- Email: [email protected]
Crafting a value-driven vision for a national tourism treasure
Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273 } 282
Crafting a value-driven vision for a national tourism treasure J.R. Brent Ritchie* Faculty of Management, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 Received February 1998; accepted August 1998
Abstract The growing level of international competition in the tourism marketplace, and the length of lead times for developing the major facilities necessary to meet this competition, have made strategic level planning increasingly imperative. A critical early stage in the strategic planning process is the formulation of a destination vision } a statement that provides an inspirational portrait of a desired future for the destination. Typically, such visions are market-driven. For certain destinations however } those having a very special meaning for stakeholders } the vision formulation process may be driven, not by market forces, but by the values (the &&deeply held, enduring beliefs'') of those a!ected. One example of such a vision is presented in this paper. It concerns a vision developed for a unique national treasure } and a global tourism icon. The treasure/icon in question is Ban! National Park, located in the province of Alberta, Canada. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
&&A vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.'' (Joel Barker, 1992)
1. Introduction The quest for sustainability is now fully entrenched as a basic principle in the development of tourism destinations (McIntyre et al., 1993; Inskeep, 1991; Hunter, 1995; Bramwell & Lane, 1993). The desire to achieve sustainable development is a growing force that has rede"ned both the nature of tourism policy/strategy and the processes by which they are formulated. More speci"cally, the quest for sustainability has meant that: z Tourism planning and development horizons must, by necessity, take an increasingly longer look into the future. The magnitude of today's development decisions, and their associated investments, infers they will have impacts well beyond the lifetimes of those making the decisions. At the same time, the growing political sophistication of voters has led them to recognize their
*Tel.: (403) 220-3800; fax: (403) 282-0095; e-mail: britchie @mgmt.ucalgary.ca.
responsibility for intergenerational equity (Kotliko!, 1992) when undertaking initiatives that may well a!ect both their children and grandchildren. z Tourism planning and development must acknowledge the cumulative impacts of a stream of development decisions taken over time. It is no longer adequate to assess, and take into account, the immediate environmental, social, and economic impacts of a given development proposal. Rather, to the extent of current measurement capabilities, development decisions must attempt to examine proposals from an integrated and cumulative perspective (Smit & Spaling, 1995; Kennedy, 1994). Under such a perspective, both the crossimpacts and the sequential impacts of development must be assessed. Cross-impacts refer to the relative enhancement or diminution that one project has on the impacts of another. Sequential impacts refer to the additive nature of impacts where the cumulative impacts may be greater (or less) than the simple additive properties of individual projects. z Tourism planning and development is an increasingly important component of societal planning and development. As such, tourism development decisions must be increasingly integrated into a society's overall social, economic, and environmental planning decisions (Staite & Wong, 1995; WTO, 1996; Buckley, 1996). z Tourism planning and development must re#ect the changing nature of societal decision-making. The growing demand for broad scale public participation in
0261-5177/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 2 3 - X
274
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
decision-making a!ecting its well being cannot be ignored by the tourism sector. The planning processes must not only accommodate, but must take advantage of, the movement towards more extensive public involvement in the making of key decisions that a!ect social and economic well-being. These processes must be organized to "rst attract citizens. They must then facilitate their active and meaningful involvement with the goal of reaching widespread consensus regarding the directions which tourism development in their area should take, and how these directions can best be realized. This widespread consensus may be de"ned as &&the sharing of a common destination vision''.
2. Achieving a common vision for a tourism destination It has been argued that the most signi"cant step in the process of societal planning as it relates to tourism development is the formulation and acceptance of a common, idealized vision as to what the population believes the future of that destination should be. While this ideal Vision may not always be realized, it does provide an agreed upon benchmark towards which both the general community and the tourism sector can more e!ectively direct their e!orts. While a common vision may not obtain the unquali"ed support of all community residents, particularly with respect to the details of implementation, it should provide a development framework where none of the key components are judged to be totally unacceptable by any signi"cant stakeholder group. As such, once agreed upon, a destination vision should provide a context in which initiatives to secure its realization will not be blocked, even if they may not be enthusiastically supported in every case.
3. Visioning: its conceptual/organizational roots The concept of visioning is by no means a new one. The importance and usage of visioning has been reported by an expanding number of individuals and organizations (Amelio & Sinn, 1996; Collins & Porras, 1994; Lear, 1997; JVSV, 1993; NPS, 1996; Westley, 1992; Heilbroner, 1995). In many ways, the concept of visioning is an outgrowth of the extensive use of a range of strategic planning approaches developed by various &&strategic thinkers'' (Mintzberg, 1987). It should be noted that a particular characteristic of many of these &&thinkers'' was a preoccupation with ensuring that their visions were realized, that is, translated into reality (Hurst, 1995; Kaplan & Norton, 1996; IMD, 1991). Some view a vision statement as a concise statement of organizational purpose } much akin to a mission state-
ment. Others envisage a vision as a very detailed statement, or integrated set of statements, which attempt to portray or describe the destination in question at some point in the future. While there may be a divergence of views as to the precise de"nition of an organizational vision, there is more general agreement that a vision should re#ect the values of stakeholders for whom it is developed. If this assertion holds true in the corporate world, it is arguably even more essential that stakeholder values be a fundamental component of any vision that seeks to capture the public will regarding a national treasure.
4. Some early examples of tourism destination visions The concept of visioning has not as yet received extensive attention in the tourism, or tourism-related, literature. One of the earlier reported applications concerned a large urban destination (Ritchie, 1993). The destination (Calgary, Canada) had focused its development around its western heritage, its proximity to the Canadian Rockies, and its successful hosting of the 1988 Olympic Winter Games. In terms of detail, this particular example of a vision consisted of an overall statement containing principles underlying the vision, elements of the vision itself, and a framework for identifying the facilities, events, and programs required to realize the vision. Examples at the state/provincial level have been reported by the governments of Alberta (AEDT, 1993) and Saskatchewan (SERM, 1996). A broader initiative, which examined the entire issue of land use (tourism included), has been reported by the government of British Columbia (CORE, 1994). In contrast to the foregoing examples, which tended to have strong marketing orientations, the present case provides insight into the visioning process within an environmentally sensitive, national heritage setting. The case in question was formally known as the Ban!-Bow Valley Study (BBVS).
