Application of the Delphi technique in tourism

Annals

oJ’l&rzrm

Research, Vol.

Printed in the USA. All rights

17, pp. 270-279, reserved.

1990 Copyright

0

0160-7383190 $3.00 + .oo 1990 Pergamon Press plc and J. Jafari

APPLICATION OF THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE IN TOURISM

Leeds

Howard Green Colin Hunter Bruno Moore Polytechnic, UK

Abstract: This paper reports the development and application of a methodology for the assessment of environmental impacts stemming from tourism projects. The Delphi technique is utilized as a potentially valuable tool for the identification and assessment of such impacts. The paper outlines the Delphi technique and its potential application for small scale projects where time and cost constraints preclude the use of direct, long term environmental monitoring. The findings of the application of the technique to a specific tourism project are presented. An assessment is then made of the methodology and its relevance to policy makers. Keywords: tourism, environmental impact assessment, Delphi, Bradford. RCsum6: L’application de la technique de Delphi au tourisme. Le p&sent article traite du d&eloppement et de l’application d’une mCthodologie pour juger de l’impact d’amknagements touristiques sur l’environnement. La technique de Delphi est d&rite comme outil de travail pour l’identification et l’tvaluation de tels impacts, surtout dans le contexte des am&agements B petite &helle, oti des contraintes de temps et d’argent excluent l’utilisation d’un contr6le direct et b longue terme sur l’environnement. On presente les rtsultats d’une application de la technique Z+une opPration touristique particulikre. On fait ensuite une evaluation de la mtthodologie et de son in&% pour les responsables. Mats-cl&: tourisme, &valuation de l’impact sur l’environnement, Delphi, Royaume-Uni.

INTRODUCTION A growing volume of literature on the impacts of tourism indicates the importance which is attached to the environment, both urban and rural, as a significant tourism resource. It also identifies the potential effects, both positive and negative of tourism activity, on the host environment (Cohen 1978; Graeffe and Naske 1987; Pigram 1980). The environment is a key tourism resource whose conservation and man-

Howard Green is Professor in the Department of Urban Planning, Leeds Polytechnic (Brunswick Terrace, Leeds LS2 8BU, UK). His main research interests are in local economic development with special reference to small enterprise and tourism. Colin Hunter is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Urban Planning. An environmental scientist by training, his teaching and research interests are in the field of environmental management and monitoring. Bruno Moore is a Geography graduate of Leeds University. 270

GREEN,

HUNTER

AND MOORE

271

agement is vital to the future development and prosperity of the industry. While some attention has been given to this issue, the research literature is fragmentary. Work has tended to concentrate on the classification of impacts (e.g., Bodowski 1976; Cohen 1978; Krol 1986). Discussion has concentrated around the negative consequences rather than the improvements and environmental benefits which tourism developments can provide (Hall 1974; Haulot 1985). Studies of environmental impacts have also been almost exclusively concerned with rural areas and in particular with natural or seminatural ecosystems (Broom 1982; is directed to the Cook and Wells 1983; Hall 1974). Wh ere discussion although recognizing potential environmental urban environment, benefits, it is frequently superficial and descriptive and avoids the issue of assessment (Beioley 1981; McNulty 1985). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) offers a range of methodologies and techniques for the evaluation of impacts (Bisset 1980; Clark, Bisset and Wathern 1980; Clark, Chapman, Bisset and Wathern 1978; Shopley and Fuggle 1984). The general approach adopted by EIA studies, however, relies on long term monitoring and detailed measurement of the environment which imposes major restrictions in use because of time, cost, and uncertainties of measurement methodolgy. EIA studies have in the past concentrated on large scale projects such as power stations and oil terminals. In these cases the potential considerable damage to the environment may justify the high costs and long time scale of EIA. By concentrating on direct measurement, traditional EIA seeks to However, a subjective assessment of produce objective assessments. impacts is equally important. Personal and group values and opinions need to be included in the assessment. Tourism development on the other hand is often smaller scale and its potential impact less dramatic. For this reason an approach is required which is both quicker and less costly to undertake. This paper outlines the value of adopting judgemental methods in general and the Delphi technique in particular, to solve some of these difficulties and provide policymakers with a responsive method of assessing potential impacts resulting from tourism projects.

