issues in tourism planning and development

Tourism Policy, Planning, and Development

General overview.

Tourism policy, planning, and development are all very connected and do not just occur when a geographic area decides to be a tourism destination. Policy, planning, and development are included in numerous aspects of communities.

continue but from different perspectives. An example would be the use of the destination/product lifecycle, discussed later. It is important to understand what tourism planning and development are individually as well as collectively. Planning is essential to effective development. Tourism is not always a beneficial industry for a geographical area, but without planning tourism can damage the area, including natural and cultural resources (Morrison et al., 2018). A destination might consider “Who, What, When, Where, Why” when working on a tourism plan. The same can be considered for tourism development, as well as other topics included in this alternative textbook (e.g., marketing and promotion).

Tourism Policy

A policy is essentially a course of action taken by some organization or institution (e.g., government, business, educational institution). A tourism policy as defined by Edgell et al. (2008) “is a progressive course of actions, guidelines, directives, principles, and procedures set in an ethical framework that is issues-focused and best represents the intent of a community (or nation) to effectively meet its planning, development, product, service, marketing, and sustainability goals and objectives for the future grown of tourism” (p. 7). Stated more simply, Hall and Jenkins (1995) suggest “tourism public policy is whatever governments choose to do nor not to do with respect to tourism” (p. 7-8). A tourism policy is essentially a framework including guidelines, goals, and initiatives to work toward achieving the goals. Where as an act by government, such as the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 establishing Brand USA, is a law or statute.

A policy for international travel is having a current passport and for many countries a Visa. The application for a Visa to visit a foreign country allows countries to approve who may visit the country and not allow individuals for a variety of reasons (e.g., security threat). The U.S also has the Visa Waiver Program, which is an agreement with  40 countries allowing citizens of those countries to visit the U.S. for business or leisure travel purposes for up to 90 days without a Visa, provided they meet other requirements (U.S. Department of State – Bureau of Counsular Affairs, n.d.). The countries with the Visa Waiver Program also allows U.S. residents to travel to the respective countries with fairly similar criteria. The purpose of requiring a Visa is to regulate travel between countries. The Visa Waiver Program is an agreement to allow citizens of certain countries to visit without having to obtain a Visa if certain criteria are met. This essentially makes it easier to travel between the respective countries.

The International Trade Administration includes a Tourism Policy Council (TPC) to ensure national decision-making considers the national interests of travel and tourism (International Trade Administration, n.d.). The TPC provides resources to help with such issues or challenges as recovering from disaster, and links to Center for Disease Control (CDC), and many other potential issues or challenges for travel and tourism in the U.S.

At more local levels, Morrison et al. (2018) suggest tourism destinations can develop policies for development, marketing, tourist experiences, human resource issues, tourism organizations (e.g., structure), relationships throughout the community, quality assurance, and supporting services (e.g., safety and security).

Policy Setting Process

There are a series of recommended steps for the establishing policy (Morrison et al., 2018). First, identifying and assessing the circumstances related to the issue. This includes understanding contraints that you and/or will face. Constraints can be internal (e.g., locals’ awareness of tourism, training and education of employees in hospitality and tourism, budget) or external (e.g., economy,  price of gas, natural disaster). The tourism organization/local industry has more control or ability to do something about internal constraints, while have little or no control over external constraints. For example, nothing can be done about bad weather or if a natural disaster occurs. However, if locals are not aware of tourism in the local community, education and information can be shared to make locals more aware. This step in the process can also make you aware of new opportunities (e.g., an attraction to develop, new target market).

The next step is typically to create a policy statement to provide guidelines, goals, and initiatives to help guide the organization, destination, etc. While not directly a policy statement, most CVB vision statements include something that provides a guideline with somewhat vague goals. For example, it might be to maintain and/or improve the quality of life for residents of the destination by promoting the destination for tourism and conventions, which would include an economic goal. A policy statement for this vision would be more specific with the goals and initiatives identified to fulfill the goals.

Consultation with government, local tourism businesses, and any other stakeholders is next. This step is to get feedback about the policy statement. Following the consultation and depending on the outcome, the policy statement might be rewritten or modified. Next would be another round of consultation and then rewriting until the the policy statement is approved.

Now is time to implement the policy statement. This will include identifying specific roles of individuals, committees, organizations, etc. This step also includes developing the budget and timeline for the initiative(s).

Finally, those involved evaluation the policy. Were the goals achieved? Why or why not? However, you do not wait until the end of the established timeline for the policy to evaluate. There should be constant assessment to identify if you are likely to achieve the goals. Remember there are numerous constraints that are external (e.g., weather, natural disaster) that might dictate the need to adjust the initiatives and other efforts related to the tourism policy.

Tourism Planning

Prior to tourism planning it is important to consider other types of planning for a community or geographic area. Planning is not new. Gunn and Var (2002) indicate physical planning goes back to early Greek and Roman times. Planning is done to manage visual appearance and land use. However, planning incorporates many disciplines and perspectives: “Planning is a multidimensional activity and seeks to be integrative. It embraces social, economic, political, psychological, anthropological, and technology factors. It is concerned with the past, present, and future” (Rose, 1984, p. 45).

Gunn and Var (2002) suggest when plans (not only tourism, but community, etc.) are created they often include very high or lofty goals and it is difficult to actually achieve such goals for numerous reasons. Planning is very vague and has no real theory behind it. For community plans the general goal is a better place to live. For tourism planning the goal might be to provide visitors with a good experience. As stated earlier, an effective  tourism plan can also maintain or even improve the quality of life of residents, not just economically but the attractions provide activities for local residents as well as tourists.

Morrison et al. (2018) offer three primary reasons for tourism planning. The first two are related to impacts, to maximize the economic benefits and minimize damage to resources (i.e., natural, environmental, cultural). Another reason for a tourism plan is that tourism is constantly changing for many reasons (e.g., visitor expectations, needs, motives; politics; economy; technology). As a result, the plan needs to be adaptable.

