Case Studies in Tourism Planning.docx

1、Case Studies in Tourism PlanningCase Studies in Tourism Planning (1)Release: Jul 21 2010 07:31 Author: Members View: 2166 times Print INTRODUCTIONThis article presents three case studies designed to demonstrate thetheories and techniques outlined earlier. It will becomeevident that each case focuses

2、 on a few of the techniques described,rather than incorporating all equally. In real life, each situation is unique and requires a customized approach to planning. It is whentourism planners use a cookie-cutter approach to all problems thatdifficulties often arise. Most tourism evelopments, from the

3、perspective of either the entrepreneur or the community, neverthelessencounter issues that are likely to be common to all cases. These usually include: concerns with supply and demand; cost-benefitanalysis; cost-unit analysis; establishing a range of fees and chargesfor the product that the market w

4、ill bear, and the economic impactof the development upon those who will assume the costs, bothphysically and financially. In addition, there are likely to be issues ofprocess and resource allocation, such as who defines the vision onwhich development is based, and how decisions are made when therear

5、e conflicting views and opinions.All development represents what economists call opportunitycosts that is, once a resource has been allocated and used for onepurpose, society forgoes its use for some other, perhaps equallyimportant purpose. There are also two major practical concerns oftourism analy

6、sis: the evaluation and selection of suitable resources forthe facility or activity being planned; and the identification andmanagement of the conflicts between users of the same resource.Finally, in parts of the world where traditional cultures are involved,tourism planners must grapple with the co

7、nsequences of the commodificationof culture. It is in this domain that tourism developmentcan have drastic effects on peoples everyday lives and even on theirbasic construction of reality. Tourism development has too oftenchanged the living patterns of communities without giving muchthought to the c

8、onsequences of those changes. This is illustrated bythe short discussion of the Ladakhis and the Canadiancomposite community scenario also presented in that article.This article examines several case studies in light of the issuesoutlined above. Each case study represents an attempt to deal witha nu

9、mber of the issues raised in this article. While it will be evidentthat the processes deployed in each case are focused on certain areasand not on others, the studies were chosen because it was felt thattheir planning activity had proceeded in a way that was generallyconsistent with the values outli

10、ned in this article. In each case, aconcerted attempt was made to take the welfare of the communityand the environment into account, rather than only the interests ofprofit maximization. Attempts were made, in other words, toincorporate much of the philosophy outlined in the precedingarticles. Funda

11、mentally, these cases saw attempts toinstitute a planning process that recognized the partnership betweenthe producer (the environment or culture), the supplier (the tourismindustry), and the consumer (the tourist), as depicted in Figure 5.3.Thus, each case discussed approaches tourism development f

12、rom asystems perspective.It is important to identify examples of tourism development thatgive proper attention to the various subsystems within the planningprocess and their relation to each other. These cases provide livingexamples of developments which recognize the fact that change toone subsyste

13、m produces changes throughout the entire process.Moreover, examples of tourism planning that challenge the valueprogram (McMurtry, 1999) on which tourism is constructed are mostinstructive. As tourism planners and communities construct moreholistic tourism projects, case studies demonstrating the im

14、plementationof these new values are important. Each case discussed hererecognizes the potential impacts on all those concerned, whetherthey are directly involved in a development or affected by inevitablechanges to the social and natural environment in which they live.It is important to remember tha

15、t people living in communitiesdominated by tourism are part of the project whether they wish tobe or not, simply by virtue of where they live. Each of thedevelopment processes examined in these case studies recognizesthat fact, and have based their planning process upon it. In thesecase studies, tou

16、rism development is viewed as part of the overallsocial and natural environment in which it exists. The value ofindividual and social life seems to provide the basis on which tourismis initiated and managed.CASE STUDY: GOLDEN, BC, AND KICKING HORSE MOUNTAINRESORT (KHMR)IntroductionThe Town of Golden

