shoreline of Puget Sound, and the urban waterfronts of the Seattle -Tacoma metropolis. ..... tourism to the Port's future is obvious in the remarks of its director of.
Annals o/Tourism Rcrcarck, Vol. 14, pp. 58-70. Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
1987 0 1987 Pergamon
0160-7383/87 $3.00 + .oo Journals Ltd and J. Jafari
TOURISM IN WASHINGTON’S COASTAL ZONE Marc L. Miller University
of Washington,
USA
Abstract: Principal coastal tourism regions in Washington State include the remote Pacific outline of the Olympic Peninsula, the rural and island-packed shoreline of Puget Sound, and the urban waterfronts of the Seattle -Tacoma metropolis. The multiple amenities of these destinations are of great concern to host, guest, and management elements of the Washington tourism system. The first section of this paper introduces the setting for coastal tourism and argues that the Washington coastal zone can be attractive to recreational, educational, and instrumental travelers. The second section points out that Washington’s coastal destinations are not clearly defined as tourism products. It describes private and public sector stimuli which put the coastal ecosystem at risk. The final section discusses the opportunity for cooperative coastal tourism planning. Keywords: cooperative coastal tourism planning, coastal zone management, outdoor recreation, Washington State. R&.umt: Le tourisme dans le littoral de V&at de Washington. Les principales regions touristiques littorales dans l’etat de Washington comprennent la cbte isolee de la peninsule Olympique clans le Pacifique, la c&e rurale et parsemee d’iles de Puget Sound, et le front de mer urbain de la metropole Seattle-Tacoma. Les agrements multiples de ces destinations suscitent un grand inter&t chez le visiteur, I’hotelier et la gestion du systeme touristique de Washington. La premiere partie de cet article presente la mise en scene pour le tourisme &tier et soutient que le littoral du Washington peut attirer l’interet des touristes qui voyagent pour la recreation, pour des raisons educatives, ou pour les affaires. La deuxieme partie montre que les destinations littorales du Washington ne sont pas bien definies en tant que produits touristiques. Elle decrit des stimuli des secteurs publics et prives qui mettent en peril l’ecosysteme de la c&e. La derniere partie discute I’opportunite pour la planification cooperative du tourisme &tier. Mats clef: planification cooperative du tourisme &tier, gestion du littoral, recreation en plein air, l’etat de Washington.
Washington State is renowned for a spectacular coastal ecosystem. Over the last hundred years, resources in the coastal zone have been the subject of conflict between social forces advancing the ethic of environmental conservation and protection, and forces promoting the growth of extracting and processing industries.
Marc L. Miller, a cultural anthropologist, is Associate Professor in the Institute for Marine Studies (College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98 195, USA). He has research interest in natural resource management systems, formal organizations, work and leisure, and social change in marine environment. 58
MARC L. MILLER
59
As the twenty-first century approaches, a new pressure is being exerted on the coastal environment. The rise of a service-based economy puts to a test the proposition that Washington’s coastal zone is substantially underutilized as a tourism and recreation destination. The first section of this paper introduces the Washington coastal zone and describes its tourism appeal. The second section presents activities conducted by the private and public sectors which put resources in the zone at risk. The final section discusses the viability of cooperative coastal tourism planning.
WASHINGTON
COASTAL
ZONE
Washington’s coastal zone involves the Pacific Ocean which strikes the coast between the Columbia River and Grays Harbor, as well as at the western edge of the Olympic Peninsula; the several straits (Strait of Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait, Rosario Strait, Strait of Georgia) which lend definition to the southern portion of Vancouver Island (Canada) and the San Juan Islands; and the 2,700 square mile Puget Sound which separates the Kitsap Peninsula from the Olympic Peninsula and the mainland (cf. Figures 1 and 2). Overall, Washington’s shoreline stretches 2,337 miles. This figure includes the shorelines of 172 significant islands in the San Juan Archipelago and breaks down as follows: 157 miles along the Pacific Ocean, 144 miles along the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 89 miles in Grays Harbor, 129 miles in Willapa Bay, 34 miles on the Columbia River, and 1,784 miles bordering Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia. About 75% (2,075 miles) of Washington’s shoreline landward of the extreme high tide
7
-..-..B..
-A. ..