Not all destinations have a tourism plan. Some reasons for not having a tourism plan include (Morrison et al., 2018):

• Objections – it should be taken care of by the private sector and there is no need for a formal plan.
• Cost – includes market research, consultations, and a lot of time.
• Complex – tourism is affected by numerous things, such as government policies, dynamic of the community and stakeholders.
• Diversity – various sectors involved directly or indirectly in tourism.
• Seasonality – in many destinations the jobs related to tourism can be seasonal (e.g., beach destinations, snow skiing destinations).
• Unpredictability – keep in mind the numerous things that affect and make tourism complex (e.g., natural disasters, crises, politics, economy).

Gunn and Var (2002) add the following tourism planning barriers:

• Lack of awareness of tourism impacts – which is ironic because it is a reason for a tourism plan.
• Do not understand tourism development – there needs to be a plan for developing tourism and then maintaining and even upgrading tourism (e.g., attractions, facilities, etc.).
• Inadequate infrastructure – might have deteriorated attractions, facilities, etc.
• Unorganized – no leadership to guide the process.
• Politics – usually various opinions among stakeholders (e.g., businesses, government, other stakeholders).
• Lack of hospitality training.

However, there can be serious consequences of unplanned tourism. In general, unplanned tourism is not likely to be sustainable tourism economically, environmentally, socially/culturally.

Tourism Planning Models or Approaches

Morrison et al. (2018) provide a seven step tourism destination planning model:

• Background analysis – including a SWOT analysis and assessments of government policies that affect tourism, inventory analysis (e.g., attractions, accommodations, restaurants, etc.), current demand for tourism at the destination.
• Research and analyses – identify/map locations of the inventory analysis, market survey of current visitors (e.g., motivations, what they like to do) and non-visitors (e.g., why have they not visited?, awareness of the destination, image/perception of the destination), competitive analysis (e.g., who are your competitors?, how can you differentiate your destination from competitors? what do and can you work to improve?).
• Where are we now? (position statement).
• Where would we like to be? (vision statement). Then, identify critical success factors or ways to measure and determine if you achieved your vision.
• Setting goals, establishing strategies, and setting objectives – develop a policy or (e.g., stimulate the economy). Set goals or achievable outcomes. Identify alternative strategies to achieve goals and select the most desired of the alternatives given environment or conditions (e.g., economy, resources, politics). Set objectives which are more short term goals to help monitor if you are going to achieve your longer term goals. If not, remember a tourism destination plan should be adaptable, which is the next step.
• Develop a plan – identify organizations and people to be involved and their roles, funding sources and budgets for different aspects of the plan, activities to implement your plan.
• Implement and monitor the plan – While the plan should be developed by input and participation by numerous stakeholders, it is generally implemented by a local tourism agency or organization (e.g., CVB). But, there should be committees derived of various stakeholders to which the agency is accountable. This helps monitor progress of implementing the tourism destination plan and adapt if needed.
• Evaluate the plan – measure performant of the various parts of the plan against the goals (e.g., did you achieve the goals? Why or why not?). Use the evaluation to see if and how you might adapt the plan moving forward.

Tourism Development

The tourism destination plan helps guide development of tourism. Destinations will be at various stages of development. So, it is not that the tourism plan is just for a destination just getting involved in tourism. As suggested by Mason (2003). development and change for destinations occurs as time progresses. The characteristics, motives, preferred activities and attractions, and many other things change over time and destinations redevelop to remain competitive. A fairly common way to view this is commonly referred to as “Butler’s Tourism Area Lifecycle”. There are five main stages to Butler’s Life Cycle (Butler, 1980):

• Exploration – at this stage there might be some tourism but not really an effort to provide traditional or common tourism attractions, facilities, etc. This stage mostly include tourists visiting facilities and local resources used by residents.
• Involvement – this is the beginning of the destination offering some facilities for tourists. The destination begins to more formally organize and provide or improve infrastructure, some attractions, and facilities for tourists at a local level.
• Development – the destination begins marketing and promoting the destination. This stage also begins development from outside organizations and/or businesses. The destination will begin to develop and look more like a noticeable tourist destination. More and more tourists will likely visit the destination as development progresses.
• Consolidation – at this stage the rate of increase in visitors will begin to decline. The rate of development will also begin to decline. Residents may become opposed to tourism with all of the non-locals who are in the community and there is more traffic and congestion. Some of the older attractions, facilities, etc. may also begin showing degradation.
• Decline – number of visitors will be begin to decrease as competitor destinations might have more appealing attractions, infrastructure, etc. The degradation of attractions, infrastructure, and other aspects of the destination will continue and possibly turn into what Butler (1980) refers to as a “veritable tourist slum” (p. 9).
• Rejuvenation – this outcome can occur by development of a new man-made attraction, which is likely to be followed by improvement of surrounding attractions, facilities, and other tourist needs. However, if competitor destinations also rejuvenate, the competition will remain and rejuvenation might be much less or possibly not rejuvenate and potentially decline. Another way Butler (1980) suggest rejuvenation can occur is to utilize natural resources that might not have been part tourism product throughout previous tourism development and marketing and promotion.

Butler (1980), as well as many other tourism scholars, suggest all of these efforts or stages of Tourism Area Life Cycle should be a collaborative effort within the community. For example, the government could offer incentives for private development of a new man-made attraction.

There are a number of potential ways to develop tourism. One way is to develop a “flagship” attraction, which are major attractions like a theme park (e.g., Disney Land, Disney World) and/or utilize natural attractions (e.g., ocean, lake, National Park). Gunn and Var (2002) offer recommendations for tourism destinations to develop destination zones. The zone would have clusters of attractions (e.g., museum districts) and a corridor connecting the clusters with some form of transportation. Clustering attractions provides tourists with more to do in a closer area so they spend more time at attractions and less traveling between attractions. The destination zone and clustering is a great example of planning and development and how integrated the two initiatives should be.

Morrison et al. (2018) suggest tourism involvement should be holistic. The holistic view would include consideration of the product (e.g., attractions, events, support facilities, transportation, infrastructure, etc.). Respective destinations could also ensure people (i.e., hosts, guests) are included to ensure there is community awareness and  inclusion of local businesses, organizations, and residents. Morrison et al. (2018) also suggest visitor management (e.g., signage) and identifying the visitor mix of the destination. Packages (e.g., all inclusive, hotel and tickets to attraction) and programs (e.g., events, festivals, other activities) could also be developed to attract more tourists. However, destinations should approach tourism development and/or redevelopment from a sustainable approach to avoid overtourism (i.e., too many tourists).

