A LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON LOCAL AUTHORITY SUSTAINABLE PLANNING FOR TOURISM IN IRELAND: A FOCUS ON TOURISM INDICATOR SYSTEMS
Emmet McLoughlin PhD
Institute of Technology Sligo
Supervisor: Dr James Hanrahan
Submitted to the Quality and Qualifications Ireland, July 2017.
ABSTRACT
A longitudinal study on Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland: A focus on tourism indicator systems Emmet McLoughlin The current increase in tourism arrivals to Ireland in recent years has had major implications for tourism planning. Although sustainability is now an essential word in the vocabulary of modern planning it is also the key principle that underpins the Irish planning process. Despite sustainability having been studied and accepted by many, together with decades of academic and practical debate on sustainable planning and its application to tourism, there still exist many gaps, especially when it comes to its implementation. Due to their legal powers under the Planning and Development Act (2015), Planning, and Development Regulations (2013), Local Authorities across Ireland are in an ideal position to sustainably plan for tourism. The most effective method for Local Authority senior planners to accomplish this is by adopting an evidence based planning approach to tourism through the use of tourism indicator systems. However, there currently exists a limited body of research available on sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in Ireland. Through the use of a multi methodological approach incorporating interviews with senior planners across Ireland together with a content analysis of all CDPs, this thesis addressed this gap in tourism research. This approach also facilitated the collection of longitudinal data to allow for direct comparisons to be made with a 2006 study. This thesis has examined the use of tourism indicator systems, and in particular, the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) by Local Authorities to facilitate evidence based planning for tourism. It contributes to new knowledge and understanding on sustainable planning and potential barriers faced by senior planners in Irelands Local Authorities when it comes to implementing evidence based planning for tourism. Thus, possibly affecting the progression towards sustainable planning for tourism. This thesis also provided the first longitudinal study on the level of sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. This provided a snap shot in time of the current state of sustainable planning by Local Authorities as evident from county development plans (CDP) in 2016 compared to 2006. While findings have identified a slight increase in the provision for sustainable planning for tourism within CDPs over the decade, there continues to be poor levels of policy provision in key areas. Despite the responsibilities placed on Local Authorities to sustainably plan for tourism together with substantial advancements in the development of procedures for facilitating evidence based policy making in tourism. Findings continue to question the ability of Local Authorities in Ireland to plan sustainably for tourism and protect the tourism product. By implementing the tourism planning tool-kit, Local Authorities in Ireland can move towards an informed evidence based approach to tourism planning in the future.
i
LIST OF PUBLISHED PAPERS
Publications Hanrahan, J and McLoughlin, E (2016) Local Authority Tourism Planning in Ireland: An Environmental Perspective. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 8(13), 33-52. Hanrahan, J and McLoughlin, E (2015) A Framework for Analysing the Local Authorities Tourism Planning in Ireland: A Socio-Cultural Perspective. European Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 73-87. Hanrahan, J and McLoughlin, E (2015) Planning for the Economic Impacts of Tourism in Ireland: A Local Authority Perspective. Journal of Tourism Analysis, 20(6), 665-676. Conaghan, A, Hanrahan. J and McLoughlin, E (2015) The Sustainable Management of a Tourism Destination in Ireland: A Focus on County Clare. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research, 3(1), 62-87. Peer reviewed conference papers McLoughlin, E and Hanrahan, J. (2016) An Analysis of LECPs in Planning for Tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Research in Ireland Conference: Limerick Institute of Technology. McLoughlin, E and Hanrahan, J. (2015) Collaborative Sustainable Tourism Development in Ireland: Local Authorities use of Sustainable Tourism Indicators. Tourism and Hospitality Research in Ireland Conference: Letterkenny Institute of Technology. McLoughlin, E and Hanrahan, J. (2014) Sustainable Tourism Planning in Ireland: A Local Authority perspective. Tourism and Hospitality Research in Ireland Conference: Cork Institute of Technology. McLoughlin, E and Hanrahan, J. (2013) Importance of an Integrated Sustainable Planning Approach to Tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Research in Ireland Conference: Galway Mayo Institute of Technology.
ii
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that this thesis submitted for the award of Doctor of Philosophy is entirely my own work and that any allusion to others is fully acknowledged in accordance with the standard referencing practice of this discipline. This thesis was prepared according to the Code of Practice for quality assurance of postgraduate research of the Institute of Technology Sligo.
Candidate Signature………………………………………… Date………………………………
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was impossible without the support of many wonderful people. Above all, I wish to express sincere gratitude to my incredible family for their support throughout this research journey. My parents, Oliver and Clare and my brother Shane and sister Ailbhe for all their support. Also, the unwavering love, support, and encouragement from my girlfriend Laura, who always believed in me. Thanks also to Professor Kevin Hannam, Dr Adrian Devine and Michael Gleeson who provided a pleasant and memorable conclusion to this research.
Finally, I am greatly indebted to and appreciate to my supervisor Dr James Hanrahan for his exemplary thoughtful supervision, who was always available to help and inspire me when needed.
iv
CONTENTS
Abstract List of published papers Declaration Acknowledgements List of Tables List of Figures Abbreviations Chapter 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Introduction and contexts
Introduction Research intent Research approach Background of the study The structure of Irish tourism in the context of planning Importance of research and contribution of knowledge Structure of the thesis
Chapter 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6.1 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9.1 2.9.2 2.9.3 2.9.4 2.9.5 2.9.6 2.9.7 2.9.8 2.9.9 2.9.10 2.9.11
i ii iii iv ix x xi
1 2 3 4 6 10 11
Sustainable planning for tourism
Introduction Planning and mobilities Tourism The need to plan for tourism Tourism planning approaches Sustainable tourism Aims of sustainable tourism Sustainable planning for tourism Guidelines for sustainable planning for tourism Tools of sustainability Sustainability indicators Area protection Industry regulation Visitor management techniques Environmental impact assessment Carrying capacity calculations Consultation and participation techniques Codes of conduct Foot-printing and carbon budget analysis Fair trade in tourism Sustainable livelihoods framework v
14 14 16 18 19 24 25 27 30 33 33 34 36 37 38 39 39 40 41 42 43
2.10 2.11 2.12
Sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland Towards a framework for assessing sustainable planning for tourism within CDPs Conclusion
Chapter 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.5 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.4 3.7.5 3.8 3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.3 3.9 3.10 3.11
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.8
47 48
Irish tourism planning and the use of tourism indicators
Introduction Historical context of tourism planning in Ireland Levels of tourism planning Tourism planning at international level Tourism planning at national level Tourism planning at regional level Tourism planning at local level Local Authority planning process worldwide The need for Local Authority involvement in tourism planning Processes of Local Authority planning in Ireland Local Authority funding Local Authority governance Local Authority consultation Local Authority accountability Local Authority destination management Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland Planning and Development Act (2015) County Development Plans (CDPs) Planning permission in Ireland Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Local Economic and Community Plan (LECP) Tourism indicator systems for evidence based planning EPA-DIT ACHIEV Model Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations (GSTC-D) European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) Local Authority best practice in tourism Towards a theoretical framework to examine Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems Conclusion
Chapter 4
44
50 50 52 53 56 59 61 63 64 66 67 69 70 71 73 74 74 75 77 77 78 79 80 81 83 89 90 92
Research approach and methodology
Introduction Background to research Research approach and methodology Research paradigm Rationale for using multi method research Longitudinal research Geographic location of research Quantitative research Method Sampling and selection Data analysis Qualitative research vi
94 94 96 97 97 99 101 102 103 104 104 105
4.8.1 4.8.2 4.8.3 4.8.4 4.8.5 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.11.1 4.12
Semi-structured interviews Sampling and selection Interview timeline Data collection Analysis Research strengths and limitations Research credibility Ethical considerations Confidentiality and anonymity Conclusion
Chapter 5
106 109 109 110 110 111 112 113 113 114
Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland and the use of tourism indicator systems
5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.4 5.4.1 5.5
Introduction Process of Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland Funding for Local Authority tourism planning Governance in Local Authority tourism planning Local Authority consultation Accountability in Local Authority planning Destination management organisation Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland SEA in Local Authority tourism planning Measurement of tourism impacts in Local Authority tourism planning Monitoring of tourism impacts by Local Authority Local Authority local economic and community plans (LECP) Tourism indicator systems for evidence based planning Resources required by senior planners to implement tourism indicator systems Local Authority senior planner awareness and opinion on the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) 5.5.1 Local Authorities and the ETIS indicator tools 5.5.2 Approaches to aid Local Authorities in implementing the ETIS 5.6 Comprehensive planning tool-kit for future Local Authority CDPs 5 .7 Towards a Local Authority ETIS checklist to facilitate evidence based planning 5.8 Conclusion Chapter 6 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.3 6.3.1 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10
115 117 118 121 125 126 128 129 130 130 131 132 133 135 137 138 140 141 142 143
Longitudinal study of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism
Introduction Local Authority compliance and development of tourism plans and policies Integration of tourism planning within Local Authority CDPs Specific stand-alone Local Authority tourism development plan Sustainable planning for tourism within Local Authority CDP Tourism land use measures, resort planning and design standards Integration of tourism planning guidelines into Local Authority CDPs Planning for the environmental impacts of tourism Planning for the economic impacts of tourism Planning for the socio-cultural impacts of tourism Tourist arrivals and Local Authority development plans Longitudinal analysis of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism Towards a Local Authority tourism policy checklist vii
146 147 148 149 150 151 154 158 162 165 167 167 171
6.11
Conclusion
Chapter 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9
172
Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems Longitudinal study of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism Proposed Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit Local Authority ETIS checklist to facilitate evidence based planning Local Authority tourism policy checklist Support mechanisms for evidence based planning for tourism Future research Conclusion
Bibliography
191
Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F
173 174 176 179 181 184 187 189 190
Summary of abbreviations for Counties used in analysis matrix Local Authorities County Development Plans and their timelines European Commission European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) Cover letter sent to senior planners of Local Authorities Email sent to senior planners of Local Authorities Research interview with Local Authority senior planners
viii
List of Tables Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 Table 5.11 Table 5.12 Table 5.13 Table 5.14 Table 5.15 Table 5.16 Table 5.17 Table 5.18 Table 5.19 Table 5.20 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7
Guidelines for sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland Previous planning matrix of sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland Theoretical framework to assess Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism International guidelines for sustainable planning for tourism European guidelines on sustainable planning for tourism Factors of national level tourism planning National level guidelines on sustainable planning for tourism Models/guidelines for sustainable planning for tourism at local level Global sustainable tourism criteria for destinations (GSTC-D) Theoretical framework to examine Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems Theoretical framework to assess sustainable planning for tourism Example of longitudinal comparative analysis of CDPs Theoretical framework to examine Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems Theoretical framework to examine Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems Specific tourism budget within Local Authorities Staff allocations for tourism in Local Authorities Support experienced by senior planners from within their Local Authority when it comes to their role in tourism planning Support experienced by senior planners from outside organisations when it comes to their role in tourism planning Organisations influencing the alteration of the draft CDP County Councillor’s knowledge and actions Local Authority destination management Local Authority tourism research SEA in Local Authority tourism planning Measurement of tourism impacts Local Authority monitoring of tourism impacts Sustainable planning for tourism evident within LECPs Tourism indicator systems in the Local Authority tourism planning Process Additional resources needed to implement tourism indicator systems Local Authorities in Ireland and the ETIS Local Authorities in Ireland and the ETIS indicator tools Best approach to implement the ETIS in future Local Authority benefit from comprehensive planning tool-kit Towards a Local Authority ETIS checklist to facilitate evidence based planning Theoretical framework to assess Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism Time period of Local Authority CDPs and volume dedicated to tourism Integration of tourism planning within Local Authority CDP Specific stand-alone Local Authority tourism development plan Sustainable planning for tourism supported in CDPs Tourism land use measures, resort planning and design standards Integration of tourism planning guidelines into Local Authority CDPs ix
32 45 47 54 55 57 58 62 82 91 104 105 108 116 119 120 121 122 125 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 136 137 139 141 142 142 147 148 148 150 151 153 154
Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 Table 6.11 Table 7.1 Table 7.2
Planning for the environmental impacts of tourism Economic impacts of tourism supported Planning for the socio-cultural impacts of tourism Local Authority tourism planning checklist Local Authority ETIS checklist Local Authority tourism policy checklist
159 163 165 171 182 185
List of Figures Figure 1.0 Figure 1.2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 3.8 Figure 3.9 Figure 3.10 Figure 3.11 Figure 3.12 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 6.1 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3
Map of Irelands Local Authorities Structure of research Strategic tourism planning process Relationships between the 12 aims and the pillars of sustainability Sustainable planning for tourism The environments of tourism planning Regional Assemblies in the Republic of Ireland The Resource Management Act planning framework Local Authority planning framework in Ireland Overview of flow of central government funding to Local Authorities Example of tourism component of CDP EPA-DIT ACHIEV Model ETIS Excel Data Sheet Destination management indicators of the ETIS Economic indicators of the ETIS Social and cultural indicators of the ETIS Environmental Indicators of the ETIS Methodological framework for the longitudinal study of sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland with a focus on tourism indicator systems Map of Irelands Local Authorities Longitudinal analysis of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism Longitudinal analysis of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit Contextualisation of the Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit in Ireland
x
5 12 22 26 29 52 61 64 66 68 76 80 83 84 85 87 88 100 101 168 177 179 180
Abbreviations APEC CDP COP 21 DAHG DCLG DECLG DEHLG DHPLG DIT DMO DTTAS DOE EC ECOTRANS EEA EPA EIA ESRC ETIS EU FEDETON GCET GIS GSTC GSTC-D ICLEI IFA IHF IPCC ITIC IUCN KIO LA LA21 LCA LCDC LEADER LECP LEDC Mahon Tribunal MDG NDP NESC NGO NOAC NPF NPWS NSS
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation County Development Plan 21st Conference of the Parties Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Department for Communities and Local Government Department of Environment, Community and Local Government Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government Department of Housing Planning and Local Government Dublin Institute of Technology Destination Management Organisation Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport Department of Environment European Commission European Network for Sustainable Tourism Development European Environmental Agency Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Impact Assessment Economic Social Research Council European Tourism Indicator System European Union European Federation of Nautical Tourism Global Code of Ethics for Tourism Geographic Information System Global Sustainable Tourism Council Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives Irish Farmers Organisation Irish Hotels Federation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Irish Tourists Industry Confederation International Union for Conservation of Nature Keep Ireland Open Local Authority Local Agenda 21 Landscape Character Assessment Local Community Development Committees A Rural Development Programme Local Economic and Community Plan Less Economically Developed Country Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments Millennium Development Goal National Development Plan National Economic and Social Council Non-Governmental Organisation National Oversight and Audit Commission National Planning Framework National Parks and Wildlife Service National Spatial Strategy xi
NTDA OECD OAG PAS PPGIS RMA RPG RSES RTÉ SAC SDS SEA SPC STG TIES TRC TSG TSIG UK UN UNEP UNWTO WAW WCED WTO WTO WTTC WWF
National Tourism Development Authority Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Office of Attorney General Public Appointments Service Public Participation Geographic Information Systems Resource Management Act Regional Planning Guidelines Regional Spatial Economic Strategy Raidió Teilifís Éireann (Ireland's National Television & Radio Broadcaster) Special Areas of Conservation Sustainable Development Strategy Strategic Environmental Assessment Strategic Policy Committee Sustainable Tourism Group International Eco-Tourism Society Tourism Research Centre Tourism Sustainability Group Tourism Strategy Implementation Group United Kingdom United Nations United Nations Environment Programme United Nations World Tourism Organisation Wild Atlantic Way World Commission on the Environment and Development World Trade Organisation World Tourism Organisation World Travel and Tourism Council World Wildlife Fund
xii
Chapter 1:
INTRODUCTION
Every time we travel, we become part of a global movement that has the power to drive positive change for our planet and all people (Taleb Rifai, UNWTO Secretary-General, 2015). 1.1
Introduction
Tourism continues to be an activity of global importance and significance. This multi-billiondollar enterprise remains one of the top performing industrial sectors in several economies throughout the world (Bojanic and Lo, 2016). The tourism industry in Ireland had its best year in 2016, with sentiment across the sector now at levels not seen since the days of the ‘Celtic Tiger’. Fáilte Ireland (2016a) state that tourism is now well placed to deliver significant employment and foreign earnings towards 2020 and beyond. However, with this growth more demands will be placed on Ireland’s natural environment and the irreplaceable resources of many local communities. The challenge facing Local Authorities, that are legally responsible under the Planning and Development Act (2015) for facilitating and directing tourism development, is to ensure tourism planning and development is sustainable. This research contributes to new knowledge on the use of tourism indicator systems, and in particular, the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) for sustainable destination management by Local Authorities to facilitate evidence based planning. Findings will also provide the first longitudinal study on Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. This opening chapter will set the scene for the remainder of this thesis. The contextual issues validating the research intent are initially discussed within this chapter. With this foundation in place, the research approach is then defined. The underlining importance of the tourism industry to Ireland is also highlighted together with a synopsis of its structure within the context of planning. Finally, this chapter will conclude by highlighting this study’s contribution to knowledge together with a summary of the thesis structure.
1
1.2
Research intent
Ireland’s unique culture and natural environment provide exceptional tourism offerings. This has ensured the sector remains of critical importance to the economy. While the sustainable planning and development of tourism can benefit significantly by adopting an evidence-based approach (Mangion, 2011), its practical application has received little academic attention in Ireland. The intent of this research is to contribute to new knowledge on whether evidence based planning for tourism currently exists in Ireland. In order to accomplish this, it was necessary to establish if tourism indicators, and in particular the ETIS are being utilised by Local Authorities to gather the necessary data on tourism activities. It is Local Authorities, through their legal powers under the Planning and Development Act (2015) that hold the key to facilitating tourism planning and ensuring its development does not negatively impact on local communities. Local Authorities also have the legal responsibility under the Planning and Development Regulations (2013) to grant or refuse planning permission for tourism developments. By collecting data on tourism activity, Local Authorities can ensure that tourism developments do not damage Ireland’s tourism product and are based on evidence, not conjecture. This research will also provide the first longitudinal study on Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism. By drawing direct comparisons with previous research, this study can determine if any changes have occurred in the level of sustainable planning for tourism evident from tourism components of Local Authority county development plans CDPs in the decade since 2006. Furthermore, the data and findings generated from this research will be utilised to develop a Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit to aid senior planners in the transition towards evidence based planning for tourism. This thesis is indicative of the researcher’s appreciation for the local tourism industry due to living in an area of unspoilt natural surroundings. Interest was further matured due to researching and developing several communal based tourism initiatives through the LEADER programme. The research approach is structured around the following broad aims and specific objectives.
2
1.3
Research approach
This thesis is will examine the use of tourism indicator systems by Local Authorities to facilitate evidence based planning, while also conducting a longitudinal study on sustainable planning for tourism. The aims of the research are: •
To examine the application and implementation of tourism indicator systems in the Local Authority tourism planning process in Ireland.
•
To determine, by way of a longitudinal study, the level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland, with a specific focus on the tourism component of CDPs. In order to achieve these aims, the following objectives were developed: • To critically examine the Local Authority tourism planning process. In order to probe senior planners and examine the Local Authority tourism planning process, this research will need to develop a theoretical framework incorporating the major themes emerging from the literature. This framework will also need to reflect the previous study from 2006 to ensuring the collection of longitudinal data. This theoretical framework will then inform the construction of strategic open-ended questionnaires to examine the Local Authority tourism planning process in Ireland. •
To determine if Local Authorities are implementing tourism indicator systems in the tourism planning process. While evidence based planning continues to be addressed with academia (Godfrey, 2006; Johnston, 2006; Minogue, 2008; Head, 2008; Nilsson et al, 2008; Mangion, 2011), it is under researched in Ireland. In order to establish baseline findings, the theoretical framework will also assess in detail the integration levels of tourism indicator systems and in particular the ETIS. While also highlighting any potential obstacles faced by senior planners in incorporating these tools to facilitate evidence based planning for tourism. •
To determine the extent to which sustainable planning for tourism is evident within Local Authority CDPs.
This longitudinal study will require a detailed comparative examination of tourism components within all Local Authority development plans. To achieve this, while ensuring a standard comparative approach, a theoretical framework must be designed.
3
This will need to reflect the previous framework developed and utilised in the original study. •
To conduct a nationwide content analysis of tourism plans within Local Authority CDPs in Ireland and assess if any link existed between the percentage of tourist arrivals and the provision of sustainable planning for tourism. Some counties in Ireland consistently receive a higher proportion of tourist arrivals than others. Therefore, it will be necessary for this longitudinal study to assess if there is any link between visitor arrivals and the quality and depth of tourism components of CDPs. •
To produce a generic planning tool-kit which Local Authorities can use when planning sustainably for tourism within future CDPs Due to the applied and comparative nature of the research, it would be appropriate to take advantage of the data collected, and utilise the results from this longitudinal study further by designing a Local Authority planning tool-kit to facilitate evidence based planning. For the functionality of this tool-kit, it will need to be separated into two distinguishable checklists. Both these checklists when combined will enable senior planners within Local Authorities to monitor and analyse tourism’s impact locally. This also will help to ensure the future long-term sustainability of the Irish tourism product and allow senior planners to benchmark tourism data year on year. This data can then inform the development of sustainable planning policies in future tourism components of CDPs. 1.4
Background of the study
Ireland’s tourism products, such as the Wild Atlantic Way (WAW) continue to appeal to key market segments. The national government is also supportive of the growth and competitiveness of the industry. This has been achieved through such measures as the 9% VAT rate, the ‘Gathering’ initiative of 2013 and the reduced ‘Air Travel Tax’ and visa waiver programmes (DTTAS, 2015). By combining the data from the domestic and international market, tourism generated approximately €6.6 billion in revenue for the economy in 2016 (WTTC, 2017). Furthermore, tourism directly and indirectly supports employment across the country for a range of skill levels, with one in nine people in Ireland employed within the tourism and hospitality sector (ITIC, 2017). This sector contributes to 163,500 jobs, and is expected to rise by 2.1% pa to 200,000 jobs in 2026 (WTTC, 2017). Given Irelands small population, it is very dependent on the export sectors to generate economic activity and contribute to taxation in order to fund public services. While Fáilte Ireland (2013) remarks that confidence in the tourism industry is returning, it is essential that policy makers act to ensure the protection of jobs and the future competitiveness
4
of the industry. Hatipoglu, Alvarez and Ertuna (2016) in their analysis of tourism planning, noted how policy and planning have become indispensable to minimise the negative impacts of tourism, while also ensuring its future sustainability (Testoni, 2001; Hall, 2008). As Local Authorities are charged with managing the majority of resources and infrastructure that tourism relies on, they are in a position to ensure its future sustainability. Furthermore, recent phenomena such as climate change, a hypermobile society, and new models of relationships through social media (Budeanu et al, 2013) and the shared economy (Dredge and Gyimothy, 2015) all add new layers of complexity to tourism (Budeanu et al, 2016). An evidence based planning approach to tourism will enable senior planners to measure their sustainability efforts while also providing significant amounts of data relating to current needs and future demands for the local tourism industry. Figure 1.0
Map of Irelands Local Authorities Cavan (CN) 242,000 visitors
Donegal (DL) 603,000 visitors
Leitrim (LM) 155,000 visitors
Monaghan (MN) 120,000 visitors
Sligo (SO) 428,000 visitors
Louth (LH) 180,000 visitors
Mayo (MO) 687,000 visitors
Meath (MH) 318,000 visitors
Longford (LD) 108,000 visitors
Dublin (DLR/sD/FL)
6.5 million visitors
Roscommon (RN) 128,000 visitors
Kildare (KE) 339,000 visitors
Galway (GY) 2.1 million visitors
Wicklow (WW) 515,000 visitors
Westmeath (WH) 293,000 visitors
Offaly (OY) 125,500 visitors
Clare (CE) 985,000 visitors
Carlow (CW) 187,000 visitors
Limerick (LK) 725,000 visitors
Laois (LS) 134,500 visitors
Kerry (KY) 1.7 million visitors
Wexford (WX) 796,000 visitors Cork (CK) 2.4 million visitors
Waterford (WD) 567,000 visitors
Tipperary (Ts/Tn) 386,000 visitors
Kilkenny (KK) 464,000 visitors
Source: Fáilte Ireland (2016c). Key:
Local Authorities are abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal Number of visitors comprises both domestic and international arrivals to the specific County for the year 2016
Head (2008) discusses how evidence has become central to the design, implementation and evaluation of many policies and programmes. The collection of data on tourism activity is 5
paramount at a time when Ireland is receiving record numbers of tourist arrivals (Figure 1.0). Many of these tourists are choosing Ireland as a holiday destination due to its scenery and unspoilt environment (Fáilte Ireland, 2010b). Therefore, the challenge facing senior planners lies in moving sustainable planning for tourism into practical implementation at local level. It is widely accepted within literature that the development of tourism in the absence of a sensibly designed planning process could lead to a pool of negative consequences (Hall, 2008; Connell et al, 2009; Maxim, 2013). And if Local Authorities do not have strong tourism policies based on evidence to protect the tourism product, then this is a problem. Therefore, it is important for this research to determine whether Local Authorities are incorporating tourism indicator systems to facilitate an evidence-based approach to tourism planning. Furthermore, if this collection of data has improved the level of sustainable planning within tourism components of Local Authority CDPs. 1.5
The structure of Irish tourism in the context of planning
The provision and application of sustainable principles in the tourism planning process relies on the implementation of specific criteria developed at European, national and local levels. This shift in tourism policy from government to governance is discussed by Bramwell and Lane (2011) as being a key requirement for implementing sustainability in tourism. Also, the need to collect data on tourism activity is essential to ensure destinations and the natural environment are able to sustain the development of tourism. In Ireland, there are several organisations directly and indirectly involved in tourism planning. These range from directives, product development, state policy and the physical planning process: ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ Since
European Commission Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTAS) Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG) Fáilte Ireland (National Tourism Development Authority) Local Authorities (County Councils) the end of the Second World War, tourism has been a steady and constant driver of
economic growth in Europe (Estol and Font, 2016). The European Union’s policies, guidelines and directives, which are entrenched in Irish law, have the potential to impact on the levels of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism. According to the EU (2014), a sustainable approach to tourism will in turn lead to the development of innovative and quality tourism products and services, thus making European destinations more attractive. Manente, Minghetti and Montaguti’s (2013) study on the role of the EU in defining tourism policy together with Wallace, Pollack and Young’s (2010) discussion on policy making within the EU both point to 6
the existence of a detailed institutional map concerning European policy. Estol and Font (2016) do warn that the EU decision making process can be complex. With Lodge (1996) identifying at least eight legislative procedures impacting tourism. As far back as 2003, a European Commission (EC) communication advised that: ‘While high level strategic policies were formed, often they did not translate into action by tourism operators or tourists themselves’ (European Commission, 2003; citied in Fáilte Ireland, 2007a:13). As a result, the EC set up the Tourism Sustainability Group (TSG) and in 2007; its report highlighted the difficulties faced by national and local governments when implementing sustainability issues in tourism: ‘Many national governments and Local Authorities across Europe have paid attention to sustainability issues in the development of their tourism strategies and actions. This process is likely to be further strengthened by the requirement that government strategies are subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment. Yet there is a feeling that such awareness is not necessarily translated into concrete practical actions and that some of the key challenges and opportunities presented by the sustainable development of tourism are not being met’ (European Commission, 2007:4). Tourist destinations are now increasingly being called upon to tackle many social, cultural, economic, and environmental challenges. It is also necessary to determine if Local Authorities are collecting data on tourism activity needed to monitor sustainability and to manage tourism more effectively. Furthermore, within the context of the longitudinal nature of this research, it will be necessary to identify if Local Authorities are managing these challenges identified by the EC and whether this transformed itself into greater levels of sustainable planning for tourism. To help Local Authorities in this regard, the EC produces numerous guidelines for planners and managers in relation to all aspects of tourism planning and management: ➢ EC: Innovation in Tourism (2006) ➢ EC: Actions for more Sustainable Tourism (2007) ➢ EC: Cultural Sporting Events: An opportunity for developing tourist destinations and the tourist industry (2007) ➢ EC: Best Environmental Management Practice in the Tourism Sector (2013) ➢ EC: Enhancing the Competitiveness of Tourism in the EU (2013) ➢ EEA: Report on the Feasibility for Regular Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Tourism (2014) ➢ EC: European Tourism Indicator System: ETIS toolkit for sustainable destination management (2016) These guides are generally prepared and tested on a number of different member states, with the ETIS being piloted in Ireland in Co. Clare (CE).
7
These guidelines and tools can prove very useful for tourism managers and Local Authority planners. If utilised by Local Authorities, they could potentially ensure that sufficient levels of sustainability are being implemented through an evidence-based approach to tourism planning. So if Local Authorities are to sustain Ireland’s ‘clean green image’ and its hospitable atmosphere, the importance of these tools and guidelines cannot be underestimated as visitor arrivals are predicted to increase. Within the Irish government, there is currently no set ministry for tourism as is present in other countries such as New Zealand. Instead, the ministerial department responsible for tourism also has a responsibility for transport and sport. The objective of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTAS) is: ‘providing the strategic direction required to support the growth of a competitive and sustainable tourism industry, through the development, implementation and influencing of a range of policy actions and programmes by the Department, its Agencies and other Government Departments, in consultation with industry partners’ (DTTAS, 2017). The DTTAS envisages a central role for Local Authorities in the planning and development of tourism, who can act as a link between the state tourism agencies and local communities (DTTAS, 2015). Their support for sustainability in tourism is also well illustrated within ‘Growing Tourism to 2025’. This overarching policy statement contains broad objectives set out for the development of Ireland’s tourism sector in the period up to 2025.Within this document, the consideration of tourism by key public bodies in the planning process is essential to ensure effective protection and presentation of Irelands natural and built heritage (DTTAS, 2015:22). These state agencies, which operate under the aegis of the DTTAS, were established to deal with the administration of tourism policy derived by the DTTAS. Fáilte Ireland is the National Tourism Development Authority (NTDA) for Ireland. It was established under the National Tourism Development Authority Act (2003), following the amalgamation of Bord Fáilte Éireann and CERT. Its role is to encourage, promote and support tourism as a leading indigenous component of the Irish economy. One of its key objectives is to: ‘Work with other state agencies and representative bodies, at local and national levels, to implement and champion positive and practical strategies that will benefit Irish tourism and the Irish economy’ (Fáilte Ireland, 2017). Fáilte Ireland do collect limited data on tourism activity, usually in form of visitor arrivals, revenue and satisfaction ratings and this is made available to Local Authorities. However, these
8
statistics do not tell the whole story of tourism’s impact. Also, Fáilte Ireland’s role is not sustainable planning, but more of a support organisation to help stakeholders make informed decisions regarding tourism development. It does aim to ensure the integration of sustainable development standards through the following; ➢ Fáilte Ireland will prepare a checklist and methodology to assist Local Authorities in integrating sustainable tourism principles and policies into their Development Plans. ➢ Fáilte Ireland will provide advice to Local Authorities on the sustainable tourism policy content of County and City Development Plans and of selected Local Area Plans (Fáilte Ireland, 2007:18). In the context of this longitudinal study on Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism, it will be necessary to determine if this approach has indeed contributed to greater levels of sustainable planning for tourism as evident from CDPs. While Fáilte Ireland provides information and advice on tourism planning it is important to stress it is not in fact responsible for the physical act of land use planning. It is Local Authorities that are charged with the responsibility to develop infrastructure for tourism and grant or refuse planning permission for future tourism developments. The Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG) overseas the operation of the local government system in Ireland and implements policy in relation to local government structures, functions, human resources and financing. Its mission is to: ‘Support local government in its role of promoting the well-being and quality of life of citizens and communities through the efficient performance of functions and delivery of good-value services at local level’ (DHPLG, 2017). The large body of planning legislation and regulations developed over the decades were finally consolidated into one piece of legislation, the Planning and Development Act (2000-2015). Since its inception, this seminal piece of Irish legislation has been revised over the years to comply with sustainability arising from the growing European dimension arising from Ireland’s membership of the EU (DEHLG, 2007b). Through this higher-level governance, Irelands planning system has embraced the culture of sustainability. The actual physical planning system in Ireland is run by thirty-one Local Authorities, termed County, City or City and County Councils. Each Local Authority is required to develop and publish a new county development plan (CDP) every six years. These plans detail the overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of an area. The DHPLG plays a large role in supporting Local Authorities in the planning process and offers guidance notes on planning and development for a number of areas. Within the guidelines developed by the then 9
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government DEHLG (2007a:25) for preparing development plans, it is clearly stated that Local Authorities are required to ensure that policies for the development of tourism are contained within CDPs. However, while providing key planning legislation, the DHPLG is not tourism focused, as there is currently no guidelines in place to aid in the sustainable planning for tourism. In addition to Local Authorities, there is a proliferation of tourism organisations involved in the development of tourism at a county and local level. Many of these groups are supported through the functions of Local Authorities. However, none of these have the legal power to grant or refuse planning permission. The local LEADER companies are focused on rural development through the collaboration with local stakeholders, which is noted as vital in delivering the maximum benefits for communities when it comes to tourism (Myers, Budruk and Andereck, 2011; Conaghan, 2013). Also, the Regional Tourism Authorities (RTAs) administer tourism at a regional level. New regional assemblies will replace the current eight regional authorities (DECLG, 2012b). These new assemblies will have a more robust role in spatial and economic planning, as well as the management of EU funded programmes, as opposed to the previous eight regional authorities. However, if Ireland’s tourism product is to sustain this level of growth going into the future, it is necessary for Local Authorities to base future tourism planning policy on evidence, through data collection on tourism activity. This will help in the development of strong, detailed and specific policies to protect the natural environment and deliver the necessary economic benefits to local communities. 1.6
Importance of research and contribution of knowledge
The importance of this research is paramount at a time when tourist arrivals to Ireland are increasing year on year. Yet through the academic study of tourism, similar to many other activities, tourism can have both positive and negative impacts (Wall and Mathieson, 2006; Telfer and Sharpley, 2008; Mowforth and Munt, 2016). This thesis will provide baseline findings on the incorporation of the ETIS by Local Authorities to facilitate evidence based planning for tourism. The efficient use of natural resources is now regarded as the key challenge for the tourism industry. While evidence based policymaking has been examined in recent years (Godfrey, 2006; Johnston, 2006; Minogue, 2008; Head, 2008; Nilsson et al, 2008), research pertaining to this approach to tourism planning in Ireland is extremely limited. The EC (2010) considers it essential to have a better socio-economic knowledge base concerning tourism and its relationship with the environment. To achieve this, the EC developed and 10
launched the ETIS in 2013 with the aim of helping destinations to monitor and measure their sustainable tourism performance by using a common comparable approach (EC, 2016a). This free indicator system and its associated tool-kit and supporting documents was later refined in 2016 as a result of an extensive piloting phase. Discussions on the use of tourism indicator systems have resulted in a broad agreement among academics of their suitability for orienting tourism activity based on sustainability (Blancas et al, 2010a; Torres-Delgado and Palomeque, 2014). Despite their importance in ensuring the future sustainability of the local tourism industry through data collection and monitoring, little research has been conducted on the use of tourism indicator systems by Local Authorities in Ireland. Recent discussions of tourism and sustainability have focused on the importance and benefits of planning (Hall, 2005, 2008; Edgell et al, 2008; Edgell, 2016; Mason, 2016; Mowforth and Munt, 2016). Therefore, the need to plan for tourism and its associated destinations has become increasingly important in recent times. According to Kerr (2003), literature in the field of tourism policy is insufficiently developed. Similarly, Maxim (2013) discussed how this literature is missing specific approaches, frameworks and theories. Furthermore, few studies on how sustainable planning has been implemented in practise by Local Authorities (Dodds and Butler, 2009, 2010). This research will bridge this gap by providing an up to date assessment on the level of sustainable planning for tourism in 2016 as evident from Local Authority CDPs. The significant contribution this research will make to new knowledge will be through the development of a Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit to facilitate evidence based planning. This tool-kit can assist senior planners’ move towards an evidence-based approach to tourism planning and in developing tourism components of future CDPs. The findings from this research together with the Local Authority planning tool-kit should be beneficial to the tourism industry and academics not only in Ireland but globally. 1.7
Structure of the thesis
The structure of this thesis is illustrated in Figure 1.2. As can be observed, the extensive literature review defines the two principle categories, which give structure to the remainder of the document. This thesis is divided into seven chapters. The structure is followed with a brief summary of the chapters presented.
11
Following on from this introductory chapter, chapter two reviews existing theory and theoretical concepts in relation to ‘tourism’, ‘tourism-planning’ and ‘sustainable development’. This chapter also discusses the major typologies and models put forward in relation to sustainable planning for tourism. This discussion of the various theoretical concepts provided a comprehensive contextual guideline. This allowed the research to build upon the results from the 2006 study and examine the level of sustainable planning for tourism within Local Authority CDPs in 2016. This discussion provides a backdrop for chapter three. Figure 1.2
Structure of research
Chapter 1 Introduction
Introduction Research approach & contribution to knowledge
Chapter 2 Literature review
Sustainable planning for tourism
Chapter 3 Literature Review
Irish tourism planning and the use of tourism indicators
Chapter 4 Methodology
Chapter 5 & 6 Results and Discussion
Research approach & methodology
Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland and the use of tourism indicator systems
Chapter 7 Conclusion
Longitudinal Study of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism
Conclusion
Chapter three essentially deals with the theoretical background to the tourism planning process. This chapter highlights the various frameworks available to Local Authorities to assist in the planning and development of tourism. Also, the tourism indicator systems applicable to Ireland to facilitate evidence based planning are reviewed against current international theory. From this, concepts are utilised to develop a theoretical framework to examine the Local Authority tourism planning process and the use of tourism indicator systems to facilitate evidence based planning. In chapter four, the philosophical stance and methodology of this longitudinal study is discussed. The research procedure is outlined in relation to the aims and objectives encompassing both qualitative and quantitative methods using a multi-methodological approach. The phases of data collection through the research tools developed are also outlined, explained and discussed. The chapter then concludes with an overview of the research strengths and limitations. 12
Chapter five presents the findings on the Local Authority tourism planning process in Ireland and whether tourism indicator systems are being used to facilitate evidence based planning. The analysis within this chapter is discussed within the context of relevant theory and findings from qualitative in-depth interviews with senior planners in all Local Authorities in Ireland. The development of the open-ended questionnaire also enabled direct comparisons to be made with previous research on Local Authority tourism planning conducted in 2006. Chapter six presents the analysis and findings from the longitudinal study of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism. The findings are discussed according to the theoretical framework developed in chapter two. This analysis determines whether any changes were apparent in the level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in 2016, when compared to previous results in 2006. The concluding chapter articulates the major issues that have emerged from the research. The research aims and objectives are revisited to draw finial conclusions and recommendations for the findings. The Local Authority planning tool-kit developed to aid senior planners in facilitating evidence based planning is presented and discussed. The chapter also proposes support mechanisms for Local Authority evidence based planning for tourism in Ireland. Finally, the chapter concludes with a challenge for future researchers to further expand on this longitudinal study. Thereby, further expanding knowledge and understanding of sustainable planning for tourism and the use of tourism indicator systems to facilitate evidence based planning in Ireland.
13
Chapter 2:
SUSTAINABLE PLANNING FOR TOURISM
By managing tourism in a sustainable way, we recognise the limits and capacity of our tourism resources and encourage tourism development that balances the immediate economic, environmental and socio-cultural benefits, whilst also ensuring the longterm future for our European tourism industry (European Commission, 2013). 2.1
Introduction
Poorly planned tourism can leave permanent footprints on the physical, social, cultural and economic environments of destinations (Dwyer and Edwards, 2010). The concept of sustainability is closely related to tourism planning (UNWTO, 2004) and continues to garner increased attention within academic circles (Dredge and Jenkins, 2011). Moreover, the UNWTO has designated 2017 as the year of sustainable tourism for development (UNWTO, 2015c). Despite several studies emphasising the importance of applying sustainability within the tourism planning process (Hall, 2008; Connell et al, 2009; Bramwell and Lane, 2010; Moyle et al, 2013), few have provided insights into challenges and approaches experienced by Local Authorities in embracing sustainable planning for tourism (Dodds and Butler, 2009, 2010; Maxim, 2016). This chapter discusses planning and mobilities within the context of tourism. This is followed by highlighting the need to plan for tourism. Finally, the various planning approaches to tourism, guidelines and specific tools relating to sustainability in tourism are also discussed. These major themes reflected within the discussion in this chapter will be utilised to update the theoretical framework utilised in the 2006 study, thus facilitating the first longitudinal study on tourism planning in Ireland. 2.2
Planning and mobilities
The core of the contemporary mobilities theory developed (Urry, 2007; Adey, 2010; Cresswell and Merriman, 2011) is the sense of movement being integral to social life. Holden (2016) too has noted that tourism is the outcome of a variety of interacting factors that encourage and facilitate the movement of millions of people. In terms of planning for tourism, Scuttari, Lucia and Martini (2012) note that mobilities strongly impact on a destinations economic, 14
environmental and social sustainability. However, Hannam, Sheller and Urry (2006:3) contend that ‘mobilities cannot be described without attention to the necessary spatial, infrastructural and institutional moorings that configure and enable mobilities’. Indeed, McFarlane (2011) documents how policy ideas have become more mobile due to the upsurge in new forms of policy and learning. Therefore, drawing upon these insights, tourism planning together with mobilities are important considerations for Local Authorities when it comes to the future sustainable planning of tourism within their respective county. A number of recent discussions have focused on tourism mobilities as integral to the wider processes of economic and political development (Coles and Hall, 2006; Edensor, 2007; Franklin, 2003; Franklin and Crang, 2001; Hannam and Knox, 2010; Hannam, Butler and Paris, 2014; Freudendal-Pedersen, Hannam and Kesselring, 2016). However, tourism mobilities, in the purest sense, seeks to understand the connections between representations of mobility in tourism and through other areas such as transport (Diekmann and Hannam, 2012). It has been argued that these connections are not determined by each other, but rather they co-exist (Adey, 2010). Hannam, Butler and Paris, (2014:171) suggest that tourism is not a form of mobility comparable to other forms of mobility but that different mobilities inform and are informed by tourism. Moreover, constant conclusions within literature suggests transport can shape or even alter a tourist experience (Larsen, 2001; Edensor, 2007; Huijbens and Benediktsson, 2007; Hannam, Butler and Paris, 2014). Thus, adequate transportation access to the destination and a functional transportation network to serve attractions and tourist facilities is essential. When discussing the strategic links between sustainable planning for tourism and mobility management, Page (2005) notes that these tend to be treated as separate issues, both in the literature and in practice. According to Freudendal-Pedersen et al, (2016), this is due in part to the characterisation of place-based units reaming at the core of our understanding of tourism. Indeed, it has been further suggested that this has resulted in tourism being characterised as bringing the consumer to the product (Freudendal-Pedersen et al, 2016) with no distinction left between the journey (transit) and destination (Zillinger, 2008). Dwyer et al, (2009) argues that in dynamic systems such as tourism, sufficient infrastructure provision can lead to a substantial rise in both tourist mobility and destination accessibility. Therefore, Local Authorities must consider the wider journey undertaken by tourists in the tourism planning process and ensure adequate infrastructure is in place to facilitate such movements. Scuttari, Lucia and Martini (2012) further argue this is both an ethical imperative from a sustainability perspective and an opportunity and challenge for destination management. However, research suggests that there 15
exists a growing number of tourists choosing more ethical or eco-friendly solutions in transport (Yeoman, 2005; Kelly et al, 2007). This suggests that mobility planning has become an integral part of sustainable tourism and territorial planning (Scuttari, Lucia and Martini, 2012). As mobilities involve the movement of people, it is this engagement that is understood to be the core concept of tourism, which needs to be planned for in a sustainable way by Local Authorities. 2.3
Tourism
Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in the world (Manomaivibool, 2015), constantly striving to assert its importance (Budeanu et al, 2016). No, more so than in Ireland where it has grown from humble beginnings in the 1920’s to an extremely valuable segment of the economy (Metha, 2007). The industry gives greater weight to employment creation and economic growth (Franzoni, 2015). International tourist arrivals grew by 4.4% in 2015 to reach a total of 1,184 million in 2015, with some 50 million more tourists having travelled to international destinations around the world last year as compared to 2014 (UNWTO, 2016). Residents from within the EU made an estimated 1.2 billion tourism trips in 2014 for personal or business purposes (EC, 2015) with Ireland receiving 8.6 million overseas visitors, a growth of 13.7% on 2014 (Fáilte Ireland, 2016b). Many of the indicators used to describe the industry are almost exclusively in terms of economic metrics. Thus contributing to the growing popularity from both governmental departments and academic institutions. International experience has shown that tourism, like many other activities, can have both positive and negative impacts (Wall and Mathieson, 2006; Telfer and Sharpley, 2008; Stylidis, Biran, Sit and Szivas, 2014; Kim, Jun, Walker and Drane, 2015; Mowforth and Munt, 2016). The need to plan for tourism, and its associated impacts has in recent years become a focus for Local Authority planners around the world. Yet, through the academic study of tourism, its multi-dimensionality and complexity has been acknowledged (Farmaki, 2017). In many instances, several authors found it difficult to define tourism easily in absolute terms (Mathieson and Wall, 1982; Godbey, 1985; McKercher, 1993). As this study aims to examine the current level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism, first the actual concept of tourism itself needs to be fully comprehended.
16
One early definition of tourism is put forward by Jafari (1977) who assumed a holistic approach to tourism and underlined, as noted by Candela and Figini, (2012) all the experiences associated with tourism flows; ‘Tourism is the study of man away from his usual habitat, the industry which responds to his needs, and the impact that both he and the industry have on the socio-cultural, economic, and physical environments’ (Jafari 1977: 6). This holistic approach is however required for the long-term sustainability of tourism (Kathrada, Burger and Dohnal, 1999). The process of defining tourism experienced a decisive and significant move forward in 1994 with the definition put forward by the WTO; ‘The activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes’ WTO (1994:7). Tourism is an activity primarily used by humans to visit one place or another. This universally accepted definition of tourism according to Candela and Figini, (2012) includes these features. For the purposes of this study, the definition provided by the WTO (1994) will be used when defining tourism. Tourism however is far more complex than just travelling from one place to another. In examining the level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism, new perspectives on the definition of tourism are sought out. For the purpose of this literature review, the author will concentrate on the definition put forward by Weaver and Lawton (2006). These authors highlight stakeholder involvement in responding to the needs of persons travelling for leisure, business or other purposes. This is also supported by van der Zee and Vanneste (2015) who argue that tourism is the temporary interaction between guests and a hosting destination. With this, destinations are made up of an amalgam of stakeholders, partially or fully, and directly or indirectly involved in tourism. Collectively, these definitions highlight further the complex nature of tourism and the difficulty in defining it in absolute terms. The definitions discussed add to the debate and overall understanding of the concept of tourism. The early perspective perceptive of tourism tended to focus on persons staying in places outside their usual environment and the industry, which responds to their needs. Later explanations were aimed at stakeholders and the increasingly important role they have in developing and managing tourism in particular destinations. Regardless, the need for effective planning is essential for tourism to benefit all.
17
2.4
The need to plan for tourism
The importance of tourism as an economic activity having a significant impact on economic growth and job creation (Blancas, Oyola and González, 2015) has been discussed. While tourism has indeed contributed to economic development and made a substantial difference in some areas, it has failed to live up to expectations in others (Sharpley, 2009; Hatipoglu, Alvarez and Ertuna, 2014). Effective planning is required by Local Authorities in order to seek durable solutions to inevitable challenges, while controlling current activities and future product development. Planning is an essential element of successful tourism development and management (Hall, 2005, 2007). According to Sharpley (2008), effective planning ensures that: ‘Tourism is developed according to broader economic and social development goals that it is developed sustainably and that appropriate mechanisms and processes are in place to ensure that tourism development is managed, promoted and monitored’ (Sharpley, 2008: 15). For Pearce (1989) tourism, planning should consider various factors such as land use zoning, development density, transport, environment, landscape, and carrying capacity, all of which are functions of Local Authorities. Expanding on the view of Hall (2005, 2007) and the definition provided by Sharpley (2008), Wan (2013) clarifies the role of tourism planning as the decision-making process and detailed, on-the-ground outline of how a tourism destination should be developed. Consistent with this view, Dredge and Jamal (2015) point to planning as having the most significant influence on how tourism develops. Besides, the argument of who wins and fails, and how benefits and impacts of tourism are distributed (Dredge and Jenkins, 2007; Hall and Jenkins, 1995) are all down to effective tourism planning. Without effective planning in place, tourism has been known to cause various economic, sociocultural and environmental changes upon the host community (Lee, 2013; Stylidis et al, 2014). Some of these impacts are of course, more beneficial than others. However, the need to plan has become overshadowed somewhat by the notoriously difficult task of essentially implementing tourism development plans. Indeed, Yüksel and Yüksel, (2000) identified issues such as a lack of collective action, vagueness of proposed goals, lack of implementation, and the absence or inclusion of some actors as concerns that may hamper the process of implementing tourism planning. These issues will be further discussed in the analysis chapters (5 and 6).
18
It is the familiar economic benefits associated with tourism that has in recent years become somewhat irreverent for local communities when attaining their support for tourism development. It is this support that is considered essential for the very success and sustainability of tourism (Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004; Pérez and Nadal, 2005; Sharpley, 2014). Current research now tends to focus on the ability of tourism planning to incorporate these views (Murphy, 1985; Simmons, 1994; Gunn and Var, 2002; Amuquandoh, 2010ab; Spencer, 2010; Andereck and Nyaupane, 2011; Sharpley, 2014) as it gives forward planners a greater understanding of the relevant impacts of tourism within the community (Doxey, 1975; Haywood, 1988; Mason, 2008; Deery et al, 2012; Sharpley, 2014). However, there is a consistent conclusion in the wider sustainability theory (Smith and Scharicz, 2011; Gibson, 2012; Budeanu et al, 2016) that there is considerable confusion and conflict over what sustainability is or should be. This could potentially impact on the ability of Local Authorities to plan sustainably for tourism. In Ireland, Local Authorities are legally required to produce a six-year CDP (Planning and Development Act, 2015). It is these CDPs that contain the particular counties tourism planning policies and strategies for implementation. All of which were developed after consultation with the local community. This consultation helps support the development of effective and wellresourced policies by Local Authorities, thus helping to ensure a sustainable and long-term local tourism industry. But, due to the constant growth of tourism and its diverse political and socio-economic environments (Ivars, 2004), there are many different approaches to planning. Such approaches have been the focus of much critique over the years (Murphy, 1985; Tosun and Jenkins, 1998; Ivars, 2004; Bornhorst et al, 2010; Hatipoglu, Alvarez and Ertuna, 2014). Therefore, it is worth identifying, from a Local Authority perspective, the depth and level of tourism planning performance, while also determining whether it has changed over the last decade in Ireland. 2.5
Tourism planning approaches
The focus and methods of tourism planning have not remained constant but have evolved to meet the new demands that have been placed on the tourism industry (Hall, 2008). By being aware of the various approaches, Local Authorities can learn from mistakes made elsewhere and realise that planning is not a static but a continuous process, which has to integrate exogenous changes and additional information (de Kadt, 1979; Baud-Bovy, 1982 Gunn, 1994; Hall, 2000; Andriotis, 2007). Besides, many authors point to the need for planning to be flexible 19
and adaptable. This is to ensure it can cope with what Atach-Rosch (1984), Choy (1991) and later Andriotis (2007) describe as the rapidly changing conditions and situations faced by a community. Similar to Ivars (2004) and his analysis on tourism planning in Spain, four broad approaches of tourism planning can be identified. Yet neither is mutually exclusive nor reflects the chronological order of evolution. Subsequently this longitudinal study on the current level of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in Ireland will determine if tourism is being developed in accordance with the principles of fairness and impartial delivery as highlighted by Hatipoglu, Alvarez and Ertuna, (2014). The following sections will review each of these approaches. For Gunn (1994) the main characteristic of tourism planning is to generate income and employment, ensure resource conservation and traveler satisfaction. The earlier approaches to tourism planning (i.e. boosterism) generally reflect an uncomplicated view of tourism. In many ways according to Hall (2008), it is debatable whether one can describe boosterism as a form of planning at all. The attitude of the early approaches to tourism planning was tourism development was inherently good and of automatic benefit to the local community. These approaches in turn regarded tourism as a potential contribution to economic growth and regional development. Most Local Authorities in Ireland would support the economic impacts associated with tourism development, such as employment generation. The argument put forward by Cooper et al (2008) is that such contributions can however, cause inflation, opportunity costs and over dependence on tourism as an industry. Moreover, these early economic centred approaches neglected to support the retention of tourism-related leakages. These leakages have been identified in other studies as leading to a decrease in the economic benefits of tourism development for the local population (Lejárraga and Walkenhorst, 2010; Webster and Ivanov, 2014). Therefore, by their very nature, these early economic approaches to tourism planning are considered unsustainable. Telfer and Sharpley (2008) in their research on tourism and development in the developing world argue that tourism cannot be planned in isolation. Tourism needs to be incorporated into the general plans and development policies of a local area. Current theory on tourism planning (Reisinger and Turner, 2003; Panyik, Costa and Rátz, 2011; Mason, 2016; Mowforth and Munt, 2016), all discuss the concept of integration, particularly in the context of its sustainability (Gössling and Hörstmeier, 2003; Panyik et al, 2011). This process is considered by academics in helping to address potential conflicts, complexities and incoherencies in natural resource management and policy formulations (Bonsu, Ní Dhubháin and O’Connor, 2016). This is 20
particularly important for ensuring the future long-term sustainability of tourism. However, Veal (2010) does caution that research on integrating tourism into local plans is less fully developed than other sectors. Maxim (2013) discusses how this integration approach to tourism planning suffered from a lack of attention with planning frameworks until recently. Local Authorities can however, contribute to their destinations overall sustainably by not isolating tourism and facilitate the integration of tourism into local development policies for their area. The community-orientated approach to tourism planning emerged in the late 1970’s. This particular approach was developed as a consequence of the negative socio-cultural impacts being experienced from tourism development (de Kadt, 1979: Ivars, 2004; Hall, 2008), resulting from conflict created between different user groups (Mason, 2016). Moreover, Mason (2016) noted the increasing pressures on limited resources from tourism development often lead to environmental degradation. It was Page and Dowling (2002) who argued that community involvement in planning is a fairly recent development and has been more of a feature of environmental planning than tourism planning. Discussions of sustainability in tourism include detailed and critical analyses of stakeholders and the challenges involved in engaging them effectively (Rodin, 2005). Therefore, it is critical that Local Authorities properly plan and help ensure tourism is sustainable for local communities. One of the earliest and most influential statements of the community approach to tourism planning is to be found in Murphy’s book Tourism: A Community Approach (1985). Murphy (1985) emphasised the need for local control over the development process. It is accepted that the concept of stakeholder involvement is one critical tenant of sustainability in tourism planning (Byrd, Cardenas, Greenwood, 2008; Kline, Cardenas, Viren, Swanson, 2015). In their community tourism development planning model, Reid et al (1993) addressed many of the different stages for stakeholder involvement such as; community participation, identifying community values, marketing and product development, and plan implementation. However, they did not acknowledge host culture or the natural environment within the planning process. According to Tosan (2000), the model presented by Reid et al (1993) focuses on the political aspect, while ignoring the economic and financial considerations, which are often the primary drivers for tourism development at a local level. Collaborating and working together, as discussed by Kline et al (2015) is a key consideration in sustainability. Therefore, stakeholder participation and empowerment are important elements in sustainable planning for tourism. It is this community-orientated approach, which according to Ivars (2004) has provided the impetus for bottom up planning schemes such as the LEADER initiative for rural development 21
in Europe. As such, this planning approach has resulted in an increase in community groups actively encouraging tourism development. Strategic planning at destination level is also facilitated by greater involvement of local communities in the decision making process (Gunn and Var, 2002; Singh et al, 2003; Hall, 2008). As a planning approach, strategic planning remains a popular activity (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2011; Phillips and Moutinho, 2014) and is now gradually becoming incorporated into tourism planning (see Figure 2.1). Figure 2.1
Strategic tourism planning process
Source: Hall (2008) Strategic planning has moved from the business environment to regional and urban planning in the 1980’s (Vazquez, 1993; Borja and castells, 1997; Ivars, 2004). In the past, this particular approach received relatively little attention in the tourism literature (Gilbert and Kapur, 1990; Athiyaman and Robertson, 1995; Soteriou and Roberts, 1998). Soteriou and Coccossis (2010) reported that earlier research tended to focus on tourism enterprises (Gilbert and Kapur, 1990; Athiyaman and Robertson, 1995; Phillips and Moutinho, 2000), with more contemporary work 22
focusing on not-for-profit tourism enterprises (Soteriou and Coccossis, 2010). In their study on a strategic approach to event tourism in Northern Ireland, Devine and Devine (2017) discuss how a strategic approach cam ensure a more effective and efficient approach to events in the future. In Hall’s (2008) strategic tourism planning process model (Figure 2.1), key components of the strategic planning process can in turn correspond to some of the components of a formal planning document. From this, factors such as institutional arrangements, institutional culture and stakeholder values and attitudes together with broader economic, social, political and economic trends (Hall, 2008). This reflects the current Irish planning process were Local Authority development plans are developed and written in line with the legislative and regulatory powers afforded to Local Authorities (Planning and Development Act 2015). As Figure 2.1 indicates, the strategic planning process is hierarchically structured, from a vision or mission statement through to goals, objectives an action statements, which can all be based on evidence through the collection of data from indicators. This hierarchical structure reflects the various layers of the planning system within which planning problems can be solved (Hall, 2008). Once underway, strategic planning is also designed to be able to adapt and change to internal and external forces. Thus allowing for Local Authorities to focus on the ‘big picture’ planning issues, possibilities and considerations, because as Hall (2008:117) warns as the environment changes so the planning system, and the components within it, also change. This according to the DEHLG (2007a) will underpin how the development process in particular areas is to be structured in order to achieve the plan’s objectives for the wider community. Besides one should always remember that this process is never purely linear (Hall, 2008), constant feedback, adjustment and change between all the components of this model is required. Liu, Siguaw and Enz (2008) further promote strategic planning as a fundamental tool for success and survival of any tourist destination. Since its earliest days, strategic planning approaches were often preoccupied with the economic and planning performance perspective (Thune and House, 1970; Herold, 1972; Fulmer and Rue, 1974; Grinyer and Norburn, 1975). Mintzberg and Waters (1985) highlighted its role in the process of strategy formulation. Voelpel, Leibold, and Eckhoff’s (2006) examination on the generation of tourism experiences, was found to depend on the provision of intangible services. Modern developments in tourism highlight, the mixed nature of the industry consisting of private firms, public agencies and not-for-profit associations (Andersson and Gertz, 2009). This mixed industry can increase the difficulties of coordinating strategic planning efforts, particularly at the destination level. Furthermore, Hall and McArthur (1998) 23
observed that once strategic planning process is underway, the goals and objectives formulated, and the institutional arrangements may be recognised as inadequate. Indeed, strategic planning has been known to put in place planning policies without considering the issue in detail beforehand. This is particularly evident when policy documents that are prepared for a five or six-year period. These four approaches to tourism planning discussed highlight collectively the complex nature of tourism planning and development. This discussion also pointed to the need for a sustainable approach to tourism planning. 2.6
Sustainable tourism
As has been frequently observed, tourism has grown dramatically during the past sixty years (Theobald, 2004). The rapid increase in tourism arrivals to Ireland has had major implications for Local Authority planning. According to King and Pearlman (2009), this is mainly due to both the expansion of tourism related business activity and the pursuit by governments of employment and other economic benefits associated with tourism. Due to the potential associated negative impacts associated with tourism, Conaghan (2013) discussed that new ways are being looked at to manage these. This has resulted in sustainable tourism now being considered to be one of the key areas of study within tourism (Connell and Page, 2008). But in order to comprehend sustainable planning for tourism, it is first necessary to understand sustainable tourism. According to Buckley (2012), research into sustainable tourism is now over two decades old. Since the mid -1990’s, discussions relating to tourism have become dominated by the principles of sustainability (Weaver, 2011). Sustainable tourism continues however, to be an adjustable concept (Farsari et al, 2011) which means different things to different people (Maxim, 2013). Expressed simply, sustainable tourism can be articulated as: ‘Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities’ (UNEP and UNWTO, 2005:12). A number of seminal discussions have argued that sustainability hinges on the three broad concerns of social equity, economic efficiency and ecological sustainability (Angelsen et al, 1994; Munasinghe and McNeely, 1995; Swarbrooke, 1999; Mbaiwa and Stronza, 2009). Sharpley (2009) discusses the UNEP/UNWTO definition of sustainable tourism and points to its reference to the triple bottom line of economic, socio-cultural and environmental aspects of sustainability. Similarly, it was Coccossis (1996) who earlier noted that sustainable tourism 24
adopts these three principles. As this definition is supported by a significant number of academics and organisations, it is adopted in this longitudinal study. The notion of sustainable tourism has according to Mbaiwa and Stronza (2009) received numerous criticisms. Despite the term ‘sustainability’ becoming a principal theme in tourism (Byrd and Cardenas, 2007), Jenkins and Schroder (2013) discuss the doubts raised about whether the ecological, socio-cultural and economic goals of sustainability are actually achievable. A number of authors also suggest that sustainable tourism is disjointed, flawed, and lacking in theoretical rigor (Harrison, 1996; Sharpley, 2000; Liu, 2003; Mbaiwa and Stronza, 2009). In comparison, proponents of sustainable tourism argue that it holds considerable promise to manage the complex interactions between industry, tourists, environment and the host community (Mbaiwa and Stronza, 2009). All of which are of fundamental importance to Local Authorities when planning for tourism. Gladstone (2005) feels integrated planning and policymaking is crucial if more of the projected benefits of tourism are to be realised. While it may be convenient to neglect the debate around sustainable tourism, these issues must be addressed for the purpose of this longitudinal study. For Local Authorities there exists a number of techniques and tools available to facilitate a sustainable planning approach to tourism at local level. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) together with the UNWTO developed the twelve aims for sustainable tourism (UNEP/UNWTO, 2005). The aims are amalgamated into these three pillars of sustainability. 2.6.1 Aims of sustainable tourism For Local Authorities to sustainably plan for tourism, there is a need to sufficiently recognise the importance of the triple bottom line (Swarbrooke, 1999; Byrd, Cardenas and Greenwood, 2008). Across Europe, sustainability has become a major issue in tourism policy (EC, 2016) with the movement towards the twelve aims of sustainable tourism a firm aim (Flanagan et al, 2007). The three pillars of sustainability that relate to tourism provide a framework, within which the UNEP-UNWTO (2005) formulated twelve aims for the sustainable planning and management of tourism. Under these twelve aims, the economic aims are economic viability, local prosperity, employment quality and social equity. The social aims consist of visitor fulfilment, local control, community wellbeing and cultural richness. The environmental aims are physical integrity, biological diversity, resource efficiency and environmental purity.
