Tourism Enterprise. David Leslie
Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Tourism Enterprise - David Leslie страница 14

Название: Tourism Enterprise

Автор: David Leslie

Издательство: Ingram

Жанр: Зарубежная деловая литература

Серия:

isbn: 9781789244601

isbn:

СКАЧАТЬ All the categories of supply in the LDNP stage are included here, as well as the overall figures for 2006 and 2011. The reason for this is to provide for comparative analysis across the spectrum of enterprises. Though this is just the 2001 stage the data for the different categories of 2006 are similar. Reference to Table 2.6 draws attention to the fact that many of these owners, for whatever reason, recognize a benefit to being a member of their respective Tourist Board (TB). Largely, if not solely, this is accounted for by the fact that if they wish both to gain accredited grading status of their operation and be promoted by the TB they must take up membership.

CategoryResponse (%)
Where is proprietor originally from: i.e. home
Local6
Not local but within Cumbria8
NW England36
NE England6
Mid-England12
SW England12
SE England10
If not originally from LDNP when did they move into LDNP?
1970s22
1980s22
1990s26
Period of time involved in the hospitality sector [years]
5 or less32
6–108
11–1512
16–206
21 +36
Period of time in current position [years]
1–340
4–720
8–104
11–146
15–2014
21+10
Membership of professional bodies
HCIMA (now Institute of Hospitality (IH))28
British Hospitality Association6
Licensed Victuallers Association4
Tourism Society2

      Further analysis of the data across the categories opens up wide scope for discussion; too much for here given the constraints of space. Even so, a number of such differences are highlighted as follows:

images

      aSA= Serviced accommodation; R= Restaurants; I= Inns; A= Attractions; C= Caravan and camping sites; S= Self-catering.

      bFringe study – 46% of serviced accommodation enterprises were members of the CTB.

      • Membership of green organizations is most apparent among the owners of self-catering operations.

      • The urban enterprises are comparatively the least likely (except for restaurants) to be members of a TB and most likely (except for Caravan/Camping operations) to be involved in a local community group.

      • Attractions are the most likely to be members of a Tourism Forum.

      • Given the rural locality of 2001 and 2005 one might anticipate higher memberships of green organizations. However this clearly is not so and similar to Carlsen et al.’s (2001) study. This is perhaps especially notable given that within their sample there were a number of wildlife/nature-based enterprises and one might readily speculate that they would be members of green groups.

      Overall, in general the owners/managers of these tourism enterprises are not members of professional associations (with the exception of a TB), and perhaps one in three is involved in a business forum. One might speculate with some confidence that the owners do not see themselves for the most part as being part of the ‘tourism industry’, and in many cases perhaps not really a part of the business community.

      Further of note is the low membership of green organizations which might be considered surprising given that for many owners in rural areas the attractiveness of the location was identified as a primary reason for their enterprise. Thus one might expect higher involvement in such organizations. However, the low level of memberships was also identified by Gaunt (2004) in her study into Scottish based TOs, which found that 17% were members of a green organization (similarly Erdogan and Baris, 2006) though their study was wholly based on larger hotels i.e. 40 bedroom plus). Again perhaps such a low figure is surprising given that many of the operations of these TOs involve tours around Scotland and walking or cycling tours. In contrast Carlsen et al.’s (2001) study into family run tourism enterprises in Australia found that 39% were members of a conservation organization and did identify a correlation between such membership and the introduction of EM practices.

      Summary

      In total these enterprises are predominantly family owned and managed with low numbers of employees; as such they are mainly micro-enterprises. This is significant on two counts; first it establishes that their profile correlates with the wider statistics that tourism enterprises are mainly small or micro-businesses, and second, that the data gained through the research is more widely applicable in that it is far more representative of the tourism sector than research findings based on international and national businesses, predominantly in the hotel sector. Even so, there is some variance between the data sets. The audits of 2011 given the composition of the sample and comparative size of the enterprises are not that representative of the sector as a whole, which does include a higher proportion of medium sized enterprises, larger hotels based on room numbers, and those that are part of a company group. This sample is thus a little more representative of the small share in total tourism supply accorded to medium sized enterprises, mainly the national and international companies. The data on these enterprises may therefore reveal comparable differences with Stage 1 and Stage 2; such as it is often found in studies and examples that it is the major companies which are apparently addressing their EP, adopting EM and more broadly CSR related practices. If this is the case such differences will become apparent in the following chapters as quite possibly will the validity of the argument propounded by the WTTC et al. (2002) that a major barrier to progress in sustainable development is the multitude of SMEs that numerically dominate supply and, this in part at least, accounts for the lack of accountability of both the private and the public sector for tourism development.

      The diversity to be found in tourism supply in any popular destination is well represented by these enterprises, ranging from a farmhouse BB operation of two rooms to a 40-bedroom 5-star hotel to a small attraction receiving less than 10,000 visitors per annum. Further, within any one category there is potential for segmentation based on capacity or turnover or type of locality and also reason for ownership. This in itself brings into question the efficacy of policies and initiatives directed at tourism enterprises per se, policies which all too often appear to see tourism as some form of homogenous activity.

      Employment on the part of most enterprises is clearly limited but when collated for any popular tourist destination will be substantial. This is invaluable to any locale where there has been a continuing decline in more traditional opportunities for work such as in rural areas wherein the traditional mainstays of the economy, such as farming, have declined. However, continued tourism development and expansion over time in rural or coastal areas will lead to employment outstripping the area’s labour supply and the importation of labour. The danger here is the impact if the area’s popularity starts and continues to decline. This can lead to substantial socio-economic problems as has and continues to be evident in many of the cold-water resorts of the past century. Thus it is all the more important that these enterprises seek to support and promote interrelationships with other aspects of the local economy, local enterprises and the community. Even so, in such popular rural locations at some point the continued promotion of tourism by local and/or national government, Area Tourists Boards and Destination Management Organizations (invariably largely funded by the taxpayers) on the basis that this will generate local employment СКАЧАТЬ