National tourism policy study : final report

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
National tourism policy study : final report
Physical Description:
xii, 361 p. : diagrs. ; 24 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Congress. -- Senate. -- Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. -- Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Tourism
United States -- Congress. -- Senate. -- National Tourism Policy Study
United States -- Congress. -- Senate. -- Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Arthur D. Little, Inc
Publisher:
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Washington
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Tourism -- Government policy -- United States   ( lcsh )
Tourism -- United States   ( lcsh )
Tourist trade -- Government policy -- United States   ( lcsh )
Tourist trade -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available in electronic format.
General Note:
Based on information provided by Arthur D. Little, inc.
General Note:
Issued Apr. 1978.
General Note:
Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from LexisNexis Academic & Library Solutions.
General Note:
At head of title: 95th Congress, 2d session. Committee print.
General Note:
CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 78 S262-7
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared at the request of Howard W. Cannon, chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Daniel K. Inouye, chairman, National Tourism Policy Study for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and National Tourism Policy Study.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 024771653
oclc - 04434682
lccn - 78602042
Classification:
lcc - KF49
ddc - 338.4/7/917304926
System ID:
AA00025928:00001

Full Text


It I IN
J*
4-it t ,,I'i 1v tI ,E






ins
V 1 1t









ST mm
VNO









iL
74

1,4







01
now r






95th Congress COMMITTEE P1RIT
2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT




NATIONAL TOURISM POLICY STUDY

FINAL REPORT





PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF

HoN. HOWARD W. CANNON, Chairman

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

AND

Hox. DANIEL K. INOUYE, Chaiminan

NATIONAL TOURISM POLICY STUDY

FOR THE USE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
AND TRANSPORTATION

AND

NATIONAL TOURISM POLICY STUDY









Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, United States Senate


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25-226 O WASHINGTON : 1978


For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
















COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
IIOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada, Chairman
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina TED STEVENS, Alaska
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona
ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Illinois BOB PACKWOOD, Oregon
WENDELL I. FORD, Kentucky HARRISON H. SCHMITT, New Mexico
JOHN A. DURKIN, New Hampshire JOHN C. DANFORTH, Missouri
EDWARD ZORINSKY, Nebraska
DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., Michigan
AUBREY L. SARVIS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
EDWIN K. HALL, General Counsel
MALCOLM M. B. STERRETT, Minority Staff Director

NATIONAL TOURISM POLICY STU)DY

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON COM MERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

FROM TIHE (COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington MILTON R. YOUNG, North Dakota

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia ROBERT DOLE, Kansas

FROM TIIE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, IHoSING, AND IRBAN AFFAIRS
WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin EDWARD W. BROOKE, Massachusetts

FROM TIIE COMMNITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming

FROM THIE (CoMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC -WORKS
GARY W. HART, Colorado ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont

FROM TIIE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATION S
JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
LAWTON CHILES, Florida CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois

FROMi THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, New Jersey JACOB K. JAVITS, New York

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON TIE JUDICIARY
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

FROM TIE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., Connecticut
JOHN D. HARDY, Merchant Marine and Tourism Counsel
PHILIP M. GRILL, Minority Staff Counsel
(II)










LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

U.S. SENATE,
Con mnittee on Comewrce, Science, and Tran sprtatin.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: In recent years, tourism and travel have increas-
ingly been recognized as making significant and enduring contribu-
tions to economic growth, employment, and income in the United
States as well as to the physical, social, and cultural welfare of
U.S. citizens. The travel industry is widely recognized as one of the
major industries in the United States, and in most of the 50 States,
generating revenues and income of over $100 billion a year and sup-
porting more than four million jobs. Equally as important, leisure
travel and associated recreational activities are a principal means for
maintaining the physical and mental well-being of the population, for
contributing to personal growth and education, and for enhancing cul-
tural understanding and appreciation of the diverse nature of the
Nation's historical, cultural and natural heritage.
The natural ties between tourism and recreation have become in-
creasingly evident in recent years. Activities in these areas are wide-
spread, interdependent, and affect one another. A large majority of
tourists and travelers engage in recreation of one sort or another, and
recreational attractions and facilities are frequently designed and
operated to cater to recreationists arriving from outside the community.
Within the Federal Government there exists a very large number of
policies and activities with impacts on tourism, travel and associated
recreational activities which are fragmented and often duplicative
and conflicting. In spite of the significance of tourism and travel, and
the Federal Government's current involvement, little has been done
to explicitly define an appropriate role for the Government in tourism
and to identify the means by which the Federal Government can most
effectively respond to the tourism, travel and recreational needs of both
industry and the general public.
In an attempt to correct these problems and maximize the bene-
ficial aspects of tourism while minimizing the costs and conflicts, the
Senate undertook a study of the Federal role in tourism. S. Res. 347,
cosponsored by 71 Senators and unanimously agreed to by the Senate
on June 24, 1974, authorized the then Senate Commerce Committee to
conduct a National Tourism Policy Study.
In October 1976, the Committee issued the Study's first interim
report which outlined the conceptual basis for the Policy Study, gave
an overview of legislation which affects tourism, tentatively identified
the national interests in tourism and listed some of the problems asso-
ciated with the present Federal role in tourism.
That interim report recognized that whatever national tourism
policy was ultimately recommended should attempt to capitalize on the
social and economic significance of travel and tourism by coordinating
the considerable Federal programmatic involvement, and making that
(In)






IV

involvement responsive, to the needs and interests of the public and
private sectors of the industry and the traveling public.
In June 1977, a second interim report was issued which detailed and
analyzed input from the tourism and travel industry on the issues,
problems, and needs of the State and local public and private sectors
of the industry, both in general terms and in terms of their specific
relationships to Federal agencies and programs.
The final report of the National Tourism Policy Study includes the
findings of the final phase of the Study, and also reflects the work done
in the previous phases of the Study. It is based on work done by the
Committee staff and Arthur T). Little, Inc.1
The report makes recommendations for a national tourism 2 policy
for the United States, and proposes roles for the Federal Government
and the public and private sectors of the industry which it believes
will help achieve the objectives of that policy. To implement the policy
it recoinmends, the report also makes two alternative reconmmendations
for organizational, programmatic and legislative strategies.
This report also summarizes the principal findings of a related study
of national tourism organizations and programs of eight foreign gov-
ernments sponsored by the Honorable Fred B. Rooney and the U.S.
House of Representatives Subcommittee on Transportation and Com-
merce. We would like to thank Chairman Rooney for his support as
well as the other members of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Commerce for their support of the National Tourism Policy Study
and for permission to reproduce the key findings of the House of Rep-
resentatives Study.
While this report was developed with guidance from the Senate
committee staff, it does not necessarily represent the views of the
Senate Conmmittee on Commercn e Science, and Transportation, but
rather embodies the objective judgments and recommendations of the
Arthur D. Little, Inc., study team. In that context, the Arthur D.
Little, Inc., study team has recommended the following:
A national tourism policy which recognizes the importance of
the existing Federal role in such traditionally defined tourism
and travel areas as transportation and lodging as well as the
importance of the Federal commitment to support and enhance
our recreational and national heritage resources.
The national tourism policy should include at least seven prin-
cipal policy goals:
-Optimize the contribution of the tourism and recreation
industries to economic prosperity, full employment, re-
gional economic development, and improved international
balance of payments;
-Make the opportunity for, and the benefits of travel and
recreation universally accessible to residents of the United
States and foreign countries;
1 The Arthur D. Little. Inc.. study team consisted of the following: Dr. Cyril C. Herr-
mann. vice president. Arthur D. Little. Inc.. project director: Thomas G. Lloyd, assistant
project director; Chrisopher W. Krehs. principal investigator: Judith Helm. research
analyst: Angela F. Speranza. project administration: Lots F. Shannon, report prepara-
tion : Carolyn W. Hartle. coordination.
Dr. John D. Hunt. assistant dean. College of Natural Resources, Utah State University
served as special consultant to the study team.
2 The term "tourism" is used interchangeably with "travel."




V

-Contribute to personal growth and education of the popu-
lation, and encourage their appreciation of the geography,
history, and ethnic diversity of the Nation through tourism
and recreation;
-Encourage the free and welcome entry of foreigners travel-
ing to the United States, consistent with the national in-
terest in protecting the revenue, and preventing the en-
trance of illegal aliens, and the importation of prohibited
merchandise at ports of entry;
-Protect and preserve the historical and cultural founda-
tion of the Nation as a living part of community life and
development, and to insure future generations an opportu-
nity to appreciate and enjoy the rich heritage of the Nation;
-Insure the compatibility of tourism and recreation policies
and activities with other national interests in energy de-
velopment and conservation, environmental protection, and
judicious use of natural resources; and
-Harmonize, to the maximum extent possible, all Federal
activities supporting the needs of the general public and the
public and private sectors of the tourism and recreation in-
dustries. Take a leadership role with all concerned with
tourism, recreation, and national heritage preservation.
To implement the proposed national tourism policy, the Con-
gress should create two organizational entities to assure effec-
tive programmatic interpretation of the policy : a principal Fed-
eral travel and recreation agency and a principal Federal inter-
agency coordinating council. The Congress should also encour-
age State and local governments and the private sectors of the
tourism and recreation industries to create, in close cooperation
with Federal officials, a principal Federal/State/local coordi-
nating body and a principal Federal/private industry coordi-
nating body for travel and recreation.
* The proposed principal Federal travel and recreation agency-
the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency-should be created as
an executive agency outside of existing departmental structures
(headed by an Administrator appointed by the President)
through a consolidation of the staff, budgets, and most activities
now carried out by the U.S. Travel Service, the Bureau of Out-
door Recreation, the National Visitor Center of the National
Park Service, and the Office of Archeology and Historic Pres-
ervation of the National Park Service. No increase in staff
would be required under this proposed rearrangement of related
activities.
* The programs in the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency should
chiefly be concerned with the following areas: basic and applied
research in travel and recreation; assistance in and coordina-
tion of tourism and recreation planning at the local, State, and
national levels; technical assistance, education, and informa-
tional clearinghouse services to both industry and consumers;
and consolidation of existing grants-in-aid programs for de-
velopment of touristic, recreational and national heritage re-
sources, attractions, and facilities. International tourism pro-




VI

motional activities should be stepped up, while domestic pro-
motional activities on the part of the Federal Government
should be limited to indirect support for State, local, and pri-
vate sector promotional activities.
The National Travel and Recreation Policy Council should be
established as an independent Federal policy coordinating body
chaired by a member of the President's domestic and interna-
tional economic advisory staff and consisting of the 18 depart-
ment or agency heads whose departments or agencies have
important tourism and recreation-related programs or programs
which significantly impact on tourism and recreation interests.
The Policy Council would be charged with monitoring Federal
agencies' compliance with national tourism and recreation
policy and coordination of the policy's interpretation with other
national interests. To assure the effectiveness of the Council and
the cooperation of participating agencies, annual reports to the
Congress would be required.
State and local governments, working in coordination with
Federal officials, should be encouraged to estabilsh an Inter-
governmental Travel and Recreation Planning Board as a prin-
cipal Federal/State local public sector coordinating body made
up of State and local travel and outdoor recreation officials and
representatives from the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency.
The Planning Board's primary purpose would be to coordinate
State and local tourism and recreation interests with Federal
activities related to national tourism and recreation policies.
Private sector officials of tlie travel and recreation industries
should be encouraged to establish a Travel and Recreation De-
velopment Board as a principal Fedr'a 'private industry coor-
dtinating ody in tourism and recreation. The Development
Board would coordinate private sector interests with Federal
activities related to national tourism and recreation policies,
includin' identification of private sector problems. develop-
ment of industry pIroirams and joint industry/Federal coopera-
tive programs, and reviewing, commenting, and making
recommendations of Federal tourism, recreation and heritage
resource preservation policies and programs to the U.S. Travel
and Recreation Agency and the National Travel and Recreation
Policy Council.
The details of the Arthur D. Little, Inc., recommendations are con-
tained in the body of this report. We wish to re-emphasize. however,
that these recommendations do not necessarily reflect the official posi-
tion of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science. and Transporta-
tion. The Committee has not approved, disapproved, or considered this
report. Following the text of the report, you will find drafts of two
alternative pieces of legislation (Draft A and Draft B) each related to
one of the two organizational options described in detail in the report.
Both options would appear to be achievable within an annual increased
expenditure range (from general revenue) of $1.9 to $2.7 million. The
first option which was briefly discussed above would involve consolida-
tion of existing agencies into a new, separate entity. The second option
proposes to completely restructure the U.S. Travel Service. It proposes






VII

new program initiatives and an increase in staff size of 24 percent. Con-
sequently, this second option would require an increase in general
revenue expenditures of $2.7 million.
While the Federal Government has a significant role to play in
tourism, this role must be developed in full partnership with other
public and private sector entities. Within the next few months, the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will
initiate hearings on the recommendations and proposals arising from
this report and on proposed legislation for a national tourism policy.
We invite close, in-depth, and critical consideration of these findings
by other members of Congress, by the public and private sectors of the
travel and recreation industries, by agencies and departments of the
executive branch, and by the general public both in the interim period
and during the hearing process. Only in this way can a truly effective
and representative national tourism policy be developed.
HOWARD W. CANNON,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
DANIEL K. INOUYE,
Chairman, National Tourism Policy Study.















This Report is the result of research funded by the United States
Senate. The findings herein were derived from meetings with State
and local government tourism officials, industry leaders from the
private sector of the tourism and travel industry, Federal agency
officials, and secondary source materials provided by the public
and private sectors of the tourism and travel industry and Federal
agencies. The analysis, interpretation, judgements, opinions, and
recomnendations presented do not necessarily reflect the official
position of the United States Senate Comrittee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation or the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and
Tourism.
Glossary of
Key Acronyms Used in
this Report


ITPE Intero!ver -ental Travel Flannina Board

ITPFS 'interv rertal Travel and Recreation Planning Board

LOTRC Lotal Officials Travel and Recreation Council

NT>; Nation_ Travei clic" Council

NTPE National Tourisr Policy Study

NT- acr Tra .. l and Recreation Policy Council

SCTRC State Officials Travel and Recreation Council

TDB Travel Develonment Board

TRDB Travel and Recreation Development Board

USTE United States Travel Bureau

USTFR United States Travel and Recreation Agency

USTS United States Travel Service

(VIII)













CONTENTS


'Page
Chapter I. Introduction--------------- 1
I. Purpose, study, process, and report organization------- 1
A. Background of the National Tourism Policy Study (NTPS)_ 1
B. The final phase of the NTPS----------- 3
C. Organization of this report----------------- 4
II. Problems of definition and terminology in tourism and recreation
and the images and attitudes they reflect.---------- 4
A. Definitional problems with "tourism" and "travel" -----
B. Choice of terminology: Images and attitudes associated
with "tourism," "travel," and "recreation"----------- 9
Chapter II. Recommendations for a national tourism policy ------------ 13
I. Introduction__------------------------------------------_ 13
II. The current Federal involvement in tourism --------13
A. Results of the Federal program assessment -------13
III. The proposed national tourism (and recreation) policy-------- 27
A. Broad national interests, current public policy principles
and the national interests in travel and recreation ___ 27
B. The national interests in tourism and recreation and the
goals of the national tourism policy ----------- 30
C. Proposed declaration of national tourism policy-------- 33
D. National tourism policy objectives and programmatic
recommendations--------------------------- 35
Chapter III. Summary of principal and alternate recommended strategies
for tourism policy implementation----------- ---------------- 39
I. Introduction__ _______ -----------------39
II. The U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency: Option A-Principal
recommended strategy for a principal Federal tourism agency-_ 43
III. Principal recommended strategies for three coordinating bodies-_ 44
A. National Travel and Recreation Policy Council
(NTRPC): Alternative 1 and principal recommended
strategy for a Federal interagency coordinating body-- 44
B. Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning
Board (ITRPB): Alternative 1 and principal recom-
mended strategy for a Federal/State/local public sector
coordinating body--------------------------------- 48
C. Travel and Recreation Development Board: (TRDB):
Alternative 1 and principal recommended strategy for
a Federal/private industry coordinating body -------- 51
IV. Alternate recommended strategies for the three coordinating
bodies_ __ _-----------_--- __------------_ 55
A. National Travel and Recreation Policy Council: Alterna-
tive 2-Alternate recommended strategy for a Federal
interagency coordinating body--------- 55
B. Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning
Board: Alternative 2-Alternate recommended strat-
egy for a Federal/State/local coordinating body _---- 55
C. Travel and Recreation Development Board: Alternative
2-Alternate recommended strategy for a Federal/
private industry coordinating body-------- 56
V. The U.S. Travel Bureau (USTB): Alternate recommended strat-
egy for a principal Federal tourism agency ----------------- 58
VI. Variations in recommended coordination strategies under option
B_- _____-_,, -_____--_____-- _________ --59
(IX)




X

Chapter IV. The basis for tourism policy implementation strategies:
Government reorganization alternatives .. -- -------------___ -1____ 1
I. Introduction- ----_-----__-- ______ _____1 il
II. The basis for program implementation strategies ----------. 61
A. Consolidation of existing agencies -----_---__---_- 04
B. Restructuring the U.S. Travel Service ____-._._..- 8s
C. Assignment of principal tourism responsibilities to a
limited number of Federal agencies______ -.9 _9..
III. The basis for activity coordination strategies........ 73
Chapter V. Detailed options for a principal Federal tourism agency .. 75
I. Introduction ---- __--________--________ ________.. ...- __.._.. 75
II. U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency (USTRA): Option A for a
principal Federal tourism agency_ ------------------------ 77
A. Purpose of the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency----- 77
B. Organization of the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency- 78
C. Functions of the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency -_ 84
I). Budgetary implications---------------------------_ 105
III. U.S. Travel Bureau: Option B for a principal Federal tourism
agency--------------------------------- 1)7
A. Purpose of the U.S. Travel Bureau (USTB) -_----_..-_ 107
B. Organization of the U.S. Travel Bureau-----_.--_-. 107
C. Functions of the U.S. Travel Bureau ------------..-- 112
1). Budgetary implications-------- --------------------- 123
Chapter VI. Detailed alternatives for a Federal interagency tourism and
recreation coordinating body ._ ______----------------------- _-- 125
I. Introduction _---_ _-_------------___------_ --__ __ --125
II. National Travel and Recreation Policy Council: Alternative 1 120
A. Organization of the Policy Council under alternative 1_ 126
B. Functions of the Policy Council under alternative 1 -_ 130
C. Timing of organizational efforts under alternative 1 --_ 134
III. National Travel and Recreation Policy Council: Alternative 2__ 135
A. Organization of the Policy Council under alternative 2-_ 135
B. Functions of the Policy Council under alternative 2_ -- 138
C. Timing of organizational efforts under alternative 2__---- 138
IV. National Travel Policy Council: Policy Council variations related
to option B for a principal Fed eral tourism agency __ _. -.. .. 139
Chapter VIII. I)etailed alternatives for a Federal/State/local tourism and
recreation coordinating body _____________ -___ __.... ___.- 141
I. Introduction _____ _-. .. .. -- _----...__. __ __--_-_-_-_ _-.-.-- 141
II. Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning Board:
Alternative 1 __.- _ ____________ .... .. 143
A. Organization of the Travel and Recreation Planning
Board under alternative 1 _-___-.. ____------.--. 143
B. Functions of the Travel and Recreation Planning Board
under alternative 1 _---_-.. __.--- _------__---.. 149
C. Timing of organizational efforts under alternative 1 ___ 152
III. Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning Board:
Alternative 2-___ ____ ___ ___.__________ ___-- --------- 154
A. Organization of the Travel and Recreation Planning
Board under alternative 2___________-___-___ __ _- 154
B. Functions of the Travel and Recreation Planning Board
under alternative 2_ ___......._______------ _--- 156
C. Timing of organizational efforts under alternative 2___ 158
IV. Intergovernmental Travel Planning Board: Planning Board
variations related to option B for a principal Federal
tourism agency __ ----------------------------159
Chapter VIII. Detailed alternatives for a Federal/private industry coordi-
nating body----__ --_ __ ____-_--... . ._ .___..------------- 161
I. Introduction __________------------------------- --------- 161
II. Travel and Recreation Development Board: Alternative 1--- 162
A. Organization of the Development Board under alternative
1- ------------------------------ 162
B. Functions of the Development Board under alternative 1 167
C. Timing of organizational efforts under alternative 11__8 168
III. Travel and Recreation Development Board: Alternative 2 _____ 169
A. Organization of the Development Board under alter-
native 2-__- 170
B. Fu nctions of the DI)eelopmlent Board under alternative 2 176
(. Timing of organizational efforts under alternative --- 177
IV. Travel I)evelopment Board: Development Board variations
related to option B for a principal Federal tourism agency .---- 178






