Παρουσίαση/Προβολή
ΤΟΥΡΙΣΤΙΚΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗ: ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΙΚΕΣ ΚΑΙ ΣΧΕΔΙΑΣΜΟΣ
(253-ΝΙ-6050) - ΣΤΥΛΙΑΝΟΣ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΕΣΟΣ
Περιγραφή Μαθήματος
Το συγκεκριμένο άρθρο, με τις θεωρητικές προσεγγίσεις που πραγματεύεται και τις έμπρακτες εφαρμογές που διερευνά, αφορά στα πεδία της διδακτέας ύλης που άπτονται της εξέλιξης και της ανάπτυξης του διεθνούς τουρισμού, του ρόλου του κράτους και το πλαίσιο διαμόρφωσης της τουριστικής πολιτικής, σύμφωνα με τις αρχές της αειφορίας.
TOURISM POLICY AND SUSTAINABLE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT: THE “FORD” AND THE “POST FORD” MODELS
STELIOS VARVARESSOS
STELIOS VARVARESSOS Professor, Tourism Industry Department, T.E.I. of Athens
Navarinou 26, Ilioupoli, Tel. 210 9953761
SGOURO MELISIDOU
Laboratory Associate, Tourism Industry Department, T.E.I. of Athens
Chr. Smirnis 46, Athens, Tel. 210 2284924
Abstract:
Tourism policy is a generic term with many interpretations. For long time tourism policy has been identified with promotion of the public sector. Nowadays the content is much more embracing. The first section of this contribution briefly describes the evolution in this content and deal with the present meaning that is given to tourism policy. In this paper we attend to demonstrate critical importance of tourism policy contribution to the sustainable tourist development of a Mediterranean destination. The crisis of the Ford model (4S model) and its replacement by the post- Ford model (4E model) will be analyzed and will provide a modified framework in order to differentiate tourist policy and access ‘new tourism’. This new form is consisted by values and impacts of sustainable tourism policy by implementing the” 4E model” of tourist development. In conclusion strategies and methods to achieve sustainable tourism development based on tourism policy formulation will be presented. “Tourism policy” and “sustainability” are the two key terms in the modern view, which can equally contribute to sustainable tourist development and growth.
- 1. Introduction
The last few decades Greece as all the Mediterranean tourist destinations adopted the mass tourism vacation model of tourist development in order to achieve growth and profit, despite the difficulties and the constraints which bear the lack of infrastructure and the sustained tourism policy towards development. This paper explores policies for sustainable tourism development and potential interrelationships between policy considerations. Such policies have been characterised as ad hoc and incremental, lacking a clear orientation towards sustainable development, and the complex relationships underpinning them have rarely been considered in decision-making for sustainable tourism. The paper highlights the need to understand and improve tourism policies and development models of tourist development in the Mediterranean tourist destinations.
The current crisis of mass tourism vacation model appears to be general and manifests in a diversity of inadequacies, the source of which is the structural problems of tourism. It is suggested that the mass tourism vacation model adopted by Mediterranean tourist destinations was based on the offer of a specific tourist product and the constant augmentation of tourist influx. However, a slow deterioration of the Ford model (4S model- sea, sun, sand and sex) is observed as well as the emergence of a new ‘post-Ford’ model (4E model- environment, educational tourism, events and entertainment) which attempts to fill the gaps of its predecessor. Although the specifications of the new model are still characterized as vague and indefinite, it seems to be abandoning the perspectives which view holidays as an expression of Ford’s model of consumption. Additionally, the new model is put forward as a remedy to the increasing impact of the global economic crisis on tourism.
The first part of the paper briefly presents a notional approach of tourism policy and an analysis of tourism policy, planning and development regarding to introduce the subject of the essay. In this part the socio-economic tourism development objectives, the Structure and Composition of Tourism Policy and the Process of Tourism Policy, Strategy Formulation and Implementation will be analysed.
The second part analyses the life cycle of the tourist product, the crisis of the 4S model and a differentiated model of tourist policy the “4E model”.
The third part investigates the subjects of Sustainable Development and Sustainable Tourism Policy through the implementation of 4E model, and the Strategies to achieve sustainable tourism development through a modified Tourism Policy framework with certain constraints and objectives.
In conclusion the paper attempts to present the necessity of planning and formulating sustainable tourism policy which based on the implementation of the “post Ford” model (“4E model” of tourist development).
