barriers in tourism planning

Barriers in Tourism Planning: Economic, Natural Resources, Community, Government

• Post last modified: 19 January 2022
• Reading time: 12 mins read
• Post category: Uncategorized

What are Barriers in Tourism Planning?

There are different barriers in planning and the factors involved in the barriers as well as resolutions of tourism. Tourism development germinates special ecological problems not encountered in other types of economic activity. The environmental resources ‘exploited’ recreational possibilities or educational and cultural interest.

Table of Content

• 1 What are Barriers in Tourism Planning?
• 2 Barriers in Tourism Planning
• 3.1 Economic Factors
• 3.2 Physical and Natural Resources
• 3.3 Community and Influence
• 3.4 Government Structuring
• 4 Barrier to Tourism Development and Possible Resolution

Planning tourism occurs when a community, regardless of the size, is interested in having people from various locations visit for enjoyment and recreation. Planning for tourists can sometimes follow the same guidelines tourists themselves use when planning to visit another location, which may be foreign to them.

Since tourism has evolved as vital activity, tourism planning must develop with it. Tourism planning has to be more flexible and capable of accommodating a wide array of political, social, economic and environmental changes.

Barriers in Tourism Planning

Unfortunately, there may be barriers that can keep a community from achieving its goal of accommodating tourists. Each community has different goals and reasons for planning tourists, and with each goal, certain issues will need to be weighed and handled.

Barriers to tourism development have hardly been discussed. Hunt (2005) outlines in broad terms such as constraints to include the following:

• A lack of community participation in development policy.
• A lack of knowledge and awareness.
• Power imbalances between governments and local communities.
• Segmented and complex institutional arrangements.
• Lack of financial resource.
• According to McGinty, (2003) , Taylor, (2003), Cronin, (2003) and Hunt, (2005), there are following barriers in community capacity building in local communities.
• Lack of power as a component of community development.
• Inadequate focus on human resource development at the community level.
• Lack of information to facilitate informed decisions.
• Lack of authority for communities to control important matters.
• Lack of effective and strong governance institutions.
• Dependency on government and bureaucracy to meet needs.
• Lack of capacity to solve problems (Cronin, 2003:3; Makuwira & Yumbah).

Factors of Barriers in Tourism Planning

These are four factors of barriers in tourism planning :

Economic Factors

Physical and natural resources, community and influence, government structuring.

• Arm Twisting is the foremost barrier in tourism planning activity in this case the Advisors of Indigenous country protects their people to cross the any tourism activity as these advisors have researched their internal conditions in terms of politics, urgency and climate.
• Crime: In this case the tourism activities are highly hampered as the people/ tourists get afraid of being the plunged into crime related activities, molestation, assault and so on.
• Lust for earning has also been a major cause of barrier for tourism planning as people moving to urban areas neglecting their regional employment services and their regional tourism development. Hence becoming the major backdrop for the tourism planning policy.

The physical environment is perhaps the most widely recognized barrier.

Having an influx of individuals visiting the community as tourists may cause a strain on the overall natural resources and conservation of the environment. For example, if a community located in the Amazon rain forests wants to increase the number of tourists in the area it may experience some damage to the natural wildlife inhabiting the rain forests.

Resources must also be in place to protect certain wildlife parks and other natural resources, which may require further revenue.

Communities may assume that tourism will boost their economy, create more jobs and cause the inhabitants to further develop their communities and areas. Unfortunately, some barriers can include the maximization of income.

Maximizing income means that there are only enough resources available to equip a certain amount of tourists, which can place a cap on the income the community can make. The community must also consider the locations and activities they make available to their tourists to motivate them to visit again and again.

Effective tourism planning requires resident involvement to overcome the negative impacts to channel the benefits associated with tourism development. Tosun (2000), in his study of limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries, pointed out that it is important to involve the local community in the tourism development process.

• Nature of politics: A large part of the population lacks political literacy and fails to understand how political processes work. Additionally there is a tendency to voice opinions at public meetings or by attending public sector led events, but a reluctance to become actively involved.
• Perception and nature of tourism: Concern about the impacts of tourism, coupled with a failure to understand the industry and its relationship with the local economy means communities are not engaged in a long-term view and do not acknowledge that management rather than prevention is needed.
• History of involvement in tourism: Where communities have played a strong role, or form part of the historical commodity on view, they tend to be more tolerant and accepting. Examples include re-enactment societies, local festivals and events.
• Attitudes of media: When all is good media plays a key role in promoting tourism, selling positive stories and strengthening reputation. It is effective at raising support for charities and events in the sector. However, one negative feature about new developments or negative research damages the reputation of the sector.
• Apathy amongst citizens: Communities often feel there is little they can do to change a situation so are reluctant to become involved in local politics or projects.
• Cost in relation to time and money: Successful participation requires time, energy, commitment and maybe even money. This is often an underpinning factor in apathy.
• Decision making takes longer with community involvement: Sometimes it can take longer to make a decision, but this is primarily a perception which exists because of beliefs about planning processes and political systems, again leading to apathy and a failure to understand politics.
• Ensuring fair opportunities for representation from the whole community: This is hard to achieve for any organization, be it public, private or voluntary sector.
• Lack of understanding of complex planning issues and processes: Many people don’t understand what decision makers do. They tend to refer to them with terms such as ‘the Council’ and ‘them in their ivory towers’ and are unwilling to participate except to oppose change.

Government is the key player in tourism development and a great contributor to tourism in developing countries. As already discussed tourism is an economical enhancer and ultimately contributes to the govt. in the development of destination directly or indirectly, there lies the need for tourism promotion and planning policies to be implemented at the local, regional and national levels as well.

There must be a government infrastructure set up to ensure that tourists feel safe and protected, as well as to provide for the allocation of funds to prepare for and maintain tourists. There is also the pressure from supra-national forces, which is defined as a mixture of countries that have agreed to come together for policymaking, assistance and possibly developing tourist planning in certain areas.

Supra-national or international forces may suggest tourists not to visit the community that wants to plan a tourism, as it may stagnate their goals. Violent conflicts and lack of political stability will be a constant problem in Sea in tourism in future years.

A lot of conflicts full of violence has occurred among or between countries and it is probable that it will occur again although the details of the way of doing this will fluctuate from one situation to another.

Lack of effective political organization will cause public discontentment to change to extra-law forms. In addition, internal conflict and the potential failure and inability of the government, which has resulted from the substitution crisis, will happen in all developing countries in future years.

The incongruity existing between different tribes which are a necessary but insufficient condition for creating a violent conflict has become common in all countries of this region. Therefore, it is probable that weak organizations having weak bureaucracy and limited central control cooperate with other discontented groups and create a barrier for stability and development of the region.

Barrier to Tourism Development and Possible Resolution

A Barrier to Tourism Development and Possible Resolution

Please Share This Share this content

• Opens in a new window X
• Opens in a new window Facebook
• Opens in a new window Pinterest
• Opens in a new window LinkedIn
• Opens in a new window Reddit
• Opens in a new window WhatsApp

You Might Also Like

Bay of bengal islands, what is catering industry, segments, types, tourism planning, organizational alignment: as systems, framework, architectural landmarks of west bengal, home stays in india, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Tourism Policy, Planning, and Development

General overview.

Tourism policy, planning, and development are all very connected and do not just occur when a geographic area decides to be a tourism destination. Policy, planning, and development are included in numerous aspects of communities.

continue but from different perspectives. An example would be the use of the destination/product lifecycle, discussed later. It is important to understand what tourism planning and development are individually as well as collectively. Planning is essential to effective development. Tourism is not always a beneficial industry for a geographical area, but without planning tourism can damage the area, including natural and cultural resources (Morrison et al., 2018). A destination might consider “Who, What, When, Where, Why” when working on a tourism plan. The same can be considered for tourism development, as well as other topics included in this alternative textbook (e.g., marketing and promotion).

