Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.

623–639, 2004
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures 0160-7383/$30.00
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.007

COMMUNITY TOURISM PLANNING

A Self-Assessment Instrument
Donald G. Reid
Heather Mair
Wanda George
University of Guelph, Canada

Abstract: While many studies acknowledge the need for widespread participation in the
tourism planning process, few actual tools for involving the larger community in a meaning-
ful way have been assessed. This paper describes the creation of a self-assessment instru-
ment implemented as part of a community-centered tourism process undertaken in several
Canadian location. The article argues that the instrument can be used to focus discussion
around fundamental issues facing communities as they grapple with tourism development.
The outcome of this implementation in six test communities is highlighted, as a factor
analysis of the results revealed key areas about which tourism planners and researchers
should be particularly aware. Keywords: community, self-assessment instrument, rural tour-
ism development, participatory planning. # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Résumé: Planification communautaire du tourisme : un instrument d’autoévaluation.

Quoique beaucoup d’études reconnaissent le besoin d’une participation générale au pro-
cessus de planification pour le tourisme, on a évalué peu d’outils réels pour engager la
toute une communauté de façon significative. Cet article décrit la création d’un outil
d’autoévaluation qui a été mis en œuvre comme partie d’un processus de tourisme basé sur
la communauté et entrepris dans plusieurs endroits au Canada. L’article soutient que l’outil
peut être utilisé pour concentrer la discussion autour des questions essentielles qui se pré-
sentent aux communautés pendant qu’ils se débattent avec le développement du tourisme.
On souligne les résultats de cette mise en œuvre dans six communautés d’essai, puisqu’une
analyse factorielle a révélé les domaines-clés dont les planificateurs et les chercheurs en
tourisme devraient être tout particulièrement conscients. Mots-clés: communauté, outil
d’autoévaluation, développement du tourisme rural, planification participative. # 2004
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Tourism development is generally the prerogative of entrepreneurs
or special interest groups in communities, most of which treat touri-
sm like other commercial forms. For example, unless accompanied by
a change in land use, issues of zoning are not challenged by tourism

Donald Reid is Professor in the School of Environmental Design and Rural Development
at the University of Guelph (Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada. Email <dreid@rpd.
uoguelph.ca>). Heather Mair and Wanda George are Doctoral Candidates in the Rural
Studies Program at the same university. The authors share research interests in the areas of
community development and participatory approaches to tourism planning.

623
624 COMMUNITY TOURISM PLANNING

but instead fit into the prevailing municipal zoning structure. How-
ever, its impact upon other sectors of the community may be quite
different and substantial. Often, it develops incrementally with one
business building on another, or one successful event, such as a festi-
val, inspiring the creation of similar undertakings. In some cases, a
community recreation event grows rapidly to the point where out-
siders outnumber residents, changing the dynamics of the community
and the event considerably. This way, small towns risk becoming
dominated by the tourism enterprise and changing dramatically their
historic character and function.
In the realm of research, attention is turning to measuring the
reactions of residents as tourism growth begins. Gursoy, Jurowski and
Uysal (2002) have developed a model of support for tourism and
reflect upon the need for improved theoretical understandings of
host reactions. In addition, there is a growing effort to both measure
and characterize host attitudes and many papers on this subject have
been published recently (Akis, Peristianis and Warner 1996; Fredline
and Faulkner 2000; Ko and Stewart 2002; Pearce, Moscardo and Ross
1996; Tosun 2002; Williams and Lawson 2001). Moreover, there have
been a number of investigations into factors influencing residents’
reactions to tourism development, including economic reliance there-
upon (Lankford and Howard 1994), length of residency in the affec-
ted community (Madrigal 1993), and quality of life issues (Perdue,
Long and Kang 1999). These and other works build upon the grow-
ing body of research that has long sought to identify the social, polit-
ical, economic, and environmental implications of tourism (Fleisher
and Felsenstein 2000; Frederick 1993; Lewis 1998; Oppermann 1996;
Potts and Harrill 1998; Reid, Mair and Taylor 2000) as they consider
how these reactions can be best understood and countered in order
to gain wider support for the industry and to point towards more sus-
tainable tourism development.
Thus, in an effort to counter the tensions resulting from the more
negative impacts from uneven/unplanned development, many
researchers are suggesting that tourism-dominated/interested com-
munities should plan their evolution more systematically, thereby tak-
ing into account residents’ attitudes and perceptions about its growth
at the outset. Most of these activities are of a conceptual nature and
have a number of components, including vision creation, asset inven-
torying and assessment, values clarification, organization structure
development (along with procedures for monitoring growth), action
planning, and implementation (Minnesota Extension Services 1991).
Further, the impacts of such growth must be monitored over a long
period of time and their effects on daily life assessed regularly. There
are a number of process models and much research that advocate
more involvement by local citizens in the development process.
Many authors suggest that participatory planning can be undertaken
in an effort to offset some of the more negative impacts, and impor-
tant strides have been made toward understanding this process at the
local level (Gunn 1994; Inskeep 1991; Keogh 1990; Lewis 1998; Mar-
couiller 1997; Murphy 1985). Authors such as Reed (1997) and Mad-
 REID, MAIR AND GEORGE 625

