![]() |
December 2004
|
| |
Motivations of Resource-Based Tourism Operators in North DakotaTim Schroeder IntroductionThe northern Great Plains region of the U.S. has experienced decline in population and economic activity for some time. More than 15 years ago, Deborah and Frank Popper wrote about this trend and suggested that the area be shifted from agricultural use to a more natural, pastoral use they described as the "Buffalo Commons" (Popper & Popper, 1987). Population growth in the 11-state Great Plains region has lagged behind other regions for more than five decades, particularly in the rural areas of the region. While urban counties in the Great Plains grew, 68% of the counties classified as rural lost more than one third of their population from 1950 to 1996 (Rathge & Highman, 1998, p. 19-20). One of the major causes of depopulation has been dependence on agriculture as a source of economic activity and jobs. Technological advances have greatly reduced the manpower needs and employment opportunities in agriculture. Additionally, low grain prices and bad weather have had significant negative impacts on farmers. A poll of North Dakota farmers indicated that 31% were considering quitting farming. Nearly three-fifths of the farmers surveyed reported being "very concerned" about their own farm's financial condition (Bonham, 1999, p. 1). A strong link between agricultural employment and population loss has been observed by many researchers (Rowley, 1998, p. 3). As agriculture declined as a source of employment, people (especially young adults) left to find work in other areas. One strategy for overcoming the declining farm economy and farm financial crisis has been economic diversification. Local communities have tried to develop new businesses to help offset the loss of farm jobs and associated economic activity. These new businesses have included value added agricultural processing, light manufacturing, e-business, and tourism. A recent economic report completed for the State of North Dakota identified tourism as a robustly growing industry for the state, with employment growth averaging 5% per year from 1989 to 1998 (RFA, 2000, p. 61). Casinos developed on Indian reservations were cited as part of the tourism attraction, but hunting, fishing, birdwatching, and other nonconsumptive nature activities and historic and ethnic culture are also attractions for tourists. As some areas of North Dakota have become less populated and less used for agriculture, the opportunities for resource-based tourism have grown. Resource-based tourism has characteristics that make it attractive for rural development. Compared to traditional tourism, the level of facility and infrastructure development tends to be low, limited to providing basic to standard facilities. The local community is typically involved in planning and management, and many of the tourist operators are local. Economic impacts tend to be good, with lower levels of economic leakage. Negative social and environmental impacts are limited. (Ewert & Shultus, 1997, p. 99). The benefits for resource-based tourism as part of a strategy for rural development in North Dakota include:
The development of a strong rural tourism economy relies heavily upon the fostering of tourism entrepreneurs. These individuals provide the link between the resources themselves (landscape, wildlife, history, and ethnic heritage) and the delivery of a meaningful tourism experience that will be consumed by visitors. These business entrepreneurs create the economic activity that results in local income, increased tax revenues, and stimulation of other sectors of the economy. The development of the tourism businesses also contributes to positive social change by improving the attractiveness of the local area as a place to live, work and play. (Koh & Hatten, 2002, p. 22). Purpose and MethodsThe purpose of the study discussed here was to explore the motivations, issues, and backgrounds of small resource-based tourism operators in North Dakota. The intention was to learn more about the operators and their businesses as a starting point for assisting them and similar operators and as a basis of advising other prospective tourism operators. The sample consisted of 27 North Dakota tourism operators identified from a variety of sources. The sample was selected according to the researcher's judgment, using the criteria of small in scope, related to the resource, and distributed throughout the state of North Dakota. Both consumptive (hunting) and non-consumptive (bird watching, nature study) operators were included, as well as a few lodging establishments closely allied with specific natural resources. Data was gathered from brochures, Web pages, and promotional literature published by the operators and regional tourism promotion agencies. Interviews lasting 1-2 hours were scheduled with each operator and conducted at the business site or home community. The guiding questions for the interviews were the following.
The operators in the sample were identified from a variety of sources, including North Dakota Tourism Department materials, regional promotional materials, referrals by local and regional tourism leaders, and searches of the Worldwide Web. In a couple of cases, subjects suggested other subjects for the study. Almost everyone who was contacted agreed to be interviewed. There were two potential subjects who declined to participate and one scheduled interview that was cancelled due to an emergency. The data were analyzed using qualitative methods. The interviews were transcribed and the contents then reviewed using a constant comparison method. The contents were organized according to broad categories, such as "operator motivations," and then into more discrete categories, such as more specific motivations, like "creating income opportunities." ResultsThe study found that small tourism operators were motivated to start and stay in business for a variety of reasons. The motivations expressed by the operators were organized into categories. Diversify ProductivityOne commonly cited motivation for starting the tourism business was a desire to diversify the productivity of the land resource available. Sometimes diversification was discussed from the perspective of economic necessity, due to problems with traditional agriculture. As one respondent expressed the motivation:
In other cases diversification was more of a philosophical direction or a challenge to get as much productivity out of the land as possible.
Personal RecreationPersonal recreational interests were a motivation for many of the operators.
As typified by the operator quoted above, many operators started their businesses as an extension of an avocational or recreational activity of their own. These operators wanted to be involved in an industry that related to their own recreational interests and experiences, and to share the enjoyment of those experiences with others.
Environment-Created OpportunitySometimes the physical, economic, or social environment created an opportunity that the respondent identified and acted upon. This opportunity may have related to the availability of a building that could be converted into lodging, some type of locational advantage in relation to the resource, or becoming aware of significant demand for a type of recreation that could be readily supplied by the entrepreneur. Several entrepreneurs were able to acquire and/or renovate existing buildings into lodging operations. These included old family homes and apartment complexes in dwindling communities. In most of these cases, the start-up costs were rather modest, and they identified a substantial seasonal market for lodging for hunters.