Tourism Policy

A policy is essentially a course of action taken by some organization or institution (e.g., government, business, educational institution). A tourism policy as defined by Edgell et al. (2008) “is a progressive course of actions, guidelines, directives, principles, and procedures set in an ethical framework that is issues-focused and best represents the intent of a community (or nation) to effectively meet its planning, development, product, service, marketing, and sustainability goals and objectives for the future grown of tourism” (p. 7). Stated more simply, Hall and Jenkins (1995) suggest “tourism public policy is whatever governments choose to do nor not to do with respect to tourism” (p. 7-8). A tourism policy is essentially a framework including guidelines, goals, and initiatives to work toward achieving the goals. Where as an act by government, such as the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 establishing Brand USA, is a law or statute.

A policy for international travel is having a current passport and for many countries a Visa. The application for a Visa to visit a foreign country allows countries to approve who may visit the country and not allow individuals for a variety of reasons (e.g., security threat). The U.S also has the Visa Waiver Program, which is an agreement with  40 countries allowing citizens of those countries to visit the U.S. for business or leisure travel purposes for up to 90 days without a Visa, provided they meet other requirements (U.S. Department of State – Bureau of Counsular Affairs, n.d.). The countries with the Visa Waiver Program also allows U.S. residents to travel to the respective countries with fairly similar criteria. The purpose of requiring a Visa is to regulate travel between countries. The Visa Waiver Program is an agreement to allow citizens of certain countries to visit without having to obtain a Visa if certain criteria are met. This essentially makes it easier to travel between the respective countries.

The International Trade Administration includes a Tourism Policy Council (TPC) to ensure national decision-making considers the national interests of travel and tourism (International Trade Administration, n.d.). The TPC provides resources to help with such issues or challenges as recovering from disaster, and links to Center for Disease Control (CDC), and many other potential issues or challenges for travel and tourism in the U.S.

At more local levels, Morrison et al. (2018) suggest tourism destinations can develop policies for development, marketing, tourist experiences, human resource issues, tourism organizations (e.g., structure), relationships throughout the community, quality assurance, and supporting services (e.g., safety and security).

Policy Setting Process

There are a series of recommended steps for the establishing policy (Morrison et al., 2018). First, identifying and assessing the circumstances related to the issue. This includes understanding contraints that you and/or will face. Constraints can be internal (e.g., locals’ awareness of tourism, training and education of employees in hospitality and tourism, budget) or external (e.g., economy,  price of gas, natural disaster). The tourism organization/local industry has more control or ability to do something about internal constraints, while have little or no control over external constraints. For example, nothing can be done about bad weather or if a natural disaster occurs. However, if locals are not aware of tourism in the local community, education and information can be shared to make locals more aware. This step in the process can also make you aware of new opportunities (e.g., an attraction to develop, new target market).

The next step is typically to create a policy statement to provide guidelines, goals, and initiatives to help guide the organization, destination, etc. While not directly a policy statement, most CVB vision statements include something that provides a guideline with somewhat vague goals. For example, it might be to maintain and/or improve the quality of life for residents of the destination by promoting the destination for tourism and conventions, which would include an economic goal. A policy statement for this vision would be more specific with the goals and initiatives identified to fulfill the goals.

Consultation with government, local tourism businesses, and any other stakeholders is next. This step is to get feedback about the policy statement. Following the consultation and depending on the outcome, the policy statement might be rewritten or modified. Next would be another round of consultation and then rewriting until the the policy statement is approved.

Now is time to implement the policy statement. This will include identifying specific roles of individuals, committees, organizations, etc. This step also includes developing the budget and timeline for the initiative(s).

Finally, those involved evaluation the policy. Were the goals achieved? Why or why not? However, you do not wait until the end of the established timeline for the policy to evaluate. There should be constant assessment to identify if you are likely to achieve the goals. Remember there are numerous constraints that are external (e.g., weather, natural disaster) that might dictate the need to adjust the initiatives and other efforts related to the tourism policy.

Tourism Planning

Prior to tourism planning it is important to consider other types of planning for a community or geographic area. Planning is not new. Gunn and Var (2002) indicate physical planning goes back to early Greek and Roman times. Planning is done to manage visual appearance and land use. However, planning incorporates many disciplines and perspectives: “Planning is a multidimensional activity and seeks to be integrative. It embraces social, economic, political, psychological, anthropological, and technology factors. It is concerned with the past, present, and future” (Rose, 1984, p. 45).

Gunn and Var (2002) suggest when plans (not only tourism, but community, etc.) are created they often include very high or lofty goals and it is difficult to actually achieve such goals for numerous reasons. Planning is very vague and has no real theory behind it. For community plans the general goal is a better place to live. For tourism planning the goal might be to provide visitors with a good experience. As stated earlier, an effective  tourism plan can also maintain or even improve the quality of life of residents, not just economically but the attractions provide activities for local residents as well as tourists.

Morrison et al. (2018) offer three primary reasons for tourism planning. The first two are related to impacts, to maximize the economic benefits and minimize damage to resources (i.e., natural, environmental, cultural). Another reason for a tourism plan is that tourism is constantly changing for many reasons (e.g., visitor expectations, needs, motives; politics; economy; technology). As a result, the plan needs to be adaptable.

Not all destinations have a tourism plan. Some reasons for not having a tourism plan include (Morrison et al., 2018):

• Objections – it should be taken care of by the private sector and there is no need for a formal plan.
• Cost – includes market research, consultations, and a lot of time.
• Complex – tourism is affected by numerous things, such as government policies, dynamic of the community and stakeholders.
• Diversity – various sectors involved directly or indirectly in tourism.
• Seasonality – in many destinations the jobs related to tourism can be seasonal (e.g., beach destinations, snow skiing destinations).
• Unpredictability – keep in mind the numerous things that affect and make tourism complex (e.g., natural disasters, crises, politics, economy).

Gunn and Var (2002) add the following tourism planning barriers:

• Lack of awareness of tourism impacts – which is ironic because it is a reason for a tourism plan.
• Do not understand tourism development – there needs to be a plan for developing tourism and then maintaining and even upgrading tourism (e.g., attractions, facilities, etc.).
• Inadequate infrastructure – might have deteriorated attractions, facilities, etc.
• Unorganized – no leadership to guide the process.
• Politics – usually various opinions among stakeholders (e.g., businesses, government, other stakeholders).
• Lack of hospitality training.

However, there can be serious consequences of unplanned tourism. In general, unplanned tourism is not likely to be sustainable tourism economically, environmentally, socially/culturally.

Tourism Planning Models or Approaches

Morrison et al. (2018) provide a seven step tourism destination planning model:

• Background analysis – including a SWOT analysis and assessments of government policies that affect tourism, inventory analysis (e.g., attractions, accommodations, restaurants, etc.), current demand for tourism at the destination.
• Research and analyses – identify/map locations of the inventory analysis, market survey of current visitors (e.g., motivations, what they like to do) and non-visitors (e.g., why have they not visited?, awareness of the destination, image/perception of the destination), competitive analysis (e.g., who are your competitors?, how can you differentiate your destination from competitors? what do and can you work to improve?).
• Where are we now? (position statement).
• Where would we like to be? (vision statement). Then, identify critical success factors or ways to measure and determine if you achieved your vision.
• Setting goals, establishing strategies, and setting objectives – develop a policy or (e.g., stimulate the economy). Set goals or achievable outcomes. Identify alternative strategies to achieve goals and select the most desired of the alternatives given environment or conditions (e.g., economy, resources, politics). Set objectives which are more short term goals to help monitor if you are going to achieve your longer term goals. If not, remember a tourism destination plan should be adaptable, which is the next step.
• Develop a plan – identify organizations and people to be involved and their roles, funding sources and budgets for different aspects of the plan, activities to implement your plan.
• Implement and monitor the plan – While the plan should be developed by input and participation by numerous stakeholders, it is generally implemented by a local tourism agency or organization (e.g., CVB). But, there should be committees derived of various stakeholders to which the agency is accountable. This helps monitor progress of implementing the tourism destination plan and adapt if needed.
• Evaluate the plan – measure performant of the various parts of the plan against the goals (e.g., did you achieve the goals? Why or why not?). Use the evaluation to see if and how you might adapt the plan moving forward.

