~

T..,;,. Ec-n. 1998.. (2). 1.\l-141

~

Environmental resources as latent primaryfactors of production in tourism: the case of

forest-based commercial recreation

Dtparr../ 0/ UrN..,1I4 Rlgio..,1 PJ...illg, U~jty -I w;';sc.,ui" - Madison..

1 06 Old M8Jic HaJi. MadiJon. WI '3706, USA. T J: + 1 608 262 2998.F.x: + 1 608 262 9307. E-Wlail: Jari~.UliJt'.tJII

The supply of tOurism, in many respects, remains an unresolved areaof theoretical and empirical dnefopm~nt. The reasons for this aremany, but the author argues in this p8pef' mat one of th~ limitingcore areas of concept~ development in tourism economics is thegeneoraJ need for an analytical framework that capcwa generic produc-tioo processes used co prod~ output from me tourism sector. Oneimportant un~tved iS5uc of production indudts use of criticalresouttes such as environmental goods that serve as latent primaryfactor inputs co the prodUCtion pnx-ess of tOUrism. Often, thesereSC>W'Ces are hiddm from analysis due to ~ir non-priced commoo-pool attributes. This is penicularly tnle in rwa1 amenity-rich regionswhere nacure-besed tourism firms are becoming incrnslngly Impor-tant to re-gional economies. Using forest raourccs IS an cxampk, t~incorporation of non-priced tourism prodUCtion inputS mOtecompletely speciMs tM rourism p~ucrion function, provides a crit-ical linkage co land and recreation ~ manage~t, and allowsroc morr in~mive tOurism planning IWroIChes.

~~

How is tOUrism produced? This question provides a basis for analysis of tourismsector output and is a ~[ra1 component of neoclassical appro8Cbes ro [OUfismeconomics. Yet. we have few tOUrism-specifIC [heoretical construCts upon which[0 proceed. Necessarily. the economic analysis of tourism is buil[ from assess-me-nts of market supply and demand. That is to say, mamt de-mand restS onan ability co define and mode-l individual mOtiVations for leisu~ [ravel whilr;

~~

~

':,'

J am indrbled to ~ ~11er. John W~. Jeff Scier. and Don English a lCC'nerous '~l" indl:¥eiopins ~ ~ '-"'" in rhis ~r. ArPft':illtion is abo ~ to r~ anonyn.JU$ leYie~rsor T.,.i,. &-hT nunwroUI p8rtKipanrs 01' a fl"~iONI E.~mion ..JCObh.~ chilr CM:CU~ inDuluch. MN. USA on 14-16 May 1991 for manuscript ~ commctlU. Of coune and as alwaYI.e~. ~~ fX misincerplftatians ~rnain my own. This work is s&appJncd by borh a N41~Re-.rr:h Ini_i~ proj«'f of rt.. Uaiced Scam Dq.nmconc 01' Alricut~ and Mclnfi~nuProject . 3497.

W:

~

.

fDAVID W. MAacouw..u.

~

1,

j

~ .rr(

,

.,

.

...t..

