1Indicators suggest that the tourism sector is becoming one of Colombia’s main economic activities based on its sustained growth since the beginning of the 21st century. Let us take some figures from the Center for Tourism Information in Colombia (Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism 2019): national income related to the exportation of services for passenger trips and transport increased more than 510% between 2003 and 2018, the number of tourism services providers increased by 390% from 2005 to 2017, the number of hotel rooms occupied for tourism rose more than 369% from 2005 to 2017, and the amount of non-resident foreign visitors grew more than 239% between 2010 and 2018. Since 2001, income from foreign exchange for tourism has exceeded that from coffee and any other agricultural/livestock product. In fact, compared to other sectors that generate foreign currency exchange, tourism is second only the mining industry, more specifically, carbon and petroleum (Garavito and Ochoa, 2016).
2In the first two decades of the 21st century, tourism in Colombia has, on average, already expanded between 3 to 5 times compared with its scope at the end of the 20th century. Nevertheless, this growth does not necessarily correspond to a proportional development in terms of public policy, regulations, investment, planning and management. To a greater degree, tourism development has been rather spontaneous, stimulated in the main by factors outside the sector, for example, the Colombian peace process and the consequent heightened sense of security in the country. Australia, Canada, USA, France and the U.K., among other nations, have since improved the risk rating for tourism travel in Colombia. According to the Lonely Planet website (2019), if the most dangerous zones of Colombia are avoided, the country “should offer you nothing but good times”.
3Therefore, with an emerging tourism sector lacking in planning, it is worthwhile questioning the degree to which tourism can lead the country’s sustainable and competitive development today and in the future. Likewise, what risks, challenges and opportunities do this sector and the country as a whole face when dealing with such high expectations? This article will present the results of a research project carried out between 2017 and 2018 called “2030: a vision of tourism in Colombia”, the main objective of which was to make a comprehensive assessment of tourism, and create a series of guidelines and critical reflections to improve national tourism policy and to contribute to the debate on the current and future state of tourism. The project was jointly designed, developed and financed with COTELCO (Colombia’s hotel and tourism association) and Externado de Colombia University. The team comprised seven researchers, seven master students and benefited from the support of 16 directors of COTELCO regional offices.
4The key conceptual and theoretical framework will first be presented, followed by the methodological strategies and the main corresponding results from three research projects: an analysis of the documentation resulting from the tourism assessment on Colombia, a hermeneutic analysis of the interpretative approaches towards tourism from the perspective of different key actors in the country, and a prospective analysis of the tourism forecast for 2030. The final part will discuss the conclusions and reflections on tourism policy derived from the triangulation of the developed research.
5The three concepts running through this article are competitiveness, sustainability and governance. Although these are stand-alone concepts in themselves, the application of successful tourism planning is dependent on them being understood holistically, as an interconnected and complementary system.
6In the second half of the 20th century, competitiveness emerged as a fundamental concept in tourism destination promotion and planning. Competitiveness highlights the importance of the context in which tourism activities take place (Velasco, 2010), in other words, the dynamics and the conditions of the environment are fundamental for any type of tourism development. The World Economic Forum (2010) proposes three factors that bring together the most relevant elements for improving competitiveness: the macroeconomic environment of the country, the quality of its public institutions, and its technological situation.
7Therefore, the classic definition of competitiveness in tourism refers to the capability of destinations to maintain their market position and to improve on that over time. Focusing on the tourism destination relativizes the idea of tourism development to the individual effort of some isolated people, companies or institutions. However, an alternative, contrasting vision can be introduced in which competitiveness depends on collective processes that require increasing levels of organization, trust and cooperation between the diverse set of actors involved in the destination’s tourism development.
8Following this line of thought, it is easy to arrive at the concept of sustainability since, according to Ritchie and Crouch (2003), the competitiveness of a destination that is unsustainable is in the best of cases ephemeral or even illusive. To explain this, it must be remembered that the basic definition of sustainable development, that goes back to the end of the 1980s, is a type of development which seeks to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (UN 1987). Thus, achieving sustainability means focusing on three points: environmental conservation, economic efficiency and social fairness. Despite a significant achievement in terms of economic efficiency (maintaining or improving the position of a destination in the marketplace), environmental conservation and social fairness must be consistently developed to avoid the likelihood of advances that are merely fleeting and superficial. This implies a sustainability-tourism competitiveness link, i.e., the absence of sustainability means no long-term competitiveness or accountability of the environmental and social risks and undesirable effects derived from tourism development.
9It is also important to include the concept of governance and, therefore, explore the best way in which to achieve tourism competitiveness while respecting sustainability. If, in the search for economic efficiency, it is necessary to take into account the dynamics and characteristics of surroundings, environmental conservation and social fairness, this suggests that the tourism planning and management processes involve a growing number and diversity of private, public and community actors. Thus, the classic governance models with top-down decision-making can be highly inefficient and create more conflicts than solutions. It is precisely from these types of challenges that tourism governance emerges.