Tourism Development

The tourism destination plan helps guide development of tourism. Destinations will be at various stages of development. So, it is not that the tourism plan is just for a destination just getting involved in tourism. As suggested by Mason (2003). development and change for destinations occurs as time progresses. The characteristics, motives, preferred activities and attractions, and many other things change over time and destinations redevelop to remain competitive. A fairly common way to view this is commonly referred to as “Butler’s Tourism Area Lifecycle”. There are five main stages to Butler’s Life Cycle (Butler, 1980):

• Exploration – at this stage there might be some tourism but not really an effort to provide traditional or common tourism attractions, facilities, etc. This stage mostly include tourists visiting facilities and local resources used by residents.
• Involvement – this is the beginning of the destination offering some facilities for tourists. The destination begins to more formally organize and provide or improve infrastructure, some attractions, and facilities for tourists at a local level.
• Development – the destination begins marketing and promoting the destination. This stage also begins development from outside organizations and/or businesses. The destination will begin to develop and look more like a noticeable tourist destination. More and more tourists will likely visit the destination as development progresses.
• Consolidation – at this stage the rate of increase in visitors will begin to decline. The rate of development will also begin to decline. Residents may become opposed to tourism with all of the non-locals who are in the community and there is more traffic and congestion. Some of the older attractions, facilities, etc. may also begin showing degradation.
• Decline – number of visitors will be begin to decrease as competitor destinations might have more appealing attractions, infrastructure, etc. The degradation of attractions, infrastructure, and other aspects of the destination will continue and possibly turn into what Butler (1980) refers to as a “veritable tourist slum” (p. 9).
• Rejuvenation – this outcome can occur by development of a new man-made attraction, which is likely to be followed by improvement of surrounding attractions, facilities, and other tourist needs. However, if competitor destinations also rejuvenate, the competition will remain and rejuvenation might be much less or possibly not rejuvenate and potentially decline. Another way Butler (1980) suggest rejuvenation can occur is to utilize natural resources that might not have been part tourism product throughout previous tourism development and marketing and promotion.

Butler (1980), as well as many other tourism scholars, suggest all of these efforts or stages of Tourism Area Life Cycle should be a collaborative effort within the community. For example, the government could offer incentives for private development of a new man-made attraction.

There are a number of potential ways to develop tourism. One way is to develop a “flagship” attraction, which are major attractions like a theme park (e.g., Disney Land, Disney World) and/or utilize natural attractions (e.g., ocean, lake, National Park). Gunn and Var (2002) offer recommendations for tourism destinations to develop destination zones. The zone would have clusters of attractions (e.g., museum districts) and a corridor connecting the clusters with some form of transportation. Clustering attractions provides tourists with more to do in a closer area so they spend more time at attractions and less traveling between attractions. The destination zone and clustering is a great example of planning and development and how integrated the two initiatives should be.

Morrison et al. (2018) suggest tourism involvement should be holistic. The holistic view would include consideration of the product (e.g., attractions, events, support facilities, transportation, infrastructure, etc.). Respective destinations could also ensure people (i.e., hosts, guests) are included to ensure there is community awareness and  inclusion of local businesses, organizations, and residents. Morrison et al. (2018) also suggest visitor management (e.g., signage) and identifying the visitor mix of the destination. Packages (e.g., all inclusive, hotel and tickets to attraction) and programs (e.g., events, festivals, other activities) could also be developed to attract more tourists. However, destinations should approach tourism development and/or redevelopment from a sustainable approach to avoid overtourism (i.e., too many tourists).

Sustainable Tourism Development

Tourism development should also be sustainable and include the three impacts of tourism (i.e., economic, environmental, social/cultural).

The United Nations (n.d.) proposes 17 goals to consider for economic development, which include economic (e.g., “No Poverty”, “Decent Work and Economic Growth”, environmental (e.g., “Clean Water and Sanitation”, “Affordable and Clean Energy”), and social/cultural (e.g., “Good Health and Well Being”, Quality Education”) goals. The 17th goal is “Partnerships For the Goals”, which are very important for tourism destinations, not only in tourism destination planning and development, but other aspects such as marketing and promotion.

Relating development back to the impacts of tourism (i.e., economic, environmental, social/cultural). Sustainable development should include these impacts. Morrison et al. (2018) through applying the triple bottom line to tourism offers some examples of efforts for sustainable development in each of the three areas:

• Social – include residents, be sure development improves or at least maintains locals’ quality of life.
• Environmental – protect resources, educate visitors and residents of ways to protect resources.
• Economic – new employment opportunities, increase spending of visitors, find ways to have businesses purchase locally to minimize leakage.

Tourism Development Strategies

Various strategies exist to develop tourism. For example, flagship attractions (e.g., large amusement parks, National Parks) can provide something unique to market and promote. Development of clusters of attractions (e.g., museum districts) provide several attractions near each other so visitors do not have to drive long distances between attractions. Such districts could also include development of a circuit or trail for transportation via hiking or biking. Aside from man-made attractions, events can be developed by destinations to highlight such things as cultural or other unique aspects of a destination.

Considering all of the possible options of tourism development provides a holistic view. Not only the examples of attractions and events, but packages and programs can developed. Destinations need to also consider all of the elements of tourism in development (i.e., attractions, infrastructure, transportation, built/support facilities, service quality/hospitality). Again, not only businesses and organizations directly involved in tourism, but all stakeholders (e.g., residents, other local businesses) should be included and/or given the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the tourism development plan.

The general goals of tourism development should include improving visitors’ experiences, improving the local economy, not damaging natural resources, and integration throughout the destination so that tourism attractions and venues are not isolated from the rest of the community (Gunn & Var, 2002). Such goals of tourism development require all three sectors (i.e., private, non-profit, government) to be involved and collaborate.

Tourism Development Roles

The private sector, non-profit, government, and local community (e.g., residents) should be involved in tourism development. The private sector role is entrepreneurial and operations (Morrison et al., 2018). The entrepreneurial role is to identify investors to develop man-made attractions, accommodations, food and beverage, and other facilities for tourists. Once built their role becomes to hire workers, manage the operation and ensure it is successful. After all, they are taking a risk as entrepreneurs.

As discussed in the Tourism Organizations section, the non-profit organizations include CVBs to market and manage the destination, chambers of commerce, associations such as a local sports association to attract sporting events to the destination. The CVB typically works with all stakeholders and leads the marketing and sales (e.g., conventions, trade shows) for the destination. Chambers of commerce might be the tourism marketing and sales organization in smaller destinations. However, many of these non-profit types of organizations collaborate with each other, as well as with private or for-profit-sector (e.g., members of CVBs) and government (e.g., hotel tax dollars as a funding source). Non-profit organizations might also operate such things as museums and historical attractions, as well as festivals and events. Such organizations might be local cultural organizations.

