Tourism Development in Peripheral Areas: Avoiding Pitfalls

1
Tourism Development in Peripheral Areas Avoiding
Pitfalls

• Dimitri Ioannides PhD
• Professor Missouri State University and Senior
  Research Fellow
• Center for Regional and Tourism Research,
  Bornholm, Denmark

2
INTRODUCTION

• The case of Catalina Island, California
• The case of Branson, Missouri
• Sustainable tourism or sustainable development in
  a tourist environment?
• The case of cumulative impacts
• Dispelling some common myths
• Externalities and the polluter pays principle
• To ecotax or not?

3
Catalina Island
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Lesson from these cases

• Did tourism development have to lead to so many
  negative impacts?
• The answer is NO
• BUT
• Lack of Planning (we come back to this later)
• AND MORE IMPORTANTLY!!
• Lack of a comprehensive strategy

9
Lets revisit some definitions

• Sustainable Development
• . At least in theory
• Means

10
(No Transcript)
11
In reality, however

• While everyone espouses sustainable development
• Most stakeholders have a treadmill or weak
  perception of what sustainability entails
• In reality, economic priorities dominate

12
(No Transcript)
13

• A particularly problematic issue, especially in
  isolated (often rural) communities that are
  considering tourism development is that
  cumulative effects the results of individual
  actions - are not taken into account
• Consider that

14
(No Transcript)
15

• Also,
• There is rarely, if ever,
• . . . A coordinated policy

16
(No Transcript)
17
Lack of a comprehensive vision

• Ignoring cumulative effects of individual
  developments
• Or
• Developing new infrastructure (new road, or new
  sewerage treatment facility) but not having a
  plan in action to accommodate speculative growth
  that may accompany this can have serious adverse
  consequences for the destination

18
DISPEL SOME MYTHS

• Does mass tourism always lead to disastrous
  consequences?
• Is the adoption of quality tourism a means to
  avoid problems?
• The answer to both situations is NO
• If well planned the destination can enhance its
  carrying capacity and mass tourism can be catered
  to
• If not well planned, the tendency to embrace
  quality products without much forethought can
  lead to problematic consequences (like golf
  courses in arid environments)

19
The issue of carrying capacity

• Traditionally too much emphasis on how many is
  too many.
• But, is this realistic?
• A practical approach
• Limits to acceptable change (LAC)
• We establish objectives that help us determine
  the amount of change that is ultimately
  acceptable for a particular destination.
• Ultimately, by focusing on what amount of change
  is acceptable as opposed to trying to set use
  limits, makes the concept of carrying capacity
  more useful in a management context.
• Involves developing tradeoffs between competing
  goals like

20
Two competing goals

• (a) opening up the area to tourists because of
  the economic opportunities (job creation,
  improved quality of life, etc) they will create
• (b) ensuring that an environmental indicator, say
  the water quality of the area, does not decline
  below acceptable standards.
• Ultimately, water quality is the constraining
  goal which can be compromised to a certain extent
  as more and more tourists arrive.
• However, at some stage the host society will
  determine that this constraining goal cannot be
  compromised any further (they will not allow the
  water quality to decline any more) and when this
  happens then the first goal (encouraging more
  tourists to arrive) is compromised.
• Runaway development will not be permitted as the
  host community will not tolerate further losses
  to water quality

21

• The LAC frameworks logic is that it moves away
  from the obsession of advocates of carrying
  capacity who try to set numerical upper limits on
  visitor use.
• Rather, accent is placed on determining to what
  extent the goal of unrestricted access into the
  destination can be met without unduly damaging
  the natural environment, which will ultimately
  reduce the experience of visitors.

22
Some recommendations?

• Make developers responsible for their actions by
  forcing them to internalize their externalities
• Charge an impact fee
• If the community does not have adequate waste
  water treatment facility, the resort should take
  steps to ensure treatment on-site
• Possible scenario adopted in places where no
  municipal treatment facility is possible (because
  of cost and/or physical constraints) adopt
  alternatives like mini-wetlands treatment
  facilities

23
(No Transcript)
24
To ecotax or not?

• Who should pay?
• Advantages
• Disadvantages
• Other alternatives the green card in the
  Balearics

25
Ultimately

• To avoid the pitfalls of uncontrolled development
  one should bear in mind the consequences of
  cumulative effects, plan comprehensively and
  adopt growth management strategies, quality
  enhancement steps, and locational approaches
  (zoning) that can be easily implemented according
  to the setting.
• If you want to limit development consider,
  first if you want to enhance your road capacity.