Tourism Destination Management of Palawan Vis-à-vis the National Tourism Development Plan 2016-2022: Basis for Enhancement

Tourism Destination Management of Palawan Vis-à-vis the National Tourism Development Plan 2016-2022: Basis for Enhancement

Marie Ionna Angelie P. Dacquel¹, Ephraimuel Jose Abellana² Michael Joseph S. Diňo³

^1,2School of Hospitality Management, The Philippine Women’s University, Manila, Philippines

³Research Development and Innovation Center, Our Lady of Fatima University, Valenzuela, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.81100018

Received: 12 October 2024; Revised: 21 October 2024; Accepted: 23 October 2024; Published: 27 November 2024

ABSTRACT

Palawan, a destination at its “development stage,” requires a well-designed, long-term management plan that balances the interests of local businesses, residents, and tourists. This study examined how Palawan’s tourism management aligns with the National Tourism Development Plan (NTDP) 2016-2022, setting the groundwork for enhancement programs. The research employed a convergent parallel mixed-method design, involving 60 participants for quantitative and qualitative analysis selected via purposive sampling from Puerto Princesa City, El Nido, Coron, Culion, and San Vicente. Data collection included a descriptive checklist for objective data and the Peer-Aide Memoire for qualitative insights, with triangulation used to corroborate findings through descriptive-narrative evaluations.

Quantitative results indicated alignment with the NTDP’s strategic directions and programs, improving competitiveness, growth, sustainability, and inclusive growth. Qualitative findings revealed themes such as challenges, risk mitigation, and proposed assistance. The study recommended several measures: appointing an expert group to oversee NTDP alignment, forming local technical working groups for continuous monitoring, and including tourism specialists for planning. Developing a clear brand statement to communicate the destination’s vision and engaging visitors to promote geographic dispersal are essential. Implementing emergency response strategies and upholding environmental standards will protect infrastructure and the environment. Utilizing the European Tourism Indicators Systems (ETIS) will help maintain a sustainable image and track economic significance. Risk management tools should be employed to reduce future risks and improve outcomes. Strategic partnerships should prioritize environmental and health policies, prepare recovery plans, stimulate investment, and support the low-carbon transition. Developing and rehabilitating ports will enhance trade and establish Palawan as a top cruise destination. Evaluations involving all stakeholders should maximize the value of natural and cultural heritage through appropriate pricing models and repositioning. Addressing climate change impacts is crucial by integrating adaptation and mitigation strategies into management plans, promoting eco-friendly infrastructure and practices, and developing policies to protect vulnerable ecosystems.

Finally, adopting the Proposed CRA-8P Integrated Framework will ensure alignment with the NTDP.

Keywords: Palawan destination management, Palawan, NTDP Policy Development, Environmental Resilience, Stakeholder Collaboration

INTRODUCTION

VisitBritain, a national organization, once remarked, “Great destinations are delightful places to explore, and desirable places to work and live” (2019). Each destination carries its unique appeal—breathtaking natural landscapes, sophisticated architectural attractions, multicultural diversity, gourmet cuisine, and a wide range of tourism activities, events, and services. These elements contribute to novel and authentic tourist experiences and foster inclusive prosperity among stakeholders. To create such a destination, these components must be meticulously managed and coordinated through a well-designed plan and long-term framework that prioritizes the interests of tourists, businesses, and locals alike. Throughout this research, the term Tourism Destination Management refer specifically to an ongoing holistic process which focuses on the development and integrated management of various destination mix through established programs, projects, strategies and professional approaches by various stakeholders which will craft a unique story that resonates highly valuable experiences to the tourists without impeding the local culture and environment while it delivers the significant growth.

The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) reported through its World Tourism Barometer and Statistical Annex, the steady growth of international tourist arrivals in 2019 had outstripped the previous years’ worldwide economy with 4% increase or almost 1.5 billion and USD 1.7 trillion on its’ export earnings. With these figures, tourism destinations have started to realize a need to properly manage the whole tourist experience as they recognize that popularity can be transformed into a compelling word of mouth that will drive extended stays, regular trips and optimized tourist expenditure. Thus, destinations need to be more structured as they showcased their attributes consistently and frequently to remain relevant and competitive.

