Introduction
Since the development of the concept of sustainable tourism development, a common ground from which organizations can build plans to address sustainable tourism management agenda has never been identified. The risk of inappropriate use unaccredited and unverified theories may worsen the situation rather than make it. For this reason, it is important for the various tourism destinations to independently investigate their situations, develop plans relating to sustainable tourism management and determine how such plans could be implemented thereby addressing the organization’s sustainable tourism management agenda (Daft 2008).
Any business tourism destination without an adequate, sustainable tourism development plan that addresses all aspects of sustainable tourism management including the social, environmental and economic aspects is under-prepared (Swarbrooke 2008). It is important that destination tourist organizations adopt management systems that address all aspects of sustainability and management tools that enable them to uphold sustainability. This paper provides a consultant’s report on how the Adventure Island located in Southend-On-Sea, Essex, England could implement plans aimed at addressing the sustainable tourism management agenda.
The Adventure Island is a free-admission amusement park owned by the Stock-vale Ltd founded in 1976. The park is a unique and amazing tourist destination in that it has 32 different rides and attractions such as gift shops and catering outlets. The park has the longest pleasure pier in the world that extends to more than 1.34 miles towards the ocean making it such an important tourist destination in England.
Other major rides and attractions in the park include roller coasters, American Whip, archelon, big wheel, crooked house, fireball and over the hill amongst others. It is important to point out that the park’s operating season runs from February to November. There are no area divisions in the Adventure Island, but the many rides have been divided into various categories with a major separation into the East side of the Pier and the West side of the pier.
Research Methodology
Further, the media and the tourists themselves were also identified as key stakeholders as far as the operations of the Adventure Island are concerned. In obtaining feedback from these stakeholders, the researcher developed a questionnaire with both open and close-ended questions (Liburd & Edwards 2010). This formed an important interaction point and engagement of the stakeholders. For the high profile stakeholders, the researcher engaged high profile stakeholders through brief discussions and analyzing their previous speeches.
Further, structural equation modeling was applied in an attempt to analyze the relationships between the variables and indicators used in the research. This was an important step in making conclusions from the findings. It also helped the researcher in determining where important relationships exist, where they do not exist and where they exist but prove to be less important. The researcher focused on the indicators provided by the World Tourism Organization in as far as sustainable tourism management is concerned. Some of the indicators used include actual employment in the tourism industry compared to the recommended employment, the ratio of individuals employed compared to the overall employment, research reports on future tourism situations, air quality in tourism destinations, water quality in tourism destinations, extent of natural beauty degradation and current and predicted pollution as a result of tourism activities (Apostolopoulos et al. 2001). All these indicators were used in the researcher’s research efforts.
Findings
Before 1987 when the World Commission on Environment and Development set policies relating sustainability, the Adventure Island did not view sustainability as an important issue. Rarely was the future of tourism in the park considered. Since the Earth Summit on sustainable development, the park began to consider the economic, social and environmental viability of their tourism destination (Leiper 2004). Sustainable tourism management, as well as sustainable tourism development, became a key concern in the park.
The organization began to take note of sustainability when proceeding with its operations. Even so, sustainability was not fully embraced. In the early years of sustainability in tourism management and development, the Adventure Park only considered the need for sustainability but rarely implemented the appropriate actions to ensure that tourism, its management, and development remain sustainable (Sharpley 2009). The need for sustainability was, however, recognized only that it was not appreciated enough to be implemented.
Further, the park adopted park charges that are affordable to ensure that the economic sustainability of the park has been considered. Further, the park opened to the community and became part and parcel of the Essex community by ensuring that proper public relations were maintained between the park and the community it serves. Currently, the organization has an agenda to ensure that all tourist activities are geared towards ensuring that resources are not misused in a bid to prevent their depletion (Weaver & Lawton 2014).
