How does tourism move during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Abstract

This article discusses the dichotomies of physical and visual mobilities emerged during the COVID19 pandemic, drawing on the analysis of the tourist flows restrictions contained in health barriers and tourist communications, which, while alerting to the need to restrict tourism, promote its attractions in the perspective of a tourism recovery. For that, a context analysis was made from images (typology, representation and discourse/interpretation) circulated in press and DMOs of the Costa do Sol/Região dos Lagos and São Paulo/Litoral Norte Tourism Routes. The empirical contents are brought as examples, since the essence of this study lies in the dynamics and processes of the mobilities that characterize and transmute them. The findings corroborate the argument that physical and imaginative dimensions of tourism might become crucial to rethink the notion of tourism mobilities. Thus, the contribution of this paper is twofold: first, in the theoretical-methodological field of mobilities as it broadens the discussion on tourism beyond the physical mobility of the bodies, building upon New Mobilities Paradigm; second, it highlights contradictory dimensions on tourism practices nowadays, and may guide future management of tourism activities according to the unfolding of the pandemic.

Keywords
Tourism mobilities; Imaginative mobilities; Theories of tourism

Resumo

Este artigo debate as dicotomias entre mobilidades físicas e imagéticas ocorridas na pandemia da COVID-19, considerando as restrições de fluxos de turistas contidos nas barreiras sanitárias e das comunicações turísticas que, ao mesmo tempo que alertam para a necessidade de restrição ao turismo, promovem seus atrativos na perspectiva de retomada da atividade. Para tal, fez-se uma análise de contexto a partir dos conteúdos (tipologia, representação e discurso/interpretação) presentes nos materiais difundidos pela imprensa e pelos órgãos locais das Rotas Turísticas Costa do Sol/Região dos Lagos e São Paulo/Litoral Norte. Os conteúdos empíricos são expostos como exemplos, pois a essência do trabalho está nas dinâmicas e processos das mobilidades que os caracterizam e transmutam. Os resultados corroboram o argumento que as dimensões física e imagética do turismo ilustram dois elementos principais para se (re)pensar o conceito e as práticas mobilidades turísticas. Assim, as contribuições deste trabalho se colocam em duas vertentes: primeiro, no campo teórico-metodológico das mobilidades, ao ampliar a discussão sobre turismo para além da mobilidade física de corpos, orientados pelo Paradigma das Novas Mobilidades; segundo, coloca em discussão vertentes contraditórias sobre as práticas turísticas no presente, podendo orientar a gestão da atividade em função dos desdobramentos da pandemia.

Palavras-chave
Mobilidades turísticas; Mobilidades imaginativas; Teoria do turismo

Resumen

En este artículo se analizan las dicotomías entre movilidades físicas e imaginarias que ocurrieron en la pandemia, considerando las restricciones al flujo de turistas contenidas en barreras sanitarias y comunicaciones turísticas que, al mismo tiempo que alertan sobre la necesidad de restringir el turismo, promocionan sus atractivos en la perspectiva de recuperación de la actividad. Para ello, se realizó un análisis de contexto a partir de los contenidos (tipología, representación y discurso / interpretación) presentes en los materiales difundidos por la prensa y por los organismos locales de las Rutas Turísticas Costa do Sol/Região dos Lagos y São Paulo/Litoral Norte. Los contenidos empíricos se presentan como ejemplos, porque la esencia del trabajo está en las dinámicas y procesos de las movilidades que las caracterizan y transmutan. Los resultados corroboran el argumento de que las dimensiones física e imaginaria del turismo pueden ser dos elementos principales para (re) pensar la noción de movilidad turística. Así, los aportes a este trabajo se dividen en dos vertientes: primero, en el campo teórico-metodológico de la movilidad, ampliando la discusión sobre el turismo más allá de la movilidad física de los cuerpos, guiados por el Paradigma de las Nuevas Movilidades; en segundo lugar, cuestiona aspectos contradictorios de las prácticas turísticas en la actualidad, pudiendo orientar la gestión de la actividad según las consecuencias de la pandemia.

Palabras-chave
Movilidades turísticas; Movilidades imaginativas; Teorías del turismo

1 INTRODUCTION

The pandemic caused by the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), enacted in March 2020 (WHO, 2020), imposed a sudden reduction or interruption of tourist flows, since lockdown measures were implemented as an attempt to control the spread of the virus (Gössling, Scott & Hall, 2020). In April 2020, all destinations in the world had some travel restrictions related to COVID-19, attesting that international travel has never been restricted in such an extreme way (UNWTO, 2020). In the first six months of 2020, losses by airlines, for example, exceeded US$84 billion (IATA, 2020).

The narrative of the slowdown took over everyday life. The almost unwavering notion of the dynamics of flows was suddenly replaced by the focus on friction: closed borders, traffic bans, interruption of transport circulation (Baum & Hai, 2020). However, differently than it seems, there are hidden mobilities co-existing with a deprivation environment of a certain mobile normality. For this reason, even with the generalization of confinements, it is urgent to inquire how tourism mobilities are expressed during the pandemic.

Discussing “post-COVID tourism” (Baba et al, 2020; Chang, Aleer & Ramos, 2020; Haywood, 2020; Trigo, 2020, among others) is a highly relevant task, given the huge losses of companies directly and indirectly linked to the sector. The sharp drop in consumption and the great demand for cancellations increases financial instability, placing companies in critical situations, with repercussions on job stock and on the state's financial health, especially in locations with greater dependence on tourism activities.

The insistence on thinking on the post-pandemic only (though, we do not have a precise idea of what this means in temporal and practical terms) jeopardizes events and facts that are occurring during the pandemic, whose analyses can support strategies to resume tourism in the near future.

Therefore, it is urgent to recognize and scrutinize other dimensions of tourism as a phenomenon, which underlie or mediate physical displacements, seeking to understand tourism in its complexity and breadth (Allis, 2016; Kunz, 2015). When reflecting on possible manifestations of tourism in this pandemic context, virtual spaces or imaginative mobilities (Elliott & Urry, 2010; Urry, 2000) come to the fore, in contrast to the constraints of conventional tourist flows.

In this context, destinations' tourism communications have disseminated images in ways that are barely re-cognizable in terms of tourism marketing: they warn against the risk of traveling, recommending tourists not to travel, urging people to stay home. All these messages are usually accompanied by images of the destination, its attractions and population, which, in a contradictory way, continue to feed an imaginary and imaginative dimension of tourism mobility.

Assuming mobilities as a category of analysis (Sheller & Urry, 2006; Freire-Medeiros, Teles & Allis, 2018; Sheller, 2014; Cresswell, 2010; Kaufmann, 2010; Hannam et al., 2006), a complexity is recognized, which also dialectically encompasses immobilities.

In this context and from an empirical point of view, we highlight tourism dichotomies that emerge during the pandemic in Brazil: the imposition of sanitary barriers in face of the insistence of visitors to keep travelling, in contrast to virtual communications from destinations by “don't come” messages, even when they refer to the imagery of its attractions. Without the intention of presenting case studies, concrete situations were described in order to illustrate and discuss multiple aspects of tourism mobilities, particularly regarding tourist flows that take on various forms and rhythms (people, images, messages...). This is expressed both by physical friction (road barriers), as well as by the intentions of modulating fluidity through the messages and images circulation from tourism destinations (communication from local tourism authorities in virtual spaces).

In summary, we ask: how have tourism mobilities been expressed during the COVID-19 pandemic, considering the flows and frictions of tourism destinations? In this sense, the aim of this work is to debate the dichotomies manifested between physical and imaginative mobilities that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is noted that this tension was more noticeable in coastal municipalities in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, at Costa do Sol/Região dos Lagos and Litoral Norte/São Paulo, respectively. Therefore, in an applied manner, it is proposed to analyze tourist flows and frictions in the pandemic context, based on the multiple dimensions of tourism mobilities in these regions, observing the measures formally applied or not to control physical flows (barriers) and tourism communication of destinations on the coasts of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro states, from March to July 2020.

