Sustainable Development of Tourism Snowdonia Park - Dissertation Example

Sustainable Development of Tourism – Snowdonia Park Research Proposal Submitted By: ______________________ No.:______________ Affiliation: Guide: Date: November 13, 2006. Sustainable Development of Tourism – Snowdonia Park Research Proposal Table of Contents Item Description Page 1 Introduction 3 2 Purpose and Research Questions 4 3 Literature Review 6 4 Scope, Methodology and Limitations 12 5 Time Table 13 6 References 14 Introduction: Sustainable Tourism “Tourism is the study of man away from his usual habitat, of the industry which responds to his needs and the impacts that both he and the industry have for the host socio-cultural, economic and physical environments” (Jafari, 1981 quoted in Mason, 2003) At the heart of all definitions of tourism is the concept of enjoyment. To this are added sustainability and environmental protection. Sustainability is the ability of the system (normally comprising economic, social and environmental subsystems) to deliver continued development. The definition of sustainable development may further be stated as development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Recently a development programme named the “Green Key Initiative” has been undertaken at Snowdonia National Park to further sustainable tourism in this park. This research proposes to investigate this initiative and its effectiveness in terms of regenerative and sustainable development planning, how the local populace perceives it and its effect on the economy, society and ecology of the area. Purpose and Research Questions This research aims to highlight the importance of sustainability in tourism with a specific focus on the need for involvement of the local community and other stakeholders. It also proposes to develop a charter for sustainable development with active collaboration of local communities in a ‘bottom-up’ plan addressing the initiators of policy on tourism, and other stakeholders for achieving a genuinely sustainable tourism centre at Snowdonia. The research will specifically attempt to answer: 1. Are current measures and future developments planned at Snowdonia in conformity with internationally accepted best practices of community involvement? 2. What changes in course are required so that Snowdonia becomes a model Park in terms of sustainable development? 3. What will be the indicators of achievement and what feedback process will determine that progress is on the right path? Importance Development of the Snowdonia Park shall help regenerate social communities residing in and around the park and address income, investment, employment and to help stem the migration of local populace from the area. “Living in the spectacular surroundings of Snowdonia National Park is a pleasure, and a constant reminder that we should cherish and protect this breathtaking landscape of deep valleys and rugged mountains for future generations.” Bryn Terfel, Opera Singer1 “The parks [including Snowdonia] make a considerable contribution to the Welsh economy and it is vital that we ensure they continue to be managed both for their environmental quality and their economic value." Andrew Davies; Enterprise, Innovation and Networks Minister2 Snowdonia is a region of north Wales and a National Park spread over 2170 square kilometres. The Park is governed by the 18 member Snowdonia National Park Authority, which is made up of local government and Welsh national representatives3. More than 26,000 people live within the Park. The Park attracts over 6 million visitors annually, making it the third most visited national park in England. Whilst most of the land is either open or mountainous, there is a significant amount of agricultural activity in the Park (Snowdonia). Literature Review Literature has been briefly reviewed at this stage to develop an overview for the current thinking and has been extended to cover a few books, Journals and some relevant sites on the Internet. The survey targets identifying and understanding recommended practices from academe, practical project experiences and opinions of policy drivers. Unmanaged tourism can threaten the economy and ecology of a region. Sustainable tourism sees tourism as a triangular relationship between host areas and their habitats and peoples, holidaymakers, and the tourism industry” (Lane, 1994). Sustainable tourism aims to reconcile the tensions between the three partners in the triangle, and maintain the equilibrium in the long term (ibid). Sustainable tourism aims to minimise environmental and cultural damage, optimise visitor enjoyment, and maximize long- term economic growth for the region. It is way of obtaining a balance between the growth potential of tourism and the conservation needs of the environment (Hawkes & Williams, 1993). The presence of a tourism centre in an area adds to the quality of life of residents and contributes to their economic well being. However, the economic benefits of the presence of a tourist centre or cost of lack of it have not being seriously considered (Dredge and Moore (1992). It is also reasonable to expect that the impact that tourism has on the local environment is negative and if adequate