XI

Chapter IX. Recommended roles for existing Federal agencies and techni-
cal legislative recommendations-_ --------------------------------- 179
I. Introduction ---------------------------------------------- 179
II. Recommended roles for existing Federal agencies in travel,
recreation, and national heritage resource preservation -------- 179
III. Technical recommendations for amendment of existing legislation
and drafting new legislation ------------------------------ 196
Chapter X. Assessment of eight foreign government tourism programs----- 199
I. Introduction__---------------------- 199
II. Comparison of the eight foreign government tourism programs --. 200
A. Comparative economic significance of tourism and the
impact of Government spending on tourism --------200
B. Comparison of the national tourism policies of the eight
foreign governments surveyed_ ------------------ 203
C. Comparison of the structure, budgets, and staffing of the
national tourist organizations surveyed --------205
D. Comparison of tourism programs' focus in eight foreign
governments surveyed_ -------------------------- 208
E. Comparison of tourism coordinating mechanisms--------- 212
Appendix A. Glossary of key terms used in the National Tourism Policy
Study --------------------------------------------------- 215
Appendix B. U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency staffing plan (option A) 219
Appendix C. National Travel and Recreation Policy Council staffing plan_- 249
Appendix D. U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency job descriptions of key
staff (option A)--- ----------------------------- 251
Appendix E. U.S. Travel Bureau staffing plan (option B) -------------- 275
Appendix F. Suggested agencies of policy committees within the proposed
policy council----- -------------------------------------- 283
Appendix G. Agencies interviewed by the study team--_ ---------287
Draft A---------------------------------------------- 291
Draft B------------------------------------------------ 335
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Comparative summary of Federal agency involvement in tourism
and travel among selected Federal agencies and programs------------- 16
Table 2. Goals of the proposed national tourism policy and their relation-
ship to (1) broad underlying national interests, (2) current public policy
principles, and (3) the national interests in tourism and recreation- -___ 32
Table 3. Goals and objectives of the proposed national tourism policy---. 34
Table 4. Programmatic recommendations under the proposed tourism
policy by functional area, and their relationship to the national interest__ 36
Table 5. Comparison of the economic significance of tourism and the
estimated impact of national tourist organization budgets in the United
States, seven foreign countries, and the British Crown Colony of Hong
Kong, 1976- --------------201
Table 6. Comparison of the national tourism policies of the eight foreign
governments surveyed------___ ______ ____204
Table 7. Comparison of national tourist organizations of the eight foreign
governments surveyed_________________ 206
Table 8. Comparison of tourism technical assistance, planning, develop-
ment, and regulatory programs of the eight foreign governments
surveyed 209
Table 9. Comparison of international tourism promotional programs of the
eight foreign governments surveyed-- ______________ 210
Table 10. Comparison of tourism coordinating mechanisms among the eight
foreign governments surveyed--______________ 213

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Diagrammatic presentation of travel--________ 8
Figure 2. Principal and alternate recommended organizational strategies for
tourism policy implementation _________________40
Figure 3. Relationship among principal proposed organizations for tour-
ism policy implementation--- _______________ 42
Figure 4. Suggested Policy Council organization-,_- ___- __ 46
Figure 5. Suggested Planning Board organization----------- 50
Figure 6. Suggested Development Board organization---------------__ 53
Figure 7. U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency (option A) suggested orga-
nizational structure-----_ _ ___ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ ___ 80





XII

Figure 8. U.S. Travel Bureau (option B) suggested organizational
structure ----__-._- ____--- ------------------------_ 108
Figure 9. National Travel and Recreation Policy Council (option A) sug-
gested organizational structure (alternative 1) ----------------------- 128
Figure 10. National Travel and Recreation Policy Council (option A)
suggested organizational structure (alternative 2)__ ________________ 136
Figure 11. Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning Board
(option A) suggested organizational structure (alternative 1)----- ___- 144
Figure 12. Regional Travel and Recreation Task Force (option A) sug-
gested typical organizational structure (alternative 1) --------------- 146
Figure 13. Travel and Recreation Planning Committee (option A) sug-
gested organizational structure (alternative 1)-------____ 148
Figure 14. Travel and Recreation Policy Committee (option A) sug-
gested typical organizational structure (alternative 1)--______ 150
Figure 15. Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning Board
(option A) suggested organizational structure (alternative 2)---------- 155
Figure 16. Travel and Recreation Development Board (option A) sug-
gested organizational structure (alternative 1)____ _____ 164
Figure 17. Travel and Recreation Development Board (option A) sug-
gested organizational structure (alternative 2)- __________172















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


I. Purpose, Study Process, and Report Organization

This report by Arthur D. Little, Inc., presents the findings of the final
phase of the National Tourism Policy Study (NTPS), undertaken by the
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, uneer
the sponsorship of Senator Warren G. Magnuson and Senator Daniel K. Inouye.
This phase also integrates the findings of all previous phases of the
NTPS.

This final phase of the NTPS was designed to develop a proposed national
tourism policy for the United States; to define appropriate roles for
the Federal Government, the States, cities, private industry, and consumers
in carrying out, supporting, and contributing to the national tourism
policy; and to recommend organizational, programmatic, and legislative
strategies for implementing theLproposed national touiism policy.

A. Background of the National Tourism Policy Study

Senate Resolution 347, cosrpnsored by 71 Senators and unanimously agreed
to by the Senate, on June 24, 1974, authorized the then Senate Commerce
Committee to undertake a national tourism policy study. As envisioned by
the study, a national tourism policy should be a prescription for assuring
that the Federal tourism effort effectively respond to the national
interests in tourism and, where appropriate, meet the needs of State and
local governments and the private sector of the industry (including labor
and consumer interests).

In order to meet this objective, such a policy must embody specific
directions (and prescribe the necessary mechanism(s) and/or technique(s)
for executing these directions) on how existing Federal agencies administering
policies and programs significantly affecting tourism can do the following:

evaluate the degree to which their activities support the national
interests in tourism, fulfill their statutory mandates relating
to tourism, and meet the tourism needs of State and local
governments and the private sector;

coordinate their separate efforts where they have common or related
objectives pertaining to tourism research, planning, development,
or promotion;

eliminate (where possible) those aspects of their policies or
programs which contradict or are counterproductive of the Federal
tourism effort; and

(1)










receive continual input and recommendations from State and local
governments and the private sector with respect to tourism needs,
and State and local evaluation of the individual Federal policies
or programs which are intended to meet those needs.

The first phase of the national tourism policy study, completed in August,
1976, was designed to tentatively identify the national interests in
tourism and to designate the current Federal programs and policies which
significantly impact on tourism. This was followed by the second or
ascertainment phase of the study, in which the tourism and travel needs of
the States, cities, and the private sector were surveyed and analyzed.

The principal vehicle for ascertaining the tourism needs of the State and
local public sectors and the private sector was a series of regional and
national meetings. These meetings provided an opportunity for
representatives of State and local governments and the private sectors
to discuss the principal issues confronting the tourism and travel industry,
to articulate their needs, and to voice their recommendations concerning
ways in which the current Federal involvement in tourism and travel could
be made more effective and responsive to these needs.

Past studies bh government agencies and comissions which examined the
tourism resources and needs of the United States have been criticized
for failing to consider the views and recommendations of these individuals
and organizations in the public and private sectors which have the day-to-
day responsibilities for tourism and travel research, planning, development,
and promotion. The ascertainment phase of the NTPS was designed to insure
full disclosure of such views and recommendations so they could be given
full consideration in the final policy development phase of the study.

Following six regional meetings and seven national meetings attended by
nearly 300 public and private sector industry leaders, a questionnaire
was sent to meeting participants by Arthur D. Little, Inc., as a means
to clarify some of the trade-offs required to resolve conflicts inherent
in the needs assessment process. The results of this questionnaire, as
well as the results of the regional and national meetings, were published
inr Ascertainment Phase Report. These elements of the ascertainment
process provided a broad base from which to proceed in the final phase
of the NTPS.



1National Tourism Policy Study, Ascertainment Phase, Report on the Ascer-
taind a "eds of the State and Local Government and Private Sectors of the
Tourism and Travel Industry, prepared at the request of Honorable Warren
G. Magnuson, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman, National Tourism Policy Study,
June 1977.









B. The Final Phase of the NTPS

The final phase of the study has involved an assessment of selected key
programs in twenty-six Federal agencies identified during eariler
study phases as having important impacts on tourism and travel. As
part of this assessment, Arthur D. Little, Inc., held more than fifty
interviews with Federal agency personnel involved in developing and
administering these programs. The purpose of these interviews was to
assess the level of priority each agency placed on tourism and travel,
to review programs that significantly affect the tourism and travel
industry, and determine what obstacles to a more effective Federal
response to tourism and travel needs exist in each of these agencies.


Under a satellite study for the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee
on Transportation and Commerce, sponsored by the Honorable Fred B. Rooney,
the study team carried out an extensive survey of the national tourism
organizations and programs of eight foreign governments -- France, Spain,
the United Kingdom, Ireland, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Hong Kong. During
this survey, the study team conducted more than 100 personal interviews
'with key tourism personnel in both the national governments and the
private sectors of the areas that the study team visited.

Based on the results of the ascertainment phase and the more recent
work, Arthur D. Little, Inc. formulated some proposed policy, program-
matic, and organizational concepts for the Federal Government which
were designed to meet a great many of the needs identified in the
Ascertainment Phase Report. These initial concepts were distributed
to the participants of the ascertainment phase as well as to a broader
audience of State and local tourism and travel officials, and the
United States Travel Service and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation for
review and comment. The recommendations received from this review
process were considered and integrated into draft review documents for
Senate staff study and comment.

While this report was developed with guidance from the Senate staff, it
does not necessarily represent the views of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, but rather embodies the
objective judgments and recommendations of the Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
study team. In that context this report sets out:

a proposed national tourism policy for the United States;

general recommendations for programs to implement the policy;

two recommended options for a principal Federal tourism
agency;

two recommended alternatives for a Federal interagency
coordinating mechanism (Policy Council);

two recommended alternatives for a Federal/State/local
coordinating body (Planning Board); and





4



two recommended alternatives for a Federal/Private Industry
coordinating body.
C. Orqanization of This Report

This report is organized into ten chapters. The remaining section of
this introductory chapter discusses some of the key terms and defin-
itions used in this study and some of the definitional and terminolocical
problems confronted by the tourism and travel industry.

Chapter II explores the basis for the national tourism policy in the
current Federal involvement in tourism and travel, the national interests
in tourism, travel, and recreation, and the tourism and travel needs of
the State and local public sectors and the private sector of the tourism
industry. Chapter II also details the goals and objectives of the pro-
posed national tourism policy and the proposed statement of policy, and
the programmatic recommendations for implementing the new national
tourism policy.

Chapter III provides a thorough summary of the recommended organizational
strategies for implementing the national tourism policy.

Chapter IV' discusses the logical basis cn which the Arthur D. Little,
Inc., study team arrived at the organizational recommendations discussed
in Chapter III.

Chapters V-VIII discuss the details of the recommended organizational
strategies.

Chapter IX discusses in detail recommended roles for Federal agencies
other than the principal tourism agency, as weAl as specific legislative
recommendations for implementing the national tourism policy and the
proposed organizational changes.

Finally, Chapter X provides a summary of the findings of the survey
of foreign government tourism programs carried out for the U.S. House
of Representatives Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce.

II. Problems of Definition and Terminology in Tourism and Recreation
and the Images and Attitudes They Reflect

The National Tourism Policy Study, like any study or inquiry, has required
definitions of the various phenomena under study. The task of defining
the various activities and organizations central to the study has not been
easy. Many of the commonly used terms in tourism and recreation have
nebulous meanings and lack concensus of definition, even among business
and government leaders who work in tourism, travel, and recreation on a
day-to-day basis.



lit should be noted that as this report was being prepared a number of
reorganization efforts were already underway. Many agency names may
already have been changed or are in the process of being changed. These
include the Federal Energy Administration (FEA), United States Information
Agency (USIA), Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR), and others. Since it
was not possible to determine which agency names would be in official use
at the time that this report would be circulated for use, the study team
used in all cases the name of the agencies referenced as of November 1977.









At the outset of the NTPS, definitions for various key terms were established
to guide the study's development and progress through all its phases.
However, the treatment of terminology and definitions in the conceptual
phase of the study was provisional and fairly general in nature, and as
the final phases of the study were undertaken, it became clear that
refinements in some of the original definitions as well as additional
terms and definitions were needed.

A complete glossary of these terms and definitions is provided in
Appendix A However, there are three terms -- "tourism," "travel,"
and "recreation" -- which are so central to this study and so frequently
misused or misunderstood that it is important to make explicit at
the -it et the use and meaning of these terms in this report. These
three terms have been defined as follows:

"Travel" the action and activities of people taking trips
to a place or places outside of their home communities for
any purpose except daily commuting to and from work;

"Tourism" synomymous with "travel";

"Recreation" the action and activities of people engaging in
constructive and personally pleasurable use of leisure time.
Recreation may include passive or active participation in
individual or group sports, cultural functions, natural
and human history appreciation, non-formal education, pleasure
travel, sightseeing, and entertainment.

The definitions of tourism, travel, and recreation adopted for this
report have been made deliberately broad in scope to reflect the broad
and varied nature of the interests, activities, and organizations which
the NTPS has encompassed. Controversy and confusion over the meaning
and application of the terms tourism and travel has primarily been the
result of two types of problems: (1) problems in agreeing on explicit
common definitions for the terms and (2) controversy over the emotional
or connotative meanings attributed to the terms when used to refer to
real-world activities and organizations.



1See A Conceptual Basis for the National Tourism Policy Study, Committee
Print, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, October, 1976., Appendix A,
"Defining Tourism for this Study."

































25-226*0 78 2





6



A. Definitional Problems with "Tourism" and "Travel"

Much of the difficulty surrounding definitional problems with tourism
and travel has been due to the need to establish narrow "operational'
or functional definitions for tourism and/or travel to suit particular
needs of researchers, business people, or government officials. Most
of these operational definitions have been useful and meaningful for
the purposes of those constructing them, but limited or unacceptable
and incomparable with the definitions established by others.

The research community, which is responsible for quantifying or measuring
the magnitude and characteristics of travel, is most insistent in its
demand for neat, structured operationaldefinitions. Likewise, those
who are promoting travel and tourism as an economic activity, who perceive
their future to be predicated upon its growth, and who require periodic
measures of its magnitude and growth, argue for common terminology and
rigid definitions. However, these very people lack concensus on what
these definitions should be.

In one of the earliest efforts to operationalize a definition of a
"tourist", L.J. Crampon listed criteria which could be used to categorize
various types of travelers. Among the criteria were a person's residence,
destination, distance from home, time away from home, mode of transpor-
tation, and purpose of trip. He recognized that by various arrangements
of the criterion, ". . we can develop at least 550 different definitions
for travelers. And knowing the ingenuity of researchers, I am certain
that they soon will come up with more!"l

In another effort to determine preferences for travel definitions and
terminology, the U.S. Travel Service asked tourism representatives
from 56 States and territories and 130 U.S. cities (State and city
travel offices, visitor and convention bureaus, chambers of commerce)
to select one of five specified definitions which could best describe the
phenomenon or activity with which they were most concerned in their
programs.2 Among the nearly 70% who responded, no clear favorite
emerged. In fact, nearly one-fifth of the group was unsatisfied with
all five specified definitions and offered one of their own. It is
interesting to note that the people who desire a clear-cut operational
definition of travel are frequently the same people who argue that travel
is so broad that it encompasses all facets of our lives and touches
practically everything we do.



lSee Crampon, L.J., 1959. "What is a tourist?" in Tourist Development
Notes, Bureau of Business Research, University of Colorado, Boulder.

2See U.S. Department of Commerce. 1977. Analysis of Travel Definitions,
Terminology, and Research Needs Among States and Cities. U.S. Travel
Service, Research and Analysis Division, p. 9.










Underlying most of the conflicting operational definitions which have
been developed has been a common conceptual definition of travel or
tourism as the action of people traveling away from their home community.
Problems with operationalizing this conceptual definition have for the
most part centered on an inability to determine what exactly constitutes
"outside of the home community."

While some researchers have argued that travelers are capable of recognizing
when they are outside of their home community and thus can report when
they are engaged in travel, others suggest that a time and/or distance
away from home must be established as a common threshold which people
must cross before being considered as engaging in travel. In the case
of a time threshold, it is argued that people are not traveling until
they have been away from home at least one night on a trip. In the case
of a distance threshold, although some disagreement exists on the dis-
tance, it is generally held that people are not traveling until they are
50 or 100 miles or more from home.

Because each of these operational definitions has its weaknesses, as
well as its proponents and detractors, we have chosen to select for
the NTPS the broadest possible conceptual definition for tourism or
travel, specilying no time or distance limitation: that is, people
journeying outside of their home communities for any purpose except
daily commuting to and from work.

The NTPS study team believes that the travel industry would profit by
formally adopting the broad conceptual definition reconmended in this
report, thus avoiding the application of arbitrary qualifications or
limitations, such as distance or time thresholds, which may eliminate
consideration of significant amounts of out-cf-community travel. How-
ever, we recognize that people travel from place to place of various
distances from their homes for differing amounts of time and differing
purposes. In so doing, these pecple exhibit different characteristics,
needs, and impacts which are of varying concern to those who may be
attracting, servicing, managing and/or accommodating them. These
differences contribute to the emergence of relatively narrow subsets
of the traveler population to which marketing, programs, services, and
research are directed.

Consequently, the travel industry, in general, and the travel research
community, in particular, must develop explicit operational definitions
that concentrate on that portion of travel with which they may be con-
cerned at any given time. These narrow definitions allow researchers
to develop information, particularly statistical data for many different
types of travel activities and travelers.

Figure 1 represents an example of how travel might be segmented into
subsets of travelers as a function of distance traveled, origin, mode
of transportation, and length of stay away from home. Some categories
could be deleted or expanded and others added. However, it appears
reasonable that all activity outside of the home community, except






8



Figure 1. DIAGRAMMATIC PRESENTATION OF TRAVEL






Non-Mobile 1
Mobile Home
Communuit'




Daily commuting
to and from
work
TRAVELER




Distance Traveled
(<50 50-10 0 i00 I(One-way, miles)





Length of Stay
Less than One night
one Night or mort

Travel


State of Origin
Resident Nonresident






Purpose
Pleasure Business Convention Personal of trip





Mode of
Auto Bus Train Air Other Transport
_______ _______ ,______ ______ ________ _ _-i










daily commuting to and from work, regardless of distance traveled,
destination, origin, mode of transportation, purpose, etc., should be
understood to represent all travel.

If only particular subsets are of interest, they should be explicitly
articulated. In no way should it be implied that the limited portion
under consideration represents all travel. Likewise, it seems unwise
to allow present-day research and methodological inadequacies, operational
conveniences, program specificity, or any other factor, to limit the
nature and magnitude of the total travel industry.1

B. Choice of Terminology: Images and Attitudes Associated with
"Tourism," "Travel," and "Recreation"

Closely associated with problems of denotative definition in the tourism
or travel field are problems of terminological use and connotative meaning.
Different people frequently have different emotional reactions to particular
words or terms and associate different images and values with those terms.

In the National Tourism Policy Study, we use the terms "tourism" and
"travel" interchangeably. However, there is little concensus among
government officials or the private sector as to which term is the best



1For discussion of other approaches to the definitional Oroblem, see:

Cook, Suzanne D. 1975. A Survey of Definitions in U.S. Domestic Tourism
Studies. U.S. Travel Data Center, Washington, D.C. 20 p.

Frechtling, Douglas C. 1976. "Proposed Standard Definitions and Classifi-
cations for Travel Research,"in Proceedings, The Travel Research
Association Annual Conference, Boca Raton, Florida.

International Union of Travel Organizations (World Tourism Organization)
1974. General Programs of Work for the Period 1974-75 Domestic Tourism.
Geneva. 46 p. (the name of IUOTO has been changed to World Tourism Organ-
ization and its headquarters has been moved to Madrid, Spain.)

National Tourism Resources Review Commission 1973. Destination USA -
Domestic Tourism. Volume 2, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 124 p.

U.S. Senate, 1976. A Conceptual Basis for the National Tourism Policy Study.
Committee on Commerce (Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation).
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 70 p.






10



single descriptor of activities related to people who have journeyed
away from home.1 We suspect that part of this problem lies in the
different connotative meanings attached to tourism and travel.

Both tourism and travel may connote a number of different things to
different people, including pleasure versus business, sightseeing,
adventure, economic opportunity, leisure, change, relaxation, education
and expansion of horizons, as well as congestion, exploitation, energy
consumption, pollution, litter, high prices, and over-development.
Tourism, in particular, however, tends to have polarized connotations
for many, among both the general public and government officials.

A classic example deals with the terms used to denote persons who travel.
While words like "traveler," "visitor," "passenger," and "guest" may
connote indifferent, acceptable or positive meanings, the term "tourist"
often connotes a rude, humorously dressed, misbehaving, unsophisticated
oaf tangled in the straps of a camera. While most people who are traveling
to places outside of their own home environments willingly label themselves
as travelers, guests, or visitors, they seldom call themselves "tourists,"
reserving the term for other people.



lIn the U.S. Travel Service analysis of travel definitions and terminology
cited earlier, preferences for terminology to label definitions were solicited.
When asked what the definitions should be named, the majority of state
respondents (68%) recommended Travel or some phrase incorporating the
word travel. City respondents were less agreed upon their choice of
terminology and split between travel (42%) and tourism (38%). When the
two groups were combined, "travel" was chosen by a slim majority (51%) to
be the preferred name for the activity with which they are most concerned
in their programs. Department of Commerce. 1977. Analysis of Travel
Definitions, Terminology and Research Needs Among States and Cities.
U.S. Travel Service, Research and Analysis Division, 9 p.