rigal (1995) have commented upon the power-laden component of

tourism planning, whether it be participatory or not. Thus, it is not
sufficient to determine that more voices need to be heard, but one
must investigate how this might be done and the repercussions
thereof.
Suggestions are offered in the literature to help planners and
researchers develop more integrative and less reactionary approaches
to planning. While some have been adapted from business models
and focus on product formation and issues of supply and demand
(Butler 1980), new research in the field contends that approaches to
tourism, particularly in rural areas, must be inclusive and emphasize
meaningful public participation. For example, Potts and Harrill have
developed what they call a travel ecology approach based upon six
principles: discovery, mutuality, locality, historicity, potentiality, and
enhancement. They identify a shift in the intellectual approach away
from the expert and towards a more facilitative approach:

As tourism planners have come to learn, negative resident perceptions

of tourism development, beginning with limited or non-existent oppor-
tunities for participation, can lead to tourist dissatisfaction and ulti-
mately decreased visitation (1998:134).

Moreover, many authors suggest that not only is it essential to bring

the community on board to gain support for the industry, its sustain-
ability also remains a goal. Tosun writes that

. . .deliberate measures must be carefully introduced to enable indigen-

ous people to take advantages of the opportunities brought by tourism
if the objectives are to achieve sustainable development. Without much
admission and implementation of such necessary measures, the industry
might lose host communities’ support in a very gradual manner, that
may in turn threaten the sustainability of development in the future
(2002:25).

While the growing support for community-based approaches to

tourism planning is well heeded, there remains the need to consider
how these techniques might be developed. Moreover, the results of
their implementation need to be shared with other researchers
and planners. Authors including Ritchie (1993; see also Pearce,
Moscardo and Ross 1996) build upon the necessity of participatory
approaches by noting the need to identify and assess methodologies
that can be used to improve public participation in tourism planning
activities.
The research presented here is based upon the work of Reid,
Fuller, Haywood and Bryden (1993), offering a tourism planning pro-
cess model that attempts to map out how communities establish tour-
ism in their jurisdiction (Figure 1). The model provides a macro
framework focused at the local level. It suggests that leadership, in
the form of the catalyst and development taskforce, often part of the
chamber of commerce or local business association, are critical parts
626 COMMUNITY TOURISM PLANNING

Figure 1. Community Tourism Development Planning Model.

of the process. However, they are not the only important components.
The model’s third step concentrates on raising awareness about tour-
ism issues and organizational responses, are often overlooked by busi-
ness leaders eager to get to the product or program development
stage. Follow-up research into the impacts of the lack of involvement
in planning suggests that missing this step often leads to the build-up
of tension as developing the tourism product becomes dominant and
avenues for resistance are narrowed (Reid, Taylor and Mair 2000).
The Reid et al model provided guidance for the research project
described here, but it did not outline practical strategies for carrying
out the third steep. The research reported here operationalizes this
stage of the model. Moreover, it generates an instrument for encour-
aging community involvement, assessing readiness, and generating
dialogue. Specifically, the paper presents an analysis of the outcomes
of the implementation of a Community Tourism Self-Assessment
Instrument (CTAI), a tool derived from initial research results and
designed to measure residents’ feelings about, and readiness for, tour-
ism in their locales as well as to generate dialogue about development
more generally. The purpose of the paper is then two-fold. The inten-
tion is to first outline the formation of the CTAI as it fits into a larger
project seeking to engender participatory approaches to tourism
development in select rural communities across Canada. Second, the
paper aims to present a quantification of the results of the implemen-
tation of the CTAI in order to create a broad picture of what com-
munity members are grappling within questions of how to approach
tourism development.
 REID, MAIR AND GEORGE 627

DEVELOPING TOOLS FOR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

A primary stumbling block in most destinations, particularly those
at the early stages of growth and not yet suffering from the usual ten-
sions and pressures brought about by tourism development, is the
initiation of a community-wide dialogue. This is a necessary compo-
nent of a successful planning process as it can help circumvent the
problems that stem from tourism activities by bringing more residents
on-board before it becomes uncontrolled and potentially unsup-
ported. However, an earlier research project (Reid, Taylor and Mair
2000) revealed that without the negative impacts having been actually
experienced, it is difficult for citizens to visualize drawbacks and, per-
haps more importantly, to picture how an unplanned tourism indus-
try might affect everyday life.
The authors of this paper have been part of a tourism development
study that lasted from 1999 to 2002. In the first phase of the research,
they identified and assessed the impacts of its growth through partici-
pant observation and qualitative interviews with over 100 participants
in four communities in Southwestern Ontario (Reid, Taylor and Mair
2000). The communities investigated in that phase of the research
were considered to be highly developed rural tourism destinations,
situated well beyond the mid-point on Butler’s product lifecycle
model (1980). The authors identified a number of critical issues that
were consistently identified by members of these communities (Reid,
Taylor and Mair 2000), as outlined in Table 1. Underscoring the list
of critical issues are the themes of control and participation in
decision-making. Indeed, tension was evident within each of the com-
munities in terms of the types of tourism activities undertaken, as well
as the process of, and access to, the decision-making that led to these
activities.