The government really does not manage tourism attractions. However, there are exceptions, such as National Parks. Government roles are to stimulate development of tourism, as well as establish and enforce procedures, codes, such as zoning (e.g., business, residential). Government might also get involved for the following reasons: bankruptcy of an attraction where the government needs to help the business in some way, ensure cultural aspects of the community are conserved, encouraging private sector development, find ways to work with potential attractions and other elements of tourism provided through the private sector where businesses may have concerns about being profitable (Morrison et al., 2018).

Government might fulfill some of the above reasons for their role in tourism development by offering incentives (e.g., tax breaks) to entice development by the private sector. Government might also offer a piece of land for private sector development, which lowers the businesses cost to develop at attraction, supporting facilities, or other element of tourism.

While the sectors may have relatively unique roles in tourism development, it is also important the cooperate with each other for the good of the destination. Edgell and Haenisch (1995) offer a model whereby there are times each will work independently of the other two sectors, times when two sectors work together (e.g., private sector and government), and times when all three work together. Edgell and Haenisch (1995) call this “coopetition”. For example, while attractions compete within the destination for tourists to visit respective attractions, if all stakeholders cooperate the develop and manage tourism, the destination will do better overall.

Project Development Analyses

Prior to developing an attraction, hotel, or other element of tourism, there should be an assessment or analysis to determine the feasibility of being successful. Private sector developers who need be profitable will typically do feasibility studies. This may start with a pre-feasibility study, which is essentially to see if the project is even viable. For example, does the project make sense given what the destination already offers? Pre-feasibility studies might be conducted by whatever company or organization is interested in the project. If it does, the next step would be a more robust feasibility study to identify such things as potential sites for the product being considered, assess the market demand of the project, projected revenues and expenses, capital costs to develop the project, and will there be enough return on investment (ROI) if the project is developed. The full feasibility study is often conducted by an independent consulting company to minimize biases. The feasibility studies helps the company or organization identify if the project should move forward or not.

The market demand study within the full feasibility study would include secondary and primary research. Secondary research would include existing data, such as hotel metrics (e.g., supply, demand or rooms sold over a given period of time, occupancy, average daily rate (ADR), and revenue per available room (REVPAR) if the project is a hotel. Primary market analysis requires collection of data. This can include surveys (e.g., visitors of the destination to determine if the potential project is of interest), focus groups to get in-depth insight as to the interest of visitors. Surveys can also be conducted to potentially identify potential demand for the project.

If a project is not intended to be profitable, such as one being developed by the government or non-profit organization, a cost-benefit analysis can be conducted. Such a study essentially identifies the potential benefits to society are worth the cost of the investment.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area life cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, XXIV (1), 5-12.

Draper, J., Woosnam, K. M., & Norman, W. C. (2011). Tourism use history: Exploring a new framework for understanding residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 50 (1), 64-77.

Edgell, D. L., Allen, M. D., Smith, G., & Swanson, L. E. (2008). Tourism policy and planning: Yesterday, today and tomorrow . Elsevier Inc.

Gunn, C. A., & Var, T. (2002). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases (4th ed.). Routledge.

Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. M. (1995). Tourism and public policy . Routledge.

International Trade Administration. (n.d.). Tourism Policy Council (TPC). https://www.trade.gov/tourism-policy-council

Mason, P. (2003). Tourism impacts, planning and management . Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Morrison, A. M., Lehto, X. Y., & Day, J. G. (2018). The tourism system (8th ed.). Kendall Hunt.

Rose, E. A. (1984). Philosophy and purpose in planning. In M. J. Bruton (Ed.), The spirit and purpose of planning (2nd ed., pp. 31-65). Hutchinson.

United Nations. (n.d.). Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/goals

U.S. Department of State – Bureau of Counsular Affairs. (n.d.) Visa Waiver Program. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visa-waiver-program.html

GHL 2365 - Tourism Copyright © 2024 by Jason Draper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Scholarly Community Encyclopedia
• Log in/Sign up

Video Upload Options

• MDPI and ACS Style
• Chicago Style

Effective planning with a sustainable long-term vision is vital for long-term economic and social development, visitor satisfaction, improved business success, social integration, and the protection of environmental assets.  However, transitioning to a long term sustainable approach to tourism planning via the monitoring of impacts requires efficient resourcing of Local Authorities.

1. Introduction

2. sustainable tourism management, 3. barriers to evidence-based sustainable tourism planning and management.

