Arnie Weissmann
For many reasons, the World Travel & Tourism Council's report on tourism's post-pandemic recovery is encouraging. The industry's current boom, the predictions of its continued growth and its economic impact as regards jobs are reassuring signals that we're in the right business.
Particularly striking is travel and tourism's place as an international economic engine. While we've all heard that 1 in 10 jobs around the world are travel-related, the WTTC report also predicts that tourism will help generate 1 in 10 dollars globally. By 2030, our impact will rise to 11.4% of the world economy, outpacing global GDP.
After WTTC CEO Julia Simpson presented the information last week, she followed up by acknowledging the potential consequences of this growth with regards to its impact on the health of communities and the planet. She cited both a moral obligation and commercial self-interest to proactively protect the places where the industry brings visitors.
Which leads me to propose a project I'd love to see the WTTC conduct next: develop capacity analysis instruments that can be broadly deployed, along with recommendations that individual destinations can use to regulate visitation.
I'm currently in Waikiki for the Travel Weekly Hawaii Leadership Forum. There has, for many years, been tension in the Islands regarding managing visitation, with some Hawaiian communities faulting the tourism industry for a number of the Islands' ills. They cite traffic congestion, instances of disrespecting Hawaiian culture, overcrowding at local beaches and, thanks to vacation home rentals, visitors inundating neighborhoods outside tourist areas. Although 40% of the Islands' economy relies on tourism, the economic benefit is not equally distributed, and there is some resentment of non-Hawaiian ownership of land for tourism purposes.
These feelings intensified during the pandemic, when residents experienced what Hawaii would be like without tourists. Many Hawaiians liked what they saw. But there was, ultimately, recognition that the state of affairs was artificial, subsidized by pandemic relief schemes.
The international tourism growth being predicted by the WTTC is reflected in miniature in statistics compiled by the Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT). Hawaii ended 2023 at 93% of its 2019 numbers, with visitation depressed somewhat by the Lahaina fires on Maui. Nonetheless, 9.6 million visitors arrived, and the DBEDT is predicting that arrivals will increase to a record 10.4 million by 2027.
I asked a panel of wholesalers at the forum whether Hawaii can handle 10.4 million visitors.
"I think the real question is: Should it?" Classic Vacations CEO Melissa Krueger responded. "It involves the intersection of economy, environment, culture and community. If we can nail it in Hawaii, the rest of the world will be watching. But if we're going to negatively impact communities, if we're going to negatively impact the planet, then the question is, should we? If we are [going to bring in 10.4 million], we need to do it right, together, for everybody."
Industry consultant and Travel Weekly video columnist Doug Lansky points out that Disney World and countless other tourist attractions do know their capacity and plan their operations accordingly. In high seasons they regulate capacity by linking tickets to assigned entry times or, in the long term, adding capacity by expanding parks.
Disney, of course, can set and enforce its own rules. National parks and other attractions can, too. Theoretically, so can destinations, by passing ordinances and laws, but they're often ill-equipped to do a proper capacity analysis. And even when action is taken -- for instance, to rein in Airbnb, Oahu limited home rentals in residential neighborhoods to a minimum of 30 days -- lack of enforcement can become an issue.
Because most destinations don't have the tools to measure reasonable (and profitable) capacity limits, nothing is done until they suddenly realize that they have an overtourism problem, which can be difficult to curb once it has occurred.
If capacity could be predicted and rationalized, I would imagine that, like sustainability audits, an analysis would have to be tailored to a destination's unique characteristics. Just as water usage in Arizona would be a critical measurement in judging a hotel's sustainability program, that criterium would be irrelevant in much of Scotland.
But I do believe that, similar to sustainability assessments, a finite number of data points could be identified that could be applied as appropriate to determine healthy capacity limits. Simpson is correct that if we don't protect the places where we bring people, the value for visitors, and economic return, is reduced.
One of the ways we can protect places and our livelihoods is to ensure that there is balance between economic development, quality of life for communities and the value of experience for visitors. Developing and deploying capacity analysis tools is a good place to start, and implementing their findings will benefit the industry and the places that we bring people to as well as visitors and hosts.