5. The Ban4-Bow Valley study The study's formal terms of reference described its purpose as follows: 00¹he Bow
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
are sustainable and meet the objectives of the National Parks Act.11 (BBVS, 1996) 5.1. Objectives Within this overall purpose, the study had three major objectives: z to develop a vision and goals for the Ban!-Bow Valley that integrate ecological, social and economic values; z to complete a comprehensive analysis of existing information, and to provide direction for future collection and analysis of data to achieve ongoing goals; and z to provide direction on the management of human use and development in a manner that will maintain ecological values and provide sustainable tourism. Responsibility for ful"lling these objectives was assigned to a "ve-person &&expert'' Task Force. 5.2. The Task Force and study process In assigning the Task Force the foregoing mandate, the Minister of the day stressed the importance of consulting the Canadian public, both in terms of including them in the study process, and in respecting their views when formulating "nal recommendations. As will be seen, this &&guideline'' heavily in#uenced the direction and
275
work of the Task Force. At the outset, the Task Force identi"ed six major initiatives it felt would allow it to ful"ll its mandate. They were to z develop a program to involve the public; z collect and assess existing information about the Ban!-Bow Valley; z draft a Vision, Principles and Values for the Valley; z identify and assess key issues; z draft speci"c objectives and actions; z prepare recommendations for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The Task Force made an early decision that the study process should be explicitly driven by all stakeholder groups having an active and proven interest in ensuring the environmental, economic, and social well-being of the Park. In order to turn this philosophical commitment into hard reality, the Task Force established a formal Round Table process. This Round Table served as the heart of the consultation, advisory, and analysis activities that provided the Task Force with the information, ideas, insights, and understanding used to formulate its "nal recommendations. 5.3. The Round Table: process, structure, and composition The Round Table process (Fig. 1), which served as the primary vehicle for soliciting public and community input, is an approach that was unprecedented in the history
Fig. 1. The Round Table.
276
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
of National Parks in Canada } and one that many believe will have a profound e!ect on how Parks are managed in the future. The use of the Round Table (along with traditional programs) for obtaining public input, represented a shift from consulting the public, to asking them to share in the responsibility for making decisions about their national parks } based on their &&interests'' rather than their &&positions'' (Fisher & Ury, 1991). This approach to consensus planning has been labeled &&InterestBased Negotiation'' (IBN). In contrast to other approaches for obtaining public input and consensus that have been reported in the tourism literature (Simmons, 1994; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Haywood, 1988; Keogh, 1990; Ritchie, 1988), the IBN model not only sought consensus from participating stakeholders; it also transferred a meaningful percentage of actual decision-making power from the Task Force (representing the national government) to participating stakeholders (representing all Canadians). In speci"c terms, members of the Task Force agreed to the principle that if full consensus was reached by the Round Table on any recommendation of substance, then that recommendation would, without further analysis or debate, be included in the Task Force's "nal report to the Minister. In areas where full consensus was not achieved, responsibility for weighing the inputs received, and the subsequent framing of "nal recommendations, fell to the appointed Task Force. As for the structure and composition of the Round Table, it was composed of some fourteen &&interest sectors''. Each of these sectors, as the name implies, was established to represent the interests of its constituents within the process designed to plan the future of the Ban!-Bow Valley region. Each sector was, in turn, comprised of a Chair, a working committee, and a supporting constituency. The information sharing and negotiation process was facilitated by a technical expert who worked with the Round Table members to develop procedural rules, to formulate a Vision, Principles, and Goals for the future of the region, to analyze the major issues involved, to reach consensus, and to put forth "nal recommendations. The Round Table met monthly between February 1995 and March 1996.
Valley Round Table } a task that was driven by the values of all Canadians, not only the demands of the marketplace. In &&imagining'' the future of the Ban!-Bow Valley, the Round Table faced several unique challenges. These challenges stemmed largely from the valley's location in a national park. First, it had to consider that people in all parts of the country are concerned about what happens in Ban! National Park. It is normal for the people who live in, work in and visit the park to have a special interest in the Bow Valley. But national parks belong to all Canadians. The vision had to re#ect the ideas and aspirations of all citizens. A second di$culty was the need to capture the essential purposes of a national park. While national parks make a useful, and often sizable, contribution to the economy, their broader signi"cance is not easy to quantify. Ecological integrity has no &&bottom line''. Its worth is largely counted in intangibles. The vision had to express this qualitative richness, this intrinsic value that dollars and cents have di$culty measuring (Prugh, 1995). This did not mean that all was possible. While crafting a vision is &&a license to dream'', one must temper dreams with reality. In imagining the desired future for the Ban!-Bow Valley, it was important to remember that achieving qualitative richness has a cost, one that all Canadians must be willing to pay } and one that the framework for the vision had to capture.
6. Crafting a vision for a Canadian treasure: a value-driven versus a market-driven process
6.2. Visioning } a process within a process
Senge observed that, &&Few, if any forces in human a!airs are as powerful as a shared vision.'' (Senge, 1990). The Ban!-Bow Valley Task Force further stated that, &&By crafting a vision of the world we seek for ourselves, and for the generations who will follow, we take responsibility for the future. We trace a roadmap we can use to chart a direction and check that our day to day activities contribute to our long-term hopes for the future'' (BBVS, 1996). This was the task entrusted to the Ban!-Bow
6.1. Destination vision } a conceptual framework A &&vision'' can take many forms. In the present case, the members of the Round Table agreed upon the conceptual framework shown in Fig. 2. The framework had "ve distinct components. They involved: a Preamble } an introduction which sought to put the purpose, structure, and content of the vision into context (see Fig. 3); the anchor values that de"ned the main values on which the development of the vision should be based. As the graphic attempts to emphasize, the total vision rests "rmly on the values from which it was derived. The set of values agreed to by members of the Round Table is summarized in Fig. 4.
