The research project: a multipurpose monitoring system

“Sustainable tourism” is not a new type of tourism; at its core, it is a management process (Box 1). For a region in the Swiss Alps, the important issue is to plan and shape tourism in such a way that the focus is not only on the economic implications of tourism but also on how it affects the inhabitants and the man-made and natural environment. The main goal of our research project was therefore to build an individually shaped monitoring system that can serve different purposes:

To build the indicator system, the project had 4 modules:

Desk research, with the aim of analyzing existing studies and monitoring systems to find the normative framework for the indicator system and “basic indicators” that can be used in all regions, mainly for benchmarking purposes and initial sustainability checks.

Case studies in 4 regions in Switzerland (Figure 1), including workshops with inhabitants and hearings with researchers from other institutions and countries, with the aim of finding a good methodology for analyzing tourism development (especially institutional, cultural, and social aspects, as well as integration of tourism in networks) and regional policy. The final results of this module consisted of a set of “region-specific” indicators that show the special situation of each region and can be used mainly for monitoring purposes.

FIGURE 1

Location of the 4 study areas in Switzerland. (Map by Andreas Brodbeck)

Data collection, analysis, and synthesis of the basic and region-specific indicators to address the issue of which development paths can be detected in the regions and what can be learned for management purposes.

Modeling of the whole indicator system and transferring it to an Excel application that makes it manageable, and integrating the indicator system into a management model that uses the indicator system transparently in the different steps of a management process.

The focus of the present paper is on Modules 1 to 3; it concludes by presenting the results, using the indicator systems for the 4 case studies.

Module 1: desk research

After analyzing existing monitoring systems from different institutions and authors (eg World Tourism Organization, Friends of Nature International, Destination 21, etc), we found that existing monitoring systems have some shortcomings: our main criticism is that most existing indicator systems focus on only one dimension of sustainability, eg either ecology or economy, and do not consider interdependencies between them. Also, the investigated indicator systems are not based on, or at least do not present, a clear normative framework. As most indicator systems are “stand-alone systems” that are not developed based on existing systems, they show a lack of compatibility and comparability with other regions' indicator systems. This is mainly a problem for regions with benchmarking objectives. Another shortcoming of the systems is rooted in their development process: they lack a participatory process, which makes it difficult to find acceptance with regional actors.

We derived 3 main results from these shortcomings: First, a strong framework is needed to show how the term “sustainable tourism development” is understood. Second, the development of a monitoring system should be a participatory process that includes the target groups in the regions. Otherwise the system lacks acceptance. Third, only a combination of qualitative and quantitative indicators can show the whole picture of tourism development in a region.

Module 2: case studies

In Module 2 a participatory approach was chosen to find out what currently existing problems alpine regions are struggling with. This information was needed to identify region-specific indicators to grasp the whole situation of the regions and not only some details. The 4 pilot regions in Switzerland were part of the research project within the framework of the Swiss National Research Program 48 (NRP48). These regions were selected on the basis of 2 criteria, namely “tourism intensity” and “agglomeration proximity” (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2

Characterization of the 4 study areas. Tourism intensity is measured as the ratio of the total number of day visits and nights spent in a location by visitors compared to the number of days and nights spent in the location by the population. Agglomeration proximity, in turn, influences the region's economic sensitivity. Regions that are close to densely populated areas offer the population other types of economic activities and opportunities for work than tourism regions can.

Pilot regions in Switzerland

The four regions—Engelberg, Zermatt, Einsiedeln and Trachselwald—are characterized by their geographical setting and their specific problems.

• “To be successful as a hotelier you need more than twice as much initiative and personal activity compared to 10 years ago” (hotel manager, Engelberg): Engelberg is situated close to 3 important agglomerations in Switzerland: Lucerne, Berne, and Zurich. As such, its tourism structure is mainly influenced by a high number of day trippers, who account for more than 50% of all tourists in the region (Figure 3). Also, because of its geographical position Engelberg is characterized by a high quality of living, leading to inbound amenity migration and a boom in second home construction. This leads to a high volume of traffic, as well as a rising demand for building land. The main attraction of the region, Mount Titlis, is a top international site attracting global travellers.