~

i-

~~~~~

~

1}2 TOURISM ECONOMICS

marlce-c supply is r()()(ed firmly within th~ cost structure of tourism-d~pend~ntfirms. Although we have madt progress in developing workable definitions oftourism demand, tourism supply remains n~ulous and ill-denn~. This h~lpsto ~xplain th~ slow rat~ of progress in formulating gen~izations about th~tOUrism phenomrnon. A more comprehensive assessment is critical to inferim'portant balances that impact public policy and planning for future tOurism

dev~lopm~nt.Our difficulties in gC'neralizing supply issues of tourism arC', in large part,

due to the complex inter-relationships berwec-n the tOUrism phenom~non and~xrema1 (or exog~nous) economic, social, and mvironmentaJ issues. AttC'mpcsto charactmze tourism markt:t supply hav~ been limited due to a g~neraJ lackof product dt:finition and explicit jncorporation of extg,.aj characteriStics crit-ical to producing tourism output. FUrthermore, there art: importantnacuraJ-resource-besed public goods that toUrism uses in ics production thatdefy empirical analysis due to cht:ir non-priced and common-pool characteris-tics. A basic prem~ of this paper is that the charactt:riscics and extent ofnatUra! resources do indeed matt~r in the production of regional leiswe-b8sedrourism output. This is J:-.rtkularly true in natural ammjry-rich communities.examples of which can ~ found in regions with significant water. forest. andgcolOSic teSOUrces.

The tourism litC'~ is teplC'te with stUdies which idmtify environmentalresources as key com~ts that support leisure-based tourism. Many havelooked at the importanCe of of'f-site landscape and ecosystems as keys to thecompetitiveness of individual firms. I The type and extC'nt of environmentalresowces surrounding a site have been shown to be dramatically linkcd totOUrism sector profitability due to the image-boosting values of 'placeMSS.. Manypoint to the natUral environment as a buis for a marketable tourism attractionor pnduct. Th~ reasons for this arC' embedded within individual preferences forleisure activiti~. There is a growing interC'St in solidifying the linka&es ~eentourism and the C'nvirooment to develop a more systemic app~h.2 Lacking.however. is a COfKePnaal basis that outlines the fundamental economic linkagesbe~ environmental ~~ and the tourism production process which isnecessary for such analysis. In this paper, these linka&eJ are made more explicitusing forestS as an example of an environmental resource used in producingnatUre-based tOurism experiences within a rw'al amenity-rich region. Movingbeyond the traditional approaches to tourism prodUCtion requires a generalunderstanding (hat alternative environmmtal resource management regimesgenerate different output levels of public goods. These mource-based publjcgoods serve as latent primary factor inpucs into the production process oftOurIsm.

This paper is organized into four basic sections. First. alternative approechesto characterizing the tourism production process are presented. The next (Wosections identify the importance of ~nvironmentat attribut~ (0 tourism usingforest resourc~ as an example and provi~ a basis for integrating tMse at(rib-utes into the tourism production prcx:ess. A commonly used functional formfor production is sullested as a starting point for chanw:tenzing tourism produc-tion. The paper concludes with a Se't of further research needs and brieRydescribes some of (~ relevant policy implicarions of a brooder approach totourism supply analysis.

lYSIS.

..

.

.

~

~

t.

t;;, ply an

E.,.i~.J fu.rI:.s ., WI:8t pri.." I.,." of 1r.J-1- i~ 1.,,"1.

Approaches to tourism produCtion

Smith described che limitacions of secondary data representing the tourism sector asan importanc difficulty in defining tourism supply..i He argued tMC tourism supplyrestS on a definicion of ch~ couri.$m scctor chac specifies the ext~nc of tOUrismreliance. Although criticized as an oversimplification of the complex and partiallyindustrialized structUre of touri.$m supply, Smith's ~tive ~mphasizes themeasurement of scale. ~rformanc~. and economic impactS for locality-specific firmscatering co travellers and visitors.4 While important for characterizing the tourismsector. this work falls shott of addressing the specific com~tS chat comprise theneoclassical mic~onomic approach to sector market supply. In early work ondefining the tourism sccror. N~l Lei~r couched on an important question that getst? t~ core of a more integrative a'pp~h to ro~rism.froducrion: ,~ does one clas-Sify Inherent. natural fcatwes which are attraCtions? Furt~ore. gIven that these'natural features' are inherent in the prodUCtion ofcoorism. how does one incorpo-rate their importance inro ecooomic anaIysi.$? To do this. ooe must deal with thefundamental input Structure of the tourism SectOr. In older ro characterize' prodUC-cion, analysis requires an assessment of seccor-inel C~t structure and itS ~ of pri-mary factor inputS, traditionally de6oed as 1and,Iabour, and capical.

Realizing these limitations, Smith in more recent work attempted co character-ize' both the tourism product and the tourism prodUCtion ~.6 He defined thetOUrism production process as a set of inter-relared notions beginning with thephysical plant and prograsing through service, hospitality, freedom of choice, andinvolvement. These, Smith argued, comprise the roUl'ism experience, or product.Smith further proceeded to outline the production process to include primacy fac-tors of production (land, 1aOOur, apical), in~~iiI.ediate inpucs, intennediace out-putS, and 6nal outputS (defined in terms of individual experiences). Thischancterization is found in Table 1. In addition to the uadicional faaon of land,labour, and capital, he made cunory refe~ to nacural mources such as water.Furt~ore, he refg--r--~ to this prodUCtion process as apparently Bowing in a lin-ear form with little deuil provided ~ to how prodUCtion cakes place.

T8b18 I. The u>unsm prodUCtion function.

Primaryinputs(resources)

-+

LandLabourWa«rAgriculrural

pnxluceFue-IBuilding

materialsupiral

s ~~ LJ. _1ft. 'Thr -- ~'. A--'s ~ T--~ V~ 21. No ). 1994.

.,...,

.n t.,..f'~~

~~~~~~

,~

IntelmCdiueinpucs(fKiliries)

Fin81

oulpUCS(experiences)

f...f

Intermediate OUtputS -+(Mo-;".-.)

~RC'IOC'tS

T ranSp)naf'tOn

n..tcsMIDC\lm5Craft s~~~fjon

cmtmHocdsl\Q~QReftcal c. 8eea

Park in,~ earionGuicX ~Cultural perfo~n~inConvenriOM~rfonnancesAccommocJarionsMca1s and drinksFestivals aM ~B

Rcc-*'Soci8I~...a

EdUCMionRelaxatioflMefnories8.i..s.

conCKU

:;;

~

~

.«.

,1y~

154

Although Smith's article was insightful as a means of conceptualizing thetourism product. we ~ still left with the n~ to address key economic compo-nents of the prodUCtion process: namely. [hac production be framed in termsof primary facror inputS. Simply stated, the manner in which a region's endow-ment of natural resources interactS with the more traditionally defined inputS9t land, Labour, and capital determines the character of tourism outpUt,' Theseprimary facrors can ~ combined to produce equal levels of tourism outpUtalong production isoquants.

The conceptual basis of sector supply that identifies toral sector output as afunction of intermediate purchased inputS, componentS of value added, andimported inputS requires more thorough ~ination. It is important to realizethat tourism supply is based upon a wide array of non-priced public goods thatwould logically be accounted for as a component of value added, or rerums tofactor inpurs. Intermediate purchased inputS and a cursory glance at labour andcapital usage provide an incomplete piCture of tOUrism supply.

Tourism researchers have long focused stUdy on the linkages becween tOUrismand the environment. Many have argued that natural resources provide the basisfor tourism presence in a region. There has been . growing literatutt that makesa conDCCtion among environmental resources (eg forestS, water resources, ecc),their management, and the presence of tourism activity.' We face, however, adearth of usable economic generalizations that allow us to make linkages betWeenenvironmenw c~tS and benefits resulting from alternative environmenwresource management regimes and the prodUCtion of tOUrism. For ease of discus-sion, let us consider the situation that existS in amenity-rich regions betweenthe timber resource, forest-based recreation, and the set of narure-bued tOUrism-sensitive firms that are increasingly dominant within these economic StructUres.

