Tourism Planning and Development - Taking Resident Attitudes in to Consideration

Tourism Planning & Development – Taking Residents Attitudes In To Consideration

26th October 2010

Tourism Planning & Development – Taking Residents Attitudes In To Consideration

Today, it is ‘intellectually chic’ to have the view that tourism is ‘bad’, or perceive it as something negative, which is due to the numerous negative impacts the tourism industry has had. Undeniably tourism has had negative repercussions, but it also has brought with it many positive aspects, unfortunately it is the negative ones that are fondly remembered by the host (Shaw and Williams, 2002). Despite it being trendy to run down tourism, it is becoming an increasingly important component of economic development programs around the world. It is not the purpose of this essay to defend tourism or outline the positive and negative impacts of it, but rather to discuss the attitudes of those in the host communities, of who tourism directly affects, and how their attitude, being negative or positive directly affects tourism development. Also the importance of their attitudes being taken into consideration, so as it is the positive impacts which will be fondly reminisced about and how it the issue can be addressed so that the attitudes are favourable. Failing to plan and manage tourism correctly can create hostility in the host-tourist relationship and contribute to the decline of a destination.
Maintaining cultural identity of a destination is necessary for tourism development as it is culture that holds a fascination for most tourists. The cultural elements of handicrafts, traditions, history of a region, architecture and local food (Ritchie and Zins, 1978) are very attractive to tourists, and the development and maintenance of these must be done through the local community to ensure that the cultural elements and their authenticity are upheld. The community involvement is important also to ensure that these elements do not evolve into ‘airport art’ (Shaw and Williams, 2002). Despite most literature citing negative impacts, tourism can have a positive impact on culture, for example there has been a revival of Kenyan art associated with the growth of tourism or Graburn’s (1976) study of emergence of Eskimo soapstone carvings. Cultural events can retain meanings for local people (Shaw and Williams, 2002).
The more positive attitudes towards tourism development can be found where a community depends on tourism dollars. Positive attitudes have also stemmed from enhanced leisure and economic activities. For many the benefits outweigh the negative impacts. Researchers have found that the more knowledgeable a community are of the positive impacts of tourism on the economy, the more the tourism industry is appreciated. When the exchange of resources are balanced, or is high in favour of the host, the more positively tourism is viewed. The potential for economic gain has a direct, positive affect on resident attitudes. Residents often view tourism development positively if it contributes to historic preservation. Therefore it is essential in the planning process that those involved play a role in educating the individuals of the community about tourism positive impacts, and also the negative impacts. This balancing act in educating the community requires a deep understanding of the social, economic and environmental dynamics within a community. Attitudes towards tourists are a partial function of spatial location and economic dependency. There needs to be ongoing participation by the residents and also education, throughout the development process, reinforcing the positive economic benefits to mitigate adverse social and environmental impacts (Harrill, 2004). By developing collaborative strategies it will optimize payoffs to stakeholders in the domain and reduce turbulence in the field, while also increasing the likelihood of sustainable tourism development (Trist 1977). The recognition of mutual benefits will lead to more effective and efficient tourism development (Jamal and Getz, 1995). Finding new ways for destination communities to be more competitive and yet retain a sense of place is critical, local and global sustainable tourism development therefore requires far more cooperation and collaboration than practiced currently (Jamal and Getz, 1995). Community involvement provides increased data, both physical and biological which can be critical in development design , the earlier the identification of potential conflicts the better as can avoid hostility later which would risk the viability of the project and also it can prevent rumours and avoid the emergence of an ‘us vs them’ attitude (United Nations 1992).
The identifying of appropriate sites for tourism facilities, as well as unsuitable sites for tourism development is of equal importance for planners to uncover. This should include protecting residents’ use of recreation area, or at least enhancing their ability to use it (Harrill 2004). The reasoning for this can be attributed to many observers having found that the closer tourism is to a resident’s home, the stronger the likelihood of a negative attitude.
According to Lucas 1978 ‘if full information is not available on issues under consideration, opportunities, or even rights to participate, are meaningless’. The basic aim of public involvement is to supply adequate information to concerned citizens (Keogh, 1990). What information is needed and who needs it needs to be established from the beginning and continually recognised throughout the process. Keogh (1990) found that in the case of Cap-Pelé, New Brunswick, Canada that the more familiar residents were with the development plans, the more positive they were about the impacts of the development. Although they also had negative perceptions their overall opinions were more favourable.
Primarily it is required that tourism planners ‘have a full appreciation of all the persons or groups who have interests in the planning process(es), delivery, and/or outcomes of the tourism service’ (Freeman 1984). This appreciation needs to recognise all stakeholders without taking into account relative power held by any specific group or individual. Input should be sought from all stakeholders and realisation that there will be more ‘outspoken’ groups than others and not to allow these stronger ‘voices’ to become more dominant than any other . All stakeholders have a particular role to play, or input to provide, each of them to be regarded as crucial (Sautter and Leisen 1999). The starting three concepts are so the ‘identification of the stakeholder and their perceived stakes’, how to manage these relationships, and management of any agreements or compromises between the organisation and the stakeholders (Freeman 1984). The inclusion of stakeholders is without doubt a complex process. It must stressed that all stakeholders are aware they do each hold an intrinsic value to the process, undoubtedly there will be very differing interests of varying classifications but no one source should be made a priority, ie. local investment opportunities, environmental issues and cultural impacts should all be dealt with along the same level of importance (Sautter and Leisen 1999). Essentially it is a balancing act of keeping all the eggs in the basket. Stakeholders should be made aware that their actions and desired outcomes are interlinked with those of other stakeholders and therefore collaboration and cooperation is vital. Those involved in the planning process, both planners and stakeholders, must truly believe that decisions made, will be carried out. This belief must be addressed at an early stage to avoid any conflict over the development period and so the recognition of interdependence is essential. Trust in this process can be gained through having the correct expertise, time and money resources sourced before anything begins so as to minimise disruption and conflicts (Jamal and Getz, 1995). To implement and co-ordinate all these different interests and resources it is necessary to have a ‘convener’. This individual should possess legitimacy, expertise and authority. Such a convener would assist in indentifying and encouraging all legitimate stakeholders to the table. After the grouping together of stakeholders, a mission statement or a ‘vision’ statement would need to be formulated on what the group desires in tourism development and growth and the setting of a time horizon. Methods can then be found in how best to find a consensus or common ground in achieving the vision statement. Another important part in the initial convening of stakeholders is discussing impacts and mitigating strategies, along with deciding the scope and density of tourism inline with the vision statement (Harrill 2004).