10Generally speaking, governance is related to the formation of networks of public, private and community actors through which work is carried out and decisions made based on consensus and collaboration (Kooiman 2004; Mayntz 2000). Governance stimulates an exercise in shared social awareness through a diverse set of cooperation instruments (informal networks, associations, oversight, participation spaces and processes) regarding private lands. In this way, the concept of governance evolves toward territorial governance, highlighting the importance of processes of planning and public policy on territorial order (Dubus, Helle and Masson 2010; Farinós 2008; Masson et al. 2012).
11In this manner, when considering the application of governance processes in the field of tourism, it is necessary to include and give the utmost importance to the quality of life of the local populations of the destinations. This implies that, without the participation of the host communities in the planning and decision-making processes, tourism initiatives are unlikely to be competitive and sustainable in the long term, the same as, if tourism developments do not generate evident improvements in the quality of life of the inhabitants (Barbini et al. 2011; Fernández, Villar, Mercado, and Bascarán 2014). This means that the most relevant actors of the tourism system cease to be the large resources (companies or economic conglomerates), thus giving way to local inhabitants since the host communities become the guardians of sustainability, competitiveness and in general, of the success of the tourism development.
12The interdependence of these three concepts must be highlighted: competitiveness, sustainability and governance applied to tourism planning. In summary, competitiveness requires sustainability for meaningful and long-term achievements. But at the same time, competitiveness, much like sustainability, depends on governance processes to be operational and therefore, to be able to integrate a growing number and diversity of actors and interests in the planning, management and decision-making processes. This is no small challenge, but rather a vision where tourism will be a key driver of development in many regions of Colombia over the coming decades. It cannot, therefore, be ignored.
13In this section, the methodological strategies as well as the main findings will be presented including each of the analyses carried out. To begin with, an assessment based on secondary sources of the current state of tourism in Colombia will be presented. This will be followed by the results of two more propositional exercises focused on the future of tourism: the first based on the interpretive framework for the major issues and solutions regarding national tourism development and the second, a prospective analysis focused on the year 2030. Both analyses are based on groups of key tourism actors in Colombia.
14This study presents the current state of tourism in Colombia through the revision and analysis of secondary sources and the proposal of a model made up of 13 key factors. The secondary sources considered for this analysis include the following: ten academic articles on tourism in Colombia published between 2000 and 2016 (e.g. Benavides and Venegas 2013; Toro, Galán, Pico, Rozo, and Suecún 2015). 2), ten tourism-related trade reports and publications of the sector covering, inter alia, hotels, travel agencies, transportation, and restaurants (e.g. Colombian Association of Travel and Tourism Agencies 2018; Martínez and Garcia 2016). 3), and eight international reports comparing the performance of tourism, sustainable development and competitiveness on a global scale (e.g. World Economic Forum, 2017; World Tourism Organization, 2018).
15Additionally, the key factors that structure the assessment model were defined in accordance with the concepts of competitiveness, sustainability and governance. Therefore, the thirteen factors are: natural resources, historical and cultural heritage, infrastructure, connectivity and accessibility, marketing and promotion, destination information systems, human resources, service quality, security, tourism culture and community participation, economic growth and development for the community and the destination, sustainability, and cooperation between actors.
16Each factor was graded between zero and five: zero is “non-existent”, one is “very poor”, two is “poor”, three is “satisfactory”, four is “good”, and five is “very good”. Each factor is qualified according to its management. For this, three criteria are taken into account: first, the opportunities for improvement, based on secondary sources. Second, the diagnosis of each factor at the national and regional level, according to the Tourism Sector Plan 2014-2018 and other Tourism Development Plans registered on government website of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism of Colombia. Third, the rating of each factor according to the World Economic Forum’s Tourism and Travel Competitiveness Index and the Regional Tourism Competitiveness Index of Colombia (ITCRC) by COTELCO.
17Likewise, an impact level (low, medium or high) was established for each factor. The impact refers to the level of effect that the factor can have on Colombian tourism. A high impact implies an immediate or short-term effect which means that it directly influences tourist preferences and the positioning of the destination. Medium impact has no immediate effect but requires a preventative revision of management. Low impact has no short or medium-term impact. To summarize, each factor’s grade and impact level was defined by means of a debate developed among the group of researchers and based on the criteria defined above.
18In the graph and the table below, a summary of the assessment results is presented in accordance with each factor’s grade and impact level. As regards grade, the following findings are noteworthy: none of the three factors received a grade of four or five ( “good” or “very good”, respectively); seven factors are at level three (“satisfactory”), these are natural resources, historical and cultural heritage, infrastructure, connectivity and accessibility, marketing and promotion, human resources, and cooperation between actors; six factors are at level two (“poor”): destination information systems, service quality, security, tourism culture and community participation, economic growth and development for the community and the destination, and sustainability; no factors received a grade of one (“very poor”). This implies that the state of development of the factors is “satisfactory” in the best of the cases and “poor” in the others. Therefore, this assessment offers a challenging diagnosis to consolidate the tourism development of the country.