25
Figure 2.2
Relationships between the 12 aims and the pillars of sustainability
Source: Adapted from ECOTRANS, UNEP/UNWTO (2006). Farmaki et al (2015) identified problems associated with sustainable tourism implementation and its practical application (Hardy, Beeton, and Pearson, 2002; Dewhurst and Thomas, 2003; Bianchi, 2004; Dodds, 2007; Logar, 2010; Daphnet et al., 2012). Developed in 2005, the UNEP/UNWTO aims for sustainable tourism provide a guidance framework for the development of sustainable planning policies for tourism. Since their inception, these aims have delivered a beneficial baseline for sustainable planning for tourism. However, since 2005, there have been further developments are worth reviewing. Following Köberl, Prettenthaler and Bird (2016)’s thinking on the impact climate change on tourism, a decade ago the UNWTO (2007) started to place a greater emphasis on climate change and implications for tourism. According to the TSG (2007), more resources are now being utilised to develop policies and strategies to reduce greenhouse emissions across Europe. Additionally, Local Authorities in Ireland are now legally required to develop Local Adaptation Plans (LAP) to mitigate negative impacts of climate change at local level (DHPLG, 2012). The TSG (2007:3) suggests that the twelve aims could be modernised to provide an additional aim labelled ‘meeting our international responsibility’. Local Authorities could then integrate these aims within the environmental sections of their CDPs. Shifting to heritage and cultural tourism, Mowforth and Munt (2016) determined that in most destinations cultural heritage is a most important asset. The UNWTO has calculated that it represents 35-40% of all tourism worldwide and that it is growing at a rate of 15% per annum 26
(Fáilte Ireland, 2009a). Considering that Ireland’s heritage is a key element of the broader tourism experience, it would be plausible to have the aims of sustainable tourism upgraded to include cultural heritage within the framework. Measuring and operationalising sustainability was the focus of the study by Murphy and Price (2005). In this, they considered Tosun’s (2000) suggestion that sustainability often presents challenges relating to a given destination's specific cultural, institutional and political context. Local Authorities could integrate these aims into their respective legally required development plans. The movement toward the twelve aims of sustainable tourism is a well-established objective in Europe (Flanagan et al., 2007). Therefore, it is important to build this tool into the framework for assessing Local Authority CDPs in order to determine the current level of sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. Reflecting on the study of waste generation in Thailand’s tourism industry, Manomaivibool (2015) argues that with sensitive planning and good procedures, tourism can contribute to sustainable development. Sustainable planning for tourism has become indispensable to minimise the negative impacts of tourism. 2.7
Sustainable planning for tourism
From an academic perspective, the concept of sustainability is widely accepted as the basis for planning and managing future human activity (Redclift, 2005). As discussed by McKercher (2003), tourism as an industry is ideally suited to adopting sustainability as a guiding philosophy. Sustainable planning for tourism can be seen as a strategy focused on how best to encourage tourism development, while minimising potential negative impacts. As with defining tourism, several studies have highlighted the wealth of definitions for sustainable development and sustainable planning for tourism (Butler, 1999; Sharpley, 2000; Page and Dowling, 2002; Liu, 2003; UNEP/UNWTO, 2005; Waligo, Clarke and Hawkins, 2013; Mowforth and Munt, 2016). The earliest definition for sustainable development was provided in the Brundtland Report (1987): ‘Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987:6). Reflecting this definition, the sustainable development of tourism has been defined as a model form of economic development that is designed to improve the quality of life of host communities. Moreover, the UNWTO (2001) argue that the sustainable development of
27
tourism provides a high quality experience for visitors, while maintaining the quality of the environment. These elements are reflected also in the definition provided by the UNWTO: ‘Sustainable tourism development meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems’ (UNWTO, 2001). At the same time, the UNEP/UNWTO (2005) also illustrate how sustainable planning for tourism signifies a condition of tourism based on the principles of sustainable development; ‘Taking full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts’ (UNEP/UNWTO, 2005: 11-12). Sustainability has become the goal of the majority of policies relating to tourism (Weaver, 2006; Moscardo, 2008; Lane, 2009; Bramwell, 2015). This is in large part, according to Bramwell (2015), down to the growing interest of sustainability in tourism witnessed over the years. The above definitions are consistent with current theoretical thinking on the need to balance development and sustainability in all three sustainability dimensions, economic, environmental and socio-cultural (Cooper, 1995; Ruhanen, 2004; Hatipoglu, Alvarez and Ertuna, 2014). Recognising the positive aspect towards sustainability in tourism, Chen (2016) suggests that is has become a practical concept that is deemed beneficial to the progress of tourism development, with Mason (2016) explaining that the concept of sustainable planning for tourism has continued to change over the last decade. Moreover, the importance of sustainable development in tourism has been highlighted further with the UNWTO (2015c) designating 2017 the international year of sustainable tourism for development. To this end, it is reasonable to think that the sustainable approach to tourism planning has therefore become widely accepted. Seeking to implement a sustainable planning approach to tourism depends on existing planning and management functions to guide appropriate developments (Bramwell and Lane, 2000; Hall and Page, 2006; Connell et al, 2009). These developments must have the ability to respond to the pressures on infrastructure and environments that result from tourism. It was Hall (2007) who raised concerns about the effectiveness of the integration of sustainable principles and practices within existing tourism planning policies and processes. For example, in Dredge’s (2008) model for sustainable planning for tourism, the impacts on the community and social values of a destination are considered paramount. In Ireland, Local Authorities are legally required to consult with the host community when planning for tourism. However, recent 28
discussions (Dodds, 2007; Waligo, Clarke, and Hawkins, 2013) in fact, have centred on stakeholder issues as a significant barrier to implementing sustainability within tourism. Figure 2.3
Sustainable planning for tourism Environment Balancing the use of environmental resources and changes to the social/community values of those environmental resources
Balancing the use of environmental resources and the economic benefits of tourism
Sustainable Tourism
Balancing economic growth and development and the impacts of development on community/social values
Source: Adapted from Dredge (2008) In Figure 2.3, Dredge (2008) emphasises the need for balancing the use of environmental resources and economic growth. This need for continued monitoring and evaluation of tourism impacts at destination level are discussed by Rio and Nunes (2012) as indispensable to guarantee a long-term sustainability. As such, a diverse range of tools have been developed for this purpose (UNEP/UNWTO, 2005; GSTC, 2013 EC, 2016; Mowforth and Munt, 2016). However, political will and making sustainability an urgency when developing tourism needs to be a priority to enable Local Authorities adopt many of these tools. Local Authorities control most of these planning aspects needed for tourism development (Dredge and Jenkins, 2007; Nunkoo, 2015). A lack of importance placed on tourism as a core element in the planning process has been discussed by Dredge and Moore (1992). However, both Diamantis and Ladkin (2000) and Ivars (2004) see the concept of sustainable planning for tourism in crises. These authors suggest that this is due to its lack of precision, together with the absence of a clear identification of its principles. Criticisms have also been directed at its practicality, its practices, the extent of its application, and its effectiveness (Saarinen, 2006;
29
Weaver, 2009). Liu (2003:459) suggests that ‘sustainable tourism is patchy, disjointed and at times flawed’. Mowforth and Munt (2016) discuss the different interests among multinational organisations, socio-environmental organisations and social classes. With many adopting their own theory of sustainability, thus contributing to what Harrison (1996) describes as the ‘muddy pool’ on the debate on sustainable tourism. In Sharpley’s (2009) formative research on tourism development and the environment, it has been suggested that sustainable tourism development has represented the dominant tourism development theme in academic, policy and planning circles. But a number of recent discussions on sustainability have focused on the problems with its implementation and practical application in the context of tourism (Hardy, Beeton, and Pearson, 2002; Dewhurst and Thomas, 2003; Bianchi, 2004; Dodds, 2007; Logar, 2010; Daphnet et al., 2012; Farmaki, et al, 2015). Connell et al (2009) further argue that despite this discrepancy and the abundance of definitions available, there exists a clear debate on the application of sustainability. However, Bramwell (2015) cautions against more rhetoric, debates, applications and evaluations of sustainability in tourism. Instead, he suggests that more of an understanding is needed on this phenomenon. As tourism development continues to forge ahead, the challenges facing Local Authorities are clear. Tourism needs to be planned in accordance with the principles of fairness and equitable distribution. With Hatipoglu, Alvarez and Ertuna (2014) pointing to the need to balance development with the conservation of resources. It is the responsibilities of developing tourism in accordance with these principles that can render tourism planning a complex task for Local Authorities. The changing evolution of tourism and its different political and socio-economic environments, together with its diverse fields are discussed by Ivars (2004) as all influencing the different approaches to tourism planning. Regardless of what approach is followed, the continued growth of tourism has resulted in the importance of destination management. To achieve this, a number of guidelines have been developed to aid policy makers in incorporating sustainability into the tourism planning process. 2.8
Guidelines for sustainable planning for tourism
The UNWTO has been producing know-how and specific guidelines for the sustainable planning, development and management of tourism in different types of destinations. Miller, Simpson and Twining-Ward (2012) documents its significant contribution to the field of tourism development. THE UNWTO continues to disseminate good practices observed 30
throughout the world, together with supporting governments and the private sector with the necessary tools and technical advice to continuously raise the level of sustainability of the industry. Additionally, at a global level, the Global Sustainable Tourism Council administers the GSTC criteria for destinations. Their use can be justified by Jamieson and Noble’s (2000) discussion on the future of tourism destinations without proper management. Similarly, authors such as Saxon (2007) and Rio and Nunes (2012) are content that poor management of a destination can have a serious impact on the ecosystems and contribute to the loss of cultural integrity and identity of the destination. Local Authorities could incorporate these criteria as basic guidelines to facilitate tourism destinations becoming more sustainable. However, Local Authorities in Ireland are not legally required to incorporate any of these international guidelines in the tourism planning process. It is at the discretion of senior management, elected county councillors and senior planners to determine if their county would benefit from the utilisation of same. At EU level, the Treaty of Lisbon has introduced a new competence for the EU to support, complement and coordinate member states' action in the field of tourism (EC, 2012). This has resulted in the EU producing numerous relevant guidelines for planners and managers in relation to all aspects of sustainability in tourism planning and development. These guidelines cover many of the crucial aspects identified in the literature. For example, focus on the topic of innovation in tourism increased in the last years (Cosma et al, 2014). Carlisle et al (2013) documents its role in developing alternative forms of tourism. The importance of cultural tourism to both Local Authorities and local communities is discussed by Torre and Scarborough (2017). The authors note its ability in attracting tourists and injecting tourist spending to a local economy. Additionally, the growth in international tourism mobility has been accompanied by increased focus on environmental sustainability. The importance of biodiversity and the authenticity of nature (Holden, 2016) are important areas Local Authorities have to consider when planning for tourism.
31
Table 2.1
Guidelines for sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland
International: Aims for Sustainable Tourism (2005) OECD: Innovation in Tourism (2006) STG: Actions for More Sustainable European Tourism (2007) UNEP: Tourism: Investing in energy and resource efficiency (2011) OECD: Indicators for Measuring Competitiveness in Tourism (2013) GSTC-D (2015) UNWTO: Practical Guidelines for Integrated Quality Management in Tourism Destinations (2017)
European Level: EC: Innovation in Tourism (2006) EC: Actions for more Sustainable Tourism (2007) EC: Cultural Sporting Events: An opportunity for developing tourist destinations and the tourist industry (2007) EC: Best Environmental Management Practice in the Tourism Sector (2013) EC: Enhancing the Competitiveness of Tourism in the EU (2013) EEA: Report on the Feasibility for Regular Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Tourism (2014) EC: European Tourism Indicator System: ETIS toolkit for sustainable destination management (2016)
National Level: New Horizons for Irish Tourism – An Agenda for Action (DOE, 2003) National Development Plan 2007-2013 (2007) Tourism Product Development Strategy 2007-2013, (Fáilte Ireland, 2007) Tourism and the Environment 2007-2009 (Fáilte Ireland, 2007) Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 (2007) Tourism Strategy Statement (Fáilte Ireland, 2008) Eco-Tourism Handbook (Fáilte Ireland, 2009) Regulations for Caravan and Camping Parks (Fáilte Ireland, 2009) New Horizons for Irish Tourism 2009-2013 (Fáilte Ireland, 2009) Historic towns in Ireland (Fáilte Ireland, 2010) Action Programme for Effective Local Government (DECLG, 2012) Our Sustainable Future: Framework for Sustainable Development for Ireland (DECLG, 2012) Ireland’s Environment: An Assessment (EPA, 2012) The Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014-2020 National Landscape Strategy (DAHG, 2014) People, Place and Policy: Growing Tourism to 2025 (DTTAS, 2015) Driving Tourism Sustaining Communities: Our Priorities to 2017 (Fáilte Ireland, 2015) Guidelines for the Protection of Biodiversity (Fáilte Ireland, 2016) Tourism Development and Innovation: A Strategy for Investment 2016-2022 (Fáilte Ireland, 2016)
Source: (UNEP/UNWTO, 2005; Fáilte Ireland, 2007, 2009ab, 2010; EC, 2006, 2007, 2013, 2016; DTTAS, 2015; GSTC, 2015; EC, 2016a) All of the above challenges have been addressed by the EC and are reflected in numerous guidelines that Local Authorities can use to aid in the development of a long-term sustainable tourism industry. However, unlike EU directives, which are entrenched in Irish law, guidelines are not legally required to be implemented by member states. At national level too, several guidelines and documents have been developed by many governmental organisations aimed at sustainable planning and development. Many of these guidelines are specifically directed at Local Authorities. For example, Fáilte Ireland has developed several guidelines to help ensure the integration of sustainable development standards in tourism planning (Fáilte Ireland, 2007a, 2009ab, 2010). However, the broad spectrum of interpretations of sustainable development has been reported by Connell and Page, (2008) as contributing to the lack of measures or standards 32
for the concept in practice. It is evident from Table 2.1 that there are currently no guidelines prepared by the DHPLG to facilitate Local Authorities in incorporating sustainability in the tourism planning process in Ireland. Indeed, the very success of sustainable planning for tourism depends on existing planning and management functions to help guide appropriate development (Hall and Page, 2008; Bramwell and Lane, 2011). Therefore, the utilisation of these guidelines, by senior planners in Irelands Local Authorities, will be incorporated into the theoretical framework. 2.9
Tools of sustainability
With the introduction of the concept of destination management, many destinations have had to adapt their approach to tourism planning in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the industry. As discussed by Rio and Nunes (2012) a range of tools have been developed for this purpose. Lozano-Oyola et al (2012) point to sustainable tourism indicators and their role in measuring the degree of sustainability. This is achieved by identifying and implementing innovative and relevant planning, development and marketing processes for developing tourism. As discussed previously, there exists a number of tools and techniques as illustrated by Mowforth and Munt (2016) available for Local Authorities to utilise in assessing or measuring the various aspects of sustainability. Mowforth and Munt’s (2016) eleven aims of sustainability are presented and discussed in chronological order. 2.9.1 Sustainability indicators The complexity of sustainability in tourism makes it difficult to develop a method for measuring it. There is no consensus on how to construct and apply such a method (TorresDelgado and Palomeque, 2014). Mowforth and Munt (2016) identify tourism indicator systems as one of their tools of sustainability that can be utilised in the tourism planning process. Indicators of sustainable tourism are defined as; ‘A set of measures that provide the necessary information to better understand the links between the impact of tourism on the cultural and natural setting in which this take place and on which it is strongly dependent’ (WTO, 1996). The WTO (1996) definition shares similar characteristics with one of the earliest definitions on indicators put forward by Ott (1978) who defined indicators as; ‘A means devised to reduce a large quantity of data down to its simplest form, retaining essential meaning for the questions that are being asked of the data’ 33
Sustainability indicators are flexible to existing management structures (Conaghan, 2013). Also, a number of studies pointed to their ability to quantify, assess, monitor measure and communicate relevant information (Gallopin, 1997; Wight, 1998; Roberts and Tribe, 2008). Collectively, both definitions view indicators as variables, which summarise or simplify relevant information. It is this information provided by tourism indicators that allow policy makers to better understand the current needs of the tourism industry within a particular destination. The UNWTO (2004) documented their use in encouraging a more efficient management approach to tourism. This in turn supports the development of counteractive measures. Following the EC (2007) recommendation, Blancas et al (2015) further make it clear that to promote a sustainable form of tourism and stimulate the competitiveness of the tourism sector, it is necessary to have a system of sustainable tourism indicators. They encourage better management strategies (Twining-Ward and Butler, 2002) and act as a catalyst in supporting a future sustainable planning process. Yet, despite their importance, there exists a fundamental gap in knowledge concerning which body is responsible for implementing sustainability indicators at destination level. The importance of tourism indicator systems in sustainable planning for tourism is widely acknowledged in scholarly literature (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Hunter and Shaw, 2007; Blancas et al, 2010a; Blancas et al, 2011; Lozano-Oyola et al, 2012; Torres-Delgado and Lopez Palomeque, 2014; Gossling, 2015; Lemelin, Koster and Youroukos, 2015). However, there is little empirical research pertaining to the use of indicator systems by Local Authorities in Ireland. Previous research in 2006 examined the Local Authority tourism planning process and found no use of tourism indicator systems. This current study will provide an up to date assessment on the utilisation of tourism indicator systems, and in particular the EC’s ETIS by Local Authorities in Ireland. 2.9.2 Area protection Local nature together with unspoilt surroundings are becoming more appreciated by tourists, with protected areas and nature based tourism offering a significant attraction (Bell, Simpson, Tyrväinen, Sievänen, and Pröbstl, 2008; Candrea and Ispas, 2009; Strickland-Munro, Allison and Moore 2009, UNWTO, 2012). Holden (2016) discusses how national parks is one of the most common protected area designations in which tourism plays a role. These areas often act
34
as magnets that attract significant numbers of tourists (Baker, 1986; Driml and Common, 1996; Votsi et al, 2014). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008:10) defines protected areas as; ‘A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ (IUCN, 2008:10). In line with the definition provided by the IUCN, protected areas are typically under legal protection from previously identified impacts through some form of designation usually through governmental legislation (Holden, 2008). Hall (2010) and later Pablo-Romero and Molina (2013) identified how plausible reductions in biodiversity values, as a result of unrestrained tourism, are linked to the loss of touristic values and economic significance of a particular area. So if tourism is to be supported within these areas, it would need to have minimal impact and conform to the principles of sustainability. This assumption can of course be questioned. The Planning and Development Act has requirements for Local Authorities to protect the character of scenic landscapes within their counties. This Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) is one tool Local Authorities can use for identifying particular features that give tourism destinations its individual ‘sense of place’. The LCA can help to inform policies within CDPs on the location and siting of tourism products and infrastructure. The LCA is another tool for Local Authorities to aid in the sustainable development and biodiversity protection and is important for planning efforts. However, these area protection measures need to be supported by sufficient resources by Local Authorities. It was Hannam and Knox (2010:130) who concluded that many governments do not have the resources to pay for adequate protection or development. This has in some cases lead to several protected areas being without any form of legal protection or development requirements. With the absence of such resources, area protection could be reduced to a more symbolic gesture for sustainability. Mowforth and Munt (2016) gives the example of large scale areas in Guatemala and Brazil that while designated as national parks and wildlife reserves, lack sufficient resources on the ground. It was found that these protected areas lacked any meaningful levels of finance, polices and adequate manpower to enforce significant designations. This could in effect make their protection somewhat redundant. Perhaps industry regulation is a key area to help protect tourism destinations. 35
2.9.3 Industry regulation The rapid expansion of tourism worldwide has raised some concerns over how natural features can be maintained. Butler (1999) points to a lack of regulations as one of the problems linked to tourism development. From national level through to local level, tourism-planning regulation normally takes the form of legislation. For example, Environmental Noise Regulations 2006, Water Services Act 2007, Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 all inform Local Authority planning policies within CDPs. Local Authorities enforce these regulations through planning restrictions, requirements and guidelines. Regulation imposed on the tourism industry by tourism associations is viewed by some as a way of preventing dishonest or unlawful activities compared to governmental regulation (Mowforth and Munt, 2016). Organisations acting on behalf of the tourism industry have recently attempted to introduce regulation in form of guidelines and international agreements. Two guidelines developed by the UNWTO, Sustainable Tourism Governance and Management in Coastal Areas of Africa (UNWTO, 2013) and Collaborative Processes for Sustainable and Competitive Tourism (UNWTO, 2010) are notable examples. Policy tools such as the GSTC for Destinations (GSTC-D, 2015) or the ETIS (EC, 2016a) too have been developed to help regulate tourism activities towards a more sustainable level. However, regulation in the tourism industry is not without its sceptics. Regulation requires a high level of discipline to succeed and tourism like any other industry is not ‘expected on its own accord to be responsible’ (Butler, 1991:208). Also, when implementing any form of legislation, a certain level of political motivation can be present, particularly in the multi-party democratic states of Europe. Also, regulations materialising from the scientific community can end up being redundant. Mowforth and Munt (2016) identified this conflict and discussed how interest groups from both sides of the argument can ultimately suffer from a lack of commitment without any legislative enforcement on the part of national governments. International agreements also can be either unequivocally or indirectly politically motivated, especially when they stem from a body such as the UNWTO (Mowforth and Munt, 2016). The UNWTO, whose overall goal is to ‘promote tourism as a driver of economic growth, inclusive development and environmental sustainability, offers leadership and support to the sector in advancing knowledge and tourism policies worldwide’ (UNWTO, 2013). However, certification has been shown to allow the industry to help self-regulate. Therefore, it’s
36
important to build this into the framework for assessing tourism components of CDPs. One form of regulation available to Local Authorities is that of visitor management techniques. 2.9.4 Visitor management techniques Various approaches available to tourism planners for the movement of tourists has evolved over time (Lavery, 1971; Elkington and Hailes, 1992; Gunn, 1994, Witt and Moutinho, 1994; Wood, 2002; Mowforth and Munt, 2016). These varying in both their application and complexity, from restriction of motorised vehicles to channelled visitor flows. Mejía and Brandt (2015) identified a number of controlling tactics used to regulate the flow and type of visitors to particular destinations. Schwartz et al (2012) documented pricing strategies, queuing, waiting lists, lottery, time allotment, vouchers and capacity limits to name but a few. Traditionally, Fractor (1982) and Cullen (1985) both emphasised how a pricing strategy as a visitor management technique is theoretically superior because it maximizes social benefit. While differential pricing is typically not really understood by visitors (Alpízar, 2006), Mowforth and Munt (2016) argue that differential pricing has been proven to promote the longer-term sustainability of destination by promoting effective local participation and consultation. Another visitor management technique, public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS) was discussed by Wolf et al (2015). This particular technique utilises geospatial technology to inform the planning process. Brown and Weber (2011) in their review of public participation GIS in national park planning discusses the connection PPGIS has with GIS mapping in producing knowledge of place. This particular management technique finds application in many research areas such as socio-ecological hotspot mapping (Alessa, Kliskey and Brown, 2008) and has been applied by Brown and Raymond’s (2014) to examine land use conflicts. Further studies utilised PPGIS in identification of ecosystem services (Raymond et al., 2009; Brown, Montag and Lyon, 2012), forest planning (Brown and Reed, 2012; Brown and Donovan, 2013), tourism management (Brown, 2006; Marzuki, Hay and James, 2012) and public land management (Brown, Weber and de Bie, 2014). Every one of these areas are the responsibility of Local Authorities when it comes to planning policy contained with their respective CDPs. Predominantly in resource-based tourism destinations, it is necessary to manage visitor use (Eagles et al, 2014). Discussions on managing visitor use have pointed to its ability to maintain 37
quality tourism resources (McArthur, 1994; Moscardo, 1999; Cooper, Fletcher, Gilbert, and Wanhill, 1998; Kuo, 2002; Cooper et al, 2008; Eagles et al, 2014). Local Authority tourism planning policy should aim to eliminate inappropriate activities, enhance visitors experience and their understanding of the destination. Regardless of what visitor management technique is utilised, they all in essence provide a mechanism to control and minimise the impacts of visitors. Visitor management techniques are considered an important tool of sustainability, this study will assess if, and what visitor management techniques are evident in CDP’s. It is the resources available, knowledge of forward planners and tourism managers together with the destination itself that will determine what method to employ. 2.9.5 Environmental impact assessment While tourism planning can follow sound environmental approaches, tourism projects may require that environmental impact assessments (EIA) be conducted before any development takes place. Authors such as Sniffen (1995) contend that further environmental damage can be prevented through the use of EIA’s. Indeed, according to Mowforth and Munt (2016) they help improve the tourism industry’s image in relation to environmental sustainability. The practicality of the EIA as a tool for sustainability is down to their ability to be applied to all levels of planning not just at local level. This, as discussed by Zubair et al (2012) improves consultation and participation levels. Consequently, EIA’s have gained popularity and admiration throughout the world as a planning and development tool. Despite the positives, EIA’s are not an exact science and can, according to Mowforth and Munt (2016), be influenced like most other techniques, thus being the subject of severe criticism. Obviously, the results of any EIA are only as good as the inputs used, which can be both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Combine this with its noted complex administrative structures (Zubair et al, 2011) and associated costs (Holden, 2016). Results of EIA’s can also be subject to various degrees of bias and tampering. Therefore, in order to be considered a reliable tool of sustainability, EIA’s must be clear, transparent and have a neutral selection of relevant inputs, leaving political inputs behind. The use of EIA’s by Local Authorities when granting planning permission for tourism developments could help improve the environmental sustainability of product development within their county. As such, EIA’s can be considered among the leading tools available to planners in Irelands Local Authorities. Both Saarinen (2006) and Holden (2016) contend that
38
the need to conserve and protect nature has noticeable links to conservation management techniques such as carrying capacity calculations. 2.9.6 Carrying capacity calculations Carrying capacity as a tool has gained considerable recognition with a number of authors discussing its relevance in respect to sustainable planning for tourism (Canestrelli and Costa, 1991; Hawkins and Robert, 1997; Cooper et al, 2008). Tourism carrying capacity can be best described as a calculation of the maximum level of human activity a region can withstand. In many cases due to the large area this tool may have to cover, different carrying capacities have increased and at present constitute the following; physical, ecological, social, environmental, real, effective or permissible. One downfall of carrying capacity calculations is that its calculations can be manipulated to help promote or defend a destinations ability to absorb more visitors (Mowforth and Munt, 2016). Additional criticism of carrying capacity calculations in sensitive areas as a practical tool for sustainability is due the fact it requires both subjective and critical decisions by those who have the control. Šebela and Turk (2014a) when discussing the sustainable use of the Predjama Cave in Slovenia, argue that carrying capacity calculations fail to take into account the connection between the different levels of usage and their impacts with the vulnerability of the environment. Although a useful and interesting concept, Local Authorities need to acknowledge that carrying capacity calculations are only utilised at specific sites, and not the destination as a whole. On the contrary, Cooper et al (2008) promote their use within modern development strategies. Therefore, carrying capacity calculations can be a conceptual and sensible way to aid Local Authorities in tourism planning and management. Carrying capacity aims to identify the acceptable level of intensity of the anthropogenic changes caused by the tourists in one specific area (Lobo, 2015). Its application also indicates the ideal conditions of tourist use (Cifuentes-Arias, 1992; Coccossis and Mexa, 2004; Lobo, 2015). However, the ideal conditions of tourist use in any given destination are determined in large part through consultation with local stakeholders. Tourism cannot be planned for sustainably without consultation with the host community. 2.9.7 Consultation and participation techniques The importance of consulting and facilitating participation among stakeholders in the planning process for tourism has been at the forefront of several academic studies (Aas, Ladkin, and 39
Fletcher, 2005; Hall, 2007; Currie, Seaton, and Wesley, 2009; Waligo, Clarke and Hawkins, 2013). This participation of local communities is a crucial element that needs to be acknowledged by Local Authorities. However, it can be a challenging and time consuming task to both employ and follow techniques that permit meaningful consultation and participation. Tourism is well placed to provide economic development and benefits to locals, however, Eshliki and Kaboudi (2012) warn that it does affect local communities in many other ways, and that it occupies a prime place among topics of concern in tourism academia. Waste water generation, increased crime rates and the growing cost of living are just some examples discussed by Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2009). Local Authorities are legally requested under the Planning and Development Act to provide meaningful consultation with local communities when developing their tourism policies and strategies. Furthermore, under the Planning and Development Regulations (2001-2013), Local Authorities are also legally required to consult with interested parties when considering future infrastructure and resort developments. However, as noted by Dredge (2006), this collaborative planning processes is often characterised by both conflict and power struggles. Blackstock (2005) further discusses how the literature on collaboration and stakeholder participation does not sufficiently address structural power relations and inequalities that may affect decision-making, particularly at local level. As a result, residents of a specific community are often not able to decide for themselves on the development of tourism in their area. Local Authority CDPs are legally required to facilitate participation and consultation throughout the development of the plan (Planning and Development Act). Detailed techniques relating to public consultation and participation are new and unfortunately not fully understood (Mowforth and Munt, 2016). This leaves unanswered critical questions in relation to definition and interpretation. This lack of understanding makes consultation and participation a technique especially vulnerable to the types of prejudice and misrepresentation seen with others. For consultation and participation to remain, an efficient tool for sustainable planning it needs to remain clear and transparent. 2.9.8 Codes of conduct The countless issues and problems associated with the tourism industry can be tied to ethics or a lack thereof. According to Cole (2007), in recent times an increasing number of codes of conduct have been developed for the tourism industry. The UNEP (2005) attribute this work to NGO’s in particular, and are based on the most part but not limited to environmental issues. 40
These codes of conduct can help Local Authorities to self-regulate tourism within their respective counties. It was Kampaxi (2008) who discussed how codes of conduct are seen as dynamic tools that help shape social and environmental changes. Mowforth and Munt (2016) concluded that it is their design, promotion, contents, relevance, uptake, effectiveness and monitoring that have made them important tools within the tourism industry. But as society evolves, tourists are exposed to new experiences. Kampaxi (2008) points to the need for the monitoring of conduct and the commitment to a ‘social contract’ to guide moral behaviour among businesses, tourists, and the local community. For example, a fundamental frame of reference for Local Authorities in the pursuit of responsible and sustainable tourism is the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism (GCET). The GCET is a comprehensive set of principles designed to guide key-players in tourism development. These codes of conduct aim to help maximise the sector’s benefits while minimising its potentially negative impact on the environment, cultural heritage and society (UNWTO, 2001). However, two significant points have emerged from within theoretical studies, which need to be recognised and addressed. Coles (2007) evaluation of codes of conduct for visitors found that they work through moral convincing rather than being enforced through rules and regulations. They are as such more a form of persuasive communication it would seem. Also, as most codes of conduct are voluntary, even the most impressive codes can be abused and manipulated. Holden (2008:208) describes them as being ‘a cynical marketing ploy’ and an attempt to starve off government regulation (Mowforth and Munt, 2016). This puts their effectiveness, naturally into question. Ethical standards are for the most part culture specific and may vary from one country to another (Payne and Dimanche, 1996). In order to become more effective and significant in the sustainable planning for tourism, a built-in process for checking and enforcement may be needed by Local Authorities. 2.9.9 Foot-printing and carbon budget analysis The ecological footprint calculation is one tool of specific interest to Local Authorities, as it can evaluate environmental impacts from a number of different viewpoints (Castellani and Sala, 2012). This particular tool of sustainability can provide a means of quantifying environmental impacts in a single easily understandable indicator. The ecological footprint is calculated on the reserve of natural capital produced by the earth each year such as fresh water and soil. The WWF-UK estimates that on a global scale humanity is currently consuming 41
around a third more resources that the earth produces which is clearly unsustainable (WWFUK; citied in Mowforth and Munt, 2016). Following the WWF-UK assessment, at both international level and EU level, foot printing and carbon budget analysis are now being considered a viable tool to help achieve sustainability in tourism. The tourism sector and the environment are inextricably linked and environmentally responsible tourism is paramount to the sector’s sustainability and overall success. Discussions within tourism are now focusing on the relationship between travel, tourism and climate change (Paquin, 2016). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people of ecosystems from climate change (IPCC, 2014). This lead to the 2015 United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP 21). This agreement aims to reduce emissions as part of the reduction in greenhouse gas (UN, 2016). The tourism industry will not be exempt from these developments and will need to provide a response. Local Authorities could encourage tourism business, service providers and visitors to utilise a personal carbon budget to ensure their future sustainability. A personal carbon budget would bring the responsibility of sustainability down to an individual level. For this to be effective, Mowforth and Munt (2016) argue that this particular technique needs to be extensively understood. Similarly, for this personal carbon budget tool to enter into common practice it would need to be accepted by travel operators and the travelling public also. Moreover, a number of recent discussions have focused on the climate justice concept (Hayward, 2007; Harris, 2010; Parks and Timmons Roberts, 2010; Penetrante, 2011). Climate justice highlights the ways in which climate change is an ethical issue. Running (2015) in their analysis noted how the causes and effects of climate change relate to both environmental and social justice. Yet achieving climate justice would require taking into account what organisation is responsible for designing climate-related policies. This in its self could prove problematic for Local Authorities. 2.9.10 Fair trade in tourism It has been a constant conclusion within studies on tourism development that in less economically developed countries (LEDC’s); the tourism industry is mostly driven by mass tourism. This in turn limits the growth prospects of small and local businesses (Dahles and Bras, 1999; Dahles and Kuene, 2002; Mograbi and Rogerson, 2007; Carlisle, Kunc, Jones and Tiffin, 2013). This also limits the opportunities for reducing local poverty (Mbaiwa, 2005; Carlisle et al, 2013) through tourism, thus making tourism unsustainable. The concept of fair 42
trade is a challenge to traditional economic theory. Fair trade sets a price for a product based entirely on principle rather than pure profit making. Fair trade in tourism is seen as a genuine method of sustainability. It aims to redistribute the benefits of production, thereby eliminating any resulting disadvantages of the local population concerned. In theory, fair trade in tourism can reduce uneven and unequal development (Mowforth and Munt, 2016). Local Authorities could encourage the development of farmer markets and the consumption of locally produced goods and services through resort planning guidelines in CDPs. Acknowledging this fair trade approach to tourism development will aid in reducing many of tourism negative impacts such as economic leakage. However, Cleverdon and Kalisch (2000) identified that little is known about fair trade in tourism or the hospitality sector. They also discuss how despite its positives, fair trade works against the principle of profit maximisation. One of the institutions that most strongly symbolises this principle is the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO is well known for its inability to link sustainable production, fair trade and ethical consumption under international trade policy. Further research is required on the relationship between fair trade and sustainably in tourism. 2.9.11 Sustainable livelihoods framework For Scoones (1998) the concept of ‘sustainable livelihoods’ has become an increasingly important on-going debate surrounding development. The sustainable livelihoods framework, as documented by Mowforth and Munt (2016), attempts to provide answers to development problems, with a view to alleviating poverty. This particular tool measures the different types of capital (natural, economic, human and social) at varying scales and in numerous ways (Scoones, 1998). However, Shaxson (1999:1) noted that implementing the Sustainable Livelihoods approach means changing our thinking about how we conduct development work. Spangenberg and Valentin (1999) suggest however, that the measurement of the sustainable livelihoods approach could not be realised without considering the institutional processes in place. It is these processes that untimely allows or denies local participation. This ‘institutional process’ is the Local Authority tourism planning process. Although Local Authorities are legally required to consult with local communities (Planning and Development Act, 2015), how and to what level this is done varies from one Local Authority to another. Within the sustainable livelihoods framework, there are numerous variables that can be calculated or estimated, but some according to Mowforth and Munt (2016) remain disputed.
43
When planning for tourism, Local Authorities must identify what livelihood resources (or combinations of ‘capitals’) are required for different livelihood strategy combinations. A significant aspect of utilising the sustainable livelihoods framework is its ability to promote judgements and decisions based on perceptions other than those of economic rationality (Mowforth and Munt, 2016). After all, Belmont (2007) considers that sustainable development needs to be achieved according to the triple bottom line. By utilising the sustainable livelihoods framework when planning for tourism, Local Authorities can avoid the economic prosperity taking over from the destinations social and environmental considerations. 2.10
Sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland
The majority of planning approaches to tourism discussed by Ruhanen (2004) incline to focus one of the following; economics, land-use, environment and community. A sustainable approach to planning has a broader perspective (Hatipoglu, Alvarez and Ertuna, 2014). It takes into consideration the balance between development and sustainability in all three sustainability dimensions such as economic, environmental and socio-cultural (Hatipoglu, Alvarez and Ertuna, 2014; Mowforth and Munt, 2016). As a consequence, this particular approach has been widely accepted within tourism academia. While the tourism research centre (2006) in their analysis of the economic, environmental and social performance of Irish tourism, noted that numerous national and sub-national organisations involved in tourism have endorsed the principles of sustainable tourism. Previous research in 2006 found that the majority of Local Authority CDPs generally reflected a development first approach. It was determined that Local Authorities across Ireland did not seem to be fulfilling their responsibility of economic development, protecting community attributes and managing the natural environment (Hanrahan, 2008). The then National Development Plan (NDP, 2000-2006) aimed to promote more sustainable patterns of development, both in terms of facilitating necessary development and mitigating any resultant negative environmental impacts. This was based on the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (DOE, 1997) which recognised that environmental considerations needed to be brought centre stage in economic and other policies and it defined an agenda to reinforce and deepen environmental integration. This finding seems to suggest a gap in knowledge among Irelands Local Authorities on how to plan sustainably for tourism.
44
Table 2.2
Previous planning matrix of sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland
Criteria assessed within analysis of CDP
Local authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal)
CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD Dr FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK Lc LD L MH MO MN O R S Ts Tn WD WM WX WW
Sustainable Planning for Tourism Supported in CDP Sustainable Development Supported in CDP
x
Specific Tourism Land-Use Zoning
x x
Tourism Development and Design Standards
x x
x
x
x x x
Sustainable Resort Planning Guidelines Tourism Indicator Systems Integrated into CDP Tourism Signage Policy
x
Sustainable Planning on Caravan and Camping
x
x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x
x x x x
x x
x x x x
x
Disabled Provision Mentioned in CDP Global Agreements Obvious from CDP CDP Reflects EU Policy/Guidelines Reflects Overall National Strategies, Polices, Legislation
x x
BF ‘Guidelines for Development of Caravan & Camping (1982)
x
x
x
x x x
x x x
x x x x
x x
x x x x
x x x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x x x
x x
x x x
x
Tourism Carrying Capacity Calculations
x
Eco-Tourism Guidelines Area Protection
x
x
Impact of Tourism on Biodiversity Tourist Interaction with the Environment-Land Use
x
x x
x
x x
Green Housekeeping for Tourist Accommodations
x
Positive Economic Impacts of Tourism Supported
x x x x x
x x
x x x x
x x
x
x x
x
x x x x
x x
Economic Analysis of Tourism Earnings Carried Out Management of Leakages from Tourism Provides Opportunities for Local Entrepreneurs Industry Regulation Local Satisfaction, Ratio of Tourists to Locals Helps Achieve Archaeological/Historical Preservation
x x x x x
Protecting Public Rights of Way
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x x
x x x
x x x x x
Tourism Disaster Policy/Plan Intellectual and Cultural Property Rights Considered Codes of Conduct, Best Practice E1amples
Source: Hanrahan (2008) Key: x in a cell indicated the presence of that particular activity All abbreviations are available in (Appendix A)
As the NTDA for Ireland, Fáilte Ireland work with state agencies at local level to implement and champion positive and practical strategies that will benefit Irish tourism (Fáilte Ireland, 2017). However, prior research noted how there was also no clear operational link between ministerial and legislative directives and the tourism industry. Local Authorities were found to be not taking advantage of what Dymond (1997) argues is the logical level to provide a sustainable plan for tourism. Also it was revealed there is a lack of clear economic, environmental and socio-cultural policies in regards to tourism. The need for robust and strong policies is apparent at both national and 45
local level. This process as identified by the TRC (2006) is, of course, much more challenging and difficult. Moreover, no specific implementation strategies, associated budgets, and staff time allocation were found to be in place. Furthermore, basic planning tools to manage tourism in a sustainable manner were also not evident in Local Authority development plans in 2006. Table 2.2 illustrates a low use of tourism zoning, EIA, sustainability indicators, resort planning guidelines, signage policy, and codes of conduct. It was found that no Local Authority was using the academic models and tools put forward by tourism scholars nor are they making use of state and EU strategies, guidelines or charters. The importance of these tools and guidelines (or lack of) is discussed in greater detail throughout this thesis. Tourism academia has discussed the importance of the measurement of sustainability for managing the resilience of socio-ecological systems based on tourism (Lacitignola et al., 2007; Mikulic, Kozic and Kresic, 2016). For destinations located in both fragile and protected areas Petrosillo et al (2006, 2007) highlights how this measurement is vital. However, as evident in Table 2.2 no Local Authority was utilising tourism indicator systems when planning for tourism. This is worrying because, as Blancas (2011) discusses, indicator systems detect and prevent problems at the source, thus enabling the design of corrective measures. According to Mikulic, Kozic and Kresic (2016:312), empirical assessments of tourism sustainability typically rely on well-established frameworks, which are based on multidimensional conceptualisations of sustainability. At European level, the EC has set up a new framework for the tourism sector (EC, 2010). Through this framework, the EC considers it essential to have a better socio-economic knowledge base concerning tourism and its relationship with the environment. This will ensure the consolidation of statistical data and analysis regarding this sector (EC, 2010). While the primary objective of these frameworks is the promotion of competitiveness, authors such as Blancas, Oyola and González (2015) are content that competitiveness is closely related to the sustainability of tourism activities. However, the subject of sustainability indicators has become an industry in its own right (Nix, 1996; King et al., 2000). This was shown by Blancas et al (2011), who point to the increasing interest in the scientific aspects of developing indicators. The ETIS is both free to use and has benefited from an extensive piloting phase (EC, 2016a). The analysis from this current study will examine the utilisation of this particular tourism indicator system by Local Authorities in the tourism planning process. The original framework used in the 2006 study will be updated to reflect current theory and legislation in
46
regards to sustainable planning for tourism. Results here will provide the first longitudinal analysis of the provision of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in Ireland. 2.11
Towards a framework for assessing sustainable planning for tourism within CDPs
The theoretical literature discussed within this chapter will be utilised to assess Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism. The six (6) separate areas within the framework are discussed at first individually and then collectively. Table 2.3
Theoretical framework to assess Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism
1. Local Authority compliance and development of tourism 4. Planning for the environmental impacts of tourism plans and policies Compliant with Planning and Development Act (2015) Policy recognise the environmental impact of tourism What year does the CDP cover? Tourism carrying capacity calculations for sensitive areas Volume dedicated to tourism planning within the CDP Sustainable development of eco-tourism Stand-alone Local Authority tourism development plan Support the protection of sensitive landscapes Specific tourism policy section in CDP Good environmental management for tourism enterprises Number of tourism policies in the CDP (energy/water conservation, waste management, green Number of tourism strategies to implement tourism policies building) within the CDP Support the protection of biodiversity Tourism policy integrated in other areas of the CDP 5. Planning for the economic impacts of tourism (accommodation housing/holiday home provision, waste Positive economic impacts of tourism supported water/sewage, transportation) Analysis of tourism flow (volume and value) 2. Sustainable planning of tourism in CDP Management of leakages from tourism Sustainable planning for tourism supported in CDP Provide opportunities for local tourism entrepreneurs Sustainable development of tourism supported in CDP (local goods and services) Specific tourism land-use measures Tourism industry regulation supported in CDP Sustainable tourism resort planning guidelines 6. Planning for the socio-cultural impacts of tourism Development design standards for tourism Consultation/participation techniques utilised in planning Tourism policy benefited from the use of indicator systems Local satisfaction, ratio of tourists to locals calculated Provision of tourism signage policy Archaeological/historic preservation in tourism policy Sustainable tourism policy on caravan and camping Protect public rights of way for tourism Inclusion/accessibility for tourists with disabilities Tourism disaster plan 3. Integration of tourism planning guidelines Intellectual and cultural property rights of communities Tourism policy compliant with global tourism guidelines protected by tourism policy Tourism policy compliant with European tourism guidelines Best practice examples for tourism at sensitive sites Tourism policy compliant with national tourism guidelines
Source: adapted from (Inskeep, 1991; WTO, 1995; Dymond, 1997; UNWTO, 2001; UNEP/UNWTO, 2005; Boyd and Hanrahan, 2007, 2008, 2012, Hanrahan, 2008; Fáilte Ireland, 2007a, 2009ab, 2012; GSTC, 2013; EC, 2016a; Mowforth and Munt, 2016) The first section within the framework, allows the researcher to identify the specific timeframe of published CDPs and the volume dedicated to tourism within their CDPs. Moreover, the number of specific tourism policies, strategies and tourism integration within other areas is examined. This provides the researcher with a basic understanding of the acknowledgement of tourism within Local Authority CDPs. Following on, the next section of the framework determines if CDPs supports sustainable planning for tourism and sustainable development. This will enable the researcher to identify if any particular process was being utilised by the Local Authorities. For example, tourism land use zoning, resort planning guidelines, disabled 47
provision in tourism, tourism signage policy, and tourism development design standards. This section will also determine if Local Authorities are utilising any specific tourism indicator systems when planning for tourism. The third section of the framework allows for the assessment of the integration of global, EC and national planning guidelines for tourism. This allows this current study to determine if Local Authorities in Ireland are benefiting from higher-level policy formulation from organisations outside of Ireland, together with national bodies such as the DTTAS and Fáilte Ireland (NTDA). The next section examines if Local Authorities are mitigating against the potential environmental impacts associated with tourism. This section will address some of the core fundamental elements of tourism planning. The framework will be able to determine the CDPs ability to deal with concerns on tourisms interaction with the environment. This section of the framework will specifically look at policies dealing with area protection, impact of tourism on biodiversity, EIA, tourism carrying capacity, ecotourism, energy conservation and green building standards in tourism accommodations. Section five of the framework deals with the economic impacts from tourism. Here it is assessed if CDPs are capable of managing the economic impacts of tourism. For example, do CDPs support local production and the reduction of tourist leakages? This aspect of the framework also will aim to determine if a productive business environment is being supported for tourism entrepreneurs within the county. The final area assesses planning for the sociocultural impacts of tourism such as tourism disaster policies and if intellectual and cultural property rights are considered in the preparation of tourism components of CDPs. All of these individual sections (1-6) within the theoretical framework then combine to illustrate by way of a longitudinal study, the level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. 2.12
Conclusion
The competitiveness of the tourism industry is closely linked to its sustainability. Sustainable planning and sustainability are integral parts of the debate about how tourism should use a destinations natural and social resources to gain economic benefits. It was evident from theory that mobilities must be understood as a core concept within tourism planning, and this engagement must be recognised by Local Authorities in the planning process. However, there is no comprehensive and all-encompassing definition pertaining to the sustainable planning for tourism. Thus highlighting further, the complex nature of tourism and the difficulty in defining it in absolute terms. 48
The review of literature has highlighted that despite tourism having the ability to contribute to economic development and make substantial differences to communities in many areas. It is clear that effective planning is required on behalf of Local Authorities to help ensure tourism can benefit all. This chapter has examined the various approaches to tourism planning and highlighted how these have evolved in an attempt to meet the challenges of a growing industry. While disagreements are evident within theory concerning what sustainability in tourism is or should be, from an academic perspective it is still widely accepted as the dominant theme within policy and planning circles. It is evident that substantial advancements have been made in the development of tourism guidelines and procedures for facilitating evidence based policy making in tourism. Also, Mowforth and Munt’s (2016) tools of sustainability have provided evidence that sustainability can be operationalised within tourism planning. All of which can be utilised by Local Authorities to reduce the difficulty of practically applying the theoretical concept of sustainability in tourism components of CDPs. This chapter has developed a theoretical framework to examine how Local Authorities in Ireland have planned for tourism over the last decade.
49
Chapter 3:
IRISH TOURISM PLANNING AND THE USE OF TOURISM INDICATORS
Tourism is a key area in which Local Authorities can promote economic development in conjunction with community effort (DTTAS, 2015:56). 3.1
Introduction
Planning is about setting and meeting objectives. Planning in tourism is an essential activity to achieve its sustainable development. This chapter documents the historical context of tourism planning in Ireland, before examining the theoretical background of the different levels of tourism planning applicable to Ireland. While previous studies have documented the role of local government in tourism planning (Gunn, 1988; Madrigal, 1995; Godfrey, 1998; Dredge, 2001; Bramwell, 2011; Ruhanen, 2013; Nunkoo, 2015). This chapter considers the various frameworks assisting Local Authority tourism planning worldwide before discussing the actual process in Ireland through the Planning and Development Act (2015). According to Hannam and Knox (2010) the application of sustainability in tourism often reflects the efficient use of resources. This chapter reviews the principal tourism indicator systems appropriate to Local Authorities in Ireland to facilitate evidence based planning. The major themes identified within the literature are utilised to construct a theoretical framework to assess Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland and the use of tourism indicator systems. 3.2
Historical context of tourism planning in Ireland
The existence of planning legislation in Ireland can be dated back to 1934, with the introduction of the ‘Town and Regional Planning Act, 1934’. This 1934 Act allowed Local Authorities to give themselves planning powers through the adoption of a ‘planning scheme’ to guide development if they so wished (O’Leary, 2014). In 1939 amendments to this legislation were intended to make the process for adopting a ‘planning scheme’ more straightforward. O’Leary (2014) discussed how many within government at the time felt this planning system was deemed unfit for purpose. For example, McCarron (2004) discusses how in rural areas tourism was bringing economic opportunity, but it continued to suffer from planning problems. 50
Ireland's first planning system was introduced on the 1 October 1964, when the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 came into effect. McDonald (1985), noted how this act swept away many of the bureaucratic cobwebs to usher in a new era of positive planning. This planning act was however, not without its problems. A debate raged concerning a proposed development of a tourism product, at the time worth £100,000 at Lough Gur, in County Limerick. Local Authority planners and local historians could not find the right approach to its development that could bring the most benefits to the site, and to the local economy (Plans for Limerick Lake 1967: RTE Archives, 1967). Also, through this legislation, Local Authorities were required to prepare and adopt development plans for their areas. However, Bannon (1983:123) points out, that this was a daunting task for a country with a lack of planning tradition, or adequate technical staff. Over the next three decades, the large body of planning legislation reflected the expansion of the statutory development control system to meet the demands of society (DHPLG, 2017). Impacts from economic growth, rising public concern in the area of environmental control, and a desire on the part of the public for a statutory and independent planning appeals system were all reflected in subsequent planning legislation. Moreover, the growing European dimension, arising from Ireland’s membership of the EU from 1973, also impacted significantly on successive planning legislation. The basic starting point for the modern planning code in Ireland is the Planning and Development Act 2000. This Act consolidated all previous planning legislation from 1963 to 1999 and codified much of what had grown up in custom and practice during that time. The Planning and Development Act (2000) also set out to clarify and simplify the overall process into one self-contained piece of legislation. This act, according to the DHPLG (2017) remains the basis for the Irish planning code, setting out the detail of CDPs as well as the basic framework of the development management and consent system. With regards to tourism, these CDPs must contain policies and objectives for the development of tourism (DEHLG, 2007a). Furthermore, the Planning and Development Act (2000) provided the statutory basis for protecting Ireland’s natural and architectural heritage, which is so important to tourism (Fáilte Ireland, 2013). As Ruhanen (2013) suggests, Local Authorities are key players in planning for tourism. However, before a full discussion of their role in tourism planning can begin, this study must first comprehend the different levels on which tourism planning can occur.
51
3.3
Levels of tourism planning
Tourism planning takes place at various levels ranging from the macro national and regional levels to the various micro local planning levels’ (WTO, 1993:39), with each level tending to focus on particular considerations. At international level, tourism planning tends to be predominantly concerned with issues concerning transportation services, international best practice or guidelines and the development of major attractions and facilities. However, for Cooper et al (2008) this level of tourism planning is often weak in structure, detail and enforcement and depends on individual countries working and cooperating together (Inskeep, 1997). It is the formulation of policies and standards at international level that set the standard for other countries to follow when planning for tourism. Pearce (1995b) notes how plans prepared at one level must fit into the context of others, since planning at one level can be influenced by planning at another level. However, according to Hall (2008) the level of understanding and the interactions between levels is not particularly great. The elements of each level and the relationships between them is illustrated in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1
The environments of tourism planning
Source: Hall (2008) Tourism planning at national level is often concerned with the development of policy, international access, transportation networks and marketing. All of which according to Cooper
52
et al (2008) are encapsulated in the tourism development plans for a country. However, as discussed by Hall (2008), in this macro environment, there is widespread ignorance of institutional arrangements and, in particular the role of the state in tourism public policy. Nevertheless, it is paramount that at national level, sustainable planning for tourism is encouraged and integrated into national development policy. A number of regional organisations are also responsible for translating national policy at regional level and for setting up regional policies, according to the guidelines established by the national organisation. Andriotis (2013) details how some countries, such as France and Spain rely heavily on regional tourism plans to complement the national ones. Hall (2008) notes that at this meso level there is little understanding of how and why decisions are made and actions taken. This helps to fuel the debate on the constraints of adopting national tourism planning policies into regional plans (Cooper et al, 2008). Besides, it is at local level where the impacts of tourism are most felt. In Ireland, it is Local Authorities who have the legal obligation to publish development plans and grant or refuse planning permission. While substantial progress has been made in understanding the various levels of tourism planning. In overall terms, it is still relatively low (Church and Coles, 2007; Dredge and Jenkins, 2007) when compared to other planning fields (Hall, 2008). Hall’s (2008) model on the environments of tourism planning (Figure 3.1) can assist in conveying the manner in which interaction exists between the different levels of tourism planning. However, it still does not adequately express the multi-dimensional set of planning relations. Therefore, in order to appreciate the complexities of sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland, it is necessary to discuss these different levels (international, national, regional and local) in greater detail. 3.3.1 Tourism planning at international level Despite the global financial crisis and economic recessions of 2008 and 2009, the recovery of international tourism has surpassed expectations (UNWTO, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c): International tourist arrivals increased from 25 million in 1950, to 277 million in 1980, 438 million in 1990, 681 million in 2000, 939 million in 2010, and 980 million in 2011 (Wang, 2014) and now stands at 1.1 billion for 2014 (UNWTO, 2015b). According to Peng, Song and Crouch (2014) as international tourism has become increasingly important to global economic development, many specialised organisations concerned with tourism planning have been established. The task of monitoring and controlling this growth in international tourist arrivals is facilitated through numerous dedicated organisations such as the UNWTO, OECD, Asia 53
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). Many of these international organisations involved in tourism planning generally provide best practice guidelines on sustainability (Gunn, 2002; Cooper et al, 2008) and strategies for sustainable planning for tourism in particular for Local Authorities. Mitigating against negative impacts of tourism, the then WTO (1999) developed a Guide for Local Authorities for Sustainable Tourism Development. Although a basic reference, these guidelines were followed by studies conducted by both the UNEP and UNWTO on different aspects of sustainability when it comes to tourism planning. Edgell et al (2008) examined the role of the UNWTO in tourism planning. These authors discussed how the UNWTO facilitates international dialogue for focusing on important tourism issues and policies. Table 3.1
International guidelines for sustainable planning for tourism
UNWTO: Aims for Sustainable Tourism (2005) OECD: Innovation in Tourism (2006) STG: Actions for More Sustainable European Tourism (2007) UNEP: Tourism: Investing in energy and resource efficiency (2011) GSTC: Criteria for Destinations (2013) OECD: Indicators for Measuring Competitiveness in Tourism (2013) UNWTO: Practical Guidelines for Integrated Quality Management in Tourism Destinations (2017)
The development and implementation of tools to monitor the sustainable development of tourism is a target for goal 12 of the UNWTO’s new Sustainable Development Goals (UNWTO, 2015c). So considering that Local Authority senior planners are acutely aware of the many international planning issues (Agenda 21 and Climate 2020) impacting on the Irish planning process, the question remains. Are Local Authorities in Ireland incorporating any of the international guidelines evident from Table 3.1, when sustainably planning for tourism? Moving from development to application, international agreements, reports and guidelines offer valuable support on sustainable development. But in the context of this current study, they all suffer from some fundamental weaknesses. Cooper et al (2008) in their study on the principles and practices in tourism noted that many of these international guidelines sometimes lack any significant action for implementation. Indeed, Mowforth and Munt (2016) alluded to the difficulty in the enforcement of international guidelines without the presence of statutory legislation. In Ireland, there is no legal obligation for Local Authorities to incorporate any of the above documents within the tourism planning process. Therefore, their use would very much depend on knowledge, resources and the will of elected officials and senior management.
