the use of typologies in tourism planning: problems and conflicts

the Use of tyPologIes In toUrIsm PlannIng: Problems and Conflicts

Harry CoccossisUniversity of Thessaly, Volos, Greece

Mary E. ConstantoglouUniversity of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece

AbstractTourism is a worldwide socioeconomic phenomenon. Its environmental, social and economic aspects have been for years at the centre of interest of policy making and research communities. Sustainable tourism is a concept that mainly reflects the need for comprehensive analysis, integrated planning and management of tourism. In this respect, it is important to develop appropriate analytical and policy tools for tourism, particularly to reflect the different conditions, characteristics and patterns of tourism development in geographic space. Spatial typologies for tourism can be an effective tool for this purpose. The main scope of this chapter is to analyse the concept, the need and the use of typologies in the overall planning process and in the tourism planning process specifically.

Keywords: Tourism typologies, policy formulation and implementation, planning, sustainable tourism development

1. Introduction Tourism is without doubt one of the most important forces shaping our world (Cohen and Kennedy, 2000). In the post-war period, it is one of the more dynamically developing sectors of the world economy. It holds, worldwide, the fourth place among the most important industries of export of goods and services, and in this respect it has growing importance for many countries as it is recognised as the largest export earner in the world and an important provider of foreign exchange and employment. This is the main reason why tourism is characterised as an ‘industry’. Tourism as an industry has one basic characteristic which makes it different from all other industries: the places of production and consumption coincide spatially. Another distinct characteris-tic of tourism is its multiple linkages to other economic activities and sectors, thus having strong multiplier effects. In this way, it can contribute to economic

274 H. Coccossis, M. E. Constantoglou

growth in destination areas and spread the benefits over a wider area, leading to regional growth. In a period when globalisation is leading increasingly to cultural homogenisation, tourism can contribute to the preservation of cul-tures (Cohen and Kennedy, 2000). The WTO (1999) recognises tourism’s poten-tial in ‘contributing to economic development, international understanding, peace prosperity and universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all’. Additionally, tourism is contributing to the well-being of tourists by giving them restorative holidays that fulfil many human needs (WTO, 1999).

According to forecasts of the World Tourism Organisation (2007), tourism is expected to grow further in the future. Tourism is a world-wide socio-economic phenomenon stemming from the human need for leisure, contact with nature and the desire to visit new places and cultures. The growth of tourism is an outcome of many factors, such as rising standards of living, improvements in transport, growth of disposable income and availability of free time, the ‘industrialisation’ of tourism, etc. Its growth is associated with environmental, cultural, economic and social factors. This is the main reason why on many occasions, tourism is described and/or characterised as a multifaceted sector.

Tourism has both positive and negative impacts (much as any other industry) on the destination where it is developed. Positive impacts are often evidenced in the local economy, while they can also contribute to regional development. However, negative impacts can lead to a decrease of tourist activity. Tourist attractions, according to Butler (1980), are not infinite and timeless but should be viewed and treated as finite and possibly non-renewable resources.

The recognition of the impact that tourism has in destination areas is a crucial parameter in the decision-making process regarding tourism. This process is essential so that tourism’s sustainability in a destination area can be ensured.

In general, the growth of international tourism significantly outpaces the growth of the global economy. In a period of about fifty years, tourism has increased at an average rate of 4.6% a year, the number of international arriv-als growing from 25 million in 1950 to over 846 million in 2006 (WTO, 2006). This substantial growth in tourism activity clearly marks tourism as one of the most remarkable economic and social phenomena of the past century.

Tourism is a complex phenomenon which shapes, and is shaped by, all forces (natural, cultural, economical and sociological) at the place where it is devel-oped. Therefore, its structure, form, dynamics and extent in time and space are unique to each destination area. In addition, its impact on society, the economy and the environment are also unique in each place. Therefore, plan-ning for tourism development is essential in order for tourism to be developed in a sustainable way.

Tourism policy, in an ideal situation, should be specific for each and every case (destination area) in order to be effective and the goal of sustainable

275The Use of Typologies in Tourism Planning

development to be achieved. However, it is often the case that tourism policy is developed at a national or regional level where there are often the resources, advantages of scale and administrative efficiency from a public policy perspec-tive. This brings into perspective the issue of deciding on the goals, principles and guidelines for tourism development for a number of destination areas, often with different characteristics, pressures and prospects. Looking across destinations in terms of similarities and dissimilarities is essential, not only for understanding complexity but also for organising action.

Human beings have a unique ability (compared to every other species on the planet) to organise knowledge and thoughts. This is one of the most basic processes of the human brain. Lakoff (1987) underlines this fact by stating that ‘without the ability to categorise we could not function at all’. In the case of tourism, typologies can help in creating an effective and comprehensive for-mulation of policy towards sustainability. Typologies in tourism can assist in organising cases-destinations in groups where each group can be constructed by cases which are more or less similar to each other in terms of the type of tourism development, its evolution and control. Such similarities can be defined a priori and be relevant to the analysis and the goals to be achieved. The whole process can be automated by using the latest technological inno-vations, together with the latest knowledge provided by mathematics and modern geography. By using those advances, planning for tourism can have realistic and achievable goals. This process can assist and facilitate the way of thinking, deciding and acting on the part of the decision makers. Similarly, policy making and implementation can be more effective, comprehensive and achievable.

The main aim of this chapter is to review the main efforts which have been made towards the creation of tourism typologies. Although several typologies have been made on the side of demand (tourist-centric), this chapter concen-trates on those of supply, which are destination/space-centric as they have to deal with the characteristics of the destination area

2. The Concept of Sustainable Tourism The concept of development has been a subject of criticism and interpreta-tion with different perspectives dominating, depending on time, place and the system of broader societal values (see Figure 1). In the second half of the 20th century, the concept of sustainability has been brought to the forefront of the social agenda, although its origins can be traced back in time (Casagrandi and Rinaldi, 2002).