• Wagner, J. Estimating the economic impacts of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997, 24, 592–608.
• Blancas, F.J.; Lozano-Oyola, M.; González, M. A European Sustainable Tourism Labels Proposal using a Composite Indicator. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 54, 39–54.
• Font, X.; Torres-Delgado, A.; Crabolu, G.; Palomo Martinez, J.; Kantenbacher, J.; Miller, G. The impact of sustainable tourism indicators on destination competitiveness: The European Tourism Indicator System. J. Sustain. Tour 2021, 31, 1608–1630.
• Sharpley, R. Tourism Development and the Environment: Beyond Sustainability? Earthscan: London, UK, 2009.
• Hatipoglu, B.; Alvarez, M.D.; Ertuna, B. Barriers to Stakeholder Involvement in the Planning of Sustainable Tourism: The Case of the Thrace Region in Turkey. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 111, 306–317.
• Saarinen, J.; Rogerson, C.M.; Hall, C.M. Geographies of tourism development and planning. In Tourism Planning and Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 1–11.
• McLoughlin, E.; Maguire, K. Evidence Informed Planning for Tourism. In Encyclopedia of Tourism Management and Marketing; Buhalis, D., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2022.
• McLoughlin, E.; Hanrahan, J. Local authority sustainable planning for tourism. Lessons from Ireland. Tour. Rev. 2019, 74, 327–348.
• Mason, P. Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
• Bramwell, B.; Lane, B. Collaboration and partnerships in tourism planning. In Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice, and Sustainability; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2000; Volume 2.
• Connell, J.; Page, S.; Bentley, T. Towards Sustainable Tourism Planning in New Zealand: Monitoring Local Government Planning under the Resource Management Act. Tour. Man. 2009, 30, 867–877.
• Page, S.; Dowling, R. Ecotourism; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2002.
• World Tourism Organisation . What Tourism Managers Need to Know: A Practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism; WTO: Madrid, Spain, 1996.
• Miller, G.; Ward, L.T. Monitoring for a Sustainable Tourism Transition. The Challenge of Developing and Using Indicators; Cabi: London, UK, 2005.
• Lozano-Oyola, M.; Blancas, F.J.; González, M.; Caballero, R. Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18, 659–675.
• Torres-Delgado, A.; Palomeque, F.L. Measuring sustainable tourism at the municipal level. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 49, 122–137.
• United Nations World Tourism Organisation . A Practical Guide to Tourism Destination Management; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2007.
• McLoughlin, E.; Hanrahan, J.; Duddy, A. Application of the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) for Sustainable Destination Management. Lessons from County Clare, Ireland. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2020, 14, 273–294.
• Mowforth, M.; Munt, I. Tourism and Sustainability: Development and New Tourism in the Third World, 4th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016.
• European Commission . European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Destination Management. 2016. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/offer/sustainable/indicators_en (accessed on 6 June 2023).
• Roberts, S.; Tribe, J. Sustainability Indicators for Small Tourism Enterprises—An Exploratory Perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 575–594.
• Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Ramakrishna, S.; Hall, C.M.; Esfandiar, K.; Seyfi, S. A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 31, 1497–1517.
• Gasparini, M.L.; Mariotti, A. Sustainable tourism indicators as policymaking tools: Lessons from ETIS implementation at destination level. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 31, 1497–1517.
• Tudorache, D.M.; Simon, T.; Frenț, C.; Musteaţă-Pavel, M. Difficulties and challenges in applying the European Tourism Indicators System (ETIS) for sustainable tourist destinations: The case of Brasov County in the Romanian Carpathians. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1879.
• Dodds, R. Sustainable Tourism and Policy Implementation: Lessons from the Case of Calviá, Spain. Curr. Issues Tour. 2007, 10, 296–322.
• Luo, J.M.; Chau, K.Y.; Fan, Y.; Chen, H. Barriers to the Implementation of Green Practices in the Integrated Resort Sector. 2021. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/21582440211030277 (accessed on 27 June 2023).
• Torres-Delgado, A.; López Palomeque, F.; Elorrieta Sanz, B.; Font Urgell, X. Monitoring sustainable management in local tourist destinations: Performance, drivers, and barriers. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 31, 1–22.
• Torres-Delgado, A.; Saarinen, J. Using Indicators to Assess Sustainable Tourism Development: A Review. Tour. Geogr. 2013, 16, 1–17.
• United Nations World Tourism Organisation . Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations: A Guidebook; UNWTO: Madrid, UK, 2004.
• Miller, G.; Simpson, M.; Twinning-Ward, L. Study on the Feasibility of a European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Management at Destination Level. University of Surrey (UK). 2012. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3dc84d8b-fd50-4c27-bffc-5f046f607123 (accessed on 12 May 2023).
• Maguire, K.; McLoughlin, E. An evidence-informed approach to planning for event management in Ireland: An examination of the European Tourism Indicator System. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2019, 13, 1753–8335.
• Budeanu, A.; Moscardo, G.; Miller, G.; Ooi, C.S. Sustainable Tourism, Progress, Challenges and Opportunities: An Introduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 111, 285–294.
• Nunkoo, R. Tourism Development and Trust in Local Government. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 623–634.
• Hall, C.M. Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: From first-and second order to third-order change? J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 649–671.
• Ruhanen, L. Local Government: Facilitator or Inhibitor of Sustainable Tourism Development? J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 80–98.
• Dredge, D.; Jenkins, J. Tourism Planning and Policy; John Wiley: Brisbane, Australia, 2007.
• Charlton, C.; Essex, S. The involvement of district councils in tourism in England and Wales. Geoforum 1996, 27, 175–192.
• Elliot, J. Tourism: Politics and Public-Sector Management; Routledge: London, UK, 1997.
• Maxim, C. Sustainable Tourism Planning by Local Authorities: An Investigation of the London Boroughs. Ph.D. Thesis, London Metropolitan University Cities Institute, London, UK, 2013.
• Moniche, A.; Gallego, I. Benefits of policy actor embeddedness for sustainable tourism indicators’ design: The case of Andalusia. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 31, 1756–1775.
• Maguire, K. An examination of the level of Local Authority sustainable planning for event management: A case study of Ireland. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1850–1874.
• Hall, C.M.; Jenkins, J.M. Tourism and Public Policy; Routledge: London, UK, 1995.
• Wan, Y.K.P. A comparison of the governance of tourism planning in the two Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of China–Hong Kong and Macao. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 164–177.
• Hamilton, D.K. Measuring the Effectiveness of Regional Governing Systems: A Comparative Study of City Regions in North America (Vol. 2); Springer Science and Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
• Bramwell, B. Governance, the State and Sustainable Tourism: A Political Economy Approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 459–477.
• Madrigal, R. Residents Perceptions and the Role of Government. Ann. Tour. Res. 1995, 22, 86–102.
• Godfrey, K.B. Attitudes towards ‘Sustainable Tourism’ in the UK: A View from Local Government. Tour. Manag. 1998, 19, 213–224.
• Maxim, C. Sustainable tourism implementation in urban areas: A case study of London. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016, 24, 971–989.
• Janjusevic, L. Sustainable Tourism Development, Evidence-Based Approach. In Proceedings of the 88th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development—“Roadmap to NetZero Economies and Businesses”, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 19–20 October 2022.
• Mihalic, T. Sustainable-responsible tourism discourse–Towards ‘responsustable’ tourism. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 111, 461–470.
• Midgett, C.; Deale, C.S.; Crawford, A.; Weber, M.; Bendickson, J. A cross-case analysis of barriers to sustainability in small tourism accommodation enterprises in Dare County, North Carolina. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2019, 20, 131–256.
• Dodds, R.; Butler, R. Inaction more than Action: Barriers to the Implementation of Sustainable Tourism Policies. In Sustainable Tourism Futures: Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations; Gössling, S., Hall, C.M., Weaver, D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2009; pp. 44–57.
• Wanner, A.; Probstl-Haider, U. Barriers to Stakeholder Involvement in Sustainable Rural Tourism Development—Experiences from Southeast Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3372.

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Advisory Board

Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development

• First Online: 01 January 2011

Cite this chapter

• Lisa C. Chase 4 ,
• Benoni Amsden 5 &
• Rhonda G. Phillips 6  

Part of the book series: International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life ((IHQL))

4365 Accesses

5 Citations

Quality-of-life is at the center of decisions about tourism planning and development for residents of host communities. Stakeholders are affected in different ways by tourism development; as some stakeholders may see an increase in their quality-of-life, others may experience a decrease in quality-of-life, and still others may experience mixed impacts. Understanding diverse perspectives of stakeholders and how they are affected by tourism development is critical for constructively engaging stakeholders in planning, but designing an effective strategy is not straightforward. Several techniques exist to engage stakeholders, ranging from information dissemination to public meetings to task forces. Case studies of participatory modeling workshops, training and technical assistance, and surveys and focus groups illustrate the effectiveness of different techniques applied in different situations. Challenges to constructively engage stakeholders include resistance among stakeholder sets, ensuring equity and fairness, problematic relationships among institutions, communication issues, lack of time and money, and difficulty defining and measuring quality-of-life. To address these challenges, researchers are working closely with practitioners to expand the body of knowledge and practical tools available for engaging stakeholders and assessing quality-of-life indicators for residents of host communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Aldous, J. (2001). Survey shows that agritourism added $10.5 million to Vermont farm incomes in 2000. Vermont Department of Agriculture Agriview. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://www.vermontagriculture.com/Agriview/2001/agriv091501.pdf

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research . Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Google Scholar  

Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40 (1), 39–49.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bozeman, B. (1979). Public management and policy analysis . New York: St Martin’s Press.

Byrd, E. T. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles. Tourism Review, 62 (2), 6–13.

Chase, L. C., Schusler, T. M., & Decker, D. J. (2000). Innovations in stakeholder involvement: What’s the next step? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28 (1), 208–217.

Chase, L. C., Decker, D. J., & Lauber, T. B. (2004). Public participation in wildlife management: What do stakeholders want? Society and Natural Resources, 17 (7), 629–639.

Chase, L., Boumans, R., & Morse, S. (2010). Participatory modeling as a tool for community development planning: Tourism in the northern forest. Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society, 41 (3), 385–397.

Clarke, J., & McCool, D. C. (1996). Staking out the terrain: Power and performance among natural resource agencies . Albany: State University of New York Press.

Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., Danigelis, N., Dickinson, J., Elliott, C., Farley, J., Gayer, D. E., MacDonald Glenn, L., Hudspeth, T., Mahoney, D., McCahill, L., McIntosh, B., Reed, B., Rizvi, S. A. T., Rizzo, D. M., Simpatico, T., & Snapp, R. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecological Economics, 61 , 267–276.

Crawford, P., Kotval, Z., & Rauhe, W. (2008). Social capital development in participatory community planning and design. The Town Planning Review, 79 (5), 533–554.

Decker, D. J., Krueger, C. C., Baer, R. A., Jr., Knuth, B. A., & Richmond, M. E. (1996). From clients to stakeholders: A philosophical shift for fish and wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1 (1), 70–82.

Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40 (1), 189–216.

Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15 (2), 226–243.

Fisher, A., & Foreit, J. (2002). Designing HIV/Aids intervention studies: An operations research handbook . New York: The Population Council.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach . Boston: Pitman.