Graph 1. Grading of the key factors for the assessment of tourism in Colombia
(Current state of tourism: 1. Natural resources, 2. Historical and cultural heritage, 3. Infrastructure, 4. Connectivity and accessibility, 5. Marketing and promotion, 6. Information systems, 7. Human resources, 8. Service quality, 9. Security, 10. Tourism culture and participation, 11. Growth and development, 12. Sustainability, 13. Cooperation between actors,)
Celedón and Pertuz, 2017, p.12
19As regards impact level, eight factors have a high impact level: infrastructure, connectivity and accessibility, marketing and promotion, destination information systems, security, touristic culture and community participation, economic growth and community development and destination and sustainability; and five factors have a medium impact level. These results indicate that in accordance with the current state of most of the key factors, the country’s tourism systems are facing important and imminent risks. This situation implies, therefore, that the attention and intervention of the diverse social sectors (public, private and community) are fundamental in preventing the deterioration of the current national tourism system by various means.
Table 1. Key factors by impact level. Created by authors (2019)
High Impact
|
Low Impact
|
Infrastructure
|
Natural resources
|
Connectivity and accessibility
|
Historical and cultural heritage
|
Marketing and promotion
|
Human resources
|
Systems of destination information
|
Quality of service
|
Security
|
Cooperation between actors
|
Tourism culture and community participation
|
|
Economic growth and development of the community and destination
|
|
Sustainability
|
|
20By cross-referencing the two previous analyses, key factors can be categorized according to their grade and impact level. In this way, factors with the lowest quality level can be identified along with those that can generate the highest and most immediate levels of impact on the national tourism system. In fact, there are five key factors in this profile: destination information systems, security, tourism culture and community participation, economic growth and development of the community and destination, and sustainability. The previous group of factors suggests a prioritization in terms of tourism intervention focused on facing up to and mitigate the most relevant challenges so as to avoid a short-term deterioration of the national tourism system.
21Additionally, this cross checking of results is also useful for visualizing the group of factors with higher quality and lesser impact levels. From this positive perspective, this group displays factors that have significant potential for consolidating the strongest points of the current tourism system. Therefore, the best combination between higher quality and lower impact can be concentrated into three factors: natural resources, historical and cultural heritage, and cooperation between actors. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that the quality grade of these factors, despite being the highest, does not exceed level three (“satisfactory”). Likewise, the weight of its impact is not “low” but “medium”. In terms of planning and management, this implies that the relevant factors should not be overlooked as although they have an acceptable classification for now, without a preventative focus, their status can deteriorate in the mid-term.
22Lastly, is it relevant to present a critical analysis on how to assess tourism in Colombia. This is no small issue since the results can change regardless of the measurement pattern and also, therefore, the strategies or key factors for guiding actions in the future. As such, a critical analysis of the assessment shows that the dominant focus for assessing tourism in the country is that of competitiveness. This trend is thought to have started after the cycle of economic contracting in the 1990s. As a result, the development of the tourism sector focused on the strategies of industrial development, economic growth and the promotion of productivity, as a response to the economic slow-down and in order to contribute to changing the country’s negative image. From the first decade of the 2000s, the focus on sustainability gradually came to the forefront, as seen, for example, in the Sectorial Tourism Plan 2014-2018 (Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism 2014). The above explains why the principal indicators for measuring success or failure in tourism are based on an economic perspective that is focused, for example, on GDP growth, visitor numbers, increases in hotel infrastructure, and hotel occupancy, among others.
23As a result, the emphasis on sustainability and governance applied to tourism needs to be strengthened through institutionalism and regulation. Although the creation of instruments such as sectorial regulatory techniques (Universidad Externado de Colombia 2018), the obligatory nature of sustainability regulation for service providers under the issuance of Law 1558/2012, or the advisory that the Sectorial Departments of Normalization, it is also necessary and urgent to work on areas such as pedagogy and the guidelines application in the regions, specifically in the rural and local zones.
24A summary of the main results of an interpretive framework analysis applied to tourism, 2018, as a part of the project 2030 Vision of Tourism in Colombia, is presented below. In this respect, 173 interviews were carried out with key informants in the public and private sectors across national territory. In the table below, the distribution of the interviews by region and departments that make up part of each region are presented. The data collected enabled the common ideas to be identified and classified, according to their levels of acceptance: tourism issues at the national and regional level (diagnostic framework); ideal solutions to face such issues (forecast framework); actions and promises mobilized by the actors to allow the realization of these ideal solutions (motivational framework). Likewise, these results were analysed on three scales: national, regional and actor type (public/private) at the national level. In this way, this section presents, on the one hand, a brief definition and justification of the interpretive framework analysis and, on the other hand, a summary of the main findings for the three proposed scales, in accordance with the three interpretive frameworks defined above.
Table 2. Total of Interviews Carried out and by Region. Created by authors (2019)
Total of Interviews Carried out and by Region
|
Total number of interviews
|
173 interviews
|
Interviews by region
|
Caribbean region (25 interviews.): Cartagena de Indias, Atlantic, Magdalena, San Andrés Providencia, Sucre.
Central region – Eastern (45 interviews.): Bogotá D.C., Boyacá, Cundinamarca, Norte de Santander and Santander.