In other cases, it was a matter of seeing existing or growing demand, such as visitors to the region for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial or to view wildlife.
Some respondents made the transition of charging a fee for what they were providing for free.
Income Opportunities to Keep Children in the AreaPopulation loss, particularly out-migration of young people is a serious regional problem.
Several of the entrepreneurs talked about a desire to create income opportunities that would help keep their children in the area. In the words of one respondent,
Civic MindednessCivic mindedness motivated some of the operators. Their businesses were partly aimed at helping the local community, particularly in economic ways.
Personal RelationshipsA strong thread for most subjects was the positive personal relationships they have developed with their clients. Interactions with visitors were seen as life enriching experiences for those operators who have limited social and cultural opportunities available in their rural settings.
The operators' motivations were varied, and most talked about multiple motivations. The drive to make a lot of money or have great financial success was hardly evident in their responses. A few acknowledged the potential for their business to someday lead to significant financial success, but financial success did not appear to be a major motivator. Discussion and ImplicationsMarkley and Macke (2002) discussed three types of rural entrepreneurs: Growth Entrepreneurs, Lifestyle Entrepreneurs, and Survival Entrepreneurs. The operators in this study appeared to fit the two categories of rural entrepreneurs that Markley and Macke called Lifestyle Entrepreneurs and Survival Entrepreneurs. Lifestyle Entrepreneurs have chosen to live in a rural place and go into business to generate enough income to maintain a desired standard of living. Maintaining the quality of life they seek tends to limit the growth orientation or their business activities. Survival Entrepreneurs are those that are tied to a location or profession and develop multiple business activities to survive economically in that location. Fewer rural entrepreneurs, and only two or three in this sample, fit the definition of Growth Entrepreneurs who want to grow their business enterprises to a level of significant financial success with profound local or regional impact. The motivations of the operators in the sample are consistent with those found by Nickerson, Black, and McCool (2001). Montana farmers and ranchers reported diversifying income to provide employment for family members, generate additional income, meet the needs of the market, have companionship with guests, extend an interest or hobby, and better use farm or ranch resources. Getz and Carlsen (2000) also found that almost three-fourths of the rural tourism operators in an Australian sample got started in business for motivations other than business investment, such as appealing lifestyle, work in related business, to preserve the home, as a retirement project, to meet people and other reasons. The results of Getz and Page (1997) are also parallel with these findings, identifying supplementation of farm income and lifestyle considerations as motivations for farm tourism operators. The results have several implications for how Extension personnel assist prospective tourism operators. Financial success appeared to be a secondary motivation of operators interviewed. Many of the models for encouraging entrepreneurship place an emphasis on business practices and the maximization of financial return. While the resource-based operators interviewed were certainly interested in having enough financial success to maintain the viability of the business, they had other priorities that were as important or more important. Supporting budding tourism operators in such a way as to maintain or maximize other benefits might be just as important as support for business practices. Extension personnel might help tourism operators achieve their motivational goals, such as:
Extension personnel should seek out or develop materials that recognize a broader range of motivations of small rural tourism operators and provide support and assistance for attaining that broad range of goals. Not only would such an approach increase the satisfaction and success of individual operators, but those motivations relate to positive impacts on the wider community, such as retaining the youth population, enriching the social environment, continuing productive use of buildings, and directly benefiting other community businesses and institutions. ReferencesBlank, U. (1989). The community tourism industry imperative. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Bonham, K. (1999, December 21). Poll: North Dakota farm crisis is worse than crisis of 1980s. Agweek Magazine. Ewert, A., & Shultis, J. (1997). Resource-based tourism: An emerging trend in tourism experiences. Parks and Recreation 32(9), 94-103. Getz, D., & Carlsen, J. (2000). Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated business in the rural tourism industry and hospitality sectors. Tourism Management 21(6):547-560. Getz, D., & Page, S. J. (1997). Conclusions and implications for rural business development. In S.J. Page & D. Getz (Eds.). The Business of Rural Tourism: International Perspectives (pp. 191-205). London: International Thomson Business Press. Huang, Y-H., & Stewart, W. P. (1996). Rural tourism development: Shifting basis of community solidarity. Journal of Travel Research 34(4), 26-31. Koh, K. Y., & Hatten, T. S. (2002). The tourism entrepreneur: The overlooked player in tourism development studies. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 3(1), 21-48. Lewis, J. B. (1998). The development of rural tourism. Parks and Recreation 33(9), 99-107. Markley, D., & Macke, D. (2002). Entrepreneurs & entrepreneurship. Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, Monograph 2, [On-line]. Available at: http://www.ruraleship.org/index_html?page=content/monographs.htm Nickerson, N. P., Black, R. J., & McCool, S. F. (2001). Agritourism: Motivations behind farm/ranch business diversification. Journal of Travel Research 40(1), 19-26. Popper, D., & Popper, F. (1987). The Great Plains: Dust to dust. Planning 53(12), 2-18. RFA. (2000). The economic performance and industrial structure of the North Dakota economy. Bismarck, ND: State of North Dakota, Department of Economic Development and Finance. Rathge, R., & Highman, P. (1998). Population change in the Great Plains: A history of prolonged decline. Rural Development Perspectives 13(1), 19-26. Rowley, T. D. (1998). Sustaining the Great Plains. Rural Development Perspectives 13(1), 2-6. Swinnerton, G. S., & Hinch, T. D. (1994). Sustainable rural tourism: Principles and practices. Trends 31(1), 4-8. Weaver, G. (1991). Tourism USA: Guidelines for tourism development. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, University Extension. Yuan, M. S., & Christensen, N. A. (1994). Wildland-influenced economic impacts of nonresident travel on portal communities: The case of Missoula, Montana. Journal of Travel Research 32(4), 26-31. This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/a6.shtml. Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org. If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support. |