In an effort to conc~talize chis linkage more speci,fKally, one would needto focus on these alternative manaFrDent regimes and develop a ~t of aade-offs that provide the basis for tOUrism experience. With reference to forestry,this set of public and private good trade-offs is outlined in Figure 1.

Forest resources located in remcxe mral areas are often managed for multiple~: rradiriooal markec-based extrKtion (eg timber production) and/or non-market uses (eg recreation). Within a policy context, particularly inenvironmental policy, CMse mulciple uses have craditionally been present~ asmutually exclusive: one cannot enjoy a recreational experience jn a forest jf ithas been harvested. Under traditional foresc management regimes this black-and-white depiction may have held true. Buc coday, if we view the applicacionof fo~t management as lying along a spectrUm that varies from in~ive(short-rotacion sjlviculrure for fibre production) to e'xcensiv~ (Ioogff-rotationsilviculrure), we realize chac chere are differential combinations of marke't andnon-mark~c outputS. If we ISSWM thac c~ 'oucput from che forest resource ismulcjdimensional we can mcxIel a trade-off betWeen output levels acrms alter-native' forest management ~gimM.

The tWo-dimensional output scream can be characterized in c~rms of private(ie market) and public (je non-marker) goods. Under intensive forest manage-

~~~

ToulUSM ECONOMICS

..~'~

...

,

!.

~Environmental resources and tourism

Ii "I"

\

i.

.'.

i'I

~

E=o..;:-.::=:--1 ~ 41 I.- , f.-I.;.~.:.- -..is.. - ,~ 'c [~~~cc . c~: ~ "'"".

" . 'F;~""

,:_~~ ~ ,'~

Private goads (timber values)

.

P1AJfic goods (reaeational vatues)

L.-E ~.:=-_-=L:. . .~ . '.', ..: ~~..:'-:-:--I.~

~

figure 1. Goods produced through natUral

ment regimes me fotest resource is used in the more extnctive sense of managingstands of trees ro maximize fibre production. Output of the forest here is rela-tive:ly easy ro rne:asure: the price: of me commodity (wood) timcs me volume:of tbe: commodity harvested. Our traditional apprc.ch ro modelling ttle: economicimp8Ct of alte:mative forest management regirne:s has ~ ro identify biolog-ical productive: potentials roc use as exogenous shocks to a static system. Thisapproech, however, ignores the fact that there are public good (non-market)be:nehtS Bowing from the forest resource (as depiCted in Figure 1 by the areabelow the diagonal line). These aarure:-based public goods provide the linkageto the prodUction of recreational experiences (ttle: toUrism prodUCt).

By explicitly recognizing the public good aspect of the forest resource, wesee: that a number of modelling problems become apparent. These difficultiescan ~ summarized as including (1) the size of the: box; (2) the base value ofthe public good under extreme intensive use (ie the value of the interctpt onthe Y-axis); (3) the shape of the top of tM box; and (4) the amount of region-ally exponed public good (the: level of the public good t~t is consumed locallyversus that which is used by in-coming tourists).

Perhaps tM bigg~( challenge is ~timatjng the: dollar value: of the: publicgood flowing from the forest resources. In ocher words, if the: market deter-mined dollar value of the harvested tim~r rescx1rce is known, what ~ is the:non-mark~ value of a stand of trees fof' recreational purposes? The: generalizedform of this que:stion has ~ one: of the primary research injtiative:$ under-taken by resource economiStS during the past 25 years. Methods developed

13'

resource management.

~~

include (1) ~ed pref~renc~ mod~ls (h~nic pricing and travel COSt) and (2)stated preferenc~ models (contingent vaJuarioo). Whil~ a complet~ revi~ oft~ m~thods is beyond [he aim of this paper, [~~ is a large body of researchto draw u~n.9 UnfOrtunat~ly. whil~ these methods can be compl~x and rigorous,there is no guarantee [hat the final tStimaced valUe' of [M non-market goodwill be robust across alt~mative methods used.

The second ~mpirical problem is that of estimating the valUe' of th~ non-mark~tgood under the most intensiv~ forest manag~ment ~gimtS. In Figure 1, it is~plicitly assumed that t~re will always be som~ non-zero public goods vaJu~ ofthe forest. One could reasooably argue that, immcdiat~ly following a clear-fellingoperation, there is zero recreational value to th~ forest resourc~. In other words.in this c~ tMre is no positiv~ int~rcept on the Y-axis. Today, how~r. silvl-cultural tc<hniques have been applied tha.t not only represent int~nsiv~ timberproduction but also retain high I~~ls of growing stock. For example. theM~nominee Nation of Na.tive Americans in Northern Wisconsin has adopted'l~gacy forest' silvicuJrural practices in which only crees of a certain diameter areselecti~ly removed. The dollar value of th~ harvestS are high as the largest treescomprise th~ highnt-va.lue commodity and resultant price structure. Trees belowsom~ age/size threshold are left in plac~ to continue growing. Th~ Menomineesrepresent an ~c~ll~nt exampl~ of how a forest can be intensively managed withoutsacrifICing public goods values. In this ~ of intCt1$i~ focat managem~nt. theint~rcept on the Y-axis would be signifICantly above zero.

The third issue is the shape of the cop of the box. Giv~n a square repre-sentation w~ assume that th~ sum of mark~t and non-market values of tbe forestresource is fixed IC~ all forest management regimes. Implicit in this mump-cion are fixed prices with respect to market and non-market goods. This mayappear internally coosisrent. but recent evidence suggestS chat market and 000-market prices ftuccuace significantly. Casual observations of local price be:baviourin areas w~ national forestS ha~ shifted from one management regime toanother suggest that prices are v~ry sensitive ro 1.rYesting ~licy. Simpl~ supplyand demand theory predictS that as mOre forested land is removed from twvesc,th~ supply of timber drops and prices iocreaR. As incteased acreage has beenplaced aside in extensi.e management regimes, rht ~\Ked supply causesincreases in timber prices that mOtivate accelerated races of harvesting 00 privateforest lands. More difficult to see is the change in 'willingness-t'O-J:.Y' for arecreational experi~nc~ in a forested area as management regimes chang~.Currently, these recreational experi~nces exist as common-pool benefitS and arerhus non-priced to the recreating public. Certainly, tourism secroc businessesin th~ region are currently nor charged for recreational expcri~nces requiringextensive management' regimes. Ulcimattly. ic is chcse experiences char providca basis for tourism business receiptS yet extensive managem~nr regimes createsigni6<ant opportunity cmtS for owners of forest land.

Th~ foun:h and final problem discussed here is the Bow of non-mark~t bene-fits thac originat~ from the regional forest resource. CI~ly. local residentsben~fit from the public goods d~rived from forest resources. Many residents~Iect to live in these forested rural regions because they ~nioy living in closeproximity to narure-based a.menittes. BenefitS to residentS are significant butintangibl~. Tourism-sensitive businesses, on [h~ Other hand, ar~ increasinglyprevaJ~nt and profitabl~ in amenity-rich communities. Non-~id~nt trav~llers

