Tourism Policy and Planning Implementation

Issues and Challenges

Konstantinos Andriotis, Dimitrios Stylidis, Adi Weidenfeld, Konstantinos Andriotis, Dimitrios Stylidis, Adi Weidenfeld

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351669658
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Hospitality, Travel & Tourism Industry
• Index: Business

Policy and planning are particularly important in tourism due to their multi-faceted nature and the complexity of inter-organisational relations and collaboration. This book sheds light onto these interrelations through the critical review of tourism planning policies and their measurable outcomes. Looking at a range of policies in a variety of countries at both micro and macro levels, it considers both the failures and successes of implementing tourism policies and planning initiatives. Policies discussed throughout include: cross-border tourism, planning in post-conflict destinations and sustainable tourism development.

This multidisciplinary volume furthers knowledge of the impacts of planning and policy implementation on tourism development both present and future. Written by an international team of highly esteemed academics from some of the world's leading institutions, this will be a valuable resource for students and researchers in tourism, sociology, geography, development studies, politics, economics, and management.

1 Introduction

Konstantinos Andriotis and Dimitrios Stylidis

Introduction

The constant development of tourism at new or established destinations produces a number of impacts – ranging from economic and sociocultural to environmental – that an increasing number of host communities worldwide are experiencing in their everyday life. After the 1960s, a plethora of studies (e.g. Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Huayhuaca et al., 2010; Gursoy, Chi & Dyer, 2010; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Stylidis & Terzidou, 2014; Stylidis, 2017) measured residents’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism as a way to monitor these impacts with results indicating residents’ belief that tourism, apart from being seen as a panacea, is often considered responsible for social, cultural, environmental, and even economic ‘damage’ to the host destination.

Residents’ concerns regarding the development of the industry are attributed, according to past research (Andriotis, 2004a; 2010; 2016; Aslam et al., 2014; Gu and Ryan, 2008; Mawby, 2017; Mbaiwa, Kgathi and Motsholapheko, 2017; Mohan, Nabin and Sgro, 2007; Stylidis et al., 2014), to negative impacts such as increased cost of living, inflation, noise and traffic, changes in hosts’ way of life, environmental pollution, crowding, and increased crime. Negative impacts especially on the environment, natural or artificial, can have significant and irreversible effects on a destination: if place resources are degraded, then the reasons for visiting a destination will no longer exist and at the same time the quality of life of the host population will be diminished.

On the other hand, among the most frequently reported benefits derived from tourism development (e.g. Akis, Peristianis & Warner, 1996; Andriotis, 2004b; Chen & Var, 2010; Das & Sharma, 2009; McDowall & Choi, 2010; Monterrubio & Andriotis, 2014; Monterrubio, 2010; Terzidou, Stylidis & Szivas, 2008) are increased employment opportunities, investments and income, improvements in the local infrastructure, increase in recreation opportunities, and greater variety of cultural activities.

To minimize or even avoid the negative impacts of tourism and increase its positive ones, planning and policy implementation is required. Through planning and policy under-developed or developing destinations can acquire guidelines for further tourism development, while developed destinations can revitalise their tourism sector and sustain its viability (Andriotis, 2011; Boukas & Ziakas, 2013; Stylidis, 2017). It is the aim of this introductory chapter to review the various planning and policy approaches and the ways these are implemented. In doing so, this chapter is divided into four sections. Following this introductory part, the second section reviews the various tourism planning and policy approaches; the third section discusses implementation of tourism planning and policy and the fourth section covers the contents of this edited book.

Tourism policy and planning approaches

This section presents the five dominant approaches in tourism planning identified in the literature followed by the three main ones recognized in tourism policy making.