Technological innovation and rapid economic growth, mostly after World War II, raised a lot of concerns about the negative impact of human activities on natural ecosystems and resources worldwide. This led the world society in the early 1980s to adopt a new term: ‘sustainable development’ at the World


Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The main idea was that development should be con-sidered via a long-term perspective balancing economic efficiency goals with those of social equity and environmental conservation. So the environment was brought to the forefront of social concerns.

Figure 1: The Concept of Sustainability

Tourism as an industry has a tremendous capacity to generate growth in destination areas. Like any other activity, tourism has an impact on the econ-omy, society and the environment at the places where it is developed. This has raised concerns over its long-term effects, particularly as they relate to sustainability, raising a need for environment-friendly practices in develop-ment, planning and policies for tourism (Saarinen, 2006). The application of sustainability principles in tourism lead to the concept of ‘sustainable tourism development’, in other words, the principles and conditions for the devel-opment of tourism at a particular destination in a way to ensure a balance between the goals of economic and social development and environmental conservation (Coccossis, 1996; Coccossis and Nijkamp ,1995). This contests the mainstream growth model which is based on development, industrialisation and the achievement of economies of scale, usually evident in the form of organised mass tourism (Hardi, 1997). Sustainability in tourism recognises the need to adopt principles and rules in tourism development. At the present time, sustainability in tourism has gained substantial momentum and can be linked to almost all kinds and scales of tourism activities and environments (Clarke, 1997).

At the same time, there is also increasing criticism of the idea, its practises and its usability (Liu, 2003; Sharpley, 2000; Saarinen, 2006). Butler (1999) ques-tions whether the current discussions on sustainable tourism development are anything new.


The definition of sustainable tourism has been described as complex, norma-tive, imprecise and not operational, while some are even wondering whether it leads to a fuzzy picture with conflicting interests (WCED, 1987; Duffy, 2002; Wall, 1997). In the bibliography, there are two basic trends for the concept of sustainability in tourism: sustainable tourism and sustainable tourism development. The two are not interchangeable. ‘Sustainable development in the context of tourism could be taken as: tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community, environment) in such a manner and at a such a scale that it remains viable over an indefinite period and does not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical) in which it exists to such a degree that it prohibits the success-ful development and well-being of other activities and processes. That is not the same as sustainable tourism which may be thought of as tourism which is in a form which can maintain its viability in an area for an indefinite period of time.’ (Butler, 1993). The difference between the two concepts lies in the emphasis on maintaining growth and development versus development of a particular type, form and characteristics of tourism in an area.

Tourism sustainability is also key in the search for a more productive and harmonious relationship between three basic elements: the tourist-guest, the host society and the environment. This relationship is a dynamic one. The achievement of this desirable harmony depends upon the ability of the host region to accept, absorb and adapt to changes (impacts) which come as a result of tourism development. It is obvious that such an ability is a function of the characteristics and the special features of each destination but also of appro-priate action (policies). For the host society, economic efficiency is to be sought assuring positive social relations between hosts and guests. Positive attitudes on the side of host societies intensify the quality of the tourist experience offered and contribute positively to competitiveness, and the attractiveness of the destination (Fredline and Faulkner, 2000). In the last twenty years, there has been an increasing interest on the part of tourists in sustainable tourism development (Jennings, 2004), as the demand is changing. Tourists are becom-ing interested in more ‘independent’ journeys which they have organised themselves. Tourists are now more informed and open-minded and they have a strong ecological conscience (Aguilo et al., 2005).

There is some concern though, that defining tourism sustainability encom-passes several dangers because such general definitions of the concept sim-plify a sector which by nature is complicated, and is inter-related to all types of resources of the destination area (natural, economic, social, etc.), while more narrative definitions often restrict the width of the issues covered by the con-cept (Bramwell et al., 1996). According to Bramwell and Lane (1993), sustain-able tourism is a positive approach intended to reduce the tension and friction created by the complex interactions between the tourism industry, visitors, the environment and the communities which are host to holiday makers. It is an approach which involves working for the long-term viability and quality


of both natural and human resources. It is not anti-growth, but acknowledges that there are limits to growth.

Some are even explicitly against the use of the term, wondering whether it is becoming just another empty cliche (Muller, 1994), while some others have concerns about the way such developments may be achieved (O‘ Grady, 1990; Cater, 1991,1993,1987; Pleumaron, 1994; Wheat, 1994). Butler (1993) argued that in certain situations, what is proposed as sustainable tourism: ‘may well be more harmful … in the long term than more conventional tourism’.

An important issue raised is that sustainability must be conceived as a transition, journey or path, rather than an end point or an achievable goal (Middleton and Hawkins, 1998). According to Farrell and Twining – Ward (2004), Earth and its components have been found to operate as an interactive whole, a complex adaptive system, with interdependent and integrated parts displaying unpredictable behaviour, constantly evolving and in general not amenable to analysis by orthodox, linear, deterministic science. Sustainability as a concept has been developed as a new means of coping with global change and the way in which complex systems function. Also, sustainability examines the dynamic interactions and behaviour of natural and social complex systems and is a synthesis of biological, social, geophysical and technological systems research (NRC, 1999; Sustainability Science Forum, 2002).

3. Tourism Typologies Tourism is developed in different ways in each place because of the differences in the characteristics of the place and the different types of tourists attracted because of the differences recognised between the motives and the charac-teristics of the journey (Mansfeld, 1992). As a consequence, there is a wide diversity of tourism development, although among tourist destinations there are some similarities or at least similar patterns in the way they are developed. Within this perspective, it is interesting to seek out such patterns or typologies of tourism development.

