Forthcoming in Tourism Management Vol 52(Feb 2016) Exploring the tourist destination as a mosaic: The alternative lifecycles of the seaside amusement arcade sector in Britain

One criticism of the tourist area lifecycle model is that it treats destinations as homogeneous entities. Instead destinations can be conceptualised as a mosaic of elements, each of which may follow a lifecycle that is different from that of the destination overall. This paper examines this issue with reference to amusement arcades in British seaside resorts and triangulates secondary sources and in-depth interviews to examine the historical evolution of this sector. It argues that the arcade sector has followed a lifecycle trajectory that is independent of the resorts in which they are located. A range of internal/external factors and global, national and local influences have shaped the lifecycle of the arcade sector, including global developments in the entertainment industries; the influence of state policies and legislation; and the responses of local entrepreneurs to resort restructuring. The paper ends by arguing that destinations can be conceptualised as ‘assemblages’ of interacting elements.


INTRODUCTION
One of the most influential models within tourism studies is the tourist area lifecycle (TALC) (Butler, 1980). This model proposes that destinations undergo evolutionary development from initial discovery, followed by rapid growth, through consolidation to stagnation, at which point demand is no longer increasing. In the post-stagnation phase the destination may decline in response to the rising popularity of other destinations and, in extreme cases, may cease to be visited by tourists altogether. Alternatively, the destination may rejuvenate by either developing a new product or by targeting new markets in order to stimulate renewed demand.
The TALC model tends to treat destination decline as a universal and inevitable process, experienced by all destinations in the same way. Moreover, this perspective frequently assumes that, because the destination as a unit of analysis has experienced decline, then so too has each element within it (such as accommodation, attractions and infrastructure). A critique of this approach led to the emergence of more nuanced perspectives which recognise that destination trajectories are not uniform, and that particular internal and external circumstances can influence the way that a destination responds to changing demand Agarwal, 2002;Papatheodorou, 2004;Gale, 2007;Ivars i Baidal et al, 2013). Furthermore, researchers recognise that a destination is not a uniform entity but instead comprises a mosaic of elements (Cooper and Jackson, 1989;Agarwal, 1997;Ma and Hassink, 2013) each of which may experience its own lifecycle which is independent from that of the destination as a whole (Haywood, 1986;Agarwal, 1997;Gale, 2007). This highlights a need to disaggregate the destination as the unit of analysis, and focus instead on the lifecycle trajectories of individual components of the destination mosaic and the specific influences upon such trajectories.
This paper addresses this issue with reference to one type of destination: British seaside resorts. Such places experienced remarkable growth in the second half of the 19 th century and remained popular until the 1970s after which they experienced a pronounced fall in patronage due to the growing popularity of Mediterranean package holidays (Cooper, 1990(Cooper, , 1997Williams and Shaw 1997). There has been considerable interest in applying the TALC model to the development and decline of British coastal resorts (Agarwal, 1994(Agarwal, , 1997(Agarwal, , 2002Cooper, 1997;Walton, 2000;Gale, 2007). However, most of this work has treated the destination as a homogeneous unit and has neglected the trajectory of individual components within it. This analysis addresses this issue by focussing in detail on the lifecycle of a specific element of the British seaside resort mosaic that has received very little academic attention to date: amusement arcades (Chapman and Light, 2011). We examine the evolution of the amusement arcade sector in comparison with that of the destinations in which they are located. In particular we identify a broad range of internal and external factors that have shaped the development of this sector. Some of these factors are encompassed by the broader social, economic and cultural changes that have affected British seaside destinations as a whole, but others are independent of those changes and are specific to the arcades sector. In particular, we address the global-local dynamics of coastal tourism (Agarwal, 2005) and we argue that the seaside amusement arcade sector illustrates a distinct set of interactions between the global, the national and the local that unfold in the setting of British coastal resorts.

THE TOURIST AREA LIFECYCLE AND THE DESTINATION MOSAIC
Since it was first proposed, the TALC model has generated considerable interest within tourism studies. A plethora of research papers have explored the validity of the model in a range of destinations and regions throughout the world (for reviews see Lagiewski, 2006;Ma and Hassink, 2013). Some have critiqued the original model and proposed modifications or refinements; others have sought to link the TALC model to broader issues within tourism such as carrying capacity, destination planning, and destination marketing. In a British context the TALC model has been widely applied to seaside towns in order to understand the changing nature of demand for such destinations; the policy implications for resorts in different stages of the lifecycle; and strategies to address the post-stagnation phase (Cooper and Jackson, 1989;Cooper 1990Cooper , 1997Agarwal, 1997Agarwal, , 2002. However there has also been a substantial critique of the applicability of the TALC model to destinations. This has focussed on three broad themes. The first is the assumption that all destinations follow a uniform trajectory and the failure to take into account the particular circumstances of individual places. In the case of British seaside resorts, Williams and Shaw (1997) argue that resort size is a major influence on its ability to adapt to changing demand.