In the conceptual basis report for the National Tourism Policy Study, it
was recognized that, "In current usage, for the most part, different terminologies
often refer to the same broad activity. For example, the Assistant Secretary
for Tourism in the Department of Commerce is responsible for the UST (Travel)S.
Of 49 State agencies, 23 include in their titles the designation tourism, 17
use travel and two use both, and seven do not use either.

The broad use of travel is observed further in terms such as travel agent
and the National Travel Survey, and in such organizations as the Discover
America Travel Association (sic), the Travel Data Center, the Travel Research
Association, a number of travel councils, and the earlier Industry-Government
Special Task Force on Travel.

Additional examples of the broad use of tourism are seen in the Subcommittee
of Foreign Commerce and Tourism, the National Tourism Resources Review
Commission, the Commission's own definition of tourist, and the designation
of this study." U.S. Senate. 1976. A Conceptual Basis for the National Tourism
Policy Study, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 70 p.






11



Because of negative connotative associations with the-words tourism and/or
travel, many of the participants in the NTPS tended to exclude their
activities or responsibilities from the tourism and travel field. Many
of the Federal Government officials interviewed as part of the study
expressed the most narrow and negative attitudes towards tourism. Consequently,
their perception and expression of the priority assigned to "tourism" in
their programs was low or nonexistent, while in reality, their programs
have great impact on tourism and may be contributing significantly to
its growth and development.

One of the former leaders of the National Park Service (NPS) was particularly
negative toward tourism, perceiving little or no role for the NPS, arguing
that where tourism is concerned, the "public has been ripped off" in
the past. Yet, the National Park Service must be considered one of the
greatest suppliers of tourist opportunities and benefits in the United
States.

Similarly, a former top leader in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the
agency charged with planning for and financing much of the recreation
opportunity in the United States, said, "I can't visualize any interaction"
with tourism in the Bureau's past activities and stated emphatically that
it is not part of the Bureau's mandate. This was said in spite of the fact that
the vast majority of outdoor recreation areas are utilized almost entirely
by "tourists" traveling out of their home communities to use such public
recreation areas and facilities.

In a hearing before the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the U.S.
Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senator Harrison A. Williams
(N.J.) stated: "Today, seven of every ten Americans live in relatively few
large metropolitan areas on 1.5 percent of our Nation's land area, while
only 3 percent of our public recreation lands are within 1 hour's driving
time from the center of the major metropolitan areas." From this statement
it is clear that the remaining 97 percent of our public recreation lands are
utilized almost entirely by tourists in the sense that nearly all of the persons
utilizing these recreational lands must travel from their homes to do so.
Therefore, it is clear that most of the recreational opportunities provided
by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, serve a significant segment of the domestic tourism market.

From the outset of the study, there has existed, as a given, that there are
close ties between tourism and recreation. A tourist is an individual who
travels outside of the home community. However, when the traveler pauses in
the course of a trip or arrives at the intended destination, that individual
may be engaged in an activity or variety of activities which are, in most cases,
at least partially leisure activities (i.e., activities not related to
employment).

While these activities are all social activities in some respect, they
are increasingly recreational in character, including such things as skiing,
boating, hiking, fishing, tennis, etc. These activities can be, in part or








12



in total, educational, including sightseeing (geography, natural surroundings,
etc.), learning experiences (museums, historic sites and buildings, geological
formations, natural phenomenon, etc.), cultural and lifestyle experiences
(concerts, theater, dining, observing other peoples engaged in a different
lifestyle than the visitor, etc.), and sharing experiences (meetings, conventions,
etc., to share business and non-business interests with diverse participants).

The tourist is still a tourist, even though that individual is engaged in the
same activities at a given destination, as others that live within the community.
For a very laroe number of recreational activities, there is therefore very
little justification for the frequently made distinction between home
community recreationists, on the one hand, and travelers who engage in
recreation on the other.

Unfortunately, while semantic usage may reinforce negative images or attitudes,
many of the semantic problems associated with tourism and travel are symptomatic
of more deep-seated causes. Some of these causes may be the overt actions
of people who travel and those who service them, while other causes may simply
be conflicts in values. Although the benefits of travel are vast and varied,
including personal, social, economical, educational and cultural benefits,
travel is also costly. Often these costs are social and environmental.
Depending on one's role in travel and tourism, it is easy to lose sight
of either the costs or the benefits.

Although it would be simplistic to believe that benefits of travel only
accrue to the buyer and seller of travel, it would be equally naive to
suggest that the costs are similarly restrictive. Travel and tourism are
complex and all pervasive. They touch and are touched by many facets of
our lives, our society, and our environment.

While many of the inherent conflicts in values or effects of tourism
activities will not disappear, it is also true that the tourism and travel
irdustry has frequently failed to evaluate itself frankly, to understand
and attack some of the more deep-seated problems arising out of tourism
and travel activities, and to build lasting bridges of communication and
cooperation with other interests in the Nation. This has been particularly
the case for tourism and outdoor recreation interests. To the extent that
those in both the public and private sectors of the tourism and travel
industry can successfully address these problems, much of tourism and
travel's attitudinal or image problem may eventually disappear.






















4


















CL'.PTER II

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A NATIONAL TOURISM iOLICY


I. Introduction

In this chapter we first explore the basis and rationale for a Congressionally-
mandated national tourism policy in the nature and character of the current
Federal Government involvement in tourism and travel; the national interests
in tourism, travel, recreation, and national heritage resource preservation;
and the tourism and travel needs of the States and cities as ascertained in
the second phase of the NTPS.

We then describe the goals and objectives of the proposed national tourism
policy, and describe their relationship to the national interests in travel,
recreation, and heritage resource preservation. We also provide a proposed
declaration of national tourism policy.

Finally, we summarize a series of programmatic recommendations for implementing
the proposed tourism policy and meeting the national interests in tourism and
recreation and the tourism and travel needs of States and cities.



II. The Current Federal Involvement in Tourism and Travel


The extent of Federal involvement in tourism-related activities has been
inventoried on a number of occasions over the past eight years. An in-
ventory of Federal tourism programs, undertaken by Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
for the United States Travel Service in 1970, listed 89 programs in 10 executive
departments and 47 programs in 36 independent agencies which made a "contribution
to the development of travel, tourism and recreation in the United States."
The National Tourism Resources Review Commission report published in June
of 1973 described 115 programs in over 50 Federal agencies that "directly
related to tourism-recreation." The first phase of the National Tourism
Policy Study completed in 1976, A Conceptual Basis for the National Tourism
Policy Study, reviewed some 97 programs representative of the Federal
involvement in tourism.

Arthur D. Little, Inc., conducted the second phase (Ascertainment Phase)
of the National Tourism Policy Study on behalf of the U.S. Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The ascertainment of the needs
of the tourism industry identified 31 key Federal agencies involved in
activities that in some way significantly affect the industry.

A. Results of the Federal Program Assessment

For purposes of the final phase of the National Tourism Policy Study,
the study team held over 70 interviews and meetings with Federal officials
in 26 Federal agencies, assessing 35 key programs related to or impacting


(13)





14



on tourism and travel administered by those agencies.

The 35 programs were selected for assessment from the more than 100
tourism and travel-related programs identified in the first phase of
the National Tourism Policy Study, as well as in previous surveys of
the Federal Government's involvement in tourism.

Given time and budgetary constraints, the choice was limited to 35
programs in order to permit more searching and detailed assessment of
programs exemplofying the Federal Government's current involvement in
tourism. Programs were shosen for inclusion on the basis of four
criteria:

programs which serve a relatively large number of travelers
or administer relatively large budgets;

programs which represent the principal or only example of
current Federal involvment in certain kinds of activities
important to tourism;

programs which are closely identified with or impact on leading
issues for the travel industry as ascertained during the second
phase of the NationalTourism Policy Study; and

programs which could provide important future services asso-
ciated with travel to the public and private sectors or to
the general public.

In a few cases, programs which were explicitly criticized during the
ascertainment phase of the Study were not included for assessment.
These programs were excluded only where it was clear that the criticism
was based on a misunderstanding of an agency's mandated role, functions,
or responsibilities in tourism and travel.

Officials to be interviewed were identified with assistance from the
staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Interviews were conducted, for the most part, with the key official
or officials directly involved in administering the particular program
under assessment. In all cases, agency officials or staff were asked
to refer the study team to appropriate officials within the agency. In
the case of the U.S. Travel Service, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
and the National Park Service, interviews were conducted with agency
heads as well as with a number of division or office chiefs within the
agencies. (See Appendix G)

The purpose of the interviews was to assess the level of priority each
agency placed on tourism and travel, to review those programs that
significantly affect the tourism and travel industry, and to determine
what obstacles exist to a more effective Federal response to tourism
adn travel needs in each of these agencies. The interviews were
fairly open in structure, with the interviewing team generally asking





13



officials to describe such matters as the nature and functioning
of their programs (mandate, objectives, implementation procedures,
budget, staffing, etc.), the perceived relationship of their programs
to tourism and travel, the degree of coordination with other agencies
on tourism-related matters, and their response to specific criticisms
made during the ascertainment phase of the Study by State and local
officials or private sector representatives.

The detailed results of those interviews were used as one of the major
bases for developing the proposed national tourism policy and recommended
implementation strategies ciscussed later in this report. Table 1 provides
a comparative summary of some of the of the 26 Federal agencies assessed, and some measure of the degree of
involvement of each of the agencies in tourism and travel matters.1

The comparative assessment in Table 1 is by necessity both subjective
and summary in nature and does not necessarily do justice to the comple:
nature of each of the policies and programs examined in the 26 agencies,
as well as to the attitudes of the officials administering those programs

Because of time and budget constraints, it was impossible to spend more
than a few hours at maximum interviewing officials in a particular agency.
Moreover, the opinions expressed by many of these officials were, for the
most part, of a personal nature and did not necessarily reflect the official
position of the agency involved. In many cases, however, such an approach
was a clear advantage, providing us with frank and open discussion of the
strengths and weaknesses of various programs and identification of program
aspects and official attitudes which merited improvement. In addition,
members of the study team reviewed documented materials on agency policies
and programs from the agencies themselves, from Congressional hearings, and
from other outside sources. The vast majority of Federal officials ex-
pressed a general willingness to cooperate with the study aims. In several
instances, however, the study team found Federal officials to be poorly
informed about tourism and travel activities or needs and, in a few cases,
to be covertly or openly hostile towards proposals for meeting tourism and
travel needs.

1. Perceptions of Federal Agency Involvment in Tourism
and Travel

The first general point emerging from the Federal agency assessments was
the widespread lack of understanding among Federal officials of the degree
of their agencies' current involvement in and/or impacts on tourism and



iIn table 1, only 32 separate programs are identified; air pollution,
water pollution, and environmental impact statement programs of the
Environmental Proteccion Agency have been rated on a joint basis.
Twenty-seven separate "agencies" are listed in the table because the
Wilderness Preservation Program (number 11) is jointly managed by the
National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.











































.111, 0 It. ifn ;., tc tH
AN) AL A t t In I A I 7 AND 1RA t"A r
ADl A-^;v I Art, rr Al0, A n-y
A titn' A' i rt A' tn' A't,"trir A ots) Il A '.r" I'i*'N




















P r t i A0 1eL






art imli i Tr va l rrve rri














lN, Ie kl Se I vie M'si ti sl.. it q e ? Ntot H h I 4h) Y
irt ,ri M-1 t,,' i t li ti M-10









tHtici at Io '/ mtti't ti- !rt yit











Wi'' Con Be i vat Ih u
Nr iulu t Ar /m Pri tm ot i, trt




A1a r ti r irlit, Ita i n t lrv opirwt ra i l d l e iitt i Y N y
i n Wr r iuur rir i tn-v 1 t n nint 1 1







t fI rrk ti '





i I V / 1 (t tr t ii 'niii ii li iii A ir r iti r t i eir'. 11
i tt' nt p. i P. .

it rirurr it lrtr r. tirt ilit i r j'ili 't trl i ir In
Mituryrirtit Al it iiil'ii



























































tJl Isra ,on/
I' .1 'I
i tal A,,, a,















.l,,


4 VMI-A




:IV''IJI I 'l'II,4lII






'II 1t V
























TABLE I
Relationship of Success with which Agency Program Agency Off1icals
Degree of Coordination Program Goals to Meets Ap-roprlate National Interests RecFptlvetinreceptive
with Other Agencies National Interests in Tourism and/or Public and Private Sector to Increased Su(ort for
A r.cyProjram on Tourism Matters In To ism Needs as Defined lc durret t onT TourMisnn Gal'/ 'ctc iv

1i U.S. Travel Service/ Poor Economic Mdcrasely effective Receptive
Domestic and Foreign
Travel 'romotion
2. V., Informat on
'Poor Econrmic ,tder'telv Efctrive Neutral
Aeoncvl ntesrnnt ional
Tlcr i nm I'rmt ian

educart i nal and Py.,r coMicimer f Culturdal ixchanoe

3. TMnitration ano Poor Economic/Consumer odreratsly Effrctive Neutral
Naturalization Service

4. Bureau of Security Poor Economic/Conunrmr a deraelIv I *ti 'i inreerptivci
and Consular Affairs

5. U.S. CuistomN Service Poor Economi /Coansumer rSle ltel Efftective Neutral

6. Bureau of the Cenaus FPar Ecornmic Moderately Efftctive Receptive

7. Federal Energy Poor Economic/Conscier Ineffective Usnreceptive
Administration (Dept. Environment/Resource
of Energy)

8. Bureau of Outdoor Fair Ecoiomi c/Consumer/ Moderately Effective Receptive
Recreation/Nationwide Envirornent/Re ource/
Recreation Plan/Land 6 Government
Water Conservation Fund

9. National Park Service/ Poor Economi c/Consumer/ Mlerraelv Effective Utnreceptive
Operation of the Park Envi ronent/Resource
System
NPS/Natlonal Register Poor Economic/Consumetr/ oderately ffect lve Receptive
of Hiatoric Places Environment/Resource
NPS/Aitminitration Poor Economic Consm0er/ Moderate!y Effr-? ve Recept ive
of Park Concessions Environment/Rsrource

10, U.S. Forest Service/ Poor Economic/Conaner/ Moderately fffective Mixed
Nat. Forest Recreation Fnvironment/Resource
U.S."P.. orest Poor Economic/on nscrer/ Effective Receptive
Service Research Environment/ Ri ource

II. Bureau of Land Poor Economlc /ConnusRer/ Mrodratelv Effective Neutral
Managenint Environment/ResRource













12. Wilderness Preserva- Poor Environment/Resource/ Effective Receptive
tion System Consumer

13. Cooperative State Poor Economic/Environment/ Moeeratelv Effective ieseptive
Research Service Resource

14. Army Corps of Poor Economic/Consumer/ Moderately Effective Neutral
Engineers Environment/Resource

15. Small Business Poor Economic Moderately Effective Receptive
Administration

Ib, Economic Development Poor Economic Ineffective Unreceptive
Administration

17. Dept. of Housing and coor Economic/Consumer Moderately Effective Neutral
Urban Development/Comnunity
Development Assistance

18. Extension Service Poor Economic/Consumer/ Moderately Effectlve Receptive
Envi ronment/Resource

19. Environmental Pro- poor Economic/Consumer/ Moderately Effective Receptive
tection Agency Environment/Resource

20. Occupational Safety poor Economic Ineffective Unreceptive
and Health Administration

21, Federal Highway Poor Economic/Consumer Moderately effective Neutral
Administration/Paderal Aid
Highway Program
PHA/Highway Beautifica- Poor Consumer Moderately effective Receptive
tion Program

22. Federal Aviation Poor Economic/Consumer Moderately Effective Neutral
Administrat ion/Airport
Planning

23. Civil Aeronautics Poor Economic/Consumer Moderately ffecti've Receptive
Board

24. AMTRAK Poor Economic/Consumer Ineffective Receptive

25. Intersal Revenue Poor Economic Ineffective Unreceptive
Service

26. Federal Trade Commission Poor Economic/Consumer Moderately Effective Neutral

27. Interstate Commerce Poor Economic/Consumer Moderately Effective Neutral
Commission








20



travel. As shown in Table 1, programs in all 26 agencies were considered
by the study team to have a high degree of involvement in and/or impacts on
tourism and travel. However, officials in only four agencies administering
five of the assessed programs considered that they had a high degree of
impact on the travel industry. These four included the U.S. Travel Service
(USTS), the Bureau of the Census, (National Travel Survey), the Federal
Highway Administration (Highway Beautification Program), and AMTRAK.

On the other hand, the officials of fourteen agencies considered that
programs in their agencies had a low degree of involvement or impacts
on tourism and travel activities. These included touripm-related
programs such as the National Park Service (agency leadership), the
Civil Aeronautics Board, the U.S. Army Corpos of Engineers, the Federal
Energy Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service.


A s'milar difficulty in understanding arose with respect to the actual
priority (vs. the pricrit- perceived by agency officials) which the 26
agencies were assigning to tourism and travel in their programs. The NTPS
team concluded that six agencies administering 11 proarams had assigned
an actual high priority to tourism and travel within their proarams. These
agencies were USTS, the National Park Service 'NPS), the U.S. Forest Service,
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration (Highway
Beautification), and AMTRAK. The study team based this conclusion on the
fact that, although nominally the agencies had not assigned a high priority
to tourism, they had assigned a high priority to certain programs which did
have significant involvement in and/or impacts on tourism and travel.

Of these six agencies, officials in only three -- USTS, AMTRAK, and the
Federal Highway Administration -- agreed with the study team's assessment.
Officials from the other three'agencies perceived that their agencies'
priority for tourism and travel was low. In eighteen other agencies
administering a total of 19 programs, there was no perceptual problem.
Both the study team and aaency officials agreed that tourism and travel
received low priority within the agencies.

The study team concluded that 22 agencies administering a total of 26
programs had a program mandate which included or supported tourism-related
goals and needs. Out of those 22 agencies, officials from eleven felt
that their program mandates did not include or support tourism-related
goals. The agencies with which these officials were associated included
the Federal Energy AdministrationA the Economic Development Administration,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Civil
Aeronautics Board,and the Internal Revenue Service.



1At the time of the Federal agency interviews, the new Department of
Energy had not been operationalized.








21



There appeared to be one basic reason for this disparity between the study
team's perceptions of the agencies' involvement in tourism and prioritizing
of travel and the perceptions of the agency officials themselves. Agency
officials tended to narrowly define "tourism" or "travel" to the most
visibly (and frequently the most blatantly) commercial sectors of the
tourism industry. Given this definition, many officials were mystified
as to why they were being interviewed on the subject of tourism or rather
quickly revealed some distaste for the frivolous and unprofessional nature
of the industry and its participants. In other words, these Federal
officials failed to take tourism seriously.
2. Degree of Coordination

For the most part, the study team found that Federal interagency
coordination on tourism and travel issues was poor to nonexistent.
Twenty-four agencies administering a total of twenty-nine programs
were considered to have poor coordination with other agencies.

Coordination by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation -- officially charged with
coordinating Federal Government activities in outdoor recreation -- was
considered only fair by the study team; this view was generally supported
by BOR officials themselves. The only other agency considered by the
study team to have fair coordination linkages on tourism was the Bureau
of the Census (National Travel Survey). None of the agencies assessed
had good or excellent interagency coordination linkages.

Officials almost unanimously reported little or no coordination of program
activities and policies with the U.S. Travel Service. In several cases,
officials of other agencies either were uncamiliar with the name and functions
of USTS or were totally unaware of the agency's existence.

For the most part, coordination where it did exist, was undertaken through
informal channels at the urging of individual officials with a particular
interest or concern for tourism and recreation-related matters. Coordination
was problem-specific and sporadic and did not deal with overall issues
or policy matters. Officials generally received little or no official
agency support or encouragement for coordination efforts undertaken.

The degree of coordination at the State and local levels between Federal
agencies and public and private sector officials in tourism and recreation
varied widely among agencies. However, coordination with State travel
directors and others directly involved in tourism at the State and local
levels was generally minimal. The agencies concerned with recreational
development -- NPS, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Forest
Service, and the Corps of Engineers -- for the most part reported minimal
coordination with the tourism industry at the State and local level.

3. Relationships of Federal Programs with the National
Interests in Tourism and Travel

The goals of 29 programs in 26 agencies were considered by the study team
to have some relationship with economic-related national interests in
tourism and travel. The goals of 23 programs in 20 agencies were con-
sidered by the team to have some relationship with consumer-related
national interests in tourism and travel. Thirteen programs in ten
agencies were considered to have some relationship with natural resource
or with environment-related national interests in tourism and travel.















25-226 0- 78-3








22



Agencies which were considered to have program goals related to all four
national interest areas included: the Federal Energy Administration, the
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Department of Agriculture's Extension Service, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Interestingly, officials of all of these agencies
considered their programs to have only low or moderate involvement or
impacts in tourism and to have a low or moderate priority assigned to
tourism within the agency.

The study team concluded that fP'r, programs in five agencies were generally
ineffective in meeting appropriate national interests in tourism or the
tourism needs of the public and private sectors as defined by the current
mandate or mission of the agency. These agencies were the Federal
Energy Administration, the Economic Development Administration, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Internal Revenue
Service, and AMTRAK. In the case of the first four, the principal
reason for the ineffectiveness lay in official ignorance of and lack
of commitment to tourism-related issues and problems. In AMTRAK's case,
the primary source of ineffectiveness lay in insufficient budgetary and
staff resources.

