Tourism Policy and Leisure - Essay Example

Leisure and tourism policy of London – Aspects and development I. Introduction Tourism is vital to the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of London. London’s tourism sector accounts for 12 per cent of London’s Gross Domestic Product and supports 13 per cent of the workforce. Given the size and fragmented structure of the tourism industry, it has been difficult to accurately determine the “true” value of tourism in London’s economy. The tourism industry comprises much more than visitor accommodation and visitor attractions (like museums, galleries and cultural heritage sites). It includes events, festivals and evening based economic activity driven by theatres, cinemas, restaurants, bars, public houses, nightclubs and casinos, all of which attract tourists and day visitors as well as residents. [1] On the other hand, it has to be noticed that tourism is not a clear-cut sector but an all-embracing and pervasive domain of service and industrial activities. It touches upon almost all spheres of national life within the country and that is particularly the reason why a sound state policy of tourism should be essentially formulated before any significant tourism investment projects are launched. As rightly put by MacCannell, tourism is an ideological framing of history, nature and tradition; a framing that has the power to reshape culture and nature to its own needs (MacCannell 1992). Regarding specifically the leisure activities, it has been found that the participation of the public to them is really significant. A characteristic example could be the case of U.S. where the participation of people of all ages in the leisure activities is noticeable. More specifically, according to the 1994-1995 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, most U.S. residents over 16 years old participate in fitness activities (68.3%), swimming, (54.2%), and walking (66.7%) (Cordell 1999). As for Britain it has been found [7] that the types of leisure activities preferred by the public are differentiated from that of U.S. with nearly nine in ten adult viewers in the United Kingdom to watch television every day of the week in 2003, with nearly a quarter of viewers watching it for two to three hours a day. UK residents made a record 42.9 million holiday trips abroad in 2004, an increase from 6.7 million in 1971; Spain was the most popular destination, followed by France [7]. II. Tourism policy and leisure – Definition and elements In order to define tourism policy we should primarily describe tourism. In this context, according to a broad definition [6] tourism is a service industry, comprising a number of tangible and intangible components. The tangible elements include transport systems - air, rail, road, water and now, space; hospitality services - accommodation, foods and beverages, tours, souvenirs; and related services such as banking, insurance and safety and security. The intangible elements include: rest and relaxation, culture, escape, adventure, new and different experiences. On the other hand, the elements of tourism policy can be understood only if compared with tourism demand. In this context, it has been found that the precise approach one adopts to the analysis of tourism demand is largely dependent upon the disciplinary perspective of the researcher (see Crouch 1994). Geographers view demand in a uniquely spatial manner as the total number of persons who travel, or wish to travel, to use tourist facilities and services at places away from their places of work and residence (Mathieson et al, 1982, 1), whereas in this context demand is seen in terms of the relationship between individuals motivation [to travel] and their ability to do so (Pearce 1995a, 18) with an attendant emphasis on the implications for the spatial impact on the development of domestic and international tourism. In comparison, the economist emphasises the schedule of the amount of any product or service which people are willing and able to buy at each specific price in a set of possible prices during a specified period of time. Psychologists view demand from the perspective of motivation and behaviour (Cooper et al. 1993, 15), while Uysal (1998) reviewed the wider context of tourism demand. Under the above terms, tourism policy can be considered as the policy that satisfies the tourism demands in accordance with the particular country’s geographic and other regional and financial characteristics. As for the leisure it has been found that its benefits constitute all aspects of human existence; including psychological (e.g., improved self-concept, reflection of personal values, peak experiences), psycho-physiological (e.g., cardiovascular health, disease control, mental and physical restoration), sociological (e.g., promotion of community stability, family solidarity, cultural identity), economic (e.g., employment, income, reduced health care costs), and environmental (e.g., preservation/conservation). These benefits should not accrue only to those who can afford to participate in activities and/or actively seek them out (Bright, 2000, 13). However, in practice making the benefits of recreation available to the public requires that individuals, heads of households, and community leaders are aware of and buy-off on the benefits of specific programs. The job of recreation professionals is not only to provide opportunities for achieving benefits, but to get the word out. "Unless each of us promotes and articulates the benefits of leisure, the tremendous value that parks and recreation adds to human welfare will never be recognized and appreciated fully outside the leisure profession" (Driver 1998, p. 26). III. Tourism policy of London a. Background and statistics London has traditionally a highly developed tourism industry [4]; In 1991, foreign visitor arrivals totalled 17.1 million and by 1999 this had