Question 1 -- (2)

Introduction

In this essay, we will be discussing the five approaches towards tourism planning that has
been described as part of Hall (2008). This will be augmented with examples that are drawn
from top destinations within Asia to illustrate the positive and negative aspects of the
different approaches. These approaches are namely that of boosterism, economic, physical,
community and sustainable and they will be discussed individually (Timothy, 1998).

Approaches

The first approach refers to boosterism which views tourism development as being inherently
good to the host desitionation. This can hence help to increase the overall well being of the
tourist host nation through the singular focus on tourism development since it is deemed to
be entirely good with no significant drawbacks to its growth (Blázquez et al., 2019).

The positive aspects of the approach can be seen from Thailand for instance where tourism
has indeed made up the bulk of its revenue generation as a country in its capital Bangkok,
as well as its smaller states like Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai among others (Peleggi, 1996).
This has contributed to much of its economic growth and development in recent years,
propelling it to become a hub in the South East Asian region to attract visitors from all
around the region and the world. The negative aspects of the approach can be seen from
the same country where the abundance of illegal and underground activities that are
occurring in the country as well. This has resulted in a deterioration of the local way of life
due to the proliferation of such red light districts that affect the way of life of the locals. This
hence shows the negative aspects of Boosterism which ignores the negative sides that could
have resulted from the tourism planning.

The second approach refers to economics which is an industry oriented approach. This
treats tourism as an industry that needs to be developed and hence it uses marketing to
attract its preferred and desired group of visitors (Keogh, 1990). This can be through pricing
or the design of the attraction in the first place. This will also be the rationale behind the
general accumulation of fixed capital assets that will be used to spurr tourism.

The positive aspects of the approach can be seen from the case of Singapore for instance.
Due to the lack of natural resources or natural ways to attract visitors, much of Singapore's
tourism is derived from an industry approach to the development of the local tourism scene.
This has resulted in the reputation for attracting only the most affluent of visitors to spend in
the nation. This has also been the trend in its development other forms of tourism like
medical tourism through its world class private healthcare system. This was augmented with
the development of popular shopping streets as well as the integrated resorts which are
clearly targeted at the most affluent of visitors. This has contributed strongly to the GDP of
the country. The negative aspects of the approach can be seen from how there is a constant
reliance on high marketing costs that are being put towards building such a brand. It is also
constantly being challenged by external competitors like Hong Kong among others, resulting
in huge uncertainty of the longevity of its tourism sector.

The third approach refers to the physical and spatial planning by using land and natural
resources to augment the tourism planning process. This comes from developing the local
physical environment as a form of attraction (Harrill & Potts, 2003)

The positive aspects of the approach can be seen from the Indonesian island of Bali. Bali is
well developed as a natural tourism location for tourists around the world (Rodenburg, 1980).
The location is well known for its pristine beaches as well as well developed resorts. This
has become the inherent comparative advantage of the region, allowing it to attract visitors
without having to engage in much more development in any way. As a result, it has also
become the defining factor of the region. The negative aspects of the approach can be seen
from how it has caused the country to be highly dependent on the economy. The COVID 19
pandemic has hence revealed its weaknesses, resulting in the collapse of the local economy
after travel has been adversely affected. This is similar to the dutch disease that is well
documented in the economics context. Hence, the overreliance on this single source of
income of the country by relying on such physical resources, it would definitely not be
sustainable and beneficial for the country in the long run.

The fourth approach refers to the community planning approach which puts focus on the
social and political context of the tourism planning process (Jamal & Getz, 1995). This
means that the locals will take a highly participative approach towards the development.
Hence the developments for tourism will be multifunctional to ensure that needs to the local
are fulfilled before tourism concerns are taken into account (Getz, 1992).

The positive aspects of the approach can be seen from countries like Taiwan. Taiwan is a
small nation that relies on tourism for its GDP as well. However, at the core of Taiwan's
strategy it is to fulfil the local community needs in ensuring that the tourism activity does not
adversely affect the local way of life (Treuren & Lane, 2003). The tourism aspect of planning
hence comes only after the development holds local needs. This can be seen in the
redevelopment of cultural heritage for instance to promote tourism while still ensuring that
locals are not negatively affected. The negative aspects of the approach can be seen from
how the tourism is significantly lackluster as compared to the neighbouring countries that are
highly dependent on such tourism.

The final approach refers to the sustainable approach which is an integrative form of
planning. This refers to integrating sustainable tourism development planning into its tourism
planning, accommodating the physical and economic dimensions to ensure viability (Sautter
& Leisen, 1999).