Implementation and Control Proposal
People
As much as the park has upheld sustainability in tourism development, there is much more that ought to be done. It has been proposed that in addressing its sustainable tourism management agenda, the park should primarily focus on people. All the operations of the park should be designed in such a manner that they appreciate the people and they make people value themselves. The term ‘people’ in this case refer to all individuals who have a stake in the operations of the park. This includes the employees.
The Adventure Park should seek to establish a balance between the employees and the clients. The employees should not be overworked to satisfy the clients, and the clients should not receive services that are below their expectations. Further, all the operations of the park should be well aligned with the fact that people’s lives are so important, and they should be handled delicately (Kandari & Chandra 2004). As much as it is an amusement center, the lives of the people coming to entertain themselves should not be placed at risk by the various amusement activities. This is consistent with the social aspect of sustainability. The park relies on these people to make profits, and if profits are to be made for long, then the park’s operations must uphold social sustainability.
Planet
Further, the operations and activities implemented in the park should consider the planet. In other words, all activities must not destroy or pollute the planet. The park should, therefore, ensure that all forms of pollution including air, water, soil and noise pollution are not caused by the operations of the park (Bajwa & Kaur 2007). With this regard, fuel leaks should be addressed, and entertainment tools that make a lot of noise or emit harmful gasses should be avoided or substituted with non-pollutants. The organization should be environmentally cautious because tourism is all about environmental beauty without which tour activities and operations cannot be effected (UN 2002). In a nutshell, in implementing its agenda, the amusement park should ensure that it is environmentally sustainable.
Profit
An additional aspect that the Adventure Park should consider as far as sustainability is concerned is its profitability. It is the aspect of making profits that keep the business going. Without making profits, businesses would rarely exist. Profitability is, therefore, an important aspect as far as sustainability is concerned. The fact that the adventure island is a free admission amusement park is enough to make it affordable to the people (Panda et al. 2004). The organization should thus set up charges in a manner that ensures that the profit margin is high enough for profitability and low enough for affordability. This is consistent with the economic aspect of sustainability. Any business activity cannot be sustainable if its operations are not conducted economically (Cater et al. 2015). As long as the activity is intended to ensure that the business makes profits, operations are not viable neither are they sustainable if they do not facilitate the business’ role to make more money.
Systems Sustainability
The park should as well seek to adopt systems that are sustainable in nature. For instance, with advanced technology, the park can use less technology and machines that are less pollutant. Further, management systems such as the Enterprise Requirements Planning (ERP) software that connect the employees and the clients through the Internet are a major step towards sustainability (Misra & Sadual 2008). This is because they reduce the organization’s cost of rendering the service, save on time and provide a better platform for the most efficient provision of services. All these benefits team up together to increase the organization’s profitability (Agarwal & Shaw 2007). Further, rather than litter up the amusement park and hence the environment, the park’s management may define ways through which the litter can be recycled especially for polyethylene wrappers.
Besides, litter bins should be classified into the biodegradable litter and non-biodegradable once so that the park can define the most appropriate ways to dispose of such litter without causing any environmental harm. The park should as well have suggestion and recommendation boxes to ensure that the suggestions of stakeholders (especially clientele) who would not like their identity to be revealed have been received through such boxes.
Tools of Sustainability
The park should look forward to total adherence and application of the tools of sustainability. Among the major and most effective tools for sustainability include the various regulations in the industry. Such regulations include government legislation as far as litter collection and disposal is concerned and government legislation on fuel consumption amongst others (Talwar 2006). Further, there are various professional associations in England that have developed regulations relating to sustainable tourism management and development. These regulations should as well be adhered to in spite of the fact that they are not mandatory (Eagles et al. 2001). Beyond mere adherence to external regulations, the park should as well seek to develop internal regulations relating to sustainability management and development, which it should adhere to. The park should understand that it is part of its corporate social responsibility to ensure that tourism management and development has been executed and implemented in a sustainable way. With the perception of corporate social responsibility, the organization would not need to be regulated to ensure sustainability.