The Delphi Technique The Delphi technique is one of a group of judgemental methods which have gained recognition for their value in forecasting. It is one of the most well established means of collecting expert opinion and of gaining consensus among experts on various factors under consideration. While Delphi originated as a technique of futures research, its more general applicability is now widely accepted, including its potential contribution to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Linstone and Turoff (1975:3) h ave defined Delphi as “a method of structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals as a whole to deal with a complex problem.” The Delphi technique achieves this goal by allowing a group of individuals to reach consensus of opinion on any problem under consideration, without actually meeting face to face. This gives the

272

DELPHI TECHNIQUE

Delphi technique two major advantages. First, the expert opinion expressed stems from the individual, not from a group of individuals in constant contact with each other where peer pressure and the desire to conform may alter greatly any predictions given. Second, because the Delphi technique guarantees anonymity (i.e., responses will never be publicly attributed to the individual), the method can aim at gaining a more candid response to the unknowns under consideration. A less personal, more corporate, opinion would possibly be given if responses were publicly attributed to the individual, as is often the case in a conference situation. The Delphi technique achieves the above aims through the use of postal questionnaires. The Delphi study falls into three distinct stages. One, the preliminary questionnaire asks the experts to identify what they feel to be the most important impacts associated with the problem/ development under consideration. Two, a second questionnaire, based upon the impacts identified by the preliminary survey, is then circulated among the experts. They are asked to indicate which impacts identified in the preliminary survey they feel to be most important. Third, the second round questionnaire is essentially the same as the first round except it includes a feedback element, asking the expert if they would like to modify their opinion in the light of the overall expert response to the first round. All subsequent rounds take the same form as the second, each questionnaire outlining the results from the previous round. The feedback element is designed to move the experts toward consensus. Parenthetically, the general survey circulated among the experts at the beginning of the study should not be regarded as the first round of questionnaire; it does not use the same questionnaire as is used in all subsequent rounds. Questionnaire rounds can be repeated as many times as is thought necessary, until a degree of consensus is reached. Each new questionnaire round would include the overall expert response to the previous one. In light of the potential advantages of low cost, rapid response, and ease of administration which Delphi offers, it was adopted to identify impacts stemming from tourism development in an urban/rural area. It was envisaged that the Delphi technique could identify impacts over a short time period at relatively low cost, compared with the cost involved with undertaking other techniques of EIA. This is not the first time that Delphi has made a contribution to EIA (Richey, Mar and Horner 1985). Nor is it the first application to tourism research; it has already been used as a tool in forecasting and market assessment (D’Amore 1977; Kaynak and Macaulay 1984; Moeller, Shafer and Getty 1977; Taylor 1976). This is, however, the first time that Delphi has been used to identify environmental impact of tourism projects in both the rural and urban environments.

APPLICATION

OF THE

DELPHI

Bradford (United Kingdom) illustrate the role that tourism

TECHNIQUE

was selected as the site of a case study to can play in public policy towards urban

