models of tourism dvp .pdf



Nom original: models_of_tourism_dvp.pdfTitre: PII: 0261-5177(86)90054-3

Ce document au format PDF 1.3 a été généré par Acrobat 3.0 Capture Plug-in / Acrobat 3.0 Import Plug-in, et a été envoyé sur fichier-pdf.fr le 11/04/2015 à 13:00, depuis l'adresse IP 41.227.x.x. La présente page de téléchargement du fichier a été vue 830 fois.
Taille du document: 1.1 Mo (12 pages).
Confidentialité: fichier public


Aperçu du document


Modelsin tourism
planning
Towards integration of theory and
practice
DonaldGetz

A discussion of the nature of tourism
planning suggests the need for a new
model of the planning process. With
this purpose in mind the nature and role
of models are discussed, followed by a
survey of models of a theoretical and
planning nature in the tourism literature. Based on systems theory, a model
is presented which shows how planning and theory can be integrated. An
area-tourism
planning example is developed to illustrate application of the
integrated approach.
Keywords: tourism planning; models
Donald Getz is Assistant Professor at the
Department of Recreation and Leisure
Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada N2L 3GI.

‘Oroanization for Ecunomic Co-operation
and-Development,
Government Poky in
the Develooment
of Tourism. OECD,
Paris, 1974.’
2D. Getz, ‘Tourism, community organisation and the social multiplier’, in Leisure,
Tourism and Social Change, Congress
Proceedings
of the International
Geographical Union Commission of the Geography of Tourism and Leisure, Edinburgh,
Vol 2, 1983, pp 4.1.1 - 4.1.15.
‘E. De Kadt, ed, Tourism: Passport to
Development?
Oxford University
Press,
Oxford, 1979.
“M. Baud-Bovy, ‘New concepts in planning
for tourism and recreation’, Tourism Management, Vol3, No 4, 1982, pp 306-313.
‘L. Dernoi, ‘Alternative tourism, towards a
new style in north-south relations’, Tourism Management, Vol 2, No 4, 1981, pp
253-264.
continued on page 22

0261-5177/86/010021-12$03.00

0

It was observed over one decade ago that national tourism policy had
evolved in three stages since World War II: a period in which the
facilitation
of travel was emphasized;
a focus on its promotion;
and in
the 196Os, recognition
of tourism
as an industry.
This latter stage
produced great interest in tourism planning,
but almost totally from the
perspective
of maximizing
economic growth.’ More recently, considerable reaction to the biases of tourism planning has been voiced, ranging
from discussion of limits to growth to advocacy of alternative
tourism
planning models.2
DeKadt
lamented
that he knew of no country
which evaluated
alternative
approaches
to tourism for the purpose of selecting one that
promised
to maximize
social benefits
to hosts.3 He recommended
community-controlled,
forward-looking
planning
as opposed to typical
remedial
planning.
Baud-Bovy
offered reasons
why many tourismdevelopment
plans were not implemented.4
He said a lack of integration
of tourism
into the whole economy
is a major reason,
along with
inadequate
attention
to qualitative
socioeconomic
impacts and the
inability of plans to adapt to changing conditions.
Many ideas have been generated
for the re-orientation
of tourism
planning.
Dernoi advocated
‘alternative
tourism’ which stressed direct
host-guest
relationships.’
This idea is similar to the ‘soft tourism’
recommended
by Krippendorf
which contrasts
with the traditional
approaches
by favouring
defensive and comprehensive
planning.‘j Van
Doorn adopted
a supportive
argument,
saying that futures research
must become part of tourism
planning.’
Spanoudis
expounded
the
principles
of ‘ekistics’ for tourism planning
and demonstrated
a case
study in which tourism was planned
as part of integrated
resources
planning for an area.8 Zoning for capacity was an important
element in
the ekistics approach.
Murphy offered another perspective,
viewing tourism ecologically
as
a community
industry.’
To Murphy, tourism thrives on a community’s
resources and so tourism must not merely exploit resources for its own
development
without
considering
what can be put back into the

1966 Butterworth

& Co (Publishers)

Ltd

21

Models in tourism

planning

community. The systems approach he advocated is complementary to
the basic tenets of an ekistics approach.
These ideas on changing the emphasis and scope of tourism planning
suggest a deep-rooted dissatisfaction with traditional tourism planning
or at least a perception that considerable improvements can be made.
To make such progress will require not only an acceptance of the ideals
being professed, but progress in planning methods. One key element in
this evolutionary process must be the merging of development planning
and more basic tourism research. To accomplish this aim, a new model
of tourism planning should be developed. The purpose here is not to
merge many disparate models, but to conceptualize planning in a way
that fosters integration.