- 2. Theoretical Approaches for Tourism Policy
There are many definitions of policy, but perhaps a good working definition is ‘a policy is a reasoned consideration of alternatives’. This short definition implies that all resources for most countries are scarce – capital, land, manpower, etc. Where there is resource scarcity one of the policy issues must be how best to allocate these scarce resources. The second implication from the definition is that there are opportunity costs involved in using resources in one way rather than in another. For example, tourism development might require the use of land, whereas land might have alternative uses in terms of agriculture, building, forestry, etc (Hall 2008). So in most countries there are always alternative uses for the scarce resources which are available for development.
Therefore, policy is necessary to consider what the alternatives may be and what the benefits of one alternative use against another could be. Not every tourism-receiving country has formulated a tourism policy. In some cases we find that written tourism policies exist, e.g. in the Republic of South Africa, Namibia and the South Pacific states; in other cases one can assume that a tourism policy is implied rather than having been made explicit, e.g. that the UK government supports tourism. Although this has often been stated there is no actual policy as such which guides the development of tourism in the UK.
Another approach for Tourism policy can be defined as follows: A set of regulations, rules, guidelines, directives, and development/ promotion objectives and strategies that provide a framework within which the collective and individual decisions directly affecting tourism development and the daily activities within a destination are taken (Goeldner C.
and Ritchie B. 2003).
Diagram 1.: The Structure and Composition of Tourism Policy
|
2.1 Tourism policy, planning and development
Planning for tourism development can take place at various levels. Some countries have national tourism development plans and it is not unusual within this national structure to find similar planning exercises having been made for subnational regions, towns, cities, etc. The concept of planning is very wide. Planning is essentially about the utilization of tourism assets and their development into a marketable state. So before the planning exercise begins it is necessary to set out tourism development objectives, i.e. what the
development plan seeks to achieve (Edgell D. et Swanson J. 2008).
These planning objectives are often formulated into a tourism policy statement which sets out parameters or guidelines which steer development planning into the future. A tourism policy is not a tourism plan, but rather the reference point against which planning decisions should be related (Hall 2008). Once the tourism policy has been agreed and established, usually by government, then a tourism planning exercise seeks to achieve the objectives which have been incorporated into the policy. The planning exercise must incorporate considerations of implementation i.e. how the plan is to be achieved. Following from implementation there is a need to establish a monitoring mechanism which constantly reviews the implementation of the plan against the set objectives. Very often monitoring
might be highly specific, e.g. relating to number of forecast tourist arrivals or earnings from tourism; or sometimes it will be much less formalized e.g. in relation to cultural impacts of tourism (Hall 2008). The monitoring of tourism development is important because it is likely that not all policy objectives can be achieved and therefore there is a need to refine and probably reformulate the plan.
Stages in tourism development planning:
- The establishment of objectives.
- The incorporation of these objectives into a policy statement.
- The formulation of policy guidelines to establish planning parameters.
- An implementation programme to achieve what is set out in the plan.
- A monitoring mechanism to assess whether the tourism development
plan is meeting its objectives. - A review process to revise and refine objectives and policies as
necessary.
The planning objectives of tourism development are listed in table below (Table 1.), and often formulated into a tourism policy statement which sets out parameters or guidelines which steer development planning.
Table 1 : Socio-economic tourism development objectives
|
Social Development Policy Objectives |
Economical Development Policy Objectives |
|
|
Source: Hall 2008
The implementation of the above policies in many cases, the persistency of the politicians in the Ford model in late 90’s (mass tourism vacation model- Mediterranean model), and the lack of sustainable tourism policy as well, lead to a crisis which will be examined in the following part.
2.2 Evaluationoftourismpolicy
In considering the role of tourism in any destination there are many policy areas which have to be evaluated. It should also be remembered that as tourism develops the economic impacts are immediate. The social and cultural changes emerge over a much longer term and are difficult to recognize (Varvaressos 2008:296-309). There are a number of examples which show the importance of policy. For example, to what extent will a country rely on the government as opposed to the private sector to develop the tourism business? Traditionally, and particularly in developing countries, it has been the government which has undertaken the entrepreneurial role (Hall 2008). In many of the developed countries the reverse is true, with government providing an enabling environment but with market initiatives and provision of tourism investment and services coming from the private sector.
Developing countries’ tourism initially, and probably into the secondary stages of development, will rely on international tourist arrivals, with domestic visitors being given very low priority. There are political as well as economic considerations in determining what priorities should be. In some countries it might be recommended that tourism is developed in an enclave rather than in an integrated way.
