Background. In recent decades, rural Vancouver Island has witnessed dramatic decline in its traditionally dominant economic sectors of forestry and fisheries ...
BRIDGING THE TOURISM PLANNING GAP: CREATING A REGIONAL RURAL TOURISM PLANNING ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITIES-INTRANSITION ON VANCOUVER ISLAND David W. Robinson, Malaspina University College Felice Mazzoni, District of Ucluelet Background In recent decades, rural Vancouver Island has witnessed dramatic decline in its traditionally dominant economic sectors of forestry and fisheries and major growth in its service industry sectors, especially tourism (Robinson and Mazzoni, 2004; Vaugeois, 2003). However, while a local economy driven by tourism appears as an attractive escape from the boom and bust cycle of resource dependency, the particularities of rural communities-in-transition (RCIT) and the volatile and often ecologically and culturally damaging nature of the tourism industry itself present challenges in the quest for a viable, community driven tourism product (Robinson & Twynam, 1997; Swarbrooke, 2000). From an industry perspective, the potential for rural tourism development on Vancouver Island - and across Canada - has not yet been fully realized. At the same time, however, many rural areas are under-serviced, lack adequate planning systems or the capacities needed to embark on the development of a new and often misunderstood industry. Local planning, and tourism planning support from applied research teams, take on a new importance when small communities are confronted with changes that are beyond local capacities to significantly influence. If Canada wishes to maintain rural community well-being and compete successfully for market share in rural tourism, it requires models of how to blend rural tourism planning with sustainable community development. The ‘Community–University Research Alliance’ (CURA) described in this paper seeks to develop such models. The tourism research literature is rife with examples of failed community tourism endeavors (Harrison & Husbands, 1996), due in large part to a serious ‘disconnect’ that exits between ‘tourism’ and ‘planning’. Critics of the tourism industry and tourism researchers agree that a significant ‘tourism planning research gap’ exists due to tourism often being naively and incorrectly viewed as synonymous with ‘marketing and promotion’. Tourism research to date has given minimal attention to planning models and policy regulation. Steps to rectify this requires concentrated effort among researchers and planning practitioners to create collaborative planning models and systems to direct and guide tourism growth and development in rural communities (Burby, 2003). Case studies of progressive community tourism planning models specific to RCIT are necessary to guide each community’s unique evolution and ‘reinvention’. The CURA described in this paper adopts a view of planning for RCIT that embraces traditional ‘physical and economic planning’ while giving emphasis to ‘social action planning’ - a process of planning for the citizenry with social justice and equity as the primary underpinnings (Burby, 2003; Keough, 2003; McGrath, 2000; Scheyvens, 1999; Sofield, 2003). Moreover, in this project the role of universities is to conduct ‘resident responsive tourism research’ (Robinson & Mazzoni, 2004) whereby tourism planning expertise and applied research skills (of both researchers and students) are provided to communities as a ‘resource’ for the empowerment of local planning capacities (Bishop 1999; Witty, 1999). Contrary to traditional ‘top-down’ approaches to
community tourism development, whereby residents are persuaded to accept the benefits of tourism (a form of ‘token participation’) and ‘react’ to proposed development plans, this CURA seeks to empower communities to set the tourism development agenda (including the possible rejection of tourism development) and identify its priorities for tourism development and management through ‘bottom-up’ approaches. Through the training and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students employed in the project, this project also seeks as a primary goal to create ‘new approaches and new tools for a new breed of rural tourism community planner’ (Bishop, 1999, p.23) versed in models of collaborative community tourism planning. Purposes This paper describes: 1. the goals and objectives of the proposed regional CURA, 2. the first case study alliance between Ucluelet and Malaspina University College (MUC), and 3. the research outcomes that have impacted the communities of Ucluelet and MUC. The regional CURA builds and expands on tourism planning research completed during 2001-2004 through an alliance between Ucluelet (an archetypal RCIT on west coast Vancouver Island) and Malaspina University College. During this CURA, research will extend into three additional rural communities on Vancouver Island, and a Regional Tourism Planning Research Alliance (RTPRA) for Vancouver Island will be created. The RTPRA will conduct applied resident responsive tourism research within these communities to empower local level decision making with respect to tourism development. Ucluelet (population 1750) lies on the west coast of Vancouver Island, BC, and is a gateway community to world-renowned Pacific Rim National Park and Clayoquot Sound. In 1993, massive social conflict over resource use issues in Clayoquot Sound gave the communities of Ucluelet and Tofino international attention. Immediately following the events of 1993, Ucluelet experienced abandonment by its major employer (multi-national logging company Macmillan Bloedel) and the effects of a massive deterioration in BC’s coastal fishing industry. Facing a near collapse of its local economy and an uncertain future, the community undertook planning initiatives to confront its inevitable social upheaval and economic transition. A decade later, having capitalized on its proximity to the Pacific Rim National Park and Clayoquot Sound, Ucluelet is a vibrant community possessed of a diverse economy driven by a growing tourism and leisure industry. Ucluelet currently attracts over one million visitors per year and is in the midst of a multi-million tourism development boom. Primarily through a researcher-practitioner collaboration, the program of activities gave emphases to researching and enhancing Ucluelet’s planning and policy initiatives, mutual learning and knowledge sharing, and knowledge dissemination to other RCIT and the academic field. The collaboration began informally in 1999 and was formally endorsed by the District of Ucluelet and MUC in 2003.