Table 1. List of Community Tensions Induced by Tourism from Phase 1

Tourism development organized by a dominant few—appears to be elitist.

Deep frustration with tourism impacts (such as lack of parking, litter, noise and
congestion)—alienation from community life.
Deep conflict and splinter groups in community life appear—those who want
high end tourism and those who want mass tourism community fractionation
openly evident.
Trade-off between more development and community lifestyle no longer toler-
ated by citizens not involved in tourism business—protests, both active and pass-
ive, appear.
Tourism planning and development are very centrally organized and controlled,
thought to be too complicated for average citizen—people openly muse about
whose agenda is important.
Strong emotional resistance to further development (vandalism, confrontation).
Apathy, disempowerment and extreme frustration with decision-making pro-
cess—people do not feel they are being heard.
Tourism is considered to be destructive to both community life and to itself—the
in-fighting spills over to the tourists’ experience.
628 COMMUNITY TOURISM PLANNING

In the second phase of the research project, the study developed a

process aimed to alleviate or circumvent the formation of these criti-
cal issues. A manual, entitled ‘‘Visiting Your Future: A Community
Guide to Tourism Planning’’ (Reid, Mair, George and Taylor 2001)
was created. The manual is loosely based upon the search conference
model (Emery and Purser 1996) wherein issues are identified
through workshops involving such activities as visioning, drawing,
small and large group discussion, and strategy formation sessions, as
well as other consensus-building activities. Using a two-day workshop
format, members of the research team worked from 2000 to 2001—
initially with three rural communities in Southwestern Ontario, and
eventually with an additional three communities in various parts of
Canada—in order to implement and test the activities and strategies
outlined in the manual.
In the initial three cases, the research and planning program that
framed the project relied on a large meeting to generate interest in
having a workshop and to initiate dialogue leading to the creation of
a conceptual plan. The starting point was based on the first phase of
the research discussed earlier and was intended to correspond and
give expression to the ‘‘community awareness raising and organiza-
tional’’ phase of the Reid et al model (1993). However, what soon
became apparent, at least for the Ontario research sites, was that
these communities were not ready to begin at this stage in the pro-
cess. As the research team began working with local members, it
became apparent that the lack of awareness of the critical issues, as
well as an incomplete understanding of their potential effects, pre-
sented a challenge to undertaking the workshop. It was particularly
detrimental when trying to motivate members to participate. Without
an awareness of these issues, there was little appreciation or accept-
ance of the imperative of a community-centered approach to tourism.
This became clear to the research team as the planning sessions
began to take place. Many participants were initially interested in
moving straight into tourism product formation (the fourth step in
the Reid et al model) and were not especially concerned about con-
sidering the potential drawbacks of the industry. As most members
had not experienced directly the stresses that can stem from tourism,
the initial participants could visualize the positive aspects, but had a
limited conception of the potential negative impacts. Thus, the
research team was forced to deal with a fundamental challenge and a
new approach was needed. It was decided that an additional tool was
warranted: to provide an understanding of the experiences of the
highly developed communities noted in the earlier phase of the
research, and to supply a method of self-examination and dialogue.
A series of statements based on the experience of the researchers
in the first phase of the project was assembled in questionnaire for-
mat, drawing particular attention to the critical issues identified at
that stage (Tables 3 and 4). The purpose of using a questionnaire at
this point was two-fold. First, it helped the research team gather data
from interested parties about the state of tourism in their area. It
should be noted that the research team was interested in participants’
 REID, MAIR AND GEORGE 629

perceptions about the organizational state of tourism development

more than the physical or economic aspects. Second, the instrument
was implemented as a mechanism for initiating dialogue, not simply
about tourism in the area but also about development more gener-
ally. The data and analysis presented in this paper rely on results
recorded during the implementation of the CTAI in the three initial
communities and three others that were investigated at later dates.