Nature and role of models

continued from page 27
6J. Krippendorf,
‘Towards new tourism
importance of environmenpolicies -the
tal and sociocultural
factors’,
Tourism
Management,
Vol 3, No 3, 1982, pp
135-148.
‘J. Van Doorn, ‘Can futures research
contribute to tourism policy?‘,
Tourism
Management,
Vol 3, No 3, 1982, pp
149-166.
%. Spanoudis, ‘Trends in tourism planning
and development’,
Tourism Management,
Vol 3, No 4, 1982, pp 314-318.
QP. Murphy, ‘Tourism as a communi~
industry, an ecological model of tourism
development’,
Tourism Managemeffr, Vol
4, No 3, 1983, pp 18s-193.
IoR. Chorley and P. Haggett, Integrated
Models in Geography, Methuen, London,
1967: and S. Smith. Recreation Geooraphy, Longman, London, 1983.

The term ‘model’ has many connotations. In the travel and tourism
literature most references are made to forecasting models (partly or
wholly mathematical in nature) and to diagrammatic models of the
planning process or some theoretical aspect of the tourism system.
Common usage of the term can therefore be confusing, so that it is
usually necessary to specify the nature and purpose of models under
discussion. As well, it is desirable to note the basic distinction between
models of managemen~planning
processes and theoretical modeis
which seek to describe or explain some aspect of the functioning of the
tourism system. These two fundamental types can be referred to as
‘theoretical’ versus ‘process’ models. A classification of tourism-related
models is illustrated in Figure 1.
Theoretical
models can be subdivided according to the way they model
the whole tourism system or parts of it, and can be further subdivided
according to how they relate to reality:”

a
0

0

Descriptive
Explanatory

models define the tourism system’s components.
models purport to show how a system or subsystem

works (such as by demonstrating interactions among components)
with or without specifying causal relationships.
Predictive
modeis rely on knowledge of causal relationships to
permit forecasting. It should be noted here that true prediction
differs considerably from mere projections
based on trend
extrapolations.

Theory
(The tourism system)
whole system

or

Planning/management

subsystem

subjective/prescriptive

\/
descriptive

problem-solving

explanatory

planning as a conceptual
system

J
predictive

“\
Figure

1. Classification

of

tourism

processes

forecasting

fl

I/

Level:
site/project area/region nationallintemational

models.

: 22

TOURISM

MANAGEMENT

March 1986

Models in

rourismplanning

Process models can also be subclassified:

l
l

0

Srlbjective types are based on dogma or idiosyncratic
style (ie the
‘best’ or approved way to plan).
Most traditional models are based on problem-solving
models
alternatives.
evaluation
(following the sequence: goals , generating
of alternatives,
choice, and implementation).
The third and most complex approach is based on systems theory,
but there are few examples to cite. The integrative
model being
advocated here fits into this final category.

Some forecasting
models and methods
span the two sides of the
diagram.
Those
which are mere trend extrapolations
or involve
subjective
assessments
(eg delphi techniques,
professional
judgment)
can be termed process techniques
and do not contribute
to theoretical
those which rely on identification
of causal
development.
However,
mechanisms
are related to both theory and process.
The final elements
in Figure 1 are considerations
of the level of
Tourism
models can apply to whole
comprehensiveness
in planning.
systems or subsystems,
and to various
spatial scales: site/project;
locality;
region;
national,
or international.
Conceptual
models can
remain simple as scale or comprehensiveness
increases,
showing, for
the components
and linkages
between
resources
and
example,
travellers.
But forecasting/predictive
models must build in more and
more complexity
if reliable results are to be obtained.
Consequently,
it
is far easier to theorize by reference to conceptual
models than it is to
base planning decisions on working models.
Models can be expressed in different ways-called
the “language”
of
models by Chadwick:”
0
0
0

Zconic models visually resemble
the real world, as with a scale
model or picture.
Anafogue models employ
one set of properties
to represent
another (eg colours on a map representing
land uses).
The models of concern in this paper are of the symbolic type,
employing words and drawings to represent properties
of systems
or processes,
and mathematical
expressions
which constitute
predictive models.

As to the functions
of models,
the main ones are already
clear.
However,
Chorley and Hagget gave other insights.”
Models can have
the following uses:
0
0
0
0
0
0

“G. Chadwick, A Systems View of Planniflg, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1971.
‘*Chorley and Haggett, op cit. Ref 10.

TOURISM

MANAGEMENT

psychological:
to permit the comprehension
of complex
phenomena;
acquisitive:
a framework
for defining,
collecting
and ordering
information;
logical: to explain how a phenomenon
comes to be;
normative:
compares some phenomenon
with a more familiar one;
systematic:
to explore and test systems;
constructional:
stepping stones to form theories and laws.

Models lie below theories in a systems perspective.
Theories are systems
of ideas to explain phenomena
or are laws held to govern systems.
Models - first descriptive,
then explanatory
and finally predictive
in
nature - are building blocks to theories.

March 1986

23

Review of towism

models

Over 150 models pertaining expiicitly to tourism were reviewed in the
English-Iangua~e Iiterature. No doubt many additional modets were not
discovered. Mere indexes, classifications, and organizational charts
were excluded from the survey. and there was no systematic attempt
made to include actual planning documents, although a few were
covered. This approach primariIy reflects writings in journals and texts.
To make the material comprehensible, Figure 2 has been prepared.
The figure shows authors and dates of illustrative models grouped under
the headings from Figure 1 and appropriate sub-headings. Models
selected for this figure are considered to be typical, or of particular
interest in tourism theory and planning.