Larger resorts have the potential to upgrade and/or diversify their product and develop alternative economic activities. Conversely, smaller resorts have been hardest hit by the loss of the domestic staying market, although some have reinvented themselves as places for fashionable living, holiday lets or cultural/heritage tourism. Medium-sized resorts have varying fortunes but still have some potential to revive their local economies. Beatty and Fothergill (2004) argue that the geographical location of resorts can have a significant influence on their ability to withstand changing patterns of demand. They found that resorts within commuting distance of the capital city have generally fared better, while those that are more peripheral have fared less well.
A second criticism of the TALC model argues that the model is predominantly a descriptive tool which does not explain the dynamics of destination change (Agarwal, 1994). It has been argued that to better understand destination evolution and decline it is important to examine the complex interaction of internal and external factors which affect that destination (Agarwal, 2002; see also Ivars i Baidal et al, 2013). In particular it is necessary to consider how destinations are influenced by much broader changes in the external environment over which they have no control (Papatheodorou, 2004). For example, the 'restructuring thesis' (Ioannides and Debbage, 1998;Agarwal, 2002, Garay andCànoves, 2011;Urry and Larsen, 2011) argues that there has been a broad reorientation in the nature of capitalist accumulation over the past 40 years. This has been characterised as a shift from Fordist to post-Fordist forms of production and consumption. Fordism is characterised by mass production of standardised products for mass consumption by relatively undifferentiated markets. Post-Fordism, conversely, is characterised by flexible methods of production of a much wider range of products targeted at particular market segments within an increasingly globalised economy. Under Fordism the producer was dominant, but post-Fordism is characterised by increasing dominance of consumers who demand innovation, novelty and choice. In terms of tourism these changes are marked by increasingly experienced and discerning tourists who demand new destinations and tourist experiences, tend to travel independently, and make fewer repeat visits (Shaw and Williams, 2004). Private capital has responded by creating a range of new destinations around the world which cater for the demands of these 'new' tourists (Agarwal, 2002). In Britain these developments have had a substantial impact on Britain's coastal towns which are less attractive to increasingly mobile tourists in search of new and unusual destinations. In this context, Britain's coastal resorts can be considered as 'victims' of global economic restructuring (Agarwal, 2002).
In addition, to fully understand the changing fortunes of individual destinations it is necessary to examine the interactions between the local and the global (Agarwal, 2005;Gale, 2007;Ivars i Baidal, 2013).The response to changing patterns of demand within a destination is dependent upon the local historical path of tourism development (Walton, 1992, Ma andHassink, 2013); the influence of local entrepreneurs Russell and Faulkner, 2004) and their willingness to invest locally; and the policies and resources of the local/central state (Ioannides, 1992, Morgan andPritchard, 1999). The interactions of these local factors with regional, national and global processes will be worked out in different ways in different locations, so that individual destinations may experience widely differing trajectories. In the case of Britain's coastal resorts the impacts of economic restructuring and the globalisation of tourist flows have not been uniform. Instead, some resorts are faring better than others so that there is a need for more detailed research to identify the specific factors which influence the success (or otherwise) of an individual resort's economy (Agarwal, 2005).
A third critique of the TALC model that was developed in a British context but which has wider relevance concerns the scale of analysis (Haywood, 1986(Haywood, , 2006Agarwal, 1994Agarwal, , 1997).
The TALC model treats a destination as a single, homogeneous unit. Consequently, the entire destination is assumed to respond to changing demand in a uniform way, with each part experiencing the same trajectory (whether stagnation, decline or rejuvenation) in a coherent manner and at the same time. However, this assumption is increasingly questioned. During the Fordist era of tourism, destinations in general (and seaside resorts in particular) appear to have functioned as relatively coherent units. Hence, each of the destination's components broadly mirrored the lifecycle of the destination as a whole. However the effects of economic restructuring and globalisation mean that destinations -and the individual elements within them -are subject to new external influences (see Agarwal, 2005). Moreover, destinations can no longer be conceived as bounded entities but instead can be understood as nodes within broader networks and flows of people, capital, information and goods (Agarwal, 2012). Consequently, tourist destinations -and seaside resorts in particular -can be conceived as more disordered and 'chaotic' phenomena (Russell and Faulkner, 2004).