This means that tourism is developed with the idea of segregating visitors and the host community. Mediterranean coastal tourist destinations like Greece, Italy and Spain such a strategy. There may be good economic and social reasons why an enclave policy is adopted. It does permit the concentration of infrastructure into a location, with consequent benefits arising from economies of scale. Before tourism is planned it is good practice to set out policy guidelines for future development. It is a process which has to be based on a realistic assessment of what government wants to achieve from its tourism sector and how this achievement can be attained. The process will require coordination between the public and private sectors, with the latter being the main implementing
force. As the main implementing force, the private sector should be a party to the decisions taken on future options. This cooperation can be cemented in the planning process.
|
- 3. The “Ford” and the “post Ford” models as factors of tourism policy differentiation
Tourism is a dynamic phenomenon issue to the often random changes in a socio-economic environment (Dumazedier 1992: 27-59). Therefore, the tourist product should be viewed as the main variable and not the demand, to which most refer. Thus, since the 1960s, the tourist product, within the framework of a traditional consumer procedure, has undergone several changes and has been through every stage of its life cycle: creation/introduction, development, maturation, saturation and decline (Digence 1997, Oppermann 1998). Initially, every product constitutes a discovery, an innovation which addresses a limited part of a population because of its high cost. The productivity profits which are gradually recorded are the result of increases in productivity, rationalisation and improvement of production methods which are connected to a gradual democratisation and mass production of tourism (Caccomo & Solanandrasana 2001, Stafford 1995, Lagos 2005). Certain phenomena, such as imitative behaviour, tend to render the product commonplace (banal) while substitutes of the product push it into an existence of limited usefulness. Income decreases and a period of decline follow. In the final phase of the product life cycle, it is possible to observe a spatial redefinition towards other destinations or hosting areas, to the extent that the added value is sufficiently low and research, development and innovation non-existent (Py 2002: 66-78, Vellas 2007: 248-251).
The life cycle theory can be utilised as an interpretative tool of tourism policy formulation and the crisis of the 4S model is undergoing (Butler 1980, Tocquer & Zins 1987, Cooper 1994, Stafford 1996, Opperman 1998).
The 4E model (post Ford) suggested as the following of the Ford model (4S model), or alternatively proposed as an antidote, which will aid tourism policy formulation, based on sustainability.
3.1. The crisis of the Mass Tourism Vacation Model ( the 4S model)
The life cycle of the product often seems to correspond to the development of the tourist product and the democratisation of vacations, where tourist demand pertains to lower and lower income classes and is reflected in the 4S model (Sun, Sand, Sea, and Sex) (Lawton & Weaver 2000, Michel 1998, Morucci 2003, Schluter 2005). Therefore, the beginning of the crisis may be seen as coinciding with the ‘4S model’ crisis. The democratization of tourism tends to reach the parts of the population which have lower incomes. This procedure is feasible thanks to the recording of productivity profits attributed to mass production. Productivity profits have the trait of lowering operational costs with the aid of certain artificial factors, such the use of charter flights and low-cost accommodation. This procedure of rationalisation based on productivity profits sets a level or a point under which the producer cannot drop easily (Stafford 1995, Caccomo & Solonandrasana 2001: 45-56). Further compounding the above, the new customers which mass tourism brings exhibit low spending power and, thus, register at low, or even non-existent, income benefit for the host countries. This economic situation of gradually diminishing returns may be the beginning of a dismal situation, extending to reduction in quality and deterioration of the structure of tourist demand (Treboul & Viceriat 2003).
Demand for the 4S tourist product rose for a considerable number of years. Thus, mass production developed at a quick rate in order to satisfy this demand. However, development rate halts at the stage of maturation and, essentially, this is the stage of the product being offered to large portions of the population. The effort to form a new demand should be founded on increased investment capital, since the structure of the demand stemming from low income classes is known (Soteriades & Varvaressos 2004: 6-12). The model of steady tourist development cannot be sustained. It should also be stressed that, at the end of the life cycle of the 4S product, a trend towards increase in price is observed (Vera & Rippin 1996, Cazes 2006). Steady tourist development tends to disappear for two reasons: (i) conditions of development for the 4S model, and (ii) problematic production of tourist services.
