Indeed, within the public sphere it may even be the norm as governments, policies and institu- tional arrangements for tourism are constantly changing. Yet such a situation also provides a valuable lesson for understanding tourism plan- ning, as it illustrates:
• the multiscale nature of planning, in other words what occurs at one level may not be compatible with another. Furthermore, changes in policy will filter through the various levels of the planning system;
• the implications of different sets of values affecting policy settings and planning processes;
• that planning models and tools do not operate in isolation from the people who develop and implement them. You can have the best planning model in the world.
However, unless you have the capacity to operate it, which may involve arguing your case to politicians and those to whom you are responsible, it is of little practical value, although it may still provide a stimulus for change elsewhere. Winning policy arguments, like sustainability itself, may take time.
As Cullingsworth (1997: 25) observed, ‘Plan- ning is a process of formulating goals and agree- ing the manner in which these are to be met. It is a process by which agreement is reached on the ways in which problems are to be debated and re- solved.’ This chapter will examine various aspects of the planning process and key issues that arise in trying to make planning and plans happen. The focus upon the processes of planning and land-use policy, rather than a concern with policy outcomes, might be viewed as irrelevant or even obsessional.
However, it is important since the outcomes of policy are, in large part, a consequence of how that policy is framed, organised and implemented. (Evans 1997: 5–6)
The policy, planning and decision-
level. However, as noted earlier, planning and pol- icy may best be conceived as a continuum along the three levels. Nevertheless, the level of under- standing of the three levels and the interactions between them is not particularly great. At the macro level there is widespread ignorance of insti- tutional arrangements and, particularly, the role of the state in tourism public policy. At the meso level there is little understanding of how and why decisions are made and actions are taken, while at the micro level understanding of the relationship between individuals, their values and interests, and organisations and the state is lacking. The elements of each level and the relationships be- tween them is illustrated in Figure 5.2. While sub- stantial progress has been made in understanding the various operations of these levels in different
parts of the world, in overall terms our level of understanding is still relatively low (Church and Coles 2007; Dredge and Jenkins 2007) compared with other planning and policy fields.
However, while the model may assist in con- veying the manner in which interaction exists be- tween the different levels of analysis of policy and planning, it still does not adequately express the multi-dimensional set of tourism policy and plan- ning relationships that occur at different scales of governance. Figure 5.3 seeks to illustrate the dif- ferent dimensions of tourism planning that occur at different scales – from the local to the interna- tional, using the example of ecotourism (Hall 2003a, 2004b, 2006d). Although ecotourism is a significant area of tourism planning it has very few specific policies and institutions. Instead,
Macro environment
Meso environment
Micro environment
(overt and covert stakeholder demands) Tourism planning process
The decision system/
Policy networks Goals
Resource allocation
Political dimensions Sociocultural dimensions
Technological dimensions
Interests
Power
Culture
(organisational and political)
Significant individuals
Institutional arrangements
Values Institutions
Implementation System/
networks
Institutional leadership
Economic dimensions Outputs Outcomes
Figure 5.2 The environments of tourism planning
ecotourism policies are usually found within tourism policies (Fennell and Dowling 2003;
Diamantis 2004). Therefore the ecotourism policy field is represented as being embedded within the broader tourism policy field. However, in turn ecotourism (as well as tourism) is affected by a much wider array of policies than just what is contained in tourism policy. The broken lines surrounding the particular fields are representa- tive of the permeability and fluidity of policy are- nas (horizontal fields) in contrast to the more fixed boundaries of policy action and concern of specific public agencies (vertical fields). What is important to note is that the relationships be- tween the various components of the governance framework for tourism planning and policy exist
both vertically (over different levels of gover- nance) and horizontally (within specific regulatory space). The tourism planning system therefore comprises the set of constant interactions be- tween the various components of the system from the individual to the global. As will be dis- cussed later, what happens at one level of tourism governance or in a policy arena will be affected by other levels and arenas. The more complex a planning problem is to solve, invariably the more levels and regulatory spaces it will occupy. It is the analyst who draws the boundaries within the tourism planning system in terms of trying to define and manage the planning problem.