2 METHODOLOGY

Mobilities represent a category of analysis that triggers a “set of questions, theories and methodologies, rather than a totalizing or reductive description of the contemporary world” (Sheller & Urry, 2006, p. 210). Therefore, one can assume tourism mobility as an analytical field that contemplates and dialogues with multiple dimensions of mobility (bodies, objects, images, communication, ideas), therefore, much wider than the displacement of tourists. This approach is guided by a mobilities “paradigm” or “turn” (Freire-Medeiros, Teles & Allis, 2018; Sheller, 2014; Cresswell, 2010; Kaufmann, 2010; Hannam et al., 2006; Sheller & Urry, 2006), understood as “central fact in modern life and postmodern”, which requires new “ways of thinking and theorizing mobilities” (Cresswell, 2010, p. 551).

In this context, some perceptions – or “empirical field signaling” (Baptista, 2011) – about tourism in the pandemic stood out. As the pandemic was imposed, pieces of warning communication and future invitations to tourism in Brazil and in the world multiplied (#VisitLater #TravelTomorrow).

From the exploratory research of tourism communication at the destination level, a pattern was perceived: “don't come now, wait for the pandemic to end, but remember, we will be here when all this is over”, usually linked to images of local tourist attractions. This analysis alone would be an exciting study object. However, the recurrence of news about sanitary barriers in several destinations was very striking. And, if there are physical barriers with justification for containment, it is because there are flows intended to these destinations.

A certain similarity was observed in the communication actions and blocking strategies of coastal municipalities in the states of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, which, in general were very close and highly connected to capital cities and metropolitan regions – exposed to an expressive tourism demand over the year. Strikingly, there was a concentration of the cases and deaths of COVID-19 in these regions, both for their intense connection to international air networks and for their magnitude and urban diversity (Aguiar, 2020).

Tourism destinations were selected from two Strategic Tourism Routes, recommended by the Investe Turismo Program (Brazil, 2019): Costa do Sol/Região dos Lagos (Arraial do Cabo, Armação dos Búzios, Cabo Frio, Rio das Ostras, Saquarema, Angra dos Reis and Paraty) and São Paulo/Litoral Norte (Bertioga, Ubatuba, Caraguatatuba, Ilhabela, and São Sebastião; except the city of São Paulo) (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Map of spatial distribution of municipalities

This delimitation highlights mobilities dynamics not exclusive to these regions, but it helps to illustrate a set of arguments and categories of analysis that are usual in tourism mobilities studies.

Data collection took place from the date of the first municipal decrees that limited the entrance and circulation of tourists, from March to July 30, 2020. This served to compose a mosaic of illustrations, as a way to analyze (textually and imaginatively) how tourism mobilities operate in the imagery and communicative dimensions. The tourism communications analyzed were found in official materials available online on institutional websites of destination marketing organizations (DMOs), YouTube channels and, mainly, profiles on social media (e.g., Facebook).

Even though the institutional materials surveyed are on DMO's social media profiles, person faces and any mention of names/profiles were blurred in order to preserve privacy. In addition, the use of images contained in virtual and physical media for exclusively academic research (non-commercial purposes) is frequent in communication studies that analyze visual materials, present in virtual and/or physical media, above all, from semiotics and netnography (Alves, Costa & Perinotto, 2017; Seabra, 2017; Mello, 2015; Ferrari & Gandara, 2015; Silva & Alves, 2014).

Regarding sanitary barriers, reports were sought from general communication vehicles and reports from local authorities to map the legal and administrative mechanisms employed, as well as the conflicts associated with their implementation, maintenance, and intensification. The legal texts (decrees and laws) were retrieved from the municipalities' digital official gazettes.

Several challenges were faced to collect data, given the speed of the information and even protocols updates. Even so, the study undertaken on sanitary barriers and the flows of visitors (which vary substantially due to holidays) and tourism communications in these destinations were carried out with the aim to provide an overview that will support the analysis from the mobilities perspective.

The essence of the work is in the mobilities dynamics and processes that characterize and transmute the apprehended reality of the territory. For this reason, unlike detailed work on the definition of public policies around these issues, we aim to understand how these extreme and extraordinary situations can point out (new) research pathways on mobility and tourism. The notion of “constellation” of mobilities (Cresswell, 2010) guides the research, based on six questions about the mobility of people and things: Why (the reason)? How fast (speed)? At what pace? Which routes (trajectories)? What is experienced? And when and how are they stopped (friction)? In this study, rhythm and friction will be especially relevant.

The latent complexity of tourism (in the pandemic context) presupposes processes of dialectical reflections based on critical thinking, being directly linked with mobility as a category of analysis (Sheller & Urry, 2006) – without neglecting its opposite (the immobility). These, in turn, are perceived by the differential possibility of activating networks and resources that enable the mobility of individuals in space, physically and symbollically (Sheller, 2018b) in different dimensions (Figure 2).

Figure 2
Analytical dimensions

In addition, the perspective about tourism communication (Mello, 2015; Baldissera, 2010) guides the study on building and movement of images through imagery (Elliott & Urry, 2010; Urry, 2000). Therefore, the analysis of images (photographs and videos) allows us to understand how tourism mobilities are also expressed in different tourism communications during the pandemic, in an imaginative dimension (and not kinetic, in other words, that of bodies in motion) (Figure 3).

Figure 3
Elements of reading tourism communications

The literature review was carried out using different combinations of descriptors: “pandemic, COVID-19, tourism, travel, illness, virus, and mobility”, in English and Portuguese, in Scopus (27 results) and Google Scholar (85 results) repositories until July 30, 2020. No temporal or thematic area filters were applied – precisely to be able to identify the dispersion of the theme in the literature. From this result, studies that did not deal with mobility and pandemic or health-emergency contexts were excluded, resulting in 23 publications. It was not the intention to produce an exhaustive literature review, nor a complete bibliometric analysis, especially because the publications on the subject are growing, and it is not possible to describe the publications behavior accurately. These orientations for literature reviewing allowed us to observe publications that, although not always anchored explicitly on the precepts of mobility, address questions that can contribute to the consolidation of tourism mobilities as a field of study.

3 DISEASES AND TOURISM MOBILITIES

3.1 Mobilities as a new focus for tourism studies

In contrast to the Fordist capitalism of the 20th century, currently, the modes of spatial (re)productions must be understood from a broader and more complex perspective, in which daily life, through leisure and culture, plays a striking role (Lefebvre, 2008). As a result, we experience – not without conflict – multiple modalities of territories, simultaneously (“virtual” mobility) or successive (physical mobility), thus emerging a new “integrated spatial experience”: the experience of multi-territoriality (Haesbaert, 2014).

The “mobility turn” represents a robust framework for expanding (and questioning) the assumption that “everyone seems to be in constant motion”. With new understandings or paradigms about mobility, a field of analysis is constituted – much more complex than an object might suppose (Sheller & Urry, 2006; Sheller, 2018a), indicating a fruitful path for the study of tourism mobility (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Components of the New Mobilities Paradigm

Considering that mobilities also include movements of images and information in different scales, formats, and ranges (Sheller & Urry, 2006), the imaginative journeys provided by images of places and virtual journeys go beyond geographical and social distances, in the midst of multiple systems and mobility regimes (Elliott & Urry, 2010).

In the context of tourism communication, individuals, groups, and institutions act in the processes of representing space, articulating symbolic representations to say and understand something (Baldissera, 2010), unfolding possibilities to travel symbolically (Elliott & Urry, 2010).

