Tourism Enterprise. David Leslie

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ self-catering operations not managed by an agency are purchased from local stores, usually a supermarket i.e. potentially lowest cost price.

      In terms of the purchasing spend of these enterprises by far the majority is accounted for by major regional suppliers. However the majority of the enterprises did indicate that they favour and would prefer to purchase local produce and products. The key point here being ‘prefer’ rather than actually do. Yet, as Spenceley and Rylance (2012, p. 139) argue:

      … supporting the community or society which the tourism businesses operate within is important for strengthening the efficiency of their supply chains for both employees and fresh produce, increasing the number of quality activities available to tourists enabling them to spend more locally, as well as improving the security of the tourism establishment.

      Further supporting such argument, as noted in Table 2.1, is the significant proportion of visitor spend attributed to food and beverage services and shopping, e.g. souvenirs and gifts; for example purchases from A & C outlets which in the LDNP account for approximately 80% of the sales of the producers of A & C living in the area. These areas are also identified as a facet of tourism supply chains (see Tapper and Font, 2004). The research into this area found that many of the food producing enterprises showed an awareness of the sources of their purchases; as a number of interviewees said: ‘ingredients are bought locally but not produced locally’. One in four of the cafe managers said they purchase their ingredients from local wholesalers but were vague as to the primary source. As regards arts and crafts artisans, it was interesting to identify that the majority considered their biggest competition was not from other producers but ‘imported’ similar, cheaper products, a view confirmed by two retail outlets who affirmed they stock very few (or no) local products due to the prices involved; as the managers noted: ‘we buy in bulk to gain much lower prices; we do not favour local artists as it costs more to stock their products’. However, the majority of outlets offered a different perspective, as the following quotes from managers demonstrate:

      • ‘Local paintings sell better than others, a lot of the products are bought by locals.’

      • ‘Lots of local art exhibits sold, sales very good.’

      In addition, as one retailer remarked: ‘We do not buy locals’ work; we display items and take some commission.’ This is a practice that can also be adopted by tourism enterprises whereby in liaison with the artisans they offer to display appropriate items for sale in their own premises on a commission basis. A small number of the arts/crafts producers did work on this basis with some of the hotels and restaurants though again this was evidently practised far more by rural enterprises than their urban counterparts i.e.:

Data set	2001	2011
Arts displayed for sale	30%	15%
Local products in service	18%	10%

      Tour Operations

      Given the primary focus of the study was on the EP of tourism enterprises it is germane that SSCM is particularly pertinent to best practice by TOs (Leslie, 2012a). As noted, TOs have a major influence on the development of destinations, indeed the publication Which, produced a special edition titled ‘The worst resorts in the world’ (1992 cited in EIU, 1993) that highlighted problems arising from a lack of control on development and the multiplicity of players. Major factors which partly account for ‘overdevelopment leading to environmental damage through tourism.’ (EIU, 1993, p. 67). The extent to which such damage is attributable to TOs is a matter of debate but their adoption of SSCM might in some ways address some of the ‘ills’ which have and still do arise. But the ongoing popularity of many resorts brings into question whether the tourists themselves see such overdevelopment as a negative. Research into such perceptions is hard to find and thus Guley’s study (1994) is all the more welcome. The research involved a survey of perceptions of tourists visiting a popular Mediterranean resort undertaken in 1977 and then repeated in 1989. A key finding was that the perceptions of the 1989 tourists with regard to the physical environment found one significant difference which was a drop by 5% of visitors who considered the nature of the area to be unspoiled. However, expansion of popular coastal resorts invariably brings with it problems; for example Mallorca, notably popular with UK residents, went from an agricultural based economy in the 1960s to become dependent on tourism by the 1980s, which was greatly facilitated by TOs (Sykes, 1995). Major problems identified included the drinking water supply, waste disposal and limited attention to conservation. Similarly, Dodds (2007) argues that the popularity of Malta and the Balearics rather led to ad hoc tourism development throughout the 1960s and 1970s but began to decline in the 1980s due to degradation of the environment by unplanned, uncontrolled expansion of the tourism supply. TOs promoted the destination and may be considered to some degree, certainly not totally, to be responsible though they were a major influence. But, as Dodds argues, government policies were less than effective due to prioritizing economic factors whilst primary failings included a lack of accountability in regard to implementing tourism policy, poor co-ordination and integration and a lack of involvement on the part of the local community in the process.

      Whilst such traditional resorts in and around the Mediterranean are decried as evidencing the ills of mass tourism this has not appeared to influence or stop such problems arising, e.g. touristic development of Turkey’s western Mediterranean coastline (see Erdogan, 2009). Nor are they by any means limited to traditional or latter day resorts of Europe; witness the Canary Isles, Belize (see Holden, 2005) or the increasing number of resorts in Eastern Asia (see Pleumarom, 2009). As Bianchi (2004) argued, in the case of the Canary Islands, there is a clear need for the active involvement of all stakeholders, their participation and ownership of policy and actions and that implementation is subsequently monitored, reviewed and adapted to changing circumstances if problems and negative impacts are to be ameliorated if not avoided. Though these factors are largely outside the scope of SSCM, one can see how full commitment to such a system can certainly make a positive contribution. In popular destinations where a national policy promoting ‘sustainable tourism’ has been developed, for example Malta and Calvia (Mallorca) in the early–mid 2000s, questions arise as to whether there was real commitment to sustainability or rather more a strategy designed for repackaging a destination experiencing declining demand (see Dodds, 2007). As Farsari et al. (2007) argue, sustainable tourism is quintessentially the ongoing promotion of tourism and that such policies, in the case of the Mediterranean at least, are more a response to saturation or decline in markets and an re-orientation to what is perceived as quality in tourism i.e. prices up/demand down. Further to this, going up-market through renovation and market repositioning may well be less sustainable given the tourists’ expectations and demands of higher standards and better services (Butler, 2007). The counterpoint to such critiques are the potential benefits, which over time can be substantial. As the WTTC et al. (2002) argue; for example:

      • The Balearic Islands were the poorest province in Spain in the early 1950s but due to tourism development and package holidays, by 2000 they were one of the richest (for a more recent appraisal see Dodds, 2007).

      • Due to tourism development the Maldives is no longer classified as a ‘lesser developed country’ and is essentially now totally dependent on tourism (29% direct GDP). This is a particularly interesting example, as Moosa’s (2009) study of the Maldives demonstrates. A new policy on tourism was introduced in 2009 which encouraged greater inward investment (including 100% ownership) whilst also seeking to become carbon neutral by 2020, including no use of fossil fuel and environmental impact assessments for all development. However, how can it be carbon neutral given the access factor for tourists? Furthermore, little attention appears given to the issue of waste and, more importantly from a community perspective, what of attention to a community integrated approach to tourism? Factors which all bring into question the claim to be aiming to be a totally ‘sustainable tourism’ destination and what is meant by this term.

      • Turkey’s СКАЧАТЬ