*MAlcOY
Figure
T
1. Counties
..-..-..T..T..-.,7
in Washington
--_.__-“-
I ---.-._._.-___-_
Figure 2. Puget Sound
MARC
L. MILLER
61
is in private ownership, as is roughly 60% of the state’s tidelands (Washington State Department of Ecology 1976:5,10). The population of Washington is concentrated in the coastal zone. Table 1 shows that slightly over two-thirds of nearly 4.5 million inhabitants reside in fifteen coastal zone countries. Seattle, which lies on an isthmus between Puget Sound and 18.5 mile-long Lake Washington, is the core of the coastal tourism system. More than 1.5 million persons live in the Seattle Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. Climate in the Washington coastal zone is characterized by mild temperatures, pleasant summers and autumns, and wet winters. Annual rainfall in Seattle is 39 inches produced in 160 days (Boyer and Savagean 1985:52). Nonetheless, in July visitors can expect almost ten hours of daily sunshine, a 7 1% chance of a sunny ( and 93% chance of a dry) day, an afternoon temperature of 75”F, and a relative humidity of 66% (McNair 1986:40). Tourism depends upon visitors and attractions. Miller and Ditton (1986) suggest that the visitor’s fundamental purpose in tourism is to recognize contrast. This, they argue, happens in three ways. In recreational travel, the tourist experiences contrast in physiological and mental wellbeing. In educational travel, the tourist experiences contrast by exposure to new physical and cultural stimuli. In instrumental travel, the tourist experiences contrast by securing business, political, religious, or other information and goods unavailable at home. Of course, the tourist discovers that particular trips can have mixtures of recreational, educational, and instrumental meanings. Attractions (and the symbols societies use in association with attractions) are of many kinds and have been coded according to environmental, cultural, ethnic, historical, recreational, metropolitan, regional, religious, and technological, criteria (Gee 1984, Jakle 1985, MacCannell 1976, Smith 1977). Tourists visiting Washington’s coastal zone stand a good chance of finding instrumental, educational, and recreational contrast. Non-residents in one study were found to most identify Washington with images of mountains, waterways, seafood, outdoor recreation, rain, and friendly people (Washington Legislative Budget Committee 1985:49). McNair (1986) included the Seattle -Mount Rainier- North Cascades region (Island, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Skagit, Snohomish, and Whatcom counties) and the Olympic Peninsula (Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Masin, and Thurston counties) in a Rand McNally survey of 107 vacation places in the United States. Results show the Seattle region and the Olympic Peninsula to have the following rankings: blessings of nature (3,3), fun in the great outdoors (6, 26), feeding the mind and spirit (8, 84), basic necessities (28, 86), discovering our heritage (44, 65), and entertainment for all (13, 102). McNair determined the overall rank of the Seattle region to be 1 and the overall rank of the Olympic Peninsula was 64. Using different criteria than the McNair study, Boyer and Savagean’s (1985:321) survey for Rand McNally found Seattle to rank first in recreation for 329 metropolitan areas; as part of this calculation, Seattle scored the maximum points possible for outdoor recreation assets. Jakle (1985) notes that a major component of the tourism imperative is the validation of stereotypes. Pacific Northwest stereotypes are strongly connected to tourism attractions of the regional, environmental, and eth-
State
Primary
Metropolitan
Counties)
In
-
I
-
I
.Y
-1
-
_
,,,
,,
,
__
_
c-11984 Importance of tourism to county economy. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 1982.
_
_
Source:
_
.
Washington
-
-
-
-.a
State Department
-._
of Trade
-
-
,,
and Economic
486,000
412,000
Tacoma
1,607,OOO
Seattle
1,425,OOO
494,000
Area (King, Snohomish, 2,093.000
Statistical 53 1,000
Metropolitan 1,837,OOO
Seattle-Tacoma Consolidated and Pierce Counties)
Seattle
Area (King and Snohomish
u,I
-
,.,
,”
1985x7.