care is not taken degradation will set in and lead to a drying up of the very source of the economic well being, or loss of sustainability (Glasson et al, 1995). Following the World Commission on Environment and Development Report, Our Common Future (WECD, 1987) every industrial sector and field of study has embraced the concept of Sustainable Development. This follows the concept of ‘Triple Bottom Line’ (BSD); that is, financial, social and environmental performance. For tourism it is important to deliver performance to its shareholders in terms of return on financial assets and customer value creation. It also has to perform for community and stakeholder success and ensure protection to natural and cultural environments. From this platform has risen the concept of Sustainable Tourism. Current tourism development suffers from an overall lack of planning, this is not because there are insufficient techniques or research, but is more due to the lack of commitment (Gunn, 2002). Gunn, (2002) states that elements of the tourism industry like transportation, hotels, food services and promotion should not be considered parts of ‘tourism’ – the product. Rather each area should be treated as a product by itself and should target to provide satisfaction for the overall package to become meaningful; and this, without losing sight of the whole. Definitions of sustainable tourism are diverse, ranging from interpretations that accept a high level of human responsibility for the environment, to those that primarily utilize the concept as a marketing tool (Orams, 1995). Sustainable tourism has to be holistic in its outlook in order to create a common vision and produce strategies that recognize the contributions of all stakeholders (Bramwell and Lane, 2000). Also at this level, where traditional industries have declined (the slate quarrying in case of Snowdonia) local tourism industry helps to create alternate sources of jobs and employment (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). Tourism is an economic activity that produces a range of positive and negative impacts. Sustainable tourism seeks to achieve the best balance between economic benefits and social and environmental costs (McKercher, 2003). Positive and negative aspects of tourism have the most profound impact on the economy, society and ecology of host communities. Whenever tourism activity ignores community input, ‘seeds of discontent’ are sown (Haywood, 1998). When the local communities’ tolerance levels are exceeded the industry has a tendency to peak, fade and self-destruct. Haywood (ibid) deliberates that while tourism planning must, ideally, involve all relevant and interested parties, this might be an elusive target to achieve due to the wide variety of institutional and system obstacles. Effective tourism planning must serve to enhance the operating effectiveness of tourism for all parties – visitors and concerned citizens, industry operators and their employees, prospective developers, the business community and various government agencies (ibid). For development of any sustainable tourism project it is essential that the local people and their representative participate in the planning and execution process. A striking feature of contemporary tourism is the wealth of collaborative initiatives between local authorities, government agencies, businesses, and host communities (Charlton and Essex 1996). In reality, such projects present many new problems and challenges, such as effective organization, representation, and evaluation of the efficacy of outcomes (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). It is important that all players in the industry collaborate since such partnerships have the potential to lead to dialogue and consensus building between potentially adversarial participants, about how tourism should be developed (Mason, 2003). Collaboration is the key priority. Collaboration involves a number of stakeholders working interactively on a common issue. Typically, this process involves an exchange of ideas and expertise and/or pooling of financial resources. The issue may be a complex one that cannot be solved by one agency acting on its own, but instead requires a multi-organizational response. Stakeholders are the actors with an interest in a common problem or issue (Jamal and Getz 1995:188). Bramwell and Sharman (1999) focus on the factors that might affect the actual working of a collaborative venture. They point out that the scope of the collaboration, such as whether the range of participants is representative, whether membership includes facilitators as well as implementers, and the level of support for the project is vital for effective functioning of such ventures. Incomplete representation, unequal power relations of stakeholders, or lack of accountability can weaken the effectiveness of policies and initiatives. The views of ‘‘strong voices’’ can often prevent alternative perspectives, held by ‘‘weaker’’ or even unarticulated positions, from being aired (Mason, Johnston and Twynam, 2000). Time constraints often allow only a ‘‘partial consensus’’ to be reached among interested parties (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). Transformational