Theoretical

Planning/management

Whole Systems Models
Wolfe 1964
Leiper 1981
van Doom 1982
Mat~ieson~ali
1982

Area-developmenf models
Bargur and Arbel 1975
Arnott 1978
Lawson and Baud-Bevy 1977
Gunn 1979
Mill and Morrison 1985

Spafia~em~ral
ChristhaIler 1964
Flog 1972
Pollard 1974
Rajotte 1975
Miossec 1‘376
MacCannell 1976
Hills and Lundgren 1977
Smith 1980
Butler 1980

processes

Project deyetopment models
Kaiser and Helber 1978
#anagemenf and Marveling
Doswell and Gamble 1979
Planning as a conceptual
Mathews 1978
Getz 1983

Britton 1980
Young IQ83

Forecasting

rMotivational~~~vioural
Plcg 1972
Clawson/Knetsch 1976

system

models

~cfffforne~~jc
Loeb 1982

Pearce 7982
Iso-Ahola 1982
Fridgen 1984

Time series
Wandner and Van Erden $985

Physicat based

Genera/ impact models
Council of Europe 1978

Parks Canada 1976

Duffield and Long 1981
Electrical analogue
Ellis and Van Doren 1966

Economic impacts
Lundgren 1973
D~~ietd/Long 1981
Pearce 1981
S~ia~cuitu~i
impacts
White 1974
Doxey IQ?5
Smith 1977
Jafari 1982
Kariel and Kariel 1982
Knox 1982
Getz 1983

Figure 2.

Examples

of

tourism mod-

Ecological impacts
Wall and Wright 1977
Pearce 1981

els.

24

TOURWI

MANAGEMENT

March 1986

,Wodefs in rourism planning
‘%Z. Gunn, Tourism Planning. Crane Russak, NY, 1979; and D. Lundberg, The
Tourist Business. CBI. Boston. 1980.
‘*R. Wolfe, ‘Perspecives
on outdoor recreation:
a bibliographic
survey’,
The
Geographical Review, Vol 54, 1964, pp
208-267.
“A.
Mathieson, and G. Wall, Tourism:
Economic, Physical and Social Impacts,
Longman, London, 1982.
16N. Leiper, ‘Towards a cohesive, curriculum in tourism, the case for a distinct
discipline’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol 8, No 1, 1981, pp 69-84.
“Van Doorn, op tit, Ref 7.
“0. Pearce, Tourist Development, Longman, London, 1981; and Smith, op cit. Ref
10.
“W. Christaller, ‘Some considerations of
tourism location in Europe: the peripheral
countries regions - under-developed
recreation areas’, Papers of the Regional
Science Association,
Vol 12, 1964, pp
95-105; F. Rajotte, ‘The different travel
patterns and spatial framework of recreation and tourism’, in Tourism as a Factor in
National and Regional Development, IGU
Working Group on the Geography of Tourism and Recreation, Trent University, Department of Geography, Ontario, Canada,
1975: and J. Miossec. 1976. cited in D.
Pearce, Tourist Developmeni,
Longman,
London, 1981.
‘OS Plog, ‘Why destination areas rise and
fall ‘in popularity’, paper presented to the
Southern California Chapter of the Travel
Research Association, San Diego, 1972;
R. Butler ‘The concept of a tourist area
cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources’, Canadian Geographer, Vol 24, No 1, 1980, pp 5-l 2; and
B. Young, ‘Touristization of traditional Maltese farming-fishing
villages, a general
model’, Tourism Management’,
Vol4, No
1, 1983, pp 35-41.
“0.
MacCannell,
The Tourist, A New
Theory of the Leisure C/ass, Schocken
Books, NY, 1976.
*‘H. Pollard, international Tourism and the
Economic Development of Small Terrifories: The Case of Antigua, West Indies,
PhD Thesis, Department of Geography,
Univsrsity of Reading, UK, 1974.
23V. Smith, ‘Anthropology and tourism, a
science-industry
evaluation’,
Anna/s of
Tourism Research, Vol 7, No 1, 1980, pp
353-365.
24T. Hills and J. Lundgren, ‘The impact of
tourism in the Caribbean: a methodological
study’, Anna/s of Tourism Research, Vol4,
No 5.1977, pp 248-267; and S. Britton, ‘A
conceptual model of tourism in a peripheral economy’, in D. Pearce, ed, Tourism in
the South Pacific: The Contribution
of
Research to Development and Planning.
New Zealand National Commission for
UNESCO/Department
of Geography, University of Canterbury, 1980.
*5E. Mayo and L. Jarvis, The Psychology
of Leisure Travel, CBI, Boston, 1981; and
P. Pearce, The Social Psychology of Tourcontinued