54
Irish Local Authority planners must also concern themselves with the numerous European directives and guidelines. The nations that comprise the EU are with some exceptions almost all subjected to EU regulations and processes. Sharpley (2015) discussed how these can either directly or indirectly influence the tourism sector. These supranational policy structures, together with multi-level scales of governance (Hooghe and Marks, 2003; Bache and Flinders, 2004) have implications for successful sustainable planning policy. Table 3.2
European guidelines on sustainable planning for tourism
EC: Innovation in Tourism (2006) EC: Actions for more Sustainable Tourism (2007) EC: Cultural Sporting Events: An opportunity for developing tourist destinations and the tourist industry (2007) EC: Best Environmental Management Practice in the Tourism Sector (2013) EC: Enhancing the Competitiveness of Tourism in the EU (2013) EEA: Report on the Feasibility for Regular Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Tourism (2014) EC: European Tourism Indicator System: ETIS toolkit for sustainable destination management (2016)
Reflecting on what enforcement procedures are in place in order to ensure that sustainability in tourism is promoted and advanced. Policies developed by the EU are by and large required under legislation to be implemented by national governments. These policies are known as directives, and once a directive has been passed by the EU, the member state’s (s) have a set timeframe to transpose the directive into the state’s legal framework. This implementation process has been proven to be very effective. Consequently, directives relating to the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (directive 92/43/ECC) have helped protect the biodiversity of tourism destinations in Ireland. Another example of successful implementation of EU directives when it comes to Local Authority planning is the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42EC). This directive reflects both Butler’s (1991) and later Alipour and Kilic’s (2005) illustration of the traditional connection between the development of tourism and negative environmental impacts. Through the SEA Directive, all plans and programmes prepared by national, regional or Local Authorities in Ireland are to be subjected to SEA procedure. This directive aims to improve the environmental sustainability of Local Authority CDPs. An initiative discussed by Zang (2016) as essential when it comes to the development of tourism. Sharpley (2015) argues that Europe is not a single destination but a collection of destinations that compete with each other for a share of the overall European tourism market. It is clear therefore, that European nations do not, of course, develop and promote tourism together. Reflecting on Budeanu et al (2016) assessment of progress in sustainable tourism, this competition among destinations does not bode well for encouraging more sustainability. This 55
represents one potential challenge of implementing EU guidelines, as not all destinations are the same. Many require specific actions and directions, which are unique to their identified tourism market. As stated previously, there is no legal requirement for any member state to adopt or implement these guidelines. It would appear that the EU is depending on Local Authorities and NTDA to be continuously mindful of these guidelines when developing future tourism policies. It can be expensive both in terms of manpower and financial resources for Local Authorities and national tourism development authorities to put into action these guidelines particularly in this current economic climate. This longitudinal study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the adoption of these EU guidelines. 3.3.2 Tourism planning at national level Dredge and Jenkins (2007) note that globally there is unanimous acknowledgement by governments that tourism is indeed a good thing. Moreover, Devine (2010) suggests that tourism policies are often designed specifically to expand the tourist industry. In the context of sustainable planning for tourism at national level, Pearce (1999) discussed how this should be carried out in light of broader national goals and objectives. One recent assessment on tourism policy and planning concluded that it is often influenced by the political system of the particular destination (Kamble and Bouchon, 2014). Consistent with earlier reviews (Chaudhary, 2009), the analysis points out that both the current socio-economic environment and the current policy framework in place also influence tourism planning. These assertions are also discussed by Dredge and Jenkins (2007) within the context of tourism governance. It is therefore necessary to put Cooper et al (2008) factors of national level tourism planning into perspective in Ireland. The DTTAS, Tourism Ireland, Fáilte Ireland (NTDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been found through analysis of literature to largely match the majority of the factors discussed by Cooper et al (2008) in Table 3.3. Evidence of integration of legislation and policies are listed in Table 3.4.
56
Table 3.3 ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢
Factors of national level tourism planning Tourism policy Marketing strategies Taxation structure Incentive/grant schemes Legislation (e.g. employment, investment, repatriation of profits) Infrastructure developments External and internal transport systems and organisations Education/training and manpower programmes
➢ Source: modified from Cooper et al (2008)
Lee and Hsieh (2016) in their review of environmental indicators found that tourism development can engender several negative environmental consequences. As far back as 2003, New Horizons for Irish Tourism (2003) discussed that the main challenge facing national level sustainable planning was: ‘Improving the quality of inland waters, improving waste management, enhancing the urban and rural environment through good design of new development and sensible development control decisions, controlling greenhouse gas and other emissions in accordance with Ireland’s international commitments, and protecting natural resources’ (DAST, 2003: 50). In Ireland, monitoring the quality of inland waters and waste management is under the remit of the EPA. The main priority of the EPA is to protect the Irish environment and ensure that development is sustainable (EPA, 2012). The focus of the EPA’s 2020 Vision strategy (EPA, 2007) is on the need for Ireland to deliver positive environmental outcomes. Moreover, in their assessment of Ireland’s Environment Report (2012), the EPA notes that it is moving beyond the identification of environmental problems towards the active resolution of root causes. This highlights the important role played by the EPA in ensuring that a healthy, safe environment is delivered for Ireland through effective enforcement of environmental legislation at national and local levels. These actions are necessary not only to prevent avoidable environmental damage, but also to protect Ireland’s reputation and green image. The DTTAS has, as one of its key programmes of work, the responsibility for providing the strategic direction required to support the growth of a competitive and sustainable tourism industry (DTTAS, 2015b). The DTTAS (2015a) further note that despite there being clear signs of recovery in Irish tourism, the scope for state investment will remain constrained for the foreseeable future. The Government therefore needs to maximise the wide-ranging economic and social benefits of the sector, by promoting Ireland, supporting enterprises and jobs and providing an attractive, competitive overall offering for tourists.
57
Table 3.4
National level guidelines on sustainable planning for tourism
New Horizons for Irish Tourism – An Agenda for Action (DOE, 2003) National Development Plan 2007-2013 (2007) Tourism Product Development Strategy 2007-2013, (Fáilte Ireland, 2007) Tourism and the Environment 2007-2009 (Fáilte Ireland, 2007) Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 (2007) Tourism Strategy Statement (Fáilte Ireland, 2008) Eco-Tourism Handbook (Fáilte Ireland, 2009) Regulations for Caravan and Camping Parks (Fáilte Ireland, 2009) New Horizons for Irish Tourism 2009-2013 (Fáilte Ireland, 2009) Historic towns in Ireland (Fáilte Ireland, 2010) Action Programme for Effective Local Government (DECLG, 2012) Our Sustainable Future: Framework for Sustainable Development for Ireland (DECLG, 2012) Ireland’s Environment: An Assessment (EPA, 2012) The Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014-2020 National Landscape Strategy (DAHG, 2014) People, Place and Policy: Growing Tourism to 2025 (DTTAS, 2015) Driving Tourism Sustaining Communities: Our Priorities to 2017 (Fáilte Ireland, 2015) Guidelines for the Protection of Biodiversity (Fáilte Ireland, 2016) Tourism Development and Innovation: A Strategy for Investment 2016-2022 (Fáilte Ireland, 2016)
To facilitate this new direction, the DTTAS published People, Place and Policy: Growing Tourism to 2025 (DTTAS, 2015b). The key aim of this strategy is to; ‘Place tourism as a key element of economic strategy, with development in the tourism sector reflecting the highest standards of environmental and economic sustainability’ (DTTAS, 2015b:9). Farmaki et al (2015) discuss the theme of tourism, politics, and notes how studies regarding this connection have been championed over the last 30 years. Richter's (1989) pioneering research in tourism and political science encouraged scholars in the social sciences to investigate the politics of tourism. Two decades ago, Panayotou (1994) warned for new and effective policies in which economic instruments play an important role in the case for sustainable development of tourism. This need is reflected by the DTTAS with policy proposals contained within ‘Growing Tourism to 2025’ aiming for: ‘The formulation of policies, strategies and plans by public bodies with a role in relation to natural and built heritage will give consideration to the contribution that sustainable tourism can make to the protection of heritage assets’ (DTTAS, 2015b:25). The public bodies, operating under the remit of the Department, have been established to deal with the administration of that policy. Fáilte Ireland is re responsible for supporting Ireland’s tourism industry in addition to sustaining Ireland as a high quality and competitive tourism destination (Fáilte Ireland, 2016b). However, Fáilte Irelands main role is not sustainable planning for tourism, but rather it works with other state agencies and representative bodies at all levels in the best interests of Irish tourism.
58
The integration of national plans and policies appear in a wide range of Fáilte Ireland publications such as ‘Tourism Product Development Strategy 2007-2013 (Fáilte Ireland, 2007b) and Tourism and the Environment, 2007-2009 (Fáilte Ireland, 2007a). Fáilte Ireland’s, Tourism and the Environment Action Plan (2007b:17) highlights five key objectives at the core of this document: 1. To place environmental issues at the core of sustainable tourism policy at national, regional and local levels. 2. To advocate for the protection of key environmental and tourism assets. 3. To undertake research leading to a clearer understanding of the relationship between tourism and the environment. 4. To promote good environmental practice within the tourism sector and to advise on the development of ecotourism. 5. To establish a number of strategic partnerships in implementing this plan.
These objectives also reflect the challenges identified by New Horizons for Irish Tourism: An Agenda for Action (TSIG, 2009) as facing Irish tourism. Bringing such objectives to the forefront of tourism planning has been the result of Local Authorities incorporating these Fáilte Ireland guidelines into the respective tourism components of CDPs. Reflecting upon the role of Fáilte Ireland in the tourism planning process, many of the key challenges facing Irish tourism can be communicated to senior planners. This can be achieved through consultation between Local Authorities and the NTDA when developing future tourism planning policies. Effective tourism planning at national level is of significance importance, with Wallace (2007) discussing how national level tourism planning is an essential task for countries who identify tourism as a major engine for development. It is clear from this discussion and the examples provided that tourism planning at national level in Ireland supports a proactive and sustainable approach. However, this longitudinal study will determine if Local Authorities in Ireland are integrating these national tourism planning guidelines into their CDPs. 3.3.3 Tourism planning at regional level Tourism development and its associated growth has been noted by both Hohl and Tisdell (1995) and Yang and Fik (2014) as a reasonable choice for regional economic growth. However, the OECD (1999) in its discussion on regional policy and tourism, warn that appropriate tourism strategies must be implemented by public and private decision-makers in order to maximise the benefits that the local economy can derive from tourism. Additionally, many of the negative impacts, in particular for the natural environment can be minimised by having appropriate tourism strategies in place. However, confusions and conflicts are associated with tourism planning at regional levels due to it being a complex and multi-faceted
59
activity, similar in many cases to the regions themselves. Tourism development in County Monaghan (MN) may well be very different to the needs of the industry in County Galway (GY). Moreover, the new economic realities facing Ireland command a decisive approach to planning, particularly at regional level. Within the Regional Planning Guidelines (RPG) developed by the eight former regional authorities and two regional assemblies did contain general interregional policies relating to sustainable tourism development. Co-operation between regions when it comes to tourism planning has not always satisfactory. Devine and Devine (2011) in their study on planning and developing tourism in Northern Ireland, identified issues relating to over administration. Moreover, a lack of expertise and social capital within the local business community (FosterFishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, and Allen, 2001; Zhao, Ritchie, and Echtner, 2011; Barca, McCann, and Rodríguez-Pose, 2012; Valente, Dredge and Lohmann, 2015) has also been discussed within theory. Also, the ‘region’ as a concept applied to tourism spaces is somehow vague and unclear, with planning and development strategies often difficult to implement due to the size of the industry at regional level. Despite the many doubts associated with regional planning for tourism, its importance is identified by Tosun and Jenkins (1996) who argue that it is the most suitable planning approach to attain the best possible spatial pattern of development. Fáilte Ireland’s (2016b) use of strategic partnerships with all the interests in Irish tourism working together towards a common goal is emphasised through its operation of six different regional offices. This approach to regional tourism planning is a constant recommendation within regional planning literature (Jamal and Getz, 1999; Bramwell and Lane, 2011; Valente, Dredge and Lohmann, 2015) as it supports power sharing, collaboration and joint resourcing between public and private sectors. With effect from 1 January 2015, three new regional assemblies were established (Figure 3.2). The aim of these new assemblies is to co-ordinate, promote or support strategic planning and sustainable development and promote effectiveness in local government and public services.
60
Figure 3.2
Regional Assemblies in the Republic of Ireland
Source: Cussen (2014) Their primary function is the implementation of regional spatial and economic strategies (RSES). These will replace the current regional planning guidelines and will be developed in conjunction with the various enterprise and economic development agencies. Until such a time when these RSES’s are implemented, the existing RPGs will remain operational. 3.3.4 Tourism planning at local level With the continued expansion of the Irish tourist industry, the way in which tourism is planned for at local level requires greater discussion. Richards (1992:5) notes how ‘tourism is a diverse activity which impinges on many areas of Local Authorities responsibilities’. Therefore, the importance of an effective sustainable planning approach to tourism by Local Authorities in Ireland is necessary. So for tourism as a development option to fully achieve its potential, wellfounded principles and clear guidelines for its sustainable planning and development are necessary. It is important to note in the context of this chapter that under the Planning and Development Act (2015), Local Authorities are legally required to develop CDPs. These plans 61
are the main instrument for the regulation and control of local development, which includes tourism. Also, Local Authorities must include planning policies for the development of tourism within these plans (DEHLG, 2007a). To aid Local Authorities in developing tourism polices, several academic models and tools have been developed in recent years. According to Conaghan (2013), these tools are to reduce many of tourism’s negative impacts. Local authorities could draw from or integrate any of the models/guidelines to assist in the sustainable planning of tourism. Table 3.5
Models/guidelines for sustainable planning for tourism at local level
Tourism: A Community Approach, (Murphy, 1995). Managing Stakeholders: A Tourism Planning Model, (Sautter and Leisen, 1999). Bridging Tourism Gaps Model, (Murphy and Murphy, 2004). Community Tourism Planning: A Self-Assessment Instrument, (Reid, Mair and George, 2004). A Framework for the Tourism Planning Process (Andriotis, 2007). Strategic Tourism Planning Process (Hall, 2008). Destination Management Planning, (Tourism Queensland, 2008). Model for strategic planning and managing tourism destinations (Ladeiras et al, 2010). Destination Planning and Management Framework (Jenkins, Dredge and Taplin, 2011). The Sustainable Destination and Site Planning Process (Rieder, 2012).
Participatory planning or community engagement is recognised as one of the enablers of success in Tourism Queensland’s (2008) model on ‘Destination Management Planning’ and the ETIS (EC, 2016a). This concept also reflects the discussions surrounding the role of stakeholders and interest groups in the tourism planning process. Jones (2005) discussed how in Sautter and Leisen’s (1999) managing stakeholders a tourism planning model, the authors emphasised the need for the different stakeholder groups to have a direct influence on managerial decision making. Under the Planning and Development Act (2015), Local Authorities in Ireland have a statutory requirement relating consultation procedures with relevant stakeholders. This theory of stakeholder management is shared by Murphy and Murphy (2004) who developed a bridging tourism gaps model. Through this model, destinations can focus on the beneficial and sustainable aspects when developing tourism within their community. Moreover, Reid et al (2004) documented the key aspect of stakeholder management in their ‘Community Tourism Planning: A self-assessment instrument’. This model underscored the importance of empowering local organisations in raising tourism issues and in the tourism product development stage.
62
Rieder’s (2012) model on sustainable destination and site planning documents the importance of formulating and evaluating strategies to achieve sustainability in tourism as essential. Reflecting upon this need for preparing and assessing tourism planning strategies, community leaders in the study by Kim, Uysal and Sirgy (2013) constantly discuss tourism as an important local industry development tool. However, to ensure a sustainable long term industry in Ireland, it is necessary for Local Authorities to develop strong well-resourced policies and strategies. 3.4
Local Authority planning process worldwide
The English (UK) planning system, in the same way as Ireland is designed and based around the concept of local government and communities. Central to this belief is the role of local plans. Similar to Irelands CDPs, these local plans support the strategic planning approach through an ordered sequence of activities. Similar again to CDPs, these local plans contain the planning authority’s tourism policies for the area. When discussing these plans in the context of facilitating sustainable planning for tourism, Maxim (2013) identified how policy makers in London’s Local Authorities considered sustainable tourism important and recognised its benefits. However, the author also discussed how bringing such ideas into practice was difficult, as few had put in place initiatives to implement strategies for sustainable tourism development. As these plans influence the granting or refusal of planning permission for tourism developments, it is necessary for these plans to incorporate specific tourism strategies and guidelines for facilitating sustainable planning for tourism. In New Zealand, sustainable development is the central focus of its planning framework. Regulation of tourism and its associated activities at regional and district level is undertaken through the Resource Management Act 1991 (Hall, Jenkins and Kearsley, 1997). This pioneering piece of legislation (Figure 3.3) seeks to incorporate sustainable principles within the planning law in New Zealand. The sole purpose of the Resource Management Act (1991) is the: ‘Promotion of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources’ (RMA, 1991 Section 5). Connell et al (2009) discussed how the Resource Management Act (1991) establishes a comprehensive framework for land use planning and resource management at regional and local level. While New Zealand is by no means a major global tourism destination in terms of volume, Connell et al (2009) discuss the sensitive natural and cultural resources of the county proposed challenges for the sustainable development of tourism.
63
Figure 3.3
The Resource Management Act planning framework
Source: OAG of New Zealand (2011) In contrast to Inskeep (1997) views on the importance of regional planning, dissimilar to the Planning and Development Act (2015) in Ireland, the Resource Management Act does not legally require the development of regional plans. Instead, this act requires a constant monitoring process to be followed by Local Authorities to assess the effects of any planning activity. This facilitates evidence based tourism planning, while helping to preserve the natural resources of local communities. Due to the impacts that accompany the development of tourism (Hall, 2008; Page 2009), many of which are mainly visible at local level; there is a clear need for Local Authority involvement in tourism planning. 3.5
The need for Local Authority involvement in tourism planning
Local Authorities play an important role in planning for tourism. Local Authorities often provide the physical infrastructure essential to support the local tourism industry. It has the legal obligation to grant or reject planning permission for future tourism product developments, which emphasises the need for Local Authority involvement within the tourism planning process in Ireland. Elliot (1997) found a number of issues that needed to be considered when discussing the need for Local Authority involvement in tourism planning. Political stability, security, and the legal 64
and financial framework were particularly noted by Elliot (1997:19). Charlton and Essex (1996) in their analysis of the involvement of district councils in tourism in England and Wales noted that their involvement: ‘has become established principally through the provision of local tourism infrastructure, the maintenance of an attractive environment through planning and development control, proactive policies to stimulate the private sector and the promotion and marketing of tourism’ (Charlton and Essex, 1996, p.176). Their study highlighted the role of Local Authorities in the development of tourism policies and strategies. This is coupled with the adoption of regulations for site planning and the drafting of guidelines for tourist services and development standards, an approach, which is similarly discussed by Maxim (2013). For Page and Dowling (2002), the need for Local Authority involvement in tourism planning is partly driven by the necessity for the development of tourism policy. Besides, it was Dredge and Jenkins (2007) who note how it is Local Authorities who control most of the development planning aspects associated with tourism. Maxim (2013) noted how Local Authorities in London were reactive rather than proactive when it comes to tourism planning. This criticism was also discussed by Dredge (2001) within the context of tourism planning policy making in Australia. Ashworth and Page’s (2011) review of current paradoxes in tourism research does mention that a large percentage of tourism planning is likely to be reactive to address the negative impacts of tourism perceived by the local community. This can be a result of the growing influence local communities are having on the Local Authority tourism planning process. The need for Local Authority involvement in tourism planning in Ireland rests within two main areas. The legal responsibility to create and publish CDPs and grant or reject planning permission for infrastructure necessary for tourism development and future tourism amenities based on these CDPs. On a basic level, if the CDP zones an area for protection (i.e. SAC), Local Authorities are prohibited from granting planning permission for hotels or resorts in that SAC zone. Also, a large number of guidelines and strategies are aimed at Local Authorities to encourage them to integrate sustainability principles into the tourism planning process. While Local Authorities may have promising policies and plans for the sustainable planning for tourism, a discussion on the wider Local Authority planning process is key to advancing our understanding of sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland.
65
3.6
Processes of Local Authority planning in Ireland
The Irish Local Authority planning process promotes an integrated, participatory style, wherein the community must by law be consulted. The purpose of this consultation is to provide the community with a process through which they have an opportunity to represent their interests, together with the needs of their constituencies. However, modern planning is a complex task and overlaps other policy areas such as economic development, transport and education provision (DEHLG, 2007a). Therefore, the challenge facing Local Authorities is how to guide and manage the use of Ireland’s natural resources as wisely as possible while facilitating the sustainable development of tourism. As evident from Figure 3.4, the Irish Local Authority planning process must recognise the wider policy context. All directives, legislation, programmes and guidelines contained within this framework are legally required to be incorporated into Local Authority CDPs. Figure 3.4
Local Authority planning framework in Ireland NATIONAL Spatial Strategy
EU, National Legislation and Policy EU Directives
REGIONAL Regional Planning Guidelines
Local Level Policy Core Strategy Housing Strategy
Planning Act Climate Change
LOCAL Development Plans Local Plans
Retail Strategy CDB Strategy
Capital Programmes Capital Programme Planning Guidelines
Establishes Policy Context for...
Assessment of and Decisions on Development Proposals Application to Planning Authority (PA) An Bord Pleanála (Strategic Infrastructure) (SI)
PA Decision SI Decision
Development/Refusal of PP
An Bord Pleanála decision to grant/refuse
Appeal?
Source: adopted and modified from Cussen (2014) Therefore, European, national and regional legislations and guidelines all have a significant impact on the Local Authority planning process. It is through this planning framework that guidelines and strategies for the sustainable planning for tourism can influence the Local Authority tourism planning process. The Irish Local Authority planning process is co-ordinated 66
through the CDP. These development plans set out the overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. This is faciliated through the provision of policies for land use and for development control (see Figure 3.3). In making decisions on planning applications, the Local Authority must consider the provisions of the CDP, and try to secure its objectives. These development plans set out the overall planning policies for the Local Authority for a six year period. Local Authorities publish their intention to review the exisiting CDP, then place the draft plan on public display during which time the public may make submissions on its content. Moreover, copies of the draft are sent to the various statutory and voluntary bodies who may provide the Local Authority specialist advice. All submissions are considered before the final plan is adopted, and then published. Dedeurwaerdere (2004) considered the use of collaborative actions as the basis of governance, which Erkuş-Öztürk and Eraydin (2010) note aids in future decision making and strategy-defining. However, the ability of Local Authorities to sustainably plan for tourism within the existing planning framework can be influenced by a number of factors. Concerns relating to Local Authority funding, the influence of higher policy structures and outcomes of public consultation and accountability must all be taken into consideration. 3.6.1 Local Authority funding The relationship that existed in Ireland between local and central government in terms of funding was often characterised by both dependency and lobbying (DECLG, 2012b:129). The National Economic and Social Council (NESC) characterised this particular funding system as owing ‘much too past expediency but little to reason’ (NESC, 1985:19). Cynics continued to question this funding approach with studies noting how responsibility and decision making at local level were often reduced. Similarly, this funding model was often found to diminish the overall effectiveness of local government functions. Healy (2006), in his analysis of financing Local Authorities in Ireland mentioned that over the last three decades alone, several reports were published highlighting the need for an independent source of revenue for Local Authorities. The progress towards sustainability in tourism destinations in Ireland could be weakened by Local Authority planning policies lacking sufficient detail, budgets and staff allocations due to financial cutbacks at national level. During the period 2008-2012, revenue expenditure to Local
67
Authorities had been reduced by €736m (14%) and total staff by 8,250 (22%) across all Local Authorities (DECLG, 2012b). Figure 3.5
Overview of flow of central government funding to Local Authorities Motor Tax
Central Fund from the Exchequer
Dept. of Transport Other Votes
Local Property Tax
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Environment Environmental Levies
Local Government Fund
National Roads Authority
National Transport Authority
Food Safety Authority
Environmental Fund
Local Authorities
Source: Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (2014) Discussions on sustainable planning for tourism continue to emphasise the need for planning policies that are sound and feasible to implement (Liu, 2003) with associated budgets and timelines for implementation (Mowforth and Munt, 2016). However, a number of Local Authorities in Ireland are heavily in debt, with Sligo County Council ‘€94 million in the red’ (Frank McDonald, Irish Times 24/02/2014). So any additional cuts in funding would result in the county being unable to carry out the functions and duties under their statutory obligations, let alone finance specific budgets and staff allocations for sustainable planning for tourism. With respect to the financing of public services, Local Authorities in Ireland are funded by a combination of central and local sources of income, including local business rates, charges and fees for goods and services, and transfers and grants from central government. The DHPLG (2017) detailed how the twenty-eight Local Authorities in Ireland, together with the three city councils had an aggregated budget of €4.1 billion for 2016, an increase of 3.4% compared to 2015. Central to Local Authority revenue is the contribution of commercial rates. These rates according to the DHPLG (2017) make up 37% of total revenue income for Local Authorities in 2016. Sustainable planning for tourism supports the use of local produce and services. For example, according to the Irish Hotels Federation (IHF) (2015) County Cork (CK) has sixtytwo hotels. Therefore, the commercial rates generated from these hotels alone represent a significant source of revenue for the Local Authority.
68
From an EU comparative perspective, Turley (2013) notes how Local Authorities in Ireland while having fewer functions than elsewhere in Europe, are poorly funded. The National Oversight and Audit Commission (NOAC) indicates that two thirds of Local Authorities in Ireland are operating with negative balances and are reliant on bank overdrafts and borrowings to make ends meet (Irish Times, 2016). Adequate financial resources are pivotal for tourism planning as a lack of funding can hinder Local Authorities in Ireland in implementing meaningful policies to ensure the long-term sustainability of the local tourism industry. 3.6.2 Local Authority governance The role of governance has only recently begun to be researched and discussed in order to better understand tourism policy making and planning. Pierre and Peters (2000:42) note ‘governance is in many ways about the capacity of governments to make policy and put it into effect’. Both Hall (2005, 2007) and Hawkins and Mann (2007) discuss the growing influence of organisations acting on behalf of the tourism industry have in tourism governance. This, coupled with Ireland’s membership of the EU, has resulted in Local Authorities facing greater levels of policy structure. However, to avoid the member state making commitments that are difficult for Local Authorities to implement on the ground, Healy (2006) argues for Local Authorities to be adequately resourced. This will allow Local Authorities to provide the necessary infrastructure, services and facilities to cater for Ireland’s growing tourism arrivals, while ensuring tourism development dose not impact negatively on the local environment, economy and social fabric of Ireland’s towns and villages. The extent to which sustainable tourism policies have been translated into practice is however, debatable (Sharpley, 2009). Moyle et al (2013) seminal study on sustainability in planning documents and tourism policy noted how there is a big discrepancy between the theories around sustainable tourism and the way it is conceptualised. There is however, a debate within academia on the actual ability of Local Authorities to govern. Boyle and O’Riordan (2013) questioned whether Local Authorities are fit for purpose, whether they have the ability to address challenges, adapt to new roles and demands, follow through on commitments, and achieve valued outcomes for citizens. Besides, a perceived lack of interest on behalf of Local Authorities could make local tourism enterprises sceptical about their Local Authorities commitment to plan and develop tourism. However, Hamilton (2012) noted how policy issues are increasingly transcending administrative boundaries, with Local Authorities becoming less important in solving policy issues as central government exercises more control. 69
The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) does provide supports for Local Authorities when implementing sustainable principles. This diverse, robust, global organisation develops campaigns and programmes to cover a broad range of themes. Many of these cover areas specific to tourism such as the management of biodiversity and ecosystems, stakeholder involvement and sustainability management and land use (ICLEI, 2015). However, currently only one of Irelands Local Authorities is a member of the ICLEI. This leaves Irish Local Authorities without significant support from higher-level organisations. Through policymaking, Pierre (1999) discusses how governance has emerged as a powerful concept since the 1970’s. However, securing cooperation and coordination among the varied actors has been described as a challenge for the governance of tourism (Bramwell and Lane, 2012). Recent changes to the planning law in Ireland as a result of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments (Mahon Tribunal) has resulted in the power of county councillors to give directions in relation to planning matters being removed. However, a number of county councillors across Ireland were filmed by RTÉ Investigates (RTÉ Investigates: Standards in Public Office, 2015) seeking financial rewards for help with planning decisions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jgi6WV9RhY. This is in direct breach of section 247 of the Planning and Development Act (2015), which makes it very clear that it is a criminal offence for county councillors to seek any favour, benefit or payment for consultations relating to proposed developments (Planning and Development Act, 2015). As noted this brought local government in Ireland into disrepute and distorted the perception of public representatives in the public mind (Noel Whelan, Irish Times 11/12/2015). As governance concerns itself with how societies are governed, ruled and steered (Bramwell and Lane, 2011), if local councillors are dishonest or corrupt, the primary victims are the local communities who have to live with the decisions that are made. Corruption and other unethical practices can be avoided through effective governance, participation and transparency procedures. 3.6.3 Local Authority consultation Consultation and participation, or in some cases a lack of such, has found its way on too many national and international agendas (Meldon, Walsh and Kenny, 2002). Hatipoglu, Alvarez and Ertuna (2014) discuss the role of local communities and how they are the gatekeepers that protect indigenous resources and values. However, government and community interests often do not necessarily coincide (King, McVey, and Simmons, 2000). Tolkach and King (2015) 70
discusses that governments may often seek to avoid the type of public scrutiny, which characterises the community consultation processes. However, a sustainable planning approach to tourism requires the participation of all stakeholders in the planning and development process. Under the Planning and Development Act (2015), Local Authorities are legally required to consult with the host community when preparing tourism components of CDPs. While tourism can be an effective mechanism to help increase local economic growth and encourage job creation, the extent to which the local community is able to profit from this activity has been questioned (Rylance, 2008). Discussions on participation and decision making in tourism all support the use of such institutional frameworks (Yüksel, Bramwell and Yüksel, 2005; Bramwell and Lane, 2011; Hall, 2011). The presence of such frameworks ensure that the local community in collaboration with Local Authorities can plan and develop tourism through a long term sustainable vision, allowing the community to benefit from its development. Meldon, Walsh and Kenny (2002) in their analysis of citizen participation in local government, concluded that the Planning and Development Act (2015) actively enhances the range and scope of public participation in the Irish planning process. In reality, Dredge (2006) argues that collaborative planning processes are often characterised by conflict and power struggles. These conflicts can detract from the attention paid to important issues. Blackstock (2005) notes how academic literature on stakeholder participation does not address inequalities that may affect decision making at local level. Despite the criticisms, the importance of consultation in the sustainable planning of tourism is demonstrated by Mowforth and Munt (2016) who regard it as an essential principle of sustainability. The local community in Ireland can object to tourism planning policy through the established consultation procedures in the CDP development process. However, as democratically elected institutions, it is essential that Local Authorities are accountable to the local community when developing future tourism policies. 3.6.4 Local Authority accountability Parameters of good tourism governance at local level are often discussed in the context of accountability and transparency (White, 2001; Edwards, 2002; Dredge and Pforr, 2008; Beaumont and Dredge, 2010). Accountability in Local Authority planning relates to how their decisions reflect the priorities of their electorate, how efficiently services are delivered, and the degree of value for money that is achieved in terms of the level and quality of services perceived by those who pay for them (DECLG, 2012). Local Authorities must maximise both 71
representational effectiveness and accountability on the part of the elected councils, and operational efficiency on the part of the administration. Beaumont and Dredge (2010) discuss how lower levels of transparency and accountability are exhibited due to a lack of meaningful consultation. Through the Planning and Development Act (2015), communities in Ireland are offered significant levels of participation in the Local Authority planning process. Members of the public have unique rights as part of the public accountability framework for local government. This participation often supplies reliable information together with providing a reality check for Local Authority actions. Moreover, an effective and accountable system of Local Authority governance involves a range of requirements in relation to the elected council and the executive, relationships with citizens, local communities and external interests. While the DECLG (2014) documents how county councillors are often subject to the ultimate level of accountability, namely, the local electorate at every election. The reports of the Mahon and Moriarty Tribunals have highlighted, inter alia, the risk that the legitimacy of Local Authority planning in Ireland might be eroded by the corrosive impact of secrecy and undue influence. Also with a number of county councillors, being secretly filmed seeking financial rewards for help with planning decisions (RTÉ Investigates: Standards in Public Office, 2015). But who are these elected county councillors accountable to for making poor decisions on amending development plans, or if they are found to be influenced by special interests. Under ‘Putting People First: Action Programme for Effective Local Government’ the DECLG (2012) discuss how the primary responsibility and accountability for decision-making in relation to policy matters within the local authority will remain with the elected council. This approach strengthens the role of elected county councillors in reserved functions of the Local Authority without ensuring adequate measures for greater accountability. While Local Authorities are tasked with promoting the interests of the local community, effective accountability is impossible without accurate information on the performance of Local Authorities (Boyne and Law, 1991). Day and Klein (1987:243) consider such information, the lifeblood of accountability. Local Authorities have a responsibility to ensure that their programs meet their stated objectives and are cost effective. Schaeffer (2005) suggests that by measuring the level, efficiency, and outcome of a program’s efforts, benchmarking and performance indicators can guide resource allocation decisions while communicating to the community the goals, objectives and effectiveness of Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland. 72
3.6.5 Local Authority destination management The complex nature of destination management is often discussed through illustrative case studies together with effective practical approaches aimed at the various features of tourism destination management. These approaches provide a comprehensive outlook that forward planners and policy makers in Ireland’s Local Authorities can relate to when managing tourism at destination level. A number of academic’s point to destinations as the primary unit of management action (Fyall, 2001; Timur, 2003; Ritchie, 2009; Bornhorst, Ritchie and Sheehan, 2010) in tourism. Therefore, destinations in Ireland require sound management policies by Local Authorities to ensure they remain competitive and sustainable. Traditionally, the factors that shape tourism destinations are influenced by the needs and requirements of its stakeholders (Buhalis, 2000; Bornhorst, Ritchie and Sheehan, 2010; Wang, 2011; Longjit and Pearce, 2013). To achieve this cohesion, destinations in Ireland require a coordinated management approach. The ETIS (EC, 2016a) picked up this challenge by pooling knowledge, expertise, capital and other resources. This is a process that has been acknowledged as increasing the acceptance of policies, together with more effective implementation (Pretty 1995; deAraujo and Bramwell, 2000; Flanagan et al, 2007). This line of thinking points to destination management as a vital concept for Local Authorities in Ireland. The UNWTO (2004) places destination management organisations (DMO’s) generally into the category of a national tourism development authority (NTDA), regional, state or local organisations. Fáilte Ireland work with other state agencies and representative bodies to implement positive and practical strategies that will benefit Irish tourism (Fáilte Ireland, 2016). Regardless, it is Local Authorities who grant planning permission for tourism developments in Ireland; therefore, they have a pivotal role in the destination management. Apart from marketing and promotion, the DMO also has a significant role in management functions (UNWTO, 2004). Destinations are being pushed to consider mobility an essential strategic component of destination planning and management (Scuttari, Lucia and Martini, 2012). Conaghan (2013) discusses how many destinations cross-political and geographical boundaries. It has been further suggested by Conaghan (2013) that destination management should therefore be focused at local level, within the boundaries of the public sector for example. Reflecting on this role of the public sector, a wide variety of tools exists within literature aimed at Local Authorities to enable them to follow a sustainable planning approach 73
to tourism. Still Local Authorities in Ireland are central to the support and development of a DMO because it is Local Authorities who have the legal authority to grant or refuse planning permission. Local Authorities in Ireland are legally required to consult with different stakeholder groups within the tourism planning process. This consultation is a common theme within studies examining the role of DMO’s in planning, managing and addressing the impacts of tourism (Heath, 2002; Page, 2003; TSG, 2007; UNWTO, 2007; Kruger and Meintjies, 2008). However, for Sheehan and Ritchie (2005), this wide range of stakeholders might make it difficult for DMO’s to achieve their objectives. This comment perhaps pessimistic, suggests that DMO’s would happily benefit from additional guidance. As this longitudinal study will examine the level of sustainable planning for tourism, it is important to integrate the role of the DMO into the theoretical framework. This will identify the presence of a DMO in specific counties to aid in the Local Authority tourism planning process. 3.7
Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland
In Ireland, Local Authorities are in an ideal position to plan for tourism. Attractions, infrastructure, signage and beaches, so important to mobility at destination level, are all managed by Local Authorities. However, they are subjected to certain laws and guidelines at both national and EU level in relation to developing the necessary resources and infrastructure. This large body of both planning legislation and regulations developed over these years were finally consolidated into one piece of legislation, the Planning and Development Act (2015). 3.7.1 Planning and Development Act (2015) The Planning and Development Act reflects the expansion of economic growth and the rising public concern for environmental protection in Ireland. Since 2000, this seminal piece of Irish legislation has been revised in particular due to the growing European dimension arising from Ireland’s membership of the EU (DEHLG, 2007b). This higher-level governance can be responsible for Irelands planning system supporting a culture of sustainability. Both Hall (1998) and later Garcia (2014) noted the complexity in tourism and how economic and political factors can combine with those of a geographical and recreational nature. The Planning and Development Act (2000) was revised in 2010 to envisage a closer alignment of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) with Regional Planning Guidelines (RPG’s), CDPs and Local Area Plans. It is in this policy formulation context that Ruhanen (2013) discusses the vital role Local Authorities have in facilitating sustainability in tourism. A task Mason (2016) 74
considers closely connected. Key obligations for Local Authorities under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives were also clarified in this amendment in 2010. Moreover, unauthorised planning regulations were further strengthened through enforcement controls of Local Authorities and improving the performance of An Bord Pleanála (DECLG, 2015). Thus, further protecting Ireland’s scenic areas and coastlines, particularly along the Wild Atlantic Way, from over development. In 2013, the Planning Act was amended again to reflect the new local government structure in Ireland. Through the provisions of the Local Government Reform Act, 2014 and the Government’s ‘Putting People First Action Programme for Effective Local Government’ (DECLG, 2012b), a greater emphasis is now being placed on planning and development at a local level. Moreover, the 2015 amendments to the Planning and Development Act provided for the establishment of an independent ‘Office of the Planning Regulator’, one of the recommendations of the Mahon Tribunal of Inquiry. This could result in more powers being provided to the DHPLG to issue mandatory orders to Local Authorities on planning matters, while also limiting the discretionary power of planners. Thus, potentially removing the ability of Local Authorities to decide on specific local matters at a local level. While the Planning and Development Act provides the legally framework for sustainability in Local Authority planning, how they go about this is set out in their respective CDP. According to Conaghan (2013), the key elements of tourism destination policy planning are contained within these strategic documents. 3.7.2 County Development Plans (CDPs) The legal requirement for Local Authorities in Ireland to develop and adopt a CDP is set out under section 9 of the Planning and Development Act (2015). CDPs must: ‘Create a clear strategic framework for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area’ (DEHLG, 2007b:8). The DEHLG (2007b) suggests that high quality CDPs lie at the heart of a good quality planning system. They provide blueprints for all development within the area they represent. All planning policies contained within CDPs are developed in consultation with the local community to ensure the plan meets the needs of the community they serve. Guidelines prepared by the DEHLG (2007a:25) note how these plans must contain specific polices for the development of tourism. Also, these plans need to reflect the requirements of the area’s natural resources and tourism (DEHLG, 2007a:34). These tourism policies must also reflect the 75
necessary EU and national policy and guidelines contained within the National Planning Framework (NPF). Figure 3.6
Example of tourism component of CDP
Source: Kerry County Council (2015) It is within these CDPs that Local Authorities in Ireland can also utilise the numerous tourism guidelines and strategies developed by higher-level governance structures. These all aim to facilitate the integration of sustainable planning criteria for tourism into policy. The tourism policies contained within Co. Kerry’s (KY) CDP (Figure 3.6) are all developed and implemented through a sophisticated and democratic governance manner. The CDP can 76
therefore be an important tool to facilitate Local Authorities in sustainably planning for tourism as it can determine planning permission decisions for potential tourism developments. 3.7.3 Planning permission in Ireland All development, unless specifically exempted, needs planning permission. Local Authorities through their legal obligation, have a primary role in facilitating tourism development within their respective counties. Under the Planning and Development Regulations (2013), Local Authorities can grant or refuse planning permission in line with the planning policies within their adopted CDP. Once an application is received, the Local Authority has eight weeks to either make a decision or request further information. All applications must be made available to the public through advertising in newspapers and site notices. This facilitates awareness within the local community of any potential developments that might affect the quality of the environment and the welfare of the community. An issue analysed and discussed in detail by Tosun and Timothy (2003) within the context of tourism planning. Any individual or corporate body with an address within the state may make a submission or objection. All third parties have five weeks to lodge a submission or objection to the application. All planning permission is decided based on land use zoning (SAC etc) identified within the Local Authority CDP. If lands are zoned inappropriately for development, planning permission can be refused. However, all planning permission granted or refused by Local Authorities in Ireland can be appealed to An Bord Pleanála. The Board has the legal authority to confirm, reverse or vary the Local Authority’s particular planning decision. For example, An Bord Pleanála reversed a Roscommon County Council decision to allow the construction of ecotourism development beside the Lough Key Forest Park as it would seriously injure the visual amenities (Irish Times, 2006). This highlights the relatively strong third party rights enshrined in Irelands planning legislation. However, Local Authorities are legally required to ensure tourism development policies do not have a negative impact on the surrounding natural environment. These potential impacts can be measured through the strategic environmental assessment (SEA). 3.7.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) exercises are not new to tourism planning, and Lemos, Fischer and Souza (2012) have documented their application in tourism destinations 77
since the 1990’s. Noble (2003) discussed its extensive use in assessing the impact of tourism within national parks in Canada. While, in the US, SEA’s have also been applied in parks and protected areas within which tourism is taking place (Southam, 2009). In both Italy (Lemos, Fischer and Souza, 2012) and the UK (Government Office for the South East, 2009), SEA’s have been extensively applied to spatial and land use plans which encompass tourism related sections. The practice became more widespread following the introduction of the European SEA Directive (2001/42/EC). This directive requires all plans and programmes prepared by national, regional or Local Authorities, which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions, to be subjected to SEA (Lemos, Fischer and Souza, 2012). These assessments are legally required under the Planning and Development (Strategic Environmental Assessment) Regulations 2004 in Ireland. The potential impact of EIA’s can face many limitations due to the political, socio-economic and cultural conditions applicable to tourism destinations (Partidario, 2007). The main intent of SEA is to facilitate the early consideration of potential impacts in the strategic decision making process (Kuo et al, 2005). Thus helping to alleviate the potential negative impact tourism development may have on the natural environment. Through it application in the CDP development process, the SEA intends to provide Local Authorities with sound, integrated, and environmentally sustainable planning policies, which will ensure the natural environment is protected for local communities when developing tourism policy. Its use is supported by the NTDA in Ireland to preserve existing scenic landscapes, which deliver a unique experience to tourists. 3.7.5 Local Economic and Community Plan (LECP) In its policy document ‘Putting People First’, the DECLG, (2012b) discuss how the preparation of plans for the integration of economic and community development at local level is a significant element of the reform of Local Government in Ireland. Current legislation in Ireland (Local Government Reform Act, 2014) requires each Local Authority to produce in consultation with the local community a single six year Local Economic and Community Plan (LECP). These plans are developed in conjunction with the Local Community Development Committee (LCDC) and Strategic Policy Committee (SPC) and then approved by their respective Local Authority. This process reflects Byrd, Cardenas, and Greenwood (2008) critical element of sustainable planning for tourism, the concept of stakeholder involvement.
78
Through the development stage of actions and objectives, tourists, business owners or entrepreneurs, government officials, and the local community (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2012) can all have a say on the socio-cultural needs facing their community. The LCDC and in turn the Local Authorities are legally required to consult with members of the public when developing LECPs. If there is interest, then they all have the right to be involved (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). In relation to tourism planning within these LECPs, a lack of a shared vision, along with clear leadership and a long-term strategy, are some factors that could hinder this collaborative planning approach (Ladkin and Martinez Bertramini, 2002; Hatipoglu et al, 2014). Sautter and Leisen (1999) discuss that to some, tourism is a force that enhances the economic position and quality of life of the local people; others may see it as a force disruptive to the culture and way of life of their community. However, it is CDPs that provide the strategic direction for planning decisions. Therefore, these potential confusions and conflicts, together with tourism often being a discretionary activity for Local Authorities can all impact on the ability of these plans to facilitate sustainable planning for tourism. For Li et al (2014), sustainability in tourism planning relies heavily in the health of the natural environment in destinations. However, Tang (2015) considers tourism a double-edged sword. It can promote economic growth; meanwhile it can cause environmental pollution and ecological damage, if not well planned (Zhong et al, 2011). By incorporating tourism indicator systems in the tourism planning process, all Local Authority decisions would also be based on evidence, backed up by the data collected. 3.8
Tourism indicator systems for evidence based planning
Head (2008) discusses how evidence has become central to the design, implementation and evaluation of policies and programmes. While, several studies have in recent years examined the concept of evidence-based policy-making (Godfrey, 2006; Johnston, 2006; Minogue, 2008; Head, 2008; Nilsson et al, 2008). It was Mangion (2011) who suggested that destinations can benefit significantly by adopting an evidence-based approach to tourism planning. However, to ensure evidence based planning, it needs to be adequately staffed and funded, together with an implementation process, which is offered by sustainable tourism indicator systems.
79
3.8.1 EPA-DIT ACHIEV Model In Ireland, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded (€317,000) the development of the DIT-ACHIEV Model for Sustainable Tourism Management, using sustainable tourism indicators. This model was designed in Ireland as part of a three-year study to develop indicators for the mitigation of tourism impacts (Griffin, Morrissey and Flanagan, 2010) and was piloted in two different destinations. Both destinations Carlingford (LH) and Killarney (KY) were selected via a competitive tender process. Figure 3.7
EPA-DIT ACHIEV Model
Source: Flanagan et al (2007) The indicators of the EPA-DIT ACHIEV Model represent six fields of interest; administration, community, heritage, infrastructure, enterprise and visitor (Griffin, 2007; Flanagan et al., 2007). The indicators were deemed to be important and were viewed as useful, reliable and easily comprehensible assessment and communication tools for decision makers (UNWTO, 2004; Flanagan et al, 2007; OECD, 2008). Conaghan (2013) however discussed how the models main difficulty was with engaging with the public. Besides, Goodey (1995) argues that a system of interested groups is often required to achieve sustainable planning for tourism. This view was later acknowledged by Denman (2006) when examining the importance of stakeholders and public consultation. The organisational structure of a destination is perceived as a network of interdependent and multiple stakeholders (Cooper, Scott, and Baggio, 2009; d’Angella and Go, 2009). This collaborative approach has been identified through previous studies as offering better prospects 80
for delivering effective and sustainable tourism development (Stronza, 2008; APEC Tourism Working Group and STCRC, 2010; Tolkach and King, 2015). There is also a gap in knowledge of who should be responsible on a practical level for the implementation and use of the EPA – DIT ACHIEV model. Following a review of the EPADIT-ACHIEV model, it may be beneficial to outline its implementation process. For example, this process could indicate how the EPA-DIT ACHIEV model could be applied by Local Authorities to aid in the sustainable planning for tourism. This review could further identify the lead body and timeframe for implementation. As the ACHIEV Model was specifically designed for Ireland and was funded through the EPA, it is worth investigating if Local Authorities are utilising this indicator system. 3.8.2 Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations (GSTC-D) A feature common to theoretical literature was the crucial role tourism has as a catalyst for national, regional and local development (McGehee and Andereck, 2004; Stylidis and Terzidou, 2014). This continued documentation has resulted in a number of guidelines and strategies being developed by experts to aid in the sustainable planning and development of tourism. The GSTC’s (2013) development of specific criteria for destinations (GSTC-D) is one example of a global organisation developing guidelines and tools to facilitate evidence based planning. These criteria were developed by the tourism community as a response to the global challenges identified previously by the United Nations (UN). The GSTC-D strives to promote sustainable tourism through a common language, and one of its key objectives is to facilitate the development and adoption of universal principles for sustainable tourism. The main objective of the GSTC-D is: ‘To promote the widespread adoption of global sustainable tourism standards and to ensure the tourism industry continues to drive conservation and poverty alleviation’ (GSTC-D, 2015). The Global Sustainable Tourism Council's Criteria are the minimum requirements that any tourism business should aspire to reach in order to protect and sustain the world’s natural and cultural resources while ensuring tourism meets its potential as a tool for poverty alleviation (GSTC-D, 2015). Any destination may use these criteria as a guide to becoming environmentally, culturally, and socially sustainable. Furthermore, the Destination Criteria complement the existing GSTC criteria for hotels and tour operators, which have become a worldwide standard for tourism sustainability.
81
Table 3.6
Global sustainable tourism criteria for destinations (GSTC-D)
Source: Adapted from GSTC (2015) Local Authorities need to be able to identify and evaluate the aspects that determine the degree of sustainable planning for tourism (Yunis, 2004; Landford, 2009; Blancas et al, 2010b, 2011). The GSTC-D (GSTC, 2015) is a set of guiding principles together with performance indicators that have been designed to guide destination managers, local businesses and communities towards a path of sustainability. The GSTC-D strengths come from its participatory development process, which draws strongly on the UNWTO (2001) indicators experience and the UNWTO/UNEP’s Aims for Sustainable Tourism (UNEP/UNWTO, 2005). Unfortunately, the GSTC-D does not aim to certify destinations as sustainable. Miller, Simpson and Twining-Ward (2012) discuss its ability to check existing destination certification standards and acknowledge those that meet the GSTC level. For Local Authorities in Ireland, some of the 41 specific criteria may not be applicable to their respective Counties due to particular environmental, social or economic conditions. Furthermore, it should be noted that some Local Authorities may not be able for the comprehensive application of all the criteria due to limited resources. For the purpose of this study, it was established that the 41 (GSTC-D 2015) criteria were however, applicable to the Local Authorities in Ireland and thus were incorporated into the theoretical framework.
82
3.8.3 European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) Europe is renowned for its important cultural and natural heritage. This has allowed Europe to become the most prominent tourist destination in the world (UNWTO, 2015a). Indeed, the European Commission (EC) has long committed itself to promoting the sustainable development of tourism in Europe. To date, the EC has introduced a number of tools and legislation to facilitate sound management practices by national and local governments. The European
Tourism
Indicator
System
(ETIS)
is
one
such
tool:
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/ offer/sustainable/indicators/index_en.htm. The ETIS is a free indicator system, piloted on twenty-nine different destinations across twenty-nine different countries. To implement this particular indicator system, all Local Authorities would have to do is collect the necessary data and then input it into the excel data sheet (Figure 3.8) to display results. Figure 3.8
ETIS Excel Data Sheet
Source: EC (2016a) It has benefited from extensive feedback collected from field-testing in a number of diverse destinations throughout Europe. Several well-known European destinations were piloted in the first phase such as the Valencia region in Spain, the Municipality of Rhodes in Greece and 83
the Burren Geopark in Ireland (EC, 2016a). Moreover, extensive research was required to further ensure the indicators within the ETIS would facilitate future sustainable planning practices. Miller, Simpson and Twinning-Ward (2012) in their report on existing tourism indicator systems, noted additional research was conducted on 35 different indicator systems from across the world. This was then refined to 20 systems, with those most relevant to the EU analysed in depth. In Ireland, Burren Tourism has adopted the ETIS and will use this indicator system as a framework for measuring and monitoring progress (Clare County Council, 2013), thus providing a solid basis of analysis for implementing sustainable planning for tourism. Several existing studies and publications also influenced the development of the ETIS. For example, Local Agenda 21 (LA21), UNWTO and UNEP 12 aims of sustainable tourism all had a significant influence in the development of the twenty-seven core indicators. Additionally, the EC report (2003) on sustainable tourism, the TSG and research conducted by NECSTouR and EDEN destination feasibility testing (2010) also had a significant influence. However, the core indicators of the ETIS have been simplified in the current version (2016), compared to the original tool-kit launched in 2013. This actually makes it easier for Local Authorities to collect data on the core indicators. Figure 3.9
Destination management indicators of the ETIS
Source: EC (2016a) A responsible approach to tourism planning and development has been identified as contributing to the attainment of economic, social, cultural and environmental sustainability of destinations (Saji and Narayanasamy, 2010). For destination management, and in particular destination sustainability, this is a necessity for Local Authorities. The first category of the ETIS contains the indicators relating to destination management. These indicators have benefited from the significant progress in the definition of indicators for the sustainable management of tourism destinations (Cernat and Gourdon, 2012; Miller, Simpson and
84
Twinning-Ward, 2012). The piloting of the ETIS in diverse destinations has also benefited the development of the indicators contained in the destination management category. Crouch and Ritchie’s (1999) tourism development model identified the many different characteristics of tourism destinations (e.g. infrastructure, human resource, and service). It is these diverse characteristics that will influence the planning and development of policies by the different Local Authorities. Fernandez and Rivero (2009), when discussing their proposal for a composite index for measuring sustainability, identified that there is still no agreement on a universal list of indicators to compare sustainability levels in different destinations. The authors further argue that this is down to the diversity of views on the subject of sustainability in tourism planning and development. As noted by Middleton and Hawkins (1998) and later discussed by Liu (2003), this disagreement has led some to even cast doubt on its effectiveness. This provides Local Authorities in Ireland with the necessary data to ensure tourism is planned for sustainably at destination level. The destination management indicators of the ETIS enable Local Authorities in Ireland to determine the percentage of enterprises using certification or corporate social responsibility (CSR), together with tourist satisfaction levels. Figure 3.10
Economic indicators of the ETIS
Source: EC (2016a) The tourism industry in Ireland is responsible for €1.4 billion in tax, €5.9 billion in revenue and supports 137,700 Irish jobs (Fáilte Ireland, 2014). This industry is driven by strong tourism enterprises in tandem with a strong tourism product. However, it is important to establish how significant tourism spending is to destination economies. This will allow the relevant Local
85
Authority to determine its dependency on tourism and to develop polices and strategies for the future. Proactive and sustainable planning policies here should enable Local Authorities to harness the economic potential of tourism within their county and reduce leakage. For the most part, studies assessing tourism activities often deal with one aspect of tourism (Cernat and Gourdon, 2012). The economic impact of tourism activities is usually estimated on the basis of data on number of arrivals, receipt per tourist, average length of stay and other economic indicators. An assessment of this opportunity cost is imperative for the complete estimations of the economic impact of tourism (Crompton, 1995). Andersson and Lundberg (2013) documented that visitor expenditure always has an alternative use that can be identified by the collection of information. The economic indicators contained within the ETIS would allow Local Authorities to determine both the expenditure of tourists within the destination and their overall length of stay. Yet the core indicators found in the ETIS could benefit from greater detail. For example, the number of tourist nights per month (Figure 3.9) could be amplified further by type of travel, trip and transport, country of origin and purpose of visit. In their seminal study on benchmarking cross-county sustainable tourism, Cernat and Gourdon (2012) support this approach. They noted that such detailed statistics could shed some light on a number of specific characteristics of tourism, such as the extent to which a tourism destination is engaged in high value tourism. These are essential components of any sustainable planning approach to tourism. Discussions on sustainable planning for tourism include the requirement for the informed participation of all relevant stakeholders (Chen, 2015) and strong political leadership to ensure wide participation and consensus building (Flanagan et al, 2007). Achieving sustainability in tourism is a continuous process and it requires Local Authorities to constantly monitor impacts, thus introducing the necessary preventive or corrective measures where necessary. These are essential components of any sustainable planning approach for tourism. Pearce (2000) identified that, with any indicator system, the social dimension quantifies the involvement of local communities in the various tourism activities. Reflecting upon the growth of tourist arrivals, Alberti and Giusti (2012) documented the relentless seeking of forms and arrangements by policy makers for increasing the social and economic prosperity of their cities and regions. In the context of tourism, Local Authorities need to be cautious. Previous discussions have discussed overcrowding and its relationship with environmental destruction (Hughes, 2002; Mazanec, Wöber, and Zins, 2007; Santana-Jiménez and Hernández, 86
2011). One of the core indicators of the ETIS is the ratio of tourists to residents (Figure 3.11). However, according to Cernat and Gourdon (2012), this should be calculated as the average number of tourist’s present at one time, and not the overall arrivals. That necessitates Local Authorities weighting the number of arrivals during a month by the length of stay, thus protecting the integrity of Irish towns and villages. Reflecting the connection between tourism and heritage, both Sasaki (2004) and Alberti and Giusti (2012) discuss how regions are building their competitiveness by leveraging their cultural heritage. This links to Porter’s (2008) argument that the prosperity of a destination is directly related to its competitiveness. Figure 3.11
Social and cultural indicators of the ETIS
Source: EC (2016a) In Ireland, tourism is largely dependent on Ireland’s rich history and culture. More than three out of five (64%) of overseas holidaymaker’s point to Ireland’s history and culture as a crucially important factor in their choice to come here with three quarters (74%) registering a high satisfaction rate with what they find here (Fáilte Ireland, 2013). Local Authorities do have in place heritage officers and heritage plans to protect Ireland’s cultural heritage. However, the ETIS aims to measure the percentage of the destinations covered by policy that protects cultural heritage. This will provide Local Authorities with valuable data relating to tourism activity and social and cultural protection.
87
The development of tourism indicator systems can often be derived from the extensive literature on the impacts of tourism. For example, the WTO (1993, 1995, 1998; UNWTO, 2004) developed a group of indicators for sustainable tourism, but these focused primarily on ecological dimensions (Cernat and Gourdon, 2012). Figure 3.12
Environmental Indicators of the ETIS
Source: EC (2016a) As Font and Bendell (2002) point out, it is environmental criteria that are often more progressed than social criteria in the development of indicators. The environmental indicators that make up the ETIS cover a number of aspects relating to environmental protection. Many of these are essential for Local Authorities to use in insuring Ireland’s clean green image abroad, such as: reducing the impact of transport, or waste treatment and energy use. This process was looked at by the OECD (2003) within the context of monitoring human activity. López and Rodríguez (2009) discussed this monitoring in the case of tourism activities. The environmental indicators present in the ETIS aim to provide insight into the environmental condition of the particular destination. Thus providing useful information for establishing the root causes of negative environmental impacts from tourism. The EC’s (2016a) aim when developing the ETIS was to improve the sustainable management of destinations through benchmarking by providing a free and easy to implement tool-kit. This process of benchmarking is emphasised by Luque-Martínez and Munoz-Leiva (2005) as they
88
discuss its utilisation through identification, learning and implementation of effective practices and capacities from other destinations. All of which are done to improve the performance of the destination. Through the use of the ETIS, Local Authorities in Ireland share and benchmark their progress and performance for the future (EC, 2016a). Currently the ETIS is being used in County Clare on a pilot basis for measuring and monitoring progress (Clare County Council, 2013), but is this indicator system being used by other Local Authorities in Ireland? 3.9
Local Authority best practice in tourism
From discussing the Irish Local Authority tourism planning process, numerous Local Authority best practice examples in sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland have been identified. Many of these include specific regulatory functions such as design standards, management approaches and biodiversity protection. Cavan (CN) county council were awarded the 2013 European Destinations of Excellence. This momentous achievement recognises the Local Authority’s work in making tourism accessible for visitors with a disability. This ‘tourism for all’ is noted by Darcy and Dickson (2009) as the primary goal of accessible tourism. Additionally, in 2014 the Cavan Local Authority was also awarded the World Responsible Tourism Gold award ‘Best for People with Disabilities’. Again, this award recognised Cavan’s local authority efforts to facilitate disabled visitors. Thus, reflecting the recommendations from Lyu’s (2017) seminal research on the need for the wider tourism industry to deliver adequate products that help fulfil the inherent travel desires of people with disabilities. It is clear from these awards that this particular Local Authority is embracing significant levels of accessibility within the tourism planning process. Clare (CE) Local Authority’s development of the Loop Head Peninsula was named among the top 100 sustainable destinations in the world. This responsible planning and management approach to tourism in Loop Head is noted by Goodwin (2011) as having links to making tourism more sustainable. Paul and Rupesh’s (2013) article on responsible tourism in Kerala provided evidence to support Goodwin’s (2011) thesis. However, Loop Head’s recognition as a top sustainable destination is quite an achievement, considering how McKercher (2003) argues that only a small number of those involved in tourism management correctly understand how it can be developed in a sustainable way. Despite this, Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland is acknowledging sustainability with respect to tourism development.
