Resorts are defined as ‘geographic areas offering a variety of facilities, services and activities which are oriented towards seaside recreation for the accommodation, use and enjoyment of visitors’ (Smith 1991, p.189). The enterprising development of island resorts accordingly caters to the demand of recreating by the sea and on an island. Island resorts support the attraction of sun, sand and sea holidays with the apparent exclusivity of an island, and thus allows for tourists to recreate on and consume island environments. Specifically, island resorts exemplify both the island experience and the arena for island tourism to occur by playing upon these factors of separation and isolation on the pleasure periphery as a marketing strategy. Research based on island resorts has sought to illuminate the relationship between resorts and destinations, and how this contributes to the economic growth of many places, especially less developed countries (for example Domroes 1993, King 2001, Pattullo 1996). This was achieved through a variety of approaches – from plotting resort development and evolution, to examining the notion of the self-contained entity of resorts and also to the social impacts of converting previous public land into private domains (King 1997, Lundtorp and Wanhill 2001, Pattullo 1996). Additionally, there has been a number of works in mapping resort development with reference to Butler’s tourist area lifecycle model (Butler 1980). Other different approaches to resort development are depicted in Table 2-2.
Models such as the Resort Development Spectrum (Prideaux 2004) or the economic- focused evolutionary model (Papatheodorou 2004) include the role of market demand and supply plus spatial dynamics in determining a resort’s evolutionary changes, thereby providing a more complex and dynamic conceptual framework to better
understand resort progression and evolution. Whilst these progression models are theoretically advantageous to predict a resort’s evolutionary path, they fail to take into consideration deviations that may occur based on the dynamic and volatile nature of the tourism industry in conjunction with the natural environment or with regional influences. This is especially so for island environments, where the interplay of isolation and external linkages require a far more complex and dynamic approach to understand the developments that are taking place. Additionally, the models do not apply to islands that have been set aside specifically for spontaneous tourism development and thus do not require any subsequent development of the region – Pulau Segayang’s experience being a particular case in point (also see Domroes 2001). In other words, evolutionary models are less applicable for small-scale developments or for areas that aside from the sole resort developed may not see additional tourism developments, such as in Pulau Segayang, whereby without the development of Coral Cove Resort would not entertain any visiting tourists.
A common thread that may be discerned from past works on island resorts is thus the necessity and importance of prior planning that entails a clear vision and strategy for the development and operational process. The most obvious impact of island resort development would be the observable landscape changes (Andriotis 2006, Pattullo 1996, pp.104-113, Smith 1991, Wall 1996), with particular focus on the negative impacts experienced that are associated with poor planning and opportunistic developments. It should be realised that poorly conceived plans, development that deviates from stated objectives, or the lack of political will and support are significant factors that may affect a resort’s evolutionary path to decline.
Table 2-2: Research Approaches on Island Resorts
Approach Examples of Work Done Resort Evolution
• Development and evolution of resorts (Ayala 1991, Butler 1980, Domroes 2001, King 1997, King 2001)
• Rejuvenation following declining demand (redevelopment strategies) (Helber 1995, Morgan 1994)
Application of Butler’s Resort Lifecycle Model (Butler 1980)
• Theoretical debates (Butler 2000, Johnston 2001a, Potter and Phillips 2004)
• Case studies (Agarwal 1997, Butler 1993, Johnston 2001b)
• Beyond the advanced stages -> assessing rejuvenation or decline (Agarwal 1997, Agarwal 2002, Helber 1995)
• Empirical applications -> assessment of demand and supply forces (Andriotis 2006, Lundtorp and Wanhill 2001)
Models of Resort Development
• Beach Resort Model (Smith 1991)
• Resort Development Spectrum (Prideaux 2004)
• Economic Evolution of Resorts (Papatheodorou 2004)
• Destination Attribute Model (Litvin and Ng 2001)
• Island Resorts (Domroes 2001)
Integrated Beach Resorts
• Development Models (Inskeep and Kallenberger 1992, Smith 1992)
• Coastal Management (Knight et al. 1997, Wong 1998b)
• Case studies (Inskeep and Kallenberger 1992, Wong 1998b, Wong 2003a)
As the previous sections have highlighted, it is the natural beauty and unique environmental features of island destinations that act as a destination draw; however the resulting environmental degradation that follows tourism development showcase the contradictory planning process of a tourism industry that is dependent on the natural environment to establish a competitive advantage. Comprehensive planning has been touted to ensure appropriate development schemes; establish infrastructural requirements; allocate scarce resources efficiently; and ultimately to halt or reverse the declining trend of mature resort destinations, thereby establishing long-term sustainability for resort enterprises (Ayala 1996, Conlin 1996, Helber 1995). In other words, whilst planning is an important component in managing a resort’s impact, it is also necessary to be sensitive to other stakeholders involved in the island tourism industry, for as isolated as an island environment may be, there are still numerous other stakeholders involved that impact upon an island resort’s evolutionary path.