Evaluating the effectiveness of visitor-regulation strategies for polar tourism
Abstract The regulation of tourism in polar areas is increasingly of concern to scientists, policy makers, tourists, and tourist operators who wish to control negative impacts and promote positive ones. Given the growing emphasis on finding and using appropriate ways to control visitors to the polar...
| Published in: | Polar Record |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
1998
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0032247400014947 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0032247400014947 |
| Summary: | Abstract The regulation of tourism in polar areas is increasingly of concern to scientists, policy makers, tourists, and tourist operators who wish to control negative impacts and promote positive ones. Given the growing emphasis on finding and using appropriate ways to control visitors to the polar regions, it is important to examine issues related to the effectiveness of individual measures of regulation and the broader strategies that are in effect in these places. This paper examines the effectiveness of visitor-regulation strategies by outlining a two-step approach to evaluation. The initial step should involve determining the nature and attributes of the measures that make up the strategy. Commonalities, differences, constraints, and complementarity in these measures must be assessed. Particular attributes outlined in the paper, such as scale of jurisdiction and degree of restrictiveness, can be examined to assess the compatibility and consistency of the measures, which have implications for overall strategy effectiveness. While it may be appropriate to evaluate individual measures further using a goal-achievement approach, the paper recommends evaluating strategies through a conceptual approach based on criteria related to the characteristics of an effective strategy. Four are described in the paper: comprehensiveness, enforceability, outcomes, and appropriateness. |
|---|