In addition, consumer behaviour in tourism has changed extensively, devel-oping a more segmented, specialised and sophisticated market mainly aim-ing at unique activities available in places visited (Nylander and Hall, 2005; Robinson and Novelli, 2005). This diversification requires a different way of planning and management in destination areas. Tourism typologies (demand and supply) are aiming at a more effective and comprehensive formulation of tourism policy through which sustainability can be achieved.

Two categories of typologies are distinguished: those where the interest is focused either on (a) the characteristics of tourist demand, or (b) the destina-tion’s characteristics. The first one focuses on the motives and the character-istics of the journey made by the tourist and it includes criteria which reflect psychological, economic, social, etc. factors. In the second category, typologies


concentrate on destination areas and their main criteria is geographic, eco-nomic, demographic, etc. (Pearce, 1989). The main aim of those typologies is the understanding of the structure and dynamics of development in each destination area, as well as an indication of their spatial and developmental particularities. The creation of a typology can have several effects because it can assist tourism planning, the decision support process and sustainable development. But the most important role that a typology can play is to show the different character of each place. In this way, every place will create a dif-ferent product which can help a destination to be distinguished from others in a globalised tourism market.

There are multiple benefits from the creation and use of typologies because they mainly allow the recognition of important dimensions of this activ-ity. More specifically, the classification analysis helps in the recognition of (Williams, 1998):

▪ different types of tourism; ▪ different types of tourists; ▪ different motivations for the journey; ▪ the effects of tourism in destination areas according to the motives and

the type of travel; ▪ dfifferentiations in the structural characteristics of tourism (for exam-

ple, in the services offered in reception, in accommodation, etc.) that the different categories of tourists and tourism will cause.

3.1. Demand TypologiesIn tourism literature, there are a large number of demand typologies. Many of these typologies have been proposed to sub-divide tourists into homogenous groups. The main aim of those typologies is targeting and positioning alterna-tive strategies, marketing operations, destination selection, pricing, etc. The criteria, which can be used separately or in combination, are different depend-ing on the case (Lang and O’Leary, 1997). Some of the criteria which have been used in literature are: a) demographic, such as age (Anderson and Langmeyer, 1982) and family characteristics (Fodness, 1992), and b) tourist’s predisposi-tion, such as benefits sought (Shoemaker, 1994, Woodside and Jacobs, 1985). The tourist’s behaviour characteristics constitute an important set of criteria that have occasionally been used in literature. Some of them are:

a. the activities which take place at the destination area (Hsieh et al., 1992; Moscado et al., 1996);

b. the amount of expenditure (Spotts and Mahoney, 1991); c. the destination chosen (Lang et al., 1997);d. the distance travelled (Etzel and Woodside, 1982; Woodside and Carr,

1988) and e. the frequency of travel (Woodside et al., 1987).


Geographic and economic criteria have been also suggested and used (Swarbrooke and Horner, 1999). Some of the most important criteria which have been proposed in typologies are socio-psychological. These are used to portray a complete ‘image’ of the tourist. The criteria that are used in this case are:

a. values and lifestyle (Madrigal and Kahle, 1994; Thrane, 1997); b. attitudes, interests and opinions (Davis et al., 1988); c. motives for travel (Cha et al., 1995) andd. personality types (Plog, 1974).

The most important typologies in such cases are those of Plog (1994) and Cohen‘s (1972, 1979). Demand typologies existing in the bibliography so far discern three major types of tourists (see Table 1).

Table 1: General Model of Demand Typologies

Type Destination preferred

Life cycle stagea

Impacts intention

Contact with the local community

Lone travellers Pioneer resort Exploration Small High

Tourists travelling in small groups

Popular Initial stages of tourism growth

Medium Medium

Mass tourists Famous Stagnation High Small

a The life cycle stages referred here are based on Butler’s model of the Tourist Area Life Cycle (Butler, 1980)

Basically, there are three major groups of tourists. Firstly, those who travel alone to pioneer destinations searching for exotic and strange environments in destinations not yet discovered by the tourism industry; they are using local facilities and they want contact with the residents. In this case, the impact on the socio-economic system and the environment are minimal mainly because of the small numbers of visitors. In the second case, tourists prefer to travel in small groups to destinations with good facilities and a growing reputation; they are seeking a combination of amenities and authenticity; their impacts on the socio-economic system and the environment, and their contact with the residents, is average. Finally, the third group is mass tourism, i.e. people travelling in large groups, preferring fully organised trips to famous destina-tions; they are usually people from the middle-class income bracket, they have little interaction with local people beyond commercial links, which means that the tourism industry in the destination is at full development and the impact on society and the environment can be serious.


3.2. Supply TypologiesSupply typologies mainly have to do with the characteristics of the destination area. Those typologies serve the purpose of highlighting the fact that different processes of development can and do occur. Supply typologies can show the shape, form and extent of tourism development in an area. These typologies can show basic differences of development between destinations, the different character of each destination and its maturity stage. For example, tourism is developed in different ways and has a different character in small islands as compared to towns and urban centres or in rural areas. They can facilitate tourism planning and the decision-making process at a macro-scale of policy making (regional or national) as they can group together places/destinations with the same or similar characteristics.

Tourism development is dependent upon the spatial characteristics of the place of destination. For example, the development of tourism in coastal areas differs from the development of tourism in mountainous or urban areas or in small island destinations. Tourism development, therefore, is closely attached to the characteristics of the area in which it exists and is developed. This is the reason why the following bibliographic research for tourism typologies is organised according to types of destinations.

Table 2 presents some of the most important supply typologies in the bibliography.

