The Effects of the Tourism Industries in Asheville, NC and Greenville, SC

The Effects of the Tourism Industries on the Sense of Place in Asheville, North Carolina and Greenville, South Carolina: A Sustainability Analysis Samantha Bernacki Advisor: Geoffrey Habron, Ph.D. Senior Thesis Furman University Earth and Environmental Science Department

Abstract A perceived place-identity impact study of the tourism industries on local communities are identified and examined using a mixed-qualitative method study in the cases of Asheville, North Carolina and Greenville, South Carolina. There are organizations and individuals in Asheville and Greenville advocating for an expansion of the urban tourism and others advocating to keep the economies and consumption local. Despite resistance in Asheville, leading companies in the tourism industry have persisted in development. Data was collected through surveying, interviewing, participant observation, as well as document and spatial analysis. The analysis shows that there is misalignment in the sense-of-place conveyed by the actors in the system including the tourists, residents, local government, and tourism professionals in both cities.

Actor-Network theory is used to bring light to the interactions between human and non-human actors within the system to gauge the equality of the interactions. In the case of Asheville, the state government regulates many of the other actors through hotel occupancy tax laws. Hotels are a critical non-human actor in the system. The purpose of this study is to define how sustainable the tourism system in each city is by determining who benefits from tourism and who is unsatisfied with the impacts of the industry. The study found that the tourism industries in Asheville and Greenville both must slow the rate of development to allow for more sustainable outcomes that are promoted by all actors. Specific attention must be placed on community needs.

Keywords: Place-Identity, Sense of Place, Sustainability, Tourism, Actor-Network Theory, Asheville, Greenville, Local

Introduction This is a qualitative study of the impacts urban tourism has on a city’s sense of place and the local communities around it. To verbalize tourism’s impacts, this study is looking at the presences of sustainability in relationships and interactions within local tourism industries and city residents. Two Southeastern cities, Asheville, North Carolina and Greenville, South Carolina, were featured as case studies.

Urban Tourism became prominent in the city of Asheville in the early 1880s (BCTDA 2019).

Since 1914, Asheville’s minor league baseball team has appropriately gone by the team name of the “Asheville Tourists” The team was originally given the name because none of the first players were Asheville native, but in recent years the name has taken on a new meaning (Caputo 2014). Within the last decade, Asheville’s tourism industry has grown, and more tourists have been drawn to the city throughout all four seasons. In 2019 the Buncombe County Tourism Development Authority (BCTDA) released their annual report that reported that tourism generated 3.1 billion dollars in the county and 368 million in tax revenue (BCTDA 2019).

My research found that residents of Asheville show frustrations with the growth of tourism and changes that it has brought to the city including over crowdedness, increased cost of living, gentrification, and land-use disputes. Residents in Asheville display resistance towards infrastructure developments because it has caused significant levels of gentrification throughout the city as well as around the city.

Greenville as a city began to market itself as a “leisure destination” in 2007. Prior to 2007 Greenville focused on attracting tourists for business and sports tournaments (Greenville Tourism Professional). Since the switch, success in the city’s tourism has grown at a rapid pace.

My research found that residents of Greenville welcome tourists with open arms. Residents of Greenville do not associate the development of tourism with the development of the city’s infrastructure, as the residents of Asheville do.

There are organizations and individuals in both Asheville, NC and Greenville, SC that advocate for an expansion of the urban tourism as well as entities that advocate to preserve local economies and keep consumption local in order to preserve the city’s authenticity. Both cities have strong Tourism Development Agencies that are making successful pathways for the expansion of tourism and infrastructure development of the city’s downtown areas. Table 1 displays relevant census data of the two cities to give context to resident populations discussed (US Census 2019, 2017, 2012).

Table 1. Census data for Asheville and Greenville Asheville, Greenville, North Carolina South Carolina Population 92,452 68,563 Female Population, percentage 57.2% 51.5% Black/ African American Population, percentage 12% 25.7% Hispanic or Latino Population, percentage 5.9% 5.2%

In Civilian Labor Force, ages 16 and up Women-Owned Businesses (2012) Minority-Owned Businesses (2012) Median Household Income (2017)

64.9% 67.4% 4,955 2,869 1,247 1,592 $48,984 $46,464 (US Census Data 2019)

The purpose of this study is to define the sustainability of these differing tourism industries in Asheville and Greenville. This study aims to find who benefits from tourism growth and who is marginalized or unsatisfied by the changing place-identity of these cities. This research aims to examine issues of social justice, political voice, land-use disputes, and misrepresentation. The issues are addressed using the following research questions: 1. How have the tourism industries in each region affected the city’s “sense-of-place”?

2. Are the effects of the industry in each city sustainable?

3. How can the effects of tourism industries be made more sustainable?

I utilize five methods: surveying, interviews, participant observation, spatial and document analysis to mobilize Actor Network Theory (Law 1992) and Place-Identity Framework (Kavaratzis 2015). These theories help identify themes and principles of Sustainability Science in the two tourism industries. Defining sustainability in a tourism context will allow us to identify areas of improvement for both cities and humans, both visiting and residential.

This research will analyze sustainable tourism industries criteria established by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) to contextualize global tourism, Mihalis Kavaratzis’s Place Branding Framework to contextualize a city’s sense of place (Kavaratzis & Kalandides 2015). Actor Network Theory to contextualize how Greenville and Asheville’s tourism industries function as systems.

Principles of Sustainability Science Sustainability, as defined by the United Nations, means “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987). The definition that the United Nations provides for Sustainable Development is, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations 2015).

The United Nations includes economic development as one of the three core elements of sustainable development: economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection.

Scholars have debated whether sustainable economic growth is even possible given strong correlations between economic growth and environment degradation through natural resource use (Raworth 2012). For the purposes of this thesis we will consider the possible positive outcomes of degrowth, but sustainable economic growth represents the most practical outcome for Asheville and Greenville in the near future.

In 2015, the United Nations introduced the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that were designed to be met by 2030. There are 17 goals that require world-wide participation and support

to realize. The SDGs are “the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all.

They address the global challenges we face, including those related to poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperity, and peace and justice” (WCED 2018). Each of the seventeen goals includes specific targets and areas of focus (United Nations SDG Annual Report 2018).

The SDG 11, “Sustainable Cities and Communities,” is of interest in this study because it works to address “common urban challenges that include congestion, lack of funds to provide basic services, a shortage of adequate housing, declining infrastructure and rising air pollution within cities.” A sustainable city must include adequate housing and transportation, “enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management,” and “strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” (WCED 2018).

For Asheville, this means a “complex balancing act for a city that has won widespread praise over the last few years largely due to the success of the social-entrepreneurial coalition in integrating a vibrant downtown that complements the natural environment, attractive residential neighborhoods, and long-standing tourist destinations such as the Grove Park Inn and the Biltmore Estates” (Strom 2017). For Greenville, this means considering the industries that are moving into the city and ensuring they align with their own vision for the city (Greenville Online Survey).

Models of Sustainability The Doughnut Model is a visual framework for sustainable development (Figure 1). The Doughnut Model was designed to ensure that we are living within the threshold of our natural environments while also ensuring that social wellbeing is accessible for all. We fundamentally “depend on a stable climate, fertile soils and a protective ozone layer,” (Raworth, 2018) to carry out our daily lives.

The Doughnut Model inner boundary is occupied by the essential human “social foundations.” In the research we are concerned with the social foundations of political voice, income, work and social equity. The outer boundary of the model is the “environmental ceiling.” The ceiling “consists of nine planetary boundaries, as set out by Rockström et al, beyond which lie unacceptable environmental degradation and potential tipping points in Earth systems” (Raworth 2018). Between the social foundations and the planetary boundaries is the “doughnut” that represents the “environmentally safe and socially just space for humanity to thrive. Humans must maintain and sustain a position in this area represented by the green doughnut to have a “regenerative and distributive economy” (Raworth 2012).

This thesis focuses on the social foundations of housing, social equity, political voice, and income & work. This model can determine if urban tourism has compromised the sustainability of each region.

Figure 1. Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Model of Sustainability.

Sustainable Tourism Common Practices and Assessment According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), tourism is the fastest growing economic sector in the world. The economic value of tourism “equals or even surpasses that of oil, food products or automobiles,” making the industry a key driver of socio-economic growth (UNWTO 2019). Tourism is responsible for creating jobs, funding infrastructure and development, and increasing GDP. Our global Tourism & Travel sector generated $8.8 trillion as well as 319 million jobs in 2018, well above the world GDP growth rate for the last eight years (WTTC 2019). Despite this contribution to economic growth, tourism can be damaging and unsustainable when designed or practiced improperly.

A study done in 2008 on the impacts of traditional tourism and community impacts “high-lighted many negative consequences from tourism development including:  Modest or no economic returns from tourism for locals (Kiss 2004)  Negative impacts on local culture and social structure (Forstner 2004)  Restriction of access to land for traditional activities (Vail and Hultkrantz 2000)  Disruption of traditional subsistence and other activities (Abakerli 2001)  Damage to natural and cultural heritage (Briassoulis 2002).”

(Moscaardo 2008) Sustainable tourism is not new to the travel and leisure industry. It is a term that is attached to many different meanings. Moscarrdo warns us to focus on “sustainable tourism rather than tourism for sustainable development is the disempowerment of local residents and other local stakeholders in the tourism development and management process” (Moscaardo 2008). The UN General Assembly in 2015 declared 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development, a recognition by all countries of the potential of tourism to help transform our world” (UNWTO 2017). Mascarrdo argues that this definition of “‘sustainable tourism’ tends to

be associated with a focus on ensuring the continuity of tourism (Coccossis 1996; Stabler 1997) that limits consideration of the possibility that tourism may not be a sustainable option in some places (Wall 1997)” (Moscaardo 2008).

The UNWTO recognizes the environmental impacts of tourism and uses the SDGs to verbalize these impacts: “The growing number of people travelling internationally and domestically each year produces pressures in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, economic leakages, resource management and impact on local communities and cultural assets” (WTO 2019). A UNWTO publication, Tourism and the SDGs – A Journey to 2030, emphasizes the opportunity for tourism to aid in the process of sustainable development. Sustainable development and sustainable tourism can occur in tandem.

Most academic case studies of tourism are international, involving developing nations that serve as an exotic destination for Northern Hemisphere populations to visit (WTO 2019). While this is an important issue that must be addressed, this thesis focuses on the possibilities of unsustainable tourism in the United States and disjointed community visions. For the purposes of this thesis, we are less concerned with the environmental impacts of traveling and more so on the long-term social wellbeing of localities that have experienced economic growth due to a blossoming tourism industry.

