souvenirs, more likely handicrafts. They would like to be able to purchase food but not necessarily at a supermarket but a grocery store would be good. A swimming pool and spa would be used and they would like a cultural display. The majority would visit a national park, purchase handicrafts and go on a boat ride.
The accommodation type was very varied from "don"t care" to 4-5 star. One respondent stated that there would be "less tourism demand at a peripheral destination providing more of a luxury destination and cost would be prohibitive….going more for experiences and something very different." The majority want a clean room with working air-conditioning, fresh towels daily, tea and coffee in the room with a fridge. There was no mention of WI-FI or the Internet.

Experience at core and peripheral destinations findings
As found in questions twelve and thirteen the study showed that consumers identified core experiences as activities, attractions and accommodation that were popular, well-known and well branded, signature and heavily promoted. This aligns with the notion of destination branding offered by Campelo, Aitken, Thyne & Gnoth (2014) who suggest that tourists select a destination based on the branding of the destination which identifies, delineates and differentiates a destination which communicates its image as part of its appeal to tourists to experience these features and characteristics that make it a distinctive and attractive destination. The respondents advanced this current thinking by suggesting those who chose destinations for their core experience did so because they were well-known and branded experiences. Alternately, respondents defined peripheral experiences as local, quirky, unknown, less popular, less crowded and natural. Those whose travel were motivated by the choice of a destination based on the peripheral experience where motivated by anonymity, adventure and the path less travelled. They considered more local, less known and boutique restaurants, local style accommodation together with local activities and experiences, such as going to a cultural display and purchasing local handicrafts were considered more important and intentional. Those who travelled to a core destination for an event suggested they were not averse to considering peripheral experiences. However, they did not actively search for them when planning and interaction was incidental or accidental whereas peripheral experience tourist suggested they were not likely to participate in core (mainstream) experiences.
These findings do support the notion that different motivations for core and peripheral experience consumption exist and that there may be different types of subjects emerging when choosing destinations based on both core and peripheral experiences as motivators and when choosing core and peripheral experiences once at a destination. These suggest they may seek either or a combination intentionally and in other circumstances accidentally. The following 2 x 2 matric offers a conceptual perspective on this.  Figure 1 developed for this study, depicts the core and peripheral tourists. The wanderer destination tourist, one who has an accidental peripheral experience. The seeker experiential tourist who wants to see it all and is a high core intentional peripheral tourist. The bragger destination tourist who wants brands and brochures and information up front. Finally, the sleeper leisure holiday tourist who wants rest and relaxation and have an accidental core experience.

Conclusion
It is a mistake to suggest that all tourists are alike. This study has developed a typology for core and peripheral destination tourists, based on prior tourism typologies, to ascertain the experience sought at each. This paper has extended previous analysis of tourism typologies by developing a typology for core and peripheral tourists. It appears that the core destination and experiences are well branded to deliver the experiences marketed and that core tourists may seek peripheral experiences at a destination. However, the peripheral tourist chooses a destination for it"s less traveled road, remoteness or natural ambiance.
In summary, this paper has reviewed the literature on destinations and experiences, defined core and peripheral destinations and explored various tourism typologies. A profile of the participants was developed, their travel group ascertained and their last travel destination acknowledged. Participants also explained what they enjoyed at their destination and what motivated them to choose that particular destination. Discussion about what core and peripheral meant to participants was also acknowledged.