More specifically, “tourism mobilities involve complex combinations of movement and stillness, realities and fantasies, play and work” (Sheller & Urry, 2004, p. 1). Thus, a couple of aspects help to understand the multidimensionality of tourism mobility: on the one hand, a chain of production of spaces for tourist enjoyment (places to play); on the other, and almost metaphorically, the places themselves travel and structure tourism cultures around the world (places in play). Both entries inform and shape tourism, driving “the creation and invention of tourism destinations” (p. 1).

In fact, it would be unnecessary (perhaps even impossible) to distinguish “people” and “places” in this amalgamation of tourism mobilities, since “places are (…) not so much fixed but are implicated within complex networks”, which produce certain performances (Hannam, Butler & Paris, 2014, p. 173). Indeed, the use of technologies has reinforced the hybridization of space, as individuals are producing new places and spatial experiences. More and more, mobile subjects are taking with them portable – or miniaturized (Elliot & Urry, 2010) devices – in their journeys, alternating between physical and virtual presence. The emergence of cyberspace reconfigured and mobilized the very concept of space, where virtual spaces are designed based on human interest and not physical proximity, allowing instant socializations, as well as other forms of co-presence – in addition to physical contact (Hannam et al., 2014).

In the same way that images and information travel to publicize and promote a destination, a destination can suffer from the reverse, as in Hong Kong due to the SARS epidemic of 2003, when the city lost the post of “City of Life” to a place of fear (Sung & So, 2004). In this example, the movement of images and information led to fewer displacements, since this health crisis temporarily removed the city from the “global stage” (Sheller & Urry, 2004). In this context, it is clear that tourism communication (targeted or spontaneous) can be a factor in tainting the image and success of tourism destinations (Baldissera, 2010).

Finally, it is worth pointing out that immobilization can express itself in the symbolic and physical dimensions of the territory – such as new controls on access to portions of the territory. Usually, spaces are unevenly porous for different groups and, in a pandemic context, certain instruments of power are enhanced: from the threshold between the privilege of self-confinement (which opposes the safety of the house to the risk of the street), to debates that question collective protection protocols and practices (decreasing sociability – tourism included – through operational and spatial restrictions).

In this sense, it is imperative to reinforce that mobilities are not experienced in the same way for everyone: different (im)mobile experiences are presented, first of all, in differences in access and partial connectivity (physical, symbolic, virtual). It also refers to movements with a greater or lesser degree of ease, comfort, flexibility, and security – depending on the friction to which individuals are exposed.

3.2 Brief overview of recent literature

The world has suffered a series of major health crises in the past 40 years, but none has had similar implications like those from COVID-19 pandemic (Gössling, et al., 2020). Until 2019, most of the literature on tourism and epidemiological outbreaks dealt with HIV, Ebola, SARS, with a clear focus on the H1N1 pandemic (“swine flu”), including studies on the spread of diseases through human mobility, especially travelers (Merler et al., 2011; Belik et al., 2011; Meloni et al., 2011; Bajardi et al., 2011), on air transport (Epstein et al., 2007; Martin & Boland; 2018), and international institutional arrangements related to biosafety (Hall, 2011).

An important aspect of this (recent) literature is the criticism of the role of tourism/tourist as a COVID dispersing agent, COVID-19 in particular (Iaquinto, 2020; Sánchez, 2020). Changes in the population movement, including migration, business travelling, and tourism in a much more globalized world, have led this virus to spread differently (Shi et al., 2020). Other works deal with the effects and scenarios for the air sector produced by a sudden and forced immobility (Iacus et al., 2020; Oliveira Neto et al., 2020) and, more optimistically, on the role of cruises to mitigate local inequalities in the post-pandemic (Renaud, 2020).

Roughly speaking, when dealing with post-pandemic tourism, the views are divided between an expectation of recovery from previous tourism levels as soon as medical and sanitary protocols are implemented, and another that seeks to reform tourism, as an opportunity to rethink its principles and ethics (Gössling et al, 2020; Hall, Scott & Gössling, 2020; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020a; 2020b; Jamal & Budke, 2020). In addition, expectations emerge with the so-called “proximity tourism” (Ioannides & Gyimóthy, 2020) and appreciation of traditional practices in a regime of fairer mobility (Sheller, 2020).

Although mobilities do not appear explicitly as a category of analysis, studies shed light on the right to move in a pandemic context, considering travel restrictions, physical barriers, and border closings (Tremblay-Huet, 2020; Baum & Hai, 2020).

Some studies analyze the relationship of communication and tourism during the pandemic, addressing the perceptions of tourists and racial discrimination (Yu et al., 2020), as well as their effects on the mental health of Chinese tourists who are victims of racist attacks (Zheng et al., 2020). In this regard, Depoux et al. (2020) draw a metaphorical parallel between virology and virality – in which the dissemination of information and distorted images reinforces racism and other intolerances. Such xenophobic narratives are part of a “geopolitical blame game”, in which “the imaginaries of tourism place” symbolically participate. With a design of “uncertain future of global (im)mobility”, the resume of tourism would depend on “collective self-care and well-managed geopolitical anxiety” (Mostafanezhad et al., 2020, p. 185).

4 TOURISM (IM)MOBILITIES: PANDEMIC TOURISM?

4.1 Sanitary barriers: friction to escape the quarantine

Looking back, there is a recurring pattern in the social distancing measures promoted by different countries with responses to the attempt to decrease/slow down the spread of the virus. All of them, to a lesser or greater degree, aim to control the mobility of the body-territory, which is never dissociated from the domain and territorial appropriation of its surroundings (Haesbaert, 2020).

In the destinations on the coast of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, the first municipal decrees on sanitary barriers or blocks date from the second and third weeks of March, with successive updates and adjustments. These were measures that, in addition to the general provisions for controlling circulation and agglomeration, sought to contain particularly tourist flows.

Easter (April 10-12, 2020), Tiradentes (April 21, 2020), and São Jorge (April 23, 2020) holidays and the so-called “mega-holiday” in May in São Paulo (May 20 - 24, 2020) – which would serve to increase rates of social isolation – were featured in reports, surprising by the magnitude of the flow of people on tourism trips, when, as a rule, both states imposed measures of social isolation.

Thus, different from what would be expected, the reaction of tourism local authorities was immediate. With different intensities and organization, coastal destinations in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro employed procedures for containment, guidance, checking, sanitizing, and raising awareness among tourists and residents, whether in access to the destinations, or in the use of public spaces of tourist interest (mainly beaches). In some cases, mayors have signed specific decrees, including different levels of restrictions on people who are not residents or who did not work in the city; in others, the Public Prosecution Service intervened to urge municipalities to employ measures to control and monitor these flows.

Since the first legal measures, several municipalities have tightened up inspections and restraints, due to the approaching of holidays and based on the intense demand in previous months. In general, the first blocks aimed to prevent the spread of the virus and the increase in cases in the city, echoing recommendations from the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) or the World Health Organization (WHO) (Chart 1).

