One of the most important challenges arising from the goal of sustainable tourism development is destination planning. The traditional boosterism approach to development has been oriented toward reducing barriers and in stimulating market interest (Getz 1987). This emphasis has resulted from importance being placed on the economic benefits of the industry, such as income generation, employment creation and regional development. However, researchers into the impacts of tourism are increasingly noting that the traditional market-driven approach does not always provide the most appropriate or sustainable solution ( Inskeep and Inskeep). Some form of intervention is necessary to protect the environmental assets on which tourism is based, to mitigate social and cultural impacts, and to maximize economic benefits and minimize negative impacts ( Inskeep 1991).

While the most desirable framework for this intervention depends upon the nature of tourism itself as well as political and administrative frameworks, it is increasingly being recognized that development issues should be addressed as part of a comprehensive planning process (Getz 1986, 1988; Inskeep 1991). In addition to market planning, the spatial implications of tourism also need to be addressed ( Fagence; Fagence, 1995 and Gunn). In addressing the pragmatic concerns associated with destination management, Ashworth, G.J. and Dietvorst, A.G.I. Editors, 1995. Tourism and Spatial Transformation CAB International, Wellingford.Ashworth and Dietvorst (1995) argue that it is essential to integrate tourism into local place management policy. That is, tourism is reliant upon a community’s stock of natural and human resources; however, these resources are frequently planned and managed under other statutory and non-statutory planning regimes, such as land use planning, natural resource management and community economic development schemes. Most of these regimes are primarily concerned with other issues and are conducted independently of tourism planning initiatives. Accordingly, if destination place management is to be effective, it should be integrated into existing planning frameworks.

This paper is concerned with the integration of tourism into the physical or land use planning framework. In simple terms, land use planning is a statutory process which aims to identify a vision for the spatial development of an area and to pursue this by designating a preferred pattern of land use. It is a process which is carried out at the local or regional level as opposed to market-oriented tourism planning which is most commonly carried out at the regional level or above. The aim of land use planning requires that developmental issues be spatially interpreted. Frequently however, there is little or no guidance in the form of spatial strategies at higher levels of government (Fagence 1991). In some countries, this hiatus has resulted in a situation where development processes become complicated and protracted as planners attempt to assess projects on an ad hoc basis using planning documents which have been elaborated without full consideration of tourism development issues ( Dredge and Long). It is argued that despite considerable advancements in the development of methodological processes of tourism planning (Getz 1988; Inskeep; Inskeep and Lawson) there is a lack of spatial concepts, models and theories from which the land use planner can draw. This in turn can exacerbate the difficulty in integrating destination place management into the land-use planning framework.

An analysis of spatial models of tourism corroborates this perspective. Pearce (1995) detects considerable fragmentation of spatial tourism models, noting that many have been developed independently of one another, with little or no recognition of or attempt to build on previous efforts. Furthermore, few have been subject to critical appraisal or empirical testing. Fagence (1995) acknowledges that the main contributions of these models lie in establishing the relevance of certain geographical concepts such as spatial interaction between components, distance decay from origins to destinations, nodal hierarchies, tour circuits, and specialization between destinations and nodal interdependency. While these may be important in understanding the geographical nature of tourism, their use for the purposes of identifying a preferred pattern of land use is limited due to their predominantly descriptive or explanatory nature. Mitchell and Murphy (1991:65) argue that “despite attempts to cast spatial and environmental relationships into a broader theoretical framework, there is still a need to integrate such models into more comprehensive paradigms of land-use and tourist behavior” (1991:65). Jansen-Verbeke (1992) observes that despite the plethora of models and concepts to aid in the planning of housing, traffic, industrial, and commercial activities, there are few such models in relation to tourism and recreation planning. The aim of this paper is to sharpen the conceptualization of the core elements which comprise destination regions in order to assist the land-use planning process. In doing so, the paper draws from a number of existing models, concepts, and theories in order to build a framework for improved destination place design in as much as physical planning, land use, and development issues are involved.

Destination place planning and design

Planning is the process of establishing a strategic vision for an area which reflects a community’s goals and aspirations and implementing this through the identification of preferred patterns of land use and appropriate styles of development. Traditionally, the range of concern for planners has been narrowly focused on residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Tourism, because it involves a wide range of interrelated land uses, has usually not been considered in its entirety, but has been compartmentalized for the sake of expediency. However, the stimulus for local planners to become more involved in destination planning and management stems from changes that have been occurring in the profession over the last two decades. Issues such as sustainable development and community consultation have had an enormous impact on the planners’ self perception and the way they define their role (Forrester 1989). They are increasingly moving away from an insular bureaucratic role to encompass a wide range of other considerations, including environmental protection, commercial and corporate interests and public opinion, that have previously been considered outside their domain.

In an era of growing specialization and differentiation of community interests, increasing public participation and access to the decision-making process, the task of balancing this growing range of issues is difficult. The planners’ role is neither rational nor comprehensive (since it is impossible for all factors to be investigated and considered equally) but is bounded by a number of personal, professional, and political factors (Forrester 1989). These may include the education and training of the individual, personal attitudes and beliefs, understanding of the issues at hand, ability of the planner to present and justify recommendations, and the influence of lobby groups and the professional tools which the planner employs. It is the last factor, professional tools, which is the concern of this paper. Since tourism issues must compete against all other community interests in the development of place management policy, the planner must have available a range of tools in the form of methodologies, concepts, models, and theories to answer critical questions about the most desirable spatial structure of tourism in order to facilitate destination region design and development.