Twenty-four programs in 21 agencies were considered by the study team to
be moderately effective in meeting appropriate national interests in
tourism or the needs of the public and private sectors. Frequently,
these agencies were failing to meet tourism needs of the public and
private sectors which would be, in theory, appropriate for them to address,
but this failure was due at least in part, to a lack of mandate rather
than to ineffective policy or program implementation per se.

Constraints which kept these programs from operating at full effectiveness
with respect to meeting the national interests in tourism and the needs
of the States and cities included budgetary and staff constraints, official
negative bias towards tourism and travel, narrow interpretation of the
agency's Congressional mandate to exclude tourism-related objectives,
poor design of programs and inefficient implementation of programs.

Three programs in three agencies were considered by the NTPS team to
be effective in meeting appropriate national interests in tourism or
the tourism needs of the States and cities. These were the Educational
and Cultural Exchange Program of the U.S. Information Agency and the
Department of State; the U.S. Forest Service Research Program, and the
Wilderness Preservation System.

The study team found general support among the agencies for increasing
their commitment to tourism and travel. Officials administering 14
programs in 13 agencies were generally receptive to providing increased
support for tourism-related goals and objectives if they were given
sufficient Congressional backing and, in some cases, necessary staff
and funding. Officials administering 11 programs in 10 agencies were








23



generally neutral about providing increased support for tourism-related
goals and objectives. Officials in six agencies appeared generally un-
receptive about providing additional support for tourism goals and objectives.
These agencies were the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs within the
Department of State, the Federal Energy Administration, the National Park
Service (overall operation of the Park System), the Economic Development
Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and
the Internal Revenue Service.

4. Key Problems of the Current Federal Involvement in Tourism
and the Role of the U.S. Travel Service

All of the organizations that have reviewed the extensive Federal involve-
ment in tourism agree that Federal efforts are inefficient, duplicative,
o'erlapping, lacking in cohesion, and, in general, demonstrate a lack of
awareness of the social and economic importance of tourism. To date, no
legislation has been enacted which provides tourism and tourism-related
programs with policy guidance regarding the national interests in tourism
or which provides mechanisms for resolving conflicts among various interests.

Given the extensive Federal involvement in tourism and recreation, two things
are clear. First, there are too many Federal agencies involved in some way
with tourism to effectively consolidate these agencies into a single Federal
entity. Second, the number one problem obstructing a cohesive Federal
involvement in toursim is the lack of effective coordinating mechanisms.

It was initially assumed by the study team that the USTS could be modified
to provide a new tourism policy emphasis and implement needed new programs.
It was with this assumption in mind that the study team interviewed the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tourism, the Deputy Assistant Secretary
(both new to USTS at the time of the interviews), and each USTS office head
within the headquarters structure. In addition, three of the six USTS over-
seas regional office directors and the head of the International Congress
Office in Paris were interviewed. The study also reviewed existing program
documentation, legislation, legislative history, and Congressional hearing
records. The problems related to building a more effective Federal role in
tourism around USTS are numerous and sufficient to encourage efforts to find
a new vehicle for Federal tourism policy implementation.

Historically the Secretaries of Commerce, given a rather narrow but specific
tourism mandate by the Congress, have failed to demonstrate any significant
support for tourism interests. This was also true of the Secretaries of the
Interior when tourism functions were assigned to the Department of the
Interior. While there are circumstances which may have justified to some
extent the neglect of tourism by department heads with varied responsibilities,
the Congress should consider very carefully these past failures when con-
sidering future alternatives. Tourism, when placed in competition with more
"burning issues," has fared poorly in existing departments and the evidence
suggests that, regardless of the extent of the new Congressional mandate,
tourism is likely to continue to receive little attention within existing
Federal departments.








24



Issues of departmental level support for tourism aside, the U.S. Travel
Service as presently constituted is not an effective instrument for Federal
tourism policy implementation. In the area of research, USTS has devoted only
a modest portion of its budget to research activities. Statistical data
collection, relying to a large extent on resources external to USTS, has been
a continuing concern of USTS in the past. However, the tourism industry expects
a good deal more data and research from the agency than its limited budget
will permit. The USTS legislative mandate does not encourage research as
a principal function of the agency, and USTS has appropriately constrained
the extent of its research efforts. It is not clear to what extent USTS
has recognized the more extensive and legitimate research needs of the industry
or communicated these needs to the Congress.

Planning activities within USTS are currently nonexistent. The Congress
has not as yet recognized this need even though the need for planning is
wisely espoused by the tourism industry, and most major U.S. competitors in
the area of tourism have major planning programs within their respective
national tourism organizations.

USTS has also been absent from the area of tourism development because of the
restrictive legislative mandate under which it operates. Most other Western
nations provide grants, loans, and/or loan guarantees for tourism development
activities. The Small Business Administration and the Economic Development
Administration can provide tourism development assistance as can a number of
other Federal agencies. If these agencies had a greater appreciation of the
potential of tourism projects as a means of local and regional economic
development and job generation, their programs would probably be adequate
to meet the needs of the tourism industry in this area. USTS has not been
an effective advocate for tourism interests with these agencies nor has it
created any effective communications linkages with these or other development
agencies.

Promotion has been the overwhelming interest of the U.S. Travel Service, con-
sistent with its current legislative mandate. The program focus of USTS
until recently has been international travel promotion. The agency has been
relatively successful at promoting travel to the U.S., given its budget con-
straints. However, USTS has failed to produce the intended purpose of
Federal intervention in foreign travel promotion. Chronic deficits in the
travel account of the U.S. international balance of payments were the primary
stimulus to the International Travel Act of 1961, which created the U.S.
Travel Service. The U.S. is still 20% short of sufficient foreign arrivals
and 25% short of foreign expenditures to balance its travel account. This
is in large measure attributable to inadequate Congressional funding for
international travel promotion. The United Kingdom, for instance, spends 7.3
times as much as the U.S. to support its national tourist organization on
a per capita basis and Ireland spends 120 times as much. The average per
capita expenditures on international promotion, based on eight foreign gov-
ernments surveyed by Arthur D. Little, Inc.,1 was $0.54; the U.S. spent $0.03
per capita on international promotion or 18 times less than average.


iCanada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Spain, Hong Kong, and Japan.








25



USTS has been hampered by its small staff as well as its small budget.
The agency, with a staff of 120-130, is far below the 320 average staff
size of the eight foreign government tourism organizations surveyed by the
study team. Its staff is 20% smaller than that of the Colony of Hong Kong
and considerably smaller than the United Kingdom with more than 700 staff
members.

The small size of USTS has probably limited its ability to coordinate
its activities with other Federal agencies. Notwithstanding staff limitations,
USTS has not been particularly aggressive in the past in initiating coordination
efforts. This is in part due also to a relatively narrow perception on the
part of past USTS leadership as to the role of the agency in the Federal arena.

However, USTS is not alone in its failure in the area of coordination. The
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, which has broad responsibilities for inter-
agency coordination, has been equally unsuccessful in achieving significant
results through coordination. In addition, the Office of Facilitation in
the Department of Transportation has specific, if narrow coordination
responsibilities that have produced little in the way of results, at least
in the area of foreign visitor facilitation coordination.

These agencies are only examples of the broad problem of interagency
coordination. The study team found little commitment anywhere in the
Federal Government to effective coordination and no examples of successful
interagency coordination. The President's Reorganization Project staff has
recognized this pervasive problem of the Federal Government and the need
to remedy the situation. The issue of coordination is discussed elsewhere
in this report, and the study team has made recommendations that speak to this
particular problem.

Recognizing the limitations that the Congress has placed on the U.S. Travel
Service, both in terms of mandate and budget, there remains problems not
attributable to these factors.

The U.S. Travel Service is currently structured along lines similar to other
larger agencies. Its small size would suggest the need for a more utilitarian
organizational arrangement. This organizational inappropriateness may in
part account for the disapproportionate amount of agency resources devoted
to administration. It appears from the information provided to the study
team, that 27% of the USTS staff is at a level of GS-14 or higher. The
Department of Commerce overall has 15% of its staff graded GS-14 or higher.
Comparable figures for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the Department of the Interior are 12% and 6% respectively. It has been
suggested by some members of the tourism industry that the U.S. Travel
Service has been used as a "political dumping ground" by previous administrations,
which, if true, could also account for the apparent top heavy character of the
agency. The USTS Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 1978 Congressional Budget
indicates that over 20% of the agency's staff resources provide "executive
direction." This, when combined with clerical level staff (36%), leaves
about 44% of a very small staff to implement programs and provide direct
services. Our analysis of organizational options described later in this







26



report suggests that an effective agency organization requires approximately
20% of the staff to be GS-14 levels or higher (compared to 27% currently)
for a small agency (Option B) and 11% for a larger agency (Option A).

It is possible that individuals within the USTS have been given titles
that suggest management responsibilities in excess of those actually assigned.
"Puffing" job descriptions is a practice that occurs to some extent in many
Federal agencies and may just be more noticeable in a small agency like the
U.S. Travel Service. It should be pointed out that the study team was not
looking for nor did it discover any information that indicates that any specific
individual has been overgraded or is holding a position as the result of
political manipulations. The principal concern here is not the titles or
the salary level of the staff, but the effectiveness of the agency and the
extent to which grade level and organizational arrangement manipulations are
destructive to productive activities. Past USTS management has been
responsible for the organization of the agency, within budgetary limitations,
and should have recognized the handicaps inherent in historic staffing patterns.

There was, at the time of the interviews, other widespread evidence that
management direction was weak in a number of areas and had been for some
time. This lack of effective management was exemplified by a general lack
of program priorities, a pervasive absence of program focus, and an excess
of trial and error program implementation. The study team found a number
of programs of significant merit mixed with a number of others with little
apparent potential or significance. The broad range of numerous small
programs was accompanied by a general lack of staff ability to distinguish
between worthwhile programs and insignificant programs. This situation
appears to be one that has existed for some time and the Secretaries of
Commerce and the Congress must each accept a share of the blame for allowing
this situation to continue.

It should be pointed out that the USTS overseas operations appear to be much
better focused and managed than the U.S. operations. In fact, it was the
relative strength of the three overseas operations that the study team
examined that encouraged us to extend our efforts to develop a new Federal
tourism effort built around the USTS. Ultimately, however, the study team
rejected this alternative. Although there appears to be a good deal of
dedication on the part of the new Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant
Secretary to correcting the problems of the U.S. Travel Service, the study
team felt that it had little justification to recommend to the Congress
a continued reliance on the USTS as the principal instrument of Federal
tourism policy. With the exception of the USTS international offices, program
modifications, organizational realignment, and change in management and
operating style needed would suggest an agency very different in character
than the U.S. Travel Service. To the extent that the study team felt that
the USTS could continue to serve as a vehicle of Federal policy, it has
recommended as one alternative an essentially new agency structured
within the shell of the U.S. Travel Service.

In summary, the U.S. Travel Service lacks the respect of the travel industry,
and dissatisfaction with the Federal tourism efforts, as represented by the







27



U.S. Travel Service, is widespread within the industry. The principal
Federal tourism agency should function in support of private sector
organizations if it is to be effective and provide leadership to all
individuals and organizations interested in tourism. The failure of the
U.S. Travel Service to do either effectively in the past, severely limits
its ability to be creditable in these roles in the future. An increase
in the size of the principal Federal tourism agency and eventually its budget
are essential to achieve measurable improvements in effectiveness over
past Federal efforts. Existing USTS staff cannot be expected to function
any better in the future than it has in the past without the infusion of
new management capable of developing procedures that establish clear
priorities, coherent programs, and effective control on performance.
Congress must broaden its mandate to the principal Federal tourism agency
to allow it to function appropriately, tighten its oversight to assure that
it functions effectively, and intervene quickly and surely if it does not.


III. The Proposed National Tourism (and Recreation) Policy

A. Broad National Interests, Current Public Policy Principles
and the National Interests in Travel and Recreation

1. The Need for a National Travel and Recreation Policy

The study team concluded early in the study process that the proposed
national tourism policy to be successful, must be reflective of and
responsive to:

broad national interests of a general nature;

public policy principles currently governing legislative
and administrative activities of the Federal Government;

6 the specific national interests in tourism and recreation;
and

the travel and recreation needs of the State and local public
sectors, of the private sector, and of consumers.

The study team began the process of policy creation by identifying broad
national interests and current public policy principles from a variety
of sources, including Congressional legislation, Executive policy
statements, program mandates of current Executive Branch programs, and
other statements by Congressional and Executive Branch leadership. As
this process proceeded, however, it became increasingly clear that a
national tourism or travel policy could not successfully be developed
while ignoring the need for a national policy on recreation.





28



The natural ties between travel and recreation (as well as in national
heritage development and preservation) have become increasingly evident
in recent years. Public and private sector activities in these areas
are increasingly widespread, interdependent, and interactive. With
increased mobility, Jncomes, and leisure time, people participating
in recreation activities have increasingly traveled outside of their
home communities to take advantage of such opportunities. At the same
time, recreational attractions and surrounding facilities have increasingly
been designed and operated to cater to recreationists arriving from
outside the community. Moreover, public and private sector interests
in these areas have many of the same underlying needs and face many
of the same basic issues and problems. This similarity in issues and
needs was made clear during the ascertainment phase of the National
Tourism Policy Study. In identifying members of the tourism industry
to participate in the tourism needs assessment, it was obvious that
members of the private sector in many cases were in the business of
serving leisure time needs without distinguishing between tourism and
recreation. This was also true of the public sector participants, a
number of whom represented State entities that include recreation,
tourism, and historic preservation activities in a single agency. In
addition, many of the needs identified by the tourism industry were
recreation needs and many were equally applicable to tourism and
recreation. It was only in the area of promotion needs and travel-
related needs that a clear distinction could be made between tourism
and recreation.


As the study team began to develop goals and objectives for the proposed
national tourism policy, it became obvious that these goals and objectives
could not be achieved to any substantial degree if national policy develop-
ment for both travel and recreation did not formally mirror the natural
and inextricable ties between travel and recreational activities within
the Nation. Without a consolidated Federal approach to meeting the needs
of public and private sector interests in these fields, it would be im-
possible to maximize the effectivensss, imaginativeness, and flexibility
of Federal involvement and to minimize interagency duplication and conflict -
the key goals of the National Tourism Policy Study.

In addition, a consolidated Federal policy on tourism and recreation would
serve to stimulate development of a broader and deeper understanding of
the interlinkages between travel, recreation, and national heritage
activities at the State and local levels and would likely lead to increased
coordination at the State and local levels between tourism and recreation
interests. Such mutual understanding and coordination could go a long
way towards reducing the parochialism to certain sectors of the tourism
and recreation industries.

As a result, in spite of the fact that the study team's principal mandate
was to develop a proposed "national tourism policy" for the United States,
we concluded that such a national tourism policy could be most effectively
created by broadening the proposed policy to indlude recreation interests,
thus in essence creatinq a proposed national travel and recreation policy.







29



While the study team did not devote the same degree of effort towards
specific examination of recreational needs of the States and cities
and recreational activities of Federal Government as it did to travel
needs and Federal travel activities, there was much overlap during both
the ascertainment phase (as noted above) and during the assessment of
Federal programs. We believe that the current needs assessment activities
of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in preparation for the 1978 Nationwide
Outdoor Recreation Plan (as well as other ongoing needs assessment studies
beina conducted by BOR) would provide most of the additional irut
required for effectively meeting the recreation as well as tourism needs
of States and cities, the private sector, and consumers under an umbrella
national travel and recreation policy. While we have continued to refer
frequently in this report to the proposed "national tourism policy,"
we mean by that a proposed national tourism and recreation policy.


2. Brcad National Interests and Current Public Policy Principles

The study team identified four principal categories of broad, underlying
national interests to which a tourism and recreation policy would have
to be responsive: (1) economic national interests; (2) national interests
associated with the individual well-being of the population; (3) national
interests associated with natural resources and the environment; and (4)
national interests associated with governing the Nation.

The study team also identified a series of public policy principles which
represented the apparent "guidelines" on which Federal Government leaders
have been able to achieve a consensus for guiding Federal legislative and
administrative activities. The study team felt strongly that the improved
standing for tourism and recreation arising out of a national travel and
recreation policy would be accompanied by increased expectations from the
public and the Federal Government with respect to the activities of the
tourism and recreation industries. The tourism industry will be expected
to accept the dominant social values of the people of the United States
and to contribute significantly to the quality of life towards which our
citizens are moving.

The tourism industry, perhaps unfairly, has been characterized in the past,
as frivolous, patrician, consumption oriented, anti-culture, and environmentally
insensitive. To the extent that any of these characterizations are true,
the industry will have to change and to the extent that they are mistaken
impressions, the industry will have to change its image.

The official status for the industry that the new national policy implies
will necessitate industry behavior that supports other non-tourism
public policy principles. The objectives of the new national policy
presupposes that the industry will respond positively to Federal tourism/
recreation initiatives that fully support other national public policy
principles or as a minimum, will not work against those principles.








30



The guiding principles of national public policy, as identified by the
study team, include:

energy conservation;

full employment;

economic growth with minimum inflation;

improved operation of the Federal government;

environmental protection;

judicious use of natural resources;

urban revitalization;

preservation of national heritage resources;

consumer protection;

equal opportunities for disadvantaged segments of the population;

improved physical and mental health;

reduced internaticnal trade deficits;

equitable -axation;

economic viability of U.S. small businesses;

minimum regulation of private industry;

improved international goodwill; and

balanced national transportation system.

B. The National Interests in Tourism and Recreation and the Goals
of the National Tourism Policy

Based on the identified broad national interests and public policy principles,
the study team proceeded to identify the national interests in tourism and
recreation, using as a guide the tentative identification of national
interests in tourism developed during the first phase of the National
Tourism Policy Study.1 These national interests in tourism and recreation
then served as the basis for formulation of the principal goals of the
national tourism policy.




1See A Conceptual Basis for the National Tourism Policy Study, Committee
Print, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, October, 1976..








:31



The goals of the proposed national tourism and recreation policy and their
relationship to the underlying national interests, current public policy
principles, and the national interests in tourism and recreation are
summarized in Table 2.

Seven principal goals were formulated for the national tourism policy.
These goals fall into four categories aligned with the categories
developed for the broad, underlying national interests -- economic,
consumer (or individual well-being), natural resources and the environment
and government operations. The seven national tourism policy goals
are as follows:

Economic Goals

Optimize the Contribution of the Tourism and Recreation
Industries to Economic Prosperity, Full Employment,
Regional Economic Development, and Improved International
Balance of Payments;

Consumer Goals

S Make the Opportunity for, and the Benefits of Travel
and Recreation Universally Accessible to Residents
of the U.S. and Foreign Countries;

S Contribute to the Personal Growth and Education of the
'Population, and Encourage their Appreciation of the
Geography, History, and Ethnic Diversity of the Nation
Through Tourism and Recreation;


Encourage the Free and Welcome Entry of Foreigners
Traveling to the U.S. While Balancing this Goal
with the 'need to Monitor Persons and Goods Entering
the Country, and with Laws Protecting Public Health;


National Resource/Environmental Goals

Protect and Preserve the Historical and Cultural Foundations
of the Nation as a Living Part of Community Life and
Development, and to Insure Future Generations an Opportunity
to Appreciate and Enjoy the Rich Heritage of the Nation;

S Insure the Compatibility of Tourism and Recreation Policies
and Activities with Other National Interests in Energy
Development and Conservation, Environmental Protection,
and Judicious Use of Natural Resources;













32







TABUF 2


,J (1 BRA. ) UNDIERLVI C NATI SNAI INTRESTS, (2) C~ IRINT BULIC NiLITCY PHRIW :1.ES.
ANl (5i THE HATI NA. i iTER ES S iN TO RIS A A> RICPtATI NI

,. Nat 1 e ts Su ltSin. P bl i c Poil5- y Pr55 S Ar ip TeS Natlional Interests in Tourism goae. i the N5tr,'c 'na .ar A '4
aFni Rereat 1: F ic ......


Iaii.tir afH-e aii ;routh of .1 Achieve Fill asploym u'r^ Optit izat tr of the C:ontrU i butio r i, / rUa le r
s sl.25'sase Economc, Gtrowth wit.1 to so r. t'rh 5'. ,5 55,

4Mi5m ni of Inflaton 5Fu Eapleyit, eqsOnrI Econ ic 4 on c P5o4 ity I

RcAl.i I n'er .t5io.ai Trad sna'io i lSan> ce o5 yArsntis vEs'ono ii- .vI -lop4B*ns 4
::A< .5. e R n I 'rooei Sc 'l- ] 'rovs s r, r


a 5 h'aA, th5C E5os rri5c Via ili ty 0
U.S. t~mall IisinessS.s

Avis i eXie~4,v5 (.555'' Pr,4t..,5


Avoi. Excess vs as'- *. cr im>atorf


5 msjiate irbats R vi ta a tz, ,ion

Supperr a Balnnrcd Nd iosal T7 ns-
S .rtAt aiUfi Syf Ce s .