Centre south region (17 interviews.): Huila and Tolima.
Coffee zone region (57 interviews.): Antioquia, Caldas, Quindío and Risaralda.
Llanos (Plains) region (15 interviews.): Casanare, Meta.
Pacific region (14 interviews.): Cauca, Chocó, Nariño and Valle del Cauca.
|
25Created by authors (2018)
26The analysis of the interpretive framework is linked to the study of cultural aspects associated with collective action (Paredes 2013; Snow and Benford 1992). In relation to tourism, the analysis of frameworks contributes, for example, to the study of public participation, the preservation of the cultural and the generation of scenarios for discussion and collective dialogue (Bertoncello 2010; Torres 2009). Based on the above, the importance of the frameworks can be seen in their ability to organize and give meaning to the ideas of a group of actors on specific themes, in this case, on the state of tourism in Colombia up to 2018. In fact, the frameworks identify meaningful patterns by providing evidence of ideas that are centrally shared or collectively accepted by a group, and peripheral ideas or those with lesser levels of acceptance. Thus, the frameworks simplify the external world of the actors and selectively point to objects, situations, events or other important elements that give meaning to the form in which the actors see the world or a particular aspect of it. In the present text, the results focused on the centrally-shared meanings will be presented. This is, those with greater levels of popularity or acceptance among the actors are presented. In other words, the ideas with greater capacity to generate shared identification among the participants. While the peripheral meanings are also relevant, since they reveal the diversity of thought of a group and propose pathways or alternative interpretations in relation to specific issues, they shall not be analyzed in this paper as they are outside the scope of this brief text.
27To begin with, the main results at the national level indicate that there is more consensus on the problematic issues of tourism (diagnostic framework). Nevertheless, the consensus begins to diminish for possible ideal solutions (forecast framework). The level of concurrence is even less in terms of the actions and promises to mobilize solutions (motivational framework). This indicates that there are greater levels of shared identity for defining problems, which results in five central shared meanings. But nevertheless, about the possible solutions and the concrete actions, this identification decreases notably. Indeed, on the one hand, the forecast framework includes four shared meanings, on the other, there are three meanings for the motivational framework. This is displayed in the following table, where the centrally-shared meanings in each framework are presented alongside percentage of acceptance. In this case, the core meanings correspond to the ideas that are shared with at least 15% concurrence between the interviewees.
28As regards the main content of each framework, first, the diagnostic framework indicates that the most popular issues are associated with the government sector. These are expressed through lack of political will to prioritize tourism within the national development agenda, inefficiency to control unfair and informal competition and the lack of interaction between the governmental institutions and the public and private actors. Second, and as a result, the diagnostic framework proposes solutions related, on the one hand, with greater interaction and coherence between the policies, plans and programs in the field of tourism; and on the other hand, with the adherence to the applicable laws for reducing informality in the sector. Finally, the motivational framework reveals that most actors manage to concert efforts at the regional and local levels more than the national. Nevertheless, there is evidence of some actions in favour of joint actions between local and national governments, as well as the development of institutional agreements with the aim of linking these diverse destinations.
Table 3. Core Shared Meanings by Framework Type - National Level. Created by authors (2018)
Core Shared Meanings by Framework Type - National Level
|
Diagnosis
|
Forecast
|
Motivation
|
Lack of political will and processes that prioritize tourism within the national agenda as a transversal development strategy and in the long term. (31%).
|
Improve interaction and coherence between policies, development plans and national and departmental entities for tourism development (27%).
|
No actions carried out at the national level. Local or regional level is prioritized. (36%).
|
Inefficient control authorities: ongoing unfair competition and non-regulated or illegal service offers. (31%).
|
Strengthen and organize tourism management through constructing more participative policies from local areas that enable the needs of specific regions to be identified (24%)
|
Strengthen planning processes with greater levels of socialization. Enhanced coordination between local and national governments (17%)
|
Lack of synergy between the tourism development actors (public and private). Lack of coordination between public institutions (local, regional and national) (26%).
|
Application of plans, campaigns, control tools and adherence to laws for the formalization of tourism service providers (23%).
|
Coordination support for destinations through institutional agreements, reconnaissance trips, strategic planning and tourism clusters (16%).
|
Low level of staff training in general (19%).
|
More tourism-specific training courses (management, client service, tourism typologies, current laws) with greater implementation of Communication and Information Technology and bilingualism (21%).
|
|
Discrepancy between governmental discourse in favour of tourism and the low levels of funding assigned for strategic initiatives and actions (17%)
|
29At the next scale, the results identify sets of particular ideas in each territory. In this sense, the following table organizes the core-shared meanings by framework type and by region. Therefore, the boxes highlighted in yellow correspond to levels of agreement equal to or greater than 35% within each region, boxes with a white background to agreement levels between 20 and 34% and black backgrounds to those less than 20%.
30In all regions, apart from Llanos (Plains), the national trend found in the diagnostic is repeated. That is, identification between actors decreases in relation from diagnosis to solutions and then, reduces more, to the actions or promises. This raises an interesting question on the motives of this particular type of consensus in the Llanos Region. The answer is beyond the scope of this text, but it could be the object of future research.