The typologies of supply demonstrate that tourism can be developed in vari-ous ways depending on the spatial characteristics of each destination (e.g. dif-ferences are realised in coastal or island resorts, in rural or urban areas) and the type of development each time. In the majority of cases, common elements in the process of growth are realised. This diversity can be attributed to the differentiation of regional characteristics and to the large number of actors involved in the tourism development process.

The main criterion used to create a supply typology so far (for planning pur-poses) is growth characteristics of the destination areas examined. Another important factor is the existence or otherwise of a planning process or a master plan for tourism in the area. Growth (and vigour) of the local society in each destination is also critical, consisting of many factors, such as the demographic and economic characteristics, the level of education, the acceptance of tourism in the area, etc. The social background of tourists and their socio-economic characteristics contributes to the creation of the destination’s image.


Table 2: Supply Typologies

Writer Criterion Types of Tourist Regions

Barbaza CO

ASTA

L RE

GION

S Size and extent of population •Autogenous or planned type •infrastructures Locally located or extensive •nature of tourist region

Costa Brava – Cote d ‘ Azur The coasts of Black SeaLanguedoc-Roussillon

Peck and Lepie

The rate of growth •Force of local society •The effects of tourist growth in •the local society

Rapid tourist growth Low growth Temporary growth

Gormsen

The nature of lodgings 1. The level of participation of local 2. population and external factors thatinfluencethegrowthoftourism The social constitution of tourists 3.

Region 1: Baltic sea Region 2: Mediterranean Region 3: N. Africa’s coastline Region 4: D. Africa, Caribbean,

N.America,PacificOcean

Wong

The scale and the qualitative 1. characteristics of the resort The extent of participation that 2. the private and public sector has in the growth of tourism

1. System of drawn resort 2. Seasonal residences that

comply with international models

3. Seasonal residences that comply with local and na-tional models

4. Regions that allocate small number of lodgings

Preau

MOU

NTAI

NOUS

REG

IONS

1. The situation of the local commu-nity at the beginning of growth

2. The rate of growth 3. The general characteristics of the

environment of the region as well as its technical and economic probabilities of growth

Chamonix model Belleville model

Pearce Segregation of responsibilities of growth

Integrated growth Catalytic growth

Lundgren

OTHE

R RE

GION

S

The degree of mutual attraction 1. of tourists (inflow-outflowoftourists) Geographic characteristics 2. Offer of tourist services 3.

1. Centrally located destinations 2. Peripheral urban regions 3. Peripheral rural regions 4. Destinations with a natural

environment

Miossec

Places of reception 1. Means of transport 2. Tourist behavior 3. The attitude of tour operators to 4. the local population

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4


Growth should not be the only or the main criterion for the creation of a typol-ogy for tourism planning purposes. Qualitative characteristics of tourism should also be obtained. Some of those criteria that can give a spatial typology of tourism with a more holistic view of the tourism product in the area could be:

a. Growth ratio of the total number of beds (sum of beds in hotels and rented rooms), which reflects the dynamics of tourism development in the area studied but does not show the qualitative synthesis of the product.

b. Density of beds calculated in the total resort area (number of beds per square kilometre), which shows the pressure created by tourism development in the destination area. It is calculated by the ratio of beds (hotels and rented rooms) in the area studied and the total size of the area in square kilometres. This criterion can give a view of the extent and intensity of tourism development.

c. Proportion of beds in hotels and rented rooms, which is a qualitative criterion showing the qualitative synthesis of the tourism product in the area. When the ratio is equal to or higher than one, then in the area there are more hotel rooms than rented rooms. In cases where the ratio is lower than one, then the beds in rented rooms form a greater propor-tion than those in hotels. For instance, the second scenario gives an indi-cation that the product in the area is less qualitative because possibly it is addressed to tourists with a relatively low budget.

d. Proportion of hotel beds and the size and the extent of the local popula-tion. This criterion shows the strength of the local population vis a vis the tourist population. In cases where the ratio is lower than one, then the destination is in the primary stages of development, according to Butler’s model of the Tourist Area Life Cycle (1980). In cases where the ratio is equal or greater than one, then the tourist population is bigger than the local population. This means that the area is satiated and the strength of the local population is small. In those cases, the destination is in the final stages of its tourism development.

The combination of those four criteria can lead to the development of an accurate, representative and effective typology of tourist areas for plan-ning purposes. By using an analytical typology, decision making and policy implementation becomes easier and more comprehensive. The typology that will come up from the processing of those criteria will be as accurate as will be the primary available data. In most cases, lack of accurate and analytical data is a serious problem that can lead to results that are not so effective and representative.

Table 3 is presents a general model for supply typologies for coastal resorts for organising thinking purposes. It is important to mention that, in cases where tourism development is extensive and intensive then the destination


is mature, the impact of tourism on the environment and society are high, while development comes from external investment. On the other hand, when the rate of development is low and spatially concentrated in an area, then we have a pioneer resort at the exploratory stage, where the impact of tourisms is non-existent and investment comes from the local community.

Table 3: General Model of Supply Typologies

Desti

natio

n Criteria Types Life cycle stagea

Impacts intention

Participation of the local community in tourisms growth

Coa

stal

are

as a. The power of the local society

b. The rate of development

1. Extensive devel-opment

Stagnation High Low

2. Local develop-ment with exten-sive trends

Development Medium Medium

3. Slow localised development

Exploration Low High

a The life cycle stages referred to here follow Butler’s model of the Tourist Area Life Cycle (Butler, 1980)

The analysis of supply typologies showed that all efforts were spatially limited – at local level –, descriptive and didn’t use new technologies or methodolo-gies. They do not give the potential for readjustment, as growth in every case changes the initial situation of an area; in other words, they could not handle spatial and temporal data. This kind of typology can help planning at a local scale. In cases where the planning objective is macro scale, in spatial terms, then simple descriptive techniques cannot be used.