5ea







S i ai s tss idrst i. h tEa i r 5



























E r a J d i : o5. : i v e. r Ac e,.t '5.r 5> 5 s .ixz ,z.
5.en, Sc'> 54e < 55 A It
























lS'ev~lopffi~f-' :ss s' s t O t A t'rs of ', sr V. 5f












'>? e :l : ,} i:S; ts' at.1 -oreelrt Nat r a I r "aro









Cs .: x : M ':5e s 'f itSth C E'ii5' r
a Ins d D o'pt ti.t' Po Ti ea''' Naola ah t sa
der5 t 5452 52 erned 5th iatosm Ret o a- 5 f T 5. .i


tecte ad .J.a.ci' ... tral EMr 5' *n ctr' H raA5 P '
5 cReso,.r.se a5 sS. a.snd .D.velo;rct, c


Sesources-




Man e t, Effect4ive S5p stinK Touris 5 and Recreation, eral Activi ti, s 5 '.
CoordinatIon, and a Free Exchange to Meet the Needs of the Public, Touriss and e:rzreaior., tr
5 r e hee r r tee ral Gov't. Leadership Role i.th eerSi''l Pisic' an t

hal Concerned wth Toui cre- Publi and Pr va
tion and National .er age Preserva- of the T 'urs m andC c


tio. ato Ind5 stri es. Tae
Sec5
it's 5'a,' Rol '5552.5,57 tas




















S' a 'is.a ', Recreation. an -

Nati5nal Heri tag Prs va



Sect.cn ass Ss 's Nat ral tion.ai











S i,5..








33



Government Operations Goals

Harmonize, to the Maximum Extent Possible, all Federal
Activities Supporting the Needs of the General Public and
the Public and Private Sectors of the Xourism and
Recreation Industries. Take a Leadership Role with All
Concerned with Tourism, Recreation, and National Heritage
Preservation.

C. Proposed Declaration of National Tourism Policy

In framing legislation, the Congress will require a declaration of
need for the proposed national tourism policy as well as the policy
statement itself. Based on the policy goals and objectives described
above, we provide in this section a starting point for the development
of legislative language necessary for these two elements of a National
Tourism Policy Act. The first paragraph below is a proposed "declaration
of need," while the second paragraph is the proposed "policy statement:"

The Congress, recognizing the importance of travel and recreation
to the United States, not only because of the numbers of people they
serve and the vast human, finarcial, and physical resources they
employ, but because of the great benefits tourism,-recreation and
related activities confer on individuals and on society as a whole;
recognizing that the Federal Government for many years has encouraged
tourism and recreation implicitly in its statutory commitments to
the shorter work year and to the national passenger transportation
system, and explicitly in a number of legislative enactments to
promote tourism, and support development of outdoor recreation,
cultural attractions, and historic and natural heritage resources;
recognizing that as incomes and leisure time continue to increase,
and as our economic and political systems develop more complex global
relationships, tourism and recreation will become ever more important
aspects of our daily lives and our growing leisure time; and recocnizing
further that the existing extensive Federal Government involvement
in tourism, recreation and related activities needs to be better
coordinated to effectively respond to the national interests in tourism
and recreation and where appropriate, to meet the needs of State and
local governments and the private sector; declares that:

It is the policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with
State and local governments, and other concerned public and private
organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including
financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to
foster and promote the general welfare and public health of the
Nation; to optimize the contribution of the tourism and recreation
iddustries to economic prosperity, full employment, and the Nation's
international balance of payments; to make the opportunity for and
benefits of travel and recreation universally accessible to residents











34





TABLE I
:OARL AND OBJE1TIVES OF 2T It FR ~ED LIITIONAI AL 71OUR)1 M 7 LI Y



of L to I r _t __ t I 1 .O .. t A ,r ........ l . o'.. . .. I. I ..- Illolt












































01. iwhFrtg T r rPier af t ,tr P r pub-i tand .r eivate sect 1or 0
1 tt 1 -0
itr 1 Pi Ir l- Nr vt t tt,,oel ttlo otr Altrle tOl









14 it Lm 1 F. .r -r rr n3 t li:~, iii rl-o> ahl Fdi aiO[in i uts g r trr 44 aml S t; .





































































We a re1 n ;l anrn Fdfrr* Fratlo ., e ta or ot l
I I l- taff It t o.,,t'::-l s r eto 'll f, ~ s ss rIe r I








35



of the United States and foreign countries and to insure that all
citizens of present and future generations be afforded adequate
tourism and recreation resources; to contribute to personal growth,
health, education and intercultural appreciation of the geography,
history and ethnicity of the United States; to encourage the free
and welcome entry of foreigners traveling to the United States in
order to enhance international understanding and goodwill consistent
with immigration laws, the laws protecting the public health, and
laws governing the importation of goods to the United States; to
preserve the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation as
a living part of community life and development, and to insure
future generations an opportunity to appreciate and enjoy
the rich heritage of the Nation; to insure the compatability of
tourism and recreation with other national interests in energy
development and conservation, environmental protection, and
judicious use of natural resources; to harmonize to the maximum
extent possible, all Federal activities in support of tourism and
recreation with the needs of the general public and the States,
territories, local governments and private and public sectors of
the travel/recreation industry, and to give leadership to all
concerned with tourism, recreation, and national heritage pre-
servation in the United States.

D. National Tourism Policy Objectives and Programmatic Recommendations

W hile some of the goals developed for the national tourism policy could
arguably be put into more than one of the four categories of economic
goals, consumer goals, national resource/environmental goals, and government
operations goals, the categorizing procedure was used in order to permit
the study team to identify and order specific policy objectives which would
flow out of the more general goal statements. These policy objectives
were formulated in response to the identified national interests in tourism
and recreation and, more importantly, in response to the ascertained needs
of the State and local public sectors and the private sector of the travel
industry as identified during the second phase of the NTPS.

The study team formulated a total of 45 specific policy objectives as
shown in Table 3. Tnese policy objectives are associated with each of
the seven policy goals, and consequently can be broken down into the
four categories into which the policy goals were divided. There are a
total of 19 principal economic objectives, 16 principal consumer objec-
tives, five principal environmental and national resource objectives, and
five principal government operations objectives.

The policy goals and objectives were then used by the study team to formu-
late programmatic recommendations for the proposed tourism policy which
would support the various goals and objectives. These programmatic
recommendations are summarized in Table 4. The bulk of the programmatic
recommendations represent suggested programs for a new principal Federal
tourism and recreation agency or for a proposed Federal interagency














36




















T4 U 4


























































.-trbs a ;s n
F --- -d 'A C'















































e 7 le wit 1atu rv ialc resrett to-r r -:-:*





er;& :.(e 3-1i da t D .vr--::sie ICIss :: .aw rta r.:
f A of' C. .- @aCA' 4! A r As f4 A I C 4.e Cr '
4ya- 4444 sC 4' 'A .'' 4Aa-C s C. t fs r trln-'C-* rac? -ons, aAA, A'A i





C a : a 'ard national : 4 Ais: a Ai'Cnresses res :e A .ai ess deti ^a a r t .-














r"'rlr'""r r" '" fnrc:rd ate Fe neraj j n s1M 1r-related a1t.- =es a : ss suare deveXo n::-as t of S







pf Ve4A g-ire a rAast atfroa saD ''ACier*c 4C tC. .r i aA i reAsreti i-al




f .- A AA4' i: ess 4Ctr te.sr :e ar aaac is s.



u 4aAh iteria .c Ar diaio e 4c.ra e ederal acences t: CrCect
a 4'a' p "4. f ta : a4 recreat al a restore b












































n e e rari:a- rect -al. State ri ocal leve s:

A p s^ o'f m-blic lards t travelers aC recreation- hrouAh 'tera4er- ^tio. enco.raze al: Federal ace.cles o Asu'e

awa r whi; : -<-aticle w::t natura: resoaree o-s- --^ --- ----- -- -- ^---t:. is a-
atA Cre 'e, 4at :' recreaAtiAo 4devel:A e-A C a4:C '


az* 1a al Resource b-ecrives Trobh interagenc c r r-atizon. e-corage se:Crt Ecr Cojwressional
aPreval of Federal inves tet tax i.certives for private se or

eLe--- to-e.d pla--i; crecess s:prts and developmert of toueris and retreat:nal faci:-t e.


S1ant -s, e ?r.: mo-r tal c rosectton o fraaile areas, and
ri tcrli o rtit-ies to avoid envrar scental de radation
SI vercrow i: a-d v -rdevel oC4ent within cocent rated
.~"'.4AAA'~ C Ct~el ,~ C>] e CCC n~ r .4 cCAia 4

C"c"'r" L'-- A. C' '' A A A A A C ,.' C 4, A AlA

SC 4..A4 A' CC. AC.ACACA CC'CA'CCCor C'~ .4iieCC Ar CC4ll +










.4'iAr tA' 'Vb.' AA' '"Ces 4''CC-d 4..r~ios CC 4''AC' ,..e
















CC..C4CC.>,t.C'AAC.C'4 .eo~~ 'A"AAC4. A4CA<'4C
C >'CC4'A'AA'4AA'CAA A'pir A...A AZ..C CCC"i~ -el r rnaltt
euic.'C"A'4AC. CIAAAA'A 44~r~t ...'AeAvn 4C4aii oulr, r
C'' 44 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EYCCA4Ct'A.AA.' A.AC'AC C >>jC4.A'
z~~~~r?;:,~~~~4. .CC 4*r:au AC~ir~ AC4':ll- l A"">:is.
A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r 'x ~ A.e Cr ~ a t : r A A C C~s s C~s C A C ' C Aa cn i 4 4 4 C A A A C C 4 C 4 C A C A A C Ca A A C C C ? A A C 1
AA~CA'A'C CCC.A. AS CCA~44 ~ .C ?C.C..'4 AC4\A.4A4 Cjrs. 4*?C< reCc.. 'a! Cl C 4 C C A'C4A 4C44
CCC-A'>cACAfAA .4i;~
''. A, C C4C 'li:( 4l-Zl CC.4"CC CCA' a '4 C'4A CdS~d 4Aido Af CCCr e a'AA.C ACC CC'AC.C ACACA 4" A CAC. C C C'C. 4> CA.q
"~~A"AAC4.CAC._'"4s~ CC4CC 'An~ot. CCIci C!cA-A'4C C C CCC~rr CACCCA"C !CAACC'CC'A'4'.*.AC
'C 4 AC'.AC +-j--:: di "1:eTr-~P iieipr~itars n rcese 1Fpea enle ~*b~ C~~id~
CAACC4CC Ye4aa C>CCC.CACACC.4AC 4rrse 4A'4s. Cn ACde CC CV!aC
A..C"AA A'CC ~ aa~ A.Aoniidr~~ 'Cretin AAA CCaslCAI 4C. .C4'4. 44 AocF4 .Cf~ 'C'AA :SC AAcC'4A'.oP 'AC 4'4 C CAC'A
'A!dj CCC-Y C.C.4C""ECA44]'4CCCCV'. A CCAAAA
.C CA'C4A CC'A:> CC. C4a'l7a CC r A'CC.CACA.ACCC 4 + 4C'AC brs-ss ep~lCerrJCCp

r'cC*$nat AAAE4e4A.~ "C'CC'4C- h4".C". CC i\lfe ,.C4 $C'4CCC 44'"C cCa i~- ACCAA













.4.4 C- CuaCAC CCAACACA ."4C Ao~rC-I aCCA? CCS4Ca neCAC 4e qna aC
44 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ re~ai-r-l-e '.1C 2C"'C444C C'Ae'eAeolA A'AA CCCCrAC














37























































































v t a t -in h dhtri..;
9.444 *a r rest r
Peoti r !L_ '_r :"".2';:i-at an4 lc l p o m inZ .. .. ..... aar> i p l i iii private































Sf s ti Tr a re rlat
a *v 444.4 .4> a n 4 *etas4.4444 a4.44i4tie e 4of 4.44S e44need ia of 44h 4 4i'< 4<- prevte In-ar' a
































An,' s 4pp 4o <1' 1u4 444
r1 SIT state s and s i ns












i r -ea proSe iona l ef 's e i4i. fporexq n o art''t4 k St<



IAmter 4utsher n alr 1a q hitravel 8dAgbs'trai t: t U r.

I nrease porot ionarl efforis senda iy forks,,in arets by rork ing
Scosix nc o tn .th in r n 4 fr eaton Agency i4 conuvi s ert os
;:teahas effices wrcess bte tof te ne^eds l othen
"44slm e a porting ent hel th U.S.; ersorc
x:,4-e 4,l .4.44






















































o stirulate and maintain q th re travel demand to th U.S
freas pri4aary and secoraerr ondary forei4n market rs;












ost imulate shrowth in the nutberrt f rAternational fairs, conventions.
r anvde sportine events held in the ".Sas
o increase kinowledqe of u.. travel pportunities in forelqn media,
the fire in travel trade, and among votential visitors to the U.S.




in trheir hoBme markets.
Provide techarcl asslsta ce toi tates rad -ities in the deelo-ien< t of
romotional literature, marketing strategies, and product development for


o stm-late domestic travel/recreation demand, visitor length of
stay, and per capita expenditures particularly in econom1ically-
depressed areas of the Nation.

Develop professional ourisam, recreation. ard historic literature as retire
t "neest te ayve obiective and develop and maintaei a cle arinq-house for the
collection and dissemination of such itetrature.

























25-226 0 78- 4
2522 0falr -rr~ 'lB h 4 ubro nenroal ar.cnet












coordinating body. These suggested programs are discussed in greater
detail in later chapters. Some of the key program thrusts include:

discontinuance of direct Federal involvement in domestic tourism
promotion and reduction in emphasis generally on domestic
tourism promotion in favor of programmatic activities
that support the domestic tourism promotional activities of the
States, local public sectors, and the private sector of the
travel industry;

establishment of new clearinghouse functions in consumer travel
information, foreign visitor information, industry (including
State/local) information including industry data and basic and
applied research functions;

establishment of a new Federal planning role in tourism and
national heritage resources and combining these activities with
existing recreation planning,technical assistance and historic
preservation technical assistance programs;

shifting of the National Visitor Center activities (in Washington,
D.C.) to the new travel and recreation agency and establishment
of six new foreign visitor centers in primary foreign market
countries;

increasing direct and coordinated Federal involvement in industry
and public educational activities in tourism, recreation, and
heritage resource preservation;

establishment of a new formalized Federal role in receiving, moni-
toring, and referring of consumer complaints to appropriate
jurisidictions;

creating a new Federal role in identifying, registering, and aiding
(through technical and financial assistance) natural heritage
resources; and

renewed emphasis on program priority setting based on a
formalized, ongoing needs assessment process.

The categorizing procedure used in formulating national tourism policy
study goals, objectives, and programmatic recommendations is not intended
as a definitive statement on requirements for specific Federal policies
and programs, but rather as an ordering device to assist Federal Govern-
ment officials, the Congress, and members of the tourism and recreation
industries to assess our recommendations for various specific policies
and programs and to trace these recommendations back to their source
in the national interests in travel and recreation and in broader,
underlying national interests.



















CHAPTER III

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AND ALTERNATE RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
FOR TOURISM POLICY IMPLEMENTATION


I. Introduction

This chapter summarizes our principal and alternate recommendations for
reorganization of the Federal involvement in tourism. This reorganization
would be undertaken in order to implement the national tourism policy
goals and objectives and programmatic recommendations discussed in the
previous chapter. Discussion of the basis for recommending reorgan-
ization of the Federal invo'vemtert in tourism is contained in Chapter IV.
Detailed discussion of the various proposed alternate organizational
entities is contained in Chapters V, VI, VII, and VIII.

In summary, we recommend the crration of four organizational entities to
assure effective programmatic interpretation of the proposed national
tourism (and recreation) policy. These entities are:

a principal Federal tourism (and recreation) agency;

a Federal interagency coordinating council;

a Federal/State/local public sector coordinating body; and

a Federal/private industry coordinating body.

For each of these organizational entities, we have proposed two alternates
for the consideration of the Congress (and the tourism and recreation
industries as well): a principal recommended organization and an
alternate recommended organization.

Figure 2 shows the possible relationships among these different alternate
organizational arrangements. Each of the two recommended alternates for
a principal Federal tourism agency can be combined with either recommended
alternative among the three coordinating bodies.

The principal difference between the two alternatives for a principal Federal
touism agency--what we have called Option A and Option B for a principal
Federal tourism agency--lics in the fact that Option A .involves an agency
with responsibilities for tourism, recreation, and national heritage
resources, while Option B involves an agency with a mandate and mission
limited only to tourism and travel.

The United States Travel and Recreation Agency--Option A for a principal
Federal tourism agency--could be combined with any combination of Alternatives
1 or 2 for each of the three coordinating bodies. Similarly, the United
States Travel Bureau--Option B for a principal Federal tourism agency--
could be combined with any combination of Alternatives 1 or 2 for each of


(39)






40




Figure 2 PRINCIPAL AND ALTERNATE RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATIONAL
STRATEGIES FOR TOURISM POLICY IMPLEMENTATION




E 0 E
UE

U 3 3 O U0 U -
SU.. Trave < 'U : > > U.. C Trav




& Recreation c r
L -o--- V t -- ,
> U : c b 4 O > O O











1 Atrn i ltrna I 1
C Plannin O.
01 0 .4 0 0








& ,i- Rcai >ura
Anu y c\r USTB
USTRI ri c; 0 C









AtAaterat I e 2









Policy _ -Planning 0
U.S. Travel > 4 > ? i 2 U.S. Travel
& Recreation Alneae
Agency I < o u r

NTRPC


rAlternate 1


Policy -----------------
Council


IAlternate 2


ounil evelopment


ITRPB

Alternate 1
SPlanning ---
Board


__Alternate 2 J
S-- -.-- -- -- -- -- --pann *- ~i -T -- -
Planning
Board


TPDB

Alternate 1
Development
Board


Alternate 2
Development
Board





41



the three coordinating bodies. However, when Option B is combined with
any of the coordinating body alternatives, because Option B largely
excludes responsibility for Federal recreation activities, the various
coordinating bodies will also have their responsibilities and functions
similarly narrowed to focus on tourism to the exclusion of recreation
and national heritage functions.

Because Option A is our recommended strategy for a principal Federal
tourism agency, we present the alternative recommendations for the three
coordinating bodies as if they were being developed in connection with Ootion
A. As we indicate at the end of the chapter, however, if the Congress were
to select Option B for a principal Federal tourism agency, either one of
the two alternatives for each of the various coordinating bodies could be
successfully combined with Option B with only minor modifications.

In the remainder of this chapter, we will discuss in turn our principal
recommendations for a Federal tourism agency; the principal recommendations
and alternate recommendations for the coordinating bodies; and finally, our
alternate recommendation for a Federal tourism agency (Option B).

To summarize briefly, however, our principal recommended strategy for tourism
policy implementation involves the establishment of:

the United States Travel and Recreation Agency (USTRA)--Option A
for a principal Federal tourism and recreation agency;

the National Travel and Recreation Policy Council (NTRPC)--
Alternative 1 for a Federal interagency coordinating council;

the Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning Board
(ITRPB)-- a Federal/State/local coordinating body; and

the Travel and Recreation Development Board (TRDB)-- Alternative
1 for a Federal/private industry coordinating body.

The relationships among the four recommended bodies and the U.S. Congress
are shown in Figure 3. Under this arrangement, the U.S. Travel and Recreation
Policy Council would be the principal Federal tourism agency charged with
implementation of the national tourism policy. The National Travel and
Recreation Policy Council would be the Federal interagency coordinating
body charged with policy compliance monitoring and coordination with other
national policies. The U.S. Congress would establish and from time to
time, modify the national tourism policy and oversee policy implementation.

At the same time, the Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning
Board would be the principal State/local/Federal coordinating body for
guiding Federal policy implementation, while the Travel and Recreation
Development Board will be the principal private industry/Federal
coordinating body for guiding Federal policy implementation.








42



Figure 3 RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PRINCIPAL PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONS
FOR TOURISM POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

U.S. Congress
SEstablishes national
tourism policy
Oversees implementa-
tion

NATIONAL TRAVEL AND RECREATION
POLICY COUNCIL (NTRPC)

INTFRGCVERNMENTAL Policy Council
TRAVEL AND RECREATION (Federal Executives) TRAVEL AND RECREATION
PLANNING BOAvD (ITRPB) Continuously refine DEVELOPMENT BOARD (TRDB)
Federal policies
Planning Board related to tourism Development Board
(State & Local activities (Private Sector Officials)
Officials) Coordinate tourism Identify industry
Develop State, related activities problems, develop
regional and and policies industry programs
local tourism Concentrate Federal to meet industry
needs assessments efforts for maximum needs, and recom-
Review, comment benefit to the public mend programs to
and mak: recom- Eliminate program the Tourism Agency
mendations on duplication & Review, comment
Federal policies overlap and make recom-
and programs to a Resolve conflicts mendations on
the Policy Council that involve two Federal policies
and the Tourism or more Feeral and programs to
Agency agencies and/or the Policy Council
Coordinate State and involve issues of and the Tourism
local planning national or Agency
activities regional Coordinate industry
Identify Federal sionificance development activities
interagency con- Identify Federal
flicts and problems interagency con-
to be referred to UNITED STATES TRAVEL AND flicts and problems
the Policy Council RECREATION AGENCY (USTRA) to be referred to
I the Policy Council
Tourism Agency
Direct Federal
promotion, planning .
development and
research activities.
Develop operational
policies for achieving
tourism objectives
Coordinate operational
policies with the Policy
Council
Coordinate Federal
activities with the
Planning Board &
the Development Board








43



II. The United States Travel and Recreation Agency: Option A -- Principal
Recommended Strategy for a Principal Federal Tourism Agency

We recommend the establishment of the United States Travel and Recreation
Agency, an executive agency outside of existing departmental structures,
to be created through a consolidation of some, but not all, of the activities
now carried out by the U.S. Travel Service, the current functions of the
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and the activities of the National Park Service's
National Visitor Center and Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation.