3.2 A differentiated model: the 4E model of tourist development
The 4S model was essentially based upon the definition of ‘homo-touristicus mass’, which characterises a certain type of herd behaviour and a type of consumption associated with imitation (Bergery 2002, Michel 1998, Urbain 1993). The uniformity permeating the model seems to allow little, if any, margin for individualisation of behaviours and preference/desires of potential tourists. Coastal summer tourism, in the form of a traditional model of tourist structure and development, no longer satisfies the new demands of tourist customers. This is proved by the slow increase of tourists in Mediterranean countries as well as the low percentage of hotel reservations (Morgan 2005, Origet du Cluzeau & Viceriat 2000, Vera & Rippin 1996).
The following are proposed for the case of a structural type of crisis (and less for crises which are more a result of economic circumstances): (i) The search for a long-term model of tourist development rather than a short-term, (ii) The promotion of quality rather than quantity, (iii) Differentiation and customization instead of uniformity.
In contrast to the 4S model, the new 4E model is proposed. This model is founded on the very desires of the tourist as well as the characteristics of the tourist product of the hosting area (Morucci 2003, Obermair 1998): (i) Environment and clean nature; (ii) Educational tourism, culture and history; (iii) Event and mega event; and (iv) Entertainment and fun.
This hypothetical model now constitutes the main strategy for a large number of countries in order to access ‘new tourism’ (Poon 2002). The essential difference in comparison to the previous model lies in the general perception being cultivated concerning tourism in a reception country. Tourism is characterised as an industry, very often heavy industry, and therefore, it appears to require a high degree of planning (Ayala 1996, Getz 1992, Laws 1995). Thus, it is necessary to form a procedure of replacing one model with another, completely or partially, sometimes slowly, other times quickly, taking into consideration financial and funding difficulties as well as the processes of perception and adaptation of stakeholders, i.e. managers, producers and local community (Varvaressos 1999: 43-49).
The crisis suffered by tourism for more than a decade has made a large number of producers and administrators conscious of the necessity of abandoning the 4S model in favour of implementing the 4E model. The priority which should be given to quality rather than quantity possibly constitutes the most important objective of reception societies which want to give tourism a new boost (Varvaressos 2008: 261-263).
With reference to the preceding analysis, it becomes apparent that the crisis of Mediterranean tourism had come into existence before the advent of the global economic crisis and can be characterised as structural. The global economic crisis, in turn, will further aggravate the negative economic impact caused by the crisis of the existing tourist model. The long-term solutions were analysed in the above. The short-term consequences, however, entail the following: (i) compression of prices and more pressure exerted by tour operators; (ii) reduction in accommodation reservations, (iii) increase of seasonality, (iv) diminution of stay duration; and (v) decrease of holiday’s budget per capita.
As a hosting country, Mediterranean destinations must abandon the Ford model (4S) (Cazes 2006: 91-93) which supported its tourist development and formulate a model focused on the quality of the offered services. Therefore, the newly shaped objectives concern a tourist industry which could be described as ‘post-Ford’ (4E) which concentrates on quality of facilities, environment and workforce (Deprest 1997, Cuvelier et al. 1994, Morucci 2003).
The” post Ford” model (4E model), which is proposed as an antidote to crisis and is also an alternative proposition to the Ford model, as well as traditional tourist policies adopted by Mediterranean destinations which are bounded to/ with sustainable policies, will be analyzed in the following part.
4. Sustainable Development and Sustainable Tourism Policy
Sustainable tourism has been defined by the World Tourism Organization as “satisfying current tourist and host community needs, while protecting and improving future opportunities. It is seen as a guide in managing all resources, in such a way that economic, social, and aesthetic needs may be met, while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life support systems.”
Making sustainable tourism a reality entails adopting “best practices,” namely corrective or improved measures implemented in every area of tourist business management and operation. These actions are aimed at ensuring that the least possible impact is caused, that tourist product quality and image are improved, and that business development becomes more efficient leading to enhanced social and economic development.
The past decade has seen growing endorsement of the concept of sustainability as the logical approach to matching the requirements of conservation and development. Tourism is seen as an industry in which there is both the need for and the opportunity to observe the principles of sustainable resource management. Tourist development which consistently ignores legitimate environmental concerns is unlikely to remain viable in the longer term. Despite the acceptance of sustainable tourism as a desirable alternative to more predatory modes of development, a gap commonly exists between policy endorsement and policy implementation. Shortcomings in the implementation process arise because of conflicts between resource management agencies, tourist developers and the communities affected. Each of these interests must be satisfied that the outcome will be positive and represent a constructive response to their priorities. Policy implementation is facilitated by public involvement in decision making. To achieve greater tourism environment compatibility the continuing education of all tourism interest groups (managers, developers, public) is mandatory.