The UNWTO identifies further SDGs that relate to the success of sustainable tourism. Goals of “Decent Work and Economic Growth”, “Responsible Consumption and Production” and “Partnerships for the Goals” are all affected by sustainable tourism as an economic industry. The nature of all of these goals works to consider the delicate balance of human impacts on natural resources while achieving social equity.

Raworth’s Doughnut Model recognizes that preserving social wellbeing, culture and community is just as important as supporting natural environments and living within the planetary boundaries. Tourism industries that strive for sustainability within their systems of industry should strive for the same for the sake of preserving the environment of the destination.

Place Branding Mihalis Kavaratzis has published a number of journals and books that discuss the idea of “participatory place-branding.” For studying urban tourism within the United States, I have found that this model is the most comprehensive way to assess the social sustainability of a tourism system. The tourism system, applied to any setting, is dense and complex. To navigate through the elements of the system this thesis uses a Place- Identity Framework (Figure 2) to guide the research while ensuring each part is represented to produce a comprehensive and inclusive assessment of the industries in the regions examined.

Determining the Place-Identity of each city will help in “identifying a current limitation within place brand definitions: namely the reliance on associations that people hold with the place as elements that constitute the place brand” (Kavaratzis 2015). In tourist destinations, residents and visitors often experience a different version of “place” in the same area. The Place-Identity framework is used to understand the tourism system from the perspective of residents, tourists,

tourism professionals, and state and local government. The framework aims to identify the possible differences between the versions of “place” (Kavaratzis & Kalandides 2015).

The four boxes in the place- identity framework are themes of place (Figure 2). The four themes are the foundation of Place-Identity. Each variation of a theme contributes to the “Place-Identity” a group of people perceives of the city, represented in the center. The themes used are as followed: 

  



“Practices” includes any “norm” or aspect of the culture that is present through the tourism industry that may have an effect on how it functions or contributes to the sense of place. Practices also includes the laws that determine how the industry operates that are identified by stakeholders or literature.

“Representation” was used to identify which groups of people, businesses, and organizations were represented or significant to each actor and which were not.

Representation themes can be analyzed by the appearance or absence of something.

“Materiality” is any physical element that is highlighted in the industry. This mostly includes architecture, tourist attractions, landscapes, and art.

“Institution” is the code theme that is used to characterize the general type of organizations that are involved with the tourism industry. There is a wide range of institutions that cater to tourists ranging from tourism-based companies to local government. The code highlights how the organizations interact with tourists and how they compare or differ from the organizations that are aimed at locals.

“Democracy and Governance” accounts for the mandated laws and regulations that restrict what changes can be made to the tourism industries (Kavaratzis & Kalandides 2015).

Figure 2. Place-Identity Framework. Adapted from Rethinking the Place Brand (Kavaratzis & Kalandides 2015).

The place-identity framework that was used to code each of the qualitative research methods is displayed later in Table 2. The objective of this framework is to develop an understanding of the “sense of place” that exists for each actor involved in the tourism system. This framework was used to code surveys, interviews, tour-route mappings, and all document analyses. In the discussion section, the sustainability of the study is determined by the alignment, or misalignment of each actor’s sense of place of the region.

Kavaratzis’s framework implies that the more alignment and co-creation of a place-brand, the more benefits that will arise from the tourism industry. Kavaratzis suggests that “place brand is best considered a platform that brings together the destination, its internal stakeholders and its external audiences” (Kavaratzis & Kalandides 2015).

Actor-Network Theory Actor-Network Theory is an approach to social theory that connects all social and natural components of a system through relationships that are constantly evolving and developing. The outcome resembles a webbed network of actors in the system, shown in Figure 3. This theory helps to identify the methods of a tourism industry and how they affect the region; “ANTinspired studies are not interested in what tourism is, but in how tourism works; how it is assembled, enacted, and ordered; how it holds together; and how it may fall apart” (Duim 2013).

When these elements are revealed, ANT can be used to identify misalignments or problems within the system. An Actor-Network approach is used to understand the interactions between human and nonhuman actors involved in the system.

Figure 3. Actor-Network Dataspaces Example on the left. From http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc. Source: Latour 2011. On the right is a simplified actornetwork representation of a tourism industry system.

The results of the research are organized using ANT for each tourism industry. ANT achieves this by “addressing how all things do not add up, for instance, how systems of mobility may break down, these accounts offer opportunities for engaging in those relations or even to rework them” (Duim 2013). I use this framework by discussing my research methods using this way of thinking about the tourism system. The actors in the tourism system include residents, tourists, tourism-based agencies, and government. To understand the system behavior, this research aims to understand the perception of the system from the point of view of each actor. The views will then be compared and contrasted to determine the sustainability. The most sustainable scenario is overlapping views of the tourism system.

Dillon’s Rule Dillon’s rule is a “legal standard sometimes used by courts when reviewing the legality of specific local government actions. The “rule” refers to a standard for judicial interpretation – a guide for judges suggesting that municipal powers should be narrowly construed. It was developed by John Forest Dillon, a judge and scholar who wrote a famous treatise in 1872 about local government law. The rule states: “It is a general and undisputed proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no others: First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the corporation–not simply convenient, but indispensable” (Bluestein 2012).

Dillon’s Rule is often understood as the opposite of Home Rule. However, the Dillon Rule is most often used in combination with Home Rule applied to different divisions of law. Home Rule allows “local governments governing authority to make a wide range of legislative decisions that have not been addressed by the state” (Russell 2016). North Carolina and South Carolina apply a combination of Home Rule and Dillon Rule to the state legislation, there is a slight difference in how each state applies the rules.

Hotel Occupancy Tax

Both cities have a state-mandated hotel occupancy tax that results from the Dillon’s Rule.

Asheville and Greenville tourism are both funded by the hotel occupancy tax. The occupancy tax revenue is generated by over-night hotel visits. Asheville’s hotel occupancy tax is set at the state maximum at 6%, while Greenville’s is at 3%. The state government in both states sets the tax rate. “Lodging properties in Buncombe County are responsible for collecting the occupancy or room tax on all relevant sales” (BCTDA 2019). The North Carolina State Government also declares that 75% of the tax revenue must be spent on regenerating tourism in the form of advertisements. This limits the local region’s ability to have control over the tourism industry.

This also means that in 2019, 4.8 million dollars were spent on advertising Asheville as a tourist destination.

Table 2 shows relevant statistics about the tourism industry logistics in Asheville and Greenville regarding the size and function of the tourism industries. Cities across North and South Carolina have expressed frustration with this mandated tax law (Russell 2016).

Table 2. Current Tourism Statistics for Asheville and Greenville Asheville Greenville Tourism Tourism State Laws that apply to tourism Hotel Occupancy Tax on overnight visit Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenue (2018) Hotel Occupancy Rate (annual average 2018) Year city became a “leisure destination” Number of visitors (2018)

Dillon’s Rule 6% (Explore Asheville 2018) $6.4 million

Dillon's Rule 3% (Visit Greenville 2019)

73.6% (Explore Asheville 2018) 1983 (Visit Greenville 2019) 7.9 million (Explore Asheville 2018)

71% (Visit Greenville 2019)

$2.3 million

2007 (Greenville Tourism Professional) 5 million (Visit Greenville 2019)

The cities have grown through tourism developments. The developments have made the cities increasingly popular tourist destinations. Both cities have appeared on Trip Advisor’s 2019 Top USA Cities to Visit this Year list (TripAdvisor 2019).

The cities make a good comparison because of some striking similarities in addition to the census demographics highlighted in Table 1. The cities show similarities in their tourism marketing techniques, attractions offered, and urban development associated with tourism. Both Asheville and Greenville have recreational, natural, adventure, food, and beer tourism. They are small and unique cities that attract a specific type of tourist. This is representative of how the Convention and Visitors Bureau operate in each city.

Asheville

Asheville’s Convention and Visitors Bureau, Explore Asheville, is tasked with spending the $4.8 million-dollar revenue from hotel occupancy tax to generate more tourism in the area. The organization has created different campaigns to spend the revenue. The remining 25%, $1.6 million dollars, is to be spent on projects and improvements that will generate additional tourism.

“Buncombe County’s tourism-related businesses are represented free of charge on this website that attracts nearly 4.5 million visits annually” (BCTDA 2018).

“Since 1983, the local occupancy tax has funded the TDA’s marketing efforts. It began as a 2 percent charge tacked onto room sales at all lodging facilities; over time, the rate has gradually increased. In 2015, it jumped from 4 to 6 percent, with 1.5 percent dedicated to the agency’s Tourism Product Development Fund. Guests at hotels, bed-and-breakfasts, vacation rentals and, more recently, Airbnb’s, all pay this tax” (Calder 2018).

Greenville Greenville reported a total of $20.5 million dollars that was generated by the Hotel Occupancy Tax on overnight stays was used to advertise the destination through multiple campaigns since 2007 (Greenville Convention and Visitors Center 2019).

Asheville is further along in the development of their tourism industry, but Greenville is increasing the rate of growth in their industry. In May 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau named Greenville the 4th fastest growing city in the United States (Census Bureau 2015). The growth has slowed, but the tourism industry has not. Ad-influenced travel revenue reached $331,000,000 in 2017 which was up 61% from previous years (Greenville Tourism Professional). The Greenville population has grown at a steadier rate from 56,516 in 2000 to 68,563 in 2017. With plans to add an additional 38 acres to downtown, and a Unity Park attached to the Swamp Rabbit Trail, the tourism industry will increase even more (Connor 2019).

The Greenville Convention and Visitors Bureau began marketing the city as a leisure destination in 2011 (Greenville Tourism Professional). Since then, the city has experienced major proliferation, despite the fact that they are one among 34 “Greenvilles” in the United States.

Promoting the city uniquely was an issue that the Tourism Development Agency has overcome with the marketing slogan “Yeah, That Greenville,” that they feel sets them apart from other “Greenvilles” in the Unites States. They attribute this marketing effort to much of their success at promoting the city as a leisure destination (Greenville Convention and Visitors Center 2019).

There has not been major opposition to the growth of the tourism industry presented by residents.

However, there has been push back from residents on new developments being made throughout the city, which are partially funded by the hotel occupancy tax.

Methods Location and Subjects Studied This research was conducted in Asheville, North Carolina and Greenville, South Carolina. The cities are located about an hour apart from each other by car and connected by US-25 North, and Interstate 26 West. Asheville is located among the Blue Ridge Mountains in western North Carolina. Greenville is located in northwestern South Carolina in the “Upstate” region.

There were approximately 300 subjects involved in the study including residents, tourism professionals, and tourists in each area. Residents and tourists surveyed, and tourism professionals were interviewed in person. The tourism professionals are referenced throughout the research but remain anonymous. The tourism professionals are referred to as “Greenville Tourism Professional” or “Asheville Tourism Professional.”