516,000
488,000
2,208,OOO
1,692,OOO
4,349,ooo
1984 (estimated)
Coastal Zone
Development
18%
-7.0%
13.9%
12.8%
67.1%
Statistical
19.2%
2,773,433
68.1%
Percent of State Population
Pacific Pierce San Juan Skagit Snohomish Thurston Wahkiakum Whatcom
MLISO”
2,326,096
Zone
21.1%
1970-80 % Change
Total
4,132,156
1980
in Washington’s
48.5% 11.3% 63% 49.7% 9.5% 44.6% 49.1% 9.1% 17.8% 103.3% 22.4% 27.3% 61.6% 6.7% 30.2%
3,413,244
1970
Dependency
51,648 66,314 44,048 15,965 1,269,749 147,152 31,184 17,237 485,643 7,838 64,138 337,720 124,264 3,832 106,701
in Coastal
and Tourism
34,770 59,553 27,011 10,661 1,159,369 101,732 20,918 15,796 412,344 3,856 52,381 265,236 76,894 3,592 81,983
in Coastal Zone
1. Population
Clallam Grays Harbor Island J&E?XO” King Kitsap
Counties
Washington
Table
-,>,,>_
6.2%
- 1.2%
5.5%
5.3%
5.2%
1980-84 % Change
19 12 5 1 24 33 22 39 23
10 13 36 8 7 32
Ranking of Tourism Dependency@)
MARC L. MILLER
63
nit types. Clearly, much of the appeal of Washington’s coastal zone stems from the uncongested opportunities tourists have to participate with nature. To this end, federal, state, and local authorities have dedicated much forest and park land to recreation. Tourists can engage in a variety of active outdoor leisure activities such as swimming, diving, sport fishing (especially salmon), shellfishing, all manners of backpacking and wilderness camping (including beach), and pleasure boating. In addition, the tourists can participate in more passive methods of direct experience such as picnicking, beachcombing, marine mammal and bird watching, ferry rides, maritime festivals, organized tours, and waterfront dining. These established options notwithstanding, tourism in Washington’s coastal zone is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Simply, stereotypes and realities of the coastal zone are being redefined as the core Seattle metropolis rises as a cosmopolitan and international destination. The importance of Seattle as a critical node in marine transportation systems (e.g., first as “Gateway to Alaska” and now as “Gateway to the Orient”) is familiar history. What is newsworthy is that the core relies considerably less on the troubled timber and fisheries industries, and more on service industries. Seattle’s complex growth has a profound significance for tourism in the coastal zone. Benefiting from its location at the edge of the aquatic world, the city is becoming an attraction itself while maintaining its status as the commercial epicenter of the Pacific Northwest. For many Americans, this process began in 1962 with the Seattle World’s Fair and the building of the Space Needle. Since that time, the city’s coming of age has been marked by the arrival of several major league professional sports teams and new attention to the fine arts (e.g., a new Museum of Modern Art), and urban development (Seattle boasts the tallest edifice in the Westthe Columbia Tower). As Seattle prospers as a main element in a business network (involving the transfer of goods, information, services, and people) connecting West Coast and Pacific Rim cities, the instrumental tourist will increasingly expand his purposes of travel to more fully investigate the coastal hinterland. It is precisely this spin-off which puts the resources of the coastal zone at risk.
THE RISKS
OF COASTAL
TOURISM
No one with first-hand experience would deny the multiple amenities of the Washington coastal zone. However, the region is not clearly defined as a tourism product. For example, the Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development’s study of the lucrative California marketplace showed that although Californians have positive images of the state, there is a general lack of knowledge among both visitors and prospects concerning specific attractions (WSDTED 1986d). As this problem of market identity is formally addressed by a combination of private and public sector efforts, Washington’s citizenry braces for environmental and social change.
64
TOURISM IN WASHINGTON’S COASTAL ZONE
The Risk Three of the congressional findings in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92 - 583,86 STAT. 1280 as amended) illustrate competing demands of modern life on natural coastal systems 1. The coastal zone, and the fish, shellfish, other marine resources, and wildlife therein, are ecologically fragile and consequently extremely vulnerable to destruction by man’s alterations. 2. Important ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values in the coastal zone which are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost. 3. Special natural and scenic characteristics are being damaged by illplanned development that threatens these values (Section 302, d, e, and g).