TOURISM

on page 26

MANAGEMENT

March

Theoretical

models

Whole system models
Several authors have attempted
to define the whole field of tourism
studies.
Simpler
models show only the main components.”
More
complex ones show inter-relationships
between components.
Of these,
Wolfe’s model of the outdoor recreation system remains one of the most
complete. I4 Other whole system models include that by Mathieson
and
Wall who usefully divided the study of tourism
into three general
components:
dynamic (demand
and travel); static (supply/stay
at the
destination)
and consequential
(impacts).”
Leiper developed
a model
notable for its emphasis on the interdependence
of the generating
and
receiving environments.
i6 It was amplified by Van Doorn who added a
policy dimension. ”
Many subsystem
models have been generated,
and they can be
grouped into two classes: spatial/temporal,
and travel motivations
and
behaviour.
Most combine descriptive
and explanatory
elements.
Spatialitemporal models
The abundance
of models showing how tourism evolves in space and
time is not at all surprising
given the long-established
interest
of
geographers
in the field. Many of these models have been examined by
Pearce and Smith.” They fall rough!y into two categories which explore
either factors influencing
the distribution
of travel and resorts’” or the
morphology
of resorts”
and attractions.‘i
Closely related are models
which examine
an area’s growing dependence
on tourism,‘2
spatial
dimensions
of host-guest
relationships’3
and economic
models of
centre-periphery
relationships.”
Motivational and behavioural models
One must examine
the social-psychological
literature
to advance
theories or models of travel motivation
and behaviour.
This has been
done by Mayo and Jarvis, and by Pearce who developed a model linking
the need for authenticity
to the nature and perception
of the scene.‘s
Iso-Ahola
developed
a social-psychological
model of tourism motivation - in contrast with the many simple typologies
of traveller
and
motivation
that have been advanced.‘h
Fridgen examined environmental psychology
related to tourism, drawing on stages of travel experiences as first suggested in Clawson and Knetsch.”
Plog’s famous model
of psychographics
is also a motivational
and behavioural
model, but is
purely descriptive
and says nothing
about why people might be so
categorized.‘”
Impact models
Beyond description
and explanation
it is essential to determine
causal
mechanisms.
The difficulty in doin g so lies at the root of all impact
models. Duffield and Long have attempted
one of the few comprehensive models of this type, providing a framework for identifying
possible
impacts in an area.”
An elaborate
model prepared for the Council of
Europe develops a framework for assessing pathways of various impacts
in mountain
regions, but like all such models it is not intended to predict
the beneficial or deleterious
nature, or even the magnitude
of many of
the possible effects.30
Economic
impacts of tourism have been studied in depth, and the

1986

25

.Uodels

in rourism

plunning

continued from page 25
ist Behaviour, Pergamon, Oxford, 1982.
*%. Iso-Ahola. ‘Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivatron: a rejoinder’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 9.
No 1, 1982. pp 256-262.
27J. Fridgen, ‘Environmental
psychology
and tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol 11, 1984, pp 19-39; and M. Clawson
and J. Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor
Recreation,
Johns Hopkins,
Baltimore,
1976.
%bg,
op tit, Ref 20.
z9B. Duffield and J. Long, ‘The development of a schema for identifying the nature
of tourism impact’, Etudes et Memoires,
1981, pp 81-101.
3oCouncil of Europe, Seminar on Pressures and Regional Planning Problems in
Mountain Regions, Repoti, 1978.
3’Duffield and Long, op tit, Ref 29.
32J. Lundaren. ‘Tourist Impact/Island entrepreneu&hip
in the Caribbean’, paper
presented to the conference of Latin American Geographers, 1973; and Pearce, op
tit, Ref 18.
%P. White, ‘The social impact of tourism
on host communities: a study of language
change in Switzerland’, Research Paper 9,
School of Geography, Oxford University,
UK, 1974.
34V. Smith, ed, Hosts and Guests, The
Anthropology
of Tourism, University of
Pennsylvania
Press, PA, 1977; and J.
Knox, ‘Resident-visitor
interactions: a review of the literature and general policy
in The Impact of Tourism
alternatives’,
Development in the Pacific, proceedings of
a conference, F. Rajotte, ed, Environmental and Resource Studies Program, Trent
University, Ontario, 1982, pp 76-i 07.
35G. Doxey, ‘A causation theory of visitorresident irritants: methodology
and research inferences’,
Proceedings
of the
Travel Research Association Sixth Conference, San Diego, 1975, pp 19.5-198.
36Getz, op tit, Ref 2.
37H. Kariel and P. Kariel, ‘Socio-cultural
impacts of tourism: an example from the
Austrian alps’, Geografiska Annaler, Vol
64, No 1, 1982, pp l-l 6; and J. Jafari,
‘Understanding the structure of tourism an avant propos to studying its costs and
benefits ‘, in lnterrelafion Between Benefits
and Costs of Tourism Resources, AIEST,
Vol23, 1982, pp 51-72.
=G. Wall and C. Wright, The Environmental impact of Outdoor Recreation’, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Publication No 11, 1977.
39Pearce, op tit, Ref 18.
4oP. Sheldon and T. Var, Tourism Forecasting: The State-of-the-Art,
Faculty of
Business Administration,
Simon Fraser
University, Discussion Paper Series No
82-03-04,
1982.
41P Loeb 9 ‘Internati’onal travel to the United States, an economic
evaluation’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 9, No 1,
pp 7-l 0.
42S. Wandner and J. Van Erden, ‘Estimatcontinued on page 27