Table 4. Core-shared Meanings by Region and Framework Type. Created by authors (2018)
Core-shared Meanings by Region and Framework Type
|
|
Caribbean
|
Eastern Centre
|
Southern Centre
|
Coffee Zone
|
Plains
|
Pacific Coast
|
Diagnosis Framework
|
Public-Private none or low interactivity
|
40%
|
38%
|
35%
|
23%
|
43%
|
32%
|
Flaws in connectivity, accessibility and mobility for tourism tours.
|
40%
|
22%
|
32%
|
n/a
|
28%
|
56%
|
Lack of an informality control entity.
|
40%
|
20%
|
47%
|
31%
|
n/a
|
21%
|
Tourism projects with no continuity or implementation due to changes of government and the absence of assigned funding.
|
32%
|
24%
|
35%
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
47%
|
Lack of insignia tourism products in the regions. Weak national and international positioning of regional destinations.
|
n/a
|
24%
|
53%
|
n/a
|
20%
|
20%
|
Forecast Framework
|
Greater agreement and participation for regional tourism planning. Increased coherence between the formulation and application of tourism plans.
|
29%
|
33%
|
24%
|
35%
|
67%
|
64%
|
Implementation of greater governance and encouragement for associativity in the regions.
|
21%
|
20%
|
24%
|
28%
|
20%
|
50%
|
Formation of and training in tourism culture for providers and local communities.
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
47%
|
n/a
|
27%
|
29%
|
Development of tourism products in regions with sustainability standards.
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
29%
|
n/a
|
40%
|
n/a
|
Motivational Framework
|
Creation of tourism training programs including bilingualism and communication technology (enabling participants to work and study simultaneously).
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
29%
|
25%
|
47%
|
29%
|
Establishment of strategic alliances and agreements between public sectors and organizations for the development of projects.
|
25%
|
20%
|
n/a
|
33%
|
20%
|
21%
|
Supporting formalization processes of tourism services providers.
|
21%
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
47%
|
29%
|
Creation of awareness-raising campaigns directed at the sectors involved in the tourism activities of the regions.
|
n/a
|
20%
|
n/a
|
25%
|
33%
|
n/a
|
Participation in work groups and scenarios to create tourism strategies.
|
n/a
|
24%
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
36%
|
31As for the results for framework type, in first place, the principal issue for the assessment of each region is as follows: in the Caribbean, there is a three-way tie between non-interactivity between the public and private sector, flaws of connectivity, accessibility and mobility and lack of control over the informal sector. For Central Eastern and Plains regions the non-interactivitybetween the public and private sector. For the South-Central region, the non-existence of tourism products and the weak positioning of destinations. For the Coffee Zone, lack of control of the informal sector. For the Pacific zone, flaws of connectivity, accessibility and mobility. While the previous table makes it possible to detail a specific profile of the issues of each region, it is worth mentioning that the non-interactivity between the public and private sectors is perceived as a situation that crosses all regions.
32In second place, with respect to the forecast framework, the solution that stands out in all regions except Central-Southern is greater regional tourism agreement and planning, as well as increased coherence between the formulation and the application of the tourism plans. For Central-Southern, the core solution is formation of and training in tourism culture for providers and local communities.. Additionally, it stands out in all the regions, especially in the Pacific, that they propose implementing greater levels of governance and associativity.
33In third place, in terms of the motivational framework and the principal action or promise mobilized by the actors, there is a diversity of responses for each region. In this way, in the Caribbean and in the Coffee Zone, the principal action is to establish strategic alliances and agreements between public sectors and organizations for the development of projects. In the Eastern-Central and Pacific Regions, it is to participate in work groups and scenarios for the creation of touristic strategies. In the Southern-Central region, create training and formation programs in tourism. And, in the Llanos (Plains) region, there is a tie, it is identified on the one side as, creating training and formation programs in tourism, and on the other hand, support the processes of formalization of providers of touristic services. The foregoing gives evidence of an interesting range of initiatives in each region. Which is to say, a set of initiatives susceptible to being strengthened to encourage territorial touristic development and at the same time, support and recognize the initiative of local actors.
34Lastly, the results are presented by actor type (public or private) and reference framework, at the national level. In the following table, the boxes with levels the same or greater than 30% are highlighted, the boxes with white backgrounds correspond to the levels between 20 and 29% and the boxes in black correspond to percentages equal to or less than 19%. In accordance with this criteria, and in uniformity with the previous results, a greater degree of coincidence can be found in the diagnostic framework, where five central meanings are identified. In contrast, in the forecast framework, there are four central meanings; and in the motivational framework, it is reduced to three.
35In accordance with each of the frameworks, first, in the diagnosis it was identified that the main issue for public actors is the lack of political will and of processes that prioritize tourism within the national agenda as a transversal and long-term development strategy. As for the private actors, it is the inefficiency of the control authorities regarding ongoing unfair competition and the offering of non-regulated or illegal services. To a great extent, these responses reflect how each group has its own priorities. In fact, in the private sector, the most important issue is the threat to income, linked to governmental inefficiency; while from the public sphere, it is focused more on a political, administrative and management condition.
