Search results

While the tourism industry has been busy responding to the demand for tourism facilities and amenities which seems determined by inexorable progression to achieve the projections that tourism will become the largest single component of international trade by the year 2000 (WTO, 1987), those researchers and administrators with the responsibility to devise and pursue rational processes of decision‐making, resource allocation and impact assessment have been challenged by a recent plethora of publications which have sought to explore the finer points of detail in research, analysis and practice. Those challenges have emenated from compendia of research techniques (Ritchie and Goeldner, 1987), from revisions to standard texts on tourism planning (Gunn, 1988A and 1988B), and not least from overviews of tourism planning (Inskeep, 1988) and tourism models (Getz, 1986). In a tradition traceable to previous standard works (e.g. Baud‐Bovy and Lawson, 1977; Kaiser and Helber, 1978; Mcintosh and Goeldner, 1984 et seq.; Mill and Morrison, 1985; Murphy, 1985) it is evident that “tourism requires systematic planning so that it is developed properly, responsive to market demands, and integrated into the total development pattern of the area” (Inskeep, 1988, p. 361). Despite the heritage of such advocacy it is possible to compose compendious inventories of examples where systematic planning and integration with other forms of development have not been evident (Baud‐Bovy, 1982). The reason for this may be the ascendacy of industry pragmatism over tourism planning (Gunn, 1977).

The temporary closure of Maya Bay – located at Phi Phi Le Island in Thailand’s Krabi province – was an executive decision made to overcome problems of “over-tourism” and degradation of the marine ecosystems. The purpose of this paper is to assess the process of stakeholder engagement by the Thai authorities before they arrived at decisions on the closure of Maya Bay.

A multi-method qualitative research through in-depth interviews and netnography was designed to examine opinions of participants within the context of investigation.

The key findings revolve around the central research question of “how are stakeholders managed and consulted to overcome ‘over-tourism’ in Maya Bay?”. The research question can be sub-divided into three parts – the identification of “over-tourism,” the process of engaging and consulting with stakeholders on solutions to deal with “over-tourism,” and the final decision on selected approaches to overcome “over-tourism.”

The researchers draw upon the views from the five groups of stakeholders to propose recommendations on tackling “over-tourism” issues that local governments and destination management agencies might face. A business, residents, authorities, visitors and environmentalists (BRAVE) stakeholders framework is proposed by integrating five main stakeholder categories – businesses (B), residents (R), authorities (A), visitors (V) and environmentalists (E). This “BRAVE” stakeholders model is then used to assess the various stakeholders’ positions on the issue of “over-tourism” in Maya Bay, including a cost-benefit analysis in an “over-tourism” situation. Particular attention is placed on how different stakeholders work together and converge on a decision accepted by all.