26

‘multiplier’ model is a valuable related tool. The ‘multiplier’ is actually a
method for calculating
the effects of spending
on employment
and
income. but it has been conceptualized
in several illustrative
models.
The diagram
by Duffield
and Long
is perhaps
the easiest
to
understand.”
Other
economic
impact
models
were developed
by
Lundgren
on entrepreneurial
activity,
and Pearce’s
framework
for
analysing
costs and benefits
of tourism.”
Econometric
forecasting
models
are also employed
in predicting economic impacts.
Research into the social and cultural effects of tourism is not as well
developed,
but a number of useful models have been generated.
The-y
cover such topics as language
change.”
host-guest
interaction,”
attitudinal
change (Doxey’s “irridex”),”
and a ‘social multiplier’.j6
Kariei and Kariel modelled
the evolution
of social/cultural
effects of
tourism in rural areas, and Jafari presented
a model showing interactions among host, origin and tourist cultures.37
One can turn to the more general
literature
on recreation
and
resource management
for models examining
ecological
impacts.
For
example, Wall and Wright provided a model showing the possible types
of ecological
impacts of outdoor
recreation.j8
Specific to tourism.
Pearce used work of the OECD to develop a framework
for assessing
environmental
stress.”
Forecasting

models

Sheldon and Var discussed five general groups of forecasting
techniques, of which ‘subjective’ types such as Delphi and scenario writing are
not of interest here.“
Some of the most frequently
used varieties are
called ‘econometric
models’,
including
regression
and discriminant
analysis.”
These behavioural
models attempt to determine
cause and
effect relationships
between travel trends and imputed causal factors. In
fact, the forecasting
is made on the basis of correlations
which held in
the past, and theorists will rightly argue that this does not .prove’ causal
relationships.
That problem applies to all the social sciences.
Time-series
analysis
can consist of the simple method
of trend
extrapolation,
but there are theoretical
assumptions
involved in pattern
recognition
analysis such as the widely applied Box-Jenkins
technique.
Using ‘transfer function models’ they isolate a trend in a related variable
which is used to make predictions
for the travel variable.4’ This amounts
to hypothesizing,
for example, that trends in income lead to changes in
travel demand.
A third group was called ‘physical based models’ by Sheldon and Var.
The gravity model is the best known, and there are related models
covering trip generation
and trip distribution.
All are derived from the
gravity
analogy
which assumes
that travel can be forecast
when
measures are assigned to attractiveness
of destinations,
emissiveness
of
populations
(ie propensity
to travel for specified purposes) and friction
(time or accessibility).
Strictly
speaking,
these
models
have no
theoretical
foundation,
but can be made to forecast reasonably
well
through the process of ‘calibrating’
their formulae
to known travel
patterns.”
The final type of forecasting model is that of the ‘electrical analogue’,
often called the systems model. Developed
by Ellis and Van Doren, it
was based on the premise that the supply and demand system behaves
similarly to electrical systems.J1 Smith discusses the use and limitations
of such models.“’ He said that the systems models were never proven to

TOURISM

MANAGEMENT

March

1986

,Models in rourism planning

be cost-effective
or useful, and that gravity models have been found to
be at least as practical.
Models which simulate the behaviour
of systems and can be used in
making predictions
represent
the highest form of modelling
in any
discipline.
In tourism studies, there has not been unqualified
success in
reaching this stage, either in making demand forecasts or predicting
impacts of tourism. Mainly correlations
between variables and assumed
causal factors have been used in modelling,
and this stops short of
proving causes and effects. As a result, it is very difficult to develop
models capable of predicting
travel volumes to a destination.
This is a theoretical problem in that simulation models should precede
or accompany
the advancement
of theories.
On the other hand,
theorists
can be satisfied with descriptive
and partially
explanatory
models which show the factors interacting
to shape demand
under
various circumstances.
Similarly, impact models need not be so precise
that the direction and magnitude of all impacts can be predicted in every
circumstance.
Understanding
the processes that lead to certain types of
impacts will be adequate.
At present, however, even that capability is
difficult to achieve.

Planning

continued from page 26
ing the demand for international tourism
using time series analysis’, in D. Hawkins,
ef al, eds. Tourism Planning and Development Issues, George Washington
University, 1980, pp 381-392.
“Parks
Canada, Canadian Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, Vol 2, Technical
Notes, Ontario Research Council On Leisure, 1976.
@J. Ellis and C. Van Doren, ‘A comparative evaluation
of gravity and system
theory models for state-wide recreational
traffic flow’, Journal of Regional Science,
Vol 6, 1966, pp 57-70.
%.mith. op cit. Ref 10.
46Gunn. ob tit, Ref 13.
47F. Lawson and M. Baud-Bow.
Tourism
and Recreation Development, ‘CBI. Boston, 1977.
%.
Mill and A. Morrison, The Tourism
System, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1985.
4gJ. Bargur and A. Arbel, ‘A comprehensive approach to the planning of the
tourism industry’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol 14, No 2. 1975, pp 10-15.
%A. Arnott, ‘The aims and methodologies
used in a study of tourism’, Planning
Exchange. No 11, 1978.