The Creation of the Community Tourism Self-Assessment Instrument

It should be noted that the initial intent of the CTAI was not to
produce a self-assessment instrument with quantifiable results, but to
create a tool that could be used by the research team solely to initiate
discussion with participants in the process. The instrument was
designed using a 5-point Likert-type format to provide a mechanism
for displaying similarities and differences among the participants on
each of the items. Potential responses ranged from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5). Not only did the questions seem to resonate
with participants, but the act of scoring each question individually
and then discussing the results in a group setting was conducive to
furthering discussion about, and understanding of, their community
and the potential impact of tourism in it. It became an effective way
to begin the workshop sessions. There was no intention originally to
scale the issues in the CTAI; however, the early results of each appli-
cation suggested that a more formal approach would be helpful to
those engaged in the discourse.
In total, the research instrument was administered in six research
sites across Canada: one in the eastern part of the country, in Nova
Scotia (n ¼ 25); three in Southern Ontario, the original test sites
(n ¼ 76); a community in Northern Ontario (n ¼ 8); and in Western
Canada in British Columbia (n ¼ 15); for a total of 124 usable ques-
tionnaires. The communities came to be involved in the project in
different ways. The three Southern Ontario communities, with popu-
lations 9,881, 5,391 and 6,763, made early contact with the research
team, as they volunteered to help with the ‘‘testing’’ of the aforemen-
tioned manual. An economic development officer from the Northern
Ontario community (population 4,135) approached the researchers
after learning about the project at a tourism research conference.
The British Columbia municipality (population 4,020) was already
engaged in a series of impact assessments regarding the proposed
building of an international ski resort in their vicinity, and one of the
researchers was approached to help at a community forum. Lastly, the
CTAI was implemented in a Nova Scotian village (population 2,568).
All contributing respondents were self-selected.
While the data base does not represent the major areas of the
country proportionally, it has distributional representation qualities.
Despite the propensity for business owners to be well-, even over-
represented in this type of discussion, efforts by the research team to
encourage those organizing the workshops to invite a more diverse
group met with considerable success, creating a diverse group of
630 COMMUNITY TOURISM PLANNING

Table 2. Basic Statistical Analysis of Study Communities on the Scaled Items

Community Community Community Community Community Community

A B C D E F
n = 39 n = 28 n=9 n = 15 n=8 n = 25
(pop (pop (pop (pop (pop (pop
9,881) 5,391) 6,763) 4,020) 4,135) 2,568)

Items m sd m sd m sd m sd m sd m sd

1 2.60 1.05 3.14 1.04 1.67 0.87 3.20 1.01 2.38 0.92 3.12 1.30
2 3.33 0.87 4.04 0.92 3.67 1.12 3.60 0.74 3.00 0.76 3.36 1.08
3 2.74 1.14 3.46 1.04 2.33 0.71 3.87 0.83 2.50 0.76 4.42 0.83
4 4.33 0.84 4.21 0.83 3.78 1.20 4.67 0.62 4.50 0.76 3.76 1.16
5 2.10 0.85 3.32 0.82 2.44 1.01 2.73 0.70 2.25 0.71 3.36 1.08
6 3.59 1.02 3.56 1.03 3.50 1.07 3.80 0.94 3.50 1.07 3.08 1.25
7 1.46 0.60 1.54 0.51 1.11 0.33 1.60 0.63 1.13 0.35 2.24 1.27
8 2.36 0.90 2.07 0.86 2.00 0.87 1.87 0.52 2.38 1.19 2.76 1.30
9 3.13 0.86 3.32 1.09 2.44 0.73 3.13 0.83 3.00 1.51 3.21 1.28
10 4.10 0.99 4.32 0.98 4.56 0.53 4.27 0.88 4.63 0.52 3.80 0.87
11 2.56 1.14 2.29 1.01 3.00 0.50 2.60 0.99 3.00 0.76 2.68 1.31
12 3.03 0.93 2.96 1.07 2.67 1.00 2.53 0.64 2.88 0.83 2.83 1.11
13 2.36 1.01 2.54 0.88 3.78 1.09 2.40 1.06 4.00 0.71 2.80 1.19

m = mean.
sd = standard deviation.

people at each event. Overall, participation included teachers, artists,

local politicians, festival planners, business owners, retired residents,
youth, and new residents.
Table 2 provides a presentation of the basic statistics on each item
contained in the instrument by research site. As demonstrated by the
results of item 1, none of the communities felt their tourism product
to be as well-developed as did the first phase research communities.
Communities B, D, and F had means above the mid-range level of the
scale, while the remaining communities, with the exception of C
whose mean was well below the mid-point, hovered around it. This
finding gave some impetus for initiating a discussion in the communi-
ties about the potential pitfalls of development before product design
began.
As indicated by the responses to items 4 and 10, all communities
acknowledged the importance of involvement in decision-making and
product promotion if the tensions and stresses of that eventual devel-
opment were to be avoided. Of all the items in the scale, these two
statements on the questionnaire consistently produced the highest
means. This indicates that the administration of the questionnaire
gave occasion to pause and reflect on what pre-conditions need to be
in place for long-term success. At the same time, item 11 produced
reasonably high variances as measured by the standard deviations for
four of the six communities in the study. The two producing the low-
est deviations on this item have the least tourism development at
 REID, MAIR AND GEORGE 631