Sustainable Tourism Development

Tourism development should also be sustainable and include the three impacts of tourism (i.e., economic, environmental, social/cultural).

The United Nations (n.d.) proposes 17 goals to consider for economic development, which include economic (e.g., “No Poverty”, “Decent Work and Economic Growth”, environmental (e.g., “Clean Water and Sanitation”, “Affordable and Clean Energy”), and social/cultural (e.g., “Good Health and Well Being”, Quality Education”) goals. The 17th goal is “Partnerships For the Goals”, which are very important for tourism destinations, not only in tourism destination planning and development, but other aspects such as marketing and promotion.

Relating development back to the impacts of tourism (i.e., economic, environmental, social/cultural). Sustainable development should include these impacts. Morrison et al. (2018) through applying the triple bottom line to tourism offers some examples of efforts for sustainable development in each of the three areas:

• Social – include residents, be sure development improves or at least maintains locals’ quality of life.
• Environmental – protect resources, educate visitors and residents of ways to protect resources.
• Economic – new employment opportunities, increase spending of visitors, find ways to have businesses purchase locally to minimize leakage.

Tourism Development Strategies

Various strategies exist to develop tourism. For example, flagship attractions (e.g., large amusement parks, National Parks) can provide something unique to market and promote. Development of clusters of attractions (e.g., museum districts) provide several attractions near each other so visitors do not have to drive long distances between attractions. Such districts could also include development of a circuit or trail for transportation via hiking or biking. Aside from man-made attractions, events can be developed by destinations to highlight such things as cultural or other unique aspects of a destination.

Considering all of the possible options of tourism development provides a holistic view. Not only the examples of attractions and events, but packages and programs can developed. Destinations need to also consider all of the elements of tourism in development (i.e., attractions, infrastructure, transportation, built/support facilities, service quality/hospitality). Again, not only businesses and organizations directly involved in tourism, but all stakeholders (e.g., residents, other local businesses) should be included and/or given the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the tourism development plan.

The general goals of tourism development should include improving visitors’ experiences, improving the local economy, not damaging natural resources, and integration throughout the destination so that tourism attractions and venues are not isolated from the rest of the community (Gunn & Var, 2002). Such goals of tourism development require all three sectors (i.e., private, non-profit, government) to be involved and collaborate.

Tourism Development Roles

The private sector, non-profit, government, and local community (e.g., residents) should be involved in tourism development. The private sector role is entrepreneurial and operations (Morrison et al., 2018). The entrepreneurial role is to identify investors to develop man-made attractions, accommodations, food and beverage, and other facilities for tourists. Once built their role becomes to hire workers, manage the operation and ensure it is successful. After all, they are taking a risk as entrepreneurs.

As discussed in the Tourism Organizations section, the non-profit organizations include CVBs to market and manage the destination, chambers of commerce, associations such as a local sports association to attract sporting events to the destination. The CVB typically works with all stakeholders and leads the marketing and sales (e.g., conventions, trade shows) for the destination. Chambers of commerce might be the tourism marketing and sales organization in smaller destinations. However, many of these non-profit types of organizations collaborate with each other, as well as with private or for-profit-sector (e.g., members of CVBs) and government (e.g., hotel tax dollars as a funding source). Non-profit organizations might also operate such things as museums and historical attractions, as well as festivals and events. Such organizations might be local cultural organizations.

The government really does not manage tourism attractions. However, there are exceptions, such as National Parks. Government roles are to stimulate development of tourism, as well as establish and enforce procedures, codes, such as zoning (e.g., business, residential). Government might also get involved for the following reasons: bankruptcy of an attraction where the government needs to help the business in some way, ensure cultural aspects of the community are conserved, encouraging private sector development, find ways to work with potential attractions and other elements of tourism provided through the private sector where businesses may have concerns about being profitable (Morrison et al., 2018).

Government might fulfill some of the above reasons for their role in tourism development by offering incentives (e.g., tax breaks) to entice development by the private sector. Government might also offer a piece of land for private sector development, which lowers the businesses cost to develop at attraction, supporting facilities, or other element of tourism.

While the sectors may have relatively unique roles in tourism development, it is also important the cooperate with each other for the good of the destination. Edgell and Haenisch (1995) offer a model whereby there are times each will work independently of the other two sectors, times when two sectors work together (e.g., private sector and government), and times when all three work together. Edgell and Haenisch (1995) call this “coopetition”. For example, while attractions compete within the destination for tourists to visit respective attractions, if all stakeholders cooperate the develop and manage tourism, the destination will do better overall.

Project Development Analyses

Prior to developing an attraction, hotel, or other element of tourism, there should be an assessment or analysis to determine the feasibility of being successful. Private sector developers who need be profitable will typically do feasibility studies. This may start with a pre-feasibility study, which is essentially to see if the project is even viable. For example, does the project make sense given what the destination already offers? Pre-feasibility studies might be conducted by whatever company or organization is interested in the project. If it does, the next step would be a more robust feasibility study to identify such things as potential sites for the product being considered, assess the market demand of the project, projected revenues and expenses, capital costs to develop the project, and will there be enough return on investment (ROI) if the project is developed. The full feasibility study is often conducted by an independent consulting company to minimize biases. The feasibility studies helps the company or organization identify if the project should move forward or not.

The market demand study within the full feasibility study would include secondary and primary research. Secondary research would include existing data, such as hotel metrics (e.g., supply, demand or rooms sold over a given period of time, occupancy, average daily rate (ADR), and revenue per available room (REVPAR) if the project is a hotel. Primary market analysis requires collection of data. This can include surveys (e.g., visitors of the destination to determine if the potential project is of interest), focus groups to get in-depth insight as to the interest of visitors. Surveys can also be conducted to potentially identify potential demand for the project.

If a project is not intended to be profitable, such as one being developed by the government or non-profit organization, a cost-benefit analysis can be conducted. Such a study essentially identifies the potential benefits to society are worth the cost of the investment.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area life cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, XXIV (1), 5-12.