Garrett, B. (2007). From relief to self-reliance: Developing community-based tourism after the tsunami. [PDF document]. Retrieved from Global Ecotourism Conference 2007 Web site: http://www.ecotourismglobalconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/GEC%20Speech%20-%20Andaman%20Discoveries.pdf

Goss, L. (2003). The impact of agriculture of New Hampshire’s economy in fiscal year 2002 . Retrieved November, 11, 2009 from http://www.nh.gov/agric/divisions/agricultural_development/documents/econimpact.pdf

Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (1), 186–204.

Keogh, B. (1990). Public participation in community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 17 , 449–465.

Krannich, R. S., & Petrzelka, P. (2003). Tourism and natural amenity development. In D. L. Brown & L. E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century . University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Lauber, T. B., Chase, L. C., Leong, K., & Schusler, T. (in press). Stakeholder engagement. In D. J. Decker, T. L. Riley, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human dimensions of wildlife management . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Leong, K., Decker, D. J., Chase, L. C., & Lauber, T. B. (in press). Understanding stakeholders: The focus and beneficiaries of management. In D. J. Decker, T. L. Riley, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human dimensions of wildlife management . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Meyers, D., Budruk, M., & Andereck, K. (2010). Stakeholder involvement in destination level sustainable tourism indicator development: The case of a southwestern U.S. mining town. In R. Phillips & M. Budruk (Eds.), Quality of life and community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management . Dordrecht: Springer.

Morse, S. (2007). Participatory modeling of recreation and tourism . Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Parkins, J. R., Stedman, R. C., & Varghese, J. (2001). Moving towards local-level indicators of sustainability in forest-based communities: A mixed-methods approach. Social Indicators Research, 56 , 43–72.

Phillips, R. G., & Budruk, M. (2010). Introduction to quality of life and community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management. In R. Phillips & M. Budruk (Eds.), Quality-of-life and community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management . Dordrecht: Springer.

Plog, S. C. (2004). Leisure travel: A marketing handbook . Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25 (1), 3–29.

Rubin, I. S. (1996). Strategies for the new budgeting. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Handbook of public administration . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2), 312–328.

Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research . New York: Oxford University Press.

Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T., & Choi, H. (2001). Developing indicators for destination sustainability. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism . New York: CABI Publishing.

Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2001). Further validation of the Sirgy et al.’s measure of community quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 56 , 125–143.

Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D. R., Cicic, M., & Underwood, R. (2000). A method for assessing residents’ satisfaction with community-based services: A quality-of-life perspective. Social Indicators Research, 49 , 279–316.

Smith, P., & McDonough, M. (2001). Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Resources, 14 , 239–249.

Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. L. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes . New York: Basic Books.

Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21 , 613–633.

van den Belt, M. (2004). Mediated modeling: A system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building . Washington, DC: Island Press.

Van Sickle, K., & Eagles, P. (1998). Budgets, pricing policies, and user fees in Canadian parks’ tourism. Tourism Management, 19 (3), 225–235.

Weiss, C. H. (1983). Toward the future of stakeholder approaches in evaluation. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wong, C. (2006). Quantitative indicators for urban and regional planning: The interplay of policy and methods . London: Royal Town Planning Institute Library Book Series, Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Vermont Tourism Data Center, University of Vermont Extension, 11 University Way #4, Brattleboro, VT, 05301-3669, USA

Lisa C. Chase

Center for Rural Partnerships, Plymouth State University, 17 High Street, MSC 68, Plymouth, NH, 03264, USA

Benoni Amsden

School of Community Resources & Development, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Avenue, Suite 550, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA

Rhonda G. Phillips

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa C. Chase .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

State University, Dept. Hospitality & Tourism Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute &, Blacksburg, 24061, Virgin Islands, USA

Muzaffer Uysal

Richard Perdue

Pamlin College of Business, Dept. Marketing, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Pamplin Hall 2025, Blacksburg, 24061-0236, Virgin Islands, USA

M. Joseph Sirgy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Chase, L.C., Amsden, B., Phillips, R.G. (2012). Stakeholder Engagement in Tourism Planning and Development. In: Uysal, M., Perdue, R., Sirgy, M. (eds) Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research. International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2288-0_28

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2288-0_28

Published : 04 November 2011

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-2287-3

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-2288-0

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Business Guide
• Destination Guide
• Hotel Guide
• Places to visit
• Things to do

Tourism Planning: Importance, Benefits, Types & Levels

Planning is to prepare a Road Map to achieve goals.

In 1987 D.Getz defined tourism planning as “a process, based on research and evaluation, which seeks to optimize the potential contribution of tourism to human welfare and environmental quality”.

Faludi, in 1973, defined tourism planning as “Planning is a very important part of the process by which governments manage tourism at the national, local and organizational levels”.

What is Tourism Planning?

The upkeep and expansion of the tourism sector in a particular area is referred to as tourism planning. Planning for tourism is, of course, a crucial component.

Creating strategies and plans to increase, develop, and stimulate tourism for/in a destination may be summed up as tourism planning. The primary motivation behind establishing and implementing strategies for the tourist industry is to generate money, which will eventually raise the GDP of a nation or region.

What is the need for Tourism Planning?

For the expansion of the sector important to plan tourism activities for the following reasons:

• It is necessary to plan tourism activities on different levels and in various manners to promote tourism and boost the economy.
• To provide quality to both tourists and residents.
• It involves making major decisions which cannot be taken spontaneously.

What are the components of Tourism Planning

• Exploration phase/ Preparatory
• Planning phase/Feasibility/
• Zoning phase/Formal planning
• Design and implementation phase
• Operational phase

Most nations that have successfully planned their tourism can be found online and are regarded as incredible holiday destinations. People go to these nations hoping their travel vlogs will increase their subscriber count on YouTube. That is an indication of success in the modern day.

Benefits of Tourism Planning

Tourism destination planning should be a vital component of every destination’s tourism development plan to get the best outcomes and please all stakeholders. While some places do a great job of maintaining sustainable tourism, others (typically developing countries) need to recognize the significance of comprehensive tourism development planning.

Tourism planning can benefit various parties involved from the industry in the following ways:

• It boosts revenue and employment thanks to tourist spending.
• It safeguards cultural and natural assets so that visitors can enjoy them.
• It broadens the comprehension of cultural diversity
• It constructs new infrastructure, such as sewage systems, roads, etc., for the community.

Impacts of Tourism Planning

The impacts of tourism destination planning can be sorted into seven general categories:

• Environmental
• Social and cultural
• Crowding and congestion
• Community attitude

Formulating an approach to tourism policy and planning:

According to Inskeep, six “golden standards” should be followed when creating a strategy for tourist planning and policy (1991).

1. Goal Oriented:  

Tourism Planning should be oriented to achieve broad national and community goals.

2. Integrative:

 Integrating tourist policy and planning into the economy, land use and infrastructure, conservation, and environmental planning.

3. Market Driven:

 Planning for successful tourism growth in a cutthroat international market.

4. Resource Driven:

 Developing tourism that capitalizes on the location’s inherent advantages while preserving and improving the features and experiences of existing tourism resources.

5. Consultative:  

Considering broader community attitudes, needs, and desires to determine what the population will accept.

6. Systematic:

 utilizing primary or secondary information to support planners conceptually or predictably, incorporating knowledge from other tourist locations

Levels of Tourism Planning

Planning and policy for the tourism industry occur at several levels. This can be done in a top-down approach, with international or national bodies, or a bottom-up approach from a local level.

1. International Tourism Planning:

Tourism planning at the international level typically involves international transportation services, the movement and scheduling of tourist tours between different countries, the development of significant tourist attractions and facilities in neighboring countries, as well as the working strategies and promotional programs of many nations.

