گردشگری و توسعه اقتصادی: کدام سرمایه گذاری باعث جذب سود بیشتر برای مناطق می شود؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|6962||2009||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7440 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Tourism Management, Volume 30, Issue 5, October 2009, Pages 759–770
Across three decades numerous metropolitan regions have made substantial investments in different tourist amenity packages. These investments were made to either capture a portion of the growing tourism market or establish an image that attracted the human capital needed to advance economic development. This article analyzes the returns for the tourism industry and for economic development from different amenity packages and finds those related to sports and amusements generated the most significant gains for regions.
Tourism's growth across the second-half of the 20th century and even in the years after the September 11th terrorist attacks continues at an astonishing pace. The World Tourist Organization (WTO) estimated that in 1950 25 million tourists visited other countries. That number grew to 842 million in 2006 illustrating the enormous interest in international travel despite the attacks of September 11th, devastating bombings in London, Spain, and India, and other incidents of terrorism. The Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI) estimated that all forms of tourism produced more than $700 billion in direct output and $1.2 trillion in total output for the US economy in 2006. The scale of tourism and its growth has attracted the interest of a large number of state/provincial and local government officials who have tried to determine if their communities could capture a larger portion of this economic activity. There has been even greater interest from regions with little population growth, shrinking employment levels, and images as declining areas. Leaders in many of these slow-growth or declining communities – influenced, in part, by the work of Richard Florida (2002) – have invested scarce resources in tourism, sports, and entertainment complexes. These areas hope that revitalized downtown areas and upscale amenities will also appeal to highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs who create or attract new businesses. A focus on tourism replete with the building of entertainment and cultural amenities to attract the human capital needed to propel economic growth and visitors has become a policy staple for most cities and regions (Eisinger, 2000). Across three decades in efforts to capture an increasing portion of the tourist market and attract the “creative class (Florida, 2002)” cities have built festival marketplaces, sports facilities, and performing arts centers in downtown areas. A related goal of this building activity has been to slow the movement of economic activity to suburban areas (Law, 1992, Levere, 1996 and Papson, 1979). Frequently, to create these new tourist attractions public investments are needed and some of those commitments have exceeded $500 million (Rosentraub, 1999 and Zimbalist and Long, 2006).1 In other instances where private investors are willing to make large investments to enhance tourist attractions the public sector is still asked to make accommodations regarding zoning and land use decisions yielding substantial control to developers (Foglesong, 2001). While the concessions to the Disney Corporation for the building of Disney World may be the most extreme example, similar concessions have been given to developers in areas such as Columbus, Ohio and San Diego (Chapin, 2002 and Curry et al., 2004). As a result of the large public investments or the ceding of land use controls to private developers substantial attention has been directed towards understanding which, if any, mix of investments in entertainment, cultural, sports, and tourism generates positive returns for a community. While some regions or destinations will always attract more visitors (Formica & Uysal, 2006), determining what works best is important to cities that attempt to (1) capture a larger share of the expanding tourism market, (2) create a new image, or (3) attract highly skilled workers through enhancement of the built-environment. The goal of the research in this paper is to help communities understand which, if any, investments in the built-environment to enhance the level of available amenities can (1) generate jobs in the tourism sector and (2) produce positive economic returns. Given the billions of dollars invested by local communities in tourism facilities across the past 25 years insights into the results or payoff is essential. In terms of the paper's theoretical contribution, the work presented deals directly with a fundamental issue of economic development that shapes public policy by assessing the relationship between investments in tourist and entertainment amenities and enhancements of a region's economy. Creating the needed data to properly inform the selection of tourism policies and programs to advance a region's development requires an understanding of (1) the demand for tourism within a region, (2) the built-environment assets that have the potential to attract visitors, and (3) the association between any built-environment asset and more educated workers. Supply side studies – those that focus on the sets of amenities a community could build and their impact on attracting tourists and entrepreneurs – are also needed as they identify what has worked for different types of communities relative to demand. With both sets of data a community could understand which amenities, if built within a designated market area with appropriate demand characteristics, would be more likely to be economically successful and contribute to higher levels of regional development. Much of the earlier research produced to help community leaders understand which tourism, entertainment, sports or cultural facilities are the most productive have focused on demand and consumers' preferences (Bansal and Eiselt, 2004 and Shoemaker, 1994). Building on these and other studies that have also considered the importance of built-amenities and tourism levels (Goeldner, 2000; Gunn, 1994; Hall, 1989 and Marcouiller and Prey, 2005), this study seeks to provide information that responds to four specific questions. First, does any mix of attractions increase tourism and expand a region's economy? Second, is the supply of tourist facilities related to economic growth? Many would expect faster growing areas to have larger markets with more disposable income that could sustain more tourist activities. We seek to also understand if slower growing regions are aggressively trying to capture a larger portion of the growing tourist industry. Third, does any mix or supply of attractions increase tourism levels and expand a region's economy? Fourth, do different mixes of attractions have differential effects in fast- and slow-growth areas? The study was limited to built-environment assets as these are the ones usually at the center of programs and policies to expand the economy of slower growth regions, change a region's image, and attract human capital.