Methods Overview This is a mixed-methods study. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected with the objective of attaining a comprehensive understanding of five groups’ thoughts and feelings involving the tourism industry. These groups include tourists, residents, tourism professionals, and state and local government. This research involved speaking with human subjects in each area, distributing surveys to residents and tourists, participant observation in tourist activities, analyzing media stories and documents that pertained to tourism, and conducting spatial analyses of the hotel impact in Asheville.

Every component of this research involves coding using MAXQDA. I utilized a deductive placeidentity framework to develop a code and define the “sense of place” for both cities. As a guiding principle, Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is used to describe the narrative of a system while acknowledging all crucial elements and actors, biotic and abiotic. ANT is used to connect all of the mixed methods to effectively answer the posed research questions.

The methods are designed to produce results that are scaled into categories. For example, the percentage of residents that enjoy tourism as it is, and the percentage of residents that would like to see change occur.

The methods used in this study are displayed in Table 3. The table includes applications for both Asheville and Greenville. Asheville is represented in orange and Greenville is represented in blue. There are more applications for Asheville because a majority of the results focus on Asheville. As Asheville’s tourism industry faces more opposition from residents than Greenville’s there were more data to collect.

Table 3. Research methods and applications Methods Applications Asheville Greenville Surveys Interviews Participant Observation Spatial Analysis Document Analysis

Tourists 33, 13 Residents 101, 33 Tourism- Based Organizations 1, 1 Tours 3, 2 Festivals/Events 2, 1 Hotel Growth 1 Visitor’s Guides 1, 1 Newspaper Articles

Surveys Two types of surveys were used for each location; an online survey and an event survey. The online survey went to local residents in each city. The event survey was taken by residents and tourists at local outdoor events over the summer months in 2019. The online survey received 101 responses in Asheville and 33 responses in Greenville. The event survey received 33 responses in Asheville and 13 responses in Greenville.

The surveys were analyzed using Excel and Qualtrics data analysis software. Patterns were identified for each response to recognize the reaction of the general resident population. The most significant findings were turned into graphics that are included in the results section of the research.

Resident Survey The online resident survey comprised of 17 questions for Asheville residents and 16 questions for Greenville residents. It took about 7 minutes to respond to the survey. The questions provided a platform for residents to share their thoughts about the tourism industry in their city and how it has affected them personally, or the city as a whole. Demographics and geographic location were also collected to better understand the sample population.

The online survey was distributed through two Facebook groups in Asheville, and two Facebook groups in Greenville. The Facebook groups were selected because of their high membership of residents of the cities with over 1,000 members in each. To gain access to these groups, a person must verify their addresses before they are allowed membership. A person is only granted access to the groups if their address is within the specified region. This parameter ensures that the survey responses came from residents of the area and these Facebook groups were determined to be good samples of active residents in the study areas.

In Asheville the online survey was shared to “West Asheville Exchange” Facebook group, and the “Color of Asheville” Facebook group. The Greenville survey was sent to “Greenville SC Residents” Facebook group, and the “Black Lives Matter Greenville” Facebook group. An African American group was selected for both Asheville and Greenville because I was interested in the presence of social justice issues, and to ensure different voices were heard through the data collection process. The survey was also shared through the NextDoor app in both downtown areas. The NextDoor app is a community-based social networking app that allows people to share information with others who live in their region.

Tourist Survey The event survey was distributed in person. The survey consisted of 13 questions for both the Asheville and Greenville survey. The questions were created to determine what brought people to the event and their representation of the sense of place of the city, as a resident or a tourist.

Tourists and residents both responded to the survey. The survey was handed out at events in Asheville and Greenville. The surveys were given at the Greenville Saturday Farmer’s Market on July 20th, Asheville Farmer’s Market July on 27th, and Asheville’s Shindig on The Green on July 27th Asheville Shindig on the Green is a folk-music festival located downtown Asheville on

Friday nights during the summer months. The festival attracts tourists and residents. During this survey I also had the opportunity to engage with residents and tourists in-person to discuss tourism. This was insightful because it allowed me to witness the emotions of residents and tourists firsthand, which was critical to understand the problem and the different attitudes that are displayed by residents and tourists.

Interviews A tourism professional from both cities was interviewed on their work in the tourism industries and their responsibility for community relations and informing the public on events in their respective tourism industries. The interviews had 14 open-ended response questions and the responses were coded using MAXQDA and deductive use of the place-identity framework explained in Figure 3. Each time an interviewee responded with something that falls under one of the four place making categories, I coded it to determine what seemed to be important to the interviewee as an employee of their company. The most significant source of results that came from the interviews are quotes from the interviewees that help describe the situation and goals of each tourism system.

Participant Observation Participant observation was used throughout the research in order for me to authentically experience tourism in each city. I attended tours and events that are popular among tourists in each city.

Tour coding and mapping To experience Asheville and Greenville from the point of view of a tourist, I attended popular tours in each city. I attended three tours in Asheville and two tours in Greenville. I picked tours that were similar so they could be compared. I selected history themed tours because they were the most abundant in each city and also fit the place-identity theme. To determine which tours to attend, I used Yelp reviews and rankings to find the most relevant. During the tours, I carried a GPS that tracked the routes that each tour took around the city. This determined the geographic locations of importance represented in each tour.

I took notes during each tour and created a list of places and facts mentioned by the tour guides.

These notes were later entered into excel and coded using the place-identity Framework explained in Figure 3. There was a total of 89 codes that appeared for Asheville and 37 codes that appeared for Greenville.

GPS Mapping I created two maps that overlaid all tour routes from each city. The purpose of this was to analyze what areas of the city are displayed to tourists and how that might contribute to tourists’ sense of place. For Asheville, there are three routes represented on the map and for Greenville there are two routes. The maps were created using Garmin GPS tracks and ArcMap Pro. Events While handing out tourist event surveys, mentioned in Surveys, I also took part in a variety of events in Asheville and Greenville that are typical for tourists to take part in during their stay.

The events that I attended include Greenville Saturday Farmer’s Market, Asheville Farmer’s Market, and Asheville’s Shindig on The Green.

Spatial Analysis A spatial analysis was created to observe the number of hotels in Asheville as of 2019 overlaid on census block and census block group demographics to identify the impacts of hotel developments. The maps were created using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), ArcMap Pro. There has been frustration expressed toward the hotel industry from residents of Asheville.

Many people feel that there are too many hotels downtown that escalate the over crowdedness of the city (Worthen 2019). The spatial analysis aimed to determine the nature of the relationship between hotel development and communities that show signs of vulnerability. Hotels are a significant non-human actor in the tourism industry because of the hotel occupancy tax that is generated by over-night stays. There is a direct relationship between the number of hotel rooms made available in the city and the size and function of the tourism industry.

I used 2016 census block group data that includes: total population, income per capita, minority population, and less than high school education. These four elements were equated to determine the level of vulnerability that exists within a census block group. The vulnerability is scaled from 1 to 10. 10 indicates the most vulnerable census block populations in Buncombe County and 0 indicate the least vulnerable census block populations. The layer was made available through previous GIS studies.

Document Analysis All Document Analysis content was coded using MAXQDA and the place-identity framework (Figure 3). Additional material pertaining to the industries in Asheville and Greenville was read and considered as part of the results.

I filtered articles from Asheville’s Mountain Express news outlet using a “tourism” tag and then coded each article based on their topic and content. I coded 32 documents from the Mountain Express. The articles date back to 2016 and cover each posted about tourism through February 2020. I coded articles from the Greenville Times using the same filtering methods. The article document analysis aimed to determine how the media discusses tourism. A number of these articles were opinions from residents who hold strong beliefs about the tourism industry.

In Asheville, the Convention and Visitors Bureau releases two magazines annually. The magazines are mostly the same; however, one is sent to locals and the other is sent to their target market of potential visitors. I coded parts of both versions of the magazine to highlight what sense of place is exemplified in the local version and how it differs from the sense of place exemplified in the visitor version. A Greenville visitors’ magazine was also coded. There is only one version released by Greenville’s Convention and Visitors Bureau that is given to locals and visitors.

Results The results of this study are organized by research question. The research questions in this study are designed to be answered in order. Research question one must be addressed to address

research question two. For some of the results, the data on Asheville will be followed by the data on Greenville, indicated by an (A) for Asheville, and a (B) for Greenville. For graphs that show results for both cities, Asheville is represented in orange, and Greenville is represented in blue.

For each of the three research questions, there are more results for Asheville. The results will include findings from each method; surveys, interviews, participant observation, and document and spatial analysis. The combination of these methods provide data to answer each research question.

Below is a table of the reported demographics of the residents that responded to the resident survey (Table 4). The residents were also asked to report how many years they have lived in their respective city. There were 93 responses for Asheville and 28 responses for Greenville. Of the respondents in Asheville, 83% were female and 86% were white. There were 28 respondents in Greenville. 75% of respondents were female and 89% were white. The number of years resident respondents have lived in study area is well varied.

Table 4. Resident Survey Demographics Asheville (N=93) Gender Female Male Other Prefer Not to Say Ethnicity Native American or Alaskan American Asian Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Middle Eastern or North African White Time of Residency 0-5 years 6-19 years 20 years or more

Greenville (N=28) 83% 15% 2% 0%

75% 25% 0% 0%

2% 2% 6% 0% 1% 86%

0% 0% 7% 4% 0% 89%

24% 44% 32%

30% 25% 46%

1. How have the tourism industries in each region affected the “sense of place” of each city?

The tour routes in each city were tracked, mapped, and color coded (Figure 5). There are three routes in Asheville (A) and two routes in Greenville (B). The tour routes are displayed on each map in a different color. This map illustrates where tour companies have felt that is important to show tourists. The location results in each region overlap significantly.

(A)

(B)

Figure 5. Maps of downtown Asheville (A) and downtown Greenville (B) with tour routes highlighted.

The dialogue shared by the tour guides to the tourists was written down and coded based on the four “place-identity” themes (Figure 2). The number of appearances of each code was used to create a graph. Of the three tours attended in Asheville there were 88 total codes. Of the two tours in Greenville there were 39 total codes.

3

Place-Identity Theme

Institutions

1

42

Materiality

29

11

Practices

3

32

Representation

3 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Number of Times Code Appeared Asheville

Greenville

Figure 6. This graph shows total amount of place-identity codes that appeared throughout the three tours attended.

The tours in Asheville and Greenville resulted in mostly “materiality” themed codes at 42 for Asheville and 29 for Greenville. The second most common theme was representation for Asheville at 32. There were significantly more appearances for “materiality” in Greenville than any other category. The second most common categories only totaled two codes.

Figure 7. Place-Identity Framework of the tour route codes. Materiality appears the most frequently for Asheville and Greenville.