It is also proposed that the park adopts visitor management techniques such as restricted entry and vehicle restriction. As pointed out earlier, the Adventure Island is currently a free-admission amusement park. Such a park does not restrict any individuals; this could easily lead to depletion of the available tourism resources as a result of the adverse effects caused by the high number of the unrestricted individuals who are likely to cause negative externalities. Other visitor management techniques include zoning which has already been done at the park.
However, further zoning should be implemented to prevent pollution of the water, especially by the kids. Visitor dispersion is an additional technique that plays a major role in ensuring environmental sustainability of tourism development and management (Sofield 2003). This technique ensures that visitors to not chrome a single point at the same time. When natural resources are consumed by a large number of people at the same time, the event that such resources are likely to be depleted with no recovery is normally very high.
An additional tool that is effective in environmental sustainability that the researcher recommends for adoption by the park is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This would require that the park conducts frequent assessments of the impact its operations has on the environment. To assess this impact, the park’s management can use the various sustainability indicators. These indicators include the resource use, waste, pollution, local production, access to basic human needs, access to facilities and diversity of natural and cultural life (Blewit & Cullingford 2004). Further, the organization may opt to use more sophisticated assessment methods such as overlays, matrices, mathematical models, cost-benefit analysis, materials balance model and the planning balance sheet amongst others. The EIA can only be used to assess the extent to which tourism development and management has been executed in an environmentally sustainable way leaving out the social and economic sustainability (Wahab 2005).
Impact Measurement
Upon implementing the above proposals in its operations, the organization can measure its impact using various techniques. One of the techniques is comparing the outcome with the provisions of the carrying capacity calculations. The carrying capacity calculations should provide the maximum physical, ecological, social, environmental, real and effective carrying capacity (Lubbe 2003). The outcome should not go beyond the carrying capacities provided by the calculations. Further, the park can use sustainability indicators to assess whether or not sustainability has been achieved (Thiele 2013). Such indicators, as had been pointed out earlier, include resource use, identifiable wastes, pollution (including water, air, soil and noise), local production, access to basic human needs, access to facilities, and freedom from violence and oppression, access to the decision-making process and diversity and cultural life. The level of stakeholder engagement and involvement also dictates the level of sustainability achieved.
Conclusion
Today, a considerable portion of the park’s operations is geared towards ensuring sustainability in tourism development and management. This report has provided a wide range of sustainability implementation and control proposals ranging from those that are geared towards ensuring economic sustainability, through social sustainability to those that seek to ensure environmental sustainability. A range of environmental sustainability tools including industrial regulation, visitor management techniques, and environmental impact assessment amongst others have as well been proposed for the park.
Recommendations
It is recommended that all the elements of the implementation and control proposal ranging from the environmental, economic and social sustainability techniques through to sustainability systems and tools be adopted. Currently, the park is not badly off as far as tourism sustainability and development is concerned. However, the adoption of the previously mentioned elements forms a major step towards polishing up the already existing operations and activities relating to sustainability in tourism development and management (Caradonna 2014).
It is also recommended that the park at large is managed as a system that is geared towards eliminating excessive consumption to promote inter-generational equity and responsibility. It is important for every organization to recognize and appreciate the fact that excessive consumption of the presently available resource is a major step towards depletion of such resources without their recovery (Jones et al. 2010). This is part of unsustainable tourism development and management. As such, it is important to recognize that managing the whole organization as a system that seeks to reduce unnecessary consumption is a major step towards achieving sustainability. Most organizations allow excessive consumption in their bid to seek economic fitness. By doing so, they achieve economic sustainability but loose both social and environmental sustainability (Higham & Luck 2008).