Despite its claim as the “smokeless industry,” tourism is all too capable of adversely affecting estuarine, riverine, coastal environments, and wildlife. The most immediate consequences of coastal tourism are found in the transfiguration of the views held due to construction (cf. Bosselman 1978, de Kadt 1979, Gee 1984). More vexing are the delayed problems created for the coastal zone by the externalities of development. In particular, the cumulative effects of mass and second-home recreation are difficult to anticipate and measure. Then too, the travel industry (composed of airline, car rental, vessel charter, and other transportation businesses; hotels, travel agencies, and countless firms providing specialized services and products) is extremely fragmented and difficult to involve in public policy. The industry’s major professional organization, TTRA, the International Association of Travel Research and Marketing Professionals, is composed of members much more functionally interdependent than equivalent. The marine disposal of various kinds of waste directly, or indirectly generated by tourism and recreation can be environmentally disruptive in two ways. First, wastes which flow in great volume from point sources can have negative effects on local marine life (e.g., shellfish, flora) and commercial and recreational behavior (e.g., fishing). Second, non-point effluents (e.g., runoff) can collectively cause pollution problems. These problems become even more serious when toxic and exotic waste materials are involved. Certainly there are numerous examples worldwide of how tourism has led to the displacement of life forms. Tourism has also destroyed the compositions of nature through the reformation of ecosystems, cliffs, riverbanks, and beaches. Overall, however, coastal tourism development raises not so much the moral issues of interference with Mother Nature, but the social and esthetic issues of interference with the aspirations of segments of society. In Washington, as elsewhere, tourism alters the coastal zone by changing environmental configurations and by recruiting many new observers to the scene (cf. Ditton and Miller, 1986). In this, tourism necessarily forces debate,judgment, and social policy. The greatest tourism risk in the Washington coastal zone is the risk that residents will fail to realize the need for tourism planning.
MARC L. MILLER
65
The Stimuli
It is axiomatic that private sector tourism and real estate industries in Washington are motivated to study business opportunities in the coastal zone. Yet, the public sector also contemplates the benefits and costs of tourism development. In the 198Os, Washington’s government has steadily elaborated its role in the promotion of tourism. As recently as 1982, Washington’s tourism budget (at $360,000) ranked lower than any state or U.S. territory except Iowa and Samoa (Updike 1986a). Since then, state, county, and local governments have been increasingly committed to tourism. Reasons for public sector stimuli lie in the potential of tourism to generate revenues and jobs, but also to alleviate economic instabilities in natural resource-dependent communities. The current tourism injuncState,” illustrates the tion, “Visit America’s Other Washington-The government’s intent to market the Washington tourism product. Furthermore, it would appear that government has the approval of the public in this endeavor. In a recent resident survey, 82.9% of the respondents voiced support for the Tourism Development Division of the state’s Department of Trade and Economic Development (WSDTED 1986a: 11). It is estimated that Washington hosted 15 million out-of-state and 10 million in-state visitors in 1984 (WSDTED 1986f). In 1985, the state obtained $12 million in tax revenues from $220 million in expenditures by international visitors. Of these tourists, 1.6 million hailed from Canada, 60,000 from Japan, 30,000 from the United Kingdom, 25,000 from Taiwan, 20,000 from Hong Kong, 15,000 from Germany, and 10,000 visited from Sweden (WSDTED 198613). As far as tourism by Washington residents is concerned, results of one study revealed that while nearly two-thirds of a sample took a major vacation in 1985, only 15.5% vacationed within the state. However, 73% of the residents took one or more short pleasure trips within Washington. Seattle (13.5yc) and the ocean shores (7.7%) were the most frequently reported destinations (WSDTED 1986a:5,8). In 1985, the Washington tourism industry was ranked 23rd in the nation and was expected to generate $3.1 billion in visitor spendings, $134 million in state taxes, 85,000 jobs, and $650 million in payroll. The 1985 state tourism budget of $2.7 million (fiscal year 85 - 87) ranks 19th in the nation (WSDTED 1986c). Other 1985 tourism budgets for the coast are as follows: Alaska $8.2 million, British Columbia $12.4 million, Oregon $1.4 million, and California $5.9 million (Updike 1986b). Tourism is encouraged by Seattle government. The 1985 tourism budget of $1.2 million was expected to result in roughly $1 billion in visitor expenditures (Powell 1985). The Port of Seattle will spend $400,000 in 1986 (up 16% from 1985) on tourism promotion. The importance of tourism to the Port’s future is obvious in the remarks of its director of international tourism: “ From the port’s standpoint, tourism has a synergistic effect with trade and technology. You can’t separate trade and tourism” (Updike 1986a). The port also sees opportunities in the cruise industry. In a letter to the editor of the Seattle Post-Zntelligencer, Port Commissioner Pat Davis (1986) affirmed: “ . . . rest assured that we will do whatever is necessary to bring the cruise industry here to Seattle.”