risen to about 25 million. Visitor arrivals have been rising steadily over the past decade and more; they have increased by 34 per cent since 1980. The main origins of visitors are USA, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Canada. Europe accounts for 67 per cent of all arrivals. In 1994, the number of visitor arrivals increased by 8 per cent and the number of day visitors climbed by 30 per cent, reflecting in particular the efforts to market tourist areas in the south of England as well as improved cross-Channel sea services. In 1995, the UK received 23.7 million visitors, an increase of 13% over 1994, spending £11.9 billion, an increase of 20%. The number of foreign visitors increased steadily until 1996, but tourist arrivals have tended to slightly decrease in the late 1990s. The number of overseas visitors who came in 2001 was 22.8 million and they spent £11.3 billion in the UK. The UK ranks seventh in the international tourism earnings league behind the USA, Spain, France, Italy, China and Germany. Today, London continues to be one of the most popular cities for overseas tourists although the weak global economy and the effect of the Foot and Mouth outbreak have caused many problems to the city’s tourism development. On the other hand, each of the town’s areas presents different tourism development. Central London is well known as an international centre for business, tourism, shopping, heritage, entertainment and culture. In the central tourism district1 there is intensive use of the infrastructure and environment but outside of this area Central London is predominantly residential with a network of town centres that perform a number of different roles. Central London is also home to key developments that will impact on tourism not only in London but also in the rest of the UK. These include the St Pancras Channel Tunnel Rail Link terminal and the 2012 Olympic ‘Central Zone’ (Draft central London tourism development framework 2006 – 2009, [2]) Figure 1 – Arrivals in London (WTO, 2002) Moreover, regarding the city’s areas most preferred by tourists, a relevant research [7] has showed that many of London’s visitors come for the world famous attractions, the majority of which are art galleries and museums. The National Gallery was the most popular attraction in 2001 for the first time; previous top billing, between 1994 and 2000, went to The British Museum. The four most popular attractions include two of the newest, the London Eye and Tate Modern [7]. b. General context of London’s tourism policy Tourism policy of London (and of UK in general) was developed mostly the last three decades. More specifically [4], in 1969 there was a major change in British tourism policy for the inbound tourism industry with the establishment of the British Tourist Authority (BTA), along with the national boards for England, Scotland and Wales, sponsored by the Board of Trade and Industry and the Development of Tourism Act (1969). Prior to the BTA (Authority), there was the BTA (Association), a limited company, set up in 1922 to market and promote Britain overseas and originally named the “Come to Britain” tourism movement. However, before 1969, tourism was largely ignored by the national government. Another issue that has to be noticed is that even the public transport in UK was not developed in the past and it can be considered an achievement of the last two decades. In fact, in the UK, the privatisation of public transportation began in 1979. Since then, most of the transport industries have returned to private ownership with an emphasis on the benefits of commercial disciplines and competition. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, government policy emphasised the need to liberalize, deregulate and privatise the transport sector. [4] c. Key proposals referring to the tourism policy of London – Presentation and justification There have been a series of proposals for the development of tourism in UK and particularly in London mostly the last decade. In this context, the London tourist organisation Visit London has launched an online TV service via its website to keep people up-to-date with whats going on in the capital. It will feature nine different channels covering everything from attractions and shopping to eating out and the theatre and will allow visitors to download short informative TV clips "on demand". The London TV service was launched in 2004 but up until now it was only accessible on airlines and in hotels [3] It should be noticed here that the main point of London’s tourism policy was by tradition its central area. Central London acts as a gateway to both Greater London and to the rest of the UK for millions of visitors each year. Paddington, Victoria, Waterloo, and in 2007 St Pancras, welcome millions of overseas visitors directly into Central London, whilst millions more domestic visitors arrive at these and other Central London stations, such as Kings Cross and Euston. The first and last impressions of a destination are critical to a visitor’s experience and the welcome in Central London major international and domestic gateways needs to be improved. The face to face welcome that the Tourist Information Centre (TIC) network provides is still viewed as an important part of good customer service at a destination. There are 3 TICs in Central London at Bankside, Lower Regent Street and St Paul’s, based in the City. (Draft central London tourism development framework 2006 – 2009, [2]) Under the above facts, the proposals for the development of London’s tourism policy should include the presentation of the town’s natural and commercial aspects (like the Hyde Park, Regents Park, Oxford Street, and Piccadilly) combined with the art venues and the museums operating in the city. On the other hand, the particular historical, natural and commercial areas that could be of tourists’ interest should be promoted