According to Bramwell and Lane, 2000, there are four separate issues that need to be noted in the area of collaboration agreements. The scope of arrangement in terms of both time and space boundaries must be taken into consideration in the formation of agreements. The intensity of relations should be of concern, there needs to be a building and retention of trust among participants. Trust is gained through a perception of impartiality of the planners. Drawing on local knowledge helps to promote shared learning and when systematically and respectfully helps build trust. The task of achieving consensus among participants is the third issue outlined. There will be expected conflicts from the likes of commercial and environmental stakeholders. This can be overcome by focusing on more common grounds and using policies that each want separately but the other will support as a bargaining position from which to build on. Mason, Johnston and Twynam illustrate this in the World Wide Fund for Nature Arctic Tourism Programme; stakeholders did not agree on everything but agreed some sort of project was necessary. The issue of resources and capacity having the ability to convert agreements into practical actions. Gaining access to resources can inhibit progress. It is critical for resource flows must come from the private sector as well as the public sector.
There is a need to recognise the multiplicity of form (Butler, 1999); what has worked for planners involved in community involvement planning previously cannot be applied to every situation. For example, Capernerhurst argues that smaller communities are more likely to have stronger reactions as it is more directly visible to them. Also one type of tourism that is successful in a destination does not automatically translate that another type of tourism will be successfully integrated into the community (Butler 1999)
The process of implementation needs to be both dynamic and flexible as rates of development and change can be inconsistent, so it should be adaptable to varying circumstances.
When looking at community attitudes, many observers have now concluded there is a need to move away from the TALC and Doxey’s irridex model as attitudes are largely regarded as homogenous in these models and also are too simplistic in their views. It is therefore necessary to examine the more heterogeneous variables that exist in communities. The socio-demographic characteristics which have been suggested by varying amount of authors include gender, ethnicity, age, spatial factors, economic dependence, length of residence, types of tourists, ecocentric values, use of resource base and personal benefits derived from tourism (Nunkoo, Robin and Haywantee, 2010)
A perfect example of how both the environment and residents attitudes were taken into consideration was in the development of Banyan Tree Hotels and Resorts in Asia who are now synonymous with socially responsible business values. The company integrated ‘preserving the distinct identity’ of their host destinations when expanding the business. It involved the local communities from the beginning and in all aspects of the business. The company included in their resorts retail outlets showcasing indigenous crafts and also worked with cooperatives and non-profit marketing agents to provide gainful employment for the artisans. Guests were educated about these crafts with leaflets/write ups that came with the crafts. From an environment protection perspective the resorts were built with the aim as little disturbance possible, for example constructing around existing trees, using products in the hotels that are non-toxic and biodegradable, such as toiletries. The motivation behind this being to engage local communities, associates and guests to share the causes of climate change and actions that can reduce the ‘collective carbon footprint’. Staff traininf and welfare involved the community also, as they were trained in basic five star standards but given the freedom to be creative by adding in local customs., for example in Phuket you can have dinner on a long tail boat accompanied by traditional Thai musicians. It has given the staff and community a sense of ownership which has created a culture in which everybody is helpful and friendly. All of which has paid off as they have won 400 international tourism, hospitality, design and marketing awards (Writz 2010).
A lack of coordination and cooperation with local stakeholders, or the local community, is well known to cause difficulties for tourism planners (Jamal and Getz, 1995). Unfamiliarity of development plans can have a negative affect on general resident attitudes towards tourism (Keogh 1990). According to Gray (1985) ‘failure to include them in the design stage only invited technical or political difficulties during implementation’.
The lack of involving the community in tourism planning is a major reason for increasing levels of dissatisfaction with tourism which unravels over time in many destinations. Failure to involve the community can cause an efficiency issues for planners and developers when trying to reach goals and targets (Butler, 1999). Keogh (1990) uses La Foest and Roy’s (1981) example of Kouchibougac National Park, New Bruswick in Canada being a long, drawn out proceeding of more than 20 years due to a lack of public participation. If community residents feel that their cultural identity is threatened by tourism attitudes can evolve which can be ambivalent, or in a worst case scenario, hostile (Mason and Cheyne, 2000). Tourism is often used as a scapegoat for other problems in the host community, if well informed and consulted on tourism development it would assist to reduce such views and hostile attitudes. (Mason and Cheyne, 2000)
A community orientated approach on protecting a destination’s social, economic and environmental quality of life is beneficial to both the residents and the tourists. (Harrill 2004). Everything points to the fact that those who plan and develop tourism need to exercise sensitivity in relation to the needs and interests of all stakeholders in a community when coming up with future tourism plans (Sautter and Leisen, 1999). If tourism is to continue to have an important place in the economic make-up of any destination, than those who live there are going to be part and parcel of the package that comes with that destination, and therefore should be considered as the vital resource that they are. As outlined here, the attitudes of the community contribute to the competitiveness of a place, where packages and prices are becoming increasingly similar throughout destinations there must be a new attraction. Friendly, positive residents can become just that, but a warm smile and welcoming nature will be undoubtedly difficult to maintain on ones face if there’s no benefit which is equal to the benefits that the tourists are receiving. As Harrill (2004) diligently points out there must be equitable distribution of benefits otherwise there will be a large amount of envy which all too quickly converts into hostility.