TOURISM
66
IN WASHINGTON’S
COASTAL
ZONE
The Expo 86 will be held in Vancouver, British Columbia. Some experts believe that as many as 20 million people will visit the exposition and that half of these will pass through Washington. WSDTED (1985b:5) has predicted that at least 5 million visitors will attend the fair, an average of three times each for a total attendance of more than 15 million visits. The Tourism Development Division estimates that the typical Expo 86 visitor will spend only 3.5 days of a 15 day trip in Vancouver. With this forecast, Washington tourism stands to benefit substantially from Expo spillover. COOPERATIVE
COASTAL
TOURISM
PLANNING
A tourism system involves a host culture, a guest culture and a two-part management culture (Miller and Ditton 1986). In the public sector, the management element consists of public officials at various levels of government who primarily represent the interests of the host culture. In the private sector, the management element consists of business people in the travel and tourism industry who provide services to the guest culture. When government agencies, industry, and local communities settle matters of tourism, fundamental differences in orientation will influence events. Until rather recently, the agency approach assumed that the private sector should bear major responsibility for tourism development (Richter 1985); too often state and local governments have narrowly equated tourism with the outdoor recreation treated by park management. The industry approach has emphasized tourism growth, but too often has neglected comprehensive planning and long-term consequences. Of course, responses in communities to tourism can be equally myopic. Those who see tourism as a panacea to declining local economies sometimes fail to measure the potential for the sadder side of the “boom-bust” cycle. Those who cannot respect tourism in any form sometimes fail to understand that change can lead to greater good for a greater number. Looking at conflicts over tourism, and finding a basis for a solution in the Hawaiian Islands example, Farrell (1986) argues for a “cooperative tourism” whereby all parts of the tourism system become party to, and share responsibility for, policy decisions. Other programmatic statements stressing the usefulness of regional master plans and long-term strategic planning are found in Gunn (1979), Rosenow and Pulsipher (1979), Cooperative Extension Service (1979), Getz (1983), Murphy (1985), and McIntosh and Gouldner (1986). Although it would be premature to conclude that any variant of cooperative tourism planning is established in Washington, it is fair to say that legislation, government apparatus, and private sector initiatives favorable to this have found expression. Examples are provided in the remainder of this section. The State Shoreline Management Act of 197 1 (Chapter 90.58, Revised Code of Washington) established a cooperative state/local program to plan and regulate activities in most shorelines and aquatic areas. One of the earliest and most comprehensive of any state’s coastal zone statutues, the Act concluded that: There is, therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the states shorelines (Section 90.58.020).
MARC L. MILLER
67
This legislation, together with the State Environmental Policy Act of 197 1 (Chapter 43.2 1 C, Revised Code of Washington) was chiefly responsible for Washington becoming in June 1976 the first state to receive federal approval of its State Coastal Zone Management Program. Under this program, the Washington State Department of Ecology is the lead agency in working with local governments to develop master programs detailing shoreline policy. Over the last fifteen years, there has been a growing recognition by various agency study groups of the magnitude of outdoor recreation in the coastal zone and the need for comprehensive research and planning (cf. Puget Sound Task Force of the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission 1970; Governor’s Recreational Resource Advisory Committee 1984). With the 1967 amendments to the Washington State Marine Recreation Land Act, the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation was charged with the maintenance of a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). These plans identify major issues and problems facing parks and recreation and also suggest ways to deala with them. Significantly, tourism has emerged for the first time as a major issue in the 1985 SCORP. In 1984, the Tourism Development Commission (an ad hoc body) was established by executive order to examine the role of the state in promoting Washington as a tourism destination. In its report to the governor, the Commission asserted it was imperative that the state have a “clearly stated policy regarding its tourism development program.” The Commission further recommended that the private sectorjoin with the state in developing a positive partnership in tourism promotion (Washington State Tourism Development Commission 1985: 1,9). Over the last several years, the Washington state legislature has increased its support for tourism. Within the Department of Trade and Economic Development, the Tourism Development Division has the basic function of attracting visitors to Washington. The 1986 goal of the division is to increase public awareness of tourism’s importance to the economic, social, and cultural growth of the state (WSDTED 1986e: 1). Additionally, the division seeks to increase employment and tax revenues via visitor expenditures (specific objectives are to increase the stay of visitors and the size of the visiting party). Beyond providing standard umbrella advertising for the travel industry and information for visitors, the division fosters cooperation and the development of complementary tourism promotion and services with the state’s eight non-profit, private tourism regions. This is facilitated by the annual allocation to the regions of $250,000 state matching funds. The division also cooperates with federal and state agencies, commissions committees, and public entities which address selected aspects of tourism (e.g., the National Park Service, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Forest Service, the Washington State Department of Ecology; the state’s Expo 86 World Fair and Centennial commissions, the non-profit Washington State Visitors Association, chambers of commerce, and port districts). Until 1985, new business in Puget Sound was monitored by an economic development council. Now the function is performed by more independent county-based public sector/private sector non-profit corporation economic councils (e.g., the Seattle/King County Economic Development Council, and the Snohomish County Economic Development Council).