• “Overcapacity in tourism infrastructure built for the winter months is the main problem of summer tourism, as it leads to hard price dumping” (hotel manager, Zermatt): Zermatt, one of the top Alpine tourism destinations in Switzerland, is situated in a peripheral region. It exhibits a high dependency on tourism development, as two thirds of all jobs are in the tourism sector. The construction of capacities for the winter months (infrastructure, hotel rooms, etc) is a major problem in Zermatt (Figure 4) during the summer months, as the cost of maintaining this infrastructure burden the region's budget. The Matterhorn,

• “If we do not raise local people's awareness of the importance of tourism, we will never be successful” (hotel manager, Einsiedeln): Einsiedeln is a region in the central part of Switzerland, mainly known for its large monastery. It was dominated by pilgrim tourism in recent decades. Due to an outdated hotel infrastructure, Einsiedeln lost many tourists in the last 30 years. Also, structural change, eg loss of agricultural activity, has affected the economic development of the region. Today, Einsiedeln is recognized as an attractive place to live, with good infrastructural links to Zurich and well-developed recreational areas for its inhabitants. (Figure 5)

• “The gentle and sustainable tourism which we aim for does not bring high income at the moment. We need a new concept” (hotel manager, Trachselwald): Trachselwald, a region in the Emmental, is situated close to the agglomeration of Berne, Switzerland's capital city. Its economy is still dominated by agriculture. The region represents 17 communes. It is a popular destination for day trippers. Overnight tourism makes only a limited economic contribution. The main problem of the region is structural change in agriculture and weak tourism infrastructure. (Figure 6)

FIGURE 3

Engelberg: this beautiful setting is attracting amenity migrants from the Zurich metropolitan area. (Photo by Ch. Perret)

FIGURE 4

The world-famous village of Zermatt in 1925 (top) and 2003 (bottom). Zermatt has been a tourism destination since the 19th century. (Photos courtesy of Swiss National Library) one of Switzerland's best-known mountains, is situated in the municipality of Zermatt and functions as a main attraction for the region.

FIGURE 5

Einsiedeln: view of the Benedictine monastery founded in the 10th century—a major European pilgrimage center. (Source:  www.randonneurs.ch)

FIGURE 6

Trachselwald, a popular destination for 1-day outings from the Berne metropolitan area. (Photo courtesy of Region Trachselwald)

Region-specific indicators must fulfill at least 3 main requirements to address the question of how sustainable tourism development is to be achieved: a) Frame of reference: first and foremost, an indicator must be relevant in relation to sustainable tourism development and regional development, ie to normative goals. b) User-friendly/manageable: the collected data must have appropriate information content and be meaningful for a phenomenon, must be linked to users' environment, be easy to understand and communicate, and be subject to political influence. c) Objectivity and measurability: the indicators must be logical and have a scientific foundation. A cross-section of indicators should also be quantitatively measurable to identify progress over time. However, qualitative indicators should also be used where appropriate.

Development of the indicators followed a mixed top-down/bottom-up approach. In a first step, existing indicator systems were analyzed and the indicators used were tested with regard to fulfilling the above-mentioned principal requirements. In a second step, the chosen indicators were discussed with regional stakeholders in a participatory process to find out whether they fit the specific situation of Alpine regions. As all regions face different problems with regard to sustainable development of tourism, they all have different indicator needs. Based on these needs, additional region-specific indicators were developed that can be used in addition to the basic indicators derived from the literature in Module 1 (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Examples of basic and region-specific indicators.

Module 3: data collection, analysis, and synthesis

To collect the data, different sources were necessary: on the one hand, national and regional statistics were used. On the other, field research was necessary mainly for the qualitative indicators, using standardized surveys and interviews with inhabitants and lead persons in companies and institutions. While collecting the data we realized that it is useful for the regions to begin with a time-series of development over the last 5–10 years. This allows the region to gain an overview of real and not only perceived development. Also, the time-series can help a region to better formulate its own development goals. While analyzing the data and discussing the results with the regional stakeholders in the form of workshops in the regions, it became clear that the monitoring system developed could be used to perform different tasks in the management process:

Analysis of basic and region-specific indicators

After collecting and analyzing the quantitative and qualitative data in the indicator system described above, we concluded that Swiss Alpine tourism regions developed differently during recent years, but overall development was more positive than assumed. The main driving forces of the different development paths were identified. One driving factor is structural change in agriculture, which makes it imperative for local people to search for employment in other sectors. Three pilot regions were successful in managing resistance to structural change, while others were not. Assuming that structural change will proceed in the coming years, a sharp decrease in employment in the farming sector will have to be absorbed.

Another important driving factor, especially for tourism regions, is the competitive position of tourism in the region. While some regions developed international attractions and brands, others degenerated into 1-day tourism destinations. Mainly the regions with an internationally competitive position, eg Zermatt and Engelberg, were able to make use of a strong international demand.

The third driving force, agglomeration proximity, is important because regions close to an agglomeration often positioned themselves as places of residence with a high quality of living. The other side of the coin in these regions is increasing traffic and the increasing price of real estate. Especially in Switzerland, where the individual cantons (states) are responsible for tax policy, tax rates might be interpreted as a fourth driving factor. A positive correlation between the tax rate for private persons and the immigration rate can be shown in the pilot regions. This driving factor is only valid for regions close to agglomerations that are already interesting housing areas due to this proximity.