Sustainability for tourism has three interconnected aspects: environmental, socio-cultural, and economic. Sustainability implies permanence, so sustainable tourism includes optimum use of resources, minimization of ecological, cultural and social impacts; and maximization
of benefits to conservation and local communities.
Policy is used here to denote the formulation of goals and objectives and the setting of priorities as expressed in various forms (e.g., choices made, statements, regulations. Tourism policy making is perceived here as a complex domain involving multiple interrelationships between various issues. Such complex relationships may be found in the way that various actors interact with each other (Pforr, 2006), the way that power is distributed among them (Hall and Jenkins, 1995) and the organisational complexity of tourism institutions (Elliott, 1997). Complexity however, can be seen in sustainable tourism policy making also within the large range of activities and factors which have to be managed simultaneously, with often competing goals, in a holistic approach integrating social, environmental and economic dimensions (Walker et al., 1999, p.60).
A sustainable tourism policy is a complex phenomenon with the various issues being intermingled and affecting each other (Hall, 1994; Elliott, 1997). Holistic approaches to sustainable tourism policies have to take into account not only individual modules of policy but also the interrelationships between them in order to better understand the way one action may affect another in order to contribute to improved policies.
4.1 The implementation of “4E model” enhances sustainable tourism development
The holistic ambitions of sustainable development and the multidisciplinary nature of tourism entail that only governments and public authorities can coordinate efforts in sustainable tourism policy making at both the national and the local levels (Inskeep, 1991; Pridham, 1999; Bramwell, 2005).
Sustainable tourism, viewed as contributing to overall sustainable development, requires coordination between various policy making levels and agencies to overcome and accommodate sectoral considerations that only government bodies, at all levels of policy making can provide (Hunter, 1995, p.164). Inskeep (1991) sees a government's passive, active or intermediate role in tourism development as a basic policy decision. According to the definition of Hall and Jenkins (1995) on tourism public policy, policy for sustainable tourism is seen here as what governments choose to do or not to do in respect of sustainable tourism. A sustainable tourism policy is a policy that stems from government bodies, at various scales, in the form of regulations, official statements or speeches, collaborations made and incentives given. Tourism policy making is perceived here as a complex domain involving multiple interrelationships between various issues.
In contrast to the 4S model, which is well know in all the new 4E model is founded on the very desires of the tourist as well as the characteristics of these tourist product of the hosting area (Morucci 2003, Obermair 1998): (i) Environment and clean nature; (ii) Educational tourism, culture and history; (iii) Event and mega event; and (iv) Entertainment and fun.
This alternative model now constitutes the main strategy for a large number of countries in order to access ‘new tourism’ (Poon 2002). The essential difference in comparison to the previous model lies in the general perception being cultivated concerning tourism in a reception country. Tourism is characterised as an industry, very often heavy industry, and therefore, it appears to require a high degree of planning (Ayala 1996, Getz 1992, Laws 1995). Thus, it is necessary to form a procedure of replacing one model with another, completely or partially, sometimes slowly, other times quickly, taking into consideration financial and funding difficulties as well as the processes of perception and adaptation of stakeholders, i.e. managers, producers and local community (Varvaressos 1999: 43-49).
4.2 Strategies and policies based on the “4E model” to achieve sustainable tourism development
In conclusion we summarize some of the action points, which should be practiced to achieve sustainability in growing tourism assumption. The strategies to practice sustainable development, the role of Tourism Policy and local participation, are issues which need further investigation in each case. Also some key ideas provided to enhance the notion of sustainability and its implications to a cluster of economic sufficiency, social equity and environmental conservation factors.
4.2.1 The framework of tourism policy and strategies to achieve sustainable tourism development
The assumption of sustainable tourism development, should be balanced with broader economic, social and environmental objectives at national and local level by setting out a national tourism strategy that is based on knowledge of environmental and biodiversity resources, and is integrated with national and regional sustainable development.