~~~~~

...

~~~

TOURISM Eco~

~

.,f

~.';

~~

--

""-

~

.~.)~

~

E-*"."U ~ .s '-- f'i*'1/"" " ,...,- ;. "';1.

(touriscs) visit these foresced r~giom and s~nd considerabl~ amounts of moneyin rh~ local economy. Thus, rel~nc tourism production benefitS would t~ndto be limited to the ~gional ~porc-based portion of the public goods associ-at~ with ~nvironm~ncal ~source managem~nt.

Fundam~ntal co chis set of argum~ntS is the simple notion that tourism-sensiciv~ firms in narural-amenicy-rich ~gions bent:fic from th~ quality andquantity of ~nvironmental resources prnent in the .region. ~ am~nities arecreated or heavily inB~ed through nacural resourc~ managem~nt and existas positiv~ ~t~malities of tbe resourc~ bese. For example, in natural-amenity-rich ~gions the oucput of tourism goods and services relies on th~ forests, lakes,and publicly provided recreational opportUnities present in th~ ~gton. Ir isunlikely thar people travel to foresc~ ~gions because tbey have ~cell~nc restau-rantS or uniquely wonderful hotel beds (even though they may indeed exist!).Rather, it is the natUraI-amenity base available in the ~gion chat provides thebasis for tourism sectOr outpUt.

The compl~ manner in which public and private goods Bow from forestSand land management regimes ro ~giona1 industries is presented in Figure 2.It is important ro realize chat the outcomes of ~urce StOCk manipulation arerooted in land management capabilicy. Ar the core of chis capability aremanagement objectives of landowners. Particularly on public lands, these objec-tives are often characterized by a philosophy of ..ltiplt ... Given a bro8d setof objectives and the knowledge of land management techniques, landownerschoose a management intensity and then manage forest resources accordingly.This is identified in Figure 2 as forest prodUCtion and relies upon the ftexibleusase of productift &aors. For instance, in forest production, landownerscombi~ their land and itS original growing srock with labour and capital inputS(primary factor inputS ro timber production) to Create outputs of private andpublic goods. In addition co generating household income directly (throughretUrns co forest inputS), forestry prOOUCtion creates raw material oorpuD forforward-linked industries. In the case of forestry, these include both the woodprodUCts sectOr and the tourism sector.

Manipulation of environmental resource Stocks determi~ the futUre StatUSof a primary input intO tourism; ~y the condition of the forest resource,itS aesthetic value, aDd irs recreational ~tial. Combined with ocher regionalamenities (scx:.ial, cultural, and infrastnlCtwal), the statUS of the ~[ resourcefor recreational p>tential draws visitors co the region, who impact local busi-ne$5eS. These impected local businesses comprise the forested region.s tourismsector which contributes a portion of irs receipts to local housc-holds aswages/salaries and proprietary income. FUrthermore, the supply and demand ofprimary factors inBuence future rates of return co these ~urc~ inputs. Usingthis inferred linka8C' between forestry and tourism, we can now charact'eriz~ th~conceptual basis for production in a rural amenity-rich ~gion.

Environmental goods as latent factOrs of production

We are now left with a need co characterize- gmerically the supply. or produc-tion function. of tourism. Economists have developed a wide array of functionalforms that could be used to charaCterize- production. For simplicity, let's consider

i

~. .ttI

1}7

..11'"),..

~~..~.. .

.. .

.

(

I.~ ., .t .

,

I

.. TOURISM ECONOMICS .i~'"

,.

:t

~~~

~t-f~

~

~ .~I,i :.