Draper, J., Woosnam, K. M., & Norman, W. C. (2011). Tourism use history: Exploring a new framework for understanding residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 50 (1), 64-77.

Edgell, D. L., Allen, M. D., Smith, G., & Swanson, L. E. (2008). Tourism policy and planning: Yesterday, today and tomorrow . Elsevier Inc.

Gunn, C. A., & Var, T. (2002). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases (4th ed.). Routledge.

Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. M. (1995). Tourism and public policy . Routledge.

International Trade Administration. (n.d.). Tourism Policy Council (TPC). https://www.trade.gov/tourism-policy-council

Mason, P. (2003). Tourism impacts, planning and management . Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Morrison, A. M., Lehto, X. Y., & Day, J. G. (2018). The tourism system (8th ed.). Kendall Hunt.

Rose, E. A. (1984). Philosophy and purpose in planning. In M. J. Bruton (Ed.), The spirit and purpose of planning (2nd ed., pp. 31-65). Hutchinson.

United Nations. (n.d.). Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/goals

U.S. Department of State – Bureau of Counsular Affairs. (n.d.) Visa Waiver Program. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visa-waiver-program.html

GHL 2365 - Tourism Copyright © 2024 by Jason Draper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Understanding the Role of Stakeholders in Sustainability of Travel and Tourism Industry: Future Prospects

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 12 December 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Anukrati Sharma 2 &
• Shruti Arora 2  

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

13 Accesses

Without the support and dedication of stakeholders, success might seem improbable for any business or industry. Working together, stakeholders can make sure that travel and tourism has a positive impact on the economy, environment, and society. Properly involving stakeholders in the tourism industry could also result in better decision-making, increased cooperation, and a greater understanding of the industry’s effects. All parties involved in the planning of sustainable travel and tourism must be included, especially the local community. Despite not often having a direct connection to the project or even the industry, stakeholders are nonetheless influenced by the results. Future generations are frequently regarded as tourism stakeholders, including both visitors and residents. In order to maintain sustainability, the chapter explores the role of stakeholders in the travel and tourism sector. The goal of this study is to better understand how stakeholders’ perspectives might affect business decisions on the development of sustainable tourism initiatives at diverse tourist destinations. This research will focus on the role of stakeholders in the sustainability of the travel and tourism sector and future prospects through a review of the literature from the previous 15 years.

According to the authors, locals or the host community have a greater responsibility to preserve the local culture and to sustain it for the future of the region. This is based on a review of the literature that demonstrates how stakeholders, including national and local government, the host community, individual shops, professionals working in tourism, tourism educational centers, tourists, and destination management organizations, all enhance or limit progress in travel and tourism. A few other issues were also noted during the study, such as poor education, inadequate financing and publicity, and rapid changes in infrastructure and technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (1), 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.005

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali, F., Hussain, K., Nair, V., & Nair, P. K. (2017). Stakeholders’ perceptions & attitudes towards tourism development in a mature destination. Journal of Oral Science, 65 , 173–186.

Google Scholar  

Amerta, I. M. (2017). The role of tourism stakeholders at Jasri tourism village development, Karangasem regency. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (IJSSH), 1 (2), 20–28.

Andersson, T. D., & Getz, D. (2008). Stakeholder management strategies of festivals. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 9 (3), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/15470140802323801

Becker, C. U. (2012). Sustainability ethics and sustainability research. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2285-9 . Retrieved from https://jyu.finna.fi/PrimoRecord/pci.springer_s978-94-007-2285-9_272111

Boachie, W. K. (2012). Assessing sustainable development in the mining industry in Ghana: A question of corporate perspective. Journal of Economic and Sustainable Development, 3 (10), 113–119.

Bornhorst, T., Brent Ritchie, J. R., & Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourism success for DMOs & destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives. Tourism Management, 31 (5), 572–589.

Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2), 392–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00105-4

Brown, D., Spillman, K., Lee, M.-Y., & Lu, Y. (2014). Factors influencing small tourism business performance: The case of Central Kentucky, United States. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23 (7), 768–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.883293

Butler, R., Hall, C., & Jenkins, J. (1999). Tourism and recreation in rural areas . Wiley.

Carroll, A. B., Brown, J. A., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2018). Business & society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management . Cengage.

Christie, I., Fernandes, E., Messerli, H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2014). Tourism in Africa: Harnessing tourism for growth and improved livelihoods . World Bank.

Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102 , 77–87.

Ford, R. C., Wang, Y., & Vestal, A. (2012). Power asymmetries in tourism distribution networks. Annals of Tourism Research., 39 (2), 755–779.

Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach . Pitman.

Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Zyglidopoulos, S. (2018). Stakeholder theory: Concepts and strategies . Cambridge University Press.

Getz, D. & Timur S. (2005). Stakeholder involvement in sustainable tourism: Balancing the voices. In Global tourism (pp. 230–247). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7506-7789-9.50019-4

Goeldner, R., & Ritchie, B. (2005). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (9th ed.). Wiley.

Hall, C. M. (2008). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and relationships (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Hall, D., & Richards, G. (2000). Tourism and sustainable community development (pp. 20–35). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203464915

Hamid, M. A., Isa, S. M., & Kiumarsi, S. (2020). Sustainable tourism practices and business performance from the tour operators’ perspectives. Anatolia, 32 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1830135

Hartley, N., & Wood, C. (2005). Public participation in environmental impact assessment – Implementing the Aarhus convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25 , 319–340.

Herlangga, E. R., & Basuni, S. (2019). Stakeholder management of Kawasan konservasi mangrove dan bekantan in Tarakan city. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 23 (5), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.7226/jtfm.25.3.146

Holden, A. (2013). Tourism, poverty, and development . Routledge.

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13 , 38–52.

Iazzi, A., Pizzi, S., Iaia, L., & Turco, M. (2020). Communicating the stakeholder engagement process: A cross-country analysis in the tourism sector. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27 (4), 1642–1652.

IBEF Nov. (2022). Tourism and hospitality industry report. Retrieved from https://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-tourism-and-hospitality-industry-analysis-presentation#:~:text=In%20India%2C%20the%20industry's%20direct,US%24%2028.9%20billion%20in%202018

Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach . Wiley.