Reference List
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992, Agenda 21 for Travel and Tourism Industry accessed on www.scsoft.de, accessed 12/10/2010
Bramwell, B and Lane, B 2000 Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships – Politics, Practice and Sustainability. Channel View Publications.
Butler, R.W 1999, Integrating Tourism Development, Routledge. Freeman, R. E, 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston Pitman
Gray, 1985 Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Consensus and Change. Human Relations 38:911-936
Harrill, R, 2004 Residents Attitudes toward Tourism Development: A Literature Review with Implications for Tourism Planning. Journal of Planning Literature.
Jamal, T and Getz, D 1995 Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22:186-204
Keogh, B. 1990 Public Participation in Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 17:449-465. Annals of Tourism Research 27-2:391-411
Lucas, A. R. 1978 Fundamental Prerequisites for Citizen Participation. In Involvement and Environment: Proceedings- of the Canadian Conference on Public Participation Sadler. B., ed. 1:47-57. Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Lovelock, C and Writz, J 2011 Services marketing : people, technology, strategy. Pearson 7th Ed. Mason,P and Cheyne,J 2000 Residents Attitudes to Proposed Tourism Development
Nunkoo, R and Ramikisson, H 2010 ‘Gendered Theory of Planned Behaviour and Resident Support for Tourism’ Current Issues in Tourism 13:6, 525 – 540
Ritchie, J.R and Zins 1978, M, Culture as determinant of the attractiveness of a tourism region, Annals of Tourism Research 5-2:252-267

Sautter, E.T and Leisen, B 1999. Managing Stakeholders, a Tourism Planning Model. Annals of Tourism Research 26-2:312-328
Shaw , G and Williams, A.M 2005; Critical Issues In Tourism, A Geographical Perspective, Oxford Blackwell 2nd Edition
Trist, E.L, 1977 Collaboration in Work Settings: A Personal Perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavorial Sciences 13:268-278