GREEN,

HUNTER

AND MOORE

273

regeneration and local economic development. Bradford offered the opportunity to examine impacts of tourism on the urban environment of a declining industrial area. Bradford City Council and its Economic Development Unit have been developing a tourism strategy for several years as part of their development policies (Page 1986; Davies 1987). Salts Mill was identified from a list of potential tourist developments currently underway in Bradford as being the most suitable for a study on environmental impacts. Only recently have proposals been put forward to redevelop the mill to serve a tourism market. The proposed project is large-scale and at the time of the study was generating a considerable amount of attention, both from the general public and from those with a professional interest in the future of Saltaire, where the mill is located. The mill complex is situated on the North East side of Bradford Metropolitan District’s built up area, half a mile from Shipley town centre. Illingworth Morris ceased all operations in the mill complex in 1986, after 130 years of textile manufacturing on the site. The mill was purchased in 1987 by Salts Estates Limited, a private concern which proposed to redevelop and reorientate the mill towards a visitor market. The total site is 17 acres of which 13 are taken up by buildings and car parking space; total floor space is some 727,000 sq ft. The building itself is of major architectural importance and is listed Grade II. (A listed building is one identified by the Department of Environment as being of special architectural or historic interest. Once listed a building is afforded a measure of protection against demolition, alteration and neglect.) The original mill buildings were built between 1851 and 1853. The comprehensive redevelopment and reorientation of the mill complex is being made on a very large scale. It incorporates a large retail function (high quality, specialist shops), conference facilities, and out of town office development; and it now houses the David Hackney a major tourist attraction of national standing (KMG collection, Thomson McLintock 1987). In the past, it has been demonstrated that a three stage Delphi exercise is sufficient to gain a high degree of group consensus (Richey et al. 1985). It was envisaged that to proceed past a second round would give significant diminishing returns, in terms of extra consensus gained by each subsequent round of the Delphi. It is also known that with each extra round incorporated into a Delphi study, the number of panel members returning questionnaires decline. This can be offset with the use of some kind of incentive for questionnaire returns, usually monetary, an option not available in this case. Successful Delphi studies have been carried out in the past using only 20 initial respondents (Masser and Foley 1987). In the Bradford case, 40 panel members were used (in anticipation of panel members dropping out between rounds). For the preliminary stage of the study, 40 would be sufficient to obtain a balanced and broad cross section of opinion on the environmental implications of the Salts Mill redevelopment proposals. It was important that the Delphi panel should include experts with a working knowledge of the project, such as planners, tourism officers,

274

DELPHI

TECHNIQUE

Table 1. Delphi Panel Composition Panel Member Pl!NUXI Tourism Officer Economic Development Officer Land Evaluation Officer Environmental Health Officer Conservation Officer Civil Engineer Councilor Waterways Board Rep Employees Academic Resident Trader Total

of Project

Preliminary

stage

First Round

3 1 1

3 1 1

:: 1 2 3 :

:: 1 2 2 1

Second

Round

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

2 10 10

1

:,

;

!

40

31

21

and economic development unit personnel. However, to achieve a better balance, the definition of expert was broadened to include residents and traders living and operating in Saltaire Village, (as local experts). The composition of the panel is shown in Table 1. The selection of some experts who have committed interest in the project, along with local residents who may be directly involved, does introduce possibilities of bias in the responses. It was considered important in this instance, however, to involve local experts and introduce a subjective and value led set of responses. Subsequent analysis could examine these possible patterns in the data. (As Table 1 illustrates, a high drop-out rate must be anticipated in a study of this nature. It is notable that the rate did not vary between those with a profession or academic interest and the local residents and traders.) The preliminary stage of the study consisted of a general questionnaire. This questionnaire not only acted as an introduction but also gave members of the panel the chance to express what they thought were the main impacts, both positive and negative, of the Salts Mill redevelopment project. The general questionnaire ensured that any impacts which had not already been envisaged would be highlighted and could go on to be incorporated into the first round postal questionnaire. Having completed the preliminary survey, the first round postal questionnaire was drawn up. The basis for the questionnaire was an extensive check list of impacts, stemming from tourism, derived from a comprehensive literature search. This list was supplemented by any new impacts identified by the respondents (few were identified by them). The responses to the initial survey however, did prove useful later when interpreting results. In the first round panel members were presented with a comprehensive questionnaire of likely environmental impacts. Included were a range of potential impacts under the headings of Changes to the Natural Environment (changes to flora and fauna1 species composition, pollution, erosion, and natural resources) and Impacts on the ManMade Environment (urban expansion, visual impact, infrastructure, and changes to the nature of urban areas). The actual questionnaire was designed to be as comprehensive as