As noted earlier, the Ban!-Bow Valley Study had three major objectives. The "rst } the focus of this paper } was &&to develop goals and a vision for the Bow Valley in Ban! National Park that bring together economic, social, and economic values''. Because of the size of the Round Table, the availability of volunteer time, and the primacy of vision development within the overall study, the Round Table decided that this speci"c task merited the creation of a &&process within a process''. Towards this end, it established an
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
277
a strong motivational force, it has little hope of success if all interested parties do not believe in it or commit themselves to achieving it. It must be stressed that the most arduous segment of the total visioning process probably related to the reaching of consensus on the values that, in the end, anchored the "nal vision. It was during this stage of the process that the nature of the character and the objectives of Working Group members became truly evident. While the subsequent stages of vision formulation were demanding in their own way, it was the ability to &&test'' the range of proposed vision elements against the agreed upon value set that greatly facilitated and accelerated the subsequent stages of the visioning process. Once the set of values (shown in Fig. 4) had been agreed upon by members of the Working Group, and "nally rati"ed by the Round Table, the main thrust of the Bow Valley Vision } the Core Vision } was formulated. 6.3. The Core Vision
Fig. 2. Destination Vision: a conceptual framework.
eight-person &&dedicated'' Vision Working Group (VWG) (see Fig. 5). The VWG was assigned the responsibility of preparing a series of draft visions for review and revision by the entire Round Table. In undertaking its task, it was agreed that the Vision should be: (a) An Informed
*
*
*
*
a review of literature on &&visioning''; a brainstorming session with the Round Table to identify the long-term interests and aspirations of each sector; existing legislation, policy and international conventions; previous similar e!orts in the Rocky Mountain District; thoughts from participants in Phase 1 of the Task Force's Public Participation Program; the work of other organizations that have developed sustainable land use and resource management strategies based on a common vision.
(b) A Shared
The Core
278
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
Fig. 3. &&Preamble'' or introduction to the vision statement for the Ban!-Bow Valley Region.
ecological values are protected while appropriate kinds and levels of human activity are welcomed. Within the valley, natural systems and all their component native species are free to function and evolve. The Bow Valley supports and is supported by the natural systems of the region around it.'' z A
values, ethics, natural and cultural heritage, and services are provided both within and beyond the boundaries of the Park. Introduction to this knowledge is a fundamental part of each visitor's experiences.'' z An Economic ¹heme } &&Understanding the value of our National Parks is a part of being Canadian. Education and awareness about National Park values, ethics, natural and cultural heritage, and services are provided both within and beyond the boundaries of the Park. Introduction to this knowledge is a fundamental part of each visitor's experiences.'' z A Community ¹heme } &&Communities in the Bow Valley are healthy and viable and are leaders in the quest for environmental and cultural sustainability. Residents are hospitable and pride themselves in accepting their responsibility for protecting and sharing this
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
279
ing the National Park and regional ecosystem. To achieve this, they nurture cooperation with businesses, organizations, and individuals. Public participation processes contribute to open, accountable, and responsible decision-making. Principles of precaution are exercised when the e!ects on the ecosystem are uncertain. Laws and regulations a!ecting the economy and the environment are consistent and predictable. Enforcement of regulations is consistent for all.'' 6.5. Realizing the vision The vision statement for the Ban!-Bow Valley is admittedly rather idealistic and somewhat lengthy. Nevertheless, it has already served as the basis for the development of a &&Heritage Tourism Strategy'' (Sandford, 1997) for the region. This strategy, which stresses visitor education facilitated by both public and private sector programs, is being guided in its realization by a series of &&Guiding Principles'' which in themselves form an explicit component of the vision statement. The principles are given in Fig. 6. In addition, the Vision provided a considerable amount of direction for the preparation of a revised Park Management Plan (Parks Canada, 1997). This plan is the one document that prescribes the actions for all development decisions and for the ongoing operations of the Park. Fig. 4. A statement of the values on which the Vision for the Ban!-Bow Valley is based.
6.6. Broadening understanding and acceptance of the **national vision++ At every stage in the process, the working group tried to ensure that the interests of everyone were fairly and accurately represented. Towards this end, as the process neared its "nal stages, the Task Force issued invitations for further comments on the draft vision. In order to obtain reactions from as many Canadians as possible, several di!erent approaches were used:
Fig. 5. The vision working group.
natural and cultural heritage for the bene"t of present and future generations.'' z A Governance ¹heme } &&Federal, provincial and municipal authorities cooperate in protecting and manag-
z individuals and organizations who had expressed an interest in the topic during the public participation phases were again asked for their views; z the Task Force sent copies of the draft of the vision that had been agreed to by the Round Table, along with a questionnaire, to the approximately one thousand people on its mailing list (this list was comprised of individuals who, in various ways, had indicated an interest in the study); z the Round Table sectors distributed the draft vision to their members; z organizations, such as the Canadian Nature Federation, the Alberta Tourism Partnership, the Ban!Lake Louise Tourism Bureau received copies of the Vision for review by their members;
280
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
Fig. 6. Principles guiding implementation of the Vision.
z the Task Force circulated the Vision at public meetings across the country and invited comments.