68
TOURISM
IN WASHINGTON’S
COASTAL
ZONE
These councils also plan activities with the state-level Economic Development Partnership for Washington (Puget Sound Task Force of the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission 1970; Governor’s Recreational Resources Advisory Committee 1984). At the metropolitan level, tourism in the coastal zone is treated directly, and indirectly, in numerous city projects and contracts. Seattle, for example, plans to change land use and transportation patterns in the downtown, Lake Union, and harbor-front districts. City government supports tourism and convention development by contracting for services out of city government, for example to the Seattle/King County Convention and Visitors Bureau. Seattle’s funding sources for this comes from general revenues and state matching funds. Many small communities and port districts in the coastal zone are studying tourism development. For example, Westport and neighboring towns (Grays Harbor County) view tourism as a hedge against commercial and sports fishing closures and a forest products industry. In Puget Sound, there are more than one hundred city and town governments. Bish (1982:B) points out that the lack of a single organization to manage resources has fostered an informal governance system “. . in which the conflicting and complementary goals of different people must be reconciled, traded-off, accommodated, or restricted.” Under this governance system, Port District of South Whidbey Island (Island County) is examining the alternatives of strengthening the local economy by either encouraging leisure and recreation services, or by attracting light industry. Similarly, San Juan County officially studies tourism and economic development. Voluntary associations and environmental organizations also play a crucial role in determining the future of Washington’s coastal zone. In the late 197Os, owners of a farm at Ebey’s Landing (Whidbey Island) filed notice of an intent to subdivide 320 scenic acres into 5-acre tracts. Fearful of increased population in the form of commuters (to Everett and Seattle), retirees, and second (recreational) homeowners, the environmental community thwarted this plan by successfully lobbying for the Ebey’s Landing National Historic Reserve. Elsewhere in Puget Sound, the Friends of the San Juans was formed to serve as a watchdog against environmental damage and overdevelopment. The San Juans Preservation Trust was created to acquire land or development rights in especially sensitive areas. Individuals have also contributed in a grass roots manner to debates over tourism. For example, citizen Burn (1983) has vigorously recommended tourism planning and control to San Juan County officials in a summary position paper. While it is far from obvious that the pragmatic path to cooperative tourism in Washington lies in any basic reorganization of government, the answer may lie in a reorganization of priorities. Several suggestions are in order. Tourism needs to be squarely identified as an issue of consequence for all residents of the state. Accordingly, tourism should become a regular topic on policy agendas. The 1985 work of the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation is a right step in this direction. Tourism needs to be studied not just to successfully promote a product, but to responsibly understand social, economic, and environmental changes. Research now conducted by the state’s Tourism Development
MARC L. MILLER
69
Division to monitor and evaluate change should be given increased support. Ideally, public officials overseeing tourism programs should have a combination of social science and tourism experience. It is with exactly this in mind that Richter (1985:838) has argued for tourism management as an area of specialization in the field of public administration. In conclusion, a pair of points are relevant to tourism policy in Washington’s coastal zone. First, Washington’s coastal attractions do not easily fit the templates of either traditional destinations (e.g., those along the Mediterranean) or instant destinations (e.g., Cancun). The remarkable natural features of Washington’s coastal zone have been known for decades, but they are only becoming touristically prominent with the growth of the core Seattle -Tacoma metropolis. In this sense, Washington’s coastal tourism is driven by an urban machine. Second, because Washington’s coastal tourism occurs in a developed country, much of the prerequisite bureaucratic and business infrastructure is established. Yet, tourism cannot be forced upon the citizenry by either government or industry. Rather, it must gain the endorsement of coastal communities. One strategy for protecting the Washington coastal zone while ensuring a democratic process for its development is cooperative tourism planning. q Cl Acknowledgements-The author would like to thank the coeditors of this special issue and several anonymous reviewers for valuable suggestions which helped in the preparation of this article.
