Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

* Correspondence to: João Neto Simão, CIEO – Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Universidade Aberta – Department of Social Sciences and Management, Portugal. E-mail: joaosimao@univ-ab.pt

Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. (2010)Published online in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.495

How Does Tourism Planning Contribute to Sustainable Development?

João Neto Simão1* and Maria do Rosário Partidário2

1 CIEO – Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Universidade Aberta, Department of Social Sciences and Management, Portugal

2 IST/UTL – Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Portugal

ABSTRACTPerhaps like few other industries, tourism depends and is built on environmental, physical and cultural local resources. In this sense, and as suggested by the scientifi c community and international agencies, sustainability should be a driver for tourism sector develop-ment. For this purpose, three main issues are relevant: the interpretation of the meaning of sustainability refl ected in the vision of the destination for the sector; stakeholders’ par-ticipation, balancing different approaches; and a strategic planning that calls for long-term view and action. The aim of this study is to assess whether the tourism planning of the destinations contributes to sustainable development. We have reviewed 11 local/regional tourism plans existing in Portugal, and the conclusions point to a vague interpretation of the concept of sustainability, to a type of planning that is closed to public participation with a lack of discussion on the kind of sustainability to implement and to diffi culties in committing to strategic planning. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 10 December 2009; revised 21 June 2010; accepted 28 June 2010

Keywords: sustainable development; tourism; strategic planning; stakeholders; Portugal

Introduction

TOURISM IS FREQUENTLY CONSIDERED TO BE THE LARGEST INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD; IT IS ESTIMATED TO BE responsible, directly and indirectly, for around 9% of the GNP and 8% of employment (WTTC, 2010) at

the global level. The increased growth seen in this industry since World War II was partially supported by

the idea that the activity would be a panacea for local development. Since the 1970s, due to mass tourism

and low price strategies, some destinations already shown problems related to the evident growth of this activity.

Alarms started sounding in tourism literature, stressing a multitude of environmental and socio-economical effects

(see the classical work of Matthieson and Wall, 1982), some of which were inevitable (McKercher, 1993) and dif-

fi cult to identify (Holden, 2000). Due to its impacts, tourism could no longer be seen as an environmentally clean

industry, or as a neutral activity to the local populations.

J. N. Simão and M. d. R. Partidário

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

Currently, the general idea expressed in scientifi c literature and put forward by international agencies is that

tourism development should be guided by principles of sustainability. The World Tourism Organization (WTO)

established the following objectives for sustainable tourism: (i) to preserve essential ecological processes, environ-

mental resources, natural heritage and biodiversity; (ii) to respect the socio-cultural authenticity of host communi-

ties and (iii) to ensure viable, long-term economic operations, providing socio-economic benefi ts to all stakeholders.

To this end, the following actions are required: (a) the informed participation of all relevant stakeholders to ensure

wide involvement and consensus building; (b) the constant monitoring of impacts and (c) to provide a high level

of tourist satisfaction, simultaneously raising awareness of the need for sustainability.

However, sustainable tourism development (STD) raises diffi culties at two levels: fi rst, the interpretation of

sustainability is far from being consensual (Sharpley, 2000; Hopwood et al., 2005), and second, its implementa-

tion is complex and poses demanding challenges for humanity (Gladwin et al., 1995). Through its strategic process

– analysis, formulation, implementation and evaluation, tourism planning is, at both the local and the regional

level, a suitable tool to carry out public policies, guiding tourism destinations according to a vision of the com-

munity in the long run. This fact is clearly pointed out in different works by international organizations, which

have claimed the strategic planning of tourism destinations to be a way to promote and implement STD (see, for

example, WTO, 1993, 2004).

The purpose of this study is to understand whether the public planning of tourism activity promotes sustainable

development, according to the best practices suggested by international entities and scientifi c literature. More

precisely, we tried to ascertain, at the local/regional level, (i) whether tourism planning incorporates clear inter-

pretations and visions specifi c to sustainable development, (ii) whether the stakeholders are called to participate

in the planning process, contributing to establish a long-term vision of the tourism destination development, and

(iii) whether the most usual strategic principles are integrated in the plans, in line with what is suggested in the

classical type of planning. In order to do so, Portuguese local and regional strategic plans were analysed regarding

their contents.

The next section focuses on the role of the state, as the main body responsible for tourism public policies, pro-

viding the background for the following section, which addresses the strategic planning process. Since tourism

destination planning is carried out by public entities in order to achieve STD, the traditional model of planning

should be enriched with refl ections on two topics: the interpretation of the concept of sustainability, and the

involvement of the stakeholders. The next section after that deals with the importance of tourism for Portugal

and the way it is institutionally organized. In the section on research methods the interest of analysing tourism

strategic plans is explained: these are the only documents that translate action lines for a time horizon of 5–10

years, thus allowing for understanding of the decision-makers’ options regarding the developments in the sector.

Next, we present the instrument for the analysis of tourism strategic plans proposed by Simpson (2001), which

will guide us in the content analysis of the documents. Finally, we present the results and discuss them.

Tourism Public Policy

Public policy in tourism is whatever governments choose to do or not to do with respect to tourism, covering

government action, inaction, decisions and non-decisions (Hall, 2000). Nevertheless, strategic intervention is

expected from the (national, regional or local) governments in view of the available resources of the destination,

aiming at achieving sustainable tourism development. The opposite position (in other words, non-intervention) is

clearly a minority in our days:

The conventional wisdom appears to be, rightly or wrongly, that sustainable tourism requires intervention and

planning (Swarbrooke, 1999, p. 4).

Due to the complex nature of tourism, it is improbable that the private sector can satisfy completely govern-

ment policy objectives fostering a balance between host and guest benefi ts (Theobald, 2005, p. 363).

Thus, it is understood that the public sector must perform a relevant role in tourism development, having

the ability to infl uence the sector in many ways: promoting and supporting the construction of infrastructures,

How Does Tourism Planning Contribute to Sustainable Development?

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

regulating and legislating, fostering land planning, showing directions and providing guidelines, creating incen-

tives to investment, preserving the historical and cultural heritage, and promoting the image and marketing of

tourism. A substantial part of the tourism market is based on the exploitation of essential common assets, such

as the environmental and cultural resources. Government intervention, through public bodies and destination

management organizations (DMOs), is justifi able by the need to protect these resources, as well as the need to

promote the economy and the well being of the population. Using economic jargon, the intention of such inter-

vention is to correct (or minimize) market failures that are the origin of negative externalities (Hartley and Hooper,

1992).

Since tourism is an inherently political activity, where different actors and interests contend (Page, 2007), the

public sector maintains certain characteristics that allow it to assume a pivotal position in developing more sustain-

able means of tourism, since (i) it has a mandate to represent the whole population, not just particular interest

groups, (ii) it is supposedly impartial and equidistant from the different interests and (iii) it must take a long-term

view (Swarbrooke, 1999).

Sustainable Tourism Planning

Tourism planning is an ordered sequence of operations and actions conceived by the public sector to organize and

control development in destination areas according to established political objectives (Mason, 2003; Page, 2007).

Proactive planning is to anticipate or bring about change, to look to the future, to fi nd optimal solutions and to

predict results: ‘. . . is a kind of decision-making and policy-making. . . . is only one part of an overall “planning–

decision–action” process . . . [involving] such things as bargaining and negotiation, compromise, coercion, values,

choice and politics’ (Hall, 2000, p. 7). Occurring in various forms, institutions and scales, public planning tends

to minimize negative impacts on destinations, and bring economic benefi ts and satisfaction to tourists (Swarbrooke,

1999; WTO, 1993). A lack of strategic planning runs the risk of ad hoc and reactive decisions and a deregulated,

disorderly and ineffi cient activity (Mason, 2003), consequently leading to the dilapidation of physical and social

capital on which both ecosystems and the local community depend.

Refl ecting the current political, social, cultural, economic and environmental dynamics, tourism planning is also

strongly evolutionary. To the four tourism planning approaches identifi ed by Getz (1987) over time (boosterism,

economic, physical/spatial and community oriented), Hall (2000) adds a fi fth dimension, sustainable, which is

characterized by stakeholder involvement and boosting strategic tourism planning.

Interpretation of the Concept of Sustainable Tourism Development

In addition to the well known Brundtland Report’s defi nition of sustainability (WCSD, 1987), several others can

be found in the literature, expressing some of the characteristics attributed to the concept: it is full of multiple

objectives, complex interdependencies, ambiguities, challenges, inaccuracies and controversies. These character-

istics are evidenced in a variety of interpretations and in a spectrum of thought with an infi nite possibility for

trade-offs between environmental and socio-economic issues (Eligh et al., 2002; Hopwood et al., 2005; Macleod

and By, 2007).

The term ‘sustainable tourism’ emerged in the late 1980s as a consequence of the discussion about the implica-

tions of the Brundtland Report for the sector. Therefore, it is not surprising that the concept of sustainable tourism

will refl ect the same kind of debate (see Hunter, 1997) and will suffer from the same diffi culties in

operationalization:

. . . there is a great deal of rhetoric surrounding sustainable tourism this is often not translated into useful

action because endless theories regarding the concept have not been operationalized (Welford et al., 1999,

p. 166).

The need for moving from discourse to action has been claimed recurrently, encouraging the search for local

solutions for sustainable tourism development that go beyond theoretical debates. The message of the editorial of

the fi rst issue of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism is quite clear:

J. N. Simão and M. d. R. Partidário

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

It is easy to discuss sustainability. Implementation is the problem . . . The time has come now to ‘walk the

talk’ (Bramwell and Lane, 1993, p. 4).

We agree that the discussion about the concept of sustainability will be of little use if it will not give place to

implementation, even if this is diffi cult but indispensable. However, the discussion on the interpretation and

purpose of the concept is still relevant, mainly for two reasons. It allows us to express and clarify the idea and

vision of the planners and host community regarding SD, evidencing values and pointing at trade-offs.

. . . people use the same words to mean a wide divergence of views on the goals, routes and the methods of

moving towards sustainable development. This is further complicated because, as in many political issues,

some people may say one thing and mean another (Hopwood et al., 2005, p. 47).

Consequently, it elucidates the routes to follow, contributing towards a more conscious decision-making:

. . . too many studies appear to lack a clear vision of ST, and that without such clarity rather too many ‘walks’

. . . may meander aimlessly for too long, or even head in the wrong direction altogether. . . . Detailed discussion

of sustainability is not easy, but it is necessary in order to better understand the different perceptions of ST

that are now emerging, and to make more informed choices about the future development of tourism at des-

tination areas (Hunter, 2002, p. 4).

The debate about the way in which the community interprets sustainable tourism development is a fi rst step that

precedes the design of an action plan, simultaneously being an important vehicle of public participation and citi-

zenship reinforcement. The involvement of the stakeholders in this early stage is, therefore, a qualifying require-

ment of such discussion process, even taking the risk of making it slower and more complex.

Stakeholder Involvement

The stakeholder concept –‘any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of the orga-

nization’s objectives’ (Freeman, 1984, p. 46) – has been enthusiastically accepted by the literature on planning

and management of tourist destinations (see Sautter and Leisen, 1999, among others). Local community, industry,

public sector, activist groups, tourists, workers, competitors and even the media are the usual stakeholders identi-

fi ed. The WTO (1993) groups the key partners to STD into three large groups: industry, environmental protection

associations and the local community, which consists of residents, local government and other local institutions.

Since the improvement of the quality of life of the residents is the main objective of tourism development

(Faulkner and Tideswell, 1997), special attention has been given to the involvement of the population in the

decision-making process. Public participation requires listening to different opinions and is rarely an easy or

consensual process, and integrating and balancing complex, different and competing interests is diffi cult (Timur

and Getz, 2008). A collaborative type of planning (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999), ideally trying to achieve con-

sensus in decision-making, even though not able to solve all confl icts, offers the opportunity to make a more

balanced and informed decision, thereby contributing to the quality of life of the community. Similar relevance is

given to the systematic and periodic analysis of the residents’ social conditions and their attitudes and perceptions

of tourism activity (Liu et al., 1987).

The Traditional Strategic Process

A tourism strategic plan should refl ect four steps that compose a typical process of strategic management: analysis

(of the aspirations, the surrounding environment and the touristic resources), formulation, implementation and

performance evaluation (see, among others, Wheelen and Hunger, 2008).

The analysis of the aspirations consists in identifying the parties interested in tourism development (stake-

holders) as well as their motivations and aspirations, aiming at formulating consentaneous strategic objectives

(Hall, 2000). The involvement of all stakeholders, as mentioned, is an unavoidable stage for this purpose. External

How Does Tourism Planning Contribute to Sustainable Development?

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

analysis makes it possible to anticipate short- and long-term changes that might infl uence the operational environ-

ment, Porter’s fi ve force model being the main instrument to identify market opportunities and threats. The analy-

sis of the touristic resources available to the destination provides the possibility of responding successfully to the

challenges placed by the external environment. Natural (physiography and climate) and historical–cultural resources

should be subject to special focus, namely regarding their conservation, resilience and depreciation, since they are

considered the main determinants of tourism demand (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003).

The formulation of a strategy for tourism development starts with the defi nition of the mission and the vision

to which the stakeholders have contributed. General and specifi c long-term objectives are established accordingly,

along with a plan to achieve them, and generic guidelines for the decision-making process. It is worth noticing

that not all implemented strategies are deliberate, as planned. Due to the dynamics of the surrounding system,

and the managers learning process, some strategies emerge without previous planning. The realized strategy is,

therefore, a mix of deliberate and emergent strategies (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985).

Strategy implementation (also referred to as operational planning) ‘is a process by which strategies and policies

are put into action through the development of programs, budgets and procedures’ (Wheelen and Hunger, 2008,

p. 16). At this stage, the tourism destination assumes the commitment of developing its distinctive competencies,

making use of adequate structures, systems and culture. Activities are designed to fulfi l the plan (programmes),

costs are subject to a budget and the necessary steps to implement the strategy are put in sequence.

The objective of strategic performance measurement is to understand whether the strategy is being implemented

according to plan, while simultaneously enabling new trajectories according to emergent strategies, allowing for

the correction of undesirable developments. The instability of the external environment throughout time may

generate negative and unexpected environmental and social effects, the monitoring of impacts being a matter

widely covered on the literature on sustainable development (Bell and Morse, 2004; Hildén and Rosenström, 2008;

Lehtonen, 2008; Lyytimäki and Rosenström, 2008; Spangenberg, 2004). Nevertheless, we seldom see the indica-

tors devised for this purpose being organized and refl ecting a strategy, even though there are some suggestions

to do so (see WTO, 2004).

We must stress that proposals have been made regarding the emergence of new strategic paradigms, possibly

more adequate to the implementation of sustainable development and strategies involving the communities.

According to Williams (2002), Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004) and Bagheri and Hjorth (2007), classical

planning is characterized by a certain rigidity, formalization and linearity of thought, which are not very com-

patible with the challenges of sustainability, where social learning, the abandonment of rigid prescriptions

and defi nitions and the development of non-linear instruments are key. Similar criticisms of the classical

approach to planning were also made by Mintzberg (1994, p. 107): ‘. . . the most successful strategies are visions,

not plans’.

However, the idea that strategic planning limits fl exibility is far from being consensual. Mintzberg’s position

is not the prevalent one within the scope of strategic management, especially in the fi elds of public sector man-

agement and regional planning. The idea seems not to be empirically supported and some studies have even

shown the opposite (Berry, 2007; Berry and Wechsler, 1995; Bryson, 1988; Roberts, 1993). On the other hand,

strategic planning, if integrating and participative, is an important instrument for the implementation of sustain-

ability, since it emphasizes long-term consensus regarding the distribution of common interest resources (Blowers,

2002).

Strategic planning has also seen its role acknowledged by international organizations. The United Nations pro-

claimed 2005–2015 as the decade for the universal acclamation of the strategic nature of SD. In 2001, the EU

approved the Community Strategy for Sustainable Development, and in 2007 it approved the Agenda for a Sus-

tainable and Competitive European Tourism and gave a proper focus to strategic planning in order to achieve STD.

The ‘Gederi’ project is an example of the EU concern with sustainable tourism (see Chen, 2006).

The Portuguese Situation

Located at the southwest end of Europe, Portugal has 1800 km of coastline and a mild climate, providing natural

conditions that are favourable to tourism. According to the Portuguese Offi ce for National Statistics, in 2007, the

J. N. Simão and M. d. R. Partidário

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

sector accounts for 10% of the GDP and 8% of employment, occupying the 10th position in the ranking in terms

of the number of arrivals and the 14th in receipts in the European context (UNWTO, 2009). Over the last few

decades, despite some periods of recession, the tourism industry has been increasingly important to the national

economy (WTTC, 2009). In some regions particularly dependent on tourism (Madeira and Algarve), the territorial

and demographic pressure is evident. Portugal is faced with a development model initiated in the 1960s that has

been showing some exhaustion since the 1990s: weak diversifi cation embodied in the sun-and-sea monoculture,

seasonality, indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources and concentration of investments along the coastline

primarily targeted at prospective real estate (Cunha, 2006).

In 2007, the Ministry of Economy and Innovation prepared a National Strategic Plan for Tourism (PENT) arising

from the need to devise a strategic policy for national tourism. The plan aims to place Portugal amongst the fastest

growing destinations in Europe, investing in the consolidation and development of 10 strategic tourism products.

This document never, or hardly ever, mentions sustainable development, environment or residents, whilst the

majority of references stress the sustainability of the industry.

After several interruptions and restarts, the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (ENDS) was con-

cluded at the end of 2006. Its primary intention is to turn Portugal into one of the most competitive and attractive

countries in the European Union through economic, social and environmental development and social responsibil-

ity. Several references are made to tourism in this document, which is especially critical regarding mass tourism

and the sun-and-sea product, due to the lack of diversifi cation, low number of skilled workers and negative impact

on natural resources that it involves.

The two strategic plans were concluded almost simultaneously under the political responsibility of the same

government, specifi cally by the Ministry of Economy and Innovation (PENT) and the Presidency of the Council of

Ministers (ENDS), and do not refer to each other. It seems that the country has two strategies, one for tourism

and another for SD, which do not have to be aligned and convergent.

Regarding local government, Local Agenda 21 could play an important role in sustainable tourism planning due

to its strategic and programmatic nature in terms of the action of local governments in promoting SD (Jackson

and Morpeth, 2000). However, Portugal’s delay in this fi eld is well known compared with other EU members,

something Schmidt et al. (2005) justifi es with the inertia and alienation existing at all levels: central government,

local authorities and citizens.

The pursuit of a national tourism policy is the responsibility of Turismo de Portugal, a politically dependent

central body of the Ministry of Economy and Innovation. The regional support for the attainment and implementa-

tion of this policy rests on a set of RTOs who are responsible for the preparation of regional strategies aligned

with PENT. However, during the last few decades, with the transfer of some powers of coordination to local

authorities, such as licensing and inspection of tourism accommodation, the municipalities have seen their com-

petences enhanced and started to lead effective regional tourism development. In some cases, the role of the RTOs

was reduced to the regional tourism promotion, and the lack of coordination with the municipalities was occasion-

ally evident.

Research Methods

The strategic plans relevant to this research are public documents produced by municipalities or RTOs in the

context of its institutional role, which preparation is recommended but not legally required. These facultative and

pro-active plans translate commitments involving the entire organization and have non-negligible budget costs,

and their objective is to generate a feasible approach to tourism development. While transmitting an ethic and a

long-term action proposal for an activity with social and environmental impacts, strategic tourism plans are expres-

sions and representations of relevant items of the social world.

Since they involve remarkable resources and commitments, the plans try to be objective and feasible. However,

since they anticipate action, they represent a level of intentions, being a fundamental starting point for strategic

performance, located on the verge between discourse and action. They are also the only instrument available to

foresee the future of tourism activity in a specifi c territory.

How Does Tourism Planning Contribute to Sustainable Development?

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

For the purpose of this research, strategic plans from local or regional level were collected, which (i) were specifi c

for the tourism sector and (ii) had a timeframe that covered, totally or partially, the period between January 2007

and December 2009. Eleven plans fulfi lled these conditions, covering 60% of the national mainland territory (see

the geographic distribution in Figure 1).

A qualitative approach based on content analysis was chosen, which is a conventional procedure used to study

text material. To analyse the strategic process included in the plans, the evaluation tool developed by Simpson

(2001) was used. It facilitates indexing the data by categories (Mason, 2002) according to a set of criteria, in order

to standardize the analysis and reduce subjectivity.

Simpson’s work considers three relevant aspects: sustainable development, the strategic component and the

stakeholders’ participation. The set of criteria used for this study (appendix) is almost entirely the one used by

Simpson (2001). The few exceptions (in Section A) were due to the need to adapt the criteria to the Portuguese

reality. The result is an evaluation tool with 49 criteria divided into fi ve sections (A–E), which enables the analysis

of the plans’ approach to the entire strategic process aiming at sustainable tourism development.

Section A considers two types of criterion: those that identify the stakeholders who participated in the planning

process; and those that try to verify whether these stakeholders’ opinions/suggestions were incorporated. Section

B examines the integration of community values in the tourism planning process and how well the plan’s vision

for the future is in tune with these values. Section C shows the local situation analysis (in social, environmental

and economic terms), the current levels of tourism activity (visitors and infra-structures) and the grounds for its

development. The objective of Section D is to ascertain whether the documents are strategy oriented, whether they

create basic conditions for the execution of a planned development and whether there is a connection between

generic and specifi c objectives. Section E concerns the elements that contribute to the implementation and future

revision of the plan. Thus, the stages of the strategic process are covered: the three fi rst sections focus on the

PASTUV (Valimar)

PETCB (Castelo Branco)

PRTL/F (Leiria/Fátima)

PDTVD (Vale do Douro)

M-PET (Mafra)

PEDTS (Seixal)

PETSC (Santiago do Cacém)

PRTA2000(Algarve)

PDTA (Alentejo)

PEDT-ACB (Castelo do Bode)

PETUR (Serra da Estrela)

Figure 1. Map of Portugal, showing the locations of the plans evaluated

J. N. Simão and M. d. R. Partidário

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

external, internal and aspirations strategic analysis; Section D addresses formulation, with the identifi cation of the

objectives, the strategies and the policies, and Section E deals with the implementation of the strategy, defi ning

programmes, budgets and procedures, and proposals for evaluation and performance control mechanisms.

Based on the set of criteria of the evaluation tool, each plan was subject to analysis as follows: 2 when the criteria

appear to be clear; 1 if the criteria appear to be less clear and 0 when there is no evidence of the criteria. The set

of plans was analysed in three different time intervals (separated by two weeks) by a previously trained single

coder. This analysis had a Krippendorff’s α (Krippendorff, 1980) of 0.89, which confi rms its reliability.

Results and Discussion

In general, the plans (eight out of 11) incorporate the term sustainability or sustainable development in the text either

in the general objectives or in the mission. Two of them state what they understand by sustainable tourism devel-

opment in a very general form; another two emphasize the position of international bodies (Agenda 21, Brundtland

Report and European Commission); one identifi es the determinant aspects (social, environmental, institutional

and economic) and three do not make any conceptual approach to sustainable development. In three plans, there

were no references, or the scarce ones were out of frame.

The plans do not warn of the necessary trade-offs between the dimensions of sustainability, ignoring existing

theoretical discussions concerning the spectrum of possibilities. Only the Seixal plan identifi es four types of asset

(ecological, social, human and business), acknowledging that the main issue is to be able to choose the adequate

quantity of each asset when planning a strategy. The highlighted positions are divided between those that do not

clarify what they understand by SD or STD and those that have adopted visions that are too generic and/or collate

to those of international organizations. In this case it is common to fi nd deliberately anthropocentric positions

and close to weak sustainability. For example,

. . . the preservation of environmental and natural resources should constitute the core mission of STD, but

there is no point in preserving if the citizens cannot enjoy the area – Serra da Estrela plan.

Tourism planning thus seems to be very conservative, not contributing to leverage positions of rupture or trans-

formation (using the expressions of Hopwood et al., 2005) regarding sustainable development. Moreover, as the

authors state, ‘Embracing the status quo is not a viable option for society if we are to move towards sustainable

livelihood for all. . . . The future is likely to be dominated by choices between more radical views’ (p. 48).

When the meaning of sustainable tourism development is present in the plans, it appears as evident, leaving

no room for debate and/or clarifi cation of the concept, much in line with Luke’s (2005) fi nding that ‘this term

actually is increasingly used as a label’. The absence of an explicit delineation of the principles of SD so common

in many studies (Collins, 1999) was another trend found. In fact, most of the plans refer to the concern for the

preservation of assets needed to maintain the industry (environment and culture) but fail to explain the concept

and to operationalize sustainability.

Planners did not discuss with the community the required type of sustainable tourism development. If it is

evident that participative and open planning processes provide better decisions (Hall, 2000), decisions that are

more democratic, more creative (Brohman, 1996), better adjusted to reality and easier to implement (Costa, 1996),

we wonder what kind of development the planners and decision-makers intend (or are able) to implement.

In general terms, it was noticed that the plans analysed follow a classical approach to planning, except for the

Santiago do Cacém plan, a fact which corroborates the appropriateness of using the evaluation instrument devel-

oped by Simpson (2001).

Regarding the presence of strategic and sustainable principles, on average, the criteria were met in 36% of the

plans, which is a weak result; 20 of 49 criteria were met in less than 25% and only four criteria were met in 75%

of the plans. There were signifi cant qualitative differences among the plans. The Vale do Douro plan (which met

60% of the criteria) satisfi ed all of the sections except Section B. Two other plans, Seixal and Serra da Estrela,

scored above 50%. Six plans met between 25% and 41% of the criteria, and two plans (Leiria/Fátima and Santiago

do Cacém) had very poor results (Table 1).

How Does Tourism Planning Contribute to Sustainable Development?

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

As a whole, the 11 plans had unsatisfactory results in Section A (stakeholder participation), meeting approxi-

mately 32% of the criteria (Table 1). Only four plans had results equal to or greater than 50%, and some did not

integrate into the planning process any engagement with the stakeholders. The main interested parties in national

tourism planning are treated very unevenly. The public agencies are present (generally RTOs and municipal coun-

cils that are the promoters of the plans), but the local population and environmental NGOs are rarely heard, or

even ignored in many cases (Figure 2). Analysing the case of the Institute for Nature Conservation (ICN), a public

body depending on the Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning: although it has a say regarding develop-

ment in protected areas, particularly natural parks and reserves, it is surprising that almost all plans that include

such areas have not heard and integrated this organization into their planning processes.

Among all the sections, Section B (Vision and values) is the one that shows the weakest results, having been

accomplished in only 13%. Six plans did not receive any score in this section, and only one had a satisfactory result

(58.3%). We noticed that no plan inquired about either the residents’ attitudes or perceptions on tourism (Criterion

B4 is the only one that was not even partially accomplished by any plan). This setting aside of the resident

Strategicplan

Section Amax = 22

Section Bmax = 12

Section Cmax = 28

Section Dmax = 24

Section Emax = 12

Totalmax = 98

value % value % value % value % value % value %

PDTVD 16 73 2 17 19 68 14 58 8 67 59 60PEDTS 15 68 7 58 18 64 11 46 3 25 54 55PETUR 17 77 2 17 15 54 14 58 6 50 54 55M-PET 7 32 3 25 14 50 9 38 7 58 40 41PRTA2000 11 50 0 0 16 57 7 29 5 42 39 40PDTA 3 14 0 0 18 64 14 58 3 25 38 39PASTUV 5 23 3 25 8 29 9 38 5 42 30 31PEDT-ACB 3 14 0 0 7 25 13 54 4 33 27 28PETCB 0 0 0 0 15 54 4 17 5 42 24 25PRTL/F 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 42 1 8 11 11PETSC 0 0 0 0 4 14 5 21 0 0 9 9Total 77 32 17 13 134 44 110 42 47 36 385 36

Table 1. Ranking of plans. The column ‘value’ shows the score each plan received in each of the sections. The maximum score is reached by multiplying the number of criteria in each section by two (the criterion is present in an ‘evident’ form). The ratio of the maximum possible score to the obtained score results in the percentage success

0

0,25

0,5

0,75

1

A1- C

entra

l gov

. age

ncies t

ook p

art

A2- R

egion

al to

urism

org t

ook par

t

A3- G

ov to

urism or

g influ

ence

d

A4- G

ov no

n-tou

rism ag

encie

s too

k part

A5- G

ov no

n-tou

rism in

fluen

ced

A6- L

ocal

indus

try to

ok par

t

A7- L

ocal

indus

try in

fluen

ced

A8- E

nviro

nmen

tal o

rg to

ok par

t

A9- E

nviro

nmen

tal o

rg in

fluen

ced

A10- L

ocal r

esid

ents

took

part

A11- L

ocal r

esid

ents

influ

ence

d

Sectio

n A- a

verage

B1- Com

munity va

lues

B2- Life

style

featu

res

B3- Crit

ical i

ssue

s to re

siden

ts

B4- Com

munity at

titud

es

B5-Over

all qua

lity of

life

B6- Visi

on al

igne

d with

com

munity

Sectio

n B- a

verage

C1- Geo

grap

hic fe

ature

s

C2- Loca

l clim

ate

C3- Flo

ra an

d fau

na

C4- Envir

onmen

tal re

silien

ce

C5- Dem

ograp

hics

C6- Lan

d use

C7- Majo

r eco

nomic

activ

ities

C8- Rela

tive i

mportan

ce of

touris

m

C9-Tour

ism ec

onomic

benef

its

C10- E

mploymen

t cre

ation

abili

ty

C11- T

ouris

m sites

C12- In

frastr

ucture

capac

ity

C13- B

usines

s skil

ls

C14- Q

uantit

ative

visit

or an

alysis

Sectio

n C- a

verage

D1- L

ong-

term

orien

tatio

n

D2- F

uture d

evelo

pmen

t goals

D3- E

conom

ic goa

ls

D4- E

nviro

nmen

tal g

oals

D5- C

ommun

ity g

oals

D6- L

ocal

benefi

t goa

ls

D7- A

ltern

ative s

trateg

ies

D8- E

valu

ate st

rateg

y optio

ns

D9- O

bjecti

ves su

pport

goals

D10- S

upply

capab

ility

D11- E

quitab

le dist

ributio

n of b

enefi

ts

D12- O

bjectiv

es q

uantif

ied

Sectio

n D- a

verage

E1- O

bjecti

ves ar

e prio

ritiz

ed

E2- Im

plem

entat

ion r

espo

nsibi

lity

E3- R

eview

& ev

aluati

on

E4- E

stimate

d costs

E5- C

osts al

locati

on

E6- S

trateg

ic al i

gnem

ent

Sectio

n E- a

vera

ge

Total-

(Sec

tions

A-E

)

Criteria

Ave

rage

sco

re

Figure 2. Scoring criteria

J. N. Simão and M. d. R. Partidário

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

community is something that Costa (1996) had already warned about planning in Portugal by alerting that the

process was often taken over by professionals rather than by all interested parties.

With few exceptions (the Seixal plan is the most interesting one) the planning is carried out in a closed circuit

(institutions and public agencies excluding those connected to environment protection) barely open to stakeholders

and not refl ecting the vision and values of the community. Similar conclusions are found in the literature

(Brohman, 1996; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Hall, 2000; Joppe, 1996). Hall (2000) justifi es this as essentially due

to two factors: (i) the pressure and dissatisfaction of investors in undertaking a longer decision-making process

and (ii) public participation and the transfer of control to the population are interpreted as questioning the power

and control of the regional/local governments.

Thus, contrary to what is advocated by the WTO and other authors, national tourism planning treats the envi-

ronment and the resident community as silent stakeholders, i.e., they are affected by but do not have a direct form

of participation in the decision-making process.

Section C (situation analysis) is the one where the plans had the best results (43.5%). The identifi cation of the

population and demographic levels, evaluation of tourism infrastructure capacity, a quantitative analysis of the

number of visitors and the identifi cation of the primary local economic activities are the more common aspects

existing in the plans. The resilience of the physical environment, the evaluation of the competence of local tourism

operators for business, and the comparison of tourism with other industries regarding local economic development

are the most absent aspects. Since tourism competes with other industries for access to scarce resources, it should

be expected that the destinations would base activity development on the quantifi cation of the foreseen economic

and social benefi ts for the region (Criteria C8, C9 and C10). However, the documents scarcely indicate the main

economic effects of tourism and the expected impact on employment, meaning that economic development of the

activity is not well grounded. Even so, this section had the highest number of plans (seven) with scores above 50%.

Section D (goals and objectives) was accomplished in 42% and was the only one where all the plans scored due

to the minimal presence of generic objectives. The aspects more frequently mentioned were the existence of long-

term guidance and the identifi cation of general objectives. However, there is no strong link between these and the

specifi c objectives, which can lead to diffi culties in implementation. The equitable distribution of economic benefi ts

and the identifi cation and evaluation of strategic alternatives were practically non-existent.

The plans satisfi ed only 36% of Section E (implementation and review). In general, the documents did not

prioritize the objectives or identify those responsible for implementation, and did not provide cost estimates and/

or methods for allocating them. Only three plans fulfi lled at least 50% of the criteria, and four plans presented

very poor results. Some plans integrated follow-up and the dynamics of implementation into the strategic objec-

tives, but only the Alentejo plan provides guidelines that can help in adapting them to new challenges of regional

tourism. Considering the poor performance of the plans in this section, and that the ability to execute the strategy

is more important than the quality of the strategy itself (Kaplan and Norton, 1996), no good perspectives are

foreseen regarding the successful implementation of the proposals put forward in the plans.

Few studies have examined sustainability in tourism strategic plans. Simpson (2001) developed an evaluation

instrument and applied it quantitatively for regional/local plans in New Zealand. The results show that multiple

stakeholders participated in the planning process, although the inclusion of the visions of the community was far

from desirable. The plans identifi ed generic and specifi c objectives but did not integrate aspects of implementation

and review. Ruhanen (2004) used the same evaluation instrument for local plans in Queensland, Australia, but

with a qualitative approach. The results evidence relatively poor plans at every level: strategic guidelines, situation

analysis, stakeholder participation and integration of the vision and values of the community. Burns (2004) con-

ducted a critical discourse analysis regarding the Solomon Islands and concluded that there was a lack of effective

participation from the stakeholders, among other things.

Conclusion

This study has analysed the contributions of tourism development to sustainable development. The conclusions

are far from leaving a positive impression. The plans speak of sustainability, but few say what they mean by this.

When they do, they use a very generic approach following the defi nitions of international organizations (WCSD,

How Does Tourism Planning Contribute to Sustainable Development?

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

EU), and an implicit or explicit kind of weak sustainability is suggested. The lack of proper conceptual approaches

illustrates the general lack of refl ection and discussion about sustainability by the planners or between them and

the local community.

Also, the strategic and sustainability principles are not considered in the current practices of tourism planning.

There is reduced stakeholder participation in the process (especially environmental organizations and the local

community), and consequently the values and vision of the community are not integrated or valued. We continue

to fi nd plans that are dictated by professionals who ignore several interested parties and do not plan together with

the people. Furthermore, there is insuffi cient analysis of the environmental situation on the plans and, unexpect-

edly, plans do not justify the focus on tourism as an economic activity. Sustainability is mentioned at the level of

broad objectives but is not always clearly articulated through more than operational objectives. The scarcity of

aspects related to implementation and plan review requires some caution about the possibility of the execution/

implementation of the defi ned strategies.

The broad results are consistent with others previously published, including those for different destinations and

regions, namely Simpson (2001) and Ruhanen (2004). These elements lead us to believe that SD is translated into

tourism planning as a cliché, something that is automatically included in proposals without much refl ection and

with questionable practical impact. This aspect is highlighted by Lélé (1991, p. 607): ‘SD has become . . . the jargon

of development planners, . . . [and] is in real danger of becoming a cliché . . . – a fashionable phrase that everyone

pays homage to but nobody cares to defi ne’.

Broadly speaking, the public sector, through strategic planning, has an unsatisfactory contribution for sustain-

able tourism development. Considering the various recommendations from international organizations and the

literature, we may even say that the current practices of tourism planning end up by creating obstacles to the

implementation of sustainable development.

In Portugal, and in the near future, vast improvements are not expected. Spatial planning has not been receiving

the proper attention from the political powers as an instrument for tourism development (Vieira, 2007). As an

example, there are the recent dubious governmental practices that begin big tourism projects in environmentally

protected areas in the name of job creation and economic growth and then label them as ‘of national interest’.

Local people are not consulted and environmental NGOs are very critical of these investments. On the other hand,

nothing positive will come from the alignment of future regional/local plans with one national plan (PENT) that

does not address sustainable development.

References

Bagheri A, Hjorth P. 2007. Planning for sustainable development: a paradigm shift towards a process-based approach. Sustainable Development 15: 83–96. DOI: 10.1002/sd.310

Bell S, Morse S. 2004. Experiences with sustainability indicators and stakeholders participation: a case study relating to a ‘blue plan’ project

in Malta. Sustainable Development 12: 1–14. DOI: 10.1002/sd.225

Berry FS. 2007. Strategic planning as a tool for managing organizational change. International Journal of Public Administration 30: 331–346.

DOI: 10.1080/01900690601117812

Berry FS, Wechsler B. 1995. State agencies’ experience with strategic planning: fi ndings from a national survey. Public Administration Review

55: 159–168.

Blowers A. 2002. Political modernization and the environmental question: the case for strategic planning. Local Government Studies 28: 69–87.

DOI: 10.1080/714004141

Bramwell B, Lane B. 1993. Sustainable tourism: an evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1: 1–5. DOI: 10.1080/09669589309514792

Bramwell B, Sharman A. 1999. Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research 26: 392–415. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-

7383(98)00105-4

Brohman J. 1996. New directions in tourism for third world development. Annals of Tourism Research 23: 48–70. DOI: 10.1016/0160-

7383(95)00043-7

Bryson JM. 1988. A strategic planning process for public and non-profi t organizations. Long Range Planning 21: 73–81.

Burns P. 2004. The 1990 Solomon Islands tourism plan: a critical discourse analysis. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development 1:

57–78. DOI: 10.1080/1479053042000187801

Chen RJC. 2006. Islands in Europe: development of an island tourism multi-dimensional model (ITMDM). Sustainable Development 14:

104–114. DOI: 10.1002/sd.302

Choi HC, Sirakaya E. 2006. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management 27: 1274–1289. DOI: 10.1016/j.

tourman.2005.05.018

J. N. Simão and M. d. R. Partidário

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

Collins A. 1999. Tourism development and natural capital. Annals of Tourism Research 26: 98–109. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00059-0

Costa C. 1996. Towards the Improvement of the Effi ciency and Effectiveness of Tourism Planning and Development at the Regional Level: Planning Organizations and Networks. The Case of Portugal, PhD Thesis. Department of Management Studies, University of Surrey, UK.

Cunha L. 2006. Economia e Política do Turismo. Editorial Verbo: Lisboa.

Eligh J, Welford R, Ytterhus B. 2002. The production of sustainable tourism: concepts and examples from Norway. Sustainable Development 10: 223–234. DOI: 10.1002/sd.195

Farrell BH, Twining-Ward L. 2004. Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31: 274–295. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.002

Faulkner B, Tideswell C. 1997. A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1: 3–28. DOI:

10.1080/09669589708667273

Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pitman: Boston, MA.

Getz D. 1987. Tourism Planning and Research: Traditions, Models and Futures, The Australian Travel Research Workshop, Bunbury, Western

Australia, 1987.

Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause T. 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research.

Academy of Management Review 20: 874–907.

Hall CM. 2000. Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. Pearson Education: Harlow.

Hartley K, Hooper C. 1992. Tourism policy: market failure and public choice. In Perspectives on Tourism Policy, Johnson P, Thomas B (eds).

Mansell: London; 15–28.

Hildén M, Rosenström U. 2008. The use of indicators for sustainable development. Sustainable Development 16: 237–240. DOI: 10.1002/sd.244

Holden A. 2000. Environment and Tourism. Routledge: London.

Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G. 2005. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development 13: 38–52. DOI:

10.1002/sd.244

Hunter C. 1997. Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research 24: 850–867. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00036-4

Hunter C. 2002. Aspects of the sustainable tourism debate from a natural resources perspective. In Sustainable Tourism: a Global Perspective,

Harris R, Griffi n T and Williams P (eds). Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford; 3–23.

Jackson G, Morpeth N. 2000. Local Agenda 21: reclaiming community ownership in tourism or stalled process? In Tourism and Sustainable Community Development, Hall D, Richards G (eds). Routledge: London; 119–134.

Joppe M. 1996. Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Management 17: 475–479. DOI: 10.1016/S0261-5177(96)00065-9

Kaplan RS, Norton DP. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard. Harvard Business Press: Chicago, IL.

Krippendorff K. 1980. Content Analysis: an Introduction to its Methodology. Sage: London.

Lehtonen M. 2008. Mainstreaming sustainable development in the OECD through indicators and peer reviews. Sustainable Development 16:

241–250. DOI: 10.1002/sd.378

Lélé S. 1991. Sustainable Development: a critical review. World Development 19: 607–621.

Liu J, Sheldon P, Var T. 1987. A cross-national approach to determining resident perceptions of the impact of tourism on the environment.

Annals of Tourism Research 14: 17–37. DOI: 10.1016/0160-7383(87)90045-4

Luke TW. 2005. Neither sustainable nor development: reconsidering sustainability in development. Sustainable Development 13: 228–238. DOI:

10.1002/sd.284

Lyytimäki J, Rosenström U. 2008. Skeletons out of the closet: effectiveness of conceptual frameworks for communicating sustainable develop-

ment indicators. Sustainable Development 16: 301–313. DOI: 10.1002/sd.330

Macleod C, By RT. 2007. Performance, conformance and change: towards a sustainable tourism strategy for Scotland. Sustainable Development 15: 329–342. DOI: 10.1002/sd.319

Mason J. 2002. Qualitative Researching, 2nd edn. Sage: London.

Mason P. 2003. Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management. Elsevier: Oxford.

Mathieson A, Wall G. 1982. Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Longman: Harlow.

McKercher B. 1993. Some fundamental truths about tourism: understanding tourism’s social and environmental impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1: 6–15. DOI: 10.1080/09669589309514793

Mintzberg H. 1994. The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review January–February: 107–114.

Mintzberg H, Waters JA. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal 6: 257–272.

Page SJ. 2007. Tourism Management: Managing for Change, 3rd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.

Ritchie JRB, Crouch GI. 2003. The Competitive Destination: a Sustainable Tourism Perspective. CAB International: Wallingford.

Roberts P. 1993. Managing the strategic planning and development of regions: lessons from a European perspective. Regional Studies 27:

759–768. DOI: 10.1080/00343409312331347945

Ruhanen L. 2004. Strategic planning for local tourism destinations: an analysis of tourism plans. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Devel-opment 1: 239–253. DOI: 10.1080/1479053042000314502

Sautter ET, Leisen B. 1999. Management stakeholders: a tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research 26: 312–328. DOI: 10.1016/

S0160-7383(98)00097-8

Schmidt L, Nave JG, Guerra J. 2005. Autarquias e Desenvolvimento Sustentável: Agenda 21 Local e Novas Estratégias Ambientais. Fronteira do Caos:

Porto.

Sharpley R. 2000. Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8: 1–19. DOI:

10.1080/09669580008667346

Simpson K. 2001. Strategic planning and community involvement. Current Issues in Tourism 4: 3–41. DOI: 10.1080/13683500108667880

How Does Tourism Planning Contribute to Sustainable Development?

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

Spangenberg JH. 2004. Reconciling sustainability and growth: criteria, indicators and policies. Sustainable Development 12: 74–86. DOI:

10.1002/sd.229

Swarbrooke J. 1999. Sustainable Tourism Management. CAB International: Wallingford.

Theobald WF. 2005. The meaning, scope, and measurement of travel and tourism. In Global Tourism, Theobald WF (eds). 3rd edn. Elsevier:

Oxford.

Timur S, Getz D. 2008. Sustainable tourism development: how do destination stakeholders perceive sustainable urban tourism? Sustainable Development 15: 329–342. DOI: 10.1002/sd.329

UNWTO. 2009. World Tourism Barometer Vol. 7, No 1. UNWTO: Madrid.

Vieira JM. 2007. Planeamento e Ordenamento Territorial do Turismo: uma Perspectiva Estratégica. Verbo: Lisboa.

WCSD. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: London.

Welford R, Ytterhus B, Eligh J. 1999. Tourism and sustainable development: an analysis of policy and guidelines for managing provision and

consumption. Sustainable Development 7: 165–177. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099–1719(199911)7:4 <165::AID-SD117> 3.0.CO;2-F

Wheelen TL, Hunger JD. 2008. Strategic Management and Business Policy: Concepts and Cases, 11th edn. Pearson Education: Harlow.

Williams PM. 2002. Community strategies: mainstreaming sustainable development and strategic planning? Sustainable Development 10:

197–205.

WTO. 1993. Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners. WTO: Madrid.

WTO. 2004. Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations: a Guidebook. WTO: Madrid.

WTTC. 2009. Travel and Tourism Economic Impact – Portugal. WTTC: London.

WTTC. 2010. Economic Data Search Tool. http://www.wttc.org/eng/Tourism_Research/Economic_Data_Search_Tool/index.php [6 August

2010].

Appendix. Criteria for the Evaluation of Tourism Plans According to Simpson (2001)

Tourism planning process evaluation

Plan Score

Section A: stakeholder participationA1. Central government tourism agency(ies) (Turismo de Portugal) took part in the planning processA2. Regional tourism organization(s) (Regiões de Turismo) took part in the planning processA3. Tourism governmental organizations (national or regional or local) opinion infl uenced the fi nal strategic

direction selected

A4. Municipal council(s) and regional/territorial agency(ies) (CCDRs) took part in the planning processA5. Governmental non-tourism organization (national or regional or local) opinion infl uenced the fi nal strategic

direction selectedA6. The local tourism industry took part in the planning processA7. Local tourism industry opinion infl uenced the fi nal strategic direction selectedA8. Environmental organizations (regional or local) took part in the planning processA9. Environmental organization opinion infl uenced the fi nal strategic direction selectedA10. Ordinary local residents took part in the planning processA11. Ordinary local resident opinion infl uenced the fi nal strategic direction selected

Total score Section A

Section B: vision and valuesB1. The planning document identifi es locally important community valuesB2. The planning document identifi es locally important lifestyle featuresB3. The planning document identifi es current issues that are critical to residentsB4. The planning document assesses community attitudes to tourismB5. The planning document assesses the overall quality of life in the areaB6. The planning document includes a vision for the future that aligns with local community values, attitudes and

lifestyles Total score Section B

J. N. Simão and M. d. R. Partidário

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. (2010)DOI: 10.1002/sd

Tourism planning process evaluation

Plan Score

Section C: situation analysisC1. The planning document describes the area’s principal geographic featuresC2. The planning document describes the main characteristics of the local climateC3. The planning document identifi es fl ora and fauna that are unique to the areaC4. The planning document assesses the resilience and/or fragility of the physical environmentC5. The planning document identifi es current population levels and demographics

C6. The planning document identifi es current land use and ownership patterns in the areaC7. The planning document identifi es the major economic activities in the local areaC8. The planning document establishes the relative importance of tourism, compared with other industries, to the

economic development of the local areaC9. The planning document quantifi es the economic benefi t of tourism to the areaC10. The planning document quantifi es the employment creation ability of local tourism activityC11. The planning document describes the principal tourism sites in the areaC12. The planning document evaluates the current capacity of tourism plant and infrastructureC13. The planning document evaluates the adequacy of business skills possessed by local tourism industry operatorsC14. The planning document includes quantitative analysis of current visitor numbers, length of stay and spending

Total score Section C

Section D: goals and objectivesD1. The time dimension of the planning process refl ects a long-term orientationD2. The planning document includes broadly based goals related to the nature and scale of future tourism

developmentD3. The planning document includes broadly based goals related to the economic benefi ts of future tourism

developmentD4. The planning document includes broadly based goals related to environmental protectionD5. The planning document includes broadly based goals related to community values and lifestyle protectionD6. The planning document includes broadly based goals that emphasize the local benefi ts of tourism developmentD7. The planning document identifi es a range of alternative strategies by which broadly based goals may be

achievedD8. The planning document evaluates each strategy option prior to determining a range of specifi c objectivesD9. Specifi c objectives support previously established broad goalsD10. Specifi c objectives selected are based on supply capability as opposed to market demandD11. Specifi c objectives target the equitable distribution of tourism’s economic benefi ts throughout the local areaD12. Specifi c objectives for future tourism activity are quantifi ed and readily measurable

Total score Section D

Section E: implementation and reviewE1. Specifi c objectives are prioritized in terms of implementation urgencyE2. The planning document clearly assigns responsibility for key task implementationE3. The planning document contains a clearly articulated review and evaluation mechanismE4. The planning document estimates the resource costs of the recommended development strategyE5. The planning document indicates specifi c methods by which the identifi ed resource costs are to be allocated to

development participantsE6. The planning document acknowledges a need to integrate local tourism strategies with other local strategies and

national policies for tourism development Total score Section E

Overall total score