Chart 1
Municipal decrees - SP and RJ

Cities	Legal measures	Key aspects
Angra dos Reis (RJ)	Decree 11,596 (March 14, 2020)	Prohibition of access and permanence of tourists to the beaches and islands of Ilha Grande Bay.
Armação dos Búzios (RJ)	Decree 1,366 (March 12, 2020)	Prohibition of access by non-residents.
Arraial do Cabo (RJ)	Decree 3,054 (March 18, 2020)	Suspension or restriction of sightseeing tours, access to tourist transportation to the municipality and seasonal rental.
Bertioga (SP)	Decree 3,316 and 3,362 (April 16 e 24, 2020)	Suspension of authorizations for entry of tourist vehicles and strategic control over city accesses.
Cabo Frio (RJ)	Decree 6,205 and 6,229 (March 16 and April 9, 2020)	Sanitary barrier, restriction of access to residents, closing of shops and control of access to public spaces.
Caraguatatuba (SP)	Decree 1,231 (March 16, 2020).	Sanitary barrier in the access to the city to inform and raise awareness of passers-by, suspension of authorizations for entry of tourist vehicles.
Ilhabela (SP)	Decree 8,031 (March 20, 2020)	Definition of criteria and authorization system for access of people and cars by ferry.
Paraty (RJ)	Decree 27 (March 22, 2020)	Control and inspection of cars and people without residence in the municipality and suspension of authorization of temporary rental contracts.
Rio das Ostras (RJ)	Decree 2,507 (April 8, 2020)	Implementation of four sanitary barriers for guidance and checking.
Saquarema (RJ)	Decree 1,994 (April 2, 2020)	Prohibition of entry of tourists, vacationers and visitors through public transport, tourism, taxis, transportation by applications and private vehicles.
São Sebastião (SP)	Decree 7,712 and 7,713 (March 19 and 20, 2020)	Restriction to tourist attractions, circulation of tourist transport for a day, access of public transportation vehicles for interstate passengers
Ubatuba (SP)	Decree 7,309 (March 17, 2020)	Suspension or restriction of sightseeing tours, operation of bars and restaurants and activities that generate agglomerations, tourist transport access to the municipality and implementation of sanitary barriers

• Source: The authors based on the first municipal decrees.

Also, in April, due to Easter, Cabo Frio had already registered the blocking of 30% of cars that were bounded for the destination. Approximately 200 of the 700 cars per day at sanitary barriers were prevented from entering the city due to the presence of non-living or working people in the city. On Labor Day, 2,000 vehicles out of 20,000 were prevented from entering (Folha dos Lagos, 2020).

In June 2020, Armação dos Búzios issued a new decree, changing the initial provisions on health barriers. The change consisted of increasing the rigidity in the proof of residence of the individual who arrived in the city. This is because many homeowners made their residence vouchers available to groups that rented their home for a period, generating a fluid interpretation of the origin of individuals (O São Gonçalo, 2020).

This facilitation of the owners was also observed in Arraial do Cabo, which led to the reinforcement of the sanitary barrier on June 10, 2020. The Secretariat of Public Security and Procon started to receive complaints that businessmen and owners of vacation rental homes would be facilitating the entry of tourists in the city (Arraial do Cabo City Hall, 2020).

During the restriction of access to Ilhabela, the effects of rule circumvention by some groups were clear. According to residents, there was no proper inspection of delivery personnel, boats, and helicopters. There are reports of increased circulation during the Labor Day holiday period and, weeks later, the number of COVID-19 cases increased eight times, consolidating community transmission in the territory (Garcia, 2020).

On the other hand, in Paraty, since the beginning of the pandemic, local residents have organized themselves to guarantee their isolation, with the creation of an independent sanitary barrier in the neighborhoods. The community developed a guidance manual with safety procedures motivated by the large number of cars that entered the city during holidays (Vai Paraty, 2020).

After the municipal decree of Angra dos Reis that limited access to Ilha Grande, fishermen held a protest and blocked the landing of boats on the island. The boatmen put tile with steel cables with their boats to isolate the pier of Vila do Abraão and prevent them from docking at the place (Cristine, 2020). In São Sebastião, residents “harassed” tourists who, even with the decree banning access to the various attractions, remained on the beach (Veja, 2020).

These examples demonstrate how some tourists activate their networks of influence more easily than others: even if normative instruments imposed barriers, tourists and residents (re)produce their network territories, despite the institutional dimension of the rules. Second homes (a phenomenon historically widespread in the regions under study) are apparently the reinforcer and facilitator of these flows.

There are, on the one hand, tourists trying to operate the identity of residents by traveling “along circuits that channel flows” (Haesbaert, 2020, p. 2), through road systems and automobiles; on the other local groups - exercising their residents' fixity – exert pressure in the opposite direction, seeking to increase frictions in the flows that demand the coast, either independently (by erecting informal barriers), or institutionalized (municipal decrees issued by the local authorities or actions undertaken by the Justice in the public interest).

It seems that the feeling of anxiety about mobility (Cresswell, 2006) is wide open in these uncompromising displacements, made possible especially by the autonomy conferred by the car (Hannam et al., 2014). The car denounces the option for moving in an apparently protected bubble, situated between the restricted (private) and the possibility to access public space (large and supposedly healthier spaces, far from the plagued metropolises). Private cars, while carrying passengers of flexible and mutant identities, are opposed to tour buses, explicitly prohibited in decrees of certain destinations, summarily repelled, making it not so easy for the vehicle and the occupants to circumvent the rules.

What kind of tourism do these controversial displacements represent? Does “living” in your beach house for a few weeks exempt a visitor from being a tourist? On the other hand, does a proof of residence permit guarantee resident status? In spite of preliminary (re)conceptualizations, hybrid identities define strategic mobility for certain groups to move between territories that suit them – in which case, hiding their status as a tourist (or, at the very least, a non-resident) is a crucial resource.

Restrictions on entry and exit of tourists (that is, non-residents) are complex and require precautionary and inspection measures from the State. In any case, it is essential to recognize that “moving physically or virtually between places can be a source of status and power” (Sheller & Urry, 2006), that assists to different groups unequally. The flexible mobility of visitors is contrasted by the immobility of others, such as residents who are generally unable to leave these locations, or potential tourists who would depend on temporary accommodation or collective vehicles (these more easily repelled in barriers). The privilege of a group that activates the mobile networks when they wish is, then, accentuated in extreme moments.

Mobility, as an instrument of power, not only with regard to inequality in access to different speeds and types of displacement, but also about how the rapid displacement of some affects the types of outreach, rhythms, and access to resources of others (Haesbaert, 2014). This “unequal mobility” is expressed by differential access or partial connectivity, by means of modes of movement that have a greater or lesser degree of ease, comfort, flexibility, and security, by the forms of the city and management of contradictory mobility regimes (Sheller, 2018b).

In contrast, there are resistance actions by residents, accentuating the encounter between institutional action (municipal decrees) and unofficial communication (articulation of residents) about the containment of tourist flows – whether on the streets and beaches and literally in the waters, as in Ilha Grande.

4.2 Tourism communication: tourism keeps flowing in the digital networks

The large number of images used in tourism communications confirms that this resource has become the main strategic support for media enunciators. Not only to materialize tourism destinations, but also to maintain and (re)elaborate its imagery (Mello, 2015).

Videos were also featured in tourism communications during the pandemic. In this context, the hybrid nature of videos has the ability to recode contemporary experiences and move through the most diverse expressions, broadening meanings, that are circumscribed in environments and continuous flows of information (Mello, 2004).

In both formats (video or photography) there is a combination of written and verbal communication: image publications with subtitles and narrated videos, in general, encourage the receiver (reader/listener). The variety was also noticed on the platforms utilized: Facebook, YouTube, and websites of official tourism agencies in the destinations.

The space represented by the images and messages is communicated during the pandemic by unpublished narratives. The narration of the video from Ilhabela summarizes the conduct of destinations, with emphasis on the contradictions between the need for momentary interruption of tourist flows and the desire for a brief return:

Everyone loves Ilhabela. (...) We like to take you for a walk, have fun, eat a bit of everything or just walk around the village. But, unfortunately, we had to close down. Even us, who enjoy inviting you to visit our island so much. Now we are with a tight heart to tell you this, but don't come to Ilhabela now. Stay at home! All of Brazil fits inside Ilhabela, but we are small and we need to close ourselves for the good of everyone. It's time to protect lives. Ours, who lives here and also yours, who likes to come here so much. We will continue here, showing you all the good things we have and when all this is over, we will be ready to welcome you, with all the security and affection you deserve. See you soon. #SEENYOUSOON

(Ilhabela, 2020. Emphasis added).