7. Concluding remarks In commissioning the Ban!-Bow Valley Task Force in 1995, the Minister challenged all Canadians as follows: &&We urgently need a common vision in the Bow Valley. But we cannot come to a common vision unless we work together. Whether we are environmentalists or business people, park administrators
or concerned citizens, we will be more successful in working with interested parties and building upon our common ground, rather than becoming divided because of our di!erences. Canadians, and Albertans in particular, share an intense pride in the quality of life in the Ban!Bow Valley. This pride re#ects a desire to achieve and maintain a healthy balance and sense of community. Many area residents believe that the current state of the Park serves as a strong argument for striking a balance between measures to ensure maintenance of ecological integrity and sustainable tourism. They
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
support such mechanisms as continuing to preserve park ecosystems and managing resources in partnership with surrounding jurisdictions. Their concerns underscore the need to conduct consultations to thoroughly and objectively examine the many issues and to make recommendations concerning the long-term management of the valley.'' In submitting its "nal report, the Task Force in turn made an equally evocative statement regarding the essence of the process and the report itself : &&This vision is the culmination of a collaborative e!ort by a large number of Canadians to whom the Ban!-Bow Valley is of great importance. The heart of the vision is not in the words but the spirit of cooperation and collaboration in which they were written. At a crucial time in the life of the Valley, it is an attempt to re#ect on the past, understand the present, and imagine the future.'' They further stated that &&The shared decision-making process adopted by the Table was slow and di$cult. Moments of frustration encompassed everyone involved, but were countered by hard work and good faith 2 hours of exploring di!erences in a search for agreements have allowed participants to gain a better understanding of what is truly important to them and to others. The results of these hours of hard work speak for themselves. For the "rst time, the Ban!-Bow Valley has a multi-stakeholder vision that will anchor the park as it faces the future. The Task Force accepted this Vision, endorsed by all the sectors represented at the Round Table in the spirit in which it was presented } not as the end of something, but as the beginning.'' The intensity of the foregoing statements is but one indication of the breadth and depth of the e!ort that characterized the Ban!-Bow Valley Study and its desire to provide a lasting framework that would protect a national tourism treasure } while at the same time attempting to ensure that it could be enjoyed both today and into the future. From a substantive perspective, it is broadly recognized in Canada that the crafting of a Vision for the Ban!-Bow Valley was an historic undertaking. In quantitative terms alone, the allocation of time and resources (2 years and $2.4 million) was a clear indication of its signi"cance. In qualitative terms, the use of an Expert Task Force, supported by a dedicated Secretariat and specialized consultants, plus the extensive contribution of volunteer times represented a unique blending of professional expertise and democratic commitment. This dedication of both economic resources and social &&caring'' to
281
the formulation of a Vision for a truly national treasure, was itself a phenomenon that is unlikely to be seen again in any foreseeable future. Given the extent of this commitment, one may quite legitimately ask whether or not the substantive "ndings and recommendations have in fact contributed to meaningful change. Fortunately, in this case, it is fair to claim that such change is occurring. In the "rst instance, the report, and particularly the &&Vision'' it proposed, have served as the foundation for major modi"cations to the Ban! National Park (BNP) Management Plan (Parks Canada, 1997). This public sector change was further enhanced by a private sector initiative to establish and implement a &&Heritage Tourism Strategy'' for BNP (Sandford, 1997). In even more concrete terms, the current Minister has recently announced sweeping policy changes which will not only cap future commercial development, but will also see 17% of the townsite returned into parkland. As part of the process, an existing commercial block will be allocated to a new interpretative centre (Calgary Herald, 1998). Finally, from a methodological standpoint, it can be asserted that the approach employed for the overall study, &&Interest Based Negotiation'', represented an innovative e!ort to ensure that, within reason, the interests of &&all Canadians'' were taken into account in charting the future of a small } but very special } part of Canada. Perhaps even more important, the dedication of all participants to vision formulation (the &&process within a process''), attempted to ensure that the values } the &&deeply held enduring beliefs'' } of Canadians, were enshrined in the guidelines for the perpetual stewardship of what is both a &&national treasure'' and a &&global tourism icon''. It is most encouraging that the "rst steps have been taken to protect the ecological integrity of the national treasure. The remaining challenge is to implement policies to ensure that all Canadians can fairly and equitably appreciate and enjoy the commemorative integrity of this national treasure. It is a challenge that will test the competence and commitment of all professionals in the tourism sector.
Acknowledgements The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the fellow members of the Ban!-Bow Valley Study Task Force for their contribution, commitment, and collegiality throughout the study process. Other Task Force members were: Dr. Robert Page (Chair, The University of Calgary), Dr. Suzanne Bayley (University of Alberta), Mr. Douglas Cook (Taurscale Consultants Ltd.), and Mr. Je!rey Green (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.) Appreciation is also extended to members of the Secretariat that provided invaluable support to the Task Force, to Mr. Craig Darling, Facilitator for the Study,
282
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
and very especially to all participants in the visioning process on which this paper is primarily based.