.t-I .

. .~. .

..

8°:~

]Q,"~

§~

,,{..\tI

i,tI.:

e~...~

'0."..1..1

~E

"'C~

.~

-;...~c

~

N

~~~

~

~..1;

~

~~ .

t~

~

.""

E..t ;;-:./ ,..,. ., ~ 1ri-.r, /.., .. "w..,- ;. ,..r;s.

g~lized Cobb-Douglas produCtion function that includes public goods.Certainly, this should be viewed only as a first step toward characterizing theproduction function of tourism and itS non-priced ~vironmenral resource jnpucs.Ic is importanc to realize thac the-re are a subscancial numbe-r of alt~macive func-cional forms thac could charaCterize courism produccion from che more restrictive(Leontieff) to tbe more flexible (consranc ~lasticity of subscitution). This presen-tatioo is simply intended as an initial att~mpt to characterize factor inputS usedin tbe production of tourism. .~

Due to its imp8CtS on the amenity value of aesthetics and recreation, timber ~production can be viewed as a stock resource used for tourism. The linkage '.between timber and tourism begins with th~ conceptual basis for timber produc- "cion. The produCtion of timbe-r, itself, can be charaCterized as a conrinuously !substitutable speCtrum based upon unique combinations of primary faccors of fproduction. This is outlined in Figure 3. Explicidy. timber output is a func- jcion of land. labour and financial capical, and rescx11'Ce StOCks (commonly referred ito by fottSc economistS as 'growing stocks). The choice of land management i.alternative det~rmines the uniqu~ combinarion of inputs. For example, a ~

F

l8d I.,ta , t..

! .i~t.,I fc

DeQradiYt 'YPes of forest production :

1

"Ij!

: Even QQed plantation-type ;:~ faIwt prodUCtQ1 ,

j!t. ~ .~ .

Labow~~ ~ca t

Uneven aged ~ growing stockbest ~t;on

...Figure 3. ProdUCtion ofalt~rnative cimber regimes. Y af(land, labour/capical,resource srock)

t;W

..t

~~

;

~~

~

140

landowner could produce a giv~ amoun[ of [imber ourpU[ (in dollar valueterms) using relarively lower levels of land or growing srock inpu[s if [~resources were combined with high labour and financial capital inputS. Thiswould charac[erize me intensive industrial fibre production ~n in forest plan-tations [hat optimize space. nutrientS. and wa[er use. On the ocher hand, themore selective management of larger growing stocks using relatively less labourand financial apical inputS or land inputS could produce the same amount oftimber output as measured by dollar value. With ~rence to Figure 1. however,we realize that [here are differences among land management regimes in theoutput of rec~tional (or public goods) value. This representS the resource stockinput used in the production func[ion of tourism.

In a simibr fashion. [ourism production can be conceptualiz~ as a functionof land. labour and financial capical. and ~rc~ Stocks. The hypotheticaltourism production function is graphically rep~ted in Figure 4. The valueof generic courism output (doUan) can be prodoced in different ways that reflectaltemaci~ types of tourism prodUCtion. The amusem~t park can producetourism output using v~ry little environmental srock or land inputS given ahigh input of labour and financial capital. On the Other hand. mOSt pessiveoutdoor recreation pW'SUics reftect tOurism output prodoced using high envi-ronmental resource inputS and relatively fewer labour and financial inpua. Inchis extreme, pristine amenity-t.sed recreation and reliant natUre-based tourismbusi~ depend on nacural conditions that are almost inimical to labour andfiMncial capital inputS. Finally. motorized outdoor recreation uses environm~nca1resources as more or less a b8ckdrop [0 leisure with heavy emphasis on openspace (or land) inputS. Thus. the regional production of tourism output is char-acterized as a set of input altcmatiYes. -

To be more specifIC. tbe genemlized prtxfucrion of coorism output is char-acterized as being determined by three specific primary factOrs of productionas oudined in equation (1).

x-Irs. LX, E) (1)

This scates that tOurism oucput (X) is a function of primary faccors that includeland input (5). a combined labour and financial capital inpur (LX) aDd e:nvi-roomenta! resource (or public goods) input (E) to the pnxlUCtioo process. Eachof these is typically measured in monetary unitS using price-quantity relation-ships. Given the non-priced I8tUre of environmental reJOUrce inpua (E). thisreinforces tbe need to ~Iop regional estimates of environmental values.Empirically. this can be accomplished using both stated and/or reve:aled pref-erence techniques developed by resource economisa over the past 25 years.

To complete the: e:xe:rcise of production function analysis. tbe researche:r isrequired to specify or estimate some functional form. M~ appropriately deter-mined through additional empirical work, this specifICation could follow ~of many previously identified functional forms. For ~ple. the Cobb-Douglasfunctional form could be used as specified in equation (2).

X . sa LK' E'" whe:re a + ~ + -y - 1 (2)

(n this prese-nration. tourism production is c~rized as a fle:xible combina-tion of the three pfe'Viously identified primary factors of production. The sharesof factor inputs are represented by ~ ~. and .., respecti-.ely. Th~ condition that

~~~~~~~

~

ToualSM EcoIIK>NICS..

.

~

-,,.

.

.:.,

t,

I ..

~. .,!.

~,

Eci-:~"-::--:-.-1 r88K8 IS I.- pr;.." I"'" t/ PI.JM1- i. turiJ.