Jalim, J. (2018, May 29). What are the types of tourism? Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-types-of-tourism

Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (1), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)00067-3

Jovanović, S., & Ivana, I. L. I. Ć. (2016). Infrastructure as important determinant of tourism development in the countries of Southeast Europe. Eco Forum Journal, 5 (1), 288–294.

Kenawy, E., Osman, T., & Alshamndy, A. (2017). What are the main challenges impeding implementation of the spatial plans in Egypt using ecotourism development as an example? Social Sciences, 6 (3), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6030075

Kuvan, Y., & Akan, P. (2012). Conflict and agreement in stakeholder attitudes: Residents’ and hotel managers’ views of tourism impacts and forest-related tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20 (4), 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.617824

Landorf, C. (2009). Managing for sustainable tourism: A review of six cultural world heritage sites. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17 (1), 53–70.

Lim, J. S., & Greenwood, C. A. (2017). Communicating corporate social responsibility (CSR): Stakeholder responsiveness and engagement strategy to achieve CSR goals. Public Relations Review, 43 (4), 768–776.

Link BC. (2008). Transforming communities through tourism: A handbook for community tourism champions . Retrieved from http://linkbc.ca/siteFiles/85/files/TCTT.pdf

Ljungholm, D. (2014). The process of collaborative governing. Geopolitics, History and International Relations, 6 (2), 105–110. Retrieved from https://jyu.finna.fi/PrimoRecord/pci.proquest1626534498

Majid, Z. (2023, May). Kashmir tourism stakeholders upbeat about future of industry after G20 event. HD Deccan Herald . Retrieved from https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/kashmir-tourism-stakeholders-upbeat-about-future-of-industry-after-g20-event-1222078.html . Accessed 25 July 2023.

McComb, E. J., Boyd, S., & Boluk, K. (2017). Stakeholder collaboration: A means to the success of rural tourism destinations? A critical evaluation of the existence of stakeholder collaboration within the Mournes, Northern Ireland. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 17 (3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358415583738

Mkwizu, K. H. (2020). Digital marketing and tourism: Opportunities for Africa. International Hospitality Review, 34 (1), 5–12.

Moscardo, G. (2011). Exploring social representations of tourism planning: Issues for governance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 (4–5), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.558625

Muresan, I. C., Oroian, C. F., Harun, R., Arion, F. H., Porutiu, A., Chiciudean, G. O., Todea, A., & Lile, R. (2016). Local residents’ attitude toward sustainable rural tourism development. Sustainability, 8 , 100.

Musavengane, R., Tantoh, H. B., & Simatele, D. (2019). A comparative analysis of collaborative environmental management of natural resources in Sub-Saharan Africa: A study of Cameroon and South Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 54 (4), 512–532.

Najdeska, K. A., & Rakicevik, G. (2012). Planning of sustainable tourism development. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 44 (C), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.022

Nicolaides, A. (2015). Tourism stakeholder theory in practice: Instrumental business grounds, fundamental normative demands or a descriptive application? African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 4 (2), 1–27.

Nunkoo, R., & Smith, S. L. (2014). Trust, tourism development and planning . Routledge.

Parsa, H. G. (2015). Sustainability, social responsibility, and innovations in tourism and hospitality . Apple Academic Press.

Prell, C., Hubacek, K., Reed, M., Quinn, C., Jin, N., Holden, J., Burt, T., Kirby, M., Sendzimir, J., & Holden, J. (2007). If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail: Traditional versus participatory model building. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32 , 263–282.

Ragas, M. W., & Roberts, M. S. (2009). Communicating corporate social responsibility and brand sincerity: A case study of chipotle Mexican grill’s “food with integrity” program. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3 (4), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/15531180903218697

Ruhanen, L. (2009). Stakeholder participation in tourism destination planning another case of missing the point? Tourism Recreation Research, 34 (3), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2009.11081603

Saidu-Kamara, V. (2016). Strategy for sustainable tourism in developing countries: A qualitative case study on Sierra Leone. Retrieved from https://jyu.finna.fi/PrimoRecord/pci.proquest1836800870

Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders, a tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00097-8

Southgate, C., & Sharpley, R. (2002). Tourism, development and the environment. In R. Sharpley & D. J. Telfer (Eds.), Tourism and development: Concepts and issues (pp. 231–262). Channel View Publications.

Swarbrooke, J. (2001). Sustainable tourism management (2nd ed.). CAB International.

Theodoulidis, B., Diaz, D., Cr, F., & Rancati, E. (2017). Exploring corporate social responsibility and financial performance through stakeholder theory in the tourism industries. Tourism Management, 62 , 173–188.

Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S. R., & Beaumont, N. (2009). Segmentation: A tourism stakeholder view. Tourism Management, 30 (2), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.05.010

Tuan, N. (2016). Stakeholder model application in tourism development in Cat Tien, Lam Dong. Journal of Advanced Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 1 , 73–95.

Turker, N., Alaeddinoglu, F., & Can, A. S. (2016). The role of stakeholders in sustainable tourism development in Safranbolu, Turkey . HLST-Summer July 12–14, 2016, Kyoto, Japan (pp. 415–426). Kyoto.

UNWTO. (2019). International tourism highlights. 2019 Edition . Retrieved from https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421152

Verdugos, C. M., & Agüera, O. F. (2013). Potencialidades ecoturísticas de la República Dominicana. TURyDES, Revista de Turismo y Desarrollo Local, 6 (14). http://www.eumed.net/rev/turydes/14/ecoturismo.html

Waayers, D., Lee, D., & Newsome, D. (2012). Exploring the nature of stakeholder collaboration: A case study of marine turtle tourism in the Ningaloo region, Western Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, 15 (7), 673–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.631697

Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi-stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Management, 36 , 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.008

Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2014). The ‘leadership–stakeholder involvement capacity’ nexus in stakeholder management. Journal of Business Research, 67 (7), 1342–1352.

World Bank. (2020). Stakeholder engagement plan for emergency projects in response to COVID-19 . https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/820461588370087737/pdf/Stakeholder-Engagement-Plan-SEP-Cote-dIvoire-COVID-19-StrategicPreparedness-and-Response-Project-SPRP-P173813.pdf

World Travel & Tourism Council. (2020). Economic impact of travel and tourism report . Retrieved from https://www.wttc.org/

Yilmaz, B. S., & Gunel, O. D. (2009). The importance of strategic stakeholder management in tourism sector: Research on probable applications. Tourismos, 4 (1), 97–108.

