Encyclopedia
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects:
Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism
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
- destination management
- tourism planning
- indicator systems
- governance
1. Introduction
Tourism has long been recognised for its potential to positively contribute to economic growth, development, and the social fabric of host destinations [1,2,3]. However, evidence has shown that tourism has only sometimes met destination development expectations [4,5]. 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 [6,7]. McLoughlin and Hanrahan [8] and Mason [9] note how tourism planning is crucial to delivering on a destination’s sustainability agenda. Therefore, planning is essential for securing long-term solutions to destinations’ challenges while helping control current activities and coordinate sustainable and competitive product development at destination and local levels.
Previous research, however, has shown that approaches to tourism planning tend to be determined by existing planning and management functions [10,11]. Local Government Authorities play a significant role in tourism planning and its management and have a statutory responsibility for regulating land use and environmental and social protection [12,13]. In Ireland, county councils serve as Local Authorities responsible for tourism planning and development at the local level (county boundary acts as the jurisdictional boundary). Under the Planning and Development Act(s), Local Authorities are legally mandated to prepare 5-year County Development Plans (CDPs) that outline objectives and policies for planning and sustainable development, including tourism-related infrastructure and activities. Although Local Authorities in Ireland have some autonomy in setting policies and objectives, their capacity can often be limited by budget constraints and reliance on central government funding. Ireland’s national tourism development authority, Fáilte Ireland, can also influence implementation, which provides guidance and support but lacks regulatory authority over local planning. Despite the tools and indicator systems available to guide Local Authorities in the democratic process of planning for and managing tourism, policy makers can face challenges in carrying out their statutory obligations at the local level. Although tourism indicator systems have been identified as management, information, and monitoring tools for the sustainable management of tourism and have long been the topic of much discussion and debate in tourism management and policy-related research, there exists little academic literature specific to the adoption and utilisation of indicator systems by Local Government planners and policy makers. More specifically, there needs to be more academic attention paid to the barriers and constraints of the implementation and utilisation of such indicator systems, which warrant further investigation.
The World Tourism Organization (WTO) defines tourism indicator systems as a ‘set of specific measures that can provide the necessary information to better understand the links between tourism and its impacts on the cultural and natural setting’ [13] (p. 4). Early studies highlighted their importance in tourism planning [14]. Their benefits have long been observed [7,15,16]. For example, Font et al. [3] note their ability to simplify complex data, allowing policy makers to quantify the actual situation in the tourism sector within destinations. The UNWTO [17] discussed the ability of indicator systems to provide in-time information to deal with pressing issues and to help guide the sustainable development of destinations.
Similarly, Font, Torres-Delgado, Crabolu, Martinez, Kantenbacher, and Miller [3] identified the value of indicator systems in informing destination governance and policy decisions that inform destination competitiveness. Notably, such systems have been recognised for their flexibility and ability to fit into existing management structures [18], making them a viable tool for sustainable tourism planning [19]. The European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) aims to help destinations measure and monitor their sustainable tourism performance using a standard, comparable approach [20]. It provides destinations with a thoroughly tested system and a more realistic set of core indicators to improve destination management and sustainability performance [20].
While this tool, together with additional indicator systems, has the potential to quantify, assess, monitor, measure, and communicate relevant information [21,22,23], the practical barriers and challenges in the implementation of these systems at the destination level continue to encounter difficulties [24], which warrants further attention across various destinations and political environments. Barriers, such as a lack of legislative enforcement and funding, have previously been acknowledged as crucial obstacles affecting the implementation of indicators at the local level [25]. Other authors have identified issues with resourcing regarding humans, finances, and time [26]. Torres-Delgado et al. [27] noted constraints related to data calculation and interpretation for accuracy in results as possible impediments.
2. Sustainable Tourism Management
Discussions concerning the sustainability agenda for destinations still revolve around the challenges of monitoring growth limits and managing capacities [4,18,28]. McLoughlin and Hanrahan [8] argue that such concerns can be addressed by applying reliable tourism indicator systems [7,29,30]. However, applying these systems by Local Authorities remains a relatively under-researched topic.
The European Commission (EC) has introduced several tools and legislation to promote the sustainable development of European tourism, recognising that tourist destinations face increasing social, cultural, economic, and environmental challenges. The ETIS is one tool for sustainable destination management, launched initially in 2013 and revised in 2016, aimed at helping destinations measure and monitor their progress toward greater sustainability in tourism [20]. The core indicators of the ETIS provide information to better understand the links between tourism’s impact on the economic, cultural, and natural environment, making them an essential component of policy formulation processes for destinations [3,18,28,31].
However, there is a need for more knowledge regarding which stakeholders are responsible for implementing sustainable tourism indicator systems. Budeanu et al. [32] insist that sustainability is a function of governmental agendas. At the same time, Sharpley [4] discusses the role of a Local Government in developing, implementing, and overseeing tourism strategies and plans to drive economic and social development. Implementing tourism indicator systems could make this task more efficient, as noted by McLoughlin and Hanrahan [8].
