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.

Think regional

During my recent leave from work (fall 09), I missed the opportunity to attend the Reversing the Tide: Strategies for Rural Revitalization" conference in Prince George. One of my first to do's getting back was to catch up on the reports from the conference - and I was pleased with the topics and materials that came forth. I would recommend taking a look at the Communities in transition site for more material in particular, I will comment on some of the insights in a paper by Mark Drabenstott titled:
"Summary paper: Revitalizing rural BC: Some lessons from rural America"

In his paper, Mark raises numerous points that those involved in tourism development in rural BC should consider. The key point I wanted to highlight is one that I have been making in presentations and boardrooms for some time now - we need to move beyond community tourism thinking in BC to develop regional thinking. Mark makes the case better than I will in the paper, and provides strategies for this to take place, but I wanted to make some comments to reinforce some of his suggestions based on my experiences in the field.

First - Rural areas need to think regionally because visitors do. Simply put, visitors from key markets are usually not familiar with the small communities in our province. And, when they plan a trip, they are unlikely to travel to just one small community. More realistically, they will decide what region or route they will travel to experience a range of amenities that satisfy their travel needs. Depending on their form of travel, they will likely encounter many other communities on route.
In this scenario, our current form of tourism development (community based investments) may be causing some marketing fatigue and confusion. Additionally, the tradition of community rivals in rural areas often transcends hockey games. We make it a regular practice to stop along communities on route when we are travelling for research and asking residents what we can expect in the community we are going to. We write down verbatim the comments that are made and these inevitably are of interst to the study community because they indicate that communities are pitching themselves against one another in the tourism game instead of collaborating.

Mark makes the points about the need to collaborate very well in his paper. He suggests, and I agree once again, that these regions need to be self determined and not follow traditional jurisdicational boundaries if these are not appropriate. I see this in many areas of BC where unique tourism products exist and small groups are working together to leverage their ideas for the betterment of all (Gold Countries Community Society, Alaska HWY, Yellowpoint Cedar area...) but they often have to battle against jurisdictional lines that impede their success and require significant acumen in governance issues. So when I suggest more regional thinking, I am not necessarily suggesting that our current tourism regions take on the task of regional tourism development. For, as you can see by the map itself, these regional lines do not necessarily represent the type of unique competitiveness that Mark is recommending. In fact, for those interested in regional tourism development - it might be a good exercise to consider your regional map completely void of lines and work instead on what the competitive assets are that can be bundled together to create experiences (tourism products) that are unique to the market.

I was reminded many times throughout the article about the good work being done by all the leaders, operators and associations in the Northeast of BC. They were part of a Regional roundtable in 2007-08 that illustrated many of Marks points. As the evaluator of this initiative, I had the opportunity to travel up north many times and observe the process that the group went through. Although the project met up with some operational issues in the end, I think it is fair to say that collectively the points about working together as a region were made. At one of the first meetings - Mayors and First Nations leaders from communities along the Alaska HWY (one of BC's unique products) got together in a room - perhaps for the first time. It took sometime for people to understand that they were expanding their scope of stewardship to extend beyond political domains. But using exercises like storytelling and the sharing of knowledge, the region made headway with regionalizing tourism. The project also exemplified the challenges that Mark cautions about - government agencies are not often supportive of the efforts to think regionally as it requires new alliances and support systems. Or his quote "it requires reaching across long established jurisdictional boundaries which have often been more like battle lines than invitations to collaboration" (p.11). Also, the entire effort is slower and more process oriented - it isn't about quick decisions about which capital projects to fund in a community - it requires a shift to think what the region needs to pursue opportunities that give them a competitive edge.

BC has used a dominant community based tourism development paradigm for a long time. Our funding programs have endorsed the idea that communities can direct their destiny by getting their tourism house in order. While this is important at one point in the continuum, I have long believed that we will not achieve our full potential until we think the way our markets do about our products and combine our limited assets to leverage our strengths.

So - next time you are working on community tourism initiatives, ask yourself how engaged your community is in defining what the regional visitor experience is like. It's time - let's add this language to our discussions and receive the same benefits Mark highlights for rural regions in the US.