It is worth mentioning here that tourists characterise a destination and, together with the spatial characteristics of the area, they produce the image of the place. Typologies created for tourism planning purposes should therefore correlate demand and supply characteristics.

4. The Concept of Tourism Planning Planning is an activity and/or method of organising the future in order to achieve certain objectives (Dredge, 1999). It generally represents the activ-ity of an organisation or society for configuring the optimal strategy for future action, so that the desirable objectives may be achieved, or in order to solve problems that have developed in different and complicated situations. According to Khakee (1988 and 1986), the planning process and the procedure for future investigation are interrelated.

Planning is a process of organising action for the future so that certain objec-tives can be achieved. Planning is future visioning in which forecast plays the


fundamental role. In this procedure, there are always imponderable factors that it may be anticipated. Planning is also considered to be a procedure that can facilitate and support cooperation between a society’s members in order for acquiescence to be achieved (Voogd, 1998).

It is widely acknowledged that planning is crucial to successful tourism devel-opment and management. Planning has been a widely adopted principle in tourism development at local, regional and national levels (Inskeep, 1991; WTO, 1994). According to Getz (1987 and 1992), tourism planning constitutes a process based on the study and evaluation of resources that are available in the area and the alternative solutions, in order to optimise tourism’s contribu-tion to human prosperity and environmental quality.

Tourism planning is a complex and rational process and as such it should be carried out on the basis of a systematic process in order for its results to be realistic and effective. This process varies according to the systems situation, the type and the level of planning. According to Inskeep (1991), the basic steps of tourism planning are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The Basic Steps of Tourism Planning

1. Study Preparation

2. Determination of objectives

3. Surveys

4. Analysis and Synthesis

5. Policy and Plan Formulation

6. Recommendations

7. Implementation and monitoring

The only case where the merits of planning are possible is when a plan can be implemented in the first place. Many academics in this case agree that imple-mentation is one of the most important stages of the tourism planning proc-ess and a practical plan should be made for this purpose (Cooper et al., 1993; Gunn, 2002; Inskeep, 1991; Shepherd, 1998; Veal, 2002), which means that a plan should be implemented as planned. In most cases, there is a gap between planning and implementation, because there is a difference between what ide-ally ought to happen and what is actually happening in reality (Burns, 2004). There are many studies in the bibliography offered which point out this gap and refer to this failure being caused by a lack of analytical details or miscal-culations regarding the control of land usage (Cooper et al., 1993; Shepherd,


1998), failure of central planning caused by lack of community involvement (Tosun & Jenkins, 1996), or a mismatch between central planning and local possibilities (Burns and Sancho, 2003). Figure 3 shows the basic steps needed for the successful implementation of the plan (Cooper et al., 1993; Inskeep, 1991; McIntosh et al., 1995; WTO, 1994).

Figure 3: The Basic Steps for Successful Plan Implementation

Start

1. Study Preparation

2. Determination of objectives

3. Surveys

4. Analysis and Synthesis

5. Policy and Plan Formulation

6. Recommendations

7. Implementation

8. Monitoring and reformulation

Goals achieved

Preparation Phase

Implementation Phase

Planning constitutes a circular process which provides knowledge to decision makers and refills the system with the appropriate information. McCool (2001) notes that ‘a proper framework for evaluation requires not only specification of objectives but also a monitoring system that focuses on output rather than input’. In cases where the decisions made and the processes followed can not fulfil the objectives defined at the beginning of the process, then those objec-tives as well as the process followed should be redrafted.

The creation of a demand or supply typology is the result of the dynamics and correlations between many different but interdependent factors. Some of those factors, according to supply typologies, are the characteristics of the tourist’s personality, his behaviour, the characteristics of the journey undertaken, etc. According to demand typologies, the shape of development and its spatial distribution are factors that have to be taken into account.

It should be underlined that typologies of demand and supply are interde-pendent and related because the profiles of tourists visiting a particulard-estination area are providing that specific destination area with the type of tourism (for example mass or ecotourism) that the area is developing, and vice versa. For example, tourists that prefer to visit the Canary Islands or Mallorca


or in Greece Rhodes or Corfu, they prefer to travel to famous destinations, they travel by charter flights, and their accommodation is in big hotels and the trip in general is fully organised from the place of their origin. Those tourists are mass tourists and they give the destination the character of a mass tourism destination. In each case study where the creation of a typology is wanted, tourists characteristics together with the characteristics of the destination area should be taken into account in order for the typology created to be realistic and representative in its results.

The creation of a typology can considerably assist the tourism planning proc-ess in a destination area. The use of typologies can assist towards the deter-mination of the goals and objectives of the analysis, the identification of the tourist system, the socio-economical and environmental effects of tourism in a destination area, the stage of tourism development, etc. Typologies can also assist the decision support process for tourism, especially when tourism plan-ning concerns national or regional level. In this case, the use of typologies is essential because in this way policies and actions can be specialised for every type/group/class of a touristic area. In other words, a typology for tourism can assist policy formulation and policy implementation and monitoring. As a result, tourism planning may become rational, systematic and effective because it concerns groups of areas with similar characteristics, problems and conflicts. According to the basic steps of the tourism planning process as men-tioned above, the use of typologies can assist in:

1. Study Preparation Under this step, the government together with the private sector should take a decision about whether or not to develop, expand or improve tourism development in a planned way. At this stage, the use of typologies can assist the identification of the basic plan-ning issues simply because it can highlight the trends and constraints of tourism development in an area.