present of any of the communities in the sample. This indicates that

they have not yet had experience in trying to pull residents together
to discuss issues which may or may not be perceived to affect them
immediately.
On the whole, however, these deviations indicate that there is wide
variation with regard to the willingness of citizens to become involved
in the planning process. The statistics presented in Table 2 on item12
indicate that the one locality having the highest level of development
among the three Ontario communities surveyed, recognized that
tourism was creating slightly more conflict in decision-making than in
the other, less developed communities. Interestingly, respondents
from British Columbia—the area expecting the highest immediate
impact due to the proposed ski resort—saw their community as not
being polarized in this regard, but quite able to make decisions with-
out being subjected to fractionation (item12) and the turmoil that is
often brought to the decision-making process.
The basic statistics provided in Table 2 offer some insights into the
similarities and differences of opinion within the communities
involved and, for the purposes here, among the research communi-
ties. The observations made through the analysis (Table 2) provided
some help to the research team in making strategic decisions with
regard to the appropriate entry point for the original test communi-
ties and the other sites paticipating in this study. It may also aid in
designing successful strategies for subsequent dialogue and capacity-
building activities. The results of the CTAI can form part of the base-
line data upon which knowledge about the evolution of tourism can
be built. Moreover, it can aid in the administration and monitoring
part of the process as changes in concerns and attitudes about devel-
opment are measured over time.
One other useful outcome from the implementation of the CTAI
was that the responses to the questions appeared to cluster around
some larger dimensions. It is important to note that these were not
initially predicted or anticipated when the instrument was conceived
and utilized. As a result of this perception, the research team admi-
nistered a factor analysis to the data to determine if there were under-
lying dimensions. Subsequently, a principal components factor analy-
sis incorporating a Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization was
administered to the data from the 124 questionnaires containing the
13 variables. The communalities matrix suggested that item 2—
‘‘There is a person or small group of people in the community who
are identifiable and give leadership to the tourism and community
planning process’’—be eliminated from the list of variables since it
achieved a score of only .293. This is not to suggest that it is not
important, however; this item focuses on leadership and should stand
on its own in any analysis that deals with tourism. All other items
scored .400 or above and were left in the subsequent factor analysis.
Table 3 provides these results.
The remaining 12 items factored into four dimensions as shown in
Table 3. The four factors account for a modest but not insignificant
60.53% of the original variance. While this is a moderate score, it
632 COMMUNITY TOURISM PLANNING

does indicate four possible underlying dimensions to the data. Visual

inspection of the items contained in each factor further suggests that
the clusters of variables portrayed in the dimensions fit reasonably
well together. When the items within each factor were tested for
reliability using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, each produced moder-
ate alpha scores (factor 1 ¼ :6189; factor 2 ¼ :6389; factor 3 ¼ :6143;
factor 4 ¼ :5459), again suggesting that the dimensions are credible.
These factors were then titled to express the essence of each dimen-
sion that emerged: decision-making process and organization, emerg-
ing tourism problems, unplanned development, and motivation and
cooperation. In addition, item 2 speaks to the leadership necessary
for communities to undertake this endeavor and thus needs to be
represented in any community analysis.
Specifically, the results of the factor analysis suggest that there are
four underlying dimensions that the tourism planner needs to incor-
porate into the process. It is recognized that all communities are
unique and that the approach must be customized to meet the spe-
cific needs and culture of the area undertaking the tourism plan.
Therefore, it is quite conceivable that the original 13-item instrument
produced here is not workable in all planning situations, and that the
method for examining the underlying dynamics produced by the fac-
tor analysis should be structured differently to meet the particularities
of each situation.
Further, data analysis using the means and standard deviations for
each item on the scale pinpointed the areas of strength and weakness
for each of the research communities on the dimensions produced
by the factor analysis. Tables for the individual communities were
produced (but not reported here because of space limitations).
Rather, community A is presented as a case in point to demonstrate
the utility of this process. The case is intended to demonstrate how
the items in the CTAI and the dimensions produced by the factor
analysis can be useful to a tourism development planning process.

Case Study: Community A

Located in southwestern Ontario, community A became part of the
study when the authors were approached by members of a newly
formed Tourism and Economic Development Committee of the local
council. As the three communities in Southwestern Ontario had
recently undergone a process of political amalgamation, tourism was
deemed to be an important part of the newly formed Council’s econ-
omic development agenda and the authors were approached to help
them undertake a tourism feasibility study. Having determined that
the best approach was to work with each town separately, at least
initially, the CTAI was presented to the participants at meetings
assembled in this first community (population 9,881) to discuss tour-
ism in the area. The purpose of presenting the questionnaire was to
initiate discussion about future tourism initiatives and to gather basic
data on the perceptions of the group on the issues presented in the
instrument. After a short presentation by the researchers on the
 REID, MAIR AND GEORGE 633

