Embedding tourism in broader rural development strategies

This morning I gave a presentation at the National Extension Tourism Conference in South Carolina called "Embedding tourism development in broader rural development strategies: Insights from Canada". In the talk, I attempted to highlight why those involved in tourism need to understand broader rural policy issues such as depopulation, aging infrastructure and regional planning in order to be more effective. One of the overarching approaches that would help us do this is called Amenity Based Rural Development (ABRD), of which I have written on the blog previously.

I see tourism as one tool for rural communities to use in revitalization, and I see tourism as part of a bigger picture than a sectoral approach to simply bring in money and visitors to communities. To date, I have seen rural areas approach tourism for sheer economic development purposes, without necessarily understanding the broader realities of rural life or the goals of residents. If we understand that tourism also plays a role in providing exposure to an area that may attract new residents or invesment (if they are seen as attractive), then we may be seen as an important player at different tables. These tables and the different stakeholders seated at them, would also value the role tourism can play in rural development - and be willing to embed it within. So instead of always complaining that we need others to value tourism, our presence and broadened perspective, using an umbrella like ABRD, would result in the type of support needed.

I was lucky to be book-ended by two heavy hitters at the session as well. Dr. Stephen Burr from Utah spoke about the role of tourism in gateway communities. He shared data from a recent visitor study in Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument and demonstrated the benefits of proximity to natural amenities like this, to the adjacent communities. For example, 1/3 of visitors stayed in local hotels, 1/3 in various campgrounds in the region. 8 of 15 of the gateway communities had visitation rates of 30-75%. In terms of activities, 57% of folks were using the amenity for recreation purposes (not related to the monument itself) including photography (75%), hiking, (69%) and viewing of attractive amenities such as natural features, rocks, wildlife etc. This study made me think that we could use similar insights in BC about the presence of our protected areas and adjacent communities - in particular to note differences in the communities that benefit and those that do not. This type of information would be useful to assist in ensuring that these areas maximize benefits to adjacent areas. The ICURA on protected areas and poverty reduction at VIU, of which I am currently part of, might be the place to explore this further.

The final session was done by Cynthia Messer from the University of Minnestoa, Extension. She shared insights on an 18 year longitudinal study on tourism development in two particular case locations - San Luis in Colorado and 12 villages in Van Buren County, Iowa. Of particular interest to me was the observation of how Van Buren has been more effective over the long term due to their collaboration between the communities - whereas San Luis has struggled with burnout of the "STP" or same ten people. As I advocate rural areas to collaborate to maximize resources AND because visitors usually travel to rural regions - I found her insights validating.

That is it for the conference now - it was great - and I was able to encourage folks to come up to Canada for ours as well. Will keep you posted on the next NET conference in either 2013 or 2014.