The Future of Tourism Planning Lies with a Community-Driven Approach - Case Study Example

The future of tourism planning lies with a community-driven approach Introduction According to Inskeep “Community demands for active participation in the setting of the tourism agenda and its priorities for tourism development and management cannot be ignored” (1991a, xi). Tourism planning should be based on community values taking into consideration other community needs, initiatives and opportunities. The “community approach” to tourism development should persist in importance embracing populace, politics and ecology. We argue strongly that the tourism industry address the community issues in a proactive manner while laying out tourism plans. The general “host-guest” conflicts and stereotypes can be better overcome by tourism development through clearer local guidance which goes on to stimulate a superior stewardship of tourism resources. The participation of the stakeholders such as tourism operators, government, local residents, etc in tourism planning guides an improved fitting, longer enduring, and less exhausting tourism industry taking into consideration the local requirements, concerns, desires and abilities. Community involvement while preparing plans for tourism increases the abilities of the stakeholders thereby resulting in sustainable tourism development. Community-driven tourism planning highlights improved strategic and rational vision for growth of tourism. The approach depends upon the local residents and the community leaders who propose opportunities to clarify strengths and weaknesses for the social, economic and ecological well-being. The influence of community-driven approach assures tourists’ satisfaction eliminating the experience of tourism as a source of anxiety and negative impact. The involvement of community in the process of tourism planning undoubtedly brings up flourishing impact on the tourism industry which otherwise would have remained less successful due to insufficient local knowledge and experience. The illustration of the Whistler Village has been cited as an ideal example of community-driven approach for tourism planning. Arguments for community-driven approach for tourism planning It has been very rightly said that the future of tourism planning lies with a community-driven approach. The need for community participation in tourism planning must be felt and appreciated (Murphy, 1985a). This calls for the inclusion of strategic planning and community development standards in tourism planning processes. This will inevitably result in to the cohesive working of all the stakeholders, be it tourism industry associations, resident organizations, public organizations, government officials, social agencies and special interest groups (Jamal & Getz, 1995a). Community based approach has therefore been recommended for paving the way for a more sustainable and consistent tourism industry (Simmons, 1994a). The stakeholders’ participation in tourism planning is to be encouraged for effective decisions which are certain to balance the economical, social, cultural and environmental factors. The adoption of community decisions for setting up tourism plans will undoubtedly result into the conservation of tourism attractions and unique or special features. In this way the community can “adapt to the unexpected, create the desirable, and avoid the undesirable…” (van Harssel, 1994: 208). It is true that the community-driven approach is more time consuming than the top-down approach as it requires patience and diligence from all stakeholders for establishing meticulous and mutual options. However, Inskeep argues “the results are often longer lasting and more effective over the long-term” (1991b: 27). Until recently the common factors considered while making tourism plans have been autonomous tourism operators, marketing proposals of the government and market responses to demands of the tourists. Hence, this trend which considers the tourists’ desires to be the sole stimulus for establishing tourism decisions is insufficient as it completely ignores the objectives of affected communities. Community-driven approach enables tourism planning to shake hands with local residents, prepare youth with expertise stewardship, understand better the demands, potentials and expectations of tourism, achieve consistent tourism season by satisfying tourists, ensuring safety of both the tourists and the residents, communicate messages of community to tourists, etc. According to Gunn “All travel is linked with communities no matter how urban or remote the purpose may be. This inescapable fact can be a blessing or a curse depending upon how well a community accepts its tourism role and maintains a balance between traveller and resident development and management” (1988: 241). A community should release itself from the forces of product development and tourism marketing. Community Based Tourism Planning (CBTP) specifies that the community should identify its own responsibilities along with the tourism industry’s functions instead of merely accepting their roles (Pinel, 1998a). The stakeholders can then ponder upon their experiences for setting up guidance for their own tourism development along with other important stakeholders (Pinel, 1998b). Therefore, a community based approach for tourism planning always leads to favourable development due to the belief in human potentials with the members of the community having optimistic approach and self credentials. Gunn believes “Only by all sectors planning toward better integration of all parts will tourism avoid difficulties and meet desired objectives” (2002a: 1).We can strongly support the concept of community-driven approach for laying out plans for tourism on the basis of the fundamental link between the proficiency, experiences, knowledge, requirements and support of the local residents and stakeholders such as government, tourism operators, industries, etc. This kind of a bond exhibits a list of observations like worries, expectations, thoughts and experiences affecting tourism changes. It also aids in the assessment of tourism resources such as communication and transportation, environmental features, hotspots and cultural heritage, thereby providing enhanced information to arrive at improved decisions. Knowledge should be shared and tourism plans should be discussed and conducted on a community base, for the “overall purpose of tourism development should be to enhance the quality of residents’ lives by addressing economic, social, cultural, and other benefits of tourism”(McCool & Martin 1994: 29-34). The community-base approach for setting plans for tourism became a prominent topic of study during the 1980s ad 1990s (Blank, 1989; Haywood, 1988; Jamal & Getz, 1995b; Murphy, 1988; Simmons, 1994b). In Tourism: A Community Approach, Murphy (1985b) considers the participation of resident along with the environmental and accessibility issues as vital factors for laying out plans for tourism. Murphy’s idea has been strongly supported by Inskeep who recognizes sustainable development as the fundamental element for tourism planning which highlights the integration of social, economic, and ecological concerns (Inskeep, 1991c). Jamal and Getz have rightly stated that collaboration “will require the recognition of individual and/or mutual benefits to be derived from the [planning] process” (1995c: 196). The principles of discovery, mutuality, locality, historicity, potentiality and improvement were considered to be the aiding tools for tourism planning instead of a specific model or method (Getz, 1986). In order to enable tourism to achieve better