TOURISM

MANAGEMENT

and management

process models

In Figure 1 two basic classes of process model are shown: subjective,
and problem-solving.
Subjective
types may be based on dogma (eg
centralized
socialistic plannin g versus free enterprise)
or style (someone’s ‘best’ way of doing things). Problem-solving
models are the most
common, and are typically concerned
with making rational and optimal
decisions
given alternative
courses of action.
Three sub-types
are
identified:
area development;
project development;
and management
and marketing
models. The third class is identified
as “planning
as a
conceptual
system”, in which problem-solving
methods are integrated
with theory and research
- few such models exist in the tourism
literature.

Process models
Area development models
The majority
of process models provide a descriptive
approach
to
area-tourism
development.
Development
is assumed to be the purpose
or overriding
goal, which is a bias that limits comprehensiveness
and
steers the planner in only one direction.
Although some of the models
incorporate
sophisticated
research and feedback elements,
they lack an
interconnection
of basic research
with pIanning
methods.
Gunn
provided several related area development
models in his text, and these
are perhaps the best known of this type.46 Lawson and Baud-Bovy
created
a model called PASOLP
which presents
a comprehensive
approach to developing
a master plan.“’ Models in the text by Mill and
Morrison are notable for stressing that policy and goals development
are
more critical than project
and master planning.48
The quantitative
approach modelled by Bargur and Arbel represents
a type which seeks
optimization
of some goal, namely foreign revenue.4g Arnott illustrated
a process which stressed the information
needs and research methods
used in developing
a regional tourism strategy.”

March 1986

27

:tfodeCr in rourirm plunnin,o

Project de~?elo~ment models
A closeI!: related group of models deals with specific projects such as
hotels and resort complexes.51 Rational decision making through
identification of goals, evaluation of alternatives and selection of
optimal choices is advocated. Feedback controls are usually provided in
the models.
Management/marketing

mode&

The third type of process model relates to management and marketing
- specifically such topics as the marketing environment, design criteria,
and information flows in hotef planning.”
Pfanning as a conceFtua~ system

In searching for an integrated tourism-planning model it is necessary to
combine elements of theory and planning/management
processes or
methods. Obviously this cannot be done by merging the numerous
models, so it must be accomplished in a conceptual model of tourism
planning itself. An integrated model must show how planning and
management
practice relates to tourism theory, in particular by
illustrating the dependency of planning on theory and the contribution
that planning can make to theory. The next section presents an
integrated systems model of tourism theory and planning which seeks to
satisfy these aims.

Integrated systems model

5’C. Kaiser and L. Helber, Tourism Planning and Development, CBI, Boston, 1978.
‘*Ft. Doswelland P. Gamble, Marketing
and Planning Hotels and Tourism Projects,
Hutchinson, London, 1979.
?Zhadwick,
op tit, Ref 11.

28

Chadwick advocated rejection of traditional problem-solving models of
planning in favour of what he termed “planning as a conceptual
system”.” In this model (see Figure 3) the planner must first understand
the system through describing and modelling its dimensions and the
inter-relationships among its components. Research is also necessary to
project and test future scenarios with and without the imposition of
planning controls. Only through this iterative process can problems and
goals be determined. For example, the research might be fo~ulated
in
this way - what will be the effects of tourism with or without the
restriction of foreign investment? This process of modelling and testing
yields conclusions on how the system should be controlled, and
strategies for attaining derived goals.
Parallel with this ‘research’ stream of the model is the ‘control’ stream
in which policies and actions are taken to shape the system according to
established goals. This side of the model resembles traditional problemsolving approaches, except that it incorporates continuous feedback to
the problem-identification
stage and continuous interaction with the
research stream. Chadwick viewed all controls on the system as
scientific hypotheses formulated like this - did the action achieve its
objectives, and if not, what was it we did not understand about the
system?
Evaluation in the planning process thereby achieves the dual aims of
making planning controls more effective while contributing to a better
understanding of the tourism system itself. Traditional problem-solving
methods which ignore this linkage are seen to be unscientific.
Few existing tourism-planning models are systematic in the meaning
of Chadwick’s model. Several do incorporate elements of a true systems
approach, such as that of Mathews in which inputs to a third world
TOURISM

MANAGEMENT

March 1986

Models in tourism planning
Problem

!
i

identification
and
solutions
goals to pursue
problems to solve/avo!d

ControNing the
tourism system
problem solving processes

1
system description
inventories
typologies
classifications

I
goal formulation
1
projection and evaluation
of goals

1
system modelling
(descriptive and
explanatory)
whole system
subsystems
impacts

continuous
interaction

I
evaluation and selection
of alternatives

1
system projection
forecasting
alternative futures

1
controliimplementation

Figure 3. Integrative

systems model
of tourism theory and planning.

evaluation

op tit, text reference

11.

