Tourism Enterprise. David Leslie
2.5. Not surprisingly, given the motivational factors previously noted, one in four of these owners moved into the LDNP within the last 10 years. More surprisingly perhaps is the finding that close to one in three owners are comparatively recent entrants into the tourism sector. This factor rather affirms the view that there are few barriers to entry into the business of tourism. Also and potentially evidencing that many persons are new to the tourism sector is the limited membership of professional associations (see Table 2.6). The significance of such memberships lies in the attention to environmental matters by such associations. For example, the Hotel, Catering and Institutional Management Association (HCIMA) (now the Institute of Hospitality, IH) produced a technical brief for their members on environmental issues in 1993 within which it was argued that all hospitality businesses should produce an Environmental Policy Statement as well as promoting EM practices, particularly energy conservation. In 2000, they launched a campaign to reduce energy consumption in hotels by a minimum of 15% over 3 years, which they argued would lead to reduced carbon dioxide emissions of some 40% based on consumption in 2000 (Forte, 2000, p. 18).
Whilst approximately one in four of the 2001 interviewees were members of the IH, this falls to one in ten across the whole sample for 2001 (8% for 2005; 4% in 2011). Conversely, in 2001 few interviewees were members of the Tourism Society compared with 5% overall (3% for 2005; 6% for 2011). Such low membership is understandable in that the owners perhaps do not see themselves as part of the oft cited ‘tourism industry’. This speculation is not so readily argued in the case of managers with career aspirations who might be expected to demonstrate recognition of their commitment through membership of these associations. However, the findings for 2011 certainly indicate that this is not the case (see Table 2.6).
As the WTTC et al. (2002) argued, there is a need for multisector partnerships and effective involvement of all stakeholders in order to achieve sustainable, and economically successful tourism. This is well illustrated by the Lake District’s Tourism & Conservation Partnership (TCP), which well exemplifies how environmental partnerships can be very successful in their aims (see Long and Arnold, 1995) and the benefits attributable to-collaboration and partnerships in the tourism sector (see Bramwell and Lane, 2000). Membership and participation in professional and community groups are all potential steps in initiating the development of partnerships of one form or another. Involvement in such groups and also membership of green organizations are also potential indicators of environmental behaviours as well as influences on the management practices of the enterprise. Thus membership of such organizations was investigated (see Table 2.6). All the categories of supply in the LDNP stage are included here, as well as the overall figures for 2006 and 2011. The reason for this is to provide for comparative analysis across the spectrum of enterprises. Though this is just the 2001 stage the data for the different categories of 2006 are similar. Reference to Table 2.6 draws attention to the fact that many of these owners, for whatever reason, recognize a benefit to being a member of their respective Tourist Board (TB). Largely, if not solely, this is accounted for by the fact that if they wish both to gain accredited grading status of their operation and be promoted by the TB they must take up membership.
Table 2.5. Profile of the LDNP interviewees (audits).
| Category | Response (%) |
|---|---|
| Where is proprietor originally from: i.e. home | |
| Local | 6 |
| Not local but within Cumbria | 8 |
| NW England | 36 |
| NE England | 6 |
| Mid-England | 12 |
| SW England | 12 |
| SE England | 10 |
| If not originally from LDNP when did they move into LDNP? | |
| 1970s | 22 |
| 1980s | 22 |
| 1990s | 26 |
| Period of time involved in the hospitality sector [years] | |
| 5 or less | 32 |
| 6–10 | 8 |
| 11–15 | 12 |
| 16–20 | 6 |
| 21 + | 36 |
| Period of time in current position [years] | |
| 1–3 | 40 |
| 4–7 | 20 |
| 8–10 | 4 |
| 11–14 | 6 |
| 15–20 | 14 |
| 21+ | 10 |
| Membership of professional bodies | |
| HCIMA (now Institute of Hospitality (IH)) | 28 |
| British Hospitality Association | 6 |
| Licensed Victuallers Association | 4 |
| Tourism Society | 2 |
Further analysis of the data across the categories opens up wide scope for discussion; too much for here given the constraints of space. Even so, a number of such differences are highlighted as follows:
Table 2.6. Membership of a cross section of organizations.
aSA= Serviced accommodation; R= Restaurants; I= Inns; A= Attractions; C= Caravan and camping sites; S= Self-catering.
bFringe study – 46% of serviced accommodation enterprises were members of the CTB.
• Membership of green organizations is most apparent among the owners of self-catering operations.
• The urban enterprises are comparatively the least likely (except for restaurants) to be members of a TB and most likely (except for Caravan/Camping operations) to be involved in a local community group.
• Attractions are the most likely to be members of a Tourism Forum.
• Given the rural locality of 2001 and 2005 one might anticipate higher memberships of green organizations. However this clearly is not so and similar to Carlsen et al.’s (2001) study. This is perhaps especially notable given that within their sample there were a number of wildlife/nature-based enterprises and one might readily speculate that they would be members of green groups.
Overall, in general the owners/managers of these tourism enterprises are not members of professional associations (with the exception of a TB), and perhaps one in three is involved in a business forum. One might speculate with some confidence that the owners do not see themselves for the most part as being part of the ‘tourism industry’, and in many cases perhaps not really a part of the business community.
Further of note is the low membership of green organizations which might be considered surprising given that for many owners in rural areas the attractiveness of the location was identified as a primary reason for their enterprise. Thus one might expect higher involvement in such organizations. However, the low level of memberships was also identified by Gaunt (2004) in her study into Scottish based TOs, which found that 17% were members of a green organization (similarly Erdogan and Baris, 2006) though their study was wholly based on larger hotels i.e. 40 bedroom plus). Again perhaps such a low figure is surprising given that many of the operations of these TOs involve tours around Scotland and walking or cycling tours. In contrast Carlsen et al.’s (2001) study into family run tourism enterprises in Australia found that 39% were members of a conservation organization and did identify a correlation between such membership and the introduction of EM practices.
Summary
In total these enterprises are predominantly family owned and managed with low numbers of employees; as such they are mainly micro-enterprises. This is significant on two counts; first it establishes that their profile correlates with the wider statistics that tourism enterprises are mainly small or micro-businesses, and second, that the data gained through the research is more widely applicable in that it is far more representative of the tourism sector than research findings based on international and national businesses, predominantly in the hotel sector. Even so, there is some variance between the data sets. The audits of 2011 given the composition of the sample and comparative size of the enterprises are not that representative of the sector as a whole, which