Table 3. Dimension Loadings Produced by the Factor Analysis

Factors

Itemsa Decision- Emerging Unplanned Motiv-

making tourism develop- ation
process & problems ment
organization

2. There is a person or small group of Eliminated from factor analysis based on a low commonality
people in the community that are score of .293
identifiable and give leadership to a
tourism and community planning pro-
cess.
4. There is need for the .676
community to be
better organized to meet
any tourism development needs that
may arise.
6. We do not have a clear .734
process for solving problems
as they arise.
10. Everyone in the community needs .653
to be involved
in tourism development
and not just left to the
business community.
12. If certain tourism proposals are .582
developed by certain people in the
community
they are automatically opposed
by others.
1. I can see the problems identified in .546
the
scenarios unfolding in
our community at this
very moment.
7. Tourism development .705
is out of control and too
dominant an industry in
our community.
8. The residents do not .808
want to see any more tourism develop-
ment take place in
our community.
9. The residents and business 6.02
community are not in
agreement on how tourism
should develop in the future.
3. Tourism plays a predominant role in .856
the economic
life of the community.
5. Tourism is a well .801
developed industry with a
long but rocky history in
our community.
11. Most residents would .826
be willing to attend a community
meeting to discuss an
important tourism issue.
13. Everyone is willing to .760
pitch in and help when
we have a tourism event.
Eigenvalues 2.195 1.993 1.573 1.502
% of variance explained 18.29 16.61 13.11 12.51

a
Items are grouped by factors and not by sequence of items presented to respondents in
the CTAI.
634 COMMUNITY TOURISM PLANNING

results from the first phase of the research project, the group was
asked to complete the instrument. Table 4 presents the results of the
questionnaire in community A according to the factors generated by
the larger sample from all six research communities (Table 3). Means
and standard deviations are presented for the community on the four
dimensions. It was intended that mean scores would provide some
indication of strength of the variable in question and standard devia-
tions would express whether or not there was consistency of opinion
on the item by the respondents. There were 39 participants and the
group included a wide range of respondents including local and prov-
incial politicians, artists, educators, new residents, and those who
worked in and/or owned tourism businesses. The group was part of a
9 hour workshop that stretched over two weekday evenings and culmi-
nated in the creation of a vision for tourism in the area as well as
plans to hold future community-wide meetings to discuss the implica-
tions of tourism planning and development.
This analysis provides important baseline information for com-
munity A. The results on the first dimension—‘‘decision-making pro-
cess and organization’’—suggests that there is some recognition of a
need for greater organization of tourism if it is to succeed over the
long-term. This is indicated by the mean scores which are all higher
than the mid-point on the scale. In fact, the mean scores on this
dimension are higher than mean scores for any of the other factors.
The responses to item 12 suggest that there is some fractionation in
the decision-making system in the community and this split would
need to be monitored to make sure it does not overly influence
future tourism activities. Standard deviations on the item indicate
variability among the respondents, but they are not sufficiently high
to warrant major concern. This result would suggest that planners
need to spend considerable effort organizing for initial activities and
to handle ongoing issues as they arise. Such a network is not in place
at present, but warrants implementation.
Certainly, the analysis does not suggest that the current scope of
the tourism product is of concern to the respondents in the study, as
indicated by the second dimension: ‘‘emerging tourism problems’’.
The relatively moderate mean scores suggest little concern about this
dimension. The only slight departure is with item 9 on the scale
which indicates there might be a split in perception between the busi-
ness owners/operators and the citizenry, as the first group is con-
sidered to be advocates of continued growth. But the standard
deviation suggests that there is some difference of opinion on this
dimension and caution should prevail when developing and imple-
menting future plans for expansion. This warrants serious effort in
communicating to the general public any proposals that may be put
forward in the future. The same finding can be applied to the
‘‘unplanned development’’ dimension. Mean scores on this factor are
at the moderate end of the range; however, the standard deviations
show some variation among the responses. Leadership on this issue is
seen to be present in the system. Continued monitoring of these con-
ditions is warranted as tourism grows and develops.
 REID, MAIR AND GEORGE 635