1
control strategies
needed to obtain
desired futures

-1
and feedback

I
Note:
After Chadwick,

-1
Understanding the
tourism system
research and theory

1
feedback

T

TI

1

I

situation (from the external and internal environments)
are modified by
adaptation
of
policy-making
processes.”
Feedback resu Its in continuing
policies. However,
the model does not specifically
inter-relate
theory
and practice.
Getz attempted
to apply a systems approach
to the
assessment
of capacity to absorb tourism.”
That model illustrates
a
planning process in which the impacts of tourism, can be assessed and
decisions reached regarding
limits to development.
This occurs in the
context
of goals set by a continuous
research
process
aimed at
understanding
the impacts of tourism,
and in which feedback
from
planning contributes
to that understanding.

Application

-H.
Mathews, International
Tourism: A
Political and Social Analvsis, Schenkman.
Cambridge, MA, 1978. .
55D. Getz ‘Caoacitv to absorb tourism.
concepts and ’ implications for strategic
planning’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol 10, 1983, pp 239-263.

TOURISM

MANAGEMENT

of the integrated model

To implement
the integrated
approach
will require
considerable
research and planning expertise and resources. Nevertheless,
it can be
used more informally
as a conceptual
guide to planning,
even in
circumstances
where formal procedures
are absent. Theoretical
advances, however,
will accrue only from a formalized
integration
of
planning and research which yields documented
analyses.
A hypothetical
area-tourism
planning
project is illustrated
to show
potential
application
of the integrated
model. Chadwick’s basic model
can be divided
expediently
into two stages which combine
the
development
and research streams, ie goal formulation
integrated
with
system modelling;
and implementation
combined
with evaluation.
Problem definition
,
The first stage in typical
statement
of the problems,

March 1986

development-planning
goal and objectives

models involves
a
formulation,
and an

29

evaluation of alternative actions. Adhering to the integrated model, this
pre-development
stage must also include description, modelling and
projection of the system.
Commonly there is no statement of general problems. only reference
to tourism-development
problems. That is not broad enough. Chadwick
states there are two basic types of problem: those which are to be
solved. avoided or ameliorated; and the problems associated with
attaining goals. If a probIem can be identified, so can a pertinent goal.
and where goals are stated problems can be deduced. For tourism
planning, the general goals should pertain to the role tourism is
expected to play in relation to overall policies and the ways in which
negative impacts are to be avoided. Only later should more specific
development goals be stated.
Issues covered by tourism goals should include statements of what
tourism is expected to contribute to more general goals. including:
0
l
0
0
e
0
0

community development;
heritage and environmental conservation;
enhancement of cultural identity;
provision of leisure opportunities;
population and demographic change;
social welfare; and
the provision and maintenance of living amenities

Tourism goals should also pertain to the ways in which planning will
identify and solve the possible costs and problems associated with
tourism development.
Clearly, these types of general goals cannot be stated with an>
confidence without the benefit of theoretical understanding of the
tourism system. If there has been considerable experience with tourism
development and planning in the area, then much will already have
been learned which can shape goals and objectives. If not, research is
required in advance of goal statements to describe and model the
system. The more that is known about the system being planned, the
more refined goals wili be and the more effective planning will be.
At this point it is necessary for planners to consult the theoretical
literature. Models of the whoIe system serve to encourage comprehensiveness, and general impact models direct planners to anticipate
general consequences of tourism development. The multiplier concept
is a useful starting point for assessing likely economic impacts and what
must be done to attain desired benefits. Certain economic processes will
have secondary effects, such as the impact of new employment
opportunities on other economic sectors and social patterns, and these
can be forecast with some certainty. Spatia~temporal models suggest to
planners the land-use impIications of development, and how destinations might evolve over time. Other impact models isolate specific
mechanisms by which tourism can result in social, cultural and
ecological change.
Prediction. Projection

of the system, or forecasting, is typically carried
out only for making demand estimates. More thorough future scenarios
should be developed to examine the results of tourism development
with or without various controls and alternative actions. None of the
existing models provides absolute predictive powers, nor can they be
used to prescribe suitable tourism planning goals and actions. Rather,