This situation, then, raises ontological questions about the nature of tourism destinations (Johnston, 2006) since the TALC model treats them as "singular, evolving products" (Cole, 2012(Cole, :1129. However Coles (2006:57) questions if destinations should be conceived as "a single, coherent product that depends on the synergies among its constituent elements or…a series of products in a loosely linked local configuration?". There is increasing scepticism about conceptualising a destination as a homogeneous entity. Instead there are calls to disaggregate the destination and treat it as a mosaic composed of different elements and subsets (Cooper and Jackson, 1989;Agarwal, 1997;Ma and Hassink, 2013). Moreover, just as different destinations can respond in different ways to broader process of economic restructuring and globalisation (Agarwal, 2005) so, too, can each of the different sectors of the destination economy. In particular, some elements may benefit from broader global changes, while others are impacted negatively (Agarwal, 2002; see also Haywood, 2006).
Therefore, conceptualising the destination as a mosaic enables an analytical approach that focuses on the experience and trajectory of individual elements within it. It also allows for recognition that each element of the destination may experience a lifecycle that does not necessarily mirror that of the destination as a whole (Haywood, 1986;Agarwal, 1997Agarwal, , 2002Gale, 2007).
Although there has been considerable research into British seaside resorts, there have been few studies that have focussed on the trajectory of individual elements of the destination mosaic. One example is Clegg and Essex (2000) who called for an understanding of the lifecycles and operational characteristics of the individual sectors of the seaside destination economy. Their analysis focused on the restructuring of the accommodation sector in one English resort between 1950 and 1994. They identified that within this one sector there were a range of responses to declining demand. Some accommodation had been converted to residential use; other owners had concentrated on upgrading by providing en-suite rooms or leisure/conference facilities; others had reduced tariffs; while some had not responded in any way.
Similarly, Gale (2005) focuses on the accommodation sector in a resort in Wales and noted that, while this sector was experiencing a severe downturn, the attractions sector was conversely enjoying huge popularity. Similarly, while the resort overall was experiencing decline in the 1990s, some elements (including the licensed trade and miscellaneous commercial outlets such as funfairs, bingo halls, and amusement arcades) witnessed an increase in rateable value. This suggested that different sectors were performing in different ways, something not immediately apparent if the resort overall was taken as the unit of analysis. Another relevant study by Bull and Hayler (2009)  For this reason it continues to enjoy financial support from many local authorities. This again demonstrates that while demand for resorts as a whole may have declined, individual elements of the resort mosaic may continue to be relatively healthy.
These studies demonstrate that accounts of universal decline at British coastal towns oversimplify a complex situation, since different components of the destination mosaic are performing in different ways. In particular, rather than following a single lifecycle, individual sectors of a resort's economy are following different lifecycles which may be independent of the lifecycle of the resort as a whole. To engage with this issue there is a need to disaggregate the resort as a unit of analysis and to focus in detail on the performance of individual sectors within it. Such an approach needs to consider the ways that a broad range of both internal and external influences (at local, national and global scales) have interacted to shape the development and lifecycle trajectory of that particular sector (Agarwal, 2002;Walton, 2009).
This paper contributes to this debate by focusing on the lifecycle of one distinct but littlestudied sector of the seaside resort mosaic in Britain: amusement arcades. These can be defined as a collection of automated, coin-operated entertainment machines grouped in one place (Wolf, 2012). Arcades have been a quintessential element of British resorts for more than a century (Elborough, 2010). Until recently there were approximately 1000 seaside amusement arcades in Britain, which in 2007 contributed around £500 million to the Exchequer annually (Milmo, 2008). Despite the economic and cultural significance of this sector, amusement arcades have, to date, been largely overlooked in the tourism literature.
Previous research has tended to focus on arcade architecture (Lindley, 1973;Pearson, 1991); the historical development of arcade machines and video games (Costa, 1988;Sheff, 1993;Braithwaite, 1997;Burnham, 2003;Wolf, 2007;Donovan, 2010;Pearson, 2010); and problem gambling in amusement arcades (for example, Fisher, 1995;Griffiths, 1995;1998;Orford et al, 2003). Therefore we argue that arcades constitute a distinct sector of the landscape and economy of the British coastal resort which merits attention in its own right.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
The analysis that follows presents a critically interpretative narrative of the lifecycle trajectory of the seaside amusement arcade sector in Britain. Such an approach necessitates incorporating a grounded understanding of how past events and processes have shaped the current situation (Walton, 2009). As such, we situate the evolution of the amusement arcade sector in the context of broader national, local and global developments, and we make particular reference to the role of internal and external influences and global/local interactions. In addition to focussing on broader themes of continuity and change within the arcade sector we also explore continuities and discontinuities between the trajectories of amusement arcades and the resorts in which they are located. Such an approach, which interweaves a historical perspective with a focus on current issues is relatively uncommon within tourism studies (Connell, 2005).