89
In an increasingly segmented and highly competitive tourism market, it is necessary too for Local Authorities to plan for and develop segmented and unique tourism products. Nautical tourism is an opportunity for specialisation as well as a differentiation strategy for many mature coastal destinations. In 2014, Donegal (DL) was the first Local Authority in Ireland to join the European Federation of Nautical Tourism Destinations (FEDETON). The model for this network aims at improving the competitiveness and sustainability of tourism in marine and coastal destinations, while responding to the challenge arising from the fragmentation of the tourism value chain (FEDETON, 2012). Donegal’s participation in FEDETON comes at a time when the fastest growing activity at sea is coastal and marine tourism (Papageorgiou, 2016). Through collaboration with FEDETON, Donegal’s Local Authority is taking significant steps to protect marine areas and sustainably plan for tourism in sensitive coastal areas. While these awards and initiatives are positive and deserve recognition, evidence based planning is essential in ensuring tourism is planned for based on the needs of both the industry and the local community. 3.10
Towards a theoretical framework to examine Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems
While there has been previous research into the role of local government in tourism planning (Gunn, 1988; Madrigal, 1995; Godfrey, 1998; Dredge, 2001; Bramwell, 2011; Ruhanen, 2013; Nunkoo, 2015). There has been no framework to examine evidence based planning by Local Authorities in Ireland. From the review of theory, it was possible to construct a theoretical framework to examine Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland and the use of tourism indicator systems. This theoretical framework is aimed at the senior planners in Ireland’s Local Authorities, as they are responsible for developing their respective CDP. There are separate areas within the framework (Table 3.7). These are discussed in isolation following a top-down approach. The first section allowed the researcher to determine if adequate staff designations and specific funding for tourism planning has been subject of much discussion within theory (Mowforth and Munt, 2016). Moreover, understanding how institutional arrangements of governance are conceptualised is important as it can affect tourism policy (Hall and Page, 2014). Previous studies have discussed the importance of consulting stakeholders in the planning process for tourism (Aas, Ladkin, and Fletcher, 2005; Hall, 2007; Currie, Seaton, and Wesley, 2009; Waligo, Clarke and Hawkins, 2013). This helps to ensure accountability (Beaumont and Dredge, 2010). Furthermore, the DMO has a vital role in co-ordinating tourism (TSG, 2007; UNWTO, 2007; Kruger and Meintjies, 2008; Bornhorst, 90
Brent Ritchie and Sheehan, 2010). This facilitated the researcher in examining the process of Local Authority tourism planning. Table 3.7
Theoretical framework to examine Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems
Process of Local Authority tourism planning Funding • • • •
Is there a specific budget in place for tourism planning? Tourism officer employed to manage tourism Tourism manager employed to manage tourism Current number of staff employed to manage tourism
Governance • •
Support for tourism planning within Local Authority Support for tourism planning from higher level organisations
Consultation • • • •
Did county councillors influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan Did national and regional tourism agencies influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan Did local community development organisations influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan Did county tourism committees or forums influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan
Accountability • • • • • •
Do county councillors have enough knowledge on sustainable planning for tourism Do county councillors understand the basic concepts of tourism planning and development Are county councillors capable of making complex decisions on tourism land use zoning Do county councillors have sufficient training for the planning decisions they make Do county councillors display self interest in planning decisions Do county councillors understand the consequences of planning decisions they make
Destination Management Organisation (DMO) • Are senior planners aware of who the DMO is for their specific county Local Authority tourism planning Tourism Research •
Does the Local Authority conduct specific tourism research?
Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) •
Is the tourism plan compliant with SEA legislation 2004?
Measurement of tourism impacts •
Does the Local Authority measure the impacts of tourism in their county?
Monitoring of tourism impacts •
Does the Local Authority monitor the impacts of tourism within their county?
Local Economic and Community Plans (LECP) • Is sustainable planning for tourism evident with the LECP Tourism indicator systems for evidence based planning Tourism indicator systems •
Is tourism indicator systems utilised in tourism planning?
Resource allocations •
What resources are required to utilise tourism indicator system in tourism planning
European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) •
Is the ETIS utilised in tourism planning?
Implementation approaches • What is the most appropriate method to implement the ETIS?
The second section of the theoretical framework allows for the examination of tourism planning in Ireland. This section will assess whether Local Authorities are collecting data on tourism activity to establish visitation patterns (Jennings, 2010) to determine future planning needs. This is followed by investigating if Local Authorities are measuring and monitoring tourism
91
impacts. Furthermore, Head (2008) discusses how such evidence gathered can become central to the design, implementation and evaluation of policies and programmes. Previous studies have used economic, environmental and social indicators of sustainability to assess tourism practices (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Lozano-Oyola et al, 2012). Their findings suggest that sustainable tourism indicators are necessary to objectively measure the degree of such practices’ sustainability (Lee and Hsieh, 2016). The last section of the theoretical framework will determine whether Local Authorities in Ireland are facilitating evidence-based planning through tourism indicator systems. When combined, this theoretical framework will allow the researcher to establish findings on Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems in Ireland. 3.11
Conclusion
The quality of tourist destinations is strongly influenced by their natural and cultural environment. The rapid growth in tourism arrivals to Ireland has had major implications for Local Authority planning, despite the increased recognition and value of tourism at European and national level in Ireland. It is Local Authorities who through their legal powers, hold the key to facilitating its development and ensuring tourism does not negatively impact on local communities whom they are required to represent. Sustainable development and sustainability continue to be integral parts of the debate concerning how tourism should use natural resources for economic benefits. Historically tourism planning in Ireland has not been without is problems. Sustainable development and sustainability continue to be integral parts of the debate concerning how tourism should use natural resources for economic benefits. Through the Planning and Development Act (2015), and the legally required CDPs Local Authorities have the necessary tools to achieve integrated and controlled tourism development, which is so important in protecting Irelands natural environment and scenic areas. However, there is growing concern surrounding governance and accountability in Local Authority decisionmaking, which could have serious implications for the future sustainability of Irish tourism. Clearly tourism planning has evolved to a stage where evidence based planning is recommended. This evidence based planning can ensure the future sustainability of tourism components within the legally required Local Authority CDPs. Its implementation can be achieved through the use of tourism indicator systems and in particular the ETIS. This particular indicator system provides senior planners with a straightforward approach to incorporate evidence based planning for tourism. This chapter has developed a theoretical 92
framework to examine evidence based planning by Local Authorities in Ireland, which is designed to meet some of the requirements of this research.
93
Chapter 4:
RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
As opposed to many other scientific domains, tourism research is already informed by multiple epistemologies, disciplines and methodologies (Liburd, 2012). 4.1
Introduction
A methodology substantiates how the researcher frames the research question, and decides on the process and methods to use (Giddings, 2006:198). The methodological approach employed for this thesis is detailed within this chapter. The chapter states the aims and objectives of the research. It reports on the design and implementation of a multi-methodology approach to support a comprehensive overview for the research conducted. The theory that influenced the design of the qualitative and quantitative methods together with the justification for respondent selection are established and discussed. Reference will accordingly be made to the appropriateness of each approach, together with a breakdown of the sampling and data analysis utilised. The final section of this chapter articulates the strengths and limitations of this current research. The ethical considerations in this research relating to confidentiality and anonymity are also discussed. This methodological chapter endeavours to serve as a convenient means for readers to understand the journey encountered by this researcher to obtain the relevant data discussed within this research study. 4.2
Background to research
Tourism policy and planning according to Hall and Page (2002:6) is a ‘complex institutional framework’ through which planning and policymaking are filtered. Theoretical discussions point to tourism’s unique position within research (Darbellay and Stock, 2012; Oviedo-García, 2016), due to its many complex features. Much of the current debate within sustainability confronts issues such as increasing inequalities, climate change, urban sprawl and highly mobile energy consuming lifestyles (Freudendal-Pedersen, Hannam and Kesselring, 2016:1) putting the question of sustainability centre stage.
94
The ‘new mobilities paradigm’ allows researchers to symbolise the connection between both travel and tourism and social and cultural life (Hannam, Butler and Paris, 2014). Sattar, Hannam and Ali (2013) corroborated this relationship when examining religious obligations to travel. The philosophy surrounding sustainability has become widely accepted at both theoretical and strategic levels as the basis for planning and managing current and future human activity (Redclift, 2005). McKercher (2003) attest to the tourism industries unique suitability in adopting sustainability as a development philosophy. However, a number of recent discussions of tourism and sustainability have concentrated on the problems, gaps and deficiencies in tourism practice and research (Hall, 2011; Buckley, 2012; Bramwell and Lane, 2012, 2013; Moscardo and Murphy, 2014). For example, in exploring touristic mobilities in India’s slum spaces Diekmann and Hannam (2012) employed a mobile ethnographic methodological approach, which involved both the analysis of filmic representations alongside the analysis of touristic practices. More recently, Tang (2016) endorsed a quantitative analysis approach to study a number of tourism policy documents when examining the evolution of China’s tourism development policies. However, Budeanu, Miller, Moscardo and Ooi (2016:4) allege that current research leaves many unanswered critical questions. For instance, what is the current level of sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland? Also, do Local Authorities in Ireland incorporate tourism indicator systems in the tourism planning process? A comparative research design may possibly be the most suitable approach to determine the answers to these questions. Brotherton (2015) propounds the view that such comparative studies can help determine the extent to which a theory can be generalised across different time periods. These longitudinal studies are supported by both Guchait and Hamilton (2013) and Jung and Yoon (2013). Therefore, the methodological approach applied to this research contributes to examining the levels of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in 2016 compared to 2006.
95
The aims and objectives of this research were presented in chapter one and are revisited. The aims of the research were: •
To examine the application and implementation of tourism indicator systems in the Local Authority tourism planning process in Ireland. • To determine, by way of a longitudinal study, the level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland, with a specific focus on the tourism component of CDPs. This requires the development of a number of complementary objectives: • •
To critically examine the Local Authority tourism planning process. To determine if Local Authorities are implementing tourism indicator systems in the tourism planning process. • To determine the extent to which sustainable planning for tourism is evident within Local Authority CDPs. • To conduct a nationwide content analysis of tourism plans within Local Authority CDPs in Ireland and assess if any link existed between the percentage of tourist arrivals and the provision of sustainable planning for tourism. • To produce a generic planning tool-kit which Local Authorities can use when planning sustainably for tourism within future CDPs The aim of research is to provide humanity with advanced knowledge (Veal, 2006). Research in the context of tourism aims to improve management functions by solving operational and managerial problems (Van Scotter and Culligan, 2003; Tsang and Hsu, 2011; Singh, 2016). This current research will contribute to filling the current gap in knowledge in Ireland by providing the first longitudinal study on the level of sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland and the integration of tourism indicator systems. 4.3
Research approach and methodology
The seminal focus of this research aims to demonstrate how tourism is planned for at Local Authority level in Ireland. Given the rapid growth of tourism development worldwide, longitudinal research has become an increasingly supported analytical tool at numerous levels of government. The longitudinal research paradigm, methods available, the stance and contention in this research allowed for direct comparisons to be made with the results from the work undertaken in 2006. This previous study benefited from broad methodological approaches. As a result, the methodological decisions employed by this current research were driven solely by its longitudinal nature.
96
4.3.1 Research paradigm The suite of paradigms that inform methodologies and methods, from which tourism researchers may draw are varied (Jennings, 2012). In terms of both the nature and consequences of paradigms in tourism studies, it has been suggested that research tends not to be governed through any particular philosophical approach (Tribe, Dann and Jamal, 2015). While the new mobilities paradigm continues to be asserted within academic literature (Coles and Hall, 2006; Hannam, 2009; Elliot and Urry, 2010; Diekmann and Hannam, 2012; Hannam, Butler and Paris, 2014), the philosophical nature of this research question was the key driver. For a pragmatist the research question is more important than either the method used or the paradigm that underlies the method (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003; Pansiri, 2005). Though fairly recent compared to the other philosophical positions (Pansiri, 2005), pragmatism is not new to social sciences. Pragmatism is a deconstructive paradigm (Creswell and Clarke, 2011), it ‘sidesteps the contentious issues of truth and reality’ (Feilzer 2010:8), and ‘focuses instead on what works as the truth regarding the research question under investigation’ (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003:713). Pragmatism questions subjects sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. In that sense pragmatists challenge the existence of a unitary ideology or ontological and epistemological stance (Brotherton, 2015). By using a range of research designs and methods from across the traditional paradigm boundaries, the researcher is in a position to counter potential restrictions that would inevitably arise from following a more unitary approach. The methodological decisions made for the research was driven in part by its longitudinal nature. This researcher therefore considered the pragmatism paradigm as the most appropriate philosophical approach for this longitudinal study. By following a pragmatist approach, researchers are not required to choose between the dominant paradigms. Instead, they should leave their options open as to what works best. To establish the current level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland this study employed a multi method approach, employing both quantitate and qualitative methodologies. 4.4
Rationale for using multi method research
One of the main strengths of tourism research is the possibility of combining different approaches and research methods (Phillimore and Goodson, 2004) without restricting the researcher to certain disciplinary boundaries. A multi-method approach was utilised within this study as academics continue to justify its importance in analysing complex phenomena 97
(Pansiri, 2006; Altinay and Paraskevas, 2008; Mason 2010). This enabled the researcher to look at the topic of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism from more than one theoretical perspective. The multi-method approach helped increase the volume of data and enrich the nature of the information collected. However, a rational for applying a multi methodological approach in this current study was to allow for the constant comparison with previous research conducted in 2006. This facilitates the achievement of the second aim of this study by conducting a longitudinal study on Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism. The advantage of a multi-methodological approach is that it added both rigor and depth of inquiry (Simons, 2009) to this under-researched topic. The weaknesses of each single method were compensated by the counterbalancing the strengths of another (Creswell, 1994; Mason, 1996; Bickman and Rog, 1998; Denscombe, 2003; Conaghan, 2013). The view here that both quantitative and qualitative methods were taken as complementary is in line with Guba and Lincoln (1994:105) observation that these two methods can be used appropriately with any research paradigm. Moreover, this allowed the researcher to verify the research findings against the former, thus contributing to the validity of the research (Veal, 2011). This harmonising is acceptable, regardless if they are derived from alternative ways of thinking and working. At different stages in this study, the researcher considered the use of quantitative methods to be more appropriate than qualitative methods and vice versa. For example, by conducting a content analysis of Local Authority CDPs, the researcher was able to identify the current level of sustainable planning for tourism through the acknowledgement of specific criteria. In multimethod studies employing diverse methodologies, Hall (2005) agrees with Veal (2011) that this approach enhances the validity of results by minimising biases. The researcher favoured a content analysis in this study over other research methods to allow for direct comparisons to be made with the prior research. This enabled the findings of the content analysis in 2016 to be compared and analysed to results from previous research in 2006. To gain a deeper understanding and develop new knowledge on Local Authority tourism planning and the factors, which influenced the utilisation of tourism indicator systems, the quantitative method was complemented by a qualitative approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all Local Authority senior planners in order to identify the use of tourism indicator systems in the tourism planning process. This method allowed for the collection of rich data, while also offering the opportunity for clarifications on particular issues. Also, the data was collected from all Local Authorities in a manner that allowed for comparisons to be 98
made with previous research. This multi method approach provided baseline findings on the incorporation of tourism indicator systems, in particular the ETIS in Ireland. This analytical methodology informed the conclusions and recommendations of this study. 4.5
Longitudinal research
Longitudinal studies are regarded as a suitable research method for creating temporal order, measuring change, and making strong causal interpretations (Menard, 2002). Borg and Gall (1983) promulgates the view that this research technique is employed to discover potential patterns and/or development over an extend period (Babbie, 1998). Jennings (2010) who is an important contributor to many theoretical discussions on tourism research, cities changes in social impacts of tourism development, environmental impacts and changes or trends in regard to tourism destinations as suitable research for incorporating a longitudinal approach. This longitudinal study, on Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism, fits within this recommendation. This first Irish longitudinal study provides both knowledge enhancement and advancement regarding sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland and the incorporation of tourism indicator systems. The use of a longitudinal methodological approach in this multi method study enabled this researcher to provide a snap shot in time of the state of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in 2016 compared to 2006. This researcher employed both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection to examine the research question. Molly, Woodfield and Bacon (2002) defend this approach and proposes that both quantitative and qualitative longitudinal studies are not different, they are in fact complementary. This research demanded the statistical measurement of change in circumstances or attitudes over time, while also requiring qualitative detailed information together with a deeper understanding of how and why change occurs (Upon, 2005). The use of such methodologies in the data collection and analysis was chosen by this researcher to allow for direct comparisons to be made with previous research (Boyd and Hanrahan, 2007, 2008, 2012), thus facilitating a longitudinal study. A challenge acknowledged by this researcher, but not experienced in this study is the potential for high attrition rates among research participants when conducting longitudinal studies. This notorious difficulty can lead to research difficulties (Borg and Gall, 1983; Babbie, 1998; Ubon, 2005). However, this researcher was able to secure a complete sample of published development plans. The researcher was also able to secure the availability of all senior planners in Irelands Local Authorities. 99
In Figure 4.1 below, the overall research process and the main steps followed by researcher in planning this study are chronicled. This methodological framework illustrates the specific methodology and research approach that was adopted. Figure 4.1
Methodological framework for the longitudinal study on Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland: a focus on tourism indicator systems
Idea generation
Preliminary investigation
Literature review
Formulation of research question
Sustainable planning for tourism Exploratory research Irish tourism planning and the use of tourism indicators
Development of a theoretical framework for examining the Local Authority tourism planning process and the use of tourism indicator systems
28 Local Authority senior planners Non-probability sampling
Selection of subjects
29 Local Authority CDPs
Development of a theoretical framework for determining the level of sustainable planning for tourism in CDPs
Content analysis
Qualitative interviews Data collection techniques
SPSS Quantitative content analysis NVivo
Data coding and analysis
Conclusions and recommendations
Longitudinal comparison
Development of planning tool-kit for future CDPs
The generation of ideas was followed by a preliminary investigation by the researcher into the specific subject matter. This examination resulted in the formulation of a precise research question, which directed the literature review. This comprehensive review provided a discussion on theoretical insights relating to sustainable planning for tourism and the integration of tourism indicators. Exploratory research informed the development of both the theoretical framework to determine the level of sustainable planning for tourism within CDPs; and the theoretical framework that examined the Local Authority tourism planning process and the use of tourism indicator systems. Sampling techniques and the selection of subjects were then outlined. This was followed by the chosen methods of data collection. All of which allowed for direct comparisons to be made with previous research conducted in 2006. Analytical software packages, SPSS and NVivo were then utilised by the researcher in the data coding and analysis stage. Results were then compared to previous research in 2006, thus 100
facilitating a longitudinal comparison. Final conclusions and recommendations were then drawn from the findings. These informed the development of the Local Authority planning tool-kit for future CDPs. 4.6
Geographic location of research
This research was conducted in the Republic of Ireland. Local government functions in Ireland are exercised by thirty-one Local Authorities, termed County, City or City and County Councils. Figure 4.2
Map of Irelands Local Authorities Cavan (CN) 242,000 visitors
Donegal (DL) 603,000 visitors
Leitrim (LM) 155,000 visitors
Monaghan (MN) 120,000 visitors
Sligo (SO) 428,000 visitors
Louth (LH) 180,000 visitors
Mayo (MO) 687,000 visitors
Meath (MH) 318,000 visitors
Longford (LD) 108,000 visitors
Dublin (DLR/sD/FL)
6.5 million visitors
Roscommon (RN) 128,000 visitors
Kildare (KE) 339,000 visitors
Galway (GY) 2.1 million visitors
Wicklow (WW) 515,000 visitors
Westmeath (WH) 293,000 visitors
Offaly (OY) 125,500 visitors
Clare (CE) 985,000 visitors
Carlow (CW) 187,000 visitors
Limerick (LK) 725,000 visitors
Laois (LS) 134,500 visitors
Kerry (KY) 1.7 million visitors Cork (CK) 2.4 million visitors
Wexford (WX) 796,000 visitors Waterford (WD) 567,000 visitors
Tipperary (Ts/Tn) 386,000 visitors
Kilkenny (KK) 464,000 visitors
Source: Fáilte Ireland (2016c). Key: Local authorities are abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal Number of visitors comprises both domestic and international arrivals to the specific County for the year 2016
The area under the jurisdiction of each of these Local Authorities corresponds to twenty-six of the traditional counties of the Republic of Ireland plus the three new Local Authorities since 1994: Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown (DLR), Fingal (FL) and South Dublin (SD). This brings the total number of Local Authorities (County Councils) in Ireland to twenty-eight, covering twenty-six different counties including the three Dublin administrative counties.
101
The content analysis focused on the CDPs developed by the 25 Local Authorities in Ireland (Figure 4.2), together with the three Local Authorities serving County Dublin (29 in total). However, under the Local Government Reform Act (2014), North Tipperary (Tn) and South were merged into one unified Local Authority, Tipperary (TY), with both CDPs having been extended to cover the one Local Authority (see Appendix B). The structured interviews took place with the senior planners, who are responsible for making CDPs from throughout the twenty-eight Local Authorities in Ireland. Additional analysis conducted on the twenty-eight Local Authority LECPs. Keeping the same sample for this current study, as the original in 2006, facilitated the requirements of longitudinal research. 4.7
Quantitative research
A quantitative research approach works well for studies that require objective measurements, in this case the level of sustainable planning for tourism as evident from Local Authority CDPs. This current research utilised a content analysis approach as the primary quantitative analysis tool. While this represents quantification on a limited scale, it is still anchored in quantitative methodology. Also by employing this approach, the researcher was able to compare and contrast results with the original study. When looking at the application of a content analysis, there are a number of studies worth mentioning. Molloy and Fennell (1998) and more recently Vitouladiti (2014) and Mohammed, Guillet and Law (2015) all used a content analysis as a means of critical investigation when faced with textual forms of data. It is this unobtrusive technique that allowed this researcher to analyse relatively unstructured data present within Local Authority development plans in view of what Krippendorf (2013) categorises as meanings, symbolic qualities and expressive contents. A content analysis is expected to be reliable. More specifically, a content analysis should produce research findings that are replicable (Krippendorf, 2013). This allows researchers working at different points in time, under different circumstances get the same results when applying the same technique to the same problem. In order to conduct the content analysis, while allowing for direct comparisons to be made with the prior research it was necessary for this researcher to update the original studies theoretical framework to reflect current theory and legislation. This updated theoretical framework allowed the researcher to ask a fixed set of 102
questions about data in such a manner as to produce a set of what Marshall and Rossman (1989) depicts as countable results or quantitative descriptions. This researcher also needed to consider the reform of Local Government in Ireland. Current legislation (Local Government Reform Act, 2014) now requires each Local Authority to produce, in consultation with the local community, a single six year LECP. Therefore, it was necessary for this researcher to also conduct a content analysis of every LECP. This enabled the researcher to determine if there was consistency between tourism planning polices in these LECPs in comparison to their respective CDP. This was accomplished to ascertain the usefulness of this new requirement and to facilitate future longitudinal research. This longitudinal study acknowledges that the meanings of all texts are conceived by another. Hannam and Knox (2005) attest to these texts being entrenched within power relations, which give significant degrees of authority. Furthermore, this study attributes texts to a form of mediated cultural products, which are part of a wider system of knowledge. Therefore, it can be argued that this longitudinal study is not just interested in what is within the text of the CDPs but also in what has been left out of these plans. 4.7.1 Method The purpose of this longitudinal study was to determine the current level of Local Authority tourism planning in 2016 compared to 2006. A content analysis approach was utilised to accumulate data from Local Authority CDPs. The intention of this analysis was to obtain information that could be examined, patterns extracted and comparisons made with the original research conducted in 2006. From the outset, this longitudinal study utilised a comprehensive literature review to ground current research in theory regarding the phenomenon being investigated. This was followed by the utilisation of a theoretical framework that facilitated the content analysis of Local Authority CDPs. Through this theoretical framework, all CDPs were examined based on the same criteria as the original study. This theoretical framework, discussed in chapter 2, was developed to analyse the sustainability of Local Authority development plans (see Table 4.1).
103
Table 4.1
Theoretical framework to assess sustainable planning for tourism
1. Local Authority compliance and development of tourism 4. Planning for the environmental impacts of tourism plans and policies Compliant with Planning and Development Act (2015) Policy recognise the environmental impact of tourism What year does the CDP cover? Tourism carrying capacity calculations for sensitive areas Volume dedicated to tourism planning within the CDP Sustainable development of eco-tourism Stand-alone Local Authority tourism development plan Support the protection of biodiversity Specific tourism policy section in CDP Support the protection of sensitive landscapes Number of tourism policies in the CDP Good environmental management for tourism enterprises Number of tourism strategies to implement tourism policies (energy/water conservation, waste management, green within the CDP building) Tourism policy integrated in other areas of the CDP 5. Planning for the economic impacts of tourism (accommodation housing/holiday home provision, waste Positive economic impacts of tourism supported water/sewage, transportation) Analysis of tourism flow (volume and value) 2. Sustainable planning of tourism in CDP Management of leakages from tourism Sustainable planning for tourism supported in CDP Provide opportunities for local tourism entrepreneurs Sustainable development of tourism supported in CDP (local goods and services) Specific tourism land-use measures Tourism industry regulation supported in CDP Sustainable tourism resort planning guidelines 6. Planning for the socio-cultural impacts of tourism Development design standards for tourism Consultation/participation techniques utilised in planning Tourism policy benefited from the use of indicator systems Local satisfaction, ratio of tourists to locals calculated Provision of tourism signage policy Archaeological/historic preservation in tourism policy Sustainable tourism policy on caravan and camping Protect public rights of way for tourism Inclusion/accessibility for tourists with disabilities Tourism disaster plan 3. Integration of tourism planning guidelines Intellectual and cultural property rights of communities Tourism policy compliant with global tourism guidelines protected by tourism policy Tourism policy compliant with European tourism guidelines Best practice examples for tourism at sensitive sites Tourism policy compliant with national tourism guidelines
Source: adapted from (Inskeep, 1991; WTO, 1995; Dymond, 1997; UNWTO, 2001; UNEP/UNWTO, 2005; Boyd and Hanrahan, 2007, 2008, 2012, Hanrahan, 2008; Fáilte Ireland, 2007a, 2009ab, 2012; GSTC, 2013; EC, 2016a; Mowforth and Munt, 2016) The six separate areas of the framework were discussed in isolation and then as a combined tool to provide a longitudinal study on the current level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. 4.7.2 Sampling and selection This longitudinal research was conducted on the same Local Authorities as the original study. The research involved a complete population of all twenty-nine Local Authority CDPs. This procedure yielded a 100% success rate. Local Authorities were selected as they have the legal power to reject or grant planning permission for all tourism development projects and their associated infrastructure and are legally obliged to make CDPs. 4.7.3 Data analysis For the purpose of the data analysis, the CDPs were examined in the context of the theoretical framework (Table 4.1) to determine the level of sustainable planning for tourism. The data was analysed in a manner that allowed for direct comparisons to be made with the 2006 study. To facilitate the constant comparison throughout the research process and to illustrate any
104
variations between the Local Authorities, the data was manually inputted into a content analysis tool for each CDP. The data from each category was then analysed and discussed in the context of current international literature and their connection with other Local Authority development plans. Table 4.2
Example of longitudinal comparative analysis of CDPs
Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective Sustainable tourism resort planning guidelines Sustainable tourism policy on caravan and camping Support the protection of sensitive landscapes
Local authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW % change 2006 x x +17% 2016 x x x x x x x 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x +17% 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x +21% 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Year
X in a cell indicated the presence of that particular activity
The above data analysis procedure allowed the researcher to utilise the content analysis tool (Table 4.2 above) to assess each Local Authority CDP. The data generated was then manually inputted into a planning matrix for assessing the sustainability of Local Authority plans. A longitudinal comparative study was then conducted to exemplify the 2006 and 2016 findings together with the associated percentage difference (see Table 4.2). This quantitative research method allowed for direct comparisons to be made with the 2006 study, thus facilitating the first aim of this thesis. Additionally, every LECP was also examined in conjunction with the theoretical framework. The data gathered was also manually inputted into a content analysis tool for each LECP. All elements collected from each category were recorded into numerical variables using SPSS Software (version 22). As before, the data from each category was then discussed in the context of current international literature. It is hoped that the content analysis of the LECPs according to this research topic be conducted again in future through the context of a longitudinal study. 4.8
Qualitative research
Qualitative research does not place its emphasis on statistics or statistical analysis; it identifies itself with the objective measurement and analysis of the data (Phillimore and Goodson, 2004). Qualitative research is more suited to situations where there is little known about the topic. This was of course beneficial for this study. Literature established theoretical insights regarding sustainable planning for tourism and the utilisation of tourism indicator systems. However, a fundamental gap continues to exist in knowledge concerning which body is responsible for implementing sustainability indicators at destination level. Qualitative research in this current
105
study contributes to examining in greater detail the Local Authority tourism planning process and the integration level of tourism indicators. Qualitative inquiry approaches continue to make significant contributions to tourism studies (Wilson and Hollinshead, 2015). They contribute considerable depth to tourism research (Botterill, 2001). Hannam and Ateljevic (2008) relied on qualitative methods in response to a more in-depth understanding of backpackers. In this study, the data yielded by the qualitative methodological approach provided a significant deal of information relating to a small number of people (Veal, 2006). To portray its importance in Wilson and Hollinshead (2015) terms, qualitative research further embodies researchers. Its use and acceptance has helped tourism studies move towards a deeper understanding of the social and cultural connection within tourism (Riley and Love, 2000; Jennings, 2009; Wilson and Hollinshead, 2015). This research did not attempt to portray a complete picture of tourism’s social and cultural connection. Instead, qualitative research did provide this study with greater depth of knowledge regarding Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicators. Walle’s (1997) support for qualitative research in tourism rests on the assumption that it enables researchers to explore personal feelings, perceptions and attitudes. This was of particular importance to the researcher when it came to analysing the integration levels of tourism indicator systems within the Local Authority tourism planning process. Qualitative studies are increasingly valued by researchers (Phillimore and Goodson, 2004) as their qualitative methodology has become well defined (Maxim, 2013). This methodological approach does offer a researcher a variety of different options. Due to the longitudinal nature of this study, a semi-structured interview was the selected qualitative methodology for this current research and the same questions were asked of all the Local Authority senior planners. 4.8.1 Semi-structured interviews The principle qualitative fieldwork within this study was attained by conducting semistructured interviews with all senior planners. This approach facilitated a broad investigation into the way Local Authorities planned for tourism within their respective counties. Botterill and Platenkamp (2012) suggest the fluid conversation style offered as the compelling reason to their popularity. This flexibility (Clark et al, 1998) facilitated extra comments or observations to be made by senior planners. This style of conversation supported this researcher in seeking additional insights into the tourism planning process, while also providing substantial longitudinal data. These additional comments enriched this researcher with a 106
superior depth of knowledge and understanding on the issues raised within the interviews. An advantage of this style of interview is that it offers more of an insight into what people think (Clifford and Valentine, 2003). Valentine (1997) however, asserts that the aim of an interview is not to be representative but to understand how individual people experience and make sense of the issue in discussion. Consequently, these assertions, together with the need for a constant comparison with previous research uphold the relevance of utilising semi-structured interviews. The first challenge encountered by this researcher was in regards to the semi-structured interviews and, whether they would be applied face to face, by post or over the phone. A senior planner’s time is in high demand. At the time of carrying out the research, a number of senior planners were currently in the early stages of developing new CDPs. Due to time constraints, it was decided that face-to-face and postal interviews would be impractical. It was therefore decided that the most suitable option would be to conduct the semi-structured interviews over the phone. However, a number of interviews were conducted face to face when requested by senior planners. The preparation of draft informal strategic open-ended questions was also necessary. These questions were designed to reflect the 2006 study’s questions and the numerous categories that comprised the theoretical framework (Table 4.3). This framework incorporated the majority of themes that materialised from within the literature review. The draft questionnaire allowed the researcher to determine the suitability of the questions, in order to retrieve the necessary data. Moreover, this researcher needed to perfect specific skills such as probing techniques, nonverbal communication and listening. This proved particularly useful in gaining additional data on issues that could influence both sustainable planning for tourism and use of tourism indicator systems. Considerable preparation was needed by the researcher so that the interview would be carried out in a specific manner.
107
Table 4.3
Theoretical framework to examine Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems
Process of Local Authority tourism planning Funding • • • •
Is there a specific budget in place for tourism planning? Tourism officer employed to manage tourism Tourism manager employed to manage tourism Current number of staff employed to manage tourism
Governance • •
Support for tourism planning within Local Authority Support for tourism planning from higher level organisations
Consultation • • • •
Did county councillors influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan Did national and regional tourism agencies influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan Did local community development organisations influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan Did county tourism committees or forums influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan
Accountability • • • • • •
Do county councillors have enough knowledge on sustainable planning for tourism Do county councillors understand the basic concepts of tourism planning and development Are county councillors capable of making complex decisions on tourism land use zoning Do county councillors have sufficient training for the planning decisions they make Do county councillors display self interest in planning decisions Do county councillors understand the consequences of planning decisions they make
Destination Management Organisation (DMO) • Are senior planners aware of who the DMO is for their specific county Local Authority tourism planning Tourism Research •
Does the Local Authority conduct specific tourism research?
Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) •
Is the tourism plan compliant with SEA legislation 2004?
Measurement of tourism impacts •
Does the Local Authority measure the impacts of tourism in their county?
Monitoring of tourism impacts •
Does the Local Authority monitor the impacts of tourism within their county?
Local Economic and Community Plans (LECP) • Is sustainable planning for tourism evident with the LECP Tourism indicator systems for evidence based planning Tourism indicator systems •
Is tourism indicator systems utilised in tourism planning?
Resource allocations •
What resources are required to utilise tourism indicator system in tourism planning
European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) •
Is the ETIS utilised in tourism planning?
Implementation approaches • What is the most appropriate method to implement the ETIS?
The style of interview proved beneficial in allowing the researcher to gain further insights and opinions. When conducting the interviews, ample time for the interviewees to respond was provided for. This allowed for time to assess the suitability of the questions, to retrieve the necessary data and probe the senior planners for more in-depth viewpoints. This pragmatic approach was particularly important when it came to discussing the application of tourism indicator systems in the planning process. The researcher utilised the pause or prolonged silent
108
gaps between questions to allow the interviewees to develop and qualify their answer. This technique proved particularly useful to allow ideas and beliefs to emerge and be developed by senior planners. However, to prevent miscommunication or misinterpretation of questions, it was necessary for this researcher to explain all questions in a non-influencing way to ensure senior planners understood what was meant by a particular phrase or terminology. 4.8.2 Sampling and selection The sample identified to conduct the semi-structured interviews was based on the longitudinal nature of this research. Data was collected from the same sample as the 2006 original study. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with all senior planners in the same Local Authorities as the original study, as they are responsible for making development plans. Therefore, it was determined that senior planners would be in the best position to provide the relevant information on the subject of sustainable planning for tourism and the use of tourism indicator systems. A single interview was conducted with each senior planner. All Local Authorities responded to the questionnaires (yielding a response rate of 100%). These responses formed the basis of the analytical analysis. 4.8.3 Interview timeline Prior to administrating the strategic open ended questionnaires and conducting the interviews, following Veal’s (2011) recommendation, the researcher piloted the questionnaire on one Local Authority through both the senior planner and its tourism development officer. This enabled the researcher to identify and correct any errors in the design or the content of the questionnaire. More importantly, this process also ensured that during interviews all questions are well understood by respondents (Altinay and Paraskeves, 2008). The importance of piloting the questions is acknowledged by Long (2007) as it enables the researcher to check that all the mechanics and logistics involved work correctly. Once piloted, the sequence of questions was adjusted. Also, the questions themselves were amended chronologically in order to begin the actual interviewing process with the larger sample of senior planners. The research questionnaires were posted to each Local Authority senior planner. These questionnaires were all accompanied by a cover letter together with an individually wrapped tea bag attached. This cover letter explained the aims of the research. Afterwards senior planners were questioned on whether they would be willing to discuss the questionnaire over 109
a cup of tea. This incentive was well received by participants. A senior planner’s time is in high demand and it proved quite difficult to arrange appointments to meet and interview them. In the case of those Local Authorities where no answer was received after a second reminder, the senior planners were asked to nominate a senior executive planner within their Local Authority to complete the questionnaire. All the interviews took place in 2016. 4.8.4 Data collection The first step taken by this researcher in the data collection process was the development of a strategic open-ended questionnaire. This questionnaire comprised of several open-ended questions, supplemented by a number of probing questions. This encouraged senior planners to provide additional details on issues relevant to sustainable planning for tourism and their incorporation of tourism indicator systems. The requirement for a constant comparison was central to this research process. This began initially with the comparison of interviews. It was during this stage that the theory started to emerge portraying the methods employed by senior planners in facilitating sustainable planning for tourism. This was followed by a more in-depth discussion on the use of sustainable tourism indicator systems in the planning process. The interview data was collected by means of a digital dictaphone used with consent. This permitted absolute conversational interaction with the participant. This approach removed the pressure of note taking away from the researcher (Valentine, 1997). Interviews were then transcribed by the researcher. 4.8.5 Analysis Data was analysed by means of audio recordings (with the free and informed consent of the interviewees) and transcribed after each session with the researcher documenting the key issues. A coding scheme was developed in a formal and systematic manner where quotes with similar themes were identified, otherwise known as data transformation (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2000; Devine and Devine, 2011). For example, a planner discusses how the sustainable planning and development of tourism is a top priority for their Local Authority: ‘Tourism is hugely valued in the city and county, and the sustainable development remains one of the top priorities in terms of planning. Budget and resource management aside - the County Council is committed to a balanced carefully managed and sustainable growth and is open to explore new ways to evolve the tourism experience’ (Planner 27). All references to a particular Local Authority were removed from planner responses to ensure the anonymity and confidentiality of the respondent. The data was then analysed with the help 110
of the NVivo 10 software package, which is one of the most widely used qualitative data analysis computer software package (Veal, 2011:401). This data analysis stage contributes to the research aim and objectives, while also depicting patterns and meanings. The analysis of the data retrieved through the qualitative semi-structured interviews was based on the principles employed by grounded theory. This is an innovative approach to developing explanatory theoretical ideas (Kensbock and Jennings, 2011). Grounded theory in this study facilitated the deductive analysis of empirical material to construct conceptual understandings of the studied phenomena (Charmaz, 2006). Through this approach, the researcher was able to generate holistic theories, and an understanding of human behaviour that is not readily quantifiable (Jennings and Junek, 2007). Once the thematic analysis had been carried out with the key issues identified, comparison began which was constant throughout the research process. Comparison was determined between the interviews and their relevance with the theory used to construct the theoretical framework. This analytical analysis process was then followed by the writing up stage, which enabled this researcher to discuss the findings. 4.9
Research strengths and limitations
It is inevitable to have limitations with research. The limitation of this research is not having the necessary resources to implement the Local Authority planning tool-kit. It would be beneficial to test the effectiveness of this tool-kit in facilitating greater levels of sustainability in the Local Authority tourism planning process and the incorporation of the ETIS core indicators. Another limitation to this research was that it was focused entirely on the incorporation of the ETIS in the Republic of Ireland. Comparing the implementation of this indicator system by local governments in other jurisdictions across the EU would also enrich this research further. Therefore, the baseline findings on its use in Ireland cannot be generalised with other parts of the EU. However, this is an area of research in its own right and is out of the scope of this thesis. In terms of technological limitations, it was particularly time consuming transcribing the interviews with senior planners. One limitation of the transcription software was its inability to process the various accents of the participants. There were several strengths to the research approach and methods utilised. The use of openended questions contributed to understanding the processes and reasons behind the views expressed by senior planners of the topic in question. Furthermore, through the incentivisation, senior planners could browse over the questionnaire before being interviewed. This was a significant advantage as it senior planners were able familiarise themselves with the questions. 111
4.10
Research credibility
Credibility was enhanced in this research in a number of ways. First, the analysed data was constantly compared to international literature. Second, the strategic open-ended questionnaire was piloted on one particular senior planner and their tourism development officer. This was done to maintain credibility as advised by Berg (2007). Third, the textual analysis tool was based on the 2006 original study, thus facilitating a longitudinal analysis. Being dependent on the goodwill of potential respondents when they are busy or feel they would benefit very little in filling in questionnaires can often produce low response rates. This raises the problem of validity of the results. Despite these concerns, this researcher was able to achieve a 100% response rate. All the data gathered was constantly compared against the aims and objectives of this research to ensure that the findings were valid. All senior planners who participated in this research were treated equality, regardless of their individual levels of knowledge and experience in regards to tourism planning and development. Every senior planner was asked the same questions and these were all phrased appropriately. All senior planners were dealt with a high level of integrity by the researcher. To increase the scope, depth and consistency of the findings, this research employed methodological triangulation (Yin, 2014; Peroff et al, 2016). This also ensured validity. Decrop (1999) upholds triangulation as a beneficial method to utilise as it enhances both the trustworthiness of the research findings and the credibility of the researcher. Matteucci (2013) utilised triangulation to validate research data from photographic images, participant observation and in-depth interviews. This current research acknowledged Denzin’s (1989411) various types of triangulation such as, data theory and methodological triangulation. All data was sourced from senior planners and development plans. However, the methodological and data triangulation was dependent upon the convergence of quantitative and qualitative data gathered by the multi methodological approach utilised in this longitudinal study. This was then analysed in the context of theory. Similar to quantitative and qualitative approaches, there are advantages and disadvantages to using a multi method approach. The methods employed by this researcher allowed for the constant comparison to previous research. This proved useful and appropriate for developing new knowledge on Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism and the incorporation of tourism indicators.
112
4.11
Ethical considerations
All research studies involving human respondents’ raises a unique set of ethical issues. Ethics within this research were concerned with Brotherton’s (2015) moral principles that were used to inform the planning, design, conduct and publication of this research. Prior to conducting the qualitative research, all senior planners were fully informed of the aims and objectives of this longitudinal research. Proper identification of the researcher and the study topic was provided throughout each phase of the study and to each Local Authority senior planner. Also, there was a clear outset of the type of questions contained in the questionnaire that would be asked. The participation of the Local Authority senior planners was free and through informed consent. Each senior planner was allowed the right to refuse answering questions or withdraw from the research at any time. Tourism researchers need to be ethical to safeguard the rights of the individuals who participate in their research (Jennings, 2010). However, it was considered unnecessary to have the strategic open-ended questionnaires reviewed by an ethics committee. The researcher did maintain proper ethical standards throughout the research process. 4.11.1 Confidentiality and anonymity The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in the UK produced the ‘Framework for Research Ethics’ (2012). This document contains a number of important principles relating to ethical research (ESRC, 2012). Confidentiality and anonymity are two of these key principles (Brotherton, 2015). Confidentially in this study was associated with protecting individuals from potential harm when results become public. As an activity, planning can be naturally highly political. This longitudinal research required the honest opinions of the senior planners. Good practice was required to enable trust between the researcher and participants. Senior planners were reassured that their private details and responses would be dealt with in the strictest of confidence. All senior planners and their associated Local Authority remained anonymous. They were simply referred to by a number (For example Planner 7), thus resembling a key confidentiality trait. This confidentiality clause, while protecting planners, allowed for a full and frank discussion. All interviews were conducted in a polite and non-intimidating way. All senior planners were thanked afterwards for their time and valuable comments. Following Altinay and Paraskevas (2008) recommendation for good practice, professionalism and commitment, 113
all senior planners who took part in the research were offered the option of being contacted with regular updates regarding the progress of the research. 4.12
Conclusion
This chapter has identified how the research question was judged more important than either the methodology used or the paradigm that underlies it, and was therefore pragmatic in nature, centring on practical rather than theoretical considerations. A comprehensive literature review articulated the basis for empirical progression and by employing a multi methodological approach, it was possible for this researcher to generate new knowledge specific to this study’s aims and objectives. This approach also facilitated the researcher in making direct comparisons with the original study. The different stages where both qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection were utilised is demonstrated and how this combination provided the basis for the use of triangulation. This increased the validity of this research. This chapter discussed how a content analysis was the primary quantitative analysis tool with results analysed in a manner that allowed for direct comparisons to be made with the 2006 study. This chapter also noted how the data from CDPs was recorded into numerical variables using SPSS. How the content analysis tool was integrated into a planning matrix to allow for the constant comparison with previous research was also identified. This was followed by discussing how semi-structured interviews were the principle qualitative approach within this study. Reference was also made to the longitudinal nature of the questionnaire and how results were analysed with the help of NVivo. Also, it was noted how elements of grounded theory were also used for analysing qualitative data through coding. Both the qualitative and quantitative approaches employed in this study yielded a response rate of 100%. Finally, the chapter identified the strengths and limitations of the research and how all ethical considerations were acknowledged throughout the data collection process. This ensured the rights and confidentially of the participants. The following two chapters present the results and discussion from applying this multi methodological approach. The next chapter presents the results and discussion on Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems.
114
Chapter 5:
LOCAL AUTHORITY TOURISM PLANNING IN IRELAND AND THE USE OF TOURISM INDICATOR SYSTEMS
Encourage tourism development that balances optimising the immediate economic, environmental and socio-cultural benefits, whilst also ensuring the long-term future for our European tourism industry (EC, 2013:3). 5.1
Introduction
Local Authorities across Ireland have a statutory obligation to plan and maintain the natural environment which tourists put such a high value on. This chapter examines Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland, and whether senior planners are utilising tourism indicator systems to facilitate evidence based planning. Principally, the analysis in this chapter was addressed by the following aim: •
To examine the application and implementation of tourism indicator systems in Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland In order to achieve this aim, it was necessary to focus the analysis on the following objectives: •
To critically examine the Local Authority tourism planning process.
•
To determine if Local Authorities are implementing tourism indicator systems in the tourism planning process.
To analyse the relationship between Local Authority tourism planning and the incorporation of tourism indicator systems, the researcher designed and utilised a theoretical framework. This framework consists of three separate areas and incorporates the major themes that emerged from academic literature on the subject of tourism planning. This theoretical framework also reflects prior research conducted in 2006, thus facilitating the collection of longitudinal data.
115
Table 5.1
Theoretical framework to examine Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems
Process of Local Authority tourism planning Funding • • • •
Is there a specific budget in place for tourism planning? Tourism officer employed to manage tourism Tourism manager employed to manage tourism Current number of staff employed to manage tourism
Governance • •
Support for tourism planning within Local Authority Support for tourism planning from higher level organisations
Consultation • • • •
Did county councillors influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan Did national and regional tourism agencies influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan Did local community development organisations influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan Did county tourism committees or forums influence the alteration of the draft tourism plan
Accountability • • • • • •
Do county councillors have enough knowledge on sustainable planning for tourism Do county councillors understand the basic concepts of tourism planning and development Are county councillors capable of making complex decisions on tourism land use zoning Do county councillors have sufficient training for the planning decisions they make Do county councillors display self interest in planning decisions Do county councillors understand the consequences of planning decisions they make
Destination Management Organisation (DMO) • Are senior planners aware of who the DMO is for their specific county Local Authority tourism planning Tourism Research •
Does the Local Authority conduct specific tourism research?
Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) •
Is the tourism plan compliant with SEA legislation 2004?
Measurement of tourism impacts •
Does the Local Authority measure the impacts of tourism in their county?
Monitoring of tourism impacts •
Does the Local Authority monitor the impacts of tourism within their county?
Local Economic and Community Plans (LECP) • Is sustainable planning for tourism evident with the LECP Tourism indicator systems for evidence based planning Tourism indicator systems •
Is tourism indicator systems utilised in tourism planning?
Resource allocations •
What resources are required to utilise tourism indicator system in tourism planning
European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) •
Is the ETIS utilised in tourism planning?
Implementation approaches • What is the most appropriate method to implement the ETIS?
In order to probe senior planners, the theoretical framework initiates by examining the various factors involved in the Local Authority tourism planning process. Existing regulatory requirements and data collection procedures pertaining to tourism planning are also incorporated. The concluding section will then determine whether Local Authorities are adopting evidence based planning through the use of tourism indicator systems. This theoretical framework (Table 5.1) was utilised on twenty-eight Local Authority senior planners and in response, generated significant qualitative data that the researcher utilised to bridge this gap. 116
5.2
Process of Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland
At both theoretical and strategic levels, the concept of sustainability is widely accepted as the basis for planning and managing current and future human activity (Redclift, 2005). Achieving the sustainable planning and development of tourism was identified among the majority of senior planners as a principle priority: ‘Tourism is hugely valued in the city and county, and the sustainable development remains one of the top priorities in terms of planning. Budget and resource management aside - the County Council is committed to a balanced carefully managed and sustainable growth and is open to explore new ways to evolve the tourism experience’ (Planner 27). This response illustrates how senior planners, through careful planning acknowledge the need for tourism to meet the needs of future generations rather than those of the present. Also this role of a senior planner encompasses economic development, forward planning, sustainable development and community development (PAS, 2015). These are all key functions when it comes to sustainable planning for tourism. Senior planners are also responsible for making the Local Authority development plan, which contains policies for the sustainable planning of tourism. Furthermore, senior planners can review planning applications and then award or decline planning permission based on the Planning and Development Regulations (2001-2013). This justifies their prominent role in facilitating sustainability in tourism planning. From the discussions with senior planners, this research has highlighted a number of issues regarding the connection between tourism and land use planning. Findings suggest that a number of senior planners were sceptical about their role in tourism policy formulation: ‘The vast majority of questions are unrelated to my field [land use planning] and I simply don’t know the answers. The planning section has very little role in tourism planning. We are not involved in tourism strategizing or planning for the development of tourism projects’ (Planner 6). ‘A distinction needs to be made between tourism development and land use planning which are very separate things. One focuses on the development of an economic sector, and the protection of tourism amenities like heritage. Land use planning concerns managing and regulating land uses in accordance with statutory development plans’ (Planner 14). On reflection of the above senior planner’s (Planner 6) response, the Local Authority where they are employed actually received five separate proposals by the public regarding tourism planning and development within their County.
117
In response to these proposals, the chief executive report indicated that: ‘The existing County Development Plan includes a chapter on tourism and sets out detailed objectives and development standards for a wide variety of tourism types and is unequivocal in its support for tourism projects’ (Local Authority 6). Clearly, this senior planner (Planner 6) was confused about their role and what was in their development plan. Since responses from some senior planners indicate a level of misperception, a lack of understanding and differences of opinion in acknowledging their responsibility in facilitating tourism planning. It is necessary to highlight how their role in facilitating tourism planning is clearly defined. Within the guidelines developed by the DEHLG (2007a:25) for preparing development plans, it is clearly stated that Local Authorities are required to ensure policies for the development of tourism are contained within CDPs. Section 3.17 of these guidelines further state that development plans need to take into account the requirements of specific activities such as natural resources and tourism (DEHLG, 2007a:34). Furthermore, cultural tourism projects are required to be positively promoted and facilitated through the necessary zoning and development control policies and standards within CDPs (DEHLG, 2007a). The responsibility for Local Authority planners in facilitating tourism planning and development is once more highlighted under section 10(5) of the Planning and Development Act (2015), which requires each development plan to have specific objectives for: ‘Regulating, promoting or controlling tourism development’ (Planning and Development Act, 2015). It is clear from this study that some senior planners are not aware of their important role in tourism planning and this is a serious breakdown in the planning system. Facilitating evidence based planning does require a level of funding to be allocated to allow Local Authorities to employ the necessary personal to aid in data collection and implementing tourism policies within CDPs. 5.2.1 Funding for Local Authority tourism planning Within academia, there is repeated calls for well-resourced tourism policies (Liu, 2003; Mowforth and Munt, 2016). Senior planners were asked if their Local Authority has a set budget in place for tourism planning. However, responses confirmed that despite the important role Local Authorities have in planning and maintaining much of the infrastructure which tourism depends on, none had specific budgets in place to facilitate tourism planning. 118
‘We wouldn’t have a specific budget in place for tourism planning’ (Planner 28). ‘I know; we have a budget for heritage but I’m not sure about tourism’ (Planner 14). It is clear from Table 5.2 that Local Authorities in Ireland do not have the required budgets to effectively plan and develop tourism at local level. This could result in prominent tourism product developments such as the WAW not being utilised to its full potential. Through deep budget cuts across local government stemming from the financial crisis of 2008, a large number of Irelands Local Authorities are technically insolvent. Relying on bank borrowings and overdrafts to meet day-to-day expenses and maintain services. This challenges whether tourism policies within CDPs can actually be implemented within the timeframe of the plan. Table 5.2
Specific tourism budget within Local Authorities
Local Authority funding for tourism
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WD WH WX WW
Does the Local Authority have a set budget in place for tourism planning?
In practice, it can be unrealistic to assume that future funding for tourism would exceeded precrisis levels. Fáilte Ireland have addressed this funding issue and recently set up the new ‘Tourism Development and Innovation Fund’, which they argue will become the main source of funding within the tourism sector in the short term (Fáilte Ireland, 2016c). However, the use of such funding was not discussed by any senior planner in this study. Therefore, the choice facing senior management and elected county councillors is between saving Local Authority services or giving discretionary funds to tourism planning and development. A decision that will have a bearing on the future long-term sustainability of the local tourism industry. In contrast to the lack of Local Authority budgets for tourism planning, the majority of senior planners did confirm the presence of a tourism officer to aid in the development of tourism within their county: ‘Yes, we have a tourism development officer’ (Planner 3). ‘We have a tourism officer through the community and enterprise section’ (Planner 25). ‘We have a long standing experienced acting tourism officer in place’ (Planner 27). This suggests that senior planners can be benefiting from greater levels of knowledge and expertise when it comes to developing future tourism sections of CDPs. However, a lack of 119
budgets would hinder the ability of such staff to effectively manage tourism at local level. These tourism officers need to be collecting data on tourism impacts and working with senior planners in writing tourism plans based on evidence. Table 5.3
Staff allocations for tourism in Local Authorities
Local Authority staff allocations
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WD WH WX WW x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Does the Local Authority employ a tourism officer If no, do you feel it would be beneficial to appoint a tourism officer? Does the Local Authority employ a tourism manager x If no, do you feel it would be beneficial to appoint a tourism manager? In your professional opinion, does your Local Authority x need additional staff to manage tourism within the county?
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
A number of Local Authorities were without either a tourism officer or manager. This is despite senior planners suggesting that their Local Authority would benefit from the employment of such: ‘Oh yes the employment of a rural recreation officer (weather through LEADER or County Council) would assist in the development of outdoor activity based product including walking’ (Planner 16). ‘Yes. A dedicated tourism team would be extremely beneficial for the County given the range of attractions which it possesses’ (Planner 9). ‘Awh yeah I’d say so. Anything that can help the council develop this industry, especially in rural areas would be welcomed by the council and indeed the community. Like we would need someone with a full time focus on tourism’ (Planner 23). Liu and Wall (2006) remarked how human resources and staffing requirements have become an integral component of tourism plans. However, findings from this research suggest that tourism, as an activity within Irelands Local Authorities is under resourced in terms of staff allocations: ‘Well ideally yes we would love to have more staff working on tourism’ (Planner 21). ‘In terms of additional staff, yes by all means’ (Planner 28). For tourism policy to be effective, it needs to be adequately staffed (Mowforth and Munt, 2016). Without dedicated staff for tourism planning, Local Authorities would be unable to respond to the growing demands of the Irish tourism industry. As tourism policies would be impracticable to be implemented. The development of such must be discussed within the broader understanding of governance (Hall, 2011, 2013; Hall and Page, 2014). Therefore, it is
120
x
x
important to discuss how the different levels of Local Authority management and state organisations in Ireland support senior planners in their role of tourism planning. 5.2.2 Governance in Local Authority tourism planning The use of scales in attitude testing has been established for several decades (Ryan and Garland, 1999). Its use in this study has provided baseline data on support experienced by senior planners from both Local Authority management and higher-level organisations in their role of tourism planning. Table 5.4
Support experienced by senior planners from within their Local Authority when it comes to their role in tourism planning Extremely supported 27%
Very supported 42%
Moderately supported 19%
Slightly supported 8%
Not at all supported 4%
Support from Local Authority senior management in your role of tourism planning
27%
42%
23%
0%
8%
Support from other Local Authority planners in your role of tourism planning
15%
46%
31%
0%
8%
Support within Irelands Local Authorities Support from Local Authority CEO in your role of tourism planning
The findings from Table 5.4 illustrate that the majority of senior planners felt they are very supported from within their Local Authority when it comes to their role in tourism planning. This support has significant implications for the sustainable planning of tourism, given that it influences relationships between policy actors together with the capacity of the Local Authority to act: ‘The planning department would be tremendously supported when it comes to tourism planning. It’s a role that the council takes very seriously. Myself and fellow planners would work together on various tourism planning projects. Both management and the CEO would be extremely obliging and supportive of our efforts’ (Planner 21). ‘I’d personally feel I am very supported. Now this assumption is based on what interaction I have had with tourism planning to date. I don’t work on tourism a lot, but every now and again it comes by my way. I suppose the support from the likes of head of services, or other planners does make it a lot easier to get things done. We would all work together. But again as I said, tourism is not something that I work on regularly’ (Planner 23). Effective governance is a key requirement for facilitating sustainability in tourism as it can provide direction and offer practical progress (Bramwell and Lane, 2012). Findings suggest that the current environment within Local Authorities is very supportive of tourism planning. However, the sustainably of tourism needs to be at the core of this support, as poorly planned tourism can negatively affect the wellbeing of local communities across Ireland. Scenic areas, beaches and the cultural heritage of Ireland’s towns, rural villages and islands must be protected 121
from over development. Direction and assistance from the Local Authority CEO, senior management and also other planners needs to ensure that progress is made towards securing the environmental, economic and socio-cultural goals of sustainability. Without Irelands natural environment or the receptively of local communities, there would be no tourism. Table 5.5
Support experienced by senior planners from outside organisations when it comes to their role in tourism planning Extremely supported
Very supported
Moderately supported
Slightly supported
Support from Fáilte Ireland in your role of tourism planning
12%
42%
19%
23%
4%
Support from the EPA in your role of tourism planning
0%
12%
27%
39%
23%
Support from the DTTAS in your role of tourism planning
4%
12%
42%
31%
12%
Support from the DECLG in your role of tourism planning
4%
12%
39%
35%
12%
Support from the DAHLG in your role of tourism planning
0%
19%
31%
35%
15%
Support from private sector organisations in your role of tourism planning
4%
19%
46%
27%
4%
Support from other agencies in your role of tourism planning
0%
23%
39%
27%
12%
Support from outside organisations
Not at all supported
The selection of policy instruments and potentially the definition of policy problems frequently comes from higher-level organisations in the form of advice and guidelines. Favourable opinion was exhibited towards the positive support offered by Fáilte Ireland in the tourism planning process. This support manifests itself through constructive and professional assistance in matters concerning tourism planning: ‘Fáilte Ireland too also provide valuable guidance. This support enables the provision of sound developments, which unfortunately hasn’t always happened in the past’ (Planner 24). ‘Fáilte Ireland would play an active role in supporting the planning and development of tourism within the Local Authority, particularly in terms of policy development’ (Planner 7). Fáilte Ireland, as the NTDA in Ireland are in a perfect position to champion positive change in the way tourism is planned for by providing support to senior planners on the development of tourism policy to sustain Ireland as a high quality destination. From the content analysis of CDPs in chapter six, it is clear that this is advice is not impacting on development plans, as the level of sustainable planning remains low. Despite Fáilte Ireland providing €65million for a capital grants scheme (Fáilte Ireland, 2016d). This can suggest that there exists an underlying issue within policy makers in Local Authorities around mobilising interest and action towards sustainability in tourism.