Research Outcomes To date, research outcomes and impacts include: 1. Applied Research Outcomes: a case study of Ucluelet as a successful RCIT, documenting ‘community empowerment’ and ‘lessons learned’ on both collaborative planning and policy/regulation design. Emphases will be given to the development of policies to direct: (a) affordable housing, (b) coastal access, (c) community amenities, and (d) negotiating with developers. 2. Dissemination of Research Outcomes to other RCI: on Vancouver on-line sharing of the planning and policy knowledge with provincial community planners via the Planning Institute of British Columbia, SmartGrowthBC, and CIVICNET.BC, 3. Educational, Teaching and Enhanced Student Employability Outcomes: Creation of four cooperative education and two full-time planning positions; research conference presentation on work-based learning (Robinson and Mazzoni, 2004b); senior undergraduate planning projects for the District of Ucluelet and the Ucluelet First Nation; semesterly undergraduate planning workshops and the hosting of MUC’s annual planning field school by the District of Ucluelet’s Director of Planning, 4. Resourcing the Community Outcomes: MUC researchers design and implementation of the public involvement process for Ucluelet’s 2003 Official Community Plan (OCP); research and design of policy alternatives for inclusion in the OCP; community ‘awareness, educational, and empowerment’ tourism planning workshops; creation of the Community Development Task Force. Conclusion and Into the Future The paper will conclude with a discussion on the role of the Regional Tourism Planning Research Alliance and the intention in the post-2010 period to expand the regional alliance into a Canadian Rural Tourism Planning Research Institute with Canada-wide communities-universities planning and policy research and networking facilitation emphases. References Bishop, M. (1999). Sustaining community in rural Canada. Plan Canada, 40, 23-24. Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (eds.), (2000). Tourism collaborations and partnerships. Channel View: Toronto. Burby, R.J. (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 1, 33-49. Harrison, L. C. & Husbands, W. (eds.) (1996). Practising responsible tourism: International case studies in tourism planning, policy, and development. John Wiley and Sons: Toronto. McGrath, S. (2000). Social planning: Mobilizing local civil society. Plan Canada, 40, 1112.
Robinson, D. W., & Mazzoni, F. (2004, November). Creating a regional rural tourism planning research alliance for communities-in-transition on Vancouver Island. North Island Research Forum, Campbell River, BC. Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20, 245-249. Sofield, T.H.B. (2003). Empowerment for sustainable tourism development. New York: Pergamon. Swarbrooke. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. New York: CABI Publishing. Vaugeois, N. (2003). Making a transition into tourism employment: The experience of former resource-based workers on Vancouver Island, BC. Nanaimo, BC: Tourism Vancouver Island and the Malaspina University College Tourism Research Institute. Witty, D. R. (1999). Towards collaboration between planning practitioners and academics. Plan Canada, 39, 16-17.
ABSTRACTS of Papers Presented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research May 17 – 20, 2005 Hosted by Department of Recreation and Tourism Management Malaspina University-College Nanaimo, B.C. Abstracts compiled and edited by Tom Delamere, Carleigh Randall, David Robinson CCLR-11 Programme Committee Tom Delamere Dan McDonald Carleigh Randall Rick Rollins and David Robinson
Copyright © 2005 Canadian Association for Leisure Studies ISBN 1-896886-01-9
