Ara - Editorial Funglodeeditorialfunglode.com/documents/RevistasGratis/ano_1no1.pdf · al...

■ En la lengua taína, el termino Ara significa árbol,un símbolo de identificación y arraigo

al territorio caribeño, y a la vez un símbolouniversal con un mensaje y un sentido

muy positivos.

El principal objetivo de la revista ARAes ser un medio de comunicaciónacadémico y de ciencia aplicada.

Mediante la publicación de artículosy estudios enfocados a la investigación

científica y práctica, se pretende profundizar,extender y divulgar la comprensión

de la red de relaciones existentesentre el fenómeno turístico y el desarrollo

sostenible de las sociedades.

Desde la revista ARA se invitaa investigadores de todas las disciplinas

académicas a nivel mundial a que contribuyana este fin con sus aportaciones.

Para ello son especialmente bienvenidosaquellos estudios que traten el turismo

en la zona geográfica del Caribeen su sentido más amplio, es decir,

incluyendo las zonas costeras orientalesdel continente americano limítrofe al Caribe,

así como los estudios que se centrenen zonas de cualquier otro lugar del mundo

con situaciones similares a las del Caribe.

La revista ARA se presentaen edición bilingüe - en español y en inglés -

y tiene una periodicidad semestral.

■ In the Taína language the term Ara means treeand is a symbol of Caribbean identityand origins as well as a universal symbolwith a positive message.

The main objective of the ARA Journalis to be an academic journal of applied science.Through the publication of articlesand studies specialising in scientific researchand practice it aims to deepen,extend and propagate the understandingof the network of relationships betweentourism and the sustainable developmentof communities.

Ara invites researchers from all academicdisciplines around the world to contributeto this objective.Especially welcome are studieswhich deal with tourism in the Caribbeanin the widest sense of the term,that is to say including the eastern coastof the American continent borderingthe Caribbean, as well as those studieswhich focus on areas of other partsof the world with similar situationsto those in the Caribbean.

The Ara journal is bilingualin Spanish and in Englishand will be published twice a year.

Comité de Honor / Honorary Committee

Presidente / President:Dr. Leonel Fernández, Presidente-Honorífico y Fundador

de la Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo (FUNGLODE) /Honorary President and Founder of the Global Foundation

for Democracy & Development (FUNGLODE);Presidente de la República Dominicana /

President of the Dominican Republic;

Francesco Frangialli, Secretario General de la OrganizaciónMundial del Turismo / Secretary General of the World Tourism

Organization (UNWTO), Madrid, España / Spain

Felix Jiménez, Secretario de Estado de Turismo de la RepúblicaDominicana / Secretary of Tourism of the Dominican Republic

Prof. Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, The Earth Instituteat Columbia University, New York, EE UU de América / USA

Dr. Luis José Asilis, Presidente y CEO Metro Group,República Dominicana / Dominican Republic

Frank Rainieri, Presidente del Grupo Puntacanay de la Fundación Ecológica Punta Cana / President of the

Puntacana Group and of the Punta Cana Ecological Foundation

Maria Abellanet, CEO y Directora General,Grup CETT / CEO and General Manager, CETT Group,

Barcelona, España / Spain

Consejo Editorial / Editorial Board

Coordinador / Coordinator:Prof. Dr. Jordi Martinell, Universitat de Barcelona; España / Spain

Prof. Dr. François Bédard, Université du Québec à Montréal;Worldwide Center for Excellence in Tourist Destinations –

(OMT / UNWTO), Canadá

Prof. Dr. Lino Briguglio, University of Malta;Islands & Small States Institute, Malta

Dr. Rachel Dodds, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canadá

Prof. Dr. Jafar Jafari, University of Wisconsin-Stout,EE UU de América / USA

Prof. Dr. Joan Tugores Ques, Universitat de Barcelona,España / Spain

Prof. Dr. François Vellas, Université de Toulouse 1;CEREST – Institut de Recherche pour l’Économie de Service

et de Tourisme, France

Comité Ejecutivo / Executive Committee

Coordinadora / Coordinator:Rocío Pichardo

Natasha DespotovichFrederic Emam-Zadé

Hans Dannenberg CastellanosElaine Hernandez

Michel JulianJosé Rafael Lantigua

Luis Ernesto Simó Maceo

Editores / Publishers

FUNGLODE – Fundación Global Democracia y DesarrolloCapitán Eugenio de Marchena no. 26 - La EsperillaSanto Domingo, República Dominicana / Dominican RepublicTel. +1 (809) 685 9966Fax: +1 (809) 685-9926www.funglode.org

CETT Escola Universitària d’Hoteleria i TurismeCentro adscrito a la Universidad de BarcelonaAv. Can Marcet, 36-38E-08035 Barcelona (España / Spain)Tel. +34 93 504 04 25 / +34 93 428 07 77Fax: +34 93 428 67 77e-mail: [email protected]

Director de la revista / Director of the publication:David Peguero, Director, CETT Consultors –CETT Escola Universitària d’Hoteleria i Turisme,centro adscrito a la Universitat de Barcelona, España / Spain

Responsable de producción / Production Supervisor:Bert Verduin, Consultor, CETT Consultors, Barcelona, España / Spain

Diseño gráfico / Graphic Design:Ferran Bonet, Director de arte, EO, Barcelona, España / Spain

Ilustración Portada / Cover Illustration:Jordi Carreras, Director de arte, Estimado José Alfredo, Valencia,España / Spain

Traducción al inglés / translation into English (sólo textos generales, only general texts):Peter Collins, Barcelona, España / Spain

Impreso en la República Dominicana por:Serigraf

Registro formal: no. 70175 (Secretaría de Interior y Policía, Rep. Dominicana)

ISSN: 1997 - 2520

ÍNDICESUMMARY

I-II EditorialLeonel Fernández

1-14 “Tourism as a development strategy in Belize”Doug Ramsey, John Everitt

15-28 “Estrategia de competitividad turística de la República Dominicana”René Villareal, Andrés van der Horst

29-39 “Sustainable Tourism on small island jurisdictions with special reference to Malta”Lino Briguglio

40-51 “Turismo de co-creación: valor añadido en escenarios turísticos”Esther Binkhorst

52-62 “Qualitycoast, an international programme for human & environment friendly tourist destinations”Yaiza Fernández-Palacios, Candelaria Cecilia Ruano, Ricardo J. Haroun, Eduardo Cózar, Pablo de la Peña, Maria Ferreira, Alan Pickaver

■ La revista ARA Journal of Tourism Research / Revista deInvestigación en Turismo, que el lector tiene en sus manos,es el fruto de la colaboración entre la Fundación GlobalDemocracia y Desarrollo (FUNGLODE) y la EscuelaUniversitaria de Hotelería y Turismo CETT, adscrita a laUniversidad de Barcelona.

Su objetivo es convertirse en una herramienta de investi-gación y divulgación del fenómeno turístico, en todas susvertientes y dimensiones. Aspira a intercambiar experienciasen el ámbito nacional e internacional que contribuyan aelevar el nivel de investigación sobre el sector, a mejorarlos mecanismos de toma de decisión, la calidad de su oferta,y en definitiva, a fomentar un turismo que sea sustentable.

Al ser una publicación que se realiza desde la RepúblicaDominicana tomará en cuenta, en primer lugar, el desarrolloturístico del país, pero extenderá su mirada más allá, haciael resto de la zona del Caribe, de América Latina, de Norte-américa, de Europa, y en fin, del mundo, con lo cual, enlugar de una visión estrictamente local, tendrá un enfoquede alcance global.

En los actuales escenarios turísticos resulta necesarioidentificar los actores y participantes fundamentales parapromover la cooperación. Es necesario unificar dentro deun marco armonizado y coordinado todos los esfuerzospara manejar y conservar la biodiversidad y el hábitat, asícomo para solucionar los problemas más graves queafectan a las comunidades.

La importancia social y económica de la actividad turísticaen la República Dominicana es evidente. Cada año nosvisitan cuatro millones y medio de turistas y se generaunos ingresos de cerca de cuatro mil millones de dólares.

La industria turística empezó a desarrollarse en el país apartir de los años 70, incentivada, fundamentalmente, poriniciativas gubernamentales. No obstante, a partir de losaños 80, el sector turístico empezó a incluir una mayorparticipación privada, convirtiéndose en uno de los pilaresfundamentales de la economía nacional.

En cerca de un 55 por ciento, la infraestructura turísticapertenece a capital nacional y un 45 por ciento a capital

extranjero. Se cuenta con más de 60 mil habitaciones paraalojar turistas que proceden mayoritariamente de Europay los Estados Unidos.

La República Dominicana posee unas características ex-cepcionales y únicas para el desarrollo del turismo. Poseeun clima incomparable, un interés histórico y cultural encada uno de nuestros pueblos y ciudades, competitividaden sus precios y seguridad, tanto jurídica como física.

En lo que respecta al Caribe, el reconocimiento interna-cional al desarrollo del sector turístico se expresa enorganismos y foros internacionales, como ocurrió recien-temente, en el Foro Económico Mundial de Davos (Suiza),el cual reveló en uno de sus estudios, el cual incluía a 124países, que la República Dominicana, Barbados y Jamaicase encuentran entre los 50 países de mayores tasas decompetitividad turística.

El elevado número de personas que prestan sus serviciosen los diferentes segmentos de la actividad turística, elvolumen de ingresos que genera y el significativo papelque tiene en la creación de la imagen exterior de nuestropaís, son algunos de los factores que determinan quenuestros gobiernos dediquen una parte importante de susesfuerzos a la configuración de un sector turístico decalidad e internacionalmente reconocido.

ARA Journal of Tourism Research / Revista de Investigación enTurismo es una publicación abierta a la participación detodos aquellos que desde las universidades, las adminis-traciones públicas y las instituciones privadas vinculadasa la gestión turística deseen colaborar en la investigacióny difusión de las diversas facetas del complejo pero siemprefascinante mundo del turismo.

¡Bienvenidos a bordo!

Dr. Leonel FernándezPresidente de la República Dominicana

Presidente Honorífico de la FundaciónGlobal Democracia y Desarrollo

I V1.1.2008

EDITORIAL

II V1.1.2008

■ ARA Journal of Tourism Research / Revista de Investigaciónen Turismo which you are now holding is the result of thefruitful cooperation between the Fundación GlobalDemocracia y Desarrollo (FUNGLODE) and the EscuelaUniversitaria de Hotelería y Turismo CETT attached tothe University of Barcelona

Its objectives are to be a tool and source of investigationand dissemination of tourism and travel from all its anglesand in all its disciplines. It aspires to exchange nationaland international experiences that contribute to raisetourism research at a higher level, to enhance the mecha-nisms for decision making, to improve the tourism productin every sense of the word and finally to give a boost tosustainable tourism.

Taking into account that this new publication is initiatedand produced in the Dominican Republic, it will in thefirst place pay special attention to the tourist developmentof this country, but it will extend its scope of work andstudy much further, to the rest of the Caribbean Basin, toLatin America, to North America, to Europe, in short, tothe whole world. As a result it will have a global outlook,instead of a strictly local one.

In current tourism scenarios it is necessary to identify themain actors and players to facilitate and promote coope-ration. It is necessary to join forces within a harmonizedand coordinated framework in order to conserve biodiver-sity and habitat and to solve the most serious problemswhich affect the communities.

The social and economic importance of tourist activity inthe Dominican Republic is evident. Each year we receivefour and a half million tourists and income from tourismgenerates nearly four billion dollars.

The tourism industry began to develop in the country inthe 70s stimulated chiefly by government initiatives.However from the 80s the tourism sector started to includegreater private investment, converting tourism to one ofthe fundamental pillars of the Dominican economy.

Around 55% of the tourist infrastructure belongs toDominican investors and 45% to foreign investors. The

Dominican Republic has more than 60,000 hotel roomsfor tourists who originate chiefly from Europe and NorthAmerica.

The Dominican Republic has exceptional and uniquecharacteristics for the development and practice of tourism.The country provides an incomparable climate, the histo-rical and cultural interest of all of our villages and cities,the competitiveness of our prices and the juridical andphysical security of all its visitors.

With regard to the Caribbean, the international recognitionof its tourism growth and development comes to lightthrough various international organisations and fora, likerecently at the World Economic Forum in Davos (Swit-zerland). In one of its studies, which included 124 countries,the Dominican Republic, Barbados and Jamaica wereplaced amongst the 50 most competitive tourist countries.

The high number of people who provide their services tothe different segments of tourist activity, the volume ofincome which this generates and the significant role whichthis has in the creation of the image of our country aresome of the factors which cause our governments todedicate a significant part of their efforts to the creationof a high quality and internationally recognized tourismsector.

ARA Journal of Tourism Research / Revista de Investigación enTurismo is now a reality available for the participation ofall those from universities, public or private institutionslinked to tourism entrepreneurship and management whowish to work together in the research and disseminationof all facets of this complex but always fascinating worldof tourism.

Welcome on board!

Dr. Leonel FernándezPresidente de la República Dominicana

Presidente Honorífico de la FundaciónGlobal Democracia y Desarrollo

EDITORIAL

01 V1.1.2008

Tourism as a Development Strategy inBelize, Central America

Doug RamseyDepartment of Rural Development, Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

John EverittDepartment of Geography, Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

■ Tourism is an economic activity that influences virtuallyevery corner of the contemporary world. This studyfocuses on tourism development in Belize where in ashort period of time the national government has shiftedfrom virtually ignoring tourism to making it a nationalpriority for economic development. This paper adoptsan historical perspective to describe the political economyof tourism development in Belize in the latter half of thetwentieth century. It begins by establishing a politicaleconomy framework for analyzing tourism development. With this in place, tourism in Belize is discussed throughfour major stages. The stages primarily reflect the roleof the state with respect to tourism, which were in partestablished based on the attitudes toward tourism,tourism numbers, as well as on the development oftourism infrastructure within the country. In this sense,the paper is seen as a contribution to public policy thatsees tourism as one means for economic development,but one that will be reliant on policy and economicinitiatives that are external to local communities.

Keywords:tourism, Belize, economic development, political economy

Abstract

■ El turismo es una actividad económica que influyevirtualmente cada rincón del mundo contemporáneo.Este estudio se centra en el desarrollo turístico de Belizedonde, en un corto periodo de tiempo, el gobiernonacional ha pasado de ignorar prácticamente el turismoa considerarlo de prioridad nacional para el desarrolloeconómico. Este artículo adopta una perspectiva históricapara describir la economía política del desarrollo turísticoen Belize en la segunda mitad del siglo XX. Empieza porestablecer un marco de política económica para analizarel desarrollo turístico. A continuación, se discute elturismo en Belize a través de cuatro etapas principales.Las etapas reflejan básicamente el papel del estadorespecto al turismo, establecidas en parte en base a lasactitudes frente al turismo, cifras de turismo, así comoen el desarrollo de la infraestructura turística dentro delpaís. En este sentido, el artículo constituye una contri-bución a la política pública que ve el turismo com unmedio para el desarrollo económico, pero dependientede iniciatívas políticas y económicas externas a lascomunidades locales.

Palabras Clave:turismo, Belize, desarrollo económico, economía política

Resumen

■ As tourism is one of the fastest growing industries inthe world (Seddighi and Theocharous 2003), it is notsurprising that state-led tourism promotion is a significantresponse in creating and diversifying local, and in parti-cular, rural economies and communities. Thus, whilepolitical economy would appear to have utility andrelevance to tourism-based analyses (Pleurmarom 1994;Milne and Ateljevic 2001), it has unfortunately not been

extensively adopted (Dieke 1994; Fleischer and Felsentstein2000). Using Belize as a case example, the purpose of theresearch reported on in this paper is to describe thespecific role the state plays in fostering (or not) tourismdevelopment. The theoretical foundation is politicaleconomy, particularly in illustrating the roles of bothparty platform and state policy in developing tourism.To capture these roles, an historical approach is adopted

Introduction

02 V1.1.2008

to acknowledge distinct phases of tourism developmentin Belize, which were based on shifts in political, andwith it financial, support for fostering the sector. Thetime period for analysis is 1970 to 2004. The particularresearch questions developed to address the above-statedpurpose are: 1) How has tourism been portrayed inpolitical party platforms and manifestos in Belize; 2)What development policies have different governmentsin Belize developed to foster tourism development; 3)How has the level of tourism changed with respect toother economic sectors in Belize.

Fieldwork for the research was conducted at three pointsin time: 1969, 1980 and 2004. Two primary researchmethods were employed in the Belize fieldwork. Thefirst included archival and library research. In additionto examining historical records and the popular media,political manifestos and official government publicationswere analyzed. The latter include The New Belize, pu-blished from 1971 to 1987 and the renamed Belize Todaypublished from March 1987 to present. These are theofficial publications of the Belizean Government

Information Service. Second, in each of the three periodsof research interviews were conducted with political,policy, academic, and media personnel. Contacts withsome of these people were maintained over time, allowingfor continuity in the archival research. The paper demons-trates that throughout the history of Belize’s independence,tourism has become an increasingly dominant feature ineconomic development policy. In examining the historicaldevelopment of tourism in Belize, political economy isreferred to within the context of both public policies thatguide the sector and the platforms of political parties.More than 20 years ago, Pearce (1984, 303) cautionedthat Belize should not “focus its development solely ontourism”. This paper illustrates that his words have notbeen heeded. While much of the recent literature ondevelopment in peripheral regions has promoted tourismas part of an overall package to diversify economies (e.g.Sharpley 2002a, 2002b), the Government of Belize nowpromotes tourism as the key sector of economic growthin the country. In fact, tourism is viewed by the governingpolitical party as the national priority for economicdevelopment in Belize.

■ In order to establish the context for the research, relatedthemes as expressed in the recent tourism literature, needto be highlighted. Much has been written on the limitsto (Butler 1996; Buhalis 1999), and sustainability of (Apand Crompton 1998; Hunter 2002), the sector. The dividebetween the local and global dimensions inherent to thetourism industry have been of more recent interest (Ak-pinar 2003; Gordon and Goodall 2000; Teo 2002), includingthe need to better understand the cultural exchanges(Steiner and Reisinger 2004; Paradis 2002) and impacts(Mbaiwa 2004) that exist as a result of the industry. Aparticular focus has been placed on tourism as a sourcefor community economic development, especially in theCaribbean where tourism has become a significant con-tributor to economies (Hunter 1995; Moscardo 1998).Less attention, however, has been placed on the role ofthe state in fostering and promoting tourism apart froma few notable exceptions (Pleumarom 1994). Tacit recog-nition of the relationship between the political andeconomic dimensions to state functions can also be cited,most notably with respect to development planning(Allmendiger 2002; Burns 2004; Costa 2001) and thecreation of business models (Framke 2002; Copp and Ivy2001; Hohl and Tisdell 1995). In addition, a small numberof regional applications of the political economy of tourismexist, including The Gambia (Dieke 1994) and the MiddleEast (Hazbun 2004). The case of Belize that is documentedhere, however, provides a unique example by documen-ting state support for tourism through the examinationof its political and developmental history.

In a generic sense, a political economy perspective statesthat, “the political and the economic are irrevocablylinked” (Barnes 1994, 447). For the purposes of this paper,political economy refers to the relationship betweenpolitical and economic powers within a nation state, aswell as the input of economic capital external to thestate. Specifically, a political economy approach allowsfor the examination of the influence that political struc-tures and institutions, and external capital, have on theeconomic direction and development of nations. Thispaper takes the view that certain economic sectors (e.g.agriculture, tourism) are subject to political and govern-ment intervention more than others (e.g. manufacturing;retail). This intervention includes local, state, national,and international dimensions, all of which have changedin significance over time.

Recent applications of political economy in rural contextshave been imbedded in post-modern, and even post-productivist, interpretations of restructuring (Essex, Gilgand Yarwood 2005). While articulating the details ofthese interpretations is not the purpose of this paper -- in fact the topic is treated in greater detail elsewhere(e.g. Murdoch and Pratt 1993; Ilbery and Bowler 1998)-- it does argue that there are opportunities to build onexisting models by incorporating political economyperspectives into tourism development analysis. First,tourism is a post-productivist replacement to traditional,often resource-based rural economies. Second, giventhe high levels of state support for the marketing, pro-

Tourism development and political economy

Doug Ramsey, John Everitt

UNITED STATES

Golf of Mexico

MEXICO

ELSALVADOR

GUATEMALA

HONDURAS

NICARAGUA

COSTA

PANAMA

Caribbean Sea

Pacific Ocean

BELIZE

RICA

CUBA

03 V1.1.2008

motion, and development of tourism products by variouslevels of government, it is argued that political manifes-tos, policy formulation and economic development are

inextricably linked. Third, as stated earlier, Belize hasrecently pursued tourism as a national priority in itseconomic goals.

■ In outlining a planning context for tourism in Belize morethan 20 years ago, Pearce (1984, 303) argued that Belizewas at “a crucial stage in its development”. Since that time,successive Belizean governments have aggressively pursuedtourism development. This paper focuses on the use oftourism in Belize as a nationally promoted economic deve-lopment strategy within the overall planning process of thecountry. A former British colony, British Honduras, renamedBelize in 1973, achieved independence from the United

Kingdom 1981. Belize is a parliamentary democracy whosecitizens are represented by two major political parties: thePeople’s United Party (PUP) and the United DemocraticParty (UDP). The PUP has been in power for all but 10 yearssince George Price and the PUP first took office in 1954.

Belize is a small country (8867 square miles/22,966 squarekilometres) in Central America (Figure 1), which in 2005had a population of 291,800. Belize can be considered

The geopolitical and tourism context of Belize

Figure 2. Map of Belize

MEXICO

CaribbeanSea

GUATEMALA HONDURAS

Orange Walk Belize

Corozal

Caye Caulker

AmbergrisCaye

TurneffeIslands

Cayo

Stann Creek

Toledo

San Ignacio

Belmopan

Belize

Dangriga

Placencia

Punta Gorda

0 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometres

Corozal

OrangeWalk

Figure 1. The Location of Belize

Tourism as a Development Strategy in Belize, Central America

04 V1.1.2008

■ Phillips (1994, 6) has suggested that, “for at least thepast sixty years Belize has been promoted in one wayor another as a wonderful vacation spot.” However, thedata on tourism suggests that Aldous Huxley’s (1934, 35)

portrayal of Belize as an “end of the earth” remainedcharacteristic of people’s images of the country untilquite recently if they knew of its existence at all. It islikely that the disastrous Hurricane Hattie in 1961 was

Pre-tourism to 1970

primarily rural apart from Belize City that has a populationof 61,000. As illustrated in Figure 2, Belize is divided intosix administrative districts: Corozal, Orange Walk, BelizeCity, Cayo, Stann Creek, and Toledo. Although locatedon the mainland of the Americas, it often characterisesitself as a Caribbean nation, which is a reflection of itshistorical and cultural background. As the political com-mentator Emory King once said, “we are in Central America,but we are not of Central America” (King 1977, 2).

An historical approach is adopted to describe the politicaleconomy of tourism development beginning prior toBelize’s independence in 1981 until 2004, when tourism

dominated the political manifesto of the ruling party.Four major stages of development of tourism are identi-fied within the context of Belize. The stages reflectprimarily the state’s role with respect to tourism andwere in part established based on the attitudes towardtourism, tourism numbers, as well as on the tourisminfrastructure within the country. Central to each ofthese stages is the state’s role in fostering tourism deve-lopment and promotion. Political parties in Belize havegone so far as to include tourism as economic develop-ment pillars in their manifestos. Table 1 provides achronology of selected key events in the political andtourism histories of Belize.

1954-1984

1958

1963

1970

1971

1973

1981

1984

1987

1989

1993

1998

2003

PUP in power under George Price

NIP founded

Internal self government

Belmopan becomes Capital City

The New Belize begins publication

British Honduras Renamed BelizeUDP founded

Belize Achieves Independence

First General Election, UDP replaces PUP

The New Belize renamed Belize Today

PUP wins government

UDP wins government

PUP wins government

PUP wins re-election

Date

Table 1. Selected Timelines in Belize’s Recent History

Political Landmarks Tourism Landmarks

Concentration on gaining independence from Britain

Critical of low tourism investment, but little influence and little success

Tourism dominated by “drifters and hippies”

Tourism Board in Existence, but no statutory powers

Only about $10 million in tourist revenues

PUP concerned with Independence and Guatemalan claims

Guatemalan question still dominating politics and stalling tourisminitiatives. Felt to “madness to open floodgates to mass tourism”.

Promote improvements in tourism which becomes a top developmentpriority. Regular articles in The New Belize. Not to be a “Cancun” oran “Ocho Rios”. But Cruise ships promoted. Tourism receives DeputyMinister Status.

No significant changes in format. Tourism articles continued in BelizeToday. Tourism industry becomes second priority of government.

Convention hotel opened in 1991. Belize becoming a ”media darling”.

Tourism is prominent in agenda. 110,000 tourists in Belize

Tourism dominates agenda. Cruise ship dock built in 2001.

Tourism is national priority and “single largest foreign exchangeearner”. PUP Manifesto states “only the PUP has made tourism theheart of the new economy”.


05 V1.1.2008

the only event that had brought the country into worldprominence during this time period. In 1961, fewer than13,000 tourists visited the country, and by 1970 therewere only some 30,000 visits annually (Pearce 1984, 293).With a population of about 90,000 in 1960 and 120,000in 1970 (Everitt 1986, 83), this number of tourists wasquite significant locally. Nonetheless, Caribbean arrivalsin 1970 were 4.26 million and World arrivals were 168million. Clearly Belize was not a major, and arguably noteven a minor, player at the global scale (Seward andSpinrad 1982, 8).

The number of tourists in the world has been describedas “incredible” and “staggering” (Hall and Page 1999, 1).However, tourists are not evenly distributed around theworld, and the Belize of 1970 certainly did not receive aproportionate share based on its population andCaribbean-adjacent location. The reason for lack the ofsuccess for tourism at this time can be seen partly as afunction of the infancy of the industry as a whole before1970, partly as a consequence of the lack of knowledgeabout Belize, and partly as a reflection of the poor infras-tructure within Belize at that time. There were few roads,fewer hard-surfaced roads, limited internal air travel, andvery few facilities oriented towards the tourist in the1960s. For instance, there were only a handful of busesin the country, most casual travel being accommodatedby freight trucks that carried passengers if they had room.The capital of Belize City (Belmopan became the capitalin 1970) had a total of only 66 hotel rooms in 1964 (Palacio1996, 59), and the six District Capitals had significantlypoorer accommodation facilities although, reflecting theshortage of alternative options, these may have beenoperating at close to capacity (Himan 1970, 63).1 Tax andother concessions had been available since 1960 forBelizean-based companies, and if granted could be usedto “establish” a “hotel or other development enterprise”(British Honduras 1967, 3). But clearly this did not happento any great extent, and the main opposition party wascritical of “the low rate of speed” with which the conces-sions were granted (Himan 1970, 67).

The Development Finance Corporation was set up in1961 to “expand and strengthen the economy of BritishHonduras”, including tourism (British Honduras 1967,no page number). In 1961, a consulting company fromNew York produced a very positive report with respectto tourism. Concluding that half the trade deficit couldbe covered by tourism, it included a suggestion for settingup a Statutory Tourist Board, a form of which was esta-blished in 1968 (Himan 1970, 66). But as Himan (1970,67) points out, “official government statements and actualgovernment policies with respect to tourism have notalways been consistent.” For instance, the Tourist Boardset up in 1968 was what Palacio (1996, 59) called aparastatal agency and did not have statutory powers. A

government Development Plan prepared on the basis ofa 1963 UN survey also included tourism within its pur-view. But a 1967 government publication on investmentopportunities did not mention tourism outside of thepossibility of limited hotel construction (British Honduras1967). There were about 600 rooms by 1970 (Palacio1996, 59). As these data indicate, and our key informantinterviews confirmed, there was at best an ambivalentview towards tourism within Belize at this time.

This suggests that in addition to the challenges of capita-lization there were issues concerning the suitability oftourism, or at least mass tourism, as a development optionwithin the higher levels of government. Although theelected government position favoured the developmentof tourism, the official opposition, then the NationalIndependence Party (NIP), was critical of low investmentlevels in the industry. It has been estimated that the NIPprobably reflected the attitudes of many people in thebusiness community (Himan 1970, 68-69). At this timethe government was in the hands of the People’s UnitedParty (PUP) that under the legendary leadership of GeorgePrice had won all national elections from the introductionof adult suffrage in 1954 (and continued to do so until1984). One of the pillars of Price’s ideology was to gainpolitical independence and to remove all vestiges of Britishcolonialism from Belize, and to encourage local develop-ment with some help from outsiders. Forestry, the colonialcrop was downplayed, and agriculture, neglected underBritish rule, was promoted. This was a key change indirection as forestry provided subsistence and commercialopportunities in rural Belize. Tourism development, atthis point, was still being viewed suspiciously, especiallyin light of developments seen elsewhere in the Caribbean,where ‘outsiders’ were dominating the industry, and insome cases owning much of the land and infrastructure.Other government members were sceptical of the long-term economic benefits of tourism, feeling it had been“oversold as a panacea to the nation ’s many ills”, andthe negative social effects of tourism were also seen asa problem (Himan 1970, 68). As Price was trying to divestBelize of the social inequalities of colonialism, it wasunlikely that he would embrace the possible inequalitiesof tourism (Palacio 1996 ii-iii), despite the official stanceof his government. Regardless of Price’s views, neo-colonialism, which can be seen to include tourism, wouldsoon affect most aspects of Belizean economy and society(Everitt 1987a).

Thus, while at this point in Belize’s history tourismdevelopment had at best cautious support, tentative stepstowards the development and control of tourism werebeing taken, particularly by the Tourist Board, and asPalacio put it “improvement did take place” (Palacio 1996,59). Although the Tourist Board was aiming to serve the“ideal” middle class market, “those at the bottom, drifters


06 V1.1.2008

and hippies” were still seen as dominant categories ofvisitor (The New Belize 1982, 14). A 1962 report (LatinAmerican Report 1962, 16) was perhaps kinder, by charac-terizing Belize as “ideal for the tourist who wants toavoid the crowds”. The Fort George was the only “firstclass hotel” cited by the Report, as the Belleview, theonly other “acceptable” one, had been destroyed byHurricane Hattie, and had not been rebuilt by then (LatinAmerica Report 1962, 16). An undated (1967) Latin AmericanReport published by the International Trade Mart in New

Orleans touted tourism as the biggest “El Dorado” forthe then British Honduras (1967, 20). Such propagandaseems to have had little impact, and although touristnumbers did increase in the late 1960s, even in 1971 thetourist industry only earned an estimated Belize $10.3million (World Bank 1984, 111). However, the growingawareness of Belize as a potential place for tourism marksthe conclusion of this first era and the beginning of themore promising second stage where deliberate and orga-nised developments began to take place.

■ It was during the 1970s that the awakening of Belizefrom its colonial slumber began to become more obviouswithin the cultural landscape. Self-government had arrivedin 1964 (full independence was not achieved until 1981),but this political change took some time to be translated

into concrete improvements within the country, with itsimpact perhaps being most evident in 1970 with theinauguration of the new capital of Belmopan, to replaceBelize City administratively -- if not initially in manyother ways (Everitt 1984).

Anti-tourism: 1970 to 1985

■ From 1970 to1981, tourism increased considerably:with the number of visitors and length of stay more thandoubling -- although the total number of tourists wasstill at most about 63,000 in 1981. In 1976, tourist earningshad been Belizean $4.2 million but in 1981 the touristindustry earned an estimated Belizean $14 million. Hotelroom numbers had risen to nearly 1400 in the early 1980s(with about 120 hotels of widely differing qualities), butthe official position, although in theory pro-tourism, wasstill that for “a newlyborn {sic} nation like Belize, witha relatively small population it would … be madness toopen the floodgates of tourism” (The New Belize 1982,14). The government did not want to go the way of someother Caribbean countries (Jamaica was cited by severalkey informants) “where it is difficult to decide who is incharge of the country – the nationals or the foreigners”(The New Belize 1982, 14). Consequently the 1970s, withtourism under the Minister of Trade and Industry, weremarked by slow growth that was characterised by thedevelopment of small tourist ventures such as craft pro-duction and sales (commonly by local street traders whomade to order) and small locally owned hotels. The 1976PUP Manifesto (Belize: New Nation in Central America,1976) recognized the potential of tourism, but emphasisedthe government’s desire for “planned and orderly deve-lopment of this industry” (PUP 1976, 24).

This pattern of development dovetailed with the 1980Economic Development Plan which outlined a “policyfor the orderly and systematic growth of the touristindustry in which Belizeans, as far as possible will maintaincontrol and ownership of facilities and plans will continue”(The New Belize 1980, 7). The plan further stated that,“attention will be focused on improving training, hotel

and entertainment facilities for the industry as well asthe improvement of the domestic transportation system”(The New Belize 1980, 7). It was proposed that a studybe done on the scope and the scale of the industry.However, the bottom line was that as most Belizeanshad little capital to invest, the industry would have littlemoney available to it. However, funds were providedfor training people in all levels of the tourist industry(Palacio 1996, 67).

Within the tourist population at this time, there was stillan element of ‘transients and hippies’, but the businesswas becoming increasingly characterised by (more affluent)tourists who went there to get away from tourists. Thesepeople, ‘travelers’ as Fussell (1980, 49) has characterisedthem, carefully avoided any of the trappings of the touriststereotype and seeking locales and experiences that theyperceived to be more authentic than the standard fare.To use Plog’s classic terminology, these tourists weredecidedly allocentric (venturer) and did not wish to beconfused with the psychocentric (dependable) touristswho frequented such places as Miami Beach and ConeyIsland (Plog 1974, 2004). Many of these ‘travelers’ or ‘anti-tourists’ suffered from what has been termed “touristangst … a gnawing suspicion that after all …. you arestill a tourist just like every other tourist ” (Fussell 1980,49). However, the relatively simple and even primitiveinfrastructure of Belize at this time meant that such peoplehad little choice but to engage in allocentric behaviour.

Although the facilities for tourists improved during thedecade of the 1970s, the comment made by theInternational Trade Mart (ITM) in New Orleans (one ofthe gateway cities to Belize) in the late 1960s, that tourism

A Platform is Built, 1970 to 1981


07 V1.1.2008

had “hardly reached infancy status as an industry” (LatinAmerican Report 1962, 20), was still believed by many tobe the case a decade later. And for many people this wasa major attraction of Belize. However, the ITM alsoopined that Belize would not remain in this category forlong. It is clear that by the end of the 1970s, although

tourist facilities were still undeveloped in Belize, as theActing Chief Information Officer put it, “a platform hadbeen built” (Hall 1980), and on September 21 1981 -Independence Day from the colonial power (Table 1) –the government and the industry were in a position tobuild a tourist industry on this foundation.

■ In the 1980s, the Price government still had a cautiouspolicy of ‘testing the waters’, but still appeared to beunsure about “how deep do we go” (The New Belize 1982,14). A 1980 Economic Plan promoted tourism growth,but at the same time urged caution with respect to the“environmental problems” that might result from thisgrowth (Belize, Government of 1980, 39-40). Theseconcerns were reinforced by the ongoing unsettled politicalsituation with Guatemala. The governing People’s UnitedParty (PUP) was aiming for the middle class tourists whoare “knocking at the door” and are seen as the “idealmarket” (The New Belize 1982, 14), but still appearedunprepared to invest a lot of money in the infrastructureof tourism that wou ld appeal to these high-end visitors.There were a handful of more luxurious hideaways thana decade earlier, on the mainland in Corozal, Cayo, andStann Creek Districts at least, and on Ambergris Caye,but not enough to service the increasing extra-regionaldemand for such places (Figure 2).

This phase was also characterized by international deve-lopment assistance, most notably the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP), which launched theBelize Public Investment Project. A variety of economicsectors were examined through this project, includingtourism, housing, deep-sea fishing, agriculture and forestry(Pearce 1984, 293). After independence in 1981 the U.S.Agency for International Development increased its aidtwenty-fold which helped to raise the profile of Belize,as did the country’s promotion through the U.S. CaribbeanBasin Recovery Act (Kyle 1990: 36). A tourist survey wasconducted in the early 1980s as part of a ten-year deve-lopment plan. A campaign for tourism was conducted atthe same time in the U.S.A. (funded by hotels, governmentand airlines – one third each), with the slogan being:“Belize, it’s not for the multitudes – it’s for the many inthe search of a private island country paradise” (The NewBelize 1982, 14). But not a lot was physically accomplished.This was partly a recognition that there were “no plushhotels here” (The New Belize 1982, 14), and that there wasno intention or capability to build them; but it also stillseems to have reflected the philosophical position of thegovernment which was resistant to all forms of neo-colonialism, including TV and mass tourism (Weaver1993). A U.S. AID report of 1983 suggested that Belizedid not have a “good tourist attitude” (Himan 1970, 49).

Certainly the stance towards tourism at this time wasnot conducive to the mass marketing of the product.Perhaps more importantly, the inaction of the governmentwas a manifestation of the hard realities and challengesfaced by the PUP power structure in a newly independent(post 1981) world.

Despite many years of negotiation, the Guatemalandispute (this country claimed a large part of the territoryof Belize) still continued, and this affected all aspects ofBelizean life (Young and Young, 1990; Byrd, 1991). In factGuatemala threatened war after Belize achieved indepen-dence in 1981 (Table 1). Britain continued to station troops in Belize as a result, and border clashes still took place.Apart from soaking up time, money, and administrativeenergy, this international confrontation caused imageproblems for Belize and suggested safety problems forthe tourist. Not surprisingly, tourist arrivals dropped(Belize, Government of 1985, 47). While the dispute wasresolved to a large degree by the end of the 1980s, Britishforces remained in Belize in order to guarantee indepen-dence until 1994. A draft settlement of the border disputewas agreed upon in 2002 but has not yet been approved.

Another challenge was that, as noted earlier, the countryhad, at independence, a major infrastructure problem.This also caused difficulties in uniting the various subcul-tures into a Belizean nationality, and in justifying theindependence of the country from its neighbour. It helpsto explain the construction of the new capital of Belmopanthat was seen, in part, as a means of unifying the disparategroups within the country (Everitt 1984). Roads were atbest poor; many parts of the country could only bereached by boat, especially during the rainy season;electricity supplies were sporadic or non-existent; sewerswere non-existent, even in Belize City, until an aid pro-gramme from Canada led to changes in the 1980s; therewere refugees entering Belize from a number of neigh-bouring countries (e.g. Guatemala and El Salvador) (Everitt1987b); agriculture was in turmoil with sugar and bananaproduction in trouble, health care was an ongoing issue;and in addition there was a growing marijauna problemwhich was to turn into a bigger problem (the countrybecame an entrepôt for cocaine) when the Americangovernment aided in the defoliation of the marijuanafields. Even the main airport, located on the outskirts of

Incipient Interest 1981 to 1985


08 V1.1.2008

Belize City, needed expanding before a significant rise intourist numbers would be possible. Thus, in addition toimpacts of tourism development, broader issues affectingsocial change were taking place throughout both rural(agriculture) and urban (drug use and infrastructure)Belize.Thus, tourism hovered below the surface of officialrecognition once again (Fodor’s 1982 guide called Belize“The Undiscovered Beauty”, cited in Philips 1994, 7),although the Belize Tourist Board drew up a DevelopmentPlan and presented it to the Ministry of Trade, Industryand Tourism in 1983 (The New Belize 1983a, 10). The NewBelize periodically gave reviews of the economy, but didnot mention tourism in 1983 and 1984 (The New Belize1983b, 1984d). The New Belize did, in August of 1984 (TheNew Belize 1984b, 8) cite tourism (“specialized tourism”)as the fourth major development priority (after agriculture,agro-industry and forestry). However, when the“Government’s Record of Achievements ... of The PastFive Years” were reviewed just before the pivotal GeneralElection in December 1984, apart from the constructionof a convention hotel in Belmopan, tourism was notmentioned (The New Belize 1984a, 9). The World Bank

(1984, 32) stated that “Belize’s full potential for tourismis yet to be developed,” and fewer than two pages in this100+ page report were dedicated to the tourist industry.In summary, the report repeated many of the statementsmade by Himan (1970), indicating the incremental changesthat had occurred in the industry.

Arguably, however, going slow had its advantages, andjust as arguably, given its desire for locally owned andoperated developments, the government had few options.In 1985, The New Belize (1985b, 6) suggested that thePUP had given “only lip service to the industry despiteits potential for growth”. However, by 1985 The NewBelize was being produced by the newly-elected UnitedDemocratic Party (UDP) government. Certainly thepaucity of development meant that potential tourismopportunities had not been spoiled and that Belize couldlearn from the mistakes of others. In opposition, theUDP pointed out that Belize was not Cancún or OchoRios. Yet, this was most likely not a bad thing. In factit was meant as a positive point in that this gave Belizea unique edge.

■ One of the ‘transients’ who had settled in Belize, marrieda Belizean, and became a Belizean booster was EmoryKing. In 1986, he wrote, that “our national treasures sleepin the sunshine and contribute little or nothing to eitherthe private sector or the public sector” (King 1986, 110).His feelings, often in conflict in the past with the ‘partyline’ finally coincided with those of the new government.The UDP, a union of three opposition parties, was electedby a landslide in December 1984. The UDP had a pro-west rather than middle-of-the road ‘Non-AlignedMovement’ stance. Whereas Belize had been a memberof the Non-Aligned countries since independence in 1981,this change in government was to influence tourism aswell as other aspects of Belizean society (Table 1). ThePUP government had worried about focusing too muchon tourism. For the UDP, depth did not seem to be suchan issue: considerable emphasis was going to be put onthe development of the tourist industry, new laws wouldbe introduced to promote its orderly growth, while theintegrity of Belizean society and morality would be pro-tected (The New Belize 1985b, 6). However, in a redefinitionof past policy the solution for the tourist industry wasseen to be importing capital by allowing foreign investorsto develop in partnership with the Belizean investor. Thenew Prime Minister who made these remarks saw thetourist industry as “an important part of the solution tothe current economic problems”, although with the caveatthat, “Belizeans must be prepared to be in the forefront ofthe industry” (The New Belize 1985a, 9).

Thus tourism was suddenly being more aggressivelypromoted by the Belizean government, in what TheNew Belize, which was interestingly still edited by thesame Chief Information Officer as under the PUP, termed “a complete about turn from (the position) taken bythe previous government” (The New Belize 1985b, 6).Although for pessimists, the lack of infrastructure wasstill seen as a significant problem, “more tourist dollars(were expected to be) floating around in Belize” (TheNew Belize 1985a, 9). However, reflecting the attitudinalchange The New Belize had a cover story “Tourism: Morethan Sea and Sun” (The New Belize 1985b, 6), whichtrumpeted the spin-off benefits of tourism while stillemphasising the previous government’s longstandingconcentration of tourism efforts upon the natural andcultural environments. Yet, caution about the scale oftourism promotion remained evident in mid1986 ascaptured in the following passage from The New Belize(1986, 5), titled “New Thrust for Tourism”: In the finalanalysis, the potential for more growth exists, especiallywhen we marry the unspoilt beauty of our country withtraditional friendliness of Belizeans. All indications arethat a planned and well executed expansion of our smalltourist industry will benefit our economy and our peopleby bringing more money into circulation, providing jobsfor employees, and a greater market for our farmers. Itis up to us to make of tourism the kind of serviceindustry that we want, on our own terms and for ourgreater benefit.

Tourism take-off 1985 to 1995


09 V1.1.2008

Less than a year later, in March 1987 tourism was hig-hlighted (Belize Today 1987a, 4) in the Prime Minister’sbudget speech as one of the key segments of Belize’seconomy. Politics aside, however, the tourism policy ofthe new government can be seen as a change in emphasisrather than a complete about turn in strategy. A studyby the Economic Commission for Latin America and theCaribbean (ECLAC) stated, “the previous governmentvirtually frowned on the (tourist) industry, and from allaccounts did its utmost to discourage its development”(The New Belize 1986, 4). Yet, it did not criticise thedirection of the PUP, towards small scale, locally owned‘ecotourism’ projects. As has been indicated several times,Belize never tried to market itself as a mass tourismdestination, and it maintained this stance under the UDP.A Ramada Inn opened a long awaited convention hotelin July 1991 with “181 luxurious rooms and suites”(Donchev 2004). However, nearly two thirds of the hotelsin Belize have ten or fewer rooms, and 90 percent haveat most twenty rooms (Belize Tourism Board 2003).

True, tourism was seen as being a major contribution tothe economy, and an important way of financing thebalance-of-payments deficit, but at the same time “themain thrust in the development of the industry here isto attract special interest groups who are interested inthe environment, the wildlife, the flora and fauna” (TheNew Belize 1985b, 6). This is important because for thesustainability of tourism as an industry in countries suchas Belize it is critical that cornerstone policies be main-tained by successive governments even if they mighthave different viewpoints. In the years following theUDP electoral breakthrough in 1984, the PUP and theUDP both won power (Table 1). But in many ways themain planks of the country’s tourism policy remain quitesimilar, if not the same. It is a recognition that Belize“could not afford to compete with the established touristdestinations” (The New Belize 1985b, 6), but also therecognition that many Belizeans did not want to. ThusBelize would not become “Cancún or an Ocho Rios”,albeit for a variety of quite different reasons (The NewBelize 1985a, 9).

Mainland tourism was now to be stressed to a greaterdegree, including “ancient maya {sic} temples, our wildlife reserves and sanctuaries, the flora and fauna and thevaried cultures of the people of Belize” (The New Belize1985a, 9). At the same time tourism was “elevated fromthe seventh or eighth place position it held in the (PUP)development programme” to “1A” (along with farmingand agro-industry) in the (UDP) government’s order ofpriorities (The New Belize 1985b, 2 and 6). The BelizeTourism Industry Association saw these developments“as a massive blood transfusion” for tourism (The NewBelize 1985a, 9). Reinforcing the UDP government’s posi-tion on tourism, Belize Today (1987c, 7) also began a series

on “The Belizean Tourister”, in 1987 highlighting “touristaccommodations and attractions around the country”(1987c, 11). In the past an embryonic tourist industry hadexisted in the cayes, particularly Ambergis and CayeCaulker, which had been promoted as diving destinationssince the 1970s (Belize Today 1987a; 1987b).

Thus, at this time the UDP was arguing that there wasa new direction for tourism, but as indicated above inmany ways it was a reinforcement of the previous philo-sophy of small scale, allocentric, Belizean owned (orpartnered) developments. The UDP did not want theindustry to expand in such a way that it “would causesocial disruption and create out of Belizeans second classcitizens” (The New Belize 1985a, 9) (Table 1). By 1991,Belize Today (the new name for The New Belize sinceMarch 1987) could quote an International Monetary Fund(IMF) report, which said tourism was playing a majorrole in the economy “relative to actual growth”. It alsoclaimed that in 1991, Belize had “the fastest growingeconomy in this part of the world” (Belize Today 1991,21). Clearly by the 1990s, Belize needed to “redesign itsdevelopment priorities in view of the changing worldconditions” (Palacio 1993: 11).

By the early 1990s Phillips felt that Belize had “becomesomething of a media darling in the tourism world”(Phillips 1994, 3). It featured on the U.S. show “SixtyMinutes” in 1988 and in National Geographic in 1989. TheBelize Zoo even found its way into the Sports Illustrated‘Swimsuit Edition’ in 1992; and the “Reefs and Ruins”featured in The Atlantic magazine in the same year (Philips1994, 8). As The New Belize had suggested in a pre-election‘booster’ edition in August 1984, “if the world had anybeginnings Belize would certainly be one of them” (TheNew Belize 1984c, 1). On a more negative wavelength, asPhillips (1994, 9) suggested, Belize in the late 1980s mightalso have been “suddenly awash with ecotourists, esca-pists, and fortune seekers”.

Some of this growth reflected the fact that the tourismindustry as a whole was growing. This period coincidedwith a return to power of the UDP (Table 1). In 1995,there were 567 million world tourist arrivals (3.8 percentmore than in 1994). However, other aspects of this growthreflect the fact that Belize was getting better at capturingits share of the market. Even The New Belize (under theUDP) admitted that the tourism industry had “come along way during the past twenty years” (The New Belize1986, 4). In addition to the UDP’s new direction, by theearly 1990s infrastructure had been improved, by theefforts of both the PUP (1989-1993) and UDP (1993-1998)governments (and aid programmes from overseas, andparticularly the United Kingdom, the World Bank andUSAID (Agency for International Development), but alsothe Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).


10 V1.1.2008

New bridges had been built; a new northern highwayconstructed; improvements made to the WesternHighway, the Hummingbird Highway (to Dangriga) andthe Southern Highway (south of Dangriga); better airportfacilities were constructed and bus systems were impro-ved. Consequently, viable tours were being run to placesinland, including various Mayan Ruins. As a result, smallinland tourism operations began opening up. In 1993,there were some 110,000 tourists in Belize – not quitedouble that of a decade before, but still representing aconsiderable increase (Belize Magazine 1993, 8).

One more significant philosophical change was the at-tempt to initiate a resumption and promotion of cruiseship traffic to Belize (The New Belize 1985b, 7). This modeof tourism is controversial for a number of reasons,ranging from ecological (pollution discharges) througheconomic (does it really contribute much to the localeconomy) to social (these more psychocentric touristsare not really Belize’s ‘target population’). The attemptto capture the cruise ship trade had been made before:in 1975 there had been over 3000 cruise ship passengersand in 1976 there had been nearly 9000 cruise shippassengers in Belizean waters. But these arrived in smaller

ships, and were related more to fishing and diving thanexploring the inland areas of the country. When theytried to do the latter, they ran into major challenges. Forinstance, until the 1980s, the inland tourist resourceswere still poorly developed; even most of the Mayanruins were not cleared and accessible. In addition, thelack of infrastructure, shortage of services, and the shallowwaters offshore that demanded the barging of touristsfrom the cruise ships to Belize City had meant that cruiseships had not been successful. In 1980, only 23 cruiseship passengers were recorded, and a year later nonewere recorded (World Bank 1984, 111). The then UDPMinister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism (again,note the name change) personally went to New Yorkafter his appointment in 1985, to arrange for the re-sumption of cruise ship traffic. In the early 1990s, thenumbers ranged from a few hundred to nearly 14,000(Belize Government 2004; Belize Tourism Board 2004).Successive PUP governments had not invested the scarcecapital in order to solve these problems directly in theirsingle term between 1989 and 1993. Rather, improvementsthat were made were tied to other sectors of the economy.It was some time before the cruise ship industry caughton, however, and even by 1995 it was still quite small.

■ By 1995, tourist numbers were increasing rapidly, andalthough data on this rise can be hard to interpret, thisincrease has continued. Numbers are difficult to compare,particularly over time, but in 1977 there were at most100,000 international tourist arrivals in Belize. In 1991there were only 86,856, but this was a more accuratefigure as distortions2 had been removed from these (andsubsequent) data. In 1998, there were approximately186,000 international tourist arrivals in Belize; in 2001there were 244,000; while 2002 data indicated over519,000 arrivals. The latter figures include cruise shippassengers (319,690 in 2002), however, many of whomay not actually have landed in Belize. One thing is clear:there are a now many more tourists visiting Belize. Priorto 1998 there were only a small number of cruise shiptourists. In 1998, there were 14,183, and in 2000, over58,000. By 2002, the number of cruise ship passengersexceeded the population of Belize for the first time (BelizeTourism Board 2003, 1). A Cruise Ship Terminal, builtby a local investor, but now owned by a foreign multina-tional corporation, was constructed on the site of the oldcustoms wharf in 2001. In this year, there were 48 cruiseship calls to Belize compared to 200 in 2002. This sectorof the industry may be more controversial, but it clearlyhas a lot of growth potential (Belize Tourism Board 2004;Oxley 2004). As tourism increases, the landscapes oftourism become more developed and more prominent.

For example, the British Honduras of thirty-five yearsago had a handful of hotels, mostly of indifferent quality;the Belize of today has 447 hotels, with nearly 5,000rooms, many of which are of high quality (Belize TourismBoard 2003, 24-25; Belize Tourism Industry Association2004, 21-22). By the ‘mid-noughties’ it is at last reasonableto categorise tourist development in Belize using termssuch as ‘mass tourism’. Certainly the sheer numbers ofpeople will impact at least the rural areas of Belize, wheremost Belizeans live.

Currently tourism is within the portfolio of the Ministerof Tourism and Culture. Although the PUP tourism policiesof the past have been criticised, it should be rememberedthat the party came back into power in 1998, and sincethat date tourism within Belize has increased substantially(Table 1). The manifesto that led the party into its latestelection success in 2003 claimed that “only the PUP hasmade tourism the heart of the new economy, growingthe industry every year and enabling thousands ofBelizeans to share in the tourism pie” (PUP 2003, no pagenumber in document).

In promising to “continue the tourism explosion” themanifesto lists a series of promises, which if kept, willcertainly improve the infrastructure for tourism (roads,water, airstrips), continue the policy of local ownership

Post 1995: Promoting “Mother Nature’s best kept secret” Through “Destination Belize”(Belize Tourism Industry Association 2004).


11 V1.1.2008

ip of small businesses, and continue to promote tourismthat “better protect(s) our natural resources” (PUP 2003,no page number in document). Training programmeswere also emphasised, as were cultural tourism, language,sports and music tourism, in an attempt to bring theculture of the Belizean people to the forefront and ensurethe participation of Belizeans as much as possible. At thesame time, the PUP manifesto suggested that the oppo-

sition “makes wild promises to achieve power and thencuts jobs, stagnates the economy and terrorises the people”(PUP 2003, no page number in document). Clearly thedocument must be seen as a political one, and only thefuture will tell whether the PUP has significantly changedits stance towards the industry and now really believesthat “Tourism means business for all” (PUP 2003, no pagenumber).

■ To return to the quote in the introduction of this paper,Pearce (1984, 303) concluded that “tourism will not bethe answer to all the future needs of Belize and thecountry should not focus its development solely ontourism as some Caribbean countries have tried to do.”At present, Belize’s Official Tourism Industry Website(www.tourismbelize.com) states that, “Belize’s vision isto develop the tourism sector as a national priority, witha primary focus on responsible tourism, aimed at marineactivities, natural history, and adventure markets.” It goeson to say that: The challenges facing Belize's tourismindustry include the need to strategically develop andupgrade its product, the need to maintain the pristinequality of its environment, the need to market effectivelyto high potential, high-yield, niche markets, and the needto forge stronger linkages between the public and privatesectors, non-governmental organizations and communitiesaround the country.

This paper is an analysis of the growth of, and presentstatus of, the tourist industry in Belize, but it also contri-butes to a public policy debate within Belize that seestourism as one means for economic development. It couldbe argued that Belize has passed through stages of explo-ration and involvement (pre 1970s and perhaps up to1981) and is currently in a development stage. As globa-lization continues and spatial and temporal barriers arelowered or removed, tourism is influencing more places,even those that were until quite recently unfashionablefor middle class tourists. But more importantly andespecially in countries of the “South”, the developmentof tourism is increasingly being seen as a confluence ofboth political and economic influences, as countries tryto compete for tourist dollars to balance budgets left indisarray initially by colonial policies and later by inde-pendence from the colonial powers. This article suggeststhat an analysis of tourism in the contemporary worldneeds to follow a political economy approach whichprovides great potential for better understanding how

tourism development has been fostered, or not, by variouslevels of government, in countries like Belize. Such appro-aches fit well with existing tourism research models, suchas Butlers’ (1980) tourist cycle of evolution, planningtheory (Almendiger 2002), chaos theory (McKercher1999), local economic development (Andriotis 2002), andlocal-global interrelations (Milne and Ateljevic 2001).

This paper demonstrates that there have been touristsand tourism in Belize for several decades, but it is onlyin the last two that tourism has come to the fore as anengine of economic development. Along with the recog-nition that tourist development became an economicissue as well as a political issue, came an understandingthat tourism in contemporary Belize has to be seen in thislight. It can only then be understood why Belize, underboth major political parties, has opted to build a smaller-scale “ locally-oriented” industry, rather than one domi-nated by a Mexican FONATUR-style development astypified by Cancún, where “transnational forces havereshaped local realities” (Torres and Momsen 2005, 314).

Thus, as Belize has expanded its tourism industry fromoccasional drifters and hippies to gain a foothold intothe mass tourism of the twenty first century, by specia-lizing in eco- (land, water, wildlife) and cultural (parti-cularly Mayan) tourism development, successive gover-nments have ensured that the integrity of the localmarkets and the quality of life of Belizeans are notnegatively affected by these developments. It is onlyby continuing the symbiosis between the governmentand the tourist industry that this growth will continueto be environmentally sustainable and economicallyproductive. More generally this insight makes it clearthat it is only by understanding the political economyof Belize that we can see how successive Belizeangovernments, despite their disagreements on many otherpolicies, have built a Belizean tourist industry within aglobalised tourist world.

Conclusions

Tourism Development Board. 2007. Belize. Site visited14-02-07. www.tourismbelize.com

Websites


12 V1.1.2008

Akpinar, S. 2003. Globalisation and Tourism. Journal ofTravel and Tourism Research 3(1), 22-38.

Allmendinger, P. 2002. Towards a Post-positivist Typologyof Planning Theory. Planning Theory 1(1), 77-99.

Andriotis, K. 2002. Scale of Hospitality Firms and LocalEconomic Development – Evidence From Crete. TourismManagement 23, 333-341.

Ap, J. and J. Crompton. 1998. Developing and Testing aTourism Impact Scale. Journal of Travel Research 37, 120-130.

Barnes, T.G. 1994. Political Economy. In The Dictionary ofHuman Geography, edited by R.J. Johnston, D. Gregoryand D.M.Smith, 446-447. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Belize, Government of 1980. Economic Plan of Belize 1980-83. Belmopan, Belize: Government Printery.

Belize, Government of 1985. Country Development StrategyStatement. Washington D.C. Agency for InternationalDevelopment.

Belize, Government of 2004. Personal Communication,Personnel in the Immigration Department.

Belize Magazine. 1993. Know Before You Go. San Pedro:Blue Hole Productions. Spring, 8.

Belize Today. 1991. Belize Maintains a Strong Economy. 5(8)Belize: Government Printery (August), 21.

Belize Today. 1987a. Other Tourism and Cultural Development.1(8) Belize: Government Printery (August), 2.

Belize Today. 1987b. Key Economic Indicators. 1(1) Belize:Government Printery (March), 4-6.

Belize Today. 1987c. The Belizean Tourister. 1(1) Belize:Government Printery (March), 7.

Belize Tourism Industry Association. 2004. Destination Belize:Mother Nature’s best Kept Secret. The Official Guide toBelize. Belize City: Belize Tourism Industry Association.

Belize Tourism Board. 2004. Personal Communication,Personnel in the Belize Tourism Board.

Belize Tourism Board. 2003. Travel and Tourism Statistics:Belize, January-December 2002. (Belize City: BelizeTourism Board, Ministry of Tourism and Culture. 27.

British Honduras. 1967. Investment Opportunities: British Honduras(Belize) January, 1967. Belize City: Government Printery.

Brukdown. 1979. Belize’s Best Tourist Spots. 3(10), 15.

Buhalis, D. 1999. Limits of Tourism Development inPeripheral Destinations: Problems and Challenges(opinion piece). Tourism Management 20, 183-185.

Burns, P. 2004. Tourism Planning: A Third Way? Annals ofTourism Research 31(1), 24-43.

Butler R. 1996. The Concept of Carrying Capacity forTourism Destinations: Dead or Merely Buried. Progressin Tourism and Hospitality Research 2, 283-293.

Butler, R. 1980. The Concept of a Tourism Area Cycle ofEvolution: Implications for Management of Resources.The Canadian Geographer 24(1), 5-12.

Byrd, H.J. 1991. Developments in Guatemala and Belize-Guatemala Relations in the Independence Decade.Belizean Studies 19(2/3), 13-20.

Copp, C. and R. Ivy. 2001. Networking Trends of SmallTourism Businesses in Post-Socialist Slovakia. Journalof Small Business Management 39(4), 345-353.

Costa, C. 2001. An Emerging Tourism Planning Paradigm? AComparative Analysis Between Town and TourismPlanning. International Journal of Tourism Research 3, 425-441.

Dieke, P.U.C. 1994. The Political Economy of Tourism in TheGambia. Review of African Political Economy 62, 611-626.

Donchev, D. 2004. General Manager, Princess Hotel andCasino, personal communication, April 6th, 2004.

Essex, S., Gilg, A. and R. Yarwood. 2005. Rural Change andSustainability: Key Themes. In Rural Change andSustainability: Agriculture, the Environment and Communities,edited by Essex, S., Gilg, A. and R. Yarwood, 1-12.Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Everitt, J. 1987a. The Torch is Passed: Neocolonialism inBelize. Caribbean Quarterly 33(3-4), 42-59.

Everitt, J. 1987b. Small in Number, But Great in Impact:The refugee Migrations of Belize. In Refugees: A ThirdWorld Dilemma, edited by J.R. Rogge, 174-182. Totowa,New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield.

Everitt, J. 1986. The Growth and Development of BelizeCity. Journal of Latin American Studies 18, 75-112.

Everitt, J. 1984. Belmopan, Dream and Reality: A Study ofthe Other Planned Capital in Latin America. RevistaGeografica 99, 135-144.

Fleischer, A. and D. Felsentstein. 2000. Support for RuralTourism: Does it Make a Difference? Annals of TourismResearch 34(2), 274-295.

Framke, W. 2002. The Destination as a Concept: ADiscussion of the Business-related Perspective Versusthe Socio-cultural Approach in Tourism Theory. Tourismand Hospitality Research 4(4), 94-108.

Fussell, P. 1980. Abroad: British Literary Traveling Between theWars. New York: Oxford.

Gordon, I. and B. Goodall. 2000. Localities and Tourism.Tourism Geographies 2(3), 290-311.

Hall, N. 1980. Acting Chief Information Officer, personalcommunication, 1980.

Hall, C. and S. Page. 1999. The Geography of Tourism andRecreation: Environment, Place, and Space. London:Routledge.

References


13 V1.1.2008

Hazbun, W. 2004. Globalization, Reterritorialisation andthe Political Economy of Tourism Development in theMiddle East. Geopolitics 9(2): 310-341.

Himan, H. 1970. Tourism and Economic Development: TheBritish Honduras Case Wake Forest UniversityDeveloping Nations Monograph Series, Number Two.Winston-Salem: Wake Forest University. 67-71.

Hohl, A.E. and C.A. Tisdell. 1995. Peripheral TourismDevelopment and Management. Annals of TourismResearch 22(3), 517-534.

Huxley, A. 1934. Beyond the Mexique Bay. London: Chattoand Windus.

Hunter, C. 2002. Sustainable Tourism and the TouristicEcological Footprint. Environment, Development andSustainability 4, 7-20.

Hunter, C. 1995. On the Need to Re-conceptualizeSustainable Tourism Development. Journal of SustainableTourism 3(3), 155-165.

Ilbery, B. and I. Bowler. 1998. From Agricultural Productivismto Post-productivism. In The Geography of Rural Change,edited by B. Ilbery, 57-84. Harlow: Longman.

King, E. 1986. I Spent It All in Belize. Belize City: Tropical Books.

King, E. 1977. Hey Dad, This Is Belize. Belize City: Tropical Books.

Kyle, D. 1990. No Turning Back: U.S. Aid and Investmentin Belize. Belizean Studies 18(1), 36-52.

Latin American Report. 1967. A New Look at Belize (BritishHonduras). Special Issue.

Latin American Report. 1962. Report on British Honduras 5(1), 16-20.

Mbaiwa, J.E. 2004. The Socio-cultural Impacts of TourismDevelopment in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journalof Tourism and Cultural Change 2(3):163-184.

McKercher, B. 1999. A Chaos Approach to Tourism. TourismManagement 20, 425-434.

Milne, S. and I. Ateljevic. 2001. Tourism, EconomicDevelopment and the Global-local Nexus: TheoryEmbracing Complexity. Tourism Geographies 3(4), 369-393.

Moscardo, G. 1998. Interpretation and Sustainable Tourism:Functions, Examples and Principles. The Journal ofTourism Studies 9(1), 2-13.

Murdoch, J. and A. Pratt. 1993. Rural Studies: Modernism,Post-modernism and Post-Rural. Journal of Rural Studies9, 411-428.

Murphy, P. 1985. Tourism: A Community Approach. New York:Routledge.

Oxley, S. 2004. Deputy Director, Marketing and PublicRelations, Belize Tourism Board, personal communica-tion, April 4, 2004.

Palacio, J. 1993. Social and Cultural Implications of RecentDemographic Changes in Belize. Belizean Studies 21(1),3-12

Palacio, J. 1996. Development in Belize: 1960-1980: Initiativesat the State and Community Level. Belizean Studies22(2/3), 1-73. (Special Issue written entirely by Palacio).

Paradis, T. 2002. The Political Economy of ThemeDevelopment in Small Urban Places: the Case of Roswell,New Mexico. Tourism Geographies 4(1), 22-43.

Pearce, D.G. 1984. Planning for Tourism in Belize. TheGeographical Review 74(3), 291-303.

People’s United Party. 1976. Belize: New Nation in CentralAmerica. People’s United Party Manifesto.

People’s United Party. 2003. Go Belize, Go PUP: Keep BelizeFree. People’s United Party Manifesto for 2003-2008.

Phillips, M. 1994. Imagining Belize: Tourist and TourismAdvertising. Belizean Studies 21(3), 3-11.

Pleumarom, A. 1994. The Political Economy of Tourism.Ecologist 24(4), 142-148.

Plog, S. 1974. Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall inPopularity. In E. Kelly (ed.) Domestic and InternationalTourism. Wellesley, Mass.: Institute of Certified TravelAgents.

Plog, S. 2004. Leisure Travel: A Marketing Handbook. UpperSaddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Seddighi, H.R. and A.L. Theocharous. 2003. A Model ofTourism Destination Choice: A Theoretical andEmpirical Analysis. Tourism Management 23, 475-487.

Seward, S. and B. Spinrad. (eds). 1982. Tourism in theCaribbean: The Economic Impact (IDRC: Ottawa).

Sharpley, R. 2002a. The Challenges of EconomicDiversification through Tourism: the Case of Abu Dhabi.International Journal of Tourism Research 4, 221-235.

Sharpley, R. 2002b. Rural Tourism and the Challenge ofTourism Diversification: the Case of Cyprus. TourismManagement 23, 233-244.

Steiner, C.J. and Y. Reisinger. 2004. Enriching the Touristand Host Intercultural Experience by ReconceptualisingCommunication. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change2(2), 118-137.

The New Belize. 1986. Thrust for Tourism. 16(6), Belize:Government Printery, June, 4-5.

The New Belize. 1985a. Tourism Industry Gets a Ray ofSunshine. 15(7), Belize: Government Printery, July, 9.

The New Belize. 1985b. Tourism: More Than Sea and Sun.15(2), Belize: Government Printery, February, 6.

The New Belize. 1984a. A Government’s Record ofAchievements: A Brief Review of the Past Five Years14(11and12), Belize: Government Printery,November/December, 9.

The New Belize. 1984b. The Office of Economic Developmentand the Investment Division. 14(8), Belize: GovernmentPrintery, August, 7-8.


14 V1.1.2008

■ We would like to thank the many who helped us in information and data gathering. In particular we would like tothank Leo Bradley (Chief Librarian and Archivist), R. Bradley, Fr. Richard Buhler S.J. (Belize Institute of Social Researchand Action), Rudy Castillo (Chief Information Officer and Secretary to the Cabinet), Sherry Gibbs (Archaeologist,Government of Belize), Norris Hall (Chief Information Officer), Bob Jones (businessman), Senator Jesus Ken, EmoryKing (author and businessman), Stewart Krohn (Editor Brukdown), Alec Leslie (CIDA), Senator Vernon Leslie, GeorgePrice (Prime Minister), M.A. Romero (Chief Information Officer), Inez Sanchez (Chief Education Officer), Louis Sylvestre,Russell Thomas, Carl Troy (U.S. Vice Consul), John Wyeth (businessman), and Ford Young (businessman).

Acknowledgements

The New Belize. 1984c. Special Report: Investing inBelize14(8), Belize: Government Printery, August, 1.

The New Belize. 1984d. The Economy: A Formula For MoreBuoyancy. (Dedicated Issue) 14(6), Belize: GovernmentPrintery, June.

The New Belize. 1983a. Tourism Board Draws upDevelopment Plan.13(8), Belize: Government Printery,August, 10.

The New Belize. 1983b. A Special Report on the State of theEconomy. (Dedicated Issue) 13(1), Belize: GovernmentPrintery, January.

The New Belize. 1982. How Deep Do We Go? 12(12), Belize:Government Printery, December, 14.

The New Belize. 1980. Economic Development Plan: Tools forGrowth. 10(8), Belize: Government Printery, August, 4-7.

Teo, P. 2002. Global and Local Interactions in Tourism.Annals of Tourism Research 30(2), 287-306.

Torres, R.M. and J.D. Momsen. 2005. Gringolandia: The Construction of a New Tourist Space in Mexico.Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95 (2),314-335.

Weaver, D. 1993. The History of Television in Belize: 1980-Present. Belizean Studies 21(1), 13-20.

World Bank. 1984. Belize: Economic Report 1984. A WorldBank Country Study Washington D.C.: The WorldBank, 111.

Young, A.H. and D.H. Young. 1990. The Impact of theAnglo-Guatemalan Dispute on the Internal Politics ofBelize. Belizean Studies 18(1), 11-35.

■ Dr. Doug Ramsey is an Associate Professor of Rural Development at Brandon with research interests in rural tourismand agricultural restructuring. He has been employed at Brandon University since 1999. While most of his researchhas focused on rural Canada, he has recently engaged in tourism research in Belize and Southern Germany. Doug isalso a Board Member of Travel Manitoba, a Crown Corporation of the Province of Manitoba mandated to developand support the tourism sector in that Province. He is also the founding editor of the Journal of Rural and CommunityDevelopment, an on-line, open access journal available at www.jrcd.ca.

■ Dr. John Everitt is a Professor of human geography with a research and teaching interest in tourism. He has beenworking at Brandon University for nearly thirty-five years. His interest in Belize dates even farther back to his Master’sThesis that resulted from fieldwork in “British Honduras”, as the country was then known, in 1969. At that timetourism was minimal, and travel was by walking, hitchhiking, or freight lorry. He has published on a number ofBelizean topics. He has also produced articles on tourism in Manitoba, Mexico (particularly Puerto Vallarta) and, morerecently, the British Virgin Islands.

Biographical notes

Doug RamseyDepartment of Rural Development,Brandon UniversityBrandon, ManitobaCanada R7 A [email protected]

John EverittDepartment of GeographyBrandon UniversityBrandon, ManitobaCanada R7 A [email protected]

Contact details:


15 V1.1.2008

Estrategia de competitividad turísticade la República Dominicana

René VillarealCentro de Capital Intelectual y Competitividad (CECIC), México, D.F., México

Andrés van der HorstConsejo Nacional de Competitividad de la República Dominicana (CNC), Santo Domingo, Rep. Dominicana

■ En este artículo se resumen los puntos más importantesde la estrategia del modelo de desarrollo turístico de laRepública Dominicana, la cual parte de transitar delmodelo de turismo de enclave –con sus fortalezas ydebilidades –, caracterizado por una baja capacidad dearrastre de la economía interna y escasa integración de

la comunidad, a uno competitivo y sustentable, bajo lavisión de futuro de mantener a la actividad turística comouna locomotora de la economía dominicana, potenciandotoda la capacidad de integración de todos los participantesdel sector en el desarrollo competitivo y sustentable delturismo.

Introducción

■ El turismo es la actividad económica más importantede la República Dominicana que bien puede -como hasido la experiencia exitosa de otros destinos turísticos-ampliar sus efectos positivos hacia una mayor equidaden la distribución del ingreso y desde luego a disminuirla pobreza.

Dado que el turismo es un motor indiscutible del creci-miento económico y, sobre todo, una fuente importantede empleo con amplio impacto en las comunidadeslocales puede y debe contribuir a mejorar la calidad devida de la población más pobre del país a través de suintegración al desarrollo turístico.

La estrategia general del modelo para avanzar hacia unanueva etapa de desarrollo turístico competitivo y sus-tentable se detalla en el Plan Nacional de Competitivi-dad Sistémica de la República Dominicana (PNCS-RD),el cual fue presentado por el Presidente Dr. LeonelFernández el 21 de marzo del 2007. En este artículo sepresenta un panorama de la estrategia general sugeridapara diversificar el modelo de desarrollo turístico de laRepública Dominicana.

Palabras clave:turismo sostenible, crecimiento inclusivo, equidad,diversificación oferta, desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

■ Tourism is the most important economic activity inthe Dominican Republic and quite well could – as it hasbeen the successful experience of other touristic desti-nations – expand its positive effects towards higherequality in income distribution and also to reduce thelevels of poverty.

Given that tourism is the undefeatable engine of economicgrowth and, above all, an important source of employ-ment with a vast impact on the local communities, itcan and should contribute to improve the quality of lifeof the poorest segments of a country’s population bythe means of an inclusive touristic development scheme.

The model’s general strategy to move towards a newphase of competitive and sustained tourism developmentis outlined in the National Systemic CompetitivenessPlan of the Dominican Republic (PNCS-RD), which waspresented by the President Dr. Leonel Fernández onMarch 21st 2007. In this paper we present the generalstrategy for the diversification of the tourism developmentin the Dominican Republic.

Keywords:sustainable tourism, inclusive growth, equality, supplydiversification, sustainable development

Abstract

16 V1.1.2008

Hacia diciembre del 2006 la oferta hotelera en númerode habitaciones asciende a las 63,000, lo cuál representaun crecimiento anual promedio de 6 por ciento en laúltima década. Asimismo el sector genera un total de188,200 empleos directos e indirectos y 3,800 millonesde dólares como aporte a los ingresos en divisas de laeconomía, las cuáles representan un 13 por ciento del PIBdel país. Asimismo, el turismo es la fuente de inversiónextranjera directa más importante con 276 millones dedólares en el 2006 (22 por ciento del total).

Recientemente el Foro Económico Mundial de DavosSuiza publicó por primera vez el Índice de Competitividaden Viajes y Turismo (TTCI, Travel & Tourism Competi-tiveness Index 2007) que estudia a 124 países. Su objetivoes medir los factores y políticas públicas que influyen enel desarrollo del sector en distintos países.

La calificación general del TTCI le otorga a la RepúblicaDominicana 4.3 -en una escala de 1 a 7- y la coloca en ellugar 50 de 124 países analizados. En América Latina sólolo supera Barbados, Costa Rica, Chile, Jamaica y México,tal como se observa en la figura 1.

El índice se basa en la calificación de 13 pilares, los cualesse organizan en tres subíndices que capturan las principalescaracterísticas que influyen en el desarrollo de la industriaturística. El subíndice A incluye el contexto del marcoregulatorio, el medio ambiente e infraestructura se resumeen el subíndice B y la calidad de los recursos humanos,culturales y naturales en el subíndice C.

El subíndice A califica el marco regulatorio que incluyetemas como reglas de política y regulaciones, regulacióndel medio ambiente, seguridad, salud e higiene, prioridadde las estrategias de impulso a la industria de viajes yturismo. En estos rubros la República Dominicana seubica en el lugar número 51 (de 124 países) con 4.5 decalificación.

El subíndice B mide la infraestructura aeroportuaria,infraestructura de transporte terrestre, infraestructuraturística, infraestructura en tecnologías de informacióny comunicaciones y la competitividad en precios de laindustria de viajes y turismo. En este caso la RepúblicaDominicana obtiene una calificación de 3.3 que la ubicaen el lugar 71 entre 124 países.

Tabla 1. Número de turistas en la República Dominicana (2000-2006)

Fuente: Elaborado con datos del Banco Central de la República Dominicana. Los datos están disponibles en la página de internet:http://www.bancentral.gov.do/estadisticas.asp?a=Sector_Turismo

Detalle 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20062000-06 2005-06

T.C. (%)

Total 3,325,335 3,199,318 3,131,179 3,583,847 3,783,628 4,081,295 4,383,765 4.7% 7.4%

ResidentesDominicanosExtranjeros

No residentesDominicanosExtranjeros

347,311321,64225,669

2,978,024514,527

2,463,497

317,319293,58023,739

2,881,999487,176

2,394,823

320,162293,60426,558

2,811,017502,148

2,308,869

301,709273,35728,352

3,282,138523,588

2,758,550

333,236302,09831,138

3,450,392577,501

2,872,891

390,603355,15535,448

3,690,692602,445

3,088,247

418,710380,54538,165

3,965,055622,949

3,342,106

3.2%2.8%6.8%

7.4%4.9%7.9%

14.8%7.1%7.7%

11.6%3.4%8.2%

■ La importancia del sector turístico radica en que creapuestos de trabajo, paga mejores salarios que el promedionacional, fomenta el desarrollo regional, acelera la inversiónen proyectos de infraestructura, difunde los atractivosculturales y naturales de la nación, mantiene la equidad degénero y promueve el desarrollo del capital intelectual. Portodo esto se considera una locomotora de la competitividad.La República Dominicana goza de un sitial privilegiadoal ubicarse como la primera potencia de la región medido

por número de llegadas (4, 383,765 visitantes) y poringreso turístico (3,800 millones de dólares). El sectorturístico dominicano ha logrado duplicar su participacióndentro del Producto Interno Bruto en la última década.Este comportamiento sumado a las significativas contri-buciones realizadas en términos de generación de em-pleos, lo convierten indiscutiblemente en uno de lossectores más dinámicos e importantes de la economíanacional.

El Panorama Turístico Dominicano

René Villareal, Andrés van der Horst

17 V1.1.2008

29

4145

48 49 5055 56

5964

6972

7781

8588 89

9799 100

109111

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cal

ific

ació

n E

scal

a 0-

7

Luga

r en

tre

124

país

es

Para

guay

Boliv

ia

Ven

ezue

la

Ecua

dor

Nic

arag

ua

Hon

dura

s

Tri

nida

dy

Toba

go

Perú

El S

alva

dor

Col

ombi

a

Gua

tem

ala

Arg

enti

na

Bras

il

Uru

guay

Pana

má

Rep

úblic

aD

omin

ican

a

Méx

ico

Jam

aica

Chi

le

Cos

ta R

ica

Barb

ados

Guy

ana

Fuente: Elaborado con datos del Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report, marzo 2007. Foro Económico Mundial.

Figura 1. Índice de competitividad en viajes y turismo

Finalmente, el subíndice C mide la calidad de los recursoshumanos, en temas de educación y entrenamiento, habi-lidades de la mano de obra calificada, bienestar de lostrabajadores. Además de medir la percepción nacionaldel turismo y la situación de los recursos naturales yculturales. En este rubro la República Dominicana seubica en el lugar 29 (de 124 países), por arriba de impor-tantes mercados turísticos como México y Brasil.

Dentro del nuevo contexto de hipercompetencia globalen los mercados locales, el jugador más veloz impone elritmo de la competencia, forzando a los demás jugadoresa elevar su capacidad y agilidad de respuesta ante loscambios, por lo cual resulta fundamental analizar laevolución de la participación en el mercado de los princi-pales jugadores del turismo mundial.

Para lo anterior se definen tres conceptos de ventajascompetitivas:

1. La Ventaja Competitiva Básica (VCB): reside en lacapacidad de lograr mejoras en costo, calidad y serviciointegral al turista; este tipo de ventaja es necesaria sólo

para ingresar al mercado, pero no garantiza la perma-nencia dentro de éste.

2. La Ventaja Competitiva Revelada (VCR): representa elposicionamiento dentro de la carrera de la hipercom-petencia global. Se obtiene a través de igualar lo quela competencia hace, sus técnicas de efectividad ope-racional y sus tácticas de penetración del mercado,entre otras; describe así la participación del producto,empresa o país en el mercado internacional.

3. La Ventaja Competitiva Sustentable (VCS): se obtienecerrando la brecha de la competitividad con respecto allíder en la carrera y ampliándola con respecto al competidorque viene detrás. La innovación continua a través de lainversión en investigación y desarrollo es la única formade garantizar la competitividad a lo largo del tiempo.

En este contexto, Francia, España y Estados Unidos ocupanlos tres primeros lugares por número de llegadas de turistasinternacionales, por su parte la República Dominicana seubica en el lugar 46 con relación al número de llegadasde turistas internacionales con casi 4 millones de turistas

Estrategia de competitividad turística de la República Dominicana

18 V1.1.2008

al año que representa el 0.5 por ciento de participaciónde mercado. Lo cual muestra una ventaja competitivarevelada (VCR) que la ubica, en América Latina, sólo pordebajo de México, Brasil y Argentina.

Con respecto a la captación de ingresos por turismo en elperiodo 2000-2005, EE. UU. se mantiene como líder demercado, durante el 2005 obtuvo más de 81 mil millonesde dólares que representan el 12 por ciento del total deingresos que genera el turismo en el mundo. Al mismotiempo, Francia que por muchos años ha sido uno de losdestinos turísticos más importantes, demostró no tener unaVCS, ya que en este período, disminuyó un lugar en al

ranking mundial, siendo superado por España y perdiendomás de un punto porcentual del mercado. En este contexto,España ha logrado consolidar su estrategia y mostrar unaVCS, ya que no sólo aumentó una posición, colocándosecomo el segundo en captación de ingresos desplazando aFrancia, sino que también mantuvo su participación en elmercado.

Por su parte, la República Dominicana obtiene 3,500millones de dólares que la ubican en el número 44 a nivelmundial con el 0.5 por ciento de participación en elmercado mundial de los ingresos por concepto de turismo.En esta clasificación se ubica sólo por debajo de México

Tabla 2. Subíndices de competitividad en viajes y turismo (Comparativo entre países de latinoamérica)

Fuente: Elaborado con datos del Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report, marzo 2007. Foro Económico Mundial.

Subíndice A:Viajes y Turismo

Marco Regulatorio

País

Barbados

Chile

Costa Rica

Uruguay

México

Jamaica

RepúblicaDominicana

Panamá

Brasil

Guatemala

Colombia

Perú

El Salvador

Nicaragua

Honduras

Argentina

Trinidad yTobago

Guyana

Ecuador

Paraguay

Bolivia

Venezuela

31

38

39

43

48

49

50

56

67

68

69

74

75

82

83

84

88

96

98

107

109

117

Lugar Puntuación País Lugar Puntuación País Lugar Puntuación

Subíndice B:Viajes y Turismo Infraestructura

y Medio Ambiente

Subíndice C:Recursos Humanos,

Culturales y naturales

5.08

4.82

4.8

4.76

4.55

4.54

4.52

4.41

4.14

4.14

4.12

4.04

4.01

3.97

3.93

3.9

3.83

3.67

3.66

3.5

3.46

3.32

Barbados

Chile

Brasil

Costa Rica

Panamá

México

Argentina

Jamaica

Trinidad yTobago

El Salvador

Uruguay


Guatemala

Colombia

Venezuela

Honduras

Perú

Guyana

Ecuador

Paraguay

Nicaragua

Bolivia

36

42

48

52

53

57

58

59

65

66

67

71

76

77

78

83

85

88

90

92

99

101

4.14

3.87

3.76

3.66

3.66

3.6

3.58

3.53

3.35

3.34

3.32

3.28

3.16

3.15

3.12

2.97

2.95

2.93

2.87

2.84

2.76

2.73

Barbados

Costa Rica


Jamaica

Argentina

Chile

México

Panamá

Uruguay

Brasil

Guatemala

Colombia

Perú

Nicaragua

Honduras

Venezuela

Ecuador

El Salvador

Bolivia

Trinidad yTobago

Guyana

Paraguay

17

20

29

36

45

47

50

63

64

67

69

78

80

82

91

92

94

98

103

104

109

113

5.38

5.34

5.24

5.17

5.05

5.03

4.98

4.76

4.75

4.7

4.69

4.62

4.59

4.54

4.44

4.41

4.38

4.36

4.2

4.2

4.09

4


19 V1.1.2008

Tabla 3. LLEGADAS DE TURISTAS: Ventaja Competitiva Revelada (VCR), 2000-2005

Fuente: Elaborado con datos de la Organización Mundial de Turismo (OMT).

VCR 2000

País

FranciaEE. UU.EspañaItaliaChina

Reino UnidoMéxicoCanadá

AlemaniaAustriaBrasil

Rep. DominicanaArgentina

ChileCuba

JamaicaCosta RicaBarbadosPanamá

TOTAL MUNDIAL

77,19051,21947,89841,18131,22925,20920,64119,55518,99217,9825,3132,9782,9091,7421,7411,3231,088545484

687,000

Participaciónmercado

Milesde turistas

11.2%7.5%7.0%6.0%4.5%3.7%3.0%2.8%2.8%2.6%0.8%0.4%0.4%0.3%0.3%0.2%0.2%0.1%0.1%

123456789

10284142565763688892

VCR 2005

País

FranciaEspañaEE. UU.ChinaItalia

Reino UnidoMéxico

AlemaniaTurquíaAustriaBrasil

ArgentinaRep. Dominicana

CubaChile

Costa RicaJamaicaPanamá

BarbadosTOTAL MUNDIAL

76,00155,88249,20646,80936,51329,97021,91521,50020,27319,9525,3583,8953,6912,2612,0271,6791,479702548

806,000

Participaciónmercado

Milesde turistas

9.4%6.9%6.1%5.8%4.5%3.7%2.7%2.7%2.5%2.5%0.7%0.5%0.5%0.3%0.3%0.2%0.2%0.1%0.1%

123456789

103744465859647294

102

LLEGADAS DE TURISTAS: Ventaja Competitiva Sustentable (VCS), 2000-2005

VCS 2000-2005

País

TurquíaCostaRica

EspañaChina

AlemaniaFrancia

Reino UnidoMéxicoAustriaEE. UU.

ItaliaPanamá

CubaChile

ArgentinaRepública Dominicana

JamaicaBrasil

Barbado

1668359167

1024

9257564241632888

20052000

964248167

1035

94595944467237

102

Posición en: Cambio en el Posicionamiento

Lugaresganados o perdidos

PuntosPorcentuales

741110000-1-1-2-2-3-2-5-9-9

-14

1.12%0.05%-0.87%1.26%-0.10%-1.81%0.05%-0.29%-0.14%-1.35%-1.46%0.02%0.00%0.00%0.05%0.02%-0.01%-0.11%-0.01%


20 V1.1.2008

Tabla 4. INGRESOS POR TURISMO: Ventaja Competitiva Revelada (VCR), 2000-2005

Fuente: Elaborado con datos de la Organización Mundial de Turismo (OMT).

VCR 2000

País

EE. UU.FranciaEspañaItalia

Reino UnidoAlemania

ChinaCanadáAustria

AustraliaMéxico

ArgentinaRep. Dominicana

BrasilCuba

JamaicaCosta Rica

ChileBarbadosPanamá

TOTAL MUNDIAL

82,40030,75729,96827,49321,85718,69316,23110,7789,9319,2748,2942,9042,8601,8101,7371,3331,302819723458

483,000

% Mundial enlos ingresos

Millonesde dólares

17.1%6.4%6.2%5.7%4.5%3.9%3.4%2.2%2.1%1.9%1.7%0.6%0.6%0.4%0.4%0.3%0.3%0.2%0.1%0.1%

123456789

1012363747495354626575

VCR 2005

País

EE. UU.EspañaFranciaItalia

Reino UnidoChina

AlemaniaTurquía

AustraliaAustriaMéxicoBrasil

Rep. DominicanaArgentina

CubaCosta Rica

JamaicaChile

PanamáBarbados

TOTAL MUNDIAL

81,68047,89142,27635,39830,67529,29629,20418,15216,86615,46711,8033,8613,5082,7531,9201,5701,5451,256780776

682,000

% Mundial enlos ingresos

Millonesde dólares

12.0%7.0%6.2%5.2%4.5%4.3%4.3%2.7%2.5%2.3%1.7%0.6%0.5%0.4%0.3%0.2%0.2%0.2%0.1%0.1%

123456789

1014424449586162668081

INGRESOS POR TURISMO: Ventaja Competitiva Sustentable (VCS), 2000-2005

1.1%1.1%0.2%0.8%0.9%0.6%-5.1%-0.5%0.0%-0.2%0.4%0.2%0.0%-0.2%0.0%0.0%-0.1%0.0%-0.1%0.0%-0.1%0.0%

VCS 2000-2005

País

JapónTurquíaBrasil

EspañaChina

AustraliaEE. UU.

ItaliaReino Unido

FranciaAlemaniaAustriaMéxicoCanadáChile

PanamáRepública Dominicana

Costa RicaCuba

JamaicaArgentinaBarbado

33144737

10145269

128

6275375449533665

20052000

138

4226914537

1014126680446158624981

Posición en: Cambio en el Posicionamiento

Lugaresganados o perdidos

PuntosPorcentuales

2065111000-1-1-1-2-4-4-5-7-7-9-9

-13-16


21 V1.1.2008

■ El espacio geográfico en el que se desarrolla la mayorparte de la actividad turística en la República Dominicanason las costas, por lo tanto el producto dominante es el“turismo de sol y playa”. Sin embargo, se empieza avislumbrar un desarrollo incipiente en nuevos nichos deproducto como turismo de aventura, deportivo, ecológico,cultural, entre otros, además de un escaso, pero crecienteturismo de segunda residencia. Dentro de este nuevomarco de diversificación de la oferta surge precisamentela discusión sobre el denominado desarrollo turísticocompetitivo y sustentable.

Desde la década de los ochenta en la República Domini-cana se viene promoviendo un turismo dominado porlos tour-operadores, lo que genera una ocupación intensivadel territorio priorizando aquellos hoteles de gran tamañoy sin incluir un desarrollo de una oferta de productos yservicios complementarios. El problema es que estemodelo de turismo de enclave (“todo incluido”) ha soca-vado, hasta cierto punto, la posibilidad de atraer un“turismo de clase mundial”, el cual genera mayor estanciay gasto promedio; el modelo actual promueve un “turismode masas” con mucho menor poder adquisitivo y muchomás vulnerable a las crisis económicas.

Un segundo problema es el relativo a la marginacióneconómica a la cual han sido sometidas las comunidadescircundantes de los polos turísticos, debido fundamental-mente a los temas de ordenamiento territorial, seguridadciudadana y salud.

El turismo de enclave genera una distribución inequitativade los beneficios, este modelo pone en riesgo el aspectosocial, económico y sobre todo del desarrollo sustentablede las actividades turísticas en la mayoría de los paísesen desarrollo, incluyendo a la República Dominicana.

Partiendo de esta realidad, se presentan nuevos modelosalternativos para el desarrollo competitivo y sustentabledel turismo, éste es el caso del modelo de producción porclusters, el cual consiste en integrar la cadena de valordel turismo para ofrecer productos con mayor valoragregado destinados a nichos de mercado con mayorpoder adquisitivo a través de un nuevo paradigma decompetencia cooperativa que parte de la integración detodos los agentes económicos relacionados con el turismo.

De esta forma, en este artículo se propone avanzar haciauna nueva etapa de desarrollo turístico competitivo ysustentable, la cual se fundamenta en una estrategia decompetitividad para transitar del modelo de turismo deenclave –con sus fortalezas y debilidades –, caracterizadopor una baja capacidad de arrastre de la economía interna

y escasa integración de la comunidad, a uno competitivoy sustentable, bajo la visión de futuro de mantener a laactividad turística como una locomotora de la economíadominicana, potenciando toda la capacidad de integraciónde todos los participantes del sector a través del modelode integración de clusters o polos turísticos.

La República Dominicana tiene un enorme potencial paracontinuar desarrollando, no sólo sus famosas playas, si notambién a través de la creación de nuevos destinos deinterés para atraer a los turistas a visitar regiones ruralesdel país y así expandir los beneficios del turismo hacia esascomunidades. La cooperación que fomenta el nuevo para-digma de competencia cooperativa a través de la integraciónde clusters es una forma muy efectiva para maximizar elpotencial turístico de la República Dominicana.

Los clusters turísticos se ubican en puntos estratégicos dela isla, y se conforman por hoteles, empresas, municipios,grupos de defensa al medio ambiente y organizacionesno gubernamentales (ONG’s). El PNCS-RD menciona 7clusters turísticos localizados en distintos polos regionales,los cuales son: Santo Domingo, Puerto Plata, La Altagracia(Punta Cana), Romana-Bayahibe, Samaná, Barahona y LaVega. En el documento sólo se hace un análisis relativo alos tres primeros. Dichos clusters integran grupos quetienen intereses en la actividad turística, fomenta la con-fianza entre ellos y pretende desarrollar marcas para estasregiones. Al incrementar el valor de marca de nuevosdestinos turísticos, la República Dominicana espera atraera un mayor número de turistas y así generar mayor ingresopara los dominicanos en los años por venir.

En este sentido, la sustentabilidad del turismo dependeráen gran medida de la satisfacción de las necesidades delos visitantes y las comunidades que les reciben, así comola protección y el mejoramiento de los destinos turísticosen general. Dicha tarea por supuesto requiere de laimplementación de políticas públicas a distintos niveles,desde el marco regulatorio e institucional, hasta los temasrelativos al ordenamiento territorial, innovación, calidad,entre otros.

El turismo como actividad económica y social deberesponder a las preferencias del consumidor; el nuevotipo de turista busca aprovechar su tiempo libre, enespacios geográficos con recursos naturales y culturaleslos cuales deben satisfacer sus expectativas. Para satisfa-cerlas, se debe desarrollar el turismo sustentable, el cuáldebe contribuir a la conservación de los recursos, medianteuna planeación integral sobre el uso y manejo de éstos,así como establecer y desarrollar una cultura turística decuidado al medio ambiente y al patrimonio cultural,

La estrategia para el impulso de la competitividad turística sustentable de la RepúblicaDominicana


22 V1.1.2008

además debe integrar a las comunidades al desarrollo delsector para promover el desarrollo humano integral.

De esta forma, el nuevo modelo de desarrollo turísticosustentable debe contribuir directamente al desarrollohumano a través del empoderamiento de los habitantesdel destino; así la gestión del producto se convierte puesen el nuevo espacio que no es ya privado ni público,municipal ni estatal, pero que necesita de un ciudadanonuevo involucrado y comprometido con la rentabilidadde la zona y dispuesto a apoyar las acciones necesariaspara alcanzar la competitividad y el desarrollo sustentablede su comunidad.

Así nace pues la conformación de un nuevo activo, aúnpoco reconocido pero fundamental en el proceso decreación de valor: el capital social. Debemos aprender aconstruir estrategias que beneficien a todos los agenteseconómicos y nos permitan migrar del concepto de“competencia darwinista” al de “competencia cooperativa”.Esto implica cambiar el paradigma de ver al competidorcomo un enemigo hacia aprender a cooperar con loscompetidores a favor de causas e intereses que beneficienal municipio, estado y desde luego al país.

La industria turística de la República Dominicana enfrentauna serie de limitantes de índole mercadológica, ambiental,

regulatoria y estructural, las cuales deberán resolverse deforma estratégica y objetiva. Para el caso dominicano, elgobierno conforma un actor clave dentro del desarrollodel sector y él mismo deberá participar activamente amodo de catalizador y ejecutor de aquellas políticaspúblicas que complementen un accionar exclusivamenteprivado, asegurando que los problemas de largo plazosean debidamente tratados y que los intereses nacionalesno sean puestos en riesgo.

A su vez, desde la óptica del mercado, el sector privadojuega un rol preponderante dada su gran responsabilidaden la promoción de la “competencia cooperativa” entreclusters, polos y productos turísticos con el fin de lograruna oferta cada vez mejor y de clase mundial.

Los principales indicadores y tendencias del sector turísticodominicano y mundial hacen evidente la necesidad deconsolidar un verdadero plan de acción encaminado asubsanar las limitantes tanto coyunturales como estructuralesque enfrenta el sector. Adicionalmente, conviene analizarlas recientes tendencias del mercado turístico del Caribe,el cual muestra una serie de cambios en términos de de-manda y preferencias del visitante, los cuales deberán serincorporados cuanto antes dentro del esquema de la ofertaturística nacional. Sólo de este modo se logrará impulsarla ventaja competitiva sustentable de la República Domini-

■ Dentro del PNCS-RD el sector turístico figura comoun eje nodal en el desarrollo económico y social del país,en el cual se plantea la redefinición del modelo de turismotradicional de sol y playa, a través de la incorporación deelementos necesarios para lograr su sustentabilidad y asídiversificar la oferta turística en el marco de las tendenciasmundiales del mercado turístico.

La consecución de un desarrollo sustentable del turismo,descansa en el hecho de que los destinos sean capaces depotenciar su papel como puertas de regiones culturalesmás amplias y diversas que sus propios límites naturales,ampliando así la escala espacial estratégica, e involucrandomayor cantidad de territorio y sobre todo, de personas(un ejemplo de esto es el caso del clúster turístico de laciudad de Santo Domingo el cual actualmente recibe elapoyo del Consejo Nacional de Competitividad CNC).Del mismo modo resulta estratégico incorporar la promo-ción de un conjunto de pequeñas y medianas empresas(Pymes) las cuales permitan un desarrollo competitivo ysustentable del sector.

Una de las respuestas planteadas es la integración de lasPymes locales en las actividades del sector. Existen diversas

vías mediante las cuales vincular las empresas privadasrelacionadas con el turismo con las comunidades locales,más allá de la provisión de mano de obra a los estableci-mientos hoteleros, alimentación y animación, serviciosde viajes, excursiones y transporte turístico. Por ejemplo,las Pymes comunitarias podrían formar parte de unaverdadera red de aprovisionamiento hotelero para insumosy servicios, tales como mobiliario, productos agropecua-rios, artesanía, uniformes, sólo por mencionar algunos.

De esta manera los costos y beneficios que se derivan delturismo estarían más equilibrados, ya que los patronesde movilidad dentro de las regiones turísticas aumentanen complejidad, reduciendo la presión en los centros opolos turísticos tradicionales. Se espera que de esta formala cadena de la oferta turística sea más sólida y diversa.

A su vez se propone una coordinación estrecha entre loshoteles y los restaurantes locales, con el apoyo de lasautoridades competentes, ya que podrían establecerseprogramas de formación de capacidades laborales dirigidosa los miembros de la comunidad. La realidad nos indicauna gran desestimación del aporte en valor agregadocomo resultado de la integración de las comunidades

El nuevo modelo de desarrollo competitivo y sustentable de la República Dominicanabasado en los seis pilares


23 V1.1.2008

circundantes a la actividad hotelera en términos socialesy de sustentabilidad del producto turístico.

El resultado esperado de este proceso de reestructuraciónserá que las localidades periféricas puedan tener un papelmás activo en la economía turística regional, lo que sepodrá conseguir si son capaces de establecer y vender suspropias riquezas culturales, dirigiéndose a visitantes congustos sofisticados y conectando con la cadena del turismoque ahora está centrada en productos tradicionales. Demanera particular, el PNCS-RD destaca aquellas fortalezasdel sector en base a una oferta habitacional de calidad,recursos humanos calificados, un entorno socio-económicoestable y una adecuada infraestructura de telecomunica-ciones y trasportes, sobre todo a nivel aeroportuario.

La mayor parte del análisis estratégico se concentra enun modelo turístico basado en la inversión productiva.Igual se complementa con la parte de formación e inte-gración comunitaria que viabilice la sustentabilidad delmodelo de desarrollo turístico – es importante que sereconozca que la comunidad debe necesariamente inte-grarse a modo de suplidores de oficios o como proveedoresmaterias primas básicas a través de las micro y pequeñasempresas turísticas – para esto se proponen accionesimperativas al fomento de la educación básica, la capaci-tación laboral, los servicios ciudadanos y de salubridad,la seguridad y la vivienda digna, dirigida hacia estossegmentos poblacionales.

Por otro lado, resulta ineludible el tema de la promocióndel destino: República Dominicana. Es por esto que sepropone el diseño de una campaña promocional de anun-cios publicitarios, info-comerciales y programas docu-mentales que ofrezcan verdadera cuenta del valor agregadode la experiencia de viaje a un destino “comunidadincluida”, en adición a las facilidades hoteleras “todoincluido” y otros productos turísticos tradicionales y no-tradicionales.

En el Consejo Nacional de Competitividad de la RepúblicaDominicana (CNC) se entiende que para lograr la aplicaciónde acciones destinadas a contrarrestar las debilidades ysuperar exitosamente los retos, se debe priorizar unaestricta aplicación del marco regulatorio – sobre todo delas disposiciones para el ordenamiento territorial y urbano,de los reglamentos de construcción y de la legislación enmateria medioambiental – esto junto a la definición depolíticas públicas que garanticen la provisión efectiva delos servicios ciudadanos. Lo anterior, requerirá tanto de lareestructuración del aparato gubernamental como de lareingeniería de sus procesos en cuanto a toma de decisiones.

Algunas de las políticas públicas estratégicas para impulsarel desarrollo competitivo y sustentable del turismo en laRepública Dominicana se exponen a continuación:

· La diversificación progresiva del producto en aras deadaptarlo a los nuevos requerimientos de los mercadosinternacionales, esto es, incorporar ofertas alternativastales como el ecoturismo, el turismo de deporte yaventura, el turismo cultural, los parques temáticos, elturismo de salud, entre otros.

· El fortalecimiento de la promoción del sector en elextranjero, esto siguiendo las pautas de las nuevastendencias internacionales en cuanto a las relacionescliente-empresa, y el nuevo modelo competitivo enmateria de gestión de la calidad y servicio.

· El diseño de programas de capacitación efectivos,considerando que el turismo es un sector intensivo enmano de obra y que el desarrollo de capacidades hu-manas resulta clave para una operación eficiente ycompetitiva; además esto resulta determinante paraofrecer un servicio de calidad total.

· Agilizar los esfuerzos públicos con miras a romper conla burocracia y demás cuellos de botella que dificultanlos procesos de gestión regulatoria tan necesarios parala industria.

· Manejo y preservación del medio ambiente. En laactualidad cada vez más se enfatiza en el impacto dela industria sobre los recursos naturales, por cuanto sedebe aprovechar este elemento desde el punto de vistapromocional en beneficio de la competitividad e imagendel producto en el plano internacional;

· Igualmente es necesario iniciar un programa de sanea-miento urbano y comunitario, el cual incluya la repa-ración de las estructuras viales, recogida de desechos,tratamiento de aguas negras, concientización ciudadana,entre otros.

· Todo esto sin dejar de lado la necesaria modernizaciónde la infraestructura hotelera existente en algunos delos destinos más antiguos. De esta forma se contribuiráa convertir el producto ofertado en un producto muchomás atractivo, diversificado y seguro para los turistas.

Para atender lo anterior, así como los retos del futuro serequiere promover la implementación de un nuevo modelode turismo incluyente, competitivo y sustentable, a travésdel desarrollo de los seis pilares fundamentales de lacompetitividad sistémica –desde la infraestructura turísticade calidad y el ordenamiento territorial, hasta la integraciónde la comunidad–, enmarcándolos a la vez en un enfoquede encadenamientos productivos regionales que genereneconomías de aglomeración.


24 V1.1.2008

Los seis pilares para el desarrollo turístico competitivo ysustentable son:

1. Infraestructura y Ordenamiento Territorial2. Formación de Recursos Humanos3. Promoción4. Salubridad5. Seguridad Pública6. Integración de la Comunidad

La implementación de lo antes dicho implica la creacióndel marco institucional que permita concertar las accionesnecesarias para fortalecer a los seis pilares de la competi-tividad turística sistémica y a la red de clusters turísticosdominicanos, para lo cual se propone aprovechar elInstituto Nacional de Desarrollo Turístico (INDETUR)

presidido por el Secretario de Estado de Turismo y en elcual el sector privado, hotelero e inmobiliario tambiéntienen participación.

El INDETUR, se propone trabajar desarrollando los pilaresbásicos de la competitividad turística relativos a la infra-estructura y planificación y ordenamiento del territorioturístico. También impulsará la oferta complementaria,allí donde la inversión por parte de la iniciativa privadasea insuficiente.

El INDETUR deberá poner atención en el desarrollo, forta-lecimiento e impulso de cada uno de los seis pilares, estogarantizará el desarrollo competitivo y sustentable delturismo en la República Dominicana, para mantener alsector como uno de los pilares de la economía dominicana.

Figura 2. Modelo de desarrollo competitivo y sustentable de la República Dominicana basado enlos seis pilares

Infr

aest

ruct

ura

yO

rden

amie

nto

Ter

rito

rial

Rec

urso

s H

um

ano

s

Pro

mo

ció

n

Salu

bri

dad

Segu

rida

d P

úb

lica

Inte

grac

ión

de la

Co

mu

nid

ad

Desarrollar el capital socialy la comunicación

6 PILARESDE DESARROLLO

TURÍSTICO COMPETITIVOY SUSTENTABLE

En laCadena Globalde Valor, en la

Comunidady en el Medio

Ambiente

TurismoIntegrado:

ComunidadIncluida

Turismode Enclave:

“TodoIncluido”

MODELOACTUAL

MODELO DEDESARROLLOCOMPETITIVO

Y SUSTENTABLE

Fuente: Elaboración propia publicado en el PNCS-RD.


25 V1.1.2008

■ Por su importancia en la actividad turística, es necesariomejorar la eficiencia de la Comisión Nacional de Saludy Turismo, que es el órgano coordinador de las accionesencaminadas a resolver los problemas tanto de saludpública, como sanitarios, relacionados con este sector, de

manera especial la prevención de epidemias como las demalaria y dengue, mismas que debieran estar consideradasdentro de un Plan Integral de Salud y Turismo a nivelnacional a fin de darle continuidad a los programas yproyectos estratégicos.

Salubridad

■ El déficit de infraestructura es un tema crucial en elcual es necesario tomar decisiones, ya que es una de lasgrandes limitantes para la sostenibilidad del sector. Noobstante los esfuerzos realizados, aún no son suficientes,ya que existe un déficit acumulado de 25 años de desa-rrollo turístico y poca inversión del Estado en la infraes-tructura básica.

El Estado carece de recursos para la creciente demandade inversión pública, por lo que una posibilidad es abrirlas puertas a la inversión privada, con una ley de conce-siones para construir las carreteras, acueductos, alcanta-rillados y demás instalaciones –sea de oferta complemen-taria o bien de parques temáticos– que hacen falta.

Asimismo, la falta de un ordenamiento territorial institu-cional es otro factor que contribuye al desfase, dispersióny descoordinación, entre las instancias administrativasdel sector público que inciden en la gestión del turismo.Al mismo tiempo, estimula la arrabalización y crea incer-tidumbre sobre el futuro de las inversiones.

Una planificación del uso del suelo institucionalmentefirme- se convertiría en factor de ordenamiento, contribuiráal desarrollo sostenible y es un importante atractivo paranuevos capitales. Además, tiene la ventaja de que alindicar de manera precisa lo que se puede o no se puedehacer, evita las confrontaciones y acelera los procesos loque incide en los costos iniciales de los proyectos.

Infraestructura turística y ordenamiento territorial

■ Para la oferta de servicios turísticos de calidad, comopara cualquier otra actividad intensiva en mano de obra,uno de los factores que más contribuye a la competitividades la calidad de los recursos humanos. Es por ello, queresulta prioritario dar solución a la compleja situaciónactual de la educación -sobre todo en los niveles básicoy medio- y al escaso manejo de tecnologías de la informa-ción e idiomas extranjeros por parte de la población engeneral, además de fomentar la vinculación entre el turismoy las instituciones educativas, tecnológicos, universidadesy representantes de la comunidad, sobre todo en materiade investigación y desarrollo de nuevos productos.

La modificación a la Ley Orgánica del Instituto de For-mación Técnico INFOTEC, tiene la finalidad de incluiren las funciones de la Secretaría de Estado de Turismoel impulso a la inversión en la formación de los trabaja-dores del sector, incluyendo los indirectos tales comoartesanos, vendedores, taxistas, etc., al menos las dosterceras partes de las contribuciones del sector turísticose deberán destinar al fortalecimiento del INFOTEC, elcual tendrá a su cargo el antiguo Hotel San Cristóbal yel Instituto de Formación Turístico del Caribe, creado enel año 1999.

Formación de Recursos Humanos

■ En cuanto a la promoción de la oferta turística, laSecretaría de Estado de Turismo, en coordinación conotras instituciones públicas y privadas, tiene la rectoríaen materia de promoción, para lo cual podrían apoyarseen el Fondo de Promoción Turística, con el fin de diseñarla estrategia mercadológica –con base en investigacionesde mercado – para incrementar la captación de turismo,tanto de no inmigrantes, como de residentes, a través decampañas publicitarias –a nivel interno y externo – yparticipación en ferias y exposiciones turísticas, eventosculturales, artísticos y deportivos. Dentro de los canalespara poner en marcha las campañas publicitarias se

encuentran las líneas aéreas y los operadores turísticos.Además se propone la institucionalización de la promo-ción del destino a través de la creación del InstitutoNacional de Promoción e Imagen Turística, así como laformación y capacitación de recursos humanos, a travésde modificar a la Ley Orgánica del Instituto de FormaciónTécnico INFOTEC, para incluir en la dirección de laSecretaría de Estado de Turismo la inversión en la capa-citación y formación de los trabajadores del sector turís-tico, en los cuales también se incluye a los que participande manera indirecta como artesanos, vendedores, taxistas,entre otros.

Promoción


26 V1.1.2008

Para mejorar la apuesta por la salubridad y seguridad ymejorar la calificación en la competitividad del destino,se propone la modificación de la actual Ley Orgánica dela Secretaría de Turismo, para crear las Direcciones Na-cionales de Seguridad y Salubridad de las Zonas Turísticas,

las cuales deberán trabajar en colaboración con las Secre-tarías de Interior y Policía y de las Fuerzas Armadas entodo lo concerniente a la seguridad, y con la Secretaríade Estado de Salud Pública en todo lo relativo al Plan desalubridad de todos los clusters turísticos del país.

■ En términos de competitividad, resulta prioritario parael turismo solucionar eficazmente los problemas que sepresenten en materia de seguridad pública, ya que losturistas toman sus decisiones de vacacionar influidos porsu percepción, o bien la información obtenida, al respecto

de la estabilidad social y política de las diferentes opcionesturísticas, temas en los que la seguridad pública destacapor su impacto. Por ende, garantizar la seguridad y protec-ción de los visitantes de un destino no sólo es una condiciónnecesaria, sino fundamental, para el desarrollo turístico.

Seguridad pública

■ Tanto a nivel mundial, como en la República Domini-cana –como es el caso de Bayahibe en la provincia de LaRomana–, existen antecedentes exitosos de iniciativasen las que, mediante el empoderamiento de la poblaciónlocal, se ha logrado no sólo agregar valor a los productosy servicios turísticos, sino mejorar la calidad de vida dela comunidad. En este sentido, resultaría de gran valía elestablecimiento de hermanamientos de destinos conotros países, en los que se haya transformado exitosa-mente la problemática local. La filosofía de este tipo deproyectos ha sido transformar las debilidades en fuentesde oportunidades y vinculando a los viajeros con losproblemas reales.

Un eje fundamental para lograr este propósito se basa enpreservar y poner en valor los recursos culturales y natu-rales del país en base a una estrategia de empoderamientoa través de la comunidad social. Se propone crear con-ciencia en las comunidades sobre sus valores culturalesy naturales para que se conviertan en sus defensores ypromotores y la puedan aprovechar para mejorar laposición competitiva de cada destino.

Existen muchas maneras para vincular a las empresasprivadas relacionadas con el turismo con las comunidadeslocales, más allá de proveer de mano de obra a los esta-blecimientos de hospedaje, alimentación y esparcimiento,

agencias de viaje o de transportación turística. Por ejemplo,las micro y pequeñas empresas comunitarias podríanformar parte de una red de proveeduría hotelera deproductos regionales, o bien los hoteleros y restauranterospodrían –en coordinación de las autoridades competentes- establecer un programa de formación de capacidades enla comunidad.

En base a una plataforma de desarrollo sostenible basadaen la cultura se articularía la creación de pequeñas ymedianas empresas que ayudarían a la diversificación delproducto a ofrecer al turista, creando un nuevo sentimientode inclusión social en la actividad. Se le asigna una coor-dinación con la Secretaría de Cultura en la creación deuna estrategia nacional de cultura con vista al largo plazoy la articulación de esta visión actuando como organismotécnico de identificación y preservación del patrimonioy el desarrollo de estrategias de participación comunitariaen estas actividades.

Es recomendable, al igual que en otros países de la región,el establecimiento de un sistema de observatorio culturaly un marco regulatorio que permita además de preservarlos patrimonios culturales, mantener el potencial de larelación entre turismo y cultura cerca de los actorescomunitarios a la vez que asegura la calidad de la inter-pretación cultural.

Integración de la comunidad

■ Al tomar en cuenta el actual proceso de aperturacomercial de la República Dominicana, el PNCS-RD partede identificar nuevos fenómenos y paradigmas globalescomo:· La globalización del consumo.· Segmentación y cambios en los mercados.· El rápido ritmo del cambio tecnológico.· La presencia de nueva fuerza de trabajo global que

permite la producción eficiente de productos y serviciosde calidad con entrega inmediata alrededor del mundo.

· Incremento en los vínculos entre la producción nacional,regional y entre las cadenas de valor.

· Reducción significativa en los costos de transportecomo resultado de avances en las tecnologías de trans-porte y telecomunicaciones.

· Alto grado de movilidad de bienes, servicios y factoresde producción.

· Mayor nivel de competencia a medida que nuevosparticipantes entran al mercado a todos los niveles, endistintas partes del mundo y a un ritmo cada vez mayor.

Conclusión


27 V1.1.2008

Dado este contexto, cada vez resulta más evidente quelas empresas necesitan ampliar su capacidad productivamediante la adopción de mejores prácticas y aprovecharla transferencia de tecnología. Además se requiere alcanzaruna mayor integración de la producción nacional a travésde la integración de procesos productivos, así como migrarhacia una estrategia de innovación continua para competircon una estrategia ganadora en el mercado global.

Además, para evitar ser desplazados por la hipercompe-tencia global en los mercados, en el cuál las empresas sebenefician de las ventajas competitivas, se requiere incre-mentar la eficiencia operativa, la producción tecnológica,aumentar la productividad, así como la calidad de losproductos y servicios que se ofrecen. Algunos de lospuntos estratégicos para fortalecer la competitividad delsector turístico se muestran en la siguiente figura.

Fuente: Elaboración propia.

Desarrollo

Turístico Competitivo

y Sustentable de la

República Dominicana

Apoyo al nuevoandamiaje institucional

para contribuiral desarrollo turístico

de la RD

Compromisopara implementarel nuevo modelo

Apoyarel desarrollo de la marca

país RepúblicaDominicana

Conocimientode las mejores prácticasa través de las nuevas

tecnologías

Desarrollode nuevos productos

con identidad nacionalque incluya el uso

respetuoso

Desarrollode clusters turísticos

con desarrollo sustentabley comunidad

incluida

Desarrollode destinos turísticos

en beneficiode las economías

regionales

Conservaciónde áreas naturales

protegidasy administración

sustentablede las costas

Armonizarlas estrategias de

promoción de la RDcon las del Caribe

Figura 3. Puntos estratégicos para fortalecer la competitividad del turismo en la República Dominicanca


28 V1.1.2008

El PNCS-RD considera que el crecimiento del turismo noestá exento de retos. El desarrollo impone presiones a losfrágiles ecosistemas del país, incluyendo las selvas y lasreservas marinas de las cuáles depende la industria turística.La estrategia de desarrollo competitivo y sustentable de laRepública Dominicana toma en cuenta el delicado balanceque existe entre crecimiento y sustentabilidad.

De esta forma, la estrategia competitiva para el sector turísticodominicano debe ser interpretada como la estrategia de ne-gocios del destino. Se parte de un diagnóstico de las realidadesdel mercado y de un análisis exhaustivo de sus característicasy tendencias. Desde luego se suman los insumos aportadospor los clusters nacionales, esto es, las capacidades locales deproducción y la sinergia entre las iniciativas de inversionestanto públicas como privadas. El fin último debe ser generarun verdadero compromiso donde todos los miembros de lacomunidad asuman sus derechos y responsabilidades.

La estrategia para el desarrollo competitivo y sustentabledel turismo incluye al desarrollo humano, a través delempoderamiento de las comunidades locales del destino.Sólo así lograremos el apoyo necesario para que las accionesgeneren polos turísticos más competitivos y sobre todo mássostenibles.

Por lo tanto, el nuevo modelo de desarrollo del turismo dela República Dominicana debe partir de definir y crear, tantola visión compartida, como la estrategia de competitividadsistémica, a fin de alcanzar un crecimiento competitivo ysustentable de la industria turística. Además, debe aprovecharlas nuevas instituciones para desarrollar e impulsar los seispilares que permitirán evolucionar a un modelo de turismode enclave con la comunidad incluida. El principal resultadodeberá reflejarse en conservar el liderazgo en la región yaumentar la competitividad del país como destino de clasemundial en el Caribe.

Altés, C. (2006) “El turismo en América Latina y el Caribey la experiencia del BID” (pp.1-5, 18, 32), Banco Intera-mericano de Desarrollo, Washington, D.C.

Banco Central de la República Dominicana datos disponiblesen su página de internet: http://www.bancentral.gov.do/estadisticas.asp?a=Sector_Turismo

Blande, J., Thea C. (2007), Edit. “Travel and Tourism Com-petitiveness Report” (pp. xiii-xxviii), Foro EconómicoMundial de Davos.

Instituto de Competitividad Sistémica y Desarrollo y ConsejoNacional de Competitividad de la República Dominicana,

2007, “Plan Nacional de Competitividad Sistémica dela República Dominicana (PNCS-RD)” (pp. 69-78), SantoDomingo, República Dominicana.

Organización Mundial de Turismo (OMT) datos tomadosde la base de datos de la OMT en noviembre del 2006.Se hace un comparativo entre los años 2000 y 2005.

SECTUR (2004), “Turismo Alternativo una Nueva Forma deHacer Turismo” (pp. 9-12), México.

Villareal, Rene y Rocío de Villareal (2001), “México Competitivo2020, Un Modelo de Competitividad Sistémica para elDesarrollo” (pp. 99-117) Editorial Océano, México D.F.

Referencias

■ René Villareal es Doctor en economía por la Universidad de Yale, obtuvo el Premio Nacional de Economía en 1976por su tesis "Industrialización, Competitividad y Desequilibrio Externo en México: Un Enfoque Macroindustrial yFinanciero 1929-2010". Actualmente es Presidente del Centro de Capital Intelectual y Competitividad (CECIC) consede en la Ciudad de México, que es la institución Asociada del Foro Económico Mundial de Davos para la elaboracióndel Reporte Global de Competitividad.

■ Andrés van der Horst posee un Máster en Marketing y Comercio Internacional de la Escuela de Alta Dirección yAdministración de la Universidad de Barcelona, así como un Máster en Gerencia Estratégica de la Universidad deMiami. Ha realizado estudios de postgrado en el Institute of Strategy and Competitiveness, el John F. Kennedy Schoolof Government, Harvard Law School, MIT IESE entre otros. Director Ejecutivo del Consejo Nacional de Competitividadde la República Dominicana, del cual fue fundador.

Nota biográfica

René VillarealWorld Trade CenterMontecito No. 38, piso 21, Ofic. 21 y 22Colonia Nápoles, 03810, México, D.F.E-mail: [email protected]ágina web: http://www.cecicmx.com

Andrés van der HorstAve. John F. Kennedy No. 16Edificio Empresarial, 1er pisoMiraflores, Santo DomingoRepública DominicanaE-mail: [email protected]

Contacto:


Sustainable tourism in small islandjurisdictions with special reference to Malta

Lino BriguglioIslands and Small States Institute, c/o Economics Department, University of Malta

Introduction■ Sustainable tourism is often discussed in terms of thebalance between economic and environmental concerns(Briguglio et al., 1996). It is well known that many, if notall, economic activities have an impact on the environmentand that this has a feedback effect on the economy itself.This is especially so in the case of tourism which utilisesthe environment as a resource.

In many small island tourist jurisdictions, tourism gene-rates considerable income and employment, but at thesame time it causes environmental degradation. Thispaper will present many examples of this reality.

The paper is divided in six sections. Section 2, whichfollows this introduction, briefly discusses the dependenceon tourism of small island jurisdictions. Section 3 assessesthe economic impact of tourism on the economy of theMaltese Islands, while Section 4 deals with environmentalimpact of tourism on the same Islands. Some pre-emptiveand corrective measures for the promotion of sustainabletourism are suggested in section 5. Section 6 concludesthe paper on the optimistic note that tourism itself issharpening our awareness of the evils of environmentaldegradation, and that this could be conducive towardsthe adoption of sustainable tourism policies and measures.

■ The paper deals with the delicate balance betweenthe economic benefits and the environmental damageof tourism, with special reference to small island juris-dictions. Most economic activities have a negative impacton the environment and very often such environmentaldamage has undesirable repercussions on the economy.This is especially so in the case of the tourist industrywhich depends heavily on environmental services.

The paper discusses the dependence on tourism of smallisland jurisdictions and assesses the economic and envi-ronmental impacts of tourism in Malta. The paper alsosuggests pre-emptive and corrective measures for thepromotion of sustainable tourism. The paper ends onthe optimistic note that tourism itself is sharpening ourawareness of the evils of environmental degradation,and that this could be conducive towards the adoptionof sustainable tourism policies and measures.

Keywords:sustainable tourism, insular tourism, Malta

Abstract

■ El presente artículo versa sobre el delicado equilibrioentre los beneficios económicos y el daño medioambientaldel turismo, con especial referencia a las jurisdiccionesde islas pequeñas. La mayoría de actividades económicastienen un impacto negativo en el ambiente y muy amenudo este daño medioambiental repercute de formaindeseable en la economía. Esto es especialmente ciertoen el caso de la industria turística que depende fuerte-mente de los servicios medioambientales.

El artículo trata de la dependencia del turismo en lasjurisdicciones de islas pequeñas y evalúa los impactosmedioambiental y económico del turismo en Malta. Elartículo asimismo sugiere medidas preventivas y correc-toras para la promoción del turismo sostenible. El articulofinaliza con la nota optimista de que el propio turismoestá aguzando nuestra conciencia sobre los males de ladegradación medioambiental, y esto podría conducir ala adopción de políticas y medidas de turismo sostenible.

Palabras clave:turismo sostenible, turismo insular, Malta

Resumen

29 V1.1.2008

30 V1.1.2008

Small islands states and tourism

■ The relatively high dependence of small island jurisdic-tions on tourism means, among other things, that a largeproportion of employment occurs in the tourist industryor in tourism-related activities. It is not always possibleto give precise estimates of such employment because itdoes not occur solely in activities usually associated withtourism, such as hotels, restaurants, airports, seaports,transport, travel agencies, souvenir shops and restaurants,but also in agriculture, fishing, banking, printing, and otheractivities with which the tourists do not come directly incontact, including sections of the public sector.

Tourism is also thought to have a relatively large multipliereffect (see Archer, 1982; Briguglio, 1992) due to the factthat its import content is relatively small compared, forexample, to merchandise, given that it has a large services

content and also because of its relatively large inter-industry linkages.

Tourism is also economically important because it is asource of foreign exchange. Many small island jurisdictionswould register large balance of payments deficits in theabsence of proceeds from tourism.

There are also a number of indirect advantages associatedwith tourism which have an impact on the material well-being of the local population of many small island juris-dictions. These include a renewed interest in local artsand crafts, improvements in educational, leisure, commu-nication, medical and other facilities in the host countries,a general awareness of the natural and man-made aestheticassets, and a broadening in the outlook of the islanders.

The economic benefits

■ Tourism in such jurisdictions, however, tends to usherin a number of undesirable economic effects.

Tourists exert demand on the public infrastructure, suchas roads, water and electricity, for which they are notnormally charged. In addition, the governments of hostcountries often undertake relatively large advertisingexpenditures. If tourists’ expenditure is netted out so asto take on board the economic price that the host countrypays to attract tourists, the economic contribution oftourism would be much smaller than that usually reported.

In addition, inward tourist traffic is often determined byforeign-owned tour operators who often have enoughbargaining power to dictate tourism matters, includingprices, in the host countries. Also larger-scale touristestablishments in small island jurisdictions tend to be

foreign-owned, and this leads to incomes flowing out ofthe host country.

A related problem is that tourism as an industry dependson the whims and fancies of foreign travellers, whosedecision to visit a particular island are influenced to avery large extent by conditions outside the control of theisland itself; these include economic conditions in theircountry of origin and reports in the popular press aboutisland destinations.

Other economic pitfalls often associated with tourism inany country, but which are especially significant in smallislands due to their relative large dependence on thisform of economic activity; include pronounced seasonalunemployment and rapid increases in the price of land,often accompanied by land speculation.

Undesirable economic effects

■ In the absence of tourism, small island jurisdictionswould still have faced environmental problems associatedwith their geographical and natural characteristics. They

tend to have unique and fragile ecosystems. Economicdevelopment in many such islands has led to a rapid lossof biodiversity. The rich endemicity of species in many

The environmental impacts

■ Small island jurisdictions tend to find it very difficultto compete international in the production of manufac-tured products and agriculture, mostly due to their limitedability to reap the benefits of economies of scale. This isnot the case in tourism, in which many small islandjurisdictions enjoy a competitive advantage due to theirnatural attractions, such as a pleasant climate, sandybeaches and an exotic image. As a result, many smallisland jurisdictions depend heavily on tourism for their

economic development (McElroy, 2003, Ellul, 1999;McElroy and Olazarri, 1997; Liu and Jenkins, 1996).

Many governments of such jurisdictions attempt to maxi-mise their island’s tourism potential through public sectorinvestment or the encouragement of private enterprise,this often leading to the “development” of the coastalareas, enhanced air and sea links with other countriesand expensive publicity campaigns.

The Economic Benefits of Tourism

Lino Briguglio

31 V1.1.2008

small island jurisdictions, an outcome of their insularity,frequently renders their contribution to global biodiversityproportionately larger in comparison to their size.

Islands also have a relatively large coastal zone in relationto the landmass. Thus, a relatively large proportion ofland is exposed to forces that lead to coastal erosion.Also, many such islands are located in areas, affected byextreme events such as cyclones. A number of low-lyingsmall islands are also very vulnerable to climate changeand sea-level rise.

Many of these environmental impacts are of courseexacerbated by tourism. International communications,for example, are required even in the absence of tourism,but the increased traffic caused by tourism places severestrains on many islands. Airports and seaports in islandstake up very large areas in proportion to the total spaceavailable, posing increased land-use pressure, as well asair and sea pollution. In the case of air traffic, flying craftalso contribute considerably to noise pollution, oftenaffecting practically the whole population of small islands.

The large amount of waste generated by tourist-relatedactivity gives rise to major waste management problems,leading to health hazards (including habitats for rats andother vermin, and toxic substances seeping throughaquifers) and reducing the aesthetic qualities of the place.

Of particular importance in the case of small islandjurisdictions is the fact that tourism is generally of acoastal nature. Many charming fishing villages in smallislands have been transformed into tourist playgrounds,many mangrove swamps and wetlands have been des-troyed, many beautiful beaches have been polluted bysewage emissions, and many coastal areas are subjectedto noise and fuel pollution from seacraft.

Tourism may also cause inland problems. For example,in islands where eco-tourism is being promoted (as is thecase in Dominica), distances are so short that ecologicallyimportant areas are also easily accessible to tourists whomay not have a special interest in ecological matters. Asa result tourists, sometimes unknowingly, may damagedelicate vegetation and their presence may threaten rarespecies. In islands where cultural tourism is promoted,as is the case in Malta, considerable damage is caused tohistorical places through frequent tourist visitations.

Another problem faced by small island jurisdictions isrelated to population density and carrying capacity. Manyislands experience high tourism densities in relation totheir population and land area. The concept of carryingcapacity is very important in this regard, since smallislands tend to very quickly reach that threshold levelbeyond which the natural ecosystem will be irreversibledamaged (McElroy and de Albuquerque, 1998: 164).

■ Such benefits and downsides of tourism are, of course,not present in equal doses in all small island jurisdictions,since different islands have different characteristics.Some are more isolated and more remote than others,

some are smaller than others and some are more envi-ronmentally fragile than others.The next two sections will describe the specific expe-riences of a small island developing state, namely Malta.

The balance

■ Malta is a small Mediterranean island with a populationof just over 400,000 and a land area of 316 square kilo-metres. This means that the population density is around1280 persons per square kilometre. The Maltese GDP atfactor cost amounted to approximately US$5.5 billion in2006. In recent years, about 20 per cent of the Maltese

GDP was contributed by the manufacturing sector, about52 per cent by market services and 20 per cent by thepublic sector. The agriculture, fishing, construction andquarrying sectors, taken together, contributed around 8per cent of GDP. The unemployment rate in Malta inrecent years averaged about 5.5 per cent.

Profile of tourists visiting Malta

■ The adverse environmental affects just described areto an extent mitigated by some positive ones, as thereare instances where tourism can actually be conducivetowards the protection of the environment. One reasonfor this is that tourism tends to create an awareness thatthe country needs to be attractive, that the air needs tobe clean and that the sea needs to be unpolluted. In thecase of many small island jurisdictions campaigns forprotecting biodiversity and keeping the island clean are

often based on the need to keep the place attractive fortourism.

Also, on a policy level, the dependence on tourism oftenforces the authorities of the islands to take a more seriousview of planning, monitoring and market-based incentives,precisely because in the absence of such measures, thenegative effects of tourism on the environment could, inthe long run, destroy tourism itself.

Can tourism help the environment?

Sustainable tourism in small island jurisdictions with special reference to Malta

32 V1.1.2008

Earnings from tourism averaged about Lm260 millionannually (about US$800 million at 2006 exchange rates)during the period 2001 to 2006, as shown in Table 1.This however excludes transportation and package tours.If these are included the amount spent by tourists wouldbe in the region of Lm421 million (about US$1.3 billion)during the same period. The contribution of tourism toGDP is estimated to be about 15 per cent between 2000and 2001. It should be noted here that there is no official

figure for the contribution of tourism to the MalteseGDP. The 15 per cent contribution was calculated bythe present author, basing on tourism expenditure (traveland transport) net of imports. Some Malta TourismAuthority publications, including Mangion (1999), esti-mate that the contribution of tourism to GDP is in theregion of 24 per cent. The present author is of theopinion that the MTA figures overstate the importanceof tourism.

1960196519701975198019851990199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006

1968947804

170853332850725580517274877169

111580910635941122650119813312301261215713118075511322771118236115768111706101124233

NaNa

14.213.913.212.210.99.8109.79.59.58.49.49.4

10.19.79.59.5

NaNa

24310004633339958765063034949603532

109187231066525310938986113256111165824510266188110668131059920611293223111746011108580110656459

86761693764998492196019643650566247721669240

126645144064187838171371265431349046389477291821320306408046

1.01.99.8

28.1111.969.8

157.4232.8228.9249.8254.6271.4268.2260.7245.7261.5269.1262.3260.6

YearNumber Average

nights stayedTotal nights

stayed by tourists

CruisePassengers

Earnings fromTourist Lm Milion

Stay-over Tourists

Table 1. Tourism inflows and earnings

Source: Data for number of tourists and cruise passengers is obtained from Tourism Statistics (various years) published by the National StatisticsOffice. Data for earnings is obtained from Balance of Payments Statistics (various years) also published by the National Statistics Office

■ In 2006, the number of visitors to Malta amounted to1,532,279 of whom about 73 per cent were stay-overtourists and the remaining 27 per cent cruise passengers.The number of incoming tourists increased rapidly bet-ween 1960 and 1980. There was a relatively large decrease

in tourist inflows between 1980 and 1985, as can be seenin Table 1, but the numbers picked up rapidly againduring the last half of the Eighties and throughout theNineties. Incoming tourism slowed down during the2000-2006 period.

Tourism flows and earnings

■ Tourist densities in Malta are very high. In the past sixyears, the total annual number of tourists amounted toalmost three times as much as the resident population,which can be roughly translated into about 8 per cent ofthe resident population, given that on average, each

tourist stayed in Malta for about 9.6 nights. As expected,such a high density exerts heavy pressure on the environ-ment and infrastructure of the Islands, where the residentpopulation density is already extremely high, as alreadyexplained.

Tourism densities

Lino Briguglio

33 V1.1.2008

■ In 2006, about 38 per cent of tourists originated fromthe United Kingdom, which is the most important touristmarket for Malta. The second largest market is Germany,which contributed some 11 per cent of tourists to Maltain recent years. Italy, France, North Africa and theNetherlands are also major markets for tourism to Malta.Between 1995 and 2006 there was a tendency for thepercentage of British tourists to decrease.

Malta is not among the cheaper destination in theMediterranean. Prices advertised on brochures of major

tour operators offering package holidays to Malta are onthe expensive side when compared to similar packagetours to Spain and Greece. A study comparing cost oftourist packages to Malta, carried out by Briguglio andVella (1995), found similar results for the first half of thenineties. For this reason, one would not expect a verylarge percentage of incoming tourists to be low-incomeearners. This is confirmed by MTA survey results for theBritish market which indicate that a large proportion ofsummer tourists in 2006 were managers, directors orbelong to the professions (see Malta Tourism Authority,

Nationality and social background

■ Tourism in Malta is very seasonal, with the majorityof incoming tourists arriving in the May to Octoberperiod. In 2006, about 66 per cent of tourists arrivedduring these months; 44 per cent arrived during theshoulder months and 37 per cent during the summer

months (July to September). The remaining 19 per centarrived during the November to February period (thewinter months). This, of course, means that the pro-blem of tourist densities is exacerbated in the summermonths.

Seasonal pattern

■ The average length of stay per tourist tended todecrease from about 9.8 nights in 1995 to about 9.5nights in 2006. It was close to 14 nights during theSeventies and decreased to about 12 nights during theEighties, as shown in Table 1. The overall average length

of stay conceals considerable differences among thedifferent categories of tourists. Tourists staying in 3-starhotels and tourist villages tend to stay longer than thosestaying in other hotel categories. The shortest stayspertain to tourists in 5-star hotels.

Average duration of stay

■ In the tourism profile surveys carried out by the MaltaTourism Authority (Malta Tourism Authority, 2007)tourists identify the agreeable climate as the primarymotive for visiting Malta. Although Malta is rich in historyand culture, these assets are not really major motivators,although they add to Malta’s appeal. The use of Englishas well as the hospitality and friendliness of the Maltesepeople are also given high scores. Many visitors to Maltamay be considered as quasi-tourists. These include two

relatively large categories, namely English-language lear-ners and “retirement” migrants. In recent years, Maltahas become a very attractive destination for English-language learning. The English language is widely spokenin Malta and the many language schools provide servicesfor over 60,000 students. Many foreign citizens, particu-larly British ones, spend part of the year in Malta. Thesetwo categories of quasi-tourists have the advantage ofoften being off-peak visitors.

Motives for visiting Malta

Tourism economic and environmental impacts in Malta

■ The direct contribution of tourism to the economy canbe measured in terms of its contributions to GDP, to thebalance of payments and to gainful employment. As alreadystated, in recent years, tourist expenditure directly contri-buted around 15 per cent of the Maltese Gross DomesticProduct and 25 per cent of foreign exchange inflows fromexports of goods and services. Multiplier analysis relatedto Maltese incoming tourism would seem to indicate thattourism expenditure tends to have a higher multipliereffect than the bulk of merchandise exports, since thevalue added content of production associated with tourismtends to be relatively high (Briguglio, 1992, Mangion, 1999).

Tourism also contributed to the domestic economythrough international transportation, since a considerablenumber of incoming tourists use the national carrier, AirMalta, in scheduled flights and charter hire. In addition,incoming tourists generate income for Malta InternationalAirport.

There are no published statistics on the total contributionof tourism to gainful employment in Malta. As alreadystated, it is not an easy task to measure this contribution,since tourist expenditure generates employment inalmost all economic sectors. The figures usually given

The impact on the Maltese economy


34 V1.1.2008

for employment generated by tourists in Malta relateto hotels and catering establishments, which are assumedto be mostly geared to international tourism. As at end2006, about 8,750 full-time workers and another 8,300part-time workers were employed in hotels and restau-rants. This is equivalent to about 9 per cent of the totalgainfully occupied population. This, of course, doesnot represent the entire employment generated by

international tourism. A portion of employment in othersectors of the economy (such as banks and retail outlets)also serves tourists’ needs. A “guestimate” of the totalemployment generated by international tourism is about21,000, assuming that employment generated by tourismas a ratio of total employment is 15 per cent, reflectingthe contribution of tourist expenditure (including trans-port) to GDP.

■ Although, as argued above, environmental problemsin small islands should not be exclusively blamed ontourism, it cannot be denied that tourism development

does pose a major problem in this regard. This sectionlists the most important areas where, in Malta, the envi-ronmental impact of tourism is most conspicuous.

The impact of tourism on the Maltese environment

■ Building of tourist accommodation, notably hotelsand blocks of flats, has increased at a very rapid rate asa result of intensive tourism development in certainareas. The St. Paul’s Bay area and the Sliema/St. Juliansarea have been completely transformed by such deve-lopment.

Other negative outcomes of this development includethe intense noise arising from construction activity, thevast amount of waste material and dust from demolishedstructures and from excavations. Newly developed tourist

structures, sometimes forming a whole village, have alsoobliterated habitats in the Maltese countryside.

Additional negative tourism impacts are associated withaesthetics, especially where new high-rise concrete struc-tures have replaced beautiful traditional Maltese houses.Moreover, since limestone is used extensively in building,ancillary activities in quarrying have given rise to unsightlyscars in many parts of the Maltese islands, besides causingconsiderable environmental damage to natural habitatsand water tables.

Increase in demand for building

■ The sewage network in Malta is very heavily utilisedby local residents alone. The relatively large number oftourists intensifies this problem. One outcome of thisreality is that, in recent years, a number of popular bayswere closed for swimming due to sewage pollution. Thishas caused considerable discomfort associated with foulsmells and inability to swim in the bays, and, perhapsmore importantly, has damaged marine and coastal lifeand induced an accumulation of toxic substances inmarine organisms. This problem will soon, however, bepractically solved due to the construction of sewagetreatment plants, set to be completed by late 2008.However, constructing and running the plants is still avery expensive exercise. No serious study has been carriedout to estimate how much liquid waste is generated bytourists, but one can presume that 8 per cent annualresident equivalent could produce 8 per cent of the annualliquid waste, and possibly more, due to the fact thattourists are likely to use bathrooms and sanitary facilitiesmore often than the locals.

The generation of construction and household waste bythe resident population is also a major problem in Maltadue to the very high population density, and tourismtends to accentuate it. Up to 2005, a huge waste disposalarea, called Maghtab, became a very visible mound withina short distance of tourist and residential centres. Againhere, no serious study has been carried out to estimatehow much waste was generated by tourists, but an 8 percent annual increase in construction and household wastewould be a plausible assumption.

In addition, tourism tends to increase the use of environ-mentally dangerous products, such as plastic containersand emissions of toxic gases from cars, power stations,and barbecue grills. Added to this, there are other sourcesof harmful waste, which occur as a result of trafficcongestion, incoming aeroplanes and cruise ships andair-conditioning units. Again here it should be said thatthe main culprits in this regard are local residents, buttourism intensifies the generation of harmful waste.

Increased waste management problems

■ Tourism has intensified the demand for transport, accommo-dation and beach use. This has led to increased destruction ofhabitats (especially beach habitats). Habitat destruction is however

not confined to coastal tourism. High visitation rates to archaeo-logical and historical sites tend to have a negative impact onthese sites, especially on the fragile archaeological one.

Destruction of habitats

Lino Briguglio

35 V1.1.2008

■ A note on the environmental impact of non-tourismeconomic activities is in order here. Although tourism isoften associated with environmental degradation, itshould be kept in mind that non-tourism activities alsohave major negative impacts on the environment and,therefore, the fact that tourism harms the environmentshould not be considered as a case for alternative formsof economic development. In Malta, for example, themanufacturing industry, with its reliance on fuel for

machinery and its high rate of water consumption, mayat times be more environmentally unfriendly than tourism.The agriculture sector, with its reliance on pesticides andfertilizers, also brings about irreversible environmentaldamage to habitats and human health. The constructionsector is also very harmful to the environment and tohuman health. To be sure, no economic activity is envi-ronmentally neutral, and tourism is not always the worstculprit in this regard.

Is tourism the worst culprit?

■ Although tourism has many negative environmentalimpacts, and the list presented above is by no means exhaus-tive, it also has a number of positive environmental effects.

Tourism has increased environmental awareness amongthe Maltese population. Factors such as waste manage-

ment, clean bathing waters, coastal zone managementand well-planned land use works in favour of tourismand, as a result, the need to attract tourists has led theresident population to assign more importance to envi-ronmental protection than would have been the case inthe absence of tourism.

Some environmental benefits of tourism in Malta

■ As already explained, in Malta, the economic contributionof tourism is relatively large and the authorities would liketo see it grow, even though it is known that such activityhas major negative environmental impacts. The economicbenefits derived by Malta from tourism are formidable andthe issue here does not therefore relate as to whether or not

Malta should continue to derive income and generate em-ployment from tourism, but rather how best to reduce theenvironmental and social harm caused by this type ofeconomic activity. The remedies often suggested in thisregard relate to the development of alternative forms oftourism or through certain pre-emptive and corrective

Pre-emptive and corrective measures

■ Similar to many other small island jurisdictions, theMaltese tourism authorities and the operators in theindustry attempt to attract as many tourists as possible,no matter how much pressure is exerted on the infras-tructure and the environment. Admittedly, there is con-siderable talk about carrying capacity constraints (MTA,2002; Mangion, 2001), but the tourism authorities gene-rally measure success in terms of the number of touristsarriving in Malta. The chances are, however, that thestructure of tourist inflows will not change drastically inthe foreseeable future, due mostly to the economic bene-fits of “mainstream” tourism, defined here as coastaltourism seeking sun, sea and sand destinations.

The question arises here as to whether or not small islandslike Malta could reduce their dependence on mass or“mainstream” tourism and instead foster alternatives,

such as cultural tourism, eco-tourism, retirement tourism,health tourism and so on.

In general, what is termed “alternative” tourism is oftenvery small scale, and not sufficiently financially rewardingon its own. In the case of Malta, for example, there wouldseem to be a very attractive case for promoting culturaltourism given that the islands have a rich historical andarchaeological heritage. However, relying on this formof tourism alone is unlikely to be viable. Most touristswho come to Malta state categorically in the varioussurveys on Maltese tourism that they visit the Islandsmostly because of its Mediterranean climate, and its seaand sun (Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2003).

Also, Malta’s Mediterranean location to an extent condi-tions the type of its tourist inflows. In all tourist brochures,

“Alternative” tourism

■ Tourism may have been an important factor in the revivalof certain traditional arts and crafts such as lace-making,filigree work and pottery. Demand by tourists for theseproducts has rendered their production economically viable.Malta is renowned for its wealth of historical and archaeolo-

gical heritage, which, before the advent of large-scale tourism,were probably not appreciated enough. The places of culturalimportance are, even now, more valued by tourists than bythe locals. However awareness of cultural heritage amongthe Maltese population has increased as a result of tourism.

Other benefits of tourism


36 V1.1.2008

Malta is ‘sold’ as a sea-and-sun destination, with thecultural heritage as an added bonus. Malta’s climaticendowments sell and, as is well known, these attractionsappeal mostly to what one may call “mainstream” tourists.

Another factor which may not permit drastic diversifica-tion towards “alternative” tourism relates to the existingstructures of hotel and tourist facilities, which are gearedmostly to “mainstream” tourism. It will not make muchsense for the authorities to force the existing hotels,which operate on the basis of the profit motive, to operateat very low occupancy rates.

In general, measures that reduce tourism inflows arelikely to have a negative impact on the economy, giventhat from each tourist there is at least a net contributionto the Islands’ GDP and gainful employment. Eventually,there will be a slowing down of the rate of increase of

tourist inflows in Malta, but this will probably not bethe result of a pre-determined government policy, butrather an outcome of the constraints arising from thecarrying capacity of the Islands.

One is tempted to conclude therefore that, at least in thecase of Malta reliance on “alternative” forms of tourismis viable only if these supplement traditional “mainstream”tourism.

These realities by no means contradict the argument thatmainstream tourism is associated with certain environ-mental dangers and negative social impacts. The thrustof the argument here is that, given the attraction of“mainstream” tourism on economic grounds, pre-emptiveand corrective measures to reduce its negative impactsmay be more meaningful and operationally useful thanpolicies to reduce the inflows.

■ Self-regulation can be advocated as a means of reducingthe negative environmental impact of tourism. As hasbeen pointed out earlier, it is in the interests of the tourismindustry itself to protect the environment. Moreover, insome cases, firms can make substantial financial savingsby promoting good environmental practices such as forexample, laundering of linen on request only, and time-switching of electric lighting and air conditioners.

Self-regulation and voluntary action can be stimulatedthrough what are known as Eco-labels, which are recog-nised, credible certification schemes. In the case of tourismthese are often employed for accommodation services andare aimed at rewarding accommodations with good envi-

ronmental performance. This also helps environmentally-minded tourists to choose their accommodation, as hotelsand guesthouses that display the eco-label logo wouldsignal their environmental friendliness (Hamele, 2002).

Yet past experience in Malta has shown that self-regulationalone may not be sufficient to ensure adequate environ-mental protection. This is especially so for hotel operatorswho pursue short-term gains. It would be wishful thinkingto expect, for example, that such operators would noterect structures on beaches if no control by the authoritieswere in place. There exists a case, therefore, for govern-ment intervention of various forms, ranging from planningand monitoring to direct control.

Self-regulation and labelling

■ In a small island state where land is one of the scarcestcommodities, legal constraints as to land use are indis-pensable. In Malta, such constraints have, in recentyears, been placed within the framework of the nationalStructure Plan and a series of local plans, with the aimof regulating development. Although the legally bindingStructure Plan is not site specific, it recognises the severeland-use competition in the Maltese Islands but alsosuggests proactive measures for the enhancement ofthe environment, as well as other measures to ensure

efficient use of resources and a better quality of life inthe Islands.

Inevitably, tourism-related developments feature promi-nently in the Structure Plan. Before the introduction ofthe Plan, haphazard tourism development was the orderof the day. There is now a general consensus in Maltathat planning of tourism structures is essential, primarilybecause of the growing concern about their impact onthe environment.

Government intervention: Legal controls and planning

■ Planning generally involves direction-setting on thebasis of overarching policies. In the case of land usemore specific measures involving a project-by-projectassessment, are required. It may be necessary to examinecertain individual project proposals before their com-mencement, in order to reduce the chances of conflict

between an individual project and the Plan’s overallobjectives. Environmental and social impact assessmentsare generally undertaken for this purpose. Such assess-ments contain a description of the potential direct,indirect and induced effects on the environment and onsociety at large.

Impact assessments

Lino Briguglio

37 V1.1.2008

The exercise is often accompanied by suggestions as to howthe adverse environmental and social effects can be mitigated.The negative impact should of course be compared to thepositive economic impact – an exercise which requires theparticipation of expertise from different fields, including thephysical sciences and economics. These types of assessmentsare especially important for projects associated with tourism,where an array of considerations is involved other thaneconomic benefits, including land use, protection of theenvironment, transport planning, and social impacts.

In Malta, environmental impact assessments are requiredby law for projects that are likely to have a “substantial”impact on the environment (see Planning Authority, 1994).Since the coming into effect of this requirement, therehas been a slowing down of developments which harmthe environment. This requirement, however, has alsogiven rise to what has been described as unacceptablebureaucratic delays, and there is a feeling of dissatisfactionamong developers whose proposals are trapped in anoverly long waiting list.

■ Many environmental problems arising from tourismare associated with the absence of standards and effectivemonitoring. Certain activities need to be controlled andmonitored on an ongoing basis, either because they causedamage due to certain unforeseen circumstances, orbecause, with improved knowledge, the requirements ofenvironmental protection may become more stringentover time.

Monitoring implies setting quality and quantity standardsand codes of good practice in the first place. In the caseof tourism this could include, for example, levels ofpermitted tourist capacity in certain beaches, maximumlevels of pollution (arising from waste, fuel and noise),and so on. The monitoring exercise would then involveassessing the degree of compliance with these standardsand codes by the industry itself within a self-regulatoryregime or by the public authorities in a command andcontrol framework.

Such standards have their downside, as they can createrigidity when circumstances change; a certain degree offlexibility, according to environmental and other circums-tances should therefore be allowed. For instance, standardscan be varied as waste disposal becomes more efficient,or as public transport becomes more commonly used andcan effectively replace hired private transport.

The legal and institutional set-up in Malta is sufficientlydeveloped to enable the Government to set standards andback them by legal measures. Unfortunately, certain stan-dards are difficult to enforce, either because of lack ofinspectorate or policing personnel or due to non-availabilityof technical tools for proper assessment and monitoring.There may also be lack of will to enforce certain standardsdue to the negative impacts on business or to possible lossof votes to the party in government. In Malta, enforcementproblems are now probably the main reason why environ-mental degradation still takes place at an unacceptable level.

Setting standards and monitoring

■ Given that legislation is not always effective, especiallybecause it requires a well-developed enforcement appa-ratus, and self-regulation is not forthcoming from theprivate sector, economic instruments may need to be putin place to allow the market itself to reduce environmentaldamage. Instruments such as taxes, fees and subsidiescan be used to actually alter prices in order to cover alsoenvironmental costs. Unfortunately, such instruments arenot commonly used in Malta with regard to tourism.

The most important advantage of these methods is thatthey provide an incentive for the tourism operators to

economise on environmentally damaging activities in waysthat ensure an efficient allocation of environmental resour-ces, hence promoting their sustainable use. Such methodsalso provide an incentive for the development of techno-logical improvements to limit pollution activities. Chargesalso represent a source of revenue which can subsequentlybe used to offset subsidies for environmentally beneficialactivities or to manage environmental resources.

Finally, such instruments foster the awareness that pollutionand environmental services do come at a cost, even if thisis not usually demonstrated in terms of market prices.

Economic instruments: Internalising costs

■ One of the problems associated with tourism inflowsin a small island is that such inflows tend to be concen-trated in some locations and in some months. In theMaltese Islands such concentration is very pronouncedand poses serious threats to the environment. This sug-gests that if the impact could be spread, the carrying

capacity of the Islands would be less taxed and subse-quently the environment less threatened. This argument,however, has its weakness since the negative impacts oftourism would then extend to areas which are as yetunspoilt and the host community would not have a“quiet” season.

Spreading the Impact


38 V1.1.2008

■ This paper has described the most important economicand environmental impacts on small island jurisdictions,and Malta was used as an example. It was shown that theeconomic benefits of tourism are often very large in suchjurisdictions. It has also been argued that the negativeimpacts on the environment in these same jurisdictionstend also to be relatively large, mostly due to low carryingcapacities and high population densities. The objective ofsustainable tourism is therefore not very easy to attain, andit often involves walking on a very tight rope.

The paper has argued that a policy of reducing tourist inflowswould not find much support – except perhaps among thosevery keen on environmental protection – in an island wherea large proportion of national income, foreign exchangeinflows and employment is generated from tourism andtourism-related activities, and where tourism growth hasbeen instrumental in securing a respectable level of materialwelfare for the citizens, albeit accompanied by considerableenvironmental damage was caused. It was therefore sugges-ted that there is the need to find ways of minimising envi-ronmental damage without compromising the current andfuture economic well-being of the host country.

A few pre-emptive and corrective methods towards thisend have been described, although it was shown thattheir success cannot be guaranteed. Voluntary self-regulation, planning, carrying out impact assessments,setting and monitoring standards and internalising envi-ronmental costs are likely to halt the pace of environmentaldamage.

Like all other economic activities, tourism will never beenvironmentally neutral. Hotels will always emit sewerage,tourists will always add to the space constraints in islandswhere space is very scarce, air, land and sea-based trafficwill continue to pollute the air with fumes and noise.

Fortunately, tourism, being natural resource based, hasquickly made the host island more appreciative of thebenefits that are offered by the environment. In addition,as goods, such as clean air, clear seas and quiet spaces,previously abundant and free, become scarce, peopletend to become more and more aware that environmentaldegradation is a great loss, not only in terms of long termor sustainable development, but also in terms of currentwell-being.

Conclusions

Archer, B. (1982). “The Value of Tourism Multipliers andtheir Policy Implications,” Tourism Management, Vol. 4,pp. 234-244.

Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2003). Malta Makeover:Prospects for the Realignment of Heritage, Tourismand Development, URSI-report 304, Urban andRegional Studies Institute.

Briguglio, L. (1992). “Tourism Multipliers in the MalteseEconomy”, in P. Johnson and B. Thomas (eds) TourismPerspectives in Tourism Policy, U.K.: Mansell Publishing.

Briguglio L., Archer B., and Jafari, J., (1996). SustainableTourism in Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies.London: Cassell/Pinter

Briguglio, L. and Vella, L. (1995). “The Competitiveness ofthe Maltese Islands in Mediterranean InternationalTourism,” in M. Conlin and T. Baum (eds), IslandTourism: Management, Principles and Practices. U.K.: J.Wiley and Sons.

Ellul, Anthony (1999). “Sustainable Tourism in the IMA-SMTS,” in L. Briguglio (ed.) The Sustainable Developmentof Small Island Developing States in the Indian Ocean,Mediterranean and Atlantic Regions (IMA-SMTS), UNEP.

Hamele, H. (2002). “Eco-labels for Tourism in Europe:Moving the Market towards more SustainablePractices” In Honey, M. (ed), Ecotourism and Certification:Setting Standards in Practice, Island Press.

Liu, Z. and Jenkins, C. L. (1996). “Country Size and TourismDevelopment,” in Sustainable Tourism - Issues and Policies,London: Mansell.

Malta Tourism Authority (2002). Strategic Plan 2002-4:Valletta: Malta Tourism Authority.

Malta Tourism Authority (2007). Market Profile Surveys.available at: http://www.mta.com.mt/index.pl/index.plmalta_tourism_digestmarket_profile_surveys (ac-cessed on 23 July 2007).

Mangion, M. L. (1999). The Economic Impact of Tourism inMalta. Malta Tourism Authority.

Mangion M. L (2001). Carrying Capacity Assessment for Tourismin the Maltese Islands Ministry of Tourism, Valletta

McElroy, J (2003). Tourism Development in Small IslandsAcross the World Geografiska Annaler, Series B: HumanGeography, Vol. 85 (4): 231- 242

McElroy, J, and de Albuquerque, K. (1998). “TourismPenetration Index in Small Caribbean Islands.” Annalsof Tourism Research, Vol. 25(1): 145-168.

McElroy, J. and Olazarri, P. (1997). "A Tourism PenetrationIndex for Small Island Destinations,” Bank of VallettaReview 16 (Autumn, 1997): 1-10

Planning Authority (1994). Policy and Design Guidelines ofEnvironmental Impact Assessment in Malta. Malta:Planning Authority, May.

References

Lino Briguglio

39 V1.1.2008

■ Professor Dr. Lino Briguglio is Head of the Economics Department at the University of Malta, Director of the Islandsand Small States Institute at the Foundation for International Studies and Director of the Malta University Centreon the Island of Gozo. He was awarded a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Exeter (UK) in 1982. Participatedas a consultant in many projects and studies for the European Commission, the United Nations, UNEP, UNDP,UNCTAD, Commonwealth Secretariat, SOPAC and CARICOM. He has represented the Maltese government in manyinternational conferences dealing with islands’ and small states’ affairs.

Biographical notes

Professor Dr. Lino BriguglioIslands and Small States InstituteC/O Economics DepartmentUniversity of MaltaMsida, MaltaEmail: [email protected]

Contact details:


40 V1.1.2008

Turismo de co-creación, valor añadidoen escenarios turísticos

Esther BinkhorstCo-creations, the way to transformations, S.L.

■ En la economía de la experiencia, todos aquellos queofrecen servicios están en constante búsqueda de nuevasmaneras de distinguirse y de captar la atención del cliente.Las reglas sociales de las sociedades actuales están dandopaso a una autonomía comunicativa propia. El enfoquetradicional de arriba abajo, lo que se conoce por topdown, está siendo sustituido por nuevos diálogos entresocios iguales. Los clientes, por lo tanto, están adquiriendomás poder y control. Las innovaciones basadas exclusi-vamente en el producto y en la compañía están siendosustituidas por lo que se ha pasado a denominar laexperiencia de co-creación, un nuevo enfoque que sepresenta como un nuevo valor y como el futuro de lainnovación.

Se han empezado a observar algunos ejemplos de expe-riencia de co-creación en diferentes campos. Sin embargo,en el campo del turismo aún no se ha aplicado, algobastante sorprendente, ya que para muchos países elturismo es la principal fuente de ingresos mientras quepara muchos otros, sobre todo para los países desarro-llados, desempeña un papel clave en la calidad de vida.Es durante el tiempo de ocio cuando la gente expresaesa necesidad de buscar experiencias cada vez más únicasque reflejen sus propias historias personales.

El presente artículo ofrece una nueva e innovadoraperspectiva sobre el turismo en la economía de la expe-riencia basada en el principio de co-creación. La perspec-tiva que concibe el turismo como una red facilita lainclusión de todo aquello relacionado con la co-creaciónde experiencias en turismo, dándole un papel primordialal ser humano.

Palabras clave:economía de la experiencia, co-creación, innovación, turismo

Resumen

■ In the experience economy, suppliers are in search ofnew ways to distinguish themselves and to fight for thecustomer’s attention. Society’s system of social ruling ismaking way for communicative self steering. Dialoguesbetween equal partners replace the traditional top downapproach. Customers are therefore gaining more powerand control. Product and company centric led innovationsare now being taken over by the co-creation experienceas a basis for value and as the future of innovation.

Glimpses of the co-creation experience are observed ina variety of realms but tourism is not yet mentioned asone of them. This is remarkable as for many countriestourism is the number one income generator and formany in the developed world an essential part of theirquality of life. Especially during free time people expresstheir quest for ever more unique experiences reflectingtheir own personal stories.

This article provides an innovative perspective on tourismin the experience economy based on the principle of co-creation. A tourism network approach facilitates theinclusion of anyone and anything eventually involvedin the (co-) creation of tourism experiences with a centralrole for the human being.

Key words:experience economy, co-creation, innovation, tourism

Abstract

■ Durante la última década, muchos han sido los autoresque han dado cuenta de los cambios fundamentales delas sociedades desarrolladas. Obras como “the Attention

Economy” (Davenport y Beck 2001), “Dream Society”(Jensen 1999), “Market of Emotions” (Piët 2004), “the Ageof Access” (Rifkin 2000), “the Support Economy” (Zuboff

Introducción

41 V1.1.2008

2002) o “The Experience Economy” (Pine y Gilmore 1999)son sólo algunos ejemplos. Cada una de estas obrasdescribe tendencias similares desde su propia perspectiva.

De todas ellas, la “Experience Economy” (que hemostraducido por la economía de la experiencia) de Pine yGilmore (1999) ha sido la más discutida de todas. Debidoa la principal característica de la economía actual – laabundancia – los proveedores de productos y serviciosse encuentran ante la dificultad de saber cómo distinguirse.Según Pine y Gilmore (1999), la solución radica en venderexperiencias. Las experiencias pueden “emocionar” a laspersonas mucho más que los productos o servicios. Lasexperiencias son intangibles e inmateriales y, aunquesuelen ser caras, se les suele dar un gran valor, puesto queson memorables. Parece ser, por lo tanto, que ofrecerexperiencias es la manera de sobrevivir en un futuro cadavez más competitivo.

Estas ideas se expusieron a finales del siglo pasado. Lareacción europea a la economía de la experiencia sueleser de cautela ante la creación de experiencias prefabri-cadas consideradas demasiado comerciales, artificiales osuperficiales, no siempre adecuadas para atraer a losclientes de hoy en día (Binkhorst 2002, 2005b, 2006,Boswijk et al. 2005, Nijs y Peters 2002). Los consumidoresactuales buscan experiencias auténticas, enmarcadas enun contexto y que ofrezcan un equilibrio entre el controlpor parte del que ofrece la experiencia y la libertad de laactividad, con una gran dosis de espontaneidad y expre-sión personal.

Algunos autores hacen referencia al concepto de creativi-dad para explicar la razón por la cual el consumo estácada vez más impulsado por la necesidad de desarrollopersonal (Florida 2002, Richards y Wilson 2006). Basándoseen esta necesidad, o como lo denomina Giddens (1990,1991) en “la construcción o la narrativa de uno mismo”,Van der Poel (1993, 1997) ha estudiado la reorganizacióndinámica de la vida diaria en un contexto de modernidad.Utiliza la expresión “modularización de la vida diaria”para referirse a la creciente intercambiabilidad de ladistribución del tiempo. Aquellos módulos que presentenun mayor nivel de interés serán los que el consumidorelegirá. Son los módulos que más se adecuan a esa bús-queda de “la narrativa de uno mismo” por parte delindividuo.

Un módulo puede llegar a transformarse en una valiosaexperiencia. Asimismo, diferentes series de módulos puedenayudar al individuo a desarrollarse e incluso pueden llegara transformarlo. Las condiciones de la vida moderna nospermiten modelar nuestra vida de una manera creativa.Sin embargo ¿podemos hablar de creatividad cuandocreemos que las experiencias son módulos-producto? Elargumento base del presente artículo es que podemos hallarla solución en el concepto de co-creación, ya que ofreceun valor añadido al turismo en la economía de la experiencia.

Los proveedores en el campo del turismo deben hacer frentea una gran competencia del sector, al igual que sucede conproveedores de productos y servicios en cualquier otrocampo. Debido a ello, cualquiera dentro de este campointenta crearse su propia parcela. Así sucede en cualquiercontexto, sea un pequeño pueblo o una gran ciudad, unazona en particular o un país en general, gente local u orga-nizaciones e instituciones que representan la cultura o lanaturaleza locales, etc. Precisamente para evitar que elmundo se convierta en una “aldea global”, la cultura se haconvertido en una fuente importante para exhibir qué es loque hace que una cultura sea única. Sin embargo, los paísesy/o las ciudades han hecho que su cultura se convierta enmódulos-producto. Ejemplos de ello son los museos, festivaleso guías por la ciudad. Por ello, buscan alternativas quepermitan huir de esa reproducción “en serie” de la cultura(Richards y Wilson 2006).

De ese modo, un paquete turístico semejante a otro raravez distinguirá un destino turístico de otro y difícilmentepodrá llegar a “emocionar” a las personas. Y es que hoy endía, el viajante tiene acceso a casi cualquier cosa que desee.Está en permanente búsqueda de unas necesidades psico-lógicas como son la inspiración, la autenticidad, el senti-miento de pertenencia a una comunidad, a unos valores ya un significado valioso (Nijs y Peters 2002, Ter Borg 2003).

El objetivo de este artículo es explorar el concepto de co-creación en el turismo enmarcada en el contexto actual dela economía de la experiencia. En el apartado siguiente sepresenta el concepto de co-creación mientras que el apartadotercero se centra en el turismo como fenómeno en laeconomía de experiencia. Finalmente, el apartado cuartopropone una serie de consejos sobre investigación dirigidostanto al mundo académico como a todas aquellas partesimplicadas en el campo del turismo.

La experiencia de co-creación

■ A medida que los clientes van adquiriendo poder ycontrol, las organizaciones necesitan cada vez más entablarun permanente diálogo con ellos. Prahalad y Ramaswamy(2004) abogan por la experiencia de co-creación como

base al valor añadido y al futuro de la innovación, esdecir, la economía de la experiencia de “segundageneración” o de “futura práctica”. Afirman que la co-creación no debería considerarse como una mera exter-

Clientes y diseñadores

Turismo de co-creación, valor añadido en escenarios turísticos

42 V1.1.2008

nalización o como una mínima adaptación de los bieneso productos como si fueran hechos a medida. Los consu-midores quieren mucho más. Existe una necesidad decrear un valor específico y significativo para los consumi-dores individuales a través de una interacción personalcon la empresa (Boswijk et al. 2005).

Ter Borg (2003) afirma que la propia experiencia de co-creación es la base de un valor único para cada individuo.Las “experiencias de primera generación” se remontan afinales de los años 90 y se caracterizan meramente porun ocio y un entretenimiento “prefabricado”. Tras ellassurgieron las “experiencias de segunda generación”, ba-sadas en la co-creación y que parten del individuo comopunto de partida. Este tipo de experiencias van dirigidasa los valores personales, sociales y culturales que guardael propio individuo (Boswijk et al. 2005:43).

Sin embargo, cabe decir que la mayoría de empresas yde directivos aún siguen innovando basándose en elproducto como eje central. Tras una etapa de éxito debidaa la mera coincidencia de unos productos o servicios biendiseñados que, de repente, gozan de un alto aprecio enel mercado especializado, el crecimiento acaba por obligara esas compañías a realizar estudios de mercado con elobjetivo de conocer los gustos del cliente. Aquellas com-pañías que no logran llevar a cabo dichos estudios suelencontratar un servicio de consultoría con el fin de buscarsoluciones para sus clientes.

Es importante señalar que, a menudo, los estudios habi-tuales acaban dando como resultado un “más de lomismo”. Sin embargo, algunos estudios se especializanen innovaciones basadas en investigaciones etnográficaso sobre individuos. Por ejemplo, en la compañía PhilipsDesign, hay un equipo de investigación que trabajaconstantemente en la innovación sobre nuevos estudiossobre individuos como tema central. Este enfoque es unade sus herramientas más innovadoras. Los estudios dejande centrarse cada vez más en el comportamiento y el uso

de los productos del consumidor para pasar a investigarlas propias necesidades de los individuos. Por lo tanto, alos individuos se les estudia en sus contextos cotidianoscon el fin de conocer cuál es la conexión de ellos mismosy de sus necesidades con las comunidades y los gruposen los que viven. Se les considera plenos participantes enel proceso de innovación y no sujetos pasivos (Bueno yRameckers 2003).

De manera parecida, la compañía Nokia ha dejado dedescribir a sus clientes como simples compradores de unproducto y les considera “socios” en la creación de expe-riencias personalizadas en móviles que ofrecen un granvalor añadido y diversión a sus vidas cotidianas. El enfoquede Nokia es el constante y fluido diálogo tanto con losconsumidores como con los operadores, los proveedoresde servicios y contenidos, y con un gran elenco de socioscuya estrategia se basa en la vida cotidiana y no sólo enlos detalles o en la tecnología (Nokia 2005).

Si bien es cierto que Philips y Nokia se acercan a lo quese denomina “innovación de la experiencia”, como lodefinen Prahalad y Ramaswamy (2003:16), los autoresafirman que pocas son las empresas que han adoptadocompletamente la idea de la experiencia y una perspectivade la innovación basada en la experiencia. El objetivo derealizar estudios centrados en el individuo es acercarseel máximo posible al mundo del ser humano (que es uncliente potencial) con el fin de identificar y de entendersus necesidades más latentes. Los resultados obtenidossirven de base para la co-creación de innovaciones conel cliente. “En el mundo de la experiencia, el consumidorindividual desempeña un papel central y cualquier acon-tecimiento tiene como resultado una experiencia de co-creación. Los acontecimientos están enmarcados en eltiempo y el espacio, con lo que la participación delindividuo tiene su influencia en la experiencia. El signifi-cado personal derivado de la experiencia de co-creaciónes lo que determina el valor para el individuo” (Prahalady Ramaswamy ibid:14).

■ Según varios autores (Prahalad y Ramaswamy ibid.,Ter Borg 2003), la experiencia de co-crear por parte delindividuo, denominada también “experiencia de co-creación” es lo que aporta valor. La experiencia de co-creación deriva de la interacción de un individuo ubicadoen un tiempo y un espacio específicos y en el contextode un acto concreto. La verdadera experiencia de co-creación no está basada ni en la empresa ni en el producto.Las empresas deben tener siempre en cuenta que cuantomás se centren en el contexto del consumidor y se ajustenal entorno vital del individuo, mayor será el valor del laexperiencia de co-creación.

Prahalad y Ramaswamy (2004) hablan de “contexto dela experiencia” para referirse al espacio en el que seproduce un diálogo entre empresa y consumidor. Cuandose dan las condiciones adecuadas en el contexto de laexperiencia, los clientes pueden desarrollarse con plenitud,llegando a convertirse, por lo tanto, en participantesdirectos de las propias experiencias de co-creación.

La red de experiencias en la co-creación está compuestade los individuos y los elementos necesarios para desarrollarun contexto de la experiencia. Prahalad y Ramaswamy(2003:16) exponen una visión de la naturaleza del estado

El valor añadido de la experiencia de co-creación

Esther Binkhorst

43 V1.1.2008

y de la innovación de la experiencia basándose en 3ejemplos: 1) el marcapasos, en el que paciente y marca-pasos forman parte de una red de información y deconocimiento necesarios para vigilar el corazón de maneraremota; 2) Onstar, un proveedor de material de seguridadpara los clientes de la empresa General Motors Corp.

que viene integrado en el vehículo; y 3) Mindstorms, elsistema de invención robótica de LEGO. “En cada casoexiste una base añadida para la competencia que com-prende 3 co-creadores y que ofrecen un alto valor: laempresa y su red, el consumidor y la comunidad delconsumidor”.

■ Dado que el turismo es una fuente inagotable deexperiencias a través de las cuales el individuo se construyesu propia narrativa, consideramos crucial dedicarle todanuestra atención. Prahalad y Ramaswamy (2003) comien-zan ya a vislumbrar el fenómeno de la co-creación y laexpansión de las experiencias que se derivan en diferentescampos. Sin embargo, y por extraño que parezca, el mayorgenerador de experiencias – el turismo – sigue aún sinmencionarse. Queda rezagado tanto en sus aplicacionescomo en los estudios básicos.

Los creadores, ante el reto de idear experiencias que corres-pondan a las necesidades latentes del individuo, siguendependiendo en gran medida en su intuición, en copiarbuenas prácticas o en crear condiciones relacionadas conun contexto espacial y temporal. Rara vez se incluye alturista en el proceso de creación de experiencias relacionadas

con el propio turismo y son pocos los ejemplos que encon-tramos sobre co-creación con turistas. El proyecto Virtualaloft se lanzó en el portal Second Life (www.secondlife.com/)en 2006, un mundo virtual en el que el individuo se puedecrear su propio personaje, un avatar. El objetivo del proyectoque los visitantes co-crearan el diseño real basándose enla información y la evaluación de sus experiencias virtuales.Asimismo, Joie de Vivre Hospitality, un grupo de 37 hotelesen el área de la bahía de San Francisco es un ejemplointeresante. El sitio web de esta marca hotelera, interactivoy muy convincente, ofrece la posibilidad de que los poten-ciales clientes del hotel elijan aquel hotel que mejor encajecon sus necesidades. Esta estrategia de marketing superiorha atraído nuevas ofertas de negocio en línea y le ha dadoa Joie de Vivre un toque distinto y competitivo. Antes deentrar en detalle, dedicaremos el siguiente apartado a ladescripción del fenómeno del turismo.

Turismo y co-creación

El turismo en la economía de la experiencia

■ Mucho se ha escrito sobre las razones que explican porqué las personas ocupan su espacio de ocio de la maneraque lo hacen. Algunos autores como Cohen (1972, 1979,1988), MacCannell (1989), Urry (1990) y Lengkeek (1994,1996) conciben el turismo como necesidad de la evasiónde la vida cotidiana. La mayoría de ellos (Cohen 1979,Urry 1990, Lengkeek 1994) se basan en la misma fuente,de 1973, sobre el estudio del antropólogo Turner parailustrar el cambio que produce el viajar en la vida cotidianay que deriva en una especie de “contraestructura”.

En primer lugar, cuando se abandona el lugar de residenciahabitual, el turista se aleja tanto desde el punto de vistasocial como espacial de su entorno familiar o, como lodenomina Turner, de su “centro”. En segundo lugar,mientras permanece en el lugar de destino, el turista entraen una especie de “contraestructura”, fuera de su contextoespacial y temporal, una fase que ha pasado a denominarse“zona liminal” y un espacio llamado “el centro en algunaparte”, o en su terminología original inglesa ‘centre-out-there’ (Turner citado en Cohen, 1979). Finalmente, elindividuo, sintiéndose enriquecido con la experiencia delviaje, se reintegra en su grupo social originario y en sucontexto familiar.

Resulta obvio decir que existe una gran diferencia entreindividuos en sus preferencias por las similitudes o lasdiferencias de las contraestructuras comparadas con suslugares habituales de residencia. Además, las personaspueden variar sus preferencias tanto por un turismo activoo pasivo como por un turismo de inmersión o de absorción.

Pine y Gilmore (1999) han dividido dichas preferenciasen cuatro cuadrantes relacionados con las experiencias:de entretenimiento, educativas, de escapada o de estética.Considerando el gran número de tipologías sobre turismoy los continuos debates sobre las mismas (Cohen 1972,1979, Elands y Lengkeek 2000, Lengkeek 1994, 1996,MacCannell 1989, McKercher 2002 en Schouten 2003,Van de Poel 1999, entre otros), podemos llegar a la con-clusión de que el carácter específico de la experiencia delturismo deriva de esa tensión entre la vida cotidiana ylas esas otras realidades que se experimentan comoresultado de los cambios en las estructuras temporales yespaciales cotidianas.

Si bien es cierto que las necesidades de las personascambian y que, por lo tanto, también cambian sus ansiaspor nuevas experiencias, los estudios existentes demues-

Tipologías de turismo


44 V1.1.2008

tran que para muchos individuos del mundo desarrollado,el tiempo dedicado al ocio y al turismo se ha convertidoen una parte esencial de su calidad de vida. Un estudiorealizado por Csikszentmihalyi y Hunter (2003) y que sellevó a cabo usando el método ESM (método basado enmuestras de experiencia) demuestra que las actividadesde ocio social, tanto las activas como las pasivas, contri-buyen a una mayor felicidad comparadas con actividadesescolares, que dan un porcentaje menor en cuanto a índicede felicidad.

Urry (1990) afirma que la “cultura del turismo” en la quevivimos proporciona a las personas una oportunidad dedespojarse de limitaciones temporales y espaciales y deaumentar su calidad de vida, puesto que se dedican ahacer lo que realmente les apetece, con quien realmenteles apetece, etc. En este sentido, Richards escribió que“el deseo de consumir más turismo y más tiempo de ociorefleja el cambio de perspectiva sobre el consumo, quese aleja de bienes materiales y se acerca más a serviciosy experiencias, lo que viene a decir que la calidad de vidase mide cada vez más teniendo en cuenta el acceso a talesexperiencias” (1999: 190).

Poon ya afirmaba en 1993 que el “nuevo turista” quiereencargarse de su propio viaje, un hecho que hemosconstatado cada vez más en personas que se encargan ygestionan sus propios viajes a través de Internet. Además,

existen cada vez más comunidades de turismo virtualesen las que las experiencias se evalúan y se intercambian.Sitios web de intercambio de casas, de alojamiento com-partido o, incluso de sofá compartido, el denominadocouchsurfing, son sólo algunos ejemplos. Audiosnacks, porejemplo, es un espacio virtual para encontrar, comprar,descargar, escuchar y disfrutar rutas a través del i-podcreados por gente con el fin de compartirlas, un lugar enel que todo el mundo puede contribuir para que todospuedan beneficiarse mutuamente. Este es un buen ejemplode co-creación entre turistas.

No solamente existen ejemplos de co-creación entreconsumidores sino también entre los propios proveedoresy entre consumidores y proveedores. Lonely Planet yPlaystation han lanzado una iniciativa conjunta: una guíaactualizada al minuto, completamente interactiva y portátilpara su uso en la PSP®. Existen también otros ejemplos:GoCar es una ruta en coche guiada por GPS que se lanzóen San Francisco en 2004. El asistente de KLM Globe, deGoogle Earth, es también otro ejemplo.

Estos ejemplos demuestran que las experiencias innova-doras en cuanto al turismo se co-crean, incluyendo asocios o marcas que no han estado tradicionalmenteasociadas al sector del turismo. Estas tendencias ilustranla necesidad de cambiar de perspectiva en lo que al turismose refiere.

■ Teniendo en cuenta la perspectiva etnográfica, tantopara los estudios teóricos básicos como para el crecienteinterés existente por parte de las empresas en las innova-ciones relacionadas con la etnografía y con los “estudiossobre individuos”, vale la pena destacar, una vez más, laimportancia del concepto de co-creación. Enfocado muya menudo desde una perspectiva de crecimiento econó-mico, los promotores turísticos permiten que el turismocrezca a costa del contexto natural, cultural o histórico.

En el desarrollo de la actividad turística, el ser humanodebería tenerse en cuenta siempre en relación con sucontexto espacial, lo que implica una nueva perspectivasobre el turismo. Ello significaría la no separación de losconceptos oferta y demanda, empresa y cliente, turistay huésped o los espacios para el turismo y “otros” espacios.En cambio, el concepto de turismo debería ser visto comouna red que engloba a todas las partes involucradas enproporcionar contextos de experiencias y en la que todoslos actores operan desde diferentes contextos espacialesy temporales.

Para comprender el fenómeno del turismo y desarrollarun turismo sostenible hay que buscar dentro de cada ser

humano, concretamente en la interacción de éste con elcontexto de la experiencia. Cada persona puede llegar aconvertirse en turista o establecer algún tipo de contactocon el turismo en algunos de sus contextos de la expe-riencia. Para el turismo, ello requeriría que se centrara laatención en el ser humano y no en el turista, ya que lamayoría de personas pasan mucho más tiempo siendosimplemente personas y no turistas. Es cuando uno no esturista el momento en el que se forman las condicionespara expresarse uno mismo como turista.

Concebir el turismo como una red facilita la inclusión detodas las partes interesadas e involucradas en la creaciónde experiencias en el turismo. Dicha red es inmensa yabarca toda una serie de actores: agencias intermediarias,promotores y encargados de ofertar alojamiento, encar-gados de promocionar y mantener enclaves de alto valorpatrimonial y el entorno natural que los rodea, organismospolíticos, los diseñadores – y visitantes – de Internet,Second Life u otros muchos entornos virtuales relacionadoscon las experiencias.

Asimismo, las fronteras cada vez más difusas entre elturismo y el arte, la cultura, el deporte, el ocio, la escuela,

El trabajo en red

Esther Binkhorst

45 V1.1.2008

el tiempo libre o el trabajo están haciendo que la consi-deración del turismo como sector o industria separadadel resto sea cada vez menos evidente. Esta es otra de las

razones para considerar el turismo como una red deexperiencias dentro de la cual el ser humano desempeñaun papel crucial.

■ El contexto de la experiencia en el campo del turismose compone de todas aquellas personas y elementos querodean al ser humano. A continuación se explicará elargumento que sostiene por qué hay que hablar de sereshumanos y no de turistas.

Cuando se habla del turista, enseguida nos imaginamosa alguien procedente del mundo occidental, de zonasdesarrolladas y con dinero, tiempo y libertad para viajara zonas fuera de su entorno cotidiano. Asimismo, nosimaginamos a un turista que viaja hacia su destino. Sinembargo, no lo consideramos turista cuando está en sucontexto diario. De hecho, según la definición de turista,en ese momento no lo es.

Es precisamente en su contexto diario, en ese momentoen el que no es turista, de hecho la mayoría del tiempo,cuando se toman las decisiones sobre las vacacionesfuturas. En este período es cuando se realizan toda unaserie de actos relacionados con el turismo: se recibenrevistas en el buzón de correo, se ven canales de televisión,se ofrecen donaciones a organizaciones específicas, algu-nos elementos del contexto diario hacen recordar vaca-ciones pasadas, se adquieren libros, videos, CD’s y DVD’sque indican el interés de la persona en el arte, la cultura,

la gastronomía, la música, la pintura, la cerámica, lahistoria o los destinos turísticos, etc.; se acude a los bareso restaurantes preferidos; Internet le conecta virtualmenteal resto del mundo; su avatar (término utilizado en elportal Second Life que hace referencia a la identidadpersonal virtual, es decir, al personaje virtual) visita otroslugares de manera virtual y le permite conocer gente detodo el mundo mientras navega por el portal interactivoSecond Life; recibe información sobre viajes en el móvil;se comentan experiencias e historias con familiares,compañeros y amigos; y su vida se ve moldeada por suformación y por su trabajo, entre muchos otros elementos.

Es, por lo tanto, en este contexto laboral o educativodonde los estilos de vida muestran las necesidades latentesy los valores ocultos del ser humano. Un ser humanoque, en un momento u otro, acaba siendo turista. Todosestos contextos del ser humano, aún tan poco explorados,contribuyen de manera indispensable al desarrollo de unturismo innovador.

¿Qué empresa dedicada al turismo conoce a sus clientescomo seres humanos? En el desarrollo del turismo einnovación, los contextos de la experiencia que rodeandirectamente al individuo, es decir, el contexto laboral,

El ser humano y su contexto de experiencias

Gráfico 1.a ‘Experience network’ en el campo del turismo y en el contexto del hogar.

© Binkhorst 2005. Modelo orientativo.

familia

amigos

alojamiento

música

Internet

El serhumano

en suhogar

habitantespaís

de destinotransporteterrestre

en destino


46 V1.1.2008

académico o en el hogar aún no se tienen muy en cuenta.Se suele hacer hincapié en el contexto relacionado con elturismo y el ocio y, teniendo sólo estos elementos encuenta, se toman las decisiones.

Los gráficos 1.a, 1.b y 1.c ilustran que cada individuoposee toda una serie de redes de experiencias (‘experiencenetworks’) en entornos de experiencias (‘experienceenvironments’) en constante cambio. Tanto cuando se esturista fuera de casa (gráfico 1.c) como cuando se tomala decisión de viajar (gráfico 1.b), el individuo está enpermanente contacto con otros individuos y con múltipleselementos que conforman su existencia.

En primer lugar, cualquier ser humano es persona dentrodel ambiente familiar (ver gráfico 1.a). Es en este ámbitodonde pasa la mayoría del tiempo y en el que se concen-tran muchas de las experiencias sociales más memorables.Además del tiempo de ocio, el individuo pasa tambiénmucha parte en el trabajo o en la escuela. Las diferentesredes en las que los individuos se relacionan sirven deguía en vida, siendo de una gran influencia en la misma.La necesidad de un turismo de la experiencia puede naceren un momento concreto, haciendo que se produzca uncambio en la red del individuo.

Asimismo, el individuo recurre a otras fuentes de infor-mación como por ejemplo sitios web o catálogos.Igualmente, se entablan vínculos con todos aquellos que

puedan proporcionar información sobre el destino, comopor ejemplo el contacto con amigos que puedan relatarsus experiencias del lugar. Todos estos actos se realizanpara cumplir con el deseo y la necesidad de viajar, cam-biando así el contexto de la experiencia habitual (veagráfico 1.b).

Finalmente, cuando se toma la decisión final de viajar y seabandona el contexto de la experiencia en el hogar (veagráfico 1.c), la red de experiencias en turismo cambia enconsecuencia. Así sucede también en el sentido inverso, esdecir, cuando se regresa al entorno familiar (vea gráfico 1.a).

En consecuencia, cada persona está rodeada de una redde experiencias en turismo compuesta por todas las partes,personas y elementos, involucradas en sus experienciassobre turismo, ya sean reales, virtuales o incluso en sueños.Dicha red nos sitúa al ser humano en el punto central detodo. Recordemos: no al turista, sino al ser humano.Considerar al turista como un ser humano que se desplazaa diferentes contextos nos permite conocer de cerca susvalores y necesidades latentes. Así, permite a las compañíasampliar su perspectiva del cliente, pasando de considerarlo“turista” a “la persona que hay tras el turista”. Esta pers-pectiva ofrece información sobre la vida que lleva cuandono es cliente de la compañía, una gran fuente de informa-ción para conocer las experiencias en turismo que elcliente desea, al igual que para realizar la estrategia demarketing a partir de ellas.

Gráfico 1.b ‘Experience network’ en el campo del turismo y durante el proceso de toma de decisionesdel viaje

amigos quehan estado

comunidadesvirtuales

agenciasde viajes

librosy revistas

Internet

Elser humano

en el procesode toma de

decisiones sobresu viaje


habitantespaís

de destinotransporteterrestre

en destino

Esther Binkhorst

47 V1.1.2008

Gráfico 1.c ‘Experience network’ en turismo fuera del entorno del hogar.


elementosintangibles

transporteterrestre

local

compañíasaéreas

habitantes

alojamiento

El serhumanoen el paísde destino

■ El argumento expuesto aquí y que considera el turismocomo una red de experiencias en la que varios de loselementos involucrados co-crean con el objetivo de formarexperiencias en el turismo está estrechamente relacionadocon lo que Van der Duim ha denominado tourismscapes,es decir, el complejo proceso de categorización de personasy de cosas (2005).

Dicha ‘experience network’ en el turismo es inmensa: losturistas están permanentemente expuestos a una serie deelementos que llegan a conformar las condiciones de susviajes: Internet, los aparatos móviles, agencias de viajes,operadores turísticos, transporte, hoteleros, guías, empre-sarios locales que ofertan actividades en el lugar de destino(ya sean excursiones pasivas o una participación más activa),cosas que hacer y ver en el lugar de destino como construc-ciones típicas, museos, el patrimonio local, acontecimientos,parajes naturales, agencias gubernamentales y no guberna-mentales, además de la tecnología, etc. El gráfico 2 (‘experiencenetwork’ en turismo) es una representación de ello.

La tecnología tiene una gran influencia en las redes de ex-periencia en turismo y las somete a un constante cambio.Las facilidades de reserva en línea y los foros virtuales sobreturismo de la experiencia están haciendo que exista unamayor competencia no en el precio sino en un servicio quepotencie la experiencia del consumidor. “A la hora de exa-minar el valor fundamental, las empresas con éxito siempre

antepondrán el cliente, y no la propia empresa, cuando sehacen la pregunta: ¿qué puedo hacer para hacer que lavida de mis clientes sea mejor?” (Pollock y Benjamin 2001).

Los estudios llevados a cabo por Buhalis y Licata (2002)confirman que Internet ofrece la oportunidad de que lasempresas establezcan vínculos más estrechos con susclientes. Algunos de los entrevistados para dichos estudiosafirmaron que “hoy en día, Internet ofrece un mejorservicio y un mayor elenco de experiencias al consumidor,ya que la interacción con las organizaciones relacionadascon el turismo puede llegar a ser más significativa. Enlugar de hablar con un asesor de viajes en una oficina enpleno centro de la ciudad, tras haber dado miles de vueltaspara aparcar y tras hacer una larga cola, cada vez másempresas dedicadas a los viajes ofrecen un servicio espe-cializado a través de sus centros telefónicos gracias a loscuales los clientes pueden preguntar sobre un producto,propiedad o destino especializado (ibid: 211).

En el mismo estudio, Internet, la televisión digital integrada(IDTV) y los artilugios de comunicación móvil fueronidentificados como las 3 plataformas digitales más impor-tantes en un futuro no muy lejano. Estas mejoras tecnoló-gicas harán que se produzcan nuevos y producentes diálogoscon cada cliente, además de proporcionar un entorno deexperiencias en las que la innovación y el turismo puedenestar basados en la experiencia de co-creación.

‘Experience networks’ en el turismo

libros yrevistas

agenciasde viajes


48 V1.1.2008

Gráfico 2. ‘Experience network’ en el turismo.


El serhumano

transporteterrestre

cruceros

alquilerde coches comunidades

virtuales

alojamiento

internet

SecondLife

elementosintangibles

tecnologías

comidasy bebidas

familiay amigos

agenciade viajes

operadorturístico

compañiasaéreas

interme-diarios

organis-mos (no)guberna-mentales

elementostangibles

atracciones

Conclusiones y pasos a seguir en el campo del turismo de co-creación

■ Si consideramos el turismo como una red y a los turistascomo seres humanos que se desarrollan en diferentescontextos, el concepto de experiencia de co-creaciónresulta de gran interés cuando se aplica al fenómeno delturismo. Proporciona un valor añadido tanto al visitantecomo a las personas visitadas y, al mismo tiempo, contri-buye a dar un sentido de autenticidad y de singularidadal lugar de destino.

Los conceptos sobre experiencias estarán estrechamentevinculados al espíritu del lugar y de su gente. Comoresultado, todas las experiencias relacionadas con elcontexto estarán vinculadas con la historia, las leyendas,el folklore, los mitos y leyendas del destino. Aquellosconceptos sobre experiencias que se copien en otroentorno y no se adapten al contexto acaban siendonormalmente lo que se denomina “terceros lugares”. Porejemplo, la compañía Starbucks goza de éxito en España,

pero sólo entre los turistas, ya que no puede decirse quela gente local lo tenga como uno de sus lugares preferidospara tomar café. Igualmente, Hardrock Café tampocopuede considerarse un gran éxito en algunas ciudadeseuropeas. “Más bien representa una atracción turísticaque un lugar donde uno va a tomar café y a encontrarsecon los amigos” (Nijs 2003). Por lo tanto, durante elproceso creativo de desarrollar entornos de experiencia,tanto el entorno que albergará la iniciativa como losvisitantes (potenciales) a la zona deben desempeñar unpapel clave.

El hecho de ubicar al ser humano en el eje central en elcampo del turismo tiene otra ventaja. Nos incita a dejarde pensar sólo en el turista que viaja o que está en undestino turístico concreto y nos obliga a pensar en el serhumano que se encuentra también en dicho destino yque es clave en esta red de turismo, lo que también se

Un turismo sostenible y basado en el contexto

Esther Binkhorst

49 V1.1.2008

conoce como “huésped” – otro de los conceptos que sedeben evitar en este contexto.

Con el creciente interés por conocer nuevas culturas, lasexperiencias en el campo del turismo son un medio parainteractuar con otras partes involucradas, como por ejemploa través de la co-creación. Aquella persona que desea visitarun lugar como turista debe realizar toda una serie de pasospara planificar el viaje (vea gráfico 1.b). Probablementetenga que ponerse en contacto con el lugar de destino, adistancia y a través de sitios web, libros sobre informaciónturística, etc. Sin embargo, hay algo que une su mundocon el mundo de las personas que encontrará en el lugarde destino. El ciclo de desarrollo del turismo estará completocuando el ser humano que vive en el destino turístico lleguea visitar al turista en su entorno cotidiano. Sin embargo,desde un punto de vista tradicional, el “turista” probable-mente no lo desee ya que puede eliminar todas esas razonespor las que algunos destinos son tan atractivos.

Cabe decir que en los destinos turísticos del mundooccidental este hecho ya sucede. Por ejemplo, el individuo,

sea a través de Internet o a través de agencias especiali-zadas, intercambian casas durante el período de vacacio-nes. Igualmente, cuando los huéspedes contactan a lagente del lugar que han conocido a través de varios foros,como por ejemplo el sitio web de Joie de Vivre Hospitality.Gracias a la tecnología, los consumidores tendrán cadavez más la oportunidad de co-crear sus propias experien-cias en el turismo.

En conclusión, en el campo del ocio y del turismo, apenashemos comenzado a explorar las experiencias de co-creación. Huelga decir que el turismo representa ungenerador de experiencias y un motor económico deprimer orden. Sin embargo, en un sector con un grannúmero de pequeños y grandes negocios involucrados,aún no existe la costumbre de pensar en contextos deexperiencias y en redes de experiencias en las que losturistas – considerados seres humanos – desempeñan unpapel fundamental. Del mismo modo, pocos son aún losesfuerzos dedicados a los estudios sobre los individuoscomo fuente de desarrollo de un turismo sostenible einnovador, tal y como se han hecho en otros campos.

■ Nos encontramos tan solo al principio del fenómenodel turismo en la economía de la experiencia. Las siguientespreguntas son una invitación tanto a académicos comoa todos aquellos relacionados en el campo del turismopara abordar el tema de manera conjunta.

· ¿Está preparada o dispuesta la industria del turismopara trabajar desde una perspectiva de red en la que elser humano desempeña un papel crucial?

· ¿Hasta qué punto está el ser humano dispuesto aparticipar en los estudios sobre individuos con elobjetivo de crear experiencias significativas en el campodel turismo?

· ¿Hasta qué punto están dispuestos, por una parte,empresarios dentro y fuera del campo del ocio y del

turismo y, por otra, organismos gubernamentales a co-crear en el diseño de contextos de experiencia enturismo (desde contextos de experiencias tangibles(estudios) hasta comunidades virtuales)?

· ¿Son algunas herramientas tecnológicas, como porejemplo las existentes en la aplicaciones educativas deTiVO Inc’s, la miniaturización de LEGO o la comuni-cación a través de redes de Onstar aplicables y deseablesen el área del desarrollo del campo del turismo?

· ¿Cuáles son los contextos y las metodologías másadecuadas para los estudios sobre experiencias?

· ¿Quién puede mostrar interés en invertir en pruebaspiloto para diseñar experiencias en el turismo de co-creación y, al mismo tiempo, medir su impacto?

Futuros pasos en el turismo innovador

Binkhorst, E., (2002). Holland, the American way.Transformations of the Netherlands into US vacationexperiences. Tesis de doctorado de la Universidad deTilburg, Tilburg.

Binkhorst E., (2005a). Creativity in the experience economy,towards the co-creation tourism experience?Presentación en la Conferencia anual ATLAS sobre“Turismo, creatividad y desarrollo”, Barcelona, 2005

Binkhorst, E., (2005b). The co-creation tourism experience.Whitepaper Co-creations, Sitges.

Binkhorst, E., (2006) The co-creation tourism experience.Presentación en el XV Internacional de Ocio y Turismode ESADE sobre ‘European travellers 2010’, Barcelona3 Mayo, 2006.

Boswijk, A., T. Thijssen y E. Peelen (2005). Een nieuwe kijkop de experience economy, betekenisvolle belevenissen.Pearson Education Benelux, Amsterdam.

Bueno, M. y Rameckers, L. (2003). Understanding peoplein new ways, Personas in context: forging a strongerlink between research and its application in Design. In

Referencias


50 V1.1.2008

proceedings of the Esomar conference, Venice.

Buhalis, D. y M. C. Licata (2002). The future eTourismintermediaries. Tourism Management 23, 207-220.

Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of internationaltourism. Social Research 39 (1), 164-182.

Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences.Journal of British Sociological Association 13 (2), 179-201.

Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization intourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15, 371-385.

Cornelis (1988). Logica van het gevoel. Stabiliteitslagen inde cultuur als nesteling der emoties. Stichting Essence,Diemen.

Cornelis (1999). De vertraagde tijd. Revanche van de geestals filosofie van de toekomst. Stichting Essence, Diemen.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. y J. Hunter (2003). Happiness ineveryday life: the uses of experience sampling. Journalof Happiness Studies, 4, 185-199.

Davenport, T.H. y J.C. Beck (2001). The attention economy.Understanding the new currency of business. HarvardBusiness School, Boston.

Elands, B. y Lengkeek, J. (2000). Typical Tourists. Researchinto the theoretical and methodological foundationsof a typology of tourism and recreation experiences.Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. Basic Books,Nueva York.

Jensen, R. (1999). The dream society. How the coming shiftfrom information to imagination will transform yourbusiness. McGraw-Hill, Nueva York.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. PolityPress, Cambridge.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Self andSociety in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press inassociation with Basil Blackwell, Cambridge/Oxford.

Lengkeek, J. (1994). Een meervoudige werkelijkheid: eensociologisch-filosofisch essay over het collectieve belangvan recreatie en toerisme. Proefschrift. Mededelingenvan de Werkgroep Recreatie 20. LandbouwuniversiteitWageningen, Wageningen.

Lengkeek, J. (1996). Vakantie van het leven. Over het belangvan recreatie en toerisme. Boom, Amsterdam.

Lengkeek, J. (2000). Imagination and Differences in TouristExperience. World Leisure Journal 42 (3), 11-17.

MacCannell, D. (1989) (original 1976). The Tourist. A newtheory of the leisure class. Schocken Books Inc., NuevaYork.

McKercher, B. (2002). Towards a classification of culturaltourists. International Journal of Tourism Research (4).

Nijs, D. (2003). Imagineering: Engineering for imaginationin the Emotion Economy. Creating a fascinating world.

Breda University of Professional Education, 15-32,Breda.

Nijs, D. y F. Peters (2002). Imagineering. Het creëren vanbelevingswerelden. Boom, Amsterdam.

Nokia Corporation (2005). Inspired human technology.Disponible en: ‹URL: http//www.nokia.com/NOKIACOM 1/About Nokia/Press/White Papers/pdffiles/backgrounder inspird human technology.pdf›.[Consultado en julio de 2007]

Piët, S. (2004). De emotiemarkt. De toekomst van debeleveniseconomie. Pearson Education Benelux BV,Amsterdam.

Pine, B.J. y J.H. Gilmore (1999). The experience economy,work is theatre and every business a stage. HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston.

Pollock, A. y L. Benjamin (2001). Shifting sands, the tourismecosystem in transformation. Desticorp Limited,Londres.

Poon A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitivestrategies. CAB International, Wallingford.

Prahalad, C.K. y V. Ramaswamy (2003). The new frontierof experience innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,44 (4), 12-18.

Prahalad, C.K. y V. Ramaswamy (2004). The future ofcompetition: co-creating unique value with customers.Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Richards, G. (1999). Vacations and quality of life: patternsand structures. Journal of Business Research, 44, 189-198.

Richards, G. and J. Wilson (2006). Developing Creativityin Tourist experiences: a solution to the serialreproduction of culture? Tourism Management, 27 (6),1209-1223.

Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of access. The new culture ofhypercapitalism where all of life is a paid-for-exeperience. Penguin Putnam Inc, Nueva York.

Schouten, F. (2003). About the quality of life, and nothingless. Creating a fascinating world. Breda University ofProfessional Education, 9-14, Breda.

Ter Borg, M. (2003). De Zineconomie. De samenleving vande overtreffende trap. Scriptum, Schiedam.

Turner, V. (1973). The center out there: Pilgrim’s goal. Historyof religions, 12 (3), 191-230.

Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: leisure and travel incontemporary societies. Sage, Londres.

Van der Duim, R. (2005). Tourismscapes. An actor-networkperspective on sustainable tourism development. Tesisde doctorado de la Universidad de Wageningen,Wageningen.

Van der Poel, H. (1993). De modularisering van het dagelijkseleven. Vrijetijd in structuratietheoretisch perspectief.Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam.

Esther Binkhorst

51 V1.1.2008

Van der Poel, H. (1997). Leisure and the Modularization ofDaily Life. Time & Society 6 (2/3) 171-194.

Van der Poel, H. (1999). Tijd voor vrijheid. Inleiding tot destudie van de vrijetijd. Uitgeverij Boom, Amsterdam.

Zuboff, S. (2002). The support economy. Why corporationsare failing individuals and the next episode of capitalism.Penguin Books LTD, Londres.

■ Esther Binkhorst (1968) obtuvo su master en Ciencias del Consumo en la Universidad de Wageningen, los PaísesBajos, en 1993. En 2002 se doctoró en la Universidad de Tilburg, los Países Bajos, con una tesis sobre experienciasen el turismo. En 2003 comenzó a impartir clases en ESADE/Turismo Sant Ignasi en Barcelona, España. En 2006 fundóla empresa Co-creations en Sitges, España, donde conceptualiza, lleva a cabo y optimiza experiencias. Co-creationsestá actualmente desarrollando el Co-lab, un proyecto que da vida a la experiencia del turismo de co-creación.

Nota biográfica

Esther BinkhorstCo-creations, the way to transformations S.L.Angel Vidal 25, 1º08870 Sitges, BarcelonaEspañ[email protected]

Contacto:


52 V1.1.2008

QualityCoast Programme: Pilotstudies in two mature sun and beachdestinations

Yaiza Fernández-Palacios(1), Eduardo Cózar(2), Maria Ferreira(3),Candelaria Cecilia-Ruano(1), Pablo de la Peña(2), Alan Pickaver(3),Albert Salman(3) & Ricardo J. Haroun(1)

(1) Instituto Canario de Ciencias Marinas, Las Palmas, Spain(2) Ayuntamiento de Calvià, Calvià, Mallorca, Spain(3) EUCC – The Coastal Union, Leiden, The Netherlands

■ Within the international regional cooperation activitiesof the Coastal Practice Network (CoPraNet), anINTERREG IIIC network project, the development of atransparent international quality programme for sustai-nable coastal tourism destinations – QualityCoast – hasbeen achieved.

QualityCoast Programme for coastal tourism destinationscertifies a municipality, county or region that proves tobe actively working towards more responsible andsustainable management. The implementation of theQualityCoast Programme is determined using a seriesof QualityCoast Milestones (QCMs), which indicate thequality of information available to visitors. The QCMsare grouped into the thematic areas of nature, carryingcapacity, water and environmental quality and socio-economics. A category entitled ‘other’ is also incorporatedto allow the inclusion of criteria relevant to particularareas, which are not covered by the four primary themes.

This paper presents the QualityCoast Programme, oneof the key contributions and results of the CoPraNetproject and, in particular, the results of pilot activitiesundertaken in different areas of Fuerteventura Island,Canary Islands and in Calvià Municipality, Balearic Islands,both mature sun and beach destinations in Spain. It hasbeen found that the implementation of this certificationscheme can be of interest for this type of destination.

Key words:information programme, labelling, indicators, coastal desti-nation, QualityCoast, sustainable tourism

Abstract

■ En el marco del las actividades de cooperación inter-nacional de la Red de Prácticas Costeras (CoPraNet), unared INTERREG IIIC, se ha logrado el desarrollo de unprograma de calidad internacional para destinos turísticoscosteros – QualityCoast –.

El Programa QualityCoast para destinos costeros certificaa un municipio, condado o región que demuestre untrabajo activo por una gestión más responsable y soste-nible. La implementación del Programa QualityCoast sedetermina mediante una serie de indicadores denomina-dos Hitos QualityCoast (QCMs), que señalan la calidadde la información disponible a los usuarios. Los QCMsse agrupan en las áreas temáticas de naturaleza, capacidadde carga, calidad ambiental y del agua y socio-economía.Se ha incorporado una categoría denominada ‘Otros’,con el fin de permitir la inclusión de criterios relevantesa áreas particulares no incluidas en los cuatro gruposprincipales.

Este trabajo presenta el Programa QualityCoast, una delas contribuciones y resultaos principales de CoPraNety, en particular, los resultados de las actividades pilotodesarrolladas en distintas áreas de la Isla de Fuerteventura(Islas Canarias) y en el Municipio de Calvià (Islas Baleares),destinos maduros de sol y playa en España. Se ha halladoque este sistema de certificación puede ser de interés paraeste tipo de destinos.

Palabras clave:programa de información, certificación, indicadores, destinocostero, QualityCoast, turismo sostenible

Resumen

■ There are many different definitions of sustainabletourism that have been developed over the last decade.Sustainability principles in tourism development refer toenvironmental, economic and socio-cultural aspects, anda suitable balance must be established between thesethree dimensions to guarantee its long-term sustainability(World Tourism Organization, 2004).

As one of the world's largest and fastest growing economicactivities, international tourism continues to grow andplace increasing stress on remaining natural habitats,

which are often used to support mass tourism. Sustainabletourist destinations face many responsibilities to reducetourism impact on their communities. Sustainable tourismdevelopment guidelines and management practices areapplicable to all forms of tourism in all types of destina-tions, including mass tourism and the various nichetourism segments (World Tourism Organization, 2004).

In this sense, it has been recognized that efforts can bemade to provide the tourists with better informationabout their destination.

Introduction

53 V1.1.2008

■ The Coastal Practice Network (CoPraNet) is anINTERREG IIIC initiative that has been operative forthree years (January 2004 – December 2006).

INTERREG IIIC is an European Union programme thathelps Europe’s regions form partnerships to work togetheron common projects. By sharing knowledge and expe-rience, these partnerships enable the regions involved todevelop new solutions to economic, social and environ-mental challenges.

CoPraNet has two main objectives (Ferreira et al., 2006,Salman et al., 2004). Firstly, to develop a network ofcoastal stakeholders to exchange information and exam-ples of best practice, which will support local and regionalefforts for an integrated planning of coastal areas. Thisnetwork must bridge the gap between planners, managersand the research community throughout Europe (EuropeanParliament and the European Council 2002). Secondly,to support interregional exchange of best practice infor-mation on (a) sustainable tourism and (b) coastal erosionand beach management through an integrated approach.

Regarding the sustainable tourism component, the net-work activities aimed to:

· Support the inter-regional exchange and sharing ofgood practices in developing guidelines for qualitycoast milestones (QCMs) and sustainability in coastalregions and towns, including islands and seaside resorts;

· Identify principles, guidelines and operational milesto-nes for quality and sustainability of tourism and recrea-tion in coastal regions and towns;

· Develop an inter-regional and transparent benchmar-king programme based upon the above milestones;and

· Prepare the introduction of a transparent internationalQualityCoast programme for tourism destinations andsustainability of coastal destinations.

Making use of existing achievements and ongoing inter-national work within the INTERREG IIIC CoPraNetactivities, the project partnership agreed to collaborateand exchange views to develop a transparent, internationalquality information scheme for tourism destinations.Such collaboration resulted in the QualityCoast Progra-mme (Ferreira et al., 2007), one of the key contributionsand results of the CoPraNet project.

Background: Contributions of the Coastal Practice Network to sustainable tourism.

QualityCoast Programme: Pilot studies in two mature sun and beach destinations

QualityCoast Programme

■ The QualityCoast Programme for coastal tourismdestinations certifies a municipality, county, or regionthat can demonstrate it is actively working towards moreresponsible and sustainable management.

The commitment to highlight nature and landscape,carrying capacity, cultural heritage and aspects of sustai-nable development of tourism in its marketing programme

targeting domestic (non-local) or international visitors willbe recognized by the attribution of the QualityCoast label.

The main objective of the QualityCoast programme isto recognize destinations that make valuable effortstowards sustainability and are willing to inform theirvisitors through a marketing programme containinginformation about nature, carrying capacity, environmental

Definition and objectives of the QualityCoast Programme

54 V1.1.2008

■ Several efforts have been made to develop indicatorsfor sustainable development in coastal management duringthe last ten years, e.g. the Blue Flag programme, EcoTransand the World Tourism Organisation Network on sustai-nable tourism which is developing indicators and “eco-labels” for tourism accommodations and facilities. TheEU-funded EcoLab project (now VISIT) has contributed tothe harmonization of these labels and to a new developmentof tourism destination indicators. However, commonstandards to monitor performance in sustainable tourismdevelopments in coastal destinations are still lacking.

These labels have in common the aim of improving andsupporting sustainable tourism. The labels often have adifferent scope and different ways to reach this commonground; therefore they tend to complement one anotherrather than to interfere with each other. Another importantfactor that needs to be kept in mind is that eco-labels area good way of marketing a product and therefore, theycan present an economic advantage. This potential for

added value/benefit is often a key reason for a region toobtain or participate in such a label initiative.

The QualityCoast Programme aims to support the imple-mentation of a sustainability information strategy forvisitors to coastal destinations. The label is unique in thatit covers the entire coastal destination, which means amunicipality, county or region. Other coastal destinationlabels tend not to have such a broad focus. Most merelyfocus on the beach area and their main objectives are,for example, beach cleanliness and water quality. Onekey aspect of sustainable tourism is to provide objectiveand truthful information to visitors and inhabitants ona broad range of issues so that these people can makemore sustainable choices.

The QualityCoast Programme label certifies the qualityand objectiveness of information, especially concerningsustainable development aspects, and the label also certifiesthe quality of product improvement and monitoring.

Added Value of the QualityCoast Programme

■ Within the CoPraNet initiative, partners have agreedto actively discuss and exchange views to support thedevelopments of the programme. Since the early stages,

it has been recognized that the development of a labelis a very ambitious task and many issues would have tobe taken into account to achieve it successfully. Therefore,

Design process

quality and socio–economic, as well as other relevantissues of their destination.

The QualityCoast programme will promote practicesthat ensure tourists visiting the coast will:

· Be well informed about the social, natural and economicaspects of the coastal communities they visit;

· Support and value the local biodiversity and cultureby encouraging businesses that conserve natural andcultural heritage;

· Support the local economy by purchasing local goodsand using small, local businesses;

· Conserve resources by seeking out businesses that areenvironmentally conscious, and by using the lowestpossible amount of non-renewable resources.

By participating in the QualityCoast programme, a mu-nicipality, county or region is committing to offer objectiveand actual information on selected issues (milestones) toits potential visitors and interested parties on a numberof issues. Also the participating entity must agree toprepare a policy plan to improve and/or reinforce the

quality or performance of less well scoring aspects (mi-lestones) over a period of time.

By joining the QualityCoast programme, a municipality,county or region will achieve international recognitionfor striving towards the highest quality in human andenvironment friendly tourism. This recognition can beused through their own municipal communication andmarketing mechanisms for tourism in the area.

Therefore, in order to participate in the QualityCoastprogramme, a municipality/county/region commits andis obliged to:

· Provide basic quality for recreation and tourism inorder to ensure human and environment sustainability;

· Develop and adopt an improvement policy plan (5 years)in order to maintain and improve the quality of thedestination, as part of their municipal policy programme;

· Evaluate the implementation of the policy programmeevery 2 years;

· Provide objective and transparent information to visitorsabout important aspects of the tourism destination.

Yaiza Fernández-Palacios, Eduardo Cózar), Maria Ferreira, Candelaria Cecilia-Ruano, Pablo de la Peña, Alan Pickaver, Albert Salman, Ricardo J. Haroun

55 V1.1.2008

the challenge that has been made to partners, and espe-cially to the regional and municipal representatives resultedin their active involvement during the design process,and in doing so, ensured their interests, concerns andaspirations would be reflected in the consolidated versionof the QualityCoast programme (CoPraNet NetworkPartnership, January 2007.

The development of the QualityCoast Programme, hasprogressed on the basis of the validation and testing ofthe core list of QualityCoast Milestones (QCMs) – a setof key high level conditions for which information willbe made available and operational in terms of measure-ments and quantification.

Original attempts to identify and select these milestones,which were originally designated as Tourism QualityMilestones (TQMs), were undertaken at the CoPraNetworkshop at Fuerteventura Island in February 2005. Atthis workshop the participants were divided into sevengroups; all groups were given the task to identify the 10most important milestones or indicators on the basis ofa particular viewpoint. This exercise provided the basis

to create a first list of milestones, which set the start ofthe pilot activities. Nine months later, in November 2005,the partnership met again in the Canary Islands during“Sustainable Tourism and Coastal Management Week”.Following discussions on Nature Quality in SustainableTourism, the partners agreed to use the list of QCMs asa core set of milestones and to test them for their respectivedestinations, as well as suggesting optional ones forrelevant and specific issues of their particular destinations.

The core list of QCMs has been selected to cover thethematic areas of nature, carrying capacity, water andenvironmental quality, and socio-economics. A finalcategory entitled “other” is also incorporated to allowthe inclusion of criteria relevant to particular areas, whichare not covered by the four primary themes.

The selection of quality milestones was based on thefollowing criteria:· High efficiency in relation to sustainable development;· High impact on consumer perception;· Data availability; and· Comparability.

Table 1. Final List of Core QualityCoast Milestones

Thematic Area

Nature

Carrying Capacity

Enviromental Quality

Socio-Economic

Others

Information on Nature ExperienceBiodiversity

Accessibility of Natural AreasTourism Pressure

Balance Between Unbuilt Vs. Built ConservationAvailability of Quiet Areas and Towns

Safety and SecurityBathing Water Quality

Water ManagementWaste Collection, Management and Recycling

Traditional Activities, Accommodation and FoodCultural Authenticity and Local Identity

Tourist and Local SatisfactionLocal Participation, Training and Education

Leisure and Recreational ActivitiesEco-Label Accommodation

Sustainable MobilityIntegrated Management

QCM

■ Pilot activities were designed and undertaken by theparticipating partners and took place in 10 regions in 9countries in Europe. A wide range of coastal tourismdestination types was covered. The aim was to make aconsensual definition of the milestones, provide ways of

quantification, identify data sources and propose correc-tions and final improvements for a final core list (aspresented in Table 1) and to make an preliminary asses-sment of the needs for the implementation of theQualityCoast Programme.

Assessment of the QualityCoast Programme:pilot activities in mature sun and beach destinations.


The activities aimed at validation and testing comprised:a) use of visitor surveys to identify what informationvisitors are interested in; b) development of operationaldefinitions for the milestones at the level of coastal desti-nations; c) collection of information to make milestonesoperational; and d) consideration of the development ofa communication and dissemination tool (e.g. via internet).

The pilot studies developed at Fuerteventura (CanaryIslands, Spain) and Calvià (Balearic Islands, Spain), brieflypresented in this paper, are the only ones related to maturesun and beach destinations. Additional testing and im-plementation of the QualityCoast programme took place

in Cork Harbour (Ireland) and Sefton (England), Zandvoort(the Netherlands), Aveiro (Portugal), Down (NorthernIreland), Stepnica (Poland), Island of Usedom, Schleswig-Holstein (Germany), and Ekoparken (Sweden). The pilotexperiences, as well as the overall development of theQualityCoast programme, were co-ordinated byCoPraNet’s lead partner, EUCC – The Coastal Union.

Further information regarding all pilot activities can befound at the project website (Coastal Practice NetworkHomepage, URL: http://www.coastalpractice.net andQualityCoast Programme Homepage, URL: http://www.qualitycoast.info).

56 V1.1.2008

■ The Fuerteventura pilot study on the implementationof the QualityCoast Programme has been developed bythe Canarian Institute of Marine Science (ICCM), belon-ging to the Canary Islands Regional Government, in threedifferent pilot areas in Fuerteventura Island (CanaryIslands, Spain): Tuineje Municipality, Pájara Municipalityand Lobos Islet (part of La Oliva Municipality).

It can be noticed that two types of areas have been selected:two municipalities and a protected area smaller than a

municipality that is not a specific administrative unit. Theaim is to test if it would be of interest to apply the Quali-tyCoast Programme to local level or also to areas not relatedto an administrative level, as parks or protected areas.

Fuerteventura Island (Central-East Atlantic) is the closestto the African continent and has a very arid climate,generally distinguished by poor and irregular rainfalls,large sandy beaches and by warm temperatures (22-24ºC)all around the year.

Fuerteventura pilot activity

Calvià - Balearic Islands

Fuerteventura - Canary Islands


57 V1.1.2008

Tuineje Municipality

TIt is located in the SE of Fuerteventura Island, with 276Km2 surface and 27 Km of coastline. With a local popu-lation of 12.517 inhabitants (Instituto Canario deEstadística, 2005) it is one of the biggest populationcentres of the island. Its main localities are Gran Tarajal,Tarajalejo, Tesejerague and Tuineje.

The area has a very important historic value, closelyrelated to the conquest of the island (roughly 500 yearsago). One of its most important characteristics is thehereditary richness, specially linked to architecture, nature(with large natural protected areas) and numerous culturalgoods (gastronomy, folklore, ethnography...).

The economy in Tuineje is based on tomato and foragecrops (the first producer in the island) and also on thecattle raising (goat meat and cheese), though tourism isa growing sector.all around the year.

Pájara Municipality

Located in the S of Fuerteventura, Pájara has a surface of383 Km2 and 136 Km of coastline, being the largestmunicipality in the island. The population of 18.173inhabitants (Instituto Canario de Estadística, 2005) livesmainly in the localities of Morro Jable, Costa Calma andSolana Matorral.

The same as Tuineje, Pájara has a relevant natural heritage,with a large extension of protected areas (specially linkedto the coast) and a great variety of native and endemicspecies. In this sense, the area deserves serious conside-ration for the presence of large numbers of endemic plantsand migratory birds, most of them threatened and underprotection.

Although the municipality has a great fishery tradition,the economy of Pájara is currently based on sun andbeach tourism. The hotel trade is well developed in thismunicipality, offering more than 18.000 bed spaces,including the extra-hotel supply. Also, the tourist activityhas increased significantly the employment (almost 5.300people). In addition, Pájara has the longest beaches in theCanary Islands, being a venue for important windsurfingchampion-ships at the international level.

Lobos Island

It is an islet that belongs to La Oliva Municipality. It hasa surface area of around 5 Km2 and a coastline of 13,7

Km long. It is two kilometres distant from the NE coastof Fuerteventura and 8 Km from Lanzarote Island’ssouthern coast.

Distinctive geomorphology and endemic flora composea unique landscape in this island where human develop-ment is not present. The area is under several types ofenvironmental regulations.

Lobos Islet and Corralejo Dunes was one of the first naturereserves in the Canary Islands. Currently, Lobos is regu-lated by a Special Plan of Use and Management developedby Canarian Government in 2000.

The European Commision, designated the marine areato the S of Lobos Island as ‘Sebadales de Corralejo’ SAC,for the presence of seagrass meadows. The island itselfwas declared as SPA (Special Protected Area) for thepresence of several species of birds considered underDirective 79/409/ECC.

This islet has no residents. The tourists in Lobos aremostly one day visitors though there is also a campingarea for a maximum of 75-80 people per day. The visitorscarrying capacity in Lobos is estimated at maximum of200 people per day, according to the Management Planof the area. The infrastructures in the island are mainlythe small port (60 m long), few houses and a smallrestaurant, a lighthouse and the delimited camping area.There are ferry connections from Fuerteventura andLanzarote islands to Lobos everyday, being this the onlyway of getting to Lobos.

Description of the pilot areas

Tuineje Municipality

Pájara Municipality

Lobos Islet

FUERTEVENTURA


58 V1.1.2008

■ Tourism is the main economic activity in the island.In the last years Fuerteventura has been provided withnew hotel developments and tourist areas (especially oncoastal areas), giving a significant boost to services sector.The island has also an important fishery tradition and insome areas the agriculture (cereals, vegetables…) andcattle raising (goats, mainly for local cheese productionand for their meat) are developed.

Fuerteventura Island, with thirteen protected naturalareas, is a very interesting enclave from the point of viewof its flora and fauna, with a high number of endemisms,threatened and protected species and also outstandinglandscapes that are closely related to the island historyand the life of their inhabitants. In addition, this islandhas innumerable ethnographic gastronomic and, in generalterms, other cultural values involving an essential part oflocal authenticity.

However, Fuerteventura Island offers a wide range ofpossibilities for tourism not exclusively linked to thecoast but to other areas with important values related totangible and intangible heritage.

Nearly 30% of Fuerteventura’s surface is protected underdifferent designations. The pilot areas contain importantmarine and terrestrial nature conservation areas, designa-ted under the Regional Network of Protected Areas, theEU Natura 2000 Network (as SACs and SPAs) and also

a RAMSAR site. The Environment Department at Fuer-teventura Island Government is working actively topromote the diversification of recreational activities oftenlinked to protected areas, promoting nature-based activitiesdeveloped in a responsible way.

Pájara Municipality is characterized as being a highlytourist area in the island, offering mainly sun and beachtourism. The number of hotel beds is over 15.000 andother bed places (e.g. apartments) number more than8.500.

La Oliva Municipality offers 3.400 hotel beds and 8.500bed places in other type of accommodations. This is amunicipality with well-developed tourism infrastructure,though the pilot are, Lobos Islet, has very little develop-ment and no accommodation facilities apart from theaforementioned camping area.

Parallel to these destinations, Tuineje is a municipalitymuch less developed in terms of tourism but with impor-tant natural and cultural heritage and a great touristpotential for cultural and rural activities. In addition totraditional agriculture and livestock, the tourist activity,that began its development on coastal areas, begins tohave some relevance. The total number of hotel beds isover 700. At the moment, Tuineje offers several themeproducts in order to give a new focus on sustainabletourism.

Tourism in the destination

■ The pilot activities developed by the ICCM haveinvestigated the validation of selected milestones and forthis purpose a collection of data and information tookplace with guidance from the local municipalities andFuerteventura Island Government.

It was found that, in most cases, the data needed for theconstruction of the QCMs was only available after therequest of data compiled for management purposes tothe public institutions, in particular municipalities, islandgovernment or regional government.

For the pilot study of Lobos Islet, a nature reserve area,information on biodiversity and nature management wasaccessible, but not on waste management, mobility ortraditional activities. This information, needed for certain

QCMs, was only available by interviews with the mana-gers of the protected area.

In relation to the geographical scope, for most of theQCMs available data was not referred to the municipaland islet units chosen as pilot areas. The island ambithad to be used instead. In the Spanish region of theCanary Islands, each island constitutes a local unit, whichintegrates municipalities (smaller local units).

The results are presented in a comprehensive report(Fernández-Palacios et al., 2006 downloadable at theCoPraNet project website), which includes the betterdefinition of some QCMs and the proposal of some newones (e.g., the ratio of tourists to locals as a measure oftourism pressure).

QCMs assessment

The Environment Department at Calvià Municipality(Mallorca Island, Balearic Islands, Spain) developed this

exercise for the QCMs and QualityCoast Programmeevaluation.

Pilot activity in Calvià Municipality


59 V1.1.2008

■ The selected pilot area was the coast of the Municipalityof Calvià on the SW of Mallorca Island (West Mediterra-nean). It comprises a length of 54 Km of coastline and itssurrounding marine and terrestrial areas, part of whichare protected for nature conservation purposes.

Most population (around 90%) lives in residential areasclose to the coast. Only two villages are located in theinterior, involving a big human pressure on the coast.Local population of Calvià´s was of 47.479 in 2006. Localpopulation is young, (50% of population is between 0and 34 years old) and integrated by different nationalities(34% of population are foreigners from 110 differentnationalities).

Calvià is an excellent example of the best scenic resourcesin the Balearic Islands. From the top of Galatzó's (1.000m. to the West of the Serra Tramuntana) to the coastalarea, Calvià's landscapes include mountains, pinewoods,valleys, villages, farm crops and dry land (the Pariatge)as well as numerous capes and bays, creeks and coves,the Rafeubeitx Peninsula and Cala Figuera’s Cape, Major-ca's largest lowland forest.

In the Municipality of Calvià 83% of the territory isinbuilt, regulated and protected by legislation with diffe-rent protection levels. From this percentage, 68,53 % isprotected by regional and local legislation, meaning that

all urban development and economic activities are extre-mely controlled and only allowed in case environmentaland sustainability development is guaranteed.

Recently, Calvià Council has purchased a private estatewith very important natural values named “Finca Galatzó”.In total, the 11% of territory owned by the Council isnature areas with a maximum level of protection.

Despite excessive building in certain resorts, Calvià’snatural and cultural resources still constitute valuablecomponents of the area.

Description of the pilot area

Calvià Municipality

Palma

MALLORCA

■ Calvià is a traditional sun and beach tourism destination.It is the most important tourist municipality in the BalearicIslands and one of the most visited Mediterranean desti-nations, with over 1.600.000 visitors per year. Around95% of the local Gross Domestic Product of the munici-pality comes from tourism. This means that local economyis focused on the tourism industry. Seasonality is a strongcharacteristic in the area, having a high season that runsfrom April to October and has a maximum in July andAugust. Population peaks in this period reach 180.000inhabitants.

In the last few years there has been some developmentin rural tourism and some traditional houses (namedpossessions) have been converted into rural Hotels.

Calvià presents several flora and fauna endemisms whichare protected by regional and European regulations. TwoNatura 2000 sites, in the mountainous area of Galatzóand the coastal zone of Cala Figuera (CODES), designatedas SPAs for their value as birds nesting and breeding areas.These are components for the development of a tourismoffer alternative to sun and beach.

In the municipality numerous coastal and nature-basedsports and cultural activities can be developed. In particular:scuba diving, snorkelling, sailing, trekking (with more than100 natural paths), cycling (route of 158 Km), archaeologicalroute (85 registered sites), European Winter CulturalProgramme, etc. They contribute to the diversification ofthe recreational offer in this sun and beach destination.

Tourism in the destination

■ Data availability was not an insurmountable obstacleas most of the information existed in the different depar-tments of Calvià Municipality. Information had to be

elaborated from data, showing unavailability of many ofthe milestone’s information for the general public andvisitors.

QCMs assessment


60 V1.1.2008

The geographical ambit of needed data was not an incon-venient, as the municipality had available data for mostof the analyzed QCMs for its administrative area. Therewas no dependence on other administrative units, as inthe case of Fuerteventura pilot experiences.

This pilot study found interesting to include a quantificationmeasure (QCM) for the evaluation of available informationon milestones to visitors, mainly on-line, in order to ensureproper availability of information on the destination andguarantee the objectives of the QualityCoast Programme.After the development of CoPraNet’s activities and Quali-

tyCoast pilot study, several actions have been taken in CalviàMunicipality. Particular, the Marine Reserve of Malgrats andEl Toro has been established (with a protected are of 1017,45Has.), information leaflets and panels for tourist and citizensabout the Marine Reserves, connexion of Integrated CoastalZone Management (ICZM) projects in Calvià with COPRA-NET project, environmental and sustainable tourism infor-mation leaflets for tourists (in German, English and Spanish).

Further findings arising from the pilot exercise are detailedin the report (Cózar et al., 2005) available for downloadfrom the project website.

■ It was confirmed that the data needed for the evaluationof many of the QCMs was only available by specificrequested to the public institutions. Data disseminationin different institutions and storage forms (paper or digital,text or databases, on the internet or not) was very com-mon. Data needed to be re-elaborated for the completionof the QCMs. This shows that the objectives of theQualityCoast Programme are appropriate, as data isusually not available and/or not presented to visitors orto the local population in suitable formats.

For some of the QCMs the needed data sources were notfound, showing they either had not been complied pre-viously or are not available. The main data gaps relatedto the following QCMs: Tourism pressure in the munici-pality (data only available in the island or regional ambits).

Nevertheless, data was found for the assessment of mostQCMs. The main reason is that the presented pilot sitesare mature tourism destinations and well-developed areaswere data collection has already been in place for yearsor even decades mainly with management and statisticalanalyses purposes.

Further developments of the QualityCoast programmelabel must consider that an evaluation of the geographicalambit to be chosen for the application of a destinationmust be carefully evaluated, in order to ensure data

availability in the appropriate geographical ambit. Thepresented pilot activities show that in order to ensuredata availability, the applying destination should be anadministrative unit (local or regional). Nature areas andparks don’t seem to have the needed data sets.

The results of the pilot activities and assessment doneper milestone contributed to the consolidation of theprogramme. It became clear through the process of prac-tical tests and validation undertaken by the municipali-ties/regional authorities that some of the original QCMswere superseded or misplaced and needed to be clarifiedand better explained.

Both Fuerteventura and Calvià pilot activities concludedthe interest to include QCMs to reflect the pressure oftourism related to the local population, one of the cha-racteristics of mass sun and beach tourism.Mass tourism destinations require responsible manage-ment as much as (or even more than) other less impactingtypes of destination. This is the case of Calvia and Fuer-teventura, mature sun and beach destinations that atpresent promote the diversification of their offer. Inparticular, they promote sports and nature-based activitiesas scuba diving, boating, trekking, whale and bird wat-ching, … For the maintenance of responsibility in thistype of destination, it is necessary to implement allsustainability measures.

Results and discussion

■ The development of the QualityCoast Programme,one of the key contributions and results of the CoastalPractice Network project, partly financed by INTERREGIIIC programme, has been achieved over the past threeyears. This initiative has been built upon the inter-regional exchange of network partners experiences, andcollaboration towards the development of a transparent,international quality programme label for tourism des-tinations.

The main objective of the QualityCoast programme isto recognize destinations that make valuable effortstowards sustainability and are willing to inform theirvisitors through a marketing programme about nature,carrying capacity, environmental quality and socio–eco-nomic, as well as other relevant issues of their destination.

Benefits of QualityCoast Programme for mass sun andbeach destinations have been highlighted through the

Conclusions


61 V1.1.2008

implementation of two pilot studies presented in thispaper, namely in Fuertevenura Islands (Canary Islands,Spain) and Calvià Municipality (Balearic Islands, Spain):

· Provide objective and truthful information to tourists,in order to allow them to make more sustainablechoices when selecting the tourist destination.

· Help institutions realize of the importance of makingavailable to visitors truthful and best quality informationon sustainability.

· Encourage institutions to implement more sustainablemanagement and inform about them, supporting the

destination’s competitivity in short and long term.

· Define and Control the real Carrying Capacity of thetourist destination.

· Promote local participation of citizens and stakeholdersreaching consensus in decision-making on responsibleand sustainable development of the tourist destination.

Further information regarding all pilot activities can befound at the project website (Coastal Practice NetworkHomepage, URL: http://www.coastalpractice.net andQualityCoast Programme Homepage, URL: http://www.qualitycoast.info)

■ The authors would like to thank the EU INTERREGIIIC Secretariat whose financial support made possiblethe work of the Coastal Practice Network and the activecooperation of its partners, in particular those involvedin QualityCoast Programme development, to whom weare thankful: the government authorities of Storstrøm(DK), Sefton (UK), Zandvoort (NL), Samothrakis (GR),

CCDR-C (PT), Down (UK), Stepnica (PL), Calvia (ES) andSchleswig Holstein (DE); the Research Institutes ICCM(ES) and RIKZ (NL); the Universities of Cork (CMRC,IE), Aberdeen (UK), COMREC (SE), Porto (IHRH – PT)and the University of the Littoral (FR); and the FoundationsEUCC (NL), IHE – Delft (NL), MEDSOS (GR), WL-DelftHydraulics (NL) and Rivages de France (FR).

Acknowledgements

Commission of the European Communities (2000).Communication from the Commission to the Counciland the European Parliament on the Integrated CoastalZone Management: A Strategy to Europe. COM(2000)547 final.

CoPraNet Network Partnership (2004). Coastal PracticeNetwork Homepage. Online. URL:www.coastalpractice.net.

CoPraNet Network Partnership (January 2007).QualityCoast: International Programme for Humanand Environment Friendly Tourist Destinations. FinalReport on activities undertaken by CoPraNet partnersparticipating in QualityCoast. Online. URL:www.coastalpractice.net.

Cózar, E., Lange, M. and de la Peña, P. (2006). QualityCoast Programme implementation report: pilot studyat Calvià Municipality. Report completed for CoastalPractice Network. [Online]. Available:http://www.coastalpractice.net.

European Parliament and the European Council (2002)Recommendation of 30 May 2002 concerning theImplementation of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement (2002/413/EC).

Fernández-Palacios, Y., Cecilia-Ruano, C., Pérez-Alemán,C. and Haroun, R. (2006). QualityCoast Programme

implementation in Fuerteventura Island: assessmentof data availability and application of QC Milestones.Report completed for Coastal Practice Network.[Online]. Available: http://www.coastalpractice.net.

Ferreira, M., Pickaver, A. and Salman, A. (2006).Contributions to the establishment of a Coastal PracticeNetwork for Europe. Proceedings LITTORAL 2006,Gdansk, Poland, Coastal Innovations and Initiatives18th-20th September 2006.

Ferreira, M., Pickaver, A., Salman, A., O’Mahony, C.,Cummins, V., Salthouse, C. and Fernández-Palacios, Y.(2007). QualityCoast international programme for human& environmental friendly coastal tourist destination.Proceedings ICCCM’07, Hammamet, Tunisia, 22nd-26th March 2007. (To be published in proceedings).

Instituto Canario de Estadística (February 2006). Statisticaldata of the Canary Islands, Spain. Online. URL:www.gobcan.es/istac/estadisticas.html.

Salman, A. H. and Pickaver, A. (2004). CoPraNet – ACoastal Practice Network for Europe. ProceedingsLITTORAL 2004, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK 20th–22ndSeptember 2004. Vol.1 pp. 43-48.

World Tourism Organisation (2004). SustainableDevelopment of Tourism – Conceptual Definition.[Online]. Available: http://www.world-tourism.org.

References


62 V1.1.2008

■ Yaiza Fernández-Palacios Vallejo received her MSc degree in Marine Science from Las Palmas de Gran CanariaUniversity in 2001. She develops her activity at the Canarian Institute of Marine Science, being involved in severalprojects and initiatives related to integrated coastal zone management and sustainable tourism.

■ Eduardo Cózar Chillerón is the Chief of the Environmental Management Department at Calvià Municipality. Masterdegree in Environmental Management and PhD in Biology he has more than 20 years experience in environmentalmanagement in public institutions, mainly in ICZM and sustainable tourism.

■ Maria Ferreira received her MSc degree in Physical Geography and Environmental Studies from the University ofCoimbra, Portugal, in 1999 (academic part). Presently, she is Deputy of EUCC´s Policy and Project unit, and has beenworking in various international projects dealing with the field of integrated management of coastal areas.

■ Candelaria Cecilia Ruano took her university degree in Tourism and her Master in Tourism from the Universityof Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. During the last years, she has been involved as a researcher in several projects in thefield of tourism management and sustainable development of coastal areas.

■ Pablo de la Peña has a Law Degree by the Balearic Island University (Mallorca) and a Master in EnvironmentalManagament by the Carlos III University (Madrid). He is specialized in Sustainable Tourism Development and LocalAgenda 21 and at present develops his career in the local ambit, at the Municipality of Calvià.

■ Alan Pickaver is a senior executive with a total of twenty-five years international management experience andcurrently working as Head of EUCC’s Policy and Project unit. Through his research and outreach activities, Alan isdirectly involved in meeting EUCC objective of promoting coastal conservation by bridging the gap between scientists,environmentalists, planners and policy makers.

■ Albert Salman, the Director General of EUCC – The Coastal Union, is an experienced senior executive with fifteenyears international management experience. He is a senior expert with a broad orientation in coastal matters,specialising in Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM, ICM), spatial planning, coastal erosion management andcoastal ecology.

■ Ricardo J. Haroun Tabraue is a professor and a senior researcher at Las Palmas de Gran Canaria University. He isthe Director of the Biodiversity an Environmental Management research group. He has coordinated various regional,national and international projects in the fields of marine ecology, environmental management or awareness raising.

Biographical notes

Yaiza Fernández-Palacios(1)

Candelaria Cecilia-Ruano(2)

Ricardo J. Haroun(3)

Instituto Canario de Ciencias MarinasLas Palmas, SpainEmail(1): [email protected](2): [email protected](3): [email protected]

Eduardo Cózar(4)

Pablo de la Peña(5)

Ayuntamiento de CalviàCalvià, Mallorca, SpainEmail(4): [email protected](5): [email protected]

Contact details:Maria Ferreira(6)

Alan Pickaver(7)

Albert SalmanEUCC – The Coastal UnionLeiden, The NetherlandsEmail(6): [email protected](7): [email protected]


La revista ARA es una publicación destinadaa la investigación académica y aplicada

sobre turismo y temas relacionados, que pretendeser un vínculo entre la ciencia elemental y la práctica.

Como medio profesional, ARA divulgarálos conocimientos teóricos sobre el turismo

y sus técnicas de aplicación en países situadosen ambientes naturales especialmente vulnerables

para, de este modo, contribuir a favorecery apoyar el desarrollo sostenible, la conservación

y el avance del bienestar de su poblacióny sus recursos naturales.

Incorporando en sus páginas distintos puntosde vista, análisis y opiniones basadas en estudios

académicos innovadores acerca del fenómenoturístico, que se tratarán, entre otros, aspectos

antropológicos, económicos, empresariales, educativos, de formación académica

y aplicada, biológicos, geológicos, ambientales,geográficos, históricos y sociológicos.

La revista invita a los investigadoresde todas las disciplinas académicas, - las ciencias

sociales, económicas, de planificación urbana,costera y regional, ciencias marinas y costeras,

medioambientales, de ocio y hospitalitymanagement - a contribuir a este fin con susestudios y trabajos, especialmente mediante

artículos de carácter multi-disciplinario.

La zona geográfica de especial atencióne interés para la revista ARA es la formada

por el Caribe en su sentido más amplio, incluyendolas zonas costeras del continente latinoamericano

colindante al Mar del Caribe. También sonbienvenidos aquellos artículos de investigación

que se centren en otras zonas geográficasdel mundo con situaciones similares

o comparables a las del Caribe.

Puesto que la edición de la revista es bilingüe,los artículos podrán ser entregados en inglés o españoly serán publicados en la lengua original del manuscrito.

INVITACIÓNPARA LA PRESENTACIÓN

DE ARTÍCULOS

The ARA journal is a publication intendedfor academic and applied research into tourismand related topics which aims to provide a link

between primary research and practice.

As a professional organ ARA is designedto spread theoretical and practical knowledge

of tourism in especially vulnerable environmentsin order to foment and support sustainable

development, conservation and the well-beingof the population and natural resources.

It will contain different points of view,analysis and opinions based on academic and

innovative studies on tourism and will deal withanthropological, economic, business and educationalaspects, both academic and applied, as well as research

into biology, geology, environment, geography,history, sociology and any other specializtions

of academic and professional relevancefor the tourism industry.

The new journal invites researchersof all academic disciplines, such as social sciences,economics, urban, regional and coastal planning,

marine and coastal sciences, environmental sciences,leisure and hospitality management

to contribute with their work, in particular paperswith a multi-disciplinary character.

The geographic area of the journal’s specificattention is the Caribbean region

in its widest sense, including the coastal zonesof the Latin American continent bordering

the Caribbean Sea. All research articles on otherareas in the world with similar or comparable

situations are also welcome.

The journal is of bilingual characterand will be published in English and Spanish.

Its frequency of publication is half-yearly.

INVITATIONFOR THE SUBMISSION

OF ARTICLES■ ■

63 V1.1.2008

64 V1.1.2008

En la cubierta deberán aparecer:

· Título del artículo y eventuales subtítulos

· Nombre / nombres del autor / de los autores, incluyendo losrespectivos nombres de la institución académica u otra afiliaciónprofesional, la dirección postal, el número de teléfono y fax y lasrespectivas direcciones de correo electrónico

En las siguientes páginas:

· Resumen/extracto (entre 100 y 200 palabras)

· Palabras clave (un máximo de seis)

· Artículo, de una extensión total de entre 5.000 y 10.000 palabras):

IntroducciónArtículo principalConclusionesListado de referencias consultadas/bibliográficas

· El artículo deberá ser escrito, en un documento de formato Word,a doble espacio y en página DIN-A4 (o formato American letter-size), con amplios márgenes a ambos lados del texto y debeentregarse por correo electrónico o en un soporte electrónico

· El artículo deberá estar escrito en tercera persona

· Se aceptarán únicamente los trabajos escritos en inglés y en español

· El Resumen del trabajo siempre tendrá que ser escrito tanto enespañol como en inglés

· Todas las páginas del artículo deberán ir numeradas, siendo lacubierta la página número 1

· Nota biográfica: se publicará una breve nota biográfica al finalde cada artículo. La nota deberá incluir el nombre/nombres delautor/autores, su titulación, el nombre de la institución,departamento, etc., al que pertenece/pertenecen, la direcciónpostal y la dirección de correo electrónico. Constará de un máximode 60 palabras.

· Nos e aceptarán pies de página en el texto.

· Las referencias bibliográficas citada en el texto se deberán ponerentre paréntesis indicando el autor/autores y año de publicación.

Ejemplos: (Mangion 1999) o (Cohen 1972, 1979, 1988; Urry 1990)o (Richards y Wilson 2006) o (Boswijk et al. 2005). Debe mencionarseel número de la página en caso de una citación directa, por ejemplo:(Prahalad y Ramaswamy 2003:16)

· La bibliografía deberá estar ordenada alfabéticamente según elnombre del autor/autores. Su contenido y formato deberán seguirlos siguientes ejemplos:

Referencia de un libro: Hall, C.M. y Jenkins, J. 1995. Tourism andPublic Policy. London: Routledge

Artículo de un libro: England, M. 2001. The tourist place:Neoclassical assumptions. En Beyond Tourism Geography, ed.Marianne A. Ferber y Julie A. Nelson, pp. 37-53. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Artículo en revista: Andriotis, K. 2006. Hosts, guests and politics.Coastal Resorts Morphological Change. Annals of TourismResearch 33: 1080-1083

· Las tablas y figuras deberán entregarse en documentos separados,numeradas de manera consecutiva en blanco y negro. El autordebe indicar la ubicación deseada o preferida de cada tabla y/ofigura en el texto, mencionando el número consecutivo de cadatabla y figura. Losformatos deberán ser tif o jpg

· Cada artículo entregado será evaluado por un mínimo de dosespecialistas en distintas disciplinas mediante el método deanonimato doble (los evaluadores y autores no conocen lasidentidades de los demás)

Al entregar el artículo para su evaluación y posible publicación, el autor acepta que:

· Se trata de un escrito personal y original

· Si en el artículo aparece cualquier material con derechos de autorque no sean propios, las referencias a dichos derechos se habránespecificado claramente en el texto.

· El autor acepta que el artículo entregado y firmado no contienematerial difamatorio, ilegal o que infrinja cualquier derecho deautor u otros.

Derechos de autor y Originalidad:

Todos los autores deben firmar el convenio de ‘Transferencia de Derechos de Autor’ previamente a la publicación de sus trabajos. Este conveniopermite a los Editores de la revista ARA proteger el material incluido en el convenio en beneficio de sus autores, pero no implica la renuncia asus derechos de propiedad intelectual. El traspaso del derecho de autor comprende el derecho exclusivo a reproducir y a distribuir el trabajo,incluyendo nuevas reimpresiones, reproducciones fotográficas, microfilmación o cualquier otra reproducción de naturaleza similar y traducciones.Incluye también el derecho de adaptar el artículo para ser usado en sistemas y programas de ordenador, o para ser reproducido o publicadoen sistemas de máquinas lectoras, o para ser incorporado a otros sistemas de reproducción.Los autores deberán obtener del poseedor del derecho de autor su permiso para reproducir cualquier gráfico sobre el que existe este derecho.

■ NORMAS DE PUBLICACIÓN ■

Los artículos que sean aceptados para su posterior publicación en la revista ARA,deberán cumplir con los siguientes requisitos:

Submissions may be sent to: or to:

the Coordinator of the Editorial Board:Prof. Dr. Jordi MartinellFacultat de GeologiaUniversitat de BarcelonaMartí i Franquès, s/nE-08028 BARCELONA (España/Spain)[email protected]

Bert E. Verduin, responsable de producciónc/o CETT Escola Universitària de Turisme – UBAvinguda Can Marcet, 36-38E-08035 BARCELONA (España/Spain)

65 V1.1.2008

On the cover sheet:

· Name of the article and possible subtitles

· Name of the author / names of the authors with their respectivenames of academic institution or other professional affiliation,professional addresses and e-mail addresses

On the following pages:

· Abstract (may vary between 100 and 200 words)

· Key words (maximum total of six)

· Article (including the Introduction and the Conclusion, may varyin length between 5.000 and 10.000 words):

IntroductionThe main articleConclusionReference list

Instructions for the editing of the article:

· All submissions should be typed, double-spaced on DIN-A4 format(or American letter-size format), with ample margins at both sidesof the text and should be sent by email or on CD-Rom

· The article should be written in the third person

· Articles presented for submission may be written in English or Spanish

· The abstract should be written and presented in both Englishand Spanish

· All pages should be numbered, starting with the cover as page 1.

· Biographical note: a short biographical note will be published atthe end of each paper; this should include name(s) of author(s),titles, name of institution, department etc., postal address ande-mail address. A maximum of 60 words

· Footnotes will not be allowed

· References should be cited in the text by author/authors and yearof publication between brackets. Examples: (Mangion 1999) or(Cohen 1972, 1979, 1988; Urry 1990) or (Richards and Wilson2006) or (Boswijk et al. 2005). A page number may be mentionedin case of a direct quotation, for example: (Prahalad andRamaswamy 2003:16)

· A reference list should be included, in alphabetical order by author,at the end of the manuscript. The content and format should beaccording to the following examples:

Reference to a book: Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. 1995 Tourism andPublic Policy. London: Routledge

Article published in a book: England, M. 2001. The tourist place:Neoclassical assumptions. In Beyond Tourism Geography, ed.Marianne A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson, pp. 37-53. Chicago:University of Chicago Press

Article in journal: Andriotis, K. 2006. Hosts, guests and politics.Coastal Resorts Morphological Change. Annals of Tourism Research33: 1080-1083

· Tables and Figures, consecutively numbered, should be submittedseparately in black/white. The preferred position of each tableand figure should be marked in the text with the consecutivenumber of each table and figure. Formats only in jpg or tiff

· Each submitted article shall be subjected to a double blind reviewprocess (authors and reviewers will not know each others names)by at least two specialists in different academic areas

Please note that by submitting your paper for its evaluation andpossible publication, you are stating that:

· It is your own original work

· Any material, of which you do not own copyright, has been clearlyacknowledged in the text

· To the best of your knowledge the submitted article does notcontain any material which is libellous, illegal or infringes anyone’scopyright or other rights

Copyright and Originality:

All authors must sign the ‘Transfer of Copyright’ agreement before the article can be published. This transfer agreement enables the publisherto protect the copyrighted material for the authors, but does not relinquish the author’s proprietary rights. The copyright transfer covers theexclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, photographic reproductions, microform or any other reproductionsof similar nature and translations, as well as the right to adapt the article for use in conjunction with computer systems and programs, andreproduction or publication in machine-readable form and incorporation in retrieval systems.Authors are responsible for obtaining from the copyright holder permission to reproduce any figures for which copyright exists.

■ GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPTS ■

Articles submitted for publication in the tourism & travel research journal ARAwill have to be written according to the following order:

Submissions may be sent to: or to:

the Coordinator of the Editorial Board:Prof. Dr. Jordi MartinellFacultat de GeologiaUniversitat de BarcelonaMartí i Franquès, s/nE-08028 BARCELONA (España/Spain)[email protected]

Bert E. Verduin, Production Supervisorc/o CETT Escola Universitària de Turisme – UBAvinguda Can Marcet, 36-38E-08035 BARCELONA (España/Spain)

Enviar este formulario a: / Please send this form to:

Funglode – Fundación Global Democracia y DesarrolloCapitán Eugenio de Marchena no. 26 - La Esperilla

Santo Domingo, República Dominicana / Dominican RepublicTel.: +1 (809) 685 9966 · Fax: +1 (809) 685-9926

[email protected] · www.funglode.org

FORMULARIO DE SUBSCRIPCIÓN / SUBSCRIPTION FORM

Formas de pago / payment can be done by:

❑ Cheque bancario / Money Order

❑ Transferencia bancaria / bank transfer: Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo (FUNGLODE)Cuenta bancaria / Account Number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

❑ Tarjeta de Crédito / Credit Card: ❑ VISA ❑ MASTERCARD

Precio de subscripción para un año (dos números): 90 e / US$ 117Subscription Tariff for one year (two issues): US$ 17 / e 90

Titular de la tarjeta / Cardholder:

Nº de la tarjeta / Card Number:

CW2: Válido hasta / Expiry Date:

Fecha y firma / Date & Signature:

Datos del subscriptor / Subscriber Information:

Nombre / Name:

Institución / Institution:

Departamento / Department:

Dirección / Address:

Ciudad y población / City:

Estado o Provincia / State or Province:

Código Postal / Zip:

País / Country:

Teléfono / Phone:

Fax:

e-mail:

IVA / VAT-No.:

Ara - Editorial Funglodeeditorialfunglode.com/documents/RevistasGratis/ano_1no1.pdf · al...

Documents

Transcript of Ara - Editorial Funglodeeditorialfunglode.com/documents/RevistasGratis/ano_1no1.pdf · al...