REFERENCES Bish, R. L. 1982 Governing Puget Sound. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant Program. Bosselman, F. 1978 In the Wake of the Tourist. Washington DC: Conservation Foundation. Boyer, R., and D. Savageau 1985 Places Rated Almanac. New York: Rand McNally. Burn, S. 1983 Tourism in the San Juan Islands. Unpublished paper, Waldron, Washington. Cooperative Extension Service 1979 Tourism and Your Community. Extension Bulletin E-729 (Recreation and Tourism Series). East Lansing MI: Michigan State University. Davis, P. 1986 Port Courts Cruise Ship Business. Letter to the Editor. Seattle Post-Intelligencer (9 March): F2. de Kadt, E., ed. 1979 Tourism: Passport to Development? New York: Oxford University Press. Ditton, R. D., and M. L. Miller 1986 Coastal Recreation: An Emerging Area of Managerical Concern and Research Opportunity. Leisure Sciences 8(3):223 -239. Farrell, B. H. 1986 Cooperative Tourism and the Coastal Zone. Coastal Zone Management Journal 14(1/2):113-130. Gee, C. Y., D. J. L. Choy, and J. C. Makens 1984 The Travel Industry. Westport CT: The AVI Publishing Company. Getz, D. 1983 Capacity to Absorb Tourism: Concepts and Implications for Strategic Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 10(2):239-264. Governor’s Recreational Resource Advisory Committee 1984 Final Report. Olympia WA:GRRAC. Gunn, C. A. 1979 Tourism Planning. New York: Crane Russak and Company.
70
TOURISM
IN WASHINGTON’S
COASTAL
ZONE
Jakle, J. A. 1985 The Tourist: Travel in Twentieth Century North America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. MacCannell, D. 1976 The Tourist. New York: Schocken Books. McIntosh, R. W., and C. R. Gouldner 1986 Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies (5th edition). New York: John Wiley and Sons. McNair, S. 1986 Vacation Places Rated. New York: Rand McNally. Miller, M. L., and R. B. Ditton 1986 Travel, Tourism and Marine Affairs. Coastal Zone Management Journal 14(1/2):1-20. Murphy, P. E. 1985 Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen. Powell, R. W. 1985 Seattle Wants Top Prize: The Japanese. The Seattle Times/Seattle Post-Intelligencer (30 June):Al. Puget Sound Task Force of the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission (Recreation Technical Committee) 1970 Comprehensive Study of Water and Land Related Land Resources: Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters. Olympia WA: PNRBC. Richter, L. K. 1985 State-Sponsored Tourism: A Growth Field for Public Administration? Public Administration Review (Nov/Dec):832-839. Rosenow, J. E., and G. L. Pulsipher 1979 Tourism: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Lincoln NB: Media Productions and Marketing. Smith, V. L., ed. 1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Updike, R. 1986a Selling Washington. The Seattle Times/Seattle Post-Intelligencer (23 February):Cl and C6. 1986b Land Neighbors Shell Out Big Bucks for Ads. The Seattle Times/Seattle Post-Intelligencer (23 Februarv):Cl. U.S. Department of Commerce 1982 1980 Census of Ponulation. Volume 1. Washington DC: Bureau of the Census. Washington Legislative Budget Committee 1985 Tourism in Washington: Contributions of the State Tourism Promotion Program. Olympia WA:WLBC. Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development (Tourism Develop ment Division). 1985a Washington Travel Facts (August). Olympia WA:DTED. 1985b Washington Travel Facts (November). Olympia WA:DTED. 1986a 1985 Washington Resident Vacation and Pleasure Travel Study. Olympia WA:DTED. 1986b Washington State International Tourism Facts (March). Olympia WA:DTED. 1986c Tourism Fact Sheet (April). Olympia WA:DTED. ’ _ 1986d California Visitor and Prosoect Oualitative Research. Olvmoia WA:DTED. 1986e Update: News from Ameriia’s OTher Washington 4(2): 1.’ * 1986f Tourism Fact Sheet (August). Olympia WA:DTED. Washington State Department of Ecology 1976 Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program. Olympia WA:WSDE. Washington State Tourism Development Commission 1985 Report to the Governor. (January 21). Olympia WA:WSTDC. Submitted 18 March 1986 Revised version submitted 19 August 1986 Accepted 28 August 1986 Refereed anonymously