36Second, the forecast framework indicates that the main solution according to the public actors is strengthening and organizing tourism management through the creation of more participative policies from the local sphere which enable the specific needs of the regions to be identified; and for the private actors, the application of the plans, campaigns, control tools and adherence to the regulatory laws for the formulation of the tourism service providers. These results reaffirm those proposed by the previous framework, by offering solutions which are directly linked to the issues identified by the specific actor type.
Table 5. Core-shared Meanings by Actor Type and Framework, National Level. Source: Created by Authors (2018)
Core-shared Meanings by Actor Type and Framework, National Level.
|
|
|
Pub.
|
Priv.
|
Diagnosis Framework
|
Lack of political will and for the processes that prioritize tourism within the national agenda as a long-term transversal development strategy.
|
33%
|
28%
|
Inefficiency of control authorities regarding ongoing unfair competition and the offer of non-regulated and illegal services.
|
23%
|
31%
|
Lack of synergy between tourism development actors (public and private). Lack of articulation between public institutions (local, regional and national).
|
n/a
|
25%
|
Low levels of skilled professionals
|
24%
|
n/a
|
Lack of a tourism culture that mitigates socio-cultural and economic impacts during tourism development processes.
|
20%
|
n/a
|
Forecast Framework
|
Enhance interaction and coherence between policies, development plans, national and departmental entities for tourism development.
|
29%
|
26%
|
Strengthen and organize tourism management through the building of more participative policies at the local level which enable the specific needs of the regions to be identified.
|
32%
|
n/a
|
Application of plans, campaigns, control tools and compliance with regulatory laws as a means of formalizing tourism service providers.
|
n/a
|
31%
|
Improved training opportunities in the tourism sector (management, client service, typologies of tourism, current laws) with greater Implementation of Communication Technologies and bilingualism.
|
25%
|
n/a
|
Motivational Framework
|
No actions taken at the national level. Local and regional levels are prioritized.
|
|
|
Strengthening of the planning processes with greater levels of socialization. More articulation between local and national governments.
|
21%
|
n/a
|
Supporting the articulation of destinations through institutional alliances, reconnaissance trips, strategic planning and cluster tourism.
|
23%
|
n/a
|
37Third, the motivational framework presents a revealing result indicating that the main scale of actions or promises of the public and private actors is not the national but rather the regional and local. Therefore, on the one hand, there is no consensus above 20% between private actors and on the other hand, between public actors, there is the support for the interaction of destinations through institutional alliances, reconnaissance trips, strategic planning and cluster tourism, with a consensus slightly over 20%.
38To conclude, the previous analysis gives rise to some basic reflections and conclusions: first, at all levels of analysis, there are greater levels of consensus in the diagnostic framework and they are progressively reduced for the forecast and motivational frameworks. This implies that it is easy to come to an agreement on what the issues of tourism, that finding ideal solutions is more difficult, and that implementing the necessary actions to arrive at these solutions is even more difficult. This, without a doubt, sets up a challenge for tourism development of the national destinations which require greater government growth. Second, at the national level an outstanding issue emerges: the lack of political will to prioritize tourism in the national development agenda and as a result, a demand for greater coherence between the tourism policy instruments and a more effective integration between the public and private actors of the tourism system. Third, the structure of the regional-level frameworks is much more specific and can be interpreted as more consensus in terms of the issues to be addressed, solutions to be found and actions to be taken. This indicates the need for and the relevance of strategies that are region-specific.
39This section is a forward-looking perspective on the tourism phenomenon in Colombia. This type of analysis is justified because of the country’s potential (see the section on the tourism diagnostic for Colombia) and the global trends indicating a sustained increase in tourism. In fact, according to the projections on international tourist arrivals to 2030 (World Tourism Organization 2013), the American continent ranks third behind Europe and Asia-Pacific (see the graph below).
Graph 2
(Tourism to the year 2030: Trends and projections 1950-2030; International tourist arrivals (millions); Registered data---Projections; Africa, Middle East, America, Asia Pacific, Europe - 1.8 billion, 1.4 billion, 940 million)
World Tourism Organization (2013: 14)
40For this reason, the aim of this research is to recognize the technological trends and the most important tourism types (i.e. sun, sand and sea, urban, nature, among others) as well as the variables that will define this phenomenon and the scenarios on the horizon for the year 2030. Based on the above, propose a “possible scenario” of a future image of what could very well turn out to be reality.
41The methodology for this exercise is based on workshops with participants who are experts in the public and private tourism sector. These workshops were carried out in two stages: first, the recognition of technological trends and tourism types that could be considered relevant for Colombia (29 participants), second, the reliability of the variables that will define the probable future of Colombian tourism to 2030 together with other less probable scenarios (38 participants). The results of these workshops were analysed using the Cross Impact Matrix System method (Godet and Durance 2011). This method works with simple and conditional probabilities enabling the most probable scenario to be defined and at the same time indicating other less probable future images which are also susceptible to analysis. The importance of creating multiple scenarios is to recognize a series of possible difficulties for fulfilling a possible scenario.
