Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
TOURISM PLANNING AND POLICY
The partially industrialised nature of tourism means that tourism, like the environment,
should be regarded as a meta-problem which represents highly interconnected planning
and policy 'messes' (Ackoff 1974) which cut across fields of expertise and administrative
boundaries and, seemingly, become connected with almost everything else. Tourism,
therefore, 'is merely an acute instance of the central problem of society' (P.Hall
1992:249) of creating a sense of the whole which can then be effectively planned and
managed. Nevertheless, planning for tourism is still regarded as important because its
effects are so substantial and potentially long-standing. Indeed, concern with making
tourism, along with all development, sustainable has provided an even greater imperative
for developing relevant tourism planning frameworks (C.M. Hall 2000a). Yet despite use
by tourism researchers of the evolving network paradigm in management literature (e.g.
Selin 1993, 1998; Selin and Chavez 1994; Jamal and Getz 1995; Buhalis and Cooper
1998) there has been, given the central role of government in tourism promotion and
development, surprisingly little reference to the wider planning public policy literature
which analyses what has been, until recently, a 'neglected' aspect of contemporary
administration and policy-making (O'Toole 1997).
Planning for tourism has traditionally focused on land use zoning, site development,
accommodation and building regulations, the density of tourist development, the
presentation of cultural, historical and natural tourist features, and the provision of
infrastructure including roads and sewage (Getz 1987). However, in recent years, tourism
planning has adapted and expanded to include broader environmental and socio-cultural
concerns, and the need to develop and promote economic development strategies at local,
regional and national scales, particularly within an increasingly globalised tourism
environment (Hall 2000a).
The diverse nature of recreation and tourism has meant that the industry is difficult for
policy-makers and planners to define and grasp conceptually. This has meant that there
have been substantial difficulties for policy-makers to develop appropriate policies, while
the coordination of the various elements of the recreation and tourism product has been
extremely difficult (Hall 1994; Hall and Jenkins 1995). Yet, somewhat paradoxically, it is
the very nature of the industry, particularly the way in which local communities, their
culture and lifestyles, and the environment are part of the broad leisure product which
makes planning so important (Murphy 1985) and, perhaps, academically appealing (Hall
et al. 1997).
Planning and policy-making are 'filtered through a complex institutional framework'
(Brooks 1993:79). However, the institutional arrangements for tourism have received
little attention in the tourism literature (D.G.Pearce 1992b; Hall and Jenkins 1995; Hall
2000a). Institutions may be thought of as a set of rules which may be explicit and
formalised (e.g. constitutions, statutes and regulations) or implicit and informal (e.g.
organisational culture, rules governing personal networks and family relationships). Thus
institutions are an entity devised to order interrelationships between individuals or groups
of individuals by influencing their behaviour. As a concept and as an aspect of tourism
policy-making, institutions cast a wide net; they are extensive and pervasive forces in the