GREEN,

HUNTER

AND MOORE

275

possible in order that it may be applied to any tourism project under consideration. For example, the redevelopment of Salts Mill would not cause any serious avalanche risk, however, if the questionnaire were addressing the environmental impacts stemming from the building of an Alpine hotel or cable car, avalanche risk could prove to be an important impact. Two weeks after the distribution of the first round, 30 questionnaires had been returned. This was judged to be sufficient number to allow the second-round questionnaires to be drawn up and circulated to the respondents. Essentially the second round questionnaire was the same as the first with one additional feature: a feedback element was added. The second-round questionnaire, next to each potential impact, showed the mean overall significance associated with the impact by the respondents or the panel in the first round. The individual panel member was asked if they would like to modify their initial response in the light of this information. This was an attempt to move the panel towards a consensus. Also included in the second round was a record of the individual panel members initial response (to the first round) so that the respondents could modify their opinion based upon an exact record of their initial response. RESULTS

AND

DISCUSSION

A detailed breakdown of the results from rounds one and two are provided in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. These tables show the aggregate responses to each of the individual environmental impacts listed on the Delphi questionnaire sent out to the panel members. The “Nature of Impact” column in Table 3, which gives the number of respondents who judged an impact to be positive and negative in effect, has been omitted in Table 2. This is because the first-round questionnaire created some confusion regarding the rating of each impact as positive or negative. Some respondents left this section of the questionnaire out altogether. To overcome this problem, the cover letter which accompanied the next questionnaire included a section which explained the meaning of positive and negative in relation to environmental impacts and clarified how the respondent should indicate whether they thought an impact was positive or negative. When the second-round questionnaires were returned, it was clear the respond-

Table 2. First-Round Delphi Results (Impacts in Rank Order) Aspects of the Environment

Rank

Mean

SD.

Reuse of Dimmed Buildings

1

29

6.38

1.24

19

BestorationlPreservation Infrastructure: Roads Infrastructure: Car Parking Land Use: Retail Visual: Litter Visual: Facilities Changes to Urban Fabric

; : 6 zl

;: 28 28 29 ;z

6.03 4.19 4.16 4.61 4.46 3.b3 3.46

1.96 2.28 1.88 2.04 2.20 2.29 1.97

:; 40 44 49 66 61

109

29

3.17 3.07

2.26 3.02

G

Restoration: Emergence of Second Contrasts Homes

Number

C.V. %

276

DELPHI TECHNIQUE

Table 3. Second-Round Delphi Results (Impacts in Rank Order) Nature of Impct Rmk

Number

Mean

SD.

Reuse of Dimmed Buildings

:.

21

::

?I

6.48

0.87

ia

IlmtorstionlPrmervation Infrastructure: Roads

3

;:

11

1

6.80 4.81

1.80 1.71

::

Land Use: Retailcar Parking Infrastructure: Visual: Litter Noise: Vehicles & Occupants

:4

41

4.43 4.24 4.19 3.11

1.86 1.34 1.83 1.46

::

Visual: Facilities Railways Infrastructure: Restoration: Second Homes

: :

0 :

3.62 3.24 3.24

1.72 2.00 2.17

:: 86

Aspects

of the Environment

Number+

::21

18 la

21

:

;: 21

11 ::

Number-

::

C.V. %

::

ents had understood how to rate each significant impact positive or negative. The results are given in Table 3. The ten most significant impacts identified by each round of the Delphi study have been placed in rank order in Tables 2 and 3. The decision to analyze and comment on only the ten most significant impacts was to some extent arbitaray, but also reflected the very low overall scores for the remaining aspects of the environment of Saltaire. The impacts identified by the study show a marked tendency towards the man-made environment. In both rounds, the reuse of disused buildings and the restoration and preservation of historic sites and buildings have been identified as the most significant potential impacts. Despite its historical importance Saltaire Village has been seriously neglected over the past 20 years. The panel recognized the importance of the proposed development to the improvement of the built environment. There are now several civic buildings in the village in a poor state of repair. Since the Mill was bought by Salts Estates Limited in 1987, there has already been some evidence of the reuse of disused buildings. The derelict New Mill on the opposite side of the Leeds/ Liverpool canal has been purchased by a development company with a view to converting it into luxury flats. A major factor in the company’s decision to purchase the New Mill was its future prospects in proximity to Salts Mill. Roads and car parking are identified as being important impacts (ranked 3 and 5, respectively, in the final results). There was some degree of disagreement between panel members as to the nature of impact on infrastructure. The redevelopment of Salts Mill will involve a substantial improvement to existing infrastructure. A new access road will link the Mill to the Otley Road which passes to the north of the site, involving a new bridge over the canal. It is planned that the land currently vacant to the east of the mill buildings should be converted to provide car parking for 1,180 cars. It is probable that those panel members who thought that the redevelopment of the Mill would have a negative impact on infrastructure (generating congestion through stationary vehicles and vehicles in transit), were unaware of the proposed improvements. Had these developments not been planned, however, the identification of the issue would have allerted the planning authority to potential problems.