References AEDT (1993). ¹ourism 2000: A vision for the future. Alberta Economic Development and Tourism: Edmonton, Alberta. Amelio, G., & Sinn, W. (1996). Pro,t from experiences: ¹he national semiconductor story of transformation management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Barker, J. A. (1992). Discovering the future: The power of vision. Winter Park, FL: In"nity Limited. BBVS (1996). Ban+-Bow
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). ¹he balanced scorecard: ¹ranslating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kennedy, A. J. (1994). Cumulative e+ects assessment in Canada: From concept to practice. 15th Symposium of the Alberta Society of Professional Biologists. Calgary, Alberta: Alberta Association of Professional Biologists. Keogh, B. (1990). Public participation in community tourism planning. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 17, 449}465. Kotliko!, L. J. (1992). Generational accounting: Knowing who pays, and when, for what we spend. New York: The Free Press. Lear, N. (1997). Aiming higher: 25 stories of how companies prosper by combining sound management and social vision. New York: AMACOM, American Management Association. McIntyre, G., Hetherington, A., & Inskeep, E. (1993). Sustainable tourism development: Guide for local planners. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy. Harvard Business Review. NPS (1996). National parks for the 21st century: ¹he
Crafting a value-driven vision for a national tourism treasure J.R. Brent Ritchie* Faculty of Management, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 Received February 1998; accepted August 1998
Abstract The growing level of international competition in the tourism marketplace, and the length of lead times for developing the major facilities necessary to meet this competition, have made strategic level planning increasingly imperative. A critical early stage in the strategic planning process is the formulation of a destination vision } a statement that provides an inspirational portrait of a desired future for the destination. Typically, such visions are market-driven. For certain destinations however } those having a very special meaning for stakeholders } the vision formulation process may be driven, not by market forces, but by the values (the &&deeply held, enduring beliefs'') of those a!ected. One example of such a vision is presented in this paper. It concerns a vision developed for a unique national treasure } and a global tourism icon. The treasure/icon in question is Ban! National Park, located in the province of Alberta, Canada. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
&&A vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.'' (Joel Barker, 1992)
1. Introduction The quest for sustainability is now fully entrenched as a basic principle in the development of tourism destinations (McIntyre et al., 1993; Inskeep, 1991; Hunter, 1995; Bramwell & Lane, 1993). The desire to achieve sustainable development is a growing force that has rede"ned both the nature of tourism policy/strategy and the processes by which they are formulated. More speci"cally, the quest for sustainability has meant that: z Tourism planning and development horizons must, by necessity, take an increasingly longer look into the future. The magnitude of today's development decisions, and their associated investments, infers they will have impacts well beyond the lifetimes of those making the decisions. At the same time, the growing political sophistication of voters has led them to recognize their
*Tel.: (403) 220-3800; fax: (403) 282-0095; e-mail: britchie @mgmt.ucalgary.ca.
responsibility for intergenerational equity (Kotliko!, 1992) when undertaking initiatives that may well a!ect both their children and grandchildren. z Tourism planning and development must acknowledge the cumulative impacts of a stream of development decisions taken over time. It is no longer adequate to assess, and take into account, the immediate environmental, social, and economic impacts of a given development proposal. Rather, to the extent of current measurement capabilities, development decisions must attempt to examine proposals from an integrated and cumulative perspective (Smit & Spaling, 1995; Kennedy, 1994). Under such a perspective, both the crossimpacts and the sequential impacts of development must be assessed. Cross-impacts refer to the relative enhancement or diminution that one project has on the impacts of another. Sequential impacts refer to the additive nature of impacts where the cumulative impacts may be greater (or less) than the simple additive properties of individual projects. z Tourism planning and development is an increasingly important component of societal planning and development. As such, tourism development decisions must be increasingly integrated into a society's overall social, economic, and environmental planning decisions (Staite & Wong, 1995; WTO, 1996; Buckley, 1996). z Tourism planning and development must re#ect the changing nature of societal decision-making. The growing demand for broad scale public participation in
0261-5177/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 2 3 - X
274
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
decision-making a!ecting its well being cannot be ignored by the tourism sector. The planning processes must not only accommodate, but must take advantage of, the movement towards more extensive public involvement in the making of key decisions that a!ect social and economic well-being. These processes must be organized to "rst attract citizens. They must then facilitate their active and meaningful involvement with the goal of reaching widespread consensus regarding the directions which tourism development in their area should take, and how these directions can best be realized. This widespread consensus may be de"ned as &&the sharing of a common destination vision''.
2. Achieving a common vision for a tourism destination It has been argued that the most signi"cant step in the process of societal planning as it relates to tourism development is the formulation and acceptance of a common, idealized vision as to what the population believes the future of that destination should be. While this ideal Vision may not always be realized, it does provide an agreed upon benchmark towards which both the general community and the tourism sector can more e!ectively direct their e!orts. While a common vision may not obtain the unquali"ed support of all community residents, particularly with respect to the details of implementation, it should provide a development framework where none of the key components are judged to be totally unacceptable by any signi"cant stakeholder group. As such, once agreed upon, a destination vision should provide a context in which initiatives to secure its realization will not be blocked, even if they may not be enthusiastically supported in every case.
3. Visioning: its conceptual/organizational roots The concept of visioning is by no means a new one. The importance and usage of visioning has been reported by an expanding number of individuals and organizations (Amelio & Sinn, 1996; Collins & Porras, 1994; Lear, 1997; JVSV, 1993; NPS, 1996; Westley, 1992; Heilbroner, 1995). In many ways, the concept of visioning is an outgrowth of the extensive use of a range of strategic planning approaches developed by various &&strategic thinkers'' (Mintzberg, 1987). It should be noted that a particular characteristic of many of these &&thinkers'' was a preoccupation with ensuring that their visions were realized, that is, translated into reality (Hurst, 1995; Kaplan & Norton, 1996; IMD, 1991). Some view a vision statement as a concise statement of organizational purpose } much akin to a mission state-
ment. Others envisage a vision as a very detailed statement, or integrated set of statements, which attempt to portray or describe the destination in question at some point in the future. While there may be a divergence of views as to the precise de"nition of an organizational vision, there is more general agreement that a vision should re#ect the values of stakeholders for whom it is developed. If this assertion holds true in the corporate world, it is arguably even more essential that stakeholder values be a fundamental component of any vision that seeks to capture the public will regarding a national treasure.
4. Some early examples of tourism destination visions The concept of visioning has not as yet received extensive attention in the tourism, or tourism-related, literature. One of the earlier reported applications concerned a large urban destination (Ritchie, 1993). The destination (Calgary, Canada) had focused its development around its western heritage, its proximity to the Canadian Rockies, and its successful hosting of the 1988 Olympic Winter Games. In terms of detail, this particular example of a vision consisted of an overall statement containing principles underlying the vision, elements of the vision itself, and a framework for identifying the facilities, events, and programs required to realize the vision. Examples at the state/provincial level have been reported by the governments of Alberta (AEDT, 1993) and Saskatchewan (SERM, 1996). A broader initiative, which examined the entire issue of land use (tourism included), has been reported by the government of British Columbia (CORE, 1994). In contrast to the foregoing examples, which tended to have strong marketing orientations, the present case provides insight into the visioning process within an environmentally sensitive, national heritage setting. The case in question was formally known as the Ban!-Bow Valley Study (BBVS).