using appropriate advertisements trying to address all levels of tourists. The offer of analytical guides with all the relevant information included could be of high importance for the achievement of this target. The development of tourism in London has a series of aspects. Among them one of the most important is the interaction between leisure and business tourism. More specifically, the development of the latter has been seen as a chance for the financial development of the whole region. In this context, a commission set up by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has given the green light to a major new project, which could deliver a significant economic boost to the capital (Evening Standard, 2005, 47). London could soon have its own international convention centre (ICC), allowing it to bid on the world stage for highly lucrative convention business. An ICC is described as a venue with a main, tiered auditorium for up to 5,000 people, additional meeting spaces for 800, exhibition space, breakout rooms and facilities for providing large-scale banqueting, with hotel accommodation nearby. Such a venue is likely to cost [pounds sterling] 250 million to [pounds sterling] 300 million, funded by private-public partnership. The need for such a construction is based on the fact that comparing the city’s position among the world most important conferences destinations, current level of business tourism in the city is rather low taking into account the fact that London has slipped to 19th in industry polls, largely because it lacks an ICC while Paris is four times as successful in hosting international association conferences as London, achieving 1.2 million delegate days a year, compared with our 335,000. On the other hand, it should be noticed that London is already a successful convention destination and has several venues capable of delivering exhibitions and smaller conferences, such as the QEII Centre, ExCel, Earls Court and Novotel London West. ExCel, for example, can host 1,500 delegates. But none has the combination of purpose-built, onsite facilities required by the major global conventions, which host up to 20,000 delegates at a time - a market worth an estimated [pounds sterling] 100 billion a year. The commissions research discovered 80 per cent of major convention organisers would choose London, if the city had an ICC. d. Strengths and weaknesses of London’s tourism policy The strengths and weaknesses of the city’s tourism policy have to be evaluated in accordance with current sociocultural and financial trends emphasizing on globalization as an international phenomenon. In this context, it is noticed by Cleverdon (1998) that populations of various countries respond to this globalisation of economies, markets, systems and cultures by looking at their own identities, as in contrast to globalisation lies localisation which is an opposing force. These two adverse forces cannot be averted by the state, the market or communities by acting alone. Moreover, it has been found by Wahab et al. (1997)increased awareness of physical and cultural heritage safeguards have induced various tourist destinations to engage in the complex planning process for sustainable development in tourism. In addition, the Free Trade in Services Agreement is another difficult tunnel for globalisation to go through. On the other hand, cultural differences between individual tourist destinations will continue to play an important role, among other factors, in the choice of a holiday destination. However, a transcending global cultural understanding might eventually emerge cutting across various cultural diversities with each having its local flavour (Cooper et al., 201, 6). Quality, production conditions, the role of public authorities, corporate structure and price strategies in tourism are likewise going to exert profound reciprocal influences on globalisation trends in tourism - but in varying proportions. Therefore, researching the future orientation of tourist-generating markets should be the point of departure in any analysis of the globalisation process. The first question to ask is what would be the behavioural patterns of potential tourists in the face of a universal supply whose various products and prices are becoming more and more transparent through the new multimedia (Keller 1996). The efforts made for the development of the city’s tourism policy have been formulated in accordance with the above trends and practices. However, the results seem to be rather disappointed. More specifically, a research carried out by the London Development Agency (LDA) in 2004 found that London’s tourist businesses need to improve customer service and respond to the needs of disabled customers, the elderly and families with young children. Entitled ‘Improving Accessibility for London’s Visitor Economy’, the report was launched at a conference in London on October 13th, attended by leading figures in the capital’s tourism industry. The research found that despite significant progress in London’s tourism sector over the last ten years, entrepreneurs are not taking advantage of a large number of potential customers. [5]. Towards the above assumption it could be stated that the tourism industry can provide exceptional “quality of life” benefits through the varied range of visitor attractions and entertainment facilities that London’s communities can enjoy during their leisure time, and by providing substantial economic activity and employment opportunities. Culturally, tourism enables people from different backgrounds to enjoy and celebrate their diversity through world-renowned events such as the Notting Hill Carnival [1] An issue that should be taken under thorough consideration is that of the environmental pollution. While it is accepted (Hall et al., 2000, 65) that much environmental impact of tourism activity is local, for instance noise, visual