Land .",

Figure 4. Production of alternative tOUrismresourcescock)

a .. P + 'Y = 1 representS an asswnpcioo chac courism $('Ctor output is char-acterized by conscanc returns co scale in prodUCtion. In short, it is assumed thatfirms can simply increase the use of primary factors and experience a concinu-ally increasing output of courism. Certainly. furd1er work is needed tosubstantiate basic assumptions and more clearly ground production functionassessment with empirical observation.

Thus, environmental resources are used by the tourism seCtor in varyinglevels depending on tourism type. Although much of what could be referredto as 'amusement-b8sed tourism' may require little in the way of environmentalresources, ocher types of rourism rely heavily on this base. For example. muchof the increased attention ro 'special-interest tourism' and 'ecocourism' relies onenvironmental resources as a key latent input. to ~ conceptUal basis p~tedin chis paper offrrs cbe rather simpl~ but all-coo-oftcn overlooked notion tlUltanalysis of tourism production needs CO incorporate non-priced. non-marketinputs. From a more general perspective. environmental resources are only onetype of non-priced. non-market input used in the ptoduction of tOUrism. Theincorporation of historic and cultural resources as primary faCtors of productionin urban or cultural tourism could likewise follow a similar characterization.

,

j,r!

lc041

~I{

;

~~

?c\"-',6..4.-

.

J '

)

f

r.t

1.0.~o'

f.

,

.

. x . {(land, labour/capital.DUCPUCS

au

~

With regard to contemporary tourism research, conceptually addressingtourism supply and its represenrati~ production strucru~ is critical to devel-oping more generalizable theories thac explain the tourism pMnomenon. Thisshift in modelling strategy is beginning co take shape within resource economicsand ~gional analysis circles. Characterizing production of tourism is a keycomponent in contemporary...economic analysis of tourism and represents animportant avenue of futu~ ~h." The difficulty with chis simple repre-sentation has to do with visualizing a production process that incorporatesfu~ca1ly non-priced public goods (environmental resources) as a key latentfactOr of production in creating a tourism prodoct. Firms chat choose to producetourism output using envtron~nca1 resources have a characteristic advantagein thac use of this primary factor is currently carried OUt wid. no (or very little)direct cost to the affected firm.

In this paper, I have argued that much of t~ exjsting tourism economia and plan-ning literature has overlooked important componentS of tourism supply; namelyanalysis of factor input usage in the production process that generates tourism sec-tor outpUt. A key issue involved in addressing the output of an amenity-basedtOUrism sectOr is itS dependence on environmental resources present in a region.These resources are charaCterized as comprising a criticallatenc primary factor ofprodUCtion chac requires further cbeoretical and empirical ~~smenc. For chis dis-cussion, forestS were used as an example of one such latent primary factOr input.Linkages betWeen natural resource management and rourism production were usedto conceptualize output of alternative tourism types. Incocpomting non-markergoods and services into courism supply analysis pro¥ides . more comprt:hensiveundenwlding of the narure-bascd tOUrism phenomenon.

The production of narwe-based tourism relies on primary factors of produc-tion that include land. labour and financial capital. and environmental resourcestocks. The latter. environmental resource stOCks, are manipulated throughnatural resource management in varying degrees depending upon the alternativemsnagement ~ime c1aen by owners of the environmental resource. The typeand extent of these resource stocb depend on the sensicivity of land ~mentto prOOucing public goods. Indeed, a gene:ral p>int made by this paper is thatthe type and extent of natural ~rce stocks present in a region help frame theprodUCtion of tourism OUtput. For purposes of initiating a dialogue. a general-ized production function was p~ that repmentS alternative tOurism typesand incorporates a Acxible environmental resource Stock component wich aninferred linkage between resource management and the production of tourism.

Further research is needed to substantiate the theoretical production relation-ships outlined in this paper. How d~ tourism type vary wich natural resourceactributes, land ownership patterns, and regional economic struCtures? To whatextent do natural-resource attributes affect the presence of tourism firms? Doempirical evalUations substanciate our cheorecical cu.QW«ts - and why DC whynot? Fufthennore, compalacive assessmenrs are needed to evaluace empirically thecost structUre of alternative tourism cypes which would lead to more complet~justification "of funCtional forms chat represent tourism production.

~

.".

.TouaJSN ecONOMICS

..

I

.

.,

.f.

Summary and policy implications

,.,..

As we move coward more incegmcive app~hes co rural d~lopment chatview tourism as ooe of many economic activities appropriate [0 amenity-richregions, prog~ive policies thac are holistic and systemic need to be crafted.12These policies could realistically incorpomce the linkages ~uired to equalizebenefitS and costS of producing the: stock resources upon which tourism is based.Indeed, there are costS associated with naruml-resoun;e' manage:ment for publicgoods that are rarely recovered by those who produce these goods. This is partic-ularly acute for public goods produced on private: lands and demanded bytourism interests. If the tOurism sector requires a pelticuJar type, or quality ofenvironmental resource, how should che public respond? Do we: have an oppor-tunity or ability to shift rrsourcc CQnSt'rYatioo cmrs to consumers thcrebyinternalizing relevant production costs? Doing so could have the bene:fit ofgenerating more equitable and efficient outcomes.

Contemporary public policies that address tOUrism development often focussolely on supporting tOurism sector interestS without attending to broadercommunity development issues. In the U~ public tourism policies at all levelsof government are dominated by marketing and promOtional activities thatresult in increased tourist visitS intended to provide ~ded Opportunities fortourism sectOr businesses. There is a need to extend policies beyond this myopicfocus to account more effectively for broader linkages ro the environmental,social, and economic suscainabiJity of communities.