122
The minimal support offered by the EPA is surprising considering it is the responsibility of the EPA to protect the Irish environment and ensure that development is sustainable (EPA, 2016b): ‘We receive considerable support from all tourism agencies however; support from the EPA has only been minor to date’ (Planner 2). Results suggest that senior planners feel they are not benefiting from the important and valuable advice that can be offered from the EPA with regards to minimising tourism’s potential negative impact on the natural environment. Without such support, future Local Authority tourism land use policies may not incorporate adequate protection measures, thus hampering future tourism sustainability. For example, untreated sewage continues to be discharged into Irish rivers and lakes due to inadequate procedures having been in place by Local Authorities. This could suggest a lack of concern among policy makers towards protecting Ireland’s lakes, rivers and beaches, with economic priorities remaining the dominant theme with regards to tourism in Irelands Local Authorities. However, it is the natural environment, which holds the key for a successful tourism industry. The poor levels of support offered by the EPA in tourism planning is therefore a cause for concern. The general consensus among senior planners was that the support offered by the DTTAS when it comes to tourism planning was only moderate: ‘Support from the DTTAS is moderate it is not what it should be’ (Planner 9). The strategic direction offered by the DTTAS to support the growth of a competitive locally sustainable tourism industry is not being effectually conveyed to senior planners. With the publication of the new ‘Tourism Action Plan’, the DTTAS will provide Local Authorities with a draft template for Local Authorities to develop future tourism strategies to be consistent with the policy objectives set out in 'People, Place and Policy -Growing Tourism to 2025', will be developed’ (DTTAS, 2015:8). This policy learning approach offered by the DTTAS can encourage strategic changes within existing management policy paradigms in Irelands Local Authorities. While also providing clear instructions for senior planners on the development of future tourism strategies. Future lines of research should examine whether this new policy document enabled greater levels of sustainable planning for tourism in future development plans.
123
Findings also suggested a lack of guidance by the DHPLG (previously the DECLG) to senior planners in their role in tourism planning: ‘I personally haven’t received support from the Department of environment when it comes to tourism planning’ (Planner 28). The role of the DHPLG in supporting tourism planning at local level is significant as they can help reduce the difficulty of applying the concept of sustainability within tourism planning. However, it is clear that this hierarchical approach towards steering Local Authorities in Ireland towards sustainable development has not worked, as the DHPLG currently do not have any guidelines published applicable to tourism development. It is therefore no surprise to find the majority of senior planners being dissatisfied with the support offered by the DHPLG in their role of tourism planning. Without such support, senior planners have little guidance when it comes to design standards and resort planning policies in CDPs. Similarly, the support offered by the DAHG was noted by the majority of senior planners as being insignificant. While Local Authorities do have in place heritage officers and heritage plans to protect Ireland’s cultural heritage. It is clear from the longitudinal analysis in chapter six, that this support has not progressed the levels of sustainable planning for tourism to acceptable levels over a decade. Also, the support provided to senior planners by private sector organisations in tourism planning usually manifests itself through marketing campaigns at local level and through the work of tourism forums and committees. While less than half of senior planners suggest their support in role of tourism, planning was moderate. It is up to senior management to decide the appropriate policy mix of its own development requirements. This is one of the challenges for the governance of tourism (Bramwell and Lane, 2012), as this particular approach to tourism governance has often been fraught with conflict as groups secure their favourable policy decisions. The other has to do with the publication of the findings from the Mahon Tribunal, together with the county councillors caught by RTÉ Investigates (RTÉ Investigates: Standards in Public Office, 2015) seeking financial rewards for help with planning decisions. This clearly illustrates that there continues to be massive problems within governance in Local Authority planning in Ireland, with the primary victims being the local community. However, the participation of the local community remains an important issue in tourism planning and policy-making (Dredge and Jenkins, 2007) and has according to Hall and Jenkins (2014) become fundamental to much thinking about local governance.
124
5.2.3 Local Authority consultation This study has found an increase in the number of senior planners who confirmed that both local community and development organisations and tourism committees influenced the alteration of the tourism component of their draft CDP since 2006: ‘Well generally we would operate with other agencies. There are tourism forums, and the tourism industry itself. There is a fairly wide representative. It is fairly comprehensive. There is fairly regular contact with stakeholder groups’ (Planner 25). ‘Community development groups are now also having a bigger impact when it comes to policy, particularly when it comes to rural tourism’ (Planner 28). Through the Planning and Development Act (2015), local communities in Ireland are legally afforded significant levels of consultation in the Local Authority tourism planning process: ‘Yes, it is legally required to be made available. This then would lead to the likes of tourism agencies, community groups and tourism committees making submissions that would impact on the alteration of the draft plan yes’ (Planner 21). This increase can be attributed to the growing acceptance of tourism as a development tool (Tang and Tan, 2013; Webster and Ivanov, 2014) for local communities. Which is particularly evident within rural communities in Ireland, who have been overcome by emigration and job losses. It is the policies within CDPs that might impact on the ability of these communities to benefit from tourism. Table 5.6
Organisations influencing the alteration of the draft CDP
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WDWH WXWW % change 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x County councillors influenced the alteration of the draft CDP +46% 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Local community development organisations influenced the 2006 +82% alteration of the draft CDP 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x County tourism committees/forums influenced the alteration 2006 +39% of the draft CDP 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x
Influencing the alteration of the draft CDP
Year
Through their local development associations, these communities are now developing their own tourism plans. This is because it is the local community who receive the various benefits from tourism, which can lead to an improved quality of life, in terms of employment opportunities and local product development. Moreover, it is the residents within these communities that elect the members of their Local Authority. These county councillors, through their reserved function have significant impact on the alteration of draft development plans.
125
There was agreement among all senior planners that elected county councillors’ influence the alteration of their draft CDP: ‘Well County Councillors it’s their function, ultimately they have a big consensus.’ (Planner 25). ‘County Councillors make our plan, not us planners’ (Planner 14). As County Councillors are elected by the local community, results from this longitudinal study illustrate a more bottom up approach to tourism planning in Ireland. However, this can only be genuinely bottom up; if elected county councillors are working for the best interests of the community, they serve. It was found in the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments (Mahon Tribunal) that this is not always the case. While all County councillors continue to be responsible for policy-making and formulating or varying development plans, their power to give directions in relation to planning matters has been removed. This was one of the recommendations of the Mahon Tribunal. Still, through elected county councillors’ significant levels of host community participation is facilitated in the Local Authority tourism planning process. 5.2.4 Accountability in Local Authority planning Tourism planning can be complex, covering many different policy areas. While it is the responsibility of county councillors through their reserved function to make major decisions on policy. Without the necessary knowledge, many could find this difficult. An opinion held by a number of senior planners: ‘I feel this is an area that they could do with more knowledge on’ (Planner 4). ‘For specific tourism planning concerns I don’t think they do. I mean it’s not easy for them, many wouldn’t have the necessary training or education or even experience in dealing with tourism. It is changing, but they do the best they can’ (Planner 21). Moreover, a number of senior planners suggested that county councillors would lack the necessary training for the planning decisions they make: ‘They seem to lack the necessary skills for tourism planning and development in general’ (Planner 9).
126
Without such training, county councillors would be unable to make sound decisions on tourism land zoning within natural areas, thus impacting on the ability of tourist facilities to fit into the environment. Decisions in the self-interest of the councillor were discussed too among a number of senior planners as being evident within the planning process: ‘Like they would understand the consequences, but this doesn’t stop their self-interest’ (Planner 18). Findings point to the need for county councillors to be educated in the basic philosophy of planning in order to acknowledge the ramifications of their actions. Table 5.7
County Councillor’s knowledge and actions
County Councillors knowledge and actions Does County Councillors have enough knowledge for the decisions they make? Understand the basic concepts of planning? Understand the basic concepts of tourism planning &development? Are capable of making complex decisions on tourism land use zoning? Have sufficient training for the planning decisions they make? Display self interest in planning decisions? Understand the consequences of planning decisions they make? Planners feel the planning system is open to corruption? If yes, does this impact on their job as planner?
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WD WH WX WW x x
x x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x x x x x
x
x
x x x
x x x x x x
x x x x
x
x
x x x
x
x x x
x x
x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x x
x x x x
x
x
x x
x x x
x
x x
x
x x x x x
x x
x x x x
A recent RTE primetime investigation (RTE Investigates Standards in Public Office) in 2015 featured undercover footage of three county councillors seeming to agree to secure planning permission for a windmill development in sensitive areas in return for money (RTÉ Investigates: Standards in Public Office, 2015). This highlighted the lack of accountability in planning as issues relating to secrecy and undue influences were evident within the Irish planning system. As noted within the Irish Times (2015), this brought local government in Ireland into disrepute and distorted the perception of public representatives in the public mind. A number of senior planners also felt that corruption was evident within the planning process: ‘Yes, I feel it is. Sure isn’t it a topic of much discussion in the media at the moment’ (Planner 18). ‘Well, we all seen the lads on TV didn’t we? This unfortunately does happen’ (Planner 3). ‘Corruption is common, unfortunately. But it wouldn’t be a local issue. Its more, well, you can see it everywhere in this country. Until something is done about it from a legal perspective I very much doubt this will change’ (Planner 21).
127
‘Yes, I believe it is which is regrettable really as it is the community that would suffer in the long run, not the councillor (Planner 7). Accountability is essential in the decision-making process when planning for tourism as it establishes credibility and trust among the local community that planning decisions are made for the best interests of the community. These responses suggest that despite the findings of tribunals, accountability in the Local Authority planning process in Ireland is still lacking. The development of tourism policies within CDPs needs to be based on evidence, with data collected and shared among all interested parties. The local destination management organisation can then deliver on these policies. 5.2.5 Destination management organisation Previous research has documented the important role DMO’s can have in managing tourism at local level (TSG, 2007; UNWTO, 2007; Kruger and Meintjies, 2008; Bornhorst, Brent Ritchie and Sheehan, 2010). Senior planners were questioned on whether they were aware who the Destination Management Organisation (DMO) is for their specific County. Table 5.8
Local Authority destination management
Destination Management Organisation
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WD WH WX WW
Are you aware who the Destination Management x Organisation (DMO) is for your specific County?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Findings reveal (Table 5.8) that the majority of senior planners were unable to identify their respective DMO: ‘No I wouldn’t know now who that is now’ (Planner 20). ‘DMO? No I am not sure on that now’ (Planner 14). ‘No I am not sure exactly who this person is. I haven’t heard this term before to be honest’ (Planner 28). Crouch (2007) discusses how leadership and co-ordination roles performed by a DMO are the essence of the on-going, long-term success of a tourism destination. A role discussed by one senior planner: ‘We used to be the big guys; we are now more a facilitator and tourism is now a very big part of that conversation’ (Planner 8). This above role of Local Authorities being a ‘facilitator’ can be seen as a ‘delicate task of juggling private sector interests with local resident needs and wants’ (Jamal and Getz, 1995:193). This would enable Local Authorities to safeguard stakeholder collaboration, thus ensuring sustainability. However, findings suggest that a clear distinction is needed on the role 128
of government, Fáilte Ireland and Local Authorities when it comes to destination management in Ireland. The DTTAS does not manage tourism, they influence policy actions and provide direction, whereas Fáilte Ireland encourages and promotes tourism developments. It is Local Authorities who are legally required to provide planning permission for tourism developments. Furthermore, Local Authorities are also often responsible for providing much of the infrastructure and facilities that are essential for tourism activity. They therefore, play a vital role in tourism management. But if Local Authorities are unsure of this role, saturation or over development of tourism within Irish towns and villages may occur. This can however be minimised through effective Local Authority tourism planning. 5.3
Local Authority tourism planning in Ireland
Local Authorities are legally responsible for granting or refusing planning permission for tourism developments. However, for a decision to be reached on future planning needs, significant levels of information are needed to ensure the environmental, economic and sociocultural sustainability of the destination is preserved. Mangion (2011) argues that the provision of high quality research is a recurrent message within evidence-based policy. Table 5.9
Local Authority tourism research
Local Authority tourism research Did the Local Authority conduct tourism research If yes, is this research longitudinal
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WD WH WX WW x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
The majority of senior planners indicated that they conducted specific tourism research: ‘Yes, we would conduct a limited amount of tourism research. This would all depend on different things like the scope of the study and so forth’ (Planner 20). ‘Yes, we do. The usual stuff, surveys etc.’ (Planner 23). ‘Yes, this research consisted of surveys, questionnaires and case studies’ (Planner 10). When analysed this tourism research can influence the development of future tourism planning policies within CDPs based on the identified needs of the industry. These findings indicate that some Local Authorities in Ireland are acknowledging the link between tourism activities and their consequences for a fully functioning tourism system (Uysal, Sirgy, Wan and Kim, 2016). However, despite the majority of Local Authorities recognising the importance of tourism research, few revealed that this was of a longitudinal nature.
129
If research is not benchmarked year on year, it remains impractical, as trends cannot be tracked over time. So instead of relying on Fáilte Ireland reports for the economic value of tourism, or the central statistics office (CSO) for tourism arrivals, the ETIS actually provides Local Authorities with the necessary information. Moreover, the destination datasheet captures the data collected (EC, 2016a). A connection considered essential for facilitating the development of evidence based policy. 5.3.1 SEA in Local Authority tourism planning For tourism planning to be sustainable, Local Authorities must ensure that tourism activity must be balanced against the capacity of Ireland’s natural resources. Under the Planning and Development (SEA) Regulations 2004, Local Authorities are legally required to conduct an SEA on all planning policies within their respective CDPs for potential environmental impacts. Table 5.10
SEA conducted within Local Authority tourism planning
Destination Management Organisation SEA conducted within Local Authority tourism planning
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WD WH WX WW x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
It is clear from the analysis that every CDP has discovered that all Local Authority senior planners were found to be complying with this regulation and subjected their planning policies to the SEA. This ensures that the future development of tourism within scenic protected and vulnerable areas (SACs) do not impact negatively on the natural environment, thus preserving these areas for tourists to enjoy. However, continuous measuring of tourism related impacts is also needed by Local Authorities within the tourism planning process to ensure that existing and potential developments are bringing the desired benefits to the community without generating serious problems. 5.3.2 Measurement of tourism impacts in Local Authority tourism planning Due to their nature, Local Authorities are responsible for the protection of valuable resources from the effects of development. Collecting data on a broad range of issues relevant to tourism can help Local Authorities build an accurate picture of what is going on (EC, 2016a). When senior planners were asked whether their Local Authority measured the impacts of tourism in the county, many were found to be relying on existing legislative procedures: ‘Yes, we are legally required to measure environmental impacts through the SEA Directive and the economic and social impacts of tourism were taken into consideration in the LECP development process’ (Planner 7).
130
x
‘We would have measured the economic and social impact of tourism when developing our LECP’ (Planner 26). The SEA directive is an important legislative tool designed to ensure the environmental sustainably of Local Authority development plans, and LECPs promote the local and community development (DHPLG, 2017). Table 5.11
Measurement of tourism impacts
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WD WH WX WW Environmental impact of tourism measured x x x x x x x x x Economic impact of tourism measured x x x x x x x x x x x x x Socio-Cultural impact of tourism measured x x x x x x x x x x Measurement of tourism impacts in CDPs
Through the ETIS, Local Authorities would be able to measure the sustainability of tourism within their county over time, thus influencing future tourism policy. The continued monitoring of tourism impacts is essential for Local Authorities in Ireland for ensuring the socially responsible use of a destinations natural resources. 5.3.3 Monitoring of tourism impacts by Local Authority The majority of senior planners responded that their Local Authority does not monitor the impacts of tourism: ‘No we don’t monitor specific impacts of tourism’ (Planner 14). ‘We wouldn’t specially monitor the impacts of tourism’ (Planner 3). The monitoring of impacts associated with tourism are indispensable to guarantee a long‐term sustainability of the destinations. From the discussion with senior planners, many noted how they depend on Fáilte Ireland data to inform future planning policies. Fáilte Ireland do provide detailed information on the number and nationality of overseas visitors to Ireland and estimates the economic benefits. And their Visitor Attitude Surveys’ monitor the key trends in Ireland’s tourism industry and provide information on specific tourist activities. However, daily spend by tourists, occupancy rate, tourism jobs, cultural/heritage protection; landscape/biodiversity and bathing water quality are not monitored by these reports. Local Authorities cannot rely on a limited range of statistics to monitor tourism in their destination. They do not tell the whole story of tourism’s impact.
131
Table 5.12
Local Authority monitoring of tourism impacts
Monitoring of tourism impacts Does your Local Authority specifically monitor tourism impacts within the County? Tourism Economic Impact Tourist Nights per Month Daily Spend by Tourists Average Length of Stay Occupancy Rate Tourism Jobs Tourism Multiplier Effect Health and Safety Community/Social Impacts Gender Equality Equality/Accessibility Cultural/Heritage Protection Climate Change Solid Waste Management Sewage Treatment Water Management Energy Usage Landscape/Biodiversity Protection Light/Noise Management Bathing Water Quality
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WD WH WX WW x x x
x
x
x x
x x
x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x x
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x x x
x x x
x
Collecting data and information on a broad range of issues relevant to the impact on local economy, community and environment will help Local Authorities build an accurate picture of what is really going on. Rio and Nunes (2012) in their study on monitoring and evaluation tools for tourism destinations, note how many of these monitoring tools are often excessively complex to be applied. The core indicators within the ETIS allow Local Authorities to obtain relevant data to influence future tourism planning and development policy. 5.3.4 Local Authority local economic and community plans (LECP) This study also determined the level of sustainable planning for tourism evident within the new LECPs. This was accomplished to ascertain the usefulness of these new plans and to facilitate future longitudinal research. In light of the previous discussion on Local Authority resources and staff allocations, senior planners were asked whether they were allocated additional resources by central government to develop these plans: ‘Nope, it was all in house’ (Planner 25). ‘No, it was absorbed within our existing functions. More jobs with less money’ (Planner 8). Findings illustrate that the development of these plans was coordinated between the many other responsibilities of Local Authorities, under the same resources. Therefore, it could be suggested that these new plans suffered from minimal resources and staff allocations. Also, LECPs are not mitigating against potential environmental impacts associated with tourism planning and 132
development. Moreover, the majority of LECPs did acknowledge the economic impact of tourism and developed policies to support this. Many made provisions for supporting local tourism entrepreneurs, a key element of sustainability in tourism at local level. Tourism as an industry is constantly changing. Destinations require the use of proactive and sustainable policies in order to harness their particular counties environmental, economic and sociocultural potential. Table 5.13
Sustainable planning for tourism evident within LECPs
Analysis of LECP from a tourism perspective Sustainable planning for tourism supported in LECP Sustainable development supported in LECP Tourism signage policy Disabled provision mentioned in tourism policy Tourism indicator systems integrated into LECP ETIS used in LECP EPA/DIT ACHIEV Model used in LECP GSTC-D used in LECP Tourists interaction with the environment Positive economic impacts of tourism supported Archaeological/historic preservation in tourism policy
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WD WH WX WW x
x x x
x
x
x x x
x x x x
x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x x x
x
x
x
* All LECPs were developed in 2016 Through closer examination, the vast majority of the LECPs were simplistic in nature with little consideration for the following: ➢ Tourism signage policy ➢ Disabled provision mentioned in the plan ➢ Integration of tourism indicator systems While LECPs may be beneficial in improving the economic conditions of local communities, they do suffer from some very important considerations. Without strong robust objectives and goals in relation to tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems, it can be argued that these plans offer very little in relation to sustainable planning for tourism. Instead of being provided with the necessary resources to facilitate evidence based planning, Local Authorities were required to develop these plans, which would appear to be just another layer of bureaucracy. 5.4
Tourism indicator systems for evidence based planning
Sustainability indicators are regarded as specific criteria used to measure the sustainability of specific tourist policies and strategies (Helmy, 1999). Indeed, their application in Ireland would allow Local Authorities achieve a significant level of sustainable planning for tourism. There was agreement among all senior planners that they do not utilise any specific tourism indicator system when planning for tourism: 133
‘We do have other priorities to consider and the use of indicators is not top of the to-do list’ (Planner 26). ‘No we don’t incorporate these indicator systems in tourism planning (Planner 9). ‘No we wouldn’t incorporate any of these particular indicators (Planner 4). Findings suggest that these indicator systems and their benefits have not been communicated to senior planners in Local Authorities. Results from Table 5.14 illustrate that the large body of established tourism indicator systems continue to be overlooked by senior planners in Ireland’s Local Authorities. Table 5.14
Tourism indicator systems in the Local Authority tourism planning process
Local Authority use of tourism indicator systems
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO TY WDWHWXWW
Does the Local Authority incorporate tourism indicator systems within the tourism planning process? UNWTO Core Indicators of Sustainable Tourism (1996) UN Commission on Sustainable Development- Indicators of Sustainable Development (2001) ETC: National Sustainable Tourism Indicators (2002) OECD Indicators of Environmental Sustainability (2004) CNPA Strategy for Sustainable Tourism: Suggested Indicators of Sustainable Tourism (2005) (EEA) European Environment Agency Set of Indicators (2005) UK Sustainable Development Indicators (2005) UNWTO: Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations (2005) EPA/DIT ACHIEV Model (2012) GSTC: Criteria for Destinations (GSTC C-D) (2013) EC: European Tourism Indicator System (2016) Other tourism indicator systems
The convincing need for tourism indicator systems in the tourism planning process is made by Butler (1999) who argued that: ‘Without measures or indicators for tourism development the use of the term sustainable is meaningless’ (Butler, 1999, cited in Schianetz and Kavanagh, 2008:604). Despite Butler’s (1999) warning, the concept of sustainability continues to receive positive reaction from policy makers, politicians and scientists (UNWTO, 2004; Bell and Morse, 2008). This support has manifested itself in the positive shift towards sustainable planning for tourism found in CDPs. However, sustainability in theory is different to sustainability in practice, indicators supply the necessary information on complex phenomena, in this case tourism (Graci and Dodds, 2010). Results from the content analysis suggest that Local Authorities continue to ignore these valuable tools when they are developing future tourism planning policies. The lack of indicators impedes the revealing of conditions and trends that help in the planning process. 134
Insights drawn from scholarly literature also emphasise the presence and application of tourism indictor systems in the planning process as an important factor when assessing a destinations progress towards sustainability. One particular senior planner pointed to the lack of sufficient procedures currently in place at national level to enable them to incorporate tourism indicator systems into the tourism planning process: ‘Tourism indicators is not something for us to consider at this moment. It would need to be discussed nationally with appropriate delivery mechanisms in place’ (Planner 1). However, tourism indicator systems have been discussed previously at national level in Ireland. The EPA/DIT ACHIEV Model received funding of €317,000, was designed to mitigate the impacts of tourism (Griffin, Morrissey and Flanagan, 2010), and is endorsed by Fáilte Ireland. However, this particular indicator system has yet to be applied nationally in Ireland, more than ten years after its initial development. Therefore, it was necessary for this thesis to examine what resources would be required to implement tourism indicator systems in the future. 5.4.1 Resources required by senior planners to implement tourism indicator systems Senior planners were asked would they like any additional resources to help implement tourism indicator systems. More than half of senior planners suggested the need for detail information: ‘More information would be beneficial, especially for planners like me who are not familiar with tourism indicators’ (Planner 18). ‘Detailed information would help’ (Planner 24). ‘More information on their benefit would help’ (Planner 14). The need for additional information on tourism indicator systems, their benefits and process of implementation is discussed by Bell and Morse (2008) who document cases where indicators are highly technical and can only be understood by subject experts (Peterson, 2000; Perry and Singh, 2001; Bell and Morse, 2008). In this light, the appropriate measure might be to maintain a set of clearly understandable indicators. The benefit of the ETIS, over existing indicator systems is that Local Authorities can use specific indicators within the tool-kit as needed and appropriate (EC, 2016a). This will enable senior planners to maintain a set of clearly understandable indicators, thus improving the potential and feasibility of success.
135
Table 5.15
Additional resources needed to implement tourism indicator systems
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO TY WDWHWXWW Detailed information to help implement a tourism indicator system x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Training to help implement a tourism indicator system x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Mentoring to help implement a tourism indicator system x x x x x x x x x x x x Funding to help implement a tourism indicator system x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Other approaches to help implement a tourism indicator system x Additional resources to help implement a tourism indicator system
A significant number of senior planners suggested that additional training would aid in the implementation of tourism indicator systems in the future: ‘I do believe training would also benefit its use, not many Local Authorities would be familiar with these systems, it would need to be made easy for them’ (Planner 21). ‘Detailed training on the use of these and maybe mentoring from let’s say Fáilte Ireland would also be useful’ (Planner 12). While additional training for senior planners in the use of tourism indicator systems may raise capacity of usage levels, one senior planner did suggest mentoring by Fáilte Ireland. Such guidance has not been provided before to aid in the application of the EPA/DIT ACHIEV Model. However, the ETIS is a perfect indicator system for Local Authorities in Ireland, who have no previous experience in utilising such tools. As noted by the EC (2016a:12), as a simple and easy to implement tool. Local Authorities are accommodated in implementing the ETIS, by its tool-kit, which consists of a step-by-step guide for the application of the indicator system and the destination datasheet to display data collected. Access to funding was also identified by senior planners as one of the main resources to help implement tourism indicator systems: ‘I’m sure funding would help to some degree’ (Planner 26). ‘Well funding anyway for a start’ (Planner 9). ‘I’d personally believe that for these to be utilised, we in the Local Authority would need some positive engagement from the department in terms of funding’ (Planner 27). ‘Funding is always important and this would need to be allocated directly to us from central government’ (Planner 4). Both the DTTAS and Tourism Ireland have been allocated large budgets, €122 million and €42 million respectively, for marketing and promoting Ireland as a destination (DTTAS, 2016). Fáilte Ireland also has been awarded €65million for a capital grants scheme to promote existing destinations brands. However, Local Authorities in Ireland are poorly funded (Turley, 2013). 136
Many continue to lack the necessary funding for developing new infrastructure and upgrading existing tourist facilities, let alone collect the necessary data on tourism activity. Therefore, it may be inconceivable to believe that additional funding may be provided, from either central government, or the NTDA to implement tourism indicator systems. Besides, no Local Authority to date has received funding to implement the EPA/DIT ACHIV Model. Through the ETIS however, Local Authorities are presented with a free, easy to use indicator system that does not require funding to implement. Therefore, it would be important for Local Authorities to consider potentially using the ETIS in the future if they want to protect the tourism product for future generations. 5.5
Local Authority senior planner awareness and opinion on the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS)
Initially, senior planners were asked are they aware of any other Local Authority in Ireland implementing tourism indicator systems. All suggested that they were not: ‘Me personally no’ (Planner 2). ‘I wouldn’t have a clue to be honest’ (Planner 23). ‘Not personally’ (Planner 25). This finding represents a particular problem, as senior planners would be unable to consult with each other in areas of best practice, resource requirements and timelines. Table 5.16
Local Authorities in Ireland and the ETIS Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO TY WDWH WXWW
Local Authorities in Ireland and the ETIS Aware of any other Local Authority implementing tourism indicator systems within Ireland? Aware of the European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Destinations (ETIS)? Local Authority be interested in the ETIS that was piloted in 29 different destinations across Europe. Local Authority benefit from implementing tourism indicator systems in the planning process for CDPs?
x x x x x
x
x
x
x x x x x x
x x
x
x
x x x x
x
x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x
x x x
Furthermore, when senior planners were asked if they were aware of the ETIS, the majority implied that they never heard of it: ‘Never heard of it’ (Planner 1). ‘No never heard of it’ (Planner 14). ‘I have never heard of such a system’ (Planner 5). ‘No I never heard of it, sorry’ (Planner 28).
137
Findings suggest that the ETIS has not been communicated down to the majority of planning departments within Irelands Local Authorities. If senior planners are unaware of this particular indicator system, how would they be expected to implement it in the tourism planning process? The utilisation of the ETIS would enable senior planners to collect data relating to the various aspects and activities of tourism within their county. More than half of senior planners suggested that their Local Authority would not be interested in the ETIS. Many of the responses pointed to resource and staffing issues: ‘We do have other priorities to consider and the use of indicators is not top of the to-do list’ (Planner 26). ‘It’s not that simple, we would need the necessary resources to be in place before any decision could be made’ (Planner 18). ‘No, because we need a proper system and staffing in place’ (Planner 15). This is despite the majority of senior planners indicating that their particular Local Authority would benefit from implementing tourism indicator systems in the tourism planning process: Yes, very much so. We have to base policy on evidence’ (Planner 25). ‘Possibly there is a benefit’ (Planner 27). ‘Yes, I feel if supported with the necessary resources then yes I feel they would benefit the development of tourism’ (Planner 4). Sustainability in tourism is meaningless without the presence of indicators and other monitoring tools (Wheeller, 1993; Hunter, 1997; Torres-Delgado and Saarinen, 2013). Findings from this study suggest that for Local Authorities to facilitate evidence based planning, it needs to be adequately staffed and funded. As the ETIS is free and contains a detailed step-by-step guide, its application in Ireland would require little in terms of funding and resource allocations. Therefore, it was necessary to further question senior planners on the willingness of their Local Authority to utilise the specific indicator tools that compromise the ETIS. 5.5.1 Local Authorities and the ETIS indicator tools Indicator systems need to be capable of supplying the necessary information (Torres-Delgado and Saarinen, 2013), and Local Authorities would need to be willing to utilise them. Senior planners were asked on whether their Local Authority would be willing to utilise the indicator tools that compromise the ETIS when planning for tourism. 138
Half of all senior planners confirmed that their Local Authority would not be in a position to utilise the indicator tools of the ETIS: ‘No and I doubt there wouldn’t be any interest among us planners as we have other priorities’ (Planner 15). ‘Currently no, I doubt with the current resources available, that this would change any time soon’ (Planner 24). ‘The use of such indicator tools would all depend on staffing levels, resources and funding. The availably of such at the moment might pose a problem’ (Planner 7). ‘I’m not sure about these indicator tools. The process would become too cumbersome’ (Planner 2). Tourism indicators provide valuable data that can influence future policy implementation (Tanguay et al., 2013; Lee and Hsieh, 2016), however, the need to incorporate tourism indicator systems, and in particular the ETIS are not a legal requirement in Ireland. Therefore, the decision rests solely with the respective Local Authority and their senior management on whether they would feel the ETIS would benefit the development of tourism within their county. With an increase in visitor arrivals not seen since the ‘Celtic Tiger’ years, inevitability there will be a growing demand for transport, an increase in traffic on rural roads, and pressure for the use of public amenities and accommodation facilities. Table 5.17
Local Authorities in Ireland and the ETIS indicator tools
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO TY WDWHWXWW Willing to utilise the destination management indicator tool of the ETIS x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Willing to utilise the economic value indicator tool of the ETIS x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Willing to utilise the social & cultural indicator tool of the ETIS x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Willing to utilise the environmental impact indicator tool of the ETIS x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Willing to utilise the destination data set (excel file) of the ETIS x x x x x x x x x x x x x Local Authorities and the ETIS indicator tools
Findings (Table 5.17) suggest that due to a lack of resources in terms of staff allocations and funding available to Local Authorities, half of senior planners in Ireland are not open to being provided with quantitative and objective data to facilitate evidence based planning and data which can facilitate a greater understanding of tourism activities (WTO, 1996; Blackstock, McCrum, Scott and White, 2006; Roberts and Tribe, 2008; Sanchez and Pulido, 2008; Blancas et al, 2010a; Torres-Delgado and Saarinen, 2013). Thus, enabling senior planners to develop tourism planning polices and grant planning permission for future tourism products and infrastructure on evidence. All Local Authorities would have to do is collect the necessary data, 139
based on the step by step process outlined in the ETIS tool-kit and then input it into the free excel data sheet. This process for facilitating evidence based planning may be effectively coordinated through specific approaches identified by senior planners. 5.5.2 Approaches to aid Local Authorities in implementing the ETIS Delgado and Saarinen (2013) discuss how working with tourism indicators can pose many challenges. Several approaches have been identified to aid in the implementation of the ETIS by Local Authorities in Ireland. A number of senior planners acknowledged the need for the ETIS to be a legal requirement in order in to ensure its implementation nationwide: ‘Well I’d say it would need to be legally required to ensure its compliance’ (Planner 1). ‘I would be of the opinion that it would need to be made legal requirement, that way you would have the will at all levels to utilise these indicators’ (Planner 4). ‘For the likes of things like indicators and specific tourism planning tools and documents, if they are not included in the national planning framework then they wouldn’t be considered at local level. There are simply too many other issues that require our attention’ (Planner 3). The above senior planner (Planner 3) acknowledges the need for tourism indicator systems, the ETIS included, to be included in the national planning framework for them to have a chance of being implemented at local level. This approach can provide a clear policy framework for the use of the ETIS by Local Authorities, while ensuring its application nationwide. Similar to the Resource Management Act in New Zealand, in which requires evidence about the likely effects of proposed developments (Hall, Jenkins and Kearsley, 1997) before permission is granted. By making the implementation of the ETIS a legal requirement, Local Authorities in Ireland too can base planning decisions for future tourism developments on evidence, in accordance with the data collected from the core indicators of the ETIS. There was agreement among the majority of senior planners that more funding needs to be made available before they would consider utilising this tourism indicator system: ‘Well I think funding would need to be made available, this would be critical in facilitating its implementation nationwide’ (Planner 21). ‘First and foremost, we would need funding to be allocated’ (Planner 28). ‘Well funding definitely!’ (Planner 18).
140
The EC (2016a: 17) suggests funding may need to be obtained to support the long-term use of the ETIS and cover the cost of improvements and data collection. However, no funding would be required initially for Local Authorities in Ireland to implement this particular indicator system. The ETIS tool-kit simply has to be downloaded. While findings identify the need for additional funding to enable senior planners implement the ETIS. Funding for the implementation of tourism indicators in Ireland has not been provided in the past, so this approach would seem improbable. Table 5.18
Best approach to implement the ETIS in future
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO TY WDWH WXWW Make it a legal requirement to implement the ETIS x x x x x x Make funding available to implement the ETIS x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Promote the implementation of the ETIS at local level in Ireland x x x x x x x x x x x Recognition of Local Authority achievements in implementing the ETIS x x x x x x x x x x x x Other approaches to implement the ETIS in the future x Best approach to implement the ETIS
A number of senior planners suggested the best approach to implement the ETIS in the future would be to promote its use among Local Authorities in Ireland. Also, another approach was to recognise a particular Local Authority’s achievements in implementing the ETIS. Blancas et al (2015) in their study on tourism indicators in Europe suggest that supranational institutions should make an effort in promoting the importance of indicators for policy makers to implement policies based on real data. While these approaches might facilitate Local Authorities in Ireland in implementing the ETIS. It is clear from this study (Table 5.18), that without the necessary legal frameworks and funding in place many Local Authorities would either be unable or unwilling to implement the ETIS. This research has contributed to new knowledge on the use of tourism indicator systems, and in particular the ETIS by Local Authorities in Ireland. Despite the importance of tourism indicator systems in tourism planning (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Hunter and Shaw, 2007; Blancas et al, 2010a; Blancas et al, 2011; Lozano-Oyola et al, 2012; Torres-Delgado and Lopez Palomeque, 2014; Gossling, 2015; Lemelin, Koster and Youroukos, 2015). It is clear from this research that there are significant hurdles to cross before evidence based tourism planning by Local Authorities in Ireland can be realised. 5.6
Comprehensive planning tool-kit for future Local Authority CDPs
Senior planners were asked whether they would benefit from utilising a comprehensive planning tool-kit, together with guidelines and a checklist when developing future tourism
141
components of CDPs. There was agreement among the majority of senior planners that their Local Authority would benefit from such a tool-kit: ‘Yes, we would be interested in using such a tool-kit’ (Planner 2). ‘If it helps in facilitating the indicator systems then yes of course’ (Planner 28). ‘Yes, very much so’ (Planner 25). According to Laws (1995) fundamental to strategic planning is a vision of what the future should be in order to define the appropriate steps for action as well as a strategy to enable a destination to achieve the vision. Table 5.19
Local Authority benefit from comprehensive planning tool-kit
Benefit from comprehensive tool-kit Local Authority benefit from utilising a comprehensive planning tool-kit with guidelines and a checklist
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ty WD WH WX WW x x x x x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x x x
Findings from this research suggest that there exists a consensus among senior planners in Ireland’s Local Authorities to facilitate were necessary, sustainable planning for tourism. Through the use of this tool-kit, senior planners can facilitate evidence based tourism planning through the application of the specific indicators contained within the tool-kit, while also incorporating specific planning criteria within future tourism policy. This planning tool-kit is discussed in greater detail in Chapter seven. 5 .7
Towards a Local Authority ETIS checklist to facilitate evidence based planning
This research suggests the need for a checklist that senior planners can follow that allows them to address the core indicators that represent the ETIS. This ETIS checklist (Table 5.20) will require Local Authorities to collect data on all tourism activity. The criteria to be contained within this checklist will be developed and presented in chapter seven. Table 5.20
Towards a Local Authority ETIS checklist to facilitate evidence based planning
Criteria- does the Local Authority monitor the following impacts of tourism
Indicate: Yes ✓or No X
Destination management Economic value Social and cultural impact Environmental impact
Source: Modified from the EC (2016a). The growing numbers of tourists visiting Ireland has highlighted the need for an evidence based approach to tourism planning. Under the Planning and Development Act (2015), Local
142
Authorities are legally responsible to plan for tourism. However, the absence of tourism indicator systems such as the ETIS within the tourism planning process has raised questions on the ability of Local Authorities to maintain the tourism product. Without the necessary data collection on tourism activity, Local Authorities would be unable to plan and maintain the natural environment which tourists put such a high value on. Local Authorities in Ireland have the responsibility for economic development, protecting community attributes and protecting the natural environment, and managing tourism destinations based on evidence is a fundamental first step towards sustainability. By monitoring the economic value, socio-cultural and environmental impacts of tourism senior planners can be provided with the necessary data to develop future tourism policy based on evidence. Thus potentially ensuring tourism is planned for in a sustainable manner. This Local Authority ETIS checklist to facilitate evidence based planning will be contained in the overall planning toolkit developed from the results of this research. Furthermore, the receptivity from senior planners seem to indicate that this tool-kit, which will be presented in chapter seven, could be a positive contribution to future planning. 5.8
Conclusion
The results from this study have contributed to new knowledge regarding evidence based planning for tourism in Ireland. Despite clear guidelines illustrating how tourism policies are to be integrated into CDPs, a number of senior planners were found to be confused about their role in planning for tourism. Without clear communication and audits of roles, integrated tourism planning in Ireland would clearly suffer. While Local Authorities received €4.1 billion in funding in 2016, none were found to be budgeting specifically for facilitating evidence based planning for tourism. Clearly, tourism enterprises are not getting much value for money from rates and taxes when it comes to the future of the tourism product, as Local Authorities are not collecting any data needed for evidence based tourism planning. This denies senior planners up to date information required to ensure tourism developments are based on evidence and are market driven. Moreover, a number of Local Authorities don’t even have a tourism manager/officer in place to manage tourism at local level. The heavy reliance on marketing and promotion of Ireland through assigning such vast budgets could be redirected towards facilitating evidence based planning. Both the DTTAS and Tourism Ireland have been allocated large budgets, €122 million and €42 million respectively, for marketing and promoting Ireland as a destination. Fáilte Ireland also has been awarded 143
€65million for a capital grants scheme to promote existing destinations brands. Considering the €222 million within these budgets, a small proportion, or even 1% could be spent funding a position responsible for collecting data on tourism activity within every Local Authority. This could help protect the tourism product so that it can be marketed in the future. This will also avoid senior planners having to operate in the dark when it comes to tourism planning by providing them with evidence. Local communities are recognising the importance of tourism and how it can, when planned and developed sustainably; improve the economic conditions particularly in rural communities divested by jobs losses and emigration since 2008. But some county councillors elected by these communities continue to lack the necessary knowledge and training when it comes to tourism planning and development. Also despite the findings of the Mahon Tribunal and as seen in the RTE investigation in standards in public office (concerning the location of a fictitious wind farm in a scenic area), potential corruption continues to be present within the Local Authority planning process in Ireland. The corrupt actions of some could deprive communities of an unspoilt tourism product so valuable for attracting tourists and sustaining a local tourism industry. The ETIS is a practical tool to provide Local Authorities with the necessary data to facilitate evidence based planning. The EC funded the development of this particular indicator system to reduce the difficulty of practically applying evidence based planning and has been refined and tested in twenty-nine countries across Europe. Despite Ireland having been chosen as a piloting site, it is not being used by Local Authorities to facilitate evidence based planning. Thus denying senior planners important information to ensure greater sustainability when planning for tourism. Since the Irish state, the DHPLG and Local Authorities are not utilising this free tool-kit developed, rolled out and promoted by the EC. This would question whether there is any point in the EC developing such management tools in the future, if they are continuing to be ignored by policy makers. This may suggest that for Local Authorities in Ireland to implement evidence based planning for tourism, it may need to be required by law. Otherwise, it would need to be funded and adequately staffed by qualified individuals within the Local Authority. Tourist arrivals to Ireland are on the increase, with 2016 being identified as a record year for Irish tourism in terms of both visitors and revenue. However, there continues to be a lack of evidence based planning for tourism in Ireland, which can result in Local Authorities struggling 144
to protect the tourism product. Without the necessary training for senior planners on their role in facilitating tourism planning, funding and greater accountability in planning decisions made by county councillors, the future sustainability of Irish tourism could be undermined. Also, it is clear that Local Authorities are not collecting data on tourism activity through tourism indicator systems, which can only lead to problems in the future. While there is even greater potential for tourism in Ireland, it is essential that Local Authorities pursue the right tourism planning policies based on evidence.
145
Chapter 6:
LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY SUSTAINABLE PLANNING FOR TOURISM
An approach more appropriate than devising definitions is to examine and assess tourist activities according to whether they satisfy a number of criteria of sustainability (Mowforth and Munt, 2016:104). 6.1
Introduction
Local Authorities have a legal obligation under the Planning and Development Act (20002015) to develop a CDP every six years that must contain policies for facilitating tourism planning (DEHLG, 2007a). It is this legal power, together with the necessary tools at their disposal that can contribute to the sustainable planning and development of tourism at destination level (UNEP/UNWTO, 2005; Soteriou and Coccossis, 2010; Maxim, 2013). The discussion and analysis in this chapter is instrumental in providing the first longitudinal study on the level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland addressed by the following aim: •
To determine, by way of a longitudinal study, the current level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland, with a specific focus on the tourism component of CDPs. In order to achieve this aim, it was essential to focus this analytical analysis within the following objectives: •
To determine the extent to which sustainable planning for tourism is evident within Local Authority CDPs. • To conduct a nationwide content analysis of tourism plans within Local Authority CDPs in Ireland and assess if any link existed between tourist arrivals and the provision of sustainable planning for tourism. This study builds upon existing knowledge by analysing and discussing the findings from an updated appraisal of Local Authority development plans in 2016. It contributes to new knowledge through comparison with previous research in 2006. This analysis will provide a deeper and more current up-to-date nationwide assessment on the direction of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities. A theoretical framework was developed and employed (Table 6.1) to examine Local Authority CDPs for the presence of specific
146
sustainability criteria. For the longitudinal analysis, this theoretical framework, although based on prior research, was revised to acknowledge current legislation and theory. Table 6.1
Theoretical framework to assess Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism
1. Local Authority compliance and development of tourism 4. Planning for the environmental impacts of tourism plans and policies Compliant with Planning and Development Act (2015) Policy recognise the environmental impact of tourism What year does the CDP cover? Tourism carrying capacity calculations for sensitive areas Volume dedicated to tourism planning within the CDP Sustainable development of eco-tourism Stand-alone Local Authority tourism development plan Support the protection of biodiversity Specific tourism policy section in CDP Support the protection of sensitive landscapes Number of tourism policies in the CDP Good environmental management for tourism enterprises Number of tourism strategies to implement tourism policies (energy/water conservation, waste management, green within the CDP building) Tourism policy integrated in other areas of the CDP 5. Planning for the economic impacts of tourism (accommodation housing/holiday home provision, waste Positive economic impacts of tourism supported water/sewage, transportation) Analysis of tourism flow (volume and value) 2. Sustainable planning of tourism in CDP Management of leakages from tourism Sustainable planning for tourism supported in CDP Provide opportunities for local tourism entrepreneurs Sustainable development of tourism supported in CDP (local goods and services) Specific tourism land-use measures Tourism industry regulation supported in CDP Sustainable tourism resort planning guidelines 6. Planning for the socio-cultural impacts of tourism Development design standards for tourism Consultation/participation techniques utilised in planning Tourism policy benefited from the use of indicator systems Local satisfaction, ratio of tourists to locals calculated Provision of tourism signage policy Archaeological/historic preservation in tourism policy Sustainable tourism policy on caravan and camping Protect public rights of way for tourism Inclusion/accessibility for tourists with disabilities Tourism disaster plan 3. Integration of tourism planning guidelines Intellectual and cultural property rights of communities Tourism policy compliant with global tourism guidelines protected by tourism policy Tourism policy compliant with European tourism guidelines Best practice examples for tourism at sensitive sites Tourism policy compliant with national tourism guidelines
Source: adapted from (Inskeep, 1991; WTO, 1995; Dymond, 1997; UNWTO, 2001; UNEP/UNWTO, 2005; Boyd and Hanrahan, 2007, 2008, 2012, Hanrahan, 2008; Fáilte Ireland, 2007a, 2009ab, 2012; GSTC, 2013; EC, 2016a; Mowforth and Munt, 2016) The six individual areas of the framework (Local Authority compliance and development of tourism plans and policies, support for the sustainable planning of tourism, integration of tourism planning guidelines, planning for the environmental impacts of tourism, planning for the economic impacts of tourism and planning for the socio-cultural impacts of tourism) were discussed initially in chronological order. Then together as a combined tool to provide the first baseline longitudinal study on the level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. 6.2
Local Authority compliance and development of tourism plans and policies
Analysis confirms that all twenty-eight Local Authorities in Ireland abide by the Planning and Development Act (2000-2015) and make a new development plan every six years (DEHLG, 2007a). Current results in 2016 are consistent with previous findings from 2006 on the preparation and publishing of Local Authority CDPs. 147
Table 6.2
Time period of Local Authority CDPs and volume dedicated to tourism
Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective
Year
CW 2006 04 Year does the CDP cover 2016 15 Volume dedicated to tourism planning within the 2006 0 CDP 2016 21
CN 03 14 2 11
CE 05 17 3 17
CK 03 14 4 9
Local authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW % change 00 04 04 05 03 03 05 02 05 03 05 03 03 01 03 99 03 02 05 03 04 05 02 01 04 n/a 12 16 16 17 15 14 17 15 17 15 10 15 15 13 14 13 14 14 17 09 10 11 14 13 16 6 1 1 6 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 12 0 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 8 4 +192% 5 6 4 12 8 6 6 21 5 6 9 13 22 9 7 12 5 11 8 3 4 8 10 26 20
Results from the longitudinal content analysis illustrates a significant increase nationwide in the volume dedicated to tourism planning and development within CDPs between 2006 to 2016. To put this change in a nationwide perspective, collectively the total volume dedicated to tourism planning and development by all twenty-nine CDPs increased by 192% in the years 2006 to 2016. Certainly, this substantial increase points to a greater emphasis being placed on tourism as a development activity by Local Authorities. However, analysis here just determined volume, this longitudinal study further analysed the content of these plans. Before these results are discussed, the first step was to determine if Local Authorities had specific tourism planning polices or objectives within their development plans. 6.2.1 Integration of tourism planning within Local Authority CDPs Effective policy provision is prominent in literature on tourism planning and development (Hall and Jenkins, 1995; Dredge and Jenkins, 2007; Dredge and Jamal, 2015). The analysis of development plans found that all development plans contained a specific tourism policy section. This was a 21% increase in the number from 2006. Table 6.3
Integration of tourism planning within Local Authority CDP
Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective Tourism policy integrated within other areas of CDP Specific tourism policy section in CDP Number of tourism strategies to implement tourism policies within the CDP
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW % change 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x +7% 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x +21% 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2006 0 0 0 7 23 0 4 30 0 5 0 0 5 11 6 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 25 18 -26% 2016 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 1 3 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 5 3 5 Year
Further analysis found all these tourism policies and objectives to be integrated within other areas of the CDP, for example economic development and transport policies. This pattern of integration was explicit throughout the decade from 2006. Current theorists on tourism planning (Reisinger and Turner, 2003; Panyik, Costa and Rátz, 2011; Mason, 2016; Mowforth and Munt, 2016), all discuss the concept of integration, particularly in the context of its sustainability (Gössling and Hörstmeier, 2003; Panyik et al, 2011). These results point to Local Authorities contributing to their destinations overall sustainability by not insolating tourism.
148
However, any assessment of progress in sustainable planning for tourism must involve the examination of policies or planning objectives present within CDPs. Dredge and Jamal (2015) discuss the significance of tourism planning policy, making the point that it influences how tourism develops and how its benefits are distributed. This importance is reflected in the 21% increase in the number of development plans containing specific tourism policies or objectives in 2016 compared to 2006. Findings do however; reveal that the actual number of these policies or objectives contrasted significantly from one Local Authority to another. This longitudinal study has indicated that the presence of strategies to aid in policy implementation has dropped 26% in 2016, when compared to 2006. For example, in 2016 County Kerry’s (KY) CDP had seventy-one policies and objectives relating to tourism planning and development. Yet there were no tourism strategies identified within the CDP to implement these policies or objectives. Strategies for policy implementation, together with timelines and associated budgets have all been emphasised by academics (Murphy and Murphy, 2004; Hanrahan, 2008; Mason, 2016; Mowforth and Munt, 2016) as necessary for successful policy implementation. Furthermore, Local Authorities need to designate who will implement these policies and objectives by a set date. Examples of this procedure can be found in the back of every CDP within its respective environmental section. The absence of such operational procedures could impede the development and implementation of sustainable planning policies for tourism. 6.2.2 Specific stand-alone Local Authority tourism development plan This longitudinal study has found a greater number of Local Authorities producing stand-alone tourism development plans in 2016, when compared to 2006. These plans contain specific policies, objectives and strategies for achieving a sustainable and controlled approach to tourism planning and development. Findings illustrate that Local Authorities are acknowledging the importance of developing local plans that specifically address opportunities for growth through collaboration with stakeholders. While Choy (1991) supports the formulation of such tourism plans, Yüksel and Yüksel (2000) downplay their importance and believes that the implementation of many tourism plans has been relatively unsuccessful. However, it is essential that this growing number of local tourism development plans fit into the context of national and regional plans. This will ensure consistency with higher level policy. The question of the importance of tourism indicator systems has been addressed in the literature (Lozano-Oyola et al, 2012; Blancas et al, 2015). However, results from the content analysis 149
illustrate a similar pattern in the decade since 2006, with respect to the utilisation of tourism indicator systems despite authors outlining their importance in strategic planning and policy making (Rosenström and Kyllonen, 2007; Cassar, Conrad, Bell and Morse, 2013). A search for the penetration of tourism indicator systems that directly apply to Ireland such as the DITACHIEV Model (Flanagan et al, 2007), GSTC-D (GSTC, 2013) or the ETIS (EC, 2016a) was integrated into the content analysis. Results found that no Local Authority was utilising any tourism indicator systems in the both the development of specific tourism plans and also within the wider tourism planning process. Table 6.4
Specific stand-alone Local Authority tourism development plan
Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective
Year
Stand-alone Local Authority tourism development plan Tourism policy benefited from the use of indicator systems
2006 2016 2006 2016
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW x x x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
% change
+34% no change
This absence of tourism indicator systems is somewhat worrying for a number of reasons. First, they assist tourism planners and decision makers in evaluating performances, setting targets and anticipating future scenarios (Dwyer and Kim, 2003; Croes, 2011; Crouch, 2011; Mendola and Volo, 2017). Second, Volo (2015) discusses how tourism indicators help in tracking changes and identifying trends, and can be used to measure outputs and reveal performance of the industry. While there has been relatively little research devoted to the integration of tourism indicator systems in Ireland, it is obvious from discussions with senior planners and the results of this longitudinal analysis that Local Authorities in Ireland are continuing to ignore these vital tools, which facilitate evidence based planning. This finding necessitates the importance of determining what direction Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism has taken over the last decade. 6.3
Sustainable planning for tourism within Local Authority CDP
Although the support for sustainable planning for tourism within CDPs remained unchanged, in 2016 all development plans were found to be in support of sustainable development, an increase of 10% from 2006. Findings here suggest that Local Authorities in Ireland acknowledge the need to plan and develop tourism sustainably to ensure its long-term future.
150
Table 6.5
Sustainable planning for tourism supported in CDPs
Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective Sustainable planning for tourism supported in the CDP Sustainable development of tourism supported in CDP
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW % change 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x no 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x change 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x +10% 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Year
Findings here are in line with current legislation (Planning and Development Act) in that development plans must be the over-arching strategic framework documents for sustainable development (DAHLG, 2007a). Despite current theory corroborating Mowforth and Munt’s (2016) endorsement of sustainability as a development approach, it was revealed that a number of Local Authorities continue to follow a boosterism approach to tourism planning. Many tourism components of CDPs were found to be focusing entirely on the economic benefits of tourism, a key indicator of a boosterism approach as documented by several authors (Getz, 1987; Hall. 1991; Dredge, 1999; Andriotis, 2000, Boyd and Hanrahan, 2007, 2008, 2012). Local Authorities need to plan for tourism on the basis of three essential principles: the balance between economic growth, environmental preservation, and social justice (Cooper et al, 2008; Soteriou and Coccossis, 2010; Mowforth and Munt, 2016). This planning approach could be aided through the provision of specific tourism land use zoning, and the development of resort planning guidelines and design standards. 6.3.1 Tourism land use measures, resort planning and design standards The concentration of tourist amenities and services in specified tourism zones allows for efficient provision of infrastructure and facilities. It is evident from Table 6.6 that nine development plans in 2016 had policies specifically for tourism land use zoning, an increase of 17% from 2006. Mowforth and Munt (2016) document the rise in the number and methods available to forward planners responsible for the movement of tourists. Hartley (2006) further discusses how Local Authorities are typically structured to address land use decisions associated with resource development and development patterns This positive shift identified from the analysis, although slight, encourages Local Authorities to integrate tourism planning within the application of development controls. Through this provision, Local Authorities may contain any potential negative impacts from tourism within certain areas. Thus helping to protect sensitive areas from unsuitable development. Resort planning and development standards represent different land use planning considerations for Local Authorities. A number of authors (Godfrey, 1998; UWTO, 1998; Ruhanen, 2013) all endorse the adoption of principles for site planning, guidelines for tourist 151
services, and development standards. While the provision for resort planning guidelines in CDPs was found to be more frequent in 2016 when compared with 2006, their application was still lacking nationwide. A number of senior planners in 2016 highlighted why they do not provide such guidelines when planning for tourism: ‘We don’t have resort planning guidelines. We are not a resort location’ (Planner 2). ‘We don’t provide specific resort planning guidelines; however, the County Development Plan provides guidance for development in general’ (Planner 24). Resorts require a high level of environmental, social and economic qualities in order to offer a dynamic experience. Results illustrate that in the decade since 2006, a number of Local Authorities continue to overlook the importance of identifying maximum capacities and limits to growth at specific tourism developments. An increased understanding of the importance of these guidelines needs to be communicated to senior planners in Irelands Local Authorities. This will enable future CDPs to recognise the need for the provision of transportation, accommodation, visitor activities and all services required for visitors and employees. The provision of sustainable tourism development and design standards within Local Authority CDPs has increased by 31% in 2016. Establishing development and design standards for tourism facilities is an essential requirement for Local Authorities. They influence both the satisfaction levels of tourists together with the overall quality and character of the environment for residents. These findings acknowledge the importance that Local Authorities are now placing on tourism developments and how they integrate these into the natural and cultural environment. It is the responsibility of the DHPCLG to ensure that planning and building in Ireland contributes to sustainable and balanced development. To achieve this, the department produces a range of guidelines to help planning authorities, An Bord Pleanála, developers, and the general public. These guidelines cover many diverse areas such as architectural heritage, landscape, and residential density. Unfortunately, there are currently no guidelines specific to tourism development and design standards by the DHPLG. Findings from this study do however, point to the need for such guidelines to ensure a standardised approach to future sustainable planning and development of tourism in CDPs. In the decade since 2006, a greater provision of policies relating to tourism signage were evident in Local Authority development plans. Findings here suggest Local Authorities are 152
acknowledging the importance of both visitor dispersion and visitor flows within destinations. Similarly, sustainable policies in relation to caravan and camping have increased by 17% in 2016, when compared to 2006. The majority of these policies were found to address specific criteria for example, the maximum number of pitches to an acre. However, several consisted of a general provision and were found to be simplistic in nature. Without strong and detailed policies here, some Local Authorities are ignoring a very basic component of tourism plans. Table 6.6
Tourism land use measures, resort planning and design standards
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW 2006 x x x x Specific tourism land-use measures 2016 x x x x x x x x x 2006 x x Sustainable tourism resort planning guidelines 2016 x x x x x x x x 2006 x x x x x x x Development design standards for tourism 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Tourism signage policy 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Sustainable tourism policy on caravan and 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x camping 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Inclusion/accessibility for tourists with 2006 x disabilities 2016 x x x x Tourist numbers expressed as a % of total 2006 10% 7.3% 9.7% 18% 7.3% 29% 29% 29% 18% 1% 12 % 18% 12 % 12 % 9.7% 12 % 12 % 9.7% 12 % 14% 12 % 14% 7.3% 10% 10% 10% 12 % 10% 12 % arrivals to county 2016 1.9% 2.4% 10% 27% 6% 64% 64% 64% 23% 4.8% 3.2 %20% 1.4% 1.6% 8% 2 % 0.9% 2.9% 8% 1.6% 1.3% 1.1% 4% 2.3%2.3% 6% 2.9%8.6% 4.8% Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective Year
% change
+17% +17% +31% +7% +17% +10%
The provision for the disabled visitor in Local Authority CDPs has remained weak up to 2016. Four CDPs in 2016 were found to contain policies for the disabled visitor, an increase of three since 2006. It is essential that Local Authorities have policies in place to accommodate the disabled visitor in order to provide a meaningful experience, while also maintaining Ireland’s position in the tourism market. Findings show however, that the majority of CDPs do not reflect this important aspect of accessibility in tourism. While it should be noted that current research regarding this area has been limited (Darcy, 1998; Burnett and Bender, 2001; Israeli, 2002; Ray and Ryder, 2003; Ozturk, Yayli and Yesiltas, 2008), Ray and Ryder (2003) noted that people with disabilities have more money to spend than is often thought. Similarly, Bizjak, Knežević and Cvetrežnik (2011) discuss how people with disabilities have become an important niche market within the tourism industry. Nevertheless, travel and tourism is a right of all citizens. Equality and accessibility is a core indicator of the ETIS (EC, 2016a) and if Local Authorities wish to maintain or enhance their tourism markets, robust and detailed policies are needed to in regards to the disabled visitor. Tourism as an industry has a long tradition of embracing sustainable related initiatives (Budeanu et al, 2016). It is the sustainable planning of tourism that has become indispensable in minimising its potential negative impacts. Results from this longitudinal study have
153
n/a
confirmed the existence of a moderate shift nationwide on behalf of Local Authorities in areas that support greater sustainability in tourism. Although, the percentage of tourist arrivals to a County did not have any reflection on the depth and detail of the tourism plans within the CDPs. Without the use of tourism land use zoning, resort planning and design standards, Local Authorities seem to be lacking in their ability to afford tourism providers with the support and guidance needed throughout the planning and development stages of future tourism infrastructure and attractions. There is an assortment of policy documents and guidelines (see Table 2.1) that have been developed by organisations to aid Local Authorities in facilitating a sustainable planning approach to tourism. Their adoption and utilisation would enable the incorporation of sustainable planning principles into new and existing tourism components of CDPs. 6.4
Integration of tourism planning guidelines into Local Authority CDPs
Several international organisations, most notably the UNEP and the UNWTO are now having a growing influence on tourism governance (Hall, 2007). A search for the penetration of guidelines developed by international organisations was integrated into the textual analysis of the CDPs and the transcript analysis of discussions with the senior planners. This longitudinal study confirms the continued absence of global guidelines relating to tourism planning over the last decade within CDPs. Table 6.7
Integration of tourism planning guidelines into Local Authority CDPs
Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective
CDP
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW
2006 Tourism policy compliant with global tourism guidelines 2016 Tourism policy compliant with European tourism 2006 guidelines 2016 2006 Tourism policy compliant with national tourism guidelines 2016 x
% change
no change no change
x x x x x x x x
x x x x
x
x
x
x x x
x x x +38% x
Results from Table 6.6 illustrated that no CDP reflected any of the following guidelines and policy documents in 2016: ➢ UNEP: Tourism: Investing in energy and resource efficiency (2011) ➢ STG: Actions for More Sustainable European Tourism (2007) ➢ UNWTO: Aims for Sustainable Tourism (2005) ➢ OECD: Innovation in Tourism (2006) ➢ GSTC: Criteria for Destinations (2013) ➢ OECD: Indicators for Measuring Competitiveness in Tourism (2013) Essential criteria that acknowledges social equity, visitor fulfilment, local control, community wellbeing and cultural richness continue to be overlooked by Local Authorities. These specific
154
criteria are all found in the UNEP/UNWTO’s (2005) aims of sustainable tourism, which is still absent from tourism sections of Local Authority CDPs. Furthermore, destination level indicators, criteria for hotels and tour operators, and other widely accepted principles and guidelines, certification criteria and indicators also continue to be non-existent in CDPs. Local Authorities need to adopt these guidelines and tools as guiding frameworks in the development of future tourism planning policies in order to facilitate greater levels of sustainability in the tourism planning process. At European level, the EC has produced an array of guidelines also aimed at facilitating the sustainable planning and development of tourism: ➢ EC: Innovation in Tourism (2006) ➢ EC: Actions for more Sustainable Tourism (2007) ➢ EC: Cultural and Sporting Events: An opportunity for developing tourist destinations and the tourist industry (2007) ➢ UNEP: Tourism: Investing in energy and resource efficiency (2011) ➢ EC: Best Environmental Management Practice in the Tourism Sector (2013) ➢ EC: Enhancing the Competitiveness of Tourism in the EU (2013) ➢ EC: European Tourism Indicator Systems for Sustainable Destinations (2013) ➢ EEA: Report on the Feasibility for Regular Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Tourism (2014) Findings revealed that no Local Authority development plan, in either 2006 or 2016, integrated any EC tourism guidelines. This lack of integration of global or European level guidelines nationwide does raise concerns. Results from this longitudinal study support Mowforth and Munt’s (2016) argument that regulation for sustainability is a concept as contested as sustainability itself. Considering also Mason’s (2016) view that regulation is likely to involve the provision of information and instructions on what can and cannot be done. Their absence does not provide reassurance for the future sustainability of the Local Authority tourism planning process in Ireland. Findings from this longitudinal study question the plausibility of such guidelines being incorporated voluntarily into future development plans. This contention also questions whether national tourism guidelines, and in particular guidelines developed by the NTDA experience similar difficulties.