One of the ways in which the implications of different scales for tourism planning can be seen
Agency scope at a national governance and policy level
Agency scope at a local governance and policy level
Ecotourism
Agency scope over policy fields at a supranational and international governance and policy level
The relative influence of some related policy fields on ecotourism is indicated underneath by virtue of the policy distance from ecotourism Tourism
Environment Regional
development
General economic and investment policies
Forestry, fisheries and agriculture
Labour regulation Transport
Nature conservation
Figure 5.3 Multi-level governance fields: the case of ecotourism
is by examining the different levels of institutional arrangements that have been created to manage and plan tourism. For example, tourism organi- sations have been established at the international (global) level, e.g. the UN World Tourism Orga- nization; the supranational level, e.g. European Union tourism organisations; and through to national, regional and local tourism organisa- tions (Table 5.3).
The internationalisation of environmental issues also reveals the multiscale aspects of insti- tutional arrangements that can be seen in the plethora of environmental legislation and regula- tion from the international (e.g. Agenda 21) through to the local scale (e.g. local government site regulations and planning schemes). There are very few legal agreements that deal specifically with tourism and the environment. Instead, the relationship between tourism and the environ- ment tends to be managed within general envi- ronmental and planning law. Table 5.4 identifies the various levels at which such legal frameworks operate from the international through to the national and the sub-national level, using the Nordic countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden as an example (Gössling and Hultman 2006;
Hall 2006d).
A number of international conventions oper- ate in the region. These conventions range from international agreements on the Law of the Seas (which is clearly of major importance to the cruise ship industry and marine tourism) to the World Heritage Convention, which serves to establish World Heritage listing for cultural and natural heritage sites of universal significance that are typ- ically of great significance as visitor attractions;
and to provisions for the conservation of fauna and flora (e.g. the Ramsar Convention, which governs habitat for migratory birds) that may also serve as important ecotourism attractions.
At the supranational level there are European, Baltic and Nordic agreements on the environ- ment and on tourism. One of the most important institutions in the Nordic context is the Euro- pean Union: Denmark, Finland and Sweden are members, while Iceland and Norway have well- developed economic and political relationships with the EU. The EU does not have a specific
directorate for tourism, although tourism is used as a tool in a number of policy areas, particularly with respect to regional development and periph- eral regions (see Clement et al. 2004 for a review of the environment and sustainable development integration in Nordic structural funds). In terms of nature conservation that provides sites for eco- tourism visitation, the EU has a range of policy mechanisms which, in turn, may be integrated with international policies and institutions. For example, EU nature conservation policy is founded upon a combination of international agreements, the most important of which is the Convention of Biodiversity, which was adopted in 1992, and European policy measures such as the Birds Directive (1979) and the Habitats Directive (1992). These agreements provide the institutional basis for European biodiversity pro- grammes such as Natura 2000 and wider EU conservation policy (Hall 2006d).
Under Natura 2000 all EU states are required to take steps to ensure that natural habitats and species in the network receive ‘favourable con- servation status’:
Natural habitats must be large enough, important structures and functions must exist, and there must be viable populations of species typical of the habi- tat. With respect to species there must be a sufficient number of individuals within the area, reproduction must take place and the species habitat must be large enough. (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2003: 6)
There are approximately 4,000 Natura 2000 sites in Sweden, covering a combined area of more than 6 million hectares. The procedures by which sites have been recognised illustrates the interrelationship between different levels of gov- ernance and policy making with the sites having been selected by administrative boards in each county following consultation with landowners and other authorities. Selection decisions were then reviewed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency prior to a decision by the Swedish government, with the sites then being proposed in turn to the EU Commission (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 2003: 8). Each site must have a conservation plan that states permissible and non-permissible