Along with these developments, a call to action among its significant stakeholders to have a more responsible obligation in ensuring sustainable destination management (Pololikashvili, 2019), adopting resilient crisis management (Chakalall, 2019) and fostering into “smart destinations” (Miyoung and Hyejo, 2019) in order to address climate change and destination crisis. In the event of a crisis, one of the industries that struggles the most is tourism, which for most situations as indicated by Chakalall (2019) adversely affects the credibility, profitability and sustainability of the tourism sector or the entire nation. Also, adopting a resilient crisis management plan is a pivotal step of businesses to diminish the adverse impact and speed up their recovery from the aftermath of the destination crisis. (Chakalall, 2019) Evidently, sustainability is the focal point of every destination’s roadmap which serves as a competitive advantage and empowers others to make a difference.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure1: R.W Butler Tourism Area Life Cycle, Butler (1980)

The Tourism Area Life Cycle of R.W Butler presented in the study helped in providing the current status of the destination. It describes the different life stages of a destination.  Based on the studies of Cruz (2014), Bamba (2019) and Setiawan and Wiweka (2018) the stages of the tourism area life cycle are exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation and decline or rejuvenation. The growth stage starts as tourism becomes one of the key sources of revenue in a given region and the number of visitors matches or exceeds the number of residents. This is the point at which the tourism industry is well-defined. Since the status of these attractions has been defined, there is an opportunity for community engagement in order to ensure their long-term viability.

Figure 2: NTDP 2016-2022 Strategic Directions and Action Programs

According to the Department of Tourism (2017), in order to achieve sustainable tourism growth, the National Tourism Development Plan (NTDP) 2016-2022 would act as a platform for local government units (LGUs) to create local tourism development plans that include zoning, land use, infrastructure development, heritage and environmental conservation. Aside from that, Romero (2018) specified LGU strategies, policies, programs, and initiatives should be well-designed. This fosters a market environment that inspires established businesses and potential entrants to create a better local tourism industry that provides employment and income opportunities for residents. At the same time, these LGU policies may include incentives as well as controls to ensure that the type of development may perhaps result to tourism growth that is inclusive, safe, and compatible with the community’s vision for their culture and destinations.

Tourist attractions are always delicate, so careful monitoring is required. When destinations concentrate primarily on drawing more tourists while avoiding long-term viability, it may lead to subsequent decay and decline. For this reason, Morrison (2019) implied that a public sector organization appointed to oversee tourism is still in charge of destination management. This organization should encourage and maintain cooperation with other public-sector entities as well as private-sector members. Excellent coordination and teamwork among all parties is critical, and the lead agency is responsible for this. (Morrison, 2019) Moreover, the local government unit should strategically provide premeditated priorities that improve the needs of the local population and tourists for tourism, transport and infrastructure. Also, Morrison (2019) indicated that destinations presents a set of diverse individuals specifically tourism sectors organization, community, environment and government that can work towards pursuing the same goals which sometimes can be completely contradictory in planning and management of tourism destinations. Finally, Turker et.al (2016) asserted that stakeholders’ participation should be respected and taken into consideration in order to have a good marketing image.

Figure 3: Destination Management Framework, Phillips (2020)

In the study of Philipps (2020), destination management involves a systematic plan which includes research and analysis, ongoing consultative process of planning, destination development, marketing and promotion to make sure that the vision is accomplished. Destinations should have master plan that clearly layouts the concept of managing a destination. The creation of a strategic strategy and shared goal or Destination Management Plan (DMP) will assist organizations in uniting and serving as a joint declaration of purpose to implement, develop and support a goal over a certain period of time. A DMP defines the various stakeholders’ positions, identifies specific actions and allocates capital. (Philipps, 2020)

Each destination has specific obstacles, opportunities, and key players to deal with. Thus, destination management cannot be a one-size-fits-all. In the studies of Chaperon (2017) stakeholders stated a lot of challenges like expecting the public sector to ensure sustained investment and the problem in the transition from top-down models to partnership. Also, Bursin (2016) added that lack of formal mechanisms for cooperation hinders the participation of stakeholders. However, in the research of Singalen et.al (2018) revealed that harm to infrastructure doesn’t cost much problem since it is hindered by tourism policies.