In roral amenity-rich regions, increased leisure-baed visitS place an increasingdemand 00 environmenw resources for recreational opportunities. The relevantquestion addressed in this paper deals with how we supply this increasinglydemanded nacure-based tOUrism product. In the case of foIest-based recreationand reliant tOuNm businesses, a critical flcmr in'YOl'ged in this prodUCt includesthe environmencal resource b8se and itS aesthetic and reaeatiooal value. Thestatus of this environmenw resource base is controlled by landowners, rarelythemselves involved directly in ~ retail and service businesses that comprise thetoUrism sector. Integrating the needs and desires of n&tuR-based tourism besi-nesses with this environmenml resource base, itS management, and the owners ofland comprises a critical set of Stakeholder interactions that require creative publicpolicies intent on maximizing benefits while ameliorating JXKentiai con8icu. Thestructure of tOUrism prodUCtion and the importance of environmental resourcesto the tourism phenomena are key ingredientS of public policy for land use, envi-ronmental conservation, community economic development, and tourism.

t. ~ i~ of flWi~raI ~rC'ft to rourism vimJicy ate IMft fully ftpioftd in H. A,..,.ieIOft haccf pr - 8ft i~iCXlaI rmid', ,,-Is I{TMrls. Ra.'\., VoI1S, No 4, 1991, pp~587; R, BuckIey,'A ~ for «fXourism', A.-Isl{TMr'iJ.R.,.,,-b. Vol 21, No4,1994,pp 661-66~; E. loskeep, 'Envi~ planning * rourism', ".-Is -!TMris. R~, Vol 14,No 1,1987,pp I 18-135;1IId K. hiaand M. Dakhil, 'Recreational ct..icesand~i~mencal Pftl-e..-e', "...Is .,T.,u.~, Vol 15, No 4, 1988, pp 357-370,

2. A ~ SYSRmic, « inreg_i... 8pp"*b to incOC'porating ~viron~ncal issues wicbi" murismplannin, ~ d8lCUl.d in 8. Fanetl aIId I.. McUJIaa, 'Toorism IIId physical ~.ironmenr ~h'.,,-.tis .,T a.~, V~ 14, No I, 1987, pp 1-16: I. Kavallinis and A. PiBm, ~ ~vi-n)nIMna! ims-cn of caurism.- w~ ft'IpGNtbiliry is ir anyway? Tht: CalC lnady of Myk_',J"'/ -t T, R~, Vol 33, No 2, 1994, pp 26-32,

J".

e...~l ,..,. ., /.,.- ",...",.., ~ ;::,.,.. ;. ,..;,. . 14J

..1;.

~

Endnotes

:t~.

c.

144

3. S.L). Smim. 'Deftnins rouriam: a ~y-stde view'. A_Is t/ TMris. R~, Vol 14. No I,1~7. pp l79-1~.

4. A Crifiq~ rX mil 8PPff*:h ~ ~ found in N. uipeor. 'Partial indUStrialization of fOUfisms,sums', A.--/s .jT-rs. R""", Vol 17, ~ 4, 1990. pp ~1. Support for an ilMfusfry.~h can ~ bind in W. Eldinsn.t N. J.N~, 'E~ics and murism'. A...JJ -IT-- RGMft-b, Vol 18, No l. 1991, pp ~1-56; and t,). Gi~, '~ pgceftfial for rouriImdevelopment in nOfIlIIC'rIOPOli~ aftas', chapter 8 in D.L Bllkiey. ed, E,_ir AJ.".iM:AJJ /iM /w' N~~;,.. ArMS, Wncvn Press. San fr8ncisco, CA, 1993.

~. N. uiper, 'TIw f~ cW" tOUrism: rowatd a definition of rourism, rwriSf, and flw muriscinduscry', ~.--'s tfTMris. ~ V~ 6, No 4, 1979, P 398. This ~~ is.. eam~ rXOM of mill' academic wlleys (~lesiaJty re(emd ro a rhr 'Smich-Leiper' debate) chat attemptro mlidify thc 5QCU$ rX ~rism 81 all indUStry.

6. S.L}. Smith, ~ blnsm pn8duct', ~._I, -IT_is. R~, Vol 21, No 3, 1994, pp ~82-595.7. ~ ~JialKe of rourism ~ ~ eftVinwtmrnEaI ~n:r rndowmeIKS at a sivm place and