Tourism planning approaches

Tourism planning, defined by Getz (1987) as “a process based on research and evaluation, which seeks to optimise the potential contribution of tourism to human welfare and environmental quality” (p. 3), is about setting and meeting objectives for the future. To achieve the goals of tourism development and the needs of a tourist receiving destination, tourism planning involves a series of actions designed to realise either a single goal or a balance between several interrelated goals (Yan & Morpeth, 2015). As Murphy (1985) suggests “planning is concerned with anticipating and regulating change in a system to promote orderly development” (p. 156). This change has several social, economic, cultural, and environmental implications and planning aims to increase positive effects such as to generate income and employment, improve community welfare, and ensure resource conservation.

The first step in planning typically involves the recognition by government that tourism is a desirable option for development that should be carefully planned. The next step proceeds with an overall plan for the development of a destination’s resources considering local conditions and demands (Spanoudis, 1982: 314). To design a successful plan, it is required to start with setting and understanding the development objectives to be achieved at national, regional, or local levels. These objectives are:

A statement of the desired outcomes of developing tourism in a destination and may include a wide range of aims, such as job creation, economic diversification, the support of public services, the conservation or redevelopment of traditional buildings and, of course, the provision of recreational opportunities for tourists.

(Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997: 116)

Five approaches to tourism planning can be identified in the literature (Getz, 1986; Yan & Morpeth, 2015) which when implemented can result in various environmental, economic, and socio-cultural impacts (Figure 1.1). Each of these traditions and their implications are analyzed in the next subsections, presented in chronological order, although it is acknowledged that they may occur simultaneously (Table 1.1). This section will briefly outline each of these approaches.

Figure 1.1 Tourism policy and planning process

Table 1.1 Timelines for traditions of tourism planning

Source: Cooper and Hall (2008: 197–198).

Boosterism

Boosterism assumes that tourism development is a priori beneficial for tourism destinations and host communities. For this reason, there is a need to attract large numbers of tourists without considering the carrying capacity levels of the destination. Under this tradition, environmental and cultural resources are promoted as assets to stimulate market interest and increase economic benefits and barriers to development are reduced (Andriotis, 2000; 2018; Dredge, 1999; Getz, 1987; Hall, 1991). In effect, tourism develops as an unplanned activity without any concern for environmental and cultural preservation, land planning, awareness of the indigenous population about the tourism industry (Andriotis, 2001a; 2005), and as a consequence it results in many negative effects to the local community (Archer, Cooper & Ruhanen, 2005).

In practice, most tourism problems are attributed to laissez-faire tourism policies and insufficient planning (Andriotis, 2007; 2018; Andriotis & Vaughan, 2009; Edgell, 1990; Edgell & Swanson, 2013), and although some destinations have benefited from tourism development without any “conscious” planning, there are others suffering from the lack of it. As a result of such laissez-faire policies “local residents are not included in the planning process and the carrying capacity of the region is not given adequate consideration” (Page, 1995: 177). Boosterism is a top-down approach to planning that ignores sustainability and is practised entirely by “politicians who philosophically or pragmatically believe that economic growth is always to be promoted, and by others who will gain financially by tourism” (Getz, 1987: 10).

Economic, industry-oriented approach

Tourism is considered as a vehicle for economic development and a leading economic force for many developing countries and regions. For this reason, under the economic, industry-oriented approach, the main aim is to generate jobs and income to improve the balance of payments, to bring hard currency, maximise productivity, and by doing this it is believed to increase prosperity and community welfare (Andriotis, 2001b; 2002b; 2002c). The main priority of this tradition of tourism planning is to achieve economic growth, giving lower priority to the environmental and socio-cultural impacts of increasing tourism activity.

Destinations continuously seek to attract visitors and to develop further tourism for economic reasons (Cooper & Hall, 2008). Bearing this in mind the economic, industry-oriented approach focuses on the competitiveness of the destinations and aims to provide the right product for the consumer (the tourist), and therefore it is “market oriented” (Braddon, 1982: 246). Among the main weaknesses of this approach is that it fails to adequately account for the environmental and socio-cultural impacts brought about by tourism to host communities and destinations, as the next two approaches do. As a consequence, it may result in over-tourism and its associated negative effects as has been reported for several tourism destinations such as Barcelona and Venice.

Physical/spatial approach

The two aforementioned approaches (boosterism and economic, industry-oriented) support planning that provides attractions, facilities, and services that the tourist market demands and results in environmental degradation and loss of socio-cultural integrity of a tourist receiving destination, even though it may bring short-term economic benefits (Inskeep, 1991: 30). Thus, several scholars questioned the net benefits and economic efficiency of tourism development and called for new approaches to tourism planning able to replace the existing models of continuous growth. As a result, traditional forms of environmental protection, based on rational decision making, emerged.

The physical/spatial approach is concerned with the environment and the community itself. It views tourism as a “user” of natural and cultural resources and in the planning of tourism gives high priority to environmental conservation (Yan & Morpeth, 2015: 9). Under this planning approach, tourism aims to sustain and secure land use and physical infrastructure, so that tourism activity will not surpass a destination’s carrying capacity levels. This planning approach, which undertakes a geographical perspective, postulates that a destination with structured design and layout would entice tourists’ visitation, providing the necessary open space for them.

Community approach

For too long the orientation of tourism planning has been guided by the needs and wants of the tourist (Ritchie, 1993). The gradual recognition of the adverse impacts of tourism development on the local environment and population, as well as the central role hosts play in tourism, since “tourism, like no other industry, relies on the goodwill and cooperation of local people because they are part of its product” (Murphy, 1985: 153), led several researchers (e.g. Cooke, 1982; Hall, 2008; Haywood, 1988; Inskeep, 1999; Murphy, 1985; Ritchie, 1993) to contribute to the development of the so-called “community approach” in tourism planning.

The supporters of the community approach advocate that as residents are influenced by tourism, they have the right to be actively involved in the decision making that significantly affects their lives. Residents are the most appropriate/relevant population in defining which tourism impacts are acceptable and which are not, and whether tourism development is desirable, because as Richardson and Long (1991) state, residents are there to stay in contrast to tourists who are temporary members of the community. Similarly, Mill and Morrison (2002) argue that, above all, the local people must be protagonists in determining the future of tourism in their community.

Through planning, communities can maintain local control and improve their quality of life (Inskeep, 1999; Loukissas, 1983; Pearce, 1981). However, as Potter et al. (1999) suggest, in practice community participation has little influence in policy making. Similarly, Dowling (1993) asserts that even though “research into community attitudes towards tourism is reasonably well-developed, incorporation of such views into the planning process is far less common” (p. 53).

A community approach, as such, calls for the active participation of the host population in the design and management of tourism (Ritchie, 1993) because socially responsible tourism could be achieved through this process (Jamal & Getz, 1995). In a similar vein, Cooke (1982) argues that “tourism development which is subordinate to local character and identity as well as to local needs, wants and priorities is the best possible guarantee against tourism saturation” (p. 26). Along with Prentice (1993), “community involvement in tourism development has become an ideology of tourism planning, akin to the participatory planning ideologies of the 1970s in urban and regional planning” (p. 218). In support of the community approach, study findings (e.g. Cooke, 1982; Gursoy et al., 2002; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Nunkoo et al., 2018; Teye et al., 2002) suggest that a limited involvement of residents in tourism planning can lead to negative perceptions of tourism. Gursoy et al. (2002), Lankford and Howard (1994), and Madrigal (1993), for instance, found that resident involvement in local decision-making regarding tourism favourably influenced their perceptions of impacts and level o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Preface
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Tourism planning: rhetoric and
• 3. Rethinking the role and practice of destination community involvement in tourism
• 4. Tourism policy and planning in post-conflict destinations: comparative cases of Northern Ireland
• 5. Challenging tourism contexts for planning and policy: revitalising failing destinations
• 6. Tourism in a protected landscape: challenges to sustainable development
• 7. Changes to the national institutional framework for tourism in Chile: the use and impact of evaluation reports in the policymaking process
• 8. Tourism development in the absence of relevant tourism policy
• 9. Cooperation, border tourism, and policy implications
• 10. Conclusions
• Index