5. The Ban4-Bow Valley study The study's formal terms of reference described its purpose as follows: 00¹he Bow
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
are sustainable and meet the objectives of the National Parks Act.11 (BBVS, 1996) 5.1. Objectives Within this overall purpose, the study had three major objectives: z to develop a vision and goals for the Ban!-Bow Valley that integrate ecological, social and economic values; z to complete a comprehensive analysis of existing information, and to provide direction for future collection and analysis of data to achieve ongoing goals; and z to provide direction on the management of human use and development in a manner that will maintain ecological values and provide sustainable tourism. Responsibility for ful"lling these objectives was assigned to a "ve-person &&expert'' Task Force. 5.2. The Task Force and study process In assigning the Task Force the foregoing mandate, the Minister of the day stressed the importance of consulting the Canadian public, both in terms of including them in the study process, and in respecting their views when formulating "nal recommendations. As will be seen, this &&guideline'' heavily in#uenced the direction and
275
work of the Task Force. At the outset, the Task Force identi"ed six major initiatives it felt would allow it to ful"ll its mandate. They were to z develop a program to involve the public; z collect and assess existing information about the Ban!-Bow Valley; z draft a Vision, Principles and Values for the Valley; z identify and assess key issues; z draft speci"c objectives and actions; z prepare recommendations for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The Task Force made an early decision that the study process should be explicitly driven by all stakeholder groups having an active and proven interest in ensuring the environmental, economic, and social well-being of the Park. In order to turn this philosophical commitment into hard reality, the Task Force established a formal Round Table process. This Round Table served as the heart of the consultation, advisory, and analysis activities that provided the Task Force with the information, ideas, insights, and understanding used to formulate its "nal recommendations. 5.3. The Round Table: process, structure, and composition The Round Table process (Fig. 1), which served as the primary vehicle for soliciting public and community input, is an approach that was unprecedented in the history
Fig. 1. The Round Table.
276
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
of National Parks in Canada } and one that many believe will have a profound e!ect on how Parks are managed in the future. The use of the Round Table (along with traditional programs) for obtaining public input, represented a shift from consulting the public, to asking them to share in the responsibility for making decisions about their national parks } based on their &&interests'' rather than their &&positions'' (Fisher & Ury, 1991). This approach to consensus planning has been labeled &&InterestBased Negotiation'' (IBN). In contrast to other approaches for obtaining public input and consensus that have been reported in the tourism literature (Simmons, 1994; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Haywood, 1988; Keogh, 1990; Ritchie, 1988), the IBN model not only sought consensus from participating stakeholders; it also transferred a meaningful percentage of actual decision-making power from the Task Force (representing the national government) to participating stakeholders (representing all Canadians). In speci"c terms, members of the Task Force agreed to the principle that if full consensus was reached by the Round Table on any recommendation of substance, then that recommendation would, without further analysis or debate, be included in the Task Force's "nal report to the Minister. In areas where full consensus was not achieved, responsibility for weighing the inputs received, and the subsequent framing of "nal recommendations, fell to the appointed Task Force. As for the structure and composition of the Round Table, it was composed of some fourteen &&interest sectors''. Each of these sectors, as the name implies, was established to represent the interests of its constituents within the process designed to plan the future of the Ban!-Bow Valley region. Each sector was, in turn, comprised of a Chair, a working committee, and a supporting constituency. The information sharing and negotiation process was facilitated by a technical expert who worked with the Round Table members to develop procedural rules, to formulate a Vision, Principles, and Goals for the future of the region, to analyze the major issues involved, to reach consensus, and to put forth "nal recommendations. The Round Table met monthly between February 1995 and March 1996.
Valley Round Table } a task that was driven by the values of all Canadians, not only the demands of the marketplace. In &&imagining'' the future of the Ban!-Bow Valley, the Round Table faced several unique challenges. These challenges stemmed largely from the valley's location in a national park. First, it had to consider that people in all parts of the country are concerned about what happens in Ban! National Park. It is normal for the people who live in, work in and visit the park to have a special interest in the Bow Valley. But national parks belong to all Canadians. The vision had to re#ect the ideas and aspirations of all citizens. A second di$culty was the need to capture the essential purposes of a national park. While national parks make a useful, and often sizable, contribution to the economy, their broader signi"cance is not easy to quantify. Ecological integrity has no &&bottom line''. Its worth is largely counted in intangibles. The vision had to express this qualitative richness, this intrinsic value that dollars and cents have di$culty measuring (Prugh, 1995). This did not mean that all was possible. While crafting a vision is &&a license to dream'', one must temper dreams with reality. In imagining the desired future for the Ban!-Bow Valley, it was important to remember that achieving qualitative richness has a cost, one that all Canadians must be willing to pay } and one that the framework for the vision had to capture.
6. Crafting a vision for a Canadian treasure: a value-driven versus a market-driven process
6.2. Visioning } a process within a process
Senge observed that, &&Few, if any forces in human a!airs are as powerful as a shared vision.'' (Senge, 1990). The Ban!-Bow Valley Task Force further stated that, &&By crafting a vision of the world we seek for ourselves, and for the generations who will follow, we take responsibility for the future. We trace a roadmap we can use to chart a direction and check that our day to day activities contribute to our long-term hopes for the future'' (BBVS, 1996). This was the task entrusted to the Ban!-Bow
6.1. Destination vision } a conceptual framework A &&vision'' can take many forms. In the present case, the members of the Round Table agreed upon the conceptual framework shown in Fig. 2. The framework had "ve distinct components. They involved: a Preamble } an introduction which sought to put the purpose, structure, and content of the vision into context (see Fig. 3); the anchor values that de"ned the main values on which the development of the vision should be based. As the graphic attempts to emphasize, the total vision rests "rmly on the values from which it was derived. The set of values agreed to by members of the Round Table is summarized in Fig. 4.