Action issues:
- establishment of strategic tourism policy that is updated periodically and master plan for tourism development and management
- development of coherent policy to reflect tourism’s challenges
- work with the tourism industry to learn about the realities shaping available choices, while helping create an environment in which higher standards can be delivered
- integration of conservation of environmental and biodiversity resources into all strategies and plans
- enhancement prospects of economic development and employment while maintaining protection of the environment sustainability in tourism and related activities
- strengthening of the coordination of tourism policy, planning development and management at both national and local levels
- formulation and implementation of the “ 4E model” model of tourist development which requires the following aspects:
1. Environmental conservation.
2. Educational tourism, culture and history strengthening to improve the quality of the tourist product.
3. Event industry and mega event operationsdevelopment to achieve economic growth.
4. Entertainment and fun industry enhancement to retain the character of the destination and the objective of tourist transfer.
Sustainability is a multidimensional concept that encompasses not just environmental protection but also extends to economic development and social equity (Gladwin, et al., 1995). The tourism system is a complex social system and considered as an industry which operates within the micro and macro environments considering all factors of sustainability. “Tourism Industry Forecast” indicates that the tourism industry is growing at a faster rate with large number of tourist flow over the world.
5. Conclusion
By investigating efficiently the survey of Sustainability in Tourism, is clearly obvious that tourism policy and sustainable development are compatible, they can coexist. A weakness in order to achieve sustainable tourism development is the lack of experience, knowledge and financial resources, and the limited involvement of local authorities and Tourism Policy. Environmental instruments should be designed to facilitate the integration of environmental policy with other policies, such as regional development plans.
Removal and correction of administrative and governmental intervention failures are therefore of importance for a proper integration of environmental policy with sectional policies. This may end up in a better synergy and co-ordination of tourist activities with other socio-economic activities.
In case of Mediterranean tourist destinations the experience and opportunities can be elaborated in various areas of travel and tourism. Despite of having massive infrastructure, support facilities and travel and tour destination with great value chain has not yet received great attention from the global tourist community and have not yet in the global ranking of highest tourist destination arrivals.
Mediterranean vacation destinations should implement modified sustainable tourism policy in order to achieve sustainable development which implies permanence, conservation, equity and growth in socio- economic and cultural issues. However attention is required in all issues especially in the constraints such as timing, decision making, policy formulation and stability in the planning process.
It is important that decisions with influence life at the local level will be taken at the lowest possible level of governance. Knowledge of the area involved and its problems increase local support in the development of a suitable action plan for sustainable tourism. The role of the local authorities should therefore be strengthened. Education, information, promotion and training are therefore important measures in this context. Sustainable tourism is by no means a non-viable option.
At the end the potential dimension to make tourism a form of Sustainable Development, by practicing Tourism Policy and its applicable concepts, in a few years should be viewed as a part of larger policy framework designed, to be achieved a sustainable society.
REFERENCES
- Ayala, H. (1996). Resort ecotourism: a paradigm for the twenty-first century. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37(5), pp. 46-53.
- Bergery, L. (2002), Un touriste sous influence. Espaces, N° 190, pp. 44-49.
- Bramwell, B. (2005) Interventions and Policy Instruments for Sustainable Tourism. In W.F. Theobald (ed) Global Tourism. 3rd edition. USA: Elsevier, 406-425.
- Bramwell, B., Henry, I., Jackson, G. and van der Straaten, J. (1996) A Framework for Understanding Sustainable Tourism Management. In B. Bramwell, I. Henry, G.
Jackson, A.G. Prat, G. Richards and J. van der Straaten (eds.) Sustainable Tourism
Management: Principles and Practice. The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
- Cazes, G., (2006), La problématique des impacts du tourisme. In Decroly J.M, Duquesne A.M, Delbaere R., Diekmann A. (eds) Tourisme et Société. Mutations, enjeux et défis. Ed. de l’Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, pp. 87-94.
- Edgell D.,DelMastro M., Ginger Smith,Jason Swanson, (2008) Tourism Policy and Planning: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
- Dumazedier, J. (1992), Des grandes migrations passées au tourisme de masse, In J-L. Michaud (dir.), Tourismes – chance pour l’économie, risque pour les sociétés?, PUF, Collection Nouvelle Encyclopédie Diderot, Paris, pp. 27-59.
- Edgell D., et Swanson J. (2008) Tourism Policy and Planning: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
- Getz D. (1992). Tourism planning and the destination life cycle. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19 (4), pp. 752-770.
- Cooper, C. (1994), The life cycle concept and tourism. In Johnson P. and Thomas B. (eds). Choice and Demand in Tourism. Mansell, London. Pp. 145-160.