2. Determination of objectives. Goals and objectives indicate the desired results of developing tourism. Goals refer to the more general aims of development and objectives to the more specific ones. Goals and objec-tives should be carefully determined because they are basic determi-nants of the tourism policy and plan. Typology can determine the stage and type of tourism development in an area. By identifying the stage and type of development, it is easier to determine the desired type or level of development.

3. Surveys. This step involves collecting quantitative and qualitative data on all relevant aspects of the tourism system. The survey step should be carefully conducted in order for it to be efficient. Often, at the survey stage, a map or aerial photograph can help in the observation of spatial relationships that are not obvious in any other way. The survey stage can assist in the creation of a typology but it can also be assisted by the use of a typology which facilitates the process of collecting available


data. At this point, new technological and methodological tools like Geographical Information Systems would make the process easier, more representative and more accurate, through the use of their exten-sive and powerful spatial databases.

4. Analysis and Synthesis. In this stage, data gathered during the previous stage of the survey are combined and synthesised in order to identify major opportunities and constraints for tourism development in the area. The use of typologies here can help to highlight the real touristic image of the destination area, to show the trends, the problems and conflicts, together with the opportunities for development.

5. Policy and Plan Formulation. This stage refers to the formulation of tour-ism policy and the preparation of the physical structure of the plan. The use of scenarios is essential at this point. At this stage, the use of typologies is essential, especially in cases where the spatial and time scales are extended – where obviously tourism development could not have the same strength or characteristics everywhere. Basically, the creation of a typology is a process where destination areas presenting similar characteristics are grouped together in classes. The main aim in this process is to assist tourism planning and decision support process. So typologies can basically help at this stage through the process of formulating policies that are suitable and essential for each set/group/type of touristic area.

6. Recommendations. Based on all the above steps, alternative scenarios should be evaluated here in order for the most suitable to be selected and implemented. Alternative scenarios can be applied in each type/group of touristic area.

7. Implementation and monitoring. At this final stage, the plan prepared above should be implemented while tourism development should be monitored in order to ensure that the goals and objectives defined are accomplished. By the use of a typology, it is easy to monitor/observe the effectiveness of the plan through the transitions that will happen, both between and within groups/classes.

Tourism is an extensive and intensive activity. Its development is different from place to place and it is dependent upon the special characteristics/ fea-tures of the place itself. Typologies can play a critical role in the tourism plan-ning process, especially in cases where planning is onn a macro-level (national or regional level). In order for planning to be rational and the goal of sustain-able development to be achieved, different types of development and different types of tourism should be recognised. The creation of a typology is an essen-tial way of recognising different types of tourism development in space.


5. DiscussionThe concept of sustainable development explicitly recognises interdepend-encies that exist among environmental and economic issues and policies. Sustainable development is aimed at protecting and enhancing the environ-ment, meeting basic human needs, promoting current and intergenerational equity, and improving the quality of life of everyone. Planning is an important tool in a strategy aimed at sustainable development. Tourism has an intricate relationship with the environment. There are strong inter-relationships which are contingent to the type, extent and intensity of tourism development. The quality of the environment attracts tourism which has an impact on the natural and built environment of the destination area. In some cases, these negative effects may be detrimental to the functioning of the destination and may degrade the experience of the place; then the destination may lose its attractiveness to tourists. Tourism planning is an essential tool in organising in advance how tourism is to be developed at a destination and early on, it can mitigate against the eventual negative effects which tourism may have on society, economy and environment.

Planning for tourism involves patterns of tourist development. Typology is a very important tool for tourism planning as it supports the recognition of its spatial effects, demonstrates the extent and intensity of growth and thus it contributes towards the process of rational planning and towards the adoption of an effective tourism policy. Typologies are aimed at identifying groups of tourist destination areas with similar characteristics. Similarity should be high between the members of the same group and low between members of dif-ferent groups. Distances should be small between members within the same group and great between different groups. Demand and supply typologies are useful in the analysis of tourism-related issues.

Different scales of tourism planning were identified by the WTO: intrar-egional, national, regional, local and sectoral. The WTO (1980) recognises the importance of scale in the process of tourism planning. On each different scale, different types of plans should be formulated in order for planning to be effective and rational. As a logical result, different typologies can be produced from different points of view, because different criteria, factors and analysis are used. Typologies on a local scale could be detailed and in-depth, taking into account every component of the system.

Data availability is an important aspect in the process of creating a typology. In order to create an effective, rational, logical and detailed typology, data accuracy and the level of detail at the chosen planning scale is crucial.

In tourism literature, typologies use questionnaires for data collection and descriptive statistical methods for their analysis, as their spatial scale of refer-ence is often at a local level. In cases where the spatial scale of reference is at a national level, it is obvious that simple and descriptive statistical methods


are not enough. In such cases, the volume of data that should be processed and analysed requires more advanced, sophisticated and technologically-updated methods. For supply typologies, Geographical Information Systems and advanced statistical methods like fuzzy logic can create a dynamic sys-tem which can give a useful Decision Support System for tourism planning. This system can be auto-adjusted in cases where primary data and conditions change, as in tourism, which is a dynamic system and can interact with its environment.

Typologies are essential tools in tourism planning. What should be taken into account in the process of developing a typology for the tourism planning purposes is the scale needed and the data available. The methodology and the technological tools that are going to be used are also important elements because in every case the crucial point is that the typology created is detailed and accurate enough to cover the planning needs.

Classification is a basic process of human knowledge. The use of typologies in tourism planning can help in the formulation and implementation of policies. They can also facilitate the decision-making process. In such instances, policies could be more specified, accurate and spatially precise. Typologies can create specific and accurate zones for tourism management in which policies can be accurate, realistic and specific for each zone or class of tourism development/condition.