Figure 7 is the tour codes as they appear in the placemaking framework. The number totals of appearances are labeled in color. Orange represents the totals for Asheville and the blue totals represent Greenville.

Tourist Event Survey The responses from the event survey were from residents and tourists. The tourist’s responses from the event survey will be used in this section. There were 33 tourist responses in Asheville and 9 tourist responses in Greenville. One survey question asked the respondents to describe the city they were visiting using only keywords. The keywords given by tourists in Asheville and in Greenville are presented below in the form of a world cloud in Figure 8.

(A)

(B)

Figure 8. A word cloud comprised of “keywords” used by tourists to describe the city of Asheville (A) and Greenville (B).

The key words are proportionately sized based on the number of times they appeared in the survey answers. Asheville tourists provided 93 keywords. The words “eclectic” and “beautiful” appeared the most at 4, followed by “artistic” and “fun” at 3. Greenville tourists provided 24 keywords. The words that appeared more than once are “fun”, “beautiful,” and “falls park.”

Tourism Professional Quote “People have a stereotypical thing in their head about what it means to be a city in the south, and they don't think about the culture and what the new south is. They think about those stereotypes that have in their head, and when they come here, or when they have a friend or a family member who's had a first-person experience and they tell them about it, they're more surprised and delighted. Surprise and delight are a big part of what we offer as a destination” (Greenville Tourism Professional 2019).

This was a quote given by a tourism professional during an interview. The quote was a response to a question I asked regarding how tourists view the city of Greenville.

Resident Survey The residents in Greenville and Asheville were asked, “How do you feel about the tourism industry in your city?”. There were 93 responses in Asheville and 28 responses in Greenville.

Figure 9 below shows the choices available on the survey and the percentage of residents that chose each response. The survey question had three facial expressions as answer choices: a smiley face for promoter, a neutral face for passive, and a frowny face for detractor.

Resident Response Choice

Promoter

8% 39%

21%

Passive

22%

71%

Dectractor

0%

39%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Resident Response Percentage Asheville

Greenville

Figure 9. Resident survey question response. “How do you Feel About the Tourism Industry in your City?”

Figure 9 shows that 71% of the 93 responses feel that tourism is a detractor in Asheville and 8% feel that tourism is positive. The results in Greenville show that 39% of the 28 responses feel that tourism is a detractor and 39% also feel that tourism is a promoter.

Asheville Resident Survey The resident survey included a question about the role of hotels in their community. The question was formatted into a fill in the blank: “Hotels have an _____ impact on our community.” There were 93 total responses.

13%

15%

24%

Positive Neutral Negative I'm Not Sure

48%

Figure 12. Asheville Resident Survey Question. “Complete the following sentence. Hotels have an _____ impact on our community.”

In Figure 12, 48% of residents reported that hotels have a negative impact on their community.

24% of the 93 respondents felt neutral towards the impacts of hotels. 15% of residents feel that hotels bring a positive impact.

Asheville Hotel Placement Below are a series of GIS produced maps that visualize populations in Asheville. All of the census data are from 2010. There are maps of the population density by census block (figure 13), the income per capita by census block group (Figure 14), and the minority populations by census block (Figure 15). The last map (Figure 16) is the placement of 87 hotels layered over a vulnerability index based on average income, minority population, and people with less than a high school diploma. This map was used to determine if hotel placement correlated with

vulnerability in communities around Asheville. The vulnerability index was made available through online GIS.

Figure 13. Map of Buncombe County North Carolina total population by census block. The insert displays the city of Asheville The population ranges from 40 to 1,534 people. The less populated block groups are represented with lighter colors, the more populated groups are represented with darker colors. There were a total of 254,955 people living in Buncombe County in 2016. Census blocks range in size, the blocks in downtown Asheville are much smaller.

Figure 14. Map of Buncombe County, North Carolina average income per capita. The results are shown by block group.

The income per capita ranges from $20,708 to $84,207. The areas with a higher average income are represented by darker shades. The areas with a lower average income are represented in lighter shades.

Figure 15. Map of the Minority Populations in Buncombe County, North Carolina.

The range is from 76 to 1,193 people. The areas with a higher population of African Americans are represented in blue and areas with a smaller African American population are represented in a light shade of green.

Figure 16. Map of vulnerability by census block group in Buncombe County, North Carolina.

This analysis uses 2016 census demographics by block group to determine the distribution of hotel construction implementation based on size of the hotel and location relative to the demographics of the surrounding community. The more vulnerable places are represented in lighter colors and less vulnerable place are represented by darker colors, from a scale of 1 to 10.

A score of 10 indicates that a census block group is considered “most vulnerable”, meaning the average income is low, the minority populations are high, and the number of people with less than a high school education are high.

The 87 hotels that are in Asheville, North Carolina represented by yellow hotel icons that are sized according to the room number availability. The number of rooms is directly related to how much tax revenue a hotel generates. The hotel with the largest number of rooms, the Omni Grove Park Inn, is 513.

2. Are the effects of the industries sustainable?

The effects of the tourism industries were identified through the data collected to support research question one. The second research question aims to determine if the effects are sustainable. The data to support this question are based on survey and interview responses. The responses come from three actors: residents, tourists, and tourism professionals.

Resident Survey Below are results from various resident survey questions. The surveys were online. Asheville received 93 responses and Greenville received 28.

45%

42%

Resident Response Percentage

40% 35%

35% 30%

26%

25% 20%

16%

15%

0%

13%

11% 8%

10% 5%

23%

22%

4% Definitely Yes

Probably Yes

Might or Might Not

Probably No

Definityley Not

Resident Response Choice Greenville

Asheville

Figure17. Resident survey question response. “Do you feel that you have a voice in the decisionmaking process in your city?”

Figure 17 displaces the results for the resident survey question “Do you feel that you have a voice in the decision-making process in your city?” The results show that 42% of Asheville respondents feel they “probably” do not have decision making power. 35% of Greenville respondents feel they “might or might not”.

100%

Resident Response Percentage

80%

77%

60%

40%

20%

16% 7%

0%

0% Yes

Maybe

No

Not Sure

Resident Response Choice

Figure 18. Asheville resident response survey. “Has tourism created problems for Asheville?”

Figure 18 shows that 77% of the 93 Asheville residents feel that tourism has created problems for Asheville, while 7% feel that tourism has not created problems.

Resident Response Percentage

100%

80% 68% 60% 44%

39%

40%

27% 17%

20%

5% 0%

No

Maybe

Yes

Resident Respondent Choice Greenville

Asheville

Figure 19. Resident survey question response. “The United Nations defines sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Do you think that that Asheville (Greenville) is developing sustainably?”

Figure 19 asked residents about sustainability in their city. The majority of Asheville residents feel that Asheville is not developing sustainably at 68%. Greenville residents were mostly divided between responses of “No” and “Maybe”. 44% of Greenville residents said no and 39% responded maybe.

Tourist Responses 80%

Tourist Response Percentage

70%

67%

60% 50%

46%

45%

40% 30% 22% 20% 11%

9%

10% 0%

Yes

Maybe

No

Tourist Response Choice Greenville

Asheville

Figure 20. Tourist survey question response. “Do you think Asheville (Greenville) is sustainable?”

Figure 20 is a similar question to the one asked to residents in figure 19, however these responses are from tourists. Most tourist in Asheville felt that it is sustainable. 46% of the respondents said yes and 45% said maybe. In Greenville 67% of respondents said that yes, Greenville is sustainable. All of the tourist surveys were given at outdoor community events.

Tourism Professional Interviews Table 5. Tourism professional interview question responses. “Is the growth occurring downtown sustainable?”

Is the growth occurring downtown Asheville (Greenville) sustainable?

Asheville Tourism

“I wish people would

“The growth that we're

Professional

understand the difference between visitor traffic coming into the community, residential movement within the community, and then Regional Traffic or work shed, aggressive egress each day into the community to get a better understanding of the hot spots, and which audiences are impacting which areas. All of that information is being collected now” (Asheville Tourism Professional 2019).

experiencing is very similar to other significant tourism destinations. The challenge I think for Asheville is that much of that growth has congregated around downtown with popularity downtown, and so I think that it's more in your face, because of that, and it's not put out well amongst the community” (Asheville Tourism Professional 2019).

Greenville Tourism Professional

I hope we don't grow too much bigger. I think we're the right size. There are some things that we will see happen, like the conference center and the Grand Bohemian coming in and things like that. I think there's going to be more growth out in the county, simply because their running out of land downtown, but I would like to see us say with no big high rises. I don't want to see a bunch of 30-40-story buildings here. Yeah, yeah, I just can't see that for us” (Greenville Tourism Professional 2019).

“I would really love to see some affordable housing communities come up in close proximity, but I would never want to see one of those block condo complexes that go in like you've seen in other cities where it's affordable housing, but it's basically a square box with no personality and a feeling of home. I don't want that for Greenville, and I wouldn't want that for the people who would have to live in that. I want affordable housing that is home” (Greenville Tourism Professional 2019).

Table 5 is a table of quotes that were given during interviews I conducted with tourism professionals. The top column shows two quotes from an Asheville tourism professional and the bottom column shows two quotes from a Greenville tourism professional. The interviews were both given in June of 2019.

3. How can the effects of the industry be made more sustainable in the future?

This section is largely comprised of data found through the opinions of the locals and the tourism professionals in each region. This was an effort to highlight the areas of improvement in each city as determined by the inhabitants.

Greenville Resident Survey Figure 22 displays the results from a resident survey question that asked residents if they have noticed an increase in the level of tourism in Greenville. There were 28 respondents.

70% 64%

Resident Response Percentage

60% 50% 40% 32% 30% 20% 10% 4% 0%

Definitely Yes

Probably Yes

Might or Might Not

0%

0%

Probably Not

Definitley Not

Resident Response Choice

Figure 21. Resident survey question response. “Have you noticed an increased level of tourism in downtown Greenville?” (n=28) Of the 28 respondents in Figure 22, 64% recorded that the level of tourism has “definitely” increased in Greenville. 32% responded that tourism has “probably” increased. None of the residents responded that tourism has not increased.

Tourism Professional Interviews Table 6. Tourism professional interview question response. “What do you hope for the future of the tourism industry in your city?”

What do you hope for the future of the tourism industry in (Asheville/Greenville)?

Asheville Tourism Professional

“I hope that we could, as a community, recognized the benefits of visitors and what they bring to this community while finding the balance that allows us to help mitigate the impacts. I hope that from a core perspective that the other parts of the county that are looking for additional visitation will be successful in those dispersal strategies. I would love to see strong collaboration and partnerships between the city and the county, Buncombe County or the City of Asheville. I would love to see a relationship that is positive and supportive” (Asheville Tourism Professional 2019).

