Tourism Enterprise. David Leslie

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ accorded to travel agents and tour operators (TOs) compared with their considered share of supply. TOs, in the form of local enterprises, were not present in the study though their presence was through, for example, coach tour operations. It is partly in recognition of this that they are the main focus in Chapter 3. The focus here on the other enterprises in supply (97%), commences with findings relating to the ownership of the enterprises, the type of business, current period of operation and includes insights on the properties involved. Following on from this, the annual turnover of the enterprises is considered prior to the findings and discussion on employment and recruitment. The final area covered is based on the findings into the background of the owners/managers themselves. As and where appropriate, outcomes of the related enquiries into food producers (FP) and arts and crafts (A & C) are included. To aid clarity, the data are generally considered and referred to as follows:

Table 2.1. General visitor spend by category (%).^a (Adapted from Leslie, 2007a.)

Sector	Day visitors	Domestic tourists
Accommodation	–	37
Retail – leisure shopping, souvenirs	12	11
Food and beverage operations	60	26
Attractions	13	5
Travel	16	20
Total	100	100

      ^aMinor differences in summation reflect rounding errors.

      • 2001, for the LDNP stage overall;

      • 2001 audits for those enterprises that took part in the extensive interviews;

      • 2006 for the rural enterprises in Scotland; and

      • 2011 (audits) for the predominantly urban-based enterprises interviewed in Scotland.

      Throughout the chapter, specific comments of participants are included both to highlight, as appropriate, their views and practice and to enliven the discourse. These comments are presented in quotes throughout the text. Before consideration of these areas, additional insights on these enterprises are provided by way of further background.

      The spatial distribution of tourism enterprises in any popular destination invariably reflects the general distribution of visitors and the strength of tourism demand in ‘honey pot’ areas. Not surprisingly therefore the study found that the rural enterprises were predominantly located in and around the most popular towns (the majority) and villages. For example, in the LDNP in 2001, 93% were located in the most popular areas, namely Keswick, Ambleside, Windermere and Bowness.

      In the LDNP sample, the proportion of serviced-accommodation (SA) operations with over ten, and more so those with over 30 (10%), rooms is above the UK’s national average. This suggests that the LDNP has a higher proportion of larger enterprises compared with other popular rural destinations and potentially that these enterprises are managing well, which reflects ongoing and robust visitor demand. However, the majority do have less than 15 rooms, which is similar to the EU statistic (69%) for rooms per accommodation operation (Leidner, 2004). Overall, these small enterprises account for by far the majority of total bed spaces in the area, which is not to be unexpected given that the ‘large hotel chains and brands only represent between 10 and 20 percent of the total room capacity in Europe.’ (Leidner, 2004, p. III). Over half of the guest houses (GH) in 2001, and most in 2006, were licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, which reflected the continuing upward trend in the UK to consume wine with meals. In some ways contrary to best EM practice, e.g. individual portions, another trend in the GH/Bed & Breakfast (BB) category was the increasing provision of tea/coffee making facilities (90%) and television (90%) in guest rooms and though to a lesser extent individual toiletries. As one owner remarked: ‘I am not happy providing tea and coffee in the room, prefer to offer early morning tea and coffee. Would like to create a “social” room for guests but have to have facilities in rooms for RAC/AA grading.’ The restaurant sector ranged from ‘tea shops’, and small cafes, in some instances with less than 16 covers, to comparatively large restaurant operations of more than 100 covers. Many of these enterprises produce their own products for service and also for retail hence these operations were also included in the study.

      The diversity to be found amongst the visitor attractions serves to illustrate the historic and cultural heritage in the LDNP, which rather dominated the survey of attractions in that Historic buildings and museums accounted for some 50% whilst A & C Centres/Galleries accounted for approximately 27%. Visitor numbers range from less than 10,000 to over 300,000 (the UK norm for the time was approximately 100,000) with the majority experiencing increased numbers during the 1990s; an overall growth of 30%. A number of attractions have developed since, one most notably the World of Beatrix Potter. Also, two other major developments in the area, one in the 1990s and the other 2000s, are Hayes Garden World and Lakeland, a major retail outlet for all things in the kitchen. Both of these retail outlets draw 1000s of visitors and are popular stopping places for coach tour parties. Further evidencing the popularity of the area is that between 1992 and 1998 there was an 11% increase in the number of pitches for caravan and camping sites in Cumbria.

      Ownership (see Table 2.2)

      The majority of enterprises are owner managed, single businesses (83%) and in many cases the family home, which is similar to Carlsen et al. (2001) and Garay and Font’s (2012) study into CSR and tourism enterprises in Catalonia (90%). This is a finding that is generally applicable to many of the food producers though they have a higher incidence of managers (12%). Further of note is a study into TOs based in Scotland, the majority of which were small operations and owner managed (84%) (Gaunt, 2004). The majority of the enterprises have Tourist Board grading (69%). In contrast, Garay and Font’s study included 24% with grading reflecting the different system operating in Spain. Demonstrating the trial and tribulations of successfully managing inns in rural areas is the finding that the Fringe Inns (see p. 6) have the highest incidence of new owners, which also reflects the more general pattern in the UK of change in both ownership and management in this sector, especially in the inns category.

      The 2006 sample evidences longer average ownership and lower turnover of ownership compared with the LDNP (which is at par with the average for hotels and inns in England (Leslie, 2001)). Also, it includes slightly more enterprises that are part of a company group. In comparison the attractions are less likely to be owner managed, more probably part of a local or national group and have charitable status, e.g. National Trust, Historic Scotland. A marked contrast is to be found with the 2011 set, 26% of which are single businesses with a manager and 50% are part of a company group. Otherwise they are very similar to the Scottish sample of 2006. Findings that overall are similar to the Scottish TOs; 29% had been established within the previous 5 years and 25% between 5 and 10 years (Gaunt, 2004).

      Factors identified as being influential as to why the owners were involved in the tourism/hospitality sector generally revolved round aspects of quality of life and are very similar with the findings of other research studies (see Cawley et al., 1999; Carlsen et al., 2001; Vernon et al., 2003; Garay and Font, 2012) namely:

      • family home;

      • attractiveness/quality of the physical environment of locality/wanted to live in this area. This factor would include ‘sustainability entrepreneurs’ whose values include being responsible for environmental and social aspects which are not seen as a cost or added extra (see Badulescu and Badulescu, 2012);

      • manage own business; and

      • took over family business.

Table 2.2. Category of ownership and duration.

СКАЧАТЬ