Both secondary and primary data were used for this analysis. First, we utilised more than 30 published secondary sources to produce a critical and contextual interpretation of the historical evolution of the seaside amusement arcade sector. These included academic analyses of seaside entertainment and resort architecture, and popular histories of amusement/slot machines (some of which focussed on specific machines or arcades). These were complemented by more recent historical accounts -for both academic and popular audiences -of the video games boom, or analyses of the role of particular manufacturers in the industry's development. These sources with an explicitly historical focus were supplemented with various contemporary documents including reports produced by the Gaming Commission; a range of government legislation, reports and consultation documents; and Coinslot International (a 'trade' publication intended for operators and employees within the arcade industry) which was analysed over the period 1998 to present.
Second, twenty two in-depth, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with amusement arcade operators and employees who worked in both seaside amusement arcades and Family Entertainment Centres located in the northwest of England (one of three regions which make up Britain). Northwest England is characterised by a well-developed network of seaside towns which developed in the 19 th century to cater for an industrial hinterland. They also contain a high concentration of 'traditional' seaside arcades. For these reasons, this region was an appropriate location in which to focus on the amusement arcade sector. The interviews were intended to triangulate with the secondary sources in understanding the more recent history of the arcade sector by providing additional insight on the contemporary changes in, and challenges facing, the industry. The interviews were undertaken as part of a broader investigation into employment within amusement arcades. This study was underpinned by an interpretivist epistemology (Bryman, 2008) that aimed to explore how employees in arcades interpreted and constructed their social world. In particular, it aimed to explore the situated (or 'insider') knowledge that these employees had of the amusement arcade industry and its recent evolution and development. Such an approach requires qualitative methods of enquiry (in this case, interviews) as the most appropriate way to 'give voice' to the subjective experiences and opinions of arcade employees.
Interviewees were identified using snowball sampling (Valentine, 2005). One of the authors had been employed in the amusement arcade sector and contacted former colleagues and managers to invite them to participate in the study. Those who agreed to participate acted as 'gatekeepers' who, in turn, introduced the researcher to other current and former employees.
At the start of data collection two pilot interviews were conducted which resulted in minor modifications to some interview questions. To ensure the authority, credibility and authenticity of the interviews, participants represented a range of roles within the arcade sector. The interviewees included four managers, six supervisors, four technicians, four cashiers, three 'floor walkers' (a term for a general attendant in an arcade) and one maintenance engineer. Between them they had 140 years' experience of working in the arcade sector, spanning from the late 1970s to the present day.
Interviews involved a mixture of directive and non-directive questioning and lasted between 45 and 90 minutes. A theoretical sampling approach was adopted as data collection progressed, which entailed interviewing research participants until 'theoretical saturation' had been achieved (Silverman, 2000). Interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed and the transcripts were analysed using an iterative-inductive form of thematic analysis, namely template analysis (King, 2004). This starts with a 'template' of key themes identified in the preliminary stages of the research process. In this case they were derived from a literature search and from previous experience of employment in the arcade sector. However, it also allows for the revision of the template as the data collection and analysis progressed. This involved both the identification of additional themes/sub-themes but also the abandonment of some of the initial themes. The data coding and identification of themes/templates were undertaken manually.
Rather than talk about the reliability of the data this study used the alternative criterion of 'trustworthiness' proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Trustworthiness was ensured in a number of ways (Bryman, 2008;Ritchie et al, 2014): established research techniques were utilised for data collection; proven techniques were adopted for data analysis (in this case, template analysis); detailed records were kept at every stage of data collection which were monitored and audited by peers; the sample obtained was fully representative of the range of views and perspectives of the participants (who themselves represented a range of positions within the arcade industry); and data collection was stopped only after theoretical saturation was reached. Furthermore, to ensure the credibility and broader replicability of the findings, the interview data were triangulated with a wide range of authoritative secondary sources (including those produced by 'industry' bodies) in order to produce a rich and nuanced account of the phenomenon under investigation.

The Early Development of the Arcade Sector
The early growth of amusement arcades in Britain broadly mirrors that of the growth of resorts overall. As resorts expanded during the late 19 th century many showmen established temporary arcades containing mechanical machines such as fortune-tellers, shooting ranges, and strength-testers. The first purpose-built amusement arcade opened in 1902 (Pearson, 1991) and as resorts continued to expand in the early 20 th century, these temporary arcades were replaced by permanent buildings featuring collections of coin-operated machines. These early arcade machines were regulated by 19 th century legislation which prohibited gambling but permitted games of skill. As such the most popular games were fully automated machines including cranes (also known as 'grabbers'); Allwin machines (machines which involved firing metal balls into winning cups); electric shockers; football tables; tableaux featuring animated scenes such as 'Madame Guillotine'; and prize shooters (Lindley, 1973;Braithwaite, 1997).