I would hope that the residents are able to take advantage of the benefits of tourism as well. I would also hope that residents promote not just the impacts of tourism, but also promote the benefits that occur in this community too and peace, love and harmony for all” (Asheville Tourism Professional 2019).

Greenville Tourism Professional

“So, we've got five new hotels under construction right now, and there's 1000 more rooms that are going to be available in the next year, if you multiply that times 365 nights, there's 365000 room nights that my organization has to fill, that's more rooms.

I'm not just talking about sustaining the ones we have now, that's the additional inventory. So, my hope is that we can do that and attract the type of visitors who are going to come here and appreciate it and leave having spent their money and feel good about it.

You know what I mean? I want them to come here and enjoy our community to not leave a mark on it” (Greenville Tourism Professional 2019).

“I actually attended an educational session when I went to a conference about over-tourism. They talked about a passport kind of thing where people got to earn a certificate if they educated themselves about what not to do, where to step and not to step because things are living here, and they are important to our ecosystem. It is important to know how to manage over-tourism and how to educate visitors” (Greenville Tourism Professional 2019).

Table 6 is the results of an interview question that I asked to an Asheville and Greenville tourism professional. The top column shows two quotes from an Asheville tourism professional and the bottom column shows two quotes from a Greenville tourism professional. The interviews were both given in June of 2019.

Discussion This research aimed to measure the sustainability of the tourism industries in Asheville, North Carolina and Greenville, South Carolina. The results of this study show that there must be considerable changes to the existing systems to further incorporate sustainable practices in both cities. This was determined based on the misalignments I found in each actor’s place- identity of the respective city. The industries must also make a change in their methods of data collection and assessment to authentically incorporate sustainability principals. The indicators that are currently used to measure sustainability, shared in reports published by the Tourism Development Agencies, are incomplete in addressing concerns raised by locals.

The tourism system, in any application, is dense and complex. In partnership with sustainable principles, actor-network theory and place-identity guide this discussion to highlight the misalignments that cause the effects of tourism systems to be unsustainable. This is understood through the actor’s visions and goals for the city. The tourists and residents do not wish to gain the same things from the cities they are in. The tourism professionals aim to please the tourists and not the residents. The government aims to please the people while maintaining the economic health of the city.

Five methods were applied to the four actors analyzed in the tourism system. Interviews were given to tourists and residents, surveys were handed out at events to tourists and residents, surveys were distributed through online networking sites to residents, document analyses of visitor’s guides and news sources were completed for published documents relevant to the study, spatial analyses of tours and hotel development were completed, and the use of participant observation through attending tours and festivals.

The place-identity framework serves as a uniform way of understanding each actor’s perspective of the tourism system and the city. Actor- network “studies are not interested in what tourism is, but in how tourism works; how it is assembled, enacted, and ordered; how it holds together; and how it may fall apart” (Duim 2013). The results will be discussed using these two principals as they apply to assessing the level of sustainability that exists in each city’s tourism system.

The discussion will be split into three sections; an explanation of the sustainable principles I used to draw conclusions, a discussion of Asheville, and a discussion of Greenville. In each section the three posed research questions will be addressed.

Principles of Sustainability It is imperative to have adequate measurements of sustainability that are tailored to address the areas of concern. In this study, the term sustainability refers to the criteria shared by the United Nations and the Doughnut Model created by Kate Raworth. I pose that tourism sustainability

should be measured through the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Model. This study has specifically engaged with sustainable development and the social foundations.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals define where the world must be in the future. Raworth’s Doughnut Model defines where the world stands today in relation to sustainability and resilience by using social foundations. The definition that the United Nations provides for Sustainable Development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations 2015). Raworth advocates for regenerative design. To design a regenerative urban system all elements of an area must be regenerative. Asheville and Greenville’s tourism systems are significant elements of the cities, so they must foster regeneration. The United Nations includes economic development as one of the three core elements of sustainable development, which are: economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection (United Nations 2015).

Scholars debate whether sustainable economic growth or degrowth is the right path for the future of humanity.

Both Asheville and Greenville tourism industries are economically growing. In each case, degrowth seems extreme however the results show that to improve the sustainability, the economic growth of the tourism industry must slow and eventually cap. The increased tourism in each area, along with other economic factors, have allowed the cities to further develop. The developments have increased the cost of living for residents. If the growth of the industry is not constrained the cost of living will continue to steadily rise. Areas with an unaffordable cost of living are not sustainable. This is because the areas become inaccessible to the residents who previously inhabited them as well as demising the diversity and authenticity.

This thesis argues that there is a limit to the amount of growth that can occur in the tourism industries in Asheville and Greenville. After the threshold is crossed, the residents will no longer be able to take part in the economic benefits that tourism brings. This threshold has become clear in Asheville and will soon be visible in Greenville’s future. Our economic system teaches us that growth is exponential, however, growth can become harmful to sustainability. The United States has “the tendency to assume that there will always be some form of tourism that can be sustainable.” This “means that there has been almost no discussion in the academic or government policy literature on provisions or procedures for dismantling tourism or resto-ration of tourism areas” (Moscaardo 2008). To create a fair and justice place to live, both cities must consider the impact on existing residents that developments will have.

Based on the given definition of sustainability and the methods that determined each city’s current implementation of sustainability, there are three possible scenarios for each actor that this research identifies. The scenarios are shown in figure 22. Figure 22 is a diagram of the possible sense of place scenarios that Asheville and Greenville could represent. Each circle is an actor in the system. Each actor has a “sense of place” of the city. In a sustainable scenario, all actors would share the same sense of place. Scenario 1 is the most sustainable and ranges to scenario 3, the least sustainable. Both cities represent scenario 2. In scenario 2, each actor shares some aspects of sense of place and vision for the city and differ in other aspects. This was concluded based on results from each of the five methods. Although both cities are represented by scenario

2, the overlapping senses of place differ. Asheville residents and local government have tended to agree on visions for the city, while the tourism-based agencies and state government are working towards a different vision. The tourism industries have made strides to increase the overlap in the sense of place between all actors involved. The tourism industry in Greenville is much smaller and currently has smaller effects on the sense of place of the city. The industry is growing quickly and is directly related to developments occurring downtown. There is not the same tension between the tourism-based industries, government, and residents.

Figure 22. The three possible scenarios for the actors in the tourism systems in Asheville and Greenville.

Asheville Many Asheville residents have expressed opposition to continuing the growth of tourism in its current form through the media (Worthen 2019) and community surveys (Asheville Online Survey). As the research was conducted, both tourism industries were evolving. In response to negative feedback on the spending of the occupancy tax, Explore Asheville, Asheville’s Conventions and Visitors Bureau has created the Tourist Management and Investment Plan (TMIP), to create projects that aim to benefit residents and tourists (Burgess 2019). On September 24, 2019 Asheville’s city council passed a hotel moratorium that will last 1 year. This prevents any new construction of hotels to be permitted in Asheville. The goal of the moratorium is to “allow elected officials to develop rules to make the hotel approval process clearer” (Burgess 2019). The moratorium will consider community input collected in the form of discussions led by city staff.

“Asheville’s downtown, as well as the wider community, is at a crossroads. More downtown hotel rooms will likely be occupied by more tourists, with ample discretionary income to fill downtown restaurants, consume craft beer from a variety of local breweries, purchase goods and services from downtown businesses, and attend cultural events. The enhanced downtown activity will likely continue to fuel demand for more downtown workers, so

employment will increase. The next decade will represent a complex balancing act for a city that has won widespread praise over the last few years largely due to the success of the social-entrepreneurial coalition in integrating a vibrant downtown that complements the natural environment, attractive residential neighborhoods, and long-standing tourist destinations such as the Grove Park Inn and the Biltmore Estates. This challenge includes not merely retaining downtown as a unique environment but also providing employment offering opportunities for upward mobility and housing that is affordable for the city’s workforce, problems for which the social-entrepreneurial leadership approach has thus far failed to find solutions” (Strom 2017).

1. How have the tourism industries in each region affect the “sense of place” of each city?

The tourism industry in Asheville contributes to the misalignment of the sense of place that is exhibited by the actors including residents, local government, tourism-based agencies, and tourists. The residents view the city through representation and practices (Figure 9). Based on the place-identity framework, the tourists view the city primarily through materiality (Figure 6). The tourism development agency is regulated by the state government, because of Dillon’s Rule.

Rather than focusing on a place-identity that reflects authenticity, they reflect the place-identity that is most appealing to market potential tourists (Worthen 2019). The local government has attempted to push legislation that supports a slowed tourism industry. The local government shares similar views as the locals. The state government has not made any efforts to revise laws that affect the tourism system in Asheville (Burgess 2019). This is a systemic issue that underlies many of the other issues present.

There are multiple misaligning place-identities that exist in Asheville. Tourism has contributed to the perception of Asheville to tourists through advertisements and incomplete representations of the city (Figure 8). The tourists do not understand the city in the same way that the locals do.

The actors do not look to gain the same experiences from the city. The residents are concerned with place-making themes beyond materiality. The word cloud in Figure 8 is an example of this.

The tourists identified the city through physical aspects of it. They did not show to understand the history behind the city in the way the residents showed in the survey.

Tourists also receive information about the city’s history during the tours they attend (Figure 6).

This contributes to the way a particular tourist receives the sense of place of the city. On one of the history tours, many of the “facts” that were given throughout were factually incorrect. An example of this is on the “blue tour” (Figure 6) in Asheville. The tour took us past the French Broad River and explained that the river was named after a “French broad” that was seen floating down it. This is not how the river was named. The fake fact was intended to make the tourists laugh. Some of the history tours are not concerned with authenticity of the history shared, and others are (Red Tour, Figure 6).

In Asheville, the city and surrounding areas each have their own history and sense of place. For example, the River Arts District was once the site of rundown industrial buildings next to the French Broad River. The area was revitalized in 2011 and is now home to art studios, bars, and dog washes (Strom 2017). This is an example of a cultural district. “Cultural Districts are conducive to endogenous and sustainable growth and may successfully revitalize depressed areas

(Evans, 2001; Frost-Kumpf, 1998; Hitters & Richards, 2002; Lazzeretti, 2003; Sacco, Tavano Blessi, & Nuccio, 2008; Santagata, 2002). However, this revitalization and growth should not be characterized solely in terms of sustainability, because sustainability alone, as argued in Ryan (2002), “is insufficient as an objective.” Instead, Ryan proposes a wider view represented by the concept of ‘sustained value creation’, according to which tourism industry managers should strive to provide added value to environments, entrepreneurs and tourists” (Arnaboldi 2011).

There are other cultural districts that have their own unique place-identity around Asheville.

Throughout my research, tourists and residents never identifies cultural differences throughout the city in surveys. Asheville was always described as a whole.

