Making a case for tourism.

At a recent national meeting about rural tourism development, most speakers started their presentations by espousing the benefits of tourism. Almost without exception, they quoted statistics on the amount of spending done by tourists or the number of jobs in the tourism industry. This seems to be the typical approach to establishing the importance of the tourism sector.

The economic impact of tourism is indeed impressive. For instance, more than $300 billion is annually spent by tourists in the U.S., resulting in six million jobs and about $45 billion in federal, state and local tax revenues. in North Dakota, usually not thought of as a major tourism destination, travel and tourism spending was estimated at $790 million in 1991, providing 16,000 jobs and a payroll of $126 million in a state with less than 650,000 population. Most people have heard similar statistics and do not have to be further sold on the economic importance of tourism.

One doesn't have to attend tourism conferences to be aware of the economic impacts of tourism. Information about tourism's economic impacts is abundantly available to anyone who regularly reads the newspaper. State tourism offices and local convention and visitors' bureaus regularly provide information about tourism's economic impacts to the news media in an effort to help the public appreciate the importance of tourism and develop support for programs to enhance the tourism industry.

Missing, however, from the media coverage of the tourism industry is information about other benefits of tourism. Tourism can benefit residents of host countries, states or communities in a variety of ways that are not directly economic. Our constituents and elected officials need to recognize these other benefits.

Preservation of culture is many times encouraged by the fact that tourists visit an area to see or take part in that culture. Ethnic cultural festivals help preserve the ties of people with their roots, as well as attract visitors to an area. For instance, the Hopi Cultural Center in Arizona helps preserve and interpret Hopi culture, and is funded by the visitor accommodations connected to it.

The funding for many historic museums and buildings probably would not be as high if not for their potential to attract visitors. Although most areas are interested in preserving historical heritage, the potential for attracting tourists is frequently an important factor leading to financial support. For instance, recent renovations to the Custer House at Fort Abraham Lincoln State Park in North Dakota were probably not needed as much to preserve history as to enhance visitor access to this interesting historic building.

Tourism encourages preservation of natural areas. Sometimes it seems like tourists are threats to natural areas, with high levels of visitation negatively affecting those environments. While that may be a legitimate concern in some natural areas, one has to wonder how many of these areas would be protected and managed at all, if it were not for their potential to attract visitors. Let's face it, there is not much incentive to preserve scenery, unique natural areas and other natural resources if no one visits them. By providing a socially and economically acceptable alternative to other potential uses of these lands, tourism helps protect those natural resources which have been incorporated into our national, state and local parks, nature preserves, forests and wildlands.

Shopping and other support businesses many be more abundantly available to local populations because of the volume of business created by tourists. Most communities with small year-round populations, but large tourism volumes, have more retail shops, movie theaters and other businesses than the local population could support. The local residents benefit from the availability of these businesses, which tourists have helped make possible. For instance, Grand Forks, North Dakota, would have fewer retail stores and restaurants without the large number of Canadian visitors. Residents of Grand Forks benefit by having more choices of stores, greater competition among stores and probably a wider selection of merchandise resulting from the Canadian tourists who shop there.

Tourism encourages community pride and togetherness. Residents of many communities take special pride in welcoming visitors into their areas. The community pulls together to make the visitor's experience a good one, not out of business motivations, but out of a true sense of hospitality. This community pride and spirit of hospitality has greatly enhanced the reputation of many countries, states and local communities.

Tourism enhances cross-cultural understanding. People from different cultures are brought together in tourism experiences, either by visiting a different culture or by different cultural groups mixing together at a tourist destination. This leads to greater understanding of each other's cultures.

Recreational facilities are frequently developed to meet visitor demand, but also open up access for local residents. The use of these recreational facilities by visitors is frequently seasonal or on weekends, but the local residents get to use them year-round or mid-week. For instance, many ski areas are heavily used on weekends, but have much lower levels of use during the week. Local residents benefit by having good access to these ski facilities developed primarily for the weekend visitors.

A good question might be: Why isn't the tourism industry doing a better job of selling these other benefits of tourism to the general public? There are at least three factors which may be influencing the way the industry promotes the benefits of tourism.

Government decision makers, who frequently get involved in developing and promoting tourism, are most effectively swayed by economic arguments. They see tourism expenditures as an economic development investment, and, thus, look to economic benefits to justify their expenditure of public monies to support tourism.

There are good methodologies for measuring economic impacts and they are measured on a systematic basis. No widely accepted methodologies are currently used on a regular basis to measure the non-economic impacts of tourism.

Many of the people involved in promoting the tourism industry are from the business sector, primarily the hospitality industry. Research on people's evaluations of tourism's impacts has found that entrepreneurs perceive more economic benefits from tourism than the average citizen. These business people probably assume that everyone else is as swayed by the economic benefits as they are.

Much of the research on people's opinions about tourism and tourism's impacts have one consistent finding, that most people are aware of tourism's positive economic impacts. Even people who might be classified as tourism haters are aware of the positive benefits of income, jobs and tax revenues. It is difficult to find indications that residents of host areas are very aware of non-economic benefits of tourism. It seems that when researchers examine economic impacts they tend to find mostly benefits, although there are also economic costs present, and when researchers examine social, cultural and environmental impacts they tend to find mostly costs, even though there may also be benefits.

Why don't we find much indication of noneconomic benefits in the research? There are several possibilities: * The non-economic benefits don't exist. This is a

possibility, but not very likely. * The benefits exist, but methodologies have not been

developed which are adequate to measure them.

There are elaborate methods for measuring economic

benefits, but fairly crude ways of approaching

other benefits. * Not much has been done to promote the noneconomic

benefits of tourism, so the average citizen

is not consciously aware of those benefits.

One might ask: So what? Why should we worry about non-economic benefits of tourism? The answer is two-fold. First, there is probably a limit to the economic benefit from tourism. Using the economic benefits as our main focus of evaluation requires continuous growth of the tourism economy if tourism is going to continue to look like a good investment for communities. I doubt that the tourism industry as a whole can continue the rate of growth it has experienced the past few years. If the growth in tourism spending slows down or declines, should communities continue to develop and promote tourism? If income, jobs and tax revenues are the only means of evaluation, the answer may be no.

Second, many of the people living in popular tourist destinations are not really all that interested in money. Stories are commonplace about people with master's degrees waiting tables in Jackson Hole and such places. If people are making financial sacrifices to live in popular tourist areas, why should economic arguments be expected to be effective in gaining their support? Such people, who frequently seem to be actively opposed to further tourism development, would be more influenced by the positive impacts that tourism has on preserving cultures and natural areas.

What the tourism industry needs is a more comprehensive view of tourism's impacts, both positive and negative. A research agenda which places greater emphasis on the non-economic benefits of tourism would help accomplish this goal.

Perhaps we also need to change the way we talk about tourism. Tourism itself is not really an "industry," but is an area of human activity that contributes economically to the hotel, restaurant, transportation and other industries. Perhaps if the concept of the tourism "industry" was de-emphasized, tourism could take on a broader community development role.