Tourism and Destination Sustainability

This document discusses the impacts of tourism on society and development in small towns, focusing on a case study of Williams, Arizona. It explores the negative social impacts and conflicts arising from tourism development, and analyzes the factors and processes contributing to these impacts. The document emphasizes the importance of social sustainability in tourism development.

Running Head: TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
Topic- Factions and Enclaves: Small Towns and Socially Unsustainable Tourism Development-
a case study
Student name
University name
Author notes

2TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
Identification of the Impacts
Tourism is no doubt an important tool of economic development in rural America. The
small American towns see it as a positive and interim form of development (Davis & Morais,
2004). Rapid and increased pace of urbanization has created problems in agricultural and
extractive industrial progresses. As a result, the rural and other small towns in America are trying
to be a part of the emerging tourism industry and are trying to acquire share on tourism sectors
(Davis & Morais, 2004). Economic diversification is the underlying aim of such community
decisions. Development also emphasis benefits such as new job creations, increased revenues
collected from taxation and also a positive communal spirit (Amir et al., 2015). But tourism may
have negative social impacts on rural communities because of lack of well-developed
infrastructure, improper planning and often for the gap in developmental decisions. In this case
study, the region Williams, Arizona is considered for study to find the impacts of tourism on
society and development of the people there. It is examined whether the theoretical support of
models of community adaptation and social carrying capacity support social construction or are
the reasons of social disruption (Andergassen & Candela, 2013). For this the case of Grand
Canyon is considered. The introduction of the Grand Canyon Railways was initially a welcoming
news for the people of Williams, Arizona (Davis & Morais, 2004). They, themselves, convinced
the owner of the railways, Max Beigert, to transform it into a major attraction for tourist
destination of the area. However, the situation changed soon and the control over the pace of
development is overlooked and this developed some major unwanted issues (Davis & Morais,
2004). Among them development sustainability, community support and socio-cultural aspects
of the Arizona people remained out of consideration. For better understanding of the case, the
impacts are divided into a number of capitals. The study aims to evaluate how Boom-town style
tourism development can be counted as a failure based on inability of the towns to adopt at a
rapid pace and also for its negative socio-cultural well-being impacts (Apostolopoulos, Leivadi
& Yiannakis, 2013). And study show that Williams is a case where increased pace of tourism is
having negative impacts on community attitude and popularity of tourism is declining over time.
Table 1, provides a summary of all positive and negative impacts resulting from the
introduction of Grand Canyon railways in Williams, Arizona. Examples are provided to each
capital support to increase level of understanding.

3TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
Table 1: positive and negative impacts on community well-being capitals
Well-being capitals Positive impacts Negative impacts
Built-capital (physical
infrastructure)
Reformation and development of
an old existing railway line along
with its associated infrastructural
development.
48 new business development
during the time line of 1987-
1998.
19 new hotel openings.
A new stop at Williams for train
services.
Creation of a new airline at
Farwest.
The creation of the enclave
tourist attraction causes
pathway blockage in the
direct interaction between
Williams and railways.
Financial capital (monetary
assets’ support)
Around 200 new and direct jobs
were created in railways.
The assessed value of the
properties doubled in 1990 which
is a good aspect for property
owners.
Within a year the Government’s
general funds increased by $1.9
million.
Between 1991 to 1998 tax
revenue increased by $ 2,35,000.
There is revenue-offset due to
increased cost of living. Also,
high rents, high cost of foods
and minimum wage issues
were prominent.
There is a job gap in between
what is estimated and what
actually been created and
there are around 600 job
deficits as per statistics.

4TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
Also, tourist spending increased.
Social capital (relationship
building and networking)
Initially there was positive
support and collaboration for the
tourism development by the
people of Arizona.
Later on, the decision-making
process give rise to conflicts
among merchants, town
government and Chamber of
Commerce.
The townspeople reduced
communication and
cooperation with railways and
their trust also reduced
significantly.
Political capital (decisional
influences)
Higher initial communication
and community involvement by
the means of consultation among
railway officials, town
government and common people.
The approval gaining
processes is slowed down due
to conflict of interest among
railways, chamber of
commerce and common
people. decision-making
process suffered.
Cultural capital (influence of
arts, customs, traditions and
rituals)
Performances such as brass
bands and gunfights by the locals
help in increased tourist
attraction.
The introduction of the Old
West has affected the town’s
theme and it has been
disjointed.

5TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
Analysis of the factors and processes that contribute to these impacts
A number of positive and negative impacts have been identified in the previous section.
But to have deeper understanding the study mainly focuses on the attitude shift and behavioral
changes of the community members in regard to involvement in the decision-making process on
tourism development (Bramwell, 2013). Social sustainability contributes largely to overall
sustainable tourism development and thus consideration of these factors is important in this study
paper. Alteration of social cohesion resulted from the process changes will be studied afterwards.
As per the case study, in the initial phase there was positive support, community
contribution and collaboration among the people, local government bodies and the Grand
Canyon Railway company in regard to the tourism development project (Davis & Morais, 2004).
A number of predictions and promises were made which were in line with all stakeholders and
their motives. Promises were made in areas of job creation, increased revenue resulting from
tourism and other developmental areas (Fun et al., 2014). But conflict of interest instigated when
a large portion of the promises were failed to be materialized. Higher level of arguments arose
when the interim outlined generation of minimum community interest without any potential
benefit availability (García, Vázquez & Macías, 2015). And as identified by Graci (2013) trust is
only build when there is mutual agreement of fulfilment of interests. False promises only affect
social cohesion in a negative manner and give rise to increased mistrust and misunderstandings
among parties involved.
Among the many negative impacts one issue is of lack of railway ticket holders in the
Williams visiting areas. The increased domination of the railway monopoly has been responsible
for this impact and they wholly monopolise the tourist spending (Jaafar, Rasoolimanesh &
Ismail, 2017). Their success is supporting by the following aspects,
 Providence of a very short period of opportunity for the locals to maximize their
benefits in ticket holdings. Locals were benefitted only 1.5 hours in the morning and in
the evening after 5.30 pm.
 New businesses are developed around the railroads in the form of enclaves. Majority of
the businesses replicate the various offerings of the Williams town and therefore, the
tourists do not feel the need to visit the town as they get their necessities near the
railroads itself (Davis & Morais, 2004).

6TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
 Various drawcards have been intentionally and strategically placed in the pathways to
draw tourists away from the town Williams.
 The Grand Canyon Railways support those tourists as their ideal tourists who has
neither interest nor time to visit Williams during their holidays.
In this regard Kim, Uysal and Sirgy (2013) argued that when an enclave is built or created
the level of benefit for the local community reduces considerably. In this case, the built-capital
support was increased for tourism development by the help of railways. But in reality, Lee
(2013) found that majority of the tourists there either arrive by own personal cars or other means
of roadways and are not railway patrons. In this regard, it can be inferred that the townspeople of
Williams are not actually targeting their main tourist market effectively and there is a gap in their
market need understanding.
Another noteworthy impact of tourism development that has created increased negativity is
the conflict creation within the whole Williams’ community. Though it is one of the most
common type of conflict in Tourism but still is very crucial in supporting communal
development. Mowforth and Munt (2015) argued that this social sustainability barrier is mainly
resulted from the inability of the stakeholders to agree on a common decision on the
development prospects of the town. There was conflict of interest among the three main
stakeholders in Williams, namely the townspeople, the local government and the Chamber of
Commerce. This conflict in decision-making mainly arises due to lack of cooperation in the
creation of a town image theme and also in the creation of a unified power struggle (Monterrubio
& Mendoza-Ontiveros, 2014). The town government’s failure to make timely and quick decision
to cater with the railway company’s interests is responsible for widening the latter issue
mentioned.
In many times, maximum time is spent on deciding power and control among the
stakeholders and the major focus area remains unresolved. This gives rise to increased difficulty
in working towards a set of common goals and objectives (Ruhanen, 2013). In this situation, it is
better to develop connections and increase communication among stakeholders to have increased
trust and control in relation to societal changes (Roberts, Hall & Morag, 2017). Although, a
number of townspeople believed that the cause of failure is basically resulted from the

7TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
dominance of the various external agents and also for the internal community conflicting
situations.
The inability in decision-making and reaching a consensus on-time is a major factor that has
disturbed the pace with railways. It is argued that this conflict of interest would not have risen if
development was not prioritized in the first place in tourism sustainability (Ruhanen, 2013). The
conflicts are steamed by the increased control of the railway company where they have limited
the decision-making ability of the local government as well. Max Biegert, the owner of the
railway company was determined in his decisions and mentioned “we are to start right now and
the plans will follow” (Davis & Morais, 2004). His tone was firm but not empathetic and there is
lack of community consideration in railway company’s goals. Hence, it is identified as nothing
but a manipulation in the name of public participation (Saufi, O'Brien & Wilkins, 2014). This
argument is supported by week 4 lecture outlines.
Situations become worse when the company relocated its Headquarters out of Williams
town center. In this context, Sharpley (2014) argued that regular direct contact of parties if
hindered the informality in their opinions will vary greatly. The increased geographical distance
constraint minimised the local body involvement in decision making including common
townspeople as well (Stylidis et al., 2014).
Involvement of local people in tourism decision making is an integral function. The
planning process ensures the mutual benefit scope of all stakeholders by aligning some common
achievable goals. According to Waligo, Clarke and Hawkins (2013) goal setting in the planning
process in tourism development tin case of Grand Canyon is developed by external agencies.
This increased concern among local bodies as there was gap in the goals set up and the goals are
not at all specific to the region Williams.
Although a number of positive impacts are there in regard to financial and infrastructural
capital but they are been offset with increased cost of living in the area (Wang & Chen, 2015).
And the townspeople remained unaffected as they continued to work on their previous minimum
wage continuum. It is assumed that they were not aware of the negative impacts of off-setting
when they convinced Mr. Max for developing railways in the region (Davis & Morais, 2004).
This is a valid point of consideration as Williams has no past experience in tourism and so are
the people there. This instigated negative results for social capital as outlined in Figure 1 and are

8TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
also supported by week 2 lecture. The impacts in social capital in more intensified in small towns
like Williams as limited number of populations makes things more noticeable and impacts are
also far-reaching. The paradox here is that it is assumed that increased tourism venture will
reduce income gaps by providing higher job counts but in reality, it only increases income gaps
(García, Vázquez & Macías, 2015).
Finally, it may also be argued that social turmoil may be the outcomes of negatively
impacted townspeople only and it is the behavioral result of the people affected from higher cost
of living. As Kim, Uysal and Sirgy (2013) mentioned in regard to human psychology, those who
are not directly benefitted have a tendency to show animosity towards the same development
project which they once supported. And ultimately, results may be of negative biasness towards
company and overall public opinion may be skewed at large.
Figure 1: Factors contributing to negative outcomes in tourism development
Negative
outcomes
Limited involvement of community in tourism development
Lack of local
tourism leaders
Improper tourism planning/ lack of
stakeholders’ coordination
Domination of
external agencies
Limited
knowledge and
experience on
Tourism

9TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
Suggested policies for improving the sustainability of this specific tourist activity in this specific
location in the short term
In the above two sections the negative impacts have been identified and their contributing
factors have also been discussed, now here action policies will be recommended in this section
that need earliest implementation. Action plans will help in improving the sustainability issue in
relation to tourism industry (Lee, 2013). In this case study emphasis is mainly on social
sustainability the action plans will also be provided based on it.
As per the case, there are mainly two action plans that were recommended by
townspeople and need to be implemented to the earliest. Firstly, they recommended to increase
the communication and interaction between the railway company and the town members. Focus
on social cohesion among all stakeholders’ group is to be integrally supported so that common
goal is achieved optimally (Ruhanen, 2013). It is also expected that the public forum will allow
increased level of participation for all stakeholders and they all will have equal rights to express
their views and concerns (García, Vázquez & Macías, 2015). In this regard, a public space needs
to be found where various concerns and opinions could be expressed that will in turn increase
consensus and community spirit on various issues. Here local governments can host forums that
will improve tourism leadership in the town and will eventually diminish the role of power
struggle (Mowforth & Munt, 2015). Theoretical support from various literatures also support this
cause and mentions that leadership becomes more effective when stakeholders’ participation and
political leadership combine as one (Roberts, Hall & Morag, 2017).
Secondly, as per merchant review, the railway company is not utilizing its marketing
communication mix tools effectively. That is, word of mouth is not been used to promote the
tourism in Williams and also their offerings are kept at bay. This indicated another concern that
the region is only dependent on railway company to promote their offerings and do not have their
own promotional strategies, which is required to be there (Saufi, O'Brien & Wilkins, 2014).
Therefore, the plan of an Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) tool implementation
should be considered to have increased tourism that will eventually decrease financial capital
burden. Graci (2013) rightly mentioned that an enclave lowers the factor of distinction between

10TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
various goods and services. Thus, a well-integrated marketing campaign will focus on overall
promotion of the town Williams as well in tourism and their offerings will also be noticed.
For effective implementation of the above-mentioned recommendations a number of
policy instruments can be considered for ensuring government’s action enforcement. Table 2,
identifies the various action plans and policy instruments.
Table 2: Policy instruments and action plans to support social sustainability in Williams
Action plans Details of policy instruments Type of policy instrument
Interaction between railroads
and town should be increased
Gola alignment
Town center should hold
annual public forum
Coordination
Implementation of
promotional strategies
Focus on creation and
implementation of IMC in
Williams
Expenditure
Control the rate of rapid
expansion of other privately-
owned conglomerates
Approval from local
government to be made
mandatory for all new
projects and expansion plans
Legal (law and government)
There is another strategy being outlined in the case study that could be effective in
supporting communal development at large. Here external agencies will not have much power in
front of local government and they should abide by the rules of local government and should also
seek permission from them. Creation of enclave will be restricted effectively and goals will also
be met accordingly (Bramwell, 2013). There will be enough time for negotiation with the
townspeople and chamber of commerce and as a result right decision can be taken. Conflict of
interest will be reduced to a great extent (Davis & Morais, 2004).
Last but not the least, there is another major issue mentioned in the case that is of
inability of the townspeople in developing a common theme for the coherent image of Williams.
It will be favorable in implementation of policy instrument for change enforcement but equity
among stakeholders will not be maintained in this (Amir et al., 2015). So, it will not be

11TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
justifiable to implement the policy as it could increase communal turmoil and could impact the
governmental leadership in tourism.
An overview of the lessons learnt for this case study for other tourism destinations
The main aim of the case study of Williams is to find out the effects of tourism
development on communal and social cohesion. A number of negative impacts created
decreasing capital among various levels of participation. All impacts are widely liked to barriers
that affect sustainable tourism development and also influences communal social sustainability
(Andergassen & Candela, 2013).
A number of policy instruments have been mentioned that will support action plan
implementation effectively and thereby will establish social cohesion fairly. The case also
provides a number of guidelines for future tourism development planning (Davis & Morais,
2004). The mentioned guidelines identified from literature reviews will also help in achieving
success in areas of community well being and social cohesion, they are, increased consciousness
for potential and promised benefits, thorough internal planning, careful considerations for win-
win negotiations and maintenance of a consistent expansion rate allowing stakeholders to have
both pace and benefits at large (Bramwell, 2013). And in addition to these, in the interim all
goals need to be aligned between all stakeholders. Local planning is emphasized more here
because in the case study issue were mainly results of local mismanagement and ineffective
planning (Graci, 2013). Community approach is the basic backbone of both policy and planning
guidelines development. And finally, it is expected that the implementation of the mentioned
action plans and guidelines will support positive capital outcomes in Williams in future and
overall community spirit and well-being of people will be uplifted by sustainable Tourism
development in Williams, Arizona.

12TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
References
Amir, A. F., Ghapar, A. A., Jamal, S. A., & Ahmad, K. N. (2015). Sustainable tourism
development: A study on community resilience for rural tourism in Malaysia. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 116-122.
Andergassen, R., & Candela, G. (2013). Less developed countries, tourism investments and local
economic development. Review of Development Economics, 17(1), 16-33.
Apostolopoulos, Y., Leivadi, S., & Yiannakis, A. (2013). The sociology of tourism: theoretical
and empirical investigations. 1st ed. Routledge: London.
Bramwell, B. (2013). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: A political economy
approach. In Tourism Governance (pp. 59-78). Routledge.
Davis, J. S., & Morais, D. B. (2004). Factions and enclaves: Small towns and socially
unsustainable tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 3-10.
Fun, F. S., Chiun, L. M., Songan, P., & Nair, V. (2014). The impact of local communities’
involvement and relationship quality on sustainable rural tourism in rural area, Sarawak.
The moderating impact of self-efficacy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 144,
60-65.
García, F. A., Vázquez, A. B., & Macías, R. C. (2015). Resident's attitudes towards the impacts
of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13, 33-40.
Graci, S. (2013). Collaboration and partnership development for sustainable tourism. Tourism
Geographies, 15(1), 25-42.
Jaafar, M., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Ismail, S. (2017). Perceived sociocultural impacts of
tourism and community participation: A case study of Langkawi Island. Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 17(2), 123-134.
Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality
of life of community residents?. Tourism management, 36, 527-540.
Lee, T. H. (2013). Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism
development. Tourism management, 34, 37-46.

13TOURISM AND DESTINATION SUSTAINABILITY
Monterrubio, J. C., & Mendoza-Ontiveros, M. M. (2014). Tourism and the demonstration effect:
Empirical evidence. Tourism & Management Studies, 10(1), 97-103.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2015). Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalisation and
new tourism in the third world. 4th ed. Routledge: London.
Roberts, L., Hall, D., & Morag, M. (2017). New directions in rural tourism. 1st ed. Routledge:
London.
Ruhanen, L. (2013). Local government: facilitator or inhibitor of sustainable tourism
development?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 80-98.
Saufi, A., O'Brien, D., & Wilkins, H. (2014). Inhibitors to host community participation in
sustainable tourism development in developing countries. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 22(5), 801-820.
Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism
Management, 42, 37-49.
Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J., & Szivas, E. M. (2014). Residents' support for tourism
development: The role of residents' place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tourism
Management, 45, 260-274.
Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi-
stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism management, 36, 342-353.
Wang, S., & Chen, J. S. (2015). The influence of place identity on perceived tourism
impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 52, 16-28.