Preparing a Sust ainable Tourism St rat egy Why do we need a st rat - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Preparing a Sust ainable Tourism St rat egy

• Why do we need a st rat egy?
• What would be t he aims of t he st rat egy?
• What do we mean by "sust ainable" (& "t ourism")?
• Who should produce/ lead t he st rat egy ?
• Who is consult ed and how ?

– Specif ic sect oral groups, general public, communit ies..... – “Blank page" or "Pre-prepared draf t " ?

• How do we ensure ‘ownership’ and delivery

– by local communit ies and ent erprises… – by ext ernal t ourist companies, f unding agencies…?

• Who monit ors t he result s and how?

‘New’ t ourism

Tourist / market

• Poor in t ime – r ich in cash
• Experienced, discriminat ing,

demanding, crit ical

• I ncreasing media exposure

world-wide

• Added value/ mult i-int erest /

f lexibilit y

• ‘Second holidays’/ out side

t radit ional season

• ‘Unspoilt nat ure’/ cult ural

landscapes/ cont act wit h local populat ion

• Segment ed market s -

young/ old; f amily/ single &c

Host / dest inat ion market ing

• compet it ive advant age
• qualit y environment , provision and

service

• good (niche) market ing/ direct

(web) communicat ion

• Socioeconomic groups >

Separat e > int egrat ed act ivit ies

• Single>

mult iple act ivit ies; Seasonal> all weat her t ourism

• Fully packaged t ours >

menu of

• pt imal experience
• Mass market ing >

t arget ed direct communicat ion, dat abase, web &c

• Plus, meet ings, incent ives,

conf erences, exhibit ions

Types of (tourist) strategy

Sect oral Approach – wher e t he each t opic is t reat ed as a separat e economic sect or wit h t he same st at us - Environment , Tourism, Agricult ure, Educat ion, et c.. I nevit able (?) where part icular issues are ‘add-ons’; can be a usef ul approach where t here are a number of specif ic environment al obj ect ives and/ or ' proj ect s' t o include in a f inal development st rat egy but also leads t o repet it ion and conf usion of issues. Generic Approach – if f easible can be much more valuable since all issues are relat ed (e.g. t he "Environment " covers all development sect ors). The development of accept able guiding environment al principles which t hen apply t o any proposal, t ourism or

• t herwise, is t heref ore very

import ant here. St akeholder part icipat ion and ‘ownership’ are crit ical (but not t ypical) in bot h t ypes of plan.

Sust ainable t ourism plan

• Agreed - and ‘owned’ - by

st akeholders in t he area: a f ramework f or consensus, co-

• perat ion and commit ment
• At t ract resources, f or

example as a bidding document f or grant aid

• Be t he basis f or a legal

agreement , f or example wit h a sponsor

• Promot e and publicise t he

sit e.

• A shared descript ion of t he

area, ident if ying it s value and signif icance - a Vision

• Relat e t he sit e t o t he wider

ecological and social cont ext

• Explains what management is

int ended t o achieve (obj ect ives) and out line t he means (met hods) which will be used t o do t his

• Manage mult iple uses and

conf lict ing int erest s on t he sit e

• Ensure management can be

achieved wit hin t he resources available

• Conserving t he sit e f or t he use

and enj oyment of f ut ure generat ions

• I nt egrat e wit h ot her

management and st rat egic plans

St rat egic Area Planning

combinat ions and agencies

• I nvent ory and evaluat e t he (t ourist ) resource
• I dent if y and assess t he t ourist pot ent ial
• Develop int egrat ed, st rat egic policies

– f or resource prot ect ion (designat ed areas, bye-laws, reserves, sacrif icial and honeypot sit es, zoning) – f or maximising t ourist benef it (develop and diversif y – season, st ay, spend)

• Secure commit ment of local communit ies and

ent erprises; add value and local dist inct iveness

(t ourism chart ers, local produce, qualit y marks)