As perceived by the authors of Philippine Tourism Guidebook (2019) having tools to monitor and evaluate the performance of the destination is vital. Given that, these tools serve as all-inclusive decision, the means of continuing the destinations’ priorities and to carry on the programs, activities and initiatives. While the evaluation aspect can be used for replicating milestones, revising errors and an act for LGU’s transparency and learning tool. Luo (2018) mentioned in his study a tool for fostering the preservation of tourism and measuring the holistic performance of a destination is called 4E Rubric namely Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness and Environmental Sustainability.  Furthermore, in the article of Modica et.al (2018) the tool used for measuring the sustainability of a destination is necessary to promote social equity, economic prosperity and environmental protection is called European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS).

The threats that arise in each stage of the development, promotion, presentation, marketing, and sale of a tourism product have a continuous impact on the growth and development of the tourist destination. Orian (2016) implied that not only are visitors at risk, but so are tourism attractions, which often need safety environmental preservation, protection of local history, cultural monuments, and archaeological sites. In the research of Acorn Tourism Consulting Limited (2020), preparing for circumstances of danger or disaster to lessen the difficulties of actions taken during a crisis. Orian (2016) suggested that utilization of risk severity matrix is important since it classify the risk and assess the possibility of occurrence and being able to categorize them into the following controllable, manageable, unmanageable and uncontrollable. As for risk mitigation, CBI Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2020) this should require immediate actions as the crisis occurs in order to secure, clients, suppliers, finance and stakeholders.

In the report of Asian Development Bank (ADB, 2018), technical package assistance comes in many forms depends on the need of the destination. These are the common technical package assistance namely Poverty Reduction, Destination Competitiveness, Tourism Innovation and Tourism Recovery program. These technical packages assistance ensure the goal of each destination it serves.

METHODOLOGY

The study utilized the convergent parallel mixed method research design to examine the alignment of tourism destination management of Palawan to the National Tourism Development Plan 2016-2022 involving 60 participants (30 for quantitative analysis and 30 for qualitative analysis) selected via purposive sampling from Puerto Princesa City, El Nido, Coron, Culion, and San Vicente with at least a year of work experience. Descriptive checklist was used as a main tool for gathering objective data and Peer-Aide Memoire served as a qualitative tool for the semi-structured interview guide. An electronic survey form was floated online to obtain the quantitative data required to answer the study objectives. Then, a follow-up individual synchronous zoom interview was also scheduled to each of the participants. The interviews are aimed at collecting contextual information on the concerns and thoughts about tourism destination management.

Quantitative data from the online database was collected and prepared prior to statistical analyses using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. Descriptive statistics (e.g. frequency, percentage) and test of significant differences (e.g. ANOVA) were employed. Qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed and converted into field texts prior to thematization. Qualitatively, transcribed interviews were loaded to MAXQDA 2020 software. Coding and memoing were accomplished prior to thematization and network analysis. For the purpose of corroboration, the researcher did triangulation by descriptively-evaluating and descriptively-comparing the quantitative statistical results and as for the qualitative findings, descriptive-narrative design to complement the objective results of the study.

RESULTS

The quantitative results of the study reveal that the majority of tourism stakeholders, accounting for 15 or 50.0 percent, are from Tourism Sectors Organizations. Of these, 17 or 55.0 percent are based in Puerto Princesa City, with 12 or 40.0 percent having 1-3 years of employment in their current position. Regarding their roles in Palawan’s tourism destination management, most are involved in planning (57.5 percent) for research and analysis; in consultative planning, 60.0 percent collect baseline data to study the situation; for destination development, 33.33 percent review tourism opportunity plans or strategic development plans; and in marketing and promotion, 41.94 percent are engaged in communication with internal stakeholders and the community to ensure tourism remains in focus. Additionally, the findings indicate that some stakeholders hold multiple roles in tourism destination management. This is attributed to the varying stages of development among the four municipalities: Coron and El Nido are in the development stage, San Vicente is in the involvement stage, and Culion is in the exploration stage of the Butler Tourism Area Life Cycle. The descriptive responses from the participants identified the primary challenge in implementing the NTDP 2016-2022 as the expectation for the public sector to ensure sustained investment, which ranked first with a frequency of 54 and 90%. Following closely, the next significant challenges were the transition from top-down models to partnerships and the lack of formal mechanisms for cooperation, both ranking second with a frequency of 39 and 65%.