17、 is located in the interior of British Columbia,Canada. It is nestled in the Rocky Mountains, surrounded by anatural area which is sought out by visitors for its unique, spectacularscenery. The Rocky Mountains provide a world-class resource forskiing and other recreational pursuits, both active and

18、passive. Thearea is adjacent to the trans-Canada highway, which is used heavilyby tourists traveling through the Rocky Mountains to the west coastof Canada. In the past many of those tourists hurried past Golden toget on to other destinations, but now they have a reason to stay.Golden sits approxima

19、tely halfway between the two major airportsof Calgary, Alberta, to the east, and Kelowna, BC, to the west. Thejourney takes four hours by bus or car from either airport to Golden.At the time of writing, Golden does not have an international airport,but it does have a small facility that could be exp

20、anded for thispurpose. There are other skiing facilities of equal quality locatedbetween Golden and each airport.Golden is a home to approximately 5,000 people. It is adjacent to,but politically separate from, a more rural area known officially asArea A. Golden provides many basic services to the re

21、sidents of AreaA, including schools, an indoor recreation infrastructure, healthservices and the usual variety of retail stores found in a small ruraltown of this type. Area A is located between the Town of Golden,including the bench lands, known as such because they are the flatlands which lie at t

22、he base of the mountain, and where the resortdevelopment is situated.Initially, the economic condition of Golden and Area A reliedmainly on forest products and railroading. Forestry stabilized after theclosing of the mill at Donald in 1995. There has been significantdevelopment in wood products, par

23、ticularly in post beam and woodprocessing, but not sufficient to support the entire population. As aCommunity Impact Report concluded,there has been a strengthening of the tourism/hospitality industryin the region which now includes everything from providingaccommodation and meals to those driving t

24、hrough the mountainparks, to providing bed and breakfast or lodge accommodation tothose interested in paragliding, river rafting and backcountryskiing.(West Coast CED Consulting Ltd, 2001: 17)Tourism in the area is about to increase because of a newdevelopment on a local section of the Rockies. An i

25、nternationalcorporation, Kicking Horse Mountain Resort (KHMR) is developinga section of the mountain, including an international ski area. Whilethe ski runs have been established for some time as a local facility,the corporation plans to expand the existing number of runs, developa restaurant at the

26、 top of the mountain and a ski village, mainlyconsisting of hotels and other amenities, at its base. A gondola whichcarries passengers up the mountain has been put in place to increasethe numbers of skiers who can be accommodated. Table 7.1 sets outthe proposed developments for this expansion.Table

27、7.1 Summary of the KHMR Facilities at Full Build OutThis development will transform the area from being the site of aprimarily local recreational facility into a regional, and even perhapsinternational, tourism destination. With the development of thegondola and the mountain-top restaurant, in parti

28、cular, and theadditional ski runs and base lodge housing, KHMR will attractincreasing market attention. It is projected (Westcoast CEDConsulting Ltd, 2001) that over 100,000 skiers will visit the mountainski resort on an annual basis. While this may fall within the rangethat the projected facilities

29、 can be expected to handle without greatdifficulty, visitors will not pass through evenly throughout the weekor year, and this could cause periodic congestion. The majority ofvisitors will come at weekends and during holidays, which couldplace stress on the capacity of both the resort and the commun

30、ityitself. It is expected that the new facilities will produce an economicbenefit to the area of approximately eight million dollars per year(Ibid, 2001), with about half of that being generated within the Townof Golden itself.Since the new facilities at KHMR will be located in Area A, noneof the re

31、sulting tax revenues generated will be collected by the Townof Golden, although many of the sites visitors and workers willreceive services from the town. A problem of equal importance,perhaps, is the fact that Area A has no official municipal plan orzoning scheme in place to control or accommodate

32、the expectedgrowth. Many of the residents of Area A are philosophically againstrestricting growth, and there is a strong sense that if you own landyou should be able to do with it what you wish, without governmentrestriction. Understandably, the municipal council and residents ofGolden are quite concerned about this approach to development,given that the already planned resort