When addressing the pandemic context, requests for not traveling to Ilhabela are disseminated, with justifications communicated in an affectionate manner. The farewell refers to a near future, in which (supposedly) everyone will be together again.

In Saquarema's institutional video, a first point that draws attention in the narration is the care for the local community that, at the same time, becomes the transmitter of the message: the need to close down to care for the residents, even though it is necessary to “sacrifice” the tourism activity. Again, there is a contrast between the mass transmission of images of tourist attractions with the narration of “do not travel here now”. In another part of the video, representations of the tourism imagery highlight a “classic” tourist taking a photo, subliminally informing that the travel culture does not cool down during isolation (Figure 5).

Figure 5
Saquarema institutional video

In contrast to the role of the local population in some parts, few municipalities have dedicated themselves to the tourism worker, such as Arraial do Cabo, whose tourism office, in revering tour guides, also provides guidance on hiring the professional (Figure 6). There is still one contradiction: while encouraging the hiring of this professional, the publication brings a #fiqueemcasa [#stayhome]. This is an example of how tourism communications during the pandemic are also dedicated to mobilizing information for a regular tourism operation – although, for now, it is supposed to be interrupted.

Figure 6
Facebook post by the Arraial do Cabo Tourism Office

Local culture is very present in the communications of Paraty, by reinforcing the title of UNESCO World Heritage. A video in English reproduces a speech similar to that of Ilhabela – reinforcing the temporary character of the pandemic (it will pass), which is quite recurrent in DMOs communications around the world (Figure 7).

Figure 7
Institutional video of Paraty

The municipality of Armação dos Búzios was the one that most linked its communication to the campaign “Don't cancel, reschedule”, a perspective that tries to cope with the financial situation of tourism destinations and companies. Together, it also promotes images of the destination and the “come later” message (Figure 8). This attempt to maintain the perspective of consumption, promoting indirectly, a sense of continuity, even if tourist flows were interrupted.

Figure 8
Facebook post by the Armação dos Búzios Tourism Office

No interactions were detected about the pandemic and tourism in Rio das Ostras, Ubatuba, Bertioga and Caraguatatuba. Rio das Ostras, though it does not display active pages on social networks, has an institutional website that allows a “virtual trip”, by inviting the reader (or tourists?) to “experience its sights”. However, by not mentioning the pandemic, an apparent normality is implicit (Figure 9).

Figure 9
Website of Rio das Ostras Tourism Office

Other municipalities such as Cabo Frio (Figure 10), São Sebastião (Figure 11), and Ilhabela (Figure 12) present very direct publications on invitations to take virtual trips due to the pandemic – such as a visit to the Cultural Surfing Space (Cabo Frio).

Figure 10
Facebook post by the Cabo Frio Tourism Office

Figure 11
Facebook post by the São Sebastião Tourism Office

Figure 12
Facebook post by the Ilhabela Tourism Office

Publications from São Sebastião (Figure 11) and Ilhabela (Figure 12) illustrate a more specific focus on the pandemic, respectively: “Travel from home with Setur” and “Our thoughts are not quarantined, right? Travel on them and tell us: What was the most amazing place that you visited in Ilhabela?”

Many municipalities have dedicated themselves to raising awareness among tourists and residents. In Armação dos Búzios, a publication depicts a photo with the statue of Brigitte Bardot wearing masks, a relaxed approach that draws attention for the appropriation of an icon of the city (Figure 13).

Figure 13
Facebook post by the Armação dos Búzios Tourism Office

Some municipalities were more emphatic in the measures for containing travel, such as Ilhabela, São Sebastião, and Saquarema. These examples imply some symbolic impact (interruption of trajectories) and contrast a certain tenderness when trying to dialogue with visitors who are now unwelcome.

The Ilhabela Tourism Office presents a casual approach with no images of its tourism attractions, but the context of a home. Even in a childlike way, the “automobile” element appears in a dialogue with the common practice of accessing the destination – even if in a domestic environment (Figure 14).

Figure 14
Facebook post by the Ilhabela Tourism Office

With a similar message, São Sebastião emphasizes the possibility of contamination of the local population, a crucial argument that justifies sanitary barriers (Figure 15). The highlight is the specific orientation regarding the holiday, which is also incorporated in Saquarema (Figure 16), since the holidays were boosters for displacements, leading to the (re)installation of barriers and, thus, the promotion of communications targeting potential tourists so as to contain them in advance.

Figure 15
Facebook post by the São Sebastião Tourism Office

Figure 16
Facebook post by the Saquarema Tourism Office

In the example of Figure 16, Saquarema is more direct in the message: “We ask for respect. On this holiday, respect the population of Saquarema and do not come to the city. Complete the isolation and help to prevent the Coronavirus”. Still, indirectly, a tourism landscape of the city is promoted, as a background image in a graphic art that simulates a suitcase.

Institutional tourism communication has always had the objective of stimulating physical displacement to destinations, but during the quarantine of COVID-19, the speech has changed: the leading message now is “stop!”, “Don't come”, “travel later” – in a clear illustration of frictions imposed over flows that in general are desired. However, such advertisements, to a great extent, are built upon images of tourist attractions and they refer, implicitly and ironically, to the fluidity of traveling.

The dialogical relationship between frictions and flows of tourism is reflected in tourism communication strategies, in which the movement of different meanings and senses are present in/through communication processes, in an orderly/disordered, conscious/unconscious manner (Baldissera, 2010).

As part of chains that make “mobility systems” (Elliott & Urry, 2010), municipalities have largely used their virtual channels for various online interactions during the pandemic. Indeed, the roles of digital now expand the centrality in the field of tourism mobility, either as sources of information and entertainment, or by regulating interactions (Aldrigue, 2018).

The stimulus to physical immobility, expressed in the narrations of the videos and written messages of the examples presented, coexists with the provocation of the tourism destination itself, through the large-scale dissemination of photos of its attractions, local residents, and experiences lived by tourists. The unprecedented nature of containment and the urge to control physical flows at the global and local levels offer a range of scenarios and opportunities for deepening the imaginative and virtual dimensions of mobility.

However, such information flows already happened before the pandemic – for example, in the case of the Interactive Surf Museum of Cabo Frio, open since 2019. Although this virtual trip was not designed as a response to the pandemic, it draws attention to uses that destinations have been establishing of digital platforms and online resources as part of tourism experience (at a distance).

The great difference now is that, linked to restraining commands (friction), communications encourage the stimulation of virtual travels (fluidity) – with an apparent hope of keeping tourism active among consumer audiences, now forcibly distanced from destinations. This apparent contradiction is posed by the expression of the multi-dimensionalities of tourism mobility, proving that tourism is not exclusively made of physical movements.

In a constant game of displacement, the movement of places (places in play) was accentuated, while the frictions imposed by the pandemic prohibited – or at least, this was the attempt – tourism to take place (places to play) (Sheller & Urry, 2004). The idea of “geographically independent” lifestyles becomes clearer, thus allowing more individuals to be “free to live where they want and travel as much as they want” (Hannam et al., 2014) – even though this “desire” is modulated by rules and new dimensions of co-presence, eminently in the virtual domain.

Thus, there is a dimension of tourism mobilities that remains alive during the pandemic, within extended temporal and spatial spectra. The experiences of multi-territoriality are exacerbated, above all by – not unprecedented, but enhanced – simultaneous spatial overlap, characterized by virtual mobilities (Haesbaert, 2014), which, in this context, have a direct relationship with the information campaigns undertaken by the DMOs.

In general, when using images of everyday environment (especially, Saquarema and São Sebastião), tourism communication strategies depict an apparent care for the local population, given the need to close themselves off to care for the residents. By understanding that the tourism gaze takes place in an increasingly less specific way, the delimitation of ordinary and extraordinary spaces/times is blurred (Allis, 2016): on the one hand, it sends a message of altruism (on the part of the government) and also of familiarity, probably because most visitors to these places are second-home vacationers; on the other hand, when circulating images with intense tourism appeal, classic communication aesthetics are prioritized: “producing images with tourists in the image, [allows] the reader to imagine himself physically in the landscape. Such images guide the reader's fantasies, making them seem realizable: this could be me!” (Larsen, 2002, p. 35).