Table 4. Means/Standard Deviations Scores for Community A

Factorsa

Items Decision- Emerging Unplanned Motivation

making tourism pro- development
process & organi- blems
zation

1. I can see the problems ident- 2.60 (1.05)

ified in the scenarios unfolding in
our
community atthis very moment.
2. There is a person or small 3.33b (0.87)
group of people
in the community that
are identifiable and give leader-
ship to
a tourism and community plan-
ning
process.
3. Tourism plays 2.74 (1.14)
a predominant role in
the economic life of the
community.
4. There is need for the com- 4.33 (0.84)
munity to be better organized to
meet any tourism development
needs that may arise.
5. Tourism is a well developed 2.10 (0.85)
industry with
a long but rocky history
in our
community.
6. We do not have a clear process 3.59 (1.02)
for solving problems as they arise.
7. Tourism development is out of 1.46 (0.60)
control and too dominant an
industry in our community.
8. The residents do not want to 2.36 (0.90)
see any more tourism develop-
ment take place in our com-
munity.
9. The residents and 3.13 (0.86)
business community are
not in agreement on
how tourism should develop in
the future.
10. Everyone in the 4.10 (0.99)
ccommunity needs to be involved
in tourism development and not
just
left to the business
community.
11. Most residents would be will- 2.56 (1.14)
ing toattend a community meet-
ing to discuss an important
tourism issue.
12. If certain tourism proposals 3.03 (0.93)
are developed by certain people
in the community they are auto-
matically opposed by others.
13. Everyone is willing to pitch in 2.36 (1.01)
and help when we have a tourism
event.

a
Standard Deviations shown in parenthesis.
b
Means and Standard Deviations for Item 2 are displayed in the 1st column for convenience only and
not part of the ‘decisionaking and organization’ dynamic.
636 COMMUNITY TOURISM PLANNING

The scores for the ‘‘motivation and cooperation’’ dimension show

mid-range means with higher level standard deviations. It would
appear that there is some tolerance for continued change; but lower
means indicate a concern that not everyone is willing to pitch in and
provide direction to that change. Moreover, there is some indication
that this is viewed as a particularly important requirement (statement
10). Leaders may need to spend some time and effort in communicat-
ing the importance of participation so that satisfaction with tourism
development remains high. Comparatively higher standard deviations
indicate that at least some citizens have concerns about the motiv-
ation, or lack thereof, on the part of people to be involved in the
planning process. The strength of this dimension may change as tour-
ism becomes more dominant, and continuous monitoring of this fac-
tor may be warranted.
In sum, this analysis suggests that community A is in a good pos-
ition to move forward on issues of tourism planning, growth, and
development. Attention must be paid to organization before further
expansion begins in order to shore up the confidence of citizens on
the various dimensions tested in the analysis.

CONCLUSION
Although this research indicates that the Community Tourism Self-
Assessment Instrument may have use as a quantitative tool for asses-
sing a community’s ability to initiate a tourism plan and handle sub-
sequent growth, it has also demonstrated its utility as a mechanism
for establishing dialogue on these matters. After completing the ques-
tionnaire, participants appeared more willing to contemplate the con-
nection between the need for a community-centered approach than
they were before the research team developed and implemented the
instrument. Further, the workshop participants realized the potential
for tourism to have negative impacts as they engaged with the ques-
tions in the CTAI and saw the diversity of responses from others.
Importantly, they expressed a desire to hold more planning activities
with an even greater representation from the community.
Additionally, group members were interested in discussing why
their counterparts scored items differently than they did, leading to
detailed discussions about the health of the community and the role
of tourism therein. The instrument also helped respondents focus
their initial thoughts on the 13 statements from which other issues
often emerged. The scoring of the questionnaire also aided the plan-
ners in guiding the communities through strategic decision-making
activities. This is important as planners often risk initiating a process
without testing the readiness level for such activity. The scaling of the
questionnaire in these cases helped the authors enter the process at
the most appropriate point for each of the test communities.
The research presented here aims to contribute to the growing
literature addressing not only the need for more inclusive approaches
 REID, MAIR AND GEORGE 637

to tourism planning, but also the significantly more difficult question

of how they might be undertaken. The CTAI is one component of a
participatory, integrative process that mirrors the ‘‘discovery’’ prin-
ciple outlined by Potts and Harrill in their travel ecology approach.
They describe the discovery process as the ‘‘beginning of dialogue
among residents, during which they discover mutual fears and expec-
tations’’ and they note that it is one of the most ‘‘turbulent phases in
the tourism planning process’’ (1998:136). The dialogue and infor-
mation created, however, generate mutual understanding,
cooperation, visions for the future of tourism and the community
generally, as well as establishing some baseline information needed in
order to set the stage for monitoring activities. The research reported
here introduces one mechanism for helping engender this important
dialogue. It thereby offers an important tool both for tourism plan-
ners and researchers alike.
The applicability of the CTAI to other situations needs to be investi-
gated further. The samples were neither random nor representative,
as the communities and participants involved in the study were all
self-selected. Presumably, the participants in the research outlined
here were at least willing to consider tourism opportunities for their
communities, and this will have an undoubted effect upon the results.
Moreover, the focus of the present project has been upon rural
areas, and more work needs to be done both to develop methodolo-
gies for engendering and improving participatory tourism planning
in urban areas as well as to consider how different rural areas may eli-
cit different results. Nevertheless, many plans, including tourism
ones, do not achieve long-term usefulness as instruments for guiding
development because they lack emotional commitment and the lead-
ership skills of those charged with implementation. The success of
such plans over the long-term will depend on generating this
emotional commitment and skills during the planning process. This
can only be achieved by creating and utilizing instruments of all types
to engage participants. Helping residents understand themselves and
their context more completely, and to appreciate the critical nature
of the decisions they make regarding issues of development and daily
life, can enhance the sustainability of tourism and community devel-
opment in the long term._ A

Acknowledgement—The authors would like to acknowledge the communities which helped

with this study as well as the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and
the Ontario Agricultural Training Institute for initial funding. They would also like to thank
Bryan Smale, University of Waterloo, for reviewing the last draft of the manuscript.