30

TOURISM

MA~A~EM~~T

March 1986

ModeD

in [ourwn

planning

they are sufficient to enable planners to set comprehensive
goals and
establish plans in which possible and likely outcomes
are anticipated
along with the measures necessary to cope with them. Similarly, goals
themselves
should be projected
into the future to asses the actions
necessary to attain them, and the likely consequences
of such actions.
Finally, reference to theoretical
models will remind tourism planners
not to act in isolation from other social, economic and environmental
planning.
There is a tendency to think of tourism planning as a separate
narrowly
defined
to include
only marketing
and visitor
problem,
services. Existing theory and knowledge about the possible multitude of
impacts of tourism completely
discredits that approach.
Integrating

implementation

with evaluation

During the course of implementing
an area-tourism
development
plan it
is desirable
to monitor
such indicators
of effectiveness
as visitor
numbers,
employment
created, and balance of payments
or economic
multiplier
calculations.
Seldom is there a comprehensive
monitoring
and evaluation of other impacts, but that is needed both to help improve
development
planning and to contribute
to theoretical
advancement.
A simple goals-attainment
approach
is inadequate.
In that type of
evaluation
the planner simply collects data to determine
if goals and
objectives
were realized. Unfortunately,
such an approach is typically
based on narrowly defined goals, and furthermore
fails to detect and
evaluate unintended
impacts.
Only by reference to theoretical
models can comprehensive
evaluation be assured,
specifically
through
a systematic
identification
of
tourism-development
inputs (ie goals, plans, investment
and resources),
actions (ie resort development,
promotion
and visitor services) and
outputs
(such as visitor satisfaction,
social and economic
effects).
Research will have to focus on identifying
local causal mechanisms
and
tracing
their effects
as widely as possible.
An obvious
way of
commencing
this evaluation
is to search out the costs and benefits of
tourism
and how they are distributed.
Indeed,
wherever
possible,
tourism plans should explicitly view alternative
actions as hypotheses to
be tested through evaluation.
This would effectively shift the emphasis
from one-shot master plans to continuing
planning
and research.
Evaluation
results are used to modify development,
or the plans and
goals, as well as to advance theory.
By documenting
case studies,
particularly
where causal mechanisms
can be isolated, general models
can be formed and existing ones modified. There will always remain,
however, the need to test models in every situation,
and to adjust for
local circumstances.
It is unrealistic
to expect the development
of
universally
applicable tourism models except at a very general level.

Conclusions
A review of tourism models suggests that tourism planning is predominantly project and development
orientated,
based on problem-solving
planning processes. It is often narrowly defined and lacks comprehensiveness.
What is generally
absent is a link between
development
planning
and systematic
research
and modelling,
as advocated
in
Chadwick’s systems approach to planning.
One significant
implication
of adopting such an approach would be the shift from ‘boosterism’
to
more rational evaluation
of tourism’s benefits and costs, resulting even

TOURISM

MANAGEMENT

March

1986

.Clodels in

tourismplunnin,o

56Jafari, op tit, Ref 37.

32

in its control or the setting of limits on its growth. In fact, it would cease
to be appropriate
to speak of ‘area tourism development’
or -planning
for tourism’. Rather, more general and neutral terms such as ‘tourism
planning’ should be promoted.
Comments
on tourism planning by other authors support this major
conclusion.
There have been many calls for making tourism planning
more sensitive
to non-economic
issues and moving it away from its
traditional,
narrow
focus on development.
Various
authors
have
advocated
‘soft’, ‘alternative’,
‘ekistic’ or ‘ecological’
approaches
to
tourism planning. What has been absent is an integrative
model shovving
how planning
and theory
must inter-relate,
rather
than purely
development-orientated
models.
An impediment
to achieving the goal of systematic
planning
is the
inability
to model the tourism system thoroughly,
particularly
at the
predictive level. Jafari said that this failure was due to the uniqueness
of
tourism phenomena
at each destination
- a uniqueness
attributable
to
interactions
among the tourist culture, imported cultures, and the host
cu1ture.j’ Indeed, Jafari suggested that theoretical generalizations
about
tourism and its impacts might not be attainable
in the near future. What
is needed, he concluded,
is a large number of systematically
researched
local studies from which similarities and differences could be compared.
Rather than being an argument
against use of a systems model in
tourism planning,
the absence of theoretical
generalizations
reinforces
the need for such a model. Only through the interactive
process of
research, modelling
and evaluation
of development
plans can progress
be made in yielding greater certainty about the consequences
of controls
on tourism.
Tourism
planning
must therefore
shift from a preoccupation
with
development
planning and economic impacts toward a process in which
research,
modelling
and goal-setting
directly complement
all development plans. Constant
evaluation
and reassessment
of directions
will
make the planning
process more adaptable
to changes in the tourism
system, and will lead to greater ability to predict such changes. The
researcher
and planner
will functionally
merge,
as research
and
development
are seen to be integral parts of the same process.

TOURISM

MANAGEMENT

March 1986


Aperçu du document models_of_tourism_dvp.pdf - page 1/12
 
models_of_tourism_dvp.pdf - page 3/12
models_of_tourism_dvp.pdf - page 4/12
models_of_tourism_dvp.pdf - page 5/12
models_of_tourism_dvp.pdf - page 6/12
 




Télécharger le fichier (PDF)


Télécharger
Formats alternatifs: ZIP




Documents similaires


models of tourism dvp
presentation thesisi 2015
amcis2001
strategic management quickstudy
fex 54 web feb 2017 dossier r4nut
draft programme ichss 2013

🚀  Page générée en 0.028s