- Cuvelier P., Torres E., Gadrey J., (1994) Patrimoine, modèles de tourisme et développement local. L’ Harmattan, Paris.
- Deprest F., (1997) Enquête sur le tourisme de masse, l’écologie face au territoire. Belin, Paris.
- Digence J. (1997). Life cycle model. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24(2).
- Goeldner C. and Ritchie B.,(2003) Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies - 9th Edition, Culinary and Hospitality Industry Publications Services, Texas
- Hall C. M. (1992) Adventure, sport and health tourism. In B. Weiler and C. M. Hall (eds) Special Interest Tourism. Belhaven Press, London, pp. 141-158.
- Hall C. M. (2008) Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. Pearson Education, Essex
- Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development
Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
- Kandampully J. (1997), Quality service in tourism. In M. Foley, J. Lennon and G. Maxwell (eds), Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Management. Cassell, London,
- Lagos D. (2005), Tourism Economics. Kritiki, Athens.
- Lawton L. and Weaver D. (2000), Nature-based tourism and ecotourism. In B. Faulkner, G. Moscardo, and E. Laws, (eds), Tourism in the Twenty-first Century; Lessons from Experience. Continuum, London, pp. 34-48
- Laws E. (1995) Tourist Destination Management: Issues, Analysis and Policies. Routledge, London.
- Michel F. (1998), Tourismes, touristes et sociétés. L’Harmattan, Paris.
- Morgan M. (2005), Homogeneous products: the future of established resorts. In W. Theobald (ed.), Global Tourism (3rd edn). Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
- Schluter R. (2005), Tourism development: a Latin American perspective. In W. Theobald (ed.), Global Tourism (3rd edn). Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
- Morucci B. (2003), La demande touristique: une approche de son évolution et de ses perspectives. In J. Spindler & H. Durand (eds) Le tourisme au XXIe siècle, L’Harmattan, Paris, pp. 133-155.
- Obermair K. (1998) AIT Delphi study: future trends in tourisme. Alliance Internationale du Tourisme, Vienne.
- Opperman M. (1998), What is new with the resort cycle?. Tourism Management, Vol. 19(2), pp. 179-180.
- Origet du Cluzeau Cl. et Vicériat P. (2000), Le tourisme des années 2010 – La mise en futur de l’offre. La Documentation française, Paris.
- Poon A. (2002), Tourism, technology and competitive strategies (6th edn). CAB International, Oxon.
- Py, P. (2002), Le tourisme - Un phénomène économique (2e édition). La Documentation française, Paris.
- Ritchie, J.R.B., Crouch, G. I., (2003), The competitive destination: a sustainable tourism perspective, CABI, Wallingford, U.K.
- Soteriades M. & Varvaressos, S., (2004), L’analyse de la consommation touristique: les méthodes ex post. Tourism Review, Vol. 59(3), pp. 6-12.
- Soteriades M., Arvanitis, S. & Varvaressos, S. (2005), Factors determining tourists’ expenditure: an exploratory study in Crete, Greece. International Center of Tourism Researches and Studies, Collection Studies & Reports, Series E, Volume E-19. CIRET, Aix-en-Provence.
- Stafford, J. (1995), Microéconomie du tourisme. Presses de l’Université du Québec, Québec.
- Tocquer G., Zins M., (1987) Marketing du tourisme. Gaëtan Morin, Québec.
- Treboul, P. et Viceriat, J.B. (2003), Innovation technologique dans les produits et services touristiques. Direction du Tourisme, Conseils Loisirs Europe, Paris.
- Tsartas, P. (2003), Tourism development in Greek insular and coastal areas: sociocultural changes and crucial policy issues. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 11(2&3), pp. 116-132.
- Varvaressos, S. (1999). Tourism Development and Administrative Decentralisation. Propombos Publications, Athens.
- Varvaressos, S. (2000). Tourism: concepts, aggregates and structures; the Greek reality (2nd edn). Propombos Publications, Athens.
- Varvaressos, S. (2008). Tourism Economics. Propombos Publications, Athens.
- Vera, F. and Rippin, R. (1996) Decline of a Mediterranean tourist area and restructuring strategies: the Valencian Region. In G. K. Priestley, J. A. Edwards and H. Coccossis (eds) Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 120-136.
Ημερομηνία δημιουργίας
Δευτέρα 5 Μαΐου 2014
-
Περίγραμμα
Δεν υπάρχει περίγραμμα