Sites and landscapes

Conservation site: Specif ic areas normally small or unif orm enough t o be considered (or managed) as an unit , or in single ownership or management (by privat e individuals and commercial inst it ut ions as well as public ut ilit ies, local aut horit ies and volunt ary organisat ions) where explicit conservat ion obj ect ives, are t he f ocus of management or legal prot ect ion. ‘Visitor management’ and marketing policy (usually by managing agency) Protected landscape: Generally larger areas consist ing of mult iple sit es or propert ies where f or reasons of size, mult iple ownership, or t he complexit ies of legal requirement s or inst it ut ional pract ice, management or legal prot ect ion must be f ocus on broad policies (rat her t han specif ic prescript ions) t o be achieved by (legal) st icks, (f inancial) carrot s and leadership. ‘Tourism development’ strategies (of ten by separate agency)

Models of prot ect ed area management planning

• Values based

(conservat ion sit es) on ‘obj ect ive’ evaluat ion and policy planning. Normally ‘t op down’ (t he ‘Yellowst one model’). Participatory (urban sit es, cult ural landscapes) based on involvement , consensus building and local

• wnership; can be

‘bot t om up’

CA23 (2001) CCP527 (1998)

PL management and planning spheres

Sour ce: I UCN/ Eagles et al 2002

From

Ramsar MP f lowchart

From CCW AONB Management Plan Guidance 2001

Planning process

(cabespace)

Management Cycle

Evaluation

Collections

(artefacts, art work species, buildings

Areas (historical,

archaeological, buildings, wildlife reserves, &c)

Features (species,

habitats, buildings, monuments, &c)

• The int erf ace bet ween analysis and act ion
• The ascript ion of value (= signif icance)

– t o t he area as a whold and t o it s (nat ural and cult ural) element s and t o individual f eat ures – regar ding ‘int rinsic value’ and need f or int ervent ion

• Leads t o st at ement of Vision or Aims
• I dent if ies

– limit s and – const raint s

(and helps t o f ormulat e obj ect ives and t o choose bet ween management opt ions)

Evaluation and management policy

Evaluat ion needs t o ident if y, f or each f eat ure of t he area:

• I t s int rinsic value
• The need t o

int ervene t o ensure it s conservat ion.

• use value (including, e.g.

pot ent ial f or revenue earning, t ourism, educat ion &c)

Evaluation also helps you to develop management policies, through identif ying:

• Measurable indicat ors

which will help you t o specif y your vision more precisely (limit s)

• Fact ors which may

inf luence t he degree t o which you can achieve your aims, or t he way in which you do t his (const raint s)

I ntegrated Evaluation Criteria?

◊ Formal status and legal obligations ◊ Rarity ◊ Fragility/ vulnerability ◊ Diversity/ variety ◊ Survival/ condition ◊ Typicalness/ representativeness ◊ Size/ shape ◊ Location and ecological relationships ◊ Documentation, recorded history and cultural associations ◊ Visitor facilities, amenities, safety and security ◊ Use value - public appeal, economic potential &c

Formal status

• Any legal designat ion (f or example area of Special

Scient if ic I nt erest , Scheduled Ancient Monument , Public Right of Way) should creat e a presumpt ion (and of t en a legal requirement ) in f avour of management t o maint ain and enhance t he f eat ures or purposes f or which t he area has been designat ed.

• Agreement s wit h ot her bodies (f or example,

condit ions of grant aid) will inf luence j udgement s made about t he area’s signif icance. Rarity

• The conservat ion of any rarit ies such as

archaeological remains, species, habit at s or landscape f eat ures should be an aim of management .

• The presence of rare f eat ures which could be

damaged may rest rict what can be done on area. Fragility / vulnerability

• Fragile or vulnerable hist oric f eat ures, species or

habit at s may need t o be t he f ocus of direct ed conservat ion measures. Robust areas or f eat ures may be appropriat e f or higher levels of recreat ional use.