ReferencesAguilo, E., Alegre J., Sard M. (2005) ‘The persistence of the sun and sand

tourism model’, Tourism Management, 26: 219-231. American Express (1989) ‘Unique four nation travel study reveals travellers

types’, News Release, 29 September, London. Anderson, G., Langmeyer, L. (1982) ‘The under-50 and over-50 travellers: A

profile of similarities and differences’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 20, pp. 20-24.

Barbaza, Y. (1970) ‘Trois types d’ intervention du tourisme dans l’ organization de l’ espace littoral’, Annales de Geographie, 434: 446-69.

Bramwell, B., Lane B. (1993) ‘Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1: 1-5.

Bramwell, W., Henry I., Jackson G., Prat A. G., Richards G., van der Straaten J. (eds) (1996) Sustainable Tourism Management: Principles and Practice, Tilburg University Press, Tilburg.

Burns, P. M. (2004) ‘Tourism planning: A third way?’, Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1): 24-43.

Burns, P. M., and Sancho M.M. (2003) ‘Local perceptions of tourism planning: The case of Cuellar, Spain’, Tourism Management, 24: 331-339.


Butler, R. W. (1980) ‘The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources’, Canadian Geographer, Vol. 24, No 1, pp. 5-12.

Butler, R. (1993) ‘Alternative Tourism: The Thin Edge of the Wedge’, in: SmithV. and Eadington W. (eds), Tourism Alternatives, Chichester: Wiley & Sons, pp. 31-46.

Butler, R. (1999), ‘Sustainable Tourism: A State-of-the-Art Review’, Tourism Geographies, 1: 7-25.

Casagrandi, R., Rinaldi, S. (2002) ‘A Theoretical Approach to Tourism Sustainability’, Conservation Ecology, 6(1): 13-27.

Cater, E. (1987) ‘Tourism in the least developed countries’, Annals of Tourism Research, 14(2): 202-226.

Cater, E. (1991) ‘Sustainable Tourism in the Third world: problems and prospects’, Discussion Paper 3, Department of Geography, Reading University, Reading, pp. 32.

Cater, E. (1993) ‘Ecotourism in the Third-World: problems for sustainable development’, Tourism Management, 14(2): 85-90.

Cha, S., McCleary K. W., Uysal M. (1995) ‘Travel motivations of Japanese overseas travelers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach’, Journal of Travel Research, 34: 33-39.

Clarke, J. (1997), ‘A Framework of Approaches to Sustainable Tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5: 224-233.

Coccossis, H. (1996) ‘Tourism and Sustainability: Perspectives and Implications’, Priestley G.K., Edwards A., and Coccossis H. (eds), Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences, Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 1-21.

Coccossis, H., Nijkamp P. (1995) Sustainable Tourism Development, Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

Cohen, E. (1972) ‘Toward a sociology of international tourism’, Social research, 39: 164-82.

Cohen, E. (1979) ‘A phenomenology of tourist experiences’, Sociology, 13: 179 -202.

Cohen, R., and Kennedy, P. (2000) Global sociology, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press.

Cooper, C., Fletcher J., Gilbert D., Wanhill S. (1993) Tourism principles and practice, Essex: Longman Scientific and Technical.

Dredge, D. (1999) ‘Destination place planning and design’, Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4): 772-791.

Duffy, R. (2002) A Trip too Far: Ecotourism, Politics and Exploitation, London: Earthscan.


Etzel, M. J., Woodside A. G. (1982) ‘Segmentation vacation markets: The case of the distant and near-home travellers’, Journal of Travel Research, 20(4): 10-14.

European Commission (2003) ‘Final report of the expert group on enterprise clusters and networks’, available online: www.competitiveness.org/article/archive/14/, (accessed on: 22-4-2007).

Farell, B. H., Twining-Ward L. (2004) ‘Reconceptualizing tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2): 274-295.

Fodness, D. (1992) ‘The impact of family life cycle on the vacation decision-making process’, Journal of Travel Research, 31: 8-13.

Fredline, E., Faulkner B. (2000) ‘Host Community Reactions: A Cluster Analysis’, Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3): 763-784.

Getz, D. (1992) ‘Tourism Planning and the Destination Life Cycle’, Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4): 752-70.

Gormsen, E. (1997) ‘The impact of tourism in coastal areas’, GeoJournal, 42(1): 39-54.

Hardi, P. (1997) Assessing sustainable development, Principles in Practice, Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Hsieh, S., O’Leary J. T., Morrison A. M. (1992) ‘Segmenting the international travel market by activity,’ Tourism Management, 13: 209-223.

Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach, New York: Van Nostrand Reinold.

Jennings, S. (2004) ‘Coastal tourism and shoreline management’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.31(4): 899-922.

Khakee, Α. (1986) ‘Backview mirror analysis in future studies and planning’, European Journal of Operational Research, 33(2): 200-211.

Khakee, A. (1988) ‘The Rationale for Urban Government Action for Arts Fundings’, Journal of Cultural Economics, 12(2): 1-18.

Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lang, C. T., O’ Leary J. T. (1997) ‘Motivation, participation and preference: A multisegmentation approach of the Australian nature travel market’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 6: 159-180.

Liu, Z. (2003), ‘Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11: 459-475.

Lundgren, J. O. J. (1982) ‘The tourist frontier of Nouveau Quebec: functions and regional linkages’,Tourist review, 37(2): 10-16.

Madrigal, R., and Kahle L. R. (1994) ‘Predicting vacation activity preferences on the basis of value-system segmentation’, Journal of Travel Research, 33: 22-28.


Mansfeld, Y. (1992) ‘From motivation to actual travel’. Annals of Tourism Research’, 19: 399-419.

Middleton, V., Hawkins R. (1998) Sustainable tourism: A marketing perspective, Oxford: Butterworth & Heinemann.

