▼
3.1 TOURISM PLANNING INSIGHT
• The public’s perception of what the planning issues are changes and government and planners respond to this.
Within western society considerable debate has emerged in the past two decades over the appro- priate role of the state in society. Such a debate has considerable impact on both the form of, and the organisations that undertake tourism planning.
Throughout most of the 1980s and the early 1990s, ‘Thatcherism’ (named after Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) in the United Kingdom and ‘Reaganism’ (named after Republi- can President Ronald Reagan) in the United States saw a period of supposed retreat by central gov- ernment from active intervention. At the national level, policies of deregulation, corporatisation, privatisation, free trade, the elimination of tax incentives, and a move away from discretionary forms of macro-economic intervention, have been the hallmarks of a push towards ‘smaller’ govern- ment and lower levels of central government inter- vention in various countries around the world.
Tourism is clearly not immune from changes in political philosophy in its wider policy
environment. The dominant ideological trend in western societies in the 1980s and for much of the 1990s to deregulate the market and reduce the extent of government involvement has led to government often becoming entrepreneurial in its involvement with tourism in order to increase the financial contribution of tourism to government income. Therefore, government has increasingly been involved in the promotion and marketing of destinations, and the joint development of tourist attractions or facilities, with the private sector (see Burns 1999 for an excellent discussion on the changing role of tourism planning in develop- ing countries).
Tourism is subject to direct and indirect gov- ernment intervention often because of its em- ployment and income-producing possibilities and therefore its potential to diversify and contribute to national and regional economies. Given calls from some interests for reduced government in western society in recent years, there have been increasing demands from conservative national governments and economic rationalists in the public and private sectors for less regulation of the industry and also for a stronger business costly it has become. Indeed, it may also be acknowl-
edged that some problems, such as those associated with security, are never 100 per cent solvable. Four re- actions may result: discouragement, a sense of threat, boredom, or a combination of these feelings (Downs 1972). So long as the initial problem does not make the media or is seen to be occurring ‘elsewhere’ then public interest and hence policy concern will dimin- ish. Public attention no longer focuses on the issue but is transferred instead to another problem that is entering stage two, diverting policy attention and gov- ernment funding with it. The carrying capacity of the media means that the ecological competition between issues leads to a situation in which new issues arise replacing the original issue in terms of extent and quality of coverage. Indeed, the amount of attention an issue gets is clearly not always related to its ‘seri- ousness’ as an issue. Media coverage is therefore di- minished and routinised with only sporadic recapture,
review or anniversary stories that mark the effects of the original event on policy, planning and administra- tive processes.
5. The post-problem stage
In this final stage the problem is managed in an orderly way by agencies through routine programmes and policies. The situation becomes one of incre- mental change or no change at all until another crisis affects the administrative system.
6. Issue re-emergence/alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm
Arguably these stages well describe not only changes since 2001 with respect to travel safety measures and policies (Hall 2002), but are also indicative of government response towards public opinions with respect to other tourism-related issues, such as envi- ronmental protection or the cost of fuel for transport.
Sources:See Hall (2002, 2005a).
interest in government with respect to tourism promotion and planning, often through the pri- vatisation or corporatisation of tourism agencies or boards. However, in many cases this has not meant that tourism businesses have had to shoul- der a greater share of the cost of national and regional tourism promotion. The implications of such a deregulated or ‘neoliberal’ approach for the tourism industry are substantial.
For example, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) policies with respect to govern- ment’s role in tourism states: ‘The most effective policy responses are those that focus on key gov- ernment tasks, such as coordinating infrastruc- ture development and fostering competitiveness, rather than focusing on short-term protectionism or micro-intervention in market mechanisms’
(2003: 6). Measures that ‘will help deliver on the promise’ include:
• Long-term tourism planning at national and regional/local levels.
• Creating a competitive business environment that avoids inflationary taxation, guarantees
transparency, and offers more attractive corporate ownership rules.
• Ensuring that quality statistics and information feed into policy and decision-making processes.
• Bringing new professionalism, funding
and coordination into promotion and marketing, employment and training needs, infrastructure and regional/local policy.
• Developing the human capital required for Travel & Tourism growth. Governments should lead investment in human resources – through education and by bridging the gap between authorities and the industry – to help plan ahead for future needs. An online and easily accessible market-monitoring network could link reliable tourism market information with data on employment.
• Liberalizing trade, transport and
communications and easing barriers to travel and to investment.
• Confidence building for customers and investors on safety and security.
• Promoting product diversification that spreads demand.
• Planning sustainable tourism expansion in keeping with cultures and character.
• Investing in technological advances to facilitate safe and efficient Travel & Tourism development, such as satellite navigation systems (WTTC 2003: 7).
Such sentiments are very distant from ideas of the role of the state in tourism espoused by the International Union of Travel Organizations (IUOTO), the forerunner to the UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), which, in the 1970s, argued that tourism was such an impor- tant sector that in order to foster and develop tourism
on a scale proportionate to its national importance and to mobilize all resources to that end, it is nec- essary to centralize the policy-making powers in the hands of the state so that it can take appropri- ate measures for creating a suitable framework for the promotion and development of tourism by the various sectors concerned (IUOTO 1974: 71).
Over 30 years later, the comments of IUOTO are far removed from contemporary debates con- cerning the role of the state and government in tourism or even the role of the UNWTO (see Chapter 6 for a more recent perspective on UNWTO’s approach to tourism development).
For example, The UNWTO now has a Business Council as part of
a partnership approach to tourism as a method to promote public and private integration and as a model of understanding between the two sectors.
To achieve their objectives, UNWTOBC aids Members in expanding their tourism businesses through industry networking, forming contacts with the necessary government officials strength- ening industry–education relationship, and con- ducting specialized research projects of the private sector (World Tourism Organization 2007a).
Indeed, the UNWTO ‘recognizes that the pri- vate sector is the driving force behind tourism growth and advocates a partnership approach to development on the local and international level’
(2007d).
Much intervention in tourism and other public policy arenas (e.g. education, health and welfare) is related to market failure, market imperfection and social need. The market method of deciding
who gets what and how is not always adequate, and therefore government often changes the dis- tribution of income and wealth by measures that work within the price system. Across the globe almost every industry has been supported at vari- ous times by subsidies, the imposition of tariff regulations, taxation concessions, direct grants and other forms of government intervention, all of which serve to affect the price of goods and services and therefore influence the distribution of income, production and wealth. The size or economic importance of the tourism industry, so commonly emphasised by the public and private sector sectors (e.g. WTTC 2003; World Tourism Organization 1997, 2001, 2006b, 2007b), is no justification in itself for government intervention;
within market-driven economies justification must lie in some aspect of: (1) market failure;
(2) market imperfection, or (3) public/social con- cerns about market outcomes. In other words,
‘implicit in each justification for political action is the view that government offers a corrective alter- native to the market’ (Hula 1988: 6).
Market failure takes many forms. For in- stance, the market often fails to protect ade- quately the environment on which much of the tourist industry depends for its survival. One would expect that a business or industry which receives income from environmental quality would largely maintain that quality. However, there is a real risk that, where several businesses rely on the same environmental space or where others are competing for resources, the ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Hardin 1968) – the inability of individuals or the private sector on many occa- sions to come together to coordinate a strategy to protect (or enhance) the environment because they regard it as a ‘free’ resource to which their own individual activities do little harm – will emerge. This arises for such reasons as the incli- nation of businesses to freeload on the activities of others, and the difficulty in getting private in- terests to pool their resources. In addition, busi- ness is rarely interested in long-term social and environmental need as opposed to short-term revenue and profits, and yet tourism develop- ment may impact adversely on some sections of
the community to the extent that government has to step in to rectify the problem (Hall and Jenkins 1998).
Infrastructure supply is another avenue for market failure, market imperfection or social need. This is illustrated in the manner in which governments in many parts of the world usually find themselves as the main providers and managers of roads, airports, railways, power supply, sewage and water supply, although increasingly infrastructure is being provided by way of public–private sector partnerships or statutory or corporate authorities in which gov- ernment is a major shareholder or partner.
Market imperfections can be found in areas where the market does not cater to the needs of individual citizens. In many countries govern- ment, in consultation with industry, unions and other interests, has established equal employ- ment opportunity legislation, anti-discrimination legislation, occupational health and safety prac- tices, minimum wage structures, the provision of facilities for disabled people, and other work- place and social/cultural arrangements. Public consensus may also deem that a particular mar- ket outcome is unacceptable. A prime example is social welfare policy because there is usually a political consensus that aid ought to be targeted to those who are unable to compete in the mar- ket (Hall and Jenkins 1998; Dredge and Jenkins 2007).
Tourism, as does any other industry, has problems that stem from market failures and imperfections and from subsequent government responses. However, as an industry, tourism is poorly understood, as are its various impacts.
Hard to define because of its particular service and structural characteristics, tourism is conse- quently beset by problems of analysis, monitor- ing, coordination and policy making. Moreover, until recently, tourism research, and notably analysis of tourism public policy and planning (Hall and Jenkins 1995), has been a low priority, with the tourism industry and governments at all levels more often concerned with promotion and short-term returns than strategic investment and sustainability. The major proportion of tourism
industry and even government tourism agency research has therefore been focused on under- standing the market and the means by which potential consumers can be persuaded to buy tourism products. According to Hall and Jenkins (1998) understanding of
• the dynamics of the tourism destination system in terms of the most appropriate set of supply-side linkages to maximise the returns from visitor expenditure;
• the long-term effects of tourism on the socio- cultural and physical environment; and
• the relationship of tourism to other industries, is minimal.
To this we can perhaps add our understand- ing of the dynamic nature of tourism planning as a whole. While the desirability for tourism plan- ning is generally accepted, the most effective form and method of planning remains an essen- tially contested concept. The consequences of tourism development are wide ranging and often unpredictable. As a result, planning can often only articulate concerns or uncertainties, society must guide planners in assessing their acceptabil- ity. Furthermore, as the discussion below illus- trates, planning occurs at different levels and within a number of planning traditions, each with its own set of values, methods, problems and solutions. Although we have substantial numbers of local case studies of tourism planning and development on the one hand, and a desire for more sustainable tourism on the other (often being driven by international agreements regard- ing sustainability and the environment), the de- velopment of more appropriate forms of tourism on anything in the space in between has not been terribly successful.
Planning for tourism has traditionally been associated with land-use zoning or development planning at the local or regional government level. Concerns have typically been focused on site development, accommodation and building regulations, the density of tourist development, the presentation of cultural, historical and natu- ral tourist features, and the provision of infra- structure including roads and sewage. However,
as noted above, tourism planning at all levels of government has increasingly had to adapt its tourism planning programme in recent years to include concerns over the environmental and social impacts of tourism, the competitiveness of destinations and, given the changing context within which government occurs, demands for
‘smaller government’, particularly from some business interests which argue that self-regulation is more economically efficient than government regulation. As the following pages will indicate, economic motivations have been foremost in tourism planning. However, attention is grad- ually becoming focused on the social and envi- ronmental aspects of tourism development, and the creation of more sustainable forms of tourism overall.