155
The content analysis examined the integration and application of the following national policies, strategies and guidelines: ➢ Tourism product development strategy 2007-2013 (Fáilte Ireland, 2007) ➢ Tourism and the environment 2007-2009 (Fáilte Ireland, 2007) ➢ Festivals and events: Best practise guidelines (Fáilte Ireland, 2007) ➢ Tourism strategy statement (Fáilte Ireland, 2008) ➢ Eco-tourism handbook (Fáilte Ireland, 2009) ➢ Regulations for caravan and camping Parks (Fáilte Ireland, 2009) ➢ New horizons for Irish tourism 2009-2013 (Fáilte Ireland, 2009) ➢ Historic towns in Ireland: Maximising your tourism potential (Fáilte Ireland, 2010) ➢ Tourism development and innovation: A strategy for investment (Fáilte Ireland, 2016) ➢ Guidelines for the protection of biodiversity (Fáilte Ireland, 2016) ➢ New horizons for Irish tourism: An agenda for action (DTTAS, 2008) ➢ People, place and policy: Growing tourism to 2025 (DTTAS, 2015) It should be noted that this above list is not exhaustive and each Local Authority CDP was examined for any integration of additional national and Fáilte Ireland policies and strategies. The original study in 2006 found that less than a quarter of CDPs reflected national tourism polices. A significant finding from this longitudinal study is that their integration was found to have risen significantly by 38% in 2016, with three quarters of development plans reflecting Fáilte Ireland guidelines. Findings here illustrate a growing influence the NTDA has when developing tourism components of CDPs. What is significant is that Local Authorities are continuing to reflect Guidelines for the Development of Caravan and Camping Sites (Board Fáilte, 1982) when planning for tourism, which are over 30 years old. However, not all Local Authorities were found to be 100% compliant with utilising national tourism guidelines, this should be achievable as these are all government agencies. It may be simpler just to make the incorporation of these guidelines a legal requirement. There was considerable confusion expressed by senior planners over the integration of such planning guidelines by their respective Local Authority. A number of senior planners confirmed that they did utilise specific global, EC and national guidelines when planning for tourism: ‘Yes, we would incorporate a number of these international guidelines when developing tourism and all our tourism policy in our CDP is consistent with Fáilte Ireland guidelines’ (Planner 2). However, this was in some cases not consistent with the results from the content analysis (Table 6.7). This suggests that a number of senior planners are unsure of what, or if, any higher level policy guidelines influenced the tourism elements of their CDP. This lack of clarity could
156
inevitability impact on the Local Authorities ability to integrate sustainable planning principles in respect to tourism within future development plans. It was the WTO (1998) who discussed the need for Local Authorities to consider higher-level policies for tourism. Parker and Doak (2012:74) examined how such guidelines can be facilitated at local level. The authors discussed that national government typically use a variety of ‘state machinery’ or ‘apparatus’ to help channel planning policy downwards. For example, the aim of the NTDA in Ireland is to work with other state agencies, in this case Local Authorities to implement practical strategies that will benefit Irish tourism. This collaboration is achieved through the adoption of specific guidelines developed to ensure the integration of sustainable development standards in the Local Authority tourism planning process. The Tourism Strategy Implementation Group (TSIG) assert that the key messages contained within New Horizons for Irish Tourism provide both the policy framework and operational plan for the development of the industry in Ireland (DTTAS, 2008). However, findings reveal that not all development plans reflect this strategy. As such, these messages have remained unheeded by a significant number of Local Authorities. Also, guidelines by Fáilte Ireland are developed with the intention of being easily implemented within Local Authority plans and strategies (Fáilte Ireland, 2012). The DTTAS now requires all Local Authorities to produce a tourism strategy (or update its existing strategy). This strategy will need to be consistent with their policy objectives in 'People, Place and Policy -Growing Tourism to 2025’. A number of senior planners have envisaged that this particular national tourism strategy will be considered in future tourism components of development plans: ‘DTTAS growing tourism to 2025 will come into assessment with our review of our development plan’ (Planner 25). This specific approach for the integration of higher-level tourism guidelines will aid Local Authorities in planning and developing a long term sustainable tourism industry in Ireland. However, the same process followed by senior planners for facilitating this particular document into CDPs needs to be applied to the existing global, EC, national and Failte Ireland tourism guidelines. As results from this longitudinal study clearly illustrate, this process is not working. 38% integration of national tourism planning guidelines is too low. While progress has been made over the last decade in integrating national tourism guidelines, there is still a clear lack of both global and EC guidelines within CDPs. Their adoption may only be realised if they are incorporated into the national planning framework. A process that
157
would result in such in –depth tourism guidelines becoming a legal requirement, while also establishing a clear policy framework for the future co-ordination of the sustainable planning and development of tourism. This continued low integration of higher level tourism guidelines, together with the absence of any recognised tourism indicator system, necessitates a deeper understanding of the environmental, economic and socio-cultural sustainability of CDPs. 6.5
Planning for the environmental impacts of tourism
It is evident from this study that the number of development plans acknowledging the relationship between tourism and the environment has increased significantly over the last decade. This increase can be attributed to comprehensive compliance, together with a welldocumented and planned effort from the National Parks and Wildlife (NPWS) and heritage council. Moreover, results here also highlight the impact of strong EU directives and Irish environmental legislation on the forward planning process. There was a 21% increase in the number of CDPs that acknowledge area protection measures as part of tourism policy. Findings here signal that Local Authorities are acknowledging the growth of tourism and recreation in and around protected areas, a topic that has received increased attention in academia (Balmford, Beresford and Green, 2009; Cao, Wang, Zhang, Wang, Pan, Wang, Jian and Deng, 2016). Also, this notable increase can be attributed to the requirement for Local Authorities to prepare Landscape Character Assessments (LCA). These assessments are used to inform and guide landscape policy, action plans and Local Authority development plans (DAHG, 2015), thus further protecting Ireland’s natural environment. Findings from this longitudinal study do illustrate how Local Authorities are continuing to overlook the importance of carrying capacity calculations when it comes to tourism planning in sensitive areas. The importance of carrying capacity calculations at tourism destinations in Ireland cannot be underestimated. For example, due to water shortages, massive amounts of drinking water had to be transported after the water table on two Aran Islands fell to drastically low levels. According to the Irish Times (2014), this water shortage could not have come at a worse time for Inis Meáin as ‘the island is packed with holidaymakers and tourism businesses are struggling to provide the basic water-based necessities’. Moreover, the EC is taking the Irish state to court over the pumping of raw sewage into rivers and the sea in thirty-eight towns and cities while existing treatment plans not suitable for the populations of their areas (Irish Times, 2017). This is leaving the country potentially liable for millions of euros in antipollution fines. Local Authorities need to consider such issues in future CDPs as Lobo (2015) 158
found they help ascertain the acceptable level of intensity by tourists in a specific area. While they can be sometimes difficult to quantify, for future tourism planning to be sustainable, respecting carrying capacity is necessary for Local Authorities in maintaining the quality of the environment in sensitive areas. Ireland’s natural biodiversity has created wonderful landscapes for tourists to explore and enjoy. The analysis found a 17% increase in the provision of biodiversity protection policies in tourism components of Local Authority CDPs over the decade. This illustrates a growing acceptance on behalf of Local Authorities in protecting Ireland’s varied habitats of forests, grasslands and dunes from the impact of tourism. However, this provision still appears weak nationwide. Moran, Petersone and Verones (2016) do note that protecting biodiversity is both an ecologically and an economically complex challenge. Fáilte Ireland acknowledge this and have developed a set of general principles for the protection of biodiversity, which should be adhered to across the sector (Fáilte Ireland, 2016). These guidelines, if adopted by Local Authorities will help safeguard and enhance their destinations natural assets upon which the tourism industry is so dependent. Again, these particular guidelines could be contained within the national planning framework to legally ensure their application by Local Authorities. Table 6.8
Planning for the environmental impacts of tourism
Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective Policy recognise the environmental impact of tourism Tourism carrying capacity calculations for sensitive areas Sustainable development of eco-tourism Support the protection of sensitive landscapes Good environmental management for tourism enterprises (energy/water conservation, waste management, green building) Support the protection of biodiversity
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2006 x 2016 x x x 2006 x x x x x 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2006 x 2016 x x x x x x x 2006 x 2016 x x x x x x Year
% change
+31% +3% +34% +21% +21% +17%
The sustainable development of ecotourism can provide new business opportunities for accommodation providers, caterers, and leisure resorts, which could capitalise on this potential. But Holden (2008) warns that for eco-tourism to contribute to environmental conservation, it needs to be fed into tourism policy. The provision of policies for the development of ecotourism increased by 34% in the decade since 2006. While this positive shift is acknowledged, further analysis found that policies in relation to eco-tourism remained simplistic in nature with little consideration or reflection of national guidelines and strategies. Ecotourism is an emerging tourism market segment, which appears to have significant potential to lead as an
159
example of best practice for development in Ireland. Local Authorities need to acknowledge that eco-tourism has to be carefully planned and managed if it’s to be authentic and avoid greenwashing. Seven Local Authorities had policies regarding good environmental management for tourism enterprises in their respective CDPs in 2016, compared with one in 2006. This slight increase (21%) is welcomed as Rahman, Reynolds and Svaren (2012) note how almost every industry today embraces sustainable business practices, at least in principle. However, it is clear from Table 6.8 (above) that a significant number of development plans nationwide continue to overlook this critical issue in reducing the negative environmental impacts of tourism facilities. The environmental impact resulting from tourism in destinations has for decades been at the core of several theoretical discussions (Amuquandoh, 2010b; Buckley, 2011; Davenport and Davenport, 2006; Hiltunen, 2007; Holden, 2008; Geneletti and Dawa, 2009; Griscom and Ashton, 2011; Li et al, 2014). This, together with the growing acceptance of sustainable development as an approach to tourism planning, has sparked academic interest in the environmental consequences for destinations. From the analysis, it is clear that in the decade since 2006 there has been an encouraging shift among Local Authorities in sustainably planning for the environmental impacts of tourism. But a number of vital criteria do continue to be absent from a number of development plans. These environmental standards in tourism have been communicated to Local Authorities since 1997, through a number of specific planning documents. Within the tourism section of ‘Sustainable Development, A Strategy for Ireland’ (Department of the Environment, 1997), it is outlined that sustainable tourism development should: ‘Provide a high-quality product based on, and in harmony with, a highquality natural environment.’ (DOE, 1997, p.115) The need for a high quality environment is reflected in section ten of the Planning and Development Act, which requires Local Authorities to include objectives for area protection in their development plans: ‘the preservation of the character of the landscape where, and to the extent that, in the opinion of the planning authority, the proper planning and sustainable development of the area requires it, including the preservation of views and prospects and the amenities of places and features of natural beauty or interest.’ (DECLG, 2013)
160
Also in ‘Our Sustainable Future: A framework for sustainable development for Ireland’, the need for sound environmental management is once more highlighted: ‘In Ireland, as elsewhere, economic sectors such as agriculture, forestry, tourism, fisheries and aqua-culture are reliant on the effective conservation and management of natural resources.’ (DECLG, 2012a:41) The goal here is to ensure the effective conservation and management of Ireland’s natural resources by Local Authorities as this is essential for the future of the Irish tourism industry. However, Ireland’s marine areas, mountains and wildlife are attracting ever increasing international arrivals. Poor planning decisions by Local Authorities in the past have resulted in a number of poorly located tourism developments: ‘Environmental problems specifically linked to tourism have not been a significant issue in Ireland, although it is recognised that some tourist accommodation projects were poorly located.’ (DTTAS, 2015b:92) Michailidou et al (2016), in their assessment of the environmental impacts of tourism, discuss how awareness by policy makers is of significant importance to avoid future overloading on the environment. However, it is clear from Table 5.7 that when analysing the relationship between tourism planning and environmental sustainability, a number of Local Authority CDPs still do not acknowledge fully this interaction between tourism and the physical environment in policy provision. Fáilte Ireland does however provide specific actions which they recommend Local Authorities take in collaboration with themselves. For example, Fáilte Ireland’s Environmental Action Plan (2007a) was designed to ensure the integration of environmentally sustainable development standards within the tourism sector: ➢ Fáilte Ireland will prepare a checklist and methodology to assist Local Authorities in integrating sustainable tourism principles and policies into their Development Plans ➢ Fáilte Ireland will provide advice to Local Authorities on the sustainable tourism policy content of County and City Development Plans and of selected Local Area Plans (Fáilte Ireland, 2007a, p.18) This changing role of Irelands NTDA highlights a more proactive approach to mitigating the impacts of tourism on the natural environment. Also, this collaboration will enable Local Authorities to protect Ireland’s natural environment while also encouraging the planning and development of tourism. Chapter five determined that the support from Fáilte Ireland to senior planners in tourism planning was found to be gratified. However, results from this longitudinal study do illustrate an improvement, regardless is still not at 100%. Perhaps this checklist and
161
methodology (Fáilte Ireland, 2007) needs to be handed directly to planners or made a legal requirement. The role government has with regards to tourism; and the influence state policy has on tourism planning and development has been examined by both (Bramwell and Lane, 2000) and (Hall, 2011). Analyses from this longitudinal study have provided new knowledge that highlights a shift towards more environmentally sustainable planning approach for tourism in Ireland. Weaknesses were however identified with a number of specific criteria continuing to be disregarded. The core indicators of the ETIS would allow Local Authorities gather essential, key and or baseline information required to understand, monitor, and manage the environmental impacts of tourism at local level. This monitoring of environmental sustainability is of particular importance at a time when Ireland is receiving record numbers of tourist arrivals. 6.6
Planning for the economic impacts of tourism
The continued growth in visitor arrivals to Ireland necessitates that the economic impacts of tourism to be monitored and managed. Results from the analysis reveals a 21% increase in the number of CDPs supporting the economic impacts of tourism. This finding is consistent with current theory on the symbolic relationship between tourism and foreign exchange earnings, generation of income, employment and regional and local development (Mason, 2016). Results from this longitudinal study also corroborate the current trend in the economic climate in Europe that have: ‘Resulted in governments identifying and subsidising productive sectors of the economy to solve macro-economic problems such as growth, unemployment and fiscal or monetary instabilities.’ (Tugcu, 2014:207) However, Cooper et al (2008) warns that such contributions can cause inflation, opportunity costs, and over dependence on tourism as an industry. Thus, the monitoring and management of these impacts are of critical importance for future sustainability of Irish tourism. It is visitor spending that supports the local tourism industry, thus providing real benefits to the local population. Findings point to a greater importance being placed on retaining tourism’s economic impacts, through the management of leakage from tourism. Managing tourism related leakages is just one of the many economic impacts that require careful monitoring by Local Authorities. This will ensure that local businesses continue to benefit from tourism development. Similarly, a significant increase was found in the number of development plans 162
that provide opportunities for local tourism entrepreneurs since 2006. The majority of these policies focused on the establishment and promotion of food markets, selling of local produce and in particular the development of farmer markets. Table 6.9
Economic impacts of tourism supported
Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective Positive economic impacts of tourism supported Analysis of tourism flow (volume and value) Management of leakages from tourism Opportunities for local tourism entrepreneurs (local goods and services) Tourism industry regulation supported in CDP Tourist numbers expressed as a % of total arrivals to county
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW % change 2006 x x x x x x x x x x +21% 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2006 no change 2016 2006 +10% 2016 x x x x 2006 +41% 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x CDP
2006 +7% 2016 x x 2006 10% 7.3% 9.7% 18% 7.3% 29% 29% 29% 18% 1% 12 % 18% 12 % 12 % 9.7% 12 % 12 % 9.7% 12 % 14% 12 % 14% 7.3% 10% 10% 10% 12 % 10% 12 % n/a 2016 1.9% 2.4% 10% 27% 6% 64% 64% 64% 23% 4.8% 3.2 % 20% 1.4% 1.6% 8% 2% 0.9% 2.9% 8% 1.6% 1.3% 1.1% 4% 2.3% 2.3% 6% 2.9% 8.6% 4.8%
The WTO (1998) emphasis that it is small and medium sized enterprises that are of vital importance in the development of a competitive and profitable tourism industry. Local Authorities are in an ideal position to support tourism enterprises through provision of many services. It is clear from Table 6.9 that Local Authorities, through collaboration with their LEO’s are actively encouraging the development of an entrepreneurial atmosphere when planning for tourism. Results from this longitudinal study also highlighted a slight increase in the provision of policies on tourism industry regulation. This tool of regulation however, requires a high level of discipline to succeed and tourism like any other industry is not according to Butler (1991:208) ‘expected on its own accord to be responsible’. But for any agency that is considering the encouragement of tourism, or has an economy that is already dependent on tourism, the need for accurate information on its impacts is required (Allan, Lecca and Swales, 2017). Despite the positive increase in the support for the economic impacts associated with tourism, some key factors must be considered in relation to its sustainability. As evident from the percentage of visitor arrivals per county, tourism’s growth at the moment shows a poor dispersal of tourist arrivals on the periphery. This may be addressed in the years ahead thanks to the continued popularity of Ireland’s west coast, and the 2500km drive tourism route, the Wild Atlantic Way (WAW). Equally important, there is a need for Local Authorities, particularly in border counties, to examine the impact that the recent UK referendum to leave the EU will have on tourism
163
spending. Almost 3.3 million British tourists visited Ireland, together with the 1.5 million tourists from Northern Ireland, spending €1.3 billion in 2015 (ITIC, 2017). Tourism will be one of the first economic sectors in Ireland to feel the impact from ‘Brexit’ as the falling value of sterling would make holidaying in Ireland more expensive for British visitors. It is clear from Table 6.8 that there continues to be an absence of evidence based planning when analysing the economic impact of tourism. The monitoring of tourism flow, tourism enterprise performance and the quantity and quality of employment at destinations are vitally important for future development plans. Evaluating day and overnight visitors is important to better understand the spending patterns and economic impact of day visitors. This will allow Local Authorities to determine their dependency on tourism and develop policies around this. Hall (1998) contends that tourism cannot be allowed to progress without an overall guiding framework, together with sufficient prearranged strategies toward development goals. However, despite the low levels of monitoring the economic impacts of tourism, which are acknowledged in this longitudinal study, a number of specific Local Authorities continue to generate substantial revenues from tourism. No relationship was found to exist between the depth and detail of tourism policies and the geographic displacement of tourist arrivals or the dependency of each county on tourism as an economic driver. Findings from this longitudinal study do acknowledge the breath of challenges faced by Local Authorities in these times of economic uncertainty. Findings from this longitudinal study illustrate that a small number of development plans are progressing towards a more economically sustainable stance when it comes to tourism planning. However, results do raise genuine questions on the ability of the majority of Local Authorities to plan sustainably for tourism. Particularly if they want to grasp the full economic potential of sustainable tourism development. Issues relating to adequate task designations, budgets and time frames while considered prominent in literature on sustainable planning for tourism (Mason, 2016; Mowforth and Munt, 2016) continue to be absent from tourism policy in CDPs. Without effective means to translate ideas into actions, Local Authorities may run the risk of having their economically sustainable policies for tourism becoming irrelevant. It is here that the ETIS plays a crucial role in the planning process. This particular indicator system collects data about the various aspects and activities of the tourism destination from different information sources at local level (EC, 2016a). It enables Local Authorities to monitor tourist arrivals from year to year, and allow 164
for evidence based planning. Thus avoiding the ‘build it and they will come’ approach to tourism. 6.7
Planning for the socio-cultural impacts of tourism
The understanding of resident perceptions and responses is fundamental to the successful and sustainable development of tourism (Sharpley, 2014; Šegota, Mihalič and Kuščer, 2016). Consulting with the host community is a legal obligation under the Planning and Development Act 2015. With regards to specific consultation techniques, section 20(1) of the Planning and Development Act, Local Authorities are legally obliged to take whatever steps it considers necessary to consult the public (DECLG, 2016): ‘It is requirement under law that Planning Authorities consult the public when doing development plans. There is no specific stand-alone consultation with regard to the tourism components of development plans’ (Planner 6). Findings illustrate that Local Authorities are continuing to encourage community involvement in the tourism planning process. Analysis found that a number of Local Authorities, in both 2006 and 2016, combined two or more participation methods. This combination is significant to identify potential problems and develop polices and strategies for the future, as tourism planning and development affects local communities in varying degrees. By incorporating meaningful consultation, Local Authorities are in a position to reinforce the positive impacts among the local community, of tourism while identifying and mitigating against negative ones. Table 6.10
Planning for the socio-cultural impacts of tourism
Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective Consultation/participation techniques utilised in planning Local satisfaction, ratio of tourists to locals calculated Archaeological/historic preservation in tourism policy Protect public rights of way for tourism Tourism disaster plan Intellectual and cultural property rights of communities protected by tourism policy Best practice examples for tourism at sensitive sites
Local Authorities in Ireland (abbreviated by first and last letter DL = Donegal) CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW % change 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x no 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x change 2006 no change 2016 2006 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x +21% 2016 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2006 x x x x x x x x +3% 2016 x x x x x x x x x 2006 no change 2016 2006 +10% 2016 x x x 2006 no change 2016 CDP
Analysis has revealed that the provision for archaeological and historic preservation increased by 21% in 2016, when compared to 2006. This highlights the significant work that Local Authorities, in conjunction with the OPW, do to safeguard and manage sites of archaeological and historic importance when planning sustainably for tourism. Fáilte Ireland (2009a) points 165
out that two in every three tourists will go to a heritage site during their stay. From the increase noted in this longitudinal study, is it clear that Local Authorities are acknowledging the growth in cultural tourism and are taking the necessary steps in protecting sites within their county, in the development of tourism planning policy. The increase in recreation tourism to Ireland, and in particular walking tours, has highlighted a contentious issue at the moment for Local Authorities. Since 2006, provisions for protecting pubic rights of way for tourism in CDPs has increased, but only slightly from eight in 2006 to nine in 2016. Irelands pleasing landscapes and wildlife offer a unique opportunity for international visitors. However, findings here do not acknowledge the importance being placed on the outdoor tourism market. Tourists participating in hiking and walking require legally established routes to be identified in order for them to access beaches, mountains and headlands. Local Authorities can protect such rights of way through consultation with the various interest groups such as Keep Ireland Open (KIO), Irish Farmers Association (IFA) and local walking groups. This should help avoid potential costly and time-consuming legal cases being played out in public. Ireland’s culture of folklore, language and customs is renowned around the world and is a key factor in influencing visitor arrivals. Results from the content analysis show a noteworthy increase in the presence of policies that focus on the protection of intellectual and cultural property rights. The increasing presence of policy in this area is a positive indication of how particular Local Authorities are protecting traditional cultures and ways of life from the direct impacts of tourism. Despite the positive increases illustrated in Table 6.10 (above), baseline data generated from this longitudinal study has identified a continued lack of provision in the following areas of the framework: ➢ Local satisfaction surveys, assessment of ratio of tourists to locals ➢ Tourism disaster policies or plans ➢ Codes of conduct for tourists, industry, host, government, communities’ best practice examples provided by the Local Authorities to all stakeholders The development of tourism does affect local communities in varying degrees. The need to manage the socio-cultural impacts of tourism in Ireland is widely acknowledged in scholarly literature (Kockel, 1994; Kneafsey, 1998; Cronin, 2003; Quinn, 2006; Healy, Rau and McDonagh, 2012; Healy et al, 2016). But without the use of tourism indicator systems, Local Authorities simply do not have the mechanisms in place for collecting data and the required 166
information to address the social cultural impacts. The use of tourism indicator systems and the integration of tourism guidelines may be achieved through the Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit. 6.8
Tourist arrivals and Local Authority development plans
As some Counties in Ireland consistently receive a significantly higher proportion of tourist arrivals than others, this longitudinal study assessed whether there was a correspondence between those counties and the development of policy that facilitates higher levels of sustainable planning for tourism in order to manage the potential impacts associated with the level of visitors. Findings from 2016 are consistent with 2006 findings, which determined no apparent association geographically between the depth and detail of tourism policies and the number of tourist arrivals to a County. Therefore, while this longitudinal study has identified a shift towards greater levels of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism, again there was no obvious spatial connections between Local Authorities use of tourism land use zoning, resort planning and design standards, and tourist arrivals to the region. Although tourism is acknowledged as a source for invigorating economic growth (Gunduz and Hatemi, 2005; Sequeira and Nunes, 2008; Tang, 2012) and creating employment (Su and Lin, 2014; Mehmood, Ahmad and Kan, 2015), findings from this longitudinal study illustrate that there is no relationship exhibited between the depth and detail of tourism policies for economic sustainability, and the geographic arrivals of tourists to each county. 6.9
Longitudinal analysis of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism
Results from this longitudinal study contribute to new knowledge with regards to a moderate 17% increase in Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. This chapter analysed and discussed the emphasis that is now being placed by Local Authorities, on greater levels of sustainability when it comes to tourism planning. The findings that emerged from this chapter are summarised and displayed below to illustrate the moderate shift towards greater levels of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in Ireland. A number of changes have occurred in Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism since the prior research was conducted in 2006. This variation in levels of sustainable planning for tourism was achieved by firstly determining the number of assessment criteria from Table 6.1, acknowledged in the
167
2006 study. These criteria are in listed in numerical order as they appeared in the theoretical framework. This process was then repeated for all development plans in 2016. Longitudinal analysis of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism
Assessment criteria within the theoretical framework found in tourism components of Local Authority CDPs
Stand-alone Local Authority tourism development plan Specific tourism policy section in CDP 3 Tourism policy integrated in other areas of CDP 4 Sustainable planning for tourism supported in CDP 5 Sustainable development of tourism supported in CDP 6 Specific tourism land-use measures 7 Sustainable resort planning guidelines 8 Development design standards for tourism 9 Tourism policy benefited from the use of indicator systems 10 Provision of tourism signage policy 11 Sustainable tourism policy on caravan and camping 12 Inclusion/accessibility for tourists with disabilities 13 Tourism policy compliant with global tourism guidelines 14 Tourism policy compliant with European tourism guidelines 15 Tourism policy compliant with national tourism guidelines 16 Policy recognise the environmental impact of tourism 17 Tourism carrying capacity calculations for sensitive areas 18 Sustainable development of eco-tourism 19 Support the protection of sensitive landscapes 20 Good environmental management for tourism enterprises 21 Support the protection of biodiversity 22 Positive economic impacts of tourism supported 23 Analysis of tourism flow (volume and value) 24 Management of leakages from tourism 25 Provides opportunities for local tourism entrepreneurs 26 Tourism industry regulation supported in CDP 27 Consultation/participation techniques utilised in planning 28 Local satisfaction, ratio of tourists to local calculated 29 Archaeological/historic preservation in tourism policy 30 Protect public rights of way for tourism 31 Tourism disaster plan Intellectual and cultural property rights of communities 32 protected by tourism policy 33 Best practice examples for tourism at sensitive sites Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective 1 2
Year CDP was published Volume dedicated to tourism planning in CDP Number of specific tourism policies in CDP Number of tourism strategies to implement tourism Tourist numbers expressed as a % of total arrivals to county
Key:
∑ of criteria (1)
33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Year 2006 2016 2006 2016 2006 2016 2006 2016 2006 2016
CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK
KE
KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO
Ts
Tn WD WH WX WW
• • 2016 • •
• •
• • •
•
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
• •
•
• •
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
10 29 29 11 29 9 8 16 0 18 17 4 0 0 17 26 3 14 2016 24 • 7 • • 6 2006 16 0 4 12 2 18 0 24 9 0
• 2006
3 0
CW 04 15 0 21 0 9 0 0 10% 1.9%
CN 03 14 2 11 6 29 0 2 7.3% 2.4%
CE 05 17 3 17 7 26 0 1 9.7% 10%
CK 03 14 4 9 8 8 7 2 18% 27%
DL 00 12 6 5 4 17 23 0 7.3% 6%
DLR 04 16 1 6 7 5 0 0 29% 64%
SD 04 16 1 4 1 16 4 2 29% 64%
FL 05 17 6 12 10 30 30 1 29% 64%
GY 03 15 4 8 25 38 0 1 18% 23%
KK 03 14 2 6 3 2 5 1 1% 4.8%
KE 05 17 2 6 16 29 0 1 12 % 3.2 %
KY 02 15 2 21 11 71 0 0 18% 20%
LS 05 17 1 5 3 29 5 1 12 % 1.4%
LM 03 15 2 6 1 9 11 1 12 % 1.6%
LK 05 10 2 9 8 11 6 1 9.7% 8%
LH 03 15 2 13 6 17 0 6 12 % 2%
LD 03 15 12 22 29 40 14 1 12 % 0.9%
MH 01 13 0 9 0 44 0 3 9.7% 2.9%
MO 03 14 2 7 8 10 0 0 12 % 8%
MN 99 13 1 12 8 53 0 2 14% 1.6%
OY 03 14 2 5 0 26 0 1 12 % 1.3%
RN 02 14 1 11 3 34 0 1 14% 1.1%
SO 05 17 2 8 10 17 0 0 7.3% 4%
Ts 03 09 2 3 5 4 0 1 10% 2.3%
Tn 04 10 2 4 5 4 4 1 10% 2.3%
WD 05 11 1 8 2 8 0 0 10% 6%
WH 02 14 3 10 10 54 0 5 12 % 2.9%
CW = CarloW (Local Authorities abbreviated by the first and last letter) Shaded cell = the presence of that particular activity in 2016 • = the total number of assessment criteria found in tourism components ∑ of criteria (1) = The number of criteria found in tourism components of Local Authority CDPs defined by blue for 2006 and green for 2016 Assessment criteria found in tourism sections of Local Authority CDPs in 2006 Assessment criteria found in tourism sections of Local Authority CDPs in 2016 The ∑ of criteria (2) = total found in tourism components of Local Authority CDPs in 2016
The 2006 (blue line) illustrates the number of planning criteria (2) for Co. Clare (CE) in 2006. Above this the 2016 (green line) shows an increase to 16 criteria. At the same time, the shaded box below CE highlights whether criteria were present within the CDP in 2016. Furthermore, below CE you can see the year the development plan was published, volume of development plan, number of specific tourism policies, number of tourism strategies and percentage of
168
WX 01 13 8 26 33 41 25 3 10% 8.6%
WW 04 16 4 20 11 43 18 5 12 % 4.8%
∑ of criteria (2) = total found in tourism components of Local Authority CDPs in 2016
# order
Figure 6.1
tourist arrivals. When this is repeated for each Local Authority, a larger picture is revealed for Ireland showing a longitudinal snap shot of sustainable tourism planning. Given the aim of this thesis, it is necessary to discuss longitudinal comparison in the changes occurring in Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism from 2006 to 2016. It is easy to expect change to be more rapid than the results of this study suggest in Figure 6.1. But acknowledging the level where Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism has risen from in 2006 (26%), to its current position in 2016 (43%) is a cause for encouragement. While Budeanu et al (2016) discuss how sustainability has become an established function of governmental agendas, Dredge and Jamal (2015) note how effective policy provision and planning lie at the heart of the discussion on how tourism develops. While a moderate increase was exhibited nationwide for 2016 in comparison to 2006, it is clear that in some cases this shift has at best been minimal. At this rate, the moderate shift towards greater sustainability in the Local Authority tourism planning process may be insufficient considering the increasing numbers of visitors coming to Ireland. Essentially the positive shift identified in this chapter is not happing fast enough. Therefore, this longitudinal comparison raises questions on the ability of Local Authorities to sustainably plan for tourism. Without a greater push towards increased levels of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities nationwide, irreversible damage could potentially degrade Ireland’s tourism product. We know that Local Authorities can be slow to embrace change, but if the DHPLG and Fáilte Ireland were to provide support and guidelines for the development of CDPs it could help set an example for Local Authorities in the future when making plans. It is clear from this longitudinal analysis that a number of development plans built upon previous levels of sustainable planning for tourism and did progress towards greater degrees of sustainability in the decade since 2006 (DL, DLR, FL, MO and SO). Could Local Authorities simply be recycling tourism planning policies from plan to plan with little consideration of the requirements and capacity of the county? In any case, it would be reasonable to think that tourism components of development plans would naturally be moving towards increasing levels of sustainability due to the increasing attention directed towards responsible tourism development. Mihalic (2016) notes that the translation of a belief in sustainability into responsibility in practice is a process that has to be managed. The DHPLG needs to examine the reasons behind such findings and ascertain why a number of Local Authority CDPs are not embracing greater levels of sustainable planning when it comes to tourism. However, with the continued absence of indicator systems within tourism components of CDPs, a consensus on 169
sustainability in tourism may be difficult to achieve. It is evident from Figure 6.1, that the adoption of global and EU tourism policy documents, which are top down, expensive and time consuming to develop, continues to be overlooked by planners. The presence of higher level policy guidelines can ensure Local Authorities incorporate the necessary sustainable criteria into tourism components of CDPs. The presence of such would thrust the implementation of sustainable planning for tourism beyond the existing levels identified in Figure 6.1. In relation to national level tourism policy, its application appears weak. The 38% increase noted over the last decade in the utilisation of these guidelines is not sufficient. These guidelines should be witnessing adoption rates of at least 90% or greater since many of these are intended to be utilised by Local Authorities to ensure sustainability in tourism planning. The longitudinal analysis of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism (Figure 6.1) highlights there was no apparent association between the levels of sustainability in development plans and the percentage of visitor arrivals to the county (bottom row of the figure). While a number of Local Authorities (DLR, SD, KY and FL) continue to receive a significantly higher proportion of tourists than others. Clearly, these Local Authorities would have more revenue from tourism, thus enabling them to invest more in managing tourism impacts and the tourism planning process. However, is evident from this longitudinal analysis that higher proportions of tourist arrivals do not correspond with higher levels of assessment criteria acknowledged within CDPs. A potential consequence of the growth in tourism numbers is the increased pressure on Local Authorities to safeguard key assets vital to the future sustainability of Irish tourism such as scenic landscapes from unsustainable tourism development. The need for practical and feasible planning policies to ensure the sustainability of tourism is discussed by Liu (2003). But the presence of tourism indicator systems, specific budgets, timelines for implementation and staff allocations in tourism policy continues to be absent from development plans. This challenges whether a policy for the sustainable planning of tourism could even be comprehensively implemented. This overview of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism has provided new material and understanding. A longitudinal analysis has provided the first nationwide depiction of the move towards modest levels of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in Ireland. This moderate increase represents an opportunity for Local Authorities to reinforce their shift towards a more sustainable approach to tourism planning by addressing these inadequacies in future development plans. By utilising a specific tourism policy checklist, senior planners would be aided by acknowledging specific sustainable planning, while also 170
identifying lead partners and timelines for policy implementation. This checklist will form one part of the overall Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit. 6.10
Towards a Local Authority tourism policy checklist
In light of the longitudinal analysis conducted, this chapter now concludes by reassessing the theoretical framework (Table 6.1). Findings from the content analysis, together with relevant theoretical literature will be utilised to develop a Local Authority tourism policy checklist. Table 6.11
Towards a Local Authority tourism policy checklist Indicate:
Yes ✓or No X Criteria – is there a tourism planning policy relating to this topic within CDP? Do the Local Authority monitor tourism destination management Do the Local Authority monitor the economic value of tourism Do the Local Authority monitor social and cultural impact of tourism Do the Local Authority monitor the environmental impact of tourism Does the Local Authority have a stand-alone tourism development plan Does the development plan have a specific tourism policy section? Has tourism policy been integrated within other areas of the plan Do tourism policies comply with specific tourism land use zoning and development control Does tourism policy reflect sustainable tourism resort planning guidelines Do tourism policies reflect sustainable development and design standards for tourism Did tourism planning policies benefit from the incorporation of tourism indicator systems Does tourism policy address the provision of tourism signage Do tourism policies encourage sustainable caravan and camping developments Does tourism policy encourage inclusion/accessibility for tourists with disabilities Are tourism policies compliant with global tourism guidelines Do tourism policies reflect EC tourism planning guidelines, policies and strategies Do tourism policies reflect Fáilte Ireland guidelines and strategies Does tourism policy acknowledge national tourism planning guidelines and strategies Do tourism policies recognise the environmental impacts of tourism Does tourism policy recognise the carrying capacity of the County Does tourism policy support the protection and conservation of biodiversity and landscapes Does tourism policy encourage the sustainable development of eco-tourism Do tourism policies support the increased use of local/soft mobility transport services Policies support good environmental management for tourism enterprises (water/energy/resource use) Does tourism policy encourage climate change mitigation schemes for tourism enterprises Do tourism policies support the positive economic impacts of tourism Does tourism policy recognise the need for analysis of tourism flow within the County Does tourism policy focus on addressing seasonal employment in popular tourism destinations Does tourism policy focus on cooperation between private tourism enterprise and community groups Does tourism policy encourage corporate social responsibility in new and existing tourism enterprises Do tourism policies within the CDP reflect the needs and concerns of the local community Do tourism policies focus on the development of traditional/local culture and heritage Are intellectual and cultural property rights of communities protected by tourism policy Do tourism policies provide for an emergency tourism disaster plan Does tourism policy support best practice examples or behaviour guidelines at sensitive sties
Source: Modified from Hanrahan (2008) and EC (2016a). This basic outlined Local Authority checklist (Table 6.11) will form one part of the overall planning tool-kit. It has also been integrated with the indicators of the ETIS to further improve future policy provision in tourism components of CDPs.
171
6.11
Conclusion
The starting point of this chapter was to determine the level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. This longitudinal study has identified a moderate increase (17%) in the level of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in the decade since 2006. However, the continued lack of evidence based planning is a problem, starving Local Authorities of the necessary data to adopt a proactive approach to tourism planning. This, together with low levels of tourism land use measures, and resort planning and development design standards for tourism, highlights poor planning on behalf of Local Authorities who hold the key to controlling tourism development. It was clear from this longitudinal study that the current process intended for integrating tourism planning guidelines voluntarily into CDPs is not working. There continues to be no integration of the global or EU guidelines relevant to tourism planning within Local Authority CDPs. Thus denying senior planners the necessary guidance in facilitating sustainable planning for tourism. Furthermore, the 38% increase noted over the last decade in the utilisation of national tourism guidelines is not sufficient. This is worrying as many of these guidelines were specifically aimed at Local Authorities to be utilised in the tourism planning process. There was no geographical relationship between tourist arrivals and the quality and depth of tourism components of Local Authority CDPs. However, the natural environment continues to underpin much of the tourism product. Since 2006, tourism planning by Local Authorities continues to be characterised by a lack of clear environmental, economic and socio-cultural planning policies. Local Authorities are legally required under the Planning and Development Act (2015) to develop planning policies for tourism and have the legal power to grant or refuse planning permission (Planning and Development Regulations, 2013). The old adage ‘if you fail to plan, plan to fail’ could not be more pertinent to this longitudinal study. Findings could suggest a lack of interest or enthusiasm for tourism planning in the decade since 2006. Regardless, it is evident from this longitudinal study that Local Authorities in Ireland need to step up to the challenge of encouraging a more sustainable approach to tourism planning in the future. As poor planning, has the potential to slowly diminish the tourism product if not addressed.
172
Chapter 7:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1
Introduction
Tourism’s contribution to Irish GDP in 2016 rose by 5.4% to €4.7 billion, when compared to 2015, and is expected to grow by 3.4% per year to €6.6 billion by the year 2026 (WTTC, 2016). For Local Authorities to sustain this growth and protect the long term sustainability of the tourism product, they need to adopt an evidence based approach to tourism planning. This research contributes to new knowledge by providing the first longitudinal study on Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. It has identified a moderate increase in the levels of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in the ten years since 2006. While limited, this 17% increase is welcomed and illustrates a moderate shift towards a more sustainable approach to tourism planning. However, with the continued absence of any evidence based planning, it is clear that Local Authorities are pursuing a development first approach to tourism. While Fáilte Ireland (2015) states that: ‘The future of Irish tourism is inextricably linked to the quality of the environment. Scenic landscapes, coastline, rivers and lakes, and cultural heritage are the bedrock upon which Irish tourism has been built’. In reality, it would appear that there are significant problems at local level when it comes to planning: ‘The European Commission is prosecuting Ireland for failing to stop raw sewage from being discharged into waters. Despite being warned in 2005 to tackle pollution and address the public health risks, the State has failed to provide waste water treatment facilities in 38 areas across the country’ (Paul Melia, Irish Independent 15/02/2017). Furthermore, this raw sewage is being ‘pumped into rivers and bathing waters in some of our most scenic tourist areas because there is no treatment plant in place’ (Paul Melia, Irish Independent 13/03/2014). This is the state of planning currently in Ireland with existing infrastructure unable to cater for existing demand, resulting in damage to the physical
173
environment and health risks to visitors. Local Authorities across Ireland have a statutory obligation to plan and maintain the natural environment which tourists put such a high value on. Without an evidence based approach to tourism planning, Local Authorities would be unable to anticipate future planning needs, thus potentially diminishing the tourism product. This chapter restates the aims and objectives of this longitudinal study while drawing conclusions from the analysis and discussion in each area. A tourism planning tool-kit for Local Authorities is recommended which can help bridge the gap between academic knowledge and the process of facilitating evidence based planning for tourism. The chapter finally proposes support mechanisms for evidence based planning for tourism while making a number of recommendations for future avenues of tourism research. 7.2
Local Authority tourism planning and the use of tourism indicator systems
One of the aims of this research was to examine the Local Authority tourism planning process and whether tourism indicator systems where utilised to enable an evidence based approach to tourism planning: •
To examine the application and implementation of tourism indicator systems in the Local Authority tourism planning process in Ireland. In order to achieve this aim, it was necessary to focus the analysis on the following objectives: • •
To critically examine the Local Authority tourism planning process To determine if Local Authorities are implementing tourism indicator systems in the tourism planning process.
While senior planners are responsible for drafting and developing CDPs, which are legally required under the Planning and Development Act (2015), it appeared that some senior planners were not actually aware of their role in facilitating tourism planning. This is despite guidelines prepared by the DEHLG (2007a) to facilitate Local Authorities when making development plans. These guidelines clearly state that they must ensure policies for the development of tourism with zoning and development control, policies pertaining to cultural tourism projects to be positively promoted and facilitated (DEHLG, 2007a:68). Therefore, there is a clear need for senior planners in Irelands Local Authorities to be educated by both Fáilte Ireland and the DHPLG on their legal responsibility in facilitating tourism planning. It is evident that there exists a degrees of apathy from within Local Authorities in regards to tourism planning. When it comes to governing budgets relating to tourism, such apathy could suggest that many within the Local Authority simply see tourism as just another role within 174
their many functions. It would appear that Local Authorities are not following the commitments laid down by the state when it comes to facilitating tourism planning and development. With the enhanced role outlined by the DTTAS (2015) in their contribution to tourism development, Local Authorities need to recognise the significant role they have in facilitating planning for tourism. It is suggested that all tourism planning policies within CDPs are adequately financed with specific budgets allocated to ensure the effective sustainable planning and development of tourism at local level. A lack of accountability was evident within the process of Local Authority tourism planning. The influence county councillors have in the alteration of draft CDPs continues to be characterised by a lack of knowledge and training. Also, despite legislation aimed at preventing county councillors from overturning the decisions of Local Authority management and planner’s in the land zoning process, issues pertaining to secrecy and undue influences were evident within the planning process. Despite the publication of the Mahon Tribunal (2012) and the recent Primetime RTE report (2015) on standards in public office, findings suggest that some county councillors continue to exercise their public powers to facilitate their own interests. This questions the degree of input locally elected county councillors have in the alteration of development plans, and whether this represents the best interests of the local community. Therefore, it is recommended that all county councillors be personally held legally accountable and financially responsible for any issues pertaining to planning corruption at all levels. The lack of data collection by Local Authorities on tourism is problematic, and can have serious ramifications for the future sustainability of Irish tourism. As a consequence, senior planners are having to operate in the dark without the necessary data concerning tourism activity. This lack of data collection on tourism impacts could be attributed to biosecurity having become a major threat to the local angling and marine tourism industry in the Lakes of Killarney. Therefore, this thesis suggests the creation of a stand-alone position within Local Authorities for data collection of all tourism activity. For counties where a funded position is a challenge, collaboration with the local LEADER Company in managing data collection may be pursued, with a specific individual identified recommended to lead the process. This data collection would enable senior planners to develop future tourism plans on evidence, not conjecture. Literature suggested that sustainability in tourism is meaningless without the utilisation of indicators (Wheeller, 1993; Hunter, 1997; Torres-Delgado and Saarinen, 2013). It was found 175
that no specific tourism indicator system was being utilised by Local Authorities when planning for tourism. Comments from a number of senior planners suggest an indifference in their absence to date. Local Authorities are not establishing tourism planning decisions on evidence through data collected by tourism indicator systems such as the ETIS. This could suggest that senior planners are emulating other Local Authorities and their tourism plans, and not addressing the needs of their local tourism industry. Therefore, the easiest way to ensure the utilisation of tourism indicator systems is to make them a legal requirement. Then, through the use of for example the free ETIS, the level of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in Ireland could rise significantly to levels of 90% or greater (see Figure 7.1). A Local Authority indicator checklist has been developed and compromises of indicators mapped to the ETIS which can facilitate the collection of longitudinal data on tourism activity is presented in Table 7.1. 7.3
Longitudinal study of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism
This research provided the first longitudinal study on sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in Ireland. This helped achieve the second aim of this research: •
To determine, by way of a longitudinal study, the level of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland, with a specific focus on the tourism component of CDPs. This aim was achieved through the following objectives: • •
To determine the extent to which sustainable planning for tourism is evident within Local Authority CDPs. To conduct a nationwide content analysis of tourism plans within Local Authority CDPs in Ireland and assess if any link existed between the percentage of tourist arrivals and the provision of sustainable planning for tourism.
While this longitudinal study has identified a moderate shift (17%) nationwide in the level of sustainable planning for tourism in the decade since 2006, this shift is not happing fast enough. The level of sustainable planning for tourism should be at 90% (as illustrated by the red line in Figure 7.1), as it is not that difficult for Local Authorities to achieve. As evident from Figure 7.1, there continues to be poor levels of policy provision in key areas that relate to sustainable planning for tourism within CDPs. The low levels of tourism policy relating to land use measures, resort planning guidelines and development design standards for tourism seriously questions the ability of Local Authorities to adequately plan for an industry generating €4.7 billion in revenue and employing 220,000 people (ITIC, 2017). This suggests a clear need for in depth guidelines and training to be provided by the DHPLG in collaboration with the NTDA
176
specifically aimed at Local Authority senior planners. These CDP tourism planning guidelines for planners can provide the rationale for determining the future land use, planning controls and infrastructure needs for tourism, based on sound planning principles particularly in popular destinations. Longitudinal analysis of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism
Assessment criteria within the theoretical framework found in tourism components of Local Authority CDPs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Stand-alone Local Authority tourism development plan Specific tourism policy section in CDP Tourism policy integrated in other areas of CDP Sustainable planning for tourism supported in CDP Sustainable development of tourism supported in CDP Specific tourism land-use measures Sustainable resort planning guidelines Development design standards for tourism Tourism policy benefited from the use of indicator systems Provision of tourism signage policy Sustainable tourism policy on caravan and camping Inclusion/accessibility for tourists with disabilities Tourism policy compliant with global tourism guidelines Tourism policy compliant with European tourism guidelines Tourism policy compliant with national tourism guidelines Policy recognise the environmental impact of tourism Tourism carrying capacity calculations for sensitive areas Sustainable development of eco-tourism Support the protection of sensitive landscapes Good environmental management for tourism enterprises Support the protection of biodiversity Positive economic impacts of tourism supported Analysis of tourism flow (volume and value) Management of leakages from tourism Provides opportunities for local tourism entrepreneurs Tourism industry regulation supported in CDP Consultation/participation techniques utilised in planning Local satisfaction, ratio of tourists to local calculated Archaeological/historic preservation in tourism policy Protect public rights of way for tourism Tourism disaster plan Intellectual and cultural property rights of communities protected by tourism policy Best practice examples for tourism at sensitive sites Analysis of CDPs from a tourism perspective Year CDP was published Volume dedicated to tourism planning in CDP Number of specific tourism policies in CDP Number of tourism strategies to implement tourism Tourist numbers expressed as a % of total arrivals to county
Key:
∑ of criteria (1)
CW CN CE CK DL DLR SD FL GY KK
33 2 0 2 2 • 32 • 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 2016 • 16 • 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 • 3 2 1 Year 2006 2016 2006 2016 2006 2016 2006 2016 2006 2016
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
KE
KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO
Ts
Tn WD WH WX WW
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
• • •
•
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
• •
•
• •
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
2022 10 • 29 29 11 29 9 8 16 0 18 17 4 0 0 17 26 3 14 2016 24 • 7 • • 6 2006 16 0 4 12 2 18 0 24 9 0 •
• 2006
3 0
CW 04 15 0 21 0 9 0 0 10% 1.9%
CN 03 14 2 11 6 29 0 2 7.3% 2.4%
CE 05 17 3 17 7 26 0 1 9.7% 10%
CK 03 14 4 9 8 8 7 2 18% 27%
DL 00 12 6 5 4 17 23 0 7.3% 6%
DLR 04 16 1 6 7 5 0 0 29% 64%
SD 04 16 1 4 1 16 4 2 29% 64%
FL 05 17 6 12 10 30 30 1 29% 64%
GY 03 15 4 8 25 38 0 1 18% 23%
KK 03 14 2 6 3 2 5 1 1% 4.8%
KE 05 17 2 6 16 29 0 1 12 % 3.2 %
KY 02 15 2 21 11 71 0 0 18% 20%
LS 05 17 1 5 3 29 5 1 12 % 1.4%
LM 03 15 2 6 1 9 11 1 12 % 1.6%
LK 05 10 2 9 8 11 6 1 9.7% 8%
LH 03 15 2 13 6 17 0 6 12 % 2%
LD 03 15 12 22 29 40 14 1 12 % 0.9%
MH 01 13 0 9 0 44 0 3 9.7% 2.9%
MO 03 14 2 7 8 10 0 0 12 % 8%
MN 99 13 1 12 8 53 0 2 14% 1.6%
OY 03 14 2 5 0 26 0 1 12 % 1.3%
RN 02 14 1 11 3 34 0 1 14% 1.1%
SO 05 17 2 8 10 17 0 0 7.3% 4%
Ts 03 09 2 3 5 4 0 1 10% 2.3%
Tn 04 10 2 4 5 4 4 1 10% 2.3%
WD 05 11 1 8 2 8 0 0 10% 6%
WH 02 14 3 10 10 54 0 5 12 % 2.9%
CW = CarloW (Local Authorities abbreviated by the first and last letter) Shaded cell = the presence of that particular activity in 2016 • = the total number of assessment criteria found in tourism components ∑ of criteria (1) = The number of criteria found in tourism components of Local Authority CDPs defined by blue for 2006 and green for 2016 Assessment criteria found in tourism sections of Local Authority CDPs in 2006 Assessment criteria found in tourism sections of Local Authority CDPs in 2016 The ∑ of criteria (2) = total found in tourism components of Local Authority CDPs in 2016 2022 projection of assessment criteria found in tourism sections of Local Authority CDPs
The DTTAS (2015:57) in their ‘People, Place and Policy’ clearly state how Local Authorities need to have due regard for national tourism policy. However, the plausibility of tourism guidelines being incorporated voluntary into future CDPs has to be questioned. It is clear from 177
WX 01 13 8 26 33 41 25 3 10% 8.6%
WW 04 16 4 20 11 43 18 5 12 % 4.8%
∑ of criteria (2) = total found in tourism components of Local Authority CDPs in 2016
# order
Figure 7.1
Figure 7.1 (criteria 13-15), that the current mechanisms in place to facilitate the incorporation of tourism guidelines within CDPs is cumbersome and slow. With integration, levels of national tourism guidelines only increasing by 38% in the decade since 2006. This has resulted in many of these detailed tourism planning guidelines simply ending up on a shelf and not making their way into tourism components of Local Authority CDPs. Also, the presence of a tourism officer with the necessary qualifications and experience would be in a position to communicate the need for the utilisation of such guidelines. This thesis recommends that all global, EC and national tourism guidelines be reviewed and incorporated into the national planning framework. This can ensure a clear policy framework for Local Authorities to facilitate the sustainable planning and development of tourism within future CDPs. This research found no geographical relationship between tourist arrivals and the quality and depth of tourism components of Local Authority CDPs. Furthermore, it is evident from Figure 7.1, that since 2006, tourism planning by Local Authorities continues to be characterised by a lack of clear environmental, economic and socio-cultural planning policies within tourism components of CDPs. As a consequence, Local Authority tourism policy does little to protect the natural resources and environment within their county, the corner stone of Ireland’s tourism industry. In addition, the continued lack of analysis on the economic impacts of tourism has raised genuine questions on the ability of Local Authorities in Ireland to grasp the full economic potential of sustainable tourism development. This longitudinal analysis of Local Authority sustainable planning for tourism (Figure 7.1) also highlights significant short comings in the provision of several key criteria relating to sociocultural sustainability in tourism planning, which continue to be absent from tourism components of CDPs. All of which appears to suggest that the current approach to tourism planning by Local Authorities is slowly diminishing the Irish tourism product. Future tourism policy needs to be based on evidence from data collected on all tourism activity within future CDPs, together with specific budgets, and staff allocations in place. Therefore, it is suggested that senior planners would benefit from a conceptual planning tool-kit, which can be applied during the preparation of tourism components within the draft development plan. The design and components of this tool-kit, while enabling senior planners to adopt an evidence based planning approach to tourism, would also recognise a number of crucial findings from this longitudinal study.
178
7.4
Proposed Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit
This thesis has developed a planning tool-kit to facilitate an evidence based approach to tourism planning, and to assist senior planners in Irelands Local Authorities when developing tourism components of future CDPs, which was an objective of this study: •
To produce a generic tourism planning tool-kit which Local Authorities can use when planning sustainably for tourism within future CDPs The construction of this planning tool-kit is based on theory and findings of this study. Figure 7.2
Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit
For the functionality of the planning tool-kit, it has been split into two distinguishable checklists (see Figure 7.2). The first is a Local Authority ETIS checklist to facilitate evidence based planning. This checklist was designed to be utilised by senior planners, to aid in collecting data on tourism activity locally, based on the core indicators of the ETIS. The second is a Local Authority evidence based planning checklist. This was developed to reflect the results from the longitudinal study on sustainable planning for tourism. Each of the checklists are connected to the theory and data generated from the analysis of the research findings. Local Authorities have the legal responsibility for planning and developing many of the aspects of tourism. However, their efforts over the last decade continue to be insufficient, with many crucial areas continuing to be overlooked in tourism policy. Data collection, proper planning, and effective management of tourism is necessary if the benefits of tourism to the local community is to be optimised, and potential problems mitigated. This tool-kit was designed to become a necessary link between the issues acknowledged by senior planners for facilitating evidence based planning and the shortfalls identified in the longitudinal study. These two checklists when used in conjunction with each other can facilitate Local Authorities in adopting
179
an evidence-based approach to tourism planning. Realistic implementation was taken into consideration so that this tool-kit can be utilised during the legally binding CDP development process. It could also potentially be adapted to suit specific conditions and be utilised by local tourism authorities and tourism ministries across the EU. The contextualisation of the tool-kit (Figure 7.3) outlines how it can be implemented within the Local Authority planning process in Ireland. Figure 7.3
Contextualisation of the Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit in Ireland
Consultation Agreement could then be reached on the most appropriate policies through the legal consultation process.