By the 1930s, amusement arcades were an established component of seaside resorts and their popularity was such that they usually occupied central locations within a town. Arcades were themselves unambiguous symbols of modernity and were often housed in overtly modernist buildings, which reflected the latest architectural fashions (such as Art Deco). These arcades were places of magic and wonder for their users, offering extraordinary experiences (Costa, 1988). As such they contributed to the reputation of seaside resorts as 'other' places which offered novelty, exoticism and excitement which could not be found at home (Lindley, 1973;Downs, 2011). This trend was broadly mirrored in other industrialised countries. For example, arcades featuring pinball and other machines were an established feature of the amusement parks at Coney Island (USA) and they offered cheap distraction and excitement in Depression-era America (Immerso, 2002).

Renewed Growth in the 1960s: Local and National Influences
While the 1960s marked the beginning of the decline of British coastal destinations, two developments boosted the fortunes of amusement arcades within those resorts. The first was an internal influence: local restructuring of the resort economy. From the 1960s onwards many grand theatres, pavilions and ballrooms closed, partly in response to declining patronage, but also because such resources were falling out of fashion with the post-War generation (Walton, 2000). The growth in private television ownership also meant that the residents of resorts could make their own entertainment at home (Hughes and Benn, 1998).
The ready availability of large and redundant buildings presented an opportunity for local entrepreneurs (Laister, 2006) and many theatres and concert halls were converted into amusement arcades. Such conversion was relatively straightforward and required little investment. Furthermore once in place the arcade machines were very cost-effective to operate due to minimal staffing costs.
The second development was external to the resorts themselves in the form of governmentsponsored reform of gambling legislation. Before 1960, arcades could only legally host games of skill. However, the 1960 Betting and Gaming Act effectively legalised gambling for profit meaning that coin-operated games of chance were now legal. This development had a significant impact on the arcade sector (Costa, 1988(Costa, , 2013, but little broader impact on resorts themselves. In particular, there was a proliferation of new arcade machines, particularly reel-based machines (also known as 'one armed bandits' or 'fruit machines'), pushers (also called 'penny falls'), and novelty games. The subsequent 1968 Gaming Act brought gambling under tighter control, requiring arcades to hold a local authority license and regulated the types of gambling machines they could host. Arcades could now only offer 'trivial' gaming machines, referred to as 'Amusements with Prizes'.
Consequently, in the 1960s the evolution of the arcade sector starts to diverge from that of seaside resorts overall. In particular, arcades entered a new period of prosperity and expansion (Costa, 2013). This can be conceptualised as the start of a second lifecycle (see Garay and Cànoves, 2011) for arcades which was now increasingly independent from that of the resorts in which they were located. This new lifecycle was not a response to an earlier period of decline, but neither was it a response to a change in the regime of capitalist accumulation. Instead, it was the outcome of a particular set of internal and external developments that had specific outcomes for the arcade sector. Furthermore, it was the start of a process where the arcade sector followed an independent trajectory of development in response to a range of influences that were increasingly exogenous.

Global Influences: Further Expansion of the Arcade Sector during the 1970s and 1980s
During the 1970s and 1980s the amusement arcade sector continued to expand as a result of external influences. The key development was the global growth of video games such as Space Invaders (1978), Asteroids (1979) and Pac Man (1980) (Sellers, 2001;Mott, 2010;Wolf, 2012). This can be situated within the context of the emergence of a new regime of capitalist accumulation: video games represented the development of a new product, based on new technology, targeted at a particular market, namely young people. The popularity of video games introduced new, global influences to the British seaside resort. Moreover, since many of these games were developed by international (predominantly American and Japanese) corporations, coastal resorts were now increasingly subject to the external influences of "corporate strategy and competitive economic behaviour" (Debbage, 1990:514).
As a result of the interaction between these global and corporate influences and the responses of local entrepreneurs there was a proliferation of video games machines at British resorts.
The early generation of video games were designed as large cabinet machines that were demanding in terms of space and were therefore ideally suited to arcades. Arcade owners needed to undertake considerable investment in such machines but their popularity was such that they could quickly recover their outlay. Consequently, electronic games rapidly replaced mechanical gambling machines and other novelty games in seaside arcades (Donovan, 2010).
This development illustrates a trend towards overtly playful forms of leisure activity at the seaside as a part of broader cultural changes in the late 20 th century (Gale, 2005). Arcades were, once again, overtly 'modern' and exciting places, offering the chance to experience the most complex and technologically sophisticated games (Fleetwood, 2014). They regained their reputation for novelty, excitement and the extraordinary (see Laister, 2006, who talks about the 'big season' of 1980 with reference to one particular arcade in northern England).
Since the home-based video game industry was at an embryonic stage, arcades were the only venues where young people could experience this new technology. At this stage arcades were experiencing a different trajectory from the resorts in which they were located. Indeed, arcades were sites of fashionable, cutting-edge technology with which families and young people increasingly wanted to engage, at the very time that British resorts were increasingly associated with obsolescence and decline (Cooper, 1997).