As noted earlier, the Ban!-Bow Valley Study had three major objectives. The "rst } the focus of this paper } was &&to develop goals and a vision for the Bow Valley in Ban! National Park that bring together economic, social, and economic values''. Because of the size of the Round Table, the availability of volunteer time, and the primacy of vision development within the overall study, the Round Table decided that this speci"c task merited the creation of a &&process within a process''. Towards this end, it established an
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
277
a strong motivational force, it has little hope of success if all interested parties do not believe in it or commit themselves to achieving it. It must be stressed that the most arduous segment of the total visioning process probably related to the reaching of consensus on the values that, in the end, anchored the "nal vision. It was during this stage of the process that the nature of the character and the objectives of Working Group members became truly evident. While the subsequent stages of vision formulation were demanding in their own way, it was the ability to &&test'' the range of proposed vision elements against the agreed upon value set that greatly facilitated and accelerated the subsequent stages of the visioning process. Once the set of values (shown in Fig. 4) had been agreed upon by members of the Working Group, and "nally rati"ed by the Round Table, the main thrust of the Bow Valley Vision } the Core Vision } was formulated. 6.3. The Core Vision
Fig. 2. Destination Vision: a conceptual framework.
eight-person &&dedicated'' Vision Working Group (VWG) (see Fig. 5). The VWG was assigned the responsibility of preparing a series of draft visions for review and revision by the entire Round Table. In undertaking its task, it was agreed that the Vision should be: (a) An Informed
*
*
*
*
a review of literature on &&visioning''; a brainstorming session with the Round Table to identify the long-term interests and aspirations of each sector; existing legislation, policy and international conventions; previous similar e!orts in the Rocky Mountain District; thoughts from participants in Phase 1 of the Task Force's Public Participation Program; the work of other organizations that have developed sustainable land use and resource management strategies based on a common vision.
(b) A Shared
The Core
278
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
Fig. 3. &&Preamble'' or introduction to the vision statement for the Ban!-Bow Valley Region.
ecological values are protected while appropriate kinds and levels of human activity are welcomed. Within the valley, natural systems and all their component native species are free to function and evolve. The Bow Valley supports and is supported by the natural systems of the region around it.'' z A
values, ethics, natural and cultural heritage, and services are provided both within and beyond the boundaries of the Park. Introduction to this knowledge is a fundamental part of each visitor's experiences.'' z An Economic ¹heme } &&Understanding the value of our National Parks is a part of being Canadian. Education and awareness about National Park values, ethics, natural and cultural heritage, and services are provided both within and beyond the boundaries of the Park. Introduction to this knowledge is a fundamental part of each visitor's experiences.'' z A Community ¹heme } &&Communities in the Bow Valley are healthy and viable and are leaders in the quest for environmental and cultural sustainability. Residents are hospitable and pride themselves in accepting their responsibility for protecting and sharing this
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
279
ing the National Park and regional ecosystem. To achieve this, they nurture cooperation with businesses, organizations, and individuals. Public participation processes contribute to open, accountable, and responsible decision-making. Principles of precaution are exercised when the e!ects on the ecosystem are uncertain. Laws and regulations a!ecting the economy and the environment are consistent and predictable. Enforcement of regulations is consistent for all.'' 6.5. Realizing the vision The vision statement for the Ban!-Bow Valley is admittedly rather idealistic and somewhat lengthy. Nevertheless, it has already served as the basis for the development of a &&Heritage Tourism Strategy'' (Sandford, 1997) for the region. This strategy, which stresses visitor education facilitated by both public and private sector programs, is being guided in its realization by a series of &&Guiding Principles'' which in themselves form an explicit component of the vision statement. The principles are given in Fig. 6. In addition, the Vision provided a considerable amount of direction for the preparation of a revised Park Management Plan (Parks Canada, 1997). This plan is the one document that prescribes the actions for all development decisions and for the ongoing operations of the Park. Fig. 4. A statement of the values on which the Vision for the Ban!-Bow Valley is based.
6.6. Broadening understanding and acceptance of the **national vision++ At every stage in the process, the working group tried to ensure that the interests of everyone were fairly and accurately represented. Towards this end, as the process neared its "nal stages, the Task Force issued invitations for further comments on the draft vision. In order to obtain reactions from as many Canadians as possible, several di!erent approaches were used:
Fig. 5. The vision working group.
natural and cultural heritage for the bene"t of present and future generations.'' z A Governance ¹heme } &&Federal, provincial and municipal authorities cooperate in protecting and manag-
z individuals and organizations who had expressed an interest in the topic during the public participation phases were again asked for their views; z the Task Force sent copies of the draft of the vision that had been agreed to by the Round Table, along with a questionnaire, to the approximately one thousand people on its mailing list (this list was comprised of individuals who, in various ways, had indicated an interest in the study); z the Round Table sectors distributed the draft vision to their members; z organizations, such as the Canadian Nature Federation, the Alberta Tourism Partnership, the Ban!Lake Louise Tourism Bureau received copies of the Vision for review by their members;
280
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
Fig. 6. Principles guiding implementation of the Vision.
z the Task Force circulated the Vision at public meetings across the country and invited comments.