Accountability For county councillors and prosecute them in through the courts for poor planning decisions
Legal Remit Local Authorities are legally required under the Planning and Development Act (2015) to plan and develop tourism.
Implementation Tool-kit can be utilised during the legally binding CDP development process. Contextualisation of the tourism planning tool-kit
DHPLG To develop guidelines for senior planners to ensure tourism planning is being carried out. Training For senior planners on their legal responsibility in facilitating tourism planning.
Statutory Obligation The Local Authority tourism planning toolkit is integrated within the National Planning Framework.
NTDA Fáilte Ireland continue their role in product development and advice on tourism policy within CDPs that tourism managers can feed into.
Funding Funding be allocated by the DHPLG for the specific intention of facilitating the collection of tourism data through the ETIS. Tourism Manager The Local Authority requits a tourism manager to collect data on tourism activity.
Placing this planning tool-kit on Local Authorities could be criticised for overburdening the already resource starved and laboured Local Authorities. However, Local Authorities are legally required under the Planning and Development Act (2015) to plan and develop tourism and grant or refuse planning permission for tourism developments. Local Authorities are therefore best placed to allow for the true integration of this tool-kit in the tourism planning 180
process. This Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit can provide the necessary data to influence future land use, environmental, economic, and social planning. Potentially saving the Local Authority from poor planning decisions and destroying the tourism product. For this planning tool-kit to be applied successfully it would have to overcome the difficulty in changing established perceptions and behaviour among some policy makers, most notably a lack of interest and or concern when it comes to evidence based planning for tourism. This may raise concerns relating to the tool-kits lack of statutory obligation. However, if incorporated into the national planning framework, these two checklists can provide the necessary evidence for future tourism policy. Agreement could then be reached on the most appropriate policies through the legal consultation process under the Planning and Development Act (2015) in relation to the CDP development process. 7.5
Local Authority ETIS checklist to facilitate evidence based planning
This Local Authority ETIS checklist (Table 7.1) is designed to be a locally owned and led process for collecting data and assessing the impact of tourism within their county. It aims to help senior planners within Local Authorities to monitor tourism’s impact over time. Thus enabling them to measure their progress towards sustainability. This checklist can contribute to improving the sustainable management of tourism in Ireland. This Local Authority ETIS checklist will allow for clear accountability and transparency in the data collection process. Senior planners must indicate whether data has been collected for each individual indicator. This checklist will also facilitate the collection of longitudinal data by allowing senior planners to monitor and analyse the impact of tourism over the lifetime of the CDP (six years). This can enable senior planners to identify areas that need to be addressed when developing future tourism policy. Each of the indicators within this checklist are mapped from the core indicators of the ETIS to ensure compatibility. This will allow for the collection of data on a broad range of issues relevant to destination management and tourism’s impact on the local economy, community and environment.
181
Table 7.1
Local Authority ETIS checklist
Resources, training and supports
Environmental
Social and cultural
Economic
Destination
Value for year 5
Value for year 4
tourism activity
Value for year 3
Local Authorities can utilise this checklist to facilitate the collection of data on all
Value for year 2
Criteria
Local Authority ETIS checklist
Has data been collected for this indicator? (Y/N) Value for current year Value for year 1
Longitudinal data collection on all tourism activity within the county.
Percentage of tourists satisfied with their overall experience in the destination Percentage of repeat/return visitors (within 5 years) Percentage of tourism enterprises in the destination using voluntary certification Percentage of tourism enterprises in the destination using labelling for environmental quality Percentage of tourism enterprises in the destination integrating Corporate Social Responsibility Number of tourist nights per month Daily spending per same-day visitors Average length of stay of tourists (nights) Direct tourism employment as percentage of total employment in the destination Percentage of local produce and services sourced by the destination’s tourism enterprises Number of tourists per 100 residents Percentage of men and women employed in the tourism sector Percentage of rooms in tourism accommodation accessible for people with disabilities Percentage of residents satisfied with the impacts of tourism on the destination’s identity Percentage of tourists who register a complaint with the police Percentage of tourists using different modes of transport to arrive at the destination Average travel (km) by tourists from home to the destination Percentage of local tourism enterprises supporting conservation of biodiversity Percentage of local tourism enterprises supporting conservation of landscapes Waste production per tourist night compared to general population Percentage of total waste recycled per tourist compared to resident Percentage of sewage from the destination treated to at least secondary level prior to discharge Water consumption per tourist night compared to general population Percentage of tourism enterprises involved in climate change mitigation schemes Ensure adequate supports are in place to facilitate the integration of the ETIS • Ensure designated staff are trained for this responsibility • External training for county councillors on sustainable planning of tourism • External training for senior planners in their role of planning for tourism • Support from key legislative bodies for tourism planning • Refer to the ETIS tool-kit for additional support
Source: Adopted from the EC (2016a). The destination management indicators within this checklist will require senior planners to monitor tourist’s satisfaction levels and the percentage of repeat visits within five years locally. Satisfied tourists return, spend locally, and generate jobs across many local communities. Senior planners must also assess the extent to which certification and eco-labels are being applied in hotels and tourism enterprises. If authentic, these certification labels recognise the responsible use of precious resources, and provide senior planners with valuable data on environmental management in the local tourism sector. Data monitored through these indicators can enable senior planners to sustainably manage tourism within their destination. The economic indicators within this checklist can help senior planners track the contribution of tourism to economic sustainability within their county. The monitoring of the number of
182
tourist nights, daily spend and the average length of stay is an important indicator of how well hotels and accommodation providers are performing. While tourism remains a significant contributor to employment in Ireland, by monitoring direct employment, senior planners are provided with a true measure of tourism employment generation locally. Also, monitoring the percentage of local produce and services sourced by the destination’s tourism enterprises can help senior planners explore ways to increase the connection between tourism and local agriculture. By monitoring the social and cultural impacts of tourism, senior planners can focus on the effects tourism can have on the local residents and their counties cultural heritage. Also through monitoring the percentage of men and women employed in the tourism sector, senior planners can make this information publicly available to ensure, both genders are benefiting from tourism in their community. Having large numbers of tourists in comparison to local residents can change the nature of a destination. Resident satisfaction is a key indicator of the social impact of tourism on a community. Keeping track of changes in levels of satisfaction, and comparing this to tourist arrivals, can help senior planners identify potential problems in advance, and address such problems through future planning decisions. Monitoring accessibility for visitors with disabilities can help senior planners know whether they are meeting visitor needs. This data can also help identify potential obstructions for accessibility within the county. The environmental indicators within this checklist focus on elements that are critical to the sustainability of the natural environment. By monitoring the use of different modes of transport that visitors may use to arrive at a destination, senior planners can track the use of traffic and implement environmentally friendly transport options. This data can also inform future local transport policies. Also, as Ireland is rich in biodiversity, protected areas are a key tourism asset in a number of counties and tourism enterprises can be significant beneficiaries of investment in protected areas. Senior planners could monitor the percentage of tourism enterprises that support the conservation of biodiversity and sensitive landscapes. Annual visitor surveys repeatedly confirm that Ireland is prized by overseas visitors for its clean, green image. Therefore, senior planners must monitor the percentage of solid waste management, sewage treatment and water management by tourism enterprises. Without the necessary infrastructure in place to cater for the demands of tourists, damage to lakes and rivers from untreated sewage and water shortages can result in hardship for local communities.
183
Local Authorities must ensure that adequate supports are in place to enable senior planners to facilitate evidence based planning by integrating this ETIS checklist. All staff assigned to the data collection process must have the necessary training. Also, external training would need to be provided for all staff within Local Authority planning departments, together with mentoring to ensure the continuing development of the data collection process. Furthermore, this research also identified a training need for county councillors in sustainable planning and development of tourism. However, county councillors are not alone, as training must also be provided for senior planners to support them in their role for tourism planning. Support is also needed from the key state bodies who have a legislative or regulatory role in the planning process. 7.6
Local Authority tourism policy checklist
This proposed checklist (Table 7.2) was developed from insights drawn from theory (Inskeep, 1991; WTO, 1995; Dymond, 1997; UNWTO, 2001; UNEP/UNWTO, 2005; Boyd and Hanrahan, 2007, 2008, 2012, Hanrahan, 2008; Fáilte Ireland, 2007a, 2009ab, 2012; GSTC, 2013; EC, 2016a; Mowforth and Munt, 2016) and supplemented with the results from this longitudinal study. Also, to ensure the robustness of this checklist, the criteria references were identified too from the components of the ETIS. This Local Authority tourism policy checklist, and the required steps involved, will allow senior planners to ensure tourism policy reflects a number of specific criteria designed for ensuring environmental, economic and socio-cultural sustainability in tourism planning. This checklist can provide senior planners with a practical tool to ensure sustainable planning of tourism. It is both eminently practical, and easy to apply, when developing future development plans. Senior planners must indicate yes or no to the appointed column in order to indicate the presence of a specific tourism policy to the related individual criteria, and whether there is a specific budget in place for implementing this policy. Senior planners are required to reference the specific policy pertaining to each particular criteria, while also identifying both the lead and partner organisation responsible for its implementation. Also, individual timelines for implementing specific policy must also be identified. The application of this policy checklist will provide greater levels of transparency and will allow senior planners to ensure tourism policy reflects a number of specific criteria designed for ensuring environmental, economic and socio-cultural sustainability in tourism planning.
184
Local Authority tourism policy checklist
Compliance
Planning for socio-cultural sustainability
Planning for economic sustainability
Planning for environmental Tourism Sustainable planning for Plan and sustainability guidelines tourism in CDP policy
Evidence based planning
Criterion
Local Authority tourism policy checklist Local Authorities can utilise this tourism policy checklist in making future tourism components of CDPs by ensuring tourism policies reflect the below criteria.
Has tourism policy within the CDP reflected these particular criteria. (Y/N) Isa budget provided for enacting this specific policy. Policy reference pertaining to this criteria. Lead organisation responsible for enacting this policy. Partner organisation responsible for enacting this policy. Timeframe for enacting this specific policy.
Table 7.2
Has the Local Authority monitored tourism destination management Has the Local Authority monitored the economic value of tourism Has the Local Authority monitored social and cultural impact of tourism Has the Local Authority monitored the environmental impact of tourism Does the Local Authority have a stand-alone tourism development plan Does the development plan have a specific tourism policy section? Has tourism policy been integrated within other areas of the development plan Do specific tourism policies comply with tourism land use measures Does tourism policy reflect sustainable tourism resort planning guidelines Do tourism policies reflect development design standards for tourism Tourism policy in the development plan benefited from the utilisation of a tourism indicator system Does tourism policy address the provision of tourism signage Do tourism policies encourage sustainable caravan and camping developments Does tourism policy encourage inclusion/accessibility for tourists with disabilities Tourism policy compliant with global tourism guidelines Tourism policy compliant with EC tourism planning guidelines Tourism policy compliant with Fáilte Ireland guidelines and strategies Tourism policy compliant with national tourism planning guidelines Do tourism policies recognise the environmental impacts of tourism Does tourism policy recognise the carrying capacity for sensitive areas Does tourism policy support the protection of biodiversity Does tourism policy support the conservation of sensitive landscapes Does tourism policy encourage the sustainable development of eco-tourism Do tourism policies support the increased use of public transport services Policies support good environmental management for tourism enterprises (water/energy/resource use) Does tourism policy encourage climate change mitigation schemes for tourism enterprises Do tourism policies support the positive economic impacts of tourism Do tourism policies recognise the need for analysis of tourism flow (volume and value) Does tourism policy focus on addressing seasonal employment in popular tourism destinations Does tourism policy focus on cooperation between private tourism enterprise and community groups Does tourism policy encourage corporate social responsibility in new and existing tourism enterprises Do tourism policies within the CDP reflect the needs and concerns of the local community Do tourism policies focus on the development of traditional/local culture and heritage Are intellectual and cultural property rights of communities protected by tourism policy Do tourism policies provide for an emergency tourism disaster plan Does tourism policy support best practice examples or behaviour guidelines at sensitive sties Policy supports data generated by tourism indicator system–ETIS (destination management, economic, social/cultural, environmental) Tourism policy complies with global, EC and national planning strategies, directives and laws Tourism policy is supported by adequate staff allocations
Source: adapted from (Inskeep, 1991; WTO, 1995; Dymond, 1997; UNWTO, 2001; UNEP/UNWTO, 2005; Boyd and Hanrahan, 2007, 2008, 2012, Hanrahan, 2008; Fáilte Ireland, 2007a, 2009ab, 2012; GSTC, 2013; EC, 2016a; Mowforth and Munt, 2016). The necessary first step for senior planners when utilising this tourism policy checklist is to confirm that they have monitored destination management, economic value of tourism, sociocultural and environmental impacts pertaining to tourism through the ETIS checklist (Table 7.1). This data, when collected and mapped longitudinally, can inform the development of specific tourism policy based on the key criteria within this Local Authority tourism policy 185
checklist. This checklist will require stand-alone tourism plans to be adequately staffed and funded, together with realistic timelines for policy implementation. As tourism impacts would be monitored on an ongoing basis, this will to provide valuable information to guide subsequent policy. This checklist will also require senior planners to ensure that future CDPs have a specific tourism policy section, which is also integrated within other areas of the development plan. This longitudinal study has found that since 2006, there continues to be poor levels in policy provision when it comes to facilitating sustainable planning for tourism. Policies pertaining to tourism land use measures, resort planning, and design standards for tourism need to be applied and integrated into all development plans. This can help avoid problems of the past, with tourism developments often being poorly sited and located in vulnerable areas. However, a lack of interest within Local Authorities on the need for the use of tourism indicator systems has hampered their incorporation to date. The checklist will require that an appropriate indicator system be adopted, be adequately funded, the necessary staff allocated, and a timeline for its incorporation in place. Facilitating such data collection on tourism activity can enable senior planners to develop tourism policies that exercise significant forms of control over tourism development in and around sensitive areas. Detailed guidelines on tourism planning from the UNWTO, comprehensive guidelines for ensuring the sustainable development of tourism from the EC and a number of Fáilte Ireland guidelines continue to be absent from tourism components of CDPs. This checklist will ensure senior planners have identified these guidelines, designed to make their job easier, and that they incorporate them into tourism components of CDPs. Through the consideration of current up to date guidelines prepared by Fáilte Ireland for example, senior planners can establish strong robust planning policies for the development of caravan and camping sites. With more than nine out of ten visitors enjoying Ireland’s beautiful scenery and unspoilt surroundings (Fáilte Ireland, 2016), the natural environment continues to underpin much of Ireland’s tourism product. However, ongoing inadequate planning for the environmental impacts of tourism within CDPs is a problem for the future long term sustainably of the industry. It is important to note that scenic landscapes, coastline, rivers and lakes are the foundation upon which Irish tourism has been built. This checklist can ensure that tourism policies recognise, protect and manage this symbiotic relationship through the protection of
186
biodiversity and good environmental management for tourism enterprises. This can help ensure Irelands tourism product is planned and developed in a sustainable manner. Local Authorities must ensure that the economic contribution of tourism is spread across the entire local community, as a flourishing tourism industry is vital for Ireland’s economic wellbeing and continued recovery. Tourism policy must focus on the special connection between the sustainable planning and development of tourism, and local service providers, together with the production of local goods. Notwithstanding, the focus of the Government’s 2025 Tourism Policy (DTTAS, 2015) is to increase the economic contribution of tourism to the Irish economy. This checklist will require senior planners to recognise the analysis of tourism flow (volume and value) in their county when developing future policy, while also focusing on addressing the area of seasonal employment in destinations. The continued lack of tourism policy by Local Authorities regarding potential community and social impacts from tourism is a problem. The development of tourism does affect local communities in varying degrees, and understanding resident perceptions and responses is fundamental to successful and sustainable development of tourism (Sharpley, 2014; Šegota, Mihalič and Kuščer, 2016). This checklist will require senior planners to develop tourism policy to protect and support social and economic prosperity, while safeguarding and enhancing the host communities’ intellectual and cultural property rights. Senior planners are also required to ensure collaboration between the host community and all tourism stakeholders by developing codes of conduct and in the collective preparation of emergency tourism disaster plans through implementing this checklist. This Local Authority tourism policy checklist will integrate with the compliance section for tourism policy, which is to be supported through data collection offered by sustainable tourism indicator systems, in particular the ETIS. It is essential that tourism policy reflects and complies with the necessary global, EU and national guidelines, directive and laws that pertain to tourism. The implementation of this checklist also requires Local Authorities to assign adequately trained staff to work with senior planners in writing future tourism components of CDPs based on evidence. 7.7
Support mechanisms for evidence based planning for tourism
Through the implementation of this Local Authority tourism planning tool-kit, senior planners would be in an excellent position to radically transform Ireland’s tourism industry by putting 187
it on a path towards greater sustainability. For it was Ruhanen (2004) who argued that policy and planning are indispensable to mitigate the negative impacts of tourism, therefore optimising its contribution to the local community and the environment (Hatipoglu, Alvarez and Ertuna, 2016). However, evidence based planning will need significant support, as the development of this tool-kit comes at a time when Local Authorities in Ireland continue to suffer from staffing issues and funding shortfalls. Sustainability continues to be a policy goal for all kinds of tourism activities (Weaver, 2006; Moscardo, 2008; Lane, 2009; Bramwell, 2015). However, tourism product development must be based on evidence, and not particular pet projects. Unfortunately, not all senior planners see the importance of data collection when it comes to tourism planning. If the natural environment continues to be diminished as a result of unsuitable tourism product developments, there wouldn’t be much of a tourism industry left to market and support. Therefore, an evidence based planning approach for tourism needs to be supported by the DTTAS, Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland. Despite the EC developing the free ETIS, similar to the EPA DIT ACHIEV Model (2012), it remains unutilised by Local Authorities in facilitating evidence based planning. It would be beneficial for the DTTAS to support the use of the ETIS by preparing detailed practical guidelines for planning departments and local stakeholders on the virtues of the ETIS and its destination datasheet. This would require little effort on the part of the DTTAS, as this particular indicator system is already accompanied by a detailed tool-kit to aid in its implementation. It would also be beneficial if the NTDA supported an annual conference specifically for Local Authority planners. This conference could be used by Local Authorities to present their findings, share data on tourism activity and discuss how they are responding to problems identified. This would also provide an excellent opportunity for networking among planners in Ireland to reflect on sustainable planning for tourism. Data collection also needs to be supported through specific budgets being allocated by Local Authorities. This would facilitate the employment of a qualified individual with the responsibility for collecting data, through the ETIS on all tourism activity. However, several Local Authorities are struggling to provide essential services such as library’s, and are faced with a rising housing crisis and the lack of adequate sewage treatment infrastructure. It would therefore appear remote, that funding would be specifically allocated from within existing Local Authority budgets. Funding would have to be allocated separately by the DHPLG for the specific intention of facilitating the collection of tourism data through the ETIS.
188
Since tourism is an industry that is different from others (Airey, Tribe, Benckendorff, and Xiao, 2015; Evans, 2016), the sustainable planning of tourism and the importance of evidence based planning in Ireland needs to be reinforced with education and training. Elected County Councillors in Irelands Local Authorities need to be provided with additional training in the fundamentals of sustainable planning and development when it comes to tourism. This recommendation reflects the significant power County Councillors have when it comes to altering development plans. Senior planner’s too need to be provided with the necessary training to support them in planning and developing tourism. 7.8
Future research
Evidence based planning for tourism has received little academic attention in Ireland. This thesis has pointed out some theoretical and practical directions for research in evidence based planning for tourism going forward, especially in Ireland where further research is required. It is recommended that the tourism planning tool-kit be piloted on four Local Authorities in order to examine the applicability of the tool-kit and establish the approximate cost of implementation. This would also determine how comprehensive the tool-kit is in facilitating evidence based planning for tourism and then assess what value it is to destinations. Only through such a process can the rationale for the implementation of the tourism planning toolkit be reinforced. With the growing number of visitors to Ireland, there is a clear need for ongoing longitudinal research on determining the sustainability of tourism planning in Ireland. This thesis is one step in this direction and has gained initial longitudinal data on the use of evidence based planning for tourism. The two theoretical frameworks utilised in this research could allow for a series of longitudinal studies over specific timelines. Similar to this research, these studies could be conducted every ten years to continually assess the sustainability of tourism planning in Ireland and determine whether evidence based planning is informing the development of tourism components of CDPs. This research was conducted at a time when Local Authorities in Ireland are struggling to provide public services due to serious underfunding and staff levels down one-fifth since 2008. It was not surprising to find a lack of enthusiasm among senior planners towards collecting data on tourism activity. But as the Irish economy improves, Local Authorities are potentially offered additional resources. Future longitudinal studies can track the level and depth of future 189
tourism components of CDPs, while also giving a clear indication of whether Local Authorities are adopting an evidence based approach to tourism planning. This study identified a number of additional resources to help senior planners implement evidence based planning for tourism in Ireland. These resource needs could be examined further to see if they also apply in other jurisdictions. In addition, further research could be conducted to determine the importance given to addressing these resource issues by senior management. Thus helping to prioritise possibly limited resources. 7.9
Conclusion
This longitudinal study has identified a moderate increase (17%) in the level of sustainable planning for tourism by Local Authorities in the decade since 2006. However, the fundamental need to protect the tourism product through evidence based planning continues to be ignored by Local Authorities. This is a serious problem within the tourism planning process and needs to be addressed if Local Authorities are to protect Ireland’s tourism product. This study has also established that the ETIS, which was developed specifically for collecting and analysing tourism data, has received very little interest among senior planners, who are responsible for developing tourism components of CDPs. This research does provide a practical solution to this problem in the form of a tourism planning tool-kit. The design of this toolkit, with its two separate checklists recognises the limitations discussed by the senior planners and the results generated from the application of the two theoretical frameworks in terms of process, staffing, finance, training and time. The implementation of the tourism planning tool-kit, through the legally binding CDP development process can aid senior planners in managing the data collection process and the writing of future tourism plans. This is a proactive solution to what represents a significant problem in the Local Authority tourism planning process. Through the adoption of an evidence based planning approach to tourism, Local Authorities would have the necessary data on tourism activity to ensure the protection of Ireland’s tourism product. This should see a positive transformation towards greater levels of sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland.
190
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aas, C., Ladkin, A., and Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder Collaboration and Heritage Management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28-48. Adey P (2010) Aerial Life: Spaces, Mobilities, Affects. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Alberti, F.G. and Giusti, J.D. (2012). Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Regional Competitiveness: The Motor Valley Cluster. City, Culture and Society, 3(4), 261 – 273. Alessa, L. N., Kliskey, A. A., and Brown, G. (2008). Social Ecological Hotspots Mapping: A Spatial Approach for Identifying Coupled Social Ecological Space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 27-39. Alipour, H and Kilic, H (2005) An Institutional Appraisal of Tourism Development and Planning: The Case of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC). Tourism Management, 26 (1), 79-94. Altinay, L. and Paraskevas, A. (2008). Planning Research in Hospitality and Tourism. Oxford: Elsevier. Amuquandoh, F.E. (2010a) Lay Concepts of Tourism in Bosomtwe Basin, Ghana. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 34-51. Amuquandoh, F. E. (2010b). Residents' Perceptions of the Environmental Impacts of Tourism in the Lake Bosomtwe Basin, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 223–238. Andereck, K.L. and Nyaupane, G.P. (2011) Exploring the Nature of Tourism and Quality of Life Perceptions among Residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 248-260. Andersson, T. D and Gertz, D. (2009). Tourism as a Mixed Industry: Differences between Private, Public and Not-for-Profit Festivals. Tourism Management, 30(6), 847–856. Andersson, T. D. and Lundberg, E. (2013) Commensurability and Sustainability: Triple Impact Assessments of a Tourism Event. Tourism Management, 37(0), 99-109.
191
Andriotis, K. (2007). A Framework for the Tourism Planning Process. In: Raj, A. (ed.), Sustainability, Profitability and Successful Tourism. New Delhi. Kanishka Publishers. Andriotis, K. (2000) Local Community Perceptions of Tourism as a Development Tool: The Island of Crete. PhD Thesis. Bournemouth: Bournemouth University. Angelsen, A., Fjeldstad, O and Rashid-Sumaila, U (1994) Project Appraisal and Sustainability in Less Developed Countries. Fantoft-Bergen, Norway. Bergen Print Services. APEC Tourism Working Group and STCRC. (2010) Effective Community Based Tourism: A Best Practice Manual. Gold Coast: STCRC. Ashworth, G.J and Page, S.J. (2011) Urban Tourism Research: Recent Progress and Current Paradoxes, Tourism Management, 32 (1), 1-15. Atach-Rosch, I. (1984). Public Planning for Tourism: A General Method for Establishing Economic, Environmental, Social and Administrative Criteria. PhD thesis. Washington, University of Washington. Athiyaman, A and Robertson, R. W. (1995). Strategic Planning in Large Tourism Firms: An Empirical Analysis. Tourism Management, 16(3), 199–205. Babbie, E (1998) The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth: G3 Publishing Company. Bache, I and Flinders, M. (2004) Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, P. R. (1986). Natural Area Destinations: The Moroccan Experience. Tourism Management, 7,129–131. Bannon, M, (1983), The Changing Context of Developmental Planning. Administration, 31(2), 112-146. Barca, F., McCann, P and Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012) The Case for Regional Development Intervention: Place-Based versus Place-Neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134-152. Baud-Bovy, M. (1982). New Concepts in Planning for Tourism and Recreation. Tourism Management, 3(4), 308-313.
192
Beaumont, N and Dredge, D. (2010) Local Tourism Governance: A Comparison of Three Network Approaches. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18 (1), 7-28. Bell, S. and Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? (2nd EDT). London: Earthscan. Bell, S., Simpson, M., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T., and Pröbstl, U. (2008). European Forest Recreation and Tourism: A Handbook. London: Taylor and Francis. Berg, B.L. (2007) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. (6th Ed). Boston, Pearson Education. Bianchi, R. V. (2004). Tourism Restructuring and the Politics of Sustainability: A Critical View from the European Periphery (The Canary Islands). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(6), 495-529. Bickman, L., and Rog, D. (1998) Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Sage Publications. Bizjak, B., Knežević, M and Cvetrežnik, S (2011) Attitude Change Towards Guests with Disabilities: Reflections from Tourism Students, Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 842-85. Blackstock, K. (2005). A Critical Look at Community Based Tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39-49. Blackstock, K., McCrum, G., Scott, A and White, V. (Eds.). (2006). A Framework for Developing Indicators of Sustainable Tourism. CNPA and Macaulay Institute Sustainable Tourism
Indicator
Framework
Project.
Retrieved
from
http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/ruralsustainability/FrameworkReport.pdf Blancas FJ, Caballero R, González M, Lozano-Oyola M and Pérez F (2010a) Goal Programming Synthetic Indicators: An Application for Sustainable Tourism in Andalusian Coastal Counties. Journal of Ecological Economics, 69(21), 58–72. Blancas,
F.J.,
Lozano-Oyola,
M
and
González,
M
(2015)
A
European
Sustainable Tourism Labels Proposal using a Composite Indicator. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54, 39-54.
193
Blancas, F.J., Lozano, M., González, M., Guerrero, F.M., Caballero, R. (2011). How to use Sustainability Indicators for Tourism Planning: The Case of Rural Tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Scientific Total Environment. 412–413, 28–45. Blancas, F.J., González, M., Lozano-Oyola, M, and Pérez, F (2010b) The Assessment of Sustainable Tourism: Application to Spanish Coastal Destinations. Ecological Indicators, 10(2), 484-492. Bojanic, D.C and Lo, M. (2016) A Comparison of the Moderating Effect of Tourism Reliance on the Economic Development for Islands and other Countries. Tourism Management, 53, 207214. Bonsu, N.O.; Dhubháin, Á.N and O’Connor, D. (2015) Understanding Forest Resource Conflicts in Ireland: A Case Study Approach. Land Use Policy [in press]. Borg, W.R and Gall, M.D (1983) Educational Research: An Introduction (4th Ed). New York: Longman Inc. Bornhorst, T., Brent Ritchie, J.R. and Sheehan, L. (2010) Determinants of Tourism Success for DMOs and Destinations: An Empirical Examination of Stakeholders’ Perspectives. Tourism Management, 31, 572 – 589. Botterill, D. (2001). The Epistemology of a Set of Tourism Studies. Leisure Sciences, 20, 199– 214. Botterill, D and Platenkamp, V (2012) Key Concepts in Tourism Research. London: Sage. Boyd, S.W and Hanrahan, J (2008) A key to Successful Tourism Development for Local Authorities in Ireland. Conference Paper. Boyd, S.W and Hanrahan, J (2007) Host Communities Participation in Tourism Planning in Ireland ‘An Analysis of County Development Plans. 3rd Annual Tourism and Hospitality Research in Ireland Conference. Dundalk Institute of Technology. Boyd, S.W and Hanrahan, J (2012) Zombie Hotels and Ghost Holiday Home Estates in Ireland, What Role did the Planners Play? In: International Conference on Tourism and Events: Opportunities, Impacts and Change.
194
Boyne, G and Law, J. (1991) Accountability and Local Authority Annual Reports: The case of the Welsh District Councils. Financial Accountability & Management, 7, 179-194. Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the State and Sustainable Tourism: A Political Economy Approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 459-477. Bramwell, B (2015) Theoretical Activity in Sustainable Tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 204-218. Bramwell, B and Lane, B. (2000). Collaboration and Partnerships in Tourism Planning. In B. Bramwell and B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability (1–19). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Bramwell, B and Lane, B (2011) Critical Research on the Governance of Tourism and Sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19, 411-421. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2013) Getting from Here to There: Systems Change, Behavioural Change and Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21 (1), 1-4. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2010) Sustainable Tourism and the Evolving Roles of Government Planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18 (1), 1-5. Bramwell, B and Lane, B (2012) Towards Innovation in Sustainable Tourism Research? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 1-7. Brotherton, B (2015) Researching Hospitality and Tourism (2nd Ed), Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Brown, G. and Donovan, S. (2013). Escaping the National Forest Planning Quagmire: Using Public Participation GIS to Assess Acceptable National Forest Use. Journal of Forestry, 111 (2), 115-125. Brown, G., Montag, J. M., and Lyon, K. (2012). Public Participation GIS: A Method for Identifying Ecosystem Services. Society and Natural Resources, 25, 633-651. Brown, G., and Raymond, C. M. (2014). Methods for Identifying Land Use Conflict Potential using Participatory Mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 196-208.
195
Brown, G., and Reed, P. (2012). Values Compatibility Analysis: Using Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) for Decision Support in National Forest Management. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 5,317-332. Brown, G. and Weber, D. (2011). Public Participation GIS: A New Method for National Park Planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102-115. Brown, G., Weber, D., and de Bie, K. (2014). Assessing the Value of Public Lands using Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) and Social Landscape Metrics. Applied Geography, 53, 77-89. Buckley, R (2012) Sustainable Tourism: Research and Reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39 (2), 528-546. Buckley, R. (2011). Tourism and Environment. In A. Gadgil, and D.M. Liverman (Eds.), Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36. (397–416). Budeanu, A., Moscardo, G., Miller, G and Ooi, C.S (2013) Call for Papers for a Special Volume of the Journal of Cleaner Production on Tourism and Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 54(1), 1-2. Budeanu, A., Moscardo, G., Miller, G and Ooi, C.S (2016) Sustainable Tourism, Progress, Challenges and Opportunities: An Introduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, (B) (16), 285-294. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the Competitive Destination of the Future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116. Burnett, J and Bender, B. H. (2001). Assessing the Travel-Related Behaviors of the MobilityDisabled Consumer. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 4–11. Butler, R.W. (1999) Sustainable Tourism: A State-of-the-Art Review. Tourism Geographies 1 (1), 7-25. Butler, R.W. (1991) Tourism, Environment, and Sustainable Development. Environmental Conservation 18 (3): 201-9. Byrd, E.T. and Cárdenas, D.A. (2007) Stakeholder Understanding of Sustainable Tourism Development. Presented at Southeastern Travel and Tourism Research Recreation Conference, Biloxi, MS.
196
Byrd, E.T., Cardenas, D.A and Greenwood, J.B (2008). Factors of Stakeholder Understanding of Tourism: The Case of Eastern North Carolina. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8 (3), 192-204. Bryman, B. and Bell, E. (2011) Business Research Methods (3rd Ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canestrelli, P., and Costa, P. (1991) Tourism Carrying Capacity, a Fuzzy Approach. Annals of Tourism Research. 18: 295-311. Candela, G and P. Figini. (2012) The Economics of Tourism Destinations. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Candrea, A.N and Ispas, A (2009) Visitor Management: A Tool for Sustainable Tourism Development in Protected Areas. Bulletin of the Transylvania University of Braşov, 2(51). Cao, Y., Wang, B., Zhang, J., Wang, L., Pan, Y., Wang, Q., Jian, D and Deng, G (2016) Lake Macroinvertebrate Assemblages and Relationship with Natural Environment and Tourism Stress in Jiuzhaigou Natural Reserve, China, Ecological Indicators, 62, 182-190. Carlisle, S., Kunc, M., Jones, E and Tiffin, S (2013) Supporting Innovation for Tourism Development through Multi-Stakeholder Approaches: Experiences from Africa. Tourism Management, 35, 59-69. Cassar, L., Conrad, E., Bell, S., Morse, S. (2013) Assessing the Use and Influence of Sustainability Indicators at the European Periphery. Ecological Indicators, 35, 52-61. Castellani, V and Sala, S (2012) Ecological Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment in the Sustainability Assessment of Tourism Activities. Ecological Indicators, 16, 135-147 Cernat, L and Gourdon, J (2012) Paths to Success: Benchmarking Cross-Country Sustainable Tourism. Tourism Management, 33(5), 1044-1056. Charlton, C and Essex, S (1996) The Involvement of District Councils in Tourism in England and Wales, Geoforum, 27(2), 175-192. Chaudhary, P (2009) Tourism Policy and Planning. Delhi, IND: Adeline Books. Chen, J (2015) Tourism Stakeholders Attitudes Toward Sustainable Development: A Case of the Arctic, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 225-230. 197
Choi, H. and Sirakaya, E. (2006) Sustainability Indicators for Managing Community Tourism. Journal of Tourism Management, 27(6), 1274-1289. Choy, D.J.L. (1991). Tourism Planning: The Case for ‘Market Failure’. Tourism Management, 12(4), 26-31. Clare County Council (2013) Geopark LIFE Partners Meetings. Available from http://www.burrengeopark.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/EU-LIfe-Minutes-02042014.pdf Cleverdon, R. and Kalisch, A. (2000) Fair Trade in Tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2: 171-187. Clifford, N.J. and Valentine, G. (2003) Key Methods in Geography. London: Sage Publications. Coccossis, H (1996) Tourism and Sustainability: Perspectives and Implications. In G.K Priestley, J.A Edwards and H. Coccossis (Eds), Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences (1-21). Wallingford: CAB International. Coccossis H., Mexa, A. (2004). Tourism Carrying Capacity: A Theoretical overview. In: Coccossis, H., Mexa, A. (Eds.). (2004). The Challenge of Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment. Theory and Practice. Surrey, England: Ashhgate Publishing Limited, 37-55. Cole, S. (2007). Implementing and Evaluating a Code of Conduct for Visitors. Tourism Management, 28(2), 443-451. Coles, T and Hall, M. (2006). Editorial: The Geography of Tourism is Dead. Long Live Geographies of Tourism and Mobility. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(4–5), 289–292. Conaghan, A. (2013) The Demand for and Supply of Sustainable Tourism in Ireland: Towards the Sustainable Management of Tourism Destinations. Ph.D. Research Thesis: (Institute of Technology, Sligo). Connell, J and Page, S.J (2008) The Evolution and Development of Sustainable Tourism: Progress and Prospects. In: Page, S.J and Connell, J eds. Sustainable Tourism: Critical Concept in the Social Sciences. London: Routledge, 1-20. Connell, J., Page, S. and Bentley, T. (2009). Towards Sustainable Tourism Planning in New Zealand: Monitoring Local Government Planning under the Resource Management Act. Tourism Management, 30, 867–877.
198
Cooper, C., (1995). Strategic Planning for Sustainable Tourism: The Case of the Offshore Islands in the UK. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(4), 191-209. Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., and Wanhill, S. (1998). In Tourism: Principle and Practices. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman. Cooper, C. Fletcher, J. Fyall, A. Gilbert, D. and Wanhill, S. (2008) Tourism: Principles and Practice (Fourth Edition). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Cooper, C., Scott, N., and Baggio, R. (2009) Network Position and Perceptions of Destination Stakeholder Importance. An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 33-45. Creswell, J.W. (1994) Research design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W and Clarke, V.L.P (2011) Designing and Conducing Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Crompton, J. L. (1995). Economic Impact Analysis of Sports Facilities and Events: Eleven Sources of Misapplication. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 14-35. Crouch, G. I. (2007). Measuring Tourism Competitiveness: Research, Theory and the WEF Index. In: ANZMAC Annual Conference (3-5). Retrieved November, 27, 2015, from http://www.anzmac.org/conference_archive/2007/papers/Crouch_1.pdf Crouch, G. I and Ritchie, J. B. (1999). Tourism, Competitiveness, and Societal Prosperity. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 137-152. Cullen, R (1985) Rationing Recreation use of Public Land. Journal of Environmental Management U. K. 21, 213–224. Currie, R. R., Seaton, S., and Wesley, F. (2009). Determining Stakeholders for Feasibility Analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 41-63. Cussen, N (2014) Co-Operation Ireland 2014: Overview of Spatial Planning in Ireland. Dublin, DECLG.
199
Dahles, H., and Bras, K. (1999). Tourism and Small Entrepreneurs: Development, National Policy,
and
Entrepreneurial
Culture:
Indonesian
Cases.
New
York:
Cognizant
Communications. Dahles, H., and Kuene, L. (2002). Tourism Development and Local Participation in Latin America. New York: Cognizant Communications. Daphnet, S., Scott, N and Ruhanen, L. (2012). Applying Diffusion Theory to Destination Stakeholder Understanding of Sustainable Tourism Development: A Case from Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(8), 1107-1124. d’Angella, F., and Go, F. M. (2009) Tale of Two Cities’ Collaborative Tourism Marketing: Towards a Theory of Destination Stakeholder Assessment. Tourism Management, 30(3), 429440. Darbellay, F., and Stock, M. (2012). Tourism as a Complex Interdisciplinary Research Object. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 441-458. Darcy, S. (1998) Anxiety to Access: Tourism Patterns and Experiences of Disabled New South Wales People with a Physical Disability Tourism. Sydney, New South Wales. Davenport, J and Davenport, J. L. (2006). The Impact of Tourism and Personal Leisure Transport on Coastal Environments: A Review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 67, 280– 292. Day, P and Klein, R (1987), Accountabilities: Five Public Services, London: Tavistock. De Araujo, M. and Bramwell, B. (2000) Stakeholder Assessment and Collaborative Tourism Planning, In Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships, Aspects of Tourism, Channel View publications. Dedeurwaerdere, T (2004) The Contribution of Network Governance to Sustainable Development: A Case Study on Sustainability Impact Assessment. Available from: http://www.iddri.org/Activites/Seminaires-reguliers/s13_dedeurwaerdere.pdf Deery, M., Jago, L., and Fredline, L. (2012). Rethinking Social Impacts of Tourism Research: A New Research Agenda. Tourism Management, 33(1), 64-73. De Kadt, E. (1979) Tourism: Passport to Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
200
Denman, P. (2006) ‘Tourism and Sustainability: Objectives, Policies and Tools for Sustainable Tourism’, Paper Presented to UNWTO seminar on tourism sustainability and local agenda 21 in tourism destinations, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 18 and 19 February 2006. Denscombe, M. (2003) The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research (second edition). Buckingham: Open University Press. Denzin, N (1989) Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park: Sage. Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG] (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. London, DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG] (2015) Plain English guide to the Planning System. London, DCLG Department of the Environment [DOE] (1997). Sustainable Development: A strategy for Ireland. Dublin, DOE Department of Environment, Community and Local Government [DECLG] (2015) Guidelines on Local Economic and Community Plans. Dublin, DECLG. Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government [DECLG] (2013) Planning and Development Act 2000 (2010). Dublin, DECLG. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government [DECLG] (2012a) Our Sustainable Future: A Framework for Sustainable Development for Ireland. Dublin, DECLG. Department of Environment, Community and Local Government [DECLG] (2009) Physical Planning System. Available from: http://www.thehealthwell.info/node/3711 Department of Environment, Community and Local Government [DECLG] (2016) Planning and
Development
Act.
Available
from
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/30/enacted/en/html Department of Environment, Community and Local Government [DECLG] (2015b) ‘Planning Policy Statement’. Dublin, DECLG.
201
Department of Environment, Community and Local Government [DECLG] (2012b) Putting People First Action Programme for Effective Local Government. Dublin, DECLG. Available fromhttp://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,171 34,en.pdf Department of Environment, Community, and Local Government [DECLG] (2014) Questionnaire
Survey
of
Local
Authority
Elected
Members.
Available
from
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migratedfiles/en/Publications/LocalGovernment /Administration/FileDownLoad,31603,en.doc. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government [DEHLG] (2007a) Development Plans: Guidelines for Planning Authorities. Dublin, DECLG. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government [DEHLG] (2007b) Development Management: Guidelines for Planning Authorities. Dublin, DECLG. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government [DEHLG] Local Government Act (2001). Dublin, Irish Statue Book. Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government [DHPLG] (2017) “Local Government”. Available from http://www.housing.gov.ie/local-government/local-government Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport [DTTAS] (2017) “Overview of Tourism Industry”. Available from http://www.dttas.ie/tourism Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport [DTTAS] (2016) “Budget 2017 of nearly €2bn for Transport, Tourism and Sport to be welcomed – Ross and O’Donovan”. Press Release 11th of October 2016. Available from http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2016/budget-2017-nearly%E2%82%AC2bn-transport-tourism-and-sport-be-welcomed-%E2%80%93-rosso%E2%80%99donovan Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport [DTTAS] (2015) People, Place and Policy: Growing Tourism to 2025. Dublin: DTTAS. Devine, A (2010) Tourism in Northern Ireland: A Public Sector Quagmire! Tourism Hospitality and Research Ireland Conference: Shannon College of Hotel Management.
202
Devine, A and Devine, F (2017) A Strategic Approach to International Event Tourism. In: Ferdinand, N and Kitchin, P.J eds. Events Management - An International Approach. London, Sage, 317-333. Devine, A. and Devine, F. (2011) Planning and Developing Tourism within a Public Sector Quagmire: Lessons from and for Small Countries. Tourism Management, 32 (6), 1253-1261 Dewhurst, H and Thomas, R. (2003). Encouraging Sustainable Business Practices in a NonRegulatory Environment: A Case Study of Small Tourism Firms in a UK National Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(5), 383-403 Diamantis, D., and A. Ladkin (2000) The Links between Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism: A Definitional and Operational Perspective. The Journal of Tourism Studies 10:35–46 Diekmann, A and Hannam, K (2012) Touristic Mobilities in India’s Slum Places. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1315-1336. Dodds, R. (2007). Sustainable Tourism and Policy Implementation: Lessons from the Case of Calviá, Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(4), 296-322. Dodds, R and Butler, RW (2010) Barriers to Implementing Sustainable Tourism Policy in Mass Tourism Destinations. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 5 (1), 35-53. Dodds, R and Butler, RW. (2009) Inaction more than Action: Barriers to the Implementation of Sustainable Tourism Policies. In: S. Gössling, C. M. Hall, and D. Weaver eds. Sustainable Tourism Futures: Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations. Abingdon: Routledge, 44-57 Donaldson, T and Preston, L.E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 65-91. Doxey, G. (1975). A Causation Theory of Visitor-Resident Irritants: Methodology and Research Inferences. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Travel Research Association (pp. 195-198). San Diego, CA: Travel and Tourism Research Association. Dredge, D. (1999) Destination Place Planning and Design. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 772-791
203
Dredge, D (2007) Local Destination Planning and Policy. In Dredge, D and Jenkins, J eds. Tourism Planning and Policy. Milton: John Wiley and Sons, 33-47. Dredge, D. (2001). Local Government Tourism Planning and Policy-Making in New South Wales: Institutional Development and Historical Legacies, Current Issues in Tourism, 4(24), 355-38. Dredge, D (2008) Managing Local Tourism Master Class: Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council Workshop Materials, Southern Cross University, Tweed Heads, Australia. Dredge D (2006) Networks, Conflict and Collaborative Communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 562-581. Dredge, D., and Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The Collaborative Economy and Tourism: Critical Perspectives, Questionable Claims and Silenced Voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286-302. Dredge, D and Jamal, T (2015) Progress in Tourism Planning and Policy: A Post-Structural Perspective on Knowledge Production. Tourism Management, 51, 285-297. Dredge, D and Jenkins, J. (Eds.) (2011). Stories of Practice: Tourism Policy and Planning. Ashgate, Aldershot. Dredge, D and Jenkins, J (2007) Tourism Planning and Policy. John Wiley, Brisbane Dredge, D and Moore, S. (1992) A Methodology for the Integration of Tourism in Town Planning. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 3 (1), 8-21. Driml, S., and Common, M. (1996). Ecological Economics Criteria for Sustainable Tourism: Application to the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics World Heritage Areas, Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4, 3–16. Dwyer, L and Edwards, D (2010) Understanding the Sustainable Development of Tourism: Sustainable
Tourism
Planning.
Goodfellow
Publishers.
Available
from
http://www.goodfellowpublishers.com/free_files/Chapter%20294f3c9b02ae3e7ed801ad5d54 8e2b66a.pdf. Dwyer, L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Roman, C and Scott, N (2009) Destination and Enterprise Management for a Tourism Future. Tourism Management, 30(1), 63-74.
204
Dwyer, L and Kim, C. (2003). Destination Competitiveness: Determinants and Indicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369–414. Dymond, S.J. (1997) Indicators of Sustainable Tourism in New Zealand: A Local Government Perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5, 279-293. Eagles, P.F.J., Coburn, J and Swartman, B (2014) Plan Quality and Plan Detail of Visitor and Tourism Policies in Ontario Provincial Park Management Plans. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7-8, 44-54. ECOTRANS (2006) Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers. UNEPWTO: Hanover/Germany. Edensor, T. (2007). Mundane Mobilities, Performances and Spaces of Tourism. Social and Cultural Geography, 8(2), 201–215. Edgell, D.L., Del Mastro, A.M., Smith, G. and Swanson, J. (2008) Tourism Policy and Planning: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann Elkington, J. and Hailes, J. (1992) Holidays that Don’t Cost the Earth, London: Gollanez. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2012a) Ireland’s Environment: An Assessment. Wexford, Ireland, EPA. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2007) Protecting and Improving Ireland’s Environment: 2020 Vision. Wexford, Ireland, EPA. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2012b) SEA Effectiveness Review in Ireland: Action Plan 2012-2016. Wexford, Ireland, EPA. Erkuş-Öztürk, H and Eraydin, A. (2010) Environmental Governance for Sustainable Tourism Development: Collaborative Networks and Organisation Building in the Antalya Tourism Region, Tourism Management, 31(1), 113-124. Eshliki, S.A and Kaboudi, M (2012) Community Perception of Tourism Impacts and Their Participation in Tourism Planning: A Case Study of Ramsar, Iran. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 36, 333-341. Estol, J and Font, X (2016) European Tourism Policy: Its Evolution and Structure. Tourism Management, 52, 230-241. 205
European Commission [EC] (2007) Action for More Sustainable European Tourism. Tourism Sustainability Group. European Commission [EC] (2003). A Manual for Evaluating the Quality Performance of Tourist Destinations and Services. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission [EC] (2012) Attitudes of Europeans towards Tourism. Report. Flash Eurobarometer 334. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/ fl_334_en.pdf European Commission [EC] (2016b) Climate Action: Paris Agreement. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm European Commission [EC] (2010) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, 30.6.2010, COM (2010) 352 final. European Commission [EC] (2010). Europe, the World's no 1 Tourist Destination — A New Political Framework for Tourism in Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (Brussels, 30.6.2010. COM (2010) 352 final). European Commission [EC] (2013) European Tourism Indicator System: Toolkit for Sustainable Destinations. DG Enterprise and Industry. European Commission [EC] (2016a) European Tourism Indicator System for the Sustainable Management
of
Destinations,
accessed
29th
March
2016,
from
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/offer/sustainable/indicators/index_en.htm European Commission [EC] (2015) Eurostat Statistics Explained: Tourism Statistics. Available from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics#Further_Eurostat_information European Union [EU] (2011) SURF Nature Sustainable Tourism and Nature Conservation: An Investment in our Future. Environmental Agency Austria. European Commission [EC] (2011) Survey on the Attitudes of Europeans towards Tourism. Analytical
Report
Wave
3.
Flash
Eurobarometer
206
328.
Available
online:
European Travel Commission [ETC]. (2014) Quarterly Report: ETC Market Intelligence Report. Brussels: European Travel Commission. Estol, J and Font, X (2016) European Tourism Policy: Its Evolution and Structure. Tourism Management, 52, 230-241. Fáilte Ireland. (2014a). A Year in Review. Retrieved from http://www.failteireland.ie/NewsFeatures/News-Library/2013-A-Year-in-Review.aspx Fáilte Ireland. (2015a). CSO figures show positive start for Irish tourism in 2015. Retrieved from http://www.failteireland.ie/Utility/News-Features/News-Library/CSOFigures- ShowPositive-Start-for-Irish-Tourism.aspx Fáilte Ireland (2015b) “CSO publishes overseas travel figures for first quarter 2015”. Fáilte Ireland
Press
Release
28th
of
April,
2015.
Available
from
http://www.failteireland.ie/Utility/News-Features/News-Library/CSO-publishes-overseastravel-figures-for-first-qu.aspx Fáilte Ireland (2013) Culture and Heritage Tourism: An Emerging Economic Engine. Press Releases
25th
of
April
2013.
Available
online
http://www.failteireland.ie/News-
Features/News-Library/Culture-and-heritage-tourism%E2%80%A6an-emergingeconomic.aspx Fáilte Ireland. (2014b) “Continued Rise in Tourism Earnings, Jobs and visitors Anticipated in 2014
season”.
Press
Release,
9th
of
January,
2014.
Available
from
http://www.failteireland.ie/Footer/Media-Centre/Continued-rise-in-revenue,-jobs-andvisitors-antic.aspx Fáilte Ireland and The Greenbox (2009b) Ecotourism Handbook for Ireland. Dublin, Fáilte Ireland. Fáilte
Ireland
(2007a)
Environmental
Action
Plan
2007-2009.
Available
from
http://www.noticenature.ie/files/Tourism-and-the-Environment.pdf Fáilte Ireland (2016a) “Fáilte Ireland Annual Review and Forecast”. Press Release, 11 th of January, 2016. Available from http://www.failteireland.ie/Utility/News-Library/FailteIreland-Annual-Review-and-Forecase.aspx
207
Fáilte Ireland (2012) Historic Towns in Ireland: Maximising your Tourism Potential. Dublin, Fáilte Ireland. Fáilte Ireland (2016b) “New €65m Fáilte Ireland Capital Scheme for Tourism Projects”. Press Release 8th of June 2016. Available from
http://www.failteireland.ie/Utility/News-
Library/New-%E2%82%AC65m-Failte-Ireland-Capital-Scheme-for-Tourism.aspx Fáilte Ireland (2016c) Overseas Visitors to Ireland January-December 2012-2015. Available from http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Ins ights/3_General_SurveysReports/Overseas-Visitors-January-December-2015.pdf?ext=.pdf Fáilte Ireland (2014c) Regional Tourism Performance in 2014. Dublin, Fáilte Ireland. Fáilte Ireland (2009c) Registration and Renewal of Registration Regulations for Caravan and Camping Parks 2009. Dublin, Fáilte Ireland. Fáilte Ireland (2009a) Sharing our Stories: Using Interpretation to Improve the Visitors’ Experience at Heritage Sites. Dublin, Fáilte Ireland. Fáilte Ireland (2015d) Site Maintenance Guidelines for Launching the Wild Atlantic Way. Dublin, Fáilte Ireland. Fáilte Ireland (2015c) Tourism Facts. Dublin, Fáilte Ireland. Fáilte Ireland (2007b) Tourism Product Development Strategy 2007-2013. Dublin, Fáilte Ireland. Fáilte Ireland (2016d) Tourism Development and Innovation: A Strategy for Investment 20162022. Dublin, Fáilte Ireland. Fáilte Ireland (2017) “What We Do”. Available from http://www.failteireland.ie/Footer/WhatWe-Do.aspx Farmaki, A (2017) The Tourism and Peace Nexus. Tourism Management, 59, 528-540. Farmaki, A., Altinay, L., Botterill, D and Hilke, S (2015) Politics and Sustainable Tourism: The Case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 47, 178-190.
208
Farsari, I., Butler, R.W and Szivas, E. (2011) Complexity in Tourism Policies: A Cognitive Mapping Approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (3), 1110-1134. Fernandez, J. I. P. and Rivero, M. S. (2009). Measuring Tourism Sustainability: Proposal for a Composite Index. Tourism Economics, 15(2), 277-296. Figini, P and Vici, L (2012) Off-Season Tourists and the Cultural offer of a Mass-Tourism Destination: The Case of Rimini, Tourism Management, 33(4), 825-839. Font, X. and Bendell, J. (2002) Standards for Sustainable Tourism for the Purpose of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S and Allen, N. A. (2001) Building Collaborative Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241-261. Franzoni, S. (2015) Measuring the Sustainability Performance of the Tourism Sector. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 22-27. Freudendal-Pedersen, M., Hannam, K and Kesselring, S (2016) Applied Mobilities, Transitions and Opportunities. Applied Mobilities, 1(1), 1-9. Flanagan, S., Griffin, K., O’Halloran, E., Phelan, J., Roe, P., Kennedy Burke, E., Tottle, A. and Kelly, R. (2007) Sustainable Tourism Development: Toward the Mitigation of Tourism Destination Impacts, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford: Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Fractor, D.T (1982) Evaluating Alternative Methods for Rationing Wilderness Use. Journal of Leisure and Recreation. 14, 341–349. Franklin, A. (2003). Tourism: An Introduction. London: Sage. Franklin, A and Crang, M. (2001). The Trouble with Tourism and Travel Theory? Tourist Studies, 1(1), 5–22. Fulmer, R. M and Rue, W. L. (1974). The Practice and Profitability of Long Range Planning. Managerial Planning, 22(6), 1–7. Fyall, A. (2001) Destination Management: Challenges and Opportunities. CABI
209
Gallopin, G.C. (1997) Indicators and their Use: Information for Decision-Making. In B. Moldan and S. Billharz (Eds) Sustainability Indicators: Report of the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development (pp. 13–27). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Garcia, F.A (2014) A Comparative Study of the Evolution of Tourism Policy in Spain and Portugal, Tourism Management Perspectives, 11, 34-50. Getz, D. (1987) Tourism Planning and Research: Traditions, Models and Futures. Paper Presented at the Australian Travel Research Workshop, Bunbury. Getz, D. and Jamal, T.B. (1994) The Environment–Community Symbiosis: A Case of Collaborative Tourism Planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 (3), 152–173. Graci, S. and Dodds, R. (2010) Sustainable Tourism in Island Destinations. Tourism, Environment and Development Series. London, Earthscan, UK. Geneletti, D and Dawa, D. (2009). Environmental Impact Assessment of Mountain Tourism in Developing Regions: A Study in Ladakh, Indian Himalaya. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 229–242. Giddings, L. S. (2006). Mixed-Methods Research, Positivism Dressed in Drag? Journal of Research in Nursing 11(3), 195-20. Cifuentes-Arias, M. (1992). Determinación de Capacidad de Carga Turística en Áreas Protegidas. Turrialba: CATIE. Gilbert, D. C and Kapur, R. (1990). Strategic Marketing Planning and the Hotel Industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 9(1), 27–43. Gladstone, D.L (2005) From Pilgrimage to Package Tour: Travel and Tourism in the Third World. New York: Routledge. Global Sustainable Tourism Council [GSTC] (2013). Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations.
Retrieved
from
http://www.gstcouncil.org/sustainable-tourism-gstc-
criteria/criteria-for-destinations.html Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations [GSTC-D] (2015) “Overview of the global sustainable tourism criteria”. Available from https://www.gstcouncil.org/en/participatein-gstc/gstc-member-application.html
210
Godbey, G. (1985) Leisure in Your Life. State College, PA: Venture. Godfrey, C. (2006) Evidence-Based Illicit Drug Policy: The Potential Contribution of Economic Evaluation Techniques. De Economist, 154(4), 563-580. Godfrey, K. B. (1998). Attitudes towards ‘Sustainable Tourism’ in the UK: A View from Local Government. Tourism Management, 19(3), 213-224. Goeldner, C.R and Ritchie, J.R.B (2012) Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies (12th Ed). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Gössling, S., (2015) New Performance Indicators for Water Management in Tourism. Tourism Management, 46, 233–244. Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., and Weaver, D. B. (2009). Sustainable Tourism Futures: Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations. In S. Gössling, C. M. Hall, and D. B. Weaver (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism Futures: Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations (1-19). London: Routledge. Gössling, S., Hansson, C.B., Horstmeier, O and Saggel, S. (2002) Ecological Footprint Analysis as a Tool to Assess Tourism Sustainability. Ecological Economics, 43, 199–211. Gössling, S and Hörstmeier, O. (2003). High-Value Conservation Tourism: Integrated Tourism Development in the Seychelles? In S. Gössling (Ed.), Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands. Political Ecology Perspectives Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Government Office for the South East (2009). Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East: Sustainability
Appraisal
and
Habitats
Regulations
Assessment.
Available
at:
http://www.gos.gov.uk/497648/docs/171301/815607/fSA_and_HRA_Assessment.pdf. Griffin, K. (2007) Issues and Challenges in the Development of a Sustainable Tourism Management Model - Some Premature Comments and Thoughts. Presentation at Tourism and Hospitality Research in Ireland, Conference, Dundalk, Ireland. Griffin, K., Morrissey, M. and Flanagan, S. (2010) Implementation of the DIT-ACHIEV Model for Sustainable Tourism Destination Management: Killarney, Ireland, A Case Study. BEST Education Network Think Tank X: Networking for Sustainable Tourism, Modul University, Vienna, Austria, 2010.
211
Grinyer, P. H and Norburn, D. (1975). Planning for Existing Markets: Perceptions of Executives and Financial Performance. Journal of the Statistical Society, 138(1), 70–97. Griscom, H. P and Ashton, M. S. (2011). Restoration of Dry Tropical Forests in Central America: A Review of Pattern and Process. Forest Ecology and Management, 261, 1564–1579. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guchait, P and Hamilton, K (2013) The Temporal Priority of Team Learning Behaviors vs. Shared Mental Models in Service Management Teams, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33(1), 19-28. Gunn, C.A (1988) Tourism Planning. New York, Taylor and Francis. Gunn, C. (1994). Tourism Planning, Basic Concepts Cases, (3rd Ed). New York, Taylor and Francis. Gunn, C. A. (2002). Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases (4th Ed.). New York, Routledge. Gunn, C. and Var, T. (2002) Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. New York, Routledge. Hall, C.M (2011) A Typology of Governance and its Implications for Tourism Policy Analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 437-457. Hall, M. (2010) Changing Paradigms and Global Change: From Sustainable to Steady-State Tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 131-143. Hall, C (1991) Tourism Education in Australia. Annals of Tourism Research 19, 138-139. Hall, C. (2000). Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. Essex. Hall, C.M. (2005). Tourism: Rethinking the social science of mobility. Harlow: Prentice. Hall, C.M. (2011) A Typology of Governance and Its Implications for Tourism Policy Analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 (4-5), 437-457.