The positive aspects of the approach can be seen from China. China has an abundance of
local physical aspects that can allow them to develop their tourism sector. However, it also
ensures sustainable development by using these physical developments to create jobs and
develop the entire suburban region, ensuring physical as well as economic viability. The
negative aspects of the approach can be seen from the failures of such development in
various regions and only successes in less common occurrences limited to a small range of
developments that have this unique level of compatibility with the approach. Hence,
countries that are looking to adopt this must ensure that there is a match between the

Conclusion

Hence, overall, we can see that there are both spotiives as well as negatives to the
approaches that are recommended as part of the Hall (2008) and it is seen in practice from
the case study of various Asian tourism destinations. Hence the key question as we see is
not which is the best model, but which is the most suitable model for the country.
Question 2 -- (3)

Introduction

In this essay, we will be discussing the key reasons for national government support for
tourism with reference to at least one developing and developed destinations in Asia. This
would provide us with much greater insights towards the development strategy as well as
background to the country. The different reasons for government support for tourism also
underlines the different intended outcomes and hence the policies as well as management
policies that surround the development of such industries (Nunkoo & Smith, 2013). This can
also be referenced to the five approaches towards tourism planning that has been described
as part of Hall (2008). Overall, the discussion will highlight the difference in reasons and all
the connected variances in terms of the strategy for tourism development for different
countries (Wong, 1998). The two countries that we would look at within Asia would be
Singapore and Thailand. This would include that of a developing and a developed
destination in Asia with Singapore being the developed destination and Thailand being the
developing one.

Singapore

The first country that we would be looking at would be Singapore which is a developed
tourism destination. Singapore is one of the strongest economies within South East Asia and
it has also been leading the development of the region. It is an island nation that is not
bestowed with any strong economic resources and instead it has taken a highly proactive
approach towards developing the local tourism scene to attract visitors from all around the
world (Teo & Chang, 2012). The success of the approach is highlighted with high levels of
travel as well as tourism forming up a huge part of the nation's GDP annually. The slump
that we now see from the aftermath of the COVID crisis also highlights the importance of
tourism and related sectors to the economy of the country. In terms of government
involvement, there is a moderate level of tourism dependence given that the strong tourism
and hospitality sector is heavily reliant on such overseas clients (Huat, 2006). The
government adopts a unitary system and the economic and socio cultural system is that of a
mixed economy (Pennock, 1959).

If we were to look at the development of Singapore as a tourism destination, due to the lack
of natural resources or natural ways to attract visitors, much of Singapore's tourism is
derived from an industry approach to the development of the local tourism scene. This ehne
stems from government involvement, the success of which has resulted in the reputation for
attracting only the most affluent of visitors to spend in the nation. This has also been the
trend in its development other forms of tourism like medical tourism through its world class
private healthcare system. This was augmented with the development of popular shopping
streets as well as the integrated resorts which are clearly targeted at the most affluent of
visitors. This has contributed strongly to the GDP of the country. The developmental
approach by the government has also bear fruits as we all see the stark contrast in the
Singapore skyline just 10 years back (Pang, 2010). The intervention can hence be deemed
to be highly successful.

The reasons for government involvement can be stemmed from the need to grow the
tourism and hospitality sector. With Singapore acting as a trading port as well as a popular
flight transit destination, there was a key need for the Singapore government to step in and
catalyze the growth of the local tourism sector so as to augment the other sectors as well.
This was a key part of the government's economic diversification efforts in the early 2000s
as it seeked to move away from manufacturing and build the economy on higher stages of
the value chain. This also served to generate jobs for Singaporeans and attracted hundreds
of multinational hotel chains among others to call Singapore home. The contribution of
tourism to the economy is underlined by 4% contribution to GDP in 2019. It has also used
tourism as a way to develop its other parts of economy including that of medical services
among others to broaden the target market of the industry given Singapore's smaller
population and market size. This can help to boost the profitability and feasibility of various
industries. As a result, the government has been involved in not just the marketing of
Singapore as a destination, but also offers planning and funding to develop key sites like the
MBS and the Gardens by the Bay which have become iconic parts of our local tourism
scene. This hence underlines the development of Singapore as a tourist destination as well
as the various reasons why and how the government intervened.

Thailand

Thailand is another popular destination in the South East Asia region and is well known for
being a cheap and exciting place to visit if you are on a budget. The thailand government
held the belief that tourism was a highly effective way to fast track the growth of the
economy and it has been successful for the larger part with a wide range of attractions
across the country ranging from Phuket to Bangkok, each offering a different and unique
experience. However, for the context of the discussion, we will focus on Bangkok itself rather
than its neighbouring states and islands. For Thailand, the strength and reliance on the
tourism sector can be seen from its 20% GDP contribution in 2019 with projections that it
would hit 30% by 2030 (Wattanakuljarus, 2007).