In addition to quantitative results, the descriptive responses from the participants regarding tools used to monitor and evaluate the implementation of NTDP 2016-2022 show that the highest-ranked tool is “the tourist destination carries out capacity building assessment,” with a frequency of 57 and a percentage of 95%. Following this, “the tourist destination has well-defined responsibilities, outcomes, and action taken mechanisms” ranks second with a frequency of 54 and a percentage of 90%. The next tools, each with a frequency of 51 and a percentage of 85%, are: “the tourist destination has a regular schedule of assessments,” “the tourist destination utilizes various strategies in collecting data,” and “the tourism destination measures the tourism yield based on its economic, social, and environmental significance.”

Furthermore, in identifying and mitigating risks in the implementation of NTDP 2016-2022, the most significant Risk Identification Strategy, with the highest frequency of 57 and a percentage of 95%, is that “the destination management conducts the profiling of the Local Tourism Industry” and “the destination management should be able to identify the risk level of sensitivity and resistance to risks.” For risk mitigation, the most agreed-upon outcome, also with a frequency of 57 and a percentage of 95%, is that “the management creates an action plan with objectives.”

Additionally, the descriptive responses on proposed technical assistance packages to ensure the alignment of the implementation of NTDP 2016-2022 suggest that “increasing local awareness on tourism products to be developed and designed” and “providing assistance on the expansion and scaling of creative tourism business models” are both crucial, each with a frequency of 51 and a percentage of 85%. Lastly, the assessment by all tourism stakeholders revealed no significant difference in the alignment of Palawan’s Tourism Destination Management with the National Tourism Development Plan 2016-2022 when grouped by their involvement. This implies that all four groups of stakeholders agreed that Palawan’s Tourism Destination Management aligns with the NTDP 2016-2022 Strategic Directions and Programs, promoting competitiveness, growth, sustainability, and inclusive development.

Figure 4 illustrates the qualitative outcomes derived from using a descriptive-narrative design to capture participants’ views, opinions, and thoughts in three areas of scientific inquiry: (a) challenges, (b) risk mitigation, and (c) proposed assistance for aligning tourism destination management with the NTDP 2016-2022. Data saturation was achieved, leading to the emergence of themes and sub-themes. The challenges in implementing the NTDP 2016-2022 were categorized into three distinct themes: (P1) People-related, (P2) Process-related, and (P3) Product-related. In terms of risk mitigation, the key themes identified were preparing and planning. For proposed assistance, respondents suggested several support packages focused on priming, procuring, and protecting to aid in the NTDP 2016-2022 implementation. Figure 5 displays these outcomes, collectively referred to as the ‘CRA-8P Integrated Framework’.

Figure 4: Qualitative Research Outcomes Defining the Challenges, Risk Mitigation and Assistance

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

From the aforesaid findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn. In terms of tourism stakeholders’ profiles, a few respondents belong to the community group, playing only the role of ambassadors for the city or municipality. According to Rasoolimanesh and Jaafar (2016), the participation of these groups is limited to promotion and excluded from high-level decision-making. The study disclosed that most respondents play an important role in each process of tourism destination management defined in previous chapters, while only a few have multiple or dual roles, as some are part of the municipality. Based on R.W. Butler’s Tourism Area Life Cycle, the destinations are still in the involvement stage, reliant on local government for assistance and sustainability.

The study inferred that the majority of respondents face challenges in implementing the NTDP 2016-2022, emphasizing the need for risk-mitigating strategies and technical assistance packages to ensure alignment with the National Tourism Development Plan. Additionally, incorporating environmental resilience to address the impact of climate change is crucial. This involves developing adaptive strategies and infrastructure to protect against climate-related risks, promoting eco-friendly practices, and safeguarding vulnerable ecosystems. These efforts aim to regain public confidence and shape the future of tourism.

Therefore, the study disclosed that, based on emerging outcomes depicted in Figure 5, the ‘Proposed CRA-8P Integrated Framework,’ which defines the challenges, risk mitigation, and assistance, should be utilized to ensure the alignment of tourism destination management of Palawan with the NTDP 2016-2022 implementation.