The purpose of the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency would be to implement
the new National Tourism (and Recreation) Policy as the principal Federal
instrument for promotion, development, planning, and research related to
touirsm, recreation, and heritage resource preservation.

In addition to current programs of USTS, BOR and the NPS Office of Archeology
and Historic Preservation and the National Visitor Center, new programs
and services would be included in the agency in the areas of consumer
services, industry services, and planning for tourism, recreation, and
national he-itage resource preservation.

Specific functions of the Agency would include:

direction of Federal programs for promotion, planning, and research
related to tourism, recreation, preservation and restoration of
historic properties, and protection of natural heritage resources;

establishment of operational policies for achieving tourism,
recreation, and preservation goals and objectives;

coordination of operational policies with the National Travel and
Recreation Policy Council; and

coordination of Federal activities with the Intergovernmental Travel
and Recreation Planning Board and with the Travel and Recreation
Development Board.

In many ways, USTS and BOR, as well as the two National Park Service units are
natural partners.1 The programs in these agencies encompass the key Federal
programs dealing directly with tourism, recreation, and national heritage
development and preservation.There are, of course, a number of other key
Federal agencies dealing less broadly but in important areas of tourism and
recreation. The role of these other agencies was not considered for reorgan-
ization but their relationship to the overall Federal involvement in tourism
and recreation has been dealt with instead through the proposed new coordination
linkages. Many of the USTS, BOR and NPS programs are complementary in goals and
employ similar techniques and staff skills for implementing and "delivering" Federa
resources or services. Public and private sector activities in these three
areas are increasingly widespread, interdependent, and interactive. Public
and private sector interests in these three areas have many of the same
underlying needs and face many of the same basic issues and problems.


As this report was being finalized Secretary of the Interior Andrus
recommended to the President that the NPS's Office of Archeology and
Historic Preservation be combined with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.








44.



Consequently, a consolidated Federal approach to meeting the needs of public
and private sector interests in these three fields would maximize the
effectiveness, imaginativeness, and flexibility of Federal involvement and
would minimize inter-agency duplication and conflict. In addition, a
consolidated Federal approach would serve to stimulate increased coordin-
ation at the State and local level and development among State and local
officials of a wider perspective and broader understanding of the interlinkages
among tourism, recreation, and national heritage activities.

This option does not include all Federal programs which relate to tourism
and recreation (noticeable among those excluded are those involving
regulation and management of Federally-owned public lands). However, it
does include those existing Federal programmatic activities which e::emplify
the thrust which we believe the future Federal involvement in tourism
and recreation should take, including:

Technical assistance, education and research for the public and
private sectors of the tourism industry and for State and local
public sector bodies involved in recreational, cultural, and
historical research, planning, development or promotion;

Federal grants-in-aid for State and local planning, acquisition,
and development of recreational, touristic, and historical
resources;

Review and coordination of Federal programmatic activity in
tourism, recreation, and national heritage resources; and,
where appropriate, or State and local activity in the same
areas.

USTRA would be headed by an Administrator appointed by the President. The
Agency would have five principal organizational elements: an office of
the Administrator; a USTRA Executive Committee; and Office of the Executive
Director; an Office of Administration; and four Centers for program
activity -- a Visitors Services Center, an Industry Services Center, a
Tourism/Recreation Planning Center, and a Heritage Resources Center.

Both USTS and BOR are currently top-heavy with management staff. The pro-
posed USTRA structural organization focuses on productive work assignments
with office heads functioning as team leaders who devote relatively small
amounts of time to management activities.

III. Principal Recommended Strategies for the Three Coordinating Bodies

A. National Travel and Recreation Policy Council (NTRPC): Alternative 1
and Principal Recommended Strategy for a Federal Interagency
Coordinating Body

We recommein: the establishment of a National Travel and Recreation Policy
Council as an independent Federal policy coordinating body chaired by a
member of the President's domestic and international economic advisory staff
and consisting of the eighteen departmental-level Federal executives from
Federal departments and agencies with important tourism and recreation-
related programs or with programs which frequently and significantly
interact with and impact on tourism and recreation interests.





43



The Policy Council would be charged with monitoring Federal agencies'
compliance with national tourism and recreation policy and coordination
of the policy's interpretation with other national interests. The Council
would limit its activities to issues with national policy significance
and its coordination responsibilities to policies, programs, or issues
which relate to tourism, recreation, or national heritage resources and
which involve two or more Federal agencies.

Specific Policy Council functions would include:

continuous refinement of tourism, recreation and heritage
resource preservation related Federal policies;

coordination of tourism, recreation, and heritage resource
preservation activities and policies with related activities
and policies in various Federal agencies;

concentration of Federal efforts for maximum benefit to the
public;

elimination of program duplication and overlap;

resolution of program and policy conflicts that involve two or
more Federal agencies and/or involve issues of national or
regional significance; and

reporting to the Congress on Council activities.

The Policy Council would have four principal organizational elements
as shown in Figure 4 :

a Council;

an.Executive Committee;

four Policy Committees; and

a staff.

The Council Chairperson, appointed by the President, would remain in office
for the duration of the President's term of office. The Vice-Chairperson
of the Council would initially be the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary
of the Interior would become Vice-Chairperson following a two-year term by
the Secretary of Commerce. Subsequently, each second year, the Secretary
of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior would assume the office of
Vice-Chairperson and the rotating Vice-Chairpersonship would avoid the
Council becoming a captive of a single agency and would encourage each
Secretary to take a more direct interest in tourism, recreation and
heritage resource management.







46



Figure 4 SUGGESTED POLICY COUNCIL ORGANIZATION
(Alternative 1)












STAFF POLICY EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL COMMITTEE










TRANSPORTATION ECONOMIC ENERGY & NATURAL iHEALTH,EDUCATION
& FACILITATION DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES & CULTURAL AFFAIRS
POLICY POLICY POLICY IPOLICY
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE








47



In addition to the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior or their designated
alternates, the Council membership would include:

the Secretaries or their designated alternates of:

the Department of Transportation;

the Department of State;

the Department of Agriculture;

the Department of Labor;

the Department of Treasury;

the Department of Health, Education and Welfare;

the Department of Energy;

the Department of Defense;

the Department of Housing and Urban Development;


the U.S. Attorney General or his or her designated alternate;

the Chairpersons or their designated alternates of:

the Civil Aeronautics Board;

the Interstate Commerce Commission;

the Federal Trade Commission; and

the Administrators, or their designated alternates of:

the U.S. Information Agency (or its successor agency);

the Environmental Protection Agency; and

the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency.


Council activities would be directed principally by an Executive Committee
made up of the Council Chairperson, the Council Vice-Chairperson, and other
Executive Committee members which would include the Secretary of Commerce
or Interior, whichever is not serving as Vice-Chairperson, and the
Secretaries of Transportation, State, Agriculture and Labor as well as
the Administrator of the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency,

The Secretaries designated to serve on the Council could designate an
alternate to serve when the Secretary is unable to carry out Council
responsibilities. However, the designated alternate would be authorized





48



to make decisions on behalf of the Secretary, would not be below the rank
of Deputy Under Secretary, and would be the designated alternate for the
duration of the Secretary's term of office. Since the accumulation of
knowledge of policies and issues through participation in Council activities
will be crucial to the efficient functioning of the Council, decision-
making by the Council must remain in the hands of a constant membership.

The creation of a Policy Council comprised of Cabinet-level decision-
makers would insure that decisions made at the Council level would be
implemented by the agencies involved. If the Congress is willing to put the
full weight of its commitment to effective interagency coordination into
the creation of the Council, the Council members would of necessity use
their political influence to support the national interests in tourism and
recreation.

The four Policy Committees under Alternative 1 would be organized around
functional areas with membership made up of agency heads appropriate to
the activities expected to be assigned to the respective committees. The
proposed Policy Committees (standing committees) would be:

Transportation and Facilitation Policy Committee;

Economic Development Policy Committee;

Energy and Natural Resources Policy Committee; and

Health, Education, and Cultural Affairs Policy Committee.

In addition the Chairperson would establish ad hoc "issue" sub-committees,
as needed, to deal with important issues that might be resolved within a
relatively short period of time or to deal with ongoing persistent, highly
focused, issues.

The Council staff would initially consist of fifteen individuals with a
staff director hired by the Executive Committee. Since it is important
to have a staff responsive to the Council and independent of any individual
agency, the Council should have its own budget authorized by the Congress.
The size of the staff should remain small, and its functions should be
limited to necessary support activities for the Council and top priority
substantive research activities.

B. Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning Board (ITRPB):
Alternative 1 and Principal Recommended Strategy for a Federal/
State/Local Public Sector Coordinating Body

We recommend the creation of an Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation
Planning Board as a Federal/State/local public sector coordinating body
made up of State travel directors, State outdoor recreation directors, local
visitor and convention bureau chief executives, regional planning directors,
members of national associations for State and local government officials,
and representatives of the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency.








49



The Planning Board's primary purpose would be to coordinate State and
local tourism and recreation interests with Federal activities related to
national tourism and recreation policies. Specific functions would include:

reviewing, commenting, and making recommendations on Federal
tourism, recreation, and heritage resource preservation policies,
programs and plans to the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency and
to the National Travel and Recreation Policy Council;

developing State, regional and local tourism/recreation-related
needs assessments;

coordination of State and regional tourism, recreation and
heritage resource preservation plans with USTRA planning
activities; and

identification and referral of Federal interagency conflicts and
problems that affect State, regional, and local activities to
the NTRPC.

The Planning Board would have four principal organizational elements, as
shown in Figure 5 :

p a Planning Board;

a Planning Committee;

five Policy Committees;

seven Regional Task Forces.

The Board itself would have 15 members: the Board Chairperson, the
Board Vice-Chairperson, the Planning Committee Chairperson, the five
Policy Conmittee Chairpersons, and the Seven Regional Task Force
Chairpersons. The Chairpersons of the Planning Committee, the five
Policy Committees; and the seven Regional Task Forces would be elected
by their individual memberships.

The Regional Task Forces under Alternative 1 would be organized by State
and local officials in each of seven geographical regions and their member-
ship would be comprised of State travel directors, State outdoor recreation
directors, local visitor and convention bureau chief executives, and regional
planning directors. Because it is expected that State officials and local
officials will have significantly different perspectives on many issues, each
Regional Task Force would have two principal subdivisions, a State Unit and
a Local Unit. Each Task Force would have a six member Policy Board made
up of the Task Force Chairperson, a board member (exofficio) appointed by the
principal Federal tourism agency, the State Unit"Chairperson and Vice-Chair-
person, and the Local Unit Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.








50



Figure 5 SUGGESTED PLANNING BOARD ORGANIZATION
(Alternative 1)











PLANNING
POLICY COMMITTEES BOARD

National
Governor's PLANNING
Association COMMITTEE



National Conference of,
Lt. Governors




U.S. Conference
of Mayors




National
League REGIONAL TASK FORCES
of Cities



National
Association
of Counties








51



The Planning Committee under Alternative 1 would be made up of the members
of the Task Force Policy Boards from the seven geographical regions. Since
the Planning Committee will be large with 42/43 members, it may be necessary
to create subcommittees or preferably, the Chairperson could use Regional
Task Force Policy Boards for subcommittee activities. The principal advan-
tages of using Policy Boards are that members of each Policy Board are
geographically clustered (to reduce travel) and the members could combine
Planning Committee Subcommittee meetings with Policy Board meetings (to reduce
the number of meetings).

The Policy Committees under Alternative 1 would be organized in each of five
existing associations. These five major organizations would be:

National Governor's Association;

National Conference of Lieutenant Governors;

U.S. Conference of Mayors;

National League of Cities; and

National Association of Counties.

These five organizations would be the initial members of the Planning
Board but the number of organizations may be expanded after the first
year of operation by action of the Planning Board. While the Policy
Committees themselves are generally external to the Planning Board organ-
ization and therefore internal to the organizations they represent, their
inputs to national policy are crucial to the success of Federal efforts.

C. Travel and Recreation Development Board: (TRDB): Alternative 1
and Principal Recommended Strategy for a Federal/Private Industry
Coordinating Body

We recommend the establishment by private industry officials of the
tourism and recreation industries of a Travel and Recreation Development
Board to coordinate private sector interests with Federal activities re-
lated to national tourism and recreation policies. Specific functions
would include:

identification of private sector tourism, recreation, and heritage-
resource preservation- related problems;

development of industry programs, industry/Federal cooperative
programs, and/or suggested Federal programs to be coordinated
with or referred to the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency;

reviewing, commenting, and making recommendations on Federal
tourism, recreation, and heritage resource preservation policies,
programs and plans to the USTRA and the NTRPC;








52



coordination of industry tourism, recreation, and heritage
resource preservation development proposals with USTRA activities;
and

identification and referral of Feleral interagency conflicts and
problems that affect private sector activities to the NTRPC.

Under Alternative 1, the Development Board would consist of a governance
structure (the Development Board), and an operations structure (seven
Standing Committees). The governance structure would have three elements
as shown in Figure 6:

an Executive Committee;

a Development Board; and

an Advisory Committee.

The Executive Committee under Alternative 1 would have nine members and would
consist of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairnerson of the Development Board
and the Chairpersons of the seven standing committees.

The Development Board itself would have twenty-nine members under this
alternative, including the Executive Committee members and the Chairpersons
of 18 subcommittees (not shown in Figure 6) plus two representatives from
the Employee Relations Committee (thi. Committee has no proposed subcommittees).

The Advisory Committee for Alternative 1 would consist of representatives
from the following organizations:

U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency;

Discover America Travel Organizations;

American Society of Travel Agents;

American Hotel and Motel Association;

Air Transport Association;

National Air Carriers Association;

Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union;

Public Citizens, Inc.; and

National Recreation and Parks Association.

The Advisory Committee would initially act as the Organizing Committee
for the Development Board, organizing the Standing Committees.

The seven Standing Cormmittees under Alternative 1 would be organized around
related industry sectors as follows:








53



Figure 6 SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT BOARD ORGANIZATION
(Alternative 1)














ADVISORY DEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE BOARD COMMITTEE









Transportation Travel Trade Attractions Events
Committee Committee Committee Committee







Accommodations Employee Heritage
Committee Relations Resource
Committee Preservation
Committee





































25-226 0 -78 -5








54



* Transportation Committee:

Air Transport Subcommittee;

Ground Transport Subcommittee; and

Water Transport Subcommittee.

* Accommodations Committee:

Lodging Subcommittee;

Rescrt Subcommittee;

Camping Subcommittee; and

Food Service Subcommittee.

* Travel Trade Committee:

Retail Travel Subcommittee;

Wholesale Travel Subcommittee; and

Travel Communications Subcommittee.

* Employee Relations Committee.

* Attractions Committee:

Amusement Park-Attractions Subcommittee;

Recreation Subcommittee; and

Museums Subcommittee.

* Heritage Resource Preservation Committee:

Historic Sites and Buildings Subcommittee; and

Natural Heritage Subcommittee.

* Events Committee:

Exhibitions Subcommittee;

Performing Arts Subcommittee; and

Spectator Sports Subcommittee.








55



IV. Alternate Recommended Strategies for the Three Coordinating Bodies

A. National Travel and Recreation Policy Council: Alternative 2 --
Alternate Recommended Strategy for a Federal Interagency
Coordinating Body

The purposes and functional responsibilities of the Policy Council under
Alternative 2 would be the same as under Alternative 1. The organizational
elements of the Council would be similar as well, including a Council, four
Policy Committees, and a staff.

Alternative 2 for the Council differs from Alternative 1 in four principl
respects:

Alternative 2 does not involve departmental-level chief executives;

the Council would be made up of the Chairperson (appointed by
the President from his domestic and international economic
advisors), Vice-Chairperson (the USTRA chief executive officer),
and the Chairpersons of the four Policy Committees (sub-depart-
mental agency heads);

the Council would lack an Executive Committee; and

the staff of the Council would work directly for the Policy
Committees as well as for the Council itself.

Since this alternative envisions no departmental-level executives directly
involved in Council activities, it is likely to produce a Council with less
political and bureaucratic clout than Alternative 1.

B. Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning Board: Alternative
2 -- Alternate Recommended Strategy for a Federal/State/Local
Coordinating Body

The purposes of the Intergovernmental Travel and Recreation Planning Board
would be the same under Alternative 2 as under Alternative 1. Under
Alternative 2, the Planning Board would have four principal organizational
elements:

a Planning Board;

five Policy Committees;

a Local Officials Travel and Recreation Council; and

e a State Officials Travel and Recreation Council.

Alternative 2 for the Planning Board differs from Alternative 1 in two
principal respects:








56



representation of State and local tourism and recreation
officials on the Board would be on a national rather than
regional basis;and

there would be no Planning Committee made up of elected rep-
resentatives from the Regional Task Force Policy Boards
of Alternative 1.

The Planning Board itself would have 15 members: the Planning Board
Chairperson, the Planning Board Vice-Chairperson, the five Policy
Committee Chairpersons, four representatives from the Local Officials
Council, and four representatives from the State Officials Council. The
chairpersons and representatives from each of these organizational sub-
elements would be elected by the membership they represent.

The Local fficials Council under Alternative 2 would be organized on
a national basis by and comprised of local visitors and convention bureau
chief executives and regional planning directors. The State Officials
Council's membership would be conmrised of State travel directors and
State outdoor recreation directors.

.. Trave and i-ecreation evelopment Board: Alternative 2 --
Alternate Recomended Strateg, for a Federal/Private Industry
Coordinatino Body

The Devel-pment Board, under Alternative 2, would be operational in
character, developing and implementinc tourism and recreation promotion
programs jointly funded b: the Federal government and the private sector.
The Development Board would also have advisory and coordinating responsi-
bilities similiar to those assigned to the Development Board under Alternative
1. Alternative 2 of the Develoment Board would be simiiar to joint
government-private sector tourism promotion boards in Japan and the United
Kinedom.

As an operational entity, the Development Board under Alternative 2 would
require substantial funding and a staff of highly-qualified professionals
of some size. The ratio of private sector Development Board members to
Federal members would represent the approximate pro rata financial respon-
sibility each group would assume; approximately two-thirds private sector
funding and one-third Federal funding. Financial management procedures
and procedures for Federal audits would have to be well established and
agreed to before final or7anization of the Development Board is
completed.

Essentially, Alternative 1 of the Development Board would function in a
supportive and coordinative mode, while maintaining a clear separation
of public and private roles in tourism and recreation-related activities.
Alternative 2, on the other hand, provides a functioning partnership
between public and private sector activities in some areas of tourism
and recreation accompanied by the mechanical problems and organizational
stresses common to such private sector/government partnerships.








57



Under Alternative 2, the Development Board would consist of a governance
structure (the Development Board), and an operations structure (four
Standing Committees). The governance structure would have three elements
as does the first alternative:

an Executive Committee;

a Development Board; and

an Advisory Committee.

The Executive Committee under Alternative 2 would have six members and
consist of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Development Board
and the Chairpersons of the four Standing Committees.

The Development Board itself would have twenty-seven members under this
alternative, including the Executive Committee members and the Chair-
persons of each of 12 subcommittees plus nine Federal Government members
representing the following agencies:

the principal Federal tourism arency (three members);

Office of the Secretary, DOC;

Domestic and International Business Administration, DOC;

Economic Development Administration, DOC;

U.S. Information Agency;

Office of the Secretary, DOI (Option A) or Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, DOI (Option B); and

National Park Service, DOI.

The Advisory Committee under this alternative would have the same member-
ship as Alternative 1. The Advisory Committee would initially act as the
Organizing Committee for the Development Board with leadership and support
assistance provided by the principal Federal tourism agency.

The four Standing Committees under Alternative 2 would be organized around
functional areas and membership would be made up of designated representatives
of member industry organizations. The Committees and subcommittees would
be as follows:

Policy Committee:

National Policy Subcommittee;

Regulations and Taxation Subcommittee; and

Energy Policy Subcommittee.








58



Travel and Recreation Promotion Committee:

Domestic Promotion Subcommittee;

International Promotion Subcommittee; and

Business Travel Subcommittee.

Industry Development Committee:

Facilities Development Subcommittee;

Land Use and Resource Preservation Subcommittee; and

Travel and Recreation Facilitation Subcommittee.

Industry Relations Subcommittee:

Labor Relations Subcommittee;

Consumer Relations Subcommittee; and

Ethics and Standards Subcommittee.

V. The United States Travel Bureau (USTB): Option B -- Alternate
Recommended Strategy for a Principal Federal Tourism Agency

Option B for a principal Federal tourism agency -- the United States Travel
Bureau-- would be created from the shell of the existing U.S. Travel Service
and would be located within the Depertment of Commerce. In addition to being
located within a departmental structure, Option B would differ from Option
A in that recreation and national heritage resource functions and respon-
sibilities would be excluded from the L.S. Travel Bureau's mission. That
mission would be oriented exclusively on tourism and travel.

The purpose of the U.S. Travel Bureau would be t- inpenment the proposed
new national tourism policy and to serve as the principal Federal instrument
for promotion, development, planning and research related to tourism. Overall
goals would include:

fostering the sustained and orderly growth of tourism in the U.S.;

insuring that travel and the travel industry make their optimium
contribution to the U.S. prosperity, full employment, and the
quality of life in the U.S.; and

optimizing development of visitor travel from other nations;
travel within the U.S. by residents; and awareness amongst
residents and non-residents of the U.S. of social, educational
and other benefits of the environmentally sound use of natural
resources for tourism and historical and cultural heritages of
the U.S. for tourism.