42The analysis was based on the following five hypotheses:
-
5% of participation in GDP. It currently stands at 2%.
-
The record high investment by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism is tripled
-
50% of hospitality and tourism employees comply with global requirements. Currently, this percentage could be less than 20% of employees.
-
50% of hospitality and tourism companies use smart technologies.
-
50% of hospitality and tourism companies have adopted effective sustainable tourism policies.
43With this in mind, eight scenarios were created and classified in accordance to their probability (see table below) from the highest to the lowest: first, the most probable scenario in accordance with current trends. Second, a proposed scenario that represents an ideal situation. Third, five complementary scenarios that indicate future possibilities associated with variations in the direction toward the proposed scenario.
Table 6. Name of the scenarios. Source: Created by Authors (2018)
Name of the Scenario
|
Probability
|
It might be worse
|
0.442
|
Colombia a touristic paradise
|
0.196
|
There is no one with whom…
|
0.101
|
No matter how
|
0.050
|
By the traditional method
|
0.039
|
Robocop
|
0.032
|
In the wrong place
|
0.016
|
44Below is a brief description of each scenario:
45First, the scenario which is most probable (44.2% of possibilities), called It might be worse. This name was chosen because the results indicate that it is improbable for four of the five variable-hypotheses to be fulfilled (tourism and development, investment and financing, talent and technology). For its part, sustainability reaches a level of probability slightly higher such that its level of possibility goes from improbable to doubtful.
46Second, the proposed scenario (19.6%), called Colombia a touristic paradise refers to a possible future scenario in which the five variable-hypotheses are fulfilled for 2030. Nevertheless, this requires adjusting the direction of tourism development in the country and thus avoiding ending up in one of the alternative scenarios described below. Therefore, the alternative scenarios set up caveats that must be followed for the eventual consolidation of the proposed scenario. In other words, the alternative scenarios enable a “look-out plan” to be created so as not to miss the best possible pathway.
47Third, the six alternative scenarios, from the most to the least probable:
481) There is no one with whom: 10.1% probability. In this scenario, the country is successful in the performance of the tourism sector, it invests in development, companies use smart technologies and respect the scope of sustainability. Nevertheless, the world-class personnel that direct the businesses continue to be a small elite group. This is the scenario in which technology more than replaces human beings which explains the economic success of the sector. The first drops occur in the jobs at the base of the pyramid: bellhops, domestic staff, waiting staff, etc.
49Some of the reasons that explain the lack of highly specialized personnel could be: low remuneration and deficiencies in the training institutions. While the most prestigious institutions offer high-quality education but at a high price, lower-quality education has a lower price, but also a lower academic performance. And in this way, smart technologies become drivers of unemployment. An elite group of highly educated workers will be prepared successfully to interact with them but must of all not.
502) No matter how: 5% probability. In this scenario, the sector reaches a good economic performance of 5% of GDP. At the same time, at least half of the establishments honour their word not to degrade the environment. Many institutions have high-quality talent which explains the acquisition of smart technologies to optimize tourism performance. However, these achievements take place without the support the hoped-for State investment, which makes the achievement of 5% of GDP even more praiseworthy.
51What could have happened? The State had other more pressing priorities than tourism investment, which most likely were the social requirements of the peace process and maintaining safety and security by combatting the criminal bands that affect public safety. The success of this scenario shows the importance of the tourism sector has in the economic life of the country. If the State interprets this situation correctly, it will have in its hands an excellent source of wealth generation.
523) By the traditional method: 3.9% probability. In this scenario the sector reaches 5% GDP with State support in investment and fulfilling the challenge of low environmental impact in at least 50% of the establishments. The most curious regarding these achievements is that it is obtained with personnel without training in at least 50% of the cases and with a predominance of analogue over smart technologies in at least 50% of the institutions.
53Obviously, with this image of the future, an “inclusive” tourism is selected , which means for the base of the socio-economic pyramid, a focus on volume rather than quality. Nevertheless, at the same time, alternative tourism products such as ecotourism, nature tourism, and rural tourism can be an option with high capacity but not overcrowding and a high participation rate of locals involved in activities such as eco-lodges, rural houses, signature restaurants, etc. The success of this scenario is only temporary because in the attempt to give it a wide berth, it overlaps with the income of the knowledge economy.
544) Robocop: 3.2% probability. In this scenario, the sector makes a significant contribution to the GDP (5% or even more), without receiving a significant contribution from the State in terms of investment for development and working with high-quality talent in 50% of the establishments. However, this has the support of smart technologies and is committed to respecting nature.
55This image of the future is called Robocop, because the tourism sector was capable of generating wealth by getting support from smart technologies from the fourth industrial revolution in a hostile environment, influenced by the very insecurity generated by the process of social re-accommodation after the peace agreements, in which the State had to prioritize its resources to attend to the social commitments of the peace agreements.
