Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Urban attractions are often examined as individual sites, although visitors experience cities by selecting, combining and sequencing attractions within geographically structured and temporally finite opportunity sets. This study conceptualises a visitor-created urban attraction system as an emergent relational structure produced through the interaction of visitor agency, attraction compatibility and urban spatial-temporal organisation. Using survey and multi-day itinerary data from 1,341 visitors to Canberra, Australia, the analysis integrates popularity-adjusted co-visitation networks, directed movement sequences, spatial network models and visit-level time-budget models. Results identified 59 stronger-than-expected attraction ties and six stable communities. Only six directed pathways occurred more frequently than expected, showing that trip-level co-visitation and immediate sequential movement constitute distinct relational layers. Thematic similarity, admission compatibility and co-location were associated with broader trip-level combinations, whereas shared precinct, thematic similarity and co-location were more important for immediate movement. Departure time was strongly associated with whether another attraction was visited. Urban attraction systems are therefore neither simple reflections of supply nor products of visitor preference alone; they emerge as visitors coordinate attraction value and compatibility with urban spatial structure, mobility resources and finite time. The study advances a tourism-geographical explanation of layered attraction-system formation within urban opportunity structures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ritchie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: