Sep 15, 2018 - The aim of the present study is to analyse the role of sustainable tourism indicators as instruments to formulate and ...... Figure 14 Stakeholder Map 2 with input interviewees . ...... Che cos'è il Turismo Responsabile. Milan:.
ALMA MATER STUDIORUM UNIVERSITÀ DI BOLOGNA SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS MANAGEMENT AND STATISTICS CAMPUS RIMINI SECOND CYCLE DEGREE PROGRAMME IN TOURISM ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT
Sustainable Tourism Indicators as policy making tools: Lessons from ETIS implementation at destination level
Final Dissertation in Local Development and Cultural Routes
PRESENTED BY
SUPERVISOR
Maria Laura Gasparini
Alessia Mariotti
CO-SUPERVISOR Elisa Magnani
ACADEMIC YEAR 2016/2017
MATR. N. 0000760195
ALMA MATER STUDIORUM UNIVERSITÀ DI BOLOGNA SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS MANAGEMENT AND STATISTICS CAMPUS RIMINI SECOND CYCLE DEGREE PROGRAMME IN TOURISM ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT
Sustainable Tourism Indicators as policy making tools: Lessons from ETIS implementation at destination level
Final Dissertation in Local Development and Cultural Routes
PRESENTED BY
SUPERVISOR
Maria Laura Gasparini
Alessia Mariotti
CO-SUPERVISOR Elisa Magnani
ACADEMIC YEAR 2016/2017
Abstract The aim of the present study is to analyse the role of sustainable tourism indicators as instruments to formulate and implement tourism policy at destination level. It is argued that the role of indicators is fundamental to support decision-making and evaluate performance of policies, as well as to raise awareness, build capacity and legitimate political decisions. The methodological approach involves a literature review, to know the state of the literature with regards to sustainable tourism indicators and their use in tourism policy. Secondly, a case study is chosen: the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS), which is analysed in depth and its implementation is illustrated in the Zuid Limburg region in the Netherlands, where semi-structured interviews are performed to local and national stakeholders. Finally, a comparison of Zuid Limburg with other ETIS awarded destinations is performed, to investigate the extent of use of the indicators in tourism policies. The originality of the research is given by the case study chosen, since due to its novelty, the implications of ETIS implementation for destination management and policy making have hardly been studied. The present study pretends to fill that gap. Even though Zuid Limburg did not use the information collected by the indicators, based on the extensive literature analysed, the interviews performed and the comparative analysis with other European destinations, it is concluded that indicator systems such as ETIS are fundamental tools to improve the sources of information that support policy making. Moreover, their relevance is not limited to this direct use, but they also contribute to raise awareness and build capacity of tourism stakeholders, influence ideas and legitimate political decisions. All of this contributes to the process of formulating, implementing and evaluating sustainable tourism policies. Notwithstanding, for indicators to perform these roles, it is crucial that the government is involved from the beginning, establishing links with policy priorities, and that Destination Management Organizations steer the implementation process. Otherwise, their potential will be limited. Keywords: sustainable tourism, indicator systems, ETIS (European Tourism Indicator System), tourism policy, stakeholders, destination management, DMO.
Acknowledgements Let me take this opportunity to praise all those important people who assisted me throughout this journey. First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Prof. Alessia Mariotti, for her support and valuable advice during the research period. She was also my supervisor during my internship period at the Center for Advanced Studies in Tourism – CAST and I am grateful for having had the chance to work and learn from her. I also thank Prof. Elisa Magnani for her availability to revise my work as co-supervisor. Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude to Mrs. Cinzia de Marzo, expert from the European Commission Tourism Unit during ETIS implementation, who has encouraged my research on ETIS indicators from the very beginning, as well as Mr. Albert Salman from Green Destinations and all the prestigious tourism experts interviewed, who have provided important insights to complete my work. This research study has been possible in great part thanks to the cooperation of the Zuid Limburg Tourism Board, in particular Mrs. Iris Darley, who has shared material and contacts to perform my field work in Zuid Limburg. Special thanks to all stakeholders in Zuid Limburg region and at Dutch national level, who have donated their time and expertise for my interviews, as well as the European destinations included in this study, who have shared their experiences and documents to perform the benchmark analysis. On a more general note, I would like to take the chance to thank my parents, Marta I. Stella and Aquiles T. Gasparini, for their unconditional support and motivation during the two years of this Master’s Degree, and special thanks to Stefan Lazic for being by my side all this time, encouraging me to keep going. Without them, this final work would not be possible. Finally, I would like to genuinely recognise all professors from the Master in Tourism Economics and Management (TEaM). They have all, in their own way, provided me with the necessary knowledge and tools to pursue a career in sustainable tourism.
Maria Laura Gasparini
Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1 - Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Sustainable Development ......................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Sustainable Tourism................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Sustainable Tourism Indicators .............................................................................................. 7 1.4 Tourism Policy ........................................................................................................................ 10 1.5 Sustainable Tourism Policy ................................................................................................... 12 1.6 Sustainable Tourism Indicators as policy making tools ..................................................... 15 1.7 ETIS ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Chapter 2 – International Sustainable Tourism Measuring initiatives ..................................... 23 2.1 UNWTO Measuring initiatives ............................................................................................. 23 2.1.1 Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations’ Guidebook ........ 24 2.1.2 International Network of Sustainable Tourism Observatories – INSTO................... 27 2.1.3 Measuring Sustainable Tourism – Towards a Statistical Framework ....................... 28 2.2 Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) ..................................................................... 30 2.2.1 GSTC Criteria .................................................................................................................. 30 2.3 Green Destinations Standard and Reporting System ......................................................... 33 Chapter 3 - The European Tourism Indicators System (ETIS) .................................................. 36 3.1 EU Tourism Policy evolution as ETIS background ............................................................ 36 3.1.1.New political framework for European Tourism ......................................................... 38 3.1.2 Current state of EU Tourism Policy…………………………………………………...38 3.2 Towards the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) ................................................ 39 3.3 ETIS Launch and pilot phases .............................................................................................. 40 3.4 Description of the System ...................................................................................................... 41 3.5 Implementation framework to apply ETIS.......................................................................... 42 3.6 Comparing the 1st and 2nd set of indicators ....................................................................... 44 3.7 Assessment of ETIS Indicators as policy making tools ....................................................... 46 3.8 Interviews with tourism experts involved in ETIS development ....................................... 49 3.9 ETIS: Future perspective ...................................................................................................... 51 3.10 Conclusive remarks about ETIS and its policy use ........................................................... 52 Chapter 4 - ETIS implementation in Zuid Limburg Region, Netherlands ................................ 53 4.1 Case Study Overview ............................................................................................................. 53 4.1.1 Aims of the research ......................................................................................................... 53 4.1.2 Research Question ............................................................................................................ 53 4.1.3 Complementary Research questions .............................................................................. 54 i
4.1.4 Research motivation ......................................................................................................... 54 4.1.5 Research approach ........................................................................................................... 55 4.1.6 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 55 4.2 Tourism Sector in The Netherlands: Brief Overview ......................................................... 56 4.3 Tourism in Limburg and Zuid Limburg.............................................................................. 58 4.3.1 Limburg Province ............................................................................................................ 58 4.3.2 Zuid Limburg Region ...................................................................................................... 60 4.4 Zuid Limburg Tourism Board .............................................................................................. 62 4.5 Sustainable Tourism in Zuid Limburg ................................................................................. 64 4.6 Measuring Sustainable Tourism using ETIS ....................................................................... 65 4.7 ETIS implementation in Zuid Limburg ............................................................................... 65 4.7.1 Methodology...................................................................................................................... 66 4.7.2 Evaluation of the process to implement ETIS in Zuid Limburg ................................. 67 4.8 Analysis of Indicators collected by Zuid Limburg .............................................................. 73 4.9 Analysis of Stakeholders Semi-structured interviews ......................................................... 78 4.9.1 Comparative Analysis of main common questions ...................................................... 80 4.9.2 Stakeholder Working Group .......................................................................................... 81 4.9.3 SWG plus national/regional actors ................................................................................ 85 4.10 The Zuid Limburg Stakeholders Ecosystem...................................................................... 88 4.10.1 Stakeholder Map before conducting the interviews ................................................... 89 4.10.2 Stakeholder Map with contribution of interviewees .................................................. 90 4.11 Comments from ETIS implementation in Zuid Limburg ................................................ 92 Chapter 5 – Comparative Analysis of ETIS destinations............................................................. 94 5.1 Questionnaire to ETIS destinations ...................................................................................... 94 5.1.1 ETIS pilot experience ...................................................................................................... 96 5.1.2 Use of indicators as policy making and management tools.......................................... 99 5.2 Benchmarking between Zuid Limburg and awarded destinations ................................. 105 5.2.1 Limitations of the analysis ............................................................................................ 105 5.2.2 Comparison on the level of monitoring ....................................................................... 107 5.2.3 Comparison on the level of sustainability ................................................................... 108 5.3 Final comments from Comparative Analysis……………………………………………113 Chapter 6 - Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 115 6.1 Implications for destinations and further research……………………………………...117 References ....................................................................................................................................... 119 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………..126 ii
List of Tables Table 1 Areas of government influencing the sustainability of tourism ............................................ 13 Table 2 UNWTO Baseline issues and indicators ............................................................................... 24 Table 3 UNWTO 12-step procedure to develop and use indicators .................................................. 26 Table 4 GSTC-D Criteria per section ................................................................................................ 32 Table 5 ETIS indicators comparison .................................................................................................. 44 Table 6 ETIS Strengths and Weaknesses ........................................................................................... 45 Table 7 List of tourism experts interviewed ...................................................................................... 49 Table 8 Zuid Limburg Tourism facts and figures .............................................................................. 62 Table 9 Zuid Limburg Stakeholder Working Group ......................................................................... 69 Table 10 ETIS Indicators monitored per section ............................................................................... 78 Table 11 ETIS Core and Optional Indicators..................................................................................... 78 Table 12 List of Zuid Limburg stakeholders interviewed.................................................................. 79 Table 13 Additional interviews conducted with national/regional tourism stakeholders .................. 80 Table 14 Main results SWG interviews ............................................................................................. 84 Table 15 Main results from all stakeholder interviews ...................................................................... 88 Table 16 Representatives that filled out the ETIS questionnaire ....................................................... 95 Table 17 Level of monitoring of ETIS indicators ............................................................................ 107 Table 18 Benchmark main indicators measured by 6 destinations .................................................. 108
List of Figures Figure 1 Logical position of indicators in a set of related concepts .................................................... 8 Figure 2 Tourism Policy Model ......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3 Barriers to achieving successful sustainable tourism policy ............................................... 14 Figure 4 Policy process model with role of indicators....................................................................... 17 Figure 5 Measuring approach of UNWTO ........................................................................................ 27 Figure 6 Overall structure of the SF-MST ......................................................................................... 29 Figure 7 Main elements of the Green Destinations Assessment and Reporting system .................... 34 Figure 8 Distribution of ETIS indicators per category ...................................................................... 45 Figure 9 Relationship between ETIS Framework and Tourism Policy ............................................. 48 Figure 10 Netherlands Tourism Organizational chart........................................................................ 57 Figure 11 Location of Limburg province in the Netherlands ............................................................ 59 Figure 12 Zuid Limburg location and sub areas ................................................................................ 62 Figure 13 Stakeholder Map 1 ............................................................................................................. 89 Figure 14 Stakeholder Map 2 with input interviewees ...................................................................... 90 Figure 15 Main problems during ETIS implementation .................................................................... 97 Figure 16 Current use of ETIS ........................................................................................................... 98 Figure 17 Usefulness of Indicators in policy making ........................................................................ 99 Figure 18 Use of ETIS in policy ........................................................................................................ 99 Figure 19 Leading sustainability measuring .................................................................................... 101 Figure 20 Role of Sustainable Tourism Indicators .......................................................................... 102 Figure 21 Indicators link to Tourism Policy .................................................................................... 103 Figure 22 Incentives to implement indicators .................................................................................. 104 iii
List of Acronyms CBS - Cologne Business School COM – European Union Communication CoR – European Union Committee of the Regions DMO - Destination Management Organization EDEN - European Destinations of Excellence EMAS - EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme ETIS - European Tourism Indicator System EC - European Commission EU – European Union GSTC – Global Sustainable Tourism Council INSTO - International Network of Sustainable Tourism Observatories MST - Measuring Sustainable Tourism statistical framework MVO – Corporate social responsibility Netherlands NBTC - Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions NECSTouR - Network of European Regions for a Sustainable and Competitive Tourism NGO – Non-Governmental Organization OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development POINT – Policy use and influence of indicators project RECRON - Association of Recreation Entrepreneurs Netherlands TEU - Treaty on European Union TFEU - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TSG - Tourism Sustainability Group SDG – Sustainable Development Goals SWG - Stakeholder Working Group UN – United Nations UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme UNWTO – United Nations World Tourism Organization VTO - Virtual Tourism Observatory VVV Zuid Limburg Tourism Board WTTC – World Travel and Tourism Council iv
Introduction There is no doubt that tourism is nowadays one of the main economic activities worldwide, accounting for 10% of the global gross domestic product (GDP), 1 in every 10 jobs and the main income source for many developing countries (UNWTO, 2017). 2017 has been, in fact, a record year with international tourist arrivals growing 7% and accounting for 1.3 billion, almost doubling the average growth rate of the last 7 years (UNWTO, 2017). According also to UNWTO, this number is forecasted to rocket to 1.8 billion international tourist arrivals by 2030. Despite the well-advertised benefits tourism brings to the economy of destinations, the negative impacts this growth in travel generates is expected to double in the next 25 – 45 years (Gossling & Peeters, 2015). These impacts are mainly environmental, namely growing CO2 emissions generated by the increase in flights and cruise journeys, as well as the intensive use of resources by the sector (energy, water, land, food). There are also negative socio-economic impacts related to poor development opportunities for the host communities, leakages of income and conflicts between tourists and residents. A holistic approach is vital for the sustainable management of tourism, since the natural and cultural resources are the assets on which the tourism industry’s competitiveness relies on. The paradox with some forms of tourism is that they damage the very same resources needed to develop the sector. The notion of sustainable development, introduced in 1987 by the so called Brundtland Report, shaded light to the need of managing natural resources in such way future generations are able to enjoy these same resources. This concept applied to tourism means that the activity generates economic benefits that are fairly enjoyed by the local population, while acting as an instrument to protect the natural resources of the planet. In an effort to make the concept of sustainable tourism operational, different models have been proposed to manage tourism taking into consideration the triple bottom line. Sustainable tourism indicator systems have been identified as a reliable tool to simplify and interpret large amounts of information on the impacts of tourism. This information in turn should allow destination managers and policy makers to take evidence-based decisions and plan tourism development accordingly. This kind of measurement instruments have been generally applied at destination level, since at this level policies are made, and it is easier to measure and monitor results. It has been identified a gap in the literature related to the role indicators play in policy making. Precisely, one of the motivations of the present study is to contribute to the literature on the usefulness of sustainability indicators in tourism policy making. To do this, first an overview of the sustainable 1
development paradigm as well as the evolution of sustainable tourism is presented, together with an analysis of the current literature about sustainable tourism indicators (STI) and their relationship with tourism policy. This is followed by a brief description of the main initiatives at international level to measure sustainable tourism. The European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) is taken as case study, as the only common framework developed by the European Commission in an attempt to provide destinations with a complete management tool to measure and monitor tourism sustainability. Empirical evidence of ETIS implementation is collected through field work in one of its testing destinations: Zuid Limburg region in the Netherlands. Its selection is based on the fact that it has been one of the destinations awarded by the EC after the pilot phase, as well as because of the several international recognitions on their efforts towards sustainability. A number of semi-structured interviews has been conducted to the stakeholders involved in the project, as well as other key tourism players, in order to understand the organization of the tourism sector and assess the ETIS pilot experience. Finally, through an online questionnaire and a benchmark analysis, a comparison is performed against other ETIS-awarded destinations, in order to verify the extent of implementation of the system and the policy use of the indicators. Conclusions are drawn based on the case study, the different empirical experiences and the literature on the topic. Finally, recommendations are given to ensure the correct implementation of indicator systems and maximize their policy relevance.
2
Chapter 1 Literature Review The present literature review aims first at setting the context in which sustainable tourism indicators appear, and secondly at summarising the findings up to date on the role of indicators to contribute to sustainable tourism policies. The general concept of sustainable development will be presented first, followed by the interpretation the tourism sector makes of the concept, which as we will explain, are many and sometimes in conflict with the main sustainable development theory. In an attempt to put in practice the abstract concept of sustainable tourism, different instruments have been created, to help public and private actors better manage the tourism industry. One of the most widely-diffused tools are indicators, that allow to simplify and interpret large amounts of information to make inform decisions, among many other uses. The types, features and possible uses of indicators will be exposed first, and after introducing the concepts of tourism policy and sustainable tourism policy, they will be discussed again according to their specific roles as policy making tools, which is the main research question of this study. Finally, the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS), which is the case study selected to evaluate the policy role of indicators, will be briefly introduced, mentioning the authors that have included it in their research, although not many due to the recency of the initiative. At the end of this review, we expect to have a clear understanding of the context in which sustainable tourism indicators arise and their relevance to inform tourism policy making. 1.1. Sustainable Development The notions of planetary boundaries and limit to growth started to be acknowledged in the 1960s and 1970s, with the failure of economic development models and the rise of new approaches, taking into consideration the growing environmental concerns (Hardy, Beeton, & Pearson, 2002). In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockolm and is considered “the first major conference of the UN on international environmental issues” (United Nations, 2018). Meadows et al. point out that in the same year, the Club of Rome published the report The Limits to Growth, which recognized that the planet could not cope with the increasing levels of pollution and waste generated by the current economic model (as cited in Hardy et al., 2002, p.479). However, it was not until 1987 when the broad concept of sustainable development was formally defined in the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common 3
Future, as the development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The report is also known as the Brundtland Report because of the Commission’s Chairman, Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland. The concept has been universally accepted, although it has been subject to a wide range of interpretations (Butler, 1999), arguing that is a rather “soft” definition, that can satisfy different parties (Ceron & Dubois, 2003). The concept was further developed during the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, known as the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where the Agenda 21 was introduced, outlining the actions to be taken towards achieving sustainable development. In the agenda, monitoring through the use of sustainable development indicators is recognized as key for decisionmaking (United Nations, 1992) and governments are urged to use them. The agreement on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 was another milestone on this direction, however the emphasis was on human development and poverty alleviation rather than environmental sustainability. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+ 10) in Johannesburg in 2002, a Plan of Implementation of the Agenda 21 was agreed, and sustainable tourism development was incorporated (Torres Delgado & Saarinen, 2014), with a parallel recognition that it can be an important, and sometimes the only way for overcoming poverty in a large number of developing nations (Yunis, 2004). Development suggests progress not only in quantitative terms, such as economic growth, but also in qualitative terms, such as the wellbeing of local population, taking into consideration the triple bottom line: economic, environmental and social dimensions. These are the so called “pillars” of sustainable development, which should involve a development that generates economic benefits that are well distributed, generating equal opportunities, while reducing the negative impacts on the natural resources. The word sustainability implies the idea of maintaining certain resources for a long period of time. In this regard, Farrell and Twining-Ward remind us that “sustainability must be conceived as a transition, journey or path, rather than an end point or an achievable goal” (2004, p. 275). The new sustainability science, as explained by the National Research Council (as cited in Miller & TwiningWard, 2005, p.17), involves four fields of study: biological, social, geophysical and technological systems research. It is suggested by different authors that an adaptive management approach should be taken in the context of uncertainty, complexity and interdependency between humans and natural systems (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004). 4
Since the term sustainable development is “malleable” (Hunter, 1997, p.852; Butler, 1999), Turner, Pearce and Bateman argue there are different interpretations, “ranging from very strong to very weak” sustainability (as cited in Hunter, 1997, p. 852). According to these same authors, the one that seems to prevail in western governmental policies is the weak interpretation or “managed and modified global economic growth paradigm” (as cited in Hunter, 1997, p.854), by which the economic growth is not questioned, but a more balanced growth is proposed, taking into consideration some social and environmental concerns. This paradigm is referred by Hall as the “balanced” approach to sustainable development (2011, p. 661). 1.2. Sustainable Tourism The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the leading international tourism authority, has defined sustainable tourism as: “development that meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future (…) leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems” (World Tourism Organization, 1998, p. 21). Swarbrooke argues sustainable tourism should be economically viable (since it is an economic activity) but taking care of the resources on which it depends on (the natural environment and local culture) (as cited in Ritchie & Crouch, 2003, p. 36). Tourism is in a particular position in which it can generate a positive impact (contributing to conservation, employment, peace and understanding among different cultures) but can also exert a negative influence on the environment and be “selfdestructive” (Pigram, 1990, p. 2) (pollution, overcrowdedness, conflicts with local population, as many others). That is why a transformation of the tourism industry is called for. At an initial stage, sustainable tourism was perceived as the opposite of mass tourism. It was often regarded as “alternative tourism”, a kind of tourism involving small numbers of tourists, itineraries that were “off the beaten path”, generating a low impact. However, as the definition evolved, “sustainable tourism became the goal for attainment, rather than the possession of an existing scale of tourism” (Clarke, 2010, p. 227) and Jafari recognized that all types of tourism could be made more sustainable (as cited in Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005, p. 33). According to Butler (1999, p. 13) “the key problem (…) is not ensuring the continued introduction of small-scale, environmentally and culturally appropriate forms of tourism, but how to make existing mass tourism developments as sustainable as possible”.
5
As it has been exposed in the previous section, the term sustainable development can be interpreted in different ways and consequently, the tourism sector has attempted to make their own interpretation (Butler, 1999). Three approaches to sustainable tourism have been identified by McCool and Moisey (2001): sustaining tourism (a tourism-centric approach), sustainable tourism (a gentler kind of tourism development) and finally tourism as a tool for development. Similarly, Coccossis suggests there are different viewpoints of sustainable tourism: the sectoral viewpoint, the ecological viewpoint, the long-term viability of tourism (which will be similar to the sectoral viewpoint, interested in the competitiveness of the industry) and finally tourism as part of the sustainable development strategy (as cited in Butler, 1999, p.10). For Miller and Twining-Ward (2005) there are basically two approaches: one placing the tourism industry at the centre of the sustainable tourism concern, and one that recognizes sustainable tourism as part of the broader goal of sustainable development. For Butler (1999) it is very unlikely that a single definition of sustainable tourism will be agreed on, since the success of the term is due to the fact that it can be adapted to suit the interests of the different parties involved. Veal express concern in that “the potential wolf of tourism development is packaged within sheep’s clothing of sustainable development to appear less threatening” (2010, p. 400), but as with any industry the emphasis is still on maximising profits. One further downside of the interpretation of the concept is that to many, sustainable tourism is related exclusively to environmental protection, without recognizing that socio-cultural and economic aspects are part of the concept as well (Butler, 1999), requiring a holistic approach. One of the most important contributions to the debate on sustainable tourism has been provided by Colin Hunter (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). According to Hunter, “the concerns of sustainable tourism have become too far removed from those of its parental concept, resulting in a gap such that principles and policies of sustainable tourism do not necessarily contribute to those of sustainable development” (1997, p. 851). Hunter proposes that sustainable tourism should be regarded as an “adaptive paradigm”, suggesting that its development could adopt different approaches in different locations, according to their particular characteristics (1997, p. 864). He explains that one model of sustainable tourism cannot be applied to all destinations; it will depend a great deal on the role tourism plays in the economy of an area and its relationship with other sectors. This will imply that, in some cases, tourism will be preferred to other economic activities, sometimes will be complimentary and, other times, “tourism growth should be sacrificed for the greater good” (Hunter, 1997, p. 862), if tourism is to effectively 6
contribute to the goals of sustainable development. Pigram have already proposed a similar approach a few years earlier than Hunter, when he acknowledged that “not all tourist zones exhibit the same degree of fragility or of resilience”, and “sustainable tourism can be used to refer to options or strategies considered preferable to mass tourism” (1990, p. 6). 1.3. Sustainable Tourism Indicators Several authors such as Hunter, Wheeler and Manning, believe that sustainable tourism as a concept is meaningless without indicators and other monitoring tools that can measure the impacts and determine whether they are acceptable or not (as cited in Torres Delgado & Saarinen, 2014, p.32; and cited in Tanguay, Rajaonson, & Therrien, 2013, p.862). The process of developing indicators “helps in determining the important tenets” of sustainable tourism (Miller G. , 2001, p. 361) and to make it operational (Butler, 1999). Ko adds that “if sustainable development is one of the tourism industry’s major contemporary objectives, then the industry needs to be able to measure its performance and impacts” (as cited in Torres Delgado & Saarinen, 2014, p.33) There are different definitions of indicators. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an indicator is a ‘‘parameter, or a value derived from parameters, which
points to, provides information about, describes the state of a
phenomenon/environment/area, with a significance extending beyond that directly associated with a parameter value” (as cited in Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005, p.111). UNWTO defines indicators of sustainable tourism as “the set of measures that provide the necessary information to better understand the links between the impact of tourism on the cultural and natural setting in which this takes place and on which it is strongly dependent” (as cited in Lozano-Oyola, Blancas, González, & Caballero, 2012, p.660). Indicators are expected to summarise and simplify a complex reality (Ceron & Dubois, 2003). As these authors acknowledge, “their significance comes from their interpretation and from their use within a diagnosis or analysis” (2003, p. 57) Gudmundsson et al. (2009, p. 27) propose the following definition: “Indicators are understood as variables, which are constructed and selected as ‘indicators’ by someone, to operationally represent properties of wider ‘representation targets’; and which are fed with values in order to allow simplified communication about and possibly control over these targets”.
7
Figure 1 shows the position of indicators together with related concepts. Individual indicators can be objective (quantifiable, such as raw data, ratios and percentages) and subjective (related to opinions, categories, normative and nominal indicators) (UNWTO, 2004). Figure 1 Logical position of indicators in a set of related concepts
Source: Gudmundsson et al. (2009)
The use of indicators has several advantages, such as explaining the current situation and monitoring its evolution, as well as detecting issues in the current model of tourism development to design strategies for its long-term management (Torres-Delgado & López Palomeque, 2014; Moreno Pires, et al., 2014). They provide solid bases for decision-making at all levels (United Nations, 1992) and their monitoring enable a destination to benchmark its sustainability performance against comparable destinations (UNEP & UNWTO, 2005) and against its own prior or future state (Weaver, 2006). Indicators are usually of little value if they are not compared with other values, so baselines, targets or critical limits should be established (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Moreover, indicators can improve information systems in an industry weak in statistical data like tourism (Ceron & Dubois, 2003), raise awareness (Moreno Pires, Fidélis, & Ramos, 2014) and communicate these impacts to all relevant stakeholders, to encourage their involvement and commitment (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Yunis (2004) adds two other important functions of indicators: acting as performance measurements of policies and plans in place and increasing the accountability of decision-makers. The most commonly used and better-understood indicators are of economic aspects, such as the number of tourist arrivals and expenditure, but these indicators also provide essential information to a number of sustainability issues, which are related to tourist numbers and levels of stress on resources (Yunis, 2004). 8
On the other hand, Holden, Moreno & Fidélis have criticized indicators for being ineffective in changing decision-making processes and outcomes, and in promoting action based on observed trends (as cited in Moreno Pires et al., 2014, p.1). Other shortcomings affecting indicators are limited data availability, high costs and subjectivity in their building and interpretation (Torres Delgado & Saarinen, 2014). Gallopin recognizes “the subjectivity in selecting what to measure, the target value and the weighting of simple indicators” to create indices (as cited in Miller, 2001, p. 352). In any case, as Ceron and Dubois (2003) and UNWTO (2004) point out, indicators should be considered as part of an overall assessment process, not as an objective by themselves. There are two different types of indicators: simple indicators (information collected directly from reality or with simple calculations) and complex, synthetic indicators or indices (which combine simple indicators using a weighting system) (Torres-Delgado & López Palomeque, 2014). A third type of indicators is an indicator system, which groups together simple indicators structured in a particular framework, for instance the dimensions of sustainability, and the results are interpreted jointly (Torres-Delgado & López Palomeque, 2014). As highlighted by the same authors, the information provided by the system is more and different than that offered by the single indicators; however, it is argued that most of the systems proposed up to date tend to be too theoretical and difficult to put in practice (Torres-Delgado & López Palomeque, 2014). An approach combining a set of indicators with a complimentary index could be a good solution according to Torres Delgado and Saarinen (2014). Regarding the number of indicators to include in the system, this is one of the major dilemmas when developing indicators (Ceron & Dubois, 2003). There is no agreed number, so researchers must apply their own subjective criteria in order to build a system that is both scientifically relevant to assess the phenomenon, but simple enough to represent an operational policy tool (Torres-Delgado & López Palomeque, 2014; Tanguay, Rajaonson, & Therrien, 2013). The core indicators can then be enhanced or supplemented by more specific indicators to reflect the particular issues and priorities of the destination (Tanguay, Rajaonson, & Therrien, 2013). Another discussion among experts is whether indicators should be standardized, in order to favour the benchmarking across different destinations, or context-specific indicators, adapted to the needs and characteristics of the destination (Moreno Pires, Fidélis, & Ramos, 2014). Choi and Sirakaya (2006) in their paper on managing community tourism, propose that each community should adopt only the indicators it needs to monitor tourism development. Other authors agree with allowing flexibility in choosing indicators, since the issues that destinations face are generally not the same. 9
However, Torres Delgado & Saarinen emphasize that “the challenge is achieving coverage not only of local impacts but also of global issues” of sustainability (2014, p. 43) United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) & UNWTO (2005) in their guide for policy makers, have identified five criteria for the selection of indicators, to ensure its instrumental use: relevance of the indicator, feasibility of obtaining and analysing the data, reliability of the information, clarity and ease of understanding and finally comparability over time and across regions. These are generally agreed by most authors and initiatives as the main ones, however there are many other criteria, such as cost-effectiveness, limit in number, policy relevance, timeliness, participatory approach, among many others (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Although their downsides related to data availability, complexity and subjectivity, sustainable tourism indicators seem to be useful tools to plan and manage tourism, monitoring to detect trends and issues and providing valuable information on the impacts of the industry. As Torres-Delgado and Palomeque conclude, “there is no universally accepted method for measuring tourism sustainability” (2014, p. 136), so it seems to be a matter of trial and error and learning from implementation experiences of different destinations, to detect the best way of using indicators in the transition to sustainability. 1.4. Tourism Policy According to Ritchie & Crouch (2003, p. 148), tourism policy is “a set of regulations, rules, guidelines, directives, and development/promotion objectives and strategies that provide a framework within which the collective and individual decisions directly affecting tourism development and the daily activities within a destination are taken.” Traditionally, not much importance has been given by governments to tourism policy (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). Even if tourism generates important economic benefits for destinations, other industries are perceived as more important (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003) and tourism is generally considered to be a sector which requires little intervention from governments. As Ritchie & Crouch explain, “supporting tourism development is not high on the political agenda” (2003, p. 143). The most important role of tourism policy is to define what the destination wants to be in the long term and the strategy to achieve it, this is, the direction tourism development should take (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). This strategy needs to be aligned across the different government levels (local, regional and national).
10
A simplified tourism policy model is proposed by Airey (2015) and an adaptation is presented below in Figure 2 by which policy inputs are formed by factors outside and inside the tourism policy system. This input feeds the policy process, in which policy makers interpret the inputs and produce the policy outputs (such as policy statements) that in turn produce outcomes (which can be the intended or unintended effects from policy outputs). Dredge and Jenkins argue that the concepts of governance, policy networks and public-private partnerships refer to the influence different stakeholders can have in tourism policy making (as cited in Airey, 2015, p.250). They are related to the neoliberal ideology by which governments leave part of their role in policy making to the private and non-government sectors (Airey, 2015), in what is called by Dredge and Jamal “the shift from public administration to public management” (2015, p. 287). Atkinson & Coleman, Howlett & Ramesh and Rhodes define policy networks as “sets of formal and informal social relationships that shape collaborative action between government, industry and civil society” (as cited in Dredge & Pforr, 2008, p.59). As a consequence of this neoliberal approach, Airey and Ruhanen explain that much of the information used by policy makers comes from the main pressure groups of the industry, that lobby to address their business interests, instead of the main issues of tourism (as cited in Airey, 2015, p.251) and thus limiting the inputs to formulate relevant policies. As Elliott suggests, “how tourism is managed will depend upon the political culture of the country and the ideology of the government” (in Airey, 2015, p.252). Figure 2 Tourism Policy Model
Policy Inputs
Policy factors outside the tourism policy system
Policy factors inside the tourism policy system
Policy Process
Policymakers interpretation of inputs. “Policylearning” process
Source: adapted from Airey (2015)
11
Policy Outputs and Outcomes
Outputs
Outcomes
Policy statements or plans
Effects of policies
Intended
Unintended
1.5. Sustainable Tourism Policy “(Tourism) Policy has often focused on attracting new markets and reducing seasonality, thus addressing economic priorities rather than environmental and social concerns” (Dodds & Butler, 2009, p. 52). It is argued that the tourism policy must take into account the need for sustainability (European Committee of the Regions, 2006), protecting the resources on which it depends (Dodds, 2007). It should create an enabling environment to stimulate and facilitate collaboration among the different stakeholders to develop tourism sustainably (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). However, “few destinations have established policies aimed at preventing the overuse of their common goods” (Dodds & Butler, 2009, p. 45); there is a lack of awareness about the negative impacts of tourism to the environment and local communities and by many, tourism is still perceived as a relatively benign sector. Sustainable tourism development is a “significant policy problem” (Hall, 2011, p. 652) and Asher and Edgell add “appropriate policy and its implementation are what are needed to make tourism more sustainable” (as cited in Dodds & Butler, 2009, p.44). Regarding its implementation, Pigram (1990) argues it is much more difficult than implementing policy specifically for the “public arena”, since in this case, the interests of both public and private sectors have to match; and he adds, “input from the top-down and the bottom-up is seen as the way to avoid confrontation and achieve harmonious development” (p. 7). Sustainable tourism requires a long-term approach that clashes with the usual short-termism of politicians, who plan by electoral periods of between three to five years (Lane, 2009; Dodds & Butler, 2009). As Lane’s put it “few politicians understand tourism; even fewer understand sustainable tourism; and very, very few seek to actively implement sustainable tourism” (2009, p. 24). Moreover, there is a lack of competences in tourism by many politicians and policy makers working in the sector, who do not acknowledge the importance of managing tourism. Precisely, the public sector should take the lead in sustainability as they are responsible for many functions that are fundamental for the sustainable development of tourism as described in Table 1 (UNEP & UNWTO, 2005; Dinica, 2009, UNWTO, 2004).
tourism
12
Table 1 Areas of government influencing the sustainability of tourism
Tourism Prime Ministerial office Finance Trade Economic Development Environment and Natural Resources Transport Culture Agriculture Education Health Sports and Recreation Internal Affairs Foreign Affairs
Overall development, coordination and implementation of tourism policy. Support for tourism development, management and marketing. Tourism’s position within the overall balance of policies and priorities.
Level of budgetary resources allocated to tourism. Tax policy. Terms of trade negotiations. Export and investment promotion. Sustainable development policies. Support for enterprise. Regulation and control of environmental impact. Conservation of biodiversity. Protected area management. Management of resources for ecotourism. Accessibility, traffic management and sustainable transport issues. Management and preservation of historic sites and cultural heritage. Rural development and supply chain issues. Tourism training. Safety and social security issues, for visitors and employees. Promotion of attractions, activities, events, etc. Elements of domestic market. Crime and security. Child protection. Source country-destination relationships. Visa requirements.
Source: adopted from UNEP & UNWTO (2005)
Hall, Hall & Jenkins and Elliott all argue “there needs to be a change in the role of governments from promotion to protection” (as cited in Dodds & Butler, 2009, p.48), as well as more integration across the different government levels (national, provincial, local) and coordination across policy domains, to successfully implement sustainable tourism policies (Dodds & Butler, 2009). The barriers to implement a sustainable tourism policy are described by these authors in Figure 3. The tourism sector can benefit by using data developed by other sectors, such as environment, transport, culture, etc (UNWTO, 2004), since sustainability is a cross-cutting issue across sectors. As Farrell and TwiningWard remark, “relying solely on business knowledge, economics, and some social sciences is inadequate in a universe where managers must proactively protect and contribute to the ecosystems their operations depend on” (2004, p. 286). According to the recent Sustainable Tourism Index, many destinations have tourism policies in place but there are not enough tools and clearly assigned responsibilities to implement them (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2017). In order to achieve effective results, national-level authorities should develop a sustainable tourism policy that provides a clear direction and a framework for tourism policies and action at local level (UNEP & UNWTO, 2005). Following the principle of subsidiarity, local authorities are usually described as ideal public actors for designing sustainable tourism policies (Torres-Delgado & López Palomeque, 2014), but Portney adds that no single 13
government jurisdiction has the authority to deal entirely with sustainability problems (as cited in Dodds, 2007, p.315), and that is why interaction between these two levels could provide answers to the questions of what tourism should sustain and which indicators might be used to measure progress towards this goal (McCool, Moisey, & Nickerson, 2001). Furthermore, given the global nature of many environmental and economic problems, a global institutional and regulatory superstructure is also needed (Hall, 2011). Figure 3 Barriers to achieving successful sustainable tourism policy
Source: Dodds and Butler (2009)
14
1.6. Sustainable Tourism Indicators as policy making tools “The role of indicators in policy making is a topic that has been relatively under researched” (Bell, Eason, & Frederiksen, 2011, p. 7). This statement is taken from the final report of the POINT Project (Policy use and influence of indicators), a European Commission co-funded project which investigates the role of sustainability indicators in the policies of different sectors. Precisely, one of the motivations of the present study is to contribute to the literature on the usefulness of sustainability indicators in tourism policy making. For a long time, policy makers have relied solely on economic information, such as number of arrivals and tourist expenditure, to make decisions about tourism development (European Union, 2016; Dodds & Butler, 2009). This information does not take into consideration the impact of tourism on the community and environment, which is key to measure tourism’s net contributions (Sustainability Leaders Project, 2017). Indicators can provide the information that serves to see the whole picture of tourism impact and support policy formulation and strategic planning of the destination (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003), reducing future risks to the tourism industry and to destinations (UNWTO, 2004). Contrary to what it is often claimed by destinations, indicators do not increase the amount of information; many times, they just reorganize the data already existent in the destination to better link it with sustainability issues (UNWTO, 2004). In Gallopín’s opinion, “the most important feature of indicators compared to other forms of information is relevance to policy and decision-making” (Gallopín, 1997, p. 15). According to the European Committee of the Regions (2006, p. 59), “the methodological approach of indicators’ development is policy driven”, identifying the main policy questions and the indicators that can provide an answer to them. They use the existent statistical data first but are not limited to the available information, serving to identify areas where information is missing. Precisely, the tourism industry is characterized by lack of statistical information (especially environmental and social), so indicators contribute to improve the knowledge of the sector’s impacts. Butler sustains that policy makers need to acknowledge the limits of tourism development growth and its essential to incorporate monitoring mechanisms to know if the goals set by policies are being achieved (as cited in Ritchie & Crouch, 2003, p.38). They also serve to evaluate if all the relevant issues that the destination is facing are included in the tourism policy. In the case there is no tourism policy or plan in the destination yet, indicators are the catalysts to set the main objectives of the tourism development and then to measure performance against these objectives (UNWTO, 2004). 15
Miller and Twining-Ward (2005, p. 85) suggest that “if indicators are to have any value, then they need to be able to influence policy on sustainability”. Busch and Trexler state that “monitoring indicators is an empty exercise if it does not tie into the policy making or management process” (as cited in Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005, p. 165). UNWTO (2004) adds that is key to match the information provided by indicators to the needs of the stakeholders. Among the typical policy functions of indicators suggested by UNEP and UNWTO (2005) are: baseline assessment of conditions and needs; setting of targets for policies and actions; assessment of actions; evaluation, review and modification of policies. Castellani and Sala (2010) highlight the importance of linking indicator selection to policy targets and priorities, and also to official statistical data systems, so as to improve data availability (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Gudmundsson (2003) and Bell et al. (2011) refer to this use of indicators as instrumental or direct use. Indicators condense large amount of information to reduce complexity and this way support decisions to act. They need to be linked to the priority issues identified in the destination; should be led by the government but involving a wide range of stakeholders in gathering the relevant data for monitoring (UNEP & UNWTO, 2005), such as policy makers, destination managers, industry, community and experts (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Since the value of investing in knowledge is uncertain and difficult to predict, governments need to invest in the collection of data for national and regional tourism surveys, as the tourism private sector is reluctant to invest in tourism research (Scott, Baggio, & Cooper, 2008). Apart from indicators direct or instrumental use in policy making (linear process from production of indicators, through use, to influence on policy processes and outcomes), Gudmundsson (2003) and Bell et al. (2011) argue that they can have a conceptual and a symbolic use. The symbolic dimension refers to their political role, serving to legitimize decisions. The conceptual dimension refers to the role of indicators to educate and raise awareness of a problem through dialogue and debate. It is in fact this conceptual dimension, or “enlightenment” that can be considered “the most pertinent type of intended use of indicators, even more than instrumental use” (Gudmundsson, 2003, p. 6), although this role is generally underestimated and the value of the end-product (the indicator system) overestimated. Moldan agrees, suggesting that the role of indicators is very important in the phase of public awareness and problem acknowledgement, prior to the formation of policies (as cited in Miller, 2001, p.353). Furthermore, the development of indicators can serve as a “social learning” process, influencing ideas and worldviews (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Bell et al., 2011). According to
16
Gallopín, the communication role of indicators is very important and it is crucial that all users understand them in order to contribute to sustainable development (Gallopín, 1997). “None of the three roles of indicators – instrumental, conceptual and political – should be considered a priori superior to the others” (Bell et al., 2011, p.4). One further distinction is suggested by Rich between policy use, influence and impact. These concepts are generally used interchangeably but the author argues that the “use” of information does not necessarily mean that it is influential or have any impact in decision or action (as cited in Gudmundsson et al., 2009, p.45). Figure 4 Policy process model with role of indicators
Indicators Instrumental and Political Role
Indicators Conceptual Role
Policy factors outside the tourism policy system
Policy factors inside the tourism policy system
Indicators Production
Formulation and interpretation of policy by policy makers. “Policylearning”
Indicators Perceived and Used
Outputs
Outcomes
Policy statements or plans
Effects of policies
Indicators Impact on Outputs and Outcomes
Source: Adopted and adapted from Airey (2015) and Gudmundsson et al. (2009)
Regarding the role of indicators proposed by Gudmundsson et al. (2009), it is important to note that is not always linear and indicators do not necessarily pass by all policy stages. The above model (Figure 4) has been taken and adapted by the author in order for the reader to have an idea on which phases of the policy model could indicators exert an influence on and how. 17
On the other hand, according to Gudmundsson (2003), not all indicators have the same potential to be used in policy making. The type of indicators used and the framework in which they are organized will influence the degree of linkage to policy. Performance indicators measuring in the agency mode (focusing on the activities of an agent) and organized in a control framework (using stronger accountability mechanisms) have greater potential to be used in policy making than descriptive indicators adopting an information framework (this is with no accountability mechanisms specified). His studies are confirmed in the POINT Project (Bell et al., 2011) in which Gudmundsson participates, where through different case studies it has been noted that informative indicators of sustainable development are not expected to be directly influential in political or administrative decisions. Another interesting approach to ensure that the information provided by indicators is used for policy implementation is the 7-selection criteria proposed by Tanguay et al. (2013) when designing an indicator system. According to the authors, the core indicators selected to be part of the system must respect first, scientific criteria (incorporating the basic criteria of sustainable development) and second, be relevant for policy makers (this is, matching the indicators with the policy objectives and priorities of the destination). By taking this approach, it is possible to ensure a minimum level of consistency, avoiding manipulation of indicators by destinations, but making sure they will be used because they are linked to the destination’s tourism policy. This view is shared by other researchers, such as Rametsteiner, Pülzl, Alkan-Olsson, & Frederiksen, (2011) that argue developing indicators is not a scientific task alone, but also involves a political negotiation, to decide what to sustain. According to the authors, sustainability indicators have to include two dimensions: a knowledge production dimension and a normative political dimension. The latter role still needs to get more recognition when designing sustainability indicators (Rametsteiner et al., 2011). Finally, Winderl suggests that “far from being science, the development of indicators is art combined with a large portion of systematic, logical think, and an even larger portion of common sense” (as cited in Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005, p. 149). What some studies prove is that so far, sustainability indicators do not have a direct impact on decision making at local level (Pastille , 2005). “Interestingly politicians and other decision makers – the key groups in many ways – seem to be distant from the indicator design process; the instrumental or direct use of indicators by these groups is rare” (Bell et al., 2011, p.20). However, the New Economic Foundation considers that the lack of effect on policy making might be due to the recency of applying this kind of methodology (as cited in Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005, 18
p. 85). In fact, Gudmundsson (2003, p. 6) affirms that “it may take decades from when an indicator has been defined until it becomes influential in instrumental terms”. Hall (2011) suggests indicators might represent a first-or second-order policy change if they are based on the current sustainable tourism policy paradigm (the so called “balanced” approach previously mentioned). This author argues that a new policy paradigm might be needed to successfully achieve the goals of sustainable tourism development, one that shifts the focus from economic growth to natural capital conservation (more in line with a strong sustainability). As Miller and Twining-Ward suggest, “there is a long road to travel before indicators can fulfil their potential to help government to promote sustainability” (2005, p. 86); and Rydin adds that indicators “cannot act like a magic bullet causing decision-making to become instantly objective and scientific” (as cited in Bell et al., 2011, p.107). Therefore, more time and empirical experiences are needed in order for indicators to achieve their full potential. 1.7. ETIS The European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) was launched by the European Commission on the 22nd February 2013 as a voluntary management tool aimed at helping destinations to measure and monitor the impacts of tourism in a holistic way, allowing them to make informed decisions to develop tourism. Its monitoring results are based on self-assessment, data collection and analysis by the destinations themselves. (European Union, 2016). The European Union has tried for at least 15 years to develop common sustainable development indicators to be compared at local level and across member states, however it has been difficult to achieve consensus (Moreno Pires, Fidélis, & Ramos, 2014). According to these authors, the European Union’s role should be precisely that of supporting the harmonization of indicators. Modica considers ETIS as “a product of the European Union sustainable development strategy, which is based on the objectives of economic prosperity, social equity, cohesion and environmental protection” (2015, p. 56). ETIS aims at encouraging the harmonization of indicators in the tourism sector. The long-term ambition of the European Commission is that “the system will serve as a guide to policy makers and other destination stakeholders for the improved management of tourism destinations across Europe” (University of Surrey, 2012a, p. 3). Being a relatively recent initiative, ETIS has not been extensively covered in the literature, and the present study pretends to fill this gap of knowledge. The system is acknowledged in some studies though (Torres-Delgado & López Palomeque, 2014; Modica, 2015; Law, DeLacy, & McGrath, 2017; 19
Cannas & Theuma, 2013; McLoughlin & Hanrahan, 2016; Torres Delgado & Saarinen, 2014), where is described as a relevant management tool for destinations at European level. Some of these authors describe the system theoretically, using it as framework to assess the sustainability of local action plans (McLoughlin & Hanrahan, 2016), or mentioning its strong points, such as its methodology and the common framework for European destinations (Law, DeLacy, & McGrath, 2017). Modica (2015) describes the system and includes ETIS in her benchmarking study across different international monitoring initiatives. Other authors focus on the implementation of the system, some of them having been engaged in its testing. Torres-Delgado and Palomeque for instance, have been involved in the study to implement ETIS in the province of Barcelona (Lopez Palomeque, Torres-Delgado, Urgell, & Miracle, 2014). In this context, most of the 27 core indicators of ETIS are implemented as part of a wider system of tourism indicators, developed together with University of Barcelona and the Barcelona Provincial Council, to measure the level of sustainability of a sample of 35 tourist destinations in the province. According to the authors, ETIS is an interesting example of a collaborative approach between different stakeholders. Among the challenges mentioned are the lack of data availability for certain indicators, the complexity of working and engaging a diversity of stakeholders and the continuity of monitoring and updating the indicators over time. The support from the Barcelona Provincial Council and the Catalan government are deemed indispensable if the system is to be successfully implemented across the whole region. In the case of Cannas and Theuma (2013), they were involved in one of the ETIS pilot phases in Malta, as part of the University of Malta, who lead the ETIS Stakeholder Working Group. However, the paper is written at the beginning of the implementation phase and describes mainly future actions, such as the selection of stakeholders, the organization of a stakeholders’ meeting and division of duties, the assessment of the gaps in current data collection, etc. Nevertheless, the authors highlight that the “challenging” approach of ETIS, involving different groups of stakeholders to share the responsibility of tourism planning, is the key feature of ETIS. Other studies analysing the ETIS pilot implementation include experiences in Medulin (Croatia), Braşov (Romania) and “ATL del Cuneese” (Italy). In the case of Medulin (Golja & Slivar, 2014), the authors developed a model for sustainable tourism development, in which they identify three key elements (sustainable governance, management and marketing), all of which should contribute to the destination’s competitiveness. They apply a selection 20
of ETIS indicators which is based on their model and in line with the objectives of the destination’s Tourism Master Plan. They identify a number of barriers to the implementation of the system, such as lack of information, lack of financial resources, difficulty in involving stakeholders and shorttermism approach in the destination. Nevertheless, they consider the indicators useful tools to influence governance, management and marketing of the destination. In Braşov, Brătucu, Chițu, & Demeter (2015) from Transilvania University of Braşov, discuss the selection of a number of ETIS indicators that were considered relevant to the destination. Three working groups were organized with local stakeholders, all specialists in the tourism field (hotel managers, travel agencies, NGOs, PhD and Master Students) and a selection of indicators was made by each group. 27 indicators were selected in the end from the four ETIS sections (Destination management, Economic value, Social and cultural impact, Environmental impact) to measure sustainability in the destination. Most of the selected ones belong to the economic category, followed by the social, destination management and only one indicator from the environemntal section was considered relevant. In the “ATL del Cuneese” case study (Zabetta, Sacerdotti, & Mauro, 2014), the experience was deemed very useful to bring together the different tourism industry actors and discuss how to better manage tourism in the destination. Difficulties were related to the size of the destination (an area that comprises 180 municipalities). And among their suggestions to improve the system they propose a composite index that would help benchmarking across other destinations; in fact, the sharing of good practices was considered one of the most important incentives to apply the system. Finally, greater involvement of the political actors was deemed crucial to support policy decisions. Lastly, another study (Cismaru & Ispas, 2015) sees ETIS as an evaluation tool that contributes to improve the competitiveness of European tourist destinations. This is made possible through identifying the key characteristics of the destination (destination profiling) and benchmarking across destinations. As part of ETIS development, the authors support the idea of creating an online platform were to display destinations’ results and effectively benchmark. Many of the issues described in the above-mentioned literature were also summarized by the ETIS Pool of Experts during the two conferences that follow each ETIS pilot phase. To the recurrent claim of the costly implementation of ETIS, the experts argue that “it should not be neglected, especially when taking into account the full ETIS implementation, its use for destination management and decision making, international benchmarking and further development” (Romagosa & Sirse, 2016, p. 8). As an answer to the complaints of destinations, to remove certain core or optional indicators, the 21
experts explain that “the immediate difficulty of sourcing some information should not be seen as a reason not to include critical elements of data and understanding” (Sirše, 2014, p. 6).
22
Chapter 2 International Sustainable Tourism Measuring initiatives In this section, some of the most important worldwide initiatives on measuring and monitoring sustainable tourism will be briefly discussed, before describing our case study on the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) in Chapter 3. These initiatives comprise: -The different United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) publications on indicators (the most comprehensive being the 2004 Guidebook on Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations), as well as the establishment of the International Network of Sustainable Tourism Observatories (INSTO) and the recently launched statistical framework Measuring Sustainable Tourism (MST). -The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) Criteria, that is the baseline global standard for sustainability in the travel and tourism industry. -The Green Destinations Standard, a GSTC-recognized set of criteria to measure, monitor and improve the sustainability policy and management of destinations. 2.1. UNWTO Measuring initiatives The UNWTO is the UN tourism-specialized agency since 2003, in charge of promoting the sustainable development of the industry worldwide. It has 158-member countries, 6 associate members and 500 affiliate members representing the private sector, academia and other tourism associations and authorities (UNWTO, 2018). The organization fulfils an important role building capacity and raising awareness on the role of tourism as a tool for sustainable development. They hold numerous worldwide events, launch campaings and release publications on market trends and successful management of tourism. The organization has been working on developing indicators to better manage tourism at destination level since 1992, under the premise that the information on economic, social and environmental issues allow policy makers and tourism managers to make informed policies and strategies. Among these initiatives, the main ones are:
23
-The 1993’s taskforce and publication on “Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Tourism”. It identified 11 core indicators and destination-specific indicators and it was tested in five different locations (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). -The 1996’s publication on “What Tourism Managers need to know: A Practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism”. The new suggested core and specific indicators were also tested in several destinations worldwide. -Finally, the 2004’s guidebook on “Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations”, which is the most comprehensive guide with a list of over 700 indicators organized in 50 common issues. According to Miller and Twining-Ward (2005), these different initiatives demonstrate the evolution of the UNWTO monitoring techniques, from indicators that were solely developed by experts and provided to destinations, to highly participatory approaches, involving local stakeholders and integrating the indicators to the planning process. 2.1.1. Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations’ Guidebook From the list of over 700 indicators, UNWTO provides a selection of 12 “Baseline Issues” with 29 related baseline indicators (Table 2), that should be the minimum that all destinations should aspire to measure. Moreover, the guidebook defines the procedure that should be followed to develop and implement indicators (Table 3), linking them with the planning process where they exist, or using them as catalysts if no plan or strategy is in place (UNWTO, 2004). Table 2 Baseline issues and indicators
Baseline Issue Local satisfaction with tourism Effects of tourism on communities
Sustaining tourist satisfaction
Suggested baseline indicators Local satisfaction level with tourism (questionnaire)
Ratio of tourists to locals (average and peak period/days) % who believes that tourism has helped bring new services or infrastructure (questionnaire-based) Number and capacity of social services available to the community (% which are attributable to tourism) Level of satisfaction by visitors (questionnaire-based) Perception of value for money (questionnaire-based) Percentage of return visitors
24
Tourism seasonality
Tourist arrivals by month or quarter (distribution throughout the year) Occupancy rates for licensed (official) accommodation by month (peak periods relative to low season) and % of all occupancy in peak quarter or month) % of business establishments open all year Number and % of tourist industry jobs which are permanent or fullyear (compared to temporary jobs)
Economic benefits of tourism
Number of local people (and ratio of men to women) employed in tourism (also ratio of tourism employment to total employment) Revenues generated by tourism as % of total revenues generated in the community Per capita consumption of energy from all sources (overall, and by tourist sector – per person day) Percentage of businesses participating in energy conservation programs, or applying energy saving policy and techniques % of energy consumption from renewable resources (at destinations, establishments) Water use: (total volume consumed and litres per tourist per day) Water saving (% reduced, recaptured or recycled
Energy management
Water availability and conservation Drinking water quality
Percentage of tourism establishments with water treated to international potable standards Frequency of water-borne diseases: number/percentage of visitors reporting water-borne illnesses during their stay
Sewage treatment (wastewater management)
Percentage of sewage from site receiving treatment (to primary, secondary, tertiary levels) Percentage of tourism establishments (or accommodation) on treatment system(s)
Solid waste management (garbage)
Waste volume produced by the destination (tonnes) (by month) Volume of waste recycled (m3) / Total volume of waste (m3) (specify by different types) Quantity of waste strewn in public areas (garbage counts)
Development control
Existence of a land use or development planning process, including tourism % of area subject to control (density, design, etc.)
Controlling use intensity
Total number of tourist arrivals (mean, monthly, peak periods) Number of tourists per square metre of the site (e.g., at beaches, attractions), per square kilometre of the destination, - mean number/peak period average
Source: UNWTO (2004)
25
Table 3 12-step procedure to develop and use indicators
Research and Organization Step 1
Definition/delineation of the destination
Step 2
Use of participatory processes
Step 3
Identification of tourism assets and risks
Step 4
Long-term vision for a destination
Indicators Development Step 5
Selection of priority issues
Step 6
Identification of desired indicators
Step 7
Inventory of data sources
Step 8
Selection procedures
Implementation Step 9
Evaluation of feasibility/implementation
Step 10
Data collection and analysis
Step 11
Accountability, communication and reporting
Step 12
Monitoring and evaluation of indicators application
Source UNWTO: (2004)
The level of application is once more the local destinations, however it takes into consideration the links with national and regional level, since many of the tourism impacts need to be addressed at higher levels. In fact, the indicators collected at destination level can then be aggregated at regional level and in turn support the creation of national level indicators (UNWTO, 2004). UNWTO’s approach to indicators recognizes their instrumental role as their main one, providing relevant information to make evidence-based decisions, whether it is to take preventive action, corrective action or measuring the performance of policies and plans. The graphical representation of this approach is shown in Figure 5. However, a conceptual role is also recognized, since indicators provide credible information to the general public and tourism stakeholders; they also create a learning environment by involving as many stakeholders as possible in the strategic planning process and empowering them to participate and take action (UNWTO, 2004).
26
Figure 5 Measuring approach of UNWTO
Source: Julian, UNWTO (2015)
2.1.2. International Network of Sustainable Tourism Observatories – INSTO The network was launched in 2004 as a way to accelerate the transition of destinations to sustainable practices, through the holistic monitoring of tourism’ impacts. It proposes a participatory approach to measure, monitor and manage information that can be useful for policy makers, tourism managers and relevant stakeholders to formulate sustainable tourism policies and strategies (UNWTO INSTO, 2018). The basic premise is “measure to better manage”. As of today, the network counts with 22 tourism observatories around the world: nine in China, one in Greece, one in Mexico, one in Brazil, five in Indonesia, one in Croatia, two in the United States, one in New Zealand and one in Portugal, all located in different types of destinations (coastal, mountain, tropical, etc). As a comparison, at the end of 2016 there were 16 observatories, showing that the network is growing fast. The members need to follow certain requirements to be part of the network. One of them is the commitment to monitor nine mandatory issue areas: tourism seasonality, employment, destination economic benefits, governance, local satisfaction, energy management, water management, waste water (sewage) management, and solid waste management. Nevertheless, members are free to choose the specific indicators to be used, as long as they respond to the issue areas. Another requirement is adopting a participatory approach, which includes raising awareness among local actors, identifying facilitators and forming a stakeholder working group, to guarantee the lasting commitment to monitoring (UNWTO INSTO, 2018). 27
The network encourages members to constantly innovate in the data collection process, incorporating new sources, such as big and open data. 2.1.3. Measuring Sustainable Tourism – Towards a Statistical Framework This is the latest endeavour of UNWTO, launched in 2015 with the support of the UN Statistics Division (UNSD), to further advance the measuring of tourism sustainability. The initiative aims to develop a statistical framework combining two UN accounting frameworks: The Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) and the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA), integrating tourism with other economic, social and environmental information to report on key indicators. In this way, the MST framework provides a common language and structure to organize already existing information, and support monitoring programmes, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and INSTO (UNWTO Statistics, 2018). In this regard, tourism has the potential to contribute to the achievement of all the 17 SDGs, and has been specifically mentioned in 3 of them: goal 8 (target 8.9, related to sustainable economic growth and employment), goal 12 (target 12.b, sustainable consumption and production patterns) and goal 14 (target 14.7, conservation and sustainable use of the oceans) (UNWTO, 2015). Nevertheless, it is argued that “there is as yet no standardized basis for the collection of relevant information at national level (…), especially relevant since much of the policy direction and resource allocation, is decided at national rather than local level” (UNWTO Statistics and Tourism Satellite Account Programme, 2016, p. 4). Thus, it is considered insufficient to only measure tourism impacts at local level and the MST initiative aims at filling that gap, aggregating measurement from local level to regional (sub-national level), national level and finally global level, addressing this way global challenges such as climate change. With regards to other existing measuring initiatives, it is stated that “an extensive set of indicators has been proposed in relation to sustainable tourism, but they have not been selected or developed in the context of a statistical framework. The ambition of the MST initiative is to enable indicators to be derived from the statistical framework and hence have a firm base for ongoing measurement and comparison, for the assessment of data quality and for appropriate co-ordination of collection activities” (UNWTO Statistics and Tourism Satellite Account Programme, 2016, p. 14).
28
Figure 6 Overall structure of the SF-MST
Source: (UNWTO, 2017)
The MST initiative is conducted through a collaboration between UNWTO and the UN Statistics Division (UNSD), together with the UN Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA), the WTO Committee on Statistics and Tourism Satellite Accounts and the WTO Committee on Tourism and Sustainability. Moreover, a Working Group with experts has been created to support the work (UNWTO Statistics and Tourism Satellite Account Programme, 2016). 7 steps have been identified to develop the statistical framework. 1. Initial framing of sustainable tourism for measurement purposes 2. Assess relevant statistical guidance and frameworks 3. Assess country experiences 4. Describe key measurement challenges 5. Engage with users and clarifying requirements 6. Develop country pilot studies 7. Draft a statistical framework for sustainable tourism In June 2017, on the occasion of the 6th International Conference on Tourism Statistics in Manila, the preliminary draft of the SF-MST has been presented, and the final framework is expected to be presented for consideration in March 2020.
29
2.2. Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) The GSTC is a non-for profit, non-governmental organization, that was formed in 2007 as a Partnership for Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria and became the Global Sustainable Tourism Council in 2010. It is a virtual organization, with a secretariat, different working groups and representatives in several countries. It offers different levels of memberships, for destinations, businesses, non-for-profit organizations and individual tourism professionals. Its main activities involve: -Providing the minimum criteria for destinations and service providers to develop the tourism industry sustainably -Recognition and accreditation of sustainable tourism certification bodies -Awareness raising for the general public and education for tourism professionals, through its training program -Market access for sustainable tourism products and services The GSTC provides the basic guidelines to unify the concept of sustainable tourism worldwide and acts as the accreditation body for certifications and labels, ensuring they meet the minimum criteria, based on reliable processes. GSTC does not certify directly tourism providers or destinations. 2.2.1. GSTC Criteria The GSTC Criteria is composed of two sets: The Industry Criteria (GSTC-I) for the private sector (hotels and tour operators) and the Destination Criteria (GSTC-D) for public policy makers and destination managers (Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2018). For the purpose of the present study, the focus is on the Destination Criteria, which was released in November 2013 and it is meant to be revised after five years. The criteria express what needs to be achieved, not how to achieve it; they are accompanied by a number of suggested performance indicators, which in fact act more as explanation of each criterion than as real indicators. It is clearly stated in the document that destinations need to develop further tools (i.e. indicators) to measure compliance with the criteria. The Criteria and Indicators were based on existing international monitoring initiatives, such as the previously described UNWTO sustainable tourism indicators for destinations, and more than 40 other accepted principles and guidelines (Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2018). Moreover, before 30
being officially released, they were subject to two consultation periods among tourism experts and were field-tested in a number of destinations. The GSTC Destination Criteria is divided in 4 sections with 41 criteria in total (Table 4): -Demonstrate effective sustainable management:14 criteria -Maximize economic benefits to the host community and minimize negative impacts: 9 criteria -Maximize benefits to communities, visitors and culture; minimize negative impacts: 6 criteria -Maximize benefits to the environment and minimize negative impacts: 12 criteria It is interesting that they assign the greatest number of indicators to the destination management section, which is a very logical thing to do, as they should have the responsibility of managing all aspects of the destination. In fact, the criterion A2 states that “the destination has an effective organization, department, group or committee responsible for a coordinated approach to sustainable tourism, with involvement by the private and public sector (…) this group has the capability for the management of environmental, economic, social and cultural issues. This group’s activities are appropriately funded” (Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2018, p. 3). Unfortunately, the approach of destination management organizations until now has been one of mainly promoting and marketing the destination and coordinating the supply of tourism providers, without consideration of the resources (natural and cultural) in which the tourism product relies on. However, “monitoring impacts is not an end in itself”. Instead, one important purpose of the criteria is to “offer governmental, non-governmental, and private sector programs a starting point for developing sustainable tourism requirements” (Global Sustainable Tourism Council, 2018, p. 2). In this sense, it follows a similar objective to ETIS indicators, raising the level of awareness about sustainability issues that requires action from the destination. However, the GSTC Criteria need to be complemented with a system of concrete indicators to measure to what degree the criteria are being complied to. This need is highlighted in several of the criteria, where it is expected that the destination has a system in place which is consistent with the GSTC and addresses the different environmental, economic and socio-cultural issues. Finally, destinations that have a sustainability program complying with the GSTC criteria, can apply either for the GSTC recognition or accreditation (in the case of a certification or label).
31
Table 4 GSTC-D Criteria per section
Section A: Demonstrate effective sustainable management A.1
Sustainable destination strategy
A.2
Destination management organization
A.3
Monitoring
A.4
Tourism seasonality management
A.5
Climate change adaptation
A.6
Inventory of tourism assets and attractions
A.7
Planning regulations
A.8
Access for all
A.9
Property acquisition
A.10
Visitor satisfaction
A.11
Sustainability standard
A.12
Safety and security
A.13
Crisis and emergency management
A.14
Promotion
Section B: Maximize economic benefits to the host community and minimize negative impacts B.1
Economic monitoring
B.2
Local career opportunities
B.3
Public participation
B.4
Local community opinion
B.5
Local access
B.6
Tourism awareness and education
B.7
Preventing exploitation
B.8
Support for community
B.9
Supporting local entrepreneurs and fair trade
Section C: Maximize benefits to communities, visitors and culture; minimize negative impacts C.1
Attraction protection
C.2
Visitor management
C.3
Visitor behaviour
C.4
Cultural heritage protection
C.5
Site interpretation
C.6
Intellectual property 32
Section D: Maximize benefits to the environment and minimize negative impacts D.1
Environmental risks
D.2
Protection of sensitive environments
D.3
Wildlife protection
D.4
Greenhouse gas emissions
D.5
Energy conservation
D.6
Water management
D.7
Water security
D.8
Water quality
D.9
Wastewater
D.10
Solid waste reduction
D.11
Light and noise pollution
D.12
Low impact transportation
Source: GSTC Criteria for destinations
2.3. Green Destinations Standard and Reporting System Green Destinations is a non-profit organization based in Leiden, Netherlands, that helps destinations to develop tourism in a sustainable manner. The Green Destinations Standard is a set of criteria recognized by the GSTC, that allow destinations to measure and monitor their sustainability level to make informed policy decisions and improve the management of the destination. It has been developed in 2015 and is inspired by other recognized standards such as ETIS, ISO 14001, EMAS and the Global Reporting Initiative. The criteria are meant to be revised at least every five years (Green Destinations, 2017). It is a complete destination sustainability management system, addressed to tourist destinations, not to particular enterprises; however private businesses inside the destination are encouraged to seek certification by recognized schemes. Contrary to ETIS, UNWTO or GSTC indicators, to use the Green Destinations system, destinations need to become members and pay a fee, since it is a private initiative. The fee depends of the size of the destination and the level of assistance required to use the platform (ranging from a “do-it-yourself” option to full on-site assistance and training from Green Destinations). The Standard is formed by 6 main themes that group together 100 policy criteria. The themes are:
33
1. Destination Management 2. Nature and Scenery 3. Environment and Climate 4. Culture and Tradition 5. Social well being 6. Business and Hospitality There are a number of mandatory criteria that destinations must comply with, as well as optional criteria. The criteria are supported by more than 100 quantitative indicators, which are fundamental to measure compliance against the criteria. An important difference with ETIS and other measuring mechanisms, is that Green Destinations calculates a rating from 1 to 10 that is used to assign the awards’ level and the certification. Destinations that do not yet comply with all of the criteria of the standard but perform well in some areas can still be recognized for their effort with one of the awards’ level (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum), which are pre-certification recognitions. The award will depend on the type of destination and its location (Quality Coast, Quality Tourism, Slovenia Green and EcoXXI) (Green Destinations, 2017). To apply the Green Destinations Standard, an online Monitoring and Reporting system is available (www.greendestinations.eu), where destinations register and fill out directly all the information required to assess their destination. They are guided through the system to complete the process, reporting the information for each theme. Destinations complying with the Green Destinations Standard will be certified after a third-party audit verifies compliance. Certification is the ultimate level of global recognition for sustainable destination management (Green Destinations, 2017). Figure 7 Main elements of the Green Destinations Assessment and Reporting system
Source (Green Destinations, 2017)
34
The online platform allows destinations to create their own action plans, based on the results from the assessment (Figure 7). Apart from assisting destinations to measure their sustainability level and provide useful information for policy making, one of the advantages is the market exposure of destinations utilizing the system, since they are advertised in Online Travel Agencies such as Bookdifferent.com. Green Destinations also carries out different initiatives, such as the creation of the Ambassadors Community, aiming at connecting key players in different destinations around the world to share best practices and transfer knowledge. They also organize the competition “Top 100 Sustainable Destinations”, where destinations can candidate themselves, showing how they are acting in terms of protecting the environment and the local culture.
35
Chapter 3 The European Tourism Indicators System (ETIS) 3.1. EU Tourism Policy evolution as ETIS background Tourism has been growing in importance in EU policy since the beginning of the 1990s, when it was recognized within the Treaty on European Union (TEU) in 1992, also known as Treaty of Maastricht. However, not great advancement was made on the following years and it continued to be considered a community measure (Font & Estol, 2015). The Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 put a key focus on the concept of sustainable development, as a transversal objective among the different EU policies and actions. The Communication COM (2001) 665 final, “Working together for the future of European tourism” set actions to promote the sustainable development of the tourism sector by implementing the Agenda 21 guidelines (European Committee of the Regions, 2006). The two concepts of sustainable development and governance helped to recognize tourism policy in the treaties (Font & Estol, 2015). On 21 May 2002, a Resolution adopted by the European Council on the future of European tourism, already considered the definition of sustainable tourism indicators as key to evaluate the impacts of tourism activities throughout the European Union (European Committee of the Regions, 2006). The CoR stressed the need to re-define local and regional tourism policies on the basis of sustainability criteria and how indicators contribute to establish such sustainability process (European Committee of the Regions, 2006). The Communication (COM (2003) 716 final, on “Basic orientations for the sustainability of European Tourism”, launched the Tourism Sustainability Group - TSG (Font & Estol, 2015), which was set up by the European Commission in 2004. It was formed by experts coming from international bodies, member states, tourism professionals, environmental organizations, trade unions, research and educational bodies. The group was in charge of creating a framework for action, providing guidance for local destination management and the use of indicators and monitoring systems to implement sustainability in the tourism sector (Tourism Sustainability Group , 2007). In 2006, the European Commission launched EDEN (European Destinations of Excellence), an initiative to boost sustainable tourism in emerging European destinations, in the form of a competition and award ceremony to be held first annually and then every two years. In 2007, the “Agenda for a sustainable and competitive European tourism” was established (COM (2007) 621 final ). The agenda was based on the working paper “Action for more sustainable 36
European tourism”, created by the TSG on the same year and established the principles and objectives to develop sustainable tourism in Europe. The definition of Sustainable and Competitive Tourism relates to "creating the right balance between the welfare of tourists, the needs of the natural and cultural environment and the development and competitiveness of destinations and business" (COM (2007) 621 final , p. 3). The previously mentioned TSG working paper, among the recommended initiatives at European level, mentioned the development of a model for sustainable destination management, including the creation of multi-stakeholder’s structures and a manual on sustainable tourism indicators and monitoring at destination level. As part of their work, the TSG developed an indicator system that destinations could use to measure the economic, environmental and socio-cultural impact of tourism. At this stage, the group only proposed the set of indicators (core and optional) without any guidelines for implementation. In 2007 as well, the Network of European Regions for a Sustainable and Competitive Tourism (NECSTouR) was born as a regional initiative of the regions of Tuscany, Catalunya and ProvenceAlpes-Côte d'Azur. The network was based on a voluntary commitment from the member regions, to implement sustainable development principles, in line with Agenda 2007. It provided an opportunity to influence the formulation of tourism policy and received political support from the EU but not financial support (Font & Estol, 2015). Nowadays, it groups together more than 30 European regions, as well international institutions, universities, associations and trade unions. “The regions represent the most strategic government level, between the tourism destinations and the national governments, and they are a fundamental interlocutor of European institutions. In fact, most regions maintain their tourism policy competence, decide their own socio-economic and environmental impact development, as well as managing the structural and investment European funds”1 (Nuñez, 2016, p. 137). The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) or Treaty of Lisbon, which was adopted in 2007 and came into force on 1 December 2009, formally recognized European tourism policy, under art. 6 TFEU and art.195 TFEU (Font & Estol, 2015). It specifies the competence of the EU to support, coordinate or supplement Member States’ actions in the field of tourism. It also gives the EU the faculties to promote competitiveness, creating an enabling environment and encouraging cooperation between member states through the exchange of good practices (European Commission,
1
Author’s translation to English
37
2007). “This competence transfers a degree of power to the EU institutions without the need for harmonisation or increased regulation for the member states” (Panyik & Anastasiadou, 2013, p. 194). 3.1.1. New political framework for European Tourism In 2010, a key communication was released: “Europe, the world's No 1 tourist destination - a new political framework for tourism in Europe” (COM (2010) 352 final), which defined Europe’s 2020 strategy for tourism and the specific actions to take in order to achieve this goal. “Over the years, the European Union has been able to lay the foundations for a European tourism policy, stressing those factors which determine its competitiveness while taking account of the need for sustainable development. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the importance of tourism is recognised; the European Union now has powers in this field to support, coordinate and complement action by the Member States” (COM (2010) 352 final, p. 4). 4 priorities are identified for the promotion of tourism and 21 actions under these priorities: 1. Stimulate competitiveness 2. Promote sustainable, responsible and high-quality tourism 3. Consolidate the image of Europe as a collection of sustainable destinations 4. Maximise the potential of EU financial policies to develop tourism. Under the second priority, Action 11 states: “Develop, on the basis of NECSTouR or EDEN, a system of indicators for the sustainable management of destinations. Based on this system, the Commission will develop a label for promoting tourist destinations” (COM (2010) 352 final, p. 11). This will serve as the basis to start working on the ETIS project. 3.1.2. Current state of EU Tourism Policy The 2010 communication still forms the basis of the strategic vision of the Commission on tourism (European Parliament - Transport and Tourism Committee, 2015). In an Opinion document from the CoR (European Committee of the Regions, 2016, p. 9), one of the policy recommendations explicitly mentioned ETIS, calling “regions to consider sustainability in their tourism strategies including innovative tools to monitor and increase the sustainability of tourism in terms of its environmental, social and economic aspects (ETIS) (…)EU cohesion policy should provide targeted support to the development of these strategies”. However, the CoR is a consultative body with very limited influence on policy making (Panyik & Anastasiadou, 2013). 38
In July 2017, an Open Letter was sent to Mr. Juncker, President of the European Commission and Mr. Timmermans, the First Vice-President. The letter was co-signed by NECSTouR and 40 Members of the European Parliament, regions, cities and the tourism industry, where they asked to include a new “European Strategy for Tourism” in the European Commission Work Programme for 2018. They argued that the challenges for the tourism sector have changed and that a revised strategy was needed (NECSTouR, 2017). However, this was rejected, stating that the challenges have not changed sufficiently and that they could be re-grouped under the current four policy priorities of the EC: attracting investment, promoting Europe, digital revolution and boosting skills. The new strategy and the 2010 communication should be aligned to these four priorities, where sustainability is embedded although not clearly highlighted. 3.2. Towards the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) In line with Action 11 of the 2010 Communication and the previous recommendation of the TSG, the European Commission published in July 2011 a call for tender to create the European tourism indicator system for sustainable management of destinations (Implementation Rolling Plan , 2010). The University of Surrey won the tender and together with Intasave and Sustainable Travel International, conducted during 2012 the Feasibility Study to create and implement the system. The task of the project team was “to develop an inclusive, user-friendly methodology for applying indicators to enhance the sustainable management of tourism destinations across Europe” (University of Surrey, 2012a, p. 3). The indicators were taken from the final version of the TSG indicator system, produced in May 2011 after piloting them in 15 EDEN destinations and some NECSTouR regions (University of Surrey, 2012b). They were compared against a selection of 8 case studies of international indicators systems, and then NECSTouR and EDEN members provided feedback through a feasibility report and interviews with key representatives. With this feedback, the project team led by the University of Surrey revised the indicators, identifying strengths and weaknesses of them and doing some adjustments before the testing phase. Among the weaknesses were identified the lack of instructions to implement the set of indicators, as well as the reliability on several surveys, which can be very costly for small destinations. The lack of links with policy, regulations or incentives for implementation, as well as no clear definition of organizational roles and responsibilities was also remarked. A revised set of indicators and a guidance toolkit were developed to address some of the issues found. 39
14 destinations were chosen to test the system and methodology. 10 destinations were core testing destinations (meaning full assistance from the project team with implementation, training and material) and 4 were “light touch” destinations (the material was provided but no training or assistance). The ten destinations selected for full testing were: Alqueva (Portugal), Brasov (Romania), Calvià (Spain), Durbuy (Belgium), Florence (Italy), Oetztal (Austria), Maastricht (Holland), Soomaa National Park (Estonia), St Ives (UK) and St Tropez (France). The additional 4 ‘light touch’ testing destinations were Brighton (UK), Algarve (Portugal), Wild Taiga (Finland) and Mourne Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Northern Ireland). The last task of the project team involved adjustments to the indicator system and toolkit based on the destinations’ feedback, providing recommendations for the system creation and implementation across Europe. 3.3. ETIS Launch and pilot phases The ETIS toolkit was launched at a regional conference on February 22nd, 2013. According to the previously mentioned Implementation Rolling Plan of the Tourism Action Framework, on April 2013 the first technical meeting with tourism stakeholders was held. In June 2013, a call for expressions of interest for destinations to test ETIS was launched. And finally, on the 15th July 2013 the first pilot phase began. An interview with Mrs. Cinzia de Marzo was conducted (personal communication, February 27, 2017), in order to have a clear understanding of the different phases of implementation of ETIS. Mrs. de Marzo was a Seconded National Expert at the European Commission Tourism Unit from 2012 to 2016 and was in charge of coordinating the work to implement ETIS. As Mrs. de Marzo explained, 104 destinations across Europe expressed interest in testing the full system for 9 months (July 2013 – April 2014). Mid-term evaluation was performed in November 2013 on the basis of 50 tourist destinations from 18 countries. The overall evaluation was done on the basis of the final questionnaires submitted by 26 destinations. Some of these destinations were part of the pilot phase during the feasibility study (Durbuy and Alqueva). At the end of the pilot phase, a conference was organized in order to share feedback and lessons learned. A second pilot phase was organized for the period April - December 2014 and this time 100 destinations joint the pilot phase, reaching 57 destinations that completed the project. In this 40
opportunity, many large destinations tried the system, such as Milan, Rome, Amsterdam, Barcelona province and Birmingham. After this second phase, the system of indicators and the implementation toolkit was revised by a pool of experts coordinated by Mrs. de Marzo, taking into consideration the final feedback provided by 83 destinations, from the first and second phases. A new toolkit was launched at a conference hosted by the European Commission in Brussels on April 22nd, 2016. This was a joint event combining the ETIS conference, with the presentation of results from the second phase and the new toolkit, as well as a workshop on accessible tourism. In this opportunity, it was decided to recognize destinations that have excelled in their work towards sustainable tourism management. A joint award ceremony on European Tourism Indicator System and Accessible Tourism took place inside the conference. 10 destinations were awarded (European Commission, 2016), being Barcelona province and Visit South Sardinia the winners of the top prizes in terms of accessibility (Tourism for All approach) and sustainability (combination of EU and UN indicators) respectively. Zuid Limburg in the Netherlands received a special mention for sustainable destination management and accessibility improvements. The new ETIS toolkit for sustainable destination management is composed of 43 core indicators and a set of supplementary indicators, and it is the result of the feedback received from the destinations during the two pilot phases. 3.4. Description of the System The European Tourism Indicator System is a voluntary management tool that helps destinations to measure and monitor the impacts of tourism in a holistic way, allowing them to make informed decisions for the development of tourism. Its monitoring results are based on self-assessment, data collection and analysis by the destinations themselves. The destinations set their own targets for each indicator and ETIS does not provide any certification (European Union, 2016). “The basic principle of the indicator system is that destination responsibility, ownership, and decision-making is shared. Engaging a group to come together and work together to collect and report information is a powerful way to undertake effective destination management” (European Union, 2016, p. 12). The first set of indicators (from February 2013) was composed of 27 core indicators and 40 optional indicators, subdivided in 4 categories: destination management, economic value, social and cultural impact and environmental impact. Each category addresses specific sustainability issues and a certain 41
number of indicators that respond to each issue, providing an assessment of the level of sustainability in the destination. The current set of indicators (from March 2016) is still divided into the same 4 categories, however the amount and content of the indicators have been revised, being now 43 core indicators and a set of supplementary indicators, to be used according to the specific characteristics of the destination: coastal, maritime, cultural routes, etc. Core indicators are those indicators common to most destinations, present in the main indicators systems and that represent the essential information needed to monitor performance over time. It is important to highlight that the system is flexible, and destinations can choose a certain number of indicators, according to their needs and specific sustainability issues. They do not need to apply the 43 core indicators. Another important aspect is that ETIS can be combined with other measurement systems already in place in the destination, such as the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and the EU Eco-label (also European Commission initiatives) or private initiatives, such as international certification schemes or monitoring tools; it is a complement rather than a substitute for destination management. Destinations benefit from the system in many ways: analysing the data collected and setting priority areas for action, designing long-term tourism strategies, improving destination management with the involvement of stakeholders and benchmarking and sharing best practices with other European destinations. 3.5. Implementation framework to apply ETIS Together with the indicator system, a toolkit has been designed, including a 7-step approach, to guide stakeholders to implement the system. In Miller and Twining-Ward words, “one of the most effective ways to ensure indicator results are actually used to change the way tourism is managed is to develop an implementation framework as an integral part of the indicator development programme” (2005, p. 165). The set of core and supplementary indicators are included in the toolkit, and the supporting documents to collect data are available online in the EC website. These supporting documents include: the destination dataset (an Excel file where to collect all the data), the destination profile, the templates of invitation letters for stakeholders, as well as the surveys’ templates (visitors, businesses, destination management and residents).
42
Each destination needs to have a “local coordinator” who will usually be part of the local Destination Management Organization (DMO) or tourism office and will be responsible for the coordination of the stakeholders and the planning of the steps to take. The implementation guide includes the following seven steps: 1. Raise awareness: Let all stakeholders in the destination know about the decision to implement ETIS, so that everyone can be involved and collaborate. It is crucial to obtain the local political support as well and include them in the stakeholders group. 2. Create a destination profile: a brief overview with the main characteristics of the destination, including location, boundaries, tourist attractions, etc. 3. Form a stakeholder working group (SWG): this is a key aspect in the success of implementing the system. A group of highly-committed stakeholders should be formed, including public authorities, tourism authorities, business associations, utilities’ companies, academia, NGO’s and local residents. It is advisable that the group is no larger than 15, 20 members in order to facilitate coordination. The group will be guided by the local destination coordinator, who will establish responsibilities and set deadlines for data collection. A first meeting to present the project should be organized, explaining the aims, activities to perform and responsibilities to be shared. 4. Establish roles and responsibilities: among the stakeholders in the group, so that each one is in charge of collecting part of the data needed to populate the indicators. Clearly, the type of data to be collected will be related to the role of each stakeholder. The division of responsibilities should be done during the first group meeting. 5. Collect and record data: the tool to do this is the destination dataset, an excel file where the information collected by the stakeholders will be combined, in order to have a clear picture of the destination’s performance. When data is not readily available, surveys can be conducted in order to collect them. 6. Analyse the results: once the dataset is completed, the SWG can analyse the results, identifying key priority areas, setting targets and planning the actions to achieve them. 7. Enable ongoing development and continuous improvement: it is important to continue using the system, collecting data periodically and re-assessing priorities. Since the costs to carry on the system might be an issue, it is important to find possible funding sources.
43
3.6. Comparing the 1st and 2nd set of indicators As previously mentioned, the set of indicators was revised according to the feedback received by the testing destinations, in order to facilitate their application. The first set of indicators (from 2013) had 27 core indicators, while the updated set has 43 core indicators. At first, it would seem that the indicators set is now more complex and involves more work from the destinations’ stakeholders. However, it is presented by the EC and the ETIS Pool of Experts as a simplified and “more realistic set of core indicators” (European Union, 2016, p. 3). Table 5 ETIS indicators comparison
ETIS TOOLKIT 2013 Section A: Destination management 4 Criteria, 4 core indicators 1) Sustainable tourism public policy 2) Sustainable tourism management in tourism enterprises 3) Customer satisfaction 4) Information and communication Section B: Economic value 5 criteria, 7 core indicators 1) Tourism Flow (volume and value) at destination 2) Tourism enterprises performance 3) Quantity and quality of employment 4) Safety and Health 5) Tourism supply chain Section C: Social and cultural impact 4 criteria, 5 core indicators 1) Community/ social impact 2) Gender equality 3) Equality/ accessibility 4) Protecting and enhancing cultural heritage, local identity and assets Section D: Environmental impact 9 criteria, 11 core indicators 1) Reducing transport impact 2) Climate change 3) Solid waste management 4) Sewage treatment 5) Water management 6) Energy usage 7) Landscape and biodiversity protection 8) Light and noise management 9) Bathing water quality
ETIS TOOLKIT 2016 2 Criteria, 3 core indicators -Sustainable tourism public policy/Information and communication criteria were removed -Customer satisfaction: were specified tourists and same day visitors
4 criteria, 10 core indicators -Optional indicators, mainly in the tourism flow criteria, were changed to core (contribution of tourism to GDP, number and spending of same day visitors) -A core indicator regarding the quality of employment was included -Tourism supply chain indicator was redefined 5 criteria, 13 core indicators -Several optional indicators added under accessibility and community/social impact -Renamed criteria to “inclusion/ accessibility” -Managerial positions held by women added under gender equality -Health and safety moved to this section 7 criteria, 17 core indicators -In most criteria, indicators that were optional were converted to core -Average carbon footprint was added -Solid waste management was divided between residents and tourists -Light and noise management/ bathing water quality criteria and indicators were removed
Source: Own elaboration
44
Figure 8 Distribution of ETIS indicators per category
Source: Own elaboration
Table 5 shows a brief comparison highlighting only the main changes made in each of the four sections. The distribution among categories (Figure 8) have not changed much, however several indicators have been added, especially in the socio-cultural and environmental impact sections. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the system in general are summarized in Table 6. Table 6 ETIS Strengths and Weaknesses
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES Detailed information provided to Reliability on several surveys (visitors, destinations to implement system, residents, businesses and destination including how to make calculations, management) which are costly and timeexamples of surveys, letter of invitation consuming Uniform monitoring and management Possibility to adapt set of indicators to system at European level each destination can create difficulties Useful tool for long term planning of the when benchmarking destination, identifying issues and Static tool (Excel sheet) not allowing setting priorities benchmarking among destinations. The Relevance as a tool designed by the need for an online tool was recognized European Commission, in line with the after the feasibility study and pilot European tourism policy (COM 2010 phases, but still not able to be 352), with the potential to be used in implemented combination with other systems, such as More incentives needed to motivate EU Eco-label, EMAS, or other private destinations managers and stakeholders initiatives to maintain system Incentive for tourism business to More funds needed (from public and incorporate sustainable practice in their private sector) to run system in the long operation, possibly adopting one of the term previously mentioned schemes Not enough visibility and promotion Flexibility of the system, possibility to from the European Commission, left as a choose most useful indicators or add tool than can be freely used but there is own additional indicators no support or follow up from the Incentive for all stakeholders, making European Commission at the moment them participant of the destination planning and management (shared responsibility) Marketing tool, to help in the creation of the destination’s image and branding Source: Own elaboration
45
3.7. Assessment of ETIS Indicators as policy making tools As it was explained in the literature review, not all indicators have the same potential to be used in policy making, or better, not all can be of instrumental use; they can be used though to raise awareness about sustainability issues or help legitimising political decisions (Gudmundsson, 2003; Gudmundsson et al., 2009). In the case of ETIS, the objective of the system was to provide a comprehensive management tool for destinations, which they could use to measure the impacts of tourism, monitor them over time and establish the priorities to take action. Basically, destinations would have information that could allow them “to make better management decisions, as well as influence adequate policies” (European Union, 2013, p. 7). As expressed in one of the reports of the feasibility study, the long-term ambition of the European Commission was that “the system would serve as a guide to policy makers and other destination stakeholders for the improved management of tourism destinations across Europe” (University of Surrey, 2012a, p. 3). Therefore, we can argue that the policy usefulness of the indicators was one of the main drivers to develop ETIS. The instrumental role of indicators is highlighted in several parts of the ETIS toolkits, such as: “providing useful information to make intelligent decisions”, “monitoring tracks change over time and provides the information which policy makers can then use to make their decisions”, as well as “local policy makers have relied for a long time on a limited range of statistics (…) which do not tell the whole story of tourism’s impacts” (European Union, 2013, p. 7, 8, 10 ). and finally, “ETIS promotes the development and improvement of an integrated information system” (European Union, 2016, p. 11). A further key aspect of ETIS is the involvement of different groups of stakeholders in the destination, raising awareness of the sustainability issues and making them participant in the collection of data and the planning of strategies. It becomes apparent that ETIS is not only an instrument to assess the sustainability of a tourist destination, but also contributes to improve its sustainable management, through the analysis of the information and decision-making together with the different stakeholder groups, one of them the policy makers. What is important to assess is, on the one side, the choice of indicators selected to make the system, and on the other side, the process to implement the system (the 7-step guide). The latter will be evaluated in the following chapter, applied to the Zuid Limburg region.
46
Regarding the choice of indicators, we will base the assessment on Gudmundsson (2003), who classifies indicators according to five different types and their internal and external framework. These characteristics apparently could explain which indicators have more potential to be directly linked with policies. In our case, we will provide a general assessment of both sets of ETIS indicators provided by the EC, without entering in precise details, as this is not the main aim of our research quest. Types of Indicators: indicators can be descriptive (dichotomous, number, grade, ratios, etc) or performance indicators (measured in comparison to a standard, benchmark or target value); they can be system indicators (measuring states, flows or changes) or agency mode indicators (focusing on the activities of an agent). One more type of indicators are aggregate indices, however ETIS does not include any of them. Indicator Frameworks: there is a distinction between the conceptual framework (the internal structure of the system) and the utilization framework (related to the presence of accountability mechanisms, that ensure the information from the indicators is used); the utilization framework can be of three types: -Information framework, where indicators are provided to a large audience, most of the indicators are descriptive and measured in the system mode, and no accountability mechanisms are specified. -Monitoring framework, which incorporate accountability notions and regularly report on the progress of certain policies or programs. Usually used by policy makers, administrators and other stakeholders. -Control framework, which aim to regulate policy and measure on the basis of performance indicators against specific targets. Accountability is well defined. These are the ones providing the strongest links to policy. According to the author’s analysis of ETIS, based on the Gudmundsson’s approach, the conceptual framework adopted by ETIS is that of the dimensions of sustainability (economic, socio-cultural and environmental). The system is mainly composed of descriptive indicators measured in the system mode. In fact, very few performance indicators are included (for example, D.3.1 “Waste production per tourist night compared to general population waste production per person”) and only under the environmental dimension. Finally, with regards to the utilization framework, based on the evidence we would place ETIS under the information framework, since the information provided by the indicators is targeted to a large audience (policy makers, tourism stakeholders, residents, tourists), 47
almost all indicators are descriptive, measuring the state, flow or change in human or natural systems, and there is no specific responsibility assigned to particular actors. The following diagram shows this graphically. Figure 9 Relationship between ETIS Framework and Tourism Policy •Dimensions of Sustainability: Destination Management, Economic Value, Socio-cultural impact and Environmental impact ETIS Conceptual •Descriptive and system mode indicators Framework
Utilization Framework
Target Audience
Tourism Policy
•Information Framework
•Policy makers •Tourism stakeholders •Other stakeholders •Residents •Tourists
•Indirectly influenced (conceptual and symbolic use of indicators)
Source: Author's interpretation from Gudmundsson (2003)
This assessment suggests a possible contradiction between the ultimate objective of ETIS, namely provide information to policy makers to improve decision-making, and the indicators and framework adopted, whereas one could expect to see more performance indicators and a monitoring framework. Nevertheless, an important point not to forget is that ETIS was developed to suit very different destinations across Europe, so it is only logical that no concrete targets or accountability mechanisms were defined. ETIS might be expected to adopt a monitoring framework, once the system is integrated with the tourism policy of the destination, then it could serve to measure progress towards the policy’s goals. Furthermore, ETIS responds to a very general European policy framework (Communication 2010 352), which only announces the creation of an indicator system. Therefore, the task of linking these general indicators to the tourism policies and priorities is left to each destination that decides to apply this voluntary tool. Since it has been made “flexible”, destinations’ stakeholders, including policy makers, could select the indicators to be aligned with their own policy objectives. And in the case of destinations which do not have a tourism policy or strategy in place, ETIS will act as a catalyst, helping them identify the key issues and priorities to formulate and implement one. 48
3.8. Interviews with Tourism experts involved in ETIS development To complete the information collected from the ETIS Feasibility Study and the two official toolkits, it was considered indispensable to perform semi-structured interviews to some of the experts that were involved in the development of ETIS. The list of experts interviewed is provided in the following table, in the order they have been conducted, and their contributions are discussed and confronted after. Only one of the experts, Mr. Salman, was not directly involved in the development of ETIS, however he has been interviewed to give his opinion, as ETIS is meant to be a complement for other monitoring systems, such as the one Green Destinations proposed. Table 7 List of tourism experts interviewed
1
Date 27/02/2017
Tourism Expert Cinzia de Marzo
2
16/05/2017
Prof. Graham Miller
3
17/10/2017
Albert Salman
Position Seconded National Expert, European Commission Tourism Unit (2012-2016) Chair in sustainability in business at the University of Surrey and Executive Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Co-editor Journal of Sustainable Tourism Green Destinations, President
4
23/10/2017
Cristina Nuñez
NECSTouR, Coordinator
5
22/11/2017
Peter Lane
Planning and Tourism Consultant, ex member TSG (Tourism Sustainability Group). Chair of Executive Committee British Destinations
The interview with Mrs. de Marzo (personal communication, February 27, 2017) was an introductory one, where she explained the ETIS background in the context of the EU Tourism Policy, the pilot phases conducted and the main characteristics of the system. She also mentioned the destinations that were awarded in 2016 after the two pilot phases, which were then used by the author to perform a comparative analysis. As for the strengths of the system, she highlights the flexibility of choosing the indicators to measure, and as for the weaknesses, the fact that ETIS is a static tool, not allowing for online benchmarking and networking among destinations. Prof. Miller (personal communication, May 16, 2017) adds that the online platform where to collect the indicators have been proposed by the University of Surrey during the Feasibility Study, however this was rejected by the EC due to lack of budget. He agrees with Mrs. de Marzo in that the flexibility of ETIS is a key point, since the main purpose of the system was to get destinations started with at 49
least a few indicators, and that they could slowly add more. Very few destinations currently measure sustainability, so the important is to raise awareness and the indicators can assist on that. An interested point made by Prof. Miller is that the EC did not provide financial support to the testing destinations, only technical support to implement the system, so destinations have to allocate the necessary funds to run the system themselves. This is a contested terrain since, according to Mr. Lane (personal communication, November 22, 2017), usually destinations are ready to invest in promotion and marketing but not in measuring and monitoring the impacts of tourism, which is a key step to plan and manage tourism. Lane adds, “if you don’t monitor and measure, then how do you know what you are doing, and if what you are doing is working?”. Mr. Salman (personal communication, October 17, 2017) agrees on this and adds that indicators are tangible tools DMOs can use to assure the quality and management of the destination. The TSG in which Mr. Lane took part, developed the system of indicators trying to take a “bottomup” approach, thinking of what would work for destinations to measure sustainability. The ETIS system is based on the TSG indicators, and the toolkit and methodology are the features added by the University of Surrey’s team to make it a “ready to use” tool. Nevertheless, Mr. Lane insists that indicators need to constantly be revised as data improved and the way to collect it changes. Regarding the reliability of ETIS on many surveys, a point usually made by destinations since it is time consuming and costly, Mr. Lane explains that surveys are a fundamental tool, and much of the information they provide cannot be obtained otherwise. Regional statistics and national statistics should build from local level information. On the other hand, Mrs. Nuñez (personal communication, October 23, 2017) and Mr. Salman both sustain that it is more practical to rely as much as possible on official statistics and information already available. The principle of ETIS of sharing the responsibility for managing the destination is a critical one; it is argued that if local stakeholders are involved they will feel motivated and will engage in tourism management. It is of course time consuming to set up the Stakeholders Working Group the first time, but according to Mr. Lane it is fundamental that the DMO discuss the impacts of tourism with different stakeholders (not only tourism ones), otherwise it misses valuable insights. Regarding the usefulness of ETIS for policy making, Mrs. Nuñez express that “the ETIS indicators are not directly linked to policy; they just tell you at what stage is the sustainability of the destination. The integration of indicators and policy is not automatically done, it needs a whole work of interpretation and policy measures as solutions to address this performance. The real work starts after 50
the ETIS exercise is done, to connect these results with policy measures”. Mr. Salman thinks indicators on their own are not useful, they need to support criteria; in the case of ETIS, he argues that is a set of indicators without defined criteria. However, as suggested by NECSTouR, indicators could be linked to policy priorities and this way respond to them. Mr. Lane notes that indicators are not only useful, but essential for policy. Mrs. Nuñez explains that in the years that follow the Lisbon Treaty, which formally recognized the tourism competence of the EU, there was a willingness to push the relevance of tourism at European level, creating a policy and assigning resources for it. One of the outputs was the Communication 2010 (352) which specifically calls for the creation of a European system of indicators. Unfortunately, after the change in the EU government in 2014, tourism was not anymore considered a priority sector and there were many budget cuts including the merger of the two tourism units in one. The ETIS toolkit is available in the EC tourism website, however there is no follow up or support provided from the EC. According to Mrs. Nuñez, ETIS should have been integrated to other EU policies and other EU tools, such as EMAS or EU Eco Label, to ensure its continuity after the project was completed. In Miller’s words, the “EU has missed an opportunity because of the lack of support”, since the system could have become stronger in Europe, achieving eventually consumers’ recognition. 3.9. ETIS: Future perspective It has been almost two years since the revised ETIS toolkit was launched and five years since the official launch of the system by the European Commission. Unfortunately, since ETIS is a voluntary instrument, there is no mechanism in place to follow up the use of the system by destinations nowadays. As mentioned above, it is freely available on the EU tourism section of the website and any destination can use it. The Virtual Tourism Observatory (VTO), a tool created also by the European Commission and launched at the same time as ETIS, was suggested as the natural platform where the data from destinations should be collected. A new section for the ETIS information was meant to be added to the observatory website. However, up to date, there are no advancements on this direction. On the other hand, a group of “ETIS destinations”, led by Patrizia Modica from the destination Visit South Sardinia, proposed to form an ETIS network of destinations (similar to EDEN), to allow the sharing of knowledge, best practices and networking. Since the costs involved in creating a network were high, an alternative solution was to host an ETIS Committee inside NECSTouR, which already 51
has a working group on indicators. In the end, no agreement was reached with NECSTouR but a possible independent network of destinations is still being discussed. One of the long-term goals of the ETIS Network of destinations is the creation of a Tourism Observatory under the INSTO umbrella from UNWTO, to then allow comparisons with other INSTO observatories around the world. This is an ambitious goal, since as a first step, would be advisable to host the ETIS information in the Virtual Tourism Observatory, to then include it under the INSTO network. 3.10. Conclusive remarks about ETIS and its policy use After this extensive analysis of ETIS it is possible to affirm that the system was developed with broad goals in mind, namely improving the sustainable management of European destinations. In this sense, it is understandable that its framework and type of indicators used has been kept very general and descriptive. The main dimensions of sustainable development have been included, the implementation process is clear and the basic tools to implement it are provided. The author’s opinion agrees with that of Mrs. Nuñez from NECSTouR, recognizing that the main responsibility lies in the destinations, which have to first methodically implement the system and then analyse and adapt the results in consultation with the different actors, in order to translate the information provided by ETIS in concrete actions to achieve their sustainable tourism policy. In the following section, ETIS will be empirically analysed in Zuid Limburg, Netherlands, one of the testing destinations during the second pilot project. We expect to be able to complete these partial conclusions with their experience.
52
Chapter 4 ETIS implementation in Zuid Limburg Region, Netherlands 4.1. Case Study Overview 4.1.1. Aim of the research The aim of the present research is to analyse the role of indicator systems as instruments to formulate and implement tourism policy at destination level. For this purpose, a case study is chosen, which is the previously described European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS), the only common European framework developed by the European Commission (EC) to measure and manage tourism in destinations. To test the implementation of ETIS, an empirical analysis is performed in the Zuid Limburg region in the Netherlands, one of the destinations that tested the system during the second pilot phase in 2014. Lastly, a comparison is established with other European destinations that have participated in the ETIS pilot phase and have been awarded by the EC as well, to verify the policy use of the indicators. In what follows, the questions that guide the research will be explained, as well as the theoretical and empirical methodology used to provide an answer to them. 4.1.2. Research Question “Are indicator systems, such as ETIS, useful tools for policy making at destination level?” We begin the research with the hypothesis that indicator systems, such as the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS), are useful tools to support decision-making processes. The information they provide can be used by policy makers to formulate new policies, implement them and after, act as performance measurements, to evaluate if the policy objectives have been achieved. Moreover, indicators have a more concrete impact when they are integrated with the local tourism policy, this is, when indicators are designed together with the priorities of tourism policy or strategy of the destination (Tanguay et al., 2013). In this way, they complement each other, and indicators are internalized in the policy process. Thanks to the literature review performed, we were able to see that this “instrumental” use typically assigned to indicators, and the main reason why systems of indicators are designed, it is not the only use indicators can have. Gudmundsson (2003; 2009) suggest a “conceptual” use and a “symbolic” use. The conceptual use refers to indicators’ role in raising awareness and acknowledging the sustainability issues in tourism; while the symbolic use refers to their political role, serving to
53
legitimize decisions. All these roles and not only the instrumental or direct role are able to exert an influence on policy goals and could lead to concrete actions. In the present study, we will investigate these three roles of indicators, focusing on the ETIS case and its implementation in Zuid Limburg (in detail), as well as in other eleven European destinations (through an online questionnaire). 4.1.3. Complementary Research questions Some questions that will assist in answering the main research question are the following: Which features should an indicator system have to be used in policy making? Are sustainable indicators systems useful management tools for destinations? Does the use of indicators improve the governance of tourism in destinations? (this is, the power relationships between different stakeholders) What are the main problems encountered by destinations to implement a system of indicators such as ETIS? And how to overcome these issues? 4.1.4. Research motivation Based on the extensive literature analysed on sustainable tourism and the relevance of sustainable tourism indicators to better manage tourism in destinations, it was considered useful to further investigate one particular system of indicators, namely ETIS, in order to test its usefulness in achieving this goal. The European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) is taken as case study, as the only common European framework developed by the European Commission as an answer to Action 11 (COM 2010) 352 final. It is an attempt to provide a practical tool for destinations to measure the sustainability of their tourism sector and improve its management. It is based on the principle of shared responsibility of all stakeholders to manage the destination. Since ETIS has been launched in 2013 and the revised toolkit was only released in 2016, there is little literature about the implications of its implementation for destination management, let alone its policy use. The present study pretends to fill that gap. Furthermore, the literature suggests that not many studies have focused on the role of sustainable tourism indicators to support decision-making processes (Blancas et al., 2011; Macarena et al., 2011 in Tanguay & Rajaonson, 2013; Gudmundsson et al., 2009), and this is precisely the main focus of this study.
54
An additional value of this study is the empirical evidence collected in Zuid Limburg, Netherlands, to illustrate the ETIS implementation, as well as the online questionnaire distributed to other European destinations that tested ETIS. 4.1.5. Research approach This case study takes a deductive approach, using a mix of methods, including the content analysis of documents, semi-structured interviews, an online questionnaire and direct observation, to test the hypothesis. A case study has been defined by Robson as “a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context using multiple sources of evidence” (as cited in Altinay & Paraskevas, 2008, p. 77). There are two components of the case study. On one side, the previously performed assessment of ETIS including documents and interviews with tourism experts, in order to understand this particular system of sustainable tourism indicators. On the other side, the field work conducted in Zuid Limburg, Netherlands, where the pilot implementation of ETIS is tested, through the study of the material produced by the destination and the interviews with key stakeholders. As for the documents revised, these include the European Tourism Policy in the first place, in order to understand the context in which the ETIS system is created. This is followed by the analysis of the ETIS Feasibility Study, the launch and test of the system and the two official toolkits created by the European Commission. Finally, the material collected by Zuid Limburg during the implementation phase. To complement the documented evidence, semi-structured, in-depth interviews with Dutch tourism stakeholders are conducted during the 5-week field work in Zuid Limburg. These interviews provide useful insights and allow the researcher to evaluate the 7- step implementation process of ETIS in Zuid Limburg. Interviews with ETIS experts also provide interesting perspectives. Direct observation of the destination is performed during the field work, while travelling around the destination to conduct the interviews.
Finally, a comparative analysis with other European
destinations that tested ETIS is performed, through a questionnaire distributed online and a basic benchmark. 4.1.6. Limitations The limitations of the present research can be divided into limitations of the approach chosen and limitations of the case study destination. 55
Limitations of the research approach chosen: The research approach is focused on one particular system of indicators, namely ETIS, which is clearly just one of the many systems of indicators currently used by different destinations and a rather new methodology, launched in 2013. Moreover, the research focuses on the European context (European destinations), drawing some conclusions with respect to these destinations. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the recommendations provided in this study are not useful for destinations outside Europe. Limitations of the Case Study destination: The Zuid Limburg Tourism Board provided the ETIS files a few days before the author’s field trip, so the stakeholders involved could not be contacted before the trip. Nevertheless, a large number of interviews was organized and the ones that could not be performed in person, were arranged via Skype after returning to the author’s country of origin. The expectations regarding the results of the ETIS pilot experience were higher than what was actually found in the destination. Once there, the researcher found that, although Zuid Limburg is involved in many sustainable tourism initiatives, little has been done to test ETIS in its full. The amount of time that has passed since the pilot project (3 years) made it more difficult to involve the stakeholders. Some of them were not anymore in the same positions and was not possible to contact them. Others have forgotten some aspects of the process, since after the pilot, it was not used again. Due to this, a possible methodology which was a Focus Group had to be discarded, since it was not deemed feasible to bring together these stakeholders after such a long time. Finally, the stakeholders interviewed, although involving different groups of key stakeholders, cannot be considered a representative sample of all tourism stakeholders in Zuid Limburg. However, the interviews were sufficient to detect the main features of the ETIS implementation in the destination and the relationship among stakeholders. 4.2. Tourism Sector in The Netherlands: Brief Overview The Dutch’s governance model is characterized by neo-liberal principles of decentralization and deregulation. The policy making style preferred at national level is based on general-theme policies, instead of sector-focused ones, and tourism and recreation is considered one target group among many others inside these general themes (Dinica, 2006; 2008). There is no national specific legislation on tourism (OECD, 2016). 56
Tourism is not considered to be a state responsibility but rather a market opportunity, to be developed by the private sector (Dinica, 2009). The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is responsible for tourism policy at national level. Its main activities involve promoting inbound tourism, through NBTC Holland Marketing (Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions). Other targets are related to provide an enabling environment for hospitality businesses to flourish; hospitality industry is considered an important economic activity and is included in the generic enterprise policy (OECD, 2016). This decentralized approach means that regional and local authorities are given the responsibility to make and implement tourism policies. They are in charge of funding the local DMOs that promote inbound and domestic tourism and develop tourist products (OECD, 2016), as well as control over the taxes of tourism services and facilities, spatial planning, investments in infrastructure, environmental policy and nature conservation (Dinica, 2006). The disadvantage of this approach is that no follow up guideline or mechanism has been put in place to make sure local authorities are taking over this policy making role of the state. In fact, there are very few provinces that have a specific tourism department or unit and few municipal public servants consider themselves to be policy makers in the field of tourism planning (Dinica, 2008). Among the main non-governmental tourism stakeholders at national level, there is Gastvrij Nederland (National Council for the tourism sector), which represents 16 organizations and branches in the hospitality industry (Gastvrij Nederland, 2017) such as; RECRON (Association of Recreation Entrepreneurs), Koninklijke Horeca Nederland (Hotel, Restaurant and Catering Association) and ANWB (Royal Dutch Touring Club). Figure 10 Netherlands Tourism Organizational chart
Source: OECD adapted from the Ministry of Economic Affairs (2016)
57
These tourism stakeholders advocate for a sector specific tourism policy, that should act as a framework for regional and local actors to make their own policies. However, their request has not been addressed by the national government, which according to Veerman, in the last years have switched from a “taking care of” to a “taking care that” approach (as cited in Dinica, 2008, p.346), acting as a facilitator, creating the right environment for other government levels to implement their policies (Dinica, 2008). “New modes of coordination” such as voluntary agreements, ecolabels, industry codes of conduct and benchmarking, public information campaigns and public-private partnerships (Dinica, 2006) seem to be preferred as more in line with the neo-liberal ideas. The Ministry of Economic Affairs set up in 2004 MVO Nederland, which is the main organization at national level promoting socially responsible entrepreneurship. One of the platforms of MVO is the MVO Tourism Network, specifically created to stimulate a sustainable development of the tourism industry. They organize an annual conference, “Groeneveld Conference” to share best practices and connect their members, which comprises companies, knowledge institutions, social/community organizations and public-sector authorities (European Commission, 2016). On the other hand, there seems to be a lack of awareness regarding the negative impacts of tourism in the country, which could explain why there is no interest by political and administrative actors in creating specific policies to address sustainable tourism development (Dinica, 2008). Besides, these actors generally have a “narrow definition of sustainability”, related only to the environmental dimension of sustainability (Dinica, 2008, p. 348). In this sense, tourism is perceived as a contributor to the conservation of the landscape. “Problem awareness is essential for any policy and governance restructuring, and its absence explains the lack of urgency to introduce meaningful changes based on sustainability principles” (Dinica, 2008, p. 346). According to UNEP-UNWTO, sustainability involves “coordination, planning and joint vision development”, all governance principles that seem to clash with current Dutch interpretation of neoliberal ideas, making it difficult for sustainable tourism policies to emerge (as cited in Dinica, 2008, p.349). 4.3. Tourism in Limburg and Zuid Limburg 4.3.1. Limburg Province Limburg is one of the 12 Dutch provinces. It is located in the southernmost part of the Netherlands, neighbouring Belgium and Germany. Since the 19th century, Limburg is considered a popular attraction for Dutch tourists, because is the only area of the country with hills, very different from the 58
flat lands of the rest of the Netherlands. In fact, the first Dutch Tourist Information Office was created here, in the city of Valkenburg (Zuid Limburg), in 1885. Figure 11 Location of Limburg province in the Netherlands
Source: On the World Map (2018)
In the period 2015-2016, 824.000 holidays were spent in the province with 3.7 million overnight stays by Dutch guests, while foreign tourists accounted for 405.000 and 1.1 million overnight stays (South Limburg Tourism Board, 2017). As explained earlier, provinces and municipalities are responsible for making and implementing tourism policy. Since each province is free to implement its tourism policy as they please, there is a great deal of variation between provincial tourism policies and even more at municipal level (Lengkeek, 2013). In Limburg, there is a Tourism Department with a team of about five employees, which is part of the Economic Department under the Provincial Executive Government. This team works together with the municipalities and other stakeholders from the industry like the tourism boards and the different sectors’ associations. The collaboration is on a project-basis (Y. Kokkelkoren, personal communication, November 6, 2017). The province has a “Multi-annual Tourism and Recreation Investment Program 2016-2019”. This program has three main focus areas: enhance infrastructure, strengthening the quality of products and entrepreneurship, and creating new product-market combinations (Y. Kokkelkoren, personal communication, November 6, 2017).
59
Apart from this program, the province has planned to start working in January 2018 on a Zuid Limburg tourism policy, which is the most popular tourist destination inside the province. The municipalities, tourism board and other relevant stakeholders have already been contacted for this matter. Mrs. Kokkelkoren, policy maker for tourism in Limburg Province, expects sustainability will be addressed in this new policy. 4.3.2. Zuid Limburg Region South Limburg (Dutch: Zuid-Limburg) is the southernmost part of the Province of Limburg and of the Netherlands. It has borders with Germany and Belgium, with whom it shares more borders than with the rest of the Netherlands. The provincial capital is Maastricht, which was the first manufacturing town in the Netherlands, and nowadays is an international business and knowledge hub in the heart of the so-called Meuse-Rhine Euroregion (Grinsven, 2012). Zuid Limburg is not an administrative region, but an area that shares a similar landscape (hills), culture (catholic traditions and “Burgundian lifestyle”) and language (Limburgish), so it is usually distinguished from the rest of the Limburg province. The region has a long history as a tourist destination, visited by Dutch tourists attracted by its distinctive landscape, different from the rest of the Netherlands. The so called “Heuvelland” or Hill country is formed by picturesque villages spread among rolling hills. Netherlands’ highest point can be found here, Vaalserberg with 322,5 meters. The river Meuse (Maas in Dutch) runs along the region, from south to north and is one of the major rivers of the Netherlands (Welcome to Zuid Limburg Brochure). Nature and landscape are in fact the main reason for visiting the area; 51% of visitors come for this reason, followed by walking (36%), Burgundian lifestyle (34%) and peace and quiet (33%) (South Limburg Tourism Board, 2017). Along its history, Zuid Limburg was dominated by the Romans, Spanish, Prussians and French, and eventually incorporated to the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815, after the Napoleonic wars in 1815 (Province of Limburg Brochure, 2017). The mining industry started to be developed here from 1910 and Limburg became the main supplier of coal energy in the country until after the Second World War. When in the 1960s and 1970s the mines were close off by the Dutch government, high unemployment and degradation of the area followed (Province of Limburg Brochure, 2017). In the 1990s, the tourism sector in Zuid Limburg entered a difficult phase. Summer tourism collapsed due to new and easily accessible destinations in southern Europe. Zuid Limburg had to refocus, and the tourism board developed the ‘10 principles’ of sustainable tourism, that gave direction to new developments (I. Darley, personal communication, September 4, 2017). 60
A solution to the hill country’s loss of attractiveness was found in the possibility to re-use the land previously occupied by the mines and develop a new destination, Parkstad Limburg. Land that was degraded and abandoned after the closing of the mines was rebuilt, reforest and man-made attractions were developed, such as Snow World, Gaia Zoo, Mondo Verde, Museumplein (a complex with 3 museums), a Mining Museum, among many others. This area is, in fact, known as the “Orlando on the Maas” referring to its similarity with Disneyland. This development proved also a great solution to widen the option of tourists already visiting the “hill country”, to stay for longer periods in the area, being Parkstad easily accessible by car and by public transportation. The fact of being a purposely-built destination means that the attractions are prepared to cope with large number of tourists, contributing to reduce crowds in the neighbour (and small) hill countryside. Moreover, local residents seem to benefit from the beautification of the area as well, with new investment in cultural attractions, events, festivals which are also enjoyed by them. All these initiatives have increased the pride of the inhabitants, since the destination has been transformed from a degraded area into a thriving destination (I. Darley, personal communication, November 15, 2017). The World Travel and Tourism Council - Tourism for Tomorrow Award has recognized Parkstad Limburg in 2016 as the “Best Travel Destination in the World”, for its efforts in the last 15 years to develop a new destination, complementing the neighbouring hill country and thus turning both areas into a sustainable year-round tourism destination. Parkstad’s turnover in 2015 was € 368 million and it generated 5,800 full time jobs (World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), 2016). 5 sub areas are identified by Zuid Limburg Tourism Board and they can be seen in the map below. These are: Valkenburg aan de Geul, Parkstad Limburg, Heuvelland, Grensmaasvallei and Maastricht. Some key tourism facts and figures for the region are mentioned in Table 8.
61
Figure 12 Zuid Limburg location and sub areas
Source: South Limburg Tourism Board Regional Survey (2017)
Table 8 Zuid Limburg Tourism facts and figures
Zuid Limburg Surface Population Overnight stays Expenditure GDP Tourism Employment in Tourism Average annual occupancy rate Seasonality
25 km2 607.000 (24.280 inhabitants per km2) 5 million (87% Dutch) €2.1 billion. €42 per person per day (€33 is the Netherlands average) 10% 20.253 people 53.8% Hotels, 48.8% Holiday Homes, 14.9% Campsites Full occupancy (July, August, September, December), Medium occupancy (April, May, June, October), Low occupancy (January, February, March, November)
Source: (I. Darley, personal communication, November 15, 2017; South Limburg Tourism Board, 2017)
4.4. Zuid Limburg Tourism Board The Zuid Limburg Tourism Board or DMO is the oldest tourism association in the Netherlands, and probably also the oldest in Europe (Welcome to Zuid Limburg Brochure). Founded in 1885 in Valkenburg, it is comprised of 18 municipalities. Maastricht, even if it belongs to Zuid Limburg, is not part of it, as they have their own tourism board.
62
The Zuid Limburg Tourism Board is a non-profit, public-private foundation. They are funded by membership fees paid by businesses (75%) and subsidies given by municipalities that are members (25%). The contribution from municipalities is calculated based on the number of tourists and income they receive from tourism. The private sector members comprise hotels, restaurants, retailers and attractions and there are over 900 members (I. Darley, personal communication, November 15, 2017). There are different membership packages available for them, ranging from Bronze to Platinum, with different services included and fees. In addition, other services can be requested by members for an extra fee. In order to increase efficiency and maintain more direct contact with members, the tourism board has subdivided the region into four, assigning a Regional Manager to each sub region: 1) Maastricht Meerssen Valkenburg, 2) Heuvelland, and neighbouring Germany and Belgium areas, 3) Parkstad region (Heerlen- Kerkrade area), 4) Sittard-Geleen. These regional managers are the contact point for members and municipalities and they are also involved in tourism policy consultations for these areas. The Executive Board consists of 14 members, 7 of which are representatives from the municipalities/areas, an impartial chairman, an impartial financial content expert and 5 representatives from the private sector (South Limburg Tourism Board, 2017). The DMO is mainly promoting and marketing the destination, but also assisting in managing tourism in the region. They are an important stakeholder and are regularly involved by the province in tourism planning, such as in the process to develop the new tourism policy for Zuid Limburg, that started in January 2018. Among their duties are the coordination of the different tourism stakeholders in the region, promotion and marketing of the destination and product and itineraries development. DMOs have “the critical role of providing leadership and coordination for the many stakeholders that must contribute and work together” (Spyriadis, Fletcher, & Fyall, 2013, p. 89). Ritchie & Crouch add that “they are seen as catalysts and facilitators for the realization of destination development” (as cited in Spyriadis, Fletcher, & Fyall, 2013, p.85) The tourism board actively uses its network to: look after interests, perform market research, marketing and communication activities, exchange of knowledge, network gatherings, individual and collective promotion. They are also in charge of maintaining the signalling of hiking, walking and mountain-bike routes and developing the route maps (South Limburg Tourism Board, 2017), which are then sold in the tourist offices. Furthermore, they have recently launched their own online ticket
63
sales system, Tickli, where it is possible to buy events, attractions and excursions tickets in the whole region. The tourism board runs 31 information points throughout the region. 5 of these are proper tourist offices with staff from the tourism board and have a large range of products and services available for sale. The Zuid Limburg Tourism Board is part of the National Tourism Board, called VVV Nederland, which is a well-recognized and trusted brand for Dutch tourists (South Limburg Tourism Board, 2017). At European level, they are members of NECSTouR and participate regularly as partners in EU projects, such as recent Spirit Youth and BRANDTour. Finally, they belong to the national network MVO, specifically to the tourism branch called Netwerk Toerisme. They are the only Dutch DMO to be part of this network. 4.5. Sustainable Tourism in Zuid Limburg The tourism board, aware of the value of the region’s environment and culture for the tourism industry (one of their main economic activities) has created the ‘10 principles for sustainable tourism’, with which it aims to transform Zuid Limburg into a sustainable tourist destination, with high spending tourists that visit the region year-round (I. Darley, personal communication, September 4, 2017). The principles are not formally articulated with a regional policy or plan, but they serve as a vision, to inspire and guide action. The tourism board tries to relate the principles with new projects, to support them. Among the principles, the main aims are protecting the landscape, which is the main reason tourists visit the region; preserving the historical sites and cultural traditions; providing facilities to entrepreneurs to improve quality and incorporate sustainable operation practices; and participating in European projects to learn and incorporate good practices. Zuid Limburg Tourism Board has expressed their willingness to be a leader in sustainable tourism in Europe (Horninge, 2013). They are members of NECSTouR and in 2009, the destination Park Gravenrode inside Zuid Limburg, received the EDEN Award. In 2016 they received the WTTC “Tourism for Tomorrow” Award for Parkstad Limburg as the best travel destination in the world. In April 2016 as well, they have been given a special mention from the EC for their participation in the pilot phase of ETIS. Finally, in 2017, they were featured for the second time in the “Top 100 Sustainable Destinations”, an international competition organized by Green Destinations, that recognizes the efforts of destinations working towards sustainability. The tourism board promotes Zuid Limburg as a sustainable destination, based on the several awards they have received. Some other concrete initiatives include the tourist bus ticket, itineraries of slow 64
tourism like the European project Spirit Youth and a future project with Green Destinations to be part of the Viami Green Travel Map. They also collaborate with universities. For instance, they designed together with Cologne Business School the handbook for sustainability of small accommodations, with suggestions to make guests behave more responsibly and small hospitality structures to adopt sustainable practices. Once a year in January they organize a meeting with all tourism stakeholders (18 municipalities, councils, entrepreneurs, etc) to highlight progress made and discuss new initiatives. 4.6. Measuring Sustainable Tourism using ETIS Based on the several initiatives mentioned in the previous section, Zuid Limburg has been chosen as the case study destination to illustrate the ETIS implementation, under the perception that the destination is committed to work towards the sustainability of the tourism industry. When the second call for expressions of interest for European destinations to test ETIS was launched, the Zuid Limburg Tourism Board demonstrated interest in taking part of the project. They were already involved in other European projects (one EDEN Award winner destination and NECSTouR members) so they considered it as a good opportunity to be part of another European initiative. Since ETIS definition of destination is quite flexible, the area chosen to test the system was the whole Zuid Limburg region, which comprises 18 municipalities (since Maastricht is excluded): Valkenburg, Stein, Gulpen-Wittem, Beek, Brunssum, Echt-Susteren, Eijsden-Margraten, Heerlen, Kerkrade, Landgraaf, Meerssen, Nuth, Onderbanken, Schinnen, Simpelveld, Sittard-Geleen, Vaals, Voerendaal. 4.7. ETIS implementation in Zuid Limburg The research question of the present study refers to the usefulness of indicators systems, such as ETIS, as policy making tools at destination level. Precisely, to evaluate if the results from ETIS have exert some kind of influence in the tourism policy of a destination, the Zuid Limburg region in the Netherlands is chosen to illustrate it. To answer the research question, during the field work, we analyse how the indicators were implemented, who was involved in the implementation, which were the problems encountered during the process and finally, if the data collected through the indicators was used by the destination, to set new policies or revise the existing ones, to achieve a more sustainable tourism management. It was decided to analyse one case study in detail, in order to achieve a deep understanding of the interactions among the different stakeholders involved in the ETIS pilot project. According to Veal, 65
“case studies are particularly useful for understanding people, events, experiences and organizations in their social and historical context” (as cited in Singh, Milne, & Hull, 2012, p.459). The first contact of the author with the Zuid Limburg Tourism Board was via email and an interview was coordinated on September 4th, 2017. During this meeting, some general information about ETIS was provided by the tourism board and they agreed to share the files with the information collected during the ETIS process. This material was sent to the author one month after the interview, just before the beginning of the field work. 4.7.1. Methodology During the field work in the Zuid Limburg region, which took place for five weeks (from October 12th till November 16th, 2017), a mixed-methods approach is adopted, combining semi-structure interviews with direct observation and content analysis of the written material on ETIS produced by the destination during the pilot phase. This is enriched at a later stage with an online questionnaire submitted to 11 destinations involved in the ETIS pilot phases and awarded by the EC, to allow comparison, focusing on the use of the indicators for policy making. As suggested by Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, “a mixed-methods approach can provide stronger evidence for a conclusion through convergence and collaboration of findings and add insight and understanding that might be missed when only a single method is used” (as cited in Singh, Milne, & Hull, 2012, p.461). 18 interviews with local stakeholders have been conducted, to evaluate the ETIS implementation in the region. The tourism board provided the list of stakeholders involved in the ETIS pilot project and these were contacted first. To reach other key tourism stakeholders that were not directly involved in the ETIS implementation, the so called “snowballing” technique was used. This consist of inquiring participants, at the end of each interview, to provide suggestions of relevant stakeholders that could be contacted for further information regarding the ETIS implementation or key tourism players in the region. This proved very useful, as for instance two policy makers from the provincial and municipal level, agreed to set up an interview after being appointed by another colleague. An interview guide with mainly open-ended questions was prepared for each interview and sent to the participants by email in advance, in order to make the most of the time of the interview. The interviews contain some common questions but other were adapted according to the participant’s position or role. Almost all interviews were recorded, always requiring permission to do it and with the only purpose of reinforcing the author’s written notes; the answers were typed after. All of the interviews were one to one, except for the first interview with the tourism board, in which two representatives were present. The duration of each interview was between 30 to 60 minutes. A few 66
of the interviews had to be performed via skype or telephone; this was the case mainly with some Dutch national tourism stakeholders, since they were based in other cities. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were preferred since this is the best method to collect the different points of views from the range of stakeholders involved. A Focus Group was intended to be organized at first, however since the system has been tested three years ago and these stakeholders have not worked together since then, it was discarded, and individual interviews were preferred instead. A qualitative research interview has been described by Gillham and Jennings as a “professional conversation” (as cited in Singh, Milne, & Hull, 2012, p.464) and it has proved indeed very useful to cover all the intended topics. In what follows, the different tasks performed to analyse the implementation of ETIS in Zuid Limburg are discussed. Firstly, the evaluation of the process of implementing ETIS, going through steps 1 to 7 as suggested in the ETIS Toolkit. Secondly, a summary of the indicators collected by Zuid Limburg is presented. Finally, the main results from the interviews are discussed, focusing mainly in the policy use of the system; two diagrams of the ecosystem of stakeholders are presented, to better understand the actors involved in tourism in the regional, provincial and national level. 4.7.2. Evaluation of the process to implement ETIS in Zuid Limburg The aim is to check to what extent Zuid Limburg has followed the step by step guide provided in the toolkit (7 steps), which problems they encountered during the process and which are possible solutions to these problems. This assessment is performed with the assistance of the information provided by the stakeholders interviewed. The role of the Local Destination Coordinator is performed by the tourism board, in charge of Stan Smeets, who was the Manager of European Projects at the time. The DMO is in a good position to perform this role, as it has considerable power to influence the different stakeholders in the destination. The purpose of the pilot phase was to test the feasibility of implementing the system, the methodology and the indicators proposed. ETIS proposes a multi-stakeholder, participatory approach to data collection, which according to Miller and Twining-Ward (2005, p. 154) can act as a “social-learning” experience for the participants, building capacity and empowering them to contribute to destination management.
67
The documents regarding the implementation of ETIS in Zuid Limburg were provided by the tourism board. These documents included: -The list of the stakeholders involved in the Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) -The minutes from the 2 meetings that were held with the stakeholders -The assessment of each indicator, including its importance and feasibility to collect the required information. -Final report prepared by the Cologne Business School (CBS) students and final questionnaire with feedback submitted to the EC. According to the step by step methodology proposed by ETIS, the Zuid Limburg pilot was carried out in the following way: Step 1: Raise awareness among stakeholders Many of the stakeholders invited to participate were public and private sector members of the tourism board. The tourism policy makers from the Zuid Limburg municipalities were invited as well, to be aware of the pilot project. This is an interesting point which allows to deduct that the interest in making the connection with policy was there. The news about the pilot implementation was communicated through the tourism board newsletter and through a press release to the local media. A team of sustainable tourism’s master students from CBS was involved as partners of the project, since the tourism board was already working with the marketing agency Compass (Germany), who in turn worked with CBS. The team of students was supervised by Prof. Dirk Reiser (part of the ETIS Pool of Experts), under the subject “Tourism Research Seminar III”. They designed a time frame, starting with desk research on the indicators performed by the Local Coordinator together with the students. The objective was to identify which stakeholders were connected to which core indicators and invite them to be part of the Stakeholders Working Group (SWG) to test the system. The fact of trying to identify the stakeholders needed to collect the information is the reason given by Mr. Smeets to explain why some stakeholders were not contacted to be part of the SWG, i.e. environmental organizations, public transportation company, etc. In any case, in the author’s opinion, it would have been very useful to make them participant, since there are at least five environmental organizations in the area and they are very knowledgeable about the environment aspect for the
68
indicators. One hypothesis to explain this lack of involvement is that they were short on time to collect the data and preferred to keep the SWG small. Step 2: Create a Destination Profile The destination profile has been completed by the tourism board, including the main characteristics of the destination, such as the geographic features, accessibility, population, number of tourists, etc. This step did not present any problems since it is all information readily available to the tourism board. Step 3: Form a Stakeholder Working Group -SWG (and meetings with the group) The tourism board as the Local Coordinator was in charge of inviting the selected stakeholders to participate in the project. They were invited by email, following the template for invitations provided in the ETIS toolkit (S. Smeets, personal communication, October 24, 2017). The stakeholder working group was formed by: Fixed Group: Stan Smeets, VVV Zuid Limburg, Manager European Projects Dirk Reiser, Professor Cologne Business School Henriette Stieger, Representative Compass GMBH (Marketing Agency) Hanno Martens, M.A. Student (CBS) Bonnie Lewtas - M.A. Student (CBS) Elisabeth Klemens - M.A. Student (CBS) Xiaolu Zhang - M.A. Student (CBS) Anne ten Horn, Policy maker Municipality of Gulpen-Wittem Jasper Habets, Member of Parliament Province of Limburg Bram van Roon, Project Manager policy and communication RD4 (waste management company) Stand by Participants: Floortje Mennen, WML (Water supplier) Lenneke Minkels, former trainee VVV Zuid Limburg on sustainability Iris Darley, VVV Zuid-Limburg, Communications & Sustainability Jan Paul Rutten, Gulpener Brewery, Owner Jean Paul Hameleers, Hotel Merici, Owner Table 9 Zuid Limburg Stakeholder Working Group- Source (Zuid Limburg Tourism Board, 2014)
Most of these stakeholders have been contacted by the author for a semi-structured interview during her field work. Some of them were no longer in their positions (Jasper Habets and Floortje Mennen) and one did not reply to the interview request (Jean Paul Hameleers). From the student group, it was considered sufficient to contact only one of the students, Hanno Martens, who was suggested by Prof. Reiser.
69
Compared to the list of stakeholders recommended in the ETIS toolkit, there were some representatives missing, such as: Energy Department or Supplier, Police, Protected Areas Manager, Chamber of Commerce, Hotel Association, Local NGOs (social, environmental), Tourism employee associations, Public transport company. In some cases, such as the Chamber of Commerce, it was explained by Mr. Smeets that it does not have a very prominent role in the destination and it was considered sufficient to involve the members from the tourism board, which in fact are most tourism businesses of the region. Regarding the Hotel Association, there are some important associations at national level, Horeca (Hotel, Restaurants and Catering, Association of Hotel and Food/beverage Branch entrepreneurs) and RECRON, which represents leisure entrepreneurs. Both have regional representation in the area, but they were not involved. The first meeting with stakeholders was held in Valkenburg, on 23/09/2014. Represented at the meeting was the local coordinator Stan Smeets, COMPASS Representative Henriette Stieger, municipal representatives (Valkenburg and Gulpen-Wittem Municipalities), Prof. Dirk Reiser and his masters’ students (Cologne Business School , 2014). The ETIS project was presented to the stakeholders as well as the benefits to implement it, followed by a discussion of each of the core indicators, to determine which ones were the most relevant to the destination and whether information was available to collect. The different parties discussed and agreed on the data collection responsibilities and further proceedings (Cologne Business School , 2014). As it was mentioned earlier, the fact of bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders, to discuss the impacts of tourism, constitutes a social learning process in itself, and it is an enriching experience for all participants. As recognized in the UNWTO Indicators’ guidebook, “Indicators provide a way to involve a wider range of participants in the strategic planning process” (2004, p. 307). The challenge is to get stakeholders to clearly see the benefits of collaborating in the process; otherwise they only see the burden of collecting the data and not the purpose behind it, which is decide together the priorities to develop tourism in the destination. As it is normally recognized: “knowledge is power” and recently this has changed to “sharing is power” (Scott, Baggio, & Cooper, 2008), so through the participatory approach of ETIS it is possible to connect people and create new opportunities. Step 4: Establish roles and responsibilities Following the first meeting, students performed an assessment of all core indicators and provided this assessment to Stan Smeets to add the information available to the Zuid Limburg Tourism Board. A 70
second meeting with key stakeholders was coordinated on 17/10/2014, where indicators were discussed one by one this time and the duties for data collection were divided among stakeholders. This was the last meeting that was held with the SWG. On the same day, the Visitor Survey was carried out by the CBS students in two popular spots of the Municipality of Valkenburg. Step 5: Collect and record data Stakeholders were given a deadline to present the information at the beginning of November 2014. A Google Drive spreadsheet was made available, so that each member of the group could enter the data directly there, and this data was to be organized after by the local coordinator, Mr. Smeets. Taking into consideration that the meeting to divide duties was on the 17/10/2014, a little less than 1 month was available to collect the data. This seems to be a very short period since the pilot was meant to run for 9 months. Data collection should have started earlier, to allow enough time to collect the information. The ETIS reliance on a simple Microsoft Excel spreadsheet is considered sufficient by Miller and Twining-Ward (2005), since Excel is a simple tool that most people are familiar with. The drawback in the case of Zuid Limburg data is that they collected the information, but did not set target values, so the tables and graphs that were meant to summarise and interpret the data collected were of no use. Each destination needed to establish their own targets as the toolkit explained; even if benchmarking is subjective (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005), it helps to set some values, to compare results and trends over time. There were problems reported by some of the stakeholders involved with data collection. The surveys for instance, were meant to provide the information that was not readily available in the destination. The Business and Residents surveys were not conducted at all, even though they have been discussed in the stakeholders meeting of the 17/10/2014. The CBS students did the Visitor survey, however this was run only one day, for 1 hour and 15 minutes, producing 39 completed surveys, which is not statistically significant, so these results were not incorporated in the dataset. Some of the problems reported by students were related to issues with the language to carry out the survey, since they were international students asking the questions in English to mainly Dutch tourists, who were not keen or able to speak English; also, tourists were not keen to spend part of their time answering questions. From the interview with one of the students, Mr. Martens (personal communication, November 3, 2017), emerged that there was not enough motivation offered by the tourism board to the group of students, in order to put more effort in the project. For instance, he expressed that an incentive could have been a lunch voucher, or accommodation for one night, so that students could performed the 71
interviews during one weekend, help with transportation costs, etc. This would have certainly motivated students and allowed them to complete a sufficient amount of surveys. However, since any of these incentives were offered, students did what they could in the available time they had. Steps 6 (Analyse results) and 7 (Ongoing development and improvement) The CBS students prepared a final report where they analysed all ETIS indicators and provided feedback, mainly regarding the feasibility of the indicators and providing some recommendations for the EC. Among their suggestions were to make indicators clearer (they are too wide or can be interpreted differently) and the need for an online database where to upload information (instead of the excel sheet) for comparison and sharing among other destinations. Apart from this presentation of the students’ report, there was no meeting with the whole stakeholder group, in order to discuss the results and set up some priority areas to take action. According to the ETIS toolkit (2013), the Local Coordinator should have called a further meeting of the SWG, to review and revise the results, decide some realistic targets and agree on a plan of action. However, none of this was done. The ETIS pilot implementation foresaw the submission of a mid-term review report by 15th September, but at that moment Zuid Limburg had only gone through the first two steps of the implementation process (raise awareness and create the destination profile), so there was not much feedback provided in this report. As mentioned earlier, even though the pilot phase was meant to run from 1st April till 31st December 2014 (9 months), Zuid Limburg run the pilot from September to November 2014, so for only 3 months. When enquired about the length of the pilot phase, the local coordinator explained there were other priorities and not enough time and resources available to dedicate to the ETIS pilot phase (S. Smeets, personal communication, October 23, 2017). The Tourism Board filled out the final questionnaire and submitted it to the EC, together with the data they have collected for the indicators. Unfortunately, after this, the information was not used again, nor was planned a follow up on the next year, to try again the system and see if there has been any improvement from the first year.
72
Zuid Limburg Feedback on ETIS One of the requirements of testing ETIS was to provide a final questionnaire with feedback to the EC, who collected the feedback from all pilot destinations, to make the necessary improvements to the system. From analysing this questionnaire, one can get the impression that the local coordinator did not dedicate enough time to explain the issues encountered during the implementation. There is no mention to the lack of time and availability of resources to properly carry out the pilot, the fact that not all relevant stakeholders had been involved and that it was difficult to get the private sector interested in the initiative. Some of these issues were described in the interviews carried out but not reflected in the final report for the EC. There were answers which did not match the feedback provided in the students’ report. For instance, regarding the need for additional guidelines and supporting documents to calculate each indicator, which was deemed necessary by the students but not by the tourism board. Another mismatch was regarding the online software to collect the data instead of the excel sheet, considered useful in the student’s report, but not reflected in the final questionnaire. Zuid Limburg Tourism Board seems to be genuinely interested in incorporating sustainable practices among its members and have proposed different initiatives. These initiatives have already been described earlier, such as the 10 Sustainable Tourism Principles, the Sustainability Manual for small accommodation, the numerous European projects and the Tourist Bus Card. However, when it comes to champion a long-term monitoring initiative such as the system of indicators, it seems to be missing the ability to properly involve local stakeholders in the activities to be carried out. Nevertheless, Zuid Limburg received a special mention for sustainable destination management and accessibility improvements by the EC, during the joint award ceremony on European Tourism Indicator System and Accessible Tourism, on April 22nd, 2016 in Brussels. 4.8. Analysis of Indicators collected by Zuid Limburg Destinations were free to choose whether to apply all indicators, or just collect the data for the ones that they consider useful or feasible. Zuid Limburg mainly concentrated in the core indicators, although they have not applied the 27 core indicators. The indicators collected are described in the table below, together with the author’s comments.
73
Summary of Core Indicators collected (from ETIS Zuid Limburg Dataset, 2014) Category
Indicator
Indicator
Results
Comments/Problems
Percentage of the destination with a
65%
Municipalities of
Reference Destination
A.1.1
Management
sustainable tourism strategy/action
Zuid Limburg that
plan, with agreed monitoring,
have a tourism
development control and evaluation
strategy plan
arrangement A.2.1
Percentage of tourism
8%
Accommodation
enterprises/establishments in the
providers using Green
destination using a voluntary
Key. Percentage
verified certification/labelling for
calculated taking the
environmental/quality/sustainability
amount of
and/or CSR measures
accommodations registered in Booking.com (395) against the certified number (30)
A.3.1
Percentage of visitors that are
8.3/10
(Not a %) From report
satisfied with their overall
Limburg Province
experience in the destination
about the general tourist satisfaction from their holiday in Zuid Limburg
A.4.1
The percentage of visitors who note --
Visitor Survey was
that they are aware of destination
only conducted to 39
sustainability efforts
tourists, not statistically significant sample
Economic
B.1.1
Number of tourist nights per month
Value
209.320 Total number of tourist nights per year has been equally divided by 12 months.
74
B.1.2
B.2.1
Daily spending per tourist
€127
(accommodation, food and drinks,
region Limburg (not
other services)
only Zuid-Limburg).
Average length of stay of tourists
5.5
(nights) B.2.2
Amount for the
Statistics from Limburg Province
Occupancy rate in commercial
--
accommodation per month and
Information not collected
average for the year B.3.1
Direct tourism employment as
7.2%
percentage of total employment B.4.1
Percentage of tourism enterprises
Total from the Limburg Province
100%
Legal requirement
--
Business Survey was
inspected for fire safety in the last year B.5.1
Percentage of tourism enterprises actively taking steps to source
not conducted to get
local, sustainable, and fair-trade
this information.
goods and services
According to feedback from destination, the indicator is too vague
Social and
C.1.1
Cultural
Number of tourists/visitors per 100
414
residents
This was wrongly calculated using the
Impact
number of overnight stays and not of tourists/ visitors. C.2.1
Percentage of men and women
--
employed in the tourism sector
Business Survey was not conducted to get this information.
C.3.1
Percentage of commercial
20%
Limited to number of
accommodation with rooms
accommodations
accessible to people with
member of VVV
disabilities and/or participating in
Zuid-Limburg, which
recognised accessibility schemes
is the majority of
75
accommodations, but not all of them. C.3.2
Percentage of visitor attractions that 18%
Information from the
are accessible to people with
VVV Zuid-Limburg
disabilities and/or participating in
website, where most
recognised accessibility schemes
attractions in the regions are found.
C.4.1
Percentage of the destination
--
covered by a policy or plan that protects cultural heritage Environmental D.1.1
Percentage of tourists and same day --
Visitor Survey was
Impact
visitors using different modes of
only conducted to 39
transport to arrive at the destination
tourists, not
(public/private and type)
statistically significant sample
D.1.2
Average travel (km) by tourists to
--
Visitor Survey was
and from home or average travel
only conducted to 39
(km) from the previous destination
tourists, not
to the current destination
statistically significant sample
D.2.1
Percentage of tourism enterprises
--
Business Survey was
involved in climate change
not conducted to get
mitigation schemes—such as: CO2
this information
offset, low energy systems, etc.— and “adaptation” responses and actions D.3.1
Waste volume produced by
76.52
Source: RD4 waste
destination (tonnes per resident per
kg.
management
year or per month)
company for only 11 Municipalities in Zuid Limburg
D.3.2
Volume of waste recycled (percent or per resident per year)
76
60%
Source: RD4 for 11 Municipalities
D.4.1
Percentage of sewage from the
--
No data available
destination treated at least at secondary level prior to discharge D.5.1
Fresh water consumption per tourist --
The tourist
night compared to general
consumption could
population water consumption per
have been calculated
person night
through the Business Survey and then compared to resident’s consumption with data from water supplier
D.6.1
Energy consumption per tourist
--
The tourist
night compared to general
consumption could
population energy consumption per
have been calculated
person night
through the Business Survey and then compared to resident’s consumption with data from energy supplier
D.7.1
Percentage of destination (area in
80%
km2) that is designated for
Natura 2000 protected areas in Limburg.
protection D.8.1
The destination has policies in
--
place that require tourism
Only in 1 Municipality (Vaals)
enterprises to minimise light and noise pollution D.9.1
Level of contamination per 100 ml (faecal coliforms, campylobacter)
N/A
The destination doesn’t have bathing waters
77
Table 10 ETIS Indicators monitored per section
% of Section being monitored by the destination Section
%
A. Sustainable Destination Management
44%
B. Economic Value
28%
C. Social and Cultural Impact
21%
D. Environmental Impact
12%
Source: Adopted and adapted from ETIS Zuid Limburg Dataset, 2014 Table 11 ETIS Core and Optional Indicators
% of Indicators Type being monitored by the destination Type % Core Indicators 52% Optional Indicators 2.5% Total Indicators 22.5% Source: Adopted and adapted from ETIS Zuid Limburg Dataset, 2014
As it is possible to see from the above Tables 10 and 11, Zuid Limburg focused on the core indicators and complied overall with 52% of them (14 indicators out of 27). The section presenting the lowest score is the Environmental Impact, with only 12% being monitored (3 out of 26 total indicators or 11 core indicators). This is particularly relevant for a destination like Zuid Limburg, where 51% of its visitors come for the nature and landscape and 36% for the purpose of walking, which is also strictly related to nature and landscape. With these results, Zuid Limburg could have organized a meeting with the SWG and discussed how to improve this situation, starting by improving the level of measuring of the environmental impacts. Unfortunately, the results were neither discussed nor served as baseline for future monitoring. 4.9. Analysis of Stakeholders Semi-structured interviews In order to complete the ETIS implementation evaluation, it was considered indispensable to interview the actors involved in the process. The interviews included the following participants and sectors:
78
Table 12 List of Zuid Limburg stakeholders interviewed
#
CONTACT
POSITION
DATE INTERVIEW
1
Anya Niewierra
17/10/2017
2 3
Stan Smeets (SWG Local Coordinator) Prof. Dirk Reiser (SWG)
4
Bram van Roon (SWG)
5
Lenneke Minkels (SWG stand-by participant)
6
Hanno Martens (SWG)
7
Yvonne Kokkelkoren
8
Anne ten Horn (SWG)
Director, Zuid Limburg Tourism Board (former) Project Manager, Zuid Limburg Tourism Board Professor Tourism Research, Cologne Business School Project manager policy and communication RD4 (waste management company) (former) Sustainability Trainee at Zuid Limburg Tourism Board (former) M.A. Student Cologne Business School Policy maker Tourism Limburg Province Policy maker Municipality of Gulpen-Wittem
9
Iris Darley (SWG standby participant) Henriette Stieger (SWG)
Corporate PR official, Zuid Limburg Tourism Board (former) Representative Compass GMBH (Marketing Agency) CEO, Gulpener Brewery
13/11/2017
10
11 12
Jan-Paul Rutten (SWG stand-by participant) Janneke Houben
Policy maker Tourism, Valkenburg Municipality
23/10/2017 24/10/2017 1/11/2017
2/11/2017
3/11/2017 6/11/2017 7/11/2017
14/11/2017
15/11/2017 15/11/2017
All stakeholders who were part of the formal SWG have been interviewed, except for Jasper Habets, Member of the Limburg Parliament, who does not hold that position any longer. With regards to the stand-by stakeholders are missing Floortje Mennen from WML (water supplier) who does not hold the position any longer and Paul Hameleers (Hotel Merici) who did not reply to the interview request. From the list above, two stakeholders were not part of the SWG (# 7 and #12), however they have been suggested by the Local Coordinator as they are two policy makers in tourism at provincial and municipal level, and for that reason it was considered fundamental to interview them. They were aware of the piloting of the system although not directly involved. Moreover, to incorporate the opinion of national level organizations, it was deemed necessary to broader the sample of interviewees, to have a better understanding on how the tourism system is organized at regional and national level, and its influence at the destination level. Some of these 79
interviews were conducted via Skype and some replied to the questions by email, since most of the respondents were based outside Zuid Limburg. The only exemption is #18 who was personally interviewed by the author in Valkenburg. Table 13 Additional interviews conducted with national/regional tourism stakeholders
#
CONTACT
POSITION
13
Ivo Gelsing
RECRON, Regional Manager Limburg
14
Karin Kuiper
Gastvrij Nederland, Secretary
15
Saskia Pepping
MVO Nederland, Manager Tourism Network
16
Antoinne Beijers
Horeca, Regional Manager Limburg
17
Bart Cobben
Natuur en Milieufederatie, Policy officer
18
Liesbet Beghof
Natuurmonumenten, Visitor Centre Administrator
In total, between the SWG and the national/regional stakeholder interviews, 18 representatives have been consulted from 13 different groups of stakeholders. 4.9.1. Comparative Analysis of main common questions In what follows, the main common questions of the interview guide will be discussed in two sub sections: first, we will discuss the SWG main questions, exposing the dynamics of the group, the strengths and issues that have arisen during the process of implementing the system. Secondly, broader questions on measuring sustainability in the destination will be considered and at this point we incorporate the views of the national and regional actors. The templates of the different interview guides are included in the Appendices. In accordance with the approach taken by Yuksel, Branwell and Yuksel (1999), when discussing the questions, we will try to focus on the “commonalities in views” among the different actors, trying to find the viewpoints shared by the majority. Combining this analysis with the previously performed evaluation of the implementation and the indicators collected by Zuid Limburg, we will be able to draw some conclusions regarding ETIS usefulness as policy making tool.
80
4.9.2. Stakeholder Working Group Was it easy and interesting to work with the other stakeholders? Most of the participants in the SWG considered very useful and interesting to work with different stakeholders, that would not otherwise talk to each other. For instance, it is rare to involve the service providers such as the waste management company in a tourism stakeholder’s meeting, even though the management of waste has a great influence in the image of the destination. Some of the answers of participants included, “it was an interesting learning experience for everyone” (#10) and “makes you think beyond tourism” (#8). In reference to a further question on their willingness to participate in a similar project again, they all expressed they would be willing to. These answers confirm that the ETIS proposed methodology of involving a group of stakeholders can actually be effective. Which were the strengths of the system? ETIS was recognized as a good starting point, to assess where the destination is at the moment, as well as to raise awareness, involve stakeholders and internalize sustainability at local level (#2, #3 and #10). This view of ETIS as a starting point to raise awareness and recognize the sustainability issues of tourism to measure them, is related to the conceptual use of indicators suggested by Gudmundsson. For #4 and #8, a strength was precisely the contact with different stakeholders, allowing partnerships and new projects to arise from this interaction. Not only the interaction between the members of the SWG, but also the interaction each of the members had to establish in their own organizations/ companies, in order to get the information needed for the indicators (#8). Finally, for #6, the benchmarking opportunity across destinations in Europe represented the greatest advantage but at the same time a challenge, since destinations are normally competing against each other and could be reluctant to share their information, as ETIS proposes. In the author’s opinion, even if it is true that still some managers and destinations take this approach towards sharing information, the sharing of best practices is usually perceived as an advantage. As it was mentioned before, the new approach to knowledge management is switching from the “knowledge is power” to the “sharing is power” way of thinking (Scott, Baggio, & Cooper, 2008) and ETIS supports this approach.
81
Which were the main problems encountered during the process? The majority of the participants (#2, #6, #8, #9 #10) expressed as the main issue the lack of time and resources, both human and financial, to carry out the ETIS implementation. The participants in the SWG had other priorities and not enough time to dedicate to the data collection. Another issue highlighted was the data availability (#1, #4, #8, #10), adding that in some cases the indicators were not concrete and the procedure to calculate them was not clear, leaving it to different interpretations. In the case of Zuid Limburg, since the destination is in fact a region comprising 18 municipalities, the data collection and monitoring is harder. Other destinations have also decided to test ETIS in regional areas, such as the Province of Barcelona, however their approach was to measure the individual level of sustainability of each municipality, instead of all together as Zuid Limburg did. One of the stakeholders (#3) mentioned that there was not enough involvement from the private sector, who seems to be interested in short term benefits and do not think sustainability measuring is something they should be involved in. Contrary to this view, is stated in much of the literature and in the EU Tourism Policy previously discussed, that sustainability is directly related to competitiveness. If a destination takes cares of its resources, its people and tourists, there are better chances it will be able to sustain tourism in the long term. Businesses should care about this, since a lasting tourism attractiveness means lasting business. The tourism board claims it is not something a DMO should implement, since it is mainly an “academic” exercise, however, the DMO is in a perfect position as the coordinator of the destination’s stakeholders. Moreover, the data collected by the indicators would be useful not only for tourism policy but also to develop new products, encourage collaboration in the areas that needs improving, use as marketing tool to promote the good practices identified with the indicators, etc. According to #10, “market research and gathering information is the most valuable thing to do, before setting up a strategy and after, to measure the performance of the strategy”. One more view (#6) was related to the short-term mind set of governments, who plan by political periods and sustainability measuring, such as the ETIS initiative, requires a long-term approach. As a sustainability champion from the private sector (#11) put it, “results start to be seen in a few years, not immediately”. #10 adds that very often people working in tourism at the government or DMO level, do not have the right competences in tourism and do not see the value of collecting the information; therefore, they do not think about more strategic, long term decisions.
82
Do you think the ETIS implementation was successful? According to the author’s opinion, the ETIS implementation was unsuccessful, since the results were not discussed to try and improve the destination’s management. However, the question was designed to test whether in the eyes of the participants, the experience has been successful. It was interesting to see that some of them recognized the experience as a positive learning experience (#8, #10) since it helped to raise awareness on sustainability issues, work together with other stakeholders and start collecting this type of data for the first time. This awareness raising contributed to carry out other initiatives, such as the Sustainability Manual for small accommodation (#10). Moreover, #8 mentioned that Zuid Limburg won several awards after, such as the ETIS recognition and the Top 100 Sustainable Destinations from Green Destinations, so clearly for her it was successful. Other participants considered it unsuccessful though (#4, #6, #10) since the results were not discussed, there was no follow up after the pilot phase and stakeholders did not received any feedback from the Local Coordinator at the end of the project. Some of them found out later on that Zuid Limburg had been awarded by the EC on the ETIS implementation. What could have been done differently in order to adopt the system on a regular basis? The aim with this question was to get their suggestions after testing the system, to improve it and eventually try it again in the future. A common view that emerged from all the answers is that the responsibility of who leads the implementation process has to be very clear, being the DMO, the provincial or municipal level. According to #2 and #6, it is necessary to employ someone to take the responsibility of following up the process, to avoid people having to work in their own time for the project. #8 considered that if it was a priority from the provincial level, the implementation at municipal level would be easier, since time could be allocated to collect the data. Other participants considered that the tourism board did not perform well its role as leader of the project, since they failed to keep stakeholders involved about the evolution of the project (#4). Most stakeholders agreed it was a pity that after the data collection, they were never contacted again to discuss the results. It would have been good to continue trying to measure the indicators on the following year. Related to this viewpoint, #8 argued that not much awareness has been raised, so not many people knew about the pilot project in Zuid Limburg. Finally, #10 suggested that a budget should have been allocated by the tourism board and other actors, to continue measuring the indicators, setting up a strategy for sustainable tourism related to these indicators. As #3 clearly 83
explained, “if a destination is serious about sustainability, they should realize it is in their own interests to get this information, and for this they have to invest time and a bit of money”. #2 and #6 added that an excellent opportunity for destinations is to work in closer cooperation with Universities and Higher Education institutions, since this is a “win-win” situation. Students are well qualified and motivated to carry out practical experiences, so they benefit from the learning experience in the field, while destinations benefit from their qualified collaboration at much lower costs that employing full time human resources. Finally, #10 provided feedback of ETIS at the EC level, arguing that they should have planned better the implementation phases, allowing for more support to destinations while testing the system and after. They also failed to keep the level of attention and visibility high, leading to the loss of relevance of the system. #9 added that “The important thing is to know for what to use the outputs of the indicators (this was not clear with ETIS)”. Table 14 Main results SWG interviews
Work with the other stakeholders
Interesting and useful
Strengths of ETIS
Good starting point to measure sustainability Awareness raising Contact with different stakeholders Benchmarking opportunity Lack of time Lack of resources (human and financial) Data availability Lack of private sector involvement Short-term mind set of governments Unsuccessful (results were not used and no follow up) Successful (social learning experience, awards received, and new initiatives launched) Clear responsibilities assigned and stronger leadership of the Local Coordinator More awareness raising on the project at local level Allocate a budget to the system Incorporate information into policy Work with University students to collect data
Main problems during implementation
Outcome of ETIS implementation
Suggestions for future adoption
Source: Own elaboration
84
4.9.3. SWG plus national/regional actors According to you, who should be responsible for measuring sustainability in the destination? a) Province b) Municipalities c) Tourism Board d) Should be done in cooperation with different stakeholders, including private sector (like ETIS working group) e) Other: The aim of this question was to identify the stakeholder perception of who should be in charge of measuring tourism sustainability. According to ETIS, it is a shared responsibility. Among the participants, there were very different opinions on who should be in charge of leading the process. Everyone agreed that it has to be a participatory process, involving different groups of stakeholders, since no single actor has all the information needed to populate the system of indicators. The majority (#3, #4, #8, #9, #12, #17, #18) argues that the provincial level of government is in a good position to lead the measuring of sustainability in Zuid Limburg, since it is above the single municipalities. #9 think that more commitment from the government is needed to steer the stakeholders, however #7 (provincial policy maker) believes the province can help financing the indicators’ system but should not lead the process. The province is considered by some as too far away from where the action happens (#10), so probably not the best to lead the practical implementation of the indicators’ system. On the other hand, many participants pointed out the importance of the DMO in leading or co-leading the sustainability implementation process (#3, #4, #10, #8, #12) since the DMO coordinates all the private tourism stakeholders in the region and maintains a relationship with the single municipalities as well, so it would be the perfect actor to steer stakeholders. In fact, it was recognized by #9 that in the Netherlands, since DMOs do not have much intervention from the public sector, they remain independent and can advise on policy making and tourism management to the public sector. A private sector stakeholder for instance, does not believe in the role of governments steering the sustainability process. He thinks entrepreneurs need to have the conviction to start, and probably an impartial body such as a NGO, could be in a better position to lead the process (#11). In this sense, the DMO in Zuid Limburg is a non-profit, public-private foundation, so it could take this role if we follow the viewpoint of #11. Finally, for #14, the responsibility should be at national level, led by the 85
Ministry of Economic Affairs, since the Netherlands is such a small country, it would not make sense for each province to do it on their own. Which could be a good incentive for destinations to implement a sustainable tourism indicator system? a) A certification or label b) A yearly award at European level c) Funding available to implement system d) An online platform where to collect data, benchmark and receive expert support? e) Other The purpose of this question was to try to identify the incentives that can be desirable both by public and private sector, in order to continue measuring sustainability. The majority of respondents agreed that a certification would be a good incentive, especially to encourage private sector’s actors, since they can have one more element of recognition of their efforts (#2, #3, #4, #8, #9, #11, #17, #18). It was highlighted by #6 that both the private and public sector must see the economic return of investing in a system of indicators. The possibility of accessing to funding opportunities is recognized by many participants as an important incentive, especially to set up the system (#8, #9, #10, #11, #13). For the private sector in fact, “subsidy remains an important incentive to step forward in adopting sustainability and subsequently investing in this field” (#13). Two participants (#6 and #10) suggested to make measuring systems such as ETIS, a pre-requisite to apply for certain EU funds, to encourage the use of indicators; also, the EU could create funding programs specifically to develop sustainable tourism projects. An online platform where to benchmark with other similar European destinations is also supported as a good element, with the possibility of learning and sharing best practices (#9, #10, #13, #17). Finally, a yearly award was mentioned as desirable by three participants (#8, #10, #17), especially if the award was connected to funding to keep running the system (#10). And a further incentive proposed by #7, #8 and #18 is the capacity building opportunity, in the form of trainings, workshops, provided by the public sector, in order to develop expertise in sustainability and promote innovation by the private sector.
86
Do you think sustainable tourism indicators like ETIS are useful instruments to inform tourism policy and monitor the tourism performance in the destination? With this question, the objective was to confirm the research hypothesis and literature consulted, that suggest indicators are fundamental tools for policy making. The unanimous answer was that sustainable tourism indicators such as ETIS are useful tools for policy making. It was mainly recognized the instrumental role of indicators, since they provide relevant information that it is needed in order to develop policy. #10 adds that “ETIS is a good base and any measuring system will help to improve policy”. It was recognized as very important that a connection with politicians and policy makers is established from the beginning of the process, in order to ensure the use of the system in the long term (#3). #6 being less optimistic, argued that politicians might not be so keen in using indicators, that can uncover issues and make them accountable for them. In any case, sustainable tourism indicators are recognized as essential tools to consider all the impacts tourism generates, allowing policy makers “to get the whole picture” and not only the economic data that is usually taken into consideration (#7, #8, #10). #17 agrees and adds, “sustainable tourism is the only way to stimulate tourism in a very densely populated area such as Zuid-Limburg”. #18 suggests that environmental organizations (which were not involved in the ETIS project) could help measuring, since they already collect data from visitors to their protected areas. Lastly, #10 adds that indicators are not only useful to develop policies and strategies, but can also act as performance indicators, to check if these policies and strategies are working or they need to be revised. Which sources of information do you currently use when making tourism policy? (only for policy makers) The purpose of this question was to find out, in the absence of a comprehensive system like ETIS, which sources of information are used by policy makers to make tourism policy. The process followed seems to be very similar at provincial and municipal level. The respondents explained that they check economic data, in particular the Limburg province produces the “Toeristische Trendrapportage Limburg” (tourism trends report) and at municipal level they complement it with their own information (overnight stays, number of cars parked, etc). They also check trends and reports produced by national level organizations, such as NBTC Holland (the organization in charge of marketing Netherlands abroad), which provide economic data as well. 87
An important step is the consultation process with tourism stakeholders. They organize discussion groups with the relevant stakeholders, to listen to their needs and ideas and with that input they make the policy plan. One of the policy makers (#12) explained that they are recently experimenting with other sources of information, such as Big Data (for instance, to know the number of visitors through the mobile phone numbers connected to the local Wi-Fi). Table 15 Main results from all stakeholder interviews
Responsibility for measuring sustainability
Participatory Led by the provincial government (agreed by majority) DMO as leader or co-leader (coordinating stakeholders) A certification (agreed by majority) Funding or subsidies Online platform to benchmark and share good practices Yearly award Capacity building They are considered useful by all respondents, mainly its instrumental role (relevant information for decisionmaking) Connection with policy from the beginning of the process Economic reports Trends, statistics Stakeholders’ consultation
Good incentives to implement ETIS
Usefulness of indicators as policy making tools
Current sources of information used for policy making Source: Own elaboration
4.10. The Zuid Limburg Stakeholders Ecosystem Byrd (2007, p. 6) adapted the commonly cited Freeman’s definition of stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by tourism development in an area”. To complete the assessment of the ETIS process in Zuid Limburg, the author decided to incorporate a graphical representation of the different stakeholders in the destination and their relationships. According to Byrd (2007), this is the first step to develop sustainable tourism in a destination, to be able to include the stakeholders in the tourism development process. An initial representation was designed by the author before conducting the interviews, with the stakeholders she believed were the main ones in the tourism sector. Later on, adopting a participatory approach, the stakeholders that were interviewed by the author, contributed to complete this representation, adding more actors and their relationships. The results formed a second map, which 88
was completed with a desk research, to add some stakeholders that were missing at national level. In both graphs, the Zuid Limburg Tourism Board was placed in the centre, since it was the leader of the ETIS implementation and because it is a key actor in the destination, coordinating different stakeholders. In total, 18 representatives have been interviewed from 13 different groups od stakeholders (between the SWG and the national/regional stakeholders). These groups are represented in the map together with other relevant stakeholders. 4.10.1. Stakeholder Map before conducting the interviews
Figure 13 Stakeholder Map 1- Own elaboration
Thanks to the participatory approach taken during the stakeholders’ interviews, it was possible to complete this first basic map, from 13 groups and 21 stakeholders identified (Figure 13), to 22 groups and 64 stakeholders (Figure14). With the input from the interviewees, the author was able not only to identify concrete actors at destination level, but also to place Zuid Limburg in its provincial and national context, thanks to more interviews and literature review on the national level tourism structure. The new actors identified are highlighted in yellow in Figure 14. 89
4.10.2. Stakeholder Map with contribution of interviewees
Figure 14 Stakeholder Map 2 with input interviewees- Own elaboration
90
This exercise gives an idea of the amount of interests to be taken into consideration when planning and managing tourism at the destination level. These actors are all valuable for the destination management organization, which has the important role of coordinating their interactions to have a competitive and sustainable tourism destination. The author was not able to include the relationships between these stakeholders and the Zuid Limburg Tourism Board in the map due to software limitations. However, some of these relationships are highlighted in what follows: -European Commission and NECSTouR: cooperation in transnational projects, application for funding to develop tourism, exchange of best practices. -Tourism at National Level: relationship with organizations such as Gastvrij Nederland (Hospitable Netherlands) and VVV Nederland (the national tourism office), as well as the governmental authorities (the Ministry of Economic Affairs and NBTC, the national marketing company) to be coherent in the approach to develop tourism in the destination. -Limburg Province: advice and cooperation to develop the tourism strategy in the province. Funding provided by the province on a project-basis. -18 municipalities: cooperation with policy makers to develop tourism strategies and promote all municipalities, which in turn provide funding to the tourism board through their membership fees. -Private sector: coordination among all providers to offer an attractive tourism product, creating a homogeneous image of the region. The private sector pays a member fee to the tourism board for this coordination and management. The supply chain of each of the tourism service providers is important as well. -Academia: the tourism board receive students to perform internships and conduct research projects together with Dutch universities. -Tourists: are the target group for the promotional actions of the tourism board and in turn, they demand certain products and services from them. Other stakeholder groups do not seem to have as much interaction with the tourism board as it would be desirable to develop sustainable tourism, such as the environmental organizations, the service suppliers (water, waste, energy, sewage) and the local residents. 91
4.11. Comments from ETIS implementation in Zuid Limburg Along this chapter, we have been able to see how ETIS works in practice in a destination: Zuid Limburg. We have established the context and described it, evaluated the step by step implementation of the system, commented on the indicators collected and analysed the answers provided by the stakeholders who participated in the process and those who did not, but are relevant for the long-term success of sustainability monitoring. The results from the ETIS implementation in Zuid Limburg are rather poor and a number of issues contributed to this: limited time was dedicated to the pilot phase, not enough relevant stakeholders were involved, no targets were set for the indicators, and none of the surveys were carried out, which could have assisted to respond to many indicators. Since there was no full commitment to the process, the results from the indicators were not relevant and were not considered useful, leaving them behind after the pilot phase was over, with no discussions and no direct use of the information for tourism policy making. It certainly did not help the fact that the EC took one year to revise the destinations’ feedback and release the revision of the toolkit, contributing to the loss of interest in the system. The role of the DMO (Zuid Limburg Tourism Board) as the local coordinator was a crucial one, steering the group of stakeholders to work together collecting the data and discussing priorities after. The Zuid Limburg Tourism Board did not show sufficient leadership to run the project and failed to transmit the objectives of testing the system, which was not only collecting data, but mainly assessing the destination with that data to then take action. It is true that it was a voluntary exercise and one of the aims was to provide feedback to the EC on the system, but at the same time, it was a unique opportunity for the destination to measure for the first time their level of sustainability and use the results in their own benefit. Even though Zuid Limburg is involved in several initiatives towards sustainable tourism, at the moment the destination only measures the impacts of tourism in economic terms, with no system in place to monitor its environmental or socio-cultural impacts. A holistic approach is vital for the sustainable management of tourism, since the natural and cultural resources are the assets on which the industry relies on. The pilot implementation of ETIS was not successful in the sense that it was not completed, and it did not lead to any policy changes or concrete actions to improve the sustainable management of the destination. However, it has certainly increased the level of awareness of the tourism stakeholders involved and has been a social learning opportunity, that might be capitalized in the near future. In fact, from January 2018, the destination is working on a new tourism policy and from November 92
2017, the tourism board is involved in a Dutch project to assess the sustainability of tourism destinations (SASTDes - Smart Assessment Sustainable Tourist Destinations). Therefore, we can argue that the indicators have exerted an influence on the stakeholders’ approach to tourism management. In the following section, a comparative analysis will be performed, against other European destinations that have tried ETIS and have been awarded by the EC, like Zuid Limburg.
93
Chapter 5 Comparative Analysis of ETIS destinations The purpose of the present section is twofold: First, through an online questionnaire submitted to 11 ETIS destinations, compare their feedback of the system and find out whether they have used the information collected for policy making. Second, perform a simple benchmark between some of these destinations and Zuid Limburg, to see to what extent they have implemented the system and where does Zuid Limburg stand against other awarded destinations. 5.1. Questionnaire to ETIS destinations The technique adopted to select the destinations is “purposive sampling”, a type of qualitative, nonprobability sampling technique that usually involves a small population and relies on the judgement of the researcher to select the units (Altinay & Paraskevas, 2008; Laerd Dissertation, 2018). The type of purposive sampling technique adopted is “total population sampling” (Laerd Dissertation, 2018), which refers to the total population that share specific characteristics, which in our case, are all European destinations that have tested ETIS and have received an award by the EC. A total of 12 destinations have been recognized by the EC in the joint award ceremony on European Tourism Indicator System and Accessible Tourism on April 22nd, 2016 (European Commission, 2016). 10 destinations received an award with a ranking from 1 to 3 stars, and 2 destinations received a special mention. The destinations are the following: 3-star category: 4 destinations Barcelona Province, Spain: Tourism for All approach Visit South Sardinia, Italy: Combination of EU and UN sustainability indicators Mali Lošinj, Croatia: Set of 130 indicators, going beyond the 67 ETIS indicators Brittany, France: Green tourism offer in the legendary forest region 2-star category: 4 destinations Dark Sky Alqueva, Portugal: Light pollution-free zone and ‘night sky’ stargazing offer Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit and L'Estartit Llancà, Spain: Balanced economic and sustainable development in a coastal area Ljubljana, Slovenia: ‘Slovenia Green’ certification for hotels and destinations Comunitat Valenciana, Spain: Improvements in access for tourists with disabilities
94
1-star category: 2 destinations Podgorica, Montenegro: Long-term commitment to sustainable tourism Abano Terme, Italy: Green tourism approach in one of Europe’s oldest spa towns Special Mention: 2 destinations Andalusia, Spain and South Limburg, Netherlands: Sustainable destination management and accessibility improvements A questionnaire was designed using the Google Forms platform, mainly composed of multiple choice questions and some open-ended questions. It was distributed by email and the representatives from each destination were identified through the referrals of previously interviewed experts, as well as through internet tools, such as Linked In. Table 16 Representatives that filled out the ETIS questionnaire
#
Name
Position and ETIS role
Destination
1
Apolónia Rodriguez
Dark Sky Alqueva
2
Ana Moniche
President of Dark Sky®, ETIS Local Coordinator Senior Officer
3
Patrizia Modica
4
Katarina Golubović
5
Josep Capellà Hereu
6
Biserka Stamatovic
7
Polona Dolzan
8
Solène Harel
9
Eva Vidal
10
Esther Welters
11
Sandra Zanellato
12
Damià Serrano i Miracle
Associate Professor University of Cagliari, ETIS Local Coordinator Project Manager Tourism Board Tourism and Local Development Advisor, City Council Project Manager Tourism Board Podgorica, ETIS Local Coordinator Tourism Product Development Manager, Visit Ljubljana Data Scientist, Brittany Tourism, ETIS Local Coordinator Tourism Department, ETIS Local coordinator Consulting firm, Assistant during ETIS process City Council Abano Terme
Andalusia Visit South Sardinia Mali Lošinj Torroella de Montgrí i l'Estartit Podgorica
Ljubljana Brittany L'Estartit Llancà Comunitat Valenciana Abano Terme
Coordinator, Tourism Observatory Barcelona Province Barcelona
The form was available online for a little longer than one month (from 18/12/17 to 22/01/18) and all the destinations filled out the form in this period. A total of 12 questionnaires was collected, since one of the destinations (Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit and L'Estartit Llancà) are in fact two 95
municipalities that tested the system as one, and both decided to fill out the questionnaire. Zuid Limburg was clearly not included in the sample, as their pilot experience with ETIS had been extensively covered in the previous chapter. The main purpose of the questionnaire was to collect the opinion of the rest of awarded destinations on the implementation process of ETIS, compare if they experienced similar difficulties and most importantly, determine if they have gone further than Zuid Limburg and incorporated the information from the indicators in their tourism policies and strategies. Most of the destinations (9) have tested the system in the second pilot phase (April – December 2014) while 3 of them (Visit South Sardinia, Comunitat Valenciana and Alqueva) tested it in the first pilot phase (July 2013- April 2014) The questions included in the questionnaire have been divided here in two sections, to facilitate the analysis: first the questions related to the ETIS pilot experience in the destinations and then the questions related to the use of indicators as policy making and management tools.
5.1.1. ETIS pilot experience 1. Was the municipal/provincial government involved from the beginning in the ETIS pilot project? 92% of the respondents (11 destinations) answered yes to this question, meaning that one of these government levels has been involved in the ETIS project. The remaining destination (Ljubljana) was unsure since the respondent have not been involved from the beginning, however from the ETIS documents provided by the destination to perform the benchmark, it is possible to see that several policy makers from the municipal government were part of the SWG. From this we can deduct that the municipal government has been directly involved in the project. In the case of Zuid Limburg, one provincial Parliament member and one municipal policy maker were part of the SWG, however no strong connection was made with the government for later use of the information.
96
2. Which were the main problems encountered during the implementation process? (multiple answers are possible)
Main problems during implementation 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Data availability
Measuring procedure not clear
Difficult to work with different stakeholders
Indicators not relevant
Lack of resources
Figure 15 Main problems during ETIS implementation- Adapted from Google Forms results
All destinations recognized that data availability was their main problem when testing the system. The only destination that did not answer this question was Ljubljana; the respondent argued she was unaware of these issues due to joining the project later. In Zuid Limburg, this issue was also highlighted, although the main problems for them were related to lack of time and resources. Curiously, lack of time was not mentioned by any of the other destinations. A possible reason for this perceived lack of time can be the fact that Zuid Limburg started the pilot in September 2014, 5 months after the 2nd ETIS pilot phase started. Another important issue was “measuring procedure or indicators not clear” (50%); some stakeholders in Zuid Limburg have also recognized this. The fact that data availability and measuring procedures not being clear are the main issues reflects that some revision to the indicators was needed. In this regard, it is important to remember that the set of indicators that all destinations tested was later on revised by the ETIS Pool of Experts and a new toolkit was released in 2016 by the EC. Finally, other issues involved “difficult to work with other stakeholders” (42%), “indicators not relevant” and “lack of resources” (25% each).
97
3. Is the destination still using the ETIS system to monitor, measure and improve sustainable tourism practices? If not, why? If yes, who is leading and financing the data collection and analysis?
Is the destination still using ETIS?
Yes
No
Some indicators
Figure 16 Current use of ETIS- Adapted from Google Forms results
8 destinations (67%) are still using ETIS to measure and monitor tourism sustainability. In fact, 2 of the destinations (Torroella de Montgrí i l'Estartit and Comunitat Valenciana) have collected new data on 2016-2017 that will be released in early 2018. With regards to the leading and financing of the data collection, in most cases it is done by the local government or local tourism board. There are 2 cases where the provincial government finance the process (Barcelona Province and Comunitat Valenciana) and interestingly 2 cases (Torroella de Montgrí i l'Estartit and Dark Sky Alqueva) where the private sector is involved in leading and financing the activity. 2 destinations (17%) are not using ETIS anymore, but the reasons for this are different. Andalusia has a very comprehensive system of indicators in place, involving 348 indicators; Broceliande (destination inside Brittany, where the system was tested) believes “it is too soon to see evolution”. Finally, 2 destinations (Podgorica and Abano Terme), stated that they are still using some of the ETIS indicators to monitor sustainability. In comparison, Zuid Limburg has not use ETIS after the pilot experience in 2014 and currently sustainability is not measured, although there is a very recent Dutch project on sustainability assessment (SASTDes - Smart Assessment Sustainable Tourist Destinations) that has the destination as one of its future pilots.
98
5.1.2. Use of indicators as policy making and management tools 4. "Sustainable tourism indicators like ETIS are useful instruments to inform tourism policy and monitor the tourism performance in the destination" 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Strongly agree
Agree
Somehow agree
Figure 17 Usefulness of Indicators in policy making- Adapted from Google Forms results
92% of the sample agreed with this affirmation that sustainable tourism indicators are useful tools for policy making, confirming our hypothesis. The respondent from Mali Lošinj added “measuring indicators in the destination is the key of making a successful tourism strategy”. Only one of the destinations (Comunitat Valenciana) considered the indicators somehow useful. 5. Were the results from ETIS used to evaluate the destination tourism policy? Were they used to develop a new sustainable tourism policy?
Use of ETIS results in policy
Used
Not used
Figure 18 Use of ETIS in policy- Adapted from Google Forms results
99
This was a key question in order to compare if the other awarded destinations have gone further with the implementation of ETIS and have used the results to revise their tourism policies or develop a new one. In the case of Zuid Limburg, as it was previously exposed, the results were neither discussed among the stakeholders, nor used directly to set priorities for the tourism development of the destination. Contrastingly, 8 destinations (73%) have used the results of ETIS either to incorporate them in the current tourism policy or as input to develop a new sustainable tourism policy. For instance, Broceliande (Brittany) has used them as input for their sustainable tourism strategy, as they did not have one. Some destinations (Barcelona, Podgorica, Torroella de Montgrí i l'Estartit) explained that they use some of the indicators regularly and combine them with other systems of indicators they had in place. Mali Lošinj will analyse in 2018 the data collected in the last 5 years and will incorporate this data in the new tourism strategy 2020-2030. In the case of Dark Sky Alqueva, which is a publicprivate partnership, they have used the ETIS indicators in their own tourism policy, however there are no evidences of policy use at the wider regional level. Interestingly, Ljubljana mentioned that the indicators were also used to “communicate with citizens and raise awareness of tourism providers”, which is the conceptual role of indicators. Regarding the ones that did not use the results (3 destinations, 27%), Andalusia stated that they already have a more complete system of 348 indicators and they are using those for their tourism policy. Abano Terme recognized that they have not been adequately used so far, and Comunitat Valenciana did not specified the reasons, however this destination is trying the new ETIS toolkit at the moment, so they might incorporate those results later on. As it is possible to see, most of the destinations have made or partially made the connection of the indicators’ results with the priorities for tourism development, suggesting that the information provided by the indicators is useful for policy makers and that they are relevant tools for this purpose.
100
6. According to you, who should lead the process of sustainability measuring in the destination? (a combination of options is possible)
Who should lead the process of sustainability measuring? Private sector Local Tourism Board Municipalities Provincial Government National Government 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 19 Leading sustainability measuring- Adapted from Google Forms results
The majority of the destinations (68%) selected the municipal level as the one who should lead the process of measuring sustainability in the destination, followed by the local tourism board (58%), who acts as the coordinator of all tourism stakeholders. Since a combination of options was possible, most of the answers suggested more than one actor. The combination municipalities plus tourism board was suggested by three destinations. These two actors are in fact the main players at destination level, and the share of responsibility between the two seems logical, since ETIS was designed as a tool for destinations, so it is expected that the responsibility lies at this level. Some respondents have added the provincial level, suggesting that coordination should be both at provincial and destination level. This is probably due to the fact that some of the respondents tested the system at provincial or regional level, so it became necessary to involve them in leading the system. Finally, 2 respondents proposed the responsibility should be divided across all levels of government (including national level) and private sector; it is usually argued in the literature that the national level involvement is important, to set the framework for provinces and municipalities to develop their own policies and plans. In comparison, most of the stakeholders in Zuid Limburg considered the provincial level as the suitable one. Again, since Zuid Limburg comprises 18 municipalities, a level above these municipalities seems more appropriate. The second most voted answer was the tourism board or 101
DMO, since in Zuid Limburg it covers all 18 municipalities and it is an important player, coordinating both the private sector and the municipalities which are all members of the DMO. Overall, to properly answer this question, it is necessary to take into consideration what is considered a destination. Since the ETIS definition of destination was flexible, there are single municipalities, regions with few municipalities and provinces that have tested the system, and that is why the answers received vary greatly. A logical implication will be that if ETIS is applied in a single municipality, the municipal government level has to be involved; if it is applied at provincial level, the provincial level has to be involved. In the author’s opinion and matching some of the respondents’ answers, the local tourism boards and/ or regional/provincial tourism boards (if they exist) should be actively involved in any case, as a fundamental actor that coordinates the tourism stakeholders. 7. According to you, which are the main roles of sustainable tourism indicators? (multiple answers are possible)
Main role of Sustainable Tourism Indicators 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Figure 20 Role of Sustainable Tourism Indicators- Adapted from Google Forms results
Here again more than one option was allowed, since there are many different roles recognized to indicators. 83% of the destinations considered as the main role “improve the management of the destination”, which is clearly the broad goal of assessing the sustainability level of the destination and includes many different concrete actions. This is followed by “assist in the formulation of tourism policies” (75%), “raise awareness about sustainability issues” and “allow benchmarking” (67% each), and finally “assist in the implementation of policies and plans” and share the destination’s management responsibility (58% each). 102
These answers are in line with answers to question 5, since most of the destinations mentioned that they have used the results of ETIS to formulate or revise tourism policy, to raise awareness and involve different stakeholders. The destination Torroella de Montgrí i l'Estartit added that thanks to the ETIS experience, they were able to use the data collected and apply for other international awards, such as the “Top 100 Sustainable Destinations” from Green Destinations in 2017. This acted as a further incentive for the destination, that now exhibits its awards in its communication and marketing material. 8. How can sustainable tourism indicators be linked with tourism policy to ensure its use? (multiple answers are possible)
How to link indicators with Tourism Policy? 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Align tourism Involve Policy Match indicators Select indicators policy with other makers in SWG with current at the same time related policies tourism policy as designing objectives policy
Involve politicians in SWG
Figure 21 Indicators link to Tourism Policy- Adapted from Google Forms results
75% of respondents suggested that the best way to link indicators with tourism policy is to align the tourism policy with other relevant policies (such as transport, environment, spatial planning, etc), this way making sure indicators are useful for a range of related fields and not only tourism. 50% of respondents considered important to involve policy makers in the ETIS SWG, so that they are active in the data collection and discussion of the destination ‘s priorities. 42% of the sample suggested matching the indicators selected with the tourism policy objectives and/ or select the indicators at the same time as designing the tourism policy, therefore making sure the indicators provide the answer to the policy questions.
103
9. Which could be good incentives for destinations to implement a sustainable tourism indicator system? (multiple answers are possible)
Good incentives to implement an indicator system Higher involvement EC Yearly Award Funding Education/Training Certification/Label Online Platform/Benchmarking 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Figure 22 Incentives to implement indicators - Adapted from Google Forms results
9 destinations (75%) considered that an online platform where to collect the data and benchmark against other destinations was the best incentive to implement a system like ETIS. This was in fact highlighted by many destinations when the EC collected the feedback after the two pilots, confirming that this confrontation and sharing of information among destinations is very valuable. Moreover, when the researcher submitted this questionnaire, all destinations were very keen in receiving a copy of the results, since they did not have the opportunity of comparing each other during the ETIS pilot phase. Another incentive highly appreciated are certifications or labels (7 destinations, 58%) since they make the effort visible, especially important for the private sector but for destinations as well. Other useful incentives are education and capacity building (42%) very much related to contribute to the awareness raising of stakeholders about a good management of the tourism activity. Finally funding available to implement the system (33%) is also highlighted. All these answers are very similar to the opinion of Zuid Limburg’s stakeholders, who recognized certifications as the best incentive, followed by funding available and benchmarking opportunities against other destinations.
104
5.2. Benchmarking between Zuid Limburg and awarded destinations With the intention of complementing this comparison among the “best” destinations (according to the EC awards), a simple benchmark analysis is performed with the indicators collected during the ETIS pilot phase. Since the ETIS data is not publicly available, the destinations were asked to share their datasets with the author by email, in order to perform the analysis. From the population of 12 destinations, 6 destinations agreed to share their datasets. The destinations are: Barcelona, Broceliande (Brittany), Ljubljana, Mali Lošinj, Torroella de Montgrí i l'Estartit and Zuid Limburg. 5.2.1. Limitations of the Analysis There are several limitations to perform a benchmark across these destinations, which explain why a simple analysis was performed. An important one is that the six destinations compared belongs to different administrative divisions. For instance, the destination Barcelona comprises 35 “tourist destinations”: these are 25 municipalities and 10 “comarques” (group of municipalities similar to a county in the UK). On the other hand, Zuid Limburg is a region formed by 18 municipalities (without including Maastricht) and Broceliande is also a wider area. Finally, Ljubljana, Mali Lošinj and Torroella de Montgrí i l'Estartit are municipalities. Therefore, the comparison of the indicators’ results is not straightforward and there are considerable differences in the figures due to this fact. Moreover, in the case of Barcelona, since the destination measured the indicators separately in each of the 35 tourist destinations, the author had to average these results in order to have one value per indicator and be able to compare Barcelona with the other five destinations. This simplification of course affected the results of Barcelona, since the level of each of the 35 destinations was different. For example, for indicator B.1.1 (number of tourist nights per months), the average resulted in 64.415,22 nights, however there are large differences between very touristic comarques (598.016,48 nights per months in Maresme), and non-touristic ones (13.717,86 in Anoia) (Lopez Palomeque, Torres-Delgado, Urgell, & Miracle, 2014). Many other indicators are affected in the same way, since mainly coastal and mountain destinations are receiving the largest amounts of tourists (Lopez Palomeque et al., 2014). Another limitation is that many indicators are ambiguous, and they accept either percentages or numbers, months or years, so each destination measured them following their own convenience or preference. This made comparison harder and destinations were asked for clarification. The
105
ambiguity of the indicators is an issue that was addressed by the EC and in the revised ETIS toolkit from 2016 the detail information on how to calculate each indicator was provided. Some examples of ambiguous indicators include: -B.1.1 Number of tourist nights: the unit asked in the data set is a percentage, so some destinations inserted a number of nights and some others a percentage figure. -B.2.2 Occupancy rate in commercial accommodation per month and average for the year: the results could be provided per month or per year. For the sake of comparison, only one of the time periods should have been specified. -C.2.1 Percentage of men and women employed in the tourism sector: some destinations interpreted they needed to clarify both percentages (men and women), some others instead just inserted one figure (either women employment or unspecified if it was the percentage for women, men or both together), making difficult the comparison. -C.4.1.1 Percentage of residents who have positive or negative views on the impact of tourism on destination identity: it should be specified either positive or negative. Some destinations like Ljubljana pointed out that their result refers to positive view of the residents towards tourism. -D.1.1 Percentage of tourists and same day visitors using different modes of transport to arrive at the destination (public/private and type): once again, different interpretations by destinations made comparison impossible. All of the above-mentioned limitations reduced the number of indicators to be compared and the depth of the analysis. Therefore, a simple comparison was performed, showing the percentages of core and optional indicators being measured by destinations, the percentages of each section being monitored, as well as the mean for some key core indicators to compare the level of sustainability of each destination. A classification ranking the best destinations according to their level of sustainability would have been interesting, however the creation of a composite index, assigning weights to the different indicators and categories, was far beyond the scope of this study. It was considered sufficient and feasible to perform a simple comparative analysis.
106
5.2.2. Comparison on the level of monitoring Destinations
%of Indicators monitored Core Indicators
Optional Indicators
% monitored per section
Total Indicators
A. B. Destination Economic Management Value
C. SocioCultural Impact
D. Environmental Impact
1° Torroella de Montgri-l'Estartit
96.00%
83.00%
88.00%
100.00%
83.00%
86.00%
88.00%
2° Mali Lošinj
93.00%
78.00%
83.60%
78.00%
89.00%
79.00%
85.00%
3° Ljubljana
88.90%
75.00%
80.60%
88.90%
77.80%
85.70%
77.00%
4° Broceliande
85.00%
78.00%
80.60%
100.00%
89.00%
71.00%
73.00%
5° Barcelona
74.00%
0.00%
29.90%
44.50%
22.00%
28.60%
30.80%
6° Zuid Limburg
52.00%
2.50%
22.50%
44.50%
27.80%
21.50%
11.50%
Table 17 Level of monitoring of ETIS indicators- Adapted from destinations' datasets
In the above table, it is possible to see the number of indicators each of the destinations measured during the pilot phase. Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit is the one performing the most extensive monitoring, complying with 88% of the 67 ETIS indicators (core and optional). With regards to the distribution per section, it is also performing best in 3 of the 4 categories, only falling a bit behind in the economic value section, where Mali Lošinj performed better. In comparison, Barcelona and Zuid Limburg focused only on the core indicators, therefore monitoring considerably less indicators than the other 4 destinations. Zuid Limburg is the destination measuring the least amount of indicators from the sample with 22.5% of the 67 indicators. Destination management and economic value are the dimensions with the most coverage, and environmental impact is the least monitored area with only 11.5% of the indicators being monitored. This is particularly relevant for a destination where nature and landscape are the main reason attracting tourists. Interestingly, there are many indicators Zuid Limburg would have been able to measure, if they had performed at least some of the suggested surveys. Some examples are: A.4.1, C.3.2.1, D.1.1, D.1.1.1, D.1.2. Actually, the visitors’ survey was carried out by the CBS students, however since it was performed for only a few hours on one day, the sample size was very small (39 respondents) and the results were disregarded for not being statistically significant. Moreover, the data for several indicators could have been obtained by consulting the private sector stakeholders already member of the tourism board. For instance, indicators B.2.2, B.3.1.1, B.3.1.2, B.5.1, B.5.1.2, C.1.1.2, D.2.1, D.3.11, among others. 107
5.2.3. Comparison on the level of sustainability A.1.1 60% 65%
5-destination Average Zuid Limburg Result C.3.2 5-destination Average Zuid Limburg Result
A.1.1.2 A.2.1 A.3.1 B.1.1 B.1.2 B.2.1 B.3.1 C.1.1 C.3.1 100% 22% 92% 91671.00 € 70.00 6.2 36% 453.50 33% 100% 8% 83% 209320.00 € 127.00 5.5 7% 414.00 20% C.4.1
39% 18%
D.1.1 92% NA
D.1.2 NA NA
644 NA
D.3.1 D.3.2 D.4.1 D.5.1 D.6.1 D.7.1 513.00 28% 72% 293L NA 47% 415.00 60% NA NA 80%
Table 18 Benchmark main indicators measured by 6 destinations- Own elaboration
With regards to the level of sustainability from the six destinations evaluated, notwithstanding the previously mentioned limitations, the author has decided to compare the average of the five destinations with the Zuid Limburg’s results, since we are mainly interested in measuring the performance of Zuid Limburg (Table 18). The indicators to perform the comparison have been chosen because are the core indicators (except for A.1.1.2) that most of the destinations have measured. In what follows, they will be discussed separately to account for the differences between individual destinations. A.1.1 Percentage of the destination with a sustainable tourism strategy/action plan, with agreed monitoring, development control and evaluation arrangement The average of the five destinations is 60%. All destinations have some kind of tourism policy or strategy in place, except for Broceliande that did not have one at that moment, although in the questionnaire, they have stated that thanks to ETIS they developed a sustainable tourism strategy. A.1.1.2 Percentage of the destination represented by a destination management organisation All of the destinations are represented by a destination management organization. A.2.1 Percentage of tourism enterprises/establishments in the destination using a voluntary verified certification/labelling for environmental/quality/sustainability and/or CSR measures Here there is a considerable difference between the average of the destinations (22%) and the Zuid Limburg’s results (8%). However, analysing the individual results, we can see that Mali Lošinj has a very high score (44%), followed by Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit (25%), Ljubljana and Barcelona (around 15%). Still, Zuid Limburg achieved half the score of the lowest scoring destinations, implying that the private sector should be encouraged to adopt more sustainability or CSR measures.
108
A.3.1 Percentage of visitors that are satisfied with their overall experience in the destination The indicator for Zuid Limburg has been adapted, since their result was 8.3 (out of 10) which is the score given in the tourism report from Limburg province. This score has been translated into 83% for the sake of comparing it to the other destinations which measured it in percentages. The 5-destination average is 92%, all destinations scoring high, the lowest one being Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit with 67%. B.1.1 Number of tourist nights per month There are considerable differences among destinations due to the fact that some destinations, such as Barcelona, involve many municipalities with different levels of tourism. Moreover, the base to calculate the amount of nights is arguably the same for all destinations. Torroella de Montgrí I l’Estartit for instance, explained that it is annually calculated based on the tourist tax collected, which is neither paid by minors under 16 years old, nor by stays of over 7 nights, so it is only an approximate figure. The average for the five destinations is 91.671 tourist nights per month. Comparing this average with Zuid Limburg’s 209.320 nights, confirms Zuid Limburg as a very important tourist destination. And this is considering the figure in the ETIS dataset of 2014 (2,5 million overnight stays in 2013), figure that has risen to 5 million overnight stays according to the interview performed by the author to the tourism board. The Limburg province is in fact the third Dutch province in number of overnight stays and the second in number of domestic holidays (Province Limburg, 2017). B.1.2 Daily spending per tourist (accommodation, food and drinks, other services) There is a considerable difference again here, probably due to some destinations having calculated the daily spending comprising the accommodation expenditure, which is in fact what it is asked by the ETIS indicator. This is the case of Ljubljana (€132) and Zuid Limburg (€127). On the other hand, the rest of the destinations seem not to have included the accommodation cost, resulting in much lower level of expenditure (Barcelona €49.50, Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit €50, Broceliande €53 and Mali Lošinj €66). B.2.1 Average length of stay of tourists (nights) The average of the five destinations is 6.2 nights and Zuid Limburg accounts for 5.5 nights. However, individually there are some distinctions since Ljubljana’s average length of stay is 1.9 nights, and on 109
the other side, destinations like Mali Lošinj and Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit show much longer periods (between 8 and 10 nights). This is mainly due to the type of destinations (island and coastal) in comparison to a capital city as Ljubljana. B.3.1 Direct tourism employment as percentage of total employment Here the average shows 36% for the five destinations, and 7.2% for Zuid Limburg, however there are two outliers (again Mali Lošinj and Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit) where tourism employment accounts for 52% and 77% respectively. This is clearly in line with the previous indicator, since these are the two destinations where tourists spend more time, generating more employment in the sector. In the other destinations, the percentages are lower and more in line with Zuid Limburg’s figure (between 2 and 9%), implying more variety in the economic activities. C.1.1 Number of tourists/visitors per 100 residents Most destinations seem to have applied the following formula to calculate this indicator: ratio between the number of tourist arrivals and the resident population in the destination (Candela & Figini, 2012). Zuid Limburg does not monitor the tourist arrivals, so the formula had to be calculated using overnight stays instead. The so called “index of saturation” offers another possibility which is the number of overnight stays in the destination divided the number of local population multiplied by the number of days of the period (Candela & Figini, 2012). However, it was wrongly calculated in Zuid Limburg, since they have divided the yearly number of overnight stays with the total population, but without multiplying the local population for the amount of days of the period (365). Curiously, the average among the destinations is 453.5 tourists per 100 residents, being this number in fact close to Zuid Limburg’s stated number (414). Individually there are very large differences though. For instance, Mali Lošinj accounts for 1002 tourists, Barcelona and Torroella de Montgrí I l’Estartit (486 and 391 respectively), while Ljubljana has 163 tourists per 100 residents. Another issue with this indicator is that some destinations counted the tourists and visitors, while others only counted tourists (staying overnight). Therefore, these figures might not be comparable if each destination calculated them differently.
110
C.3.1 Percentage of commercial accommodation with rooms accessible to people with disabilities and/or participating in recognised accessibility schemes The average here is 33% and Zuid Limburg accounts for 20%, however Barcelona performed extremely well in this aspect, with 57% of commercial accommodation accessible to people with disabilities. Barcelona won in fact the ETIS award specially due to their “tourism for all” approach. C.3.2 Percentage of visitor attractions that are accessible to people with disabilities and/or participating in recognised accessibility schemes On average, 39% of the visitor’s attractions are accessible while in Zuid Limburg 18% of attractions are accessible to people with disabilities. Again, in this case, some destinations performed very well, such as Ljubljana and Mali Lošinj (65% and 56% respectively) while Barcelona falls to 20% when it comes to visitor attractions’ accessibility. C.4.1 Percentage of the destination covered by a policy or plan that protects cultural heritage Zuid Limburg did not measure this indicator, however the average for the other five destinations is 91%, with four destinations fully covered by a policy or plan that protects cultural heritage and only Barcelona accounting for 57%. D.1.1 Percentage of tourists and same day visitors using different modes of transport to arrive at the destination (public/private and type) Destinations seem to have interpreted very differently this indicator. Barcelona for instance, included the percentage of tourists arriving by car (65%), Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit included the percentage of tourists by each mean of transport (identifying six different means), while Broceliande and Mali Lošinj have very small percentages (around 2%). For this indicator, clarification from the destinations was requested and Broceliande stated that the 2% represents the visitors arriving in any other means except car and plane. Therefore, it is not possible to make valuable comparisons for this indicator as each destination calculated it differently. Moreover, Zuid Limburg did not measure it. D.1.2 Average travel (km) by tourists to and from home or average travel (km) from the previous destination to the current destination This indicator was not measured by Zuid Limburg and Ljubljana. The average among the other four destinations is 644 km, roughly similar between Barcelona, Mali Lošinj and Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit, but much shorter in the case of Broceliande (only 74km). 111
D.3.1 Waste volume produced by destination (tonnes per resident per year or per month) This indicator is measured in kilograms and the 5-destination average is 513kg per resident per year against 415kg for Zuid Limburg. This is a good result for Zuid Limburg, which is the second destination producing the least waste (after Ljubljana with 413kg). On the contrary, the one generating the most is Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit with 584kg per resident per year. D.3.2 Volume of waste recycled (percent or per resident per year) Another good result for Zuid Limburg is the volume of waste recycled per year, accounting for 60% while the average of the other five destinations is 28%. Ljubljana performed well also, with 51% and Barcelona with 38%. The rest of the destinations fall much behind, being Mali Lošinj the one recycling the least amount (14%). D.4.1 Percentage of sewage from the destination treated at least at secondary level prior to discharge Statistics from the European Environmental Agency (2017) show that in 2014 the Netherlands treated 98% of their waste at tertiary level and only 1% at secondary level. Even if Zuid Limburg did not collect this information, we can assume they treat 100% of their waste at least at secondary level prior to discharge. In the case of the other destinations, Barcelona and Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit claimed 100% of at least secondary treatment, while Ljubljana treated 88% at this level. Broceliande did not measure this indicator, however in France according to the same EEA statistics, 66% of the waste water is treated at tertiary level and 14% at secondary level. Finally, Mali Lošinj stated that none of their waste water is treated at secondary level, which matches the statistics from Croatia, were 1.7% of waste is untreated, while 16% received primary treatment and 36% secondary treatment. D.5.1 Fresh water consumption per tourist night compared to general population water consumption per person night Only three destinations reported on this indicator, Ljubljana, Mali Lošinj and Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit, and they were all very close to the average on 293 litres of water consumed by tourists. In comparison, Mali Lošinj specified that local residents consumed 191 litres, so almost 100 litres less of water per night. In the case of Ljubljana, the difference is 180 litres (300 litres by tourists against 120 litres by residents), showing the important pressure exerted by tourists on this resource. 112
D.6.1 Energy consumption per tourist night compared to general population energy consumption per person night This indicator was only measured by Ljubljana and Mali Lošinj however they are expressed using different units. According to Mali Lošinj, tourists consumed 118% more energy than residents and for Ljubljana, it was stated that seven tourists consumed the equivalent to sixteen inhabitants. Again, even if the figures are not comparable, they both demonstrate that tourists consume more energy than residents. D.7.1 Percentage of destination (area in km2) that is designated for protection In the case of Zuid Limburg, this indicator has been adapted to make comparisons, since they recorded it in hectares (4359 hectares of Natura 2000 areas). The percentage amount of 80% was taken from another document (part of the application of Zuid Limburg to the Top 100 Sustainable Destinations competition) where was stated that “80% of the total Limburg territory is designated recreational, agricultural, forest and open nature or open waterways” (Zuid Limburg Tourism Board, 2017). This is one more good result of Zuid Limburg, which positions itself second after Mali Lošinj (90%). The rest of the destinations show considerable variability, Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit having 68% of the area protected, while Barcelona and Ljubljana show the lowest percentages (19% and 20% respectively). However, these are mainly urban areas, so it is logical that they present less percentage of protected areas. 5.3. Final comments from Comparative Analysis Thanks to comparing the ETIS implementation experience of other awarded destinations, the author was able to confirm that sustainable tourism indicators have an important role to play to inform policy making. All destinations have agreed that indicators are useful tools to inform policy and monitor the tourism performance in the destination, while most of them have used the results from ETIS, either to revise their current tourism policy or to formulate a new sustainable tourism strategy. With regards to the system’s implementation, the boundaries of the destination influence whether the municipal or provincial level should lead the process, however DMOs are recognized by many as one of the responsible actors to be involved. Moreover, tourism policy should be aligned with other related policies (transport, environment, land planning, etc) in order to ensure that indicators provide useful information, integrating tourism impacts with all these sectors.
113
Finally, benchmarking is recognized as the most attractive incentive to implement a system like ETIS, and the present study has precisely attempted to perform one, however many limitations were encountered, therefore modest conclusions can be made from it. Zuid Limburg has been found to be the destination that measured the least amount of indicators, demonstrating lower levels of commitment to the pilot project, with respect to other five destinations; it also lagged behind with respect to their sustainability level. Nevertheless, good results were achieved by Zuid Limburg in terms of low amount of waste production and high level of waste recycling. Still, monitoring of many of the tourism impacts needs to be performed, in order for the destination to demonstrate a firm commitment towards sustainability. In the following chapter and based on the findings and discussion that has been performed throughout this study, we will make our final conclusions and suggest possible implications for destination managers.
114
Chapter 6 Conclusions One of the main motivations of the present study was to contribute to the literature on the role of sustainability indicators in tourism policy making, since it has been identified as a relatively under researched topic. We have argued throughout this study that, in order to make the concept of sustainable tourism operational, it is necessary to develop tools such as indicator systems, that can provide relevant information on the impacts of tourism in its three dimensions: economic, environmental and socio-cultural. The European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) has been taken as case study, since it is the only common European framework, developed by the European Commission. With regards to our research question, after the analysed literature and the empirical evidence collected from European destinations, we can conclude that indicator systems such as ETIS are useful tools for policy making in either of their three identified roles: instrumental role (using the information provided by indicators directly in policies and strategies, supporting decision-making), conceptual role (raising awareness about tourism sustainability issues and building capacity among stakeholders) and symbolic role (legitimating political decisions). In this study we have adopted the generic term “policy usefulness” although we have seen through the analysis of the literature that a distinction can be made between policy use and policy influence. Policy use should be specifically found in policy documents or statements, while policy influence refers to the effects indicators can have in the policy making process, even if not specifically mentioned in the policy. Clearly the influence is more difficult to identify, however we can relate it to the conceptual use of indicators, since the awareness about the issue is raised through the social learning process that happens when stakeholders work together to design and implement an indicator system. Moreover, indicators are useful tools when they are integrated to the tourism policy of the destination, either developed together with new policies or connected to existing ones after. If indicators do not relate to policy, it is not possible to detect progress towards the destination ‘s objectives and redefine them in case is needed. Acknowledging these other roles of indicators in policy making, it is possible to infer that the aim of the EC at proposing a common indicator system was well-founded, since the indicators pursue the instrumental role (through generating information to be used in policy making) as well as the conceptual role (through awareness raising and social learning process). Since ETIS was created as a voluntary tool and adopted an information framework, we can therefore suggest that the conceptual use of the indicators was the main aim the EC aspired to reach. It was devised as a starting point, to 115
encourage destinations to embark in monitoring sustainability, leaving the responsibility for linking the indicators with the tourism policy to each destination. Through the field work performed in Zuid Limburg, the author was able to identify a number of barriers to the ETIS implementation, namely limited time dedicated to the pilot phase, lack of relevant stakeholders’ involvement, absence of targets for the indicators, and the fact that none of the surveys was carried out. In addition, ETIS was perceived by the DMO as an academic tool, not practical for them and their business members to implement, reflecting the short-term vision that the private sector will only contribute to destination management if they see an instant economic return. With regards to the previously mentioned distinction between policy use and policy influence, we can assert that in Zuid Limburg there has been no policy use of the indicators whatsoever. In fact, the information collected through the indicators have not even been discussed among the members of the stakeholder working group. Nevertheless, thanks to the interviews conducted in the destination and the participatory approach taken, we can argue that the indicators and the whole ETIS implementation process have exerted an influence in the way stakeholders perceive the sustainability of the destination. Indeed, some other concrete actions have been taken, in the form of capacity building, participation in other competitions and awards, and the launch of two very recent projects: the development of a new tourism policy for Zuid Limburg and the testing of a new Dutch system to assess the sustainability of tourism destinations. On the other hand, the majority of the ETIS destinations consulted through the online questionnaire, stated that they have used the results of ETIS either to incorporate them in the current tourism policy or as input to develop a new sustainable tourism policy, confirming that sustainable tourism indicators have an important role to play to inform policy making. Most destinations considered the main role of indicators that of improving the management of the destination and the best incentive to implement a system like ETIS was considered an online benchmarking platform, followed by a certification and capacity building. To this regard, the result of the benchmark analysis performed to six of these destinations, showed that Zuid Limburg lagged behind the other awarded destinations, being both with respect to the level of monitoring and to the level of sustainability. The benchmarking analysis also proved the unsuitability of ETIS to establish comparisons, since the indicators are ambiguous and open to different interpretations. To sum up, in the author’s opinion, the use of indicators improves the governance of tourism in the destination and the leader to steer the process of sustainability monitoring should be the local DMO, as the coordinator of public and private stakeholders, of course with the support from municipal 116
and/or provincial government. Its main responsibility is to manage the destination and it has a specific budget and authority to perform this role. A special strong point for the DMO to lead the process is that is not tied to political parties and changes in governments, which can affect the continuation of the monitoring process; in fact, in most cases, the DMO is a public-private partnership, which allows the sharing of the responsibility among the two sectors. For this to happen and DMOs to assume their responsibility, a change in the understanding of the duties of these organizations needs to take place. Nowadays, DMOs need to understand their role cannot limit to promoting and marketing the destination, specially not at this point in time where the traditional economic measurements of tourism, namely tourist arrivals, are seriously questioned. Destinations managers need to fulfil their role of coordinators of the different stakeholders, making sure the impacts (both positive and negative) of tourism are acknowledged and correctly managed, leading destinations towards sustainability. 6.1. Implications for destinations and further research In order for an indicator system to be incorporated in policy making, a number of recommendations are recognized: Involve the government from the beginning, to ensure indicators are in line with the priorities of the destination and that the information will be incorporated in the policy. Align the tourism policy with other related policies, since sustainability is a cross-cutting issue among all policy areas. Have a clear leader in the destination with appropriate funding available, namely the DMO, that steer and empower stakeholders to carry out the measuring and monitoring process. Implications for DMOs: Raise awareness among its members about the importance of working together towards creating a sustainable tourist destination. Involve as many stakeholders as possible in the data collection process, to enhance the social learning outcomes, provide ownership, build expertise and interest in the project, as well as reducing implementation costs. Create a sustainable tourism programme to encourage the private sector to adopt sustainable practices, with relevant incentives, including more visibility through their online and offline channels.
117
Finally, regarding further research opportunities, it would be definitely very interesting to make a similar analysis but involving destinations that tested the revised ETIS toolkit (the one released in 2016), to see if the feedback provided by destinations during the pilot phases has been taken into account to improve the set of indicators. There are at least two European destinations currently testing the system: Torroella de Montgrí i l’Estartit and Comunitat Valenciana; their experience could be analysed. Moreover, it would be very useful to deepen the analysis on the private sector’s willingness to contribute to the funding of an indicators’ system, through a process steered by the DMO.
118
References Airey, D. (2015). Developments in understanding tourism policy. Tourism Review, 246-258. Altinay, L. & Paraskevas, A. (2008). Planning research in hospitality and tourism. Oxford: Elsevier Bell, S., Eason, K., & Frederiksen, P. (2011). POINT Policy use and influence of indicators. Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework. Brătucu, G., Chițu, I. B., & Demeter, T. (2015). Adapting the European tourism indicators system to Braşov – tourist destination. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, 8(2), pp. 157-162. Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 7-25. Byrd, E. (2007). Stakeholders in Sustainable Tourism Development and their Roles: Applying Stakeholders Theory to Sustainable Tourism Development. Tourism Review, 62(2), 6-13. Candela, G., & Figini, P. (2012). The Economics of Tourism Destinations. Springer. Cannas, R., & Theuma, N. (2013). Strategies and tools for sustainable tourism destination management: applying the European Tourism Indicators System in Malta. Proceedings of the International Conference on Tourism (ICOT). Limassol. Castellani, V., & Sala, S. (2010). Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tourism Management, 871-880. Cater, C., Garrod, B., & Low, T. (2015). The Encyclopedia of Sustainable Tourism. Boston: CABI. Ceron, J.-P., & Dubois, G. (2003). Tourism and Sustainable Development Indicators: The Gap between Theoretical Demands and Practical Achievements. Current Issues in Tourism, 54-75. Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 1274-1289. Cismaru, L., & Ispas, A. (2015). Improving the profile of the European tourist destinations through the European tourism indicators system. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, 8(1), pp. 8794. Clarke, J. (2010). A Framework of Approaches to Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 224233. Cologne Business School . (2014). European Tourism Indicator System - Student Project Report. COM (2007) 621 final . (n.d.). COM (2007) 621 final . COM (2010) 352 final. (n.d.). COM (2010) 352 final. Dinica, V. (2006). Policy measures and governance for sustainable tourism and recreation in the Netherlands. Tourism - An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 54(3), 190-208. Dinica, V. (2008). Challenges for sustainable tourism in the Netherlands. International Journal Tourism Policy, 1(4), 335-352. Dinica, V. (2009). Governance for sustainable tourism: a comparison of international and Dutch visions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 583-603. Dodds, R. (2007). Sustainable Tourism and Policy Implementation: Lessons from the Case of Calviá, Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 296-322.
119
Dodds, R., & Butler, R. W. (2009). Inaction More than Action Barriers to the Implementation of Sustainable Tourism Policies. In S. Gossling, C. M. Hall, & D. B. Weaver, Sustainable Tourism Futures Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations (pp. 43-57). New York: Taylor & Francis. Dredge, D., & Jamal, T. (2015). Progress in tourism planning and policy: A post-structural perspective on knowledge production. Tourism Management, 51, 285-297. Dredge, D., & Pforr, C. (2008). Policy Networks and Tourism Governance. In N. Scott, R. Baggio, & C. Cooper, Network Analysis and Tourism From Theory to Practice (pp. 58 - 78). Channel View Publications. European Commission. (2007). Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union. European Commission. (2016, May 15). ETIS Award Ceremony. Retrieved from European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8731&lang=en European Commission. (2016). Virtual Tourism Observatory - Studies and Reports. Retrieved from European Commission Growth: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/vto/ EU Committee of the Regions. (2006). Sustainable Tourism as a Factor of Cohesion Among European Regions. Brussels: European Communities. European Committee of the Regions. (2016, December 7). Opinion: Tourism as a driving force for regional cooperation across the EU. Brussels, Belgium. European Environmental Agency. (2017, December 15). Urban waste water treatment assessment. Retrieved from European Environmental Agency: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-andmaps/indicators/urban-waste-water-treatment/urban-waste-water-treatment-assessment-4 European Parliament - Transport and Tourism Committee. (2015). From Responsible Best Practices to Sustainable Tourism Development. Brussels: European Union. European Union. (2013). The European Tourism Indicator System. Toolkit for Sustainable Destinations. European Union. European Union. (2016). The European Tourism Indicator System. ETIS Toolkit for sustainable destination management. European Union. Farrell, B. H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualizing Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 274-295. Font, X., & Estol, J. (2015). European tourism policy: its evolution and structure. Journal of Tourism Management(52), 230-241. Gallopín, G.C. (1997). Indicators and their use: Information for decision-making. In B. Moldan & S. Billharz, Sustainability Indicators Report of the project on Indicators of Sustainable Development (pp 13-27). West Sussex: Wiley. Gastvrij Nederland . (n.d.). Retrieved from Gastvrij Nederland Nationale Raad voor toerisme, recreatie, horeca en vrije tijd: http://gastvrij-nederland.nl/index.php Global Sustainable Tourism Council. (2018, 01 28). Retrieved from Global Sustainable Tourism Council: https://www.gstcouncil.org/ Global Sustainable Tourism Council. (2018, 01 29). Global Sustainable Tourism Council Criteria for Destinations. Retrieved from https://www.gstcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Dest_CRITERIA_and_INDICATORS_6-9-14.pdf 120
Golja, T., & Slivar, I. (2014). The Importance of Measuring Sustainability in Reaching Higher Destination Competitiveness. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance (pp. 100-110). Zagreb: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. Gossling, S., & Peeters, P. (2015). Assessing tourism's global environmental impact 1900 - 2050. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 639-659. Green Destinations. (2017, November). Green Destinations Standard . Retrieved from Green Destinations: http://greendestinations.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Green-Destinations-Standard-1.4.2.pdf Grinsven, G. v. (2012). All around Maastricht. Gudmundsson, H. (2003). The Policy Use of Environmental Indicators - Learning from Evaluation research. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 2(2), 1-12. Gudmundsson, H., Lehtonen, M., Bauler, T., Sebastien, L., & Morse, S. (2009). Process and results of analytical framework and typology development for POINT. Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013). Hall, C. M. (2011). Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: from first-and second-order to third-order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 649-671. Hardy, A., Beeton, R. J., & Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable Tourism: An Overview of the Concept and its Position in Relation to Conceptualizations of Tourism . Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 475-496. Horninge, M. (2013). Sustainable Tourism Development at Destination Level: The Case of Zuid Limburg region, the Netherlands. Sustainability Science and Policy Master Thesis. Maastricht: University of Maastricht. Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable Tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 850-867. Implementation Rolling Plan . (2010). Implementation Rolling Plan of Tourism Action Framework (COM (2010) 352). Laerd Dissertation. (2018, 01 24). Total Population Sampling. Retrieved from Laerd dissertation: http://dissertation.laerd.com/total-population-sampling.php Lane, B. (2009). Thirty Years of Sustainable Tourism Drivers, Progress, Problems - and the Future. In S. Gossling, C. M. Hall, & D. B. Weaver, Sustainable Tourism Futures Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations (pp. 19-32). New York: Taylor & Francis. Law, A., DeLacy, T., & McGrath, G. M. (2017). A green economy indicator framework for tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-22. Lengkeek, J. (2013). Behind Windmills and Flower Bulbs: Tourism Policies in the Netherlands. In C. Costa, & E. P. Buhalis, Trends in European Tourism Planning and Organisation (pp. 445-460). Channel View Pubblications Lopez Palomeque, F., Torres-Delgado, A., Urgell, X. F., & Miracle, D. S. (2014). System of Tourism Indicators for the sustainable management of destinations in the province of Barcelona. Barcelona. Lozano-Oyola, M., Blancas, F. J., González, M., & Caballero, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecological Indicators, 659-675. McCool, S. F., & Moisey, R. N. (2001). Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: linking culture and the environment. New York: CABI. 121
McCool, S. F., Moisey, R. N., & Nickerson, N. P. (2001). What should tourism sustain? The disconnect with industry perceptions of useful indicators. Journal of Travel Research, 124-131. McLoughlin, E., & Hanrahan, J. (2016). Local authority tourism planning in Ireland: an environmental perspective. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events, 8, 33-52. Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 351-362. Miller, G., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a Sustainable Tourism Transition: The Challenge of Developing and Using Indicators. CABI. Modica, P. (2015). Sustainable Tourism Management and Monitoring. Destination, Business and Stakeholder Perspectives. Milan: Franco Angeli. Moreno Pires, S., Fidélis, T., & Ramos, T. B. (2014). Measuring and comparing local sustainable development through common indicators: Constrainst and achievements in practice. Cities, 1-9. NECSTouR. (2017, July 17). Open Letter European Commission Work Programme 2018 - Revision of the EU 2010 Tourism Strategy. Brussels, Belgium. Nuñez, C. (2016). NECSTouR: le regioni fulcro del turismo competitivo e sostenibile nel contesto europeo. In M. Davolio, & A. Somoza, Il viaggio e l’incontro. Che cos’è il Turismo Responsabile. Milan: Altreconomie. OECD. (2016). OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing. On the world map. (2018, January 17). Limburg location on the Netherlands. Retrieved from On the world map: http://ontheworldmap.com/netherlands/province/limburg/limburg-location-on-thenetherlands-map.html Panyik, E., & Anastasiadou, C. (2013). Mapping the EU's evolving role in Tourism: Implications of the New EU Tourism Competence. In C. Costa, E. Panyik, & D. Buhalis, Trends in European Tourism Planning and Organisation (pp. 189-207). Channel View Publications. Pastille . (2005). Indicators into action: Local sustainability indicator sets in their context. European Union. Pigram, J. J. (1990). Sustainable Tourism - Policy Considerations. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(2). Province Limburg. (2017). Toeristische Trendrapportage Limburg 2015-2016. Waalwijk: ZKA Consultants. Province of Limburg Brochure. (2017, November 2). Retrieved from Province of Limburg: https://limburg.nl/ Rametsteiner, E., Pülzl, H., Alkan-Olsson, J., & Frederiksen, P. (2011). Sustainability indicator development Science or political negotiation. Ecological Indicators, 61-70. Ritchie, J., & Crouch, G. (2003). The Competitive Destination - A Sustainable Tourism Perspective. CABI Publishing. Romagosa, F., & Sirse, J. (2016, January 28). Results of the 2nd ETIS pilot implementation phase and lessons learnt. ETIS Joint Conference on Managing and Promoting Sustainable and Accesible Tourism Destinations. Brussels. Scott, N., Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2008). Tourism Destination Networks and Knowledge Transfer. In N. Scott, R. Baggio, & C. Cooper, Network Analysis and Tourism From Theory to Practice (pp. 40-57). Channel View Publications.
122
Singh, E., Milne, S., & Hull, J. (2012). Used of Mixed Methods Case Study to Research Sustainable Tourism Development in South Pacific SIDS. In E. G. Publishing (Ed.), Field Guide to Case Study Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure (pp. 457-479). Sirše, J. (2014). ETIS Analysis of the 1st Pilot Implementation Phase. ETIS - The European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Destinations. Brussels. South Limburg Tourism Board. (2017). South Limburg Regional Survey. BRANDTour Interreg Europe Funded Project, Valkenburg. Spyriadis, T., Fletcher, J., & Fyall, A. (2013). Destination Management Organisational Structures. In C. Costa, E. Panyik, & D. Buhalis, Trends in European Tourism Planning and Organisation (pp. 77-91). Channel View Publications. Sustainability Leaders Project. (2017, September 7). Interview with Gianna Moscardo on Sustainable Tourism Research, Trends and Priorities. (F. Kaefer, Editor) Retrieved from Sustainability Leaders Project: http://sustainability-leaders.com/interview-gianna-moscardo/ Tanguay, G. A., Rajaonson, J., & Therrien, M.-C. (2013). Sustainable tourism indicators: selection criteria for policy implementation and scientific recognition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 862-879. The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2017). The Sustainable Tourism Index: Enhancing the global travel environment. London: The Economist. Torres Delgado, A., & Saarinen, J. (2014). Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism development: a review. Tourism Geographies, 31-47. Torres-Delgado, A., & López Palomeque, F. (2014). Measuring sustainable tourism at the municipal level. Annals of Tourism Research(49), 122-137. Tourism Sustainability Group. (2007). Action for More Sustainable European Tourism. UNEP & UNWTO. (2005). Making tourism more sustainable. A guide for policy makers. UNEP & UNWTO United Nations. (1992). Agenda 21 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and development. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations. United Nations. (2018, 10 January). Sustainable Development Resource Library. Retrieved from Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/resourcelibrary University of Surrey. (2012a). EU Indicator Project: Task 5) Draft Recommendations for Maintenance and Improvement of the European System of Indicators . University of Surrey. (2012b). EU Indicator Project: Recommendations for Revisions to TSG Core indicators Task 2b. UNWTO. (2004). Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations: A Guidebook. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. UNWTO. (2015). Tourism and the Sustainable Development Goals. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO. (2017). Statistical Framework for Measuring Sustainable Tourism Preliminary Draft. UNWTO. (2017). UNWTO Tourism Highlights. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO Statistics and Tourism Satellite Account Programme. (2016, July). Measuring Sustainable Tourism: Developing a statistical framework for sustainable tourism. Retrieved 01 30, 2018, from UNWTO: http://statistics.unwto.org/mst 123
UNWTO, W. T. (1996). What tourism managers need to know: A practical guide to the development and use of indicators of sustainable tourism. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Veal, A. J. (2010). Leisure, Sport and Tourism, Politics, Policy and Planning 3rd Edition. Oxford: CABI Tourism Texts. Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable Tourism: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Elsevier. Welcome to Zuid Limburg Brochure. (2017, October 25). Retrieved from VVV Zuid Limburg Tourism Board: https://en.vvvzuidlimburg.nl/media/204541/broschuere_zuid-limburg_gb_3-auflage_download.pdf World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. World Tourism Organization. (1998). Guide for local authorities on Developing Sustainable Tourism. Madrid: WTO. World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). (2016). World Travel and Tourism Council. Retrieved from https://www.wttc.org/tourism-for-tomorrow-awards/winners-and-finalists-2017/winners-andfinalists-2016/#parkstad-limburg Yuksel, F., Branwell, B., & Yuksel, A. (1999). Stakeholder interviews and tourism planning at Pamukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management, 351-360. Yunis, E. (2004). Indicators to measure sustainability in Tourism. 7th International Forum on Tourism Statistics, (pp. 1-5). Stockholm. Zabetta, M. C., Sacerdotti, S. L., & Mauro, S. (2014). Community-Based Monitoring in Tourism Sector: An application of the European Tourism Indicators System in the "A.T.L. del Cuneese". Leadership and Governance for Sustainable Tourism: Proceedings of Summer School 2014 (pp. 29-36). Helsinski: University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute. Zuid Limburg Tourism Board. (2014). ETIS dataset and documents pilot implementation. Valkenburg. Zuid Limburg Tourism Board. (2017). Self Nomination Top 100 Sustainable Destinations Competition. Sustainability Indicators Form.
Sources - Interviews Beghof, L. (2017, November 15). Natuurmonumenten Visitor Centre Administrator. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Beijers, A. (2017, November 25). Horeca Regional Manager Limburg. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Cobben, B. (2017, November 13). Natuur en Milieufederatie Policy Officer. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Darley, I. (2017a, September 4). Corporate PR Officer Zuid Limburg Tourism Board. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Darley, I. (2017b, November 15). Corporate PR Officer Zuid Limburg Tourism Board. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) de Marzo, C. (2017, February 27). Seconded National Expert EC Tourism Unit (2012-2016). (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Gelsing, I. (2017, November 16). RECRON Regional Manager Limburg. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) 124
Horn, A. t. (2017, November 7). Policy maker Municipality of Gulpen-Wittem. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Houben, J. (2017, November 15). Policy maker Tourism Municipality of Valkenburg. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Kokkelkoren, Y. (2017, November 6). Policy Maker in Tourism . (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Kuiper, K. (2017, November 23). Gastvrij Nederland Secretary. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Lane, P. (2017, November 22). Planning and Tourism Consultant, ex member TSG (Tourism Sustainability Group). (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Martens, H. (2017, November 3). Former student Cologne Business School. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Miller, P. G. (2017, May 16). Executive Dean Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Surrey. Coeditor Journal of Sustainable Tourism. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Minkels, L. (2017, November 2). Former Sustainability Trainee Zuid Limburg Tourism Board. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Niewierra, A. (2017, October 17). Director Zuid Limburg Tourism Board. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Nuñez, C. (2017, October 23). Coordinator NECSTouR - Network of European Regions for a Sustainable and Competitive Tourism. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Pepping, S. (2017, November 20). MVO Nederland, Manager Tourism Network. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Reiser, D. (2017, October 24). Professor Tourism Research Cologne Business School. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Roon, B. v. (2017, November 1). Project Manager Policy and Communication RD4. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Rutten, J.-P. (2017, November 15). CEO Gulpener Brewery. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Salman, A. (2017, October 17). President Green Destinations. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Smeets, S. (2017, October 24). Former European Project Manager Zuid Limburg Tourism Board. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer) Stieger, H. (2017, November 24). Economic Development employee, City Council of Viersen Germany. (M. L. Gasparini, Interviewer)
125
Appendices 1) Template Zuid Limburg Stakeholders Semi-structure interview Members of Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) ETIS (European Tourism Indicator System) Pilot Project Zuid Limburg - 2014 Aim of the research: Investigate the relevance of indicators as management tools for tourist destinations in their transition to sustainability. Determinate if indicators support decision making regarding future sustainable tourism policies and if they lead to changes in policy. I am taking Zuid Limburg as Case Study to illustrate the application of ETIS at destination level and the interactions among stakeholders. Background Name Interviewee Position held at the time of the project and current position
About the Stakeholders Working Group 1. How did you become involved in the ETIS pilot project? 2. Which was your task in the Stakeholders Working Group? 3. In your opinion, which are the main tourism stakeholders in Zuid Limburg? (Could you help me completing the stakeholders map?) 4. Were all relevant stakeholders represented in the working group? Who was missing? 5. Was it easy and interesting to work with the other stakeholders? To divide duties? 6. How many meetings did you attend?
Data Collection 7. Which were the main problems encountered during the process? (i.e. data availability, indicators not relevant, lack of time, lack of resources, lack of interest, measuring procedure not clear, etc)
Analysis of Results 8. After collecting the data, were the results analysed by all stakeholders to set priorities and action plans? 9. Which were the strengths of the system? 126
10. Do you think the ETIS implementation in Zuid Limburg was successful? Please explain why yes or no 11. What could have been done differently in order to adopt the system and implement it on a regular basis? 12. According to you, who should be responsible for measuring sustainability in the destination? a) Province b) Municipalities c) Tourism Board d) Should be done in cooperation with different stakeholders, including private sector (like ETIS working group) e) Other: 13. Which sources of information do you currently use when making tourism policy at municipal/provincial level? Only for policy makers 14. Do you think sustainable tourism indicators like ETIS are useful instruments to inform tourism policy and monitor the tourism performance in the destination? 15. Would you be willing to participate again in a similar project of collecting data, analysing it and proposing actions to develop sustainable tourism in the region? 16. Which could be a good incentive for destinations to implement a sustainable tourism indicator system? (more than one option can be selected)
For Public sector A certification or label A yearly award at European level Funding available to implement system An online platform where to collect data, benchmark and receive expert support? Other
For Private sector A certification or label A yearly award at European level Funding available to implement system An online platform where to collect data, benchmark and receive expert support? Other
17. Would you like to add anything else? Thank you for your valuable time and contributions. Maria Laura Gasparini 127
2) Template Zuid Limburg Stakeholders Semi-structure interview Provincial and Municipal Policy makers (not involved in ETIS implementation) Aim of the research: Investigate the relevance of indicators as management tools for tourist destinations in their transition to sustainability. Determinate if indicators support decision making regarding future sustainable tourism policies and if they lead to changes in policy. I am taking Zuid Limburg as Case Study to illustrate the application of ETIS at destination level and the interactions among stakeholders.
Background Name Interviewee Current Position and duties with regards to tourism policies
About the ETIS Pilot Project 1. Were you involved somehow in the collection of data for this system of sustainable tourism indicators? (This was a pilot project that was held in several European destinations. Zuid Limburg was one of them and the project was led by the Zuid Limburg Tourism Board from April to December 2014. The idea was to collect data among the different stakeholders in the destination, to know the impacts of tourism not only in economic terms but also to the environment and the community).
Tourism sector in Limburg 2. In your opinion, which are the main tourism stakeholders in Limburg? (Could you help me completing the stakeholders map?
Tourism policies at provincial and municipal level 3. How is the Tourism sector organize at provincial level? And the relation with municipal level? 4. Is there a Tourism Provincial Policy or Master Plan? Does the tourism plan or policy address sustainability issues? 5. What are your main duties as a policy-maker in the field of tourism? 6. Which sources of information do you use when making tourism policy at provincial level? Do you analyse only economic data (overnight stays, average expenditure of tourists, etc) or also environmental and social impact of tourism in the destination? 7. Are there any current project to start measuring tourism sustainability in the province?
128
8. Are residents regularly involved in discussions on opportunities, challenges and sustainability of tourism development? How? 9. According to you, who should be responsible for measuring sustainability in the destination? a) b) c) d) e)
Province Municipalities Tourism Board Should be done in cooperation with different stakeholders, including private sector (like ETIS working group) Other:
10. Do you think sustainable tourism indicators (like ETIS) are useful instruments to inform tourism policy and monitor the tourism performance in the destination? 11. Would you be willing to participate in a similar project of collecting data, analysing it and proposing actions to develop sustainable tourism in the region? 12. Which could be a good incentive for destinations to implement a sustainable tourism indicator system? (more than one option can be selected)
For Public sector A certification or label A yearly award at European level Funding available to implement system An online platform where to collect data, benchmark and receive expert support? Other
13. Would you like to add anything else?
Thank you for your valuable time and contributions. Maria Laura Gasparini
129
For Private sector A certification or label A yearly award at European level Funding available to implement system An online platform where to collect data, benchmark and receive expert support? Other
3) Template Zuid Limburg Stakeholders Semi-structure interview Environmental Organizations in Limburg (not involved in ETIS implementation) Aim of the research: Investigate the relevance of indicators as management tools for tourist destinations in their transition to sustainability. Determinate if indicators support decision making regarding future sustainable tourism policies and if they lead to changes in policy. I am taking Zuid Limburg as Case Study to illustrate the application of ETIS at destination level and the interactions among stakeholders.
Background Name Interviewee Current position
Questions 1. What are the main activities of the organization? Is there any information in English? 2. Does the organization work together with the Tourism sector? Did you know about the ETIS pilot project 3 years ago in Zuid Limburg? 3. What is your opinion on sustainable tourism and the aim of Zuid Limburg to become a sustainable destination? 4. Which role environmental organizations should have to help the destination become sustainable? 5. What do you think of an initiative to bring together different stakeholders (government, tourism businesses, utilities suppliers, NGOs) of the region and making them participant of managing the destination? 6. According to you, who should be responsible for measuring sustainability in the destination? a) b) c) d) e)
Province Municipalities Tourism Board Should be done in cooperation with different stakeholders, including private sector Other:
7. Do you think sustainable tourism indicators can be useful instruments to inform policy and monitor tourism performance? 8. Which could be a good incentive for destinations to implement a sustainable tourism indicator system? (more than one option can be selected)
130
For Public sector A certification or label A yearly award at European level Funding available to implement system An online platform where to collect data, benchmark and receive expert support? Other
9. Would you like to add anything else?
Thank you for your valuable time and contributions. Maria Laura Gasparini
131
For Private sector A certification or label A yearly award at European level Funding available to implement system An online platform where to collect data, benchmark and receive expert support? Other
4) Template Zuid Limburg Stakeholders Semi-structure interview National Level Tourism Associations Aim of the research: Investigate the relevance of indicators as management tools for tourist destinations in their transition to sustainability. Determinate if indicators support decision making regarding future sustainable tourism policies and if they lead to changes in policy. I am taking Zuid Limburg as Case Study to illustrate the application of ETIS at destination level and the interactions among stakeholders.
Background Name Interviewee Current Position and duties with regards to tourism policies
Questions 1. About (the organization): When was it form? Who are its members? What are its main activities? Is it involved in policymaking or advising? Is it a non-governmental body? 2. How is the Tourism and Hospitality sector organized in the Netherlands at national level? Which are the main players? (Ministry or Ministries with competences, other organisms or institutions? 3. How is the tourism sector organized at provincial and municipal level, and how is the relationship with national level? 4. Is the sustainability of tourism (environmental, social and economic dimensions) considered a relevant issue? 5. Are there current initiatives at national level: for example, a Sustainable Tourism Policy, Tourism Strategy, etc? If yes, what are the main objectives of this policy or strategy? 6. Do you think sustainable tourism indicators (such as ETIS) can be useful instruments to inform policy and monitor tourism performance? 7. Why do you think it’s beneficial for tourism businesses to adopt sustainable practices? 8. Which could be good incentives for more businesses to operate responsibly? 9. According to you, who should be responsible for measuring tourism sustainability in the destination? a) b) c) d) e)
Province Municipalities Tourism Board Should be done in cooperation with different stakeholders, including private sector Other:
132
10. Would you like to add anything else? Any material to read or person to contact?
Thank you for your valuable time and contributions. Maria Laura Gasparini
133
25/1/2018
Sustainable Tourism Indicator Systems as policymaking tools: The Case of ETIS
Sustainable Tourism Indicator Systems as policymaking tools: The Case of ETIS Aim of the research: Investigate the relevance of indicators as management tools for tourist destinations in their transition to sustainability. Determinate the usefulness of indicator systems such as ETIS, as instruments to formulate and implement tourism policy at destination level. I am taking Zuid Limburg (Netherlands) as Case Study to illustrate the implementation of ETIS and I intend to complete my analysis with the experience of other ETIS award-winner destinations, to be able to answer my research question. * Required
Please fill out according to your destination's experience 1. Your Name, Current Position and role during ETIS implementation *
2. Your email address *
3. 1) Was the municipal/provincial government involved from the beginning in the ETIS pilot project? * Mark only one oval. Yes No Other: 4. 2) Which were the main problems encountered during the entire process? (multiple answers are possible) * Check all that apply. Data availability Indicators not relevant Lack of time Lack of resources Lack of interest Measuring procedure not clear Difficult to work with different stakeholders Other:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wC2xIxIrYkumh-Wz841dNO0ZrHP2v6557nj6RqIzEpk/edit
1/4
25/1/2018
Sustainable Tourism Indicator Systems as policymaking tools: The Case of ETIS
5. 3) "Sustainable tourism indicators like ETIS are useful instruments to inform tourism policy and monitor the tourism performance in the destination" * Mark only one oval. 1
2
3
4
5
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
6. 4) Were the results from ETIS used to evaluate the destination tourism policy? (Yes/No and additional comments on how were used) *
7. 5) Were the results from ETIS incorporated in a new sustainable tourism policy or strategy? (Yes/No and additional comments on how were incorporated) *
8. 6) Is the destination still using the ETIS system to monitor, measure and improve sustainable tourism practices? If not, why? *
9. 7) If ETIS is still in use, who is leading and financing the data collection and analysis? Check all that apply. National Government Provincial Government Local Government Local Tourism Board Private sector Other
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wC2xIxIrYkumh-Wz841dNO0ZrHP2v6557nj6RqIzEpk/edit
2/4
25/1/2018
Sustainable Tourism Indicator Systems as policymaking tools: The Case of ETIS
10. 8) According to you, who should lead the process of sustainability measuring in the destination? (a combination of options is possible, but specifying who should be the main responsible) * Check all that apply. National Government Provincial Government Municipalities Local Tourism Board Private sector Other: 11. 9) According to you, which are the main roles of sustainable tourism indicators? (multiple answers are possible) * Check all that apply. Raise Awareness about sustainability issues Assist in the Formulation of Tourism Policies Assist in the Implementation of Tourism Policies and Plans Evaluate Tourism Policies and Plans Improve management of the destination Share the destination's management responsibility with all stakeholders Detect trends over time Detect gaps in the statistic/ information systems Allow benchmarking accross destinations Other: 12. 10) In your opinion, how can sustainable tourism indicators be linked with tourism policy to ensure its use? (multiple answers are possible) * Check all that apply. Selecting the indicators at the same time as designing the tourism strategy Making sure the indicators selected match the current tourism policy objectives Aligning the tourism policy with other relevant policies (transport, environment, spatial planning, etc) Involving the local and/or provincial policymakers in the Stakeholders Working Group Involving local and/ or provincial politicians in the Stakeholders Working Group Other: 13. 11) Which could be good incentives for destinations to implement a sustainable tourism indicator system? (multiple answers are possible) * Check all that apply. A certification or label A yearly award An online platform where to collect data, benchmark and receive expert support Funding available to implement the system Education and capacity building Other: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wC2xIxIrYkumh-Wz841dNO0ZrHP2v6557nj6RqIzEpk/edit
3/4
25/1/2018
Sustainable Tourism Indicator Systems as policymaking tools: The Case of ETIS
14. Would you like to add anything else regarding the relationship of indicators with tourism policy? Or make any suggestion?
Powered by
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wC2xIxIrYkumh-Wz841dNO0ZrHP2v6557nj6RqIzEpk/edit
4/4
Section
Criteria
Indicator Reference # A.1.1
A. Destination Management
A.1 Sustainable Tourism Public Policy
A.1.1.1 A.1.1.2
A.2 Sustainable Tourism Management in Tourism Enterprises
A.3 Customer Satisfaction
A.2.1
A.2.1.1 A.3.1 A.3.1.1
A.4 Information and Communication
A.4.1 A.4.1.1 B.1.1
ETIS Indicators 2013 Percentage of the destination with a sustainable tourism strategy/action plan, with agreed monitoring, development control and evaluation arrangement Percentage of residents satisfied with their involvement and their influence in the planning and development of tourism Percentage of the destination represented by a destination management organisation Percentage of tourism enterprises/establishments in the destination using a voluntary verified certification/labelling for environmental/quality/sustainability and/or CSR measures Number of tourism enterprises/establishments with sustainability reports in accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Percentage of visitors that are satisfied with their overall experience in the destination Percentage of repeat/return visitors (within 5 years) The percentage of visitors who note that they are aware of destination sustainability effortsPercentage The percentage of businesses that communicate their sustainability efforts to visitors in their products, marketing, or branding Number of tourist nights per month
B.1.1.1 B.1 Tourism Flow (volume & value) at Destination
B.1.1.2 B.1.1.3 B.1.2
B. Economic Value
B.2.1 B.2.1.1 B.2 Tourism Enterprise(s) Performance
B.2.1.2 B.2.2 B.2.2.1
B.3 Quantity and Quality of Employee
B.4 Safety and Healthy
B.3.1 B.3.1.1 B.3.1.2 B.4.1 B.4.1.1 B.5.1
B.5 Tourism Supply Chain
B.5.1.1 B.5.1.2 C.1.1
C.1 Community/Social Impact
C.1.1.1 C.1.1.2 C.1.1.3 C.2.1
C. Social and Cultural Impact
C.2 Gender Equality
C.2.1.1 C.2.1.2 C.3.1
C.3.1.1 C.3 Equality/Accessibility C.3.2
C.3.2.1
C.4 Protecting and Enhancing Cultural Heritage, Local Identity and Assets
C.4.1 C.4.1.1 C.4.1.2 D.1.1
D.1 Reducing Transport Impact
D.1.1.1 D.1.2
Relative contribution of tourism to the destination's economy (% GDP) Number of ‘same day’ visitors in high season and low season Daily spending per same day visitor Daily spending per tourist (accommodation, food and drinks, other services) Average length of stay of tourists (nights) Average length of stay of same day visitors (hours) Percentage of ten largest tourism enterprises involved in destination management/cooperative marketing Occupancy rate in commercial accommodation per month and average for the year Average price per room in the destination Direct tourism employment as percentage of total employment Percentage of jobs in tourism that are seasonal Percentage of tourism enterprises providing student internships Percentage of tourism enterprises inspected for fire safety in the last year Percentage of tourists who register a complaint with the police Percentage of tourism enterprises actively taking steps to source local, sustainable, and fair trade goods and services Percentage of the destination covered by a policy promoting local, sustainable and/or fair trade products and services Percentage of tourism enterprises sourcing a minimum of 25% of food and drink from local/regional producers Number of tourists/visitors per 100 residents Percentage of residents who are satisfied with tourism in the destination (per month/season) Number of beds available in commercial visitor accommodation per 100 residents Number of second/rental homes per 100 homes Percentage of men and women employed in the tourism sector Percentage of tourism enterprises where the general manager position is held by a woman Average wage in tourism for women compared to average wage for men (sorted by tourism job type) Percentage of commercial accommodation with rooms accessible to people with disabilities and/or participating in recognised accessibility schemes
Percentage of destination served by public transport that is accessible to people with disabilities and people with specific access requirements Percentage of visitor attractions that are accessible to people with disabilities and/or participating in recognised accessibility schemes
Percentage of visitors satisfied with the accessibility of the destination for those with disabilities or specific access requirements Percentage of the destination covered by a policy or plan that protects cultural heritage Percentage of residents who have positive or negative views on the impact of tourism on destination identity Percentage of the destination’s biggest events that are focused on traditional/local culture and assets Percentage of tourists and same day visitors using different modes of transport to arrive at the destination (public/private and type) Percentage of visitors using local/soft mobility/public transport services to get around the destination Average travel (km) by tourists to and from home or average travel (km) from the previous destination to the current destination
Is the Destination Unit of Measure Suggested Target Monitoring this Indicator Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
No
%
Yes Yes
% €
Yes
€
Yes Yes
# of nights # of hours
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
€
Yes
%
Yes Yes
% %
Yes
%
No
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
# of tourists/visitors
Yes
%
Yes
# of beds
Yes
# of second/rental
Yes
%
No
%
No
% parity
Yes
%
No
%
Yes
%
No
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
km
Destination Results
D.1.2.1 D.2.1 D.2 Climate Change
D.2.1.1 D.2.1.2 D.3.1
D.3 Solid Waste Management
D.3.1.1 D.3.2 D.4.1
D. Environmental Impact
D.4 Sewage Treatment D.4.1.1 D.5.1 D.5.1.1 D.5 Water Management D.5.1.2
Average travel (km) by same day visitors from and to destination Percentage of tourism enterprises involved in climate change mitigation schemes—such as: CO2 offset, low energy systems, etc.—and “adaptation” responses and actions Percentage of the destination included in climate change adaptation strategy or planning Percentage of tourism accommodation and attraction infrastructure located in “vulnerable zones” Waste volume produced by destination (tonnes per resident per year or per month) Percentage of tourism enterprises separating different types of waste Volume of waste recycled (percent or per resident per year) Percentage of sewage from the destination treated at least at secondary level prior to discharge Percentage of commercial accommodation connected to central sewage system and/or employing tertiary sewage treatment Fresh water consumption per tourist night compared to general population water consumption per person night Percentage of tourism enterprises with low-flow shower heads and taps and/or dual flush toilets/waterless urinals Percentage of tourism enterprises using recycled water
D.5.1.3 D.6.1 D.6 Energy Usage
D.6.1.1 D.6.1.2 D.7.1
D.7 Landscape and Biodiversity Management
D.7.1.1 D.7.1.2 D.8.1
D.8 Light and Noise Management
D.9 Bathing Water Quality
D.8.1.1
D.9.1 D.9.1.1
Percentage of water use derived from recycled water in the destination Energy consumption per tourist night compared to general population energy consumption per person night Percentage of tourism enterprises that have switched to low-energy lighting Annual amount of energy consumed from renewable sources (Mwh) as a percentage of overall energy consumption Percentage of destination (area in km2) that is designated for protection Percentage of local enterprises in the tourism sector actively supporting protection, conservation, and management of local biodiversity and landscapes. Percentage of destination covered by a biodiversity management and monitoring plan The destination has policies in place that require tourism enterprises to minimise light and noise pollution Percentage of the destination and percentage of population covered by local strategy and/or plans to reduce noise and light pollution Level of contamination per 100 ml (faecal coliforms, campylobacter) Number of days beach/shore closed due to contamination
Yes
km
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
kg
Yes
%
Yes
%
No
%
No
%
No
L
Yes
%
Yes
%
No
%
No
%
Yes
%
No
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
%
Yes
Yes/No
Yes
%
No
ml
Yes
# of days
A. Destination management
Section
Criteria
Indicator Reference #
A.1 Sustainable Tourism Management in Tourism Enterprises
A.1.1
A.2.1
B. Economic Value
B.2 Tourism Enterprise(s) Performance
B.3 Quantity and Quality of Employment B.4 Tourism Supply Chain
A.2.2
Percentage of repeat/return visitors (within 5 years)
B.1.1
Number of tourist nights per month
B.1.2
Number of same day visitors per month
B.1.3
Relative contribution of tourism to the destination's economy (% GDP)
B.1.4
Daily spending per overnight tourist
B.1.5
Daily spending per same day visitor
B.2.1
Average length of stay of tourists (nights)
B.2.2 B.3.1
Percentage of jobs in tourism that are seasonal
B.4.1
Percentage of locally produced food, drink, goods and services sourced by the destinations tourism enterprises
C.1.2 C.1 Community/Social Impact
C.2 Health and Safety
C.1.3
Unit of Measure
%
%
% % Number of tourists % Number of beds Number of second homes
C.3.1
Percentage of men and women employed in the tourism sector
%
C.4.3
C.5.1 C.5.2 D.1.1 D.1.2 D.1.3 D.1.4 D.2.1
D.2 Climate Change D.2.2 D.3.1 D.3.2 D.3.3 D.4.1 D.5.1 D.5 Water Management
%
%
C.4.4
D.4 Sewage Treatment
%
Percentage of tourists who register a complaint with the police
C.4.2
D.3 Solid Waste Management
% Local currency Local currency Number of nights
C.2.1
C.4.1
D.1 Reducing Transport Impact
Percentage of residents who are satisfied with tourism in the destination (per month/season) Number of beds available in commercial accomodation establishment per 100 residents
Number of nights Number of persons
Number of second homes per 100 homes
C.3.2
C.5 Protecting and Enhancing Cultural Heritage, Local Identity and cultural Assets
Number of tourists per 100 residents
%
C.1.4
C.3 Gender Equality
C.4 Inclusion/Accessibility
Occupancy rate in commercial accommodation establishments per month and average for the year Direct tourism employment as percentage of total employment in the destination
B.3.2
C.1.1
C. Social and Cultural Impact
Percentage of tourism enterprises/establishments in the destination using a voluntary certification/labelling for environmental/quality/sustainability and/or Corporate Social Responsability measures Percentage of tourists and same day visitors that are satisfied with their overall experience in the destination
Is the Destination Monitoring this Indicator
A.2 Customer Satisfaction
B.1 Tourism Flow (volume & value) at the Destination
D. Environmental Impact
ETIS Indicators 2016
D.5.2 D.5.3 D.6.1
Percentage of tourism enterprises where the general manager position is held by a woman Percentage of rooms in commercial accomodation establishments accessible for people with disabilities Percentage of commercial accommodation establishments participating in recognised accessibility information schemes Percentage of public transport that is accessible to people with disabilities and with specific access requirements Percentage of tourist attractions that are accessible to people with disabilities and/or participating in recognised accessibility information schemes Percentage of residents that are satisfied with the impacts of tourism on destination's identity Percentage of the destination’s events that are focused on traditional/local culture and heritage Percentage of tourists and same day visitors using different modes of transport to arrive at the destination Percentage of tourists and same day visitors using local/soft mobility/public transport services to get around the destination Average travel (km) by tourists and same day visitors from home to the destination Average carbon footprint of tourists and same day visitors travelling from home to the destination Percentage of tourism enterprises involved in climate change mitigation schemes—such as: CO2 offset, low energy systems, etc.—and “adaptation” responses and actions Percentage of tourism accommodation and attraction infrastructure located in “vulnerable zones” Waste production per tourist night compared to general population waste production per person (kilos) Percentage of tourism enterprises separating different types of waste Percentage of total waste recycled per tourist compared to total waste recycled per resident per year Percentage of sewage from the destination treated at least at secondary level prior to discharge Water consumption per tourist night compared to general population water consumption per resident night Percentage of tourism enterprises taking actions to reduce water consumption Percentage of tourism enterprises using recycled water Energy consumption per tourist night compared to general population energy consumption per resident night
% % % % % % % % % km kg % % kg % % % Litres % % %, coefficient
Suggested Destination Target Results
D.6 Energy Usage
D.6.2 D.6.3
D.7 Landscape and Biodiversity Management
D.7.1
Percentage of tourism enterprises that take actions to reduce energy consumption Percentage of annual amount of energy consumed from renewable sources (Mwh) compared to overall energy consumption at destination level per year Percentage of local enterprises in the tourism sector actively supporting protection, conservation, and management of local biodiversity and landscapes.
% %
%