intrusion, congestion, solid and effluent-based discharges and atmospheric emissions, the wider ramifications of the demand for and supply of the product in destinations is inescapable. It is not only the supply of materials and energy resources, most of which are likely to emanate from outside the immediate area, or even region, but also the distribution of services and the transit of tourists to and from the destination which must be acknowledged. In effect the impact on the biosphere of inputs and outputs in origin, transit and destination areas must be taken into account. Moreover, translating recognition of the industry’s environmental responsibility into action in the case of tourism has produced a multiplicity of codes of conduct (Mason and Mowforth 1995; UNEP/IE 1995). These codes emanate not only from the industry and its sectoral trade associations but also from governments, at national, regional and local levels, and from a variety of non-governmental environmental organisations. They emphasise environmental commitment and delimitation of responsibility, consideration of environmental factors in the planning and development of tourism facilities, and the development of environmentally sound products, operations and processes (Goodall 1997). Codes may be targeted not only at tourism businesses but may also be directed at tourists and destination communities. Such codes are frequently ‘statements of ideal’ (Mason and Mowforth 1995, 53) or principles, but fail to give practical advice, so badly needed by many tourism businesses and destinations, on how to implement best environmental practice at business unit or site scale (Hall et al., 2000, 70) IV. Conclusion The development of tourism in UK and particularly in London has been examined and analyzed a lot both in the literature and the empirical research. The findings of the relevant studies – as presented above – seem however to be controversial. The city seem to have a long tradition of global influence however when referring to organized tourism the situation is changed. However, it has to be noticed that the figures related with the tourism development of the city could be characterized as positive and encouraging. It is just the fact that comparing to the efforts made towards the development of this sector, the results are expected to be more positive as they do not produce the targeted outcome. On the other hand, the global turbulences in the political and financial conditions can justify such a level of performance. It seems that the most successful method for achieving the desired levels of development when referring to London’s tourism is to combine the promotion of the city’s commercial, financial, artistic and cultural aspects presenting its characteristics as a major European capital and one of the most developed international financial centres. References Bright, A. (2000). The Role of Social Marketing in Leisure and Recreation Management. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1): 12 Capitals Convention Wisdom; A New International Conference Centre Will Boost Londons Business Tourism. The Evening Standard, November 22, 2005: 47 Cleverdon, R. (1998) Vision 2020, Madrid: World Tourism Organisation Goodall, B. (1997) ‘The role of environmental self-regulation within the tourism industry in promoting sustainable development’ in W. Hein (ed.) Tourism and Sustainable Development. Hamburg: German Overseas Institute, 271-93 Cooper, C., Wahab S. (2001). Tourism in the Age of Globalisation. Routledge. London Cooper, C.P., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D.G., Wanhill, S. (1993) Tourism: Principles and Practice. London: Pitman Cordell, H. K. (1999). Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing Crouch, G. (1994) The study of tourism demand: A review of findings. Journal of Travel Research, 33(1): 2-21 Driver B. L. (1998). The benefits are endless. . . but why? Parks and Recreation, February, 26-32 Hall, D., Richards, G. (2000). Tourism and Sustainable Community Development. Routledge. London Hall, M., Page, S. (2002). The Geography of Tourism and Recreation: Environment, Place, and Space. Routledge. London Keller, P. (1996) Globalisation and Tourism, AIEST Tourist Review, 4. and AIEST Editions, 38, Switzerland: St Gallen Mason, P. and Mowforth, M. (1995) ‘Codes of conduct in tourism’ Occasional Papers in Geography, 1. Plymouth: Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Plymouth MacCannell, D. (1992) Empty Meeting Grounds, The Tourist Papers, London: Routledge Mathieson, A., Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. London: Longmans National Statistics, UK http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nscl.asp?id=7790 [7] Pearce, D.G. (1995a) Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis, 2nd edn. Harlow: Longman UNEP/IE (United Nations Environment Programme: Industry and Environment) (1995) Environmental Codes of Conduct for Tourism. Paris: UNEP Uysal, M. (1998) ‘The determinants of tourism demand: A theoretical perspective’, in D. Ioannides and K. Debbage (eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry: A Supply-side Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 79-95 Wahab, S. and Pigram, J. (eds) (1997) Tourism, Development, and Growth, London: Routledge http://www.lda.gov.uk/upload/pdf/London_Tourism_Action_Plan.pdf [1] Draft central London tourism development framework 2006 - 2009 http://www.c-london.co.uk/files/pdf/Central_London_Tourism_Framework%20for%20CLP.pdf [2] http://www.nomensa.com/news/industry-news/2006/2/online-tv-to-help-promote-london-tourism.html [3] Sen, S. (2004). The Channel Tunnel and its impact on Tourism in the United Kingdom http://www.geog.rdg.ac.uk/Research/Papers/GP172.pdf [4] http://www.startups.co.uk/London_tourism_failing_the_accessability_test.Yd0uMg9oyMzKtA.html [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_industry [6] Read More