59



The USTB would have five principal organizational elements:

an Office of the Deputy Under Secretary;

a UST0 Executive Committee;

an Office of the Executive Director;

an Office of Administration; and

four Centers for program activity.

A Deputy Under Secretary would be appointed by the President to serve as
chairperson of the USTB Executive Committee and chief executive officer of
USTB.

The principal disadvantage of the current USTS organization, which may
work well for larger agencies, is that it is top heavy with management
staff leaving relatively few people to produce. The proposed USTB focuses
on productive work assignments with office heads functioning as team
leaders who devote relatively small amounts of time to management activities.
(A similar focus exists for Option A.)

USTB would be organized around the new programmatic emphasis identified
by the tourism industry during the ascertainment phase of the
study.

The programs will be implemented through the four activity centers: 1) Consumer
Services Center, 2) Industry (including State/local) Services Center,
3) National Tourism Planning Center; and 4) Foreign Visitor Facilitation
Center. While USTB would have a broader range of programs, industry
services, and coordination responsibilities than USTS is currently
involved in, it would reduce Federal involvement in direct domestic tourism
promotion.

USTB's role in domestic promotion should, in the near term, be limited to
support for private sector domestic promotion. USTB would require several
years to professionalize its operations before it re-enters the area of
domestic promotion. Other USTS activities would be reduced to accommodate
new program priorities and the opening of public visitor information
centers overseas.

Although it is recognized that all new programs desired by industry cannot
be initiated simultaneously and will of necessity be developed sequentially
on a priority basis, this organizational option appears to require a staff
increase from the USTS level of 134 to 150 or 160. The cost implications of
this staff increase would be partially offset by a reduction in what appears
to be a number of "overgraded" positions currently in USTS.

VI. Variations in Recommended Coordination Strategies Under Option B

If Congress should elect to restructure Federal tourism-related activities
along the lines discussed under Option B for a principal Federal tourism








60



agency, several variations in the above-described alternatives for the various
recommended coordinating bodies would be necessary. These variations would
be mostly minor in character. The two principal variations would include:

changes in the names of the various coordinating bodies to
exclude "recreation" from their titles; and

a narrowing of the purposes and functions of the coordinating
bodies to tourism and travel (as opposed to tourism, recreation,
and national heritage resources.) Otherwise, the purposes
and overall functions of the coordinating bodies would be the
same.














CHAPTER IV
THI BASIS FOR TOURISM POLICY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES:
GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ALTERNATIVES

I. Introduction

In this chapter, we discuss the basis on which we developed organizational
strategies for implementing the proposed tourism and recreation policy.
About one-half of the 25 top ranked needs of the tourism and travel industry
identified during the ascertainment phase of the study can be met through
redirected or new program thrusts; the balance relate to coordination
problems between two or more Federal agencies involved in or impacting
tourism activities, or between Federal agencies and the State and local
public and private sectors of the tourism industry.

We have thus considered reorganization of Federal involvement in travel
and recreation in two aspects:

organizational mechanisms for implementing programs; and

organizational mechanisms for coordinating Federal activities.

The first part of this chapter is concerned with the basis on which we
developed organizational mechanisms for program implementation; the
latter part of the chapter deals with the considerations under-
lying our recommendations for coordinating mechanisms.

II. The Basis for Program Implementation Strategies

The study team initially gave consideration to the full range of optional
implementation mechanisms, ranging from creation of a new Cabinet-level
Federal tourism agency to eliminating USTS and any form of centralized
Federal tourism involvement. Both extremities of this range of options
were considered and eliminated from further assessment. The first, a
new Cabinet-level Federal tourism agency, was viewed by the study team
as unfeasible in the present political environment. The second, eliminating
existing centralized Federal tourism activities, was considered to be
a recommendation offered out of frustration with past Federal-failures in
the tourism area. Although there appears to be no functional reason why
the Congress should eliminate consideration of this latter option, its
emotional character precludes any beneficial substantive analysis.

The study team then developed three principal alternative organizational
strategies or concepts to act as guides in considering the large number
of actual reorganization options among Federal agencies involved in
tourism. These three strategies were:

consolidate existing agencies;

restructure USTS; and

assign principal tourism responsibilities to a limited number
of different Federal agencies.


(61)








62



Although the study team was initially somewhat biased in favor of the first
two alternative strategies, the third strategy was included in order that
full consideration be given to the merits and demerits of optional
organizational arrangements.

In considering the first two reorganization strategies, the study team
structured an idealized new Federal agency that would provide services
and programs designed to meet all of the important tourism needs identified
during the needs ascertainment process. Needs and their related program
and service responses were grouped into five categories as follows:

research;
planning;
development;
promotion; and
coordination.
A sixth category. "operation," (provision, maintenance and operation of
tourism attractions) was considered and eliminated. Although the National
Park Service and some other resource-based agencies actually provide,
maintain and operate tourism attractions, there appears to be little
support within tourism-related private sector organizations (based upon
the ascertainment phase of the study), or the Congress (based upon a review
of tourism-related legislation) for including such activities in a
Federal tourism and recreation agency. Our analysis of the five categories
strongly reinforced our initial conclusion concerning the need to
separate implementation functions (research, planning, development, and
promotion) from coordination functions.

As we proceeded with the review, we found increasingly that the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation and USTS appeared to be natural partners for a com-
plementary consolidation of functions, based on current program objectives
and activities, staffing skills, and the parallel needs of the public and
private sector constituencies to which the two agencies are responsive.
The examination of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation was much less intensive
than the review of the U.S. Travel Service with only minimal interviews and a
heavier reliance on materials provided and a review of legislation, legislative
history and a review of Congressional hearings over time. The BOR appears to
require much less organizational modification than the USTS to produce effective
consolidation of the two agencies'existing functions. There exists, however,
one significant problem within the BOR that will require corrective action.
The agency has historically demonstrated an inability to meet a significant
requirement of its organic act. The Congressional mandate requires the
Department of the Interior (BOR) to "Prepare and maintain a continuing inventory
and evaluation of outdoor recreation needs and resources of the United States."
We found no evidence that this now exists or has ever existed since it was
mandated fifteen years ago. This is a crucial element of the Bureau's activitips
and no meaningful planning for national recreation needs can take place without
it. The study team's investigations were not sufficiently extensive to determine
why the Secretaries of the Interior in the past have failed to meet this portion
of the Congressional mandate. This problem will need to be dealt with whether
or not the Congress selects our recommendation of an option that proposes to
merge the functions of the BOR and the USTS.

The National Park Service's Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation
also was considered for inclusion in a new tourism and recreation agency,








63


because of the close parallel between the Office's activities and the
planning and grant administration functions currently in BOR, and because
of the increasing public interest in historic and natural resources as
tourism and recreational attractions. The NPS National Visitor Center was
considered for inclusion because of the parallel between its current
functions and those of visitor information centers for which a need was
identified during the ascertainment phase of the NTPS.

The National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest Service,
and the Corps of Engineers are all extensively involved in activities
relating to tourism and recreation. However, the tourism and recreation-
related programs and activities of these agencies are, for the most part,
closely interwined with natural resource management responsibilities. In
many cases, it would be difficult to separate tourism and recreation-
related activities from these resource management responsibilities without
seriously impairing the effectiveness of current programs.

Thus, the study team felt that--with the exception of the NPS Office of
Archeology and Historic Preservation and the National Visitor Center--
programs now within these resource-based agencies should remain there,
with some change in emphasis. At the same time, it was clear that major
new coordination linkages should be established among the programs and
between the programs and the proposed new tourism and recreation agency.

The interpretation and living history programs of the National Park Service
could most likely have been moved into a new tourism and recreation
agency as well, without major damage to current NPS resource management
responsibilities. We decided not to recommend relocating these programs
to the tourism and recreation agency at this time, more for administrative
convenience than for any compelling logic. In the near future, these
NPS activities could be reassessed to determine if there are any significant
benefits to be derived by expanding the mission of the principal Federal
travel and recreation agency to include these programs.

The final agency considered for inclusion in a'new tourism and recreation
agency, USIA, has had for some time a role in tourism promotion. The agency
has generally failed to contribute anything:-of significance to Federal efforts
to attract foreign visitors to the U.S. Nonetheless, the separation of that
responsibility from other USIA responsibilities would not be cost effective
in the judgment of the study team. The combining of all USIA functions with
other tourism functions in a single agency, while perhaps workable, would
tend to muddle the mission of the principal Federal tourism and recreation
agency. Thus, we chose not to consider this option further. We did however,
consider the complications of assigning international promotion responsibilities
solely to USIA, as discussed below.

Based on the above-described analysis, we reduced the number of feasible
major reorganization alternatives to seven. The seven major alternatives
considered represent variations on the three principal strategies for
reorganization. When any of the seven are combined with proposed coordin-
ating mechanisms, a much improved Federal tourism effort should result.
These seven alternatives are:
Consolidation of Existing Agencies
consolidate USTS, BOR, and NPS's National Visitor Center and Office
of Archeology and Historic Preservation into an independent Federal
travel and recreation agency;








64



same as above, but locate the agency within the Department
of Commerce;

same as above, but locate the agency within the Department
of the Interior;

Restructure the U.S. Travel Service

S create new and expanded tourism functions within the shell
of USTS;

Assign Principal Tourism Responsibilities to a Limited Number
of Federal Agencies

S retain international promotion functions within USTS and
transfer domestic tourism functions to BOR and other
agencies;

S retain domestic tourism functions within USTS and transfer
international tourism promotion functions to USIA; and

eliminate USTS by assigning international tourism promotion
functions to USIA and domestic tourism functions to BOR and
other agencies.

Below we briefly review the principal advantages and disadvantages of
the seven alternatives as compared to the existing organizational arrange-
ment of Federal tourism activities as well as in terms of the political
feasibility of their implementation.

A. Consolidation of Existing Agencies

1. Alternative 1

This alternative considers the consolidation of USTS, the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, and the National Park Service's National Visitor
Center and Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation into an
independent Federal agency.

a. Advantages:

1) offers maximum visibility for Federal tourism
activities compared to other options;

2) provides maximum autonomy of operationy

3) improves the clout of tourism interests (the
relative clout of Federal agencies appears to rely
principally on five factors:








65



professional qualities of agency leadership and staff;

relative political strength of agency leadership;

size of agency budget;

size of agency staff; and

perceived importance of the agency's mission);

4) inclusion of the National Visitor Center in the
principal Federal tourism agency provides an im-
portant visible symbol of the Federal involvement
in tourism;

5) centralizes three existing communities of complementary
tourism-related staff skills (USTS principally
promotional skills, BOR consumer and supply
oriented planning and development, and the Office of
Archeology and Historic Preservation supply of a
major tourist interest product category);

6) provides for consolidation of some potentially
overlapping USTS/BOR domestic programs;

7) reduces potential coordination problems between
closely related leisure-time-oriented Federal
agencies;

8) provides an opportunity for a fresh start for Federal
efforts in tourism/recreation by removing tourism/
recreation activities from departments that have
generally failed to satisfy the national interest
in tourism; and

9) offers the best opportunity to serve State and local
interests in tourism and recreation (many States
consider these two activities as inseparable parts
of the same subject area).

b. Disadvantages:

1) may fall short of the expectations of some elements
of the tourism industry who feel the industry needs and
deserves, on the basis of tourism's economic importance
to the U.S. economy, a Cabinet-level spokesperson for
tourism, (this option does not anticipate Cabinet-level
status);








66



2) may meet with more general Congressional resistance
than less ambitious reorganization options;

3) may meet with some resistance from the White House,
which is attempting to reduce the apparent number
of Federal agencies, (although this option proposes
to consolidate existing activities, it will appear
to create an additional Federal agency);

4) may meet with some resistance by the Department of
Commerce and the Department of the Interior, both of
which would lose some staff and budget, but, more
importantly, in political terms, is the implied
failure of these two departments to make USTS and
BOR function satisfactorily; and

5) likely to cause some difficult realignments of
Congressional committees with oversight responsibilities.

2. Alternative 2

This alternative, like alternative 1 above, considers the consolidation
of USTS, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and the National Park Service's
National Visitor Center and Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation
into a single agency, but within the Department of Commerce.

a. Advantages:

1) improves the clout of tourism interests by increasing
the size of staff and budget through consolidation;

2) inclusion of the National Visitor Center in the prin-
cipal Federal tourism and recreation agency provides
an important visible symbol of the Federal involvement
in tourism;

3) centralizes three existing communities of complementary
tourism/recreation staff skills;

4) provides for consolidation of some potentially over-
lapping USTS/BOR domestic programs;

5) offers increased visibility for Federal tourism activities
through increased size compared to some other options
and to the existing organizational arrangements;

6) reduces potential coordination problems between closely
related leisure-time-oriented agencies;

7) offers an opportunity to better serve State and local
interests in tourism and recreation; and








67



8) provides an opportunity to establish new priorities
for tourism/recreation and solve many current program
problems.

b. Disadvantages:

1) may appear to some elements of the tourism industry
to fall short of expected new prominence of tourism;

2) may meet with more Congressional resistance than
less ambitious reorganization options;

3) may meet with some resistence by the Department
of the Interior which would lose BOR, its staff
and budget;

4) may appear to "sell out" to commercialism some of
BOR's "public interest" image because of being
located in the Department of Commerce;

5) may appear to "sell out" to commercial exploitation
the essentially preservationist thrust of programs
within the Office of Archeology and Historic
Preservation; and

6) may meet with some resistance from Congressional
committees with oversight responsibilities for BOR
which would be lost to other committees.

3. Alternative 3

This option, like the above two options, considers the consolidation
of USTS, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and the National Park Service's
National Visitor Center and Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation
into a single agency within the Department of the Interior.

a. Advantages:

1) improves clout of tourism interests by increasing
size of staff and budget through consolidation;

2) inclusion of the National Visitor Center in the
principal Federal tourism agency provides an im-
portant visible symbol of the Federal involvement
in tourism;

3) centralizes three existing communities of complementary
tourism/recreation staff skills;

4) provides for the consolidation of some potentially
overlapping USTS/BOR domestic programs;





68



5) offers increased visibility for Federal tourism
activities through increased size compared to
alternatives 4-7 below and the existing
organizational arrangements;

6) reduces potential coordination problems between
closely related leisure-time-oriented agencies;

7) places tourism/recreation promotion, research,
planning and development in the same Department
with three major Federal land agencies (NPS,
BLM, and USFWS' which provide considerable tourism/
recreation supply;

8) offers an opportunity to better serve State and
local interests in tourism and recreation; and

9) provides an opportunity to establish new priorities
for tourism/recreation and solve many current
program problems.

b. Disadvantages:

1) ray appear to some elements of the tourism industry
to fall short of expected new prominence of tourism;

2) may meet with more Congressional resistance than
less ambitious reorganization options;

3) may meet with some resistance by the Department
of Commerce which would lose USTS, its staff and
budget;

4) may appear to some elements of the tourism industry
to be misplaced in Interior since tourism received
little attention when it was previously located
in Interior;

5) may meet with some resistance from Congressional
committees with oversight responsibilities for
USTS which would be lost to other committees; and

6) tourism may appear to lose some stature because
tourisnWrecreation would share an Assistant Secretary
with the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.

B. Restructuring the United States Travel Service: Alternative 4

Tnis alternative considers the creation of new and expanded tourism
functions within the shell of USTS.





69



a. Advantages:

1) provides an opportunity to establish new priorities
for tourism and solve many current program problems;

2) likely to be the least controversial option;

3) relatively easy to get needed support in Congress
for initial legislation;

4) maintains the current level of centralization of
Federal tourism activities compared to some other
options;

5) offers an opportunity for some improvement in
agency clout; and

6) may reduce to some extent the USTS negative image.

b. Disadvantages:

1) limited potential for reducing interagency duplication
or programmatic efforts compared to alternatives
1-3;

2) limited potential for reducing interagency program
conflicts compared to alternatives 1-3;

3) may appear to many elements of the tourism industry
to offer little in the way of a new Federal
co mitment to tourism; and

4) may appear to do too little to improve the stature
of tourism within the Federal Government.

C. Assignment of Principal Tourism Responsibility to a Limited
Number of Federal Agencies

1. Alternative 5

This alternative considers retaining foreign tourism programs and functions
within USTS and assigning domestic tourism programs and functions to
BOR and other agencies.

a. Advantages:

1) provides an opportunity to establish new priorities
for tourism and solve some program problems;

2) provides for consolidation of some potentially over-
lapping domestic programs within BOR;





















25-226 78-6








70



3) allows USTS to continue to implement foreign pro-
motion programs (an area in which USTS has been
relatively successful);

4) provides some opportunities for economies through
consolidation of domestic programs in BOR; and

5) relatively easy to get needed support in Congress
for initial legislation.

b. Disadvantages:

1) limited potential for reducing interagency duplication
of programmatic efforts overseas compared to other
options;

2) limited potential for reducing interagency program
conflicts compared to other options;

3) may appear to many elements of the tourism industry
to be anti-tourism in character;

4) may appear to do little to improve stature of foreign
tourism without new program thrusts;

5) likely to reduce opportunities to coordinate domestic
and international tourism programs;

6) may meet with some resistance by the Department of
Commerce and particularly by USTS;

7) provides for negligible gains in overall consolidation
efforts of the Administration; and

8) likely to be very unpopular with the tourism industry,
since it would appear to go against industry recommendations.

2. Alternative 6

This alternative considers retaining domestic tourism programs and functions
within USTS and assigning foreign tourism programs and functions to USIA.

a. Advantages:

1) provides an opportunity to establish new priorities
for tourism and solve some program problems;

2) provides for consolidation of some overlapping USTS/
USIA foreign mission responsibilities within USIA
(i.e., promotion of travel to the U.S. and promotion
of the U.S. generally);








71



3) provides some opportunities for economies through
consolidation of foreign programs in USIA;

4) relatively easy to get needed support in Congress for
initial legislation;

5) provides opportunity for more widespread dissemination
of tourism information to the public in other countries;
and

6) improves visibility in foreign countries of tourism
as a national interest of the U.S.

b. Disadvantages:

1) limited potential for reducing interagency duplication
of programmatic efforts domestically compared to other
options;

2) limited potential for reducing interagency program
conflicts compared to other options;

3) may appear to do little to improve the stature of
domestic tourism without new program thrusts;

4) likely to re-uce opportunities to coordinate domestic
and international tourism programs;

5) may meet with some resistance by the Department of
Commerce and particularly by USTS;

6) provides for negligible gains in overall consolidation
efforts of the Administration; and

7) likely to be very unpopular with the tourism industry
since it would appear to go against industry
recommendations.


3. Alternative 7

This alternative considers assigning foreign tourism programs and
functions to USIA and assigning domestic tourism programs and functions
to BOR and other agencies, thereby eliminating USTS as a Federal entity.

a. Advantages:

1) provides an opportunity to establish new priorities
for tourism and solve some program problems;








72



2) provides for consolidation of promotion of travel
to the U.S. and promotion of the U.S. generally
in USIA and consolidation of some potentially
overlapping domestic programs within BOR;

3) provides an opportunity for more widespread dis-
semination of tourism information to the public in
other countries;

4) provides some opportunities for economies through
consolidation of existing USTS programs in other
Federal agencies with related programs;

5) relatively easy to get needed support in Congress
for intitial legislation;

6) improves visibility in foreign countries of tourism
as a national interest of the U.S.;

7) eliminates USTS and its negative image;

8) provides some gain in overall consolidation efforts
of the Administration; and

9) likely to be the least costly option for a Federal
role in tourism.


b. Disadvantages:

1) does little to reduce interagency duplication;

2) does little to eliminate potential interagency conflicts;

3) does little, if anything, to improve the stature or
clout of tourism interests;

4) may reduce opportunities for coordination of domestic
and international tourism promotion programs;

5) likely to be resisted by the Department of Commerce
and particularly by USTS; and

6) likely to be very unpopular with the tourism industry
since it would appear to go against industry
recommendations.








'3



III. The Basis for Activity Coordination Strategies

Given the current conflict and duplication in Federal tourism policies
and programs as well as the fragmentation of the travel and recreation
industries at the national, State, and local levels, it was inevitable
that a large number of the needs elicited during the ascertainment phase
of the NTPS would suggest a need for much stronger coordination mechanisms
within both the public and private sectors of the tourism/recreation in-
dustry if these needs were to be met effectively.

The study team organized required coordination functions and mechanisms
into three logical groupings:

Federal internal or interagency coordinating mechanisms;

mechanisms for coordination between the Federal Government and
State, regional, and local public sector bodies; and

mechanisms for coordination between the Federal Government and
the private sector (including labor and consumer interests).

A review of existing coordination vehicles indicated a general absence
of such mechanisms. Those that existed appeared to be either presently
ineffectual and/or too narrowly designed in terms of mission to be use-
ful vehicles for coordinating activities carried out under a national
tourism (and recreation) policy. The study team therefore felt it was
necessary to develop new proposed coordinating mechanisms for consideration
by the Congress.