REFERENCES
Akis, S., N. Peristianis, and J. Warner
1996 Residents’ Attitudes to Tourism Development: The Case of Cyprus.
Tourism Management 17:481–494.
Butler, R.
1980 The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Man-
agement of Resources. The Canadian Geographer 24:5–12.
638 COMMUNITY TOURISM PLANNING

Emery, M., and R. Purser

1996 The Search Conference: A Powerful Method for Planning Organiza-
tional Change and Community Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fleisher, A., and D. Felsenstein
2000 Support for Rural Tourism: Does it Make a Difference? Annals of Tour-
ism Research 27:1007–1024.
Frederick, M.
1993 Rural Tourism and Economic Development. Economic Development
Quarterly 7:215–224.
Fredline, E., and B. Faulkner
2000 Host Community Reactions: A Cluster Analysis. Annals of Tourism
Research 27:763–784.
Gunn, C.
1994 Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts and Cases (3rd ed.).New York: Tay-
lor and Francis.
Gursoy, D., C. Jurowski, and M. Uysal
2002 Resident Attitudes: A Structural Modeling Approach. Annals of Tourism
Research 29:79–105.
Inskeep, E.
1991 Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development
Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Keogh, B.
1990 Public Participation in Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 17:449–465.
Ko, D.-W., and W. Stewart
2002 A Structural Equation Model of Residents’ Attitudes for Tourism Devel-
opment. Tourism Management 23:521–530.
Lankford, S., and D. Howard
1994 Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale. Annals of Tourism
Research 21:121–139.
Lewis, J.
1998 A Rural Tourism Development Model. Tourism Analysis 2:91–105.
Madrigal, R.
1993 A Tale of Tourism in Two Cities. Annals of Tourism Research 20:336–
353.
1995 Residents’ Perceptions and the Role of Government. Annals of Tourism
Research 22:86–102.
Marcouiller, D.
1997 Toward Integrative Tourism Planning in Rural America. Journal of Plan-
ning Literature 11:337–357.
Minnesota Extension Services
1991 A Training Guide for Rural Tourism Development. Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota.
Murphy, P.
1985 Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Routledge.
Oppermann, M.
1996 Rural Tourism in Southern Germany. Annals of Tourism Research
23:86–102.
Pearce, P., G. Moscardo, and G. Ross
1996 Tourism Community Relationships. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Perdue, R., P. Long, and Y. Kang
1999 Boomtown Tourism and Resident Quality of Life: The Marketing of Gam-
ing to Host Community Residents. Journal of Business Research 44:165–177.
Potts, T., and R. Harrill
1998 Enhancing Communities for Sustainability: A Travel Ecology Approach.
Tourism Analysis 3:133–142.
Reed, M.
1997 Power Relations and Community-based Tourism Planning. Annals of
Tourism Research 24:566–591.
 REID, MAIR AND GEORGE 639

Reid, D., A. Fuller, K. Haywood, and J. Bryden

1993 The Integration of Tourism, Culture and Recreation in Rural Ontario: A
Rural Visitation Program. Toronto: Queen’s Printer, The Ontario Ministry of
Culture Tourism and Recreation.
Reid, D., H. Mair, and J. Taylor
2000 Community Participation in Rural Tourism Development. World Leisure
42(20):20–27.
Reid, D., J. Taylor, and H. Mair
2000 Rural Tourism Development: Research Report. Guelph, Ontario: School
of Rural Planning and Development, University of Guelph.
Reid, D., H. Mair, E. George, and J. Taylor
2001 Visiting Your Future: A Community Guide to Planning Rural Tourism.
Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph.
Ritchie, J.
1993 Tourism Research: Policy and Managerial Priorities for the 1990s and
Beyond. In Tourism Research, Critiques and Challenges, D. Pearce and
R. Butler, eds., pp. 201–216. London: Routledge.
Tosun, C.
2002 Host Perceptions of Impacts: A Comparative Tourism Study. Annals of
Tourism Research 29:231–253.
Williams, J., and R. Lawson
2001 Community Issues and Resident Opinions of Tourism. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 28:269–290.

Submitted 15 August 2003. Resubmitted 10 November 2003. Resubmitted 28 November

2003. Accepted 1 December 2003. Final version 17 December 2003. Refereed anonymously.
Coordinating Editor: Julio. R. Aramberri