212
Hall, C.M (2007). Tourism planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Hall, C.M. (2008) Tourism planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships (2nd Ed). Harlow, Pearson Education. Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J.M. (1995) Tourism and Public Policy. Routledge. Hall, C.M; Jenkins, J and Kearsley, G (1997) Tourism Planning and Policy in Australia and New Zealand: Cases, issues and practice. Irwin Publishers: Sydney. Hall, C.M and McArthur, S. (1998) Integrated Heritage Management, Stationery Office, London. Hall, C. M and Page, S. J. (2006). The Geography of Tourism and Recreation: Environment, Space and Place. London: Routledge. Hannam, K. (2009). The End of Tourism? Nomadology and the Mobilities Paradigm. In J. Tribe (Ed.), Philosophical issues in Tourism. Clevedon, Channel View. Hannam, K., Butler, G and Paris, C.M (2014) Developments and Key Issues in Tourism Mobilities. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 171-185. Hannam, K and Knox, D. (2005). Discourse Analysis in Tourism Research: A critique, Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2), 23-30. Hannam, K and Knox, D (2010) Understanding Tourism: A critical Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Hannam K, Sheller M and Urry J (2006) Mobilities, Immobilities, and Moorings. Mobilities 1(1): 1–22. Hanrahan, J. (2008) Host Community Participation and Sustainable Tourism in Ireland: The Local Authority Perspective. PhD Thesis. (Institute of Technology Sligo). Hardy, A., Beeton, R and Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable Tourism: An Overview of the Concept and its Position in Relation to Conceptualisations of Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(6), 475-496.
213
Harris, P. G (2010). World Ethics and Climate Change: From International to Global Justice. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Harrison, D (1996) Sustainability and Tourism: Reflections from a Muddy Pool. In L. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wall (Eds), Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States (69-89). London: Pinter. Hatipoglu, B., Alvarez, M.D and Ertuna, B (2016) Barriers to Stakeholder Involvement in the Planning of Sustainable Tourism: The Case of the Thrace Region in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, (B) (16), 306-317. Hawkins, D.E and Mann, S (2007) The World Bank’s Role in Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 348-363. Haywood, K. M. (1988) Responsible and Responsive Tourism Planning in the Community. Tourism Management 9: 105-118. Hayward, T (2007). Human Rights versus Emissions Rights: Climate Justice and the Equitable Distribution of Ecological Space. Ethics International Affairs, 21 (4), 431–450. Head, B.W. (2008) Three Lenses of Evidence-Based Policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1),1-11. Healy, D (2006) Financing Our Local Authorities. PSAI Conference 2006. Healy, N., Rau, H and McDonagh, J (2012) Collaborative Tourism Planning in Ireland: Tokenistic Consultation and the Politics of Participation. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 14(4), 450-471. Healy, N., Van Riper, C.J. and Boyd, S.W. (2016) Low versus High Intensity Approaches to Interpretive Tourism Planning: The Case of the Cliffs of Moher, Ireland. Tourism Management, 52, 574-583. Heath, E. (2002). Towards a Model to Enhance Destination Competitiveness: A Southern African Perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 10(2): 124-141. Helmy, E.G (1999) Towards Sustainable Tourism Development Planning: The Case of Egypt. Ph.D. Research Thesis (Bournemouth University, Bournemouth).
214
Herold, D. M. (1972). Long-Range Planning and Organisational Performance: A CrossValidation Study. Academy of Management Journal, 15, 91–101. Hohl, A. E., and Tisdell, C. A. (1995) Peripheral Tourism: Development and Management. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 517–534. Hiltunen, M. J. (2007). Environmental Impacts of Rural Second Home Tourism—Case Lake District in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7, 243–265. Holden, A. (2008). Environment and Tourism. New York: Routledge. Hollinshead, K. (2011). ‘Soft Power’ in Action: The New —or Old? — Declarative Diplomatic Function of Tourism. Paper presented at the CAUTHE conference, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA. Hollinshead, K. (1996) The Tourism Researcher as Bricoleur: The New Wealth and Diversity in Qualitative Inquiry. Tourism Analysis, 1 (1): 67-74. Hooghe, L and Marks, G. (2003) Unravelling the Central State, But How? Types of Multilevel Governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233-243. Hughes, G. (2002). Environmental Indicators. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 457-477. Huijbens, E. H., and Benediktsson, K. (2007). Practising highland heterotopias: Automobility in the interior of Iceland. Mobilities, 2(1), 143–165. Hunter, C. and Shaw, J. (2007) The Ecological Footprint as a Key Indicator of Sustainable Tourism, Tourism Management. 28(1), 46-57. ICLEI (2015) ‘Who we are’. Available from http://www.iclei.org/about/who-is-iclei.html Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold. International Union for the Conservation of Nature [IUCN] (2008) “What is a Protected Area?” Available from https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/pas_gpap/ Irish
Hotel
Federation
[IHF]
(2015)
http://www.irelandhotels.com/hotels/ireland/cork
215
“Hotels
in
Cork.
Available
from
Irish Planning Institute [IPI] (2015) Irish Planning Institute Survey of the Planning Profession. Dublin, Irish Planning Institute. Irish Times (2014) “Emergency Operation Under Way as Two Aran Islands Hit by Shortages”. Irish
Times
Article,
6th,
August
2014.
Available
from,
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/emergency-operation-under-way-as-two-aranislands-hit-by-shortages-1.1888545 Irish Times (2006) “Part of €150m Roscommon forest park scheme rejected”. Irish Times Article, February 2nd 2006. Available from http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homesand-property/watch-this-space-1.1010185 Irish Tourist Industry Confederation [ITIC] (2017) Brexit and Irish Tourism: A call to Action. Dublin, ITIC. Israeli, A. A. (2002). A Preliminary Investigation of the Importance of Site Accessibility Factors for Disabled Tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 101–104. Ivanov, S. (2005a). Measurement of the Macroeconomic Impacts of Tourism. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Economics e Varna, Bulgaria. Ivanov, S. (2005b). Problems in the Measurement of Tourism Impact on the Leakage of National Income. Yearbook of International University College, 2, 176-182. Ivars, J. (2004). Tourism Planning in Spain: Evolution and Perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 313-333. Jafari, J. (1977) Jamaica: Why don’t you Stop and Say Hello? Annals of Tourism Research, 4(5), 295-298. Jamal, T.B. and Getz D. (1995) Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1), 186–204. Jamal, T and Getz, D. (1999) Community-Based Roundtables for Tourism-Related Conflicts: The Dialectics of Consensus and Process Structures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(4), 290-314.
216
Javier Blancas, F., Oyola, M.L. and González, M. (2015b) A European Sustainable Tourism Labels Proposal using a Composite Indicator. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54, 39-54. Jenkins, J., Dredge, D., and Taplin, J. (2011). Destination Planning and Policy: Process and Practice. In: Y. Wang, and A. Pizam (Eds.), Destination Marketing and Management: Theories and Applications (21–38). Wallingford: CABI. Jenkins, I. and Schroder, R. (2013) Sustainability in Tourism: A Multidisciplinary Approach Berlin, Springer Gabler. Jennings, G. (2009). Methodologies and Methods. In T. Jamal & M. Robinson (Eds.), The Handbook of Tourism Studies (672–692). Los Angeles: Sage. Jennings, G (2010) Tourism Research (2nd) Australia: Wiley and Sons. Johnston, D. (2006) Lessons to Be Learnt? The Role of Evaluations of Active Labour Market Programmes in Evidence-Based Policy Making. Public Administration and Development, 26, 329-337. Jones, S. (2005) Community-Based Ecotourism: The Significance of Social Capital, Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 303–324. Jung, H.S and Yoon, H.H (2013) Is the Individual or the Organisation the Cause of Hotel Employees Stress? A Longitudinal Study on Differences in Role Stress between Subjects. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 494-499. Jurowski, C. and Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance Effects on Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 296-312. Kamble, Z and Bouchon, F (2014) Tourism Planning and a Nation’s Vision: A Review of the Tourism Policy of Sri Lanka. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 144(20), 229-236. Kampaxi, O (2008) Codes of Ethics in Tourism: Practice, Theory, Synthesis. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 607-608. Kathrada, M., Burger, C.J.S.C and Dohnal, M. (1999) Holistic Tourism-Crime Modelling. Tourism Management, 20(1), 115-122.
217
Kelly, J., Haider, W., Williams P. W and Englund, K. (2007). Stated Preferences of Tourists for Eco-Efficient Destinations Planning Options. Tourism Management, 28, 377–390. Kerr, W.R (2003) Tourism Public Policy, and the Strategic Management of Failure. Oxford: Pergamon. Kim, K., Uysal, M and Sirgy, M.J (2013) How Does Tourism in a Community Impact the Quality of Life of Community Residents? Tourism Management, 36, 527-540. Kim, W., Jun, H.M., Walker, M and Drane, D. (2015) Evaluating the Perceived Social Impacts of Hosting Large-Scale Sport Tourism Events: Scale Development and Validation. Tourism Management, 48, 21-32. Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kuo, I.L (2002) The Effectiveness of Environmental Interpretation at Resource-Sensitive Tourism Destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(2), 87-101. Kuo, N. W., Hsiao, T. Y., and Yu, Y. H. (2005) A Delphi–Matrix Approach to SEA and its Application within the tourism Sector in Taiwan. The Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 259–280. Kline, C.S., Cardenas, D., Viren, P.P and Swanson, J.R. (2015) Using a Community Tourism Development Model to Explore Equestrian Trail Tourism Potential in Virginia. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(2), 79-87. Kruger, M. and Meintjies, R. (2008) Analysis of Key “Best Practice” Destination Management Organisation Roles, Organisation and Financing: Proposals for Namibia. Lacitignola, D, Petrosillo, I., Cataldi, M. and Zurlini, G (2007) Modelling Socio-Ecological Tourism-Based Systems for Sustainability. Ecological Modelling, 206(1-2), 191-204. Ladkin, A. and Martinez Bertramini, A (2002) Collaborative Tourism Planning: A Case Study of Cusco, Peru. Current Issues in Tourism 5 (2), 71-93. Landford C (2009) Managing for Sustainable Tourism: A Review of Six Cultural World Heritage Sites. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17, 53–70.
218
Lane, B (2009) Thirty Years of Sustainable Tourism: Drivers, Progress, Problems and the Future. In S. Gossling, C.M Hall and Weaver, D eds. Sustainable Tourism Futures: Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations. Abingdon: Routledge, 19-32. Larsen, J. (2001). Tourism Mobilities and the Travel Glance: Experiences on the move. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(2), 80–98. Lavery, P. (1971) Recreation Geography, London: David and Charles. Laws, E. (1995) Tourist Destination Management; Issues, Analysis and Policies. New York, Routledge. Lee, T.H. (2013) Influence Analysis of Community Resident Support for Sustainable Tourism Development. Tourism Management, 34, 37-46. Lee, T.H and Hsieh, H.P (2016) Indicators of Sustainable Tourism: A Case from a Taiwan’s Wetland, Ecological Indicators, 67, 779-787. Lejárraga, I. and Walkenhorst, P. (2010) On Linkages and Leakages: Measuring the Secondary Effects of Tourism. Applied Economic Letters, 17, 417-421. Lemelin, R.H., Koster, R and Youroukos, N (2015) Tangible and Intangible Indicators of Successful Aboriginal Tourism Initiatives: A Case Study of Two Successful Aboriginal Tourism Lodges in Northern Canada. Tourism Management, 47, 318-328. Lemos, C.C., Fischer, T.B and Souza, M.P (2012) Strategic Environmental Assessment in Tourism Planning — Extent of Application and Quality of Documentation, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 35, 1-10. Liburd, J.L (2012) Tourism Research 2.0. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 883-907. Lindberg, K., Dellaert, B. G. C and Rassing, C. R. (1999). Resident Trade-Offs. A Choice Modelling Approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 554-569. Liu, Z. H. (2003). Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 459-475. Liu, Z., Siguaw, J. A. and Enz, C. A. (2008). Using Tourist Travel Habits and Preferences to Assess Strategic Destination Positioning: The case of Costa Rica. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49(3), 258–281. 219
Lobo, H.A.S (2015) Tourist Carrying Capacity of Santana Cave (PETAR-SP, Brazil): A New Method based on a Critical Atmospheric Parameter. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 67-75. Lodge, J. (1996). The Dynamics of Decision Making in the European Union. In R. Thomas (Ed.), The Hospitality Industry, Tourism and Europe: Perspectives on Policies (16-34). London: Cassell. Logar, I. (2010). Sustainable Tourism Management in Crkvenica, Croatia: An Assessment of Policy Instruments. Tourism Management, 31, 125-135. Longjit, C and Pearce, D.G (2013) Managing a Mature Coastal Destination: Pattaya, Thailand. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 2(3), 165-175. López, J and Rodríguez, M.L (2009). Environmental and Sustainability Indicators Development in Mexico Institute of Geography. UNAM, México. Lozano-Oyola, M., Blancas, F.J., González, M. and Caballero, R. (2012) Sustainable Tourism Indicators as Planning Tools in Cultural Destinations. Ecological Indicators, 18, 659–675. Luque-Martínez, T and Francisco Muñoz-Leiva, F (2005) City Benchmarking: A Methodological Proposal Referring Specifically to Granada. Cities, 22 (6), 411-423. Madrigal, R. (1995) Residents' Perceptions and the Role of Government. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 86-102. Malloy, D.C and Fennell, D.A (1998) Codes of Ethics and Tourism: An Exploratory Content Analysis, Tourism Management, 19(5), 453-461. Manente, M., Minghetti, V., and Montaguti, F. (2013). The Role of the EU in Defining Tourism Policies for a Competitive Destination Governance. In C. Costa, E. Panyik, and D. Buhalis (Eds.), Trends in European Tourism Planning and Organisation (208-219). Bristol: Channel View Publications. Mangion, M (2011) Evidence-Based Policymaking: Achieving Destination Competitiveness in Malta. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham. Manomaivibool, P. (2015) Wasteful Tourism in Developing Economy? A Present Situation and Sustainable Scenarios. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 103, 69-76.
220
Marshall, C., and Rossman, G.B. (1989) Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Marzuki, A., Hay, I., and James, J. (2012). Public Participation Shortcomings in Tourism Planning: The Case of the Langkawi Islands, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20, 585-602. Mason, P., (2003) Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management. Oxford, UK, ButterworthHeinemann. Mason, P. (2008) Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management (2nd Ed). U.K: Elsevier. Mason, P (2016) Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management (3rd Edition). Routledge. Mason, J. (1996) Qualitative Researching, London, Sage. Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Harlow: Longman. Maxim, C (2013) Sustainable Tourism Planning by Local Authorities: An Investigation of the London Boroughs. Ph.D. Research Thesis (London Metropolitan University Cities Institute). Mazanec, J., Wöber, K., and Zins, A. (2007). Tourism Destination Competitiveness. From Definition to Explanation? Journal of Travel Research, 46, 86-95. Mbaiwa, J. (2005). Enclave Tourism and its Socio-Economic Impacts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management, 26(2), 157-172. Mbaiwa, J.E. and Stronza, A.L. (2009). The Challenges of Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism in Developing Countries. In: Jamal, T. and Robinson, M. (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies. Thousand Oaks. Routledge: 329–349. McArthur, S. (1994). Acknowledge a Symbiotic Relationship: Better Heritage Management via better Visitor Management. Australian Parks and Recreation, 30(4), 12-17. McCarron, G (2004) Planning in Dublin: Goals Achieved and Opportunities Lost', Centre for Urban and Regional Studies. Journal of Irish Urban Studies, 3 (1), 55-64. McDonald, F (2014) “Land Buys in Boom Pushed Council Debt to €94m”. Irish Time Article, February 24th, 2014. Available from, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/landbuys-in-boom-pushed-council-debt-to-94m-1.1702151
221
McDonald, F. (1985), The Destruction of Dublin. Gill and Macmillan. McFarlane, C. (2011) Learning the city: knowledge and translocal assemblage. Oxford, WileyBlackwell. McGehee, N. G and Andereck, K. L. (2004) Factors Predicting Rural Residents’ Support of Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 43,131–140. McKercher, B. (1993) Some Fundamental Truths about Tourism: Understanding Tourism’s Social and Environmental Impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1 (1), 6–16. McKercher, B. (2003). Sustainable Tourism Development – Guiding Principles for Planning and Management, National Seminar on Sustainable Tourism Development. Bishkek Kyrgyzstan. Mejía, C.V and Brandt, S (2015) Managing Tourism in the Galapagos Islands through Price Incentives: A Choice Experiment Approach. Ecological Economics, 117, 1-11. Meldon, J., Kenny, M and Walsh, J (2002) Local Government, Local Development and Citizen Participation. Universite Libre de Bruxelles. (Unpublished). Menard, S (2002) Longitudinal Research: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage. Metha, G (2007) The Welcome Business: Tourism and Travel in Ireland. Gill and Macmillan. Melia, P (2017) “European Commission prosecuting Ireland for 'failing to stop raw sewage entering waters”. Irish Independent Article, February 15th 2017. Available from http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/european-commission-prosecuting-ireland-for-failingto-stop-raw-sewage-entering-waters-35453850.html Melia, P (2014) “Untreated sewage in key tourist spots, says EPA report. Waste water discharged into sea at surfing resort”. Irish Independent Article, March 13th 2014. Available from
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/untreated-sewage-in-key-tourist-spots-says-epa-
report-30088301.html Mexa, A., and Coccossis, H. (2004). Tourism Carrying Capacity: A Theoretical Overview. In H. Coccossis, and A. Mexa (Eds.), The Challenge of Tourist Carrying Capacity Assessment (37–53). Hants: Ashgate Publishing.
222
Michailidou, A., Vlachokostas, C and Moussiopoulos, N (2016) A Methodology to Assess the Overall Environmental Pressure Attributed to Tourism Areas: A Combined Approach for Typical all-sized Hotels in Chalkidiki, Greece. Ecological Indicators, 50, 108-119. Middleton, V., and Hawkins, R. (1998). Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Perspective. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Mikulic, J., Kozic, I and Kresic, D (2015) Weighting indicators of tourism sustainability: A Critical Note. Ecological Indicators, 48, 312-314. Miller, G., Simpson, M. and Twinning-Ward, L. (2012) Study on the Feasibility of a European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Management at Destination Level. University of Surrey
(U.K)
Available
from
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/shtm/Files/Task%201c)%20Final%20Case%20Study%20Review.p df. Minogue, M. (2008) What Connects Regulatory Governance to Poverty? The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 48,189-201. Mintzberg, H and Waters, J. A. (1985). Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272. Mograbi, J., and Rogerson, C. (2007). Maximizing the Local Pro-Poor Impacts of Dive Tourism: Sodwana Bay, South Africa. Urban Forum, 18(2), 85-104. Mohammed, I., Guillet, B.D and Law, R (2015) The Contributions of Economics to Hospitality Literature: A Content Analysis of Hospitality and Tourism Journals. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 44, 99-110. Molloy, D., Woodfield, K and Bacon, J (2002) Longitudinal Qualitative Research Approaches in Evaluation Studies. Department for Work and Pensions Working Paper Number 7. London Department for Work and Pensions Moran, D., Petersone, M and Verones, F (2016) On the Suitability of Input–Output Analysis for Calculating Product-Specific Biodiversity Footprints. Ecological Indicators, 60, 192–201 Moscardo, G. (1999). Making Visitors Mindful: Principles for Creating Quality Sustainable Visitor Experiences through Effective Communication. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.
223
Moscardo, G. (2008). Sustainable Tourism Innovation: Challenging Basic Assumptions. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(1), 4–13. Moscardo, G and Murphy, L (2014) There is no Such Thing as Sustainable Tourism: Reconceptualising Tourism as a Tool for Sustainability. Sustainability, 6, 2538- 2561. Mowforth, M., and Munt, I. (2009) Tourism and Sustainability: Development and New Tourism in the Third World. (3rd Ed.) London: Routledge. Mowforth, M., and Munt, I. (2016) Tourism and Sustainability: Development and New Tourism in the Third World. (4th Ed.) London: Routledge. Moyle, B.D., McLennan, C.J., Ruhanen, l. and Weiler, B. (2013) Tracking the Concept of Sustainability in Australian Tourism Policy and Planning Documents. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-15. Munasinghe, M and McNeely, J (1995) Key Concepts and Terminology of Sustainable Development. In M. Munasinghe and W. Shearer (Eds), Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biological Foundations (19-46). Washington DC: The World Bank. Murphy, P. (1988) Community Driven Tourism Planning, Tourism Management, 9 (2), 96– 104. Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen. Murphy, P and Murphy, A. (2004) Strategic Management for Tourism Communities, Aspects of Tourism: 16, Channel View Publications. National Economic and Social Council [NESC] (1985) Report No. 80. The Financing of Local Authorities, 19, Dublin. Nilsson, M., Jordan, A., Turnpenny, J., Hertin, J., Nykvist, B. and Russel, D. (2008) ‘The Use and Non-Use of Policy Appraisal Tools in Public Policy Making: An Analysis of Three European Countries and the European Union.’ Policy Sciences, 41,335-355.
224
Nix H. (1996) Information technology for tracking process: how useful are European initiatives in Australian context? Tracking process: Linking Environment and Economy through Indicators and Accounting Systems. In: Harding R, editor. Proceedings of the Australian Academy of Science Fenner Conference on the Environment. University of New South Wales, 30 September - 3 October; 1996. Noble B.F (2003) Auditing Strategic Environmental Assessment Practice in Canada. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 5(2), 127–47. Nunkoo, R (2015) Tourism Development and Trust in Local Government. Tourism Management, 46, 623-634. Nunkoo, R. and Ramkissoon, H. (2009). Influence of Values on Residents ‘Attitudes to Tourism. Tourism Analysis, 14 (1): 241-244. O’Leary, S (2014) Cranks and idealists: the emergence of the planning profession in local government following the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. Tom O’Connor Working Paper Series Department of Government, UCC. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2008) Key Environmental Indicators. Available from http://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modellingoutlooks/37551205.pdf Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2003) OECD Environmental Indicators: Development, Measurement and Use. Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD] (1999) Roundtable: Regional Policy and Tourism, Key Policy Issues for Discussion. OECD Tourism Committee, 15th October, 1999. Ott, W. R. (1978) Environmental Indices. Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor. Oviedo-García, M.A (2016) Tourism Research Quality: Reviewing and Assessing Interdisciplinarity. Tourism Management, 52, 586-592. Ozturk, Y., Yayli, A and Yesiltas, M (2008) Is the Turkish Tourism Industry Ready for a Disabled Customer's Market? The Views of Hotel and Travel Agency Managers, Tourism Management, 29(2), 382-389.
225
Pablo-Romero, M Del P and Molina, J.A (2013) Tourism and Economic Growth: A Review of Empirical Literature. Tourism Management Perspectives, 8, 28-41. Page, S.J. (2003). Tourism Management: Managing for Change. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann. Page, S.J (2009) Tourism Management: Managing for Change. (3rd Ed). Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA. Page, S.J and Dowling, R.K (2002) Ecotourism. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Panayotou, T (1994) Economic Instruments for Environmental Management and Sustainable Development. UNEP/EEU: Environmental Economics Series Paper, 16. Panyik, E., Costa, C and Rátz, T (2011) Implementing Integrated Rural Tourism: An Eventbased Approach. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1352-1363. Partidário, M. R. (2007). Scales and Associated Data: What is enough for SEA Needs? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(5), 460–478. Parker, G and Doak, J (2012) Key Concepts in Planning. Sage, London. Parks, B. C., Timmons, R. J. (2010). Climate Change, Social Theory and Justice. Theory, Culture and Society, 27 (2–3), 134–166. Payne, D and Dimanche, F. (1996). Towards a Code of Conduct for the Tourism Industry: An Ethics Model. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 997-1007. Pearce, D (2000). “The Policy Relevance and Use of Aggregate indicators: Genuine Savings”. OECD Proceedings. Frameworks to Measure Sustainable Development. An OECD Expert Workshop. OECD, Paris. Pearce, P. (1989). Tourism Development. Harlow, Longman. Pearce, D.G (1999) Tourism in Paris: Studies at the Microscale. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 77-97.
226
Penetrante, A. M, (2011). Politics of Equity and Justice in Climate Change Negotiations in North–South Relations. In: Hans, Günter Brauch, Oswald Spring, Úrsula, Mesjasz, Czeslaw, Grin, John, Kameri-Mbote, Patricia, Chourou, Béchir, Dunay, Pal, Birkmann, Jörn (Eds.), Coping with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security – Threats, Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Risk, Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, 5. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1355–1366. Peng, B., Song, H and Crouch, G.I (2014) A Meta-Analysis of International Tourism Demand Forecasting and Implications for Practice. Tourism Management, 45, 181-19. Pérez, E. and Nadal, J. (2005). Host Community Perceptions: A Cluster Analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 925-941. Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Corliano, M.E., Zaccarelli, N., Dadamo, M (2007). Tourist perception of recreational environment and management in a marine protected area. Landscape Urban Planning, 79 (1), 29–37. Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Grato, E., Zaccarelli, N (2006). Indicating fragility of socio-ecological tourism-based systems. Ecological Indicators, 6 (1), 104–113. Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (2004). Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies. London: Routledge. Phillips, P. and Moutinho, L. (2014) Critical Review of Strategic Planning Research in Hospitality and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 96-120. Phillips, P. A and Moutinho, L. (2000). The Strategic Planning Index (SPI): A Tool for Measuring Strategic Planning Effectiveness. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 369–379. Porter, M. E. (2008). On Competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Pretty, J. (1995) The Many Interpretations of Participation. Focus, 16: 4-5. Public Appointments Service [PAS] (2015) Candidates Information Booklet: Senior Planner Roles in Local Government. Public Appointments Service, Local Government Recruitment: Dublin.
227
Quality Planning New Zealand (2015) Relationship between the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991. Quality Planning New Zealand Website. Accessed on
17th
of
December
2015,
Available
from
http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/related-laws/relationship-between-the-localgovernment-act-and-the-resource-management-act Rahman, I., Reynolds, D and Svaren, S (2012) How “Green” are North American Hotels? An Exploration of Low-Cost Adoption Practices, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 720-727. Ray, N. M and Ryder, M. E. (2003). Ebilities Tourism: An Exploratory Discussion of the Travel Needs and Motivations of the Mobility-Disabled. Tourism Management, 24, 57–72. Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., (2009). Mapping Community Values for Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services. Ecological Economics, 68, 1301-1315. Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainability Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences. London: Routledge. Reid, D.G., A.M. Fuller, K.M. Haywood, and J Bryden. (1993). The Integration of Tourisrn, Culture, and Recreation in Rural Ontario: A Rural Visitation Program. Prepared for The Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Recreation. Queen's Printer. Toronto. Reid, D.G., Mair, H and George, W (2004) Community Tourism Planning: A Self-Assessment Instrument. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 623-639. Reisinger, Y and Turner, L. (2003), Cross-Cultural Behaviour in Tourism: Concepts and Analysis, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann. Richter, L. K. (1989) The Politics of Tourism in Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Rieder, L.G (2012) 6th UNWTO Executive Training Program. Strategic Tourism Planning for Sustainable Destinations and Sites. 25th -28th June, 2012. Bhutan. Rigby, D and Bilodeau, B. (2011). Management Tools and Trends 2011. Bain and Company. Riley, R.W., and Love, L.L. (2000) The State of Qualitative Tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1): 164-187.
228
Rio, D and Nunes, L.M (2012) Monitoring and Evaluation Tool for Tourism Destinations. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 64-66. Ritchie, B (2009) Crisis and Disaster Management in Tourism. Bristol: Channel View. Roberts, S. and Tribe, J. (2008) Sustainability Indicators for Small Tourism Enterprises – An Exploratory Perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16 (5). Rodin, D (2005) What's Wrong with Business Ethics. International Social Science Journal 57(185):561 – 571. Rosenström, U. and Kyllonen, S. (2007) Impacts of a Participatory Approach to Developing National Level Sustainable Development Indicators in Finland. Environmental Management, 84, 282-298. RTÉ
Achieves
(1967)
Plans
for
Limerick
Lake
1967.
Available
from
http://www.rte.ie/archives/2017/0120/846424-lough-gur-has-a-future/ RTÉ Investigates: Standards in Public Office. 7th of December, 2015. Ruhanen, L. (2013). Local Government: Facilitator or Inhibitor of Sustainable Tourism Development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 80-98. Ruhanen, L (2004) Strategic Planning for Local Tourism Destinations: An Analysis of Tourism Plans. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, 1(3), 239-253. Running, K (2015) Towards Climate Justice: How do the Most Vulnerable Weigh Environment–Economy Trade-Offs? Social Science Research, 50, 217-228. Ryan, C and Garland, R (1999) The use of a Specific Non-Response Option on Likert-Type Scales, Tourism Management, 20, 107-113. Rylance, A. (2008) Local Economic Development in Mozambique: An Assessment of the Implementation of Tourism Policy as a Means to Promote Local Economies. In: Spenceley, A. (Ed.), Responsible Tourism. London, Earthscan, 27-39. Saarinen, J (2006) Traditions of Sustainability in Tourism Studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1121-1140.
229
Santana-Jiménez, Y and Hernández, J.M (2011) Estimating the Effect of Overcrowding on Tourist Attraction: The Case of Canary Islands. Tourism Management, 32(2), 415-425. Sanchez, M and Pulido, J. I. (2008) Medida de la sostenibilidad turística. Propuesta de un ındice sintetico [Measuring the tourism sustainability. Proposal of a synthetic index]. Madrid: Editorial Universitaria Ramon Areces. Sasaki, M. (2004). Creativity and Cities: The Role of Culture in Urban Regeneration. Quarterly Journal of Economic Research (Osaka City University), 27(3), 29–35. Sattar, Z., Hannam, K. and Ali, N. (2013). Religious Obligations to Travel. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change.11(1-2), 61-72. Saunders, M., Lewis, P and Thornhill, A. (2000). Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow: Pearson Education. Sautter E., and Leisen B. (1999) Managing Stakeholders a Tourism Planning Model, Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312-328. Schianetz, K and Kavanagh, L (2008) Sustainability Indicators for Tourism Destinations: A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach Using Systemic Indicator Systems. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 601-628. Schianetz, K, Kavanagh, L. and Lockington, D. (2007) The Learning Tourism Destination: The Potential of a Learning Organisation Approach for Improving the Sustainability of Tourism Destinations', Tourism Management, 28, 1485-96. Schwartz, Z., Stewart, W and Backlund, E.A (2012) Visitation at Capacity-Constrained Tourism Destinations: Exploring Revenue Management at a National Park. Tourism Management, 33(3), 500 –508. Scoones, I (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper, Institute of Development Studies, 72. Scuttari, A., Lucia, M. D and Martini, U (2012) Integrated Planning of Sustainable Tourism and Mobility: An Exploratory Study. BEST EN Think Tank XII, Mobilities and Sustainable Tourism.
230
Sharpley, R. (2014). Host Perceptions of Tourism: A Review of the Research. Tourism Management, 42, 37-49 Sharpley, R. (2008). Planning for Tourism: The Case of Dubai. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 5(1), 13-30. Sharpley, R (2009) Tourism Development and the Environment: Beyond Sustainability? London: Earthscan. Sharpley, R (2000) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1-19. Sharpley, R (2015) Trends in European Tourism Planning and Organisation. Tourism Management, 51, 33-34. Shaxson, L. (1999) Monitoring the impact of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: A Working Paper, DfID Socio-Economic Methodologies, January 1999. Sheehan, L.R., and Brent Ritchie, J.R. (2005) Destination Stakeholders Exploring Identity and Salience. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3):711-734. Simmons, D. (1994). Community Participation in Tourism Planning. Tourism Management, 15, 98-108. Singh, R (2016) The State of Indian Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Review and Analysis of Journal Publications. Tourism Management Perspectives, 17, 90-99. Singh, S., Timothy, D and Dowling, R (2003) Tourism in Destination Communities. Wallingford, CABI. Sniffen, J. (1995) UNEP Impact Assessment Meetings, Email Communication, 20 June 1995. Soteriou, E.C and Coccossis, H. (2010) Integrating Sustainability into the Strategic Planning of National Tourism Organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 49 (2), 191-205. Soteriou, E. C and Roberts, C. (1998). The Strategic Planning Process in National Tourism Organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 37(1), 21–29. Southam A L (2009) Personal Communication. Senior Consultant, ERM, Anchorage, Alaska.
231
Spangenberg, J.H and Valentin, A (1999) Indicators for Sustainable Communities. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Germany. Spencer, D. (2010). Facilitating Public Participation in Tourism Planning on American Indian Reservations: A Case Study Involving the Nominal Group Technique. Tourism Management, 31, 684–690. Strickland-Munro, J. K., Allison, H. E., and Moore, S. A. (2010). Using Resilience Concepts to Investigate the Impacts of Protected Area Tourism on Communities. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2), 499-519. Stronza, A. (2008). Perspectives on Leadership Coaching for Regional Tourism Managers and Entrepreneurs. In G. Moscardo (Ed.), Building Community Capacity for Tourism Development (pp. 101-115). Clevedon: CABI. Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J. and Szivas, E. (2014) Residents Support for Tourism Development: The Role of Residents Place Image and Perceived Tourism Impacts. Tourism Management, 45, 260-274. Stylidis, D and Terzidou, M. (2014) Tourism and the Economic Crisis in Kavala, Greece. Annals of Tourism Research, 44, 210-226. Sustaining
Tourism
(2014)
Sustaining
Tourism.
Available
from
http://www.sustainabletourism.net/ Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Tang, Z (2015) An Integrated Approach to Evaluating the Coupling Coordination between Tourism and the Environment, Tourism Management, 46, 11-19. Tang, C. F and Tan, E. C. (2013). How Stable is the Tourism-Led Growth Hypothesis in Malaysia? A View from Disaggregated Tourism Markets. Tourism Management, 37, 52-57. Tanguay, G.A., Rajaonson, J and Therrien, M.C (2013) Sustainable Tourism Indicators: Selection Criteria for Policy Implementation and Scientific Recognition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(6), 862-879. Tashakkori, A and Teddlie, C (Eds) (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
232
Teddlie, C and A. Tashakkori (2003) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Telfer, D. and Sharpley, R. (2008) Tourism and Development in the Developing World. New York: Routledge. Testoni, L (2001) Planning for Sustainable Tourism. Pacific Tourism Review, 4, 191-199. The Resource Management Act [RMA] (1991) Resource Management Act. Available from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM230265.html Theobald, W.F. (ed.) (2004), Global Tourism. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann. Thune, S. S and House, R. J. (1970). Where Long Range Planning Pays Off. Business Horizons, 13, 82–87. Timur, S. (2003) Urban Tourism Stakeholder Relationships: A network perspective. Travel and Tourism Research Association, “Urban Tourism – Mapping the Future” Conference Proceedings, Glasgow, 270. Tolkach, D and King, B (2015) Strengthening Community-Based Tourism in a New ResourceBased Island Nation: Why and How? Tourism Management, 48, 386-398. Torres-Delgado, A. (2010). Sostenibilitat i Modalitats Turístiques: Una Anàlisi de casos a Catalunya. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 56(3), 479–502. Torres-Delgado, A. and Palomeque, F.L. (2014) Measuring Sustainable Tourism at the Municipal Level. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 122-137. Torres-Delgado and Saarinen, J (2013) Using Indicators to Assess Sustainable Tourism Development: A Review. Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 16(1), 1-17. Tourism Research Centre [TRC] (2006) Dublin Institute of Technology. Economic, Environmental and Social Performance of the Irish Tourism Sector: Towards Sustainability. Paper prepared for conference - Towards sustainability in the delivery of the National Development Plan 2007–2013, Comhar the National Sustainable Development Partnership. Tosun, C and Jenkins, C. L. (1996) Regional Planning Approaches to Tourism Development: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 17(7), 519-531. 233
Tosun, C., and Jenkins, C. (1998) The Evolution of Tourism Planning in Third-World Countries: A Critique. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4: 101–114. Tosun, C. and Timothy, D. (2003) Arguments for Community Participation in Tourism Development, Journal of Tourism Studies 14 (2), 2–11. Tourism Policy Review Group (2003) New Horizons for Irish Tourism: An Agent for Change. Dublin, DAST. Tourism Queensland (2008) Destination Management Plan for Tourism in Townsville North Queensland
(2008-2011).
Accessed
from:
http://www.townsvilleenterprise.com.au/Libraries/Tourism_Document_Library/Townsville_ DMP-v3.sflb.ashx Tourism Strategy Implementation Group (2009) New Horizons for Irish Tourism: An Agenda for Action. DAST, Dublin. Tsang, N.K.F. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2011). Thirty Years of Research on Tourism and Hospitality Management in China: A Review and Analysis of Journal Publications. International Journal of Hospitality Management 80 (4), 886—896. Tugcu. C. T (2014) Tourism and Economic Growth Nexus Revisited: A Panel Causality Analysis for the Case of the Mediterranean Region, Tourism Management, 42, 207-212. Ubon, A.N. (2005). Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-Based Online Learning Communities: A Longitudinal Case Study Using Content Analysis. Department of Computer Science, The University of York. Doctor of Philosophy. United Nations Environmental Programme [UNEP] and ICLEI (2003) Tourism and Local Agenda 21: The Role of Local Authorities in Sustainable Tourism. Paris, UNEP. UNEP/ICLEI [United Nations Environmental Programme/International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives] (2003) Tourism and Local Agenda 21: The Role of Local Authorities in Sustainable Tourism. UN Publications, Paris. UNEP-UNWTO (2005) Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy-makers. UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE). Production and Consumption Unit. Tourism Programme. Paris, France. UNEP and UNWTO. Madrid, Spain. http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/guidelines-policy-making-and-planning 234
United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2007) A Practical Guide to Tourism Destination Management. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2014) Annual Report. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nation World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2010) Collaborative Processes for Sustainable and Competitive Tourism. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (1998) Guide for Local Authorities on Developing Sustainable Tourism. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2004) Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations: A Guidebook. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO], (2015a) “International tourist arrivals up 4% driven by strong results in Europe”. Press Release, 30 October 2015. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2016) “International tourist arrivals up 4% reach record 1.2 billion in 2015”. Press Release, 18 January 2016. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2011c) International tourism receipts surpass
US$
1
trillion
in
2011.
No:
PR
12027,
Available
online
at
http://media.unwto.org/en/press-release/2012-05-07/international-tourism-receipts-surpassus-1-trillion-2011 (May 2012) United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO], (2015c) “Message for World Tourism Day”. Press Release, 27 September 2015. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO], (2015b) “Over 1.1 billion tourists travelled abroad in 2014”. Press Release, 27 January 2015. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nation World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2013) Sustainable Tourism Governance and Management in Coastal Areas of Africa. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2015c) Tourism and the Sustainable Development Goals. Madrid: UNWTO.
235
United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2012). Tourism Highlights. Available
at
http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights12enhr_1.pdf United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2011a) UNWTO: International tourism
to
reach
one
billion
in
2012.
No:
PR12002,
Available
online
at
http://media.unwto.org/en/press-release/2012-01-16/international-tourism-reach-one-billion2012 (16 Jan 2012). United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2001): Tourism 2020 Vision. Madrid: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO] (2011b) UNWTO World Tourism Barometer: World’s Top Source Markets by International Tourism Expenditure. Available from http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/worlds_top_sounce_markets.pdf Urry J (2007) Mobilities. London: Polity. Uysal, M., Sirgy, M.J., Woo E and Kim, H.L (2016) Quality of Life (QOL) and Well Being Research in Tourism. Tourism Management, 53, 244-261. Valente, F., Dredge, D and Lohmann, G (2015) Leadership and Governance in Regional Tourism. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 4(2), 127-136. Van der Zee, E and Vanneste, D. (2015) Tourism Networks Unravelled; a Review of the Literature on Networks in Tourism Management Studies. Tourism Management Perspectives, 15, 46-56. Van Scotter, J.R., and Culligan, P.E. (2003). The Value of Theoretical Research and Applied Research for the Hospitality Industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 14–27. Veal, A.J., (2006) Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism. (3rd Ed). London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Harlow. Veal, AJ. (2011) Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide. (4th Ed). Harlow, Prentice Hall.
236
Vitouladiti, Q (2014) Content Analysis as a Research Tool for Marketing, Management and Development Strategies in Tourism. Procedia Economics and Finance, 9, 278-287 Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M and Eckhoff, R. A. (2006). The Tyranny of the Balanced Scorecard in the Innovation Economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1), 43–60. Votsi, N.E.P., Mazaris, A.D., Kallimanis, A.S and Pantis, J.D (2014) Natural Quiet: An Additional Feature Reflecting Green Tourism Development in Conservation Areas of Greece. Tourism Management Perspectives, 11, 10-17. Waligo, V.M., Clarke, J and Hawkins, R (2013) Implementing Sustainable Tourism: A Multi Stakeholder Involvement Management Framework, Tourism Management, 36, 342-353. Wall, G. and Mathieson, A. (2006) Tourism-Change, Impacts and Opportunities. Harlow: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Wallace, H., Pollack, M. A., and Young, A. R. (2010). Policy-Making in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walle, A.H. (1997) Quantitative versus Qualitative Tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3): 524-536. Wan, W.K.P. (2013) A Comparison of the Governance of Tourism Planning in the Two Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of China – Hong Kong and Macao. Tourism Management, 36, 164-177. Wang, Y.S (2014) Effects of Budgetary Constraints on International Tourism Expenditures. Tourism Management, 41, 9-18. Weaver, D. (2009). Reflections on Sustainable Tourism and Paradigm Change. In S. Gössling, C. M. Hall and D. B. Weaver (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism Futures (33-40). New York: Routledge. Weaver, D. (2006) Sustainable Tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Weaver, D. and Lawton, L. (2006) Tourism Management. (3rd Ed.) Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
237
Webster, C. and Ivanov, S. (2014) Transforming Competitiveness into Economic Benefits: Does Tourism Stimulate Economic Growth in More Competitive Destinations? Tourism Management, 40, 137-140. Whelan, N (2015) “In defence of the Irish county councillor”. Irish Times Article, December 11th, 2015. Available from, http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/noel-whelan-in-defence-ofthe-irish-county-councillor-1.2461909 Wheeller, B. (1993). Sustaining the Ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(2), 121–129. Whittington, R and Cailluet, L. (2008). The Craft of Strategy. Long Range Planning, 41, 241– 247. Wight, P. (1998) Tools for Sustainability Analysis in Planning and Managing Tourism and Recreation in the Destination. In C.M. Hall and A. Lew (Eds) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (75–91). Essex: Longman. Williams, S (1998) Tourism Geography. London: Routledge. Wilson, E and Hollinshead, K (2015) Qualitative Tourism Research: Opportunities in the Emergent Soft Sciences. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 30-47. Witt, S., and Mountinho, L. (Eds) (1994) Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Wolf, I.D., Wohlfart, T., Brown, G and Lasa, B (2015) The use of Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for Park Visitor Management: A Case Study of Mountain Biking. Tourism Management, 51, 112-130. Wood, M. E. (2002). Ecotourism: Principles, Practices and Policies for Sustainability. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/library/ecotourism.htm World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED] (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. WCED: Oslo. World Development Report (2010) Development and Climate Change. Washington DC: UN Available
from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/5287678-
1226014527953/WDR10-Full-Text.pdf
238
World Tourism Organisation [WTO] (1999) Guide for Local Authorities on Developing Sustainable Tourism. WTO, Madrid, Spain. World Tourism Organization [WTO] (2004) Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism. Madrid, WTO. World Tourism Organisation [WTO] (1994) National and Regional Tourism Planning: Methodologies and Case Studies. London, Routledge. World Tourism Organisation [WTO] (1993) Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners. Madrid, WTO. World Tourism Organisation [WTO]. (1995) What Tourism Managers Need to Know. Madrid: International Working Group on Indicators of Sustainable Tourism and Consulting and Audit Canada World Tourism Organisation [WTO] (1996) What Tourism Managers need to know: A Practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism. Madrid, WTO. World Tourism Organisation [WTO] (1998) Yearbook of Tourism Statistics. Volume 1(50). Madrid, WTO. World Travel and Tourism Council [WTTC] (2017) Travel & Tourism: Economic Impact 2016 Ireland. Available from https://www.wttc.org/research/economic-research/economic-impactanalysis/country-reports World Wildlife Fund [WWF] (2003). A Strategic Environmental Assessment of Fiji’s Tourism Development Plan (Report of the South Pacific Programme). Taipei (Taiwan), World Wide Fund for Nature. Yang, C.L and Fik, T (2014) Spatial Effects in Regional Tourism Growth. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 144-162. Yeoman, I. (2005). Tomorrow’s World – Consumer and Tourist. Visit Scotland, 1(2), 1–31. Yüksel, F., Bramwell, B and Yüksel, A. (2005) Centralized and Decentralized Tourism Governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 859-886.
239
Yüksel, F. and Yüksel, A. (2000) Tourism Plan Formulation and Implementation: The Role of Interorganisational Relations. Sheffield Hallam University Press. South Yorkshire, UK. Yunis E (2004) Indicators to Measure Sustainability in Tourism. Paper presented at 7th International Forum on Tourism Statistics, Stockholm, Sweden, 9 – 11 June. World Tourism Organization. Zhao, W., Ritchie, J. R. B and Echtner, C. M. (2011) Social Capital and Tourism Entrepreneurship. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1570-1593. Zillinger, M. (2008). Germans' Tourist Behaviour in Sweden, Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, (Croatian National Tourism Board: Institute for Tourism, Zagreb), 56(2),143-158. Zubair, S., Bowen, D and Elwin, J (2011) Not Quite Paradise: Inadequacies of Environmental Impact Assessment in the Maldives. Tourism Management, 31(2), 225-234.
240
APPENDIX A:
SUMMARY OF ABBREVIATIONS FOR COUNTIES USED IN ANALYSIS MATRIX
CW Carlow CN Cavan CE Clare CK Cork DL Donegal DLR Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown SD South Dublin FL Fingal GY Galway KK Kilkenny KE Kildare KY Kerry LS Laois LM Leitrim LK Limerick LH Louth LD Longford MH Meath MO Mayo MN Monaghan OY Offaly RN Roscommon SO Sligo Ts Tipperary South Tn Tipperary North WD Waterford WH Westmeath WX Wexford WW Wicklow ___________________________________________________________________________
241
APPENDIX B:
LOCAL AUTHORITIES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND THEIR TIMELINES
County Carlow Cavan Clare* Cork Donegal Dun Laoghaire Rathdown South Dublin Fingal* Galway Kilkenny Kildare* Kerry Laois* Leitrim Limerick** Louth Longford Meath Mayo Monaghan Offaly Roscommon Sligo* Tipperary South*** Tipperary North*** Waterford Westmeath Wexford Wicklow
Code
Publication Date
Expiry Date
CW CN CE CK DL D Ds FL GY KK KE KY LS LM LK LH LD MH MO MN OY RN SO Ts Tn WD WH WX WW
2015 2014 2017 2014 2012 2016 2016 2017 2015 2014 2017 2015 2017 2015 2010 2015 2015 2013 2014 2013 2014 2014 2017 2009 2010 2011 2014 2013 2016
2021 2020 2023 2020 2018 2022 2022 2023 2021 2020 2023 2021 2023 2021 2016 2021 2021 2019 2020 2019 2020 2020 2023 2015 2016 2017 2020 2019 2022
* CDP currently in Draft Stage ** In September 2015, in accordance with Section 28 of the Electoral, Local Government and Planning and Development Act 2013, the Planning Authority proposed not to commence the review of the Limerick County Development Plan 2010 - 2016 and the Limerick City Development Plan 2010 - 2016. Therefore, the County Development Plan will continue to have effect until a new Development Plan for Limerick City and County is prepared 242
*** The current North and South Tipperary County Development plans have both been extended (note the Local Government, Electoral, Planning and Development Act 2013) and therefore will remain in place until reviewed.
243
APPENDIX C:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROPEAN TOURISM INDICATOR SYSTEM (2013)
244
245
246
247
248
APPENDIX D:
COVER LETTER SENT TO SENIOR PLANNERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Dear [contact name] I am conducting essential longitudinal research that is of significant importance to the Irish tourism industry and your response would be much appreciated. Please relax with a cup of tea to have a look at the attached questionnaire, which is designed to take approximately 10-15mins, and the purpose is to build on previous research conducted ten years ago on sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. I would like to contact you in the next two weeks to arrange a time and date that best suits you to discuss the questionnaire over the phone. All personal views will be held in the strictest of confidence. I would like to express my profound thanks for your time and assistance Emmet McLoughlin Doctoral Researcher, Department of Marketing, Tourism & Sport, School of Business & Social Sciences, Institute of Technology, Sligo, F91 YW50 Land: 071 9318510 E-mail:
[email protected]
249
APPENDIX E:
EMAIL SENT TO SENIOR PLANNERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Dear [name of contact] I recently sent you a letter containing a questionnaire, the purpose of which was to conduct a longitudinal study on sustainable planning for tourism in Ireland. If it is possible, could you indicate to me a time and date that would best suit you for a phone call to discuss the results from your questionnaire responses? All personal views will be held in the strictest of confidence Yours Sincerely Emmet McLoughlin
250
APPENDIX F:
RESEARCH INTERVIEW WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY SENIOR PLANNERS
251
Interview code: ________ Date: ______________ Consent: _____________ Job Title: ____________________
A Longitudinal Analysis of Sustainable Planning for Tourism in Ireland with a Focus on Tourism Indicator Systems Research Interview with Local Authority Senior Planners
1. Specifics of Local Authority County Development Plan’s
1. Does the Local Authority have any of the following?
2. Does the Local Authority have a set budget in place for the following?
3. Are you aware who the Destination Management Organisation (DMO) is for your specific County?
Local Authority Plans
Y
N
DK
Tourism Plan Heritage Plan Biodiversity Plan LECP Plan
Local Authority Budgets
Y N
DK
Tourism Planning Heritage planning Biodiversity Planning
Yes
No
DK
Comment:_______________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________
Comment:_______________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ ____
Comment:_________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________
4. If yes, then who?
5. Does the Local Authority conduct any tourism research within the county?
Yes
No
DK
Comment:_________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ ______________________________________
6. If yes, what does this research consist of?
7. Is this research longitudinal?
8. Does the Local Authority measure the following impacts of tourism in the County?
Yes
No
DK
Impacts Environmental Economic Socio-cultural
Comment:_________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________
Yes
9. If yes, then how?
252
No
DK
Comment:____________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _________________
10. How supported are you in the role of tourism planning within your Local Authority?
Extremely Supported
Very Supported
Moderately Supported
Slightly Supported
Comment:_________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __
Not at all Supported
County CEO Local Authority Management Other Local Authority Planners
11. How supported are you in the role of tourism planning by the following outside organisations?
Organisation
Extremely Supported
Very Moderately Slightly Supported Supported Supported
Not at all Supported
Fáilte Ireland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport Department of Environment, Community & Local Government Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Private Sector Organisations Other Agencies
Comment:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. Does the Local Authority employ any of the following?
Local Authority Roles
13. If no, do you feel it would be beneficial to appoint any of the following within the Local Authority?
Local Authority Roles
Y
N
DK
Comment:______________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ ____
Y
N
DK
Comment:______________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________
Tourism Officer Tourism Manager Heritage Officer Heritage Manager
Tourism Officer Tourism Manager Heritage Officer Heritage Manager
0 1 2 3
14. What is the current number of staff employed by the Local Authority to specifically manage tourism within the county?
15. In your professional opinion, does your Local Authority need additional staff to manage tourism within the county?
253
4 5 6 7
Yes
Comment:______________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________
8 9 10 11+
No
DK
Comment:______________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________
2. Sustainable Planning for Tourism Guidelines for Local Authorities 16. Does the Local Authority provide guidelines on any of the following? Guidelines Tourism Sustainable Planning for Tourism Regulations for Caravan and Camping Resort Planning
17. If yes, are these available?
Yes
No
DK
Guidelines To the General Public On E-Planning Portal
Comment:______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
Yes
No
Comment:__________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ ____________________________________
DK
18. Does the Local Authority utilise any of the following policy guidelines when planning for tourism?
International Guidelines EEA: Report on the Feasibility for Regular Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Sustainable Tourism (2014) EC: Enhancing the Competitiveness of Tourism in the EU (2013) EC: Best Environmental Management Practice in the Tourism Sector (2013) UNEP: Tourism: Investing in energy and resource efficiency (2011) EC: Cultural and Sporting Events: An opportunity for developing tourist destinations and the tourist industry (2007) STG: Actions for More Sustainable European Tourism (2007) UNWTO: Aims for Sustainable Tourism (2005) OECD: Innovation in Tourism (2006) GSTC: Criteria for Destinations (2013) OECD: Indicators for Measuring Competitiveness in Tourism: A guidance document (2013)
Yes No
DK Never Heard Of
19. Does the Local Authority utilise any of the following Fáilte Ireland guidelines when planning for tourism? Fáilte Ireland Guidelines Fáilte Ireland Tourism Product Development Strategy (2007) 2007-2013 Fáilte Ireland Tourism and the Environment (2007) 2007-2009 Fáilte Ireland Festivals & Events: Best practise guidelines (2007) Fáilte Ireland Tourism Strategy Statement (2008) Fáilte Ireland Eco-Tourism Handbook (2009) Fáilte Ireland Regulations for Caravan and Camping Parks (2009) Fáilte Ireland New Horizons for Irish Tourism 2009-2013 (2009) Fáilte Ireland Historic Towns in Ireland: Maximising your tourism potential (2010)
254
Yes
No
DK
Never Heard Of
20. Does the Local Authority utilise any of the following national guidelines when planning for tourism? National Guidelines DECLG: National Development Plan 2007-2013 (2007) DTTS: New Horizons for Irish Tourism-An Agenda for Action (2008) DECLG: Our Sustainable Future: A Framework for Sustainable Development (2012) EPA: Ireland’s Environment: An Assessment (2012) DECLG: Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 (2014) DAHG: National Landscape Strategy (2015) DTTS: People, Place and Policy: Growing Tourism to 2025 (2015)
Yes
No
DK
Never Heard of
3. Local Authority Planning Process for Tourism in Ireland 21. Does the Local Authority consult with the host community when preparing tourism components of CDP’s?
Yes
No
DK
Comment:_______________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ _______
22. If yes, did the Local Authority utilise any of the following consultation methods to allow for community participation? Participation Tools General Talk on Process & Draft plan Presentation/Exhibition Given Question and Answer Session Individual clinic facilitation if requested Work Shops at Public Meetings Written or Oral Submissions taken at Meetings
Yes
No
DK
23. Is the Local Authority Draft CDP available to the host community for inspection?
Comment:______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
Yes
No
DK
24. Did any of the following influence the alteration of the Draft CDP? Organisation County Councillors National & Regional Tourism Agencies Local Community Development Committees County Tourism Committees/Forums
Yes
No
Comment:______________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________
Comment:____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________
DK
ALL PERSONAL VIEWS WILL BE HELD IN THE STRICTEST OF CONFIDENCE 25. In your opinion does the Local authority’s elected County Councillors have enough knowledge on sustainable planning for tourism for the decisions they make?
Yes
No
26. Do the Local authority’s elected County Councillors County Councillors Understanding the basic concepts of planning? Understand the basic concepts of tourism planning &development? Are capable of making complex decisions on tourism land use zoning? Have sufficient training for the planning decisions they make? Display self interest in planning decisions? Understand the consequences of planning decisions they make?
255
Yes
No
DK
DK
Comment:_______________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ ____________
Comment:_______________________________________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
27. In your professional opinion, do you think the input County Councillors have in the planning system is open to corruption?
Yes
No
DK
28. If yes, does this impact on your job as a senior planner?
Yes
No
DK
29. Does the Local Authority provide specific resort planning guidelines as part of tourism policy components of CDP’s?
Yes
No
DK
_______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________
30. If yes, what do these guidelines entail?
31. If no, do you think resort planning guidelines for tourism would be beneficial to your Local Authority?
Yes
No
DK
32. Does your Local Authority specifically monitor tourism impacts within the County?
Yes
No
DK
33. If yes, does the Local Authority monitor the following tourism impacts?
Tourism Impacts Tourism Economic Impact Tourist Nights per Month Daily Spend by Tourists Average Length of Stay Occupancy Rate Tourism Jobs Tourism Multiplier Effect Health and Safety Community/Social Impacts Gender Equality Equality/Accessibility Cultural/Heritage Protection Climate Change Solid Waste Management Sewage Treatment Water Management Energy Usage Landscape/Biodiversity Protection Light/Noise Management Bathing Water Quality
Yes
No
Comment:______________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Comment:______________________________ _____________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Comment:______________________________ _____________ _______________________________________
Comment:_______________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ _______ Comment:______________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________
Comment:_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
DK
34. Does the Local Authority incorporate tourism indicator systems within the tourism planning process?
256
Yes
No
DK
Comment:____________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ______________________________
35. If yes, does the Local Authority utilise any of the following indicator systems when planning for tourism? Tourism indicator Systems UNWTO Core Indicators of Sustainable Tourism (1996) UN Commission on Sustainable Development- Indicators of Sustainable Development (2001) ETC: National Sustainable Tourism Indicators (2002) OECD Indicators of Environmental Sustainability (2004) CNPA Strategy for Sustainable Tourism: Suggested Indicators of Sustainable Tourism (2005) (EEA) European Environment Agency Set of Indicators (2005) UK Sustainable Development Indicators (2005) UNWTO: Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations (2005) EPA/DIT ACHIEV Model (2012) GSTC: Criteria for Destinations (GSTC C-D) (2013) Other, Please specify,
Yes
No
DK
Never Heard Of
36. If not, why not?
37. Are you aware of the EC: European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Destinations (ETIS)?
Yes
No
DK
38. Would your Local Authority be interested in the ETIS indicator system that was piloted in twenty nine (29) different destinations across Europe?
Yes
No
DK
Comment:____________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ______________________________ Comment:____________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ______________________________
39. Would your Local Authority be willing to utilise the following indicator tools that compromise the ETIS when planning for tourism? Indicator Tools Destination Management Economic Value Social & Cultural Impact Environmental Impact
Yes
No
DK
Comment:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
40. Would your Local Authority be willing to utilise the ETIS Destination Data Set (excel file) to analyse and display data collected for destination management?
Yes
No
DK
Comment:____________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ______________________________
41. In your professional opinion what would be the best approach to get Local Authorities to implement the ETIS in future? Approaches Legally require it Funding made available Promotion Recognition of achievements Other, please specify
Yes
No
DK
Comment:________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________
257
42. Would you like any of the following resources to help implement a tourism indicator system? Resources Detailed Information Training Mentoring Funding Other
Yes
No
DK
Comment:_________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
43. Are you aware of any other Local Authority implementing tourism indicator systems within Ireland?
Yes
No
DK
44. If yes, who?
45. In your professional opinion, would the Local Authority benefit from implementing tourism indicator systems in the planning process for CDP’s?
46. Do you think this Local Authority would benefit from utilising a comprehensive planning tool-kit together with guidelines and a checklist in future CDP’s when planning sustainably for tourism? Further Comments:
Emmet McLoughlin Doctoral Researcher Department of Marketing, Tourism & Sport School of Business & Social Sciences Institute of Technology Sligo Ireland F91 YW50
Yes
No
DK
Yes
No
DK
Comment:____________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ______________________________
Comment:____________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ______________________________ Comment:____________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ _________________
Mob: Land: Email:
[email protected] Local Authority Code: _______Contact::________
258