2. National Tourism Planning:

 Tourism policy, infrastructural facilities, and a physical structure plan, which includes significant tourist attractions, chosen tourism development regions, international entrance points, facilities, and services, are all addressed at the national level of tourism planning. Additionally, it is concerned with the quantity, types, and quality of lodging and other essential tourist facilities and services; the country’s major travel routes and their regional connections; tourism organization

rights, laws, and investment policies; marketing and promotion strategies for the industry; education and training initiatives; and environmental, economic, and sociocultural analysis.

3. Regional Tourism Planning:  

Regional planning considers factors such as regional policy, regional entrance points, transportation facilities, and services; the types and locations of tourism attractions; the quantity, varieties, and places of lodging and other tourist facilities and services; and the sites of tourist development regions, such as resort areas.

They will also oversee sociocultural, environmental, economic, and impact analyses, regional education and training programmes, marketing strategies, investment policies, organizational structures, legal frameworks, and implementation strategies, including project plans and zoning ordinances.

4. Local Tourism Planning:  

Participants at the local level will think about the analyses, outputs, outcomes, and assessment of tourism planning at the ground level.

Types of Tourism Planning

Before creating a comprehensive plan to market the destination, the following types of tourism planning are taken into account:

Spatial Tourism Planning:

Spatial tourism planning attempts to thoroughly process social, environmental, and economic change to bring about certain ends. Drawing plans, maps or diagrams are put together to decide where socio-spatial activities can occur.

Sectoral Tourism Planning:  

In this kind of planning, the regions are divided into sections, and each section is called a sector. It concentrates on a manageable area and takes into account the specific infrastructure, land use, transportation, and environmental requirements of that region. Depending on the nature of the products or services provided, economic, social, and administrative activities are grouped into sectors.

Complex Tourism Planning:  

When various regions are considered for the purpose of tourism planning, it is known as complex tourism planning. These regions are to be developed comprehensively because of the significant interest shown by international tourists. There is a possibility that these regions are located far away from one another.

Integrated Tourism Planning:  

Integrated tourism refers to making tourism the primary industry in a given area by systematically and comprehensively promoting all available economic, social, and tourism resources.

Sustainable Tourism Planning:  

Sustainable tourism planning involves striking the correct balance between the requirements of people and the environment. It entails stating the community’s mission, vision, and unique selling point or identity in clear terms. With the help of this type of destination planning in our local communities, we are better equipped to plan for the long term, and respond to changing target markets, trends, and emergencies like the Covid-19 outbreak. Additionally, it guarantees that resources are allocated properly while ethically and sustainably establishing local communities. This method of tourism planning benefits people and places in positive ways on all fronts—socially, economically, culturally, and environmentally—puts sustainability at its core.

Centralized Tourism Planning:

Centralized tourism planning is done by a single authority, usually the state or central government.

Decentralized Tourism Planning:

Organizations are interested in developing tourist spots and planning the various activities visitors can enjoy. (Joint Venture).

They take assistance from government. Suggested Read:  Sustainable Tourism

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is tourism planning important.

Destination development plans should include tourism planning since it promotes a destination’s long-term viability and encourages cooperation among important stakeholders..

What are the features of tourism planning?

 Three general principles of planning for tourism can be specified as anticipation, regulation and monitoring.

What are the barriers to tourism planning?

According to earlier research conducted in several nations, a common pattern of issues has emerged. For instance, financial constraints, a lack of knowledge, an insufficient amount of time, and other issues have prevented local governments from incorporating tourism into their development plans.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Talk To Us!

Latest posts.

• No Visa Required Countries: Indians can Travel Without a Visa
• 7 Digital Marketing Strategies and Why You All Need it
• Perfect guide to planning your dream trip to THAILAND
• Top 10 Things to Know before you visit Dubai
• Exploring Sigatoka Sand Dunes: The Crowned Jewel of Fiji 

Search form

• Find Stories
• For Journalists

Planning at multiple scales for healthy corals and communities

To understand trade-offs for coastal communities along the Mesoamerican Reef, new research looks at watershed interventions regionally versus nationally.

Coral underwater near Half Moon Caye island, a natural monument of Belize in the Lighthouse Reef Atoll. (Image credit: Antonio Busiello, WWF)

Governments in the Mesoamerican Reef region are exploring the use of nature-based solutions to strengthen coral health and societal benefits for coastal communities. A new study in Nature Sustainability led by Stanford researchers in collaboration with scientists from the World Wildlife Fund, the Healthy Reefs Initiative, and others from the Smart Coasts project quantified the outcomes of different watershed interventions to support coral health at regional versus national scales, and identified target areas that could improve both ecosystem and societal benefits nationally and across the region.

The nature-based approaches evaluated as key watershed (e.g., drainage area) interventions include ecosystem restoration or protection, and sustainable agriculture. Yet determining which areas to target for these interventions requires understanding the complex relationships between terrestrial and marine ecosystems, also known as “land-sea linkages,” their benefits to people, and the spatial scale being considered.

This work pushed the boundaries of how scientists analyze biophysical and ecological relationships, using cutting-edge optimization models (for the first time in a coastal context) of how to maximize benefits – and to whom – while meeting spatial or resource constraints.

“To restore nature – in this case, a large barrier reef – international collaborative actions at a large scale are what will really help,” said Jade Delevaux, the study’s lead author and senior fellow at Stanford’s Natural Capital Project . “At the same time, if you want to support coastal communities’ resilience by protecting properties and infrastructure along the coast or tourism-based livelihoods – you’re probably making decisions on a smaller scale.”

The research focused on illuminating some of these trade-offs for decision-makers and seeking places where there might be win-wins for the environment and people.

Land-sea connections

Healthy coral reefs provide essential economic, social, and environmental benefits to the communities that depend on them. These include coastal protection from storms, climate regulation, nature-driven tourism, and fisheries that feed communities.

While marine ecosystems can be affected by human activities in the ocean, like dredging or aquaculture, or natural hazards such as hurricanes, they are also affected by the health of upstream terrestrial ecosystems. Intensified deforestation in mangroves and tropical forests is a key factor, as it worsens pollution and carbon emissions on land. It also leads to sediment runoff from loss of their root systems, which harms downstream coastal water quality and consequently coral reef health.

The coastal and marine ecosystems of the Mesoamerican Reef stretch over 1,000 kilometers, establishing it as the largest transboundary barrier reef system in the Northern Hemisphere. Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras, three countries in the region, significantly affect the reef through human activities that impact the coastal watersheds. Yet these watersheds don’t always align with political boundaries, complicating policy interventions.

“It would be hard to justify, even scientifically, asking Guatemala or Honduras to finance watershed interventions if most of the benefits are accrued by the people in Belize,” said Delevaux. “That’s when we asked the question: if you were to manage watersheds with an eye towards supporting both people and climate resilience, would you target the same areas as you would if you were solely focused on coral reef health?”

A fisherman casts his fishing net to catch shrimps in a mangrove off the coast of Guatemala. (Image credit: MayaCom, iStock)

Mapping benefits across scales

To answer that question, researchers and local partners identified target areas where three key watershed interventions could be implemented: restoration of agricultural land to native forest; protection of existing forest; and sustainable agriculture – converting conventional agriculture and ranching to agroforestry and silvopasture.

“It was amazing to see the level of coordination and collaboration happening while covering such a large geographic area. The communities’ knowledge, needs, and questions really influenced the science through the many workshops, participatory mapping exercises, and capacity trainings we held to gather the information for these analyses,” said Delevaux. “I’d say that part of the work was really inspiring, because you see how it’s going to be used firsthand.”

