Creative Destruction and Rural Tourism Planning: The Case of Creemore, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assesses the relationship between planning and creative destruction in the village of Creemore, Ontario. The study has four objectives. The first is to describe the evolution of tourism in Creemore by tracking change in three variables: investment, visitor numbers and resident attitudes. Second, is to describe past and present tourism planning in the village. Third, is to assess Creemore’s position in the model of creative destruction, based on information presented in objectives one and two. The final objective is to provide recommendations for Creemore’s future based on information gained from the other objectives. \nTo investigate the first objective, entrepreneurial investment was provided by secondary sources, including the Creemore Business Improvement Association (BIA). Visitor numbers were obtained from content analyses of copies of the local newspaper and from information provided by the Creemore Springs Brewery. Resident attitudes were gleaned from a survey completed by 126 residents of Creemore. To meet the second objective, a content analysis was completed on historic issues of the local newspaper and six key informant interviews were conducted. Based on the information provided from the first two objectives, it is concluded that Creemore is in the second stage of Mitchell’s (1998) model of creative destruction, Advanced Commodification. This conclusion is drawn since visitor numbers and investment levels are still low and resident attitudes are generally positive towards tourism. It is also concluded that tourism planning plays a large role in creative destruction, as it can speed up, or slow down, the process, depending on the types of planning that are implemented. Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that a tourism plan be developed to help mitigate possible future negative impacts of tourism, and to ensure the village does not evolve any further along the path of creative destruction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".