GREEN,

HUNTER

AND MOORE

277

Increases in retailing within the area (ranked 4 in the final results) was identified as major potential impact of the mill redevelopment, as traders take advantage of the influx of tourists into the Saltaire area. The fact that retailing was seen to have such a significant positive impact may be related to the number of retailers included on the panel. If slightly fewer retailers had been included, opinion may have been more evenly split as to the nature of the impact. It could be argued that an increase in the number and size of retail outlets is not always a positive impact, as the new shops may be oriented towards the visitor and not the local market. The panel felt that the redevelopment of Salts Mill would generally cause beneficial environmental effects within its surrounding area. However, two negative impacts were identified. Both litter and noise generated by the visitors themselves and their vehicles (ranked 6 and 7, respectively, in the final results) were noted. Identifying these two negative impacts early on in the life cycle of the project eases the implementation of counter measures. As a condition of allowing the development to proceed, the policymaker could ensure that the problem of litter was adequately met by the developer. Problems of visitor noise could similarly be minimized by careful design and layout of access routes. The rank order of impacts changed slightly over the two rounds (Tables 2 and 3). Although some of this change can be attributed to the changing composition of the panel, resulting from between round drop-out, the majority is a result of panel members re-evaluating their views. The top three impacts (reuse of disused buildings, restoration/presand road infrastructure) remained the same. ervation of buildings, Retail impact, originally ranked fifth in the first round, was ranked fourth in the second. Car parking ranked fourth in the first round, was finally ranked fifth. The impact of litter was ranked sixth over both rounds, while noise stemming from vehicles and their occupants, initially ranked eleventh, was finally ranked seventh. Railway infrastructure, initially ranked thirteenth, was finally ranked ninth. Changes to urban fabric and the emergence of contrast between tourist and nontourist areas, ranked eighth and ninth, respectively, in the first round, were finally given rankings of more than ten. Many of the observations made by the panel are as might be expected. This fact in itself lends weight to the validity of the technique; it appears to be measuring what is expected. It is additionally measuring what a specific group identify with respect to a specific area and project. Although the expected may be generalized from other studies and other projects, many elements of impact are place and project specific. The importance of building conservation as an issue may vary even for the same type of project, depending on whether it is located in an area which is in need of conservation funding or one where considerable funds are already available for conservation. In spite of the reduction in panel size, from 30 to 2 1, there is still a noticeable reduction in standard deviation and the coefficient of variashowing an increasing consensus tion over the two Delphi rounds, between panel members. Table 3 shows that the coefficient of variation is below 50% for most of the top ten impacts.

278

DELPHI

TECHNIQUE

CONCLUSIONS Environmental impacts are among the central concerns of any tourism development project. Lack of attention to the possible impacts may lead to the degradation of the very resources on which tourism is based. Equally, however, tourism development can have positive impacts particularly on the built environment through the upgrading of buildings and provision of infrastructure. Techniques of judgemental forecasting provide a possible avenue for research in this field. Such techniques are based around the structured use of expert opinion. The utilization of the Delphi technique represents one such approach. In the application of the approach to Salts Mill, the method provided a valid appraisal of potential impacts associated with the development and allowed the major issues to be clearly identified. Until it can be tested in a range of different environments, including those of particular ecological sensitivity, it is difficult to be certain about the overall reliability of the methodology developed in this paper. However, with the careful selection and management of the expert panel, the Delphi technique does appear to offer a valuable approach in the assessment of impacts associated with tourism projects. The major advantages of cost and speed over other EIA methodologies, along with the introduction of subjectivity, suggest the technique can play an important role in identifying impacts of potential projects and consequently alleviating some of the major negative impacts by the use of planning and other development conditions. 0 0 Acknowledpnent - The research on which this paper is based was undertaken as part of a study for the Directorate General for Transport (Tourism Services) of the European Commission, in collaboration with the Institute of Social and Economic Research, York University.

