Picture of UK Houses of Parliament

Leading national thinking on politics, government & public policy through Open Access research

Strathprints makes available scholarly Open Access content by researchers in the School of Government & Public Policy, based within the Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences.

Research here is 1st in Scotland for research intensity and spans a wide range of domains. The Department of Politics demonstrates expertise in understanding parties, elections and public opinion, with additional emphases on political economy, institutions and international relations. This international angle is reflected in the European Policies Research Centre (EPRC) which conducts comparative research on public policy. Meanwhile, the Centre for Energy Policy provides independent expertise on energy, working across multidisciplinary groups to shape policy for a low carbon economy.

Explore the Open Access research of the School of Government & Public Policy. Or explore all of Strathclyde's Open Access research...

Thoughts on core–periphery and small island tourism

Butler, R. W. (2017) Thoughts on core–periphery and small island tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 42 (4). pp. 537-539. ISSN 0250-8281

Full text not available in this repository.Request a copy from the Strathclyde author


It is difficult to write a post-publication piece about a paper without falling into the trap of conducting a post-publication review of the paper, an action which could be construed as unfair and inappropriate, given the fact that the paper in question has already been reviewed, revised (presumably) and found acceptable for publication by anonymous reviewers and the journal editor. However, a few papers, and particularly those which deal with concepts such as those in David Weaver's paper entitled 'Core-periphery relationships and the sustainability paradox of small island tourism', published in Tourism Recreation Research, Volume 42, no. 1, pp. 11-21, resolve all issues and questions, and good papers, like this one (in my opinion), raise questions and issues which deserve further commentary and perhaps elaboration or questioning. Thus, I have approached this task from the point of view of having read the paper, found it interesting and challenging and felt that it raised some interesting issues that warrant some discussion. Knowing the author personally, I am fairly sure that his will take the following comments in a positive manner and see them as an expansion of his paper and its ideas rather than as a pure critique.