economic impact it must be planned accordingly to achieve superior tourists’ satisfaction, community integration and improved resource protection (Gunn, 2002b). The Whistler Village Example (http://casestudies.lead.org/index.php?cscid=52 2004): A community assessment case study in the Whistler Village reveals the prospective of using tourism planning as an incentive for community communications, association and growth. The profundity of community-generated imminent portrays an otherwise unexploited local proficiency about their tourism position. This is a strong example of how the astuteness of the local stakeholder matches up closely with common principles of ecotourism and sustainable tourism development. The case study underlines the major dormant advantages of community-driven approach for tourism planning rather than merely market or expert-driven approach. The space limitations at the mountain’s base have made community development as the primary longtime occupation of the Whistler community. Traffic restrictions, underground parking, waste management during high tourist seasons, recycling, superior municipal sewer system are all the factors proving the Whistler Village tourism planning to be community- driven. The Whistler Environment Strategy (WES) suggests ecosystem-driven land utilization, environment-friendly transportation, efficient water supply and waste water management, improved waste decline and recycling, energy conservation and implementation plan underlining community partnerships, local governments’ functions, local commercial procedures, education, research and approach to examining and policy reassessment. All these contribute to the Whistler tourism development as any region must be made good before it can invite others in to it. The improvement of the environmental stewardship in the community is the responsibility of the RMOW’s agency. Traffic congestion being the major concern the tourists have to depend predominantly upon large tour buses, automobiles and trains which shuttle people hourly, the latter being less reliable for its infrequency and slowness. This superb public transit system is one of the examples of community-driven approach for Whistler tourism planning. Chair lifts operating on the mountains enable the tourists to navigate between restaurants, ski rental outfits, meeting areas and mountain tops. Tourism Whistler, Canadian Pacific Hotels, The Resort Municipality of Whistler and Intrawest, all being the chief corporate stakeholders participate in the Whistler tourism planning and have recently come up with the Natural Step philosophy. Both the Whistler Environmental Strategy (WES) and the Natural Step initiatives dealt by the multi-stakeholder groups are aimed to achieve sustainable tourism development through a strong base of community and business support. Conclusion In the light of the above we can easily conclude that the future of tourism planning lies with a community-driven approach. Few authors do criticize the concept stating that the community is not asked as the decision has already been made (Hall, 2000). However, it cannot be denied that a community-based tourism planning can be followed as a supple and approachable procedure instead of as the mission for a rigid plan. The social, economic and ecological concerns when integrated in appropriate ways while laying out plans for tourism development result in overall sustainable growth. The participation of all the stakeholders be it the government independent tourism operators, resident organizations, public organizations, government officials, social agencies and special interest groups in the decision making process for tourism development plays a vital role. The sharing of information, knowledge, expertise and experience of the entire community while tourism planning will undoubtedly result into a flourishing response in the tourism industry. This kind of a tie brings into light innumerable issues like desires, fears, etc which too need to be addressed for tourism changes. The adoption of a community-based approach also throws light on umpteen number of valuable tourism resources like infrastructure, cultural heritage, biophysical features, attractions, etc, the review of which is equally important before arriving at any tourism decision. According to Hall “The realization that the community itself has become an object of tourism consumption has in turn encouraged some communities to reproduce themselves specifically for tourists” (2003: 4). We can therefore conclude that a rational tourism planning must arrive out of community based framework for truly achieving sustainable development. Bibliography Blank, U. (1989). The community tourism industry imperative: The necessity, the opportunity and its potential. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Community development and management. (2004). Globalization and Sustainability in The Whistler-Squamish Corridor: Recreation, Tourism and Sustainable. Casestudies. Lead. http://casestudies.lead.org/index.php?cscid=52, accessed 11th November 2006. Getz, D. (1986). Models in tourism planning: Towards integration of theory and practice. Tourism Management, 7(2), 21-32. Gunn, C. (1988). Tourism Planning. Taylor & Francis, New York. 241 Gunn, C. (2002a). Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. 4th Edition, Routledge. 1. Gunn, C. (2002b). Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. 4th Edition, Routledge. 1. Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism Planning. Policies Processes and Relationships. Prentice. Hall, D. R. and Greg (2003). Tourism and Sustainable Community Development. Routledge. 4. Haywood, M. K. (1988). Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management, 9(2), 105-118. Inskeep, E. (1991a). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. VNR Tourism and Commercial Recreation Series. van Norstrand Reinhold, New York. xi Inskeep, E. (1991b). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. VNR Tourism and Commercial Recreation Series. van Norstrand Reinhold, New York. 27 Inskeep, E. (1991c). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. VNR Tourism and Commercial Recreation Series. van Norstrand Reinhold, New York. Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995a). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186-204. Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995b). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186-204. Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995c). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 196. McCool, S. F., & Martin, S. R. (1994). “Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism Development”. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 29-34. Murphy, P. E. (1985a). Tourism: A Community Approach. Methuen, New York. Murphy, P. E. (1985b). Tourism: A Community Approach. Methuen, New York. Murphy, P. E. (1988). Community driven tourism planning. Tourism Management, 9(2), 96-104. Pinel, David. (1998a). A Community-Based Tourism Planning Process Model: Kyuquot Sound Area, B.C., M.Sc. Thesis. University School of Rural Planning and Development. U. of Guelph. Pinel, David. (1998b). A Community-Based Tourism Planning Process Model: Kyuquot Sound Area, B.C., M.Sc. Thesis. University School of Rural Planning and Development. U. of Guelph. Simmons, D. G. (1994a). Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management, 15(2), 98-105. Simmons, D. G. (1994b). Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management, 15(2), 98-108. van Harssel, Jan (ed.). (1994). Tourism – An Exploration (Third Edition). Prentice Hall Career & Technology, New Jersey. 208. Read More