REFERENCES Beioley, G. 1981 Tourism and Urban Regeneration: Some Lessons from American Cities. London: English Tourist Board. Bisset, R. 1980 Methods of EIA: Recent Trends and Future Prospects. Journal of Environmental Management 11:27-43. Bodowski, G. 1976 Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence or Symbiosis? Environmental Conservation 3(1):27-31 Broom, S. 1982 Tourism Versus Conservation. Report of the proceedings of a one-day seminar on Tourism in Rural Areas. London: English Tourist Board. ” Clark, B., R. Bisset, and P. Wathern 1980 Environmental Impact Assessment: A Bibliography with Abstracts. London: Manse11 Publishing. Clark, B., K. Chapman, R. Bisset, and P. Wathern 1978 Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment. Built Environment 4(2):, 11 l121. Cohen, E. 1978 Impact of Tourism on Physical Environment. Annals of Tourism Research 5(2):248-254.

GREEN,

HUNTER

AND MOORE

279

Cook, M., and J. G. Wells 1983 Environmental Planning for Tourism in the East Midlands. In The Impact of Tourism and Recreation on the Environment, H. Latimer, ed. University of Bradford, Occasional Peper. DAmore, C. J. 1977 Forecasting in Tourism and Outdoor Recreation. Journal of Travel Research 15(4):36-37. Davies, L. 1987 If You’ve Got It, Flaunt It: Making the Most of City Tourism. Employment Gazette 95(4):167-171. Graeaffe, A., and J. J. Naske 1987 A Framework for Managing the Quality of the Tourist Experience. Annals of Tourism Research 14:390-404. Hall, J. 1974 The Capacity to Absorb Tourists. Built Environment 8(3):247-257. Haulot, A. 1985 The Environment and Social Value of Tourism. International Journal of Environmental Studies 28(4):219-225. Kaynak, E., and J. A. Macaulay 1984 The Delphi Technique in the Measurement of Tourism Market Potential. Tourism Management 5(2):87-101. KMG Thomson McLintock. 1987 Salts Mill Feasibility Study. London: KMG Thomson McLintock. Krol, B. 1986 Mass Tourism and the Natural Environment: Problems, Conclusions, Attempted Counteractions. Problemy Turystyki 3/4:24-36. Linstone, A. H., and M. Turoff, eds. 1975 The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading MA: AddisonWesley Publishing. Masser, I., and P. Foley 1987 Delphi Revisited: Expert Opinion in Urban Analysis. Urban Studies 24:2 17225. McNulty, R. W. 1985 Revitalising Industrial Cities Through Cultural Tourism. International Journal of Environmental Studies A.25(4):225-229. Moeller, G., H. E. C. Shafer, and R: L: Getty 1977 Leisure Environment of Tomorrow. In U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC. Page, I. 1986 Tourism Promotion in Bradford. Planner 72:72-75. Pigram, J. 1980 The Environmental Implications of Tourist Development. Annals of Tourism Research 7:583-584. Richey, J. S., B. W. Mar, and R. Horner 1985 The Delphi Technique in Environmental Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 21:135-146. Shopley, J., and R. Fuggle 1984 A Comprehensive Review of Current Environmental Impact Assessment: Methods and Techniques. Journal of Environmental Management 18:25-27. Taylor, G. D. 1976 The Delphi Technique as a Tool for Travel Research. In Travel Research Association Canada Chapter, Vancouver Seminar Proceedings. Submitted 12 January 1989 Revised version submitted 27 March Accepted 10 August 1989 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Bryan Farrell

1989