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Do investments in tourism create jobs and generate regional economic growth? At least three factors have driven the focus on tourism for economic development in numerous cities. First, given the extraordinary growth of the industry across the past 50 years there has been a level of competition to seize a larger share of this growing market. Areas that are already home to tourist attractions are engaged in policies to enhance their infrastructure to insure that tourism levels remain robust. Even among giant tourist centers such as Orlando, Florida and Las Vegas, Nevada there are new investments made each year in a constant re-invention process. Second, for slow-growth cities, for cities in areas frequently described as “rust-belt,” and for cities without positive national and international impressions, the focus on tourism has been coupled to efforts to produce different images and attract the human capital necessary to expand their economies. The building of numerous tourist and entertainment venues has been justified by the view that amenities will advance regional economic development and change the image or declining areas. Third, amenities are important factors in the attraction and retention of the human capital that drive the 21st century's economy. While it is not clear if amenities will attract human capital, the absence of amenities does reduce a region's attractiveness to workers. Leaders in declining regions need to understand which, if any, amenity packages are more likely to be associated with growing levels of employment. If public money is to be invested in amenities those funds should be targeted to those assets that are associated with improving development levels. Regions cannot rely on amenities to drive economic development but the absence of desired facilities can thwart economic expansion. Looking at results in more than 300 metropolitan areas, investments in amusements and sports attractions were associated with higher levels of employment in the tourist sector. However, cultural attractions such as museums had no statistically significant impact on employees in the tourist sector. Similarly, amusement and sport attractions had a statistically significant relationship with increasing household income (regional economic development) and were also related to the number of businesses in an area. There is also a difference in the experiences of fast- and slow-growth regions with larger effects in the former. Sports have a positive effect on the regional economy in both fast- and slow-growth cities. Amusements also have a positive impact on a regional economy in fast-growth areas. Cultural amenities have a negative impact on regional economic levels in slow-growth MSAs. If a region is considering the use of public funds to develop amenities associated with economic development the most productive returns may well lie with investments in sports and amusement facilities. However, this finding does not mean that tourism policies focused on sports and amusements are the best or most efficient path to improving household income or assisting in the formation of companies. Other investments might produce far greater increments in either measure. The model used here also did not look at the scale of the public sector's investments in tourism or those made by the private sector. As a result, the overall net fiscal returns for the public sector were not estimated and caution must guide the application of the results in the formation of economic development policies. With those limitations in mind, however, it is not premature to conclude that investments in amusements and sports are linked with higher household incomes. Before such a policy framework is endorsed, however, contextual analyses looking at the fiscal returns for specific investments and outcomes from alternative investment strategies must be performed. However, the evidence of the positive effects from sports and amusements on regional economies is an important and innovative finding related to what has been previously published. Relative to the role of amenities in advancing a regional economy, the data here offer support for the position that strategic investments in sports and amusements may well advance development. In noting the smaller economic effects from museums – especially as compared to other forms of tourism – it must also be remembered that the leadership of these cultural amenities are usually focused on the mission of their institution and thus could be less focused on profits or real estate and other development projects that have the potential for greater economic returns. Owners of sports franchises and amusements are often more focused on revenues and profits, so it might be anticipated that those amenities might have greater effects on a region's economy. What the results show is that for governments interested in expanding their share of the growing tourism market and overall levels of regional economic development, amusements and sports offer more promise than does the building of cultural facilities and museums. Further, relative to image and identity, sports and amusements seem to have more influence and impact on household income levels and the number of businesses in an area. This does suggest where dollars targeted for tourism enhancement should be invested. However, if the goal is economic development, then any investment in a tourist or entertainment amenity must be compared to other investments. Those other commitments could create more or similar levels of return for the public sector and the region. It might be surprising to some that cultural and art facilities-related variables had no impact or a negative impact on employment levels in the tourism industry and for regional economic development. The museum variable also did not have a significant relationship with employment in the tourism industry. However, Law (1993) actually suggested that this should be anticipated, as the direct economic effects of museums are small given their reliance on part-time and voluntary labor. Further, as Whitt (1988) has noted, the impact of the arts may well have high intangible value, but small tangible effects. The next stage of research into the effect of sports and amusement facilities on economic development levels has to look at the magnitude of the investments made by both the public and private sectors in building those amenities. If the returns exceed the investment costs then their importance for regional development would be further underscored. The last issue to be addressed would be the relative returns from investments in sports and amusements with other viable alternatives. The results, here, however, underscore that if a region is committed to enhancing amenities for economic development, sports and amusements offer far more potential for success than other investments.