outcomes at the network level can be better achieved through hands-on practical activities at the level of individual businesses and through events that incorporate two-way communication and foster real cooperation. Long-term initiatives that promote projects of modest size and produce visible and tangible outcomes are also more likely to achieve progress than short-term schemes, which are more likely to breed frustration about the possibilities of sustainable development at the local level (Halme, 2001). Most projects of this type are short term and operate under tight financial constraints. They are set up to achieve some objective and disbanded after that. Sustainable development requires a long term perspective and the collaborative ventures set up must have time to develop and consolidate relationships amongst themselves so that consensus can be achieved. It is essential that emphasis is given to the importance of continual monitoring and review. The development of the park shall have to take place within the existing regulations, till such time they can be influenced to change. Given the difficulties in initiating major changes, a careful blend of statutory and voluntary structures will need to be used to ease the problems caused by the complex nature of ecotourism planning. McCool (1994) emphasises how eco-cultural tourism is a way for communities, with otherwise marginal cultural or ecological resources, to develop. Sustainability and participation are both crucial for the long term future of tourism of this type. Very important to the success of eco-cultural tourism is local control in the planning, development and maintenance of these sites. The aim of the ‘Green Key’ Initiative in Snowdonia is stated to be to “secure the future of viable communities through economic regeneration linked to an integrated and sustainable transport system and parking facilities, and to improving links with local communities and specialist user groups (Gwynedd).” This is being undertaken to enhance visitor experience while increasing the volume of tourist traffic. The initiative is a partnership between Conwy County Borough Council, the Countryside Council of Wales, Gwynedd Council, Snowdonia National Park Authority, the Wales Tourist Board and the Welsh Development Authority (ibid). Significantly names, affiliations or representation of individuals from the local community, primary stakeholders such as the Hotel and catering or transport industry are not mentioned. Instead “a comprehensive community engagement strategy has been developed for implementation of the Initiative and for developing future programmes” (ibid). The input and active involvement of local communities and specialist user groups is vital to the future success of Green Key. Documents and handouts on the Initiative do not mention how and when this will be achieved. It is important to understand that it is not possible for the government to make much improvement, since it is always difficult to implement policies and projects that are top-to-down decisions. Greater enthusiasm will always be obtained by ideas that have germinated locally, encompass local appreciation of ground realities and take opinions and best interest of the local society in mind. Albeit, with moderation and overview. Scope Methodology and Limitations The research would consist of studying existing conditions at the park and perceptions of the different stakeholders on sustainability and current direction in relation to maintenance of the environment. This will be achieved by an attitudinal survey conducted through interviews with a select cross section of people involved in various aspects of tourism at the Park, ranging from policy makers to the local populace and shall include maintenance personnel, hospitality trade, guides, some tourists and so on. The total number of interviews is planned to be about 40. Sampling will be done on judgemental basis. No difficulties in access are foreseen at this stage, except gaining audience with some of the people at the policy making level. This is proposed to be overcome by seeking interview formally and persistence. Information gathered will be collated to evidence the current state of affairs at the Park, level of involvement of local community and other interested parties. Supporting secondary data, in terms of attendance patterns, duration of stay, money spent etc. will be obtained where possible, available and required. A detailed literature survey will be carried out. On the basis of the evaluation of current conditions and future plans at the park and the literature survey a set of recommendations will be made to achieve regenerative use of the resources available as also to increase the level of satisfaction that visitors derive from their visit. Limitations The limitation of resources may become a constraint. However, enough information will be generated to form the basis, if required, of a more detailed research in the future. Time Plan The research will be carried out in accordance to a time frame established described below. Activity No. Activity Description Time Frame Start Finish 1. Submission of Proposal 13th November 2. Receive Feedback 4th December 