Destination communities and responsible tourism. In: Leslie, D. (ed.) Responsible Tourism: Concepts, Theory and Practice. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 72–81.
Trung, D.N. and Kumar, S. (2005) Resource use and waste management in Vietnam hotel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 13, pp. 109–166.
Tzschentke, N., Kirk, D. and Lynch, P.A. (2008) Going green: decisional factors in small hospitality operations. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27, pp. 126–133.
Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D. and Curry, K. (2003) The ‘greening’ of tourism micro business: outcomes of group investigations in south-east Cornwall. Business Strategy and Environment 12 (1), 49–69.
WCED (1987) Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Welford, R. and Starkey, R. (eds) (1996) The Earthscan Reader in Business and the Environment. Earthscan, London.
Wright, G. (1997) Targeting Sustainable Tourism in the Mediterranean Basic. EG June, pp. 2–4.
WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council), WTO (World Tourism Organisation) and Earth Council Report (1996) Agenda 21 For the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development. WTTC, Madrid.
WTTC, IFTO, IH&RA, ICCL (2002) Industry as a partner for sustainable Development. World Travel and Tourism Council, International Federation of Tour Operators, International Hotel and Restaurant Association, International Council of Cruise Liners, London.
Zientara, P. (2012) Hospitality enterprise – a key influence. In: Leslie, D. (ed.) Responsible Tourism: Concepts, Theory and Practice. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 154–164.
2 The Tourism Enterprises
Introduction
This chapter serves two primary objectives. First to present a profile of the enterprises involved in the study. Second, to establish the foundation, essential context and parameters to further the analysis and interpretation of the extensive data obtained from this longitudinal study into the environmental performance (EP) of tourism enterprises. Thus, some of the data presented in this chapter may potentially appear on first sight to be of limited relevance. However, the significance lies not only in contributing to the overall profile but also, and more importantly, in terms of comparative analyses both within this study and also for future research. For example to establish a raft of benchmarks to assess to what extent progress has been achieved in the EP of tourism enterprises. Such progress could be expected, especially within the EU (see Leslie, 2011), given the ongoing attention to sustainability issues, ecological modernization of firms and carbon footprinting. Furthermore, as ECORYS’ (2009) study into tourism supply within the EU argued, sustainability is a key to maintaining competitiveness in the world market.
These enterprises account for the major proportion of visitor spend in any destination within which spending on accommodation and hospitality operations accounts for over 50% (see Table 2.1).
The high proportion of spending attributed to food and beverage operations is reflected in the allocation of the EU’s total tourist spending to the various categories of enterprise in tourism supply, as estimated by Leidner (2004):
• Restaurants (includes bars, canteens, catering): 49% of revenues; considered share of supply approximately 82%.
• Hotels (includes other accommodations): 22% of revenues; considered share of supply approximately 15%.
• Travel agents and tour operators: 29% of revenues; considered share of supply approximately 3%.
What is notable about these figures is the revenue share accorded to travel agents and tour operators (TOs) compared with their considered share of supply. TOs, in the form of local enterprises, were not present in the study though their presence was through, for example, coach tour operations. It is partly in recognition of this that they are the main focus in Chapter 3. The focus here on the other enterprises in supply (97%), commences with findings relating to the ownership of the enterprises, the type of business, current period of operation and includes insights on the properties involved. Following on from this, the annual turnover of the enterprises is considered prior to the findings and discussion on employment and recruitment. The final area covered is based on the findings into the background of the owners/managers themselves. As and where appropriate, outcomes of the related enquiries into food producers (FP) and arts and crafts (A & C) are included. To aid clarity, the data are generally considered and referred to as follows:
Table 2.1. General visitor spend by category (%).a (Adapted from Leslie, 2007a.)
| Sector | Day visitors | Domestic tourists |
|---|---|---|
| Accommodation | – | 37 |
| Retail – leisure shopping, souvenirs | 12 | 11 |
| Food and beverage operations | 60 | 26 |
| Attractions | 13 | 5 |
| Travel | 16 | 20 |
| Total | 100 | 100 |
aMinor differences in summation reflect rounding errors.
• 2001, for the LDNP stage overall;
• 2001 audits for those enterprises that took part in the extensive interviews;
• 2006 for the rural enterprises in Scotland; and
• 2011 (audits) for the predominantly urban-based enterprises interviewed in Scotland.
Throughout the chapter, specific comments of participants are included both to highlight, as appropriate, their views and practice and to enliven the discourse. These comments are presented in quotes throughout the text. Before consideration of these areas, additional insights on these enterprises are provided by way of further background.
The spatial distribution of tourism enterprises in any popular destination invariably reflects the general distribution of visitors and the strength of tourism demand in ‘honey pot’ areas. Not surprisingly therefore the study found that the rural enterprises were predominantly located in and around the most popular towns (the majority) and villages. For example, in the LDNP in 2001, 93% were located in the most popular areas, namely Keswick, Ambleside, Windermere and Bowness.
In the LDNP sample, the proportion of serviced-accommodation (SA) operations with over ten, and more so those with over 30 (10%), rooms is above the UK’s national average. This suggests that the LDNP has a higher proportion of larger enterprises compared with other popular rural destinations and potentially that these enterprises are managing well, which reflects ongoing and robust visitor demand. However, the majority do have less than 15 rooms, which is similar to the EU statistic (69%) for rooms per accommodation operation (Leidner, 2004). Overall, these small enterprises account for by far the majority of total bed spaces in the area, which is not to be unexpected given that the ‘large hotel chains and brands only represent between 10 and 20 percent of the total room capacity in Europe.’ (Leidner, 2004, p. III). Over half of the guest houses (GH) in 2001, and most in 2006, were licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, which reflected the continuing upward trend in the UK to consume wine with meals. In some ways contrary to best EM practice, e.g. individual portions, another trend in the GH/Bed & Breakfast (BB) category was the increasing provision of tea/coffee making facilities (90%) and television (90%) in guest rooms and though to a lesser extent individual toiletries. As one owner remarked: ‘I am not happy providing tea and coffee in the room, prefer to offer early morning tea and coffee. Would like to create a “social” room for guests but have to have facilities in rooms for RAC/AA grading.’ The restaurant sector ranged from ‘tea shops’, and small cafes, in some instances with less than 16 covers, to comparatively large restaurant operations of more than 100 covers. Many of these enterprises produce their own products for service and also for retail hence these operations were also