An obvious approximation that could be made between communication and tourism were perhaps the attempts to stimulate some form of virtual tourism, replacing tourism in situ, an impossible, prohibited or not recommended practice at this time. However, as the concepts of tourism mobilities points out, it is urgent to go beyond one-dimensional approach to tourism. Here, there is a general attempt by the destinations to maintain a dialogue (through the constant flow of messages and images through virtual networks) with visitors, who are prevented from accessing the cities. Dialogue that is expected to be converted back into face-to-face tourism practices, in a future that, although promised, cannot be specified at what time it will occur.

5 CONCLUSION

This work highlighted the mobility that goes beyond physical displacement, demonstrating that tourism (im)mobilities (as a concept and practice) is not restricted to the travel of tourist bodies. In reality, tourism also encompasses several imaginative mobilities, which were more evident during the pandemic. However, there are not only dichotomies and contradictions, but also intersections and transversality when it comes to tourism mobility. Local government measures to close municipal boundaries and limit circulation are recurrent and affect the movement of people and objects, as well as tourism. However, restrictions on access and control at local level are a direct response to the insistence on access by non-locals during the pandemic - which would be a contradiction despite the urgency of controlling the spread of the virus.

Attempts by non-residents to enter, usually to enjoy second homes or rented houses, stood out in this plot. A fluid character of identities sought to be activated to, in convenient situations, guarantee the privileges of mobility, when the context imposes the control of circulations. Thus, this benefit (traveling by car, even when the frictions imposed indicate the unwanted character of the visit) is exercised in a dangerous manner: bodies in motion towards tourist destinations can be vectors of propagation of COVID-19, so that local agents (government or communities), which in normal situations crave tourist visits, now combine to regulate these mobility regimes through physical restraint and rejection of these flows.

On the other hand, public and private agents sought to foresee the near return of post-pandemic tourism: even with messages of remoteness, the communication schemes continued to foster a culture of travel in the imaginative arena. People move around and visit places that they will swear to visit “when all this is over”. Imaginative mobilities provoked through images that portray the tourism destination that, although now unrhythmic, still circulates in the imagination of potential visitors. Thus, it could hardly be said that tourism stopped – despite the barriers and controls in accessing the destinations. Ironically, tourism remains active, even if only in the imaginary and due to the displacement of a small privileged group – which, in general, circumvents rules of access to destinations. Such regime of tourism mobilities, therefore, opens up asymmetric powers of access, enjoyment, and production of space.

It was not the purpose of this paper to establish a causal relationship between the flows of the “tourists of the pandemic” and the images and messages conveyed, mainly because the subjects are also builders and constructions of/in the communication process, not just being passive poles. However, the instigating convergence of these dimensions of mobility reinforces the urgency of a new problematization over tourism activities during the pandemic, which continues to take place – whether in the persistence (by travelers) of these flows, or in the incessant circulation of images of a clearly tourism nature, even though it aims to control the flows of visitors.

This work not only addresses issues that happen during the pandemic, but it is also written as it unfolds. So, it is a dated work. The perceptions, analyses, and conclusions are influenced by the responses and reactions that academics, private agents, and tourism managers have been expressing. Thus, we recognize that, in its empirical aspect, the choice of communications (selected intentionally, albeit with some scope) and attention to the first municipal decrees to face the pandemic (in general, between March and April 2020) may have limited some aspects of the proposed analysis. Even so, we recovered one of the intentions of the work, which we think has been achieved: to grasp how tourism evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic, making use of tourism mobilities as a key concept.

In fact, the contrast and combination of mobilities and immobilities in their various dimensions provided timely elements for understanding the context as well as to collaborate with a theoretical elaboration in process – which extrapolates the phenomena observed during the pandemic. Therefore, such a window for reflection that the pandemic opens, allows to put the episteme of tourism itself in motion. Realizing this represents an exercise of placing tourism at the center of the mobility debate, in the perspective of an epistemic turn.

Amidst countless studies on post-pandemic tourism, without neglecting the need to foresee future scenarios, it is essential to understand with responsibility the unfolding of the effects of the pandemic (and any other crisis) in the present, under the risk of the future being a space-time that is too abstract, a priori. And, even worse, detached from emerging issues in the process.

Thus, (more) mobilities justice would need to be thought of on the body, street, urban, national, and planetary scales. This is, in fact, the underlying commitment of this (not so) new mobilities paradigm. That is why the relevance – even during a pandemic – of reflecting upon multiple representations of tourism and not just urging their recovery in a future that is little known. Tourism mobilities – especially in the context of the pandemic – can inform a lot about an intricate regime of mobilities, which are essentially unequal.

In addition to studies that consider other locations in Brazil and the world, this work points out to other agendas for future work – especially if they choose to support the analysis of concrete problems under the broader umbrella of tourism mobilities: studies in communication and marketing (semiotics, virtual/augmented reality, human-machine interaction, decision-making processes for purchasing, and evaluating quality), constitutional and administrative law, destination planning and management (in the face of new tourism dynamics), community studies (identity, socio-cultural impacts), public and collective health (sanitary and epidemiological aspects), and so on.

• How to cite: Carneiro, J.; Allis. T. (2021). How does tourism move during the COVID-19 pandemic? Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo, São Paulo, 15 (1), 2212.http://dx.doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v15i1.2212