Yiu, L., Saner, R., & Filadoro, M. (2011). Mainstreaming tourism development in the least developed countries: Coherence and complementarity of policy instruments . KUONI.

Yodsuwan, C., & Butcher, K. (2012). Determinants of tourism collaboration member satisfaction in Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17 (1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.613206

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Commerce & Management, University of Kota, Kota, Rajasthan, India

Anukrati Sharma & Shruti Arora

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dept. of Commerce and Management, University of Kota, Kota, Rajasthan, India

Anukrati Sharma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Sharma, A., Arora, S. (2024). Understanding the Role of Stakeholders in Sustainability of Travel and Tourism Industry: Future Prospects. In: Sharma, A. (eds) International Handbook of Skill, Education, Learning, and Research Development in Tourism and Hospitality. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3895-7_44-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3895-7_44-1

Received : 29 July 2023

Accepted : 22 November 2023

Published : 12 December 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-99-3895-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-99-3895-7

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Brazil is reeling from catastrophic floods. What went wrong – and what does the future hold?

In the country’s south, up to half of the annual predicted rain fell in just 10 days – the third such event in a year. Experts say it is time to plan for a new normal

• Photographs by Daniel Marenco

W hen the torrential rain began to swallow her city block, Cristiane Batista, 34, grabbed her three children, a couple of backpacks and her smartphone and waited at the door, hoping to be picked up by the municipal trucks preparing to evacuate the population of Muçum, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil .

“I was terrified. The house was about to flood. We had to get out of there,” she says.

Batista, her husband, Jeferson, 34, and their children – who range in age from one to eight – had already been victims of the extreme weather of Brazil’s southernmost state twice last year. In September 2023, Muçum and its nearly 5,000 inhabitants were at the centre of the devastation caused by floods, which left scores of people – including 15 people in a single Muçum house .

“We lost everything,” she says.

Two months later, the city was hit by another fierce bout of rain. The storm destroyed furniture and appliances and left walls stained with mud. After losing everything for the third time, she says she no longer has the strength to live in the city.

Rio Grande do Sul, a state home to almost 11 million people, has witnessed the most extensive climate catastrophe in its history and one of the greatest in Brazil’s recent history.

Over the course of 10 days at the end of April and beginning of May, the region recorded between a third and almost half of the yearly rainfall predicted – between 500 and 700 millimetres, depending on the area, according to measurements by Metsul Meteorologia .

The storm caused the Taquari, Caí, Pardo, Jacuí, Sinos, and Gravataí rivers – tributaries of the Guaíba – to overflow.

According to the Civil Defence , there are more than 100 people dead, more than a 130 missing, and nearly 400 people injured in 425 affected municipalities.

At least 232,125 people have left their homes: 67,542 are in shelters, and 164,583 are homeless or temporarily staying with family or friends. Cities such as Eldorado do Sul, Roca Sales, and Canoas were partly flooded, and villages such as Cruzeiro do Sul were devastated in what the state governor, Eduardo Leite, described as “the greatest catastrophe of all”.

Porto Alegre, the state capital and one of Brazil’s largest urban centres, is one of the worst-affected cities. On 5 May, the level of the Guaíba River, which runs through the city, reached a record of 5.35 meters, surpassing the 4.76 meters reached during the historic floods of 1941.

Neighbourhoods close to the river were submerged. The airport closed, and power and water-treatment plants went down, causing electricity and drinking water shortages in several areas. A dam in a northern suburb failed and flooded a large portion of the city.

Viewed from an army helicopter , the neighbouring city of Eldorado do Sul looks like a set of canals stretching along narrow strips of land and buildings. About 90% of the city is underwater. Along the BR-290 highway, one of the most critical roads in the country’s south, hundreds of people are waiting for transport to shelters.

“We knew it would be a unique event, and the river would overflow within a few days. We did simulations with the data we recorded, and the result was terrifying. So we alerted the authorities,” says Joel Goldenfum, the director of the Institute of Hydraulic Research at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, who is leading research on the unfolding catastrophe in Porto Alegre.

Infrastructure is key to understanding what happened in the state capital, says Goldenfum, explaining that an extended network of 42 miles (68 kilometres) of dykes, gates, a containment wall at the dock, and more than 20 drainage pumps prevented a more severe situation. However, the lack of maintenance of the flood protection system over the years may have been a factor.

“This system has worked well, but it has already shown sealing problems,” he says. “The gates and pump houses have already shown weaknesses. There have been maintenance problems, so the system hasn’t held up.”

Extreme floods were relatively uncommon in Rio Grande do Sul. However, scientists believe that climate factors are now accelerating such events.

These include an intense wind current in the region, which destabilised the climate; an atmospheric block, which emerged after a heatwave that made the centre of Brazil drier, concentrating the rain in the country’s northern and southern extremes; and a moisture corridor from the Amazon, which strengthened the torrential rain.

Twenty years ago, a study produced by the climate researchers José Antonio Marengo and Wagner Rodrigues Soares identified a significant increase in precipitation in southern Brazil and warned of its consequences.

A more recent study published by the National Institute of Meteorology (Inmet) indicated that the number of days Porto Alegre suffers “extreme precipitation” – rainfall above 50 millimetres – has more than doubled since the 1960s. From 1961 to 1970, there were 29 days a year. This number increased to 44 days between 2001 and 2010 and rose to 66 days from 2011 to 2020.

“These climate events gain power as we have El Niño and La Niña periods. Over time, we have seen that the rainfall regime and temperatures are different,” s Marcelo Dutra da Silva, a professor of ecology at the Federal University of Rio Grande and one of the country’s leading figures warning about climate effects. “This is creating climate and ecological troubles and an economic problem.”

In June 2022, Dutra warned public authorities that cities in the southern region were not prepared for natural disasters. “There is no planning for risk areas, for flood areas. There is absolutely no environmental planning to consider the climate changes and events happening,” he said.