• Not e t hat some plant and animal communit ies may

be vulnerable t o ext ernal inf luences; ot hers t o int ernal changes such as veget at ion succession. Diversity / variety

• A variet y of dif f erent landscape t ypes or a

diver sit y of species or hist oric f eat ures wit hin t hem may be valuable f or it s own sake.

• Not e t hat in some circumst ances diversit y may

not be a valued f eat ure, f or example, heat hland is ' nat urally' a species poor habit at . Open or ' barren' landscapes may also have an aest het ic appeal of t heir own. Survival / condition

• Hist orical or archaeological f eat ures t hat are well

preserved may be part icularly valuable. Those t hat are det eriorat ing signif icant ly may also be in need of urgent prot ect ion.

• Most landscapes in Brit ain are human-made but in

some t he appearance of ‘wilderness’ may be a valuable f eat ure. Some habit at s owe t heir value t o past management . Ot hers ar e valuable because t hey show lit t le evidence of human modif icat ion or int erf erence. Representativeness / typicality

• Some landscape f eat ures merit special

conservat ion because t hey are charact erist ic of part icular hist orical periods or landscape t ypes.

• I n ot her cases t heir value might be t hat t hey are

at ypical or unusual examples of t hings which are common elsewhere

Size / extent

• The size of t he whole area or of individual

f eat ures may be a valuable f eat ure in it s own right .

• Size may also be a const raint on management .

Some habit at s are not viable if t hey are less t han a cert ain size. Some management met hods (such as grazing, or coppicing) may be dif f icult t o implement in small areas. Physical location and ecological relationships.

• Archaeological f eat ures may be relat ed t o ot her

remains nearby; t he area may be part of a wider ecological syst em (maybe an over-wint ering or roost ing area f or birds); it may be t he source of sediment s f or deposit ion elsewhere. Pollut ion or

• t her inf luences, such as changes in t he wat er

t able, will depend on land use or ot her act ivit ies in t he surrounding area.

• The locat ion of a area will inf luence how it is used.

I t might be a recreat ional resource used by local people or visit ors f rom f urt her af ield. Local communit ies may of t en use a area as part of ‘t heir’

• neighbourhood. Their views should always be

t aken int o account . Documentation, recorded history and cultural associations

• What is known of t he past land use and hist ory of

a area may be an import ant f act or in t he underst anding of it s wildlif e as well as it s cult ural f eat ures and landscape.

• I n some areas t he degree of document at ion or

previous research, or it s lit erary, cult ural, and aest het ic associat ions, may be an import ant f eat ure of t he area or an inf luence on management . Recreation, saf ety and security

• Exist ing visit or f acilit ies - f or example pat hs, car

parks, seat s, t oilet s - will be an import ant f act or in det ermining t he obj ect ives and met hods of management .

• I t is import ant t o ident if y pot ent ial hazards or

securit y problems at an early st age in t he planning process. Use value - public appeal, economic potential &c

• I n some ar eas income generat ion may be a primary

aim of management . Even where t his is not t he case, many areas t oday need t o ‘pay t heir way’

• Prot ect ed areas can of t en cont ribut e t o t he local

economy and social well-being

Concept ual mapping and syst ems approaches

Evaluat ion f or sit es and landscapes

Sit es & f eat ures

• Can be ‘t op down’
• Based on obj ect ive

crit eria Prot ect ed landscapes

• Must be

part icipat ory

• Subj ect ive f eelings

and local ownership crit ical

• Use all available expert ise
• and a mixt ure of t echniques
• Consult widely

From

St anage & Nort h Lees Est at e Management Plan = Vision f or Recreat ion

Vision and aims - Hod Hill

Vision, Objectives, Methods

Vision & Aims Objectives Methods

I dent if y limit s, const raint s I dent if y opt ions, const raint s

Evaluation

Policies

St anage & Nort h Lees Est at e Management Plan = Delivery Plan

Limits of Acceptable Change (CCW Version) For each import ant f eat ure

• Select key at t ribut es
• I dent if y f act ors

For each at t ribut e

• Set a t arget value and LACs

For each f act or

• Set operat ional limit s

For each LAC and f or any operat ional limit s

• Specif y monit oring proj ect s

Carrying Capacity & Environmental Capital

Source:Yapp and Barrow, 1979

Priorities?

Ecological - the

ability of the existing ecosystem or community characteristics to sustain a given set of (usually human) impacts

Physical - the

capacity of space and built facilities to accommodate a particular pattern or intensity

• f visitor use

Economic - the

level and intensity of visitor use which maximises income to the site owners

• r managers

Social or Psychological

• the willingness of existing users

to accept changes consequent on more intensive use or changed patterns of use

Recreational -

the estimated visitor numbers and behaviour, derived from some combination of the above or the lowest threshold of any one (Yapp and Barrow, 1979)

Carrying capacities f or sustainable tourism

• Environmental carrying capacity - t he degree t o which an

ecosyst em, habit at or landscape can accommodat e t he various impact s of t ourism wit hout damage being cause and wit hout losing it s ' sense of place'

• Cultural and social carrying capacity - t he level beyond which

t ourism development s and visit or numbers adversely af f ect local communit ies and t heir ways of lif e

• Psychological carrying capacity - t he level beyond which t he

essent ial qualit ies t hat people seem in t he prot ect ed area (such as peace and quiet , f ew ot her people, f ew signs of human development ) would be damaged by t ourism development s

• Economic carrying capacity - t he level beyond which t he f inancial

benef it s of t ourism are exceeded by t he cost s of providing f or t hem.

modif ied f rom: Federat ion of Nat ure and Nat ional Parks of Europe et al., 1995:26

Dual role of int erpret at ion?

“I nt erpret at ion is t he process of explaining t o people t he signif icance of t he place or obj ect t hey have come t o see, so t hat t hey enj oy t heir visit more, underst and t heir herit age and environment bet t er, and develop a more caring at t it ude t o conservat ion” (Society f or the

I nterpretation of Britain’s Heritage, undated)

"On most reserves t he main f unct ion of int erpret at ion will be as a management t ool designed t o cont rol t he act ivit ies of visit ors and cont ain t hem wit hin limit s..." (Henchman 1983)

Visit or management in herit age at t ract ions

Sour ce: I UCN/ Eagles et al 2002

Zones f or sustainable tourism in & around protected areas

• A sanctuary zone - st rict ly prot ect ed f rom t ourism

impact s

• A quiet zone - where access is limit ed t o small, mainly

guided groups and f ew f acilit ies are provided

• A zone f or compatible f orms of tourism without

additional development - where exist ing act ivit ies cont inue

• A zone f or the development of sustainable f orms of

tourism - where act ivit ies based around nat ure, cult ural and educat ional act ivit ies are developed, in keeping wit h t he resource charact erist ics

• A buf f er zone outside the area - where sust ainable

development s in keeping wit h t he prot ect ed area are encouraged

modif ied f rom: Federat ion of Nat ure and Nat ional Parks of Europe et al., 1995:26

Checklist f or managing tourism in Natural World Heritage Sites

• TOURI SM ACTI VI TI ES AND PHYSI CAL FACI LI TI ES : What

f acilit ies, why, where, how, by whom?

• MARKETI NG AND RELATI ONSHI P WI TH THE TOURI SM

I NDUSTRY: def ine goals, provide inf ormat ion, est ablish communicat ions, secure

appropriat e regulat ory t ools

• VI SI TOR MANAGEMENT: Consider zoning, dif f erent visit or management

regimes, t ime f low scheduling or screening. Check t ransport modes, access provision.

• I NFORMATI ON, EDUCATI ON AND I NTERPRETATI ON: Provide

educat ional and int erpret ive mat erials, involve part ners and t he local populat ion. Monit or and evaluat e

• PLANNI NG, CARRYI NG CAPACI TY AND MONI TORI NG: I dent if y

key resources and charact erist ics, management requirement s, carrying capacit y and Limit s of Accept able Change, Monit or and f eedback

• I NSTI TUTI ONAL FRAMEWORK AND LI NKS WI TH THE LOCAL

COMMUNI TY: Consider local cult ure, values and act ivit ies, right s and obligat ions,

benef it s f rom t ourism, part icipat ion and co-ordinat ion.

modif ied f rom: Unit ed Nat ions Environment Programme - I ndust ry and Environment and UNESCO World Herit age Cent re, 1993:20

CONSULTATI ON issues

WHY?

• Consensus (but not raise

divisions)

• Owner ship (but not raise

expect at ions)

• Commit ment (but not

embarrassing involvement )

HOW?

• Survey/ quest ion(naire)
• Public meet ings
• User group f ora
• Working group?

WHAT, WHEN? Vision document ? Pre/ post draf t st rat egy plan? I mplement at ion plan? WHO? Resident s Visit ors (undef ined) User groups (def ined) St akeholders (st at ut ory & inf ormal)

Sour ce: I UCN/ Eagles et al 2002

Sour ce: I UCN/ Eagles et al 2002

General advice

• Consult widely and as early as possible.
• Of ten easier f or people to comment on a draf t

rather than to come up with new ideas.

• Keep things simple - always avoid jargon
• Try to take all comments ‘on board’.
• Consult again !
• I dentif y ‘key’ people and seek their advice and

support.

• When f inal document produced - publicise the f act,

emphasising the consultation process.

• Always remember who the strategy is f or.
• Strategy must be both reasonable & easy to f ollow.

Plan & budget work

Operational plan

I mplement Review

Annual Long- t erm

Monitor

I mplement at ion Sit e condit ion

Owner’s Purposes and sit e cont ext

Strategy plan

Assessment

Descript ion, Evaluat ion

Formulate Policy Policies

Obj ect ives, Prescript ions

The Plan The Planning Process

I ntroduction

St rat egy planning

Assess site

Oper at ional planning I mplement at ion

Financial Plan Work

Proj ect s

programme

Delivery Planning

A f ull delivery plan will include:

• A work programme/

act ion plan

• Est imat es of resources

needed t o carry out t he work (including money, labour and t ime)

• Det ails of how t he work

and t he condit ion of t he sit e can be monit ored

• I nf ormat ion about how

t he plan it self should be reviewed and updat ed

Act ion/ Delivery/ Work Plan/ Programme

The work programme should normally be divided int o:

• Repeated and ongoing tasks (t he maint enance

programme). This is normally produced on a yearly basis f ollowing t he annual review

• One- of f projects. These may include capit al works

such as rest orat ion proj ect s, surveys, t he product ion

• f new int erpret ive mat erial or f ence const ruct ion.

The programme f or t hese proj ect s normally covers t he whole period of t he management plan, which makes it easier t o plan and budget ahead. However it also needs t o be reviewed annually in order t o deal wit h unf oreseen event s.

Act ion plan - one page?

St anage & Nort h Lees Est at e Management Plan = Delivery Plan

Blackdown Hills J oint AONB/ Communit y St rat egy Act ion Plan

Suf f olk Coast and Heat h AONB Management Plan = Act ion Plan

Monit oring

• I mplement at ion monit oring (t ourist

provision/ market ing act ivit ies &c) Out come monit oring:

• Tourist numbers (and act ivit ies)
• Prof it abilit y (f acilit y provider)
• I mpact on local communit y
• Visit or sat isf act ion monit oring
• Sit e/ environment al (condit ion)

monit oring (nat ural and cult ural)

KOLPA/KUPA River Sub-basin 126.1 km/1.943 km² 294 km/ 8,412 km² 250 km² (Korana)

Krajnski Park Kolpa (KPK)