3. Modify Proposal, if needed 4th December 5th December 4. Draft Introduction and Literature review submission along with Bibliography 5th December 19th January 5. Change above based on supervisor comments 6. Submit Methodology Draft 1st February 2nd March 7. Data Collection and Interviews 15th February 15th March 8. Submission of Draft Findings 16th March 30th March 9. Draft Conclusions and recommendations submission 1st April 27th April 10. Revise, edit and Submit Final Report 27th April 27th May Note: The months indicated are over the years 2006 – 2007. References: BSD, Business and Sustainable Development. Accessed on November 8, 2006 from the website: http://www.bsdglobal.com/tools/principles_triple.asp Bramwell, B., and Sharman A. (1999): Collaboration in Local Tourism Policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research 26:392–415. Bramwell, B. & Sharman, A. 2000. Approaches to sustainable tourism planning and community participation: the case of the Hope Valley. In: Richards, G. & Hall, D. (eds.). Tourism and Sustainable Community Development. Routledge, London-New York. p. 17–35. Bramwell, B., and Sharman A. (1999): Collaboration in Local Tourism Policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research 26:312–328. Bramwell, B., and Lane, B. (2000): Collaboration and Partnerships in Tourism Planning. In Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. eds., pp. 1–19. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Charlton, C., and Essex S. (1996).: The Involvement of District Councils in Tourism in England and Wales. Geoforum 27:175–192. Dredge, D and Moore, S (1992) a Methodology for the integration of tourism in town planning, Journal of tourism studies, 3 (1):8-21 Glasson, J.; Godfrey, K. and Goodey, B. (1995): Towards visitor impact management, Aldershot, Avebury, UK. Gunn, C. (2002). Tourism Planning – Basic concepts and cases (4th Edition), Routledge, UK Gwynedd, Official website of the Snowdonia Green Key Initiative, accessed on November 10, 2006 from: http://www.gwynedd.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/813/exec_summ_whole_doc.pdf Halme, M. (2001) Learning for Sustainable Development in Tourism Networks. Business Strategy and the Environment 10:100–114. Haywood, KM (1988): Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management, 9(2):105-118. Hawkes, S. and Williams, P. (1993): The Greening of Tourism: From Principles to Practice. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University Press. Jamal, T. and Getz, D. (1995): Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22:186–204. Lane, B. (1994): Sustainable Rural Tourism Strategies: A Tool for Development and Conservation, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(1&2) Mason, P, Johnston, M. and Twynam, D. (2000): The World Wide Fund for Nature Arctic Tourism Project. In Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, B. Bramwell and B. Lane, eds., pp. 98–116. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Mason P. (2003): Tourism Impacts – Planning & Management. Butterworth Heinemann. McCool, S.F. (1994), "Planning for sustainable nature dependent tourism development; limits of acceptable change system", Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 19(2):51-55 McKercher,B. (2003): Sustainable Tourism Development – Guiding Principles for Planning and Management. Presentation to the National Seminar on Sustainable tourism Development, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, accessed on November 8, 2006 from: http://www.devstud.org.uk/studygroups/tourism/resources/mckercher.pdf. Orams, M. (1995) Towards a More Desirable Form of Tourism. Tourism Management 16:3–8. Snowdonia: Wikipedia, accessed on November 10, 2006 from the website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowdonia WECD, (World Commission Environment and Development) (1987): ‘Our Common Future.’ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dear Reshma – Haywood, KM there is a typing mistake – the year is 1988 - the rest of the reference is correct. The quote from mason is taken from page 139 (look at summary in the book on that page) There are a number of definitions of sustainability – I have written my own – however if you wish use more detailed definition from http://www.ecoindia.com/sustainable-tourism.html Or from http://www.world-tourism.org/sustainable/concepts.htm This and the next paragraph are my own writing For Bryn Terfel I have provided a footnote: to repeat this is from http://www.snowdonia-society.org.uk/index.htm Similarly for Davies http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6057088.stm Bramwell and Sharman the first reference (in the list of references) is correct, for the second please substitute: Bramwell, B. & Sharman, A. 2000. Approaches to sustainable tourism planning and community participation: the case of the Hope Valley. In: Richards, G. & Hall, D. (eds.). Tourism and Sustainable Community Development. Routledge, London-New York. p. 17–35. In-text citations – first time 2000 (page 7 second para), second 1999, third 1999, fourth 1999 ibid = “cited earlier” Latin word quite like e.g. viz. etc. On page 8 reference is only 1999 – delete 2003 Read More