time could ~ incqr8nd in IMI8IWfOUS ways. fOC' pUIPC*I rX ~.~Iopift8 a COIKrpt'18I eco.x.micbuil, EtteR ~ can ~ i.li:u.-pcio-.ed as 8 re.-nEr primlry f.:cw input inEO ~ionaI prodlK-cion. 1ft dIC ~toc.I ~ limaru~, ~ is . precedence - vni"B public soodI 81 primaryfKIOI' inpucs. PreYious IjrrraNR hIS ixu.d ~ dw ,. rX puWic espencijruEei for illfl8rnK-CUR, edUCltion. aod deftlopneIK ia nxxIrb of ~a.1 ecoaomic Imwm. Thr inErlared ~iI ~ to Teresa G.«ia.oMia - Therac}. McGui~, 'The: c~uiMion rX pubiidy pIO¥idedinpua m IQIC CCOCKImies'. RIIi.-I Sc Ur-.. E-n, Vol 22, 1992. pp 229-241; EmescPIeICaII (;(MI. 'The implCt of ia_~ spendilll on IWW -- bmariOft: me impon8«'eof IC8ft Q.~uuic ~..~oi spendi.', ~, -I RIIi..J $I.J;." Vol 24, No 3, 1994,pp 26)-279; M. IIII8q N8iiri and Theofaois P, M8tIMJae8I. 'TIw ~ rX public in&.tnk:tUftMId bD capiw ~ dw ~r SCftKCUR aM pe~ of US nl8au&cNrin, indUllria',~ .. EI G ... S,.,;,,;a, 1994, pp 22-36; and Carheri- j. )fOcrison MId Am, EllenSchW8RZ. '$are iaCnIuuca8R 8ad pmdlKUft ~-".-~', T. A &'-« R.;,." V~86, No~, 1996, lIP 1095-1111. 1ft. simit... fashion, mYilOnmelaJ ~ can ~ viewed u. crirDJ public taad i. ...~ pcoriucrion.

8. Maa, ha~ wriam .-. die li~ betWfti, eRYi~ ~ and ~. A &:ow cW"dw rMM8b1e ""'~~oi:6 iKI.. A. Pteumuom, 'TIlt poiirkal ~, of tDJrism', T" ElW.,isI,Vol 24. No 4,1992. lIP 142-147; M.IomeriI, 'Tourism I88d ~ in - a J bl8adl',TMrisa .~ r, Vol 6, No I. 198', pp 43-49; I. MJiMrit, 'Tourilm Ind the eaviIonawnc:. C8R '" Wedi~.." n i:i:-:~~-', 1.,...,;-1 JMr..I-I E~;'-~--' SI.J;." Vol 2'. No 2,198~, pp 239-245; a. S81m, 'l.-priDI...n~ o:.w ,-.rMMl and -.n.m', 1 ::.iM/J-'-'.. &.:._tJ S,.-;., Vol 25, No 2, 198', pp 229-238; P. Sl.kiIDd. 'The World Tourism~-- - .30 pealS of ~i~ EO nvira11awD181 pnJCeaiCMa', 1~ oiMJ J -Ie: r-=.:::: ::_~~1 SI.Ji8. Vol 25. No 2. 1981. lIP 2~1-263; j.T. C~k, Tourism and ~~', T.,;.I¥-""'=-.-=, V~}, No 4, 1982, pp 270-276; 8. famU, ~i~ tOUrism 8ndd8e'~ ~', c z..~-=-;-~~' J--. V~ 14. No 1,1986. lIP 113-130; D. Weawer,'AJIerI*i~ m ~ ~ .. Daminia., A..Is .. T... R..,rj. Vol 18, No 3. 1991,pp 414-432. s.-a-= diKt.a. d8 fIx1II- rbr Ii... -- b8r ~n:es 8nd courismaft ~ found in D. a.ppcJ1e, . A deailed eami..i~ of eco.-ic eKeas of Jrowth in tOUrism

and fomc: pcoducu RC~ in me .. amm', in ~ SI.- R'fi-./ F.at R- ~,Lab 5faftS fOIaCry AUiancc. Ha,-.fd, \VI, 1995. pp 291-334; J. H«br aad S. Andrews,'Communiry aM MJciaj effectS of filCu~ ~f-b8Sed ecaaocnic .x-~oiJIiu-"-1i in the Lab Scam',unplbiished ~, Nanhwat Rq~ Planninl' Commiaion. Spaar-.o;.-, "", 1991.

9. a.-cc~ i uuiSES ha~ been qui~ .:tiw in quantifyins ~ "'-.s. Noab&e ~lKn- ~n to mutism IIId II8fUni ~n ilKludr). Bmnecr. 'E.i.-iDJ die ~reKJonaI uw Yai-un of .-rional parks', T-n. ~ics, Vol 2, No4, 1996, pp ~3-}20-. G. BoIredf aM L Maluson,'The valw of ~ for tourism in Sweden', A_II I{ Tum. R~, Vol 22, No 3, 1991.pp 671-680; N. Lansford)r, and LJ~, 'Rec~ionll1 and .sfhecic mw rXwarer Utins hedoni<pria anaIysis',}MrNi-l AI'it.Il...J Rl8m !~~. Vol 20, No 2.1996, pp 341-311; K.~Willil, 'Valuinl non-nwbr wiJd1- cammodirics: an naltaflan I88d coml*iJon of" bIIIe6cs and~a', A E-'a, Vol 22, I~, pp 13-31; and S, CaliIh, a.D. Pi.. Ind D.E. T~n,'How c» nonrim~ wi... &c ~Ias-'r 1Oac*s?'.}..r..J "F.."" Vol 76, No 4. 1978,pp217-22 I. An annoarm ~Mwnph' of ~ mviromnrnraj ~ u8d tOUrism is found inE. JCp8On, D. Marcouilleor 8nd S. DelIet', 'I~ins mubr"" ,..~ valun iMO ~giOIt&lplannin, for n..a .-k-'-;;Iof..~r'.}""" -I Pf ;-r U,.,.,-, Vol 12, No 2, 1997, pp 22G-217.

.~

Tau.,SM ECONOMICS

.I,

.

~..

\

j

.

.,

.~.~,..,".,o....,1

~T.~,

t~

!8 l.l--~~.""""'" f.-I ;.1Mr118

11.

141-H...

.