56This scenario is very similar to There is no one with whom, the difference here lying in the fact that there is no support from the State in terms of investment projects, which supposes a stronger effort from the private sector. The successful performance of the sector which leads it to victory despite the weak investment encouragement by the State is noteworthy and provides it with great prestige. Something similar occurred in Spain and Mexico with differing proportions. Nevertheless, the generation of employment hoped for is not enough due to the presence of technologies that replace the workforce and due to the poor academic relevance of some educational programs.
575). There is no complete happiness: 2.8% probability. Tourism performs in the background making a great effort and putting its best foot forward. The State is not indifferent to this situation and decides to support tourism by tripling its investment. But nevertheless, , there are exogenous circumstances that have stalled economic growth in the sector: the reappearance of insecurity, under the form of criminal group activities. To all this, it must be added that the informal economy of the sector (not taxed or monitored by government) and certain modalities with little transparency still exist.
58As a result, the tourism sector is in the middle of a country that was able to overcome an armed conflict with the guerrilla groups, but which has had to face situations of delinquency in the moment of transition toward more social resilience. Nevertheless, despite a difficult situation, the State believes in tourism as a promising sector for the future.
596) In the wrong place: 1.6% probability. The sector chooses to invest on world-class talent training, but the situation of the country that was grappling with the post-demobilization stage, that brought with it urban insecurity, did not allow for the launching of tourism in the way it had initially planned. For this reason, high-quality talent that could be positively influencing the sector’s organizations and institutions, tends to emigrate to other countries with more favourable contexts of tourism development.
60To conclude, the possible scenario, Colombia as a tourism paradise, shows that it is necessary to strengthen the trends in training talent, opening up to new technology and sustainability, and demand more public support through investment in the tourism development. But nevertheless,Colombia is not exempt from the situation of post-conflict going bad.. This situation will make it necessary to redouble the efforts and be prepared to succeed despite the presence of some of these eventualities because, as per the philosopher Maurice Blondel , “the future is built, not predicted” (Mojica, 2006, p. 122).
61Tourism in Colombia has shown sustained growth since 2005, becoming one of the country’s most important economic activities, lying just behind the energy mining sector and exceeding traditional benchmarks such as coffee. Nevertheless, this behaviour is due more to external variables such as increasing safety and security, the growth of international demand and the signing of the peace agreement in 2016, than public policies or long-term planning.
62Since the end of the 20th century, as regards tourism policy in Colombia, priority has been given to competitiveness over other factors such as sustainability or governance. Nevertheless, in the last decade, the focus of sustainability has garnered greater attention in the sector. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen both the possible contributions from the focuses on sustainability and tourism governance that allow for greater and more positive social impact and an inclusive, long-term tourism development plan.
63In relation to the diagnostic of the touristic sector, the results show that the majority of the prioritized factors and those of high impact (destination information systems, security, tourism culture and community participation, economic growth and development of the community and destination and sustainability) require a transversal, joint tourism process with other sectors and a strengthening and coordination through the network of public, private and community actors at the local, regional and national levels. The above implies redirecting public policy on tourism towards a stronger processes of participation, . In this way, the focus of territorial tourism governance becomes a core necessity for the improved formulation, application and evaluation of future planning and tourism management processes.
64In this way, the analysis of the interpretative frameworks confirms and expands the scope of the previous results. In fact, among the issues with the greatest degree of recognition among the actors, both at the national level as well as in the majority of the regions are the lack of political will to prioritize tourism as a development strategy, the inefficiency of control authorities to avoid unfair competition, and the lack of coordination between the sector’s key public and private actors. Thus, everything points to the fact that the governmental sector is perceived as “owing” the tourism sector in general in terms of its responsibilities as being the entity that guarantees legal order and facilitates the processes and fundamental conditions for tourism development (e.g. the lack of basic and specialized infrastructure). In contrast, the diversity of results in relation to the possible solutions and actions regarding touristic issues in the diverse regions, lays bare the complexity of this topic which implies concrete necessities by region which demand the design of tailored responses. This involves greater challenges in the management of tourism policies, reaffirming the relevance of a differential approach that is decentralized and constructed from the bottom up.
65Lastly, in relation to the prospective analysis, the probable scenario “Colombia as a tourism paradise” indicates the need to strengthen the trends for training talent, opening up to new technologies and sustainability Considering this, what is needed is State leadership through specific investments in this type of development for the tourism sector.
66All in all, regarding the central question of this article about whether tourism can lead sustainable and competitive development for the country now and in the near future, the results show that it will require concerted effort and work with the different public, private and community actors and from the local level toward the national level. For this, it will be necessary to formulate joint tourism policies, drawing strategic lines that bring together a diverse set of solutions in accordance with the particular needs of the territories with tourism endeavours. Therefore, the greatest challenge shall be: how to achieve tourism while reducing social inequity and improving the quality of life for the host communities of the zones that concurrently have the highest levels of environmental biodiversity and culture, and of poverty. Otherwise, if tourism in Colombia continues its pathway of development stimulated by external and unplanned factors, it is very possible that unsustainable scenarios present themselves as indicated in some of the negative scenarios of the prospective analysis and therefore, it would be highly improbable that the tourism sector comes together as a central player in the development of competitiveness and sustainability of the country and its regions.