REFERÊNCIAS

• Aguiar, S. (2020). COVID-19: A doença dos espaços de fluxos. Geographia, 22(48), p. 51-74. https://doi.org/10.22409/GEOgraphia2020.v22i48.a42848
  » https://doi.org/10.22409/GEOgraphia2020.v22i48.a42848
• Aldrigue, N. S. (2018). O turismo para a comunicação ou a comunicação para o turismo? Quem consome quem? CENÁRIO, 6(10), p. 72-84. https://doi.org/10.26512/revistacenario.v6i10.18761
  » https://doi.org/10.26512/revistacenario.v6i10.18761
• Allis, T. (2016). Em busca das mobilidades turísticas. Plural, 23(2), p. 94-117. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2176-8099.pcso.2016.125112
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2176-8099.pcso.2016.125112
• Alves, F. G., Costa, H. S. & Perinotto, A. R. C. (2017). Instagram como ferramenta para fidelização de clientes: Fotografia, Redes Sociais e Turismo. Marketing & Tourism Review, 2(2), dez.
• Baba, C., St?ncioiu, A.-F., Gabor, M. R., Alexe, F.-A., Oltean, F. D., & Dinu, A. C. (2020). Considerations regarding the effects of COVID-19 on the tourism market. Theoretical and Applied Economics, XXVII(3), p. 271–284.
• Bajardi, P., Poletto, C., Ramasco, J. J., Tizzoni, M., Colizza, V., & Vespignani, A. (2011). Human mobility networks, travel restrictions, and the global spread of 2009 H1N1 pandemic. PLOS ONE, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016591
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016591
• Baldissera, R. (2010). Comunicação Turística. Rosa dos Ventos, 1(1), p. 6-15.
• Baptista, M. R. C. (2014). Cartografia de Saberes na Pesquisa em Turismo: Proposições Metodológicas para uma Ciência em Mutação. Revista Rosa dos Ventos, 6(3), p. 342-355.
• Baum, T., & Hai, N. T. T. (2020). Hospitality, tourism, human rights and the impact of COVID-19. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(7), p. 2397 - 2407. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2020-0242
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2020-0242
• Belik, V., Geisel, T., & Brockmann, D. (2011). Natural Human Mobility Patterns and Spatial Spread of Infectious Diseases. Physical Review X, 1(1), p. 1-5.
• Chang, C.-L., McAleer, M., & Ramos, V. (2020). A charter for sustainable tourism after COVID-19. Sustainability, 12(9), p. 1-4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093671
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093671
• Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: mobility in the modern western world Routledge.
• Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a Politics of Mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28 https://doi.org/10.1068/d11407
  » https://doi.org/10.1068/d11407
• Depoux, A., Martin, S., Karafillakis, E., Preet, R., Wilder-Smith, A., & Larson, H. (2020). The pandemic of social media panic travels faster than the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Travel Medicine, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa031
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa031
• Elliott, A., & Urry, J. (2010). Mobile Lives Routledge.
• Epstein, J. M., Goedecke, D. M., Yu, F., Morris, R. J., Wagener, D. K., & Bobashev, G. V. (2007). Controlling pandemic flu: The value of international air travel restrictions. PLOS ONE, 2(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000401
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000401
• Ferrari, C. M. M. & Gandara, J.M. (2015). Fotografias de viagens: replicando cenas da viagem perfeita em Curitiba/PR. Caderno Virtual de Turismo, 15(2), p. 112-130, ago.
• Freire-Medeiros, B., Telles, V., & Allis, T. (2018). Por uma teoria social on the move. Tempo Social, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2018.142654
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2018.142654
• Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 0(0), p. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
• Haesbaert, R. (2014). Viver no limite: território e multi/transterritorialidade em tempos de insegurança e contenção Bertrand.
• Haesbaert, R. (2020). Reflexões geográficas em tempos de pandemia. Espaço e Economia, 18 https://doi.org/10.4000/espacoeconomia.11826
  » https://doi.org/10.4000/espacoeconomia.11826
• Hall, M. (2011). Biosecurity, tourism and mobility: Institutional arrangements for managing tourism-related biological invasions. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3(3), p. 256-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2011.576868
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2011.576868
• Hall, M., Scott, D., & Gössling, S. (2020). Pandemics, transformations and tourism: be careful what you wish for. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), p. 577–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1759131
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1759131
• Hannam K., Sheller M., & Urry, J. (2006). Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings. Mobilities, 1 https://doi.org/10.1080/17450100500489189
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17450100500489189
• Hannam, K., Butler, G., & Paris, C. M. (2014). Developments and key issues in tourism mobilities. Annals of Tourism Research, 44(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.09.010
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.09.010
• Haywood, K. M. (2020). A post COVID-19 future - tourism re-imagined and re-enabled. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), p. 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1762120
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1762120
• Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2020a): Socialising tourism for social and ecological justice after COVID-19, Tourism Geographies, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1757748
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1757748
• Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2020b). The “war over tourism”: challenges to sustainable tourism in the tourism academy after COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, p. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1803334
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1803334
• Iacus, S. M., Natale, F., Santamaria, C., Spyratos, S., & Vespe, M. (2020). Estimating and projecting air passenger traffic during the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak and its socio-economic impact. Safety Science, 129 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104791
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104791
• Iaquinto, B. L. (2020). Tourist as vector: Viral mobilities of COVID-19. Dialogues in Human Geography, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820620934250
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820620934250
• Ioannides, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity for escaping the unsustainable global tourism path. Tourism Geographies, May. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1763445
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1763445
• Jamal, T. & Budke, C. (2020). Tourism in a world with pandemics: local-global responsibility and action. Journal of Tourism Futures, 6(2), p. 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-02-2020-0014
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-02-2020-0014
• Kaufman, V. (2010). Re-Thinking Mobility: Contemporary Sociology Ashgate.
• Kunz, J. G. (2015). As Mobilidades Turísticas como Objeto de Pesquisa: Um Panorama dos Periódicos Estrangeiros. Rosa Dos Ventos, 7(3), p. 377–391.
• Larsen, J. (2002). (Dis)Connecting Tourism and Photography: Corporeal Travel and Imaginative Travel Early photography. Journeys, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.3167/jys.2004.050202
  » https://doi.org/10.3167/jys.2004.050202
• Martin, G., & Boland, M. (2018). Planning and preparing for public health threats at airports. Globalization and Health, 14(28). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0323-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0323-3
• Mello, C. (2004). Extremidades do vídeo: o vídeo na cultura digital. Conexão – Comunicação e Cultura, 3(6).
• Mello, C. M. (2015). O modelo semiótico de análise e leitura sensorial de fotografias turísticas. Revista Hospitalidade, 12(1), jun.
• Meloni, S., Perra, N., Arenas, A., Gómez, S., Moreno, Y., & Vespignani, A. (2011). Modeling human mobility responses to the large-scale spreading of infectious diseases. Scientific Reports, 1(62), p. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00062
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00062
• Merler, S., Ajelli, M., Pugliese, A., & Ferguson, N. M. (2011). Determinants of the spatiotemporal dynamics of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Europe: Implications for real-time modelling. PLoS Computational Biology, 7(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002205
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002205
• Ministério do Turismo. (2019). 30 Rotas Turísticas Estratégicas Recuperado de http://www.turismo.gov.br/images/InvesteTurismo/Rotas_Turísticas_Estratégicas-InvesteTurismo.pdf
  » http://www.turismo.gov.br/images/InvesteTurismo/Rotas_Turísticas_Estratégicas-InvesteTurismo.pdf
• Mostafanezhad, M., Cheer, J. M., & Sin, H. L. (2020). Geopolitical anxieties of tourism: (Im)mobilities of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dialogues in Human Geography, 10(2), p. 182-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820620934206
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820620934206
• Oliveira Neto, T., Garcia, T. de S. L., & Spinussi, E. (2020). Pandemia de COVID-19, as fronteiras pelo mundo e o transporte aéreo na Itália. Confins, 44 https://doi.org/10.4000/confins.27577
  » https://doi.org/10.4000/confins.27577
• Renaud, L. (2020). Reconsidering global mobility–distancing from mass cruise tourism in the aftermath of COVID-19. Tourism Geographies, p. 679-689. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1762116
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1762116
• Sánchez, M. M. (2020). Flujos turísticos, geopolítica y COVID-19: cuando los turistas internacionales son vectores de transmisión. Geopolítica(s). Revista de Estudios Sobre Espacio y Poder, 11(Especial). https://doi.org/10.5209/geop.69249
  » https://doi.org/10.5209/geop.69249
• Seabra, A. L. de C. (2017). A competitividade entre destinos na era digital: Uma análise do potencial das mídias sociais no incremento da atratividade turística do destino Portugal. Turismo & Sociedade, 10(3), 1-25, set-dez. http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/tes.v10i3.54966
  » https://doi.org/10.5380/tes.v10i3.54966
• Sheller, M. (2014). Sociology after the Mobilities Turn. In P. Adey, D. Bissel, K. Hannam & M Sheller (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Mobilities Routledge.
• Sheller, M. (2018a). Mobility justice: the politics of movement in an age of extremes. Verso.
• Sheller, M. (2018b). Theorizing mobility justice. Tempo Social, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2018.142763
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2018.142763
• Sheller, M. (2020). Reconstructing tourism in the Caribbean: connecting pandemic recovery, climate resilience and sustainable tourism through mobility justice. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, p. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1791141
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1791141
• Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2004). Tourism Mobilities: places to play, place in play Routledge.
• Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities' paradigm. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 38(2). https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268
  » https://doi.org/10.1068/a37268
• Shi, Q., Dorling, D., Cao, G., & Liu, T. (2020). Changes in population movement make COVID-19 spread differently from SARS. Social Science and Medicine, 255(May). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113036
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113036
• Silva, S.K.M. & Alves, M.L.B. (2014). Fotografias da “Cidade do Sol”: um registro de revelações e ocultações. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo, 8(3), p. 456-475, set./dez. https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v8i3.807
  » https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v8i3.807
• Tremblay-Huet, S. (2020). COVID-19 leads to a new context for the “right to tourism”: a reset of tourists’ perspectives on space appropriation is needed. Tourism Geographies, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1759136
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1759136
• Trigo, L. G. G. (2020). Viagens e turismo: dos cenários imaginados às realidades disruptivas. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo, 14(3), p. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v14i3.2107
  » https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v14i3.2107
• Urry, J. (2000). Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century Routledge.
• World Health Organization [WHO]. (2020, march 11). WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 2020 Recuperado de https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020
  » https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020
• World Tourism Organization [UNWTO]. (2020, april 28). COVID-19 related travel restrictions a global review for tourism. Second report. Recuperado de https://webunwto.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-04/TravelRestrictions%20-%2028%20April.pdf
  » https://webunwto.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-04/TravelRestrictions%20-%2028%20April.pdf
• Yu, M., Li, Z., Yu, Z., He, J., & Zhou, J. (2020). Communication related health crisis on social media: a case of COVID-19 outbreak. Current Issues in Tourism, April. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1752632
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1752632
• Zheng, Y., Goh, E., & Wen, J. (2020). The effects of misleading media reports about COVID-19 on Chinese tourists’ mental health: a perspective article. Anatolia, 31(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1747208
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1747208