Sustainable tourism planning is shaped by the governance structures and planning regimes at the local destination level [33]. Local Authorities operate within a complex governance framework involving multiple stakeholders and policy domains that can influence their capacity to effectively implement sustainability initiatives like tourism indicators [33,34]. As the mandated bodies for local tourism planning, Local Authorities serve as a bridge between top-down governance efforts to encourage sustainability and bottom-up community needs [35]. The extent to which Local Authorities can fulfil sustainable planning goals through tools like indicators depends on their authority over planning decisions, funding access, staff capacity, and adaptiveness to complex evolutions in governance [28,32]. Analysing Local Authorities’ use of tourism indicators thus provides insights into the connections between governance, planning, and sustainability objectives.
Dredge and Jenkins [36] noted the role of Local Authorities in the development and planning for tourism, with Charlton and Essex [37] highlighting their role in developing tourism policies and strategies for implementation in respective destinations. In the context of tourism planning and the role of Local Authorities, Elliot [38] pointed to the importance of political stability, security, and the legal and financial framework associated with Local Authorities. Maxim [39] further alluded to their legal responsibility for providing planning guidelines for tourist services after examining sustainable tourism planning by Local Authorities in London. However, moving towards an evidence-based approach to tourism planning depends on using quality indicators but also on the effectiveness and commitment of policy makers to apply them effectively and accurately [7,40].
While there is a need to expand knowledge on how destinations and policy makers can foster impactful sustainability in tourism through functional and practical planning approaches, the barriers to driving such measures and tools to advance sustainable practices in the industry require attention [41]. By addressing the barriers and challenges to developing an evidence-based approach to planning and, in turn, policy making at the local level, policy makers can effectively champion sustainable tourism and evidence-based planning for tourism in destinations.
Delivering sustainability in tourism is a challenge for Local Authorities, according to Nunkoo [33]. Effective governance is crucial for sustainable tourism management, implementing sustainable tourism indicators, and achieving the UN sustainable development goals, as Rasoolimanesh et al. [22] noted. However, sustainable tourism involves numerous policy domains and stakeholders, potentially making it difficult for Local Authorities to effectively govern, as Hall and Jenkins [42] pointed out. Therefore, Wan [43] suggests exploring new ways to manage tourism planning to address this issue. Although Hamilton [44] notes that policy issues are now transcending administrative boundaries and the central government is exercising more control, Government Authorities in Ireland are still legally obligated to plan for tourism by developing specific CDPs.
While Ruhanen [35] contends that Local Authorities are mandated to present the local community’s interests impartially, the actual ability of Local Authorities to work in the best interests of the local community or to further the objectives of sustainability in tourism has been questioned by both Bramwell [45] and Madrigal [46], who noted that many have been criticised for implementing short-term tourism policies that often lack direction. Moreover, Godfrey [47] pointed to Local Authorities in the UK who tend to engage communities only passively regarding tourism development. However, as McLoughlin and Hanrahan [8] noted, the application of tourism indicator systems still needs improvement among Local Authorities in Ireland.
3. Barriers to Evidence-Based Sustainable Tourism Planning and Management
The tourism sector and the ever-changing environment in which it operates pose unique challenges and opportunities for destinations and destination planners regarding evidence-based sustainable tourism planning and management. Maxim [48], in her exploration of sustainable tourism implementation in urban areas, found that obstacles lie in implementing sustainable tourism planning and policy into practice. This supports Janjusevic’s [49] view on the necessity of reviewing current practices for sustainable tourism and evaluating their effectiveness.
Mihalic [50] discussed how a need for more consistency in terminology could challenge tourism and evidence-based planning for tourism. Midgett, Deale, Bendickson, Weber, and Crawford [51] point to more expertise or education, which could form significant barriers to sustainable tourism development. Likewise, Luo, Chau, Chen, and Fan [26] acknowledged constraints, including perceived costs associated with meeting the sustainability agenda, a lack of awareness of sustainability issues, and training and employee motivation to achieve sustainability as constraints to implementing sustainable practices. Similarly, Dodds [25] and later Dodds and Butler [52] discussed how the policy and regulatory environment and minimal legislative enforcement of sustainability by tourism destinations often create challenges and obstacles to advancing the sustainability agenda. Both authors further noted issues surrounding management, managers’ interests, and available human, financial, and time resources as barriers to implementing sustainable practices and evidence-based planning for tourism. What is important is the claim by Wanner [52], who noted there needed to be more consensus among stakeholders regarding who should be responsible for tourism policy implementation processes. This was identified as a barrier to delivering on sustainability agendas and advancing evidence-based planning for sustainable tourism.
Taking the political environment in which tourism operates together with the political will for action, the development of evidence-based tourism planning approaches can be hindered. In line with this, Dodds and Butler [53] argued the need to avoid placing economic development priorities over social and environmental considerations, which is a significant barrier to sustainable tourism management as Dodds [25] noted the need for integrating sustainable tourism and evidence-based planning into the broader policy context.
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su152316274
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