Global Developments in Leisure and the Decline of the Arcades Sector in the 1980s and 1990s
In the late 1980s amusement arcades (and the resorts in which they were housed) were impacted by further external developments in the entertainment industry. In particular, global corporations introduced commercially successful home games consoles (see Cohen, 1984;Sheff, 1993;Wolf, 2007) such as Sega's Mega Drive (1988), Nintendo's Game Boy (1989) and Sony 's PlayStation (1994). By the mid-1990s these could rival arcade video games in the quality of the playing experience they offered. One arcade technician, who had worked in the sector since the mid-1990s summarised the change: "When I first started working in arcades the best gaming experience that you could get was in the arcades, the consoles couldn't touch that. Now, well now you'd be lucky to get something that would match the PS2 or Xbox, let alone the PS3 or 360. Even my PSP has got better graphics than most of the machines I worked with" Similarly, Donovan (2010:283) argues that coin-operated arcade games "had always relied on having the best visuals, the best sound and the best technology, but the arrival of the Playsation, Nintendo 64 and Saturn had narrowed the gap between arcade and home considerably". The rapid advance of home video games meant that young people no longer needed to visit amusement arcades for game playing. This trend mirrored the broader 'privatisation' of leisure (Rojek, 1985) in which leisure activities are displaced from the public arena (in this case arcades) and instead increasingly take place in the home.
These developments were worked out in the local context of coastal resorts. As arcade operators struggled to compete with home-based games consoles they increasingly withdrew video game machines due to declining patronage (Lefty, 2003). At the same time, the manufacturers of video games focused their efforts on the home market and paid less attention to producing games for arcades (Donovan, 2010). One arcade manager who had worked in the sector from the early 1980s onwards noted: "The arcades are never going to be the big draw anymore, you're never going to get the must-play machines in the arcades anymore because it just doesn't make Consequently, coin-operated games in arcades have ceased to be the natural location for video games technology (Donovan, 2010). Those games that remained in production for arcades were demanding in terms of space. These included large expensive 'simulators'such as powerboat or racing simulators -that offered a different, more immersive experience from those available on home consoles. However, such hardware was expensive and beyond the resources of under-capitalised independently-owned arcades. Consequently, as video games were withdrawn, conventional gambling machines returned, including traditional reelbased (fruit) machines. Nevertheless, the patronage of arcades continued to fall, so that by the late 1990s an increasing number were closing (Herz, 1997;Donovan, 2010;Mott, 2010;Wolf, 2012). Although the industry figures are not available for the United Kingdom as a whole, Donovan (2010) claims that the decline of amusement arcades mirrored the situation in the USA where the annual turnover of coin-operated games had fallen from $1,570 million in 1998 to $523 million in 2002, a decline of 67%.

New external influences in the 1990s: The rise of the branded Family Entertainment
Centre By the mid-1980s many traditional seaside arcades suffered from an increasingly poor reputation among the public. The physical environment of many arcades had deteriorated since owners lacked the income to invest in improvements. Furthermore, many arcades had deliberately been painted in dark colours and made use of subdued lighting to heighten the visibility of the video screens (Herz, 1997). These characteristics made them more attractive to certain social groups, particularly young men who increasingly used arcades as social spaces. Consequently arcades gained a reputation for anti-social behaviour and low-level criminality (including video game addictions and problem gambling) among young people (Kaplan, 1983;Orford et al, 2003). Their reputation as places that were unsafe for young people (Fisher, 1995)  Indeed, Huhtamo (2005: 15) claims that the poor reputation of arcades encouraged parents to purchase home games consoles for their children in order to "keep them away from those diabolic places [arcades]". By this stage arcades had become symptoms of resort decline (see Cooper, 1997;Agarwal, 2002), but they also contributed to a broader perception of resorts as unfashionable and undesirable destinations.
At the same time, further developments within the global entertainment industry also had a significant impact on the seaside amusement arcade sector. This again illustrates the intersection of the global and the local in the tourism destination. The 1990s witnessed the adoption in Britain of the 'Family Entertainment Centre' (FEC), a concept dominated by global brands such as Sega and Namco (Wolf, 2012). FECs, which had originally been developed in the USA during the late 1970s, are large enterprises that group together a range of entertainments such as arcade machines, tenpin bowling, pool halls, bars, restaurants and soft play areas. They are often branded and/or themed so as to create a novel and exciting site of consumption (Bryman, 2004).