Figure 5: The CRA-8P Integrated Framework in Defining the Challenges, Risk-Mitigation and Assistance in National Tourism Development Plan 2016-2022 Implementation

REFERENCES

1. Acorn Tourism Consulting Limited (2020). Crisis Preparedness in Tourism Management Acorn Tourism Consulting Limited
2. Asian Development Bank (ADB, 2018):Technical Package Assistance for Tourism Development: Asian Development Bank
3. Bamba, M. L. (2018). An application of Butler’s (1980) Tourist Area Life Cycle to Saly (Senegal).
4. Britain’s visitor economy facts. (2021, January 6). Retrieved from https://www.visitbritain.org/visitor-economy-facts
5. Bursin, L. (2016). Formal Mechanisms for Stakeholder Cooperation in Tourism. Sage Publications
6. CBI Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2020): Risk Mitigation in Tourism during Crises. CBI Ministry of Foreign Affairs
7. Chakalall, P. (2019). Adopting Resilient Crisis Management in Tourism. Emerald Publishing Limited
8. Chaperon, S. (2017). Challenges in Stakeholder Engagement in Destination Management. Palgrave Macmillan
9. Cruz, R.G. (2014). Tourism planning and development. Rex Bookstore.
10. Department of Tourism – Philippines. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.tourism.gov.ph/guidebookandmanual.aspx
11. Department of Tourism – Philippines. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.tourism.gov.ph/NTDP.aspx
12. Destination management. (2020, November 22). Retrieved from https://www.artn.com.au/destination-management
13. Developing your destination management plan. (2019, December 27). Retrieved from https://www.visitbritain.org/developing-your-destination-management-plan
14. Hwang, L. (2017). Butler’s Tourism Area Life Cycle and Its Expansion to the Creative Economy. In L. L. Lowry (Ed.), The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Travel and Tourism. SAGE Publications, Inc.
15. Jeong, M., & Shin, H. (2019). Fostering “Smart Destinations”. Springer
16. Luo, Y. (2018). 4E Rubric: Measuring Holistic Destination Performance. Springer
17. Modica, P., et al. (2018). European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) for Sustainable Tourism. Elsevier
18. Morrison, A. M. (2018). Destination management research. In Marketing and Managing Tourism Destinations (pp. 118-157). doi:10.4324/9781315178929-4
19. Morrison, A. M. (2018). The concepts of destination management and marketing. In Marketing and Managing Tourism Destinations (pp. 3-41). doi:10.4324/9781315178929-1
20. Morrison, A. M. (2018). The future of destination management and marketing. In Marketing and Managing Tourism Destinations (pp. 645-672). doi:10.4324/9781315178929-17
21. Orian, T. (2016). Risk Assessment in Tourism and Preservation of AttractionsCambridge University Press
22. Philippine Tourism Guidebook (2019). Monitoring and Evaluating Destination Performance. Department of Tourism, Philippines
23. Philipps, T. (2020). Destination Management: A Systematic Plan. Routledge
24. Pololikashvili, Z. (2019): Ensuring Sustainable Destination Management. Emerald Publishing Limited
25. Rasoolimanesh, M. S., & Jaafar, M. (2016). Community Participation toward Tourism Development and Conservation Program in Rural World Heritage Sites. doi:10.5772/62293
26. Romero, E. A. (2016). Planning for Philippine Tourism Development with Logframe. C&E Publishing Inc.
27. Setiawan, B., & Wiweka, K. (2018). A study of the tourism area life cycle in Dieng Kulon village. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349812024_A_study_of_the_tourism_area_life_cycle_in_Dieng_Kulon_village
28. Singalen, R., et al. (2018). Impact of Tourism Policies on Infrastructure Harm. Wiley
29. UNWTO releases a COVID-19 technical assistance package for tourism recovery. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.unwto.org/news/unwto-releases-a-covid-19-technical-assistance-package-for-tourism-recovery
30. UNWTO tourism definitions. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284420858
31. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), Centre of Expertise Leisure, Tourism & Hospitality, NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences, and NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences (Eds.). (2018). ‘Overtourism’? – Understanding and Managing Urban Tourism Growth beyond Perceptions, Volume 2: Case Studies. UNWTO, Madrid. doi:10.18111/9789284420629

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring their voluntary participation and confidentiality throughout the research.

Conflict Of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest related to the submitted manuscript.

Data Availability

The data supporting this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.