Table 5.3Tourism and related organisations from the international to the local scale Government and intra-government Non-producer Single interest organisationsProducer organisationsorganisationsorganisations InternationalUnited Nations World TourismWorld Travel and TourismTourism Concern; WorldWorld Congress Against Organization; World Heritage Committee Council; International Air Wildlife Fund (WWF); the Commercial Sexual (UNESCO); Committee for the Transport Association; Association for Tourism Exploitation of Children Development of Sport; OECD International Olympic and Leisure Education (Organization for Economic Cooperation Commitee(ATLAS); Greenpeace; and Development)Friends of the Earth SupranationalAsia Pacific Economic CooperationPacific Asia Travel AssociationSierra Club; InternationalEnd Child Prostitution in (APEC) tourism working group; Tourism (PATA); Baltic Sea Tourism Downtown Association; Asian Tourism (ECPAT) Council of the South Pacific; Association Commission; Play Fair Europe; Travel and Tourism of South East Nations (ASEAN) Promotion European Surfing Federation; Research Association Centre on Trade and Investment; National Olympic Committees European Commission NationalIndonesian Directorate General of British Sports and Allied IndustriesNational Trust; AustralianThe Wilderness Society; Tourism; English Sports Council; Federation; Tourism Council Conservation Foundation; Hispanic Association for Countryside Commission; Australian Australia; Institute of Leisure and Australian Consumers Corporate Responsibility; Tourist Commission; Irish Tourist Amenity Management (ILAM); AssociationECPAT (Australia) Board (Bord Fáilte)Irish Tourist Industry Confederation RegionalTourism Alberta; Natal Parks Board;Tourism Council Australia (WAWestern Australian Tasmanian Wilderness (including Western Australian Tourism Commission Division); Scottish Confederation Conservation CouncilSociety provincial (WATC); Scottish Tourist Board; Tourism of Tourism; Shannon Development; and state)British ColumbiaCoalition of Minnesota Business LocalLocal government involvement in leisure Local chambers of commerce andRatepayers and resident Single issue and tourism provision, e.g. Tourism industry associations; local sportingassociations, e.g. Waikiki organisations such as a Canterbury; Calgary Economic and clubs and private sport and leisureImprovement Association‘friends of a park’ or a Development Authority; Tourism centresgroup that has been Vancouverformed in order to prevent particular developments such as a hotel or airport
activities, with visitor access usually being en- couraged where this does not endanger high- value species or habitats. The value of such a programme for ecotourism is that it helps secure the resource base on which ecotourism depends through regulatory protection, management plans and nature conservation agreements. In addition, such programmes may assist with the transfer of management and planning knowledge between locations as well as being of assistance in gaining financial support for projects (Hall 2006d).
At the national level, a number of legislative and regulatory instruments may affect the rela- tionship between tourism and the environment, while within most countries decisions taken at the local level in the form of development per- missions and local plans will also have a major effect on the environmental impacts of tourism development and tourist activities (Hall and Page 2006). For example, Metsähallitus, the Finnish Forest and Park Service, states that ‘the economic utilisation of protected areas for ecotourism, for example, is permissible where it does not endanger the achievement of conservation aims’
(Metsähallitus 2000: 7). Indeed the growth of ecotourism and an increase in the number of vis- itors to protected areas is used by Metsähallitus as an indication of a more favourable opinion to- wards nature conservation. Yet tourism is re- garded as only one out of ten different uses of the
Finnish protected area system that require a policy statement (the others being everyman’s right, fishing and hunting, photography, local resi- dents, traffic, forestry, mineral prospecting and mining and leasing land). Ecotourism is not ex- plicitly defined within management guidelines although its economic dimension is noted, which therefore suggests that ecotourism is regarded as commercial tourism use of protected areas by firms as opposed to access by independent visi- tors and recreationists. Interestingly, the agency’s management guidelines outline the policy bound- aries with respect to tourism planning. Accord- ing to Metsähallitus (2000: 42) the agency does not intend to develop its own activities in the field but instead will
aim to provide a framework and opportunities for independent enterprises in the field of ecotourism.
The aims of sustainable ecotourism must be agreed upon with all interested parties (local residents, the tourism sector, other local organisations) by draw- ing up a strategy for tourism following the princi- ples of participatory planning.
The multi-scale institutional arrangements that surround tourism and the environment are only one aspect of the difficulties of planning for tourism. The same pattern of multi-level gover- nance and policy relationships exists in many other areas that affect tourism, e.g. employment, investment, trade, taxation, visa and regional Table 5.4 Multiple scales of institutional arrangements for ecotourism policy and planning in the Nordic
countries: the case of Finland, Norway, and Sweden
Scale Examples
International 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris) [World Heritage Committee, UNESCO]; 1992 Framework Convention for Climate Change (New York); 1992 Convention on Biodiversity (Rio de Janiero); 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar); 1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn); 1981 Law of the Seas; UNESCO Biosphere Reserves programme.
Supranational European Union; Nordic Council of Ministers; Nordic Council; Nordic Environmental Cooperation; Baltic Council; Northern Forum
National Metsähallitus (Finland); Miljøverndepaertementet (Norway); Naturvårdsverket (Sweden) Subnational Provinces; counties; communes; municipalities
development incentives, adding to the complexity of the environment in which tourism planning occurs.
This section has discussed some aspects of the setting within which planning occurs. The envi- ronment for tourism planning and policy making is seen to be highly complex, with multiple sets of vertical and horizontal relationships. Within this tourism planners develop planning procedures and plans, which are the output of such proce- dures. Having noted the setting within which planning occurs we will now return to the diffi- culties of establishing planning strategies within such an environment.