7. Concluding remarks In commissioning the Ban!-Bow Valley Task Force in 1995, the Minister challenged all Canadians as follows: &&We urgently need a common vision in the Bow Valley. But we cannot come to a common vision unless we work together. Whether we are environmentalists or business people, park administrators
or concerned citizens, we will be more successful in working with interested parties and building upon our common ground, rather than becoming divided because of our di!erences. Canadians, and Albertans in particular, share an intense pride in the quality of life in the Ban!Bow Valley. This pride re#ects a desire to achieve and maintain a healthy balance and sense of community. Many area residents believe that the current state of the Park serves as a strong argument for striking a balance between measures to ensure maintenance of ecological integrity and sustainable tourism. They
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
support such mechanisms as continuing to preserve park ecosystems and managing resources in partnership with surrounding jurisdictions. Their concerns underscore the need to conduct consultations to thoroughly and objectively examine the many issues and to make recommendations concerning the long-term management of the valley.'' In submitting its "nal report, the Task Force in turn made an equally evocative statement regarding the essence of the process and the report itself : &&This vision is the culmination of a collaborative e!ort by a large number of Canadians to whom the Ban!-Bow Valley is of great importance. The heart of the vision is not in the words but the spirit of cooperation and collaboration in which they were written. At a crucial time in the life of the Valley, it is an attempt to re#ect on the past, understand the present, and imagine the future.'' They further stated that &&The shared decision-making process adopted by the Table was slow and di$cult. Moments of frustration encompassed everyone involved, but were countered by hard work and good faith 2 hours of exploring di!erences in a search for agreements have allowed participants to gain a better understanding of what is truly important to them and to others. The results of these hours of hard work speak for themselves. For the "rst time, the Ban!-Bow Valley has a multi-stakeholder vision that will anchor the park as it faces the future. The Task Force accepted this Vision, endorsed by all the sectors represented at the Round Table in the spirit in which it was presented } not as the end of something, but as the beginning.'' The intensity of the foregoing statements is but one indication of the breadth and depth of the e!ort that characterized the Ban!-Bow Valley Study and its desire to provide a lasting framework that would protect a national tourism treasure } while at the same time attempting to ensure that it could be enjoyed both today and into the future. From a substantive perspective, it is broadly recognized in Canada that the crafting of a Vision for the Ban!-Bow Valley was an historic undertaking. In quantitative terms alone, the allocation of time and resources (2 years and $2.4 million) was a clear indication of its signi"cance. In qualitative terms, the use of an Expert Task Force, supported by a dedicated Secretariat and specialized consultants, plus the extensive contribution of volunteer times represented a unique blending of professional expertise and democratic commitment. This dedication of both economic resources and social &&caring'' to
281
the formulation of a Vision for a truly national treasure, was itself a phenomenon that is unlikely to be seen again in any foreseeable future. Given the extent of this commitment, one may quite legitimately ask whether or not the substantive "ndings and recommendations have in fact contributed to meaningful change. Fortunately, in this case, it is fair to claim that such change is occurring. In the "rst instance, the report, and particularly the &&Vision'' it proposed, have served as the foundation for major modi"cations to the Ban! National Park (BNP) Management Plan (Parks Canada, 1997). This public sector change was further enhanced by a private sector initiative to establish and implement a &&Heritage Tourism Strategy'' for BNP (Sandford, 1997). In even more concrete terms, the current Minister has recently announced sweeping policy changes which will not only cap future commercial development, but will also see 17% of the townsite returned into parkland. As part of the process, an existing commercial block will be allocated to a new interpretative centre (Calgary Herald, 1998). Finally, from a methodological standpoint, it can be asserted that the approach employed for the overall study, &&Interest Based Negotiation'', represented an innovative e!ort to ensure that, within reason, the interests of &&all Canadians'' were taken into account in charting the future of a small } but very special } part of Canada. Perhaps even more important, the dedication of all participants to vision formulation (the &&process within a process''), attempted to ensure that the values } the &&deeply held enduring beliefs'' } of Canadians, were enshrined in the guidelines for the perpetual stewardship of what is both a &&national treasure'' and a &&global tourism icon''. It is most encouraging that the "rst steps have been taken to protect the ecological integrity of the national treasure. The remaining challenge is to implement policies to ensure that all Canadians can fairly and equitably appreciate and enjoy the commemorative integrity of this national treasure. It is a challenge that will test the competence and commitment of all professionals in the tourism sector.
Acknowledgements The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the fellow members of the Ban!-Bow Valley Study Task Force for their contribution, commitment, and collegiality throughout the study process. Other Task Force members were: Dr. Robert Page (Chair, The University of Calgary), Dr. Suzanne Bayley (University of Alberta), Mr. Douglas Cook (Taurscale Consultants Ltd.), and Mr. Je!rey Green (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.) Appreciation is also extended to members of the Secretariat that provided invaluable support to the Task Force, to Mr. Craig Darling, Facilitator for the Study,
282
J.R. Brent Ritchie / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 273}282
and very especially to all participants in the visioning process on which this paper is primarily based.
References AEDT (1993). ¹ourism 2000: A vision for the future. Alberta Economic Development and Tourism: Edmonton, Alberta. Amelio, G., & Sinn, W. (1996). Pro,t from experiences: ¹he national semiconductor story of transformation management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Barker, J. A. (1992). Discovering the future: The power of vision. Winter Park, FL: In"nity Limited. BBVS (1996). Ban+-Bow
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). ¹he balanced scorecard: ¹ranslating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kennedy, A. J. (1994). Cumulative e+ects assessment in Canada: From concept to practice. 15th Symposium of the Alberta Society of Professional Biologists. Calgary, Alberta: Alberta Association of Professional Biologists. Keogh, B. (1990). Public participation in community tourism planning. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 17, 449}465. Kotliko!, L. J. (1992). Generational accounting: Knowing who pays, and when, for what we spend. New York: The Free Press. Lear, N. (1997). Aiming higher: 25 stories of how companies prosper by combining sound management and social vision. New York: AMACOM, American Management Association. McIntyre, G., Hetherington, A., & Inskeep, E. (1993). Sustainable tourism development: Guide for local planners. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy. Harvard Business Review. NPS (1996). National parks for the 21st century: ¹he