The idea of an interagency coordinating body to facilitate Federal tourism
and recreation efforts is neither new or without flaws. The study team
recognized early in the study the mixed results of previous government
coordination efforts. In the team's assessment of eight foreign government
tourism programs for the U.S. House of Representatives, particular attention
was given to coordination activities. Successful coordination has been an
evasive goal for all of these governments, producing mixed results paralleling
U.S. experience. However, the study team was able to identify a number of
factors that appear to control the level of success of coordination efforts
as well as a number of factors that are consistently present in coordinating
bodies that fail to achieve coordination goals. Those factors that must
be present to achieve a reasonable level of successful coordination include:

recognized dedicated leadership;

consistent leadership over time;

government commitment, at the highest levels, to the goals
to be achieved and to the policies and programs to be
coordinated;








74



* specifically defined responsibilities for policy and
coordination activities;

* coordination responsibilities assigned to decision-makers
who have "vested power" and authority to implement policy
and coordinating body decisions;

* clearly defined public policy principals which guide specific
policy (i.e., tourism policy) and coordination decisions;

* competent independent staff to provide substantive inputs to
decision-making;

* clearly defined time frames in which actions must take place;

* reporting and evaluation responsibilities with oversight by an
authority committed to assuring that responsibilities are
carried out;

* participants in policy and coordination decision-making with
a "national" perspective and a broad frame of reference;

* substantive content to issues consistent with decision-makers'
level of authority; and

* participants with a clear perception of national priorities.



















CHAPTER V

DETAILED OPTIONS FOR A PRINCIPAL FEDERAL TOURISM AGENCY


I. Introduction

In this chapter, we discuss in detail the two recommended options for
a principal Federal tourism agency:

the United States Travel and Recreation Agency (USTRA) --
Option A and the principal recommended option for a
principal Federal tourism agency; and

the United States Travel Bureau (USTB) -- Option B and the
alternate recommended option for a principal Federal tourism
agency.

The purposes of the two options would be similar, except for the fact
that USTRA (Option A) would have functional responsibilities for recre-
ation and national heritage resources as well as tourism and travel.
The USTB (Option B) would have functions limited principally to travel
and tourism.

The U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency would be organized as an executive
agency outside of existing departmental structures through a consolida-
tion of most existing programs and functions in the U.S. Travel Service,
the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and the National Park Service's Office
of Archeology and Historic Preservation and the National Visitor Center.
The U.S. Travel Bureau would be formed from the shell of the existing
U.S. Travel Service.

Both options would involve the addition of new programs and services to
those currently in operation in the existing agencies. These programs
would be concentrated in the areas of consumer services, industry
services, and planning. Under both options, current Federal Government
involvement in domestic promotion activities would be reduced to support
for private sector domestic promotion.

We support Option A and a consolidation of current functions of USTS,
BOR, and NPS Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation and National
Visitor Center for a number of reasons. The Bureau of Outdoor Recrea-
tion and USTS appear to be natural partners for a consolidation of
functions. BOR is presently staffed with the skills needed for tourism
as well as recreation planning and development, and USTS has staff
experienced in promotion and travel research. Existing programs and
services in BOR match in many cases the needs identified by the public
sector of the tourism industry; the tourism industry itself has, in
some cases, recognized the compatability of the two agencies and recom-
mended that BOR modify its program emphasis to meet their needs. The



(75)








76



public information and industry research needs to be met by proposed
new Federal initiatives are, in many cases, needs identified by both
USTS and BOR.

This is, in part, due to the overlapping constituency served by the
two agencies. The majority of people utilizing existing public recre-
ation areas are "tourists" as well as being "recreators" in that they
must travel more than an hour to reach available recreation resources.
In addition, both agencies have a "people" orientation in that their
programs and activities focus on the needs of people. It is also
interesting to note that BOR is the only agency in the Department of
the Interior that does not own or manage land or other resources.

Finally, a number of other countries (notably Ireland, Spain, and Japan)
have recognized the close relationship between tourism and recreation
by combining similar functions to those of USTS and BOR in their
respective tourism agencies.

The National Park Service's Office of Archeology and Historic
Preservation appears to closely parallel the planning and grant admin-
istration functions now in BOR and, when combined with a major increas-
ing public interest in historic resources as tourism attractions (both
currently and for the enjoyment of future generations), this office was
considered for consolidation into the new tourism agency, in part to
avoid continued duplication of similar functions.

Combining responsibilities for historic properties with tourism and
recreation is not a unique arrangement. The Irish Tourism Board
(Bord Failte) has successfully combined these responsibilities. The
National Visitor Center now in NPS serves, in part, the need for such
centers identified in the ascertainment phase of the NTPS, as well as
serving a nearly identical function to the overseas visitor centers
envisioned for the new tourism agency.







~-r




II. United States Travel and Recreation Agency (USTRA): Option A for
a Principal Federal Tourism Agency

Under this option, some but not all of the activities now carried out by
USTS, the functions of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and the activ-
ities of the National Park Service's National Visitor Center and Office
of Archeology and Historic Preservation would be consolidated into a
United States Travel and Recreation Agency. In addition, new programs
and services in the tourism and recreation area would be introduced.
Finally, the heritage-related functions of the Office of Archeology and
Historic Preservation would be expanded to include natural heritage
resources as well as historic resources.

Overall, the total staff engaged in these activities would remain about
constant: an estimated total of 872 employees currently administering
and carrying out the activities to be consolidated would be reduced to
860 in the new agency. The expansion of staff commitment to tourism-
related consumer and industry services and programs within USTRA would
be made possible, in part, by some efficiency gains associated with
consolidation of functions now duplicated in the various separate
organizational entities and some redirection of program emphasis.

The proposed new USTRA staffing plan does not include an Office of
General Counsel. However, since support in this area is likely to be
needed and the new agency would no longer be in a Pederal department
that could provide such services, it may be necessary to include an
Office of General Counsel in the agency organization described below.
The organization and staffing plan described herein is intended as a
guide and the Office of Management and Budget should be consulted in the
development of final organizational and staffing plans. (See AppendixB
for staffing plans and Appendix D for job descriptions.)

A. Purpose of the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency

The purpose of the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency would be to imple-
ment the new National Tourism (and Recreation) Policy as the principal
Federal instrument for promotion, development, planning, and research
related to tourism, recreation, and heritage resource preservation.
Responsibilities would include:

insuring that travel, recreation, and heritage resource
preservation and their related private sector constitu-
encies make their optimum contribution to the quality
of life, prosperity, and full employment in the U.S.;

fostering the sustained and orderly growth of tourism
and other beneficial leisure time activities in the
U.S.;



There would be, in addition, 15 employees in the new National Travel
and Recreation Policy Council (NTRPC).








78



optimizing development of visitor travel from other nations;
and

fostering an awareness among residents and non-residents of
the U.S. of the historical and cultural heritage of the
U.S. and of the social, educational, and other benefits to
be derived from the environmentally sound use of natural
resources for tourism and recreation.

B. Organization of the U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency

The Agency would have five principal organizational elements, as shown
in Figure 7:

an Office of the Administrator;

a USTRA Executive Committee;

an Office of the Executive Director;

an Office of Administration; and

four Centers for program activity.

1. Office of the Administrator Organization (Staff of 7)

The Administrator would be appointed by the President to serve at his
pleasure, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Admin-
istrator, aided by an Administrative Assistant for Tourism, an Adminis-
trative Assistant for Recreation, and an Administrative Assistant for
Heritage Resource Preservation, would serve as Chairperson of the USTRA
Executive Committee and chief executive officer of USTRA. The proposed
staffing would include the Administrator, Administrative Assistant for
Tourism, Administrative Assistant for Recreation, and Administrative
Assistant for Heritage Resource Preservation.

2. USTRA Executive Committee Organization (no permanently
assigned staff)

The Executive Committee would assist the Administrator in determining
operational policies for achieving agency objectives; would assist in
preparing annual program and planning documents for review by the
National Travel and Recreation Policy Council (NTRPC), the Intergovern-
mental Travel and Recreation Planning Board (ITRPB), and the Travel and
Recreation Development Board (TRDB); and would coordinate all USTRA
program activities. The Executive Committee would be made up of the
following:

Administrator;

Executive Director;








79



Director Visitors Services Center;

Director Industry Services Center;

Director Tourism/Recreation Planning Center; and

Director Heritage Resources Center.

3. Office of the Executive Director Organization (staff of 15)

The Executive Director would be a tourism/recreation professional, selected
by the Administrator, initially from a list of highly qualified candidates
solicited from and recommended by the private sector and State and local
government sectors of the travel and recreation industry with confirmation
by the Senate. The purpose of creating a position for a professional
Executive Director of USTRA is to provide future USTRA Administrators with
a highly-skilled travel/recreation professional who would remain with the
USTRA through shifts in political leadership, providing continuity to
USTRA programs over relatively long periods of time. Professionalizing
the Federal involvement in tourism-related activities is a primary goal of
the National Tourism Policy Study.

To avoid "locking in" of an ineffectual Executive Director, a procedure
for replacement should be established. At any point in time, the National
Travel and Recreation Policy Council (NTRPC), the Intergovernmertal Travel
and Recreation Planning Board (ITRPB), or the Travel and Recreation Develop-
ment Board (TRDB) could recommend to the Administrator that a reconfirmation
proceeding be initiated. This proceeding might include the Senate commit-
tee with oversight responsibility for USTRA initiating hearings to reconfirm
the appointed Executive Director. The Administrator could also request a
reconfirmation proceeding, provided that the Administrator had non-political
grounds for such an action. Should the appointment of a new Executive Direc-
tor be found by the Senate committee to be in the best interest of the Fed-
eral involvement in tourism-related activities, the Executive Director
would be asked to resign.

Should the need arise for the appointment of a new Executive Director, for
whatever reason, the Administrator would select a new Executive Director
from a combined list of highly qualified candidates screened and recommended
by the ITRPB and the TRDB. The ITRPB and the TRDB would each submit a list
of five candidates from which the Administrator would select a candidate
for Executive Director with confirmation by the Senate.

The Office of the Executive Director would combine responsibilities now
vested in the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tourism and the Office of
Policy Analysis in the United States Travel Service; and the Office of the
Director, the Office of Congressional Liaison, and the Office of Communi-
cations in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The Executive Director would
serve as Vice-Chairperson on the USTRA Executive Committee and would assist
the Administrator in providing overall direction of all USTRA activities.
The proposed staffing would include the Executive Director, a Senior Policy
Analyst, and an Information Officer.








80



Figure 7. U.S. TRAVEL & RECREATION AGENCY (OPTION A)
SUGGESTED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE










ADMINISTRATOR



OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATION DIRECTOR COMMITTEE






DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR
VISITORS INDUSTRY TOURISM/ HERITAGE
SERVICES SERVICES RECREATION RESOURCES
CENTER CENTER PLANNING CENTER
SCENTER
DIRECTOR DIRECTOR
CONSUMER FOREIGN OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF
SERVICES VISITOR INDUSTRY FEDERAL HERITAGE
DIVISION FACILITATION INFORMATION LAND RESOURCE
DIVISION ACOUISITION GRANTS

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF
CONSUMER FOREIGN DATA STATE & LOCAL KEEPER OF
INFORMATION VISITOR SERVICES PROGRAMS NATIONAL
FACILITATION _REGISTER_

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF
CONSUMER FOREIGN TRAINING & LAND & HISTORICAL &
PROTECTION TRAVEL EDUCATION WATER ARCHITECTURAL
PROMOTION .RESOURCES SERVICES

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF
CONSUMER CONVENTIONS TECHNICAL PLANNING INTERAGENCY
EDUCATION AND ASSISTANCE ARCHEOLOGICAL
EXPOSITIONS SERVICES

NATIONAL FOREIGN REGIONAL IOFFICE OF
VISITORS REGIONAL OFFICES BASIC &
CENTER OFFICES APPLIED
_RESEARCH






81



4. Office of Administration Organization (staff of 48)

The Director of Administration would have primary responsibility for
administrative support of USTRA operations reporting to the Executive
Director. The Director would direct operations of the Office of Budget
and Finance and Office of Personnel.

Initially, the Director would:

develop and distribute to the USTRA Executive Committee
new and revised procurement procedures and management
controls;

develop simplified grant application procedures for
grant programs related to the Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund as well as other tourism and recreation-
related grant programs, reducing paperwork and proces-
sing time to absolute minimums;

revise the performance measurement system for all USTRA
operations to reflect new tourism and recreation policy
emphasis;

develop new guidelines for USTRA staff travel, including
tighter controls on staff discretionary agency business
travel and recommendations for targeted travel for staff
professional development and training; and

develop a management training and staff development
program to professionalize the agency operations,
including establishment of high standards for manage-
ment and performance.

The proposed staffing would include the Director of Administration,
Budget Director, and Personnel Director.

5. Organization of Program Activities Centers

a. Visitors Services Center Organization (staff of 169)

1) Office of the Director of Visitors Services

The Director of Visitors Services would serve on the USTRA Executive
Committee as part of the USTRA management team, serve as a USTRA repre-
sentative on the NTRPC Transportation and Facilitation Policy Committee,
and would direct operations of the Visitors Services Center. The proposed
staffing would include the Director of Visitors Services and Deputy Direc-
tor of Visitors Services. The Visitors Services Center would have two
divisions: (1) Consumer Services Division, and (2) Foreign Visitor
Facilitation Division.







82



2) Consumer Services Division

The Director of Consumer Services would direct operations of the Office
of Consumer Information, Office of Consumer Protection, Office of Con-
sumer Education, and the National Visitor Center. The proposed staffing
would include the Director of Consumer Services, Consumer Information
Officer, Consumer Protection Officer, Consumer Education Officer, and
Director of the National Visitor Center.

3) Foreign Visitor Facilitation Division

The Director of Foreign Visitor Facilitation Services would direct opera-
tions of the Office of Foreign Visitor Facilitation, Office of Foreign
Travel Promotion, Office of Conventions and Expositions and the Foreign
Regional Offices. The proposed staffing would include the Director of
Foreign Visitor Facilitation Services, Deputy Director of Foreign Opera-
tions, Deputy Director of U.S. Operations, Facilitation and Information
Officer, Travel Promotion Officer, Convention and Exposition Officer,
and six Foreign Regional Office Directors.

b. Industry Services Center Organization (staff of 404)

The Director of Industry Services would serve on the USTRA Executive
Committee as part of the USTRA management team, serve as a USTRA repre-
sentative on the NTRPC Economic Development Policy Committee, and direct
operations of the Industry Services Center, including the Office of
Industry Information, Office of Data Services, Office of Training and
Education, Office of Technical Assistance, and the USTRA United States
Regional and Area Offices. The proposed staffing would include the
Director of Industry Services, Deputy Director of Washington Operations,
Deputy Director of Field Operations, Industry Information Officer, Data
Services Officer, Training and Education Officer, Technical Assistance
Officer, seven Regional Office Directors, and one Area Office Director.

c. Tourism and Recreation Planning Center Organization
(staff of 58)

The Director of Tourism and Recreation Planning would serve on the USTRA
Executive Committee as part of the USTRA management team, serve as USTRA
representative on the NTRPC Energy and Natural Resources Policy Committee,
and would direct operations of the Tourism and Recreation Planning Center,
including the Office of Federal Land Acquisition, Office of State and
Local Programs, Office of Land and Water Resources, Office of Tourism
and Recreation Planning, and the Office of Basic and Applied Research.
The proposed staffing would include the Director of Tourism and Recrea-
tion Planning, Deputy Director, Federal Land Acquisition Officer, State
and Local Programs Officer, Land and Water Resources Officer, Planning
Officer, and Basic and Applied Research Officer.











d. Heritage Resources Center Organization (staff of 159)

The Director of Heritage Resources would serve on the USTRA Executive
Committee as part of the USTRA management team, serve as USTRA repre-
sentative on the NTRPC Health, Education, and Cultural Affairs Policy
Committee, and would direct operations of the Heritage Resources Center,
including the Office of Heritage Resource Grants, Office of Keeper of
the National Registers, Office of Historical and Architectural Services,
and the Office of Interagency Archeological Services. The proposed
staff would include the Director of Heritage Resources, Deputy Director,
Heritage Resource Grants Officer, Keeper of the National Registers,
Historical and Architectural Services Officer, and Interagency Archeo-
logical Services Officer.

6. Timing of Organizational Efforts

The following timetable is recommended for implementing the organizational
changes involved in the new U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency:

Congress creates U.S. Travel and Recreation Agency;

President appoints new USTRA Administrator by end of month
three;

Senate confirms new Administrator by end of month six;

Administrator appoints "acting" officers of USTRA by end of
month seven;

Administrator solicits candidates for USTRA Executive Director
by end of month seven;

Administrator appoints Executive Director by end of month nine;

USTRA Office of Administration develops staff reorganization
plan, and interim Executive Committee approves plan by end
of month eleven;

Office of Administration defines new agency space requirements
and arranges with the General Services Administration (GSA) for
acquisition of new space by end of month eleven;

Interim Executive Committee develops phasing plan for transi-
tion from existing programs to new programs by end of month
eleven;

Administrator, with assistance from Executive Director, finalizes
all staff assignments by end of month twelve;

GSA moves USTRA into new agency space by end of month twelve;








84



Executive Director finalizes agency work program for second
year by end of month twelve;

Office of Administration finalizes second-year budget by end
of month twelve;

USTRA Activity Centers assess initial program and service needs
by end of month eighteen;

Centers collect and review available program information and
materials by end of month eighteen;

Centers identify activities appropriate to each Center and
Executive Committee coordinates Centers' development of program
plans, priorities, schedule and budget by end of month twenty-
one;

Centers initiate clearinghouse functions by end of month twenty-
four;

Executive Director, with concurrence of Administrator, assigns
temporary staff to the National Travel and Recreation Policy
Council for EIS review test program by end of month twenty-
four;

USTRA officers complete transition from existing programs to
new programs by end of month twenty-four;

Executive Director finalizes agency work program for third
year by end of month twenty-four; and

Office of Administration finalizes third-year budget by end
of month twenty-four.

C. Functions of the U.S. Travel and*Recreation Agency

1. Responsibilities of the Administrator of the United States
Travel and Recreation Agency

The Administrator would serve as the principal Federal Government
officer to direct research, planning, development, and promotion of
tourism, recreation, and heritage resource activities in the Nation's
interest. The Administrator's responsibilities would include:

overall direction of USTRA activities and programs;

designation of historic properties and national heritage
resources of national significance as National Historic
Landmarks and National Natural Heritage Resource Land-
marks;








85



serving on the National Travel and Recreation Policy
Council and the Executive Committee of the NTRPC to co-
ordinate Federal programs having a potential major impact
on tourism, recreation, and heritage resources;

coordination and utilization of services and facilities
of other Federal Government departments both domestically
and internationally;

directing USTRA to enter into cooperative agreements with
regional, State, or local governmental entities;

consulting with and organizing conferences of representa-
tives of industry, labor, State, local and regional
authorities, and other interested parties;

fostering sustained and orderly growth of tourism and
recreation in the U.S., insuring that travel, recreation,
and heritage resource preservation and their respective
industries make their optimum contribution to quality of
life, full employment, and prosperity in the U.S.;

optimizing development of visitor travel from other nations,
travel within the U.S. by residents, and awareness among
residents and non-residents of the social, educational and
other benefits of the environmentally sound use of touristic,
recreational, and heritage resources;

assuming responsibility for leadership, direction and
guidance of tourism, recreation, and heritage resource
development;


initiating policy-oriented rule-making proceedings before
transportation regulatory agencies when such intervention
is necessary to implement national tourism/recreation goals;

directing USTRA to develop a national five-year tourism and
recreation plan, including annual updates, to guide the
protection and growth of tourism, recreation, and heritage
resources inthe national interest; and

exploration of new forms of Federal-State-local-private
sector collaborations to facilitate the development of
domestic travel, recreation, and historical and cultural
interpretation and development of facilities, services, and
programs to better meet the needs of foreign visitors as
well as U.S. residents.


























25-226 0- 78 -7








86



2. Functions of the USTRA Executive Committee

The functions of the Executive Committee would be to provide all neces-
sary intra-agency coordination and coordination with the NTRPC, the
ITRPB,and the TRDB. The Executive Committee would be specifically
charged with the responsibility of assuring the responsiveness of the
USTRA Centers to the needs of the private, State, and local sectors of
the tourism and recreation industry. In addition, the Executive Com-
mittee would direct the preparation of annual program and planning
documents for review by the NTRPC, the ITRPB, and the TRDB.

3. Responsibilities of the Executive Director of the United
States Travel and Recreation Agency

The responsibilities of the Executive Director would be to provide
overall day-to-day direction of Federal Government tourism, recreational
and heritage-resource-related activities as specified by the Administra-
tor. The Executive Director's responsibilities would include:

assisting the Administrator in determining basic policies
for achieving tourism, recreation, and heritage resource
preservation objectives;

determination of operational policies for achieving
tourism, recreation, and heritage resource preservation
objectives;

maintenance of relations with the National Travel and
Recreation Policy Council and participation in the Council's
Policy Committee activities;

maintenance of relations with the ITRPB and participation
in ITRPB activities;

e maintenance of relations with the TRDB and participation
in TRDB activities;

representation, at the Administrator's discretion, of the
U.S. Government at official tourism functions;

direction of all USTRA staff activities;

preparation of position papers on tourism, recreation, and
heritage resource preservation issues and legislative pro-
posals;

providing for exchange of information with members of
Congress;

providing staff support to the USTRA Executive Committee,
including activities of USTRA representatives on the NTRPC
and its related policy committees; and