Hotel Placement Tourism has been a major part of Asheville’s economy since the early 1980’s when the county began to collect hotel tax, and this has undoubtedly benefitted the city of Asheville and arguably led to access to many of the regenerative developments they have been able to make to the city.

A commonly cited historical fact that has come up in conversation with residents and tourism professionals is that Asheville was founded on the “Five T’s; tourism, textiles, timber, tobacco, and tuberculous” (Asheville Tourism Professional Interview). While most of the T’s of the economy have come in phases and been replaced, tourism has been constant throughout.

Attributed to this, Asheville’s minor league baseball team is called the Tourists since 1915.

Today Asheville residents have expressed opposition to continuing the growth of tourism in its current form. The residents and the local government are requesting that the city is granted time to catch up to the rapid growth that is generated by hotel occupancy tax. “Since 1983, the local occupancy tax has funded the Tourism Development Agency’s marketing efforts. It began as a 2 percent charge tacked onto room sales at all lodging facilities; over time, the rate has gradually increased. In 2015, it jumped from 4 to 6 percent, with 1.5 percent dedicated to the agency’s Tourism Product Development Fund. Guests at hotels, bed-and-breakfasts, vacation rentals and, more recently, Airbnb’s, all pay this tax” (Calder 2018). The hotel occupancy tax is directly related to the function and the size of the tourism industry in Asheville.

The use of Actor-Network Theory helps identify the importance of the non-human actor, hotels.

As previously mentioned, the number of hotels, along with the percentage of hotel occupancy tax, is directly related to the size of the tourism industry due to regulations set by the state government. Figure 23 below demonstrates the positive feedback loop that exists. The more hotel rooms available (Figure 16), the larger the budget of the Tourism Development Agency has the potential to be. This reinforcing feedback loop has increased the potential for an increase in the advertisement, which will in theory, attract more tourists to rent more hotel rooms and increase the demand for hotels as well as the Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue. At 4.8 million dollars in 2018, 75% of the 6.4 million total revenue collected, Asheville local government and residents do not want to increase the funding of tourism advertising. Under the current laws, to stop the increase of tourism funding, the city must stop permitting hotel rooms in Buncombe County. Residents have proposed ending the tax as a way to end the tourism advertising budget (Worthen 2019). Enacting this tax elimination would leverage a huge change in the system and the amount of money dedicated to attracting tourists.

The local government does not have the political power to reject more hotels in Buncombe County beyond the one-year moratorium that has been enacted. Because the residents have a clear understanding of this, hotels receive harsh opposition from residents, especially hotel plans located Downtown Asheville. Though there are hotels throughout Asheville, the hotels located downtown receive the most opposition because this is the site of the most visible effects of increased tourism.

Because there is not uniform opposition towards hotels spread across the city, it suggests that the actor of hotels is not the problem, the conditions that the existence of hotels brings is the problem. These conditions include size, location, and density, as well as the alteration of cultural important aspects of the city. The Flat Iron Building is an example of this. A prominent building dispute is Asheville’s Flat Iron building. The building has been home to local businesses in the past but will soon be home to a hotel aimed to cater to tourists. This dispute is what ultimately led the local government to pose a hotel moratorium (Davis 2019).

The non-human actor of hotels create growth in the system that is disapproved of by various groups of human actors. Hotels, therefore, are a space to leverage change in the system. The opposition is actually directed at the governance of hotels and hotel tax. The governance is creating the change in the actor-network system before it was evolved by tourism growth. Actor network is concerned with “how tourism works; how it is assembled, enacted, and ordered; how it holds together; and how it may fall apart” (Duim 2013). The governance of tourism is where the opposition from residence is. The governance determines how the tourism is assembled, enacted, and ordered. The other actors in the system have little decision-making power.

Based on the results of the hotel growth spatial analysis (Figure 16), we can conclude that there is a relationship between the demographics of the local population and the area chosen for hotel development. Hotels are primarily found along Interstate 40 in areas that show some intermediate signs of vulnerability. There could be several reasons for this relationship including access to interstate 40, land price, and land availability.

The area closest to the center of downtown is an outlier in terms of results (Figure 16). The hotels located downtown are typically in less vulnerable areas represented by lighter shades. The hotels around the outskirts of downtown are in areas that show some demographic vulnerability to change. The clusters of hotels can be explained by their proximities to popular destinations for example, the Asheville Regional Airport, the Grove Park Inn, and Biltmore Village. The hotel moratorium will consider community input collected in the form of discussions led by city staff.

The community input will provide further reasoning and insight to this discovery.

Figure 23 shows the relationship between the number of hotels that are contributing to the hotel occupancy tax and the size of the Tourism Development Agency’s annual Budget. The relationship is a reinforcing Feedback Loop. The relationship describes that the more hotel rooms there are, the larger the tourism advertisement budget will be. As the annual budget increases, there is a higher potential for more hotel rooms to be added to the system. This is because there will be more tourists added to the system as a result of more advertisements. This reinforcing feedback loop shows a system trap of policy resistance (Meadows 2008). A policy resistance system trap is the “inherent resistance of the establishment to allow changes to affect the system.

People would rather live with a flawed system that is familiar then to allow changes that might cause uncertainty and instability. Such resistance can cause inevitable collapse to be more dramatic, sometime even catastrophic” (Meadows 2008). This system trap is solved by all actors seeking “mutually satisfactory ways for goals to be realized—or redefinitions of larger goals that everyone can pull towards together” (Meadows 2008). This is the solution that TMIP aims to bring to the system.

Figure 23. Model of the relationship between hotels and tourism development agency annual budget size. This illustrates a “System Trap: Policy Resistance” (Meadows 2008).

In the case of Asheville, hotels do not increase population vulnerability. There is a possibility of exploitation of the communities along I-40 that show moderate signs of vulnerability because of a lack of a weighted political voice and involvement in the tourism industry decision making processes. In the media, it is common for stories to be featured about hotel opposition regarding hotel plans in the downtown area. The same trend does not exist for hotels being developed on the outskirts of the city.

Omni Grove Park Inn pictured in Image 1 (A), is the largest hotel in Asheville with 513 rooms all contributing to the hotel occupancy tax. Grove Park Inn was built in 1913. Asheville hotel owners argue that hotels bring walkable job access to the community around them, and thus actually increase the sustainability. The Omni Grove Park Inn has not decreased the Vulnerability of the census block it falls in. Hotel opposition notably began with the construction of Hotel Indigo, Image 1 (B), a hotel that was not supported by the community in 2015. In 2015 there were 7,201 hotel rooms available in Asheville (Snyder 2015). Since the opposition began, an additional 942 rooms are available. The total rooms in 2019 is 8,125. The efforts made to create or expand existing tourism infrastructure, including hotels and other developments, have caused the destruction and displacement of the infrastructure and people who previously occupied the space. This is a common consequence of urban development that cities around the world face. Developments change the way that tourist system works, and thus the actor-network system. The system and the sense of place are constantly evolving. Developments made to the downtown area, including hotels, have been the most visible changes to the actor-network and

the sense of place. Residents complain that the things they once enjoyed downtown are being replaced with tourist attractions and long lines (Resident Survey). This creates an unsustainable tourism system.

(A)

(B)

Image 1. Photographs taken on tour 1 of the Omni Grove Park Inn, built in 1913, it is the hotel with the largest number of rooms at 513 (A), and Hotel Indigo built in 2015 with 115 rooms (B).

Tours There are also non-human actors identified through Actor-Network Theory in the tours attended in Asheville. Between the three tours attended, most of the overlap occurred in the center of downtown, the site of much of the tourism contestation. Each tour featured a different section of the outskirts of the city. Each tour represented a different group of non-human actors, accounted for under the materiality place-identity theme, that were important to describing the history that was important to the specific tour. Depending on which tour a visitor may attend, the sense of place will differ. Tour 3, as depicted in Figure _., had a focus on African American history in Asheville. The green tour (Figure 6), visited Triangle Park, a park in the shape of a triangle that has the African American history in Asheville painted on the walls in chronological order. The red tour, which is most closely connected to the Tourism Development Agency, stopped at hotels, shopping centers, and Biltmore village and told the history through wealthy men who

owned large portions of Asheville before the development of the city. Tour 1 painted Asheville as a city full of affluent residents and an affluent history. The blue tour, a local comedy tour, visited many locally owned places and breweries while telling the history of the city, similar to Tour 1, with jokes.

Each tour resulted in a different variety of representation, materiality, and institutions and practices that demonstrated the different ways that tourism is performed in Asheville. This leaves tourists gaining different understandings of Asheville. The differences in representation also display different Social Foundations in terms of Voice and Social Equality. All three tours promoted progress toward the Safe and Just Space represented in the Doughnut Model in different ways (Figure 1). The blue tour, which is locally owned, gave voice to locals. The red tour, the tour partnered with the tourism development agency, gave voice to structural history.

The green tour, owned by an African American, gave voice to African American culture in Asheville. For example, all three tours included the Vance Monument (Image 2). All three tours described the monument in vastly different ways. The monument has been controversial in Asheville because Zebulon Vance, the confederate soldier the monument was dedicated to, owned slaves. Residents have expressed the desire to change the monument. The red tour defended the monument, expressing Vance was a good soldier. The blue and green tours both promoted the replacement of the monument.

The concerned raised by locals that are featured in the media and in the resident survey results most align with the voice being shared by the blue tour (Figure 6). The same tour that prioritized comedy over historical correctness.

Image 2. Picture of Vance Monument taken during participant observation on the Blue, Green, and Red Tours.

The practices that are specific to the culture bring an important element of the sense of place.

Practices may exist in the city that are not relayed to tourists. An example of a practice among Asheville residents is hiking trail etiquette. The residents are careful to leave no trace on hiking trails in the Blue Ridge Mountains while tourists have been identified leaving behind trash and taking rocks from the trails (Asheville Tourism Professional). This is a practice that exists among the residents but has not reached the tourists. Asheville’s Tourism Development Agency is trying

to find the best approach to get this message to the tourists without compromising their “southern hospitality” (Asheville Tourism Professional).

2. Are the effects of the industries sustainable?

Asheville residents have measured the sustainability of the tourism industry through decisions made by the Tourism Development Agency, local government, and state government. The degree of sustainability is determined by what extent the decisions align with the resident’s vision for the city. By this standard, the residents in Asheville find that the tourism industry is unsustainable. In the surveys residents and tourists have different visions of the level of sustainability that exists in Asheville and Greenville. The resident survey found that most residents feel that the city is developing unsustainably (Figure 19), while the tourists felt that the cities are both sustainable (Figure 20). The difference in the views on sustainability is a misalignment of place-identities between tourists and residents. The tourists feel that the cities are sustainable, while the residents less incline to indicate.

The effects of the tourism industry in Asheville have been unsustainable in implementation, planning, and advertising. According to the provided definition of sustainability, the city does not accomplish all social foundations for each resident. As found through the resident survey, residents do not believe that the city is developing sustainably (Figure 19). The residents who chose to respond that the development was unsustainable were asked to describe why. The responses showed a theme of the unsustainable speed of development. Most of the results that determine the industry is not sustainable are from surveys. Quotes from the resident survey are shown below.

“The affordable housing situation is in a major crisis. Residents can’t find a place to live because hotels and luxury condos are all that are being built. Traffic is insane because the infrastructure cannot support the population. I experience frequent power outages and boil water advisories - again due to awful and aging infrastructure” (Asheville Resident 2019) “Because the level of growth in the hotel industry here is unsustainable and the development does not appropriately mitigate the impacts it causes. The industry it feeds is low-wage and further exacerbates affordability issues in the community” (Asheville Resident 2019) “Because their model is based on short term profits to the exclusion of all else. They are killing the “golden goose”. The artists and entrepreneurs who revived the city are being priced out. A big part of the problem is that out of town developers have too much say in how it’s being developed” (Asheville Resident 2019) The North Carolina state government implements Dillon’s Rule to the hotel occupancy tax. The state, majority Republican, sets the regulations for the majority Democratic city of Asheville.

This has resulted in tensions and disagreements regarding the future of the tourism industry.

While the legislation is set to continue the growth of the industry, the residents are advocating for the growth to slow. The state is concerned with bringing the most profit from tourism and

capitalizing on the opportunity, while the local government is concerned with the results of the increased tourism. There is a disconnect between the state and local governments. My ANT analysis identifies this as a policy resistance system trap (Figure 22). They have differing goals for the city of Asheville. This is not sustainable because it eliminates the opportunity for the local government to have a weighed political voice.

3. How can the effects of the industry be made more sustainable in the future?

The city of Asheville has begun dedicating time and resources to create a more sustainable tourism system for the future. They have done this by slowing the growth and assessing the best direction to take for the future of the industry. A hotel moratorium that was passed in September of 2019 will prevent any additional hotels to be permitted in the downtown area until September 2020. During the moratorium city officials will research the effects of hotels to ensure the best decisions to be made in the future (Burgess 2019).

The Tourism Development Agency launched a Tourism Management and Investment Plan to consider Buncombe County community input on investments to make over the next decade in the city, beginning in 2019. The research phase of the plan has been completed and the agency has received feedback from over 2,000 members of the community (TMIP 2019). The community members expressed that they would like to see more funding go to affordable housing, parking, workforce affordability, transportation, and public safety and policing issues. The residents were given a voice in the future developments of the city. The lack of resident decision-making power and voice was a major issue identified by ANT. Political Voice is also a social foundation required to reach the Safe and Just Space in the Doughnut Model (Figure 1). The goals identified by the residents will create a more sustainable environment for a tourism system. The solutions that the Tourism Development Agency has determined align with the findings of this study.

These incidents represent social foundations that were mentioned in the sustainability principles.

The results of the assessments found by the TMIP research process must be implemented in the community for sustainability within the region to improve. Asheville locals have expressed frustrations with empty promises in the past, so holding the government agencies accountable is critical.

The city could also lower the hotel occupancy tax rate from the 6% the city is currently collecting, which is the maximum allowed tax allowed in the Unites States for hotel occupancy.

The tax was increased in 2015 and has been at 6% since. Bringing the tax back down to 4%, where it was before the raise, would decrease the annual revenue the Tourism Development Agency puts back into advertising the destination. It is important to note that this would also reduce the portion of the revenue dedicated to making tourism-related improvements to the city that have benefitted both tourist and locals in the past. City officials should consider slowing the pace of growth the industry with local government power, already begun by the implemented hotel moratorium, while lobbying state government in collaboration with other North Carolina destinations that feel their city would benefit from more local decision-making abilities.

Greenville

1. How have the tourism industries in each region affect the “sense of place” of each city?

The tourism industry has affected the sense of place of Greenville. However, the effects are less visible given the smaller size and age of the tourism industry in Greenville. In the seven years that Greenville has marketed the city as a leisure destination, tourism has become one of the leading industries in the city, among manufacturing, technology, and financial services.

Manufacturing is the leading industry in Greenville that brings the most revenue.

Similar to Asheville, tourists view the city through the physical things that are categorized in the “materiality” category of the place-identity framework (Figure 2). Figure 8 shows a word cloud that was forms from a survey question asked to tourists in Greenville (B). The tourists were asked to describe the city using keywords. The worlds that appear in the world cloud are physical descriptions of the city. The residents of Greenville were asked if they believe that the city is developing sustainably (Figure 19). A majority of the residents said that they believed that yes, the city was developing sustainably. This can be used to determine that residents of Greenville are not unsatisfied by the changes occurring to the downtown region in the way that Asheville residents expressed they were.

Greenville residents were asked a survey question about an increase in the level of tourism in Greenville (Figure 21). None of the residents responded that they did not see an increase of tourists in Greenville. This shows that tourism has impacted the sense of place in Greenville.

Residents are beginning to take notice to the increased level of tourism but are not associating the increased tourism with the increased developments.

In its current state, there is minimal opposition from residents specifically directed at tourism, but there is resistance to the developments causing displacement and higher cost of living for current residents. Every actor in the system does feel that there has been a significant change in place identity in Greenville over the past decade, however, the developmental changes are not associated with the tourism development by most actors. Residents are not attributing the urban development to tourism development as they are in Asheville. The additional 6 hotels that are planned to be in the downtown area may push residents to associate developmental issues with the tourism industry. This scenario of tension against the tourism industry is very likely based on the occurrences of destinations that have followed a similar path to that of Asheville.

2. Are the effects of the industries sustainable?

Greenville residents are unconcerned with the sustainability of the tourism industry. This is demonstrated in survey responses. In figure 19, residents highlight they believe the city may not be sustainable. Residents do not translate the impacts of the industry as unsustainable, instead they understand a separation between urban development and tourist development. Greenville’s Tourism Development Agency has measured the industry’s sustainability by the economic developments the industry has contributed in the city. In 2019, they released an impact statement of the tourism industry that highlighted the vision of the agency. “Our vision is to be one of the most visited – and talked about – travel destinations in the Southeast” (Greenville Tourism Development Agency 2019). These measurements neglect the potential of negative community impact.

The current state of the tourism industry in Greenville is creating positive outcomes with a strong potential to become like Asheville and create unsustainable outcomes for residents. There is not much research done on potential outcomes of the growth on the residents, however, Greenville’s general infrastructure developments have caused infrastructure changes to the city that have ultimately reduces the opportunity for affordable housing and increased the cost of living. The research being done by the Tourism Development Agency focuses on the rate at which the agency has been able to grow, and not the sustainability of the growth (Figure 24). These indicators do not account for the future. The Doughnut Model (Figure 1), suggests that social foundations should be the indicators that ultimately determine if the developments will prove a Safe and Justice Space.

Figure 24. PowerPoint Slide provided by Yeah, That Greenville SC’s website in 2019.

In align with ANT, the tourism system in Greenville is constantly evolving. In the case of Greenville, the system is growing. As the industry is expected to grow due to six new hotels in the next year that will contribute to the 4% hotel occupancy tax, Unity Park near downtown Greenville, and an additional 36 acres being revitalized for city government buildings (Connor 2019), the city must continue to listen to the requests of their residents and make sustainable choices that consider the benefits to locals before tourists. These additions to the city were introduced to residents as improvements made for locals. However, the cost of living will increase as a result of the developments. The completion of Falls Park is credited for giving Greenville the ability, and competitive edge, to become a leisure destination. Another park downtown, and more shopping, will only increase Greenville’s competitive edge.

The Indigo Hotel (Image 1) in downtown Asheville is what marked the beginning of the tourism opposition in Asheville. With six additional hotels being constructed in Greenville, it is likely that the effects of tourism will be more visible which will lead to the connection of development and tourism by the residents.

To date, the industry is less unsustainable than Asheville’s. However, with the developments projected to be made to Greenville, along with the recent expansion of the industry, the potential to become unsustainable increases. The social foundations, highlighted in the doughnut model (Figure 1), are at risk due to an increase in cost of living, and a decrease in affordability. Because of this, the developments also do not align with the definition of sustainable development given by the United Nations: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations 2015).

3. How can the effects of the industry be made more sustainable in the future?

Greenville’s tourism industry should plan to face opposition in the near future if they continue on the current path of development. To avoid resident opposition, Greenville’s Tourism Development Agency and local government should avoid making development decisions that are not aimed to benefit the local population.

As the tourism industry is rapidly growing in Greenville, the Tourism Development Agency must closely watch and research the process that Asheville and other southern destinations have undergone regarding their industry. The cities display many similarities in the geography, demographics, governance, and tourism advertising tactics (Table 2). Both cities have dedicated Tourism Development Agencies that aim to attract the most tourists possible (Table 6).

While it is important for Greenville’s Tourism Development Agency to learn from relevant case studies, it is also important to note that a sustainable solution must come within the city to appropriately address the sustainability problems. The solutions offered through case studies are not “one size fits all” (Kavaratiz 2016). Figure 25 below is a framework presented by Kavaratzis that is meant for participatory place branding. The goal of participatory place branding is to develop a city sustainably, by researching and determining one vision or sense of place for an area before action towards development is taken (Kavaratzis 2016). This framework is similar to TMIP in Asheville but will beginning the sustainable planning before developments occur. With implementation of this framework, the unsustainable developmental issues that Asheville faced, may be avoided or lessened in Greenville.

The Greenville Tourism Development Agency must also shift their tourism benefit indicators to align with sustainable goals such as the Doughnut Model (Figure 1) or the Sustainable Development Goals.

Figure 25. Participatory Place Branding, (Kavaratzis 2016) Conclusion A sustainable urban tourism system requires that values and elements of place identity are shared among residents, government, tourism professionals, and tourists. Community function and health are fundamental to the success of a city’s sustainability. The tourism systems have both supported and disrupted these cities. There is no doubt that tourism has economically benefitted Asheville and Greenville. Both cities struggle with housing and affordability as a result of tourism developments. The increased tourism systems have created a reinforcing feedback loop with increasing urban development (Figure 23).

Greenville is not using sustainability indicators to measure the success of the tourism industry.

Greenville is using measurements such as economic development, tax revenue, and number of overnight visitors to define their benefits to the community (Figure 24). Asheville has begun to use indicators directed towards sustainable outcomes and is scoring poorly. Asheville’s Tourism Development Agency has taken steps to realign the values and place-identity of the city, the determining factor now lies on the execution of the plan for tourism management. Greenville should incorporate authenticity of place identity into a tourism management plan early on in the development of their system to avoid growth related consequences that the city is already showing signs of. The sustainable solutions come down to a matter of choices made by the stakeholders with leverage. The choices must be made with the resident perspective at the top of considerations. The residents make up the largest portion of the population in both cities, and for a sustainable scenario, the entire population must have voice. Urban and tourism “planning efforts to be effective and sustainable, local committees and planning efforts must be reflective of the local population. This includes longtime residents, but also newcomers. Without such local representation, the potential for select groups to be excluded, ignored, and eliminated from decision-making exists” (Sattanno & Gellermann 2009).

The first phase to forming a cultural value-based tourism system, based on a study done in 2009, is to establish a Cultural District that is “defined in this study as a system of interdependent entities situated within a limited geographical area, aimed at achieving sustained value creation driven by the unifying role of culture” (Arnaboldi 2009). Arnaboldi found that the most important action was to structure an inter-organizational system of stakeholders to hear all opinions and perspectives. The opinions in Asheville range, but the feedback is only heard from a small portion of the population, and the state government holds the ultimate decision-making power. A reoccurring theme of this paper is “intentional collaboration” among the stakeholders.

The collaboration was designed to take place in phases beginning with stakeholders most closely related to the tourism system and followed by stakeholders with less direct connections to the industry. It is important to incorporate and consider the scenario solutions raised by each phase of stakeholders, as they are all affected by the industry in different ways (Arnaboldi 2009). The study notes the concern that involving stakeholders reduced the efficiency of planning and development, however, I would argue that making planning and developmental decisions with the incorporation of stakeholder engagement prevents time-consuming complications through the process. Additionally, sustainable planning requires representation of actors that are affected by the decisions. In the cases of Asheville and Greenville, there must be variations in the management plans and intensity of plans that best address challenges in the existing system. All “development should build on the uniqueness of local culture, history, and community identity.

All of our communities have uniqueness; focusing on these characteristics allows for local control over development rather than the common dependence on outside developers and corporations” (Sattanno & Gellermann 2009).

Importance The topic of this research, sustainability in tourism, is discussed in media on a daily basis. The notion of sustainable tourism is often misrepresented in the media as only green tourism. Beyond environmental impacts, there are cultural implications of traveling and it is important to raise this idea to the public. Asheville’s tourism industry has gotten a large amount of attention in the local media and has even begun to receive national recognition in the media. The economics and effects of tourism is an increasingly popular research issue as it begins to affect both international and national destinations. It is important to examine the effects of industries on local populations.

Additionally, a large portion of the world population participates in tourism in some form. There are many people who are unaware of consequences that can result in over-touristing a destination. Education is an important step in ensuring a more sustainable future.

Limitations and Future Directions There are limitations to this study. The most notable limitation is that fact that I am not a member of the Asheville community. While I am a member of the Greenville community, I have been a resident a short time. Not being a member of the community, I do not have the same perspective as a local as well as the extent of background knowledge that a local may have. I have had to rely on the information shared with me as an outsider.

The study only accounts for urban residents. There are more than likely residents that live further from the center of downtown that also have opinions on the development of the tourism industries.

As the tourism industries in Asheville and Greenville continuously change and adjust to their circumstances, their position of sustainability will also change. This research found that Asheville and Greenville have already made decisions that are projected change the function of city significantly. Actor-Network Theory is founded on the idea that systems are made of everchanging relationships. Research in Asheville and Greenville will need to be updated periodically until the tourism systems in each city have developed and implemented a sustainable solution. The analysis completed in this thesis is a report of current conditions of the tourism industries in Asheville and Greenville as well as a guiding resource for other destinations building urban tourism sustainably.

This research uses Actor-Network Theory to draw conclusions about the state of the existing system. A common critique of Actor-Network Theory is that it relies heavily on the researcher’s translation of the topic. This thesis is my translation of the tourism industries in Asheville and Greenville. It is likely that my translation would vary from someone else working with the same case studies.

References Abakerli, Critique of development and conservation policies in environmentally sensitive regions in Brazil: Geoforum [Geoforum]. Vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 551-565. Nov 2001.

Arnaboldi, M., & Spiller, N. (2011). Actor-network theory and stakeholder collaboration: The case of Cultural Districts. Tourism Management, 32(3), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.016 BCTDA Research & Reports. (2019, May 27). Retrieved from https://www.ashevillecvb.com/research-reports/ Bluestein, F. (2012). Is North Carolina a Dillon’s Rule State? - Coates’ Canons Coates’ Canons.

Retrieved from https://canons.sog.unc.edu/is-north-carolina-a-dillons-rule-state/ Bowen, D. (2002). Research through participant observation in tourism: A creative solution to the measurement of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (CS/D) among tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287502041001002 Briassoulis, Helen. (2002). Sustainable Tourism and the Question of the Commons. Annals of Tourism Research. 29. 1065-1085. 10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00021-X. Brundtland, G. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.

Burgess, Joel. “Tourism Boom, Then Asheville Bans New Hotels. How Did We Get Here?”

Citizen Times, 2019, www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2019/10/03/90-million-touriststhen-asheville-hotel-moratorium-downtown-hotel-tax/2418875001/.

Calder, T. (2018, May 14). Growing Asheville's tourism industry. Retrieved from https://mountainx.com/news/growing-ashevilles-tourism-industry/ Caputo. Moon Shot: The Story Behind the Asheville Tourists. (2014, October 11). Retrieved from https://news.sportslogos.net/2014/10/11/moon-shot-the-story-behind-the-asheville-tourists/ Crest. “The Case for Responsible Travel.” Trends & Statistics 2015, April 2015.

Connor, E. (2019, December 26). Unity Park is progressing: Here are 10 things to know going into 2020. Retrieved from https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/12/16/here-are-10things-know-progress-greenville-sc-unity-park/2637362001/ Davis, D. (2019, August 6). Hotel tax board says it won't take position on proposed Asheville hotel moratorium. Retrieved from https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2019/08/01/hotel-tax-board-wont-take-positionasheville-hotel-moratorium/1876829001/

Duim, R. V. D. (2013). Actor-Network Theory and Tourism. doi: 10.4324/9780203122976 Forstner, K. (2004), Community Ventures and Access to Markets: The Role of Intermediaries in Marketing Rural Tourism Products. Development Policy Review, 22: 497-514. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2004.00262.x Greenville Convention and Visitors Center. (2019). Fact & Figures. Retrieved from https://www.visitgreenvillesc.com/meetings/fact-figures/ Jóhannesson, G. T. (2005). Tourism translations: Actor Network Theory and tourism research. Tourist Studies, 5(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797605066924 Jovanović, V., & NJEGUŠ, A. (2008). G.I.S Applications In Tourism Planning " A Tool For Sustainable Development Involving Local Communities. Yugoslav Journal of Operation Research, 18(2), 261–272.

Kavaratzis, M., & Kalandides, A. (2015). Rethinking the place brand: the interactive formation of place brands and the role of participatory place branding. Environment and Planning A, 47(6), 1368–1382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15594918 Kiss, Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?: Trends in Ecology & Evolution [Trends Ecol. Evol.]. Vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 232-237. May 2004.

Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393. doi: 10.1007/bf01059830 Mansfeld, Y. (1992). Group‐Differentiated Perceptions of Social Impacts Related to Tourism Development. The Professional Geographer, 44(4), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00330124.1992.00377.x Marsden, T. (2013). Sustainable place-making for sustainability science: The contested case of agri-food and urban-rural relations. Sustainability Science, 8(2), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0186-0 Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green, White River Junction.

Moscardo, G. (2008). Sustainable Tourism Innovation: Challenging Basic Assumptions. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/thr.2008.7 Pink, S. (2008). An urban tour: The sensory sociality of ethnographic placemaking. Ethnography, 9(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108089467 Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity- Can we just live within the donut. Oxfam Discussion Papers, 1–26. Retrieved from https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/safeand-just-space-humanity

Raworth, K. (2018). Doughnut Economics. Random House UK. Russell, J. D., & Bostrom, A. (2016). What is the Dillon Rule? (p. 11). Retrieved from https://www.alec.org/app/uploads/2016/01/2016-ACCE-White-Paper-Dillon-House-RuleFinal.pdf Sattanno, Kaylene & Gellermann, Jeffery. (2009). Understanding Sustainability: The Importance of Sustainable Development and Comprehensive Plans— Goals, Objectives, Policies. Retrieved from https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FY/FY113400.pdf Snyder, Janet L. “HVS Market Pulse: Hotel Market Report.” In Focus- Asheville 2015, https://hvs.com/Content/Bookstore/InFocus/InFocus-Asheville-NC Strom, E., & Kerstein, R. (2017). The Homegrown Downtown: Redevelopment in Asheville, North Carolina. Urban Affairs Review, 53(3), 495–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087415620305 Sweeney, J., Mee, K., McGuirk, P., & Ruming, K. (2018). Assembling placemaking: Making and remaking place in a regenerating city. Cultural Geographies, 25(4), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474018778560 Trip Advisor. 30 Top USA Cities To Visit This Year. (2019, March 6). Retrieved from https://www.tripadvisor.com/VacationRentalsBlog/2018/01/02/top-usa-cities-to-visit/ Tourism Management & Investment Plan (TMIP). (2019). Retrieved from https://www.ashevillecvb.com/tmip/ United Nations Sustainable Development. (2015). Cities - United Nations Sustainable Development Action 2015. United Nations Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/#f3c52f92070201572 The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018 - United Nations. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/the-sustainable-development-goals-report2018.html U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Greenville city, South Carolina; Asheville city, North Carolina.

(2018). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/greenvillecitysouthcarolina,ashevillecitynorthcaroli as/PST045218 Vail, D.M., & Hultkrantz, L. (2000). Property rights and sustainable nature tourism: adaptation and mal-adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA).

WCED. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. (2018). Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/wced

Worthen, A. (2019, November 18). The Buncombe TDA spends millions on unsustainable tourism - and we can stop it: OPINION. Retrieved from https://www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/2019/11/15/buncombe-tda-tourism-ashevillecommunity-opinion-ami-worthen-growth/4196180002/ World Tourism Organization (WTO). (2011). Why Tourism? | World Tourism Organization UNWTO. Retrieved from http://www2.unwto.org/en/content/why-tourism World Tourism Organization (WTO). (2019). Tourism 4 SDGs 2030. Retrieved from https://www.unwto.org/tourism4sdgs WTTC. (2019). Travel Tourism continues strong growth above global GDP | WTTC. World Travel & Tourism Council. Retrieved from https://www.wttc.org/about/media-centre/pressreleases/press-releases/2019/travel-tourism-continues-strong-growth-above-global-gdp/