Section 2: Disciplines and Areas of Study
11. The official is subject to unified control and a discip- linary system
2.11 Tourism Planning
94 Chapter 2.11 data, government policy for the planned region and
tourism development trends for the destination in question.
4. Strategy: this is the defined manner in which the implementation of touristic activity will be conducted to achieve the established objectives. It should consider various alternative actions and the amount of financial resources allocated for planning.
5. Implementation: this is the moment at which the planning (the document) will begin to be developed in practice. This step involves fundraising, work- shops to raise awareness among the destination’s residents and the development of marketing pro- grammes, among other tasks.
6. Evaluation: planning does not end with imple- mentation. It is necessary to continually evaluate the results and correct possible errors and devia- tions from the objectives, to reformulate strategies and to keep those involved in the planning-imple- mentation process updated at all times.
Goeldner and Ritchie (2009) cited other plan- ning steps that ultimately return the same results and can be mapped to the steps presented above.
They include the following: defining the tourist system, collecting data, analysing and interpreting the collected data, drafting the preliminary plan, approving the plan, drafting the final plan and implementing the plan.
Planning should be seen as a dynamic process that must constantly be reviewed to correct possible flaws; therefore, it is not a static instrument. However,
one of the greatest difficulties in tourism planning is its execution, because execution occurs at the same time as the administration of human and financial resources, and practice does not always follow the- ory. Therefore, there is a constant need to evaluate the process. Despite the clear advantage presented by the public policy cycle (Fig. 27), including the possibility of simplifying a complex process into a normative and directed process in a sequence of events, Dredge and Jenkins (2007) noted some dis- advantages, including the following: (i) the diagram generally presents a very simplistic view; (ii) the process is not always linear or systematic because in some cases, certain steps may not be performed;
(iii) the diagram may give the impression that policy formulation occurs in a cyclical manner, in which the planning agenda is established at the beginning of the process, with implementation and evaluation at the end – in reality, it is not uncommon for agen- das to change constantly; and (iv) the model also does not explain how public policy changes from one step to the next.
Today, regardless of the type of tourism planning that is selected, certain factors must always be taken into consideration, including the following, which are based on Cooper et al. (2005), Goeldner and Ritchie (2009) and Mason (2003):
● Strategic planning in the sustainable develop- ment of tourism.
● The perception that tourism is important as a productive sector that provides many jobs.
Selection of preferred alternative
Implementation
Evaluation of policy solutions Identification of
issues Analysis of issues
Identification of policy solutions and
instruments
Consultation
Fig. 26. The policy cycle. (From Dredge and Jenkins, 2007.)
Tourism Planning 95 ● Valorization of the touristic product as one of
the sector’s differentials.
● The education and training of skilled labour.
● Seasonality, which is one of the most difficult prob- lems to solve in tourism (Connell et al., 2015).
● Concern for environmental and socio-cultural preservation.
● Valorization of historic, artistic and cultural her- itage (Du Cros, 2001).
● Planning developed in a participatory manner with, at the very least, consultations with rep- resentatives from the social sectors that will be affected by the touristic activity to be developed (Shani and Pizam, 2012).
● The need to include local communities in tour- ism development: many tourism studies con- demn top-down planning, citing the benefits of bottom-up community collaboration (see Vernon et al., 2005).
● The constant search to maximize tourism’s posi- tive impacts (social, cultural, environmental and economic) and minimize its negative impacts.
● Concern for architectural quality, landscaping and avoiding the distortion of tourism destinations.
● Integrated development, i.e. considering all ele- ments according to a systemic view in which one of the parts can affect the whole and vice versa.
Recognition and preparation of the study
Establishment of objectives or targets for the strategy
Research on existing data
Implementation of new research
Analysis of secondary and primary data
Initial formulation of policies and plans
Recommendations
Implementation
Monitoring and reformulation of plans
Recognition of the need for a strategy – a vital step
Why is tourism development sought?
What data are available?
Filling the information gaps
Several recommendations can be presented to choose policies
The monitoring and
reformulation process is dynamic and feeds back into the policies
and plans step Fig. 27. Steps of the tourism planning process. (From Cooper et al., 2005.)
96 Chapter 2.11 Although there is a close relationship between tour-
ism policy and tourism planning, they are two differ- ent concepts. For Goeldner and Ritchie (2009), although there are similarities between the terms that both address the future development of a tourism destination or region and emphasize the strategic dimensions of managerial action, they must also man- age numerous tactical concerns. Table 8 presents the differences between tourism policy and planning.
One of the most substantial differences between the terms is that tourism public policy establishes the general guidelines for a country, state or munic- ipality’s tourist development, as expressed in a tourism plan. Planning, in turn, should consult and be based on the tourism policy, thus being trans- formed into a more practical instrument enabling actions, unlike tourism policy, which is a more theoretical instrument.
Planning is of the utmost importance because it leads to tourist development of the location at which it is applied. Without this instrument, the development objectives and guidelines are unclear, which can lead to the unfeasibility of a sustainable tourism practice.
Operationalizing
Various studies on tourism planning use the case-study method to analyse or propose tourism
development at a specific tourism destination.
These publications usually focus on only one case, reinforcing its morphological characteristics (e.g. coastal or mountain destinations, national parks, rural or urban destinations). The book Stories of Practice: Tourism Policy and Planning, edited by Dredge and Jenkins (2011), brings together numerous cases in which tourism plan- ning and policy researchers describe the stories involved in the complex task of tourism planning.
With the participation of international research- ers, they present a different view of tourism plan- ning and policy, focusing on tourism destinations, administrative arrangements and diverse ideolo- gies to discern the emergence of new types of touristic places.
Exercise
Have you ever wondered about the tourism plan of your municipality, region, state or country? If pos- sible, find a recent policy document about tourism and identify the planning that has been established.
Identify the purpose of the document and what type of tourism is planned for the destination in question. Finally, map the steps targeted by the document for planning tourism development.
References
Bissoli, M.A.M.A. (2000) Planejamento Turístico Municipal com Suporte em Sistemas de Informação. Futura, São Paulo, Brazil.
Clavé, S.A. (2007) The Global Theme Park Industry. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Connell, J., Page, S.J. and Meyer, D. (2015) Visitor attrac- tions and events: responding to seasonality. Tourism Management 46, 283–298.
Cooper, C., Wanhill, S., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D. and Fyall, A.
(2005) Tourism: Principles and Practice, 3rd edn.
Prentice-Hall, Harlow, UK.
Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (2007) Tourism Planning and Policy. Wiley, Sydney/Melbourne.
Du Cros, H. (2001) A new model to assist in planning for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 3, 165–170.
Eagles, P.F. and McCool, S.F. (2002) Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and Management.
CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Getz, D. (1991) Festivals, Special Events and Tourism.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Goeldner, C.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2009) Tourism:
Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 11th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Table 8. Differences between tourism policy and planning. (Based on Goeldner and Ritchie, 2009.)
Policy Planning
Occurs in terms of a general framework
Is characterized by attention to detail
Is a creative and intellectual process
Is a more contained exercise Has a long-term
strategic emphasis
Tends to be more restrictive in its time horizon: 1-year planning cycles are common, although it is possible to have 3–5-year plans
Should allow for consideration of unknown circumstances and technologies
Assumes current conditions and technologies, with some room for predictable changes
Emphasizes a systematic
determination of what should be done in tourism development
Emphasizes how to achieve specific goals at the destination
Tourism Planning 97 Jamal, T.B. and Getz, D. (1995) Collaboration theory and
community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22, 186–204.
Lozano-Oyola, M., Blancas, F.J., González, M. and Caballero, R. (2012) Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecological Indicators 18, 659–675.
Mason, P. (2003) Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management. Butterworth/Heinemann, London.
Padin, C. (2012) A sustainable tourism planning model:
components and relationships. European Business Review 24, 510–518.
Shani, A. and Pizam, A. (2012) Community participation in tourism planning and development. In: Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 547–564.
Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D. and Curry, K. (2005) Collaborative policymaking: local sustainable projects. Annals of Tourism Research 32, 325–345.
Further Reading
Burns, P.M. (2004) Tourism planning: a third way? Annals of Tourism Research 31, 24–43.
Cooper, M. (2000) Zoning. In: Jafari, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Tourism. Routledge, London, p. 672.
Dredge, D. and Jamal, T. (2015) Progress in tourism plan- ning and policy: a post-structural perspective on
knowledge production. Tourism Management 51, 285–297.
Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (eds.) (2011) Stories of Practice:
Tourism Policy and Planning. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, UK.
Drumm, A., Bornemeier, J., Moore, A. and Singer, A. (2002) Ecotourism Development: a Manual for Conservation Planners and Managers. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
Fletcher, J. and Cooper, C. (1996) Tourism strategy plan- ning: Szolnok county, Hungary. Annals of Tourism Research 23, 181–200.
Gunn, C.A. (1988) Tourism Planning, 2nd edn. Taylor &
Francis, New York.
Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Morrison, A. (2000) Local organization. In: Jafari, J. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Tourism. Routledge, London, p. 361.
Moyle, B.D., McLennan, C.L.J., Ruhanen, L. and Weiler, B.
(2014) Tracking the concept of sustainability in Australian tourism policy and planning documents.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22, 1037–1051.
Pearce, D.G. (2000) Tourism organizations. In: Jafari, J.
(ed.) Encyclopaedia of Tourism. Routledge, London, pp. 586–588.
Travis, A. (2011) Planning for Tourism, Leisure and Susta- inability: International Case Studies. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
98 © G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto 2017. Tourism Theory (G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto) The balance of payments is an instrument for
recording a country’s trade and financial transac- tions with the rest of the world; it is part of the System of National Accounts (United Nations System of National Accounts, 2009). On one side of the balance of payments, the current account records the imports and exports of goods and ser- vices, divided into a balance of trade and balance of services, respectively. The current account also records international remittances of net income, such as profit remittances made by companies oper- ating outside of their country of origin. The other side of the balance of payments is net foreign invest- ment, including international acquisitions and sales of physical and financial assets, such as real estate, currency and debt securities. Following the double- entry accounting method, the amounts on both sides of the balance of payments should be equal.
The balance of services contains activities such as transport, insurance, financial services, communi- cation, rentals and others, along with international travel. In particular, the record of international trans- actions related to tourism flow is called the balance of tourism. Unlike what occurs in the international trade of physical products, in tourism, it is the con- sumer who travels. Thus, revenue from international inbound tourism is counted as exports, whereas the costs of a county’s international outbound tourism are recorded as imports. The movements of prod- ucts, people and financial resources in both the traditional and the touristic context are shown in Fig. 28.
Tourism revenue is an injection of resources into a country’s economic system, causing direct eco- nomic impacts that are multiplied by subsequent rounds of indirect and induced impacts (see ‘The tourism multiplier effect’ entry). In contrast, the costs of a country’s international outbound tourism are resource leakages from the national economy, which therefore reduce the income multiplier effect.
When there is a positive balance of tourism, i.e. when
exports are greater than imports, the balance is said to have run a surplus. Otherwise, when imports exceed exports, there is a deficit.
Tourism’s share of the balance of payments is significant. According to data from the World Bank (2014), international tourism accounts for 4.9% of total exports of goods and services. In some cases, tourism is the primary export activity. In the Maldives, for example, tourism represents 80% of total exports. Tourism generally has a large share of small countries’ balance of payments. In these cases, because the economy overall has reduced dimen- sions, it is easy for an activity such as tourism to achieve large relative importance. In absolute terms, the countries with the highest international tourism revenues are among those receiving the highest numbers of tourists, including the USA, Spain and France. Table 9 presents, for the major countries, the size of tourism exports in absolute terms and relative to total exports of goods and services.
Tourism’s contribution to a country’s imports of goods and services is usually lower, not reaching 25% in any country. For example, according to data from the World Bank (2014), in 2013, interna- tional inbound tourism generated approximately US$34.1 billion in revenue for Australia, which represents approximately 11.0% of total exports.
That same year, outbound tourism generated an international expenditure of US$34.7 billion, rep- resenting 10.3% of imports. Therefore, Australia’s balance of tourism had a deficit that year.
A country’s international tourism revenues and expenditures are closely related to the exchange rate. When the national currency is devalued, travel to the country becomes cheaper to foreigners, which encourages increased international inbound tour- ism flow. In addition, the devaluation of a national currency raises prices for and hinders the con- sumption of foreign travel by the country’s resi- dents. In turn, reduced demand for international outbound tourism causes an increase in domestic