Case Study Differences

Although, some of the methodologies were similar, the case study models were quite different
overall. The B.C tourism capability model used a much more advanced resource assessment process
than the other models studied. In this case there was a tourism resource inventory created for many
locations throughout B.C. and this inventory provided in-depth information on existing tourism
facilities, use areas for tourist activities, information on these facilities, and available tourist
attractions. As well, the model itself was part of a more extensive process of tourism potential
determination where the researchers did not determine tourism potential themselves. Tourism experts
took the results of the model and used them to determine tourism potential. The GIS and modelling
component in B.C. was used mainly to inventory the tourist resources in place, and the suitability part
of the process was an attempt to make a more accurate and complementary product. The basis for
changes in potential rests with tourism experts who assess visitor opportunities and where areas to
127
develop should be, however the rationale behind changes is not clear from the study.
This model for
B.C. also took the process further than the other examples by looking towards feasibility by including
an analysis of the economic value of tourism activities. As well, there were three levels of coverages:
capability coverages (how the natural and cultural resources of an area support a tourism product and
how resource and intermediate analysis coverages are combined and classified, intermediate analysis
coverages with scenic data and, lastly, resource coverages with geological features, biogeoclimatic
zones, wildlife habitats, and other natural resource data. This model also contained information on
constraints to development and local considerations within its tourism resource inventories unlike the
128
other models. In addition, the B.C. Capability models did further suitability mapping after potential
was derived in order to help facilitate future development. The next model, the Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum, differed from the others in its methods. This models looked at tourism in
terms of supply (the type and number of tourist opportunities that can be offered), demand (the type
and number of opportunities people want), and diversity (the range of different activities preferred).
For many tourism potential models the key ingredient was the scenery that an area offered for the
tourist and because of this many employed viewsheds to analyze these opportunities. However the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum went further by developing soundsheds. These soundsheds were
defined through fieldwork and were meant to assess the impact that sound would have on a natural
area. Part of this model that tied in to soundsheds was the development of social encounter norms.
These principles were added to the model and helped determine the likelihood of encountering other
tourists along trails and in other natural areas. These encounter norms helped determine the tourism
129
potential of an area.
The ROS system looked at tourism potential from many viewpoints. The model combined
physical (human modifications like trails, settlements), social (encounter norms), managerial (park
zoning and municipal by-laws), and a final ROS (combination of all three) map into a final model.
This process looked at the infrastructure, social, and legal impacts of recreation development. Other
models did not include zoning concerns like this ROS model did.130
Lastly, was the nature tourism model for Grampians National Park in western Victoria,
Australia. This model seemed to be separated from the others in its environmental components and
analysis. This model, like the others, examines aesthetics and scenic opportunities; however it
distanced itself from the other examples in its treatment of environmental concerns. One of the chief
components of this model was an environmental resiliency model. This model included data on the
environmental impact that tourism would place on land and the ability of the land to withstand these
pressures. The model was closely related to the idea of ecological and environmental carrying
capacity. This model, unlike the previous examples, did not include a digital elevation model however
part of the methodology accounts for this omission. The second step in the development process
resulted in the creation of an accessibility weighting which ranked areas based on their distance from
road and walking track access points and there was little in the way of an accessibility component in
the other models.131 The case study differences are shown in the point form list below.
Differences
B.C. use of a Tourism Resource Inventory (1:250:000)
B.C. use of economic feasibility, suitability mapping, and tourism experts to actually
Determine potential
Recreational Opportunity Spectrum use of soundsheds and incorporation of zoning
Nature-based tourism potential model use of a tourism attractiveness and environmental
resiliency model, as well as accessibility rankings
Nature-based tourism potential model for diversity of attractions and the impact development
on the environment