Miossec, J. M. (1976) ‘Elements pour une theorie de l’espace touristique, les Cahiers du Tourisme’, C-36, CHET, Aix-en-Provence, Tourist Review, 29(4): 124-31.

Miossec, J. M. (1977) ‘Un modele de l’espace touristique’, L’espace Geographique, 6(1): 41-8.

Moscado, G., Morrison A. M., Pearce P. L., Lang C., O’Leary J. T. (1996) ‘Understanding vacation destination choice through travel motivation and activities’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 2: 109-122.

Muller, H. (1994) ‘The thorny path to sustainable tourism development’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism Development, 2(3): 131-136

National Research Council [NRC] (1999) Our Common Journey: A transition toward sustainability, New York: National Academic Press.

Novelli, M., Schmitz B., Spencer T. (2006), ‘Clusters and innovation in tourism: A UK experience’, Tourism Management, 27: 1141-1152.

Nylander M., and Hall, D. (2005) ‘Rural tourism policy: European perspectives’, in: Hall D., Kirkpatrick I., and Mitchell M. (eds), Rural tourism and sustainable business, Clevendon: Channel View, pp. 17-40.

O’Grady, A. (1990) The challenge of tourism, The Ecumenical coalition on Third World Tourism, Bangkok.

Pearce, D. C. (1989) Tourist Development, Essex: Longman Scientific and Technical Publishers.

Pearce, D.G. (1995) Tourism today: a geographical analysis, 2nd edition, London: Longman.

Peck, J. G., Lepie A. S. (1977) ‘Tourism and development in three North Carolina coastal towns’, in: Smith V (ed), Hosts and Guests: The anthropology of tourism, Philadelphia: University Pennsylvania Press.

Pleumaron, A. (1994) ‘The political ecology of tourism’, The Ecologist, 24(4): 142-147.

Plog, S. C. (1974) ‘Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity’, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14(4): 55-58.

Plog, S. C. (1994) ‘Developing and using psychographics in tourism research’, in: Brent Ritchie J. R., Goeldner C. R. (eds), Travel, tourism and hospitality research, New York: Wiley, pp. 209-218.

Preau, P. (1968) ‘Essai d’une typologie de stations de sports d’ hiver dans les Alpes du Nord’, Reveu de Geographie Alpine, 58(1): 27-40.


Robinson, M., and Novelli M. (2005) ‘Niche tourism: an introduction’, in: Novelli M. (ed), Niche tourism: Current issues, trends and cases, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 1-11.

Saarinen, J. (2006) ‘Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies’, Annals of tourism research, 33(4): 1121-1140.

Sharpley, R. (2000), ‘Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8: 1-19.

Shoemaker, S. (1994) ‘Segmentation the US travel market according to benefits realized’, Journal of travel research, 32(3): 8-21.

Spotts, D. M., Mahoney E. M. (1991) ‘Segmenting visitors to a destination region based on the volume of their expenditures’, Journal of Travel Research, 29: 4-31.

Sustainability Science Forum (2002) http//sustsci.harvard.edu, (accessed on: 08/11/2005).

Swarbrooke, J., Horner S. (1999) Consumer behaviour in tourism, London: Butterworths-Heinemann.

Thrane, C. (1997) ‘Values as segmentation criteria in tourism research: The Norvegian monitor approach’, Tourism Management, 18: 11-113.

Tosun, C., and Jenkins C. L. (1996) ‘Regional planning approaches to tourism development: The case of Turkey’, Tourism Management, 17(7): 519-531.

Veal, A. J. (2002) Leisure and tourism policy and planning, 2nd edition, New York: CABI Pub.

Voogd, H. (1998) ‘The communicative ideology and ex ante planning evaluation’, in: Lichfield N., Barbanente A., Borri D., Khakee A., Prat A. (eds), Evaluation in Planning: Facing the Challenge of Complexity, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,pp. 113-126.

Wall, G. (1997) ‘Sustainable Tourism – Unsustainable Development. In Tourism, Development and Growth’, in: Wahab S. and Pigram J. (eds), The challenge of Sustainability, London: Routledge, pp. 33-49.

[WCED] (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wheat S. (1994) ‘Taming tourism’, Geographical Magazine, 66(4): 16-19. Williams, S. (1998) Tourism Geography, Routledge, London. Wong, P. P. (1986) ‘Tourism development and resorts on the east coast of

Peninsular Malaysia’, Singapore, Tropical Geography, 7(2): 152-62. Woodside, A. G., Carr J. A. (1988) ‘Consumer decision making and competitive

marketing strategies: Applications for tourism planning’, Journal of Travel Research, 27: 2-7.

Woodside, A. G., Cook V. J., Mindak W. (1987) ‘Profiling the heavy traveller segment’, Journal of Travel Research, 25(4): 9-14.


Woodside, A. G., Jacobs, L. W. (1985) ‘Step two in benefit segmentation: Learning the benefits realized by major travel markets’, Journal of Travel Research, 23: 14-24.

World Tourism Organization [WTO] (1980) ‘Manila Declaration on World Tourism’, http://www.world-tourism.org/sustainable/concepts, (accessed on: 22-4-2007).

World Tourism Organization [WTO] (1994) National and regional tourism planning: Methodologies and case studies, London: Routledge.

World Tourism Organization [WTO] (1999) ‘Global Code of Ethics for Tourism’, http://www.worldtourism.org/pressrel/CODEOFE.htm, (accessed on: 22-4-2007).

World Tourism Organization [WTO] (2005a) World Tourism Barometer, January 2005, 3(1).

World Tourism Organization [WTO] (2005b) World Tourism Barometer, June 2005, 3(2), WTO, Madrid.

World Tourism Organization [WTO] (2006) World Tourism Barometer, December 2006, 4(4).

the use of typologies in tourism planning: problems and conflicts

Documents