Carlos Nobre, a renowned climatologist, principal investigator at the Institute of Advanced Studies (IEA) of the University of São Paulo, and the co-chair of the Science Panel for the Amazon , says climate models had already indicated the risk of increased rainfall in southern Brazil.

The higher the average temperature, the more intense the ocean’s evaporation, bringing more water into the atmosphere and thus facilitating the occurrence and increasing the frequency of extreme weather events, he says.

“What we have seen happen is absolutely devastating,” Nobre says. “We have data on this in Brazil: due to climate change, the forecast is for increased rainfall [in the southern regions].”

For Nobre, a critical problem for regions suffering climate events such as extreme floods is that “the infrastructures were built for a climate that no longer exists”. He says it is time for governments to reconsider planning better adaptation to avoid future catastrophes.

Another study , produced in 2015 during the administration of President Dilma Rousseff, showed projections that now seem closer to our climate reality: heatwaves, water scarcity in south-east Brazil and intense rainfall in the south.

Natalie Unterstell, an expert in climate change policy and negotiations and one of the study’s authors, says the extreme floods in the Rio Grande do Sul are precisely what she has been warning about for years. “What is happening today in Rio Grande do Sul is our new reality and not a ‘sad exception’,” she posted on Instagram .

Brazil’s presidency says that it is not possible to estimate the exact extent of the current damage and how much reconstruction will cost as the water has not receded.

“The country will spare no effort to assist in the reconstruction and resettlement of people who have lost their homes,” itsaid in a statement. “It’s likely that there will be properties that cannot be rebuilt in the same location due to the risk of new floods.”

However, on Thursday the state governor announced his first estimate of the damage : about 19bn reals (£2.9bn), which is expected to rise in the coming days and weeks.

Leite – who has relaxed nearly 500 environmental protection regulations since 2019 when he took office – says his administration will develop a housing plan for people affected by the flood. He had previously said that the state would need “a Marshall plan” to recover, referring to the American programme to rebuild after the second world war.

The mayor of Porto Alegre, Sebastião Melo, says his administration has carried out maintenance but acknowledged that the flood prevention system “is old”.

Amid increasing public pressure for political leaders to be held accountable for their indifference to adapting to the climate crisis, Melo says his efforts are focused on the rescue operations and the displaced shelter. “It’s not time to look for culprits,” he ,says. “It’s time to seek solutions.”

• Southern frontlines: Latin America and the Caribbean
• Extreme weather
• Climate crisis

Most viewed

Navigation Menu

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests..., provide feedback.

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly.

To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation .

• Notifications

ROS 2 Navigation Framework and System

ros-navigation/navigation2

Folders and files, repository files navigation.

For detailed instructions on how to:

• Getting Started
• General Tutorials and Algorithm Developer Tutorials
• Navigation Plugins
• Migration Guides
• Container Images for Building Nav2

Please visit our documentation site . Please visit our community Slack here (if this link does not work, please contact maintainers to reactivate).

If you need professional services related to Nav2, please contact Open Navigation at [email protected] .

Our Sponsors

Please thank our amazing sponsors for their generous support of Nav2 on behalf of the community to allow the project to continue to be professionally maintained, developed, and supported for the long-haul! Open Navigation LLC provides project leadership, maintenance, development, and support services to the Nav2 & ROS community.

Dexory develops robotics and AI logistics solutions to drive better business decisions using a digital twin of warehouses to provide inventory insights.

Nvidia develops gpu and ai technologies that power modern robotics, autonomous driving, data centers, gaming, and more., polymath robotics creates safety-critical navigation systems for industrial vehicles that are radically simple to enable and deploy., stereolabs produces the high-quality zed stereo cameras with a complete vision pipeline from neural depth to slam, 3d object tracking, ai and more., confidential is just happy to support nav2's mission.

If you use the navigation framework, an algorithm from this repository, or ideas from it please cite this work in your papers!

• S. Macenski, F. Martín, R. White, J. Clavero. The Marathon 2: A Navigation System . IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020.

If you use any of the algorithms in Nav2 or the analysis of the algorithms in your work, please cite this work in your papers!

• S. Macenski, T. Moore, DV Lu, A. Merzlyakov, M. Ferguson, From the desks of ROS maintainers: A survey of modern & capable mobile robotics algorithms in the robot operating system 2 , Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2023.

If you use the Smac Planner (Hybrid A*, State Lattice, 2D), please cite this work in your papers!

• S. Macenski, M. Booker, J. Wallace, Open-Source, Cost-Aware Kinematically Feasible Planning for Mobile and Surface Robotics . 2024.

If you use the Regulated Pure Pursuit Controller algorithm or software from this repository, please cite this work in your papers!

• S. Macenski, S. Singh, F. Martin, J. Gines, Regulated Pure Pursuit for Robot Path Tracking . Autonomous Robots, 2023.

If you use our work on VSLAM and formal comparisons for service robot needs, please cite the paper:

• A. Merzlyakov, S. Macenski. A Comparison of Modern General-Purpose Visual SLAM Approaches . IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2021.

Build Status

Releases 57, contributors 254.

• Python 9.9%
• Dockerfile 0.3%

Microsoft announces $3.3 billion investment in Wisconsin to spur artificial intelligence innovation and economic growth

May 8, 2024 | Microsoft Source

• Share on Facebook (opens new window)
• Share on LinkedIn (opens new window)
• Share on Twitter (opens new window)

President Joe Biden to join Microsoft for announcement in Mount Pleasant

Editor’s note – May 10, 2024 – This press release was updated to include the full name of National Grid Renewables.

Mount Pleasant, WI – May 8, 2024 – Microsoft today announced a broad investment package designed to strengthen the role of Southeast Wisconsin as a hub for AI-powered economic activity, innovation, and job creation. These investments include $3.3B in cloud computing and AI infrastructure, the creation of the country’s first manufacturing-focused AI co-innovation lab, and an AI skilling initiative to equip more than 100,000 of the state’s residents with essential AI skills. President Joe Biden will join Microsoft President Brad Smith at Gateway Technical College to announce the new investment.

“Wisconsin has a rich and storied legacy of innovation and ingenuity in manufacturing,” said Brad Smith, Vice Chair and President of Microsoft. “We will use the power of AI to help advance the next generation of manufacturing companies, skills and jobs in Wisconsin and across the country. This is what a big company can do to build a strong foundation for every medium, small and start-up company and non-profit everywhere.”