Equality in Implementation of Sustainability Aspects
As addition recommendation is that the Adventure Park should seek to ensure that all aspects of sustainability are equal. The organization should not be sustainable in one aspect while neglecting the other. For instance, the organization should not seek to be socially sustainable at the expense of economic sustainability. This implies that as much as the organization may wish to set a price that is well affordable by most tourists, the price should not be too low to cause it to incur a loss (Woodside & Martin 2008). The park should not be too green to the extent that all its revenue are used to ensure green sustainability. All aspects of sustainable tourism must be considered, and they must be implemented equally.
Reference List
Agarwal, S., & Shaw, G. (2007). Managing coastal tourism resorts a global perspective. Clevedon [England], Channel View Publications.
Apostolopoulos', Y., Ioannides, D., & Sonmez, S'. (2001). Mediterranean' islands and sustainable tourism developments: practices, management and policies. London [u.a.], Continuum.
Bajwa, J. S., & Kaur, R. (2007). Tourism management. New Delhi, A P H Pub.
Blewitt, J., & Cullingford, C. (2004). The sustainability curriculum the challenge for higher education. London, Earthscan. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10128892.
Caradonna, J. L. (2014). Sustainability: a history. New York, Oxford University Press.
Cater, C., Garrod, B., & Low, T. (2015). The sustainable tourism. Wallingford, Boston.
Clayton, A. M. H., & Radcliffe, N. J. (2007). Sustainability: a systems approach. London, Earthscan.
Daft, R. L. (2008). Management. Mason, OH, USA, Thomson Southwestern.
Eagles, P. F. J., Bowman, M. E., & Tao, T. C.-H. (2001). Guidelines for tourism in parks and protected areas of East Asia. [Gland, Switzerland], IUCN--The World Conservation Union.
Higham, J. E. S., & Lück, M. (2008). Marine wildlife and tourism management: insights from the natural and social sciences. Wallingford, UK, CABI Pub.
Inkson, C., & Minnaert, L. (2012). Tourism management: an introduction. Los Angeles, SAGE.
Jones, P., Selby, D., K. & Sterling, S. R. (2010). Sustainability' education: perspective and practices in higher education. London, Earthscan.
Kandari, O. P., & Chandra, A. (2004). Tourism, biodiversity and sustainable development. Delhi, Isha.
Leiper, N. (2004). Tourism management. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W., Pearson Education.
Liburd, J. J., & Edwards, D. (2010). Understanding the sustainable development of tourism. Woodeaton, Oxford, Goodfellow.
Lubbe, B. (2003). Tourism management in Southern Africa. Cape Town, Pearson Education.
McCool, S. F., & Moisey, R. N. (2008). Tourism, recreation, and sustainability: linking culture and the environment. Wallingford [England], CABI.
Misra, S. N., & Sadual, S. K. (2008). Basics of Tourism Management. New Delhi, Excel Books.
Panda, T. K., Mishra, S., & Parida, B. B. (2004). Tourism Management: The Socio-economic and Ecological Perspective. London, Sangam Books Ltd.
Sharpley, R. (2009). Tourism development and the environment: beyond sustainability? London, Earthscan.
Sofield, T. H. B. (2003). Empowerment for sustainable tourism development. Amsterdam, Pergamon.
Swarbrooke, J. (2008). Sustainable tourism management. New York, CABI Pub.
Talwar, P. (2006). Travel and tourism management: (in 4 volumes). Delhi, Isha Books.
Thiele, L. P. (2013). Sustainability. New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2014113012258.
United Nations. (2002). Plan of action for sustainable tourism development in the Asian and Pacific region (1999 - 2005): a progress report. New York, United Nations.
United Nations. (2003). Poverty alleviation through sustainable tourism development. New York, United Nations.
Wahab, S. (2005). Tourism management. London, Tourism Internationl Press.
Wallace, D. P. (2007). Knowledge management: historical and cross-disciplinary themes. Westport, Conn, Libraries Unlimited.
Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. (2014). Tourism management. Milton, John Willey & Sons.
Woodside, A. G., & Martin, D. (2008). Tourism management: analysis, behaviour and strategy. Wallingford, UK, CABI Pub.