For Bangkok itself, tourism is built upon less family friendly services as well as a wide range
of cheap shopping spots that have often been criticized for propagating counterfeit items
(Cohen, 1988). This however, has made it very popular with regional tourists who visit for
their annual shopping spree. The development of Bangkok as a tourism destination is largely
local private sector driven and the government does not intervene much beyond building the
accompanying infrastructure like transport (Limanond et al., 2011). This has resulted in the
spawning of large malls and shopping streets within the country to cater to tourists. Hence,
the approach that the government takes can be that of a passive involvement.

The reasons for government involvement can be stemmed from the need to grow the
tourism and hospitality sector as it contributes to such a large percentage of the local GDP.
The key ways that the government intervenes comes through the established Tourism
Authority of Thailand (Ingram et al., 2013). The key reasons for government intervention
comes from managing the impacts of tourism as well as regulation activities that would serve
to increase the safety and experience of tourists and locals in general. For instance, there
was a ban instituted for Airbnb due to the negative effects that it has brought about to local
residents, resulting in private developments having strong complaints about the effects of
such short stay visitors. Hence, the government has put in laws to support the industry and
also protect the locals from the negative effects of tourism. Aside from that the Tourism
Authority of Thailand also helps to undertake strong levels of marketing and promotion for
the country as a tourist destination to boost tourism levels.

Conclusion

Overall, we can see the key differences between the two countries in terms of the reason for
government intervention as well as the roles of the government in terms of promoting and
supporting the local tourism industry.
References

1. Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning.
Annals of tourism research, 22(1), 186-204.
2. Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders a tourism planning model.
Annals of tourism research, 26(2), 312-328.
3. Getz, D. (1992). Tourism planning and destination life cycle. Annals of tourism research,
19(4), 752-770.
4. Keogh, B. (1990). Public participation in community tourism planning. Annals of tourism
research, 17(3), 449-465.
5. Timothy, D. J. (1998). Cooperative tourism planning in a developing destination. Journal
of sustainable tourism, 6(1), 52-68.
6. Blázquez Salom, M., Blanco-Romero, A., Vera-Rebollo, F., & Ivars-Baidal, J. (2019).
Territorial tourism planning in Spain: from boosterism to tourism degrowth?. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 27(12), 1764-1785.
7. Treuren, G., & Lane, D. (2003). The tourism planning process in the context of
organised interests, industry structure, state capacity, accumulation and sustainability.
Current Issues in Tourism, 6(1), 1-22.
8. Harrill, R., & Potts, T. D. (2003). Tourism planning in historic districts: Attitudes toward
tourism development in Charleston. Journal of the American Planning Association,
69(3), 233-244.
9. Rodenburg, E. E. (1980). The effects of scale in economic development: Tourism in
Bali. Annals of tourism research, 7(2), 177-196.
10. Peleggi, M. (1996). National heritage and global tourism in Thailand. Annals of tourism
research, 23(2), 432-448.
11. Nunkoo, R., & Smith, S. L. (2013). Political economy of tourism: Trust in government
actors, political support, and their determinants. Tourism management, 36, 120-132.
12. Wong, P. P. (1998). Coastal tourism development in Southeast Asia: relevance and
lessons for coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 38(2), 89-109.
13. Teo, P., & Chang, T. C. (2012). Singapore: tourism development in. Tourism in south
and southeast Asia, 117.
14. Huat, J. Y. C. (2006). Medical tourism/medical travel (part two). SMA News, 38(7), 14-
16.
15. Pang, J. M. (2010). Perceptions of the tourism and hospitality industry by Singapore
polytechnic hospitality students: An exploratory study.
16. Pennock, J. R. (1959). Federal and unitary government—disharmony and frustration.
Behavioral Science, 4(2), 147-157.
17. Cohen, E. (1988). Tourism and AIDS in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(4),
467-486.
18. Limanond, T., Jomnonkwao, S., & Srikaew, A. (2011). Projection of future transport
energy demand of Thailand. Energy policy, 39(5), 2754-2763.
19. Wattanakuljarus, A. (2007, October). Tourism, Poverty and Taxation: A Case of
Thailand. In Luang Prabang: Conference on Integrated Development of Sustainable
Tourism for the GMS (pp. 26-27).
20. Ingram, H., Grieve, D., Ingram, H., Tabari, S., & Watthanakhomprathip, W. (2013). The
impact of political instability on tourism: case of Thailand. Worldwide hospitality and
tourism themes.