FECs were an entirely new form of competition for the traditional seaside arcade. Britain's first FEC opened in 1993 and during the 1990s their number increased rapidly. Their owners were either multinational, vertically-integrated amusement machine manufacturers (such as Sega or Namco) or national machine distributors (such as Crown Leisure). FECs had the financial resources to invest in premises, machines, and other facilities for customers, enabling them to provide the latest generation of video games (including 'simulators') in a way that the small family-owned seaside arcades could not match. They brought professionalism in their organisation and management which many independently-owned seaside arcades could not replicate. As such, FECs represented an example of the commodification and McDonaldization of leisure space (Ritzer, 1993;Blackshaw, 2010).
They offered efficient, predictable and controlled environments with regards to health and safety; presentation and cleanliness levels; customer care; staff appearance and behaviour; processing of customers; and quality standards. One of the most important characteristics of FECs was that they offered a secure and regulated environment that was much more attractive to families than traditional seaside arcades. One interviewee who worked as a technician for a multinational FEC organisation noted: " [FECs] are very up-to-date, they definitely come across as much more professional than a lot of the arcades that you could go into in seaside resorts.
They definitely have a much more family atmosphere than a lot of arcades" Similarly, Herz argues that: "the family entertainment centre is stridently wholesome. The family entertainment centre is relentlessly bright. The family entertainment centre is under panoptic surveillance… where flamboyant attention to safety is a major selling point" (1997:56).
FECs had other advantages over traditional seaside arcades in that they were more likely to be located in city centres or in large shopping malls. As Nasaw (1999: 255) argues: "the public amusement centres which survive and prosper are those that have been reconceived, repackaged and transported out of town. The symbol of public sociability in the late twentieth century is not the picture palace or amusement park, but the enclosed shopping mall".
Families who wanted an experience of arcade games were now able to find a safe and unthreatening environment within an FEC without needing to make a special trip to the seaside. Seaside arcades lacked the resources and expertise to respond to this new form of competition so that, during the 1990s and 2000s the 'traditional' seaside arcade entered a period of stagnation and decline. They can be interpreted as local 'victims' of global developments in the commodification and regulation of leisure spaces over which they had no control.

National Developments: Changes in Gambling Legislation in the 2000s
In addition to the global and local processes identified above, legislation by the British Government to regulate gambling also had a significant impact on the seaside amusement arcade sector. In 2001 the Government commissioned a report which recommended the protection of children and vulnerable adults from gambling, and proposed limits on the type of machines that could be housed in arcades, and the amount they were permitted to pay in prizes. Anticipating further threats to the family market, the amusement arcade sector entered a period of uncertainty as arcade operators and machine manufacturers cut back on investment pending changes to gambling legislation (Tanner, 2004;Bollum, 2006).
The subsequent 2005 Gambling Act was intended to encourage socially responsible gambling (Jones et al, 2009). It categorised arcade machines such as cranes and pushers as 'noncomplex category D' gambling machines. Arcades were required to place a label on each machine stating "this machine provides facilities for gambling" and the Act placed a limit of £5 (which did not rise with inflation) on the amount that 'Amusements with Prizes' machines could pay out. Consequently arcades struggled to compete with casinos, bingo halls and highstreet betting shops where access to reel-based gambling machines was restricted to adults, but the machines were permitted to pay out much higher prizes. Further changes in 2013 saw the introduction of Machine Games Duty, a new way of taxing the profits of the gambling sector. The majority of arcade machines were affected and it was estimated that most arcade operators would face an additional tax bill which averaged £500,000 (Shuttleworth, 2011).
The reform of gambling legislation placed additional restrictions on arcades and, in addition to the competition from FECs and home-based video games, amusement arcades now faced competition from the newly liberalised gambling industry. As one arcade manager argued: "Arcades are finding it increasingly hard to compete, especially in terms of the casinos and the bookies. I'm not saying that the arcades have been singled out hereyou only have to look at the state of the bingo halls to realise that times are hardbut the arcades have got it on both fronts. You look at the core arcade products and for a long time it has been gambling or video games. The video game development has all but dried up…and punters [gamblers] can get a better, or more profitable, punt online or at a casino".
While some sectors of the gambling industryparticularly online gambling, casinos, betting shops and lotteries -benefitted and increased their turnover, the arcade sector has experienced sustained decline as a result of reformed gambling legislation (Mintel, 2010). Indeed, the arcade sector's gross gambling yield declined by 10% between (Gambling Commission, 2012. This development was identified as threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of operators at seaside resorts (Petrie, 2009) and one writer described it as "the final death knell for arcades" (Liddle, 2011, np). Industry commentators predicted that an increasing number of arcades would be forced to close (Williams, 2011), while those remaining open would need to reduce their opening hours and shed jobs (Lee, 2011).  (Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2012). The effect of competition from home video games and multinational FECs, along with the impact of gambling legislation caused many commentators to predict a bleak future for the sector (Murphy, 2010;Lee, 2013 Tourism, 2009, 2014). Moreover, employment in seaside towns also increased by 2.4% between 2008 and 2012 (Beatty et al, 2014).