ON-LINE REFERENCES

• Cristine, M. (2020, March 17). Pescadores bloqueiam desembarque de barca em Ilha Grande, após decreto devido ao coronavírus. Extra. Saúde e Ciência. Recuperado 17 Maio 2020, de https://extra.globo.com/noticias/saude-e-ciencia/pescadores-bloqueiam-desembarque-de-barca-em-ilha-grande-apos-decree-devido-ao-coronavirus-rv1-1-24309995.html
  » https://extra.globo.com/noticias/saude-e-ciencia/pescadores-bloqueiam-desembarque-de-barca-em-ilha-grande-apos-decree-devido-ao-coronavirus-rv1-1-24309995.html
• Folha dos Lagos. (2020, April 14). Quase 30% dos veículos são barrados nas barreiras sanitárias em Cabo Frio. Recuperado 14 apr. 2020, de https://www.folhadoslagos.com/geral/quase-30-dos-veiculos-sao-barrados-nas-barreiras-sanitarias-em-cabo/13030/
  » https://www.folhadoslagos.com/geral/quase-30-dos-veiculos-sao-barrados-nas-barreiras-sanitarias-em-cabo/13030/
• G1. Santa Catarina. (2020, May 21). Balneário Camboriú, São Joaquim e outras cidades montam barreiras sanitárias por causa da pandemia. Recuperado 21 Maio 2020, de https://g1.globo.com/sc/santa-catarina/noticia/2020/05/21/balneario-camboriu-sao-joaquim-e-outras-cidades-montam-barreiras-sanitarias-por-causa-da-pandemia.ghtml
  » https://g1.globo.com/sc/santa-catarina/noticia/2020/05/21/balneario-camboriu-sao-joaquim-e-outras-cidades-montam-barreiras-sanitarias-por-causa-da-pandemia.ghtml
• Garcia, D. (2020, May 16). Mesmo com balsa restrita, Ilhabela enfrenta multiplicação de casos de coronavírus. Folha de São Paulo. Recuperado 16 Maio 2020, de https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2020/05/mesmo-com-balsa-fechada-ilhabela-enfrenta-multiplicacao-de-casos-de-coronavirus.shtml
  » https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2020/05/mesmo-com-balsa-fechada-ilhabela-enfrenta-multiplicacao-de-casos-de-coronavirus.shtml
• Gonçalves, E. & Siqueira, A. (2020, May 19). Feriadão em SP preocupa prefeitos de locais turísticos: ‘Tremendo absurdo’. Veja. Recuperado 19 Maio 2020, de https://veja.April.com.br/brasil/feriadao-em-sp-preocupa-prefeitos-de-locais-turisticos-tremendo-absurdo/
  » https://veja.April.com.br/brasil/feriadao-em-sp-preocupa-prefeitos-de-locais-turisticos-tremendo-absurdo/
• Ilhabela. (2020, mar 24). Ilhabela ate daqui a pouco - fique em casa. Recuperado 24 mar. 2020, de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CJ7Y5LmUHE&feature=youtu.be
  » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CJ7Y5LmUHE&feature=youtu.be
• O São Gonçalo. (2020, junho 2). Búzios continua com as barreiras sanitárias. Recuperado 02 jun. 2020, de https://www.osaogoncalo.com.br/regiao-dos-lagos/83574/buzios-continua-com-as-barreiras-sanitarias
  » https://www.osaogoncalo.com.br/regiao-dos-lagos/83574/buzios-continua-com-as-barreiras-sanitarias
• Passa Palavra. Paraty. (2020, jun 14). Como fazer uma barreira sanitária no seu bairro? Recuperado 14 jun. 2020, de https://passapalavra.info/2020/06/132546/
  » https://passapalavra.info/2020/06/132546/
• Prefeitura de Arraial do Cabo. (2020, junho 10). [Instagram] Recuperado 10 jun. 2020, de https://www.instagram.com/p/CBgDZaVlo8t/
  » https://www.instagram.com/p/CBgDZaVlo8t/
• Tomazela, J. M. (2020, julho 3). Cidades do Interior fecham tudo em fim de semana para evitar o turista de chácara. O Estado de S. Paulo. Recuperado 3 Jul. 2020, de https://sao-paulo.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,cidades-do-interior-fecham-tudo-em-fim-de-semana-para-evitar-turista-de-chacara,70003353292
  » https://sao-paulo.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,cidades-do-interior-fecham-tudo-em-fim-de-semana-para-evitar-turista-de-chacara,70003353292
• Tomazela, J. M. (2020, May 21). Isolamento em cidades do litoral de SP cai com 'megaferiado' na capital. UOL. Recuperado 21 Maio 2020, de https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/agencia-estado/2020/05/21/litoral-paulista-rejeita-turistas-isolamento-cai.htm?cmpid=
  » https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/agencia-estado/2020/05/21/litoral-paulista-rejeita-turistas-isolamento-cai.htm?cmpid=
• UOL, Coronavírus. (2020, agosto 13). Justiça derruba decrees que restringiam entrada em Ilhabela na pandemia. Recuperado 13 Ago. 2020, de https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/agencia-estado/2020/07/04/justica-derruba-decrees-que-restringiam-entrada-em-ilhabela-na-pandemia.htm
  » https://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/agencia-estado/2020/07/04/justica-derruba-decrees-que-restringiam-entrada-em-ilhabela-na-pandemia.htm
• Vai Paraty. (2020, junho 25). Associação de Moradores faz pesquisa e 63% dos moradores decidem pela continuação da barreira na entrada. Só entra morador! Recuperado 25 Jun. 2020, de https://vaiparaty.com.br/associacao-de-moradores-faz-pesquisa-e-63-dos-moradores-decidem-pela-continuacao-da-barreira-na-entrada-so-entra-morador/
  » https://vaiparaty.com.br/associacao-de-moradores-faz-pesquisa-e-63-dos-moradores-decidem-pela-continuacao-da-barreira-na-entrada-so-entra-morador/
• Veja. (2020, April 11). Moradores hostilizam turistas que descumprem quarentena em praia de SP. Recuperado 11 apr. 2020, de https://veja.April.com.br/brasil/moradores-hostilizam-turistas-que-foram-a-praia-de-barra-do-sahy/
  » https://veja.April.com.br/brasil/moradores-hostilizam-turistas-que-foram-a-praia-de-barra-do-sahy/

Edited by

Editor:

Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira Santos.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  19 Mar 2021
• Date of issue
  Jan-Apr 2021

History

• Received
  01 Aug 2020
• Accepted
  27 Oct 2020