Planning is important in tourism for a wide range of reasons. First, through the capacity of physical planning processes to control development, it provides a mechanism for a structured provision of tourist facilities and associated infrastructure over quite large geographic areas.
This geographic dimension has become a more significant aspect as tourism has developed.
Initially, most forms of tourism planning were localised and site-specific, reflecting the rather limited horizons that originally characterised most patterns of tourism. But as the spatial range of tourists has become more extensive as mobility levels have increased, planning systems that are capable of coordinating development over regional, national and even international spaces have become more necessary.
In view of the natural patterns of fragmentation within tourism (with its multiplicity of providers and tourist segments), any systems that permit coordination of activity are likely to become essential to the development of the industry’s potential. This fragmentation is mirrored in the many different elements that are often required to come together within a tourism plan, including accommodation, attractions, transportation, marketing and a range of human resources (see Figure 7.2). Given the diverse patterns of ownership and control of these factors in most destinations, a planning system that provides both integration and structure to these disparate elements is clearly of value (Inskeep, 1991). Planning systems (when applied in a marketing context) will also enable the promotion and management of tourism places and their products, once they are formed.
Planning can also be a mechanism for the distribution and redistribution of tourism-related investment and economic benefits. This is a particularly important role for planning given that tourism is becoming an industry of global significance but one where activity does not fall evenly across different regions and where the spatial patterns of tourist preference are
also prone to variation through time. Planning may assist both the development of new tourist places and, where necessary, the economic realignment of established places that tourists have begun to desert.
The integration of tourism into planning systems gives the industry a political significance (since most planning systems are subject to political influence and control) and therefore provides a measure of status and legitimacy for an activity that has not always been taken too seriously as a force for economic and social change.
A common goal of planning is to anticipate likely demand patterns and to attempt to match supply to those demands. Furthermore, through the exercise of proper controls over physical development and service delivery, planning will aim to maximise visitor satisfaction. There is now ample evidence from around the world that the unplanned tourist destinations are the ones that are most likely to be associated with negative impacts and low levels of visitor satisfaction, whereas the application of effective planning has often enhanced the tourism product, to the benefit of both host and visitor alike. Baidal’s (2004) study of the evolution of tourism planning in Spain highlights both the damaging consequences of unplanned tourism development in the 1960s, as well as the improvements that have accompanied the establishment of a strong base in tourism planning by the Spanish autonomous regions after 1994.
Finally, as noted in the introduction to this chapter, there are clear links between planning and principles of sustainability. Implicit in the concept of sustainable tourism are a range of interventions aimed not only at conserving resources upon which the industry depends, but also at maximising the benefits to local populations that may accrue through proper management of those resources. Sustainable tourism strives to balance economic growth, environmental protection and social justice (Coccossis, 1996) and this requires integrative planning (Hall, 2000).
Links between planning and sustainability are especially important at a local scale. This is partly because implementation of the principles of sustainability has become focused at a local level by the widespread adoption of Local Agenda 21 as a framework in which to develop sustainable practices, but also because the requirements for strategic sustainable
Tourist Attractions and Activities
Transportation
Other Infrastructure
Institutional Elements
Other Tourist Facilities and
Services Accommodation
Natural and Socio-economic
Environment
Dom esti
c&International Touris
tMa rketG
rou ps
Re side
nts’ Us
e of Tourist Attractions and Faci
litie s
Figure 7.2
Principal components of a tourism plan
tourism planning will vary significantly from place to place and are therefore best understood in a local context. Local level planning is also more easily informed through public participation and through the involvement of stakeholders – both of which are seen as essential ingredients in delivering sustainable forms of development (Simpson, 2001;
Ruhanen, 2004).
Hall (2000: 38) proposes five key areas in which local consultation can help to shape a sustainable planning programme by establishing:
● the primary values that both local people and visitors attach to the area;
● the aspirations that residents may hold for tourism in their area;
● the fears that local people may harbour around possible tourism impacts and effects;
● the special characteristics that locals may wish to share;
● the aspects of the local area that might detract.
By considering these criteria, Hall asserts, local destinations are ‘better placed to determine their positioning in the tourism market, product development, infrastructure requirements, development constraints, local needs and preferred futures’ (Hall, 2000: 38).
The diversity of roles and functions that is set out above does, however, lead to problems in defining the essential dimensions of tourism planning. In fact, tourism planning, as a concept, is characterised by a range of meanings, applications and uses. It encompasses many activities; it addresses (but does not necessarily blend) physical, social, economic, business and environmental concerns and in so doing involves different groups, agencies and institutions with their own particular agendas. Tourism planning may be exercised by both the public and the private sectors and be subject to varying degrees of legal enforcement.
It also works at local, regional, national and (occasionally) at international scales. So to talk of ‘tourism planning’ as if it were a single entity is, therefore, highly misleading, and Table 7.1 attempts to reinforce this point by summarising a cross-section of applications that are located within the broad realms of tourism planning.
Apart from ambiguities over what may actually constitute tourism planning, there are further constraints and weaknesses to be taken into account. These include a tendency towards the adoption of short-term perspectives, organisational deficiencies and problems of implementation.
The adoption of short-term perspectives is a common characteristic in tourism, and, in the view of some authors, has limited the development of longer-term, strategic planning in the sector (see, for example, Cooper, 1995). The primacy of short-term responses arises for several reasons. It is a reflection of the natural rhythm of annual cycles within tourism whereby the industry tends to adopt a season-by-season perspective on its performance. But it is also a consequence of the structure of the industry at most destinations and the dominance of small- or medium-scale enterprises – a sector that adheres strongly to short-term, tactical views of tourism and is difficult to integrate into wider, longer-term planning frameworks.
Those frameworks may themselves be subject to a range of organisational shortcomings.
In many destination areas, the speed with which the need for tourism planning has grown has outstripped the development of organisations, expertise and knowledge to undertake the task. Studies of tourism planning in some of the newer global destinations such as New Zealand and the micro-states of the South Pacific, for example, reveal common problems of inconsistencies in the development of tourism strategies both between and within states and regions; fragmentation and division of responsibility between different public and private agencies; lack of knowledge of patterns of tourism in localities; and an absence of planners with specialist knowledge of the industry (Craig-Smith and Fagence, 1994; Page and Thorne, 1997). Yet even destinations with well-developed planning structures and a
good understanding of the tourism markets are not immune from these difficulties. In the UK responsibility for ‘planning’ tourism falls to a range of agencies, including regional tourist boards, national park authorities and local government planning departments – the last of which rarely contain tourism experts. As a result, the emergence of what has been termed an ‘implementation gap’ – that is, a divergence between what is intended by a tourism plan and what is actually delivered – has been a problem in many localities (see Kun et al.
(2006) for a discussion of implementation problems in Chinese tourism).