Then, using InVEST Ⓡ ecosystem services models , Delevaux and colleagues quantified the effects of different interventions in different target areas on coral health through sediment retention. They found that the most important target areas for coastal communities – where interventions would maximize societal benefits like tourism, fisheries, and coastal protection – changed depending on whether they prioritized a regional- versus national-scale scale approach.

Sediment retention and coral health improve the most in models prioritizing regional interventions that target larger, transnational watersheds. A national emphasis on smaller, non-transboundary watersheds lined by reefs provides more localized societal benefits.

“At the regional scale, across countries, we found we have the best opportunities for making investments in watersheds that are going to help reduce sedimentation and increase coral health across the region,” said Katie Arkema, senior fellow at the Natural Capital Project and senior scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Lab, with a joint appointment at the School of Marine Environmental Affairs at the University of Washington. “At the national scale, we can make investments that are going to really specifically benefit the coastal communities in that country through those societal ecosystem service benefits,” said Arkema.

While the study results show trade-offs between regional coral health and country-level societal benefits, there were also some interventions that prioritized similar target areas in both.

“These spatially explicit results are empowering for both local and regional managers. A donor or investor might be interested in improving reef health in a specific reef area or Marine Protected Area and could use these results to target the watersheds that yield maximum improvement in their focal area. A national government could determine the best set of interventions and watersheds that maximize both social and ecological benefits,” said Melanie McField, co-author, founder, and director of the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative.

“The model can also quantify the regional reef and social benefit to cooperative work in the major watersheds, supporting potential large-scale multi-national conservation efforts.”

Katie Arkema and attendees collaboratively add to maps in a 2015 Honduras workshop. (Image credit: Stacie Wolny)

Co-creating for the future

Researchers co-designed the study with local partners, including Healthy Reefs for Healthy People, and locally based affiliates of the World Wildlife Fund.

In Honduras, the results of the study are helping to guide investments in watershed restoration through replanting mangrove forests to minimize sediment runoff.

For Belizeans in Placencia, these results add to almost two decades of support for mangrove-forward development between the Natural Capital Project, WWF, Belize Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI), and others. Delevaux also continues to work with communities in Placencia, Belize through an NSF project to find equitable nature-based solutions like mangrove restoration and conservation at the local level.

“It can be useful to emphasize for decision-makers that we do have some quantitative models and tools that can help support the kinds of decisions they have to make on where to direct funds. [Our research] can help provide insights into how the decisions that they make today might influence what happens in the future,” said Arkema.

Additional Stanford co-authors include ecosystem services analyst Jess Silver and senior GIS analyst Stacie Wolny, both affiliated with the Natural Capital Project. Additional co-authors are from Seascape Solutions LLC; the University of Washington; World Wildlife Fund-Mesoamerica; World Wildlife Fund, Mexico; World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C., USA; Sound GIS; Healthy Reefs for Healthy People; and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

This study was funded by the International Climate Initiative (IKI) Smart Coasts; the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation; the National Science Foundation Coastline and People prime agreement; the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, the Summit Foundation, and CORESCCAM BNP-PARIBAS foundation.

Planning a summer trip to Quebec's Magdalen Islands? You'll have to pay up

Mayor says fee is necessary because tourists are burdening services, straining revenue.

Social Sharing

Tens of thousands of visitors flock to Quebec's Magdalen Islands every summer to behold its cliff-framed seascapes and sandy beaches. But starting next month, those island sojourns will come with an added cost.

The small archipelago northeast of Prince Edward Island is introducing a $30 visitor fee to raise funds for tourist infrastructure, environmental protection and waste management.

Called the Passe Archipel, the new fee will be mandatory for domestic and international travellers who stay on the islands for more than 24 hours between May 1 and Oct. 14. Individuals who fail to comply will risk a $1,000 fine.

Magdalen Islands Mayor Antonin Valiquette says the fee is necessary because tourists are burdening local services and straining existing municipal revenue.

The islands have a population of roughly 13,000 but welcomed about five times that many visitors between May and October 2023, according to the local tourism board.

"If you think the Magdalen Islands are beautiful, are magnificent, and that's why you come to see them, then we have to ask you to contribute a little to preserving this quality of life

and this quality of tourist destination," Valiquette said in an interview Wednesday.

Valiquette insists the pass does not constitute a barrier to accessing or leaving the islands, but the fee nevertheless has some islanders concerned it will infringe on the freedom of Quebecers and other Canadians to travel within their own country.

"I think it's outrageous to ask someone to identify themselves in order to get out of their own town," local hotel owner Chanie Thériault said Wednesday.

She was one of several people who voiced opposition to the visitor fee during a tense April 9 local government meeting during which elected officials passed the bylaws that established it.

In an interview, Thériault said she considers the fee especially unfair because it will charge mainland Quebecers for using public resources partially financed by the provincial government, such as roads.

"So we end up charging Quebecers for visiting their own infrastructure, which they pay for with their own taxes," she said.

• 'We're kind of stuck': Magdalen Islanders sign petition for better airline service

Suzie Leblanc, a former Magdalen Islands town councillor, said she sympathizes with the municipality's budgetary challenges but is disturbed by the implications of the Passe Archipel rules for citizens' mobility.

"There really is an obstacle to my freedom of movement," she said. "It's the first time in my life that this is happening to me and I find it nonsensical."

Valiquette, however, likened the visitor fee to the $50.25 toll car drivers must pay to cross the Confederation Bridge between New Brunswick and P.E.I. If Confederation Bridge officials introduced a toll exemption for Magdalen Islanders transiting through P.E.I., he said, "I don't think there would be many who wouldn't show their driver's licence, or their ID or their proof of residence rather than pay $50. So it's exactly the same principle here."

He argued that the Passe Archipel is less intrusive for islanders than alternative fundraising strategies, such as parking fees at local beaches. And fees for accommodation would be difficult to levy, he said, because many of the islands' tourist lodgings are single-family home rentals, not hotels.

The Passe Archipel will be payable through a forthcoming online platform and certified with a QR code visitors will receive by email. An official will validate visitors' codes upon their departure by ferry or plane.

Island residents are exempt from the Passe Archipel but will have to furnish proof of residence when they leave the islands to avoid the fee, which only applies to travellers who are at least 13 years old, and is capped at $100 for families — up to two adults and five children — travelling together. There's also an exception for second-home owners.

• Quebec brothers seek right buyer for dad's 'treasure island' off the Magdalen Islands
• Divers have found 7 shipwrecks off Quebec's Magdalen Islands this summer

The Passe Archipel isn't the first attempt by a Quebec town to pass infrastructure costs on to tourists. Last year, a Quebec Superior Court judge struck down an effort by the Gaspé Peninsula town of Percé to make companies charge visitors an extra $1 on purchases of more than $20, saying the municipality overstepped its powers by compelling the local businesses to apply the fee. Percé has appealed the ruling.

Dominic Lapointe, a professor of urban studies and tourism at the Université du Québec à Montréal, says popular destinations often struggle with what he called an "imbalance" between tourism and the capacity of municipal resources.

The Passe Archipel model is a first in Quebec, he said, but similar fees exist elsewhere in the world. The City of Venice launched a pilot program Thursday that charges day-trippers a five euro fee.

Lapointe said in an interview the Magdalen Islands fee manages to "spare residents while maintaining a very high level of accessibility to public facilities." Direct fees on local services

create "a much greater sense of dispossession for the local population," he said.

Lapointe doubts the islands' visitor fee will lead to fewer tourists. Michel Bonato, general manager of the Magdalen Islands tourism board, said his office has not observed a recent drop in bookings.

Thériault worries the Passe Archipel model could spread. "It sets a dangerous precedent for other municipalities in Quebec," she asserted. "So if it's accepted here, why would each city hesitate to establish the same measures?"

Related Stories