Overall it is apparent that, in recent decades, the amusement arcade sector has followed a lifecycle trajectory that is quite different from that of resorts overall (see Figure 1 for a summary). While seaside resorts began to decline during the 1960s, the arcade sector entered the start of a second lifecycle that was increasingly independent from that of the broader resort sector. This illustrates the claim of Garay and Cànoves (2011) that multiple lifecycles can co-exist within the same destination. This growth continued until the 1980s after which arcades started to decline in a way which broadly mirrored that of resorts. This decline has continued up to the present day but while the arcade sector may face an uncertain future, the fortunes of resorts overall have stabilised and revived during the first decade of the 21 st century. This demonstrates that the relationship between the lifecycles of arcades and resorts is not linear or determined.

FIGURE 1 HERE
While further decline of the amusement arcade sector is likely it is unlikely that arcades will disappear altogether from seaside resorts. Some have rebranded themselves as FECs, and some owners do have sufficient capital to invest in new machines to meet changing consumer trends and demands. Overall, however, the presence of amusement arcades at British coastal resorts will be much reduced. As one experienced seaside arcade manager argued: "There will still be the need for the odd arcade in an amusement park where the parents will pass twenty minutes on the 2p pushers while the kids queue up for a ride, or in the resorts when they need to pass time if it's raining. But you're never going to get the arcades jammed with the must-see, must-play machines any more…the industry as a whole has stagnated and there's nothing on the horizon as far as I can see that's going to get them out of it".
Similarly, industry commentators are well aware that arcades find themselves in a difficult and uncertain marketplace and will need to develop innovative approaches to customer service in order to survive (Harding, 2013;Hawkins, 2015;Lee, 2014).However, whilst national policy-makers have recognised the enduring appeal of the British seaside resort, there have been few voices speaking up for the amusement arcade sector. Indeed, arcades are sometimes perceived to lower the tone of resorts (Cooper, 1997) and for this reason often fail to receive the support of local authorities and planners. However, as the seaside arcade sector continues to decline policy-makers will need to consider the implications for the resorts in which they are located. As arcades close the often iconic buildings in which they are housed become empty. The architectural and heritage value of arcade buildings has yet to be recognised, and none have yet been granted statutory protected status. Moreover, there are many coastal towns where the entire character of the resortscape would be fundamentally altered were their arcades to close. Certainly the promenades and seafronts of many British resorts would look much less extraordinary without the neon lights and striking facades of their amusement arcades. However, as Britain's seaside resorts seek to regenerate by developing new products intended for new markets, amusement arcades often occupy an incongruous position within such strategies.

CONCLUSION
Evolutionary models of tourism destinations (including British seaside resorts) have treated them as homogeneous units that respond in a uniform way to changes in demand. In recognition of the limitations of this perspective there has been a call for more nuanced conceptualisations of destination development which recognises that individual sectors or elements of a destination may follow a trajectory that is different from that of the destination overall. In this context, we have disaggregated one usually overlooked component of the British seaside resortthe amusement arcadeand examined its recent evolution, focussing on processes of continuity and change.
In seeking to explain the evolution of the arcade sector we have identified a particular set of endogenous and exogenous influences that are independent from the broader influences on There are clearly limitations in conceptualising destinations as uniform entities. Instead, there is a need for more refined models that acknowledge -and engage withtheir complexity.
Some promising alternatives have been proposed. For example, various authors have suggested that the resort can be considered as a mosaic and it is this model that has been adopted in this paper. Conceiving the destination as a mosaic is helpful in recognising that the whole is composed of a series of components which dovetail together. It also allows an analytical approach (such as that adopted in this paper) which isolates individual elements of the mosaic and examines the specific factors that have shaped their evolution and development. However, the mosaic metaphor also has its limitations since the component elements are static, and there is little sense of the interactions between them. For this reason we propose a new conceptualisation of destinations as assemblages. Assemblages are "wholes whose properties emerge from the interactions between parts" (DeLanda, 2006:5).
Assemblages are composed of smaller elements (that are themselves assemblages) but are also elements within larger assemblages. They are always open to external influences, dynamic, evolving, and with both current properties and future potentialities (Edensor, 2011).
While there is growing interest in the concept of the assemblage it has, as yet, received little attention within tourism studies (one exception being Darbellay and Stock, 2012). However, the concept has much to offer as a model for the tourism destination. It explicitly recognises that a destination comprises a series of dynamically interlinked components. It also allows a flexible approach to the destination as a unit of analysis, enabling it to be broken into smaller assemblages (for example, an individual arcade is also an assemblage), but also lets them be