These investments will be rolled out in a four-part strategy designed to create long-term benefits for the state’s economy and job market.

Investing in cloud and AI infrastructure

First, Microsoft will invest $3.3B between now and the end of 2026 to expand its national cloud and AI infrastructure capacity through the development of a state-of-the-art datacenter campus in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin. The project is expected to bring an influx of 2,300 union construction jobs to the area by 2025, as well as providing long-term employment opportunities over the next several years. This new infrastructure will help enable companies in Wisconsin and across the country to develop, deploy and use the world’s most advanced cloud services and AI applications to grow, modernize and improve their products and enterprises.

Along with building a physical data center, Microsoft will partner with Gateway Technical College to build a Data Center Academy to train and certify more than 1,000 students in five years to work in the new data center and IT sector jobs created in the area.

“This is a watershed moment for Wisconsin and a critical part of our work to build a 21st-century workforce and economy in the Badger State,” said Governor Tony Evers. “Microsoft is a blue-chip corporation that recognizes the strength of Wisconsin’s workers, infrastructure, economy, and our quality of life. Microsoft has chosen to locate and invest here because they know the future is here in Wisconsin.”

Transforming businesses of all sizes in every industry

Second, to help build a thriving regional AI innovation economy, Microsoft will establish a manufacturing focused AI Co-Innovation Lab on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the first of its kind in the United States. This lab will connect Wisconsin manufacturers and other companies with Microsoft’s AI experts and developers to design and prototype AI and cloud solutions to improve and accelerate their work and grow their business. This lab will aim to serve 270 Wisconsin companies by 2030, including 135 manufacturing businesses.

The lab will connect with TitletownTech in Green Bay, which was co-founded in 2017 and is funded in part by Microsoft and the Green Bay Packers. Microsoft and the Packers are similarly partnering to help fund the new lab in Milwaukee, which will be staffed in part by Microsoft AI experts and venture experts from TitletownTech.

“The Green Bay Packers are excited to continue our partnership with Microsoft, which we first established with TitletownTech near Lambeau Field, and now will expand and enhance as we collaborate with the AI Co-Innovation Lab,” said Mark Murphy, President and CEO of the Green Bay Packers.

Creating a future-ready workforce

Third, reflecting the critical role of education and training in AI transformation, Microsoft will partner with United Way Wisconsin, United Way Racine, and other community partners, to upskill more than 100,000 people across Wisconsin by 2030 on generative AI. This curriculum will help train residents to use new applications, including Microsoft Copilot, a suite of Microsoft AI services that enhance productivity and creativity.

In addition, Microsoft will work with Gateway Technical College to train and certify 3,000 local AI software developers and provide opportunities for 1,000 local business, civic and government leaders to participate in immersive bootcamps where they can learn how to effectively adopt generative AI into their organizations.

These initiatives underscore Microsoft’s commitment to equipping the workforce with the tools needed for success in an increasingly AI-driven economy.

Reinforcing the community’s central role

And finally, a strong and vibrant economy isn’t possible without a strong and vibrant community. That’s why Microsoft will invest in a series of long-term local education and youth employment programs to support the very community that is supporting us.

In partnership with the Racine Unified School District (RUSD), Microsoft will work with Girls in STEM to expand its program to two additional RUSD middle schools. This expansion will provide access to STEM education for more than 500 middle school-aged girls over the next five years. Working with Racine County, Microsoft will support their Summer Youth Employment Program, matching at least 125 young people (16-18 years old) with local employers to receive soft skills and on the job training annually.

Microsoft will also continue to distribute Equity Through Technology and STEAM Grant Funds to the more than 12,000 people across Racine County engaged in United Way programs. Announced in 2023, these grants help local nonprofits address disparities and support under-resourced communities through the use of technology. Through investment and partnerships with local community organizations, Microsoft will look to contribute to a thriving and growing Southeastern Wisconsin, helping support a community where opportunity is available for everyone.

These announcements build on Wisconsin’s heritage of business innovation and Microsoft’s history of investment in the state. In 2017, Microsoft announced TechSpark , an ecosystem building program to accelerate economic opportunity and job creation now active in all 50 states. Microsoft has invested in the startup ecosystem in Wisconsin through TitletownTech , a partnership with the Green Bay Packers, in computer science and digital skilling with local partners like gener8tor, in digital inclusion with Microsoft Airband , and even local journalism with the Northeast Wisconsin News Lab .

Investing in the environment

Mindful that the expansion of its business must be done in a manner consistent with protecting the environment and expanding affordable energy access for everyone, Microsoft has partnered with National Grid Renewables to build a new 250 megawatt solar project in Wisconsin that will begin operating in 2027. This additional solar power means that by 2027, Microsoft will exceed 4,000 megawatts of flowing into the local grid – an amount of power equivalent to what’s needed to power more than 3 million homes. As part of this work, Microsoft and National Grid Renewables will jointly contribute $20 million over the term of the agreement to a community fund to support under-resourced communities and communities disproportionately impacted by pollution.

We are working to ensure water is managed responsibly. The new datacenter will use recycled water by employing a closed loop cooling system that does not require any additional water after startup. This is a major step towards sustainability and responsible resource management. A relatively small portion of the facility will use water for cooling, but only when the temperature outside is very warm.

For more information, press only:

Microsoft Media Relations, WE Communications, (425) 638-7777, [email protected]

Note to editors:  For more information, news and perspectives from Microsoft, please visit Microsoft Source at  http://news.microsoft.com/source . Web links, telephone numbers and titles were correct at time of publication but may since have changed. Shareholder and financial information is available at  http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/investor .

Related Posts

ServiceNow and Microsoft expand strategic alliance, combining generative AI capabilities to enhance choice and flexibility

Microsoft and LinkedIn release the 2024 Work Trend Index on the state of AI at work

Axel Springer and Microsoft expand partnership across advertising, AI, content and Azure services 

The Estée Lauder Companies and Microsoft increase collaboration to power